iSoul In the beginning is reality

Dynamic time-space

Two key expressions for space-time dynamics are the momentum and the kinetic energy. Here we derive the corresponding expressions for time-space, which are called the celentum and the kinetic co-energy.

The momentum and kinetic energy are the force through time or space:

momentum = mv = F Δt, an

kinetic energy = mv²/2 = F Δs,

where m = mass, v = velocity, F = force, t = duration, and s = distance.

Since F = ma, these formulae come from the related kinematic formulae without mass:

v = a Δt and /2 = a Δs,

where a = acceleration, with initial distance and velocity zero.

For time-space the corresponding kinematic formulae are these:

ℓ = b Δs and ℓ²/2 = b Δt,

where ℓ = celerity and b = prestination, with initial duration and celerity zero.

These formulae may be multiplied or divided by mass to get the desired result. Since velocity and celerity are inversely related, the form of mass should also be inversely related. Thus these formulae should be divided by the mass, or multiplied by the inverse of the mass, which I’m calling the vass.

Since Γ = b/m = nb, the corresponding dynamic formulae for time-space are:

celentum = ℓ/m = nℓ = Γ Δs, and

kinetic co-energy = ℓ²/2m = n²/2 = Γ Δt,

where Γ = chrondyne, the time-space form of force and n = vass, the inverse of mass.

The kinetic energy and kinetic co-energy are related:

1/kinetic energy = 2/mv² = 2n² = 4(n²/2) = 4 × kinetic co-energy.

Four rates of motion

The speed of a motion is its distance per unit of duration. Symbolically, speed is Δrt. Pace is its duration per unit of distance. Symbolically, pace is Δtr. In both of these ratios, the denominator is chosen independently of the numerator. That is, the denominator is selected first, and then the numerator is measured in relation to it. The denominator may equal any positive number.

There is another way to measure motion: by comparing the measurand motion to a standard motion. Then the independent variable is from the standard motion. One can select either a distance or a duration from the standard motion, and then measure a corresponding distance or duration from the measurand motion.

The standard motion should be something easily reproduced, as with a clock. It may also be a maximum motion, as with the speed of light. Or it may be a typical motion, as is often done in transportation. Whatever motion is chosen, its rate of motion is what I’ve called the modal rate.

One could then measure the speed of a motion as the ratio of its distance per unit of distance in a standard motion. Symbolically, that would be ΔrR, where R equals cΔt, for example. That would have the advantage of a dimensionless ratio. Other than that, it amounts to the same thing as speed.

Similarly, one could measure the pace of a motion as the ratio of its duration per unit of duration in a standard motion. Symbolically, that would be ΔtT, where T equals (1/cr, for example. That would have the advantage of a dimensionless ratio. Other than that, it amounts to the same thing as pace.

Thus there are four rates of motion; symbolically, Δrt, Δtr, ΔrR, ΔtT.

No motion as zero speed or pace

What does “no motion” mean for the measurement of speed or pace? There are two cases of no motion: either (1) the trajectory distance is zero or (2) the trajectory duration is zero.

Consider first the speed ratio (Δr/Δt).

(1) the trajectory distance is zero: then the speed is zero because it equals zero distance divided by the nonzero duration of the independent motion.

(2) the trajectory duration is zero: this possibility is excluded by the independence of the duration.

Consider the pace ratio (Δt/Δr).

(3) the trajectory distance is zero: this possibility is excluded by the independence of the distance.

(4) the trajectory duration is zero: then the pace is zero because it equals zero duration divided by the nonzero distance of the independent motion.

Case (4) seems strange but consider a stopwatch that is clicked on, and then immediately clicked off. There would be no motion in that instant. But the distance interval for the pace is independent of this and the unit of distance is nonzero. So the pace would be a zero duration divided by a nonzero distance, which equals zero.

Simple motion in space and time

This post continues the discussion here and here.

Simple motion is “a motion in a straight line, circle or circular arc, or helix”. Since a helix and all other motions are a combination of linear and circular motions, simple motion may be considered as linear or circular motion.

There are two basic measures of simple motion: distance and duration. Linear distance is a length of space. Linear duration is a length of time. Circular distance is an angle of space. Circular duration is an angle of time.

