The Matrix - Integrated (Massive SpaceTime)

Re: Answer The Questions, Counselor.

Thanks Darby,

That being said, I think that maybe it is time for you to start a thread that deals with what a vector is, vector analysis and progresses to what a tensor is, how it relates to vector analysis and what it means in our common reality before we try to relate it to the even more complex reality of General Relativity and space-time.
Click to expand...
Very well, then!
I know that it is a complex subject but it can be exlained in simplified terms. For instance, tensors can be related to how a block of clay is distorted by twist, stretch and compression (torque/shear, strain and stress). Simple vector analysis can't fully explain the shape that the block of clay is mutated to given those forces acting on it.

It can be explained without going into all of the higher math, as you know. Post Grad and Post Doc analysis obviously requires the math in depth but on the forum a pop-sci explanation should suffice.
Click to expand...
I'll give it a shot. But I must admit to one handicap, and that is due to my position as an engineering prof. I am permitted the luxury in my classes of assuming basic knowledge of vectors and calculus from a mathematical perspective. I know I have a tendency to take the attitude of "go read-up on it", as this permits me to avoid unnecessary tangets in my normal teaching paradigm. Yet I also understand it can be inappropriate here. So the question becomes: Can I count on your help as "guest lecturer" in helping me ground some of the topics down to a more fundamental level? You do have a good way to "bring things home to roost."


At the same time, I know I can count on you to keep me honest in areas where I may tend to "cut corners" or not tell "the whole story".

Collaborative effort? /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif
RMT
 
Re: Patience and Vigilance, My Friend

Now may I falsify your theory without you getting all in an uproar?

The first part is- Is there any part of the Cosmos that MST does not apply to, known or not, or is MST the largest equasion there can possibly be?
 
Re: Patience and Vigilance, My Friend

Now may I falsify your theory without you getting all in an uproar?
Click to expand...
You are most certainly welcomed to try. But you should first make sure you are familiar with how scientific falsification proceeds. In other words, something is not falsified just because you say (or think) it is, or just because you can come up with a "gedankenexperiment" which cannot be scientifically validated. I only point this out for your benefit, as you have already (a) questioned the validity of scientific falsifiability and you were shown to be incorrect, (b) not necessarily demonstrated a sufficient level of mathematical familiarity to be able to mathematically falsify a highly mathematical theory (one for which you still do not know the full-blown tensor solution).

But I'm all ears. Have at it.

The first part is- Is there any part of the Cosmos that MST does not apply to, known or not, or is MST the largest equasion there can possibly be?
Click to expand...
First of all, the "known or not" is a silly (i.e. non-scientific) adjunct to your question. No one can claim that a theory applies to that which no one yet knows. So I reject that portion of your question as non-scientific. Secondly, the last part of your question is also not scientifically relevant, but my answer would be "of course not". Because there are equations called "infinite series" which are certainly "larger" (however you may wish to measure the "size" of an equation) than my theory, even in its full-blown tensor form. Furthermore, size of an equation is not necessarily an indicator of what phenomenon it may cover. And finally, I am certainly NOT claiming that my theory is the "be-all-end-all". Rather, I am claiming it is the next, logical, scientific advancement beyond Einstein's.

Given those caveats and rejections on scientific bases, my answer would be "To the best of my knowledge, the MST theory applies to the known physical cosmos, and yes that even includes black holes."

Your turn.
RMT

PS - I should also add, for your benefit, that one aspect of a falsifiable scientific theory is that it is more useful in what it claims cannot occur, moreso than it predicts something new which is yet to be be observed. To make your job easier, I will remind you of what MST primarily says cannot occur: The MST theory prevents the romantic notion of time travel in which the time traveller's Mass remains unchanged (ergo, why Titor cannot be real). I have explained this before, so I will leave it at that. RMT
 
Re: Answer The Questions, Counselor.

Rainman,

Let's give it a try. I won't expand here. When you open a thread for the topic we can discuss it there. /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif
 
Re: Patience and Vigilance, My Friend

Rainman,

PS - I should also add, for your benefit, that one aspect of a falsifiable scientific theory is that it is more useful in what it claims cannot occur
Click to expand...

Thank you for tossing that in. It form the crux of the Scientific Method.

