Is there a place for hermeneutics in math?

Discussion in 'General Philosophy' started by wegs, Oct 6, 2016.

  1. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,435
    And as a result, time travel.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    https://plus.maths.org/content/time-travel-allowed
    In brief: The laws of physics allow members of an exceedingly advanced civilisation to travel forward in time as fast as they might wish. Backward time travel is another matter; we do not know whether it is allowed by the laws of physics, and the answer is likely controlled by a set of physical laws that we do not yet understand at all well: the laws of quantum gravity. In order for humans to travel forward in time very rapidly, or backward (if allowed at all), we would need technology far far beyond anything we are capable of today.

    Travelling forward in time rapidly
    Albert Einstein's relativistic laws of physics tell us that time is "personal". If you and I move differently or are at different locations in a gravitational field, then the rate of flow of time that you experience (the rate that governs the ticking of any very good clock you carry with you and that governs the aging of your body) is different from the rate of time flow that I experience. (Einstein used the phrase "time is relative"; I prefer "time is personal".)
     
    Last edited: Oct 9, 2016
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,435
    The usual denial my friend? The usual "popo"cop out? Unable again [as your friend expletive deleted] to support what you say?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,435
    You have wrong notion.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    And obfuscating as usual to boot.
    Again, GR does not apply at the quantum/Planck level, and of course your division by zero and Singularity is a mathematical concept. Physically, most believe the Singularity does not exist.
    But perhaps your confusion ties into your preconceived notion as to the quantum/Planck level and your expectations of the singularity being of infinite quantity: Wrong....It "may" lead to infinite quantities, but it also may not.
     
    Last edited: Oct 9, 2016
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,435
    http://www.everystudent.com/wires/organized.html
    "Why are the laws of nature so constant? See why scientists are so baffled by these laws of physics.
    The laws of nature do not apply only to earth. Our entire universe follows the same laws. And these laws never change".
     
  8. wegs Matter & Pixie Dust Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,364
    Question - what is the point of theorizing about time travel when it will logically never happen?
     
  9. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,435
    It's what the laws of physics would allow: Whether we will ever be able to achieve any "meaningful" time travel [as per the given examples] is another matter.
     
    wegs likes this.
  10. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,435
    Popo, popo, popo!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    Let me again take some time to educate you my friend.......
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Popular_science
    "Popular science (also pop-science or popsci) is interpretation ofscience intended for a general audience. While science journalismfocuses on recent scientific developments, popular science is more broad-ranging. It may be written by professional science journalists or by scientists themselves"
    "Popular science is a bridge between scientific literature as a professional medium of scientific research, and the realms of popular political and cultural discourse. The goal of the genre is often to capture the methods and accuracy of science, while making the language more accessible"

    In the mean time my friend, perhaps you really need to learn the following definition and how it applies to yourself.........

    http://timeblimp.com/?page_id=286
    Crank Science and crankhood:
    "It’s often said that distinguished physics professors get calls, letters, and personal visits from amateurs with their own pet theories quite often. If you’ve won a physics Nobel, cranks across the land declare open season on you — they’ll show up with 800 pages of handwritten notes on how all of current science is wrong, and expect a complete conversion of you. Naturally, they will be astounded that you don’t immediately renounce the ignorant brainwashed ways of conventional science and immediately join their cause — no matter how many hundreds of other people reacted the same way to their lectures. This, my friend, is why you do not want a Nobel Prize in physics.

    These folks are generally self-educated, not part of the scientific community, don’t get published in traditional journals, and yet still develop surprisingly intricate theories-of-everything, whole philosophies and scientific systems that they claim can explain all of existence and life itself. As opposed to conventional scientists who also develop theories-of-everything (as profiled in I’ve Got a Theory), these people have absolutely no business doing what they’re doing. If any one of these theories turns out to be remotely true, I’ll eat my nameservers.

    While I would hate to be cornered by one of them, and fortunately am not important enough to have that experience, I do enjoy checking out their grand theories, if only to admire their unique approach to font sizes and english grammar. I’ve developed several rules of thumb that seem to identify characteristics common to most of these cranks, which you can use to test for crank-ism of your favorite theory-of-everything website. We’ll take a tour of the best of the bunch, and see how they rate in crankhood
    the most common targets is probably Einstein’s Relativity theory. Quantum mechanics is a bit harder to understand, is already flaky enough, plus relativity has the single lone genius behind it, while quantum theory was developed more by committee. Generally, the crackpot theories mix in a smidge of actual science jargon with mystical and new-age nonsense"


     
  11. The God Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,546
    Pl give maths which shows that GR fails at quantum level. The problem with you is that GR cannot be reconciled with QM, so you are claiming that it fails at quantum level, which is incorrect popo.
     
  12. The God Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,546
    The laws of physics cannot allow or disallow anything, they are just based on observations. It is stupid to say that law of physics allows so and so...
     
  13. The God Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,546
    Paddoboy,

    Popscience is some dress down explanation for general public. More or less ok in imparting the idea. Popo is factually incorrect. You should not use pop or popo both here, like your statement that GR fails at Quantum/Planck level is popo. For GR nothing special about Planck's level.

