DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
Is locality an illusion?
- Thread starter Magical Realist
- Start date
God! I hate doing this. Found it, got it. Thanks, Dave.
TheVat
Valued Senior Member
I meant single click on the DD menu. It would be two clicks then, total, on my present Chrome version. About three seconds.
Guess Dave is helpful in spite of your opinion of him as
(I'm constantly warned I constantly risk being banned now for such edge of envelope thread description herein being put forward for discussion or criticisms, but....) The observer on Earth is a 0-point (mass) energy point in the universe. So is the Earth, our star, Alpha Centauri, Vega, our galaxy, Andromeda, M-87, and so on, 0-point (mass) energy points in the universe.
A 3-dimensional volume-span of space is not observable -- there is no possibility of observing it as such -- but add in a 0-point dimensional point of time, point of light-time, from the local Earth (as mentioned above) or from local Alpha Centauri, or from local Vega, from our local galaxy, from local Andromeda, from local M-87, making a local 4-dimensional volume-span of local space-time (any and every local volume-span), it will become the observable universe from that local 0-point (mass) energy point in and of the universe. Really, 0-point (mass) energy points having to be reducible, a reduction, actually, to discreet quantum physical quantity and quality localities . . . meaning they can never really approach infinity (as to any (mass) energy point), aka approaching, actually / really, the speed of light (can never actually / really open systematically -- non-observable universe ("observable universe": the closed systemic universe) -- do so).
=================
www.sciencealert.com
=================
A 3-dimensional volume-span of space is not observable -- there is no possibility of observing it as such -- but add in a 0-point dimensional point of time, point of light-time, from the local Earth (as mentioned above) or from local Alpha Centauri, or from local Vega, from our local galaxy, from local Andromeda, from local M-87, making a local 4-dimensional volume-span of local space-time (any and every local volume-span), it will become the observable universe from that local 0-point (mass) energy point in and of the universe. Really, 0-point (mass) energy points having to be reducible, a reduction, actually, to discreet quantum physical quantity and quality localities . . . meaning they can never really approach infinity (as to any (mass) energy point), aka approaching, actually / really, the speed of light (can never actually / really open systematically -- non-observable universe ("observable universe": the closed systemic universe) -- do so).
=================
Our Galaxy's Monster Black Hole Is Spinning Almost as Fast as Physics Allows
The colossal black hole lurking at the center of the Milky Way galaxy is spinning almost as fast as its maximum rotation rate.
www.sciencealert.com
Last edited:
Pinball1970
Valued Senior Member
No!
This is a science site, please stop posting stupid shit. I have been reasonable, tried my best and tried to connect. On here and by pm.
To no effect, that shows a complete lack of respect for me, the site and members.
This is about respecting the scientific method and science endeavour over the last couple of 100 years.
Enough is enough.
The fact that there are many, many, many, universes out there (a "Many Worlds" concept of physics and cosmology), and any and all of them right next door to ours in the gateway multiverse to them, is not unique to me nor considered nonsense regardless of what you think. So, therefore, we have to be quantum physical and quantum physical-like discreet in mass and energy, and in space and time, in universe, regardless of what you think.
Yes, enough is enough. Realization of the realities is important.
------------------------------
"Imagination is more important than knowledge. Knowledge is limited. Imagination encircles the world." -- Albert Einstein. Realization of the vaster realities (the open system) undergirding closed systemic QM and Relativity, and in which they (QM and Relativity) reside, are important.
You people have told me constantly since I've been here that infinity and infinities, of a piece with the "open system", along with an "open system," too, does not exist in physics and cosmology, and is not even to be mentioned as possibilities, the possibilities not to be mentioned, anywhere on the site (everywhere, EVERYWHERE, on the site i land, I'm attacked savagely and threatened to no end for what I see to be the reality underneath, over, behind, before, earlier and later, than the local and the relative.
