[Physics] Physics Digest, Vol 19, Issue 5

Sun Dec 9 13:03:58 CET 2018

*James,You discussed about numbers being the residents of connected
unbroken mathematical continuum, and about navigation through cantorian
transfinities (as the only viewpoint), while suggesting that Universe
emerged from continuum of fully dimensional (0,0,0,0) locus into
interacting continuums as the ongoing products of existence. That is what
you summed up as:  It is a natural continuum progression of creation.
Dimensions first, then products of dimensional relations. And then you
insisted on total non existence of scalar non-dimensional numbers, unless
they have dimensional qualities. I wonder how would you describe the
existence of non-dimensional and/or continuum of fully dimensional locus,
where scalar non-dimensional numbers may have possibly existed. Anyhow,
that is not the subject of physics at the moment, from my point of view.
Physics start with dimensions, and scalar numbers can only be manifested in
this reality as comparison of two physically existing quantities along some
dimension, and from that perspective I agree with you that scalar
non-dimensional numbers are physically non-existence. For the benefit of
the readers and clarity of the subject: angles are dimensionless
ratios/comparison of two dimensions of a geometrical figure(hence
dimensions), and for physical/real existence of such a dimensionless ratio,
existence of that geometrical figure is necessary.  You mentioned that
mathematics is our way of navigating and identifying relations among
multiple number-line domains. I would prefer to understand these multiple
number-line domains in terms of more familiar physical quantities like
volume, temperature, pressure, mass, time , length etc represents each
number-line domain  and relationship between these domain is described by
ratios that compare two or more numberline domain. If we are discussing
here about any other subject than physics, then temperature may corresponds
to a feeling, mix of e/m frequencies  (or colors) may be perceived as
beauty, amount of gold that we possess may be a measure of social status.
However, if we limit our discussion to physical significance of these
numberline domains, then the only method by which we get to know about the
position of a physical structure on these numberline domains is by
displacements strictly in terms of length. For Example: Temperature is
 displacement on thermometer, Time is a displacement on clocks, Mass is a
displacement on weighing scale, Pressure is the displacement on pressure
gauge and so on…. That leads me to a  conclusion ,  that length and
displacement of length are the primary dimensions, that  physically
constitute/create all other dimensions and/or number-line domains. And
considering that 1. we cannot measure any physical quantity, except through
comparisons or finding ratios.2. and all dimensions are originally
constituted from length.3. and ratios of two quantities along the same
dimensions is dimensionless. in a sense, we may say that, what we finally
observe is dimensionless number (or ratio).Complex numbers (as also in QM)
are physical representation of dimensions and product of complex conjugate
numbers is a dimensionless number. So what you are describing as “products
of dimensional relations” could be a dimensionless Universe as a whole but
with lot of dimensions when considered in parts. For example: the
expression (a+ ib)(a-ib) when seen in parts, each bracket has at-least two
dimensions. However equation as a whole is dimensionless. We as inhabitants
of this grand mathematical equation(which I believe is same as your
mathematical continuum?) called Universe are constrained to only observe a
part of equation (i.e. part called present). Hence it is difficult for us
to understand and comprehend the dimensionless Universe. Possibly this has
also addressed the dilemma between non-dimensional or fully dimensional
locus, discussed in  opening paragraph of this email. An important question
you raised that: Where action potential formatively exists, before the
'forces' arise?And then you declared (which I do not agree) that:There is
nothing 'moving'  (or being displaced) in a magnetic field……However we may
discuss about these remaining issues at some other time... Regards,Tufail
Abbas *

On Sun, 9 Dec 2018 at 05:05, James Rose <integrity at prodigy.net> wrote:

> Tufail,
>
> Thank you for your generous remarks and follow-up idea threads.
>
> Regarding "dimensions" .. I have come to ask the question .. not "what do
> we sentient minds recognize about 3 directions (+/-) of physical space, and
> the 'direction' (+/- ; negative not yet clearly defined) of time .. based
> on our physical experiences and descriptions."   BUT , what to me seem the
> more important consideration:   "how does mathematics define and manipulate
> and navigate computationally .."dimensions"???"