Linear measurements use a measuring rod, and circular measurements use a measuring angle. Other devices that produce the same results may also be used. The convention is to measure distance by linear motion and duration by circular motion, but one could just as well measure distance by circular motion (a measuring wheel) and duration by linear motion (a clock with reciprocating motion).

The linear distance of a linear motion is measured by a measuring rod moving parallel to the linear motion. The linear duration of a linear motion is measured by a measuring rod moving synchronously with the linear motion.

The circular distance of a circular motion is measured by a measuring angle moving in parallel with the circular motion. The circular duration of a circular motion is measured by a measuring angle moving synchronously with the circular motion.

A stopwatch or chronometer is needed to measure time. The continuous motion of a clock provides a convenient source for synchronous measurement but is not necessary to measure time. A clock, calendar, and epoch (starting point) are needed for chronology, which is part of history.

Space is the set of all possible linear and circular distances. Time is the set of all possible linear and circular durations. Mathematically, space and time are metric spaces.

A direction is “the line or course on which something is moving or is aimed to move or along which something is pointing or facing”. A direction angle is the angle made by a given linear motion with a reference linear motion.

A dimension is one of a set of coordinates that are mutually independent or orthogonal. A dimension angle is one of a set of direction angles that are mutually orthogonal. There are three dimension angles in the physical world, so there are three dimensions of distance and duration, that is, of space and time. Since space and time are independent, there are a total of six dimensions of motion in space and time.

Textual realism and anti-realism

Anti-realists always begin with reality – and reject it. Because, they argue, it is obscure, misleading, and subject to different interpretations. So anti-realists begin again, this time with an idea of theirs. Even materialists begin with an idea, the idea of materiality. Thus anti-realists substitute their ideas for reality.

In contrast, realists begin with reality and accept it. Because, we argue, it is reality whether we like it or not; it is sufficiently perspicuous; careful observation and reflection can overcome misleading appearances; and interpretations should be based on reality.

All of this applies to writings as well. Anti-realists turn away from the inherent meaning of the text in favor of their interpretations of the text. Realists accept the inherent meaning of the text, yet are also free to discuss its significance and application.

These considerations apply in particular to texts that are foundational for a people, such as scriptures and laws. Consider the Bible, as in these examples:

Dennis Bratcher’s Genesis Bible Study: “the text is primarily theology, telling us about God, humanity, and their relationship”.

“The aim of Theological Interpretation is to read the Bible as Scripture, that is, as somehow God’s transformative address to the Church here in the present. We may contrast this with the past two centuries of biblical scholarship whose interests have been primarily historical: that is, they were aimed at reconstructing the life, religion, and history of ancient Israel and early Christianity.”

If the Bible is primarily theological, then it is theologians who determine its meaning. What about the other aspects of the Bible, for example, the historical chronicles? Should ideas about theology replace the inherent meaning of the text as simply history? The anti-realist says, Yes; the realist says, No.

Many would agree that the theology is the most important aspect of the Bible, but the theology is related to or built on the history, the geography, and other aspects. Interpretation of these aspects should focus on their significance rather than replace them. The chronicles in the Bible are real chronicles prior to any theological meaning they may also have.

Textualism is realism about legal texts.

Textualism is a method of statutory interpretation whereby the plain text of a statute is used to determine the meaning of the legislation. Instead of attempting to determine statutory purpose or legislative intent, textualists adhere to the objective meaning of the legal text.[1]

Textualism is related to originalism. Originalists seek one of two alternative sources of meaning:

  • The original intent theory, which holds that interpretation of a written constitution is (or should be) consistent with what was meant by those who drafted and ratified it. This is currently a minority view among originalists.
  • The original meaning theory, which is closely related to textualism, is the view that interpretation of a written constitution or law should be based on what reasonable persons living at the time of its adoption would have understood the ordinary meaning of the text to be. It is this view with which most originalists, such as Justice Scalia, are associated.

Textual realism takes the text seriously as a form of communication, rather than a canvas for spinning interpretations. Without realism about texts, they will lose their significance and be replaced by canonical interpretations – which then become the new texts, and so they never escape the reality of the text.

