Mike Smith Cosmos
-
Posts
3218 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Mike Smith Cosmos
-
-
I think the problem with a lingual theory of everything is even if it's purely logical and flawless, without scientific testing it could be 100% wrong. If you just look at string theory there's all sorts of maths for it, logical maths that seem to make sense, yet we cannot find any direct evidence.
I have set up a TEST
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
O.K. Let us put this to the TEST.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A science based example . Used in conjunction with . A lingual ( language based ) Theory of everything .
.. V
See Next but one Post
0 -
There's no particles between higgs particles, it's just that mathematically you treat higgs particles as bosons with wave-like trajectories, but somehow that allows them to be treated as one field throughout space.
I thought , the Higgs mechanism was in two parts , as it has been called , consisting of the Higgs Field ( a field permeating all space) and individual Higgs bosons that communicated with individual matter particles ( in so doing giving the particles mass, to some degree, or not as the case may be.)
Quite how the individual particle ' teases out ' the Higgs boson , to give the individual particle mass , I have not a clue !
Somehow an additional post has squeezed in ahead of mine as I was writing my post . Not sure how ! (Ajb with special tricks available to him, I guess ) which, his post seems to have explained things in a more eloquent way scientifically than me . Although I am not sure I understand all this , manifold, false vacuum, field explanation too well.
0 -
A statement, sorry for any confusion.
Well this has connotations of an ether .( does it not ) ?
I do hope you are still going to be able to comment when you go off to China or Poland or where ever you are off to. I suppose they have the internet there, unless you are out in the Black Forest or somewhere ?
0 -
You think of the Universe being filled with a field, and the fundamental particles are localise fluctuations in this field.
Is this a statement ? or a Question ?
0 -
You could find answers for your almost questions in my paper and the previous threads on SFN.
Was your paper published in 2012 in the Galilean journal ? I have just read your paper . Interesting ! Very interesting !
0 -
Just what the title says, and this goes for any boson to. Thy are individual particles with imaginary mass prior to coupling or interaction, so how to they all combine to form a single field?
If the Higgs field and its' related Higgs Bosons , are the mechanism by which all particles develop or experience mass, then surely such a Higgs Mechanism must have been the ' The first past the Post ' at the initial outflow of inflation , at or very near to 'The Big Bang.'. This would make it the very nature of Space itself , would it not ?.
Post script
. ' First past the post' is an horse racing term, to describe the first contestant ( horse, greyhound, runner ) to leave the starting POST . [ I think] .
0 -
Not a terribly good article, I'm afraid. Unparticles are not part of the standard model they are part of an add-on to it, so saying that they are predicted is pretty meaningless — they are a prediction of a conjecture, which you can't assume is true. And the experiment didn't find them, so any discussion of effects is pure conjecture. What the experiment appears to have done is limit the scope of their interaction. IOW, it went in the direction of ruling them out.
It's a pretty enthusiastic tone for an experiment that found nothing.
Reading ajb's Blog article and the previous post link on unparticles, I feel a need for an asprin and an explanation in clear English.
What with unparticles, virtual photons, and spin-spin that is not really spin and other vaporous things ,all happening miles away deep in the earth, I can't quite get my mind round it , without getting a headache.
Any chance of one of your clear type explanations ?
.
0 -
This is a different argument, though, of final product vs creative process (as you have also argued elsewhere). I don't think anyone is arguing that there is only one path of formulating ideas.
Then there is no argument.
I think where this debate has come from , was in my original proposition of a theory, which was not based on a mathematical formula but rather on a set of three verbal or lingual statements. Which I still hold to, and at this stage possibly has the advantage over the mathematical approach , in that it can be very flexible , as I have stated. You may interpret this as non precision, but I have found the flexibility useful in using the theory across discipline boundaries.
I am sure this is not without the model of past scientific masters. After all Isaac Newton said :-
"Things would stay still, or move with constant velocity if not acted upon by a force " true he added equations of motion including his famous
. " F=ma" for when a force is introduced to a mass an acceleration will result. etc etc.
