gravity waves are math invention
no experiment prove them
and 99% of physicists believe they exist
because math rules physics
WHY this big mistake ?
Because the theory of general relativity predicted a great many previously unseen phenomena such as large light deflection by stars and gravitational redshift, to name the two simplest ones. In the 90 years since it's publication, thousands of experiments have been performed testing dozens of relativities aspects and predictions and all have come back verifying relativity's predictions.
Therefore, going on it's past record, relativity was correct in it's prediction about previously unseen things. Gravity waves are just another unseen phenomena relativity predicts so we have confidence that they will be found. It's taken this long because the technology required to find them directly is extremely advanced due to the high level of sensitivity the detectors need to have.
This is how science advances. A theory needs to predict something new and that prediction is then tested. Since relativity has done that successfully so many times, people are inclined to believe it's other predictions. Similar examples are found in things like the Standard Model, such as the Higgs Boson. Due to previous successes it's expected by many physicists that the LHC will find the Higgs.
Therefore, going on it's past record, relativity was correct in it's prediction about previously unseen things. Gravity waves are just another unseen phenomena relativity predicts so we have confidence that they will be found. It's taken this long because the technology required to find them directly is extremely advanced due to the high level of sensitivity the detectors need to have.
This is how science advances. A theory needs to predict something new and that prediction is then tested. Since relativity has done that successfully so many times, people are inclined to believe it's other predictions. Similar examples are found in things like the Standard Model, such as the Higgs Boson. Due to previous successes it's expected by many physicists that the LHC will find the Higgs.
Math is always going to be associated with physics, because without precision experiments, all we can do is wave our hands and say the sun is "there" and the earth is "here" and the moon might be "over there" this week. Numbers let us point more precisely, and measurements always can be expressed in numbers.
Math is (among other things) the only language we have for manipulating numbers.
Physics is not however the slave to math, but they are brothers. Math cares only about math, but physics tells use which maths have relevance to the physical world, because many do not.
Math is (among other things) the only language we have for manipulating numbers.
Physics is not however the slave to math, but they are brothers. Math cares only about math, but physics tells use which maths have relevance to the physical world, because many do not.
amrit,
Try to imagine physics without maths!
There is no belief in physics, only hypothesis. Maths are precisely the set of all rules that connect hypothesis and experience. Therefore any theory has to be mathematically consistent and experimentally verified. Any theory needs a set of rules to conclude about its experimental verification, that's obvioulsy the most important part of physics, and this is mathematics.
The example you take is on the border line between verified and unverified, precisely where the efforts are the most useful. The assumption of gravitational waves is a consequence of building a logically consitent theory based on some -reasonnable- assumptions. Finding the waves experimentally would be a confirmation. Other experiments may verify other aspects of the theory. Not finding the waves is a challenge to find alternative theories or new experimental methods. Possible new theories should also be checked experimentally and should be logically consistent.
General relativity has some ability to explain experimental observations, to say the least. A consequence of GR is the hypothesis of gravitational waves. Do you think trying to detect them is wrong?
I will never forget how light was understood by Maxwell as an electromagnetic wave. Considering all laws known at that time and assuming the conservation of the electric charge he introduced the famous "displacement current". The logical consequence was the electromagnetic wave. That's the power of mathematics.
Michel
Try to imagine physics without maths!
There is no belief in physics, only hypothesis. Maths are precisely the set of all rules that connect hypothesis and experience. Therefore any theory has to be mathematically consistent and experimentally verified. Any theory needs a set of rules to conclude about its experimental verification, that's obvioulsy the most important part of physics, and this is mathematics.
The example you take is on the border line between verified and unverified, precisely where the efforts are the most useful. The assumption of gravitational waves is a consequence of building a logically consitent theory based on some -reasonnable- assumptions. Finding the waves experimentally would be a confirmation. Other experiments may verify other aspects of the theory. Not finding the waves is a challenge to find alternative theories or new experimental methods. Possible new theories should also be checked experimentally and should be logically consistent.
General relativity has some ability to explain experimental observations, to say the least. A consequence of GR is the hypothesis of gravitational waves. Do you think trying to detect them is wrong?
I will never forget how light was understood by Maxwell as an electromagnetic wave. Considering all laws known at that time and assuming the conservation of the electric charge he introduced the famous "displacement current". The logical consequence was the electromagnetic wave. That's the power of mathematics.
Michel
QUOTE (AlphaNumeric+Oct 6 2006, 06:10 PM)
Because the theory of general relativity predicted a great many previously unseen phenomena such as large light deflection by stars and gravitational redshift, to name the two simplest ones. In the 90 years since it's publication, thousands of experiments have been performed testing dozens of relativities aspects and predictions and all have come back verifying relativity's predictions.
Therefore, going on it's past record, relativity was correct in it's prediction about previously unseen things. Gravity waves are just another unseen phenomena relativity predicts so we have confidence that they will be found. It's taken this long because the technology required to find them directly is extremely advanced due to the high level of sensitivity the detectors need to have.
This is how science advances. A theory needs to predict something new and that prediction is then tested. Since relativity has done that successfully so many times, people are inclined to believe it's other predictions. Similar examples are found in things like the Standard Model, such as the Higgs Boson. Due to previous successes it's expected by many physicists that the LHC will find the Higgs.
in first version of GR there is no trace of GW
gravity is described by the curvature of the space
all effects you talk are explained in original version
GW are ON THE TOP, a great mistake of Einstein
i have nothing against math
math is a toll of physics
but it has become an explanation
do you know how Hawking has explained "inflation phase"
sum of gravitational energy and of energy of matter in the universe is zero
-Eg + Em = 0
in inflation phase both of energies are multiplying, but its sum remains zero
in the same way as
-1 + 1 = 0
-2 + 2 = 0
and so on
see his book "A Brief History of Time"
he explains inflation with math
his explanation is against first law of thermodynamics
and no one say nothing
all is fine
this is where math rules physics
Therefore, going on it's past record, relativity was correct in it's prediction about previously unseen things. Gravity waves are just another unseen phenomena relativity predicts so we have confidence that they will be found. It's taken this long because the technology required to find them directly is extremely advanced due to the high level of sensitivity the detectors need to have.
This is how science advances. A theory needs to predict something new and that prediction is then tested. Since relativity has done that successfully so many times, people are inclined to believe it's other predictions. Similar examples are found in things like the Standard Model, such as the Higgs Boson. Due to previous successes it's expected by many physicists that the LHC will find the Higgs.
in first version of GR there is no trace of GW
gravity is described by the curvature of the space
all effects you talk are explained in original version
GW are ON THE TOP, a great mistake of Einstein
i have nothing against math
math is a toll of physics
but it has become an explanation
do you know how Hawking has explained "inflation phase"
sum of gravitational energy and of energy of matter in the universe is zero
-Eg + Em = 0
in inflation phase both of energies are multiplying, but its sum remains zero
in the same way as
-1 + 1 = 0
-2 + 2 = 0
and so on
see his book "A Brief History of Time"
he explains inflation with math
his explanation is against first law of thermodynamics
and no one say nothing
all is fine
this is where math rules physics
QUOTE (amrit+Oct 7 2006, 07:53 AM)
in first version of GR there is no trace of GW
gravity is described by the curvature of the space
all effects you talk are explained in original version
GW are ON THE TOP, a great mistake of Einstein
Black holes weren't discussed in Einstein's original paper, it wasn't until the following year that Schwarzchild came up with his black hole metric, but that doesn't mean black holes aren't part of relativity. Gravity waves aren't immediately obvious, you have to do more work to get the solutions which describe them so it's not suprising they didn't appear in his first paper. After all, the last 90 years has seen stuff published about GR which wasn't in Einstein's original paper!
gravity is described by the curvature of the space
all effects you talk are explained in original version
GW are ON THE TOP, a great mistake of Einstein
Black holes weren't discussed in Einstein's original paper, it wasn't until the following year that Schwarzchild came up with his black hole metric, but that doesn't mean black holes aren't part of relativity. Gravity waves aren't immediately obvious, you have to do more work to get the solutions which describe them so it's not suprising they didn't appear in his first paper. After all, the last 90 years has seen stuff published about GR which wasn't in Einstein's original paper!
QUOTE (amrit+Oct 7 2006, 07:53 AM)
his explanation is against first law of thermodynamics
No it isn't because the total never changes.
I have read A Brief History of Time and while it's interesting it's extremely reduced in it's complexity and explaination of advanced topics, because otherwise few would read it. If you want to actually discuss such things as inflation properly you'll need to buy/read books aimed at university students because proper explainations are given which would help reduce your confusion.
I have read A Brief History of Time and while it's interesting it's extremely reduced in it's complexity and explaination of advanced topics, because otherwise few would read it. If you want to actually discuss such things as inflation properly you'll need to buy/read books aimed at university students because proper explainations are given which would help reduce your confusion.
yes total never changes
but total is not zero
gravity energy (energy of the space) transforms into matter and opposite
but total is not zero
gravity energy (energy of the space) transforms into matter and opposite
QUOTE (amrit+Oct 7 2006, 10:20 AM)
yes total never changes
but total is not zero
So that doesn't actually break the first law of thermodynamics then.
but total is not zero
So that doesn't actually break the first law of thermodynamics then.
yes but by Havking total iz zero and it bis not
total is K (konstant) and is not zero
total is K (konstant) and is not zero
Hi Amrit, AlphaNumeric, Lal, Rp,
Amrit (First let me assure you that my tone here is inquisitive with some confusion. Any frustration that comes through is carry over from other posters recently.)
