Tailoring elements demonstrating spacetime transformation?

This is true, and it's a gift...

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

What would be the point of knowing everything but have no ability to change any of it...

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Meet me in this thread if you want to be of assistance.

http://www.sciforums.com/threads/gravity.152194/

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Am interested in both, the actual science as the foundations of logical paths I can extend using my personal interpretations, that in my opinion seems like an appropriate logical assumption. For my idea to have true value, it must make accurate predictions of empirical results of data that already exist.

 

A good question for you brucep...What is space?

 

Specifically I aim to adress a few things with my speculation.

Entanglement
Quantum fluctuations
Infinite regression
Quantum gravity

 

Of course it extends to almost all mathematics, except some very small areas which cover only finite sets.

Almost every set of axioms for an infinite mathematical structure will give also given an infinite set of provable theorems. Ok, one may probably invent an artificial counterexample which gives only a finite set, despite being about an infinite set, that's why I have added "almost".

In the case of integer arithmetics, an infinite list of provable theorems would be the following: "2+2=4", "2+3=5", "2+...=...". Here, 2 is assumed to be a denotation of 1', 3 of 1'' and so on, so that "2+2=4" means "1'+1'=1''' ", which is a theorem for a finite set of axioms about 1 and the successor operation '.

Of course it has such restrictions, for example, one can require that only symbols already defined in the axioms may be used in theorems. Thus, if one restricts the symbols used in the axioms to 1 for 1 and ' for the successor, and + for the operations, the restrictions are quite heavy. But it does not restrict the length of theorems, so even with this restricted set of symbols an infinite number of theorems can be easily constructed.

 

It is the limitations of ourselves and our tools which define the utility of thos things.

 

I posted this on a number of other forums to get feedback from a range of experts and thinkers, I don't (yet) have the mathematical training to dive into the core of Nagel's arguments. I found them very interesting, especially from a theoretical perspective, and wanted to hear views from others.

 

Absolutely not.

Not a demonstration of sanity.

Chris J. Nagel's complete failure to materialize any promises has been covered before.

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/...-can-all-be-modified-matter-is-knotted-light/

http://sciencechatforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=83&t=29224

https://www.bostonglobe.com/busines...stock-again/lVbGG14WY87Oz1NxokgbGP/story.html