Clarification on foundation plz

Angleochoas

Angleochoas

Quantum Scribe
Doing some thinking about mathematics and time, or QM;
I was trying to revisit some of the roots of modern theory and found a rather contrasting opinion that I was curious if I could get any clarification on?

I'll just leave two links and let them speak for themselves.


Wiki reference on Archimedes Palimpsest

&

Einstein, Newton reference to science/physics


Didn't Archimedes study physics intensely?
IE; "The law of the lever".

Any feedback is greatly appreciated.
The ironic thing is that when I was looking up a reference to "temporal logic" - it lead me to Archimedes and not Einstein or Newton.
That is quite unexpected/irrationale?
 
Angleo,

I'm not sure what it is that you are asking to be clarified. I'm not surprised that you didn't find Newton or Einstein associated with temporal logic. Temporal logic is part of the study of logic, a school of philosophy, not physics.

That you might find Archimedes or any other ancient Greek natural philosopher associated with one or another school of logic isn't surprising. Though the ancients very probably did extensive experimental work the accepted form of their writings in that period was to pose their ideas as logical argument rather than mathmetical proofs based on the results of physical experiments. It's almost 1800 years later that the math is available and experimentalism fully appears in the literature. That's the beginning of modern physics (the era of Kepler, Galileo and Newton).
 
Well, that in a sense is my real question.
Things that we study governed by gravity;
IE. projectiles (velocity, angle, arc, etc)
Are normally attributed in foundation towards Newton (discovery of gravity, father of physics) for calculation reference.
Archimedes created siege engines through calculation as he was a widely known mathematician as well as philosopher. If he did not coin the word "gravity", did he not have a variable when calculating the physics that went beyond philosophy and into practical construction?
He must have had an idea of the force dictating the Z coordinate motion to be accredited in improving the siege engine's range, accuracy, so on? Etc.
 
I was continuing to think on this and the initial thought came across again.
Light duality - wave/particle.
Something seems to make sense to me.

Gravity, seems to be the ruling force of the third dimension (the effect of height to some degree), without vertical play - there would be no idea as gravity.

Light seems to be the ruling force of the second, then combined through frequency with gravity.
In the second dimension light would always be creating a linear line, whether length wise or width wise - depending of the perspective; no differently intersecting line could give height. As well, being a wave - it could certainly be flat. Why the duality? It seems plausible that for it to exist in a dimension with height; it must also be given form on a quantum level of observation.
Is it possible that the wave mechanic is a 2 dimensional mechanic, and the photon a 3rd dimensional mechanic?
 
Gravity, seems to be the ruling force of the third dimension (the effect of height to some degree), without vertical play - there would be no idea as gravity.
Click to expand...

Gravity plays its part in 3D space. Consider a planet, star or any other massive body. The gravitational field is definitely 3D. The "down" vector that we experience for gravity is an artifact given by the fact that we are located on or near the surface of massive sphere. The local gravitational force vector points to the center of gravitational mass because we are nothing more than a speck of mass relative to the massive sphere.

If, on the other hand, you are attempting to describe the co-gravitational effects of the Earth-Moon system simple 1D line vectors from center of mass to center of mass won't suffice. Their masses are distributed, and the Earth is a spheroid of rotation (slightly flattened at the rotational pole) and not a sphere. They can no longer be treated as gravitational point particles as we do when we are on or near the surface. The force vectors have to be struck from edge to edge across the surfaces of the two bodies. It's a field equation in 3D space rather than a 1D linear vector equation.
 
Okay, so then revisiting the first dimension as applied to the universe;
if we were to take a central beginning act to form the cosmos, IE. "the big bang" theory, I have a few questions for insight please.
If we further, were to generalize the energy before the "bang" as it's proximity to itself as being in some relative way "one", then would not a point in space signify 1/0 or 1:0 ?
I ask this metaphorically (for the mind's eye so to speak) because when imagining a possible loopback from 4, it makes sense as a loop from 1,0 to 4 which is almost a redundant statement, I do realize that.
Though again take light or light as a photon. It's entire destiny is to form lines that may run in every direction, intersecting and not - but the photon gives a "point" so to speak, even if in this perception it's constant must always be motion.
I'll leave wave thoughts alone for now :P

Does any of that make sense in the manner described? I realize that for some things I'm metaphorically speaking about, there are already official terminologies I may be taking for granted as more for the visuals.
Thanks.
 
If we further, were to generalize the energy before the "bang" as it's proximity to itself as being in some relative way "one", then would not a point in space signify 1/0 or 1:0 ?
Click to expand...