I am sure if I homed in on a particular example a formula could be derived.
The issue of an electron staying in a given energy band /orbital ' ad infinitum' forever without energy loss or gain ,( if it does not move energy band) must be a scientific application of my theory.
.
0 -
.
That's the point, though. We want to know if an equation is right or wrong. There is no way to tell if a vague prediction is of value if there are multiple ways of interpreting it as being right. Saying that if you drop something in a vacuum it will fall is less useful than saying it will fall and pick up speed, which is less useful than saying it will accelerate at 9.8 m/s^2. There are many scenarios where either (or both) of the first two statements would be correct — falling at a constant rate, accelerating at some other value, etc., but only one where the equation works.
Yes.
But you are just arguing your mathematical exactness. Which I agree is the case. But the poor bird ( the infant creative idea ) has not had a chance to fly. Let it fly a while , with the flexibility of language. Let it flit around , with argument and counter argument. Let it gain strength in its skills of flying . Then and only then , test it out and apply mathematical rigor, and compare with existing theory. Maybe it will occasionally stand up to the testing and occasionally overtake existing ideas. Here is hoping !
0 -
You're arguing that verbal language is an adequate substitute for mathematics.
No I am Not.
What I am suggesting is that they both have a place . But usually the basic idea quite often gets drawn or written on the "back of a fag packet" . That's probably not politically correct anymore. ( say a small piece of scrap paper ) . If you want a new house on a piece of land with a view. A lot of arm flying, pointing the odd sketch. Garage over there Point. Swimming pool along side that building , Layout of house rooms ( usually women's ideas prevail.) A lingual picture is described, if not on paper into the air. LANGUAGE CONCEPT of The DESIGN.
What follows is a precise Architectural Drawing to Scale really a Mathematical Construction Drawing .
Both have their place. Ideas first usually Drawings and Language Detail Design second Measurement , Calculation ( Mathematics)
BOTH essential , but you could argue there would be no requirement for maths if there was not the design first.
Hence my proposition is : -
We should give a lot of head room to Creative thinkers and designers without bogging them down in maths too soon. Let them have their sky high ideas, let them fly with their possible thoughts. let them put forward their designs on scraps of paper. Then when they come to the mathematicians they can both work together in building the scaffolding that can support the new ideas in a more accurate definitive form. Not all ideas will come to anything. But some will.
.
0 -
Except all your verbiage did not explain E = mc^2, neither in English nor in Intuit.
I am not sure if my Inuit person is a professor of physics , ( who would already Know ) or a uneducated hunter who lives along with polar bears and survives very well, better than most of us, but wants to hear what "the man called Einstein had to say that was so important. " I think if it was the latter I had a good attempt in a paragraph.!
0 -
There are still windows open to research into "varying constants". That changes a lot in physics but the basic laws remain the same.
Like VSL for example.
I would like to take this up a bit Michel. But the Meteor seems to have taken over .!
0 -
The tone is that it's one or the other. It's not. A false dilemma is created by asking this.
This falsely compartmentalizes the process. By what argument does it appear that there is too much emphasis on math? Where is the evidence that "creative conceptual thinking" and "cross discipline , observation and thinking" aren't happening?
I do mean to get back to you on this one. But there has been the meteor strike which seems to have overshadowed other discussions.
0 -
But language does 'crash'. If I walked into a room and sat a box down in front of you and said the box was very heavy, what does that mean? What if an Olympic weightlifter said it was heavy? How about a petite little ballet dancer? How about a toll booth attendant?
Language here is incredibly ambiguous. Language by its very nature is dependent upon the person who uses the words, and then is also dependent upon the person who hears and interprets the words. Words are fungible.
However, if I said it took 500 N to lift that box, that is unambiguous. It is not 5 N or 5000 N. 500 N may be easy for one person to exert that much force, and difficult for another. But it is, and always will be 500 N.
