Naked Science Forum
Non Life Sciences => Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology => Topic started by: Pincho on 28/03/2013 10:44:59
-
What is a location? Break it down into small parts. Use the perspective of a particle, what is it connected to? It doesn't store a number.
I was thinking of a Deaf, dumb, blind person.
If I allow touch, then what is the locality that the person can touch?
Imagine you wanted to write a computer program but you aren't allowed to use numbers, what else can you use?
This submarine toy, is something that I think about when I think of analysing a location in 3D... I don't know if it helps..
http://www.videojug.com/film/how-to-make-a-submarine (http://www.videojug.com/film/how-to-make-a-submarine)
-
Oh wait! I think I just figured it out. I could program it with scale, like a rainbow. Same scale collides. Yeah that would work. Sorry about that.
-
What is a location?
It's difficult to describe in simpler terms. It's always good to start with a dictionary but they're very circular. E.g. see http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/location/ E.g.
a position or site occupied or available for occupancy or marked by some distinguishing feature
This requires one to already know that "position" means. That's why it's circular.
Think of it merely as a name to identify a portion/subset of space. Set is an undefined term in mathematics. You can describe it in terms of numbers or names depending on what you're describing. E.g. Haerhill, MA is a location as is 24 main street in Haverhill as is the top of the kitchen table in 25 main street in haverhill as is the middle of the top of the table in 25 main street in Haverhill.
-
What is a location?
It's difficult to describe in simpler terms. It's always good to start with a dictionary but they're very circular. E.g. see http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/location/ E.g.
a position or site occupied or available for occupancy or marked by some distinguishing feature
This requires one to already know that "position" means. That's why it's circular.
Think of it merely as a name to identify a portion/subset of space. Set is an undefined term in mathematics. You can describe it in terms of numbers or names depending on what you're describing. E.g. Haerhill, MA is a location as is 24 main street in Haverhill as is the top of the kitchen table in 25 main street in haverhill as is the middle of the top of the table in 25 main street in Haverhill.
I needed the physics though. Nevermind I figured it out.
-
What is a location?
Location can only be defined by it's relative position to another location.
-
What is a location?
Location can only be defined by it's relative position to another location.
It's scale. You don't have to believe me, but it is scale. Think about it...
You have 4 sphere (particles as sphere)...
2 the same size (or just 1 planck unit difference)
1 smaller
1 larger
Now you take these positions from points. So they inflate from holes at points. They never have to cross paths so the membrane doesn't mean anything. Only the interaction per point means anything. So basically you have balloons inflating inside balloons.
The smaller one doesn't collide, it just fits inside.
The larger one doesn't collide it just fits outside.
The two equal ones share the exact same space, so collide.
So now you have locality as a physical set of rules that you can program into a computer, and the use of X/Y/Z which doesn't have any physics, now has scalar physics.
The Black Hole in the middle of the Galaxy scales the physics outwards in a spiral, so you basically have the physics happening there, and a rainbow using X/Y/Z instead of R/G/B now has a relationship to scale.
You reach out with your hand, your hand is red shifted, so you can connect with the particles at that position.
It's all very nice.
-
The reason the packet sinks in the water results from the compression of the air within it increasing it's overall density relative to the water surrounding it. How this experiment relates to location only demonstrates that gravity will overcome the effect of buoyancy when the density of an object is increased relative to the surrounding media. Maybe you need to take your ideas to the New Theories section my friend.
-
The reason the packet sinks in the water results from the compression of the air within it increasing it's overall density relative to the water surrounding it. How this experiment relates to location only demonstrates that gravity will overcome the effect of buoyancy when the density of an object is increased relative to the surrounding media. Maybe you need to take your ideas to the New Theory section my friend.
Oh yeah diagonal lines, I forgot about that.
-
Location can only be defined by it's relative position to another location.
The same is true with direction.
-
I needed the physics though. Nevermind I figured it out.
