"I have lived in this world just long enough to look carefully the second time into things that I am most certain of the first time." J. Billings
No, not at all Tim. It's just I came across so much interesting information on logic by Leśniewski’s 'characteristica universalis' LINK: http://axiom.vu.nl/cmsone/Betti.pdf that I couldn't stop reading it. He's the father of the famous trio of Polish logicians much of modern algebraic logic centers around. I'd read much on the other two Tarski and Lukasiewicz, but I'd always been meaning to study Lesniewski, yet just stumbled across him last night, and realized he'd written his logic based on Leibniz's 'characteristica universalis', and was also much influenced by Peirce's logic and existential graph logic. I'm still processing all I've read today, so my mind's not real clear tonight, so I'll have to answer your other posts and questions tomorrow...
Just take a look at page 2 of the Betti.pdf and see the resemblance of say Planckian bits to larger wholes represented by his parentheses marks symbolisms, and the opposite direction also. His logical ideas flow the same, from the most fundamental first/base logics to the composite systems__most interesting... You don't need to, and probably won't understand it all, but it's quite a sound system of reasoning at the deepest concept and inference levels of the mind possible... His first axiom uses the double implication symbol: <--> meaning a fundamental unification background independent randomness(similar to abduction/induction) in his first logic, and many interesting perspectives I'd not seen elsewhere... This will take some explaining later... I also spent time reading other pdf's on Lesniewski, by several bad authors, and one other good one, I'm still reading__128 pages...
And Tim's/Lloyd's preceding notes...
I'm working on the idea of all measurements such as e, m, p, etc, being reduced to distance being as velocity is absolute distance/ absolute time and time is held as a constant and the distance not covered within an absolute interval is conserved to mass and such. Dave made a similar oneliner statement a while back but I think we can take it further.
Tim Lester
Hi Lloyd,
I think that I can explain relativity without using relativity but rather using objective QM. I'm waiting on Dave to reply to some key questions before I post but imagine a hypothetical ruler made of ceasium atoms and the atomic motions within this ruler also provide a frequency reference whereby it is also a clock. Now consider this ruler having a linear motion value in through space and we make it's length proportional to the distance traveled by light within a certain frequency of the electron motions. We might call it 186000 miles long per the frequency of a second worth of atomic motions. Now consider the effects that as we accelerate the ruler the conservation mechanics require the electron frequencies to slow due to an increased linear value towards c proportionally decreasing any angular or vibration value establishing or frequency reference due to conserving c and c equaling the value at which all motion is linearly forward and the ruler/clock decays to radiation. Now if we consider that these same frequncy motions establish a proportional length value, then as they slow so too does the ruler contract proportionally. Couple this with the fact that if we emitted light at from one end towards the direction of travel we will be traveling at a rate of some fraction of c whereby all of these dynamics mean that light is moving slower relative to us due to our motions thus effecting the time it takes to travel the length of the ruler, but the ruler is contracting along with the frequency dilating whereby we recieve the same value for c no matter how fast we speed up the ruler. It will always take the light the same quantity of dilating cycles to propagate the simultaneously contracting length of the ruler. Absolute time to me is a distance measure of light because it always travels at the same velocity whereby we don't. Any frequency we use is proportional to velocity thus only a linear pulse of light is untamperable. If the frequency and length never get out of sync by way of dilation and contraction, then the ruler and clock are always measuring some ratio value of c thus absolute time, but various velocities mean that this value merely changes proportionally. The key is perhaps relating that atomic motions establish both frequency and length by way of conservation mechanics and the rest of RM becomes a matter of our motions relative to the light by way of which we reicive information about other reference frames traveling at relative velocities. I'll try to work this out better.
Tim Lester
P.S. Oh yea...we can slow light as we know, but the main point being that in such a scenario, relativity becomes a quantum mechanical measurement system of the conservation mechanics I'm theorizing on.
