andrewcellini

Tj i encourage you to hold off on trying to rewrite physics until you learn mainstream physics. you seem to enjoy coupling words which have precise meanings (which you use in your own, undefined way) to woo buzzwords, which produces sentences which may conform to the rules/conventions of the english language but do not convey any clear points. i'm not sure how these discussions could progress beyond pointing out the misuse in language or the lack of clarity, and telling you to actually study a bit further than pop science explanations.

wow, quite the response. full of substance, and actually answers the questions. do you actually have any citations or are you just making stuff up? the latter seems more consistent with your posts.

what are you talking about? do you have a paper by einstein that refers to 10 dimensions? seems like you're mixing something you heard about string theory with einsteins work

the mass of hydrogen is lighter because of the binding energy which is negative. m = mp + me - E/c^2 m is mass of hydrogen (in ground state), mp mass of proton, me mass of electron and E/c^2 is the mass contribution due to the binding energy. the energy required to separate the electron is equal to the absolute value of the binding energy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binding_energy

that's just an old saying, and it implies that the situation has a will and desires, specifically the desire to go wrong and annoy us. it has no relation to nature. probably not a good first proposition.

i asked for clarification of what you mean. how is that meaningless to the conversation? do you expect anyone to answer your questions if they don't know what you're really asking? and i never said how meaningless the conversation is, not sure where that came from. i said that your question isn't clear (really what i meant is that it's not clear to me what you're asking), but i noted that it seemed like you were talking about uniform circular motion with your rope and rock system and not that the rock and rope are spinning, which is why i asked for clarification.

it's more about clarity. i don't know how you can expect a satisfactory answer without a clear question.

are you using "spinning" in place of "traveling in a circle?"

this essentially amounts to "it's a state of matter because it's a state of matter." what do you mean by "state of matter?" yea, well, true identity is in the midst of the mechanics of photons so http://www.wisdomofchopra.com/

i was kidding. it was to poke fun at your posts which is all over the place and are indeed consistent with waffling (perhaps the one thing you got right). how is that relevant to counting the members of some set? the set is "apples" not "golden delicious apples" or "rotten apples" or any subset that you can conceive of. if the task was to count the "irradiated apples" then that may be relevant.

i suggest getting a new operating system...

it's not a circular argument. not sure what your understanding of a circular argument is. they exist in a mathematical sense perhaps, such as when a mathematician says "there exists...such that..." but they are not talking about something in the natural world, they are talking about there being at least one abstract object (specifically a mathematical object) in the universe of discourse conforming to the rules of the formal system in question. a simple example i used in another thread: there exists a real number r such that r + r = r*r because the phenomena in and of itself and the description of the phenomena in mathematics are two distinct things. exactly, they are used represent the phenomena but are not the phenomena. and i'm not sure what you mean when you say "we have learned how to abstract the concepts of numbers," numbers are abstract objects as are other mathematical objects. then what defines the numbers and their properties, or "the pieces and rules of the game" according to this view? your entire argument takes for granted that numbers indeed exist and have properties (somehow in nature) and ignores such formal things as peanos axioms which underlie numbers. the quantities are numbers assigned in accordance to the units and theory (or theories) of the measuring device (or what it is measuring). there can be several layers of abstraction (using several independent equations for example) between some initial measurement of a physical quantity and calculation of some other physical quantity. take the single slit diffraction experiment: say you have a beam of monochromatic light with wavelength λ, slit width a and distance to screen L you want to find the displacement of the first minimum, so you calculate θ from asinθ = mλ and plug it in to tanθ = y/L to calculate y.

i'm not sure that anyone is obsessed or trying to restrict the discussion, and only mentioning number because: 1. it is a mathematical object which easily comes to mind simply because of everyday use 2. it is an example that is mentioned in the question of the OP

you can't have geometry until you define the objects and properties in question because for all i know you could be making assertions about reality which are not true merely to support your position

this and your above paragraph in no way exclude the option that mathematics is just a useful and potentially necessary "fiction" for describing the universe, and it also doesn't have to do with the question of whether mathematical entities (such as numbers) actually exist (perhaps you should read the op). what you assert amounts to "it is essentially impossible to not use mathematical terminology to describe nature," and i don't really disagree with that, but it's not clear how you can get to the conclusion that maths is necessarily in nature.

it would definitely help your case if you provided us with some citations.

to expand upon this, when one says "there exists...such that..." they are talking about abstract objects (specifically "at least one __," and the objects in question can be, for example, members of set of real numbers) in the universe of discourse such that certain statements regarding the object are held true. trivial example: for some real number, r, r*r = r + r this is clearly different from, say, ontological existence, which is what geckmancer seems to be confusing it with.

i agree that we do not directly observe dark matter. that is a given. i'm not sure what to make of "observing math indirectly." can you expand upon this a bit?

well this is the philosophy section

just for clarification, according to your position, where do mathematical forms manifest? is the universe of mathematical structure (similar to that of max tegmarks universe in a level 4 multiverse)? or are mathematical forms in a separate "world?"

well it does if you don't accept a platonic existence of mathematical forms because it highlights the purely abstract side of mathematics. for a platonist, they may accept axioms as a mathematical form.

what whole picture? it sets out to examine the objects it defines (lines, line segments, points, circles etc). perhaps. i don't know that much about philosophy of maths or pure maths in general, but as far as i know your statement would be true for any axiom/postulate simply because changing an axiom changes the rules and the entities being discussed.

if you want to work in strictly euclidean geometry then you must accept it. in hyperbolic geometry this is not the case. my point in even mentioning it is to emphasize the more abstract (and thus not clearly tied to nature) parts of mathematics. entities and especially rules (axioms) are defined before the game can be played.

accepting (or not) some non logical axiom (such as the parallel postulate in euclidean geometry) is different than choosing words; it changes the very nature of the structure being examined.

i corrected it. i meant model. please see my corrected post above, i also added another quote at the bottom with a response to you. we observe it's effects because it does interact! if it didn't how would we know about it?