(and actually sought the help of a fellow professor to develop some of the special theory of relativity equations. I forget the guys name - I have the book in storage, like a whole lot of other stuff
As I’ve read, it was only this: Spring of 1916 Hilbert invoked Hamilton's principle for an alternative explanation of General Relativity’s equations.
Autumn of 1916 A. Einstein asked K. Karatheodori for a help regarding a special case of this G.R. alternative explanation.
Karatheodoris was delayed in replying.
Einstein found a solution for a special case and published it Oct1916.
Karatheodoris finally answered Dec 1916 providing a general solution.
George
Not really. Mathematics is a formal system, lacking the semantic meaning required of a language. When examining a mathematical proof one need only consider the way the symbols are manipulated, not any "meaning" one might want to attach to them. Language, on the other hand, is entirely dependent on meaning.
Or, perhaps just the right amount.
For more on that, I highly recommend "Mysticism and Philosophy" by W.T Stace, in which Stace reviews descriptions of mystical states experienced by people from different traditions, times, etc. What he finds is that despite slight variations in the words chosen, the core of the experience is universal - regardless of what practice (or what drug) resulted in the experience.
Many will fail to accept the validity of such an analysis, due to their own cultural and moral prejudices. Those same people will classify all of this as purely "religious", or some other such "hokus pokus". By doing so, they do themselves a disservice.
Last edited:
I will be looking into Stace more in the future thanks for the suggestion.
You view the universe through hardware (eyes, ears, etc..) and your brain, leaving the data vulnerable to be manipulated by a "man in the middle" attack, whether it be "god" or "designer" or "higher evolved species" etc....
To underestimate does yourself and our species a disservice.
Yet again dualism prevents full comprehension.
As long as you continue to grasp onto the idea that the brain/mind is somehow separate from the universe, you will fail to realize what we can know about both (and how we can know it).
In trying to think about all this, I realised something: the physical sciences have very little to say about philosophy, but it seems that philosophy has quite a bit to say about the physical sciences. I have not yet read Bruno Latour, nor do I know that I would agree with his conclusions, but I believe he touches on some of these issues. As to this thread: as long as physicists remain within the parameters they set for themselves and come to conclusions, stated in the kind of language framed by these parameters, these conclusions can only be interpreted from within these parameters. The issues over how these parameters were constructed constitute a separate enterprise, only to be engaged by those familiar with both the subject they wish to interrogate (i.e. physics) and the framework they wish to use for the interrogation (i.e. philosophy). If such an inquiry wishes to be normative, as it appears to be here, it would have to be normative with respect to the endeavour of science, not WRT the results thereof, or their interpretations. That is, as I said, if science remains within the boundaries it has set for itself, which it mostly does.
Mathematics and numbers exist even when humans or life does not exist.
If humans existed 600 lightyears away they'd be using the same formulas as us in their calculations.
This universality is what causes it to be referred to as a language.
Another vague example I can think of is chess.
If the current belief is that the universe is infinite, then if you travel long enough in one direction you will end up where you started. Simply really.
If you can grasp this concept, you can grasp the "edge of the universe", or why the universe is infinite.
You effectively are the edge of the universe.
The problem is cause and effect thinking, we assume one thing follows another.
If you could send signal faster then the speed of light, to someone traveling close to the speed of light, they could reply to you before you even sent it.
We use a similar concept everyday to synchronize satellites. Satellites travel fast enough would drift out of location miles per day without correction.
Current belief is that nothing can travel trough the speed of light, as mass would be infinite, however that does not necessarily mean that something (like neutrinos) cannot travel faster then the speed of light if propagated from a singular source.
From a mathematical point of view, this can be useful to predict things that seem to be counter-intuitive. It is math that predicts antimatter.
Mathematical solutions to Einstein's equations allow particles to travel faster then the speed of light. Tachyons.
I'm sorry it does not explain this in your dusty old text book.
What appears to be the "Big Bang" is actually the point where the "edges" of the universe meet, it's the infinite mass that occurs when neutrinos do a "lap" around (through) the universe and meets the barrier of the speed of light to which it propagated from.
A "black hole" is the negative tail preceding the "big bangs" as that are parroted in textbooks.
This of course is just a layman's explanation of the universe and Einstein's work.
If you can grasp this concept, you can grasp the "edge of the universe", or why the universe is infinite.
You effectively are the edge of the universe.
The problem is cause and effect thinking, we assume one thing follows another.
If you could send signal faster then the speed of light, to someone traveling close to the speed of light, they could reply to you before you even sent it.
We use a similar concept everyday to synchronize satellites. Satellites travel fast enough would drift out of location miles per day without correction.
Current belief is that nothing can travel trough the speed of light, as mass would be infinite, however that does not necessarily mean that something (like neutrinos) cannot travel faster then the speed of light if propagated from a singular source.
From a mathematical point of view, this can be useful to predict things that seem to be counter-intuitive. It is math that predicts antimatter.
Mathematical solutions to Einstein's equations allow particles to travel faster then the speed of light. Tachyons.
I'm sorry it does not explain this in your dusty old text book.
What appears to be the "Big Bang" is actually the point where the "edges" of the universe meet, it's the infinite mass that occurs when neutrinos do a "lap" around (through) the universe and meets the barrier of the speed of light to which it propagated from.
A "black hole" is the negative tail preceding the "big bangs" as that are parroted in textbooks.
This of course is just a layman's explanation of the universe and Einstein's work.
By literal definition no, the universe contains everything.
You can be in more then one place at a time, but both of those places are contained within the universe.
Science also says that anything that can happen, could theoretically happen. The chance might be ridiculously small, but even if you were to carry on in one direction forever, there's still the possibility that all of your atoms would suddenly teleport themselves back from whence they originally came and you'd be back where you started.
Of course it'd take some inconceivable amount of time for the probability to come up statistically, but if the universe is infinite...well you get the point.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.