When a theory only makes predictions about what it holds to be possible it is likely to be unfalsifiable. The theory says that "A" will occur. Depending on how that statement is actually formulated one could wait forever for "A" to occur, "A" never occurs, but the theory is not falsified because "there's always tomorrow."

But if a theory also states that "B" cannot occur it is falsified the first time that "B" is detected. That's a much more powerful statement.

I think that the caveat for scientists here is that making a discovery is only half (or less) of the problem. Properly documenting the theory is at least half of the job.

Have I ever said before that I still hate the APA and their "little manual"?
 
Re: Patience and Vigilance, My Friend

Hi Darby,
Have I ever said before that I still hate the APA and their "little manual"?
Click to expand...
I take it you refer to the American Psychological Association? And if so, I am not surprised you hate their little manual, for as you know psychological theories were the fodder upon which Karl Popper based his seminal work in falsifiability. He showed they do not stand the test of being "scientific" as they cannot be formally falsified.

RMT
 
Re: Patience and Vigilance, My Friend

Is someone in this thread trying to say Ray is nuts or what?

The Matrix, was a movie about people living in soup with their brains wired up, so they could give light to a false reality.

I need curb feelers here??
 
Re: Patience and Vigilance, My Friend

Rainman,

Yep - that APA. But the "manual" I was thinking of is the APA Pubication Manual. Every term paper...every dam*ed one had to be formatted in that precise style - if you were in the School of Letters & Science.
 
Re: Patience and Vigilance, My Friend

>You are most certainly welcomed to try. But you should first make sure you are familiar with how scientific falsification proceeds.<

Do you agree with this as the ground rules for falsification?

Karl Popper wrote "Science as Falsification" in 1963 in response to a slew of new concepts popping up, all claiming to be new branches of science. The paper itself posits falsification as a method of discerning what is really science and what is the "philosophy of science". As he puts it, "I wished to distingush between science and pseudo-science; knowing very well that science often errs, and pseudoscience may happen to stumble upon the truth." Until then, the empirical method was used to distingush between real science and pseudoscience- the yardstick was proof; until then, the definition of science also included astrology and biographies (revisionist history as fact).

The four new "sciences" Popper mentions in the paper are Einstein's relativity, Karl Marx's theory of history, Freud's theory of psychoanalysis and Adler's theory of individual psychology but there are many others as well. With the latter three, his hounding question was "why are they so different from physical theories, from Newton's theory and especially the theory of relativity?"

What sets Einstein's new theory apart from the others in a sea of new sciences is that E=MC2 is an exact measurement and the other three sciences seemingly have more in common with primitive myths than science; they resembled astrology rather than astronomy.

Psychoanalysis, revisionist history and individual psychology all appear to have a common explanatory power, that is, they "appear to be able to explain practically anything that happened within their fields"; that if you speak intellectually using any of those sciences that you quickly realize that there are "confirmed instances everywhere: the world was full of verifications of [that] theory. Whatever happened always confirmed it. Thus its truth appeared manifest; and unbelievers were clearly people who did not want to see the manifest truth; who refuse to see it, either because it was against their class interest, or because of their repressions which were still "un-analyzed" and crying aloud for treatment."

As Popper writes, "The most characteristic element in this situation seemed to me the incessant stream of confirmations, of observations which 'verified' the theories in question; and this point was constantly emphasize by their adherents. A Marxist could not open a newspaper without finding on every page confirming evidence for his interpretation of history; not only in the news, but also in its presentation — which revealed the class bias of the paper — and especially of course what the paper did not say. The Freudian analysts emphasized that their theories were constantly verified by their 'clinical observations.' As for Adler, I was much impressed by a personal experience. Once, in 1919, I reported to him a case which to me did not seem particularly Adlerian, but which he found no difficulty in analyzing in terms of his theory of inferiority feelings, Although he had not even seen the child. Slightly shocked, I asked him how he could be so sure. 'Because of my thousandfold experience,' he replied; whereupon I could not help saying: 'And with this new case, I suppose, your experience has become thousand-and-one-fold.' "

By contrast, Einstein's theory proposed actual predictions which could be actually proven, like "light might be attracted by heavy bodies such as the sun" to which one could simply look through a telescope to see whether or not it's true.