>
> I see that sometimes we refer to certain whole positive number exponents
> as representing 'dimensions'.   Most times, "exponents" are just
> computation~calculation  makers and have nothing to do with 'dimensions'.
> Why is that?   Are exponents 'dimensions' (no matter the form or
> complcation), or not?   Mandelbrot identified fractal numbers~values ..
> fractional exponents.   Aren't these "dimensions" .. fractional dimensions
> ... as well?  ...IF we are to be CONSISTENT with our mathematical
> definitions for exponents ?!?!?!?
>
> And what can that mean? ... non small-value positive whole number
> exponents being 'dimensional' as well?   And what about negative
> exponents?  Shouldn't we have a 'dimensional' meaning associated there
> too?  AND, helpfully important for addressing these considerations .. how
> about "exponent zero"?      IF .. as is one of my hypotheses .. that a
> number value -anywhere- in a formula or calculation,is a representative of
> a complete transcendental whole number line of 'numbers'.  Such that
> mathematics - whether we appreciate it or not - is our way of navigating
> and identifying relations among multiple numberline domains.  Numberline
> domains, which, when we apply them for concept conveniences .. represent
> multiple 'dimensional domains'.   And I take the concept position that
> there is no such thing as scalar non-dimensional numbers.  EVERYTHING ..
> mathematically and existentially .. are or have "dimensional
> qualities'.     I take that position because my first priority is to expect
> that 1) the universe and our mathematics HAS to been consistent and
> coherent EVERYWHERE; the 2) when we appreciate that all numbers are part of
> connected related qualities .. and must be resident along unbroken
> mathematical continuumS -- with relations and cybernetic translations, as
> we conceptually navigate the entire Cantorian transfinities of mathematical
> spaces, such a viewpoint is the only framework on which we can begin to
> synchronize and coordinate all the math that we currently hold as
> inconsistent or incompatible or not related (under the conventional mindset
> of math).
>
> Think about it.  Physics touts the 'original singularity' as where the
> universe came from.   All that observedly exists came from a fundamental
> NON_DIMENSIONAL locus.    To my way of thinking, part of the issue gets
> resolved by recognizing that (in old 4-dimensional terms), the universe
> actually arose from a FULLY DIMENSIONAL (0,0,0,0) locus.  :-)   Continuum
> at the beginning; interacting continuumS as the ongoing products of
> existence.
>
> Statistics manipulations are dimensional information codings and
> de-codings .. even though no scientists or mathematicians acknowledge that
> that is what they are doing and dealing with, and the information spaces
> they are navigating.
>
> ****
>
> Regarding your last remarks where you deride 'fictitious forces'.    Why
> is it preposterous?  There is nothing 'moving' in a magnetic field, yet
> action and action-at-a distance, comes from the FIELDS differential
> strengths .. aka 'densities difference'.  :-)
>
> My analysis says .. "Oh, yes. look.  differential density gradients  are
> there in the -fields-.   And what are the changes in Vol/Temp/pressure ..
> that we bundle into the concept of 'entropy' gradients of value changes ..
> but exactly the fundamental location where action potential formatively
> exists .. BEFORE the 'forces' arise.  In the notion that dimensional
> density differences of immaterial dimension-space is where 'gradient
> relations' exist BEFORE material energy and matter condense into existence.
>
> It is a natural continuum progression of creation.  Dimensions first, then
> products of dimensional -relations-.   :-)
>
> Hope I got some of you to start getting itches in your brains .. oh, wow!
> a whole fresh perspective .. But one consistent with everything we
> -already- believe.   :-)
>
> James
>
>
>
>
>
> ====
>
> On Friday, December 7, 2018, 6:37:56 PM PST, Tufail Abbas <
> tufail.abbas at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> James,
>
> I appreciate that you have a vide array of perspectives from different
> subjects of knowledge and I must also compliment you for the rich use of
> language and words. Indeed that is something special. I am sure that such a
> quality cannot be developed , unless we are ready to read and listen to and
> give respectful consideration to ideas of others.
>
> From my point of view, the Physics has a simple goal:
>
> “To Explain Action At A Distance”
>
> Once this is done, Theory Of Everything is reached.
>
> Unfortunately, Physics is now lost in abstraction, whether we are talking
> of Forces, Fields, Space-time Continuum or Probability Waves.