It's clear from what posts that I've read from you that you have issues with things like gravity waves, time, and motion. I personally feel that gravity waves are an easily acceptable concept stemming from GR. I know that there is only circumstantial evidence of them, but, considering the obvious difficulties in directly proving they exist (predictably difficult), I feel it is only a matter of time until they are directly measured.
Getting to your topic, most of your theories that I've read are mostly metaphysical to me, in that they inherently need no maths to explain or defend. So for you to ask if physics is becoming a slave to math, seems only a way to remove the biggest obstacle to your theories, because science uses math to not only predict and verify, but also to disprove. If, say, your proposition that physics has become slave to math becomes a widely accepted view, then scientists all over the world can ignore mathematical inconsistencies and continue a path that they began with a hypothesis that they originally proposed. To me, the world of science would revert to the days when it was the scientist's biases that become the 'truth'. There was a famous case of this when a bigoted scientist set out to prove that a black person's skull, and therefore brain capacity, was smaller than a caucasians. His results which 'proved' exactly that were later proved incorrect, but not before word got around enough to make it a fact to some people, even to this day.
I hope you understand my point, and maybe see how this type of question can, in some ways, insult or offend truth seeking, genuinely objective scientists who do not defend theory using maths or any other tool because they are determined to defend something, but because they are seeking the truth.
Take care all,
Ron
Amrit (First let me assure you that my tone here is inquisitive with some confusion. Any frustration that comes through is carry over from other posters recently.)
It's clear from what posts that I've read from you that you have issues with things like gravity waves, time, and motion. I personally feel that gravity waves are an easily acceptable concept stemming from GR. I know that there is only circumstantial evidence of them, but, considering the obvious difficulties in directly proving they exist (predictably difficult), I feel it is only a matter of time until they are directly measured.
Getting to your topic, most of your theories that I've read are mostly metaphysical to me, in that they inherently need no maths to explain or defend. So for you to ask if physics is becoming a slave to math, seems only a way to remove the biggest obstacle to your theories, because science uses math to not only predict and verify, but also to disprove. If, say, your proposition that physics has become slave to math becomes a widely accepted view, then scientists all over the world can ignore mathematical inconsistencies and continue a path that they began with a hypothesis that they originally proposed. To me, the world of science would revert to the days when it was the scientist's biases that become the 'truth'. There was a famous case of this when a bigoted scientist set out to prove that a black person's skull, and therefore brain capacity, was smaller than a caucasians. His results which 'proved' exactly that were later proved incorrect, but not before word got around enough to make it a fact to some people, even to this day.
I hope you understand my point, and maybe see how this type of question can, in some ways, insult or offend truth seeking, genuinely objective scientists who do not defend theory using maths or any other tool because they are determined to defend something, but because they are seeking the truth.
Take care all,
Ron
You can define the total energy of a system to be anything you want provided it's constant. Often for convenience it's taken to be zero, other times it might be more convenient to give it a non-zero amount.
Since (d/dt)K = (d/dt)0 = 0 it doesn't matter what the amount is so long as it's a constant.
For instance, in many areas of physics you start with the Hamiltonian or Lagrangian for a system, that is either T+V or T-V (where T is the kinetic energy and V the potential). You can then derive the equations of motion for all things in the system from these expressions. You are at liberty to add any amount of energy you want to V, provided it's constant, because when you do the equations of motion with that system, they remain the same.
Since (d/dt)K = (d/dt)0 = 0 it doesn't matter what the amount is so long as it's a constant.
For instance, in many areas of physics you start with the Hamiltonian or Lagrangian for a system, that is either T+V or T-V (where T is the kinetic energy and V the potential). You can then derive the equations of motion for all things in the system from these expressions. You are at liberty to add any amount of energy you want to V, provided it's constant, because when you do the equations of motion with that system, they remain the same.
ron my a-temporal gravity has a exact math model for its description
but publishing is refused by now at any journal
because denies existence of GW
see that is sad
yıu are not allow to say GW are maybe mistake
you are simply OUT
that is the crisis of today science
the main paradigm can not be discussed any more
it has become official science (like an official religion)
but publishing is refused by now at any journal
because denies existence of GW
see that is sad
yıu are not allow to say GW are maybe mistake
you are simply OUT
that is the crisis of today science
the main paradigm can not be discussed any more
it has become official science (like an official religion)
It's not that they ignore anyone claiming GWs don't exist, it's the fact your maths is extremely rudimentary, doesn't explain many effects seen because it is Newtonian and your theory is inconsistent with itself and experiments.
Plus your writing style and presentation is not of the quality of a paper which would get published.
If someone could come up with a gravitational theory which has exactly the same predictions as relativity except for gravity waves it would be published (provided it was writen well). It would then be a showdown between that theory and relativity as to which one was best when gravitational wave experiments were done to sufficent accuracy.
Plus your writing style and presentation is not of the quality of a paper which would get published.
If someone could come up with a gravitational theory which has exactly the same predictions as relativity except for gravity waves it would be published (provided it was writen well). It would then be a showdown between that theory and relativity as to which one was best when gravitational wave experiments were done to sufficent accuracy.
QUOTE (AlphaNumeric+Oct 7 2006, 05:37 PM)
If someone could come up with a gravitational theory which has exactly the same predictions as relativity except for gravity waves it would be published (provided it was writen well). It would then be a showdown between that theory and relativity as to which one was best when gravitational wave experiments were done to sufficent accuracy.
Actually, trying to be technically correct, it wouldn't necessarily have to be exact, but it would have to
1) pass all the Newtonian tests -- theories that don't predict 1/R^2 or WEP to the reasonably high limits established by experiment won't even explain solar system dynamics to the state they were known in the 17th century.
2) pass all the Post-Newtonian tests to leading order in v^2/c^2, where existing tests have validated GR -- these constraints are pretty tight, and while you have some wiggle room here, it's not like others haven't tried.
3) explain why momemtum is not conserved in close-orbiting stars by just the amount that Einstein's theory says it is. Einstein's theory allows you to derive the consevation of engergy and momentum, which pops out naturally, and was not built-in. A effect which sometimes violates the conservation of momentum would shake up all physics, and this is where a replacement theory without GW would be questioned most strongly at the review phase.
Actually, trying to be technically correct, it wouldn't necessarily have to be exact, but it would have to
1) pass all the Newtonian tests -- theories that don't predict 1/R^2 or WEP to the reasonably high limits established by experiment won't even explain solar system dynamics to the state they were known in the 17th century.
2) pass all the Post-Newtonian tests to leading order in v^2/c^2, where existing tests have validated GR -- these constraints are pretty tight, and while you have some wiggle room here, it's not like others haven't tried.
3) explain why momemtum is not conserved in close-orbiting stars by just the amount that Einstein's theory says it is. Einstein's theory allows you to derive the consevation of engergy and momentum, which pops out naturally, and was not built-in. A effect which sometimes violates the conservation of momentum would shake up all physics, and this is where a replacement theory without GW would be questioned most strongly at the review phase.
Hi guys,
rpenner, excuse my naivety, you said "3) explain why momentum is not conserved in close-orbiting stars by just the amount that Einstein's theory says it is. Einstein's theory allows you to derive the conservation of energy and momentum, which pops out naturally, and was not built-in."
I read an article recently (on this site) that was about some observations of a binary pulsar system that, from what I understood, used three types of measurements to verify time dilation and gravity waves (indirectly) predictions to within .05%. The time dilation measurements had to do with redshift and the Shapiro delay, and the gravity wave predictions came from the orbital decay of the system. Is this a type of 'unaccounted for' energy that would look like a conflict with conservation of energy without the existence of these predicted gravity waves?
Thanks,
Ron
rpenner, excuse my naivety, you said "3) explain why momentum is not conserved in close-orbiting stars by just the amount that Einstein's theory says it is. Einstein's theory allows you to derive the conservation of energy and momentum, which pops out naturally, and was not built-in."
I read an article recently (on this site) that was about some observations of a binary pulsar system that, from what I understood, used three types of measurements to verify time dilation and gravity waves (indirectly) predictions to within .05%. The time dilation measurements had to do with redshift and the Shapiro delay, and the gravity wave predictions came from the orbital decay of the system. Is this a type of 'unaccounted for' energy that would look like a conflict with conservation of energy without the existence of these predicted gravity waves?
Thanks,
Ron
Correct, GR predicts binary stars will decay at a certain, experimentally verified rate, which means momentum is going somewhere. GR also says that that that momentum shows up in GW. A replacement theory GW has to explain both sides of the situation ( a ) how much energy and momentum goes missing from the binary star, and ( b ) where does it go, if not in GW. Of course, if the hypothetical system predicts the absence of GW, and at some later date GWs are directly observed, or better, correlated with a visual observation, then that would demonstrate that GR is superior to GR-without-GW.
Any idea has to be expressed in math, or it can't meet the tests 1 & 2 in an earlier post, and also so that number 3 would not be a "magic" loss of energy/momentum. I don't have an idea how this might be done.
Any idea has to be expressed in math, or it can't meet the tests 1 & 2 in an earlier post, and also so that number 3 would not be a "magic" loss of energy/momentum. I don't have an idea how this might be done.
QUOTE (Ron+Oct 7 2006, 08:16 PM)
Hi guys,
rpenner, excuse my naivety, you said "3) explain why momentum is not conserved in close-orbiting stars by just the amount that Einstein's theory says it is. Einstein's theory allows you to derive the conservation of energy and momentum, which pops out naturally, and was not built-in."
I read an article recently (on this site) that was about some observations of a binary pulsar system that, from what I understood, used three types of measurements to verify time dilation and gravity waves (indirectly) predictions to within .05%. The time dilation measurements had to do with redshift and the Shapiro delay, and the gravity wave predictions came from the orbital decay of the system. Is this a type of 'unaccounted for' energy that would look like a conflict with conservation of energy without the existence of these predicted gravity waves?