Tim Lester
Yeah Tim, I see you are seeing it the same way I see it, now__good__excellent, el' supremo... I originally thought you may be describing it differently, but this is exactly how I've seen it since `82, when I first dreamed up my virtual abstract/psychological/logical cyclotron__when I asked the question; "What happens as to photons/electrons approach each other at their group 2c velocities...?" Few people have ever understood this concept when I'd described it to them before, so I'm glad to see you are describing it precisely as do I. And I also did the same ruler analogy in my own models back then, and further suggested to myself of establishing the speed of light as/at 1, but not then realizing many, or most, physicists/mathematicians already did. Still, when we take the absolute reference frame of c, we clearly see deeper into this mechanics__and I think we can go much further, now that I realize you do see it the same as I do. You may not be aware of it, but this puzzle actually goes clear back to Aristotle, as an ontological puzzle about 'being' and 'qua being'__or the state at which the most minimal of thought seeing itself, asks the question; "Which thought is the true 'I State of Being...?'" Well of course since then, I've realized it has to be a composite system of both our biology and em-frequency thoughts and memory states acting together(nature and us), that really makes up the 'true being' asking the question__even though it's really a constantly changing composite state of em-waves and particles, constantly trading places__just as in your 'ruler analogy' or Hau's light stopping experiments, etc.__So, when we look into the micro for the absolute mechanics, we really need look no further than the em-frequencies__and when we hit the brick wall of unknowing there__we need only to simply realize to shift the focus back away from the individual em-frequencies of 'thought to thought'__to the greater composite structure of our natural given biological body and all its internal mental agent states and apparati__then all becomes clear and simple, as 'a composite bio-thought non-body-mind problem__but, the actual solution, so simple we've not seen it before. So, the simple composite ruler analogy of motions, really solves the contemptuous historical mind-body arguments...
Tim, I just yesterday also came across another logician/ontologist who wrote 4 volumes on the above quantum mind-body problems, back in the `30's, who was very popular then, but mostly ignored since. That was Nicolai Hartmann, who's actually listed on that graphic at the head of our new blog. Many of the others are useless(except of course for John Sowa, of IBM, and Kit Fine...), but Hartmann was a very deep thinker, in the Peircean vein. Reading him was just a joy-ride through the deep quantum frequency world, even though his language is couched in logico-philosophical terms__but, scientific logical-philosophy, and not the practically useless psychological irrational philosophies... I've been doing these quantum conversions of many scientific philosopher-logicians ever since I recognized it in Peirce__and it's quite handy in the world of creating powerful analogies...
Just thought I'd mention, many of the philosopher-logicians I study, were deeply steeped in CM, QM and RM__which gives me the ability to see and unite a larger picture, of many schools of thought, through my recognition of interdisciplinarity of ideas...
Anyway, some glad to see how you interpreted my relativity to absolute logic and motion question. That makes me think we may be able to really expand these analogies and logics much more__but, at the same time to say, Hartmann being another offering great simplifying analogies also, offers the heart of the incommensurability, indiscernibility, unknowability and aporia problems at the same time. By this I simply mean, he greatly exposed the limits to which knowledge can approach the ultimate answers of substance, objects and motions__though I'm not sure these limits can not be breached__as we seem to be breaking down many motion and substance walls that have stood for millennia...
My brain is coming back on line a little better, but still needs considerable rest away from these damn computer screens, for a while__but don't let that slow you down, as "Clear Ideas of Motion", as below, helps me recover faster...
Lloyd
Hi Lloyd,
I'm back to work and will check out the links. A blog sounds good. Just let me know what I need to do to help. I'm not ready to give up on our efforts or my own thoughts just yet. I couldn't turn my mind off if I wanted too, and in the absence of you and Dave, I would have no outlet. I've struggled all my life to establish my intelligence vs my insanity and without someone who understands what I'm saying, I'm back to just being potentially insane....lol.
I've always had problems with Dave's assertion of an autonomous system establishing absolute motion, but I think I finally have a better idea of how to define such. The question is, what does VA actually mean? I'm working on the ratio logic of e=1 and the many ways to arrive at 'e' by way of the many other values. I'm establishing within my mind the actual aspects being measured by such equations as e=mcc, f=ma, e=hf, etc, and the ratio logic whereby such values are merely ratios of e=1, including the constant internal ratios of c, h, etc, as with their relationship of the ratio of mass to energy and frequency to energy. I actually gave 'e' an arbitrary value of 200 with:
c=10
m=2
h=40
f=5
λ=2
This merely allowed me to follow the many relationships around by way of all of the derivations you can make from common standard model formulas. This is perhaps unimportant, but what I realized is that 'e' and 'p' are conserved values not only by way of state transitions, but throughout absolute distance and time. Here's a couple of recent posts I made concerning where I'm headed.
"Alright.....what did y'all do with my buddy Lloyd? It's not like him to be gone this many days.
Lloyd,
If you're still around, I'm wanting to explore the relationship of a photon to a massive body using the mechanical advantage relationship of a block and tackle system of pulleys. The conservation mechanics we're exploring should allow such a technique as with: force x distance = force x distance with total work conservation being seen due to a lesser force acting over a greater distance being able to pick up a greater force/wieght through a reduced distance with the mechanical advantage being a ratio of such as with a chainfall or crane block.
