Well first, I don’t presume an infinite universe. I know that there is no logical alternative. And yes, all of the laws of physics that I support are in total coherency with an infinite universe. The presumption that the universe is finite is as silly to me as the presumption that the Earth is only 6.000 years old, to you. I can “see” the logic and supporting evidence (computer emulations), that most people can’t see. I don’t merely have “a theory”, but rather “incontrovertible logic” concerning ALL of the laws of physics (which turn out to be very similar, but not exactly as Science currently professes. But they will redefine things, lie, cheat, steal and make it look like they were right all the time).
That is a more complicated question. You are asking if Zeus prefers one of the other gods over another.
But none of those issues are related to whether the universe is infinite. Why do you think they are related?
Any acceleration can be easily detected (felt) by the one accelerating. If one is suddenly and inexplicably thrown to the back of his ship, he can surmise that the ship is accelerating. After he wakes up, by watching the video of him crashing into the back wall, he can even measure the degree of acceleration. So it isn’t merely an issue of what he sees of the other ship, but rather what he observes of his entire situation.
The one who senses himself accelerating, knows that his clock is going to be moving slower than the other unless they are both accelerating. They can determine if they are both accelerating by measuring their own acceleration and comparing that to the perceived gain in distance from the other ship.
So no matter what, they each know how much accelerating they and the other are experiencing. And from that, they can easily know who’s clock will be moving slower (aging less) than the other.
Your taking elements of space and time, in a interstellar context that we know from sci fi, star trek to be exact… and give fixed identities, but fail to explain limits of the aspects of variables of things and actions, how the supposedly relativistically interact, and claim its completely sound and logical.
So… we are dealing with a question less than, but related to, problems found in hydromechanics, Navier–Stokes existence and smoothness issues to be exact.
It tackles this problem, but with two kinds of logic in how things move… both systems move at the same rate, but the capacity to track them in a confined, very dense state doesn’t easily compute without the two forms of math falling apart.
Lets say Kirk one traveled down the first pipe as a wave of energy using , Kirk using one math, marking the time and place of every point of friction, and kirk 2 down a identical pipe, exact same speed, just noting the cruise control as his only metric.
Kirk 2 would likely agree with you, but Kirk 1 would call bullshit on both of you.
I’m not. I don’t go by Relativity at all and certainly not from Sci-fi or even from Science priests and prophets. I am just showing that the Relativity theory doesn’t really have a problem with the Twins Paradox situation, by its own ontology. I already know that the theory is flawed. But I know that by a different paradox.
To me, only they have “unsolved problems in physics”. And most of the time, they have those problems because of a presumed, antiquated ontology.
I am an ontologist (metaphysicist). They are not. They don’t know when they are getting into ontology problems and will egotistically deny anything contrary to what they have been preaching. Relativity is a religion, not a science.
That all depends on how they do it. I don’t have a problem with such things.
As I just explained earlier, if either of them doesn’t consider all of their perceptions, I will call “bullshit” on all parties.
The problem has always been in the presumption of limited perception and more limited than normal for a thinking person. People are not as confined as has been advertised. It is as though they are saying, “no one can know so just take our word and go with the flow”. And frankly that really is ALL they are concerned about. Truth has no interest to them whatsoever. It is a religion, nothing more.
give an example of different forms of mathematics.
Edit: naw, I’m just fucking with you.
It’s all numbers, you just use the closest frame of reference, whatever the mathematics. the closer you can get to a precise measurement, the better; but there’s a lot of variables to be taken into account, so it really depends on what you know. I wouldn’t be able to wrap my head around calculus as it’s taught, but it’s still something my brain is able to do. Does that explain it?
Concern (3) dictates the usefulness or rationality factor. One can use a Laplace transform in order to more easily resolve standard math at times. And one can use Relativity at times, when total accuracy isn’t required, even though Relativity isn’t totally coherent.
RM:AO is totally coherent, comprehensive, and relevant to all concerns of existence, but there are much simpler ways to immediately deal what events most people encounter. RM:AO is for those designers, architects, and engineers who attempt to manipulate physics, people, and societies.
So it is a matter of what is being attempting to resolve which ontology is preferred.
I did, Navier Stokes… two different ways of doing the same math problem, how are they compatible?
Thats the million dollar question. Literally, they are offering a million dollar to prove the two systems are compatible, or like James is bluffing, not compatible and falls apart. en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Navier%E … smoothness
If James is correct, he could easily claim this prize by showing the irrationality of both systems, in how they either both fall apart, or can never be compatible cause pure mathematics is bullshit. One million, US dollars is the prize.
