Jump to content

Prof Reza Sanaye

Senior Members
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by Prof Reza Sanaye

  1. I am happy that you have only picked on a dozen of my words.............. Not deeply going thru the whole thing , , , , , , , , Happier even , That : You have managed to edit your single hilarious sentence . . .
  2. joigus has all rights reserved to demand some sort of explanation from Kuyukov Vitaly. Vitaly is supposed , under such forums' circumstances , to address joigus' questioning. I myself did not get a FULL grasp of the thing ,especially in view of the fact that the respective pdf finally did not arrive. I don't suppose it is my right to talk or write on the part of Vitaly. However , as joigus is senior to me in membership here , I only offer my own ROUGH understanding of the phenomenon. Time is rigid in quantum physics, not stretchy and interconnected with the dimensionality as in relativity. Moreover, measurements of quantum systems make time irreversible in quantum mechanics, whilst the theory is fully reversible otherwise. Reality does not emerge unless it is measured. And it's only when measurements are taken that their wave-like or particle-like behavior emerges. The Quantum Zeno Effect brings forth the problematic in which an unstable particle can never decay if observed continuously. A "conscious observer" cannot obtain knowledge unless new information is recorded irreversibly in the universe. This data can be generated and preserved either in the quantum target system or in the measuring device. It can only then turn into info in the mind of the observer. The measurement equipment is quantum, not classical. The only way to record the irreversible interaction information is to be statistically determined. If and when ,as an analogy to neuron signaling , the topology of the neural paths covered reverses , then the knowledge in observer’s mind counters the data actually recorded by the measuring apparatus. Statistically/probabilistically countering the time dice cast in this way is sometimes called “ time counterdicing ”.
  3. To get FULL grasp of the counterdicing of time , I could not download your attachment (( 22.pdf )).
  4. It is not true that whatever you don't come to understand has some defect in itself. How is it that YOU don't try to read more in-depth AND even re-read ?? Why do you put the whole hermeneutics of the text on the writer's shoulders ?? !! It is decades since Roland Barthes made it literally crystal-clear by ample elucidation that ANY text needs to be best digested by the reader before being best written by the author. Second , why do you TOTALLY rule out the probability of your own lack/shortage of expertise in a number of asides and ancillaries and accessory knowledge that are either partially or fully necessary to grasp the point ?? !! Third , I HAVE taken on board the hint as about minimally applying fresh terminology. Fresh gushers of science and humanities , however , do have their own new terminology coming with them as they develop. This is verily proven by the history of science and the history of humanities. It's undeniable. It is extremely amazing that you prefer to always remain within the realm of already-one-hundred-times-chewed science and humanities. There IS vital need for very slowly, carefully pushing forward the boundaries of human knowledge.
  5. Where the balance between structural and dynamical aspects for obtaining best signaling efficiency would be, and the design principle(s) that Axons utilize to maintain this balance, suggest that the convoluted paths taken by neurons should reflect a design recompensation by the neuron to slow signaling latencies for purposes of optimizing speed(y) signal transmission. Your formula is all but the same as the one we use in our own laboratories. Nonetheless , the let-go of the signaling event could come before, right at, or after the observation time. The virtual chaocity at interconnects level emanates at the numerical registering level as the thickness/signal speed ratio. This spells that the axon fiber thickness effect’s power could be brought down from 2 ( as you have written ) to something around 1.3-1.4.
  6. I'm doing my best to caution you against over-reductionism . . . . . .
  7. At Planck scale , spacetime curvature has to follow only locally tangent/locally differentiable planes' segments. Any appropriate response to this should include, and thus require, gravity, not only the structure of matter, but the structure of space and time itself. The status of thus-arrived-at quasi-local mass, energy-momentum and angular-momentum constructions in general relativity must , consequently , not include non-local or borderline tangent planes to discussed manifolds at this level. Quantum fluctuations of space and time at the smallest scale imaginable are , therefore , subject to this rule of locality , if we are to obtain any scientifically valuable appraisal of the signal transmission limit at the speed of light. As a result , the non-linearity of the Q gravity field you refer to , is the most brilliant point of your thesis.
