Jump to content
Science Forums

Anchovyforestbane

Members
  • Content Count

    147
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    4

Reputation Activity

  1. Thanks
    Anchovyforestbane reacted to Dubbelosix in Chtistoffel notation   
    Yes. Gravity isn't a force, and Susskind says this around two or three times as well from his lecture. I've been saying it for years as well. You don't ever quantize fields,  that are not actually fields. It's a wrong turn amd has led us to a wrong path, as the Idea butcheres the first principles of relativity, that is. That gravity is and always will be a pseudoforce from the curvature and distortion of the metric from contribution of these stress energies that are known as contributed from the real particles of the standard model. If you want gravitons, you'd have to say GR is wrong, and doing that youll figuratively be cutting off the same foot to which we hold all our models on, in good faith.
  2. Like
    Anchovyforestbane reacted to Dubbelosix in Chtistoffel notation   
    I can't and will not, because I'd be laboring under a lie. 
  3. Like
    Anchovyforestbane reacted to Dubbelosix in Chtistoffel notation   
    This following lecture is really good for the select few who have spouted a lot of nonsense concerning gravitons (;-) we all know who I'm talking about) because the lecture goes into talking about the gravitational waves. When asked how it is generated, Susskind clearly is careful not to say anything about gravitons. He states it's an analogue of how charges move. I made a quick post before, about how you can envision curvature much like how an electron circles round a proton. It's because it has an acceleration, what Susskind didn't mention though as I had before, some quantum effects does away with certain classical ideas of this acceleration when wave functions dominate inside an atom. How quickly took it to larger systems, like pulsars and was very clear about it, the waves come out of the gravitational theory, not as mediator particle but based on rapidly rotating binary systems which produce these ripples in spacetime. I just finished watching it there. I hope others have done so too, because he really knows his stuff. Even when scientists speak about h as the perturbation of the metric g he's cautious not speak of them in the extreme field interpretations where we have been misled into the notion it is a physical field. Gravity is a pseudoforce and until we abandon the enthusiastic and frankly, audacious let alone ambitious attempts of making it part of a mediator field, I feel like we won't be making much progress.
  4. Like
    Anchovyforestbane reacted to Dubbelosix in Chtistoffel notation   
    If you want a more complicated look into it, you can follow my essay, where the torsion is non vanishing in bivector gravity theory. You'll find out how to expand the equation 
    ∇·∇  = (∂ + Γ)(∂ + Γ)
    including how the gamma matrices (Pauli spin matrices) are involved as coefficients on the algebra. I don't expect everyone to be able to follow it as it a bit more difficult.
    https://bivector.quora.com/Final-Paper-for-Bivector-Gravity
  5. Like
    Anchovyforestbane reacted to Dubbelosix in Chtistoffel notation   
    Right heres the next lecture by Susskind,
    When I spoke about the relativitistic correction,
    ∇  = (∂ + Γ)
    It is also important to know how ot arises in general relativity for the Ricci curvature. It appears like
    R  = ∂ Γ + ΓΓ
    because it has those essential space derivatives associated to the gradient with how geometry, more specifically curvature spreads through space with dimensions of inverse length squared . Again, to get the full relationship, you can simply expand 
    (∂ + Γ)(∂ + Γ)
    with appropriate indices, and from it you find the parallel transport from ordinary concepts of curvature and the geodesics that matter couples to. From it you find the antisymmetric part involving torsion. Again. In bivector theory, this part arises even more naturally than what you might expect I'm GR. I think personally, bivector theory is more intuitive in this matter as it avoids unnecessary debates as to whether torsion should vanish as a symmetry of ordinary general relativity. When I imposed the gamma Pauli spin to it, we see it preserves with it the generally accepted laws of Poincare spacetime symmetries. In other words, anything preserving the Poincare symmetries, we should in principle expect it to be a real facet of nature.
  6. Like
    Anchovyforestbane reacted to Dubbelosix in Chtistoffel notation   
    Now, I know some of you really are interested in this, including the person who private messaged me, and while it is a complicated subject, and though I've given a very short rudimentary way for you to envision using them, they can be used in many different ways, such as replacing the acceleration with a Christoffel symbol, but then you need to start introducing the summation indices and from that you'd get the four force of gravity. Though it's not a force, it's just a notation symmetry to the which we think about the wat the force drops off 1/length^2. If you want to know more, here's Susskind, he's pretty clear the way he does it. He has use of a white board and will glossary over the derivatives of space in terms of the Christoffel symbols when speaking about the curvature tensor.
     