Here are Popper's seven criterion for discerning falsability:

1. It is easy to obtain confirmations, or verifications, for nearly every theory — if we look for confirmations.

2. Confirmations should count only if they are the result of risky predictions; that is to say, if, unenlightened by the theory in question, we should have expected an event which was incompatible with the theory — an event which would have refuted the theory.

3. Every "good" scientific theory is a prohibition: it forbids certain things to happen. The more a theory forbids, the better it is.

4. A theory which is not refutable by any conceivable event is non-scientific. Irrefutability is not a virtue of a theory (as people often think) but a vice.

5. Every genuine test of a theory is an attempt to falsify it, or to refute it. Testability is falsifiability; but there are degrees of testability: some theories are more testable, more exposed to refutation, than others; they take, as it were, greater risks.

6. Confirming evidence should not count except when it is the result of a genuine test of the theory; and this means that it can be presented as a serious but unsuccessful attempt to falsify the theory. (I now speak in such cases of "corroborating evidence.")

7. Some genuinely testable theories, when found to be false, are still upheld by their admirers — for example by introducing ad hoc some auxiliary assumption, or by reinterpreting the theory ad hoc in such a way that it escapes refutation. Such a procedure is always possible, but it rescues the theory from refutation only at the price of destroying, or at least lowering, its scientific status. (I later described such a rescuing operation as a "conventionalist twist" or a "conventionalist stratagem.")

One can sum up all this by saying that the criterion of the scientific status of a theory is its falsifiability, or refutability, or testability.

As such, "Astrology did not pass the test. Astrologers were greatly impressed, and misled, by what they believed to be confirming evidence — so much so that they were quite unimpressed by any unfavorable evidence. Moreover, by making their interpretations and prophesies sufficiently vague they were able to explain away anything that might have been a refutation of the theory had the theory and the prophesies been more precise. In order to escape falsification they destroyed the testability of their theory. It is a typical soothsayer's trick to predict things so vaguely that the predictions can hardly fail: that they become irrefutable." The process also rendered Marx's theory of history little above soothsaying and psychoanalysis and individual psychology, while still of considerable importance, is simply "non-testable, irrefutable: there was no concievable human behavior which could contradict them; they contain most interesting psychological suggestions, but not in a testable form."

"Thus the problem which I tried to solve by proposing the criterion of falsifiability was neither a problem of meaningfulness or significance, nor a problem of truth or acceptability. It was the problem of drawing a line (as well as this can be done) between the statements, or systems of statements, of the empirical sciences, and all other statements — whether they are of a religious or of a metaphysical character, or simply pseudo-scientific. Years later — it must have been in 1928 or 1929 — I called this first problem of mine the "problem of demarcation." The criterion of falsifiability is a solution to this problem of demarcation, for it says that statements or systems of statements, in order to be ranked as scientific, must be capable of conflicting with possible, or conceivable, observations."
 
Re: Patience and Vigilance, My Friend

Do you agree with this as the ground rules for falsification?
Click to expand...
I again note your tendency to like to ask questions, and expect others to answer them. You like having your questions answered, don't you? Do you believe that others would like the same respect for you answering their questions as it is apparant you wish from them?

If I were to act like you, someone so intent on following their agenda, then I would treat your questions the way you do mine...letting them fall by the wayside, or giving half-ast, vague, sometimes even non-answers to them. So in response to this question of yours, I'd imagine your response would go something like this:

Seeing as how you did not appear to agree with these ground rules for falsification in other posts, I must ask if YOU agree with these ground rules for falsification? Do YOU accept them? (If so, you also accept certain elements of Titor's story as being unscientific) And I really don't think it was necessary to cut and paste the entire article you read on the subject. If you really want to get to the basis of falsification, Popper's 7 criteria for whether a theory is falsifiable to begin with would be more than enough:

Here are Popper's seven criterion for discerning falsability:

1. It is easy to obtain confirmations, or verifications, for nearly every theory — if we look for confirmations.

2. Confirmations should count only if they are the result of risky predictions; that is to say, if, unenlightened by the theory in question, we should have expected an event which was incompatible with the theory — an event which would have refuted the theory.

