Forums  > Books & Papers  > espen haug unified revolution  
     
Page 3 of 4Goto to page: 1, 2, [3], 4 Prev Next
Display using:  

pj


Total Posts: 3315
Joined: Jun 2004
 
Posted: 2015-08-24 17:03
Thankfully Dr. Hoenikker was talking about eight year olds Smiley

OFFENDERS WILL BE TERMINATED

numbersix


Total Posts: 299
Joined: Jan 2007
 
Posted: 2015-09-30 16:53
Funny that anyone should mention physics on this forum.

I've been contemplating a unified metaphysical revolution myself, for the last twelve years.

BSM is not a model and, because it is not a model, no model can surpass it.

EGH


Total Posts: 41
Joined: Nov 2014
 
Posted: 2015-10-01 08:34
"I've been contemplating a unified metaphysical revolution myself, for the last twelve years."

A peaceful revolution?(or did you get hit by sledgehammers?) Has it ended? or just begun?



numbersix


Total Posts: 299
Joined: Jan 2007
 
Posted: 2015-10-01 09:36
A matrix revolution: Everything that has a beginning has an end.

BSM is not a model and, because it is not a model, no model can surpass it.

EGH


Total Posts: 41
Joined: Nov 2014
 
Posted: 2015-10-01 10:53
"Everything that has a beginning has an end."

Indeed, as predicted (also) by atomism! However there exist a few things that not has a beginning and therefore no end!

numbersix


Total Posts: 299
Joined: Jan 2007
 
Posted: 2015-10-01 11:09
You're right. The Prisoner series, for instance, has neither.

BSM is not a model and, because it is not a model, no model can surpass it.

numbersix


Total Posts: 299
Joined: Jan 2007
 
Posted: 2015-11-20 10:12
"Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler". Albert Einstein

"Everything in nature consists solely of indivisible particles and the void". Espen Haug

"The indivisibles simply are". Espen Haug

This simply seems to presuppose the verb to be.

What if somebody wished to dispute that and argued that the basic ontological verb is not that things are what they are, first, but that things, first, can be different or can not be at all, for that matter?

An ontology based on contingency instead of being, in which 'to be A, or B, or C, ..., or not be at all' is not a composite clause, but is the logical atom or the indivisible itself; an ontology in which matter and the void are the two faces of a simpler constituant.

Wouldn't that be even simpler than the couple (indivisible particle, the void)?



BSM is not a model and, because it is not a model, no model can surpass it.

EGH


Total Posts: 41
Joined: Nov 2014
 
Posted: 2015-11-21 13:06
would this be some type of monad theory? I have to admit I have not studied the monad theories much (yet).

Would this "simpler constituent" truly be simpler and still be able to explain as much as atomism? mathematically and logically? And what are the mathematical end results?

As I point out in my book we can never observe indivisible particles in isolation from the void. Everything we observe is void and indivisible particles.

The beauty of mathematical atomism is that surprisingly it gives identical mathematical end results as Einstein´s special relativity theory as long as we use Einstein (Poincare) synchronized clocks (only needed for "one-way experiments"). Still I claim we get a much deeper insight. Einstein says "nothing" about what energy and matter ultimately consist of (at least not in SR?) . From atomism I derive every formula from two postulates about the ultimate building blocks of nature. Everything now has much simpler logic and we can explain more.

In addition the postulates from ancient atomism when transformed into mathematics gives us a series of new mathematical end results that tell us that SR is incomplete. Alternatively one can argue the atomism postulates are wrong, something I doubt. This can "only" be tested out by experiments. Some of the mathematical end results from atomism are very useful in designing experiments that can be used to distinguish between SR and relativity theory derived from ancient atomism.

numbersix


Total Posts: 299
Joined: Jan 2007
 
Posted: 2015-11-23 15:51
My point is that the 'deep insight' that you are after, or determining what energy and matter ultimately consist of, is moving from physics to speculative metaphysics.