This is why math is so very, very preferred when talking about science. Because math can be used to make direct comparisons.
If I measure that the box takes 498.4 N to lift, the prediction that it would take 500 N to lift will be very much preferred over the predictions that it would take 50 N or 5000 N.
Language is great. There are many absolute classics of literature that tell extraordinary stories using only words. But at least some of what makes those stories so extraordinary is that they are constantly debated and reinterpreted over and over. 500 N never needs to be reinterpreted. 500 N is 500 N and only 500 N.
There is no language that can be as exact as 'it takes 500 N to lift that box.'
Yes. Well i cannot disagree with the precision and accuracy , with which number and thus maths is able to deal with the exactness of measurement. This indeed is its forte .
Similarly, I can not disagree with the imprecision that language brings to the table, in the example that you quote.
However, to me I think the example only illustrates the different attributes that Language and Number/Maths have. As I have previously stated , the shear exactness of maths can make it very 'stiff' and 'Brittle'. Should a digit be wrong , or the formula be a little wrong, the whole edifice can snap like a carrot, or break like an icicle . Errors can compound easily, and wrong equations can turn to nonsense by an incorrect combination of variables.
On the other hand , Language when dealing with " the Big Picture " or "Sweeping conceptual ideas and changes " lends itself to the flexibility which is not present in the number and maths approach . True heavy can be all sorts to all sorts of people , in the example you gave . However , If I were to say that the Oceanic Plates under the Seas is Heavy (more iron in with the silicates ) compared to the continental crust which is light by comparison (More Aluminium in with the silicates) . And as such the continents float high above the ocean depths like scum on the top of gently boiling pea soup. I am sure the concept of how the world is, with its land masses and ocean depths only today seen with fresh new images of hydro-thermal vents, with blind shrimps and other life forms. All this without mention ( even if one could describe the accurate number of Newtons the American Continents is, or how many newtons the Pacific Ocean plates are. We are able to get a better picture of how Everest is where it is and how high it is , and how deep the various deep trenches under the ocean are, before they sub-duct back down under the continents on their way down to rejoin the hot mantle and be re-absorbed.
Now tell me which sounds better in these circumstances in understanding the Earth Systems The Paragraph before or Formula now given ( example)
Cont .B squared Cos to the minus 1 double integral X to the 4 div X = Grad y cubed plus 7 y squared CURL j ( square root (y to the 5 + 5 )
Which language is that? How do you communicate the concept of E=mc2 in Inuit?
Well I am not sure if my computer has a translation system to Inuit, However I will have a go in English then see if translator will work.
Our universe as we perceive contains and is material mainly. We walk around on land made of elements of various sorts. we are made up of many of these elements. We say that this material has mass. Namely it tries to keep going when we move it, It tries to fall to earth when we drop it. A man called Einstein proved that this same Mass of material , Our fingers, the sod of earth, an iron arrowhead could, and sometimes does get converted into energy like fire. An example is the SUN where mass is being converted to sort of heat and light energy. The amount of energy you can get out of any of this mass is immense , very, very ,very,very large. Its as if the light of the sun where some how bottled up in the mass. Einstein worked out exactly the amount of energy of this type you can sometimes get your hands on. You would have to get hold of a phyisist or a mathematician to give you the exact figure of energy.
Inuit translation :-
Alheimurinn okkar sem við skynjum inniheldur og efni fyrst og fremst. Við göngum um á land úr þætti af ýmsum toga. við erum samsett úr mörgum af þessum þáttum. Við segjum að þetta efni hefur massa. Þ.e. reynir hann að halda áfram þegar við færa hana, reynir hann að falla til jarðar þegar við sleppa því. Maður heitir Einstein sannaði að þetta sama Massi efnis, fingur okkar, sem sod jarðar, járn Arrowhead gat, og stundum er að fá breytt í orku eins og eldur. Dæmi id SÓLIN þar massa er breytt til að raða af hita og ljós orku. Fjárhæð orku er hægt að fá út úr einhverju af þessum massa er gríðarlega, mjög, mjög, mjög, mjög stór. Eins og ef þess ljós sólinni þar sem sumir hvernig flöskum upp í massa. Einstein gekk nákvæmlega magn af orku af þessu tagi sem þú getur stundum fá þinn snertið ekki á. Þú þyrftir að fá að halda á phyisist eða stærðfræðingur til að gefa þér nákvæma mynd af orku.
