Correlating Newtonian Model with Einstein's GR

Discussion in 'Alternative Theories' started by hansda, May 8, 2017.

  1. hansda Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,210
    Thanks for your views. You can read the biography in the profile page, where I have explained the background for my theory of success.

    "Success" basically is an "action". Any action can be explained by physics. So, "success" also should be explained by physics/math.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. QuarkHead Remedial Math Student Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,507
    Well, it seems to me to be PRECISELY the point; accurate communication using ambiguous or poorly defined language is impossible.

    I might as far as to say that this is at the heart of many of the unseemly squabbles here. In fact I will go that far, and suggest it is the duty of those members who do know how to use the language of science with appropriate precision to step in and - well - do their duty
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,991
    Ideally, sure. But ideally, we/they would need to take a university course in mathematics to understand it.

    It's just not feasible, and not really the point, here. You'd go to Physicsforums.com for that.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. NotEinstein Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    389
    Your definition of "success" contains the phrase "desired result". As I already pointed out, a desire is something that can only originate from a mind or mental process. Thus for "success" to be defined, a mental process must exist. I can imagine a universe just like ours, but without any life (and thus without mental processes) in it. Your definition of "success" cannot be applied to such a universe, while GR and Newtonian mechanics still work just fine. Are you therefore suggesting that there is an every-present mental processes in any universe? In other words, who is determining the "desired results" of the nuclear reactions in the center of the sun (or a star so far away, its light hasn't reached us yet)?
     
  8. QuarkHead Remedial Math Student Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,507
    No it is not. Success is the subjective evaluation of the outcome of an action
    Since success is a subjective evaluation, there is no reason to think this is true
     
  9. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,991
    That is an excellent point.


    A nut hitting a squirrel on the head is an action.
    A nut missing a squirrel is also an action.
    In hansda's terms, they are both successes, since they are both actions.
    If everything is a success, then it is a meaningless term.
     
  10. hansda Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,210
    Correct.

    Correct. I explained this fact in the biography, in my profile page.

    I dont know whether our universe has life or not.

    I did not apply any success for the universe.

    I have not suggested that.

    I have not explained a "desired result" for the Sun or the Stars. "Desired Result" can be expected from the entities who can have a desire. Example: living beings.
     
  11. hansda Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,210
    Your above statement basically implies the "desired result" of an action. Here you also considered success as an action. So, success basically is an action.
     
  12. NotEinstein Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    389
    Excuse me?

    Please give your definition of "life".

    Edit: Wait... I think I understand what happened here. I'm not claiming our universe itself is alive; I'm only saying there are live things inside our universe.

    Right, let me clarify what I meant:
    Your definition of "success" cannot be applied to anything in such a universe, while GR and Newtonian mechanics still work just fine.

    Then how can you define "success" for particles that are unobserved (and thus no outcome is desired of them)?

    So the Sun and stars are (generally) not covered by your "success" approach?
     
  13. hansda Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,210
    "Success" should be seen with relative to a "doer".
     
  14. NotEinstein Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    389
    So you agree with me that since there is no "doer" for remote, isolated stars, your "success" approach does not describe them?
     
  15. hansda Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,210
    That is correct. If there is no "doer", success can not be applied.
     
  16. NotEinstein Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    389
    In other words, you at the very least do not have a Theory of Everything, because there are things that it cannot describe.
     
  17. hansda Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,210
    This is a wrong conclusion of yours.
     
  18. NotEinstein Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    389
    Please explain why.
     
  19. hansda Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,210
    My TOE basically says that, "Every Action has got an Unique Technique". Here the term "technique" can be mathematically explained by CFS or CRFS. That means every action or movement of a particle has a CFS or CRFS. As every action has a CFS or CRFS; this can be considered as a TOE.
     
  20. NotEinstein Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    389
    But the success-part of your theory cannot be applied universally, which was what I was referring to (see post #151). Without that, you've only got a reformulation of classical mechanics. In other words, without the success approach, it's not your TOE, it's Newton's.
     
  21. hansda Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,210
    Success part of my theory can be derived from my TOE. You can read II.11 and II.12 of my paper.

    The concept of CFS, CRFS are mine. So, I can claim it is my TOE based on NM.
     
  22. NotEinstein Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    389
    But the success-part cannot be applied globally/universally, as you yourself admitted earlier.

    That part of your TOE is just a peculiar reformulation of classical mechanics; it is nothing new. That part is no more advanced than what Newton himself wrote down.
     
  23. hansda Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,210
    My TOE is generalised. Success-part is only a part of it.


    Well, Newton did not talk about CFS or CRFS.
     

Share This Page