Go Back   Physics Help Forum > Physics Forums > Philosophy of Physics

Philosophy of Physics Philosophy of Physics Forum - Philosophical questions about our universe

Like Tree2Likes
  • 2 Post By Woody
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old Jul 9th 2018, 12:55 PM   #1
Junior Member
Join Date: Jun 2018
Posts: 20
____What is What is Not Part 2_________

Best to read the first part but basically we deduced that in 2018 there is not a correct definition of Up or Down that fits current science.

Frankly it is below bad when science cannot even define Up and Down when? Answer this: Why should I believe science when it cannot even
define Up from Down?

For years I have seen so many formulas with a bunch of variables that are undefined or who knows defined. For formulas to have any real world applications the variables need to be defined well, not always, do just good odds quantum gambles, work.

So in this forum I am attempting to use some headless power not only to aid in physics knowledge but to actually improve it by defining some of the most critical variables in current science. Starting with defining Up and Down. Hows that for fundamental science?

This is a cannot loose scenario: If your right we change definition if wrong you have supported the definition by helping confirm it.
lancew561 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 9th 2018, 12:58 PM   #2
Junior Member
Join Date: Jun 2018
Posts: 20
__________Lets Continue___________

The only reason for light speed was to indicate speed of measurement, not say 5 minutes to measure, that is all. At that speed the quality of measurement, sample is best currently obtainable. The center of gravity might be moving at an unknown speed (neutron star). This requires fast measurement to obtain quality accuracy. A very high wire swinging laser weight in a vacuum should be fairly accurate measurement at least on earth (not great). But with these new definitions super accuracy is no longer required to find up from down.

Incorporating studiots observations into the current definitions we have added the word near thus requiring less accuracy yet still correct.

Down: At observers coordinates pointing toward a detected

gravity well near center is down.

Up: At observers coordinates pointing away from a detected

gravity well near center is up.

These seem to work quite well for example: the observer can be at any desired coordinates it wants (man or machine) and from that point of view find near up and down. This means that projecting in your mind, like a rover on mars, the rover knows up from down, by detecting its nearest gravity well near center.

With these definitions you cannot find up or down without a detectable gravity well near center as a reference point. This means if in a spaceship with no portholes you cannot tell up from down it is undefined. Now if you look out a sudden porthole you see the earth and because it has, with your eyes, a detectable gravity well near center, You are looking down at the earth. Now if you look out another porthole and see the moon you are looking down on the moon (another gravity well detected). This also means looking at a black hole is down etc.

These definitions should work now anywhere in the universe for the observer?

Any other suggestions but please consider the current above definitions with any application of your thoughts, that would make the definitions more accurate or shorter.

Also let me thank you now on behalf of science for attempting a 21st century science improvement without bureaucratic approval. This blog can now not only aid Physics but actual attempt to improve it. Both of which are worthwhile endeavors. Are they not?

Do let other humans know that you are getting very, very close to actually defining Up and Down. Of course there never has been a great rush……….

Last edited by lancew561; Jul 9th 2018 at 01:01 PM.
lancew561 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 9th 2018, 03:32 PM   #3
Forum Admin
topsquark's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: On the dance floor, baby!
Posts: 2,382
Originally Posted by lancew561 View Post
Do let other humans know that you are getting very, very close to actually defining Up and Down.
I like your persistence but you aren't really listening to the responses. Your "up" and "down" concept has been done and is a part of the field of Differential Geometry. I'm sorry but there is no well-defined coordinate system that can be used such that all observers can say "Yes, this is the best " 'up' " and "Yes, this is the best " 'down' ". I can always make a new, equally valid, coordinate system that disagrees with yours and still be just as correct.

Your argument is based on the direction to a center of mass. But, as I have pointed out before, you have a serious problem if you have two or more masses. You haven't addressed this case.

Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup.

See the forum rules here.

Last edited by topsquark; Jul 9th 2018 at 03:41 PM.
topsquark is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 9th 2018, 04:57 PM   #4
Senior Member
Woody's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: England
Posts: 526
As I stated in the previous thread, there can not be any single "one size fits all" definition of up and down.
It will always depend on the circumstances which these terms are being used to describe.
It is beholden on the describer to make it clear how they are using the terms for these particular circumstances.

The problem arises in how far any definition has to be taken, since this depends crucially on the audience.
When describing a complex subject one has to make assumptions about the prior knowledge of the audience, or you will never reach the meat of the argument.

If you have ever tried explaining "why" to a five year old you know that you can find yourself defining the definitions ad infinitum.

Unfortunately this can make physics seem unapproachable with its esoteric terminology.
But I would say that this is unavoidable.
Also it is not just an issue of Physics, all fields of specialists have their share of specialist terms, from Physicists and Engineers to Dancers and Poets.
topsquark and benit13 like this.

Last edited by Woody; Jul 9th 2018 at 04:59 PM.
Woody is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 9th 2018, 06:11 PM   #5
Junior Member
Join Date: Jun 2018
Posts: 20
______________Yes Enough_____________

Very encouraging Ha, but you are correct of course ad infinitum.

Subject becomes raw in a short time.

At least we gave it a really close shot........

End of Thread Lance
lancew561 is offline   Reply With Quote

  Physics Help Forum > Physics Forums > Philosophy of Physics


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Similar Physics Forum Discussions
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Deriving equations (3 part question!) alex34 General Physics 6 Oct 9th 2017 06:17 AM
I need help with the final part of a long momentum problem pereeia Kinematics and Dynamics 0 Apr 22nd 2017 06:31 PM
Perturbation approach to solve attractive part of Lennard-Jones potential Torgny Advanced Electricity and Magnetism 0 Oct 21st 2016 07:36 AM
Please help with this derivation on part of the retarded potential yungman Advanced Electricity and Magnetism 4 Apr 24th 2011 09:33 PM
The convergent mirror in this problem is a part of... jenshu Light and Optics 1 Mar 1st 2010 02:35 AM

Facebook Twitter Google+ RSS Feed