close

Вход

Забыли?

вход по аккаунту

?

Physics viewed as a system of words

код для вставкиСкачать
англоязычная версия текста 2012г.
 R. Tahirnen
Physics viewed as a system of words
In my humble but insisteous opinion
,
physics in a lot is a system of words
that
physic
ist
s use quite nonchalantly.
The w
ords used by
physic
s sometimes remind me spells on
nature, effecting due
the principle that delusions
are
mainly incorrigible in
the minds of
bearers. And I suppose that Newton’s Laws could
illustrate a
n opin
ion
.
Physicists
s
peak
mathematic
ian
and adopt
mathematical
mind
. Though,
in my opinion, m
athematics
is
dealing
mostly with metaphysics, handling
eternal, unchangeable, immeasurable
and
irrelative ideas of this
physical world
. Physics deals with reality
that begins
with measurability
of temporal things, made, as it seems to
me
,
by
the Universe
’s single
difference binary
;
like, e.g.
,
day and night
,
sharing
volume
of their diversity
.
Physicist
s describe and explain nature
by logically axiomatic m
ethod of scientific
abstractionism
,
diverting
reality into its models
;
staying
on
the reason that
nature is complex
.
I would guess
that complex
are
but psychics of physici
st
s
, and their logics
particularly
. For i
t is
intricate
, indeed, to describe mostly analog
ous
physical world
by
physically impossible
ideal
no
tions.
By
the first
law of motion
,
bodies
uninfluenced by emptiness
flow
eternally and endlessly
, at the inertial speed
by theirs masses.
Or they stay at
bay, compared
to the bodies taken by
physical
observer as floating
ones
. E
mptiness
dealing
with matter
,
flat
(
especially in the absence of the
l
atter
)
and flexible as geometrically designed doormat
, is
a
physical
axiom: unobservable, incapable to experie
nce and insoluble
foothold to
physicists’ mind
. May be
physicists
have convi
ction
that
nature has to approach the
ir
mathematical models
. One
may approach
u
nnatural
axioms
, e.g.,
of
the inertial system
, eternally and endlessly.
But
circle
is ci
rcle and square
uses to be
square,
they share
a difference that might
be
physical
ly
worth to
notice
. A
nd motion
is
physically
unable to
be restful
. They say
that motion is the main feature
of matter
, and that all its
moves
are
but matter’s
changing to
dif
ferent images
. I
should
a
gree. Unchangeable
things are physically unobservable like
immovable ones, or
like
masses without dimensions
and bodies without masses. Either
physically unobservable
is timeless space or bodiless time
.
Bo
dies
can be physically noticed
by their changes and owing to the volume for the
ir
motion.
Space
is
physically observable as the time being of things
,
a volume where bodies transform, bind and dissipate to
their
more stable parts. Time is physica
lly
observable as
bodies
with one way tickets
, I speculate
,
to
uncertainty of
maternal field
medium
.
I
n
common
physical case bodies are go
ing
from
ashes to ashes
. T
hey change their built (structure) and mass
es
, even when they do not shift
noticeably between the points of emptiness
. B
odies
transform
to their
physical
ly
possible and probable d
er
iv
ati
ons
at the
time flow of their U
niverse
,
which
evidently
c
an
not be entered twice
as the same one
.
In my opinion,
human
logic
s
had been
born
by written grammar
relations between subject and object, lead
ing
to
viewable
physically
possib
le
se
quences by their
acting.
I
think that
mathematics o
versimplifies these
relation
s
up to its ideals
. And though
the
ir
logic
h
as
developed into
many
various logics they
did not beco
me more natural
. Special p
hy
sicists’ logic is
like
there is wave or
particle, and somewhat
of the third. I dare
share ancient opinion
that there is but
matter
’s
density
changing either
under the names
of
wave
s
and
particle
s
or vacuum pulsati
ons
. P
ossibility and probability are
the feature
s
of the phys
ical world. T
he features of this
physical world may be granted as its peculiarities. Matter’s motion
,
e.g.
,
is only but measurable
.
And if the Universe looks like analogous system, maybe it behaves adequately to its physical reputation
,
changing
its
data
, e.g.
, temperature and
density, d
ue to its
physical
capabilities
,
with the quantizing rhythms
of
its field melody
gestalt
.
I think that
p
hysical observer
ignore
s
some habits
of nature
. B
ecause
of
his left mind hemisphere doesn’t perc
e
ive
reality of its changing curving
volume
,
and
suppresses cap
abi
lities of the right hemisphere;
which in its turn doesn’t appreciate
capabilities of the left one. Left winged mathematicians
take
space as
infinite
flat projections
onto flatness
, and take temporal bodies f
o
r
shades
of
ideal figures. Physics
in th
e same way
demand
matter
to split in
to
its
last particle
in blue nowhere
.
I guess that
i
f
nature
follows
mathematics
,
i
t would be
simple
r
and easier
for nature to be
a field matter
analogous to
mathematical
one
, where there
math
ematical
ideas
would get their law as
the rules for the
volume
of
their reality
.