  7. Like
    Anchovyforestbane reacted to Dubbelosix in Chtistoffel notation   
    Ivy, you'll find out soon, but a short answer is the derivatives of spacetime. when we speak of the operator, there is a correction term in the form of the Christoffel symbol. It is the Covariant derivative, which is the 1/length correction to the space derivatives. If you just have some patience, I would have got to this.
  8. Like
    Anchovyforestbane reacted to VictorMedvil in Chtistoffel notation   
    I distracted Dubbel however he will get to it.
  9. Like
    Anchovyforestbane reacted to HallsofIvy in Chtistoffel notation   
    What does any of this have to do with the Christoffel Symbols?
  10. Like
    Anchovyforestbane reacted to Dubbelosix in Chtistoffel notation   
    I'm being asked by another poster at this site about this notation, how are the symbols used, probably also how they appear on physics. So I have decided to make this public so that its not a wasted discussion and so others will learn as well. I'll start it all in segments in good time.
  11. Like
    Anchovyforestbane reacted to Dubbelosix in Chtistoffel notation   
    Ok, to understand the Christoffel symbol, I hope the notion of curved space and its unification with acceleration as the warping of gravity is also understood as a prerequisite because the aim of this post is not to teach the literal understandings of what you read in popular science books, but rather to break down what gravity is when it is manifestly spoke about in mathematical physics. 
    Ok... So hopefully you will already know about basics of Euclidean space ie. The coordinates of ordinary flat space as
    x + y + z
    Algebraically speaking, this can also be written as the powers of amy arbitrary notation 
    x and x^2 and x^3. This won't be important for our discussions though. What is important us that to have a four dimensional space, where time is a coordinate, you can write
    s^2 = x^2 + y^2 + z^2 - t^2
    Why is the last leg of this four dimensional Pythagorean taken away? It doesn't need to be, its a sign convention with notation (+,+,+,-), it can also be (-,-,-,+) it's only that the former is seen more often than the latter. The symbol "s" is the conventional notation describing a metric. By introducing the extra space dimension as a leg of the Pythagorean triangle, we have entered what us called Minkowski space.
    General relativity is not easier for newcomers to understand, but let's try and break it down, as simple as we can. In special relativity, the space which things can move in is described by an operator, called the Laplace operator and has the appearance of the derivatives with inverse length squared, and is a differential notation for the divergence 
    ∇·∇ 
    Or simply as
    ∇2 
    In short it describes, acting on a function "f", we write it  as
    ∇2 f = ∂2f/ ∂x2  
    +  ∂2f/ ∂y2  +  ∂2f/ ∂z2  
    For three space dimensions, so what about the forth? While we are talking about a forth soon, we still have not degressed into the issue of curvature because operators can speak of a forth dimension and still not really talk about curvature, we'll get into that in good time. The next lesson will be about operators in four dimensions. I'll let this post be digested properly first.
     