Classical Model of Science

Another paper that should get wider exposure: “The Classical Model of Science: a millennia-old model of scientific rationality” by Willem R. de Jong and Arianna Betti. Synthese (2010) 174:185-203. Excerpts:

Throughout more than two millennia philosophers adhered massively to ideal standards of scientific rationality going back ultimately to Aristotle’s Analytica posteriora. These standards got progressively shaped by and adapted to new scientific needs and tendencies. Nevertheless, a core of conditions capturing the fundamentals of what a proper science should look like remained remarkably constant all along. Call this cluster of conditions the Classical Model of Science. p.185

The Classical Model of Science as an ideal of scientific explanation

In the following we will speak of a science according to the Classical Model of Science as a system S of propositions and concepts (or terms) which satisfies the following conditions:

(1) All propositions and all concepts (or terms) of S concern a specific set of objects or are about a certain domain of being(s).

(2a) There are in S a number of so-called fundamental concepts (or terms).

(2b) All other concepts (or terms) occurring in S are composed of (or are definable from) these fundamental concepts (or terms).

(3a) There are in S a number of so-called fundamental propositions.

(3b) All other propositions of S follow from or are grounded in (or are provable or demonstrable from) these fundamental propositions.

(4) All propositions of S are true.

(5) All propositions of S are universal and necessary in some sense or another.

(6) All propositions of S are known to be true. A non-fundamental proposition is known to be true through its proof in S.

(7) All concepts or terms of S are adequately known. A non-fundamental concept is adequately known through its composition (or definition). p.186

The Classical Model of Science is a recent reconstruction a posteriori of the way in which philosophers have traditionally thought about what a proper science and its methodology should be, and which is largely set up, as it were, by abduction. The cluster (1)-(7) is intended, thus, to sum up in a fairly precise way the ideal of scientific explanation philosophers must have had in mind for a very long time when thinking about science. p.186

A proper science according to this Model has the structure of a more or less strictly axiomatized system with a distinction between fundamental and non-fundamental elements. p.186

The history of the conceptualization Science knows three milestones: first of all, Aristotle’s Analytica posteriora, especially book 1; secondly, the very influential so-called Logic of Port-Royal (1662), especially part IV: ‘De la méthode’, written mainly by Antoine Arnaud and relying in many respects on Pascal and Descartes; and finally Bernard Bolzano’s Wissenschaftslehre (1837). p.187

The formulation coming closest to a systematization of the ideal of science we codify in the Model is perhaps the description of scientific method given in the Logic of Port-Royal, ‘The scientific method reduced to eight main rules’:

Eight rules of science

1. Two rules concerning definitions

1 . Leave no term even slightly obscure or equivocal without defining it.
2. In definitions use only terms that are perfectly known or have already been explained.

2. Two rules for axioms

3. In axioms require everything to be perfectly evident.
4. Accept as evident what needs only a little attention to be recognized as true.

3 . Two rules for demonstrations

5 . Prove all propositions that are even slightly obscure, using in their proofs only definitions that have preceded, axioms that have been granted, or propositions that have already been demonstrated.
6. Never exploit the equivocation in terms by failing to substitute mentally the definitions that restrict and explain them.

4. Two rules for method

7. Treat things as much as possible in their natural order, beginning with the most general and the simplest, and explaining everything belonging to the nature of the genus before proceeding to particular species.
8. Divide each genus as much as possible into all its species, each whole into all its parts, and each difficulty into all its cases. pp.187-188

… the Model is a fruitful analytical tool. Its influence lasted until recently; having persisted at least to Lesniewski, it in fact extended far beyond what one might expect at first glance. It is certain, however, that at a some point the Model was abandoned without being replaced by anything comparable. p. 196

8000 dissident scientists

The worldwide list of dissident scientists: Critics and alternative theories by Jean de Climont (Assailly Publishing, 2016) compiles 40 lists of dissident scientists from around the world and finds 8000 of them. This is a remarkable challenge to the assertion that scientists are in agreement about scientific theories.

Synopsis : This directory, available exclusively in English, includes scientists who disagree on generally accepted positions exclusively in the field of physics (natural philosophy), referenced to on the Internet and in particular those who propose alternative solutions.

The list includes more than 8000 names of scientists, doctors or engineers for more than 50%. Their position is shortly presented  together with their proposed alternative theory when applicable. There are more than 1000  theories, all amazingly very different from one another.

In the Soviet era, the term dissident could refer to a political dissident but then as now it mainly has to do with differences about the status of leading theories. Every major scientific theory has its dissidents. And many dissidents have lost jobs or research funding for speaking out. See, for example, Jerry Bergman and Kevin Wirth’s Slaughter of the Dissidents (2011).

