"Sorry, this post has lost some url references to my web site which no longer exists!" Life is tough all over.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Qfwfq
I imagined it would be something like that but, sheeeesh, are you absolutely serious?
|
Now "sheeeesh" is certainly a cogent and rational argument for not examining my work and it eventually seems to be resorted to by all members of the academic faith.
Yes, I certainly am serious and ridicule is not a rational argument against a new and original idea. You, above anyone else here, ought to be aware of the fact that seemingly trivial fundamental problems in "ideal" representations can lead to deep and profound consequences. For example, Newton's failure to consider the problem of setting clocks to agree given a finite speed of light caused him to overlook the finer points of relativity. Had he looked at the issue carefully, I am quite sure he would have realized that the idea of reality being a three dimensional Euclidean universe had to be erroneous.
It was the simple failure to examine the "trivial fundamental problem in an ideal representation" which allowed the error to exist until the success of Maxwell's equations pointed out a major inconsistency in the view in a way so obvious it could no longer be overlooked. The assumption that two clock moving with respect to each other can be set to agree seems, even today, to be a rather obvious fact to anyone who has not studied modern relativity. That is exactly why we have such a problem convincing the average layman that his Newtonian view is wrong.
I find the fact that you cannot comprehend the failure of an ideal reference frame can have serious consequences to be a serious error in your outlook.
Idsoftwaresteve,
I appreciate your interest and outlook immensely as it provides me with practice at being clearer; practice I certainly need. No one seems to understand what I am doing in my paper,
A Universal Analytical Model of Explanation Itself and maybe I can provide an acceptable hand waving argument which will at least allow you to understand what it is all about.
My paper can be seen as a exposition on the following steps:
The first step is to change the representation of "an explanation" into a numerical representation. Now anyone familiar with computers should be completely aware of the fact that any information can be represented through a numerical representation. So representing the information we have to work with as a set of numbers should be seen as an obvious step which makes no assumptions whatsoever about the explanation. The only serious issue to keep in mind here is that absolutely all the information available is to be in that numerical representation: i.e., there is no way to obtain the information except by deciphering the numerical representation.
The next step I take is to transform the numerical representation into points on the x axis. This step however introduces a difficult fundamental problem as information can be lost if multiple occurrences of a given number exist in the elements of
B(t). That is the reason I introduce the tau axis. Without the tau axis, there is no way of using points to represent all possibilities. I think if you carefully read the presentation up to the differentials:
you should find most of what I say pretty rational. The differentials are common functional relationships deduced in everyday physics via symmetry considerations so you really need not worry about them (though my approach to those symmetry issues is a bit askew of the norm). They are a direct consequence of what is called "shift symmetry": the fact that the selected origin cannot have any effect on the complete solution.
It is the Dirac delta function relationship
which is the new thing I introduce which cannot be found in any text of physics. The Dirac delta function can be seen as a function which is zero everywhere except when the argument vanishes (goes to zero) where it spikes to infinity. Though it is an infinitely high with a width of zero, it is defined to have an area under the curve of one. You might take a look at a somewhat
straight forward development of the function.
Quoting directly from my paper,
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Dick
It follows that, if the two arguments of any term of the sum
are identical, the sum is explicitly infinite. Thus it is that the only case which satisfies the constraint F=0 occurs when no point in the plane appears twice. This proves a D exists for any possible collection of elements in B. |
What I proved was that, no matter what points existed in the element of
C represented by
B(t), there existed a second set of points
D which, under the "law", "rule" or "constraint" (call it what you will)
applied to the entire set of points (points taken from both
C and
D) would constrain the points representing the element of
C to exactly what they were.
Now, let's move to the next issue: the function
simply taken by itself certainly is not zero; however, if all of the delta functions happen to be zero (that is, no two reference points are the same) then F will be zero. And, for that case and that case only, there exists a set of points
D which will constrain
B(t) to your expectations no matter what those expectation might be.
Secondly, by definition, the function
will vanish for any argument which does not appear in your expectation as it's magnitude represents your expectation.
Thus it follows, as the night the day, that the product
will vanish over the entire domain of the possible arguments if
is indeed the correct representation of your expectations derived from your explanation.
And of course there is no physics here. No deduction can result in anything not contained in the original specifications from which the deduction was derived and I took extreme care to assure that absolutely no internally consistent explanation was excluded by the model. Nonetheless, there is something very significant encased in my result. All explanations are created with two very different components: what is presumed to exist and what laws the things that exist must obey. What I have demonstrated here is that no matter what reality happens to be (that would be represented by
C, which you can think of as the facts which must be explained), there always exists a set of hypothetical entities (that would be represented by
D, which you can think of as the entities presumed to exist in your explanation) such that the rule F=0 will yield exactly what is observed. What exists must be solutions to my equation and that may be determined by solving it: i.e., every solution to that equation which exists constitutes a description of the outcome of an experiment which can be performed. The physics lies in solving that equation.
Any reasonable person will admit that changing the rules can change what must exist and changing what exists can change the rules. That is, it is a well known fact that a trade off exists between the two components. What I have proved is that, if one sets down the rule as being F=0 as I have defined it, there always exists a set of entities who's existence will in fact yield your expectations no matter what those expectations are. Under that rule, physics becomes the problem of discovering what exists, a much more straight forward problem than allowing both the rules and what exists to vary. It is also very much in line with what scientists actually do. In fact, if you look at the progress of physics, you will see that suggesting the existence of new entities is much preferred to changing the rules. However, scientists do occasionally change the rules but only when the new rule is considerably simpler than the old one.
Finally, I would suggest that my F=0 is a pretty simple rule; certainly a lot simpler than what is currently being taught in physics. What I am looking for is someone capable of comprehending the validity of the equation I have deduced. If I ever find such a person, I will explain to them how to work out the solutions. The solutions turn out to be absolutely astounding. I would say personally that Maxwell's success was nothing compared to my discovery. That equation is a TOE except for one single fact: it's not a theory, it's a deduction.
Have fun -- Dick
And I am not an altruist, quite selfish as a matter of fact. 
