Jump to content

Roger Dynamic Motion

Senior Members
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Roger Dynamic Motion

  1. 53 minutes ago, Strange said:

    We have a theory of gravity that matches, very accurately, what we observe. It doesn't include either pull or push. It is also the basis the Big Bang model. 

    Can your idea do better?

    We have a theory of gravity  , doesn't include either pull or push.


    So ! What is that  ''fictitious  force'' from your perspective from the Big Bang , that would keep my two feet on the ground ?

    A theory that do not match  my logic, is nonsense to me ; I prefer to live with reality on Earth ,with my to feet on the ground, push by a force that I call ''Gravity''

  2. Simply put you cannot have a field if you have no volume. Or technically volume or area for 2d fields

    But..Volume require boundary. So what is boundary ? is it a time limit?... containing Energy ? and if so matter must be a part of it .
  3. This is how I think. The existence of space - which is just volume - is dependent on the existence of fields. On that line of thinking, empty spaces full of nothing (?) can''t exist.

    To me, when I hear or read the word nothing ; i cannot think other of an other particle that i have called Nothing..and it's a ''Cube''. The reason Why? is that ,when in my head i shrink the 8 corners back to the center of the cube i do not see the Cube any more So! what if empty space, we so call, was replaced by cubes that cannot be detected and nor seen .
  4. So far, space has no it been found to be quantised; It's smooth AFAIK. It's just volume with things in it.

    |If one uses! it's imagination and + it's hallucination perhaps logic will relieved what? makes the best of it's understandding.
  5. Do you think someone can be spiritual even if they pay someone to kill an animal so they can eat meat?

    What if that person is a millionaire or billionaire and donating to charities all over the world yet still support the suffering of people, animals, and the environment by eating meat? Let's say that a rich person donates to charities that help with climate change and world hunger.

    Is this person using his/her money to relieve the symptoms but not necessarily getting to the root of the problem? What do you all think?

    well one can eat grass ? what do you like ?
  6. If space is just volume, how do reconcile 'quantum foam' or are you intending to make a clear distinction between what GR says and QP says?

    Space is made out of of a particle that is call noting because we cannot see it and cannot detected and will become something = matter

    throughout presses of matter and that involving fusing action (not reaction )= fission

  7. As someone who has spent decades as a professional communicator, I would say you are almost certainly wrong about this.



    Perhaps you should carry on anyway. Further explanation might clarify any confusion about your initial assertions.



    It is very clear that representations and the thing represented are different. And that the relationship is arbitrary.



    I am not sure that is true. But that is another (huge) area of philosophical debate that would probably just be a distraction.



    Given the ill-defined, vague and changing nature of each of the [latex]x_i[/latex] terms in your equation, it is not clear that this is a useful exercise. I can't currently see that it does anything more than translating the original sentence into another natural language would. Hopefully, your further explanations will clarify this point.


    You also seem to be ignoring grammar. You appear to be only considering the meanings (representations) of the symbols, not their relationship to one another.


    For example, there is a big difference between "man bites dog" and "dog bites man" and "dog bit man".


    And even more so between "let's eat, Grandma" and "let's eat Grandma".


    How does your mathematical representation handle these?


    There are other complexities such as context, the relationship between the speaker and the listener, where the utterance is made, etc.


    And then there are the issues of the implied meaning versus the literal meaning. For example, if someone gives you a cup of coffee and you say, "Do you have any sugar?" then you are probably not asking about whether they are in possession of sucrose or not. You are (politely) requesting that they give you some.


    (Or, more topically, if your boss says, "I hope you will drop this inquiry" then that is not just a vague hope, it is a pretty direct order.)



    No more so than the fact that any language can be translated into any other.


    But there are difficulties in converting spoken language to a written form. For example, these forms do not easily convey tone of voice, facial expressions, body language, etc. This is why some jokes fail to work, or are seriously misunderstood, on the Internet. You can also lose the ability to make jokes involving homophones that are spelled differently.


    These problems seem to apply equally to your proposed mathematical representation. (Which is why, despite the idea being centuries old, no one has achieved it.)


    I look forward to hearing more of your thought. I haven't yet seen anything that justifies your rather grandiose claims.






    (I should say, in case you are not familiar with his work, that this is from a physicist.)

    Strange _Hope, is not an Order in this quote,


    if your boss says, "I hope you will drop this inquiry" then that is not just a vague hope, it is a pretty direct order.)

    < take it as ; creating a vision of the suject matter , a suggestion, perhaps ? it is better to forget about the issue.

    That is Reality .

  8. How can lanquage not be a representation? Every single word in any lanquage represents a meaning. Including mathematics.


    How can you possibly have a lanquage that isn't representative?


    Of course understanding reality must include lanquage usage. There is no option to convey discoveries etc without some form of lanquage. It is unavoidable. Mathematics is simply a more exacting lanquage but a lanquage nonetheless.


    Yes lanquage terminology has limits in describing reality but there is no better option. At some point one must convey to another a descriptive of a dynamic etc.


    I didn't post examples to discuss circumstances but to convey that at some point interpretation and representation would be required ie the examples I posted.

    (Sorry wrong person.)


    Strange _Hope, is not an Order in this quote, meaning to stop it.


    if your boss says, "I hope you will drop this inquiry" then that is not just a vague hope, it is a pretty direct order.) < take it as ; creating a vision of a suggestion, perhaps ? it is better to forget about the issue.

    That is Reality .

  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.