  8. But remember that neither Newton nor Einstein has solved the Problematic of separate frames ( of coordinanace ) in anisotropic space with accelerating velocity . . . . Newton did not know about Relativity ; And , Einstein who knew about that , neglected the fact that all accelerated objects feel a frame-variant 3-vector force F right in the direction of their acceleration. Information is , thus , partially lost.
  9. Well , He says Professor Reza Sanaye sends impenetrable clouds of philosophical fog . .. .
  10. Very beautiful line of reasoning. Real enjoyed it. I only venture to add that spatial status of coordinances makes separation velocity repetitively differential to any likely acceleration. They are more relative than that, even regarding astronomists' scrutinizing red shift. The placement of coodinances relative to each other and deemed fixed to their adjacent "towards-ness" , cannot be non-relative with respect to any other moving object's drag.
  11. Quote from jcMcSwell : " Dark energy is probably the only actual force (that is not expansion itself) that will push the two objects apart over time ". Excuse me , dark energy is not an ACTUAL force .
  12. It is a pity that "left/right" distinction has given way to "liberal/conservative" blur. Things appear to have become so blunt.
  13. You are being non-attentive again ................ Aha , ,, . Thank you for , in fact , confirming me.
  14. Quote from Studiot : " But I did not claim that is the whole story, whoever. Science is much more than that. Science is also about the systematic recording, collating and organising that data and comparing it with previously perceived recorded, collated and organised data, and also using it to suggest new interactions. This may well be the reason Science proceeds in bursts of activity, followed by periods of 'filling in' and structural optimisation. It is also the reason formal treatise textbooks like Euclid etc are more difficult than tests written for instruction. " { Quote ended } Ah ! So raw material alone does NOT work , , ,, You see ? We have to "regurgitate" and "ruminate" so many different things in order to arrive at what is known as Science. And sometimes ( only sometimes ) the Authors of Science , ie : Scientists , happen to interpret things differently from one another and give various versions of what data give them to work on. Newton did believe in the Entity of Time in itself. His contemporary Genius Leibnitz didn't. His non-contemporary Einstein didn't , either. He regarded it as a symptom , so to say , of a more comprehensive amalgamated thing under the title of spacetime. Sort of a 4-D manifold. https://www.google.com/search?q=spacetime&oq=spacetime+&aqs=chrome..69i57j0i433j69i60j69i61j69i60j69i59j35i39j0i433.3239j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8 Bohr & Heisenberg were firm in not believing this Einsteinian definition of time. To them , time was only some continuation of human experience. It wasn't woven into the fabric of Reality , the Nature. Then came on the scene Bohm with Bohmian mechanics. A bit closer to Einsteinian methodology. He was , however , ridiculed by some. These events had to be phenomenologised. And who better to write on the crisis in science than Prof Edmund Husserl , himself a very well-educated rigorous mathematician ? Die Krisis der europäischen Wissenschaften had actually predicted many of such disturbing differences of opinion amongst Scientists. Disturbing then . . . And : Wonder of Wonders : Disturbing now ! Now that you and I are typing these words under the generous beneficent auspices of scienceforums founders. Let us not play the game of oversimplifying things. There are almost always "alternatives" .
  15. Yes ! I can ! The rotating planets and the gravitation working therein were mathematically described by Newton in his own old-fashioned way ; they found a totally differing description under the genius of Albert Einstein . . . . So you 100% agree with me . . ... .
  16. The whole beautiful edifice of science is built upon (perceived) data . ... Without tangible data , GR or any other theory would have most probably totally collapsed . Seems you are jesting with me . .. .colored or non-colored , nay ??
  17. And others receiving potent replies to their shaky rationalization to defend the bizarre idea of absolute time . . . .
  18. You cannot fatten her by short-cut-force-majeure-feeding her , either . . .. .. .
  19. Intuition/intuitive/intuitional here are applied in the sense of " being able to be perceived not mediately .. being able to be perceived immanently " .. .. .. ..
  20. You are a very bright interlocutor to talk to , to tell you the truth . ...
  21. quote from beecee : " Science is what we know; philosophy is what we don't know. " So what are philosophers of science doing ?? !!
  • 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.