Einstein

[Fusioner]

You have heard of ole Albert?



education.yahoo.com/reference/encyclopedia/entry?id=15070

[Fusioner]

www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7327050/

Einstein’s revolution enters second century ‘Miracle year’ still echoes as physics faces new challenges

"Just after the turn of the century, scientists knew that their fundamental theories weren't quite right — they just didn't know what to do about it."

Well I have news for everybody... We still have that problem today.

Einstein is cited in my Hydrogen Fusion Thread:
fusioner.proboards60.com/index.cgi?board=future&action=display&thread=1122865011

He is cited again... Fractals:
fusioner.proboards60.com/index.cgi?board=future&action=display&thread=1123060524

They get close to getting an energy producing fusion reactor machine... And the same with a universal theory of space, time, energy and mass; but they never "arrive" and this is because their fundamental theories aren't quite right. Einstein's theories.

Now I will give Einstein a break because he didn't have the data that we have today when he started publishing in 1905. But he did not look carefully at all of the data that he could have either.

fusioner.proboards60.com/index.cgi?board=future&action=display&thread=1123114251

Einstein was a man, not a god, and he made mistakes. His theories have always had problems relating to a world based on quantium mechanics, so he did not include them. He set a life's goal of producing a unified field theory and he failed to make anything out of it.

Basically, he published for a short intense period, and lived the rest of his life as a playboy.

His reputation has been thoroughly propagandized; there are documented histories which show his early work may very well in fact have been based on his wife's ideas and math... Once he published and became famous, he left his wife, and never published anything of significance for the rest of his life.

Einstein's published work allowed astronomers to make predictions... Edwin Hubble was working in this field, he is the astronomer the Space Telescope is named after.

[Fusioner]

www.time.com/time/time100/scientist/profile/hubble.html

During the past 100 years, astronomers have discovered quasars, pulsars, black holes and planets orbiting distant suns. But all these pale next to the discoveries Edwin Hubble made in a few remarkable years in the 1920s. At the time, most of his colleagues believed the Milky Way galaxy, a swirling collection of stars a few hundred thousand light-years across, made up the entire cosmos. But peering deep into space from the chilly summit of Mount Wilson, in Southern California, Hubble realized that the Milky Way is just one of millions of galaxies that dot an incomparably larger setting.

Hubble went on to trump even that achievement by showing that this galaxy-studded cosmos is expanding — inflating majestically like an unimaginably gigantic balloon — a finding that prompted Albert Einstein to acknowledge and retract what he called "the greatest blunder of my life." Hubble did nothing less, in short, than invent the idea of the universe and then provide the first evidence for the Big Bang theory

[Fusioner]

So what happened... and what was really going on?

Einstein made a mistake... But it was not just any mistake: a root theorem in Einstein's math requires a "fudge factor" or constant in order to agree with Hubbles physical measurements. Hubble provided the proof that Einstein was wrong... And Einstein adjusted his math to agree with Hubble's observation.

This constant was not predicted or accounted for by Einstein. The data was provided by physical measurement, and then Einstein had to change his physics.

[Fusioner]

No True Curves

Being wrong is just that... But Einstein never could admit mistakes... They had to be shoved in his face before he would accept fallibility.

But that does not make him right. He was a base man.

Relativity, curving space, bending things... It just does not happen that way. Space is fractalated, angular, repeating patterns. Fractal math reproduces actual space... Relativity traces the general curves around a space, or predicts an orbit... But it does not describe the true nature of clouds or orbits themselves.

In nature there is no such thing as a true curve or a bend. Fractal math represents reality.

fusioner.proboards60.com/index.cgi?board=future&action=display&thread=1123060524

[stupid]

As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; and as
far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality. Albert Einstein .

Can you share the Fractal math you mention?
I have read the fractal thread and don't find it in there.