Thanks,
Ron
orbital decay of the binary stars (neutron stars) is because in the center of the stars matter transform back into space
this diminishes mass of the star and so orbital decay
there is no such a thing as "gravitational radiation"
rpenner, excuse my naivety, you said "3) explain why momentum is not conserved in close-orbiting stars by just the amount that Einstein's theory says it is. Einstein's theory allows you to derive the conservation of energy and momentum, which pops out naturally, and was not built-in."
I read an article recently (on this site) that was about some observations of a binary pulsar system that, from what I understood, used three types of measurements to verify time dilation and gravity waves (indirectly) predictions to within .05%. The time dilation measurements had to do with redshift and the Shapiro delay, and the gravity wave predictions came from the orbital decay of the system. Is this a type of 'unaccounted for' energy that would look like a conflict with conservation of energy without the existence of these predicted gravity waves?
Thanks,
Ron
orbital decay of the binary stars (neutron stars) is because in the center of the stars matter transform back into space
this diminishes mass of the star and so orbital decay
there is no such a thing as "gravitational radiation"
Hi again,
Thanks rp.
Amrit, your quote "orbital decay of the binary stars (neutron stars) is because in the center of the stars matter transform back into space" is completely alien to me. Is this part of your theory alone, or are there other theories that claim this type of transformation? Can you point me to any link that says matter transforms into space? If it's just your theory, that's cool, but please tell me that.
Thanks,
Ron
Thanks rp.
Amrit, your quote "orbital decay of the binary stars (neutron stars) is because in the center of the stars matter transform back into space" is completely alien to me. Is this part of your theory alone, or are there other theories that claim this type of transformation? Can you point me to any link that says matter transforms into space? If it's just your theory, that's cool, but please tell me that.
Thanks,
Ron
hı ron
yes matter transforms into space in neutron stars and black holes and in big explosion og AGN space transforms back into matter
see my article
Sorli A. Fiscaletti D. (2005). Active Galactic Nucleus As a Renewing Systems Of the Universe Electronic Journal of Theoretical Physics, Vol 2, Num 6 www.ejtp.com
yes matter transforms into space in neutron stars and black holes and in big explosion og AGN space transforms back into matter
see my article
Sorli A. Fiscaletti D. (2005). Active Galactic Nucleus As a Renewing Systems Of the Universe Electronic Journal of Theoretical Physics, Vol 2, Num 6 www.ejtp.com
QUOTE (amrit+Oct 6 2006, 06:00 PM)
gravity waves are math invention
no experiment prove them
and 99% of physicists believe they exist
because math rules physics
WHY this big mistake ?
Math is integral part of physics, it is the universal language used in physics. Together with experiment math forms the foundation of physics.
A side benefit is that math separates the real scientists from the pseudo-scientists.
no experiment prove them
and 99% of physicists believe they exist
because math rules physics
WHY this big mistake ?
Math is integral part of physics, it is the universal language used in physics. Together with experiment math forms the foundation of physics.
A side benefit is that math separates the real scientists from the pseudo-scientists.
physics is a science and math is a tool
math is not a science at all
science - physics deal with the universe
math deal with the numbers
mathematical physicists are pseudo-meta-scientists
they trust math more than experiment
for them GW exist already because they describe them with math
but math description is not enough for the real science
real science needs experiment
Together with experiment math forms the foundation of physics.
my dear that is most danger idea for physics
math is not and can not ever become foundation of physics
foundation of physics is experiment
physics can not have a ground on the math
math is a tool a description
this your idea is destroying the real authentic spirit of physics
the way physics search the universe:
observation - building the hypothesis - math description - experiment
foundation of physics is observation (perception) and experiment
this never change
hypothesis an math desciption are in progress, are relative, observation and experiment are absolute
physics can only develop when perception and experiment are "fix points" the theories and math description can only develop safetly and correct in the frame of this two fix points
math is not a science at all
science - physics deal with the universe
math deal with the numbers
mathematical physicists are pseudo-meta-scientists
they trust math more than experiment
for them GW exist already because they describe them with math
but math description is not enough for the real science
real science needs experiment
Together with experiment math forms the foundation of physics.
my dear that is most danger idea for physics
math is not and can not ever become foundation of physics
foundation of physics is experiment
physics can not have a ground on the math
math is a tool a description
this your idea is destroying the real authentic spirit of physics
the way physics search the universe:
observation - building the hypothesis - math description - experiment
foundation of physics is observation (perception) and experiment
this never change
hypothesis an math desciption are in progress, are relative, observation and experiment are absolute
physics can only develop when perception and experiment are "fix points" the theories and math description can only develop safetly and correct in the frame of this two fix points
I rather share that sentiment.
There seems to be an awfully strong correlation between those who can't do Mathematics, and those who don't value its part in Physics.
How odd...
How odd...
FFS, are you dishing out your juvenile insults again? Who can't do mathematics? Albert Einstein?
It's all a matter of balance. Physics is physics, and mathematics is vital to it. But physics is not mathematics, and experiment is more vital.
It's all a matter of balance. Physics is physics, and mathematics is vital to it. But physics is not mathematics, and experiment is more vital.
QUOTE (Farsight+Oct 10 2006, 05:18 PM)
FFS, are you dishing out your juvenile insults again?
Dear me, someone seems to have a bee in their bonnet.
Dear me, someone seems to have a bee in their bonnet.
QUOTE (Farsight+Oct 10 2006, 05:18 PM)
Who can't do mathematics? Albert Einstein?
What? Oh dear.
What? Oh dear.
You just covering up your ignorance by dishing out insults. You don't know that Albert Einstein was relatively weak in mathematics.
http://www.amazon.com/Sparks-Genius-Thirte...tion/0395907713
His peers, however, knew that Einstein was relatively weak in mathematics, often needing to collaborate with mathematicians to push his work forward. In fact, Einstein wrote to one correspondent, "Do not worry about your difficulties in mathematics. I can assure you that mine are still greater."
http://www.amazon.com/Sparks-Genius-Thirte...tion/0395907713
His peers, however, knew that Einstein was relatively weak in mathematics, often needing to collaborate with mathematicians to push his work forward. In fact, Einstein wrote to one correspondent, "Do not worry about your difficulties in mathematics. I can assure you that mine are still greater."
QUOTE (Farsight+Oct 10 2006, 05:46 PM)
You just covering up your ignorance by dishing out insults. You don't know that Albert Einstein was relatively weak in mathematics.
http://www.amazon.com/Sparks-Genius-Thirte...tion/0395907713
Relatively being the operative word sunshine. Einstein's mathematical ability would far outreach most, just not to the level of a lot of other physicists/mathematicians.
You just put them up, I just knock 'em down...
http://www.amazon.com/Sparks-Genius-Thirte...tion/0395907713
Relatively being the operative word sunshine. Einstein's mathematical ability would far outreach most, just not to the level of a lot of other physicists/mathematicians.
You just put them up, I just knock 'em down...
While Einstein might not have been up there with some of his contemporaries like Lorentz, Poincare or Riemann, bear in mind you're comparing him with some of the best mathematicians and physicists (even some call them polymaths) ever.
Einstein has a PhD in physics when he was working in that patent office (clearly the job market hasn't changed much in the last 100 years
) and they don't give them out for theoretical physics papers devoid of maths (no matter how much Zephir might be hoping).
(Pseudo-)Riemannian geometry is not exactly the stuff they teach in high school and it is beyond most people to do. Einstein could do that pretty well, though he did have a lot of collaboration with people like Hilbert when developing GR. Then throw in his work in Bose-Einstein statistics and you've got plenty of highly mathematical areas he could do well (having developed them!).
Sure, he was probably worse than many maths professors but that till would have put him in the top 1 percentile (and that's being nasty!).
Einstein has a PhD in physics when he was working in that patent office (clearly the job market hasn't changed much in the last 100 years
) and they don't give them out for theoretical physics papers devoid of maths (no matter how much Zephir might be hoping).(Pseudo-)Riemannian geometry is not exactly the stuff they teach in high school and it is beyond most people to do. Einstein could do that pretty well, though he did have a lot of collaboration with people like Hilbert when developing GR. Then throw in his work in Bose-Einstein statistics and you've got plenty of highly mathematical areas he could do well (having developed them!).
Sure, he was probably worse than many maths professors but that till would have put him in the top 1 percentile (and that's being nasty!).
Euler: Ah, but the only person you really keep knocking down is yourself.
Edit: Alphanumeric's post is the response you should have given.
Edit: Alphanumeric's post is the response you should have given.
QUOTE (Farsight+Oct 10 2006, 05:54 PM)
Euler: Ah, but the only person you really keep knocking down is yourself.
Oooh, now that's sharp. Really, really sharp.
Oooh, now that's sharp. Really, really sharp.
There is theoretical Physics and mathematical Physics.
The difference between them depends on whether you place physics or math first.
The difference between them depends on whether you place physics or math first.
I reckon there's Physics, and there's Mathematics. Physics needs Mathematics because you can't do all your Physics with just the concepts and experiments. And Mathematics needs Physics (and other stuff) because it would be a waste of time if it wasn't useful for something. Sometimes though, I think people get a bit confused about what's what. Naming no names...
http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/
http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/
QUOTE (Farsight+Oct 11 2006, 05:39 PM)
And Mathematics needs Physics (and other stuff) because it would be a waste of time if it wasn't useful for something.