I have nothing against metaphysics, to the contrary!

It is well known that there is underdetermination of the metaphysics by the physics. Different views of what the fabric of reality ultimately is, or different metaphysics, can yield different explanations that nevertheless accord with one and the same empirical evidence or physical experimentation. And although a certain deep insight may ultimately be disqualified if it doesn't accord with physical experiment, this constitutes no proof that the alternative one is the valid one, because we might not yet be aware of a third one.

I would be very surprised if some equation, or if mathematical physics in general, were ultimately to show us the real fabric of things. How could that even be conceivable? There is nothing more to electromagnetism than the Maxwell equations, and Newton famously said: 'Hypotheses non fingo.'

Yes, physical theory can dive deeper and deeper in the layers of 'reality', and what is hiding from us will certainly continue to be uncovered. But I am convinced that, by the same token, and in the same movement, our language also gets deconstructed and critiqued. The chief consequence of quantum mechanics is perhaps to make us wonder what we mean by 'object' or 'property' or 'state' in the first place. That is why I cannot imagine a level in which we could reach the concept of the 'void' and of the 'indivisible' without at the same time reaching the level where we question the meaning of the verb to be (not to mention the meaning of space and time, which you do question, in your book).

I believe that scientific advance not only makes us discover new things and new phenomena in the world, as well as discover new equations and perhaps new mathematics (even new logics) that govern them, but that it also, and perhaps above all, makes us discover new concepts -- concepts that were absolutely unconceivable before.

I would be very disappointed if this 'mining' of reality were ultimately to deliver the last word and the ultimate truth, as if all inquiry had then to stop, and every previous step in the inquiry, and every previous thought had then to become useless and wrong therefore good to be thrown away. On the contrary, I believe that going deeper and deeper towards the most basic constituent and the most 'indivisible' -- towards the most elementary particle -- can only generate correlative complications, both in the equations and in the concepts, by a sort of conservation principle of the richness of the language and of the mystery.

I wouldn't be surprised if, moving deeper and deeper into that narrower and narrower hole, we ultimately found that we were not chasing the ultimate indivisible or the ultimate fabric of reality, but simply replicating and rewriting the thing sitting at the exact opposite end, the humain brain itself.



BSM is not a model and, because it is not a model, no model can surpass it.

pj


Total Posts: 3315
Joined: Jun 2004
 
Posted: 2015-11-26 15:22
@ Espen
M'Okay
your Ultimate Theory gives the same calculation results as Special Relativity.
What about the General Relativity?
Still, for now, I won't buy your opus even for Christmas.

OFFENDERS WILL BE TERMINATED

numbersix


Total Posts: 299
Joined: Jan 2007
 
Posted: 2015-11-26 19:23
Buy mine, pj.
Better, stronger, faster. And probably harder.

BSM is not a model and, because it is not a model, no model can surpass it.

EGH


Total Posts: 41
Joined: Nov 2014
 
Posted: 2015-11-26 23:59
pj "your Ultimate Theory gives the same calculation results as Special Relativity.
What about the General Relativity?"

Correct my theory gives the same mathematical end results as SR, but different interpretation and a series of important additional results. The theory goes beyond SR. Experiments suggested in my book can be set up to distinguish the two theories.

My book only contains a short chapter on gravity, and mainly in a historical perspective.

Ancient atomism (that I used the postulates from) strongly indicates GR is incomplete, at least interpretation wise. For example the speed of graviton is almost for sure anisotropic and not isotropic. I am defining speed as distance divided by time traveled. As measured with Einstein synchronized clocks the gravitational speed is c and isotropic, but this speed contains a synchronization error.

We already know atomism is consistent with Newtons inverse square "law" as a first approximation for macroscopic objects (this was derived long time ago). If someone develop a full gravitational theory from atomism I suspect the mathematical end results to be close to GR, but no one has really tried (some are possibly working on it).