>
> I am not saying that abstract properties (i.e. Love, Justice, Courage,
> Beauty  etc.) are of no significance for our existence. However :
>
> Love cannot exist by itself, unless a living being exist to possess this
>  quality.
>
> Courts cannot deliver Justice unless a plaintiff exist.
>
> Hence courts, book of law, living being and plaintiff are more fundamental
> that Love and Justice.
>
> Similarly,  physical cause that generates or effect the forces, hence
> movements,  must be more fundamental than the four fundamental forces.
>
> Information (in system theory I guess?) also be an abstract concept unless
> we are referring to some kind of pattern encoded on a physical existing
> object/entity. For example: information stored on my computer hard disk is
> real.
>
> You said that: dynamic architecture relations of "dimensions", are more
> primitive than the 'fundamental forces'. I am not sure what is your
> definition/understanding about dimensions…… Is it only related to length ,
> area and volumes of a physical structure (like my house). Or do you
> consider time also as dimension along which my house is travelling, while
> being still at the earth's surface…. Or something else....
>
> And your main point: .causal 'forces' reside both 'inside' -and- come from
> 'outside' as well…….That reminds me about action and reaction, and Newton's
> third Law of motion that “every action has an equal and opposite reaction”,
> Action Potential originates from inside and Reaction constraints the actual
> outcome from outside. Inside and outside are merely the terms to
> distinguish between two sides, and motion is caused as perfect equilibrium
> of action and reaction, an outcome which should satisfy the principle of
> least action.
>
> It also  prompts to initiate a discussion about so called  fictitious
> force <https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fictitious_force> that is usually
> explained as NOT ARISING FROM ANY PHYSICAL INTERACTION but from
> acceleration of non-inertial frame. How preposterous is that suggestion and
> what a smart way to hide our ignorance about the real physical causes and
> interactions. We are humans and that is how we behave !!
>
> Regards,
>
> Tufail Abbas
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, 7 Dec 2018, 19:16 James Rose <integrity at prodigy.net wrote:
>
> Listfolk,
>
> As I indicated in my last post, by career investigations focus has been
> "general systems".  I started from the vast subjects that are umbrellaed
> under biology.  By which I mean that I had to familiarize myself with the
> spectrum of all biological related topics .. from DNA, to organic
> chemistry, to metabolic mechanism, to simple organisms, to complicated
> multi-cellular organisms, to collective environments - plant and animal
> kingdoms, to Darwinian evolution, to anthropology, to sociology, to
> psychology, to economics, to ecology(ies), to human relations, to animal
> behaviors, to linguistics~languages, to philosophies, to neurology, to
> perception~deduction~reasoning~logic, to cultural beliefs, to emotions, to
> biological intricacies, to conceptionalizations (both irrational and
> rational), to mathematics and scientific reasoning, complexity, emergence.
>
> And in parallel requirement - fundamental physics, cosmology, inorganic
> chemistry, thermodynamics, gravity, electromagnetics, quantum mechanics,
> information theory, symbology, cybernetics, manufacturing, materials
> science, time theory, fluid mechanics, entropy.  ( I will admit to a few
> weak spots in my knowledge~comfort zones:  quantum electrodynamics and
> quantum chromodynamics, the strong force, the weak force, magnetic
> bipolarity behaviors explanation~justification, math above partial
> differential equations. maybe one or two other topics that don't jump to
> mind at the moment).
>
> Anyway - I've always taken it as a given, that a grand "theory of
> everything" in truth had to be -more- than the Physics goal of a
> grand-unification of physics phenomena (forces) .. only.
>
> Not many people try to visit learn and understand the relations and
> properties contained totally and holistically in the human body of
> knowledge .. it is immense and intimidating and beyond our typical comfort
> zone of expertise anyone could, would - or even attempt to - claim
> familiarity and comfort with.  And then analyze differences and
> similarities of behaviors, performances, correlations: interpretations and
> translations .. even when terminologies don't yet match or readily
> correspond.  Even when qualia seem unrelated (eg 'color' experienced -
> versus scientific-clinical measurements as electromagnetic waves) ; the
> physics forces as effective real 'phenomena' - in counterpoint to our
> mathematics (languages) that (hopefully) map and match the existential
> phenomena ... correctly and accurately.
