Bill Eshleman

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 12 posts - 31 through 42 (of 42 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: Precession of the perihelion of Mercury #447
    Bill Eshleman
    Participant

    And please let me state for the record again;

    I do not have a theory of anything. What I have
    is a Shannon Information Theory “treatment” that
    can be applied to any theory characterized by
    flows of information, including, but not limited
    to, boson-like(wave-like) information and fermion-
    like(particle-like) information. And the Shannon
    Information Theory “treatment” is flexible and can
    account for phenomena, for example, like the non-
    linear path that the rays from the Sun follow
    because we never see properties as they are, but
    only as they were, due to using communications
    channels limited by the speed of light and/or
    gravity.

    in reply to: Precession of the perihelion of Mercury #446
    Bill Eshleman
    Participant

    Yes, I do not understand why “space” cannot warp.
    And Heisenberg tells me that position and velocity
    are Fourier transforms of each other and therefore
    cannot be precisely measured at the same instant;
    so I tend to agree that positions and velocities
    must be uncertain. But that “space” cannot warp,
    I must have explained to me.

    Yes, I know that the fields warp when in motion and
    produce magnetism for an observer that thinks he/she
    is motionless. So I am willing to accept more field
    warping instead of “space” warping, but I don’t
    currently know why. Why? And please don’t say
    “because I told you so” But explain it to me in an
    analogous way that Einstein attempts to explain “space”.

    in reply to: Precession of the perihelion of Mercury #441
    Bill Eshleman
    Participant

    Gyula, I guess I’ll call on Heisenberg so
    when the position gets uncertain enough, I’ll
    know the velocity pretty accurately. And
    I’ll measure it in a laboratory to minimize
    doubt.

    I am still troubled by your requirement
    that “space” cannot warp, so I am “all ears”
    as to why it cannot warp.

    And please don’t expect me to understand that
    “space” cannot warp because your theory says
    so; I desire the physical reason that led you
    to find-out that “space” cannot warp.

    That is, is non-warping an assumption and/or
    a formalism and/or an interpretation and/or
    a prediction?

    in reply to: Precession of the perihelion of Mercury #437
    Bill Eshleman
    Participant

    Dear Gyula,

    What concerns me now is not that the charges,
    masses, and fields are conserved, but that the
    Lorentz invariant expression itself, may only
    be an approximation. And I am still under the
    (stupid maybe) impression that a Lorentz
    invariant derivation of motion is identical to
    using the Lorentz factor to correct the Lorentz
    transformation matrix. That is, that the Lorentz
    factor and the Lorentz invariant are the same
    thing. Are you able to address these concerns I
    have?

    Sincerely,
    Bill Eshleman

    in reply to: Precession of the perihelion of Mercury #435
    Bill Eshleman
    Participant

    And I’m now inclined to prefer that schwere masse
    be called the “conserved mass”… the
    “konserviertmasse”.

    in reply to: Precession of the perihelion of Mercury #434
    Bill Eshleman
    Participant

    Dear Gyula,

    And I’d really like for mass to be directly proportional to the number of protons and electrons in a particle….minus the weight and impulse of the bonds. Is that what you mean
    by your clear definition of gravitational mass? Might we
    call it the “real” or the “weight” mass?…what I am thinking is implied by the German “schwere masse”.

    Sincerely,
    Bill Eshleman

    in reply to: Precession of the perihelion of Mercury #433
    Bill Eshleman
    Participant

    Dear Gyula,

    When I first approached the field of numerical
    simulation, everything in my models used
    “piecewise linear” approximations of functions.
    I knew that piecewise approximations using
    polynomials existed, but I much preferred
    piecewise linear because it was so straightforward
    in the calculation of differentials and integrals.
    I thought I was pretty smart doing it the “easy”
    way.