I'm asked why I don't just leave and go elsewhere instead of fighting for what I see; how I see it, here somewhere -- somewhere at all -- on this site of supposedly so many forums, supposedly enough forums for a very large and very wide ranging of views, conceptions, assertions and presentations of views, instead of fighting back against you?! As the saying goes, "I'm not going quietly into the night! I won't go quietly into the night!"
Yes, enough is enough. Realization of the realities is important.
------------------------------
"Imagination is more important than knowledge. Knowledge is limited. Imagination encircles the world." -- Albert Einstein. Realization of the vaster realities (the open system) undergirding closed systemic QM and Relativity, and in which they (QM and Relativity) reside, are important.
You people have told me constantly since I've been here that infinity and infinities, of a piece with the "open system", along with an "open system," too, does not exist in physics and cosmology, and is not even to be mentioned as possibilities, the possibilities not to be mentioned, anywhere on the site (everywhere, EVERYWHERE, on the site i land, I'm attacked savagely and threatened to no end for what I see to be the reality underneath, over, behind, before, earlier and later, than the local and the relative.
I'm asked why I don't just leave and go elsewhere instead of fighting for what I see; how I see it, here somewhere -- somewhere at all -- on this site of supposedly so many forums, supposedly enough forums for a very large and very wide ranging of views, conceptions, assertions and presentations of views, instead of fighting back against you?! As the saying goes, "I'm not going quietly into the night! I won't go quietly into the night!"
Last edited:
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
OK. So you are looking for discussion or criticism. Good.
1. How about questions? Are questions OK?
2. What is a "0-point (mass) energy point'?
You object to the term "word salad", so I will spell out why the above phrase of yours does not make sense to me, as someone who knows a little physics:
3. "0-point" seems to refer to nothing. Even a single point - the smallest mathemetical entity - is at least one point. So what is 0-point?
4. Whatever it is, how can an observer be a 0-point? Any observer must be a 3-dimensional object, which can actually be described with an infinite number of points.
6. What does it mean to put the term (mass) in brackets after 0-point? Does it mean these two things are related somehow? Any object less than three-dimensions will have no mass at all - including a two-dimensional plane, a one-dimensinal line and a zero-dimensional point. Since, as above, I don't know what a "0-point" is, I can't say if its one of the aforementioned non-physical objects. Still I'm pretty sure its going to be massless, but I wait await your elaboration.
7. Typically, the use of brackets (parentheses) indicates additional info that is explanatory (illustrative) but not essential. A term with brackets in it should mean that the term can be struck (removed) and the passage still makes sense - in fact, says the same thing. You see I have done it three times in this question. If you were to remove the terms in parentheses from my above passage (parentheses, illustrative, removed), the whole thing still makes sense, and it still means the same thing, even if slightly less descriptive.
This indicates I should be able to remove the parenthesized term from your passage and it should still make sense and have the same meaning, if slightly less explanatory.
If we rmove the para\enthesized term (mass), that leaves us with 0-point energy point. Does this still have meaning?
8. Why is "point" in there twice? Does it suggest these two words have different applications?
9. Is it possible to have a 1-point energy point? A 2-point energy point?
10. Is it still a point if it's 2 points?
11. What exactly is an "energy point"?
12. You are attempting to communicate with us, the readers. Your "clipped sentence" style - which you have suggested could be considered a form of "poetry" - style is not communicating yor ideas effectively. Can you try using full, unclipped sentences? It might save us all a lot of time.
13. And while you're at it, can you stop blaming the rest of us if we don't understand your "poetry"? Surely, that onus is on you to explain yourself, not on us to interpet your "poetry"? Thi sis, after all, a science discussion forum and particulsrly, the physics and math subforum.
14. So, your four word term has generated no less than 12 distinct requests for clarification - and that's just so far. Do you start to see why the term 'word salad' is being applied? It's too many ambiguous terms all thrown into one short phrase and tossed like a salad.
15. As above, but even moreso with these (clearly, extended) objects: how are the Earth or our galaxy "0-point (mass) energy points"?