In General Relativity there is no "before the bang". Space-time was created at the instant of the Big Bang. "Before the Big Bang" in General Relativity makes no sense.

I'm not sure what you mean by 1/0 or 1:0. If you are ndicating the significance of an equation in differential calculus at some time after the Big Bang then our incomplete rules of arithmetic and algebra don't apply. In calculus 0/n isn't necessarily zero. In calculus we deal with limits. We can have an equation that states something along the line of "In the limit as n tends to zero, x tends to y".

If we take the problem and start converging on n=0 from the left and right (above and below the limit) the result converges on some finite number that doesn't have to be zero. That's the power of calculus. Arithmetic can't solve the problem but calculus can. If we converge from the left and the results are, for instance 7.7, 7.8, 7.9 and then zero, and when we converge from the right with results of 8.3, 8.2, 8.1,zero we know that the correct answer is probably 8.0, not zero. Zero is nowhere found in the converging sequence. We want the limit to go to zero because that's exactly the place where our real answer is found...in the limit as n goes to zero.
 
Well, a "bang" would have to be comprised of something to create that force, would it not?
That's as well in relation to your statment of dimension zero being a "point".
So the people that say there is no centre of the universe must believe that the "bang" happened in all space at once?
Otherwise there certainly would be a central point?
(If occurrence was already in all tangible space at once, expansion would not be within the vocabulary?).
^^
 
So the people that say there is no centre of the universe must believe that the "bang" happened in all space at once?
Click to expand...

Precisely! Now you're cooking.

The Big Bang event, whatever it was, occured "everywhere" and occupied the entire universe.
 
Precisely! Now you're cooking.

The Big Bang event, whatever it was, occured "everywhere" and occupied the entire universe.
Click to expand...

It is my understanding that the entire universe at that time was very very small. Problem is no one really knows the state of the universe before the big bang. It could of been contracting from a previous universe. So, the center of the universe would be the expansion and contraction point of the universe. But, at the time of the big bang yes it was everywhere in the universe taking into account the universe at that time was smaller than I am now. Maybe even much smaller than that. Giving the way thermo-dynamics works it is hard not to believe that our universe won,t go back to is smaller than a pea shape eons of years from now.
 
Problem is no one really knows the state of the universe before the big bang.
Click to expand...

There is no such concept in General Relativity known as the state of the universe "before the Big Bang". It didn't exist. There is no "before".

Our universe came into existence at the instant of the Big Bang Event and it occured everywhere in the universe simultaneously. Space-time was created by the event.
 
Actually, either the "end of the Universe" or "the Big Bang " can be witnessed by visting either one of these two locations ... Milliways, or The Big Bang Burger Bar.

Although, Milliways, or the The Restaurant at the End of the Universe can only be visited practically by time travel, as it exists at the end of time and matter.

One of the restaurant's major attractions is that diners can watch the entire universe end around them as they eat. The terminal moment is followed by dessert. Reservations are easily obtained, since they can be booked once the patron returns to his or her original time after their meal, and the restaurant's bill can be paid by depositing a penny in any bank account of the present time: by the end of the universe, Compound interest will be enough to pay the extremely high bill.

Near-instant transportation to the restaurant can be achieved in certain rarefied circumstances, such as being next to an exploding hyperspatial field generator on the planet where Milliways will eventually be built several billion years after the explosion occurs.

However, IF it is the Big Bang that is desired to be witnessed, then that would require a visit to The Big Bang Burger Bar, it is the opposite of Milliways in that it is at the beginning of the universe, namely the Big Bang.

This could have been easily discovered if you had read your copy of The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy, where these locations, and many others are listed. --

 
There is no such concept in General Relativity known as the state of the universe "before the Big Bang". It didn't exist. There is no "before".

Our universe came into existence at the instant of the Big Bang Event and it occured everywhere in the universe simultaneously. Space-time was created by the event.
Click to expand...

General Relativity as good as it is does not have all the answers only some of the answers and those answers only go for specific situations. Even its inventer was still looking for the answers at the time of his death. But, "there is no before". I don,t believe that. Your correct there is no before in General Relativity but there was something that general relativity did not take into account. Last time I checked I counted at least 8 theories about our universe. All right I am ready for you have to stick with known science approach only argument and build from there. But, I know our universe came from somewhere. I can,t prove it but I know it.
 
There is no such concept in General Relativity known as the state of the universe "before the Big Bang". It didn't exist. There is no "before".

