Ok. My own perspective is derived from this; Check it out, it may contain exactly what you are looking for.
i thought you were using the new 'laymens-singularity' definition of "space-time" as being a quantitative state of parallel universe principals of constantancy. as you were. ive speed read several reports/news items/opinions about gravitational waves(the detection of) prior and after the detection date. its not really my forte so i rarely think about it. suffice to say i have been some what puzzled by this standing wave thingey though. i think its quite interesting. fyi pondering... Gravity travels at a speed faster than light ?(im postulating a question and asking it rather than stating an opinion). in theory, were humans able to learn how to fold space, being able to use the gravitational waves to map the universe to locate end point destinations relative to start points might be quite manditory.
Yes. By inventing mathematics. Mathematics are the models of the real world. Models require rules - rules that are invented. And that is what it means that "the map is not the territory." The universe does not have mathematics or functions. It quite simply has four fundamental forces. The entire nature of the universe is emergent from those four forces. The universe does not calculate values; it does not calculate at all. True. False. He actually, literally did. He invented Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation. Note that what gravity "actually" is has changed with our increased knowledge. It's not as if - in Newton's time, 'the universe had values and functions" for the magnitude of attraction that one mass experiences from another - and then Einstein came along and the universe suddenly had 'different values and functions' for the gradient of curvature that one mass experiences from another. The 'values and functions' are the invention of humans - and they change as humans change. Correct. Atoms are a property of the universe. Yes. We literally did. Mathematical 'values and functions' did not exist before man came along and symbolized the world around him. Witness how the 'values and functions' changed between Newton's time and Einstein's time. We can do that. We invented them. Planets do not "know" what ellipses are. Atoms do not "know" the value of their mass.
But I like where you're going with it. It's just that it works against you. Trees existed before we invented words and a literary language to describe them. Before humans, trees had no words. Orbits existed before we invented numbers and a mathematical language to describe them. Before humans, orbits had no values or functions.
Rules for humans, not for the universe. The universe had its rules long before man came along trying to understand these rules and making up symbols to identify observed universal rules of universal mathematical constants (values and functions). But the territory has properties which can be mapped, don't you see? The map is a representation of the image of the existing territory. Drawing the map does not create the territory. The territory is the a priori object. All information used for a human representation (map) is derived from the real object, the territory. And that is what is being discussed, no. Those four fundamental forces create the universal mathematical dynamics, such as "waves". Waves come in near infinite sets of precise mathematical properties, just like atoms display sets of mathematical nuclear properties. For humans, not for the universe. The world ceases to exist if there were no humans? How does the universe work without humans? I would guess, just fine. Yes, and each has unique mathematical patterns which mathematically determine their behaviors. The world ceases to exist if there were no humans to symbolize it's values and functions? That is just not logical at all. Humans came along some 14.5 billion years after the creation of the universe and all the stuff therein. Do you believe that if humans went extinct, the universe would return to a state of chaos? Come to think of it, chaos is a mathematical pattern. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_theory Yes, because Newton's gravity was functional but incomplete and Einstein added the missing human mathematics needed. We did not tweak universal mathematics, we tweaked our understanding of universal mathematics. At one time humans placed the earth mathematically at the center of the solar system. Humans fashioned an entire religion over that. Did it affect the solar system in any way? They don't need to, the mathematics determine their orbits in accordance to strict mathematical functions. They don't need to know. They each act in accordance to their mathematical values and structural patterns. Daisies don't know that their petal growth follows the Fibonacci Sequence. They don't need to know. Evolution produced this exponential growth pattern by "natural selection" for most efficient energy distribution. It took a long time to achieve such mathematical efficiency from a range of probabilistic growth patterns. Man had nothing to do with that, nor did the daisy except thriving when the proper growth pattern was followed and produced healthy offspring with the genetic blueprint for the Fibonacci Sequence in its petal growth. Evolution and natural selection are the mindless mathematical architects of perfection, IMO.[/quote]
RainbowSingularity: Every wave is a wave of something. In a sound wave, it is the particles of the medium that oscillate back and forth. In a light wave, it is oscillating electric and magnetic fields. In a gravity wave, it is oscillating spacetime. I think you'll agree that space and time exist separately, right? What Einstein found was that if you start moving around then the space and time get mixed together in a particular way (described by the Lorentz transformations of relativity). As a result, it become impossible to consider them as separate things, so we end up with spacetime. I can't parse any of that. Looks like word salad to me. How do you propose the standing wave could be created in this case? We'd find them the same way we find any gravitational waves - with a detector like LIGO. It's early days for gravitational wave astronomy right now. As for what they would do, I guess you need to go off and solve the equations, as well as working out a physical scenario in which such a thing would be produced. I think you have your work cut out for you on that. A gravitational wave causes space to contract and expand as it passes through. What mechanism would you propose to "surf" a gravitational wave?