Observability of the rotation of the earth

This interesting paper deserves to be known more widely: “And Yet It Moves: The Observability of the Rotation of the Earth” by Peter Kosso, Northern Arizona University, published in Foundations of Science, (2010) 15:213–225. Excerpts:

Abstract A central point of controversy in the time of the Copernican Revolution was the motion, or not, of the earth. We now take it for granted that Copernicus and Galileo were right; the earth really does move. But to what extent is this conclusion based on observation? This paper explores the meaning and observability of the rotation of the earth and shows that the phenomenon was not observable at the time of Galileo, and it is not observable now.

In our own time there are lots of outstanding scientific questions regarding objects and events that cannot be observed, but few rise to the intensity of genuine controversy. One that does is the issue of evolution. We cannot observe the origins of life – here it is, after all, well along – and we cannot observe the long process described by evolutionary biology. The controversy, the run-in with creationism and intelligent design, arises from the combination of this inability to observe and the challenges the theory presents to significant cultural ideals. It is exactly this pairing of unobservablity and cultural challenge that made the movement of the earth more than merely an academic detail. p.214

We could use the starry background as the reference system, and say that the earth rotates relative to the stars. That is a precise concept and a determinate claim, but it encounters no disagreement. The x-moves-relative-to-y relation is symmetric; it could just as easily, and just as accurately, be put as y moves relative to x. Had Galileo emphasized, All I’m saying is that the earth rotates relative to the stars, Aristotelians and the Church would most likely have responded, Oh, well, when you put it that way, there’s no problem. p.217

Consider the possible perspectives from which to do the observing. There are three, terrestrial, celestial, and external, that is, observing things on the earth from the earth, observing things in space from the earth, and observing the earth from space. p.217

The key difference between observation and evidence is the necessary role of inference in the latter. It is usually a causal inference, from effect to cause. The effect is observed, and we infer what must have, or is likely to have, been the cause. p.217

To summarize the analysis of the terrestrial perspective, the rotation of the earth is not observable, neither directly nor indirectly. That was clear from the start, and the work has been to determine whether there could be evidence of the rotation. That depends on our understanding of the dynamic connection between what is observed, the tides or the bulge of the equator, and its cause. Using the interpretive framework of Newtonian dynamics, the bulge is good evidence of rotation, and it provides some justification for that aspect of the Copernican model. Using Machian dynamics, the data provide no such evidence. p.220

The important point here is that the celestial data amount to evidence of the earth’s rotation only with the interpretive help of some theoretical understanding of motion. Whatever is being observed, it is not the rotation of the earth. Whatever is being observed is, by way of some interpretive principles, evidence of rotation. The celestial perspective does not make the rotation observable. p.221

The point is that the splendid video of the rotating earth, as filmed by the Galileo spacecraft, requires some understanding of forces and the causes of motion in order to count as evidence that it is indeed the earth that is rotating. It is, in other words, evidence but not observation. There is no perspective from which the rotation of the earth is observable. p.222

The underlying reason that the rotation of the earth is unobservable can be clarified using the modern physicists’ distinction between kinematics and dynamics. p.222

This distinction allows for a very clear summary of the difference and dispute between the two chief world systems. They are kinematically equivalent. p.223

The difference between Tycho and Copernicus is in the dynamics. Once we understand the dynamics of the situation, in particular the real nature of gravity, there is simply no way the Tychonic system could work. It violates laws of physics, that is, laws of dynamics. Following Newton, the laws of dynamics single out a group of reference frames, the inertial reference frames, as being those in which the laws such as F = ma are true. In a spinning reference frame, or an accelerating frame, fictitious forces show up. On a carousel or in a fast car rounding a bend you feel a force to the outside. But this is no force; there is no F causing any a. It is the result of being in a noninertial reference frame. This dynamical principle can be used to specify the appropriate reference frames for measuring properties of nature, appropriate in the sense of avoiding fictitious causes and effects. These are the inertial reference frames, those in which Newtonian dynamics work. p.223

