The Dance of Shiva

[Steven A Colyer]

Hi Steven

Just finished reading your paper on Pyronics. Very interesting for me as that's where I started out. I had a lot of diagrams experimenting with different shapes and also struggled with the problem of tesselation in three dimensions (though I didn't call it that). After some time, and some further developments, I lost interest in the basic shapes and assumed that the cube would serve best. In doing this I was more concerned with the mechanisms of WP duality and how to explain it. As I am not into complex equations and such, it seems to me to be more important to describe the salient features than the detail.

Yes, it's a bottom up approach and has developed to describe a number of features of the real world but I am still unable to adequately describe EM. I feel that it is all about the rotation (not spin) of the wave form as it moves through space but can't produce a diagram to illustrate it.

regards
Felix

From the first paragraph, I agree that complex equations defy Occam's razor a bit, but eventually you'll have to convince establishment physicists if it turns out you're right, and they speak the language of Mathematics.

You can't describe EM? Well that's not good as that's pretty fundamental. Keep working on that rotation vs spin thing. Most people don't realize that the term "spin" doesn't mean actual particle spinning, but rather was suggested by Pauli I believe to explain a certain particular "unknown" property of particles, the treatment of which unleashed Pauli's exclusion principle and a massive great leap forward in both physics and Chemistry.

Producing diagrams is important. We both need to consult a 3-D rendering Computer Scientist. Computer Science I am quite sure will be needed as well as Mathemeticians, Mathematical Physicists (who are really Mathemeticians), and Physicists, to explain all this stuff. Oh, and Engineers too.

[Felix Schrodinger]

Hi Steven

My view is that the paradigm should come first and the math after. The problem with string theory is that the math is leading and they are trying to fit a structure around it (and failing).

Yes, I need to sort out how EM works in my model but, at present, I'm more concerned with a practical description for the mechanism of time. I'm currently using packs of cards and hope to publish this soon on the site.

I think that engineers, generally, have a more practical view of reality than theoretical physicists but we need them all.

regards
Felix

[MJA]

Hi Steven

My view is that the paradigm should come first and the math after. The problem with string theory is that the math is leading and they are trying to fit a structure around it (and failing).

Yes, I need to sort out how EM works in my model but, at present, I'm more concerned with a practical description for the mechanism of time. I'm currently using packs of cards and hope to publish this soon on the site.

I think that engineers, generally, have a more practical view of reality than theoretical physicists but we need them all.

regards
Felix

The absolute paradigm of all scientific nature equations as is the foundation of any mathematical equation is most simply and most truly, or most certainly =, everything else is theoretically uncertain or only probable at best. The beauty of = is that it is empirically synonomous with the truth of nature's equality.
Only the truth of = as is the truth of equality will set us free.
Try it, you'll see!

=
MJA

[Felix Schrodinger]

The absolute paradigm of all scientific nature equations as is the foundation of any mathematical equation is most simply and most truly, or most certainly =, everything else is theoretically uncertain or only probable at best. The beauty of = is that it is empirically synonomous with the truth of nature's equality. Only the truth of = as is the truth of equality will set us free.

How many equations did Darwin use in 'On the Origin of Species'?

[Steven A Colyer]

MJA, both Heisenberg's Uncertainy Principle and Bell's Theorem involve INequalities, NOT equalities. And please don't say those are exceptions to the rules because those ARE the rules. ;-)

My view is that the paradigm should come first and the math after. The problem with string theory is that the math is leading and they are trying to fit a structure around it (and failing).

The problem with String Theory among many problems is that it assumes Special Relativity works all the way down, and that simply may not be true. If not, what we have then is just a simply elegant but not much else Mathematics. Reference: The Trouble with Physics by Lee Smolin. I am also most impressed at how quickly (just 2 years) that Lee's book and Peter Woit's "Not Even Wrong!" have affected University Research Departments' funding of String Theory ===> They have cut back on ST severely.

I agree the paradigm should precede the Maths, but that's not how Quantum Mechanics developed. The Math came after the experimental results.

Yes, I need to sort out how EM works in my model but, at present, I'm more concerned with a practical description for the mechanism of time. I'm currently using packs of cards and hope to publish this soon on the site.

I look forward to it. I think people are too much bothered with time, though. It moves along in incremental steps, with each 3-D time-static space being the initial condition of the next one. Simple, and possibly correct. Quantum decoherence tends to back up Entropy, which is the most obvious macro-world effect of time's arrow moving in one direction.

As far as EM goes, what is charge? Electric charge I'm talking about, not the 3 color charges in quarks aka Quantum chromodynamics. We've known of charge since Franklin, but what IS it exactly? Nobody really knows, and I submit it's a function of geometry. Much work to be done in this area, I think, but I'm not sure how many are even asking the question. The usual answer is "Shut up and calculate!" but that's not good enough for me. You too neither, I bet. Keep thinking.

I think that engineers, generally, have a more practical view of reality than theoretical physicists but we need them all.

Engineers, Experimental Physicists, Applied Physicists, is there a difference? Practical? Yes, but not all Theoreticals are impractical, just the ones who go off on wild tangents.

I maintain that the Comp Sci guys will become increasingly important. "Numerical Methods" is fancy talk for finding the area under a curve for functions, something that CAN be done with Mathematical equations, but SOME equations such as 2nd order non-linear differential equations are brutally hard to solve with Maths, while simple as beans with a Comp Sci program.

[MJA]

[quote=Steven A Colyer;85736]MJA, both Heisenberg's Uncertainy Principle and Bell's Theorem involve INequalities, NOT equalities. And please don't say those are exceptions to the rules because those ARE the rules. ;-)

quote]

Dear Steven,

"Bell's Theorem" ? I'm talking about nature's truth.

And Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle was only a small tip of the real uncertainty berg. The uncertainty is measure itself.

=
MJA

[MJA]

How many equations did Darwin use in 'On the Origin of Species'?

Darwin's theory of evolution is a creation theory of intelligent design.
And the equation for UFT., GUT., or TOE., is simply =.

=
MJA

[damccut]

I only got as far as Mason, which should be meson. I can tell you that I already solved the problem of how to create gravity, so a unit cell approach is not practical. Strings and branes condense into matter, which pulls space inward creating the appearance of gravity. Gravity is not independent of matter, which is the only thing Einstein did not realize when formulating his theories of relativity. He knew they were linked, but it did not occur to him that they were one and the same. (read ultrawavetheory.com free book)

[Felix Schrodinger]

I only got as far as Mason, which should be meson. I can tell you that I already solved the problem of how to create gravity, so a unit cell approach is not practical. Strings and branes condense into matter, which pulls space inward creating the appearance of gravity. Gravity is not independent of matter, which is the only thing Einstein did not realize when formulating his theories of relativity. He knew they were linked, but it did not occur to him that they were one and the same. (read ultrawavetheory.com free book)

Well Damcut, you appear to fall into the category of those who don't bother to read others' theories before criticising them. The word 'mason' is used to describe a completely new concept - the origin of mass - and is designed to sound like the French for 'house' (maison). If you had read a little further you would have realised that it has nothing to do with 'mesons'. Having quit when you did, you missed out on the main part of the theory - the mechanism of time.

Just a word of advice. If you want others to read and appreciate your own work, you first need to be able to appreciate theirs. Only then do you have the right to be critical but, even then, it does not give you the right to be rude.

[damccut]

Sorry, I didn't see anything telling me that mason was a new concept. I have been duly chastised. I wasn't trying to be rude; I was just bewildered.