What's wrong with thought for the sake of thought, which is what some pure maths might be considered. After all, much of philosophy you could describe as little more than mental masterbation if you didn't think much of it, but plenty of people see philosophy as an important part of our way of viewing the universe, despite it having little or no practical applications.
Not sure why you've linked to DAMTP.
What's wrong with thought for the sake of thought, which is what some pure maths might be considered. After all, much of philosophy you could describe as little more than mental masterbation if you didn't think much of it, but plenty of people see philosophy as an important part of our way of viewing the universe, despite it having little or no practical applications.
Not sure why you've linked to DAMTP.
QUOTE (Farsight+Oct 11 2006, 04:39 PM)
And Mathematics needs Physics (and other stuff) because it would be a waste of time if it wasn't useful for something.
Mathematics doesn't need physics at all. Studying something for the sake of furthering ones knowledge is enough for some people.
Mathematics doesn't need physics at all. Studying something for the sake of furthering ones knowledge is enough for some people.
Alphanumeric/Euler:
IMHO what drives many people is their innate desire to learn about the world and how it works, to know the Universe. If I were to dedicate my life to something that was not relevant to this, I wouldn't be happy. Because the "knowledge" I acquire would not let me "know" the world and is arguably not therefore knowledge. I might be engaging in pure thought, but I rather fear all I'd really be doing is playing mind games.
If you look at what Philosophy is supposed to be (and that ain't easy), some aspects of it can be construed as Physics Lite. And of course philosophy is what physics used to be, check out Newton. Sure there's some garbage in there, but so too is the curiosity, that desire to know the world:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy
It's maybe a little different with Pure Mathematics. In some respects this is turning away from knowing about the world. Is it then truly a science? Or is it just mind games?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pure_mathematics
OK, the above are wiki links, but they're good enough. I mentioned DAMTP because as the Department of Applied Mathematics and Theoretical Physics it exhibits the point I was making about the confusion between physics and mathematics. Maybe crossover is a better word. Or conflict. I'm not sure. But there are some issues here that deserve examination. As I speak I feel they need each other like two halves of a heart, but I get the impression that Mathematics is dominating Physics too much, and isn't delivering the concepts or the deep understanding we all strive for.
OK. That's enough philosophy for now.
IMHO what drives many people is their innate desire to learn about the world and how it works, to know the Universe. If I were to dedicate my life to something that was not relevant to this, I wouldn't be happy. Because the "knowledge" I acquire would not let me "know" the world and is arguably not therefore knowledge. I might be engaging in pure thought, but I rather fear all I'd really be doing is playing mind games.
If you look at what Philosophy is supposed to be (and that ain't easy), some aspects of it can be construed as Physics Lite. And of course philosophy is what physics used to be, check out Newton. Sure there's some garbage in there, but so too is the curiosity, that desire to know the world:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy
It's maybe a little different with Pure Mathematics. In some respects this is turning away from knowing about the world. Is it then truly a science? Or is it just mind games?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pure_mathematics
OK, the above are wiki links, but they're good enough. I mentioned DAMTP because as the Department of Applied Mathematics and Theoretical Physics it exhibits the point I was making about the confusion between physics and mathematics. Maybe crossover is a better word. Or conflict. I'm not sure. But there are some issues here that deserve examination. As I speak I feel they need each other like two halves of a heart, but I get the impression that Mathematics is dominating Physics too much, and isn't delivering the concepts or the deep understanding we all strive for.
OK. That's enough philosophy for now.
It's called applied mathematics because it is mathematics applied to the real (as opposed to mental or imaginary) world. Specific mathematical models are applied to the problems of real life and predictions made. Will this bridge stay up? Will this chemical cross the cell wall? How much water can safely be pumped from the well? "Pure" mathematatics would answer questions like: What is the density of primes between 10^10000 and 10^10001 - 1.
Theoretical physics is determining what type of math model is appropriate for each situation, as of yet an unsolved problem in the general (or most fundamental) case.
Experimental physics is about getting the evidence to justify the models.
Theoretical physics is determining what type of math model is appropriate for each situation, as of yet an unsolved problem in the general (or most fundamental) case.
Experimental physics is about getting the evidence to justify the models.
QUOTE (Farsight+Oct 12 2006, 02:00 PM)
OK, the above are wiki links, but they're good enough. I mentioned DAMTP because as the Department of Applied Mathematics and Theoretical Physics it exhibits the point I was making about the confusion between physics and mathematics. Maybe crossover is a better word. Or conflict. I'm not sure. But there are some issues here that deserve examination. As I speak I feel they need each other like two halves of a heart, but I get the impression that Mathematics is dominating Physics too much, and isn't delivering the concepts or the deep understanding we all strive for.
But you don't understand the first thing about what research is done in DAMTP. Infact, I don't think you'd understand the first thing about the contents of the undergraduate course at Cambridge.
If you actually took the time out to learn some mathematics, you might be able to see why there is an intricate link between it and physics. Rest assured, those working in DAMTP haven't the slightest bit of interest in why you think they're confusing mathematics with physics.
But you don't understand the first thing about what research is done in DAMTP. Infact, I don't think you'd understand the first thing about the contents of the undergraduate course at Cambridge.
If you actually took the time out to learn some mathematics, you might be able to see why there is an intricate link between it and physics. Rest assured, those working in DAMTP haven't the slightest bit of interest in why you think they're confusing mathematics with physics.
QUOTE (Euler+Oct 12 2006, 09:36 PM)
But you don't understand the first thing about what research is done in DAMTP. Infact, I don't think you'd understand the first thing about the contents of the undergraduate course at Cambridge.
If you actually took the time out to learn some mathematics, you might be able to see why there is an intricate link between it and physics. Rest assured, those working in DAMTP haven't the slightest bit of interest in why you think they're confusing mathematics with physics.
I don't know what's done at DAMTP, and I don't know what the Undergraduate Course entails. But I have learned some mathematics. And I do know why there's an intricate link between it and physics.
Sure they don't need to take any interest in what I think. And they don't need to take an interest in Why Maths Rules Physics either. They can sit there in their Department of Applied Mathematics and Theoretical Physics thinking whatever they like.
If you actually took the time out to learn some mathematics, you might be able to see why there is an intricate link between it and physics. Rest assured, those working in DAMTP haven't the slightest bit of interest in why you think they're confusing mathematics with physics.
I don't know what's done at DAMTP, and I don't know what the Undergraduate Course entails. But I have learned some mathematics. And I do know why there's an intricate link between it and physics.
Sure they don't need to take any interest in what I think. And they don't need to take an interest in Why Maths Rules Physics either. They can sit there in their Department of Applied Mathematics and Theoretical Physics thinking whatever they like.
I fail to see what's wrong with having a department which combines the areas of mathematics which are almost completely developed for the purpose of being applied to a physical model and the area of physics which is so extremely mathematical in nature that often they need to develop new maths for the purpose of furthering their physical model....
Considering DAMTP is one of, if not [i]the[i], best departments for those areas in the world, they must be doing something right or they wouldn't be outputting so many ideas and concepts.
Considering DAMTP is one of, if not [i]the[i], best departments for those areas in the world, they must be doing something right or they wouldn't be outputting so many ideas and concepts.
QUOTE (Farsight+Oct 13 2006, 04:43 PM)
I don't know what's done at DAMTP, and I don't know what the Undergraduate Course entails. But I have learned some mathematics. And I do know why there's an intricate link between it and physics.
I'm dubious of how much you acutally know - but that's for another thread (although if you're willing, I'm more than happy to go into it here).
I'm dubious of how much you acutally know - but that's for another thread (although if you're willing, I'm more than happy to go into it here).
QUOTE (Farsight+Oct 13 2006, 04:43 PM)
Sure they don't need to take any interest in what I think. And they don't need to take an interest in Why Maths Rules Physics either. They can sit there in their Department of Applied Mathematics and Theoretical Physics thinking whatever they like.
I fail to see your point (although its more than possible that you don't actually have one). Some of the best mathematicians in the world work there, on some very intricate problems. Seeing how you've admitted to not knowing what's done in the dept, I fail to see how you can comment on how they are "confusing mathematics with physics". You don't even know how advanced mathematics is used in theoretical physics: you're just not so fond of it because it because you don't have any real knowledge of the subject (and hence of modern theoretical physics).
I fail to see your point (although its more than possible that you don't actually have one). Some of the best mathematicians in the world work there, on some very intricate problems. Seeing how you've admitted to not knowing what's done in the dept, I fail to see how you can comment on how they are "confusing mathematics with physics". You don't even know how advanced mathematics is used in theoretical physics: you're just not so fond of it because it because you don't have any real knowledge of the subject (and hence of modern theoretical physics).
QUOTE (na'kuru'sil+Oct 9 2006, 08:34 PM)
Math is integral part of physics, it is the universal language used in physics. Together with experiment math forms the foundation of physics. A side benefit is that math separates the real scientists from the pseudo-scientists.
The predicate logic is matter of mathematic as well, it's even the fundamental base of math - but the physicists are ignoring the logical arguments quite often. I can say easily, the mathematician, which ignores the predicate logic cannot be called a mathematician, because it doesn't understand the proofs of most the mathematic theorems, which the math was built upon..
The same is true for physicists, of course. So for example, if somebody says, each the wave spreading of energy requires the inertial environment, because the wave equation is local version of Newton inertia law, then such claim remains valid without need of some formal math at all.
The predicate logic is matter of mathematic as well, it's even the fundamental base of math - but the physicists are ignoring the logical arguments quite often. I can say easily, the mathematician, which ignores the predicate logic cannot be called a mathematician, because it doesn't understand the proofs of most the mathematic theorems, which the math was built upon..