Our universe came into existence at the instant of the Big Bang Event and it occured everywhere in the universe simultaneously. Space-time was created by the event.
Click to expand...

So then to tie this to the other post; could we simply be trading terms/concepts for something simply perceived differently?
IE; there is no before "the big bang" until a timeline has it's "circle" or "loopback" ?
(Meaning to this example, there was no "before" the big bang, until after the bigbang...that the beginning is now tied to possibility of end however monstrous that calculation may be / some branches of a tree are shorter than others - I would imagine such would ring true with higher dimensional possibilities as well?)

It seems that time in the 3rd, is a line. However, it does seem from alot of speculation (great founders included) that when perceived in the 4th it is not such a "line" and rather has curvature, to the point of any "possible" loops? (IE; in the fourth perception would dictate there is no difference between alpha & omega - simply the relation outside of occurrence).
Is it just coincidence that the sign we have for infinity is such an interesting "loop" ?

p.s.
Kerr,
Never would have thought you'd pick 'Guide to the galaxy over such great writes as "A Wrinkle in Time", and just about every book by Neal Stephenson. :P

p.s.s.

Original quote;
"There is no such concept in General Relativity known as the state of the universe "before the Big Bang". It didn't exist. There is no "before".


Quote by Professor Jack Good, cryptanalyst commenting on Alan Turing;
"He had the idea that you could use, in effect, a theorem in logic which sounds to the untrained ear rather absurd; namely that from a contradiction, you can deduce everything."

I'm not saying that Darby's comment is a contradiction, but rather the fact of "after" having existed prior to "before" - there seems to be a function missing.
 
reactor,

General Relativity as good as it is does not have all the answers only some of the answers and those answers only go for specific situations. Even its inventer was still looking for the answers at the time of his death. But, "there is no before". I don,t believe that. Your correct there is no before in General Relativity but there was something that general relativity did not take into account. Last time I checked I counted at least 8 theories about our universe. All right I am ready for you have to stick with known science approach only argument and build from there. But, I know our universe came from somewhere. I can,t prove it but I know it.
Click to expand...

You missed the point. The question was what was the state of our universe before the Big Bang event? The answer is that the question makes no sense in that context. The Big Bang was the event that created our universe. "Before" that the our universe did not exist. There is no "before". Did other universes exist in some other spacetime? Maybe. It's certainly possible. But that wasn't the question.
 
So then, from this discussion and what seems to make sense (if that's plausible in this context lol ^^); is that there is no "loop-back" from 4 through 0.
However, and please correct this if incorrect it seems very plausible there is a loop-back from 5 through 0 designate.
Beginning outside of time through possibility and/or creation.
?

((It almost makes sense in terms of function and gave me deja'vu when I thought about a really old post here somewhere - perhaps of no consideration here (coincidental), but at times it's indeed strange how things tie together outside of "at the moment" conscious perception)).

p.s.

3rd does not tie back to 0, 2nd does not tie back to 0, 1st does not tie back to 0;
It seems we get stuck (casual joe six-pack speculation) on the 4th because of what it represents, and that it does not tie back as well; however the plausibility to "unstick" seems to come from the next beyond, etc; I apologize in advance if the expression is not clear or in proper form.
 
Angleo,

So then, from this discussion and what seems to make sense (if that's plausible in this context lol ^^); is that there is no "loop-back" from 4 through 0.
Click to expand...

I really have no idea what that sentence means. What is supposed to loop back on what? Forget the numbers "0 thru 4" if they are dimensions. The numbers are just labels. You could label them Apples, Fords, Moons and Ziggy Star Dust if you wanted to.

Describe what you're trying to explain.
 
Sorry Darby, I know that what I'm seeing in my mind's eye is probably not being communicated correctly, some other members have shed some light perhaps.
What I was trying to say through this discussion, and almost seemed to make sense is that "time" is perceived through 0-D (start of everything) through the 4th measurement (time) -however (entertain me here); there can be no regress through 4 back on 0 (perceived time movement in reverse); it was you guys who pointed that out in non specific terms.
However the whole idea, and concept of the 5th measurement seems to break free of all of this.
It seems even the functions could be communicated - (the math); though extremely intrinsically complicated.
Why?
The constant fluctuations I imagine there would be in trying to accurately create a 5th dimensional vibrational manifold mapping.
There's something there that you guys have opened my eyes to as well... I had been imagining the duality of light as 2d and 3d, but I think I was very incorrect.
Thanks. Lots to chew on.
 
Back
Top