16. What is a "volume-span"? Is a "volume-span of space" distinct from a "volume of space"?
17. What is a "0-point dimensional point of time"? Is there more common way of describing it that we physics-minded people might be familiar with? Or is it a new thing of your own invention?
18. What is a "point of light-time"?
19. What is a "local 4-dimensional volume-span of local space-time"? Is there more common way of describing it that we physics-minded people might be familiar with? Or is it a new thing of your own invention?
20. "Any and every"? How many "local volume-spans" are there?
Not sure how to parse this. Skipping for now.
21. "Discreet" means covert - eg. a love affair might be discreet. Do you mean "these quantum physical quantity and quality localities" are hidden from us?
I wonder if you meant "discrete" which means "distinctly separate" eg. "atoms are discrete particles".
22. Infinity is a mathemetical concept. How can a physical object "approach infinity"? What infinity, exactly? It is a very generla term, with man,y many applications. I wonder if you meant something like "infinite speed"?
OK, so I guess you meant infinite speed after all. Coukdl you have used fewer words?
23. Does this only happen in a" systematically -- non-observable universe ("observable universe": the closed systemic universe)"? or dose it happen in any universe like ours?
24. Are we now talking about hypothetical universes other than ours? If so, why? If we are tllaing about our universe, wh does it need to be qualified with
25. If it does happen in our universe, why do you need to quaify it with "systematically -- non-observable universe ("observable universe": the closed systemic universe)"? We would understand it perfectly well if you just said "our universe".
26. Again, what does this ink have to do with any of the above? Can you summarize the relevant parts?=================
=================Our Galaxy's Monster Black Hole Is Spinning Almost as Fast as Physics Allows
The colossal black hole lurking at the center of the Milky Way galaxy is spinning almost as fast as its maximum rotation rate.
These are 26 questions I am asking for answers to. Can you clarify my points regarding what you wrote? Alternately, you could retract them.
Except that it is not fact at all. As you admit yourself; it is merely a concept - an interpretation.
There are other interpretations, many of which are mutually exclusive. They can't all be true. Currently, none of them are true. And certainly none of them are facts.
Last edited:
Ha! Ha! Ha! All your junk and you could never connect any of it to Hawking's clock and its clock time at the dead center of his "Grand Central Station of the Universe" underneath which the cosmic all must exist and pass in the universe for all time and at all times! And I've brought it up, and out, again and again, and again, and again! It being, too, the 0-point! where Einstein, also, landed in his mind's eye trip to the speed of light . . . exactly the same 0-point center as the location ("Grand Central Station of Universe") of Hawking's clock and its zeroing point, its universal 0-point, of time on the universe clock!
Ha! Ha! Ha! Please try to get with it! Please try to think in more dimensions than just one at least occasionally. I don't need many, many, many, lines to answer you because I already answered many times . . . and you just don't understand me, Hawking, or Einstein.
You don't understand that I worked in the Outback of Australia, in the U. S. Air force at a joint Air Force site tracking space objects where they were observed to be at the moment, where they were actually calculated to be in space and time at the moment (per their momentum), and where they would (probably) be at any point in their future history (space and time), using our precisionist clocks always being flown in and replaced regular as clockwork.
You don't understand that I said I worked at the Air Force Systems Command Site, the U. S. Air Force's part of the precursor DARPA network to the internet. Or that we, our personnel and scientists, were assigned responsibility for connecting and coordinating all the data flow technical dots concerning the track and events of the space shuttle Challenger disaster, 1986CE.
Or that I not only understand the meaning of the warning message imprinted on the rearview mirrors of so many autos in the U. S., but understand the physics, expanded to cosmological physics, of the why and how the Israeli "Iron Dome" missile defense system works. Both of which systems, mirror warning and ID defense system, are based upon modeling identical to the modelling I call mine and have described elsewhere and here, which has been classified as word salad and, otherwise, nonsense physics, here on this supposed science site.
I've spent a good part of a lifetime working directly with user applications of the physics you've called made up physics and nonsense.