The same is true for physicists, of course. So for example, if somebody says, each the wave spreading of energy requires the inertial environment, because the wave equation is local version of Newton inertia law, then such claim remains valid without need of some formal math at all.
math rules physics because there is not yet consciousness born that will make us aware of how mind creates scientific theories
QUOTE (Zephir+Oct 27 2006, 11:15 AM)
The same is true for physicists, of course. So for example, if somebody says, each the wave spreading of energy requires the inertial environment, because the wave equation is local version of Newton inertia law, then such claim remains valid without need of some formal math at all.
The claim remains nothing more than a claim until you back it up with something. I can claim I'm superman, but without evidence, it'll remain an unsubstantiated claim.
That's all you've got at the moment Zephir, unsubstantiated claims. You may well be right (well, you aren't, we've shown you evidence of that) but until you substantiate your ideas, noone will take their validity seriously.
The claim remains nothing more than a claim until you back it up with something. I can claim I'm superman, but without evidence, it'll remain an unsubstantiated claim.
That's all you've got at the moment Zephir, unsubstantiated claims. You may well be right (well, you aren't, we've shown you evidence of that) but until you substantiate your ideas, noone will take their validity seriously.
QUOTE (Alphanumeric+Oct 27 2006, 05:15 PM)
The claim remains nothing more than a claim until you back it up with something. I can claim I'm superman, but without evidence, it'll remain an unsubstantiated claim.
The sentence "The wave equation requires the environment inertia, therefore each the energy spreading fulfilling the wave equation requires the environment inertia" is not claim, it's logical predicate, which is using valid assumptions.
You can disprove it only, if you prove, its assumptions are invalid or the predicate is ambiguous or ambivalent. If you want to express it in formal language, you should prove at first, such formalization is possible. Nevertheless the rewriting such predicate into more formal language doesn't change its true value, being solely formal too.
So I can say, for example: "If each the superman has unlimited power and I'm the superman, then I have an unlimited power" and such predicate is undeniable, until it's assumptions are valid. Such predicate doesn't say, I'm superman at all. It just puts the causality level between the common aspect of two subjects.
If you believe, such predicate isn't relevant until expressed by formal math, you've certain mental problem, because you can never understand the comics and superman movies at all...
After all, the mainstream physic never solved such nuances at all, because it had simply put the Aether concept invalid without any formal proof at all before one hundred years. If you don't believe me, show me the formal such proof of Aether nonexistence at first.
The sentence "The wave equation requires the environment inertia, therefore each the energy spreading fulfilling the wave equation requires the environment inertia" is not claim, it's logical predicate, which is using valid assumptions.
You can disprove it only, if you prove, its assumptions are invalid or the predicate is ambiguous or ambivalent. If you want to express it in formal language, you should prove at first, such formalization is possible. Nevertheless the rewriting such predicate into more formal language doesn't change its true value, being solely formal too.
So I can say, for example: "If each the superman has unlimited power and I'm the superman, then I have an unlimited power" and such predicate is undeniable, until it's assumptions are valid. Such predicate doesn't say, I'm superman at all. It just puts the causality level between the common aspect of two subjects.
If you believe, such predicate isn't relevant until expressed by formal math, you've certain mental problem, because you can never understand the comics and superman movies at all...
After all, the mainstream physic never solved such nuances at all, because it had simply put the Aether concept invalid without any formal proof at all before one hundred years. If you don't believe me, show me the formal such proof of Aether nonexistence at first.
QUOTE (Zephir+Oct 27 2006, 04:20 PM)
If you don't believe me, show me the formal such proof of Aether nonexistence at first.
It's not for science to disprove the existence of every possible thing, it's for people claiming such things exist to prove it. Otherwise we'd all believe in God, the invisible pink unicorn, fairies and Santa until some proved us wrong, which isn't possible for many of those things.
Everyone should be an 'aether atheist' or at worst 'aether agnostic' until it's demonstrated otherwise.
It's not for science to disprove the existence of every possible thing, it's for people claiming such things exist to prove it. Otherwise we'd all believe in God, the invisible pink unicorn, fairies and Santa until some proved us wrong, which isn't possible for many of those things.
Everyone should be an 'aether atheist' or at worst 'aether agnostic' until it's demonstrated otherwise.
Feelings should rule physics, then little Sally McKewtasbutons can be a physicist and we'll finally have a warm fuzzy universe where we ride winged unicorns from our cloud castles to the sparkles factory job every day!
Is that from some philosophy random quote generator? What gibberish.
Math is a logic system(s) of manipulating abstract models. Physics creates abstract models of the real world. Math, then, allows physics to manipulate the abstract models for study, making it physics' primary tool for understanding the universe.
QUOTE
math rules physics because there is not yet consciousness born that will make us aware of how mind creates scientific theories
Is that from some philosophy random quote generator? What gibberish.
Math is a logic system(s) of manipulating abstract models. Physics creates abstract models of the real world. Math, then, allows physics to manipulate the abstract models for study, making it physics' primary tool for understanding the universe.
I think some have missed the point Amrit was trying to make.
In the old days, within my lifetime, science worked this way.
We made observations, then tried to find the math behind them.
Now we invent math models, and look for observations to confirm them.
Completely backwards from the scientific approach we were taught.
This "modern approach" has produced theories that are more akin to numerology than science. A giant step backwards in the advancement of science.
No one can cast doubt on the value of math in science, it is a vital "part" of the scientific method.
May I repeat an old saying. There are two kinds of liers, D*** liers and mathematicians.
This was an old way of saying, just because you can "prove" something with math doesn't make it true. But truth can be shown with math.
We need to go back to the "old way" of conducting science, like we were taught.
In the old days, within my lifetime, science worked this way.
We made observations, then tried to find the math behind them.
Now we invent math models, and look for observations to confirm them.
Completely backwards from the scientific approach we were taught.
This "modern approach" has produced theories that are more akin to numerology than science. A giant step backwards in the advancement of science.
No one can cast doubt on the value of math in science, it is a vital "part" of the scientific method.
May I repeat an old saying. There are two kinds of liers, D*** liers and mathematicians.
This was an old way of saying, just because you can "prove" something with math doesn't make it true. But truth can be shown with math.
We need to go back to the "old way" of conducting science, like we were taught.
QUOTE (AlphaNumeric+Oct 27 2006, 08:22 PM)
it's not for science to disprove the existence of every possible thing, it's for people claiming such things exist to prove it
I supplied such proof:
"every wave needs an inertial environement, therefore the light wave is using such environment for its spreading, too".
I supplied such proof:
"every wave needs an inertial environement, therefore the light wave is using such environment for its spreading, too".
No, you supplied a notion. You have not proved its existence. I can supply the notion that God lives on the far side of the Moon with the cast of Sesame Street but if I can't prove it or give at least some evidence other than heresay, it's not going to be anything more than a flight of fancy.
You have to demonstrate that the aether exists via some evidence, not just give a single sentence about an idea you've got. Prove every wave needed an inertial environment, because science has managed for 100 years with some waves not having an interial environment and given all the TVs, radios, mobile phones and microwaves we've got, it seems to have done alright.
You have to demonstrate that the aether exists via some evidence, not just give a single sentence about an idea you've got. Prove every wave needed an inertial environment, because science has managed for 100 years with some waves not having an interial environment and given all the TVs, radios, mobile phones and microwaves we've got, it seems to have done alright.
QUOTE (AlphaNumeric+Oct 27 2006, 09:55 PM)
No, you supplied a notion. You have not proved its existence...
Existence of what? I'm saying, without insintric inertia of environment, each the wave would oscillate by infinite frequency.
The light isn't oscillating with the infinite frequency, therefore the environment for light spreading has a finite mass density. I'm not postulating the existence of inertia, only a reason of this existence.
Existence of what? I'm saying, without insintric inertia of environment, each the wave would oscillate by infinite frequency.
The light isn't oscillating with the infinite frequency, therefore the environment for light spreading has a finite mass density. I'm not postulating the existence of inertia, only a reason of this existence.
You've taken that picture from the Wiki page, so I'm guessing you read at least some of it. Notice elsewhere the equation is used without reference to a mass, only a speed, so you don't have to have a massive medium.
Also, notice the secton on boundary conditions
Also, notice the secton on boundary conditions
QUOTE (AlphaNumeric+Oct 28 2006, 12:49 AM)
Notice elsewhere the equation is used without reference to a mass, only a speed, so you don't have to have a massive medium.
It's just you, who cannot read the sentence...
If the array of weights consists of N weights spaced evenly over the length L = N h of total Mass M = N m, and the total stiffness of the array K = k/N we can write the above equation as:
The boundary conditions are marginal for the middle of Universe. You can spend whole life in searching of proper marginal conditions, if you want - of course.
It's just you, who cannot read the sentence...
If the array of weights consists of N weights spaced evenly over the length L = N h of total Mass M = N m, and the total stiffness of the array K = k/N we can write the above equation as:
The boundary conditions are marginal for the middle of Universe. You can spend whole life in searching of proper marginal conditions, if you want - of course.
QUOTE (Pan+Oct 27 2006, 09:14 PM)
Is that from some philosophy random quote generator? ...
Math is a logic system(s) of manipulating abstract models.
By AWT the validity of each the physical law (i.e. the causality) is always limited to certain scope. The fact, the density of Aether foam depends on the energy density leads to the irreducibly complex solution, supposedly.
From this reason, the math based on/restricted by laws of formal logic will be always required to follow the development of understanding, not the vice versa. Even the math formalism as such is restricted by such rule (the Goedel's incompleteness theorem derived for axiomatic space of Peano algebra). By such way, even the fundamental formal systems will undergo the same evolution, like the whole Universe. The larger sequence of natural numbers we have, the higher concentration of mutual dependencies and logical connections exists between them.
