Absolutely III

 

Let’s Call the Whole Thing Off

So if you like pajamas (I like pyjahmas)
I'll wear pajamas (you got pajamas)
For we know, we need each other
So we better call the calling off, off
Let's call the whole thing off
Let's call the whole thing off (yes)

You saying ee-ther and I saying eye-ther is not a very big difference!

At infinity, the absolute, differences do not exist.  The absolute is accepted as being two things at one time: odd and even, male and female, red and black, less filling and tastes great, liberal and conservative, Democrat and Republican, etc.  So if we are to try and emulate the absolute, shouldn’t we accept that our differences do not matter, we are all the same and we need each other.  Let's call the calling off, off.

Absolutely II

 

Woodstock

We are stardust, we are golden
We are billion-year-old carbon
And we got to get ourselves
Back to the garden

By the time we got to Woodstock
We were half a million strong
And everywhere was a song
And a celebration

And I dreamed I saw the bomber jet planes
Riding shotgun in the sky
Turning into butterflies
Above our nation

We are stardust, we are golden
We are caught in the devil's bargain
And we've got to get ourselves
Back to the garden

We are here because we are billion-year old carbon.

In the United States, it is said that a hundred miles is a short distance but one hundred years is a long time.  By contrast, in Europe, it is said that one hundred miles is a long distance but one hundred years is a short time.  In both places, a million miles is a very long distance and a million years is a very long time.  And maybe that is a lesson for all of us.  

Our lives are typically no more than a hundred years. The typical human will travel 30,000 to 50,000 miles in their lifetime. The Earth on which we live might travel 370 million miles in our lifetime but those are still insignifcant compared to the 14 billion light-year size, 14 billion year age of the universe. https://www.space.com/human-travel-trillion-miles-lifetime-universe-motion 

But we are here because the universe is as large as it is and as has existed as long as it has.  Each individual may only live for a mere fraction of the age of the universe and travel only a mere fraction of the size of the universe.  And even that age and that size of the universe is limited.  The absolute is limitless.  Remember that.  Don’t get caught in the devil’s bargain.  Get back to the garden.

Morality and the Law

 

Anything Goes

In olden days, a glimpse of stocking
Was looked on as something shocking
But now, God knows
Anything goes

But don’t confuse morality with legality!

Immoral and Amoral are two words that sound similar but have different meanings. Immoral is an adjective that describes “something against pre-established morals, ethics, or standard societal practices.” Amoral, on the other hand, is an adjective that describes “something or someone completely lacking morals.”

https://www.easybib.com/guides/grammar-guides/vocabulary/confusing-words/immoral-vs-amoral

Justice is blind.  The legal system is supposed to represent ALL moralities.  That does not mean that it is immoral because it does NOT represent only the majority morality.  But it also does not mean that it has no morals at all.  This suggests that perhaps another word needs to be used. The legal system is omni-moral!

You can’t legislate morality.  Society should enact laws to protect itself, and its members, but unless its members, or itself, are harmed it has no business imposing its morality on another.  To impose the morality of the majority, whether it is prohibition of alcohol, religion, gender preference, sexual orientation, etc. should not be the subject of laws unless society or its members are actually harmed, not merely offended.  A moral majority might indeed be moral and a majority.  But that does NOT mean that its morals should be the law.

Curves

 

It Takes Two

It takes two, baby
It takes two, baby
Make a dream come true
It just takes two

Not Four,  Two.

It is a standard concept that there are four fundamental curves:

1.      a circle,

2.      an ellipse,

3.      a parabola, and

4.      a hyperbola. 

I would suggest that there are really only two curves: an ellipse and a hyperbola. A circle is a special, perfect, case of an ellipse, and a parabola is a special case between a hyperbola and an ellipse.

A curve is defined by its major axis, a, and its minor axis, b.  An ellipse is a curve where the major and minor axes are both less than infinity.  There is no other restriction on a or b.  A circle is the special case of an ellipse where a = b, which is why it is said to be perfect.

A hyperbola is defined by having both axes, a and b equal to infinity.  A parabola is that case where also a ≠b.  But this is between an ellipse and an hyperbola.  Saying that at least one of the axes, a or b, is less than infinity makes it a partial  ellipse.  Saying that at least one of the axes is equal to infinity makes it a partial hyperbola.  A parabola is a mathematical curve where one of the axes is very, very large but NOT infinity.  It looks like it is different than a hyperbola and an ellipse, but actually it is partially both at the same time.

Error

 

O Holy Night

O holy night! The stars are brightly shining,
It is the night of the dear Savior's birth.
Long lay the world in sin and error pining.
Till He appeared and the Spirit felt its worth.

There is still sin and error.

The mathematical statement 5±1 does not mean that there are only two answers: 4 and 6.  It means that any value between 4 and 6 is correct.  The term 5 in this example is the true answer, the mean/median/mode of a normal distribution, and the term 1 is the standard error.  Mathematically it could have also been expressed as 4 ≤ x ≤6, where x is the solution. 

The standard error is the square root of the variance.  A random number is a number with a non-zero variance, which means that it also has a non-zero standard error.  We can try to make that error as small as possible but “To err is Human”.  Scientists can design their experiments such that there is minimal error, but there will always be some error.  Engineers deal with the fact that there is variance and design systems such that the solution considers variance, error, randomness.