  12. Like
    Anchovyforestbane reacted to Moontanman in How certain is our scientific knowledge? Honestly?   
    Scientific knowledge, while not absolute, is ever more accurate. Science is a self correcting process, no other method has yielded the results the scientific method has been able to provide.  
  13. Thanks
    Anchovyforestbane reacted to write4u in How certain is our scientific knowledge? Honestly?   
    It depends on the scientific discipline you are addressing.  Is there a country named Russia?
    The answer to that is "we know and can demonstrate that Russia exists" .  What it is like is completely subjective.
    It is like all large societies. It has the best of humanity, it has the worst of humanity.
    Those questions do not belong to the physical sciences, those are of the social sciences, which use entirely different criteria than the physical sciences.
  14. Like
    Anchovyforestbane reacted to Evolute in Torus Cell   
    Nice post with some good analytics. But with all due respect, Human chromosome fusion of the Ape's 2a and 2b centromeres notwithstanding, I have to stay with the Notch2NL genetic mutations found in Homo being the reason for Human brain size and cognitive functions. Rather than derail this thread I would refer you back to the Humans from Apes thread that you posted on a short time back. And since chromosome one is where the Notch2NL genes are located, the fusion of chromosome 2 wouldn't appear to be the culprit. There's more to this, of course but not for here would be better.
    More on topic here, though, there's no question that toroidal systems and mechanisms do exist in Humans and in Nature, but the OP was about cells that have toriodal shapes. Being essentially a doughnut-like, flatter shape more than spherical or ovoid. Good brain teaser 🙂
  15. Like
    Anchovyforestbane reacted to Evolute in Torus Cell   
    In truth, I am impressed with you understanding of component systems and their functions. And while I can produce some logical questions or observation, I am in no way at the level that you are at. My interest lies more in evolutionary DNA mutation in how the Human brain advanced so far beyond the Great Apes. To each their own. But I did find your torus cell concept intriguing and so there were some considerations that I thought I could pass on to expand on the idea, or at least modestly try to expand my own knowledge. You have succeeded in pretty much leaving me in the dust although, conceptually, I was initially able to follow your line of thinking. Fun stuff. I saw written somewhere that if one stops learning they die and I'm certainly not ready to throw in the towel just yet 🙂 
  16. Like
    Anchovyforestbane reacted to Evolute in Torus Cell   
    If the volume of two objects are equal, a sphere will have the least amount of surface area.
    Whether or not it would be beneficial to have a toroidal shape or not? Don't know. More surface in a torus for absorbing nutrients? Would a torus necessitate a nucleus that is consistent relative to the torus curve, so that it, too, would have to become a torus inside a torus? What might mitosis look like and where would chromosomes/nucleus be located? Would gravity select for orientation? Would small particles get stuck in the inner diameter? of a torus and shot off osmosis at cell surface contact points? And how would changing either of the two diameters of a torus affect any cytoplasmic homogeneity? Would traveling in a bloodstream by flipping end over end create issues within capillaries? Nature obviously spherical or elongated cells as being better so.
    Ball's in your court, Anchovyforestbane 🙂
  17. Like
    Anchovyforestbane reacted to VictorMedvil in Life Extending Retroviral Vector By Removing Kat7   
    Using the same method as the Chinese scientists that extended the life of mice(https://www.scienceforums.com/topic/37733-new-gene-therapy-reverses-aging-in-mice/) but slightly different, This being a Retroviral Vector that targets kat7 in liver cells using cas9 with a guide RNA to silence the gene as the inserts to the vector. This should in humans extending life span by 25% if it works anything like the mice that were gene edited.

     
     
    The Liver Targetting Retroviral Vector in this construct can be purchased from West Nanorobotics(https://www.wnanorobotics.com/shop) however the Insert will have to be purchased separately probably synthesized from cDNA.
  18. Like
    Anchovyforestbane reacted to CountryBoy in What does this mean?   
    It appears to be a plus sign, a minus sign, a times sign (as used in computer languages), and a percent sign, inside parentheses.  If you think it should have some deeper meaning than that, please tell us the context.
  19. Like
    Anchovyforestbane got a reaction from write4u in What are you listening to right now?   
  20. Thanks
    Anchovyforestbane got a reaction from write4u in What are you listening to right now?   
  21. Thanks
    Anchovyforestbane reacted to AnssiH in How certain is our scientific knowledge? Honestly?   
    Hi Sluggo,
    Now that you mention this, the original paper for SR (that I linked before) is actually quite nice in that it doesn't really suggest any particular ontology (like Minkowski spacetime), but the reader must be careful to understand it as merely drawing purely logical connections between definitions when reading it. Nowadays people read it with Minkowski's interpretation in mind and tend to take SR as literally an argument for "Minkowski spacetime", even though it doesn't mention such thing anywhere. This misconception leads exactly into my original complaint about people locking themselves into too limited scope of possibilities.
    Many of your comments imply you are also too locked in - there's considerable relaxation of possibilities that are possible without contradicting anything in SR.
    With that;
     