Trees existed before we invented words and a literary language to describe them. Before humans, trees had no words. Orbits existed before we invented numbers and a mathematical language to describe them. Before humans, orbits had no values or functions.
And they grew just fine in accordance with their mathematical DNA instructions. Yet, planets performed their orbits in precise mathematical fashion as we discovered and were able to symbolize as "orbits". One has to make a distinction between subjective human mathematical language (information sharing) and objective universal mathematical language (information sharing) That's why they are called "equations". https://www.google.com/search?q=equ...i57j69i65l3.3248j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
if energy is in a form of light(for example) and it is projected then the light does not stay in a single continuos beam for ever. it has a beginning, and it has an end. it has a total volume of its total entity/as an entity of force... it delivers force on things like pushing a kart, the kart moves, so we see/know force has been applied(in some form). for the 'item' 'entity of force' 'thing' 'light' to be at any one point in time in a point of space it exists as energy(particle or wave etc) is it connected to anything ?(err-go, is Gravity[gravitational waves] connected to anything) ... im possibly guessing this is a soft 'no' ? thus it is potentially possible for a gravitational wave to be 'not connected' to anything ? or... do you mean by 'word salad' that the gravity wave is always connected to "space-time" and it is impossible for a gravity wave to not be connected to something and so always has a connected "field" in process at all times ? "surfing" as a means of quantifying the frame of interaction to a wave function and the ability of interaction to its medium of force.
What is it about DNA that makes you think there is mathematics in it? What the heck makes you think planets orbit in any precise fashion??? They wobble all over the place. You do realize that you have never seen anything but a super-simplified, generic orbit? No, you don't realize that, do you? I think I'm seeing a pattern. The reason you see mathematics in everything is because everything you have ever looked at has first been symbolized and simplified by humans for your digestion. You are only ever seeing the map; you have never gazed upon at the territory itself.
question, i have a faint recolection about something to do with hubble confirming the gravitational waves with the deep field thingey assertaining a total value to quantify the value of the waves ? is that vaguely correct ? i thought a confirmation had been made fairly more recently(around the late 90s?) was it one of the 1st items booked on the list of jobs ? https://www.spacetelescope.org/about/history/timeline/
Light is emitted and absorbed, yes. The term "entity of force" has no meaning for me. What do you mean by that? Are you simply saying that light can push things? If that's what you're saying, I agree. Energy is not the same thing as a particle or a wave. Energy is just a number. A particle or a wave is something physical. Is what connected? As I said before, waves are waves of something, so they are connected in that sense. A gravitational wave is a ripple in spacetime, so I'd say it's "connected" to spacetime, if you want to use that language. Or, maybe you're asking whether it has a source, to which the answer would be "yes". Every wave has a source. I don't understand the terms "frame of interaction", "frame of interaction to a wavefunction" or "ability of interaction to its medium of force".
Here's a visual: This is a square of data. There's no mathematical pattern here. This the unprocessed, real world - the territory. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! This, on the other hand, is the map. The unprocessed, amathematical manifestation above has been reduced, compacted and simplified to fit into our various limited devices and brain. See how there's pattern now? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! That pattern is an artifact of the reduction. Similar to how orbits are represented in pictures to single, thin curves. A little like this (a bit oversimplified, but the point stands): Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Here's a curve (though not a planetary orbit) that has more data, but still nowhere near reality. There is no such thing as a map that actually shows the territory. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! If you were to take the actual, unprocessed data of a planetary orbit, you would find it is chaotic; it never repeats. Ever. We can't model the real universe with our maps - the best we can do is approximate and simplify. The patterns you are seeing are artifacts of the steps the universe has been put through to be reduced to a package small to be conceivable to a human. The number of points on the orbit of an actual body in space is infinite. And there is no pattern or formula that can describe it. Anything less than the actual territory will contain artifacts - or patterns. But they're not real. They're part of the map, not the territory.
Of course they do, because there are other mathematical forces at work which have an impact on the actual orbit. The point is that the sum of all acting forces are represented in the planet's orbit, in a precise predictable mathematical manner. When those forces are known, any deviations in the orbit and wobble can be accurately represented in a map or a mathematical equation. A wobble just means sensitivity to external forces. https://fractalfoundation.org/resources/what-is-chaos-theory/ I am not disagreeing with you, a human made map will always be a map, an approximation for human convenience. But if we look up in the night sky we see the territory, a natural map, as we do when we look at a landscape. And if we look long enough we usually will detect emerging natural patterns.
Does it matter? In the large picture the pattern was implied and became expressed in the reduced version. I see no major problem with that. It's just a matter of scale.