The solution of x²-1 as (x-1)*(x+1), x±1, should not be taken to mean that there are only two answers.  It should be taken to mean that any value of x between -1 and 1 is correct.  Otherwise you are effectively assuming that there is NO error. You might as well assume that there is no sin as well!

Absolutely

 

My Back Pages

Yes, my guard stood hard when abstract threats too noble to neglect
Deceived me into thinking I had something to protect
Good and bad, I define these terms quite clear, no doubt, somehow
Ah, but I was so much older then I'm younger than that now

Life is NOT a battle between Good and Bad.

Good and bad are relative terms, just like odd and even; black and red; chaos and order; Republican and Democrat; less filling and tastes great, etc.  An absolute has no relative terms.  It is the unity of all of those relative terms.  That is why, in mathematics, infinity is both odd and even. This is also not a new concept, it is a New Testament concept that goes back almost 2000 years,  Gal 3:28.  The distinction really is between an absolute and no absolute.  Thus the choice is not good or bad. It is good, bad or nothing.  Trying to make it as if the choice ss only between good and bad is trying to deceive.  Be younger than that now.

Relativistic Gravity

 I’m Sorry

You tell me, mistakes
Are part of being young
But that don't right
The wrong that's been done
I'm sorry
(So sorry) So sorry
Please accept my apology

Mistakes are obviously part of being old too!

In a previous blog post I regretted not being able to show my work that the Lortenz Transform which is traditionaly expressed as √(1-(v/c)² should be expressed as 1/(1-ln(½)*ln(1-(v/c)²)).  My work obviously had a mistake and while this appears to be a useful approximation, ...it is wrong.

On a flat surface the hypotenuse/radius of a triangle is r=√(a²+b²).  I had said that on a hyperbolic surface this is r=1/(1+ln(.5)*ln(a²+b²)), which I arrived as a solution and it seems to work, but I did not save my work.  The correct solution, which I did save this time, on a hyperbolic surface is 
r=ln(cosh(a²+b²)*cosh(n*π) ± sinh(a²+b²)*sinh(n*π)).  This makes the solution to the Lorentz Transform, which can be solved from Einstein's Triangle of Energy as ln(cosh(1-v²/c²)±sinh(1-v²/c²)), where cosh(1-v²/c²) is the constant term, location, and sinh(1-v²/c²) is the variance, uncertainty.  Logarithms are not defined for negative numbers, i.e. when the uncertainty is greater than the constant term, so the Lorentz Transfrom is properly in the range between 1 and ln(cosh(1-v²/c²)+sinh(1-v²/c²)).  At a speed of zero, the location dominates and the uncertainty is almost zero.  The uncertainty increases and the location decreases as the speed of the particle approaches the speed of light. 

This means that the formulas originally given in https://dbeagan.blogspot.com/2023/04/on-beyond-einstein.html should instead be :

“If space is not flat, but is hyperbolic then the equations might instead be

Momentum =  m_0* ln(cosh(1-v²/c²)±sinh(1-v²/c²))*v

Force=  m_0* ln(cosh(1-v²/c²)±sinh(1-v²/c²))*v ∂v
         =  m_0* ln(cosh(1-v²/c²)±sinh(1-v²/c²)) *a

Energy = ∫ m_0* ln(cosh(1-v²/c²)±sinh(1-v²/c²))*v ∂v=      
            =   m_0* ln(cosh(1-v²/c²)±sinh(1-v²/c²))*c²

This solution does not create a paradox at v=c , and it is undefined, not imaginary, when v>c. The rest mass, m_{0 ,} is always greater than zero.

The Second Law of Thermodynamics requires that the energy of a system of objects will seek the state of lowest energy and any reduction in the energy of the system will be equal to an increase in the entropy of the system. In curved, hyperbolic, space, two masses will each seek to lower their energy and approach a common center along a geodesic. This change in energy will be accompanied by a change in momentum. This change in momentum could be viewed in flat space as an apparent force, like centrifugal force, and NOT an intrinsic force. The apparent force of gravity is these masses seeking to lower their energy, maximize their entropy, and this is

G*m_01* ln(cosh(1-v₁²/c²)±sinh(1-v₁²/c²))*

                       m_02* ln(cosh(1-v₂²/c²)±sinh(1-v₂²/c²))/  exp(-k*d₁₂);

G=6.67×10^-11

where d₁₂ is the distance between mass 1 and mass 2, m_0x is the rest mass of mass x,  v_x  is the velocity of mass x, and c is the speed of light and k is the average distance. "

This does mean that:

In a curved universe, gravity should be an apparent force and should NOT be combined with the three intrinsic (electromagnetic, weak nuclear, and strong nuclear) forces in a Unified Field Theory.

In a hyperbolic universe, there is a discontinuity at the Big Bang and our universe may be only one sheet in a asymmetrical two-sheeted hyperboloid.

In a hyperbolic universe, there is only one absolute, and that absolute is both random AND deterministic.

If there is one absolute, then there is also only one choice: choosing that absolute, or not choosing that absolute, aka absolute zero. 

In a hyperbolic universe, regressions and statistics using least squares should be redone; the formula for what is called the standard deviation is in fact the formula for error; and the Bessel adjustment, n/(n-1), is not necessary.

In a hyperbolic universe, when there is no error, every moment about the mean should be 0, not just those odd movements where the moment is currently expressed as multiples of i and even movements which are multiples of i² , which are currenly expressed as a real number is - 1.

The universe has a variance of .822,  and thus its standard deviation can never be 0.