>
> I have always taken the position that -all- the above (and more, only
> unintentionally omitted by my casual-among-friends flow of thoughts and
> writings here to the list) .. are the domain of what we are required to
> keep in mind and consider at all times, in our searches, analyses and
> conversations.    Not just present our own personal deductions and
> reasonings, but -really- read and listen to and give respectful
> consideration to ideas -not- our own.   Because we have to recognize none
> of us are total-minds, totally mindful of all details and knowledge of all
> systems; and that whether correct in the overall or not, that someone else
> will have had an insight of recognition of some important relation or true
> phenomena that we personally hadn't considered, or made the mental
> connection to recognize .. but -need to- to include in the grand
> consideration we intuitively strive to accomplish.    Whether for personal
> ego and hopes for fame, or altruistic hopes to add new knowledge for the
> human progeny and lives who will come after us .. and make their lives in
> the universe safer, or more fun, or more exciting and accomplished and
> efficient .. or simply with more enlightened appreciation for this vast
> mystery:   "existence".
>
>
> The reason I'm writing this post and sharing my conceptual frame of
> reference .. really ties in with the recent topic:   action~motivation.
>
> My personal main work has been to gut and dissect conventional
> thermodynamic entropy concepts .. and to rebuild it as a General Theory
> of Entroepic Relations ...  -not restricted-  to thermodynamics.   I won't
> go into my rationale (which hypothesizes that 'entropic relations' are
> originally found in the dynamic architecture relations of "dimensions", and
> so are more primitive than the 'fundamental forces' (which in reality enact
> and display what can be properly called 'entroepic gradients of action
> potential')).
>
> As the universe enacts all its interaction potentials, and builds emergent
> tiers and levels of complexity .. something interesting happens.
>
> First, what is retained in all the levels of complexity and systems, are
> the action activity performance instantiators of essential subatomic and
> atomic construction fields and forces.   So, some of the 'least action'
> derives from -inside- the energy~matter the universe is made of.
>
> But, something gets added along the way .. starting at the tier of
> chemistry and independent co-present atoms and molecules interacting in
> their shared-spaces.  Influences of action and behaviors start to
> additionally come from -outside-.   Simultaneously and connectedly.
>
> So, when we discuss the topic of action, motivation, enervation,
> instantiation ... I hope everyone will remember that dynamics and behaviors
> are a combination.  Cause and effect  are sourced from the inside of our
> physical structure, but, concurrently, from many external -outside-
> phenomena and circumstances .. companion systems .. with interaction
> potential .. as well.
>
> Our universe is complicated and convoluted; direct and concurrently
> indirect.  Humans behave on reliable confirmed data and information; but
> systems react to inferences, to unconfirmed potential data; to hopes ..
> and even to false data (presented or expected as .. 'truth'.)
>
> This is an important flexible adaptive mental frame of reference .. that
> I've always felt it useful to keep in mind as I've explored the world and
> knowledge and experience.  Opportunity spaces for variable actions is just
> as important as noise-free exactness.  A 'perfect theory' has to account
> for and justify 'imperfection' as a part of real existence also.     ;-)
>
> Anyway .. my main point .... causal 'forces' reside both 'inside' -and-
> come from 'outside' as well.
>
> Happy thought-trails, everyone!!!!
>
> James
> Dec 7, 2018
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ======
>
> On Friday, December 7, 2018, 1:23:58 AM PST, Ruud Loeffen <
> rmmloeffen at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> Hello James, Tufail, Doug  et al.
>
> Interesting ideas about the cause of motions. These ideas relate lately
> mostly to fluid dynamics and the characteristics of a "field". In
> collaboration we will find the truth. I see around me a big change in how a
> group of physicists and scholars now is working together by commenting and
> trying really to understand somebodies ideas. It is very nice to be a part
> of this development. I feel that there is something important going on.
> Indeed:  Interesting to read:
> http://alternativephysics.org/book/ElectricFields.htm
> Bernard Burchell A free on-line book containing classical alternatives to
> modern physics theory. <http://alternativephysics.org/book/index.htm>
> Let's continue.