If considering a photon whereby: e=pc and a body whereby e=mcc then there should be some relationship to the photon acting over a greater distance with a lesser mass within an absolute time interval being equal to a greater mass acting over a lesser distance similar to P=mv thus with a photon Pc=mvc. We're dealing with absolute time, thus I feel there is a definate relationship which can be found whereby when factoring in the distance acted upon over a period of time, the mass of a photon is the mechanical advantage version acting over a greater distance than the greater massive body acting over a lesser distance with energy being conserved between the two as was work in the mechanical example. The conversion of mass to energy is the conservation factor of a quantity of radiation being released but I feel that the comparative relationship of a single photon is perhaps equal to structured mass within absolute time. This gets into more stuff as with the possibility of mass not effecting a photons velocity whereby all travel at c due to radiation being able to redistribute any quantity of mass at c due to it doing so over distance, thus a greater mass value of such is perhaps a greater linear uniformly moving quantity at c as with merely a greater/lesser amplitude of a wave but equal velocity.
Just thinking out loud, Tim"
"Hi Greg,
with a mechanical advantage system such as block and tackle work is quantized by the product relationship of force acting over distance whereby pulleys allow a lesser force to pick up a greater weight by a further distance of travel provided by the many parts of a line which is determined in discrete whole number values as in relation to the quantity of pulleys thus parts in the line. In the universe, energy is quantized within absolute space and time whereby a lesser mass such as a photon is acting over a greater distance equally to a greater mass acting over a lesser distance. Add in another axis of motion and a smaller mass must orbit a larger mass to conserve this relationship if they both travel along the other axis at an equal velocity eg planet/sun.
P=mv and e=pc thus with a photon travelling at c velocity; e=mcc as with a larger body. When considering pc (photon)=mvc (massive body) energy is quantized whereby despite the mass each body acts upon the same conserved energy quantization within an absolute time and distance interval. The photon has an energy advantage by way of velocity just as with the mechanical analogy.
Tim"
"The easiest way to consider what I'm trying to express is to imagine the PSF I've been suggesting as being a rigid spacetime structural quantization whereby a photon and a massive body occupy a set number of domains relative to their mass value at any instant or freeze frame. Thus, their individual momentum values are diifferent within that instant, but if observed for a second the photon has traveled it's c velocity distance while the body has traveled a distance relative to it's velocity whereby if we were to count the number of domains occupied within a given instant within each system along with the number of domains the system passed through within the elapsed second the quantitative domain value would perhaps be equal whereby we find the reciprocal relationship of mass and distance as with the lower the mass value the greater the velocity thus the conservation of momentum by way of domains occupied vs domains passed through with energy merely being a factor of the aspect of domains occupied within the freeze frame moment which yeilded the various momentum values as to show the relationship of mass systems at an instant while momentum shows the conserved reciprocal relationship over time. This gets back tithe question of what scale the PSF opperates at, which I consider as being directly measured by our observation of frequency and wavelength within radiation. The actual scale would be a resolution much less than the highest frequency shortest wavelength electromagnetic wave, but the exact value I feel can be derived by what I'm suggesting with these conservation mechanics. I just need a lil feedback.
Tim"
"Regarding p = (mv) .... how do you derive e = (mv x c) ... ?
greg"
"Urrrrmmmm.......if you look back at the ee=mmcccc + ppcc whereby a photon has zero mass and a body has zero momentum the equation cancels to e=pc for the photon and e=mcc for the body. This is just standard model jargon so far. If e=pc and p=mv then e=(mv x c). I'm simply suggesting all of the values which are derived from e whereby we can observe how such values are various expressions of e within a given absolute time interval. Forget the symmetry/asymmetry as it only causes confusion between us and just focus on what I'm saying. I'm also not neglecting entropy but to discuss such, you'll have to fully see what I'm suggesting here first. Consider all of the ways that e is derived from p m v h f λ c and the further derivations these values have relative to each other. Now consider the possibility that e is the actual constant quantized within spacetime whereby the relationship of these values are merely rearranged to express various systems within the universal system. The constant cc is merely the ratio of mass to energy and the constant h is merely the ratio of frequency to energy, but perhaps the true simplicity lies within realizing how these various values conserve e within every system by way of external and internal values.