This is Icelandic (nearest I could get , Its the same temperature, maybe the language is similar ! Best I could do !
0 -
Yes thats awesome that you have programming experience, theres not many people I can talk with about it.
Language does not crash when computed by humans because we are already disposed to acquiring it. However, if we lack stimulus, then it doesnt suit circumstances. And often, if that is the case, then we will strike parameters throughout conversation which can be very frustrating and lead to communicative difficulties.
In any case, the real theory of everything requires a theory of anything (i like what the other guy posted) and a very big computer.... and the incorporation of physical parts into a statistical analysis.
I've generated many plausible thoughts computationally using a mixture of mathematics and units of knowledge (any sequence of occurrences). My goal is to make the compressional use of language 100% accurate and I think at this point it is probably around 65% accurate. It needs the ability to make itself efficient though.
You Know they have set a thread up all your own for developing your computer program project called " a computer program idea " . There is a guy on there who thinks your idea is a swell idea. He's called pwagen . You need to go and discuss it with him. I am still interested talking to you. but the moderators don't like you talking too much about your particular computer program on other threads.
If you want any ideas from me ,about you computer program, I can come across to your thread and post and converse on your thread ! ( then you will not be Moderated again )
0 -
What about adding language to math? That is the type of math necessary to deal with language computationally.
I appreciate you personally are a computer programmer orientated person. But again from both my maths experience and a little software program writing experience. I have spent a lot of hours and heart ache de-bugging maths equations and software lines of code.
Whereas language does not crash, it might need a little discussion ,and can be tweeked easily.
0 -
The questions raised as regards LANGUAGE as a suitable vehicle for a THEORY can be answered with the following. :-
Our body of knowledge , held in the human condition has mainly been communicated by language. It is true to say that other communications have been added to assist over our history , such as visual pictures and mathematical descriptions and formula/ calculations.
Much as I personally love pictures as a medium for communications, others love mathematics, when it comes down to it , it is language that we fall back on when we really want to understand. Hence the forum we are using is mainly in LANGUAGE. And when you are not sure of a point.
. What exactly do you mean ? Is asked . And a language is expected in reply ?
. So it not unreasonable to pose an Hypothesis or Theory in Language.
True if accurate measurement or calculation is required then mathematics is the ideal vehicle. However it is very rigid and inflexible.
Language however can be more flexible and enables concepts to be communicated more easily. One could liken mathematics to a rigid high rise building. an amazing achievement, yet a dangerous place , say during earthquakes or whatever. . In the opposite area Language could be likened to a very tall tree, able to flex in earthquake or storm with ease. A safer place to be in an earthquake, flood, or tempest. Both are required Maths and language concepts.
The real trick is to make the concept work ( with Language ), then do the accurate results ( with Mathematics ).
0 -
What do you mean by friendly? You mean where something naturally occurs with efficiency? Like the natural order of elements?
I was thinking about incorporating some ejection like principle that minimizes lengthy sequences
Well you said " a computer program that will literally be your best friend." so its what you mean by " a computer program that will literally be your best friend. "
I don't know what you mean by " I was thinking about incorporating some ejection like principle that minimizes lengthy sequences "
0 -
I have developed an algorithm that closely resembles dna when you make it print what it's doing.
Fine, well some how you need to write code that gives you dna style that mutates . Then give more versions of the one that is more friendly to you. and less versions to the one that is less friendly to you. then loop your program . with a few lines of code to make it work it should run on and be more and more friendly.