3. Every "good" scientific theory is a prohibition: it forbids certain things to happen. The more a theory forbids, the better it is.

4. A theory which is not refutable by any conceivable event is non-scientific. Irrefutability is not a virtue of a theory (as people often think) but a vice.

5. Every genuine test of a theory is an attempt to falsify it, or to refute it. Testability is falsifiability; but there are degrees of testability: some theories are more testable, more exposed to refutation, than others; they take, as it were, greater risks.

6. Confirming evidence should not count except when it is the result of a genuine test of the theory; and this means that it can be presented as a serious but unsuccessful attempt to falsify the theory. (I now speak in such cases of "corroborating evidence.")

7. Some genuinely testable theories, when found to be false, are still upheld by their admirers — for example by introducing ad hoc some auxiliary assumption, or by reinterpreting the theory ad hoc in such a way that it escapes refutation. Such a procedure is always possible, but it rescues the theory from refutation only at the price of destroying, or at least lowering, its scientific status. (I later described such a rescuing operation as a "conventionalist twist" or a "conventionalist stratagem.")
Click to expand...

From here, you would continue with yet another question to me, so I will do the same for you:

In accordance with Popper's criteria #3, would YOU agree that what my theory forbids is the romantic notion of time travel wherein the TT'ers mass is unaltered? You see, before you falsify my theory, it is important that you understand what my theory is saying is NOT possible, not necessarily what it is confirming. So again, do you agree?

RMT
 
Re: Patience and Vigilance, My Friend

>I again note your tendency to like to ask questions, and expect others to answer them.<

If I spell out the ground rules, you accuse me of answering questions with questions and if I don't, then you'll just ignore whatever I write, right? That way you win both ways.

>You like having your questions answered, don't you? Do you believe that others would like the same respect for you answering their questions as it is apparant you wish from them?<

My only question was- is this an acceptable definition of falsability. I wasn't pit picking like you CLEARLY are right now, I wasn't even being a smartass. I wasn't being facecious or snide or rude, you are by taking offense to me laying down the rules. Or is it that you will never accept any yardstick because you're afraid your entire theory will fall apart once you do? Please note- these are RHETORICAL questions used to point out your modus operandi: "I will only accept certain kinds of evidence, I will ignore all others." Good scientific method you have there, you can never fail.

>If I were to act like you, someone so intent on following their agenda, then I would treat your questions the way you do mine...letting them fall by the wayside, or giving half-ast, vague, sometimes even non-answers to them. So in response to this question of yours, I'd imagine your response would go something like this: Seeing as how you did not appear to agree with these ground rules for falsification in other posts, I must ask if YOU agree with these ground rules for falsification? Do YOU accept them? (If so, you also accept certain elements of Titor's story as being unscientific)<

I read this three times and it makes no sense. It's a non-sensical rant. I asked ONE SIMPLE QUESTION and got a rant as a reply.

>And I really don't think it was necessary to cut and paste the entire article you read on the subject.<

Yeah, it is absolutely neccesary to copy and paste and cite original sources as much as possible with you. When I don't I get accused of "imaginitive editing" and "making stuff up" and "not understanding science".

>If you really want to get to the basis of falsification, Popper's 7 criteria for whether a theory is falsifiable to begin with would be more than enough<

No I don't. You do; that is the only way you are willing to look "objectively"- by ignoring nearly everything except whatever narrow slice of reality you choose to accept; to cite an obscure word that did not even exist until Popper coined it. Yet here we are.

And please note: you clearly are attacking me from the onset, I haven't even gotten to the "your theory is non-scientific psycho-babble" part yet, imagine your response when I do.
 
Re: Patience and Vigilance, My Friend

I am sorry, I didn't see that after you wrote 500 words to attack me with that you had a point to make:

>In accordance with Popper's criteria #3, would YOU agree that what my theory forbids is the romantic notion of time travel wherein the TT'ers mass is unaltered? You see, before you falsify my theory, it is important that you understand what my theory is saying is NOT possible, not necessarily what it is confirming. So again, do you agree?<

The only way your theory proves time travel impossible is is I choose to ignore the law of conservation of matter: Matter cannot be created nor destroyed, Proper measurement is significant, All components of a reaction must be accounted for.