Perhaps the main (and bien
fixe
) idea of
math
ematics
is
phenomenon of
rules
, limit
ing its
deeds into right
eous
acts.
May be
the first of those
rules is
one
of proportion
,
or
r
elation between
vectors (data bearers) in the
mathematical acting field
. Nature has also its
rules
,
or
physical possibilities
, not always coinciding with
scientific prescriptions
to
reality
. It may be amusable
to say, but
the
so
l
o
motion of matter has two directions, exactly to and fro. Leftward is unnoticeable without rightward,
and
wi
thout their common symmetry
,
or
inequality. I think th
at even mathematical vector obtains two
,
and may be unequal dire
ctions. Just for its being
virtual
. Nature is no
t physically virtuous;
it doesn’t quite correspond to scientific no
tions of its motions
. I think
there are
philolog
ical
shades of
meaning
in
t
he physical notions of m
ove, action and interaction
. The m
ov
ement is when one can ignore
friction or dimensions, out of the physical axiom that nature has got
scientifically unne
cessary symptoms. Action is where
there is a counteracting
, e.g.,
friction, with
its physical
consequences
. Action looks more coexistent to bodily life
. Interaction is where there two directions of
the sole move look comparably unequal to the physical observer. Movement is physically noticeable owing to
its unequal directions
comparable b
y their mutual influence
or
force
s
. Force is a viewable action
of
bodies being changed by bodies. For
ce cannot be noticed without counte
rforce
of
inertia
of
object resistance to
influence by subject
; like
any
thing physically irrelative
.
Newton’s mass is measure to
bodies’
resista
nce
for
trans
formations,
to their force
,
and to their
gravitation
into geometrical point
s
of matter
.
Gravity
without
field
ing
force
of body dissipation
, in my opinion
,
looks unphysical
like day without night or cold without hea
t, like mathematics without its point
-
and
-
field binary
;
and sounds like one hand clap
. Newton had postulated
that
mass impulse coincides
with mass changing
. E
.g.,
mass
of
a bullet radiating
from its
point
of balance
to a
p
robable
place
of its physical balance with the medium influence
. One may
su
ppos
e
that mass radiation
from its
point of balance
in
to the
field probability
is
compensated by
its centering
gravity
vector
, balancing the
system
of the field
-
and
-
point forces
into their structure of semi field physical vector or
trajectory
. I guess
that mass also may be a measure to
probability or trajectory of bodily
changes at the
ir
space field
. Physicists say that bodies make
spheres of influence
s
in some
void
. I d
are shar
e ancient opinion that
field
matter makes its temporal in
ner
formations
or just information
in
the
virtual volume of
its
ideal point
-
and
-
field asymmetry
. T
he Universe
, as
it looks to me, ha
s a trajectory
spiraling to the field
uncertain
ty
. P
hysics
,
quite math
ematical
ly, name
spiral time being
s
of space like
elliptical orbits
. I
t seems to me
that the shortest mathematical line
may be equal to
balance
of the
physical force
s
,
collapsing
their data to a singular
ly
immeasurable geometrical
point
,
vanishing into field potential
ity
.
And ellipses are also not very physical descriptions. I
t also seems to me that even in math
ematics
there is
basic
inequality between the f
ield and its multiples
.
I ha
ve heard
that
V. H
umboldt had noticed without comments that
human language had
had appeared at once and as a system
. I
would
add that the Universe either
;
and instantly
it turned into a structure, balancing the system
of forces into the inertia of physical body
.
I woul
d like
to add
that t
he Universe
steps its eternity in the scalar
way, so to say, jumping
in the both
unequal directions on
the physical staircase
of
quantizing energy
.
Scalar
ity
is a word for
mass
es
delaying
their dissolution to
the matter field. And the simpler are bodies
,
the evener
or more symmetrical are
the
wave
s of
theirs relative point
–
field
–
point
changes
at the
speed
by theirs masses
-
structures
. Energy,
the measure of system’s unbalance
, looks in
its
hole
as
temperature (
mix in
du
e proportions
) streaming to
the Universe
’s
zero information
named
the balanced system
. The Universe is changing towards singularity of black holes and of the vacuum, where there its measurability comes to a physical end, or to the infiniteness of mathematical field. Summing analogies, the Universe may be a measurable case
of the field matter
medium:
a physical body created by field matter
space
formations
into masses
-
structures of its energy
, ending its time and volume, I guess, by
the Plan
ck curve
.
This physical world might be a
real
case
of mathematical field
,
potentiating its inner formations (data) as much as there i
s inequality, or energy of its vector
to immeasurab
ility
of
medium matter
.
Автор
r.tahir.810
Документ
Категория
Фундаментальная
Просмотров
25
Размер файла
369 Кб
Теги
viewed, word, physics, system
1/--страниц
Пожаловаться на содержимое документа