    Now coming to your popo on time travel. See in 3 spatial coordinates you can move in either direction, up down, left right etc. But the flow of time is unidirectional. So a time travel would be (say you are THE volunteer), then you should be able to go back to 2014 or you should be able to go to 2018 while all others are moving at the natural pace in 2016.

    What you are pushing as time travel is actually time dilation, ageing effect. For that you do not need 0.9999c spacecraft, this is done on frogs very often in labs, just hibernate, doctors will revive you in 2216 when all others of this era are dead, while you would have been alive and not aged significantly.
     
  14. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,435
    No it's pretty close to being spot on. And of course mainstream thinking, which puts the onus on you to give one example of GR at the quantum/Planck level.
    But I have asked you for many citations,examples etc, over many issues on every section of cosmology that you deride, and all to no avail.
    But as per my previous link.......

    http://timeblimp.com/?page_id=286
    "These folks are generally self-educated, not part of the scientific community, don’t get published in traditional journals, and yet still develop surprisingly intricate theories-of-everything, whole philosophies and scientific systems that they claim can explain all of existence and life itself.
    the most common targets is probably Einstein’s Relativity theory. Quantum mechanics is a bit harder to understand, is already flaky enough, plus relativity has the single lone genius behind it, while quantum theory was developed more by committee. Generally, the crackpot theories mix in a smidge of actual science jargon with mystical and new-age nonsense"
     
    Last edited: Oct 10, 2016
  15. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,435

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    Rubbish and just the usual cop out and another example of obfuscation and denial of the scientific method as illustrated at the http://timeblimp.com/?page_id=286
    "Crank Science and crankhood"
     
    Last edited: Oct 10, 2016
  16. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,435

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    No my friend, your definition of pop science as you infer, includes anything that exposes your usual nonsense including many arxiv papers from many professionals, and actually aligns with the crank/quack definition in previous post.
    Please supply a link or citation that supports your claim and invalidates Professor Thorne's article.
    This in essesnce is simply more "games" that you have admitted to playing in the past.
    Wrong again: Time dilation is simply comparing the time passage in one frame to that in another: The time travel method I have used, is time travel of recognised time travel as detailed by Thorne, or when one moves from one frame to another, where through gravity or speed, the time passage is different.
    In fact the definition of time travel is simply moving between different points in time, In whatever manner one chooses, or simply to advance through the years a little faster than the next person.


    Of course though in essesnce, you have no choice in the matter of denying in this thread what you have denied previously and the fact that you also deny, [1]spacetime exists, [2]Spacetime curves/warps in the presence of mass energy, [3] that gravitationally lensing takes place, [4] that the universe expands, [5]that BH's exist, [6] that gravitational waves exist. [apologies to the god if I have left anything out

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    ]
     
    Last edited: Oct 10, 2016
  17. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,435
    Apologies to wegs if this usual denial of all 21st century cosmology by the god, has taken the thread off track somewhat.
     
  18. The God Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,546
    What is this? You are claiming that GR fails at Plancks level, so you prove that.
    As far as mainstream is concerened GR does not fail at Plancks level. This is your popo.
     
  19. The God Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,546

    Whats is the use, you go out and claim that you have moved faster than me in time. Ultimately time travel has to be seen from the same frame.

    Ok, what will you call what I am suggesting below.

    1. Suppose you have the ability to go back to 1905 or 1919 or 1942 while we all stayput here and lead our life normal.
    2. Suppose you have the ability to go to 2025 while we all stayput here and lead our life normal.
    3. Suppose I get a good doctor, he hibernates you, we all lead our life normal, and in 2025 he wakes you up again with less ketabolism, less ageing on your part.

    All three are being viewed from Earth frame. Whats your opinion about laws of physics / biology allowing any of the three above?
     
  20. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,435
    First as usual you are wrong my friend, and I have shown you "évidence"' not proof, many times.....But you prefer proof as it leaves the door open for your god of the gaps, correct?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  21. The God Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,546
    As far as the OP is concerened, it is quite relevant because.

    1. BH singularity is a bad interpretation of maths x/o.
    2. Spacetime is not space, so calling expansion of space is a bad interpretation of maths.
    3. Spacetime is a mathematical geometry, it can curve, bend, warp whatever. But curving of spacetime cannot be equated with curving of space, that is bad linking of a mathematical solution.
    4. GWs are the ripples in the curvature of spacetime, not the ripples in space. So detecting ripples in the space of sub protonic length is surely doing maths on x and linking with y.

    Answer one question. Are space and spacetime same? IMO space is a non mathematical entity while spacetime is purely a mathematical artifact. Am I wrong?
     
  22. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,435
    You should no by now that time dilation is always forward.
    And if you were not so incalcitrant and read the reputable link as opposed to your own popo/crank brand of science, you would realise that backwards time travel does have some question marks.
    Sure, that's easy as per my example.
    Yep, as in time dilation, a form of time travel.....
    As I have answered.
    Now this has been answered many times, mostly in your speudoscience threads that are in pseud or cesspool.
    We are taking wegs thread off track, so if you feel like arguing anymore, than start a thread in the alternative section, and I'll continue with your education, OK?
     
  23. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,435
    All in your opinion with not one scrap of evidence, citation or link supporting your fairy tale.
    No more questions..your last has been answered many times all with citations.
    Your god of the gaps as usual my friend has failed.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     

Share This Page