[Fusioner]

Start with Mandelbrot & Richardson

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beno%C3%AEt_Mandelbrot

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/How_Long_Is_the_Coast_of_Britain%3F_Statistical_Self-Similarity_and_Fractional_Dimension

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lewis_Fry_Richardson

On Mandelbrot:

"He also emphasised the use of fractals as realistic and useful models of many natural phenomena, including the shape of coastlines and river basins; the structure of plants, blood vessels and lungs; the clustering of galaxies; Brownian motion; and stock market prices. Far from being unnatural, Mandelbrot held the view that fractals were, in many ways, more intuitive and natural than the artificially smooth objects of traditional Euclidean geometry. As he says in the Introduction to The Fractal Geometry of Nature:

Clouds are not spheres, mountains are not cones, coastlines are not circles, and bark is not smooth, nor does lightning travel in a straight line.


The Fractal Geometry of Nature is a mathematics text. If you want a layman's book with diagrams and examples, I would suggest another author.

www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0716711869/qid=1123526977/sr=8-1/ref=pd_bbs_1/104-2002030-7238301?v=glance&s=books&n=507846

[stupid]

I am familiar with the use of fractals to describe things like clouds and coastlines, however like a curve it is a projection of perception, not an inherent aspect.
Numbers like things like sound and color are arbitrary demarcations. They
do not exist in nature. Fractals do not exist in nature, but rather are a way to describe or demarcate a perceptual observation.

I am interested in the equation of unification that you seem to imply in regards to the explaining exogenous reality via an algorithmic formula

[Fusioner]

I am not a mathematician... And I do not generate equations. I am familiar with any number of unified field theories... And I can tell you beyond any doubt... Even Einstein could not come up with one based on his math. None of his followers have had better luck... And the fusion reactor based on Einstein theory does not result in a practical working machine.

Before you can write equations... You need source data.
The best data obtainable in high energy physics, to this day, comes from N. Tesla.... And the data, comes from patented, working, machines... You take the data right off the equipment.

As far as things that are seen everyday in nature, that can be produced in the lab... Not believing is a form of denial I think... The proof is around you every day, extensively photographed and documented, mathematically explained and now, even predicted.

[stupid]

I think you don't understand that math does not exist outside of our minds.

Neither do things like colors, sounds, curves, fractals etc.

It is a very tough concept to understand, and it is not a form of denial, though it does pertain to denial. We humans are in denial about the contextual relevance of observation. We make the universe in our own image, using algorithmic deconstruction, and while it allows us make things like machines that work, it is not an innate property that allows us to do so.

That the pulmonary system, a river, and a coastline can all be described as fractals does not mean that fractals are inherent aspects of exogenous reality. It may indeed mean that certain aspects of exogenous reality can be described as fractals, but there is a difference here that can be hard to notice.

Take numbers for example, where do they exist in nature? Quite like your example with the curve, try and find numbers in nature.

There is only one number in nature, and our mathematics can never and will never describe nature in absolute terms, due to the inherent flaws in our numbers system, namely that it is arbitrary.
It is a construct, not an elucidation. It is like holding sand in your hand, the harder you squeeze it the more it slips through your fingers.

You might know that we have moved past many equations of Newtonian physics, however despite our knowing that these equations have their flaws, they still work to engineer functional physical machines. We can come very close, but math as we know it has inherent flaws that prevent it from being able to provide an equation for unified theory.

[Fusioner]

Yet... Fractal math comes closer to describing in human context, that which Euclid or Newton, or even Einstein have not been able to predict.

And if events in nature cannot be reproduced in the lab and explained mathematically... How did they get atomic energy? By the same token why bother to try to perceive better geometries for something like fusion reactions... If they don't exsist or apply???

Yet the stars shine, they can measure the light and determine the fuel used... And they use math to calculate the masses of the stars, amount of energy produced, they can predict some behavior.

They use math to land probes onto (and into) planets and comets... So it does apply.

The only question is how well it applies in all circumstances.

[stupid]

Even the old newtonian equations work to engineer machines. But facilitation does not amount to elucidation.

As is the case with what you have been pointing out, (fusion for example) what has proved effective has also proved limited.

[Fusioner]

what has proved effective has also proved limited.

And as what has proved effective is shown to be ineffective in many cases... What is most effective in all cases evolves.

There are solutions. The field is unified.

[stupid]

Just because nature is a certain way does not mean we will be able to describe it or explain it with symbolism.
Sometimes the word incomprehensible has its uses.

[Fusioner]

No... Even stupid apes can figure this out... Given enough time on a keyboard, an illiterate chimp will produce Shakespear