They have not yet detected the predicted gravitational waves from GR, we will see "The hunt for Albert Einstein's missing waves" http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-34815668


EGH


Total Posts: 41
Joined: Nov 2014
 
Posted: 2015-11-27 00:20
numbersix: "My point is that the 'deep insight' that you are after, or determining what energy and matter ultimately consist of, is moving from physics to speculative metaphysics. "

Modern physics is full of speculations, in particular when it comes to a series of interpretations.

That we never can detect motion against the ether/void as first suggested by Poincare is partly a speculation. A little info here http://www.espenhaug.com/OneWaySpeedOfLight.html

Dark matter, Dark energy, the Big Bang theory, is it not full of speculations ?

By going back to ancient atomism I am removing a long series of speculative interpretations in modern physics. Not because I am going back to ancient atomism, but because atomism surprisingly is able to explain so many things consistent with what we actually observe and is based on so simple principles (and so few assumptions). Study atomism for some years and you will likely see the beauty of it too!



numbersix: "I would be very disappointed if this 'mining' of reality were ultimately to deliver the last word and the ultimate truth, as if all inquiry had then to stop, and every previous step in the inquiry, and every previous thought had then to become useless and wrong therefore good to be thrown away. "

Ancien atomism is dressed up in mathematics, we are soon there. However atomism also show us that there will always be change (at the surface of reality and we live at the surface of a deeper reality. The indivisible particles are never broken down, they are forever unchanged, except their positioning relative to each other.). The Golden Age of great knowledge (atomism) will not last forever, sooner or later there world will fall back into the shadows of blindness.

But we are still long from peak Atomism! My Unified Revolution has just started, and will not end any time soon!

EGH


Total Posts: 41
Joined: Nov 2014
 
Posted: 2015-11-27 00:32
Numbersix "I wouldn't be surprised if, moving deeper and deeper into that narrower and narrower hole,..."

It is not deeper and deeper. The whole idea of ancient atomism is that there is a limit to how deep one can dig. We have indivisible particles. You cannot dig deeper than that! Your deeper and deeper and deeper theory is the alternative theory of continuous divisible "particles", "energy" or whatever.... And feel free to go on with that, then I bet you will end up with a theory full of assumptions and loose ends, and full of speculative interpretations. Still do not forget in atomism we have continuous divisibility (the void) + indivisibility (the indivisible particles traveling in the void).

your computer runs on binary (?) why is it so hard to understand the whole universe runs on a binary system? And not any binary system: the indivisibles and the void.

pj


Total Posts: 3315
Joined: Jun 2004
 
Posted: 2016-02-18 10:06
> They have not yet detected the predicted gravitational waves from GR, we will see "The hunt for Albert Einstein's missing waves"

Gravitational waves have been detected
Tongue out

I saw a dead fish on the pavement and thought 'what did you expect? There's no water 'round here stupid, shoulda stayed where it was wet.'

chiral3
Founding Member

Total Posts: 4984
Joined: Mar 2004
 
Posted: 2016-02-19 01:49
Don't be difficult Kanye. Give Tay Tay back her moment.

Nonius is Satoshi Nakamoto. 物の哀れ

EGH


Total Posts: 41
Joined: Nov 2014
 
Posted: 2016-02-21 19:54
When it comes to gravity wave detection I think yes they have detected something, amazing that they have got so good precision. Exactly what they have detected I think is unclear.

Einstein is on the Roll! With the help of Albert’s SR I have just squared the circle.

The Impossible is Possible: Squaring the Circle and Doubling the Cube!

Comments welcome!


I would keep a close eye on papers related to Gravity this year! Gravity can do amazing things!

Stay tuned!

pj


Total Posts: 3315
Joined: Jun 2004
 
Posted: 2016-02-23 09:34
> Accelerate the train to a speed relative to the embankment of
as measured from both


This is cheating! If you are given this number already,
no need to travel.
Back to reading...

I saw a dead fish on the pavement and thought 'what did you expect? There's no water 'round here stupid, shoulda stayed where it was wet.'