Let me ask you a question, I know how much you love it when I answer questions with questions. If I went into my "super-duper spaceship" and did a Star Trek slingshot around the center of the galaxy, would I emerge at the same relative point in time or much further in the future? "There are natural time machines" -John Titor. As far as the "unaltered part" of time travel, I refer you to Titor's words on Ginger IT, aka the technology behind the Segway scooter, which is a piss-poor example of the concept behind it.

So the direct answer to your question is no, I disagree. Time travel is absolutely possible, in fact, it occurs naturally. I can either agree with your theory and ignore the whole of science in the process or disagree with you. Time machines are possible, we just haven't figured out how to make one yet, that is why there is no science behind it. I also have a nagging suspicion that viable "aircars" will be invented one day that ride gravity waves. I can't prove it because no one has invented one yet but even a layman knows that in 1000 years we'll definetly have them. As far as whether or not they collapse into a suitcase, I'll leave that to George Jetson to answer.
 
Re: Patience and Vigilance, My Friend

If I spell out the ground rules, you accuse me of answering questions with questions and if I don't, then you'll just ignore whatever I write, right? That way you win both ways.
Click to expand...
No. I take it that you just don't like it when I do the same thing to you, that you do to me. Which is not answering questions, and giving rants where I would expect your answers to be.

Please note- these are RHETORICAL questions used to point out your modus operandi: "I will only accept certain kinds of evidence, I will ignore all others." Good scientific method you have there, you can never fail.
Click to expand...
And you should also note the same thing is true of what I am doing. Do you notice how the one, important question I asked in my last response you left unanswered. This is your trend.... don't answer questions the other guys asks.

I'll repeat the question again, because it is at the heart of the ability to falsify a falsifiable theory:

Q to Jmpet: In accordance with Popper's criteria #3, would YOU agree that what my theory forbids is the romantic notion of time travel wherein the TT'ers mass is unaltered?

to cite an obscure word that did not even exist until Popper coined it.
Click to expand...
What you brand as obscure, sir, is one of the primary foundations of science as we know it today.

And please note: you clearly are attacking me from the onset
Click to expand...
If my taking the same attitude/tone as you (not answering questions) is interpreted by you as "attacking you", then can you imagine how I feel when you do your little jig?

Now let me me point things out to you: I really cannot argue with Popper's criteria for falsifiability, so the answer to your question is, of course, yes, I accept them. But that still leaves the question above unanswered by you. Will you answer it, as it is important to your further falsification attempt?

RMT
 
Re: Patience and Vigilance, My Friend

Please allow me to illustrate that time travel is possible. I am going to attempt to go back in time two days and post on this board a random quote, any random quote that pops into my head as proof. Since I will be applying subatomic physics to make it work, the time two days ago that the post will appear may appear slightly off, heck, even my IP might be off. But after I do this "information subdues physical energy" trick, I am sure my point of the relevancy of time travel to the traveller, in line with MST, is correct. Wish me luck.
 
Re: Patience and Vigilance, My Friend

Well, at least you finally answered the question....sorta. But now I see you resorting to hypotheticals (and clear sci-fi fantasy) as your means to attempt to falsify. Here, let's look at it in detail:

>In accordance with Popper's criteria #3, would YOU agree that what my theory forbids is the romantic notion of time travel wherein the TT'ers mass is unaltered? You see, before you falsify my theory, it is important that you understand what my theory is saying is NOT possible, not necessarily what it is confirming. So again, do you agree?<

The only way your theory proves time travel impossible is is I choose to ignore the law of conservation of matter
Click to expand...
This is important for several reasons:

1) By not agreeing to what my theory is saying CANNOT happen, there is no hope for falsifability. Please note the distinction: I am not saying "do you agree that this cannot happen" I am saying "do you agree that my theory is claiming that this cannot happen." BIG diff...and necessary to establish a foundation to falsify!
2) Again, you do not have to AGREE with the theory, you must only understand what the theory is prohibiting.
3) The reason for this as being important is because YOUR JOB in falsifying the theory is then to go out and COLLECT REAL EVIDENCE that show a case (one, real case) where what my theory is claiming to not be true, actually occurs.
4) The obvious importance of your statement should go without saying...conservation of matter is not a true conservation law, and has been falsified (nuclear reactions). Moreoever, there is a bigger conservation law (Energy and Momentum) that DOES apply to my theory which you have not stated a position on.

