Jump to content

Origin of Natural Order


RSolomon
 Share

Recommended Posts

44 minutes ago, Bufofrog said:

Just out of curiosity does anyone (except the OP author) know what "The Problem" is? 

Apparently it will be "adequately demonstrated" at a later date. In my experience, this means it won't be, because it's something the author didn't understand to begin with. It's something that didn't fit intuitively, but instead of asking questions about it, they decided to make up something that made more sense to them. Thus the windup, because "the Problem" needs some special contortions and leaps of logic for it to make sense. Thus the need to call the replies "mockery". The author is obviously a smart person who made the mistake of filling in the gaps in their knowledge with stuff they've made up. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/10/2022 at 3:29 PM, Bufofrog said:

Just out of curiosity does anyone (except the OP author) know what "The Problem" is?  I am a bit dense and I still haven't got an idea what "the Problem" is.

Not even the froggiest idea, mate. But I will quote @TheVat:

On 9/6/2022 at 11:59 PM, TheVat said:

Ribbit!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/10/2022 at 3:29 PM, Bufofrog said:

Just out of curiosity does anyone (except the OP author) know what "The Problem" is?  I am a bit dense and I still haven't got an idea what "the Problem" is.

He mentioned it:

On 9/7/2022 at 9:52 PM, RSolomon said:

“The Problem” by Albert Einstein: “Which are the simplest formal structures that can be attributed to a four-dimensional continuum, and which are the simplest laws that may be constructed to govern these structures. We then look for the mathematical expressions of physical fields in these formal structures and the field laws of physics already known to a certain approximation from earlier research in simplest laws governing the structures.” 

It did not sound very 'einsteinian' to me, so I tried to google if I could find a reference that Einstein really said something the like.

I found exactly one reference... An article by a certain 'Solomon'...

If somebody has still has some curiosity left, he can look up everything there. It is the usual crackpotism.

 

On 9/8/2022 at 7:21 AM, RSolomon said:

(4.) I know what I need to know about Mr. Einstein

Obviously not.

On 9/8/2022 at 12:21 AM, studiot said:

Although he may well have been the world's greatest Physicist, he was no a Mathematician and had to rely on support form for competent mathematicians.

And your reaction:

On 9/8/2022 at 7:21 AM, RSolomon said:

(5.) Yes, Mileva was, in some real way, a great blessing.

I assume Studiot thought more about Marcel Grossmann and David Hilbert. Historians more or less agree that Mileva's role was mainly that of a highly intelligent 'resonance board'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, Eise said:

It did not sound very 'einsteinian' to me, so I tried to google if I could find a reference that Einstein really said something the like.

I found exactly one reference... An article by a certain 'Solomon'...

If somebody has still has some curiosity left, he can look up everything there. It is the usual crackpotism.

+1 for your usual clarity of insight.

Edited by studiot
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, Eise said:

He mentioned it:

It did not sound very 'einsteinian' to me, so I tried to google if I could find a reference that Einstein really said something the like.

I found exactly one reference... An article by a certain 'Solomon'...

If somebody has still has some curiosity left, he can look up everything there. It is the usual crackpotism.

[...]

Good job!

Poor old late Einstein is falsely quoted more than anobody else in science, probably.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, joigus said:

Good job!

Poor old late Einstein is falsely quoted more than anobody else in science, probably.

Careful: the citation did not seem 'einsteinian' to me, and I did not say he did not say it. I just did not find it with google. But that the only citation I found was in an article of 'Solomon' is highly suspicious.

Quote

'The problem with citations in the internet, is that you never know if somebody really said it'

A. Einstein

 

Edited by Eise
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Eise said:

Careful [...]

I was. I said "probably," plus I didn't say Einstein was misquoted this time. I just said he's often misquoted. Probably more than anybody else.

I'm making room for the possibility that Solomon communicated telepathically with Einstein, or knew him personally. ;) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One of the things about quoting Einstein is that he often wrote several versions of his papers as time went on.

For instance compare the 1920s, 30 40s and 50s versions of sundry papers about Space, Time, Ether, and Geometry.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Studiot

I wanted to respond to your posts after having had a good look at the suggested book, and after having put together a more thoughtful response to some of your remarks. While a few of the forum members have offered posts that are worth talking into consideration, others, I would prefer to avoid their barrage of irrelevant or cynical remarks, as they only muddy the waters and are not worth fending off. The Frog, Mad Rabbit, Bandito, and Pirate, if not according to their appearances, then by the content of their remarks – what regard should one have for them?

It seemed better to respond more directly to what you have pointed out. I worked on it over a couple days, realizing that a number to matters had to be touched-on & clarified before I could cut-to-the-chase about my original assertions. Now I see it needs to be further edited – more thoughtfulness & time. Also, here there are olives to harvest & set to cure. I have not walked away from replying to you, nor from stating the case.

Now, I suppose it should include both some evidence of the Problem and a substantial part of the Solution, at least enough of it for you to determine if it is worth your considerations.

There are graphic lead-ups and graphic proofs, apparently, they need to be converted to a PDF format! Preferably, if I could forward it to a more discreet setting - please do offer suggestions?

You know what is said about the Impossible, and the virtues of Patience.

I Am on It!

Solomon

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, RSolomon said:

Studiot

I wanted to respond to your posts after having had a good look at the suggested book, and after having put together a more thoughtful response to some of your remarks. While a few of the forum members have offered posts that are worth talking into consideration, others, I would prefer to avoid their barrage of irrelevant or cynical remarks, as they only muddy the waters and are not worth fending off. The Frog, Mad Rabbit, Bandito, and Pirate, if not according to their appearances, then by the content of their remarks – what regard should one have for them?

