studiot

I have done some editing today on my W10 desktop in Firefox without noticing a problem, but I haven't tried to report anything.

So which came first. The chicken or the egg ?

Good catch +1 I think this issue stems from the same misunderstanding as this quote as does the tensorial equation also quoted inappropriately. Yes the correct equation is a derived relationship, but not derived as you have said. Setting aside the headline quote that we are supposedly avoiding tensors, The equation does not say that energy is the same as spacetime or even that they are some sort of alternate views of the same object or system. This suggests to me a fundamental misunderstanding of equations. I might just as well claim that Force is the same (or just a different aspect) as mass sicne they are related by the equation F = ma or that Distance is the same as time since they are related by an equation distance = speed x time. Spacetime is not even a real space it is a mathematically derived coordinate space. like phase space or evolution space or sample space (there are uncountably many such conceivable spaces) For the record As I understand relational geometry it is a graphical way of displaying the idea that If A is related to B and B is related to C (perhaps in a different way) then it may be possible to derive a meaningful direct relation between A and C , from the relations between A and B and B and C respectively. But that may also not be possible it depends upon the nature of the relations. For instance if A is a jar of sugar and B is a jar of honey and C is a bottle of malt vinegar Then A is related to B as both are sweet and B is related to C as both are brown But no relationship can be deduced from this data.

For your information there are some very good exmaples of this process happening to lead to great and important discoveries. The discoveries of both Roengten and fleming happened like this. I myself discovered a very tiny, mathematical routine, not by noticing something but by wanting something. In the days when we programmed computers in Fortran I wanted a instruction to calculate eastings and northings from angular measurement, without involving a branching decision loop. I did find such a routine, that I have never seen before or since, though it was published in the Survey Review. So yes thinking and exploring but no noticing in that case. Many engineering innovations come that way.

So you were wrong to say always. No it didn't. Many textbooks are 'Treatises' A treatise attempts to systematically work through all possible presentations and/or applications of a topic. There is no 'notice, think, explore' involved' either by the author or the student. Any Engineer will tell you how much they value this kind of textboook as it provides example to follow, replacing the above. That is not to say there is no room for 'notice, think, explore' - of course there is - but it need not and is not always involved. How many more times ? Their perception was wrong. There was no motion of the Sun. That is why they did not understand what the saw and why their perception was wrong.

First class advice. +1

But the perception was just plain wrong. The Sun does not move across the sky. So the perception did not lead to any understanding. Once again NO. Some things we have neither perception nor understanding of, until we are taught. That is why we have teachers (have you ever met one ?) As a for instance I had abosolutely zero knowledge, perception or anything else about the integral, until my teacher presented it to me.

Going back to geocentric times, It was human perception that the Sun rose in the east, travelled across the sky during the day, and set in the west.. Right ? It just shows how wrong human perception can be. I would be happy with that whole paragraph, if you had written the word 'sometimes' instead of 'always'.

Thank you for posting more detail. As I said your pictures are meaningless unless the necessary Physis and Mathematics is already embedded in the relationships making up the 'framework'. I partucularly object to pretending that the very special mathematical symbol for identity is being misused to represent something else. An identity is not an equation and cannot be 'solved' in the way an equation can. This is especially misleading as the terms energy and spacetime do not refer to identical entities, and there is no Physics or Mathematics in which they may be related by the equals sign either. As regards other similar proposals see here https://scienceforums.net/topic/139474-the-fundamental-interrelationships-model-part-2/ Both the original poster and a much later poster offer this type of proposal. I have already mentioned Eddington's input in myprevious post Is there a school somewhere getting students to practice this very useful technique (in the right circumstances) by posting stuff for evaluation in the net ?

Relational geometry does indeed have a framework (that is the correct term within its context). It is the defined or assumed relationships that make up the framework. If fact Sir Arthur Eddington originally examined a framework model for Relativity in his book 'The Mathematical Theory of Relativity' in the 1920s. He also pointed out that a coordinate system is strictly unneccessary in this context. But it still has the Physics and Maths embedded in it.

As I understand the technique that some call relational geometry, all you are doing is verifying the arithmetic of the results from your chosen subject. Yes someone else has alread posted stuff about this here at SF. But none of your relationships have any meaning without conventional Physics and Mathematics. Declaring the identity relationship between spacetime and energy is just plain mathematical nonsense, so whatever you do mean needs to be properly posed, and posed here at SF. Thank you.