>
> Best regards.
>
> Ruud Loeffen.
>
> On Fri, Dec 7, 2018 at 2:45 PM James Rose <integrity at prodigy.net> wrote:
>
> Tufail, Doug, et al,
>
> I've been involved with General Systems Theory since the early 1970s. In
> the late 1990's after presenting a paper on re-defining entropy as a
> general primal property .. gradient .. that is primally present in all
> fields phenomena (versus being a mysterious secondary product of the
> interactions of the conventionally defined '4 fundamental forces'),  one of
> the then-elder statesman of the systems organization putting on the
> conference at Asilomar CA, came up to me afterwards and made the simple
> statement to me ...  "You are on the right track of investigation, Jamie,
> but the key is something you didn't discuss in your paper :   'least
> action'.   You have to identify, discuss, and justify the differential
> pressure that accounts for motion and action .. what CONDITIONS or
> RELATIONS .. that are essentially present in the dimensional architecture
> of physical~phenomenal existence."
>
> Sage remarks.   He and I never spoke again, and he passed away in the
> years since then.  But he was right.
>
> Even in the Standard model, even in susy (supersymetry), even in QM ...
> there is no directed conversation that justifies, explains, or accounts for
> motion and action PRIOR to the so-called 'fundamental forces'.
>
> A massive re-modelling of physics is required in order to see deeper into
> the "*dynamic* architecture" of physical existence .. on ALL SCALES
> together.
>
> James
> Dec 6, 2018
>
>
>
>
> ===========
>
> On Thursday, December 6, 2018, 11:08:25 PM PST, Tufail Abbas <
> tufail.abbas at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> Tom, Actually bernard following proposal is exactly in accordance with my
> ideas cause of all motion....
>
> "This substance is continuously and perpetually generated within charged
> particles and moves away......."
>
> This is the first instant that I saw a  proposal similar to my ideas about
> cause of motion,  being made by somebody else other than me.
> So I meant  to ask : How to experimentally prove this? Tufail
>
>
> On Fri, 7 Dec 2018, 02:47 carmam at tiscali.co.uk <carmam at tiscali.co.uk
> wrote:
>
> Tufail, Bernard is speculating here as shown by the opening statement "Could
> an electric field be a similar phenomenon?  Could what we describe as an
> electric field be in fact, not just be an abstract mathematical entity, but
> an actual flow of material that moves outward from a charge and imparts a
> force on other charges when it hits them?"
> He also uses the word hypothesis.
> He has some excellent ideas, and most of his work is based on fact. When
> he does diverge from fact he lets the reader know.
>
> Tom.
>
>
> ----Original Message----
> From: tufail.abbas at gmail.com
> Date: 06/12/2018 17:05
> To: <carmam at tiscali.co.uk>, "General Physics and Natural Philosophy
> discussion list"<physics at tuks.nl>
> Subj: Re: [Physics] Physics Digest, Vol 19, Issue 5
>
> Tom,
>
> I was just going through the book of Alternative Physics through your
> provided link , and I came across the chapter of Electric Field and this
> hypothesis.
>
> The Electric Field Hypotheses:
>
> Each charged particle generates something called ‘field substance’ which
> makes up what we call an electric field.  This substance is continuously
> and perpetually generated within charged particles and moves away
> ..................... This substance is a not a mathematical abstraction,
> but an actual physical substance that travels through space.  When it
> strikes another charged particle it exerts a force............
>
> Who will believe this? And why?
>
> Regards,
>
> Tufail
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Physics mailing list
> Physics at tuks.nl
> http://mail.tuks.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/physics
> _______________________________________________
> Physics mailing list
> Physics at tuks.nl
> http://mail.tuks.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/physics
>
>
>
> --
> *Ruud Loeffen*
> Paardestraat32
> 6131HC Sittard
> http://www.human-DNA.org
> _______________________________________________
> Physics mailing list
> Physics at tuks.nl
> http://mail.tuks.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/physics
> _______________________________________________
> Physics mailing list
> Physics at tuks.nl
> http://mail.tuks.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/physics
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.tuks.nl/pipermail/physics/attachments/20181209/17a2c87b/attachment.html>