I don't follow. What do you mean? What does scale have to do with it? If you mean measure of something then that pertains to its relationship to something else and thus more than just location.
-
Location can only be defined by it's relative position to another location.
The same is true with direction.
Absolutely...............and; space/time and speed. If I'm not mistaken, tongue in cheek, Einstein called it; "The theory of Relativity."
-
Location can only be defined by it's relative position to another location.
The same is true with direction.
Absolutely...............and speed. If I'm not mistaken, tongue in cheek, Einstein called it; "The theory of Relativity."
This is different though. It's concieable to have a universe where one needs a reference for position and direction but there to be absolute space and time. In this sense it's different than relativity.
-
Location can only be defined by it's relative position to another location.
The same is true with direction.
Absolutely...............and speed. If I'm not mistaken, tongue in cheek, Einstein called it; "The theory of Relativity."
This is different though. It's concieable to have a universe where one needs a reference for position and direction but there to be absolute space and time. In this sense it's different than relativity.
In the strictest sense, you are right. I stand corrected my friend.
-
I needed the physics though. Nevermind I figured it out.
I don't follow. What do you mean? What does scale have to do with it? If you mean measure of something then that pertains to its relationship to something else and thus more than just location.
Say you were writing a computer program, and you needed to position a particle, and the particle had to bump another particle.. OK.
You could just use X/Y/Z, but how would the particles use X/Y/Z? They can't store a number, that's too clever for a particle. How do they know that they are next to each other? How do you write the computer program so that it uses pure physics, and no numbers?....
Scale.
You know that the particles have a scale, so you don't have to think.. are they storing an X/Y/Z? But scale is a fact that you can't ignore. They have a scale.
So location, if you ignore X/Y/Z completely you can use scale. You can use the numbers to represent the scales now that you know the physics you are excused. You alter the particle scales by some tiny planck scale, and nobody will notice. You have to use a space time grain structure ass well to get the locations right.
Now you have a physical reason for locations. I never use anything like X/Y/Z if I don't know what it is doing.
-
from locality I would agree with you Pincho. If you use scales and then think of a frame of reference in that matter, using relativity (as I read it that is). Because with observer dependencies accepted (which you will need to take very seriously (yep:) for this) every location becomes its own 'ruler and clock', defining all other 'rulers and clocks', from itself. In that way you can set all possible locations in space and time to 'null' locally, defining all other positions. And it definitely has to do with scales in my mind, because either this sort of description breaks down at some scale, or it don't?
If it doesn't, then all of those theoretical 'points', now defined as equal, defines one same state. If it does, we have fields? As a guess :) but we would still find that the universe we observe is observer dependent, and it will question how to define degrees of freedom, 'locally' versus 'globally'. At least it seems so to me.
-
But there is a point more to such a reasoning. You need a multitude to find our 'space' and 'motion'. One can imagine one particle of rest mass, and so also imagine a space in where it must exist, but it becomes a meaningless description to me. You need two particles, to get that definition and depth, and the more the merrier. As for your thoughts on why, better to leave them be, out here. You can always link to your new hypothesis's if you want others to see where your thoughts are taking you. This section is primary for discussing established theories, or peer reviewed, but it do get vague at times :)
-
But there is a point more to such a reasoning. You need a multitude to find our 'space' and 'motion'. One can imagine one particle of rest mass, and so also imagine a space in where it must exist, but it becomes a meaningless description to me. You need two particles, to get that definition and depth, and the more the merrier. As for your thoughts on why, better to leave them be, out here. You can always link to your new hypothesis's if you want others to see where your thoughts are taking you. This section is primary for discussing established theories, or peer reviewed, but it do get vague at times :)
Well I can just link to the speed, acceleration, etc. I think I have turned Relativity into physics...
http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=47070.0 (http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=47070.0)
-
Hmm, what I agreed to was scales being important. The rest will be your interpretation Pincho :)