I suggest speaking to your local (scuba) diving community. You should be able to reach your target pressures easily and controllably with a tank and some adapted hose. Put as a marine conservation project they may even offer practical help with equipment and air tank refills.

I appreciate you may have put appreciable work into producing this, particularly as it does not seem to be unacceptable AI pap but your own work, But I am sorry to tell you that it falls way short of the scientific bar. Particularly introducing religious concepts designed to control peasants a millennium and more ago.

Well I think that is poor definition of absolute. Absolute things may be limited or restricted. For example Pi is definitely less than 4 . But it does mean not referred to any other value. But thank you for your thoughts, they just need some tightening up. I find this very common with 'philosophy'. People sometimes use terms which are too general or all embracing.

Well you have repeated several times that But you have also invoked set theory with non empty disjoint subsets, but have offered no reason why this universe cannot hold an infinity of facts. Many facts are compound or complex so do not fit into this requirement. My King Charles thoughts (quickly off the top of my head) are an example of such. There is a difference between unbounded and finite. The domain of the sine function is infinite yet the function itself is bounded. Similarly you need to take care of the difference between an identity and an equality.

Clever words indeed, but perhaps a chink ? Hopefully you are not claiming that Charles Francis Douglas Stewart is not the same identical person as the King of England ?

This equation suggests that all systems — from atomic structures to human consciousness — are constantly trading energy and information. This could explain how matter evolves into life, and how consciousness emerges from this trade. I see you have done some engineering so perhaps are familiar with the (chemical) engineer's version of the First Law. Input = Output plus Accumulation Perhaps it would be a good idea if you were to explain exactly what you understand energy and information to be and then to describe exactly what information trading is since you appear to be mathematically 'double counting' Please take heed of the Moderator's gentle advice and do not ask your AI, but use your own words exclusively.

It would certainly be more interesting to most members than the AI twaddle posted so far. How many care abour conditions far a way and long ago except George Lucas ?

So will all this stuff predict the location and severity of the next major earthquake ?

But properties are exactly descriptions of how objects can partake in causal relationships! We derive the properties from an object by the ways it can causally interact with other objects. (Oh, and I did not say 'material objects'). What is an object ? No it is true I thought you were referring to material objects, but if you are not: Take a piece of graph paper. Draw a 1x 1 square on it. Absolutely nothing else. That (in my opinion) is a non material object as it is a gedanken experiment so no material graph paper will actually be defaced during the course of the experiment. Now what causal or other relationships does that square possess ?

This is really ducking the issue. I used the term holographic (as invented by someone or other with nothing better to do than dream up fancy terminology) to cover all possibilities where the observer and observed are part of the same system. great stuff +1 Why only objects ? Surely (material) objects have properties. And much causality and emergence comes from these properties. And most properties are non material. Not sure how this would be applicable to physical objects I was thinking of Kuracharski's explanation of BT and how maths is adapting to accomodate this. Proof - Professor Adam Kucharski 2025 p 48-49. "How to make two copies of an infinite line of apples." The point about this is that we are not sure any longer about underlying theory such as dimension. If you can make another line of apples, you can make an infinite number of lines. This really impinges on Eise's points 2 and 3. and emergence. We are starting to realise that the whole may be greater than the sum of its parts as well as less than or equal to ie not as in the triangle inequaltiy (which underlies QM) .

Yo Kitty

Max Planck. Wasn't one of those 'fundamental constants' named after him ? +1

A worthwhile discussion and introduction to it. +1 That does not mean I agree with it all. How does the anthropic principle play with a holographic universe where both the observers (us) and the observed are simply in tyhe mind of a computer or organism ? But does it ? Some bits do, more or less Even the Canadians might blanch at over minus 200oC below. Yet Nasa thinks thre is a good possibility of life on Pluto. I agree Emergence ? Banach-Tarski paradox? Sounds a bit like complacent 19th cent Physics and the age of the Earth etc etc. We are always discovering and testing new things, new ideas. eg The iridium boundary ( A triumph of hardline Physics over Geology) So yeah, let the discussion begin.

OK thanks for the pretty pink lnes which appear to have no significance, in relation to your incorrect understanding to phase diagrams and the critical points of water. How do you account for the triple point of water ? Let's discuss some actual physics because this is not the complete behaviour of water. This is further complicated by the Chemistry when the water is not pure. Which amplifies my point that Physics and Biology are not the only sciences.