Son, I don’t jump when you say “bluffing” or “bullshit”. The real devil is much more of a challenge than you will ever be.
I haven’t looked, but most likely the Navier-Stokes issues are deep into mathematics, usually leaving logic and reality behind. I am not a mathematician, but with the assistance of a reasonable mathematician, any problem they think they have, together we could and would resolve.
But I don’t believe for an instant that there is any $million to be gained. People go through serious deceptions and denials in order to hold onto their money.
Having quickly glanced;
It’s a deep issue. And the devil is in the detail, thus buried deep in their paradigm, they have presumed something. But it takes someone who speaks their language to find it.
Two languages “Dad”, two very different languages describing the same phenomena.
And yeah, they got the money and already gave a million away for another solution.
So… quit faking it, get your shit together, and prove your stuff. This essentially is the twin paradox, but takes brains and not forum bullshitting to solve.
Failure to do so, shows your a crock of shit, and I’ll get Birric in here to make a big show debunking you.
When you, obviously knowing nothing of this subject, say things like that, you reveal far more about yourself than anyone else.
I told you the only things that you need to know;
you know relatively nothing of this subject
the particular paradox that you mentioned is strictly about mathematics, and I need a mathematician to interpret their language in order to resolve their issue.
So go back to the back of the bus where you seem to belong, or give a little credit to the many here, who have already shown that they know far more than you.
You officially did not solve the problem, and turned to shit when challenged, making up embarrassing bullshit excuses.
Why cant you just admit you don’t know? You tackle a paradox in pure mathematics, you flunk it. I give you the big problem that parallels it… is practically a outgrowth of it, that all the mathematicians and physicists struggle with, you have a choice to solve it, or prove it can’t be proven… using two very different mathematical systems that claim to do the same thing, and you… the guy with all the anwsers fall apart.
If you can solve the traveling twin paradox, you can use it as a chassis to figure out Navier Stokes. The two are related.
It should be simple for a forum mastermind like you. Yes… they use a mathematical language, but that language is rooted in ontological categories… this hasnt changed from ancient times to modern. Mr. Ontology, from your claims of grandeur, I believe your the only one here who can do it.
So do it. Wave that money under our noses, it will be the best shit talking you ever done. One million dollars to prove your right.
Until then, you officially lost the argument in this thread, as you clearly failed to solve the paradox.
I explained the resolution to Ed3, because Ed can see if it is resolved or not. He might need more explaining, I don’t know. He hasn’t confirmed one way or another. But you, CN, conspicuously know nothing about the whole affair. Your opinion concerning anyone’s proposal is meaningless.
And where did you get this bullshit:
Ontologies have certainly changed since “ancient times”. Or do you not even know what an ontology is? And where does that “mastermind claims of grandeur” come from but your own imagination? I resolved one issue that in turn resolved very many others. That doesn’t make me a “mastermind” and I have never made any claims of grandeur. I merely state my case and defend it. If being able to defend my case makes me grand in your book, I’d say it is more a reflection on your book.
And regarding your Navier-Stokes problem, if someone has already resolved it and gotten the $million (probably a setup), what makes you think there is another solution to be found? It only takes one solution to reveal the mistake that was made and dismiss the problem as any kind of paradox. There is no guarantee that two mistakes were made in forming the paradox. If I or Ed were to solve it, most likely they would just reveal that we solved it in that same way, thus no reward.
Can you show how my resolution to this Twins Paradox doesn’t actually resolve it?
Or are you just spewing shit out your ass as always?
Back to RM:AO for a moment, it would seem that curlian and continuum mathematics would be the way to go, but as with all vector analysis, the math models are built upon the ontology of “forces”. On the very most fundamental level of reality, there are no “forces” of any kind. A force of pushing or pulling is merely an aberrant perception due to an irresistible migration. So I am more than just a little curious how to represent RM:AO in a professional mathematics language when there are no forces.
RM:AO involves the “continuum fluid dynamics” concerns and can be mostly visualized by a vector field diagram, but not entirely. And a diagram doesn’t really speak of the math behind it very much anyway. An RM:AO vector diagram would have to show a different vector for every direction at each point. How would one even represent that?
But more important is the fact that each point only affects the next infinitesimal point over, never beyond that and there are an infinite number of surrounding points for every point. A cubic model of Cartesian space doesn’t show every angle of affect, in fact very few (26 out of an infinite number, to be exact).
So the big question is how to represent the truth of it in accurate mathematical terms. Certain parts are easy enough, but the essentials are a puzzle. I suspect that current math language simply can’t do it, in which case some new math terms, equations, and theorems are in order.