Math is a logic system(s) of manipulating abstract models.
By AWT the validity of each the physical law (i.e. the causality) is always limited to certain scope. The fact, the density of Aether foam depends on the energy density leads to the irreducibly complex solution, supposedly.
From this reason, the math based on/restricted by laws of formal logic will be always required to follow the development of understanding, not the vice versa. Even the math formalism as such is restricted by such rule (the Goedel's incompleteness theorem derived for axiomatic space of Peano algebra). By such way, even the fundamental formal systems will undergo the same evolution, like the whole Universe. The larger sequence of natural numbers we have, the higher concentration of mutual dependencies and logical connections exists between them.
QUOTE (Zephir+Oct 28 2006, 12:18 AM)
It's just you, who cannot read the sentence...
Notice I said the word ELSEWHERE, as in "Elsewhwere in the article, the wave equation is talked about without any mention of the interia of the medium which is oscillating, or even to the medium itself"
Do please keep up
Notice I said the word ELSEWHERE, as in "Elsewhwere in the article, the wave equation is talked about without any mention of the interia of the medium which is oscillating, or even to the medium itself"
Do please keep up
QUOTE (Zephir+Oct 28 2006, 12:18 AM)
The boundary conditions are marginal for the middle of Universe. You can spend whole life in searching of proper marginal conditions, if you want - of course.
And you could spend your entire life pretending to know maths...
QUOTE (AlphaNumeric+Oct 28 2006, 02:50 AM)
...Elsewhere in the article, the wave equation is talked about without any mention of the inertia of the medium which is oscillating, or even to the medium itself...
Of course, elsewhere the mass is substituted and grouped into velocity term... But it doesn't mean, it's missing here. By the same way, just because the Newton inertia is only used on the very beginning of wave equation derivation doesn't means, it has no significance furthermore. I exactly understand the way of your thinking - this is a thinking of professional mathematician, familiar with math formalism: once he carries out the substitution, he forgets all the previous connections, because it's difficult to track all the consequences from the very beginning in mind. You're substituting the equations like mechanical calculator, which has simple LIFO memory.
This is a mechanical way, how to carry out a quite complex derivations, but the introductory postulates are always immanently presented here.
Of course, elsewhere the mass is substituted and grouped into velocity term...
But it doesn't mean, it's missing here. By the same way, just because the Newton inertia is only used on the very beginning of wave equation derivation doesn't means, it has no significance furthermore. I exactly understand the way of your thinking - this is a thinking of professional mathematician, familiar with math formalism: once he carries out the substitution, he forgets all the previous connections, because it's difficult to track all the consequences from the very beginning in mind. You're substituting the equations like mechanical calculator, which has simple LIFO memory.This is a mechanical way, how to carry out a quite complex derivations, but the introductory postulates are always immanently presented here.
QUOTE (Zephir+Oct 28 2006, 01:36 AM)
I exactly understand the way of your thinking - this is a thinking of professional mathematician, familiar with math formalism: once he carries out the substitution, he forgets all the previous connections, because it's difficult to track all the consequences from the very beginning in mind.
No, you've just making that assumption. For instance light obeys the wave equation and isn't considered to have a massive medium to move through. Instead it's speed is related to the permiability of free space. You're assuming that an inertial medium is needed a) because you've seen a derivation involving it and
you want it to be true.
Considering physics has managed for over 100 years with a mediumless form of wave propogation, I'd say that it isn't needed.
No, you've just making that assumption. For instance light obeys the wave equation and isn't considered to have a massive medium to move through. Instead it's speed is related to the permiability of free space. You're assuming that an inertial medium is needed a) because you've seen a derivation involving it and
you want it to be true. Considering physics has managed for over 100 years with a mediumless form of wave propogation, I'd say that it isn't needed.
QUOTE (Zephir+Oct 28 2006, 01:36 AM)
You're substituting the equations like mechanical calculator, which has simple LIFO memory.
Another classic sign of "I can't do maths and feel bitter about it so I'm just going to throw out a cheap shot to make mathematicians look stupid"
I've forgotten what that word you are so fond of is Zephir, it begins with d and means 'an appeal to public prejudice' or something along those lines. I've accussed me of it several times and now you're guilty of it too.
I've forgotten what that word you are so fond of is Zephir, it begins with d and means 'an appeal to public prejudice' or something along those lines. I've accussed me of it several times and now you're guilty of it too.
QUOTE (AlphaNumeric+Oct 28 2006, 03:50 AM)
...for instance light obeys the wave equation and isn't considered to have a massive medium to move through...
LOL, the light is just a subject of such reasoning...
Every other wave has a material origin, obviously - so this is exactly, why I'm using such generalization.
LOL, the light is just a subject of such reasoning...
Every other wave has a material origin, obviously - so this is exactly, why I'm using such generalization.QUOTE (AlphaNumeric+Oct 28 2006, 03:50 AM)
...Considering physics has managed for over 100 years with a mediumless form of wave propagation, I'd say that it isn't needed....
LOL, did you forget the fact, the c=const postulate was derived by using of such concept at the very beginning? This is exactly like to forget the inertia law usage during the derivation of wave equation. You mathematicians are simply believing, the formal math postulate can replace the physical model introduced for its reasoning. And if we can use such postulate, it simply means, the physical model isn't valid/required furthemore. This is a simply amazing..
By another words, the mathematicians are people with LIFO single byte register memory. They don't see the causality by longer, then single step of derivation. This is exactly, why I'm appearing like genius here, having a two-byte memory, instead.
The characteristic stance of yours is, you're not seeing such connections at all and you're making the same mistake in the subsequent posts, again.
LOL, did you forget the fact, the c=const postulate was derived by using of such concept at the very beginning? This is exactly like to forget the inertia law usage during the derivation of wave equation. You mathematicians are simply believing, the formal math postulate can replace the physical model introduced for its reasoning. And if we can use such postulate, it simply means, the physical model isn't valid/required furthemore. This is a simply amazing..
By another words, the mathematicians are people with LIFO single byte register memory. They don't see the causality by longer, then single step of derivation. This is exactly, why I'm appearing like genius here, having a two-byte memory, instead.
The characteristic stance of yours is, you're not seeing such connections at all and you're making the same mistake in the subsequent posts, again.
QUOTE (AlphaNumeric to Zephir+Oct 28 2006, 12:50 AM)
No, you've just making that assumption. For instance light obeys the wave equation and isn't considered to have a massive medium to move through. Instead it's speed is related to the permiability of free space. You're assuming that an inertial medium is needed a) because you've seen a derivation involving it and you want it to be true.
Considering physics has managed for over 100 years with a mediumless form of wave propogation, I'd say that it isn't needed.
Another classic sign of "I can't do maths and feel bitter about it so I'm just going to throw out a cheap shot to make mathematicians look stupid"
I've forgotten what that word you are so fond of is Zephir, it begins with d and means 'an appeal to public prejudice' or something along those lines. I've accussed me of it several times and now you're guilty of it too.
Hi AlphaNumeric.
As E-M propagation is conventionally 'abstractly treated' as a 'MEDIUMLESS' phenomenon, then the mathematical term "permeability of free space" is a self-referencing term....in that mathematical physicists ASSUME a "mediumless" phenomena for the sake of ABSTRACT SIMPLICITY...and then proceed to treat "permeability" as likewise involving NO "medium" for its existence/value.
So just because conventional "modern" science has ABSTRACT "tools" and "terms" for its DESCRIPTIONS, it does not necessarily EXCLUDE the possibility of an ACTUAL "medium" at the bottom of it all.
In which case, the term "Permeability of free space' implies "medium" properties that DETERMINE the rate of E-M phenomena propagation rate....ie expressed mathematically as "permeability" factor.
So again, there is NO actual 'proof' of the non-existence of a "medium". Only the modern ABSTRACT CONVENTION that there is none....which convention has seeped into the very 'fabric' of mathematical physics as if it is "a given fact" that no "medium" exists. There is NO such "fact", though....merely "analytical convenience", eh?
Cheers!
RC.
.
you want it to be true. Considering physics has managed for over 100 years with a mediumless form of wave propogation, I'd say that it isn't needed.
Another classic sign of "I can't do maths and feel bitter about it so I'm just going to throw out a cheap shot to make mathematicians look stupid"
I've forgotten what that word you are so fond of is Zephir, it begins with d and means 'an appeal to public prejudice' or something along those lines. I've accussed me of it several times and now you're guilty of it too.
Hi AlphaNumeric.
As E-M propagation is conventionally 'abstractly treated' as a 'MEDIUMLESS' phenomenon, then the mathematical term "permeability of free space" is a self-referencing term....in that mathematical physicists ASSUME a "mediumless" phenomena for the sake of ABSTRACT SIMPLICITY...and then proceed to treat "permeability" as likewise involving NO "medium" for its existence/value.
So just because conventional "modern" science has ABSTRACT "tools" and "terms" for its DESCRIPTIONS, it does not necessarily EXCLUDE the possibility of an ACTUAL "medium" at the bottom of it all.
In which case, the term "Permeability of free space' implies "medium" properties that DETERMINE the rate of E-M phenomena propagation rate....ie expressed mathematically as "permeability" factor.
So again, there is NO actual 'proof' of the non-existence of a "medium". Only the modern ABSTRACT CONVENTION that there is none....which convention has seeped into the very 'fabric' of mathematical physics as if it is "a given fact" that no "medium" exists. There is NO such "fact", though....merely "analytical convenience", eh?
Cheers!
RC.
.