    There's couple of subtle but critical misconceptions here that have to be corrected.
    SR is not about C being "independent of the source", but one step more as C being "independent of the chosen inertial frame". And it certainly is put forward as a convention, not as an argument for objective reality.
    When Einstein is referring to "consistent with experience", he is referring to "what can be deducted from real observations by actual natural observers". That really is the key subtlety to understand; "what is observable" is not the same thing as "what exists". The former can be verified as factual, the latter cannot.
    Make no mistake about this, Einstein understands and describes perfectly well what aspects of this hinge on our definitions of things. Pay attention to some key points of his paper (emphasis mine):
    https://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/specrel.pdf
    "If we wish to describe the motion of a material point, we give the values of
    its co-ordinates as functions of the time. Now we must bear carefully in mind
    that a mathematical description of this kind has no physical meaning unless
    we are quite clear as to what we understand by “time.” We have to take into
    account that all our judgments in which time plays a part are always judgments
    of simultaneous events."
    ...
    "We might, of course, content ourselves with time values determined by an
    observer stationed together with the watch at the origin of the co-ordinates,
    and co-ordinating the corresponding positions of the hands with light signals,
    given out by every event to be timed, and reaching him through empty space.
    But this co-ordination has the disadvantage that it is not independent of the
    standpoint of the observer with the watch or clock, as we know from experience."
    What Einstein is pointing out there is that we must first specify what do we mean and what can we know about the simultaneity of two remote events. He understands perfectly well that we can't actually know whether two apparently simultaneous events are actually simultaneous or not. This problem was well known at the time (1-way problem) and required no further elaboration from him.
    "If at the point A of space there is a clock, an observer at A can determine the
    time values of events in the immediate proximity of A by finding the positions
    of the hands which are simultaneous with these events. If there is at the point B
    of space another clock in all respects resembling the one at A, it is possible for
    an observer at B to determine the time values of events in the immediate neighbourhood of B. But it is not possible without further assumption to compare, in respect of time, an event at A with an event at B. We have so far defined only an “A time” and a “B time.” We have not defined a common “time” for
    A and B, for the latter cannot be defined at all unless we establish by definition
    that the “time” required by light to travel from A to B equals the “time” it
    requires to travel from B to A."
    "By definition" is also emphasized by Einstein in the original paper. This is very very important to understand absolutely correctly, and not get tangled up into some idea that the logical validity of these definitions somehow makes them mandatory. What he establishes here is a convention for relativistic simultaneity - something we can define for our own convenience for calculations.
    Basically the idea is that instead of transforming "C" between frames and directions, we logically can take it as isotropic if we instead transform the "moments that events actually occurred". That is exactly what Lorentz Transformation does, as is visually also visible from the diagrams you attached (it is what happens when we - by definition - lock the speed of light as exactly C for all the different frame representations of the same system).
    Of course a natural observer cannot tell the difference between events varying, or C varying, as they can't be in two remote locations "at the same time".
     
    I'm interested of hearing in more detail how do you view QED as removing the 1-way issue. I mean, logically speaking yes of course. But how do you view it as not being a case of using Einstein a convention?
     
    Not true, as you can easily verify by going back to the start of my previous post.
    Basically this is an example of locking yourself into too limited scope of possibilities when you assume that LC & TD somehow can only occur under the framework of SR. The observable features of LC and TC of course occur in exactly the same way in Lorentz' aether theory - the only difference is in unobservable features of reality. That's what "their difference is merely philosophical" means. I explained this in quite detail in last post.
     