0 -
I want to build a computer program that will literally be your best friend.
Good .
You have got what you want to happen One of the criteria say (D)
You have Stated it Another of the criteria say (E)
Now the difficult bit Criteria (F) " find the space where there is no reason for it not to happen "
It means that things happen best when they are designed to happen that way (whether by man or nature).
It means that if I ask my computer to remember everything and not forget, theres going to be a memory error... among other things.
It means alot. If I send my computer into a loop, it may never stop unless I force it to.
You are on the right track, But keep checking that you make the track , like one of those sports that send stones down ICE curling.
It means that things happen ....
I have to just take my jack russell dog for a walk..
I look forward to an increase in your path with no restrictions if you can , for when I return . Keep going . Search for ways with space ( no restrictions )
It means that things happen best when they are designed to happen that way (whether by man or nature).
It means that if I ask my computer to remember everything and not forget, theres going to be a memory error... among other things.
It means alot. If I send my computer into a loop, it may never stop unless I force it to.
KEEP GOING
YOU ARE ON A ROLL !
Computational efficiency.
I think a genetic algorithm style of software program might be an interesting avenue to go down.
0 -
Computational efficiency.
What is that mean , in this context ?
0 -
Language ................. " there needs to be an underlying physical constituent that can be measured."
i am only describing a measurement , within the context of " things happening " .
However that is quite a big sphere as unless you sit still and do absolutely nothing, things happen . The desire is to have things happen that you want to happen .
What I am saying is A) State it B) what you want..........what is to happen.I( which may not be possible, ) C) find a space that offers no restriction to its happening
0 -
Systems based on language can't work because of the nature of modern language.
I understand the difficulties you express, but whether I like it or others don't like it the universe functions in a way that we like to understand to some degree. Observations of the way the universe works can be contained in our mind and communicated to others. All I have done is to try to encapsulate in language a particular phenomenon that I observed happening about me in the universe.
The observation that particularly caught my eye or experience gave me was :- Being an engineer i was used to forcing things to happen that I was asked to design. That's fine but as time went by I noticed that if you designed around the way things themselves actually wanted to 'flow' , the design became better the function better,the reliability better etc,etc.
From these observation I made an hypothesis that:
" if you found a space that had NO restrictions to the designed function , then the flow would be absolute "
I went on to test my hypothesis via various experiments.
One landmark experiment was described a few posts ago to do with stone selection from an almost infinite supply of curvy stones.
Thus no matter how I use these words to describe this phenomenon, it seems to hold up under scrutiny, which it would do if true
.
0 -
Informations diverge:
10 tonnes from the ones (that is ten thousands kilograms)
10,000 tons (I suppose meaning short tons) from the others = approx 9,072 tonnes (that is nine millions kilograms)
That's a difference of 10^3
------------------
From the very little info I can get it seems to me the most probable explanation is that the ionized gases of atmosphere exploded, producing a little sun for 5 seconds.
(image removed by mod - can be seen in the post above).
This above a rotaded image of the trace in the russian sky. (original image from wiki here)
. ---------- Michel ----------
. Are we going to live.? or are we all going to die ?
. ----------------------------------------
.
0
A lingual theory of everything
in Speculations
Posted · Edited by Mike Smith Cosmos
LHS
The Big Bang took place approx 13.7 Billion years ago.
RHS
Line 1 &/or Line 2 and Line 3 from a Lingual Theory Of Everything
RESULT
from Line 1 & 2
Anything and everything is occurring from 13.7 billion years ago , and as we speak , as there was/is no reason for it not to occur.
LINE 3 applies ,
Now we are well on in the process of occurring, . There are restraints ( reasons for anything not to occur ) now in place due to the universe /mass , so the path of least resistance is being followed by the universe.
. QED ( Quad et Demonstratum )
Lingual Theory of everything works with the biggest science around ( The Visible Universe )
Yippee ! ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ I WIN ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~