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Oct 28 2006, 04:18 AM)
...MEDIUMLESS...ASSUME ...ABSTRACT SIMPLICITY......ABSTRACT...DESCRIPTIONS...EXCLUDE...ACTUAL ... ABSTRACT CONVENTION...
You're the exact counterpart of AlfaNumeric, because your thinking is so broad and weak, you cannot focus your mind to particular problem. With compare to you, AlfaNumeric is capable of high intensity concentration, but just to the narrow causality "spot" between two steps of equation derivation. Now we can understand the difference between thinking of philosopher and mathematician.
The optimal mind concentration profile is somewhere in between. In fact, like at the case of PC computers, the winner CPU simply uses the larger instruction cache. This is a whole secret of creativity.
You're the exact counterpart of AlfaNumeric, because your thinking is so broad and weak, you cannot focus your mind to particular problem. With compare to you, AlfaNumeric is capable of high intensity concentration, but just to the narrow causality "spot" between two steps of equation derivation. Now we can understand the difference between thinking of philosopher and mathematician.
The optimal mind concentration profile is somewhere in between. In fact, like at the case of PC computers, the winner CPU simply uses the larger instruction cache. This is a whole secret of creativity.
QUOTE (Zephir+Oct 28 2006, 02:15 AM)
By another words, the mathematicians are people with LIFO single byte register memory. They don't see the causality by longer, then single step of derivation. This is exactly, why I'm appearing like genius here, having a two-byte memory, instead.
You really are a ****ing tool aren't you? You ignore maths which show you're wrong. You give no evidence of anything you claim. You don't even understand the requirement for evidence or to back up claims. You make comments about theories you know nothing about.
What about your beloved Lorentz and Maxwell, who were mathematicians? Did they have 1 byte memories?
What gives me some comfort Zephir, given I don't think you'll ever STFU about your theory, is that while you continue showing other mathematically deficiant people on the internet colourful animations and claiming to be a "2 bit genius" some of us will actually contribute to science. Maybe not much, but a little is better than nothing.
Reality Check, I'll reply in the morning.
You really are a ****ing tool aren't you? You ignore maths which show you're wrong. You give no evidence of anything you claim. You don't even understand the requirement for evidence or to back up claims. You make comments about theories you know nothing about.
What about your beloved Lorentz and Maxwell, who were mathematicians? Did they have 1 byte memories?
What gives me some comfort Zephir, given I don't think you'll ever STFU about your theory, is that while you continue showing other mathematically deficiant people on the internet colourful animations and claiming to be a "2 bit genius" some of us will actually contribute to science. Maybe not much, but a little is better than nothing.
Reality Check, I'll reply in the morning.
QUOTE (AlphaNumeric+Oct 28 2006, 04:41 AM)
You ignore maths which show you're wrong.
Nope, this is just a your interpretation of Euler's derivations, by the same way, like the physicists have interpreted the negative result of M-M experiment before one hundred year. As you can see, the formal math has nothing to say, whether the M-M experiment is relevant to Aether theory or not.
So what the Eulers has derived exactly? How is it related to AWT?
Nope, this is just a your interpretation of Euler's derivations, by the same way, like the physicists have interpreted the negative result of M-M experiment before one hundred year. As you can see, the formal math has nothing to say, whether the M-M experiment is relevant to Aether theory or not.
So what the Eulers has derived exactly? How is it related to AWT?
QUOTE (Zephir+Oct 28 2006, 01:40 AM)
You're the exact counterpart of AlfaNumeric, because your thinking is so broad and weak, you cannot focus your mind to particular problem. With compare to you, AlfaNumeric is capable of high intensity concentration, but just to the narrow causality "spot" between two steps of equation derivation. Now we can understand the difference between thinking of philosopher and mathematician.
The optimal mind concentration profile is somewhere in between. In fact, like at the case of PC computers, the winner CPU simply uses the larger instruction cache. This is a whole secret of creativity.
Hehehe. Hi Zeph! I was merely pointing out that some sort of universal "medium" IS likely. Not as "philosophy", but as "physical necessity"! hehehe.
Even "professional" physicists are now more and more talking of a "bulk" in which to "place" their own "partial" theories for "context" so as to give them some sort of "physical meaning" instead of "abstract" arbitrarily-bounded "mathematical constructs".
And I can think across-the-board 'as required'...both in DETAIL and AT LARGE...just as you yourself seem to be able to do with your "evolutionary principles" in all areas of "system analysis" approach to everything (which latter approach I find interesting both as philosophy AND scientific analysis, by the way! I have picked up some insights from your posts, and that's a fact, mate!).
Cheers!
RC.
.
The optimal mind concentration profile is somewhere in between. In fact, like at the case of PC computers, the winner CPU simply uses the larger instruction cache. This is a whole secret of creativity.
Hehehe. Hi Zeph! I was merely pointing out that some sort of universal "medium" IS likely. Not as "philosophy", but as "physical necessity"! hehehe.
Even "professional" physicists are now more and more talking of a "bulk" in which to "place" their own "partial" theories for "context" so as to give them some sort of "physical meaning" instead of "abstract" arbitrarily-bounded "mathematical constructs".
And I can think across-the-board 'as required'...both in DETAIL and AT LARGE...just as you yourself seem to be able to do with your "evolutionary principles" in all areas of "system analysis" approach to everything (which latter approach I find interesting both as philosophy AND scientific analysis, by the way! I have picked up some insights from your posts, and that's a fact, mate!).
Cheers!
RC.
.
QUOTE (AlphaNumeric to Zephir+Oct 28 2006, 01:41 AM)
You really are a ****ing tool aren't you? You ignore maths which show you're wrong. You give no evidence of anything you claim. You don't even understand the requirement for evidence or to back up claims. You make comments about theories you know nothing about.
What about your beloved Lorentz and Maxwell, who were mathematicians? Did they have 1 byte memories?
What gives me some comfort Zephir, given I don't think you'll ever STFU about your theory, is that while you continue showing other mathematically deficiant people on the internet colourful animations and claiming to be a "2 bit genius" some of us will actually contribute to science. Maybe not much, but a little is better than nothing.
Reality Check, I'll reply in the morning.
Maxwell. A perfect example of SYMBIOSIS between all the classical physicists who came up with the PHYSICAL CONCEPTS/BEHAVIOUR which Maxwell the MATHEMATICIAN then expressed elegantly in his set of equations. Good stuff!
Unfortunately, since THEN, the 'equations' seem to have gained REALITY STATUS in the minds of some.
That was when the physics began to leave the REAL WORLD and metamorphose into a MATHEMATICAL-PHYSICS world where 'descriptors' are mistaken for the 'physical entities' themselves....thus BREAKING that sweet symbiosis between physicists and mathematicians.
Re-establishing TRUE symbiosis between maths and physics is CRUCIAL if we are to ALSO UNDERSTAND, as well as SUCCINCTLY DESCRIBE/PREDICT, the reality around us, eh?
RC.
.
What about your beloved Lorentz and Maxwell, who were mathematicians? Did they have 1 byte memories?
What gives me some comfort Zephir, given I don't think you'll ever STFU about your theory, is that while you continue showing other mathematically deficiant people on the internet colourful animations and claiming to be a "2 bit genius" some of us will actually contribute to science. Maybe not much, but a little is better than nothing.
Reality Check, I'll reply in the morning.
Maxwell. A perfect example of SYMBIOSIS between all the classical physicists who came up with the PHYSICAL CONCEPTS/BEHAVIOUR which Maxwell the MATHEMATICIAN then expressed elegantly in his set of equations. Good stuff!
Unfortunately, since THEN, the 'equations' seem to have gained REALITY STATUS in the minds of some.
That was when the physics began to leave the REAL WORLD and metamorphose into a MATHEMATICAL-PHYSICS world where 'descriptors' are mistaken for the 'physical entities' themselves....thus BREAKING that sweet symbiosis between physicists and mathematicians.
Re-establishing TRUE symbiosis between maths and physics is CRUCIAL if we are to ALSO UNDERSTAND, as well as SUCCINCTLY DESCRIBE/PREDICT, the reality around us, eh?
RC.
.
QUOTE (Zephir+Oct 28 2006, 02:53 AM)
So what the Eulers has derived exactly? How is it related to AWT?
Firstly it was that E=mc^2 and the arbitrary boundry condition of the wave equation are not compatible, as you claimed.
Then, he showed that if you start with a wave equation governed system in n dimensions where the energy starts low and you link string density to energy, you still end up with energy conservation and the energy doesn't go into a cascade effect like you claimed.
He's just taking what you say are postulates or beginning points for AWT and showing they don't lead to the end results you claim. The fact you can't see that he's shooting down your claims with air tight reasoning is more and more evidence you have no idea about science.
RC, yes the Maxwell equations were derived with an aether in mind so have some questionable constants in them relating to light propogation. However, since then things like QED have taken and extended those equations into a much deeper context, removing the need to consider permeability of space.
I suspect that's because after 1900 physics departed from 'common experience' and went into areas which people would consider odd at first glance and given many people don't like what seems odd, you get people rejecting quantum mechanics or relativity on those grounds. I wouldn't be surpised if pre 1900 science is always considered 'real science' by cranks because it's something they can just about understand without actually having to put time into learning science and heaven forbid they get off their asses and actually LEARN something
Why bother putting in effort to learn a powerful model of the universe when you can just say it's BS and default back to the easier theories of days gone by.
Firstly it was that E=mc^2 and the arbitrary boundry condition of the wave equation are not compatible, as you claimed.
Then, he showed that if you start with a wave equation governed system in n dimensions where the energy starts low and you link string density to energy, you still end up with energy conservation and the energy doesn't go into a cascade effect like you claimed.