    Now that's the million dollar question.
    Remember when I said;
    "It is philosophically very naive and cumbersome, but almost no one realizes they are effectively making that argument when they argue that isotropic C is an objective feature of nature. (I bolded parts of previous sentence in anticipation that someone will respond to this post and make exactly that mistake)"
    I'm afraid you are making that mistake, you are making a block universe arguments without realizing it. Now think this through carefully;
    Isotropic C requires that we transform simultaneity of events when moving between inertial frames.
    If we transform simultaneity of events, we cannot make claim about any specific state of the universe - it would be in different state for all observers in different inertial frames, requiring that all future and past states exist "all the time". Likewise, any new choice of reference frame would always imply new state.
    And if you assume that C really is isotropic, that is the same thing as assuming that simultaneity of events really is frame dependent. That is why it requires a static block universe. This is exactly the view what Minkowski was pushing when he presented the idea of spacetime! (Yes, he really meant it literally... And Einstein apparently made comments about what a ridiculous idea Minkowski had)
    At this point everyone always say "hmm yes but I don't literally mean static block universe, I just mean to refer to naturally observable features of this".
    But that means you are not taking SR's philosophical flavor as meaningful, which means you are exactly thinking of Lorentz aether theory! As soon as you assume that reality actually is dynamic, it means you assume it does have an objective state that actually evolves in time - we just don't have the means to observe what that state is - then you also cannot assume isotropic C anymore as anything but a handy mental hack to simplify calculations.
    What that assumption leads into is exactly the same view as in Lorentz' aether theory (the one that originally defined Lorentz transformation). It's logically completely unproblematic assumption being that they produce exactly the same observables.
    So with that in mind, here's that switch;
    The idea that natural observers merely measure C as isotropic if they use Einstein's definitions, is the same thing as noting that C is not necessarily actually isotropic - it just appears so because of how we must define space and time self-consistently.
    I completely agree that Einstein did not - at least initially - make any statements about the supposed "reality" of this thing, Minkowski did, and nowadays almost everyone claims that Einstein made those arguments.
    It's more like;
    Lorentz argued for single universal C in a single background, which is unobservable since we are "in it". This idea yields Lorentz Transformation as a direct logical consequence, which yields LC & TD in exactly same mathematical form as in SR.
    Einstein argued we can remove unobservable assumptions from this by adopting his simultaneity convention, and this can be quite handy for calculations. This is sort of a null-interpretation view.
    Minkowski went straight back to "unobservable assumptions", and proposed a spacetime view, and its direct consequence, a static block reality.
    The problem with c+v is actually purely logical, as any meaningful definition of v becomes dependent on clock synchronization. Lorentz transformation is ultimately about the logical dependencies between space and time definitions.
    -Anssi
  22. Thanks
    Anchovyforestbane reacted to AnssiH in How certain is our scientific knowledge? Honestly?   
    Hi Sluggo
    I'm afraid your post exemplifies exactly the confusions I was complaining about in my long post.
    Look, it's very simple to convince yourself of this matter. The mathematics of Lorentz aether theory are exactly the same as using Special Relativity, but instead of transforming from observer to observer, you'd arbitrarily choose some reference frame, and then do all of your calculations from that frame. I'm sure you can trivially accept this as mathematically valid approach. You can always go back to this simple point, if you feel any doubt.
    If the above wouldn't work, that would mean the frame transformation in Special Relativity was invalid - it would mean your results would depend on the frame you analyze them from - the frame transformation would be inconsistent.
    The fact that one-way speed of light cannot be measured, is a cornerstone of Special Relativity. This realization is why the paper can confidently define a unique simultaneity notion for each reference frame.
    See; http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/specrel.pdf chapter "Definition of Simultaneity" and "On the relativity of lengths and times" to understand how this is merely a convention, and how this convention yields the exact form of relativistic length and time measurements that everyone likes to use.
     
    These are erroneous assertions. The inability to measure one-way speed of light is very simple and fundamental limitation, and you will do yourself a service if you really think it through. Just think about clock synchronization of spatially separated clocks, and try to establish how moving them would perturb them, and I'm sure you can figure it out. I can see you have not yet done this exercise so as you cite examples of supposed measurements of one-way speed without realizing they must also use an artificial definition of simultaneity.

