studiot

But you can't as you well know. There is always, or perhaps nearly always ( I shy away form absolutes) to any action. But that is not what I was talking about. I was referring to our measurement of that action. With better manufactured ropes the same question is of vital importance to industry and mathematics allows us to go into more detail for useful safety purposes. So my question still stands

I suggest it is more sexy to seek a hidden cause or mystical behind-the-scenes whatnot, rather than the plain and simple common or garden reality. Carrying the garden theme on, take a batch of garden twine balls. Do a tensile test to breakage on samples from each ball. Every single one of those breakages will have a physical cause that is pure physics. But the values of the actual breaking loads will vary randomly and quite widely, (which is why I chose garden twine). Analysis of that distribution is pure mathematics. Is there an ontology attached to either of these ?

+1 A good addition to my catalogue. Thanks

There seem to be waves of fashion amongst these people. Not long ago we had lots of different versions of Space and Time are emergent. Before that we had holographic and other fads about theories of the universe and everything. That latest that seems to be sweeping through the various science fora still extant is about cellular 'substrates'. Comments ?

I must be going soft in the head. I thought that's the line I have been pushing. This is the only word you got correct in that last post. Have you ever built a computer ? Did you read my (physics) point about signal propagation time in real actual computers (and other systems) ? Did you know that there are quite a few other 'models' of computer architecture. The use of the word 'vertically' implies a vertical coordinate axis, which of course must conform to all the laws the other axes conform to.

Talk about spot on ! +1 A clear appreciation of both the subject of 'models' and the fact that there is (much) more to Science than Mathematics alone. I see you are continuing to blank me rather than address the deficiencies in your posts.

There is no disconnect. Yes indeed the central server updates state variables in one clock cycle. But this is only possible because the distances involved, even in the largest datacentre, are negligible compared to the time to parse the lot. You may not know that as electronic hardware design developed processor speeds have been limited by the need to synchronise signals that appear on different sides of the chips because the path lengths are different. I used to know the theory of all this but have not kept up with the latest computer clock speeds; I let others do it these days. But you are claiming that these updates are carried out over distances the size of the universe.

Yes indeed actual Physics. Thank you for responding, pity you addressed as different question from the one I asked so let me rephrase it a different way. My question had nothing to do with frequency or temporal frameworks (whatever they are). So (Astro) Physics : We know that there is a horizon beyond (in distance) which we cannot see. You are proposing that nevertheless all cells or whatever you like to call them are pulsed together in time by the same pulse of your master clock. This seems to me to be a classic 'action at a distance failure' since implies there is communication or commonality between cells beyond our horizon and those within our horizon.

Thank you for that clear answer. I will-ponder the implications. It would be good if you could also address my earlier question about rate of transference of information. A quick recap How does your universal master controller access and send data to the extremes of the universe in a consistent manner, since you model incorporates the limitations of Relativity ?

Well I wonder. If I designed and manufactured a car with say a defective steering linkage, which cause accidents, damage and injury. Would I not be liable or even criminally liable ? Why are IT firms any different ?

Just a simple question. Since you have absolute time and universal time, Which time are you referring to when discussing relativity phenomena such as beta ? Do they give the same or different answers ?

I do not wish to participate in your dispute with swansont about the name or subject of this thread. The thread is entitled the ontology of mathematics. Apparently you wish to (and perhaps have always meant to) discuss the ontology of physics. That is no reason to be as rude to others as you are to me. Addressing your earlier statements I am not classed as sufficient of a philosopher to know what is meant by the ontology of either physics or mathematics. However I do know what is meant by a parameter in both and I observe that your use of the term seems at direct variance with your subsequent 'one rule'. So what please is the ontological meaning of a parameter ? (I note the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy returns 168 documents about parameters, and over 3000 articles on the subject of the ontology of physics) But they all seem to include the application of parameters to constants, as do both maths and physics. So why did you exclude G ?

Beta cannot be a velocity. If you don't know why ask swansont. Simply defining (as you have) beta as v/c does not cut the mustard. Since beta is the ratio of two velocities, I could just as easily define beta as the Knudson number or the Mach number or the Strouhal number. You have not shown any basis for arriving at the Lorenz / Einstein formula. That is not what you said before. Either it is constant or it is variable.

What is 'an object at rest' ? You haven't answered my question about variable tick rate. A further question might be about the meaning of simultaneity in your system. What does this mean ? Einstein properly introduced and labelled his variables and constants. As I maintain, you are just copying someone else.

Thank you for continuing to be rude to me. You have not shown any isomorphism. All you have done is copied someone else's formula and re-labled it. What you need to do is derive your own formulae from whatever your first principles are. Just as the original transformations were derived by their originator. I was brought up in the days that when an examiner set a question which started derive from first principles... and I simple quote a formula and substituted the exam numbers in I would get zero marks, however right my formula was. They encouraged this by giving say four marks for the working and one more for getting the arithmetic right. I did well in exams in those day by just doing the working and then moving on to the next question and only coming back to complete the arithmetic if I had time.