Last edited:
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
I have asked for clarification on what you posted. Do you have any answers to my questions?
Please do not post nonsense and try to pretend it is science. Claims should be supported with arguments and/or evidence. Do not troll. Answer reasonable questions about your claims.
You got clarification in post #168, far more than I wanted to give! Apparently you have no wish, or no capability, to understand my last four paragraphs of [edited-in] clarification by resume of experience in direct application . . . direct usage and larger realizations through the direct application, the direct usage . . . that would come to many that way (larger realizations that have come to many, very many, throughout history that way, supposedly including Isaac Newton one day)! It just doesn't meet whatever is the level of your seemingly academic only mental acuity....
Last edited:
Moderator note: Atlan0001 has been warned for:
1. Continuing to post nonsense, while pretending it is science, following previous warnings not to do so.
2. Trolling. This includes the intellectual dishonesty of refusing to answer reasonable questions about his claims.
1. Continuing to post nonsense, while pretending it is science, following previous warnings not to do so.
2. Trolling. This includes the intellectual dishonesty of refusing to answer reasonable questions about his claims.
Time is a point, a coordinate point of time, a coordinate point in time, and so on "time," a coordinate point! It actually has no length of its own at all! An elastic string of coordinate points, however many coordinate points in and to the string, will have elastic length . . . the string of coordinate points will, never the coordinate point(s)!
Point -- Merriam Webster 4a: A geometric element that has zero dimensions and a location determinable by an ordered set of coordinates. (Zero dimensions! And a location (location! location! location!) determinable by an ordered set of coordinates!)
Point -- Merriam Webster 4a: A geometric element that has zero dimensions and a location determinable by an ordered set of coordinates. (Zero dimensions! And a location (location! location! location!) determinable by an ordered set of coordinates!)
Last edited:
Pinball1970
Valued Senior Member
Time is not a point, we don't know what time is, whether it is an actual thing or not.
A point is an idealized position in space w.r.t. Mathematics and geometry. In set theory a different definition.
What does this have to do with locality?
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
You wrote stuff in post 164, which is here, in the physics and math subforum.
In post 167 I have asked good faith questions in the hopes that you will clarify your ideas, which are unconventional at-best.
This is a discussion forum. Will you answer them?
It is not.
Time has duration. Distance has length.
Elastic?
Please explain what you mean.
Are you struggling to express the idea that a line is made up of an infinite number of mathematical points?
Ergo, time is not a point.
Please do not post nonsense. Claims should be supported by evidence and/or coherent arguments.
A 2-dimensional light-time photo-frame is at once a 0-point of time . . . or rather the event of its making and addition to the pointedly 2-dimensional horizontal depth of the "Mandelbrot Set" is. Oh, I am so very sorry, I forgot you are incapable of rising to see such a far more exotic multi-dimensional 0-, 1- and 2-dimensionality than the conventional 1- and/or 2-dimensional. Anyway, time's photo-frame does not elastically stretch, as Cantor demonstrated via his point spread mathematically (you look it up), the numbers stretch out, expand out, to infinity of numbers. or alternatively, contract per the same elasticity of the numbers rather than the frame and frames. . . Cantor's point and points.
Last edited:
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
Reported for
1. Continuing to post nonsense, while pretending it is science, following previous warnings not to do so.
2. Trolling, including the intellectual dishonesty of refusing to answer reasonable questions about claims.
You desperately need to read and study the 'Theory of Chaos' within the 'Science of Complexity'! Though, I truly believe, it may be far too 'simple' for you to reach to and understand.
Oh! And by the way, we are in a "discussion" . . . of sorts and turns of words and phrases, that is. I can see you in your woodwork of Orwell easy enough, but you can't see me outside of the blinders of your Orwellian woodwork.
Last edited:
Wizard of Whatever
Valued Senior Member
A change to just one particle changes all the interactions with all other particles.
Pinball1970
Valued Senior Member
Dave asked you 25 perfectly reasonable questions, why won't you answer any of them?