    I can also see you have not really thought about the ontological meaning of the idea of isotropic speed of light. What is in your opinion the "state of reality" at any given moment? If you insist on the ontological reality of isotropic C, you also insist on static reality. It's a pretty direct link from one to another, and an interesting topic to really think through.
    The clock synchronization convention of Special Relativity allows the physical laws to be written in the same form in any inertial frame, within the framework that they were written in already. This can be very practical in many situations, but it does not imply any specific ontological form to reality. There are many ways to describe the "rules of reality", symmetrically or asymmetrically between frames, in pretty much any chosen ontology (because you always add another metaphysical "space" where you describe your take on the "rules of the universe").
    Basically this argument is often thrown around to try to make the argument that isotropic C is more than just our convention, but actually all the physical laws as we have written them, are bound to our conventions. Isotropic C does not follow from Maxwell, it's rather the other way around. In actual fact, this argument is yet another example of "not thinking it through" and arguing for static universe without realizing it 🤷‍♂️

     
    Yes, but assuming your "SR is incomplete" refers to the problem of SR implying static universe, then you must realize that the solution is very simple - there was never any reason to assume ontologically isotropic C... Basically the arguments you gave above get thrown into the bin, as soon as you assume instead that - ontologically - a momentary state of reality actually exists, beyond our ability to probe what it is.
    Of course this also is an assumption - maybe reality really is static - except for our minds. What I'm saying is that the "static reality" version gets thrown around far more than it deserves. It is philosophically very naive and cumbersome, but almost no one realizes they are effectively making that argument when they argue that isotropic C is an objective feature of nature. (I bolded parts of previous sentence in anticipation that someone will respond to this post and make exactly that mistake)
    Taking the view that C is not objectively isotropic leads effectively to Lorentz' version of all this. Which is exactly the same observationally as SR - it's the same math. Go back to paragraph #1 if in doubt.
    The argument that SR is philosophically more elegant because it doesn't contain ad hoc assumption about preferred frame, is only true for the mathematical simplicity from the starting point it has, and only true until Minkowski spacetime became the preferred view. But from an ontological perspective it's a really hard sell, especially as we have since found that the cosmic background radiation is emanating from a "preferred frame". 

    -Anssi
    ps. personally I don't really subscribe to either of these views, I think they both probably represent gross oversimplification of more complex interactions between what we call "space" and "matter"
  23. Confused
    Anchovyforestbane reacted to TiffanyMariokart in Physics Puzzle!   
    So South Korea have granted legal protection to 60,000 sadists after the Nth rooms. Not only did extremely few perpetrators receive lenient sentences, the rest were granted legal protection from the victims.
    Here's the puzzle; how long until we're all f***ed from corruption, idiocies and sadism?
    I mean at worst the whole 60k reproduces for a few years with probable victims and masses an army of sadists, 3 victims each 4 years 60k*3*3 plus the possible exponentials of them repeating this bs.
    That's the extreme end of it, but as you can see the possibility of this is rather unacceptable.
    This s*** makes Hitler look framed.
    So look, science community. Here's the puzzle;
    A, is Hitler innocent?
    B, Can somebody capture and contain these sadists?
    And well even if they don't make more sadists, letting 60,000 of them have immunity puts society at great risk.
    The only good sadist is a dead one.
    Some of the s*** the 60,000 were into;
    Forcing insects into other's genitalia, Carving words into other's flesh, Raping adults, Raping Children, False Imprisonment, Forcing other's into bestiality and the list goes on.
    Search Nth rooms on youtube for more knowledge on this, and the currently anonymous 60,000 sadists who paid for this apparently include politicians and celebrities.
    And yes this is VERY recent events. I don't see how anyone with smarts can let this slide that could result in worse events than death.
    Footnote: Don't trust ANY government SK's allied with the west.     
  24. Like
  25. Like
    Anchovyforestbane reacted to CountryBoy in Time Substance Concentration.   
    Since you still haven't told us what YOU mean by "physical consistency"- and seem to be using this board to rant about things you do not know, I'm not going to bother responding any more.  This is "science forums" and you do not know what "science" is.
×
×
  • Create New...