If a photon traveling at c were to collide with a bowling ball traveling at some relatively low velocity in space lets say one mile per second, an absolute second before the collision the photon was perhaps 186,000 miles away while the bowling ball was merely one mile away from the absolute point of collision. The obvious differences in mass are perhaps the reciprocal values of the differences in these distances, whereby at the exact instant of collision the photon had a much less internal mass, momentum, thus also energy value, yet when factoring in the total energy value expressed by way of its external distance traveled, the total internal + external energy values are found to be equal. The bowling ball was merely expressing the true conservation of energy in a different more localized manner than was the photon, but both were expressing equal energy within equal time if considering the dynamics of distance/time. Lets say when a system becomes autonomous, it has only an exact amount of energy to spend within an absolute time interval, thus various systems ration it out in various ratios of the above mentioned constituent values whereby we might observe a photon, an atom, a planet, etc. acting over various reciprocal distances. Change the velocity of a composite structured system, and the effects are reverberated throughout the constituent internal structures by way of momentum conservation etc, which equates to Lorentz contractions, relative time dilation, etc. Energy isn't just about the product of what we find within a system. It's also about how we externally find a system where it is, and how it got there. This relationship isn't clear if just considering the internal values as separate from the external values as does most of the standard model equations. There is simply a relationship between these various equations whereby we always produce the same energy value relative to all systems if factored properly with absolute time taken into account.
Tim"
"I'm thinking .... the bowling ball and the photon collision explain where your coming from.
One hesitant question ..... e =mc2 ....... why do you think that the c2 is a variable and different velocities can be placed there ? (c2) is the constant that shows the amount of energy potential in 'matter' ?
greg"
"You're still not quite getting what I'm saying. I don't think its a variable. It's merely measuring different aspects. Go through all of the derivations you can make from the equations and keep them in your head and keep questioning everything about the relationships. Consider the bowling ball/ photon analogy. E=mcc shows that cc is the ratio of internal mass to energy at the INSTANT of contact between the two systems. The photon would actually be considered to be e=hf or e=pc but we'll hold off on that for now. This isn't taking into account the conservation of energy that I'm speaking of but is only factoring the instant of collision between the two systems. There's a difference between instantaneous state vs. a state over time. If p=mv and the ratio of m to v are found to be reciprocal by way of absolute time as with the analogy then e=mvc will give the exact same conserved value no matter what system we are observing. With a photon v=c and mass is a minimal, but with the bowling ball v= proportionally less than c and mass is reciprocally increased. I'm merely trying to stress that the instantaneous value of a system as shown with e=mcc is an internal comparison between systems not factoring in the external reciprocal values whereby all systems are found to be operating within the exact same e=1 value through distance/time. Consider what aspects of such a system the equations are measuring and then you'll see what I'm questioning. Hope this helps.
Tim"
There seem to be many relationships which satisfy the instantaneous current state of a system Lloyd, but this tells us little about how a system got where it is, and the steps taken to get there with further state changes and such which would be the unified calculus type relationship of change over time by way of distributing composite 'e' through its many constituent values of v m a f λ, etc, as Va is conserved. When all values have to be satisfied in some conserved manner, we can better understand the effects of rad decay and and the atomic clock relationship of QM to RM. This is the asymmetry conserving a deeper unified symmetry which I've mentioned. This is how Dave referenced Va I think. When each system achieves absolute motion, it must satisfy the conservation relationships of the many internal values. An autonomous system is reduced to its specific distribution of Va=e whereby each system has the same ingredients, but the ratios by which they are mixed together determine the characteristics of the system being observed. It's conservation in every direction thus homogenous mechanics. Consider what would happen to the constituent electrons and such if we were to slow or speed up a large composite body if they must further internally conserve the Va of their systems. Studying the composite conservation from Va of the larger body internally into the individualized systems as with our past discussions of Jupiter's effects and such opens up many avenues of exploration if we can work these mechanics out properly.
I hope you can see what I'm trying to express here. I've also started my email discussions with Dave again and am running some of this by him and will relate any information he gives to further clarify these relationships. I'm just discussing these value relationships with him and am not getting into the mechanics by which I'm deriving many of my observations. He responded today to much of what I said and merely suggested that this is why he came to the conclusion so long ago that motion is absolute, but he didn't see the questions I was presenting and asked me to clarify, but I was merely letting him review where I was at. Anyways, I look forward to further working with you to better understand this place which we've both awoken into with all its mystery and elegance. Such thoughts are the only thing which occupies my curious mind....lol.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Please let us know your logical, scientific opinions...