Before we celebrate, full disclosure requires noting that there are alternatives to the Newtonian laws of dynamics, and since the dynamics direct the inference, there are alternative conclusions regarding the rotation of the earth. Mach, again. Mach’s Principle claims that the determination of inertial reference frames is fundamentally in reference to the aggregate masses of the universe, all the stars and galaxies. This restores the relativity of rotation. That force you feel on the carousel is not fictitious at all; it is a real force caused by the relative motion between you and the distant stars. There are two aspects of gravity, by Mach’s dynamics, the normal force of attraction described by Newton and an additional force that arises when there is relative acceleration between the masses. … Under the influence of Machian dynamics, the rotation of the earth is not only not observable, it is not properly defined. The property is only determinate with respect to some other actual object. p.223

Observing the motions of things on the earth or in the sky is an act of kinematics, and it cannot uniquely determine the nature of the cause of the motion. Kinematics does not determine dynamics. On the other hand, once the dynamics is known, the kinematics can be inferred. If you know the forces, you can predict the motion. But from the motion you cannot infer the forces. The observable details of rotation are matters of kinematics. They indicate what is happening but not why. Observation tells us how things move but not what moves them. p.224

Back to the Copernican Revolution, then, there is no observable difference between the two chief world systems. It takes a dynamical theory to interpret the data. Aristotle, whose dynamics described natural motion as earthen matter seeking its natural place at the center of the universe, would naturally put the earth at the center of all things, though this does not secure its being motionless. Galileo, who participated when the Revolution was a work in progress, contributed an early version of the concept of inertia that led to Newton’s first law of dynamics. But it was not until Newton himself put the dynamics in order that the difference between the world systems was determined, both conceptually and empirically. This means that belief in the Copernican system before Newton was somewhat premature, since the dynamics needed to interpret the evidence as supporting the rotation of the earth was yet to be written. p.224

Places in time

Although several new terms have been introduced on this blog (see glossary here), more are needed. For every concept and term about space there is a corresponding concept, and should be a corresponding term, about time.

A place is “a particular portion of space, whether of definite or indefinite extent”. The corresponding term is a time; however time is ambiguous because of its various other meanings. For a temporal version of place, I suggest plime, from pl(ace) + (t)ime. So plime means “a particular portion of time, whether of definite or indefinite extent”.

A location in space is a locus (pl. loci), which is a particular position, point, or place. It also refers to the set of all points in space whose location is determined by specified conditions. As locus is the Latin word for “a place or spot” so the corresponding term for time would be tempus (pl. tempora), which is the Latin term for “time”. In that case, tempus means a location in time, or the set of all points in time whose location is determined by specified conditions.

A polarity chron, or chron, is the time interval between polarity reversals of Earth’s magnetic field. Let’s generalize this to define a chron as a time interval or a region of time. Chron is from the Latinized form of Greek khronos, which means “time” or “a time”.

An event is the term that refers to a portion of space during a portion of time, or a particular portion of space and time. That is, an event is something that occurs in a particular place and a particular plime.

A odologe (o′∙do∙loge) is a device that measures 1D distance continuously. From Greek odo(s), way/path/road + (horo)loge, clock.

I’ll add these terms to the glossary above.

Conventions of here and now

This follows a post on synchrony conventions here. The question is, What is the meaning of here and now for what is observed? Is everything than an observer observes part of their here and now? Some things observed may be a long distance away. Some things observed may be from signals sent in the past, such as distant starlight.

There is no one correct answer. A convention is needed to define here and now. The usual convention is that here and now only apply to what is within a minimal distance and a minimal span of time, or what is at the same point in space and time as the observer.

But consider how we speak about what we observe. We don’t say, Look, there’s the sun as it was 8 minutes and 20 seconds ago. Nor do we say, Look, there’s the north star as it was 433.8 years ago. Instead, we speak of where the sun and stars are now, even though they are a long distance away.

It’s similar concerning distance. Go into the countryside, away from lights at night and observe the stars. There are so many of them – and they are so close. People say things such as: The stars are close here. Or: I’m closer to the stars here. So the stars can be here, even though they are a long distance away.

If we accept that everything observed here and now is here and now, then the incoming light is instantaneous, and its speed is infinite. For the round-trip speed of light to equal c, that means the outgoing speed of light equals c/2. This looks strange, but it is consistent with the way we speak.

It is also consistent with other modes. If we measure our commuting speed and send this information to someone else, the communication time is ignored, that is, the communication is considered instantaneous. One may say that relativistic effects are ignored, but that is equivalent to saying that the communication is effectively at an infinite speed.