    Then somebody showed me that piecewise quadratic was
    “easy” too, and better. Then I started playing with
    cubics and so-on. Then conjugates entered the picture
    as well. After playing with these mathematical objects
    for years, one day in 1985 I discovered the Lorentz
    factor in an “approximation”. I put that factor on the
    left hand side of the equation and out popped a really
    neat identity, the one described above. And it was not
    merely an approximation, “piecewise conjugate” was
    exact. I know that even “high falooten” math-nuts on
    SciAmPF had never seen my identity before; I was
    user-name ClamShell at that time and they refused to
    absorb what was necessary to understand it, so they
    dismissed my work on the basis that they didn’t understand
    it. I’m really no Galois, but Galois suffered the same
    fate at the hands of his chairman. So I think maybe that
    I’m onto a “new” type of analysis, and for lack of better
    words, I call it “Conjugate Analysis”.

    And if I am wrong, I have little to lose, so I persevere
    in the notion that gravity is a “conjugate field”( and so
    are the other fields as well); a first principle.

    Sincerely,
    Bill Eshleman

    in reply to: Precession of the perihelion of Mercury #431
    Bill Eshleman
    Participant

    Ouch! I don’t actually dismiss those “buzz-words”,
    but instead consider them to be consequences instead
    of “first principles”. And possibly even approximations.

    That is, I imagine the space around us as a bundle of
    fibers described by polynomials and their conjugates;
    a first principle of sorts.

    In short, I will make every effort to make our perspectives
    converge; you with Boltzmann’s atoms and me with
    Boltzmann’s entropy. Two seemingly different concepts, but
    really just two perspectives of the same mechanism.

    in reply to: Precession of the perihelion of Mercury #428
    Bill Eshleman
    Participant

    So one may ask….”What is the connection between
    The Szaszian Atomistic treatment of reality, and
    Eshleman’s Entropic treatment?”

    Ludwig Boltzmann

    in reply to: Precession of the perihelion of Mercury #427
    Bill Eshleman
    Participant

    And no, please don’t accuse me as trying to
    dominate this thread; it’s just that I agree
    and intend to agree with the atomistic viewpoint
    and am merely speculating on the composition of
    the invisible lines-of-force between participating
    particles. Lines of force idealized and imagined
    as iron particles on a sheet of paper with a magnet
    underneath, but otherwise quite invisible.

    I’m saying this as an experienced coder of numerical
    simulations of things, NOT as a physicist.

    So my image of those invisible lines of force as not
    only being described by conjugate polynomials, but also
    caused by the conjugate polynomials, might, as some say,
    be too good to be true, and therefore most likely false.

    So I elevate conjugate-ness to a first principle in
    retribution….. makes sense to me….

    in reply to: Precession of the perihelion of Mercury #426
    Bill Eshleman
    Participant

    And if that isn’t incorrigible enough for your
    sensibilities, that static wave-like energy is
    stored in composite particles as what might be
    loosely called “The Conjugates of fields”, and
    that radiations are due to the orthogonality of
    the very same fields; two different forms of the
    same thing; one static and the other dynamic.

    in reply to: Precession of the perihelion of Mercury #425
    Bill Eshleman
    Participant

    Dear Gyula,

    Whenever you mention that things about the dynamics
    of the universe cannot be exactly known, a little bird
    whispers in my ear that we cannot know ANYTHING exactly.
    But I suspect at the same “whisper,” that, that is not
    exactly what you are implying either.

    The “whisper” tells me that you are implying that the
    “Laws of Nature” are also ambiguous because they don’t
    know ANYTHING exactly, either.

    So I suggest, like times before, that all that can be
    known are “averages”; averages that are better approximations, and again never exact, but only a better “fit” with mathematical models. And that the
    “Laws of Nature” are limited to never knowing what
    things are, but only what they were.

    Invariance, covariance, form invariance… these are
    “buzz-words” to me…..

    So I suggest that their root cause, or rather their
    first principle, are relationships between polynomials
    without cross-products and their appropriate conjugates.
    Not as a result of, but the cause of invariance, etc.

    That is, the Lorentz factor and my proposed Gravitational
    factor are analytical approximations of the bonding of
    atoms into molecules via the motion of electrons, and the
    bonding of protons and neutrons onto nuclei via vibrational
    motion of charges, both electrical and gravitational.

    What I see as merely an ambition, other folks might view
    as incorrigibility. 🙁

    Sincerely,
    Bill Eshleman

Viewing 12 posts - 31 through 42 (of 42 total)