EGH


Total Posts: 41
Joined: Nov 2014
 
Posted: 2016-02-23 11:26
Look at the section: "A critical look at the solution" in the paper. One can yes see it as bending of the rules, or one can see it as a nice (or ugly) trick, or one can see it as an interesting perspective to look at these things. Bear in mind the conclusions about the impossibility of squaring the circle with a compass and straightened in a finite number of steps were made before one had evolved any decent space-time theories.

I find it quite interesting one can move pi around from reference frame to reference frame as well as between time and space. Not much has been written on this before. Trivial: yes, interesting: possibly for some.


Thanks for the harsh critics! Squaring the Circle claims tend to lead to Wars: ;-) so far the Squaring the Circle Wars have been lost by the circle squarers, so the odds are in your favor I guess? I like OTM options ;) especially when they are undervalued!

Squaring the Circle: The War between Hobbes and Wallis

"Back to reading..." I am glad you are back to reading my book! I mentioned the pi-frame already there, but I said nothing about it back then how it could be used to even Square the Circle.

Read also the new paper section on moving "troublesome" constants like pi from space to time!

pj


Total Posts: 3315
Joined: Jun 2004
 
Posted: 2016-02-29 12:32
Nah, I am not reading the book.
Just the article. Sad
> Read also the new paper section on moving "troublesome" constants like pj from space to time!

Sorry, couldn't resist.

> Only space-time can tell if this paper leads to celebration, silence, death, or an intellectual War
My money is on silence.
I really don't see any new insights. Sorry.
< EDIT >
Similarly you can trisect the angle or double the cube.
The hitch would be to find a appropriate speed.
Can this done with the compass and ruler only?

I saw a dead fish on the pavement and thought 'what did you expect? There's no water 'round here stupid, shoulda stayed where it was wet.'

EGH


Total Posts: 41
Joined: Nov 2014
 
Posted: 2016-02-29 13:07
"Can this done with the compass and ruler only?"

In space-time you need clocks in addition. The main point is one can turn space challenges into time (measure) challenges. The Squaring of the circle challenge was clearly designed before one had any reasonable insight into space-time. Little has been written on how one can move any troublesome constants from space to time and vice versa. Yes it is quite trivial, but an interesting tool to have in the toolbox.

With a straightened one can construct very accurate clocks! so why not ;-) Start simple to get a feeling for it; just drive a rod into the ground and watch the length of the shadow for a year. Now you know the hour of the day and even the day of the year (with a little experience). Use also a compass and one get much further!

pj


Total Posts: 3315
Joined: Jun 2004
 
Posted: 2016-02-29 15:40
> watch the length of the shadow for a year.
Won't work cause of relativity

I saw a dead fish on the pavement and thought 'what did you expect? There's no water 'round here stupid, shoulda stayed where it was wet.'

mj


Total Posts: 1049
Joined: Jun 2004
 
Posted: 2016-02-29 23:03
my reaction was the same as PJ's. If you assume that you have pi already you don't need moving trains. In fact, given pi the problem is trivial.

More mathematical finance has been published.

EGH


Total Posts: 41
Joined: Nov 2014
 
Posted: 2016-03-02 23:47
ha ha ha, you guys would not get the main point of the article even if I told you pi times in a row.

Just as expected, in the land of the shadow the pi eyed man is the King of the Circle (and the Square?)

It is easier to move pi from space and into time than to move pj from the shadow and into the light! ;)

Okay I must admit you guys have some shadowy good points, thanks!

pj


Total Posts: 3315
Joined: Jun 2004
 
Posted: 2016-03-08 13:36
> than to move pj from the shadow and into the light!
You should try harder at least

I saw a dead fish on the pavement and thought 'what did you expect? There's no water 'round here stupid, shoulda stayed where it was wet.'
Previous Thread :: Next Thread 
Page 3 of 4Goto to page: 1, 2, [3], 4 Prev Next