But now let's look at your "evidence", if that is what you wish to call it:

If I went into my "super-duper spaceship" and did a Star Trek slingshot around the center of the galaxy, would I emerge at the same relative point in time or much further in the future?
Click to expand...
Stop. You are using fantasy (an unknown and unverified, proposed capability) to try to falsify my theory? This is not within the bounds of falsification. (You can't use an imaginary, dreamed-up event, as this is not ACTUAL evidence).

"There are natural time machines" -John Titor.
Click to expand...
And now you are using the words of a fictional character, which my theory is purposefully saying CANNOT occur, to try to falsify my theory?

As far as the "unaltered part" of time travel, I refer you to Titor's words on Ginger IT, aka the technology behind the Segway scooter, which is a piss-poor example of the concept behind it.
Click to expand...
Dude...stop...I am about to bust a gut from laughing here. AGAIN you are using quotes from a guy you cannot even verify as real, to try to falsify my theory?

Now.... please give me DETAILS about WTF you are talking about with respect to the Segway scooter. You are actually claiming to me that this decidedly non-high-tech scooter somehow classifies as a "natural" time machine? HOW??? And please don't rely on Titor's words. That scooter uses the same type of technology (only miniaturized) for stability and control that is used in fighter jets. That is all. There is NOTHING time-machiney or time-altering about it...sorry to burst your bubble. That's just true.

So the direct answer to your question is no, I disagree.
Click to expand...
Well OK then, there is no hope of you falsifying the theory then. For if you do not agree that THIS is what my theory is saying is not possible (again, NOT asking you to agree with it, ONLY that this is what my theory prohibits, per falsifiability) then you can proceed no further, for you have nothing to falsify.

Please, please, PLEASE try to get a better handle on falsifiability, because I still don't think you "get it". As much as I try to explain it to you...

Now is when you would attack me and make fun of me.
RMT
 
Re: Patience and Vigilance, My Friend

Please allow me to illustrate that time travel is possible. I am going to attempt to go back in time two days and post on this board a random quote, any random quote that pops into my head as proof. Since I will be applying subatomic physics to make it work, the time two days ago that the post will appear may appear slightly off, heck, even my IP might be off. But after I do this "information subdues physical energy" trick, I am sure my point of the relevancy of time travel to the traveller, in line with MST, is correct. Wish me luck.
Click to expand...

Heh. "Good Luck, Mr. Gorky!" -- Neil Armstrong

NOTE the addition of anti-falsification elements in the above: "Since I will be applying subatomic physics to make it work, the time two days ago that the post will appear may appear slightly off, heck, even my IP might be off."

RMT

PS - Note at current time, jmpet has 136 posts. Just doing good science here!
 
Re: Patience and Vigilance, My Friend

Whew. Made it back! Here's the post:

>>jmpet member

Reged: 09/05/05
Posts: 136

Re: Answer The Questions, Counselor. [re: jmpet]
11/28/05 10:29 PM (208.29.186.237)

Edit Reply

The rain in Spain falls mainly on the plain.

There ya go.<<

It's "one page before this one", posted two days ago.
 
Re: Patience and Vigilance, My Friend

So now that I have successfully demonstrated that "information subdues mass" (or whatever you quote when you constantly quote yourself) and shown that I too can travel time, only without MST, should I reply to this thread or let you finish the new (uncorrupted) one you started?
 
Re: Patience and Vigilance, My Friend

Nice try,

Only problem is I saw that quote/reply on the forum days ago, when you really made it. Ergo, you did not go back in time and alter the timeline. So now I am sure you will argue "yeah, that's because I was sending it from the future."

Q to Jmpet: So is this your falsification of my theory?
RMT
 
Re: Patience and Vigilance, My Friend

No, let's stay in this thread.

Because you are clearly so unbelieveably clever to have made that post two days ago, now I would like you to repeat this monumental feat of time travel. Except now I am going to give you the parameters:

I want to you go back in time again, and this time I want you to start a NEW thread, two days ago, named "This is jmpet from your future". You can type whatever you want in the body.

Go!
RMT
 
Back
Top