<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 3/26/2020 10:48 AM, Will Martin
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:ABE9A364-A030-443F-8A79-1EAFBD5EE070@mac.com">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
Good discussion. Thanks for the response.</blockquote>
<p>This is way off topic, but since when has that stopped anyone
here?<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:ABE9A364-A030-443F-8A79-1EAFBD5EE070@mac.com">
<div class="">My point about Relativity is that there are aspects
of it that it seems even Einstein didn’t quite get right, and he
is credited with coming up with the idea.</div>
</blockquote>
<p>Einstein did not invent the concept of relativity in physics.
This is the idea that there is no fixed frame of reference to the
universe. If two bodies are in motion <i>relative</i> to each
other, neither one can be declared the stationary one. There is no
such thing as an absolute stationary.<br>
</p>
<p>What Einstein invented were his Special and General Theories of
Relativity. The Special Theory takes the ideas of relativity and
the fixed speed of light, both of which were already known to
physics, and shows that when there is relative motion between two
bodies, there must necessarily be a contraction of space and time
on one body as viewed from the other. It shows that space and time
are not separate things or absolute either. The General Theory
expands this to accelerated motion, and shows that there is no
difference whatsoever between acceleration and gravity. It showed
for the first time that the mysterious force that causes two
bodies to accelerate toward each other, which we call gravity, is
really just those bodies traveling along geodesics in a curved
spacetime.</p>
<p>Einsteins theories have been proven correct again and again. His
weakness was mathematics: he wasn't as good at it as he would have
liked. Some of the things he believed about physics have been
proven wrong (most famously, quantum-mechanical randomness). But
Special and General Relativity are pretty darn solid.<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:ABE9A364-A030-443F-8A79-1EAFBD5EE070@mac.com">
<div class="">The core of the problem is that mathematics has a
method for creating a model of reality that is radically
inaccurate due to its simplicity, but it is accurate enough to
analyze and predict certain effects, like the ones you mention.</div>
</blockquote>
<p>Your statement is inaccurate due to its simplicity. Mathematics
can model reality extremely accurately. No one has tried to model
every aspect of reality all in one equation, and no one is ever
going to, because any such model would probably have to be as big
as the universe itself.</p>
<p>And when someone discovers something inaccurate about the
mathematics used to model reality, that's cause for celebration.
For instance, Einstein uses Lorenz transformations to more
accurately model systems of motion in Special Relativity. Newton's
laws don't take relativistic effects into account, because he
didn't know about them, but Einstein's do.<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:ABE9A364-A030-443F-8A79-1EAFBD5EE070@mac.com">
<div class="">Meanwhile, the mathematical model of physical
objects uses the concept of points — a location with zero volume
— and instants — a time span with zero duration. This is the
flaw that makes the mathematical model ridiculous. It is useful,
but it is far more limited than science will admit, especially
through its more public face.</div>
</blockquote>
<p>What about topology? Calculus? Trigonometry? These mathematical
tools work, and not just in a handwavy good-enough way.</p>
<p>Science isn't hiding anything about the tools it uses. They work.
They're true, so far as we can tell.<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:ABE9A364-A030-443F-8A79-1EAFBD5EE070@mac.com">
<div class="">Science classes don’t teach students that, as
Bergson theorized and no one has successfully disputed, the
concept of an event requires a duration; that the closer you get
to observing anything to zero duration, the less information you
can ascertain about whatever it is you try to measure or
observe, because observation requires information in motion,
which freezes when you reduce the duration to zero. Zero
duration yields zero observation.</div>
</blockquote>
<p>Science classes certainly do teach that. This is fundamental to
quantum mechanics.<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:ABE9A364-A030-443F-8A79-1EAFBD5EE070@mac.com">
<div class="">This is why any distance can be expressed as a
consistent rate of motion measured for a given duration and vice
versa. The distance doesn’t actually exist without the motion.
Time and space are not discrete.</div>
</blockquote>
<p>Possibly untrue. Much science suggests the existence of what are
known as Planck length and Planck time, which are the smallest
possible units of space and time, respectively. It is yet unknown
whether these are real limits, but what would we need science for
if we already knew everything?<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:ABE9A364-A030-443F-8A79-1EAFBD5EE070@mac.com">
<div class=""> They are arbitrary abstracts of the same stuff.
That’s the core of Relativity. Space/Time is Motion. That’s the
step that Einstein didn’t take. It’s the thing about Relativity
more elemental than the constancy of the speed of light.</div>
</blockquote>
<p>That's not the core of relativity.<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:ABE9A364-A030-443F-8A79-1EAFBD5EE070@mac.com">
<div class="">And similarly, the closer you get to zero volume,
the less you can observe about the location or substance of any
object.</div>
</blockquote>
<p>And the less time you have to hear a musical note, the less you
can identify what that note is. If you narrow the duration of a
note to less than the period of its frequency, you can't hear it.
This is the nature of the uncertainty principle of quantum
mechanics.<br>
</p>
<p>And now it's time for lunch, so I'll leave this here. I don't
think you really understand what mathematics and science are
actually saying.<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
SuStel
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://trimboli.name">http://trimboli.name</a></pre>
</body>
</html>