It seemed better to respond more directly to what you have pointed out. I worked on it over a couple days, realizing that a number to matters had to be touched-on & clarified before I could cut-to-the-chase about my original assertions. Now I see it needs to be further edited – more thoughtfulness & time. Also, here there are olives to harvest & set to cure. I have not walked away from replying to you, nor from stating the case.

Now, I suppose it should include both some evidence of the Problem and a substantial part of the Solution, at least enough of it for you to determine if it is worth your considerations.

There are graphic lead-ups and graphic proofs, apparently, they need to be converted to a PDF format! Preferably, if I could forward it to a more discreet setting - please do offer suggestions?

You know what is said about the Impossible, and the virtues of Patience.

I Am on It!

Solomon

 

Please remember the large number of insincere would be wizz kids that post untenable meanderings on this forum, usually wihtout any giving the ir chosen subject any real thought at all.

 

If you want to send something privately you can attach it to the site private messaging system (PM)   - -  It is a really good one.

 

As regards 'The Problem' and the quote allegedly attributed to Einstein.

Actually this question has been done quantitavely.

Read section 2 of this extract from Eddington's The Mathematical Theory of Relativity.

ED1.thumb.jpg.764a423174e5af824f2dc644e76d2961.jpgED2.thumb.jpg.22c21e3dccc5a9050fd459aa8b0d0b5e.jpg

 

Incidnetally this idea of 'simplest formal structures' is not as easy as it first seems.

Occam's famous razor is actually rather blunted by the fact that any eperienced physical scientist or engineer will know very well.

To use another famous phrase, "There is more than one way to skin a cat".

In fact there are often many ways to perform a desired calculation and usually it depends upon circumstances which one is 'the simplest'

For instance in the loading and bending of beams and structures you can choose from slope-deflection; area-moment; force-displacement; Macaulay; virtual work; unit impulse;  and several other assorted methods.

 

Here is another commnent on 'Natural Order'.

In elementary Physics, a force is a 'push or a pull'.

Did you know that our bodies have no muscles that can push ?

In order to push our bodies employ a complicated internal mechancal arrangement.

I often recommend this book

Quote

Nature and humans build their devices with the same earthly materials and use them in the same air and water, pulled by the same gravity. Why, then, do their designs diverge so sharply? Humans, for instance, love right angles, while nature's angles are rarely right and usually rounded. Our technology goes around on wheels--and on rotating pulleys, gears, shafts, and cams--yet in nature only the tiny propellers of bacteria spin as true wheels. Our hinges turn because hard parts slide around each other, whereas nature's hinges (a rabbit's ear, for example) more often swing by bending flexible materials. In this marvelously surprising, witty book, Steven Vogel compares these two mechanical worlds, introduces the reader to his field of biomechanics, and explains how the nexus of physical law, size, and convenience of construction determine the designs of both people and nature. Steven Vogel teaches at Duke University.

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Cats-Paws-Catapults-Mechanical-Worlds/dp/0393319903

The price seem to have gone up by a factor of 10x since my Penguin copy, so look for an s/h one.

Edited by studiot
Link to comment
Share on other sites

this was a tease  

On 9/7/2022 at 3:21 PM, studiot said:

The 5 platonic solids you mention form what we now call a 'homotopy group' and it is by this means that we can prove that there are only these 5 regular solids in 3 dimensions. They actually enjoy no particular order (in the mathematical sense). Groups are not, as you suggest, series in mathematics, they have a very special definition.

as I suppose he saw the word paper.

Then @Eiseteased it out. Funny quote!

@RSolomon Scroll geo./phys. looks interesting to me... but, one of A.E.'s colleagues already developed this into a physical Theory. May be in more broad strokes, you would say. 

Edited by NTuft
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please excuse me!

In the back & forth, I now realize I have caused a misunderstand by emphasizing the “The Problem” in two different contexts. The A.E. quote was something I came across while pouring through volumes in the SDU library some years ago, it struck me as being quite interesting, so I saved it over. I happened to use it in response to something that came up on this forum. But it was not meant to be a direct reference to the “Problem” central to my assertions concerning the lack of an expression for the origin & cause of natural geometry, which is a matter to be demonstrated as an important precursor to offering a viable Solution. And being, as I understand it, that natural geometric structure occurs simultaneously with fields of force, they are relative to one another, and if so, then to define (tangibly) the ultimate origin (which is currently absent within the established geometric body of knowledge) of natural geometry (as a matter of fact), would shed light on relationships of forces. As form & force are born together from the onset and continue to act in concert throughout the manifold… So please do let us drop the issue of “The Problem” with regards to Mr. Einstein.          

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, RSolomon said:

Studiot and/or whoever it may concern:

See Attachment! 

Orderliness+3-NatGeo.pdf 989.67 kB · 2 downloads

Thank you for your thoughts.

 

 

Sadly, though I now have an inkling of what you mean by Natural Order I am still no wiser as to what you want to do with this.

In my experience every time Man has tried to force Nature into one of his pigeon holes, Nature comes up with exceptions.

Self -similarity is one such natural geometric phenomenon, first discovered in the 1960s.

Many of the shapes you have listed have physical reasons for their natural adoption. Minimum Energy reasons that the ancients knew nothing of.

There is much study today of minimal curves and surfaces. These are not parts of circular curves, as you have used, but much more sophisticated functions.

 

There seems to be one good thing in this though.
As far as I can see you are not one of the brigade determined to prove that we have the wrong value for Pi.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • 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.