He's just taking what you say are postulates or beginning points for AWT and showing they don't lead to the end results you claim. The fact you can't see that he's shooting down your claims with air tight reasoning is more and more evidence you have no idea about science.
RC, yes the Maxwell equations were derived with an aether in mind so have some questionable constants in them relating to light propogation. However, since then things like QED have taken and extended those equations into a much deeper context, removing the need to consider permeability of space.
QUOTE
Maxwell. A perfect example of SYMBIOSIS between all the classical physicists who came up with the PHYSICAL CONCEPTS/BEHAVIOUR which Maxwell the MATHEMATICIAN then expressed elegantly in his set of equations. Good stuff!
It would seem to me that it's a common thing to praise the physicists who existed pre 1900 and after that just say they all got it wrong. Anyone who helped develop quantum mechanics or relativity was somehow labouring under falsehoods, which people like Lorentz didn't get bogged down by I suspect that's because after 1900 physics departed from 'common experience' and went into areas which people would consider odd at first glance and given many people don't like what seems odd, you get people rejecting quantum mechanics or relativity on those grounds. I wouldn't be surpised if pre 1900 science is always considered 'real science' by cranks because it's something they can just about understand without actually having to put time into learning science and heaven forbid they get off their asses and actually LEARN something
Why bother putting in effort to learn a powerful model of the universe when you can just say it's BS and default back to the easier theories of days gone by.
QUOTE (Aireal+Oct 27 2006, 06:30 PM)
I think some have missed the point Amrit was trying to make.
In the old days, within my lifetime, science worked this way.
We made observations, then tried to find the math behind them.
Now we invent math models, and look for observations to confirm them.
Completely backwards from the scientific approach we were taught.
This "modern approach" has produced theories that are more akin to numerology than science. A giant step backwards in the advancement of science.
No one can cast doubt on the value of math in science, it is a vital "part" of the scientific method.
May I repeat an old saying. There are two kinds of liers, D*** liers and mathematicians.
This was an old way of saying, just because you can "prove" something with math doesn't make it true. But truth can be shown with math.
We need to go back to the "old way" of conducting science, like we were taught.
Well fine, if that's what he meant, it is a little more understandable.
However, it isn't exactly true. First, the search for models is based on unexplained or poorly explained observed phenomenon. To create a model is to create a hypothesis, and looking for observations to confirm them is testing for evidence of the veracity of that hypothesis. That's science.
Second, if a model is correct then new hypothesis and new tests can be found by manipulating the model with correct math. Thus playing with the models and maths is an observation in its own right, and looking for observations is, again, looking for evidence of veracity. That's science.
Third, your argument seems to be fallacious Appeal to Tradition. I don't think you are well over 100 years, and if not "back in your day" science was still done like this. Einstein wasn't observing a relativistic clock when he came up with SR. QM was born of a mathematical model that fit. Today, science is too complicated and/or too extreme to see and write poetic hypothesis and then create a single, simple math equation from it. High energy physics trying to create a TOE, genetics, biophysics, material science... these aren't simple to model, recreate, or observe.
"May I repeat an old saying. There are two kinds of lier's [sic], D*** lier's [sic] and mathematicians."
I don't think that's how it goes... But even still, yes, again, math is a logic system and as such the conclusions that come out are only as good as the premises used. So mathematically manipulating a model may yield a result, but that result may be wrong, which is why they look for confirming observations, ie science. IF the math is right and the conclusion is wrong, then one must go back and reconsider the premises, and that too is Science.
There's no "old way" of science that is fundamental and lacking today.
In the old days, within my lifetime, science worked this way.
We made observations, then tried to find the math behind them.
Now we invent math models, and look for observations to confirm them.
Completely backwards from the scientific approach we were taught.
This "modern approach" has produced theories that are more akin to numerology than science. A giant step backwards in the advancement of science.
No one can cast doubt on the value of math in science, it is a vital "part" of the scientific method.
May I repeat an old saying. There are two kinds of liers, D*** liers and mathematicians.
This was an old way of saying, just because you can "prove" something with math doesn't make it true. But truth can be shown with math.
We need to go back to the "old way" of conducting science, like we were taught.
Well fine, if that's what he meant, it is a little more understandable.
However, it isn't exactly true. First, the search for models is based on unexplained or poorly explained observed phenomenon. To create a model is to create a hypothesis, and looking for observations to confirm them is testing for evidence of the veracity of that hypothesis. That's science.
Second, if a model is correct then new hypothesis and new tests can be found by manipulating the model with correct math. Thus playing with the models and maths is an observation in its own right, and looking for observations is, again, looking for evidence of veracity. That's science.
Third, your argument seems to be fallacious Appeal to Tradition. I don't think you are well over 100 years, and if not "back in your day" science was still done like this. Einstein wasn't observing a relativistic clock when he came up with SR. QM was born of a mathematical model that fit. Today, science is too complicated and/or too extreme to see and write poetic hypothesis and then create a single, simple math equation from it. High energy physics trying to create a TOE, genetics, biophysics, material science... these aren't simple to model, recreate, or observe.
"May I repeat an old saying. There are two kinds of lier's [sic], D*** lier's [sic] and mathematicians."
I don't think that's how it goes... But even still, yes, again, math is a logic system and as such the conclusions that come out are only as good as the premises used. So mathematically manipulating a model may yield a result, but that result may be wrong, which is why they look for confirming observations, ie science. IF the math is right and the conclusion is wrong, then one must go back and reconsider the premises, and that too is Science.
There's no "old way" of science that is fundamental and lacking today.
Pan
Thank you for that enlightened responce to my post.
Yes I am an old fart, but not over 100 in age, however the textbooks I grew up with probably had not been rewrote since then. We did not have the best of textbooks back on the reservation. I am mostly self taught since those early days.
I made the post because I felt it was the point Amrit was trying to make, and I agreed with it at the time.
But after reflecting on your post, I now understand why the current situation is the way it is. So I will no longer get as upset when I think a theory is working from the wrong premises. It will all come out in the wash sooner or later.
So thanks again.
Thank you for that enlightened responce to my post.
Yes I am an old fart, but not over 100 in age, however the textbooks I grew up with probably had not been rewrote since then. We did not have the best of textbooks back on the reservation. I am mostly self taught since those early days.
I made the post because I felt it was the point Amrit was trying to make, and I agreed with it at the time.
But after reflecting on your post, I now understand why the current situation is the way it is. So I will no longer get as upset when I think a theory is working from the wrong premises. It will all come out in the wash sooner or later.
So thanks again.
QUOTE (AlphaNumeric+Oct 28 2006, 10:25 AM)
....
.....
.....
RC, yes the Maxwell equations were derived with an aether in mind so have some questionable constants in them relating to light propogation. However, since then things like QED have taken and extended those equations into a much deeper context, removing the need to consider permeability of space.
It would seem to me that it's a common thing to praise the physicists who existed pre 1900 and after that just say they all got it wrong. Anyone who helped develop quantum mechanics or relativity was somehow labouring under falsehoods, which people like Lorentz didn't get bogged down by
I suspect that's because after 1900 physics departed from 'common experience' and went into areas which people would consider odd at first glance and given many people don't like what seems odd, you get people rejecting quantum mechanics or relativity on those grounds. I wouldn't be surpised if pre 1900 science is always considered 'real science' by cranks because it's something they can just about understand without actually having to put time into learning science and heaven forbid they get off their asses and actually LEARN something
Why bother putting in effort to learn a powerful model of the universe when you can just say it's BS and default back to the easier theories of days gone by.
I stress that it is NOT 'physicists' that are 'wrong', it is their 'ignoring' of possible CONCRETE MODELS which may give their ABSTRACT MODELS more MEANING and consistency....and which may provide necessary insights which may 'cover the gaps' which a purely 'abstract' model may have (as can be seen NOW).
That is, while mathematical relationships are evident from the equations/manipulations, the MEANING/MECHANISMS are still 'missing'.
Fortunately, many mainstream scientists ARE considering the 'meaning' of their 'equations' in terms of SOMETHING 'TANGIBLE' which their 'terms' may be relating to in a PHYSICAL SENSE rather than just in mathematical-interrelationship sense.
I do NOT disparage mathematicians that do NOT themselves disparage physicists.
It ALL BEGAN as NATURAL PHILOSOPHY and 'diverged' into pure maths and theoretical physics....at the expense of DIRECT COMPREHENSION of the WHOLE PICTURE along the way. One of my hopes is to bring ALL the disciplines together again. Hence the TOE approach I have which will eventually ALSO require MATHEMATICS and PHILOSOPHY to 'complete' the TOE 'picture' for us humans.
I agree with you that anyone merely saying "modern physicists/mathematicians are wrong", are NOT helpful. But I would be reluctant to put ALL people NOT enamoured with the 'modern' situation into the SAME category....I distinguish INDIVIDUALS by their efforts....and not merely their stance.
Tolerance of diversity is a STRENGTH in my book, hehehe.
RC.
.
.....
.....
RC, yes the Maxwell equations were derived with an aether in mind so have some questionable constants in them relating to light propogation. However, since then things like QED have taken and extended those equations into a much deeper context, removing the need to consider permeability of space.
It would seem to me that it's a common thing to praise the physicists who existed pre 1900 and after that just say they all got it wrong. Anyone who helped develop quantum mechanics or relativity was somehow labouring under falsehoods, which people like Lorentz didn't get bogged down by
I suspect that's because after 1900 physics departed from 'common experience' and went into areas which people would consider odd at first glance and given many people don't like what seems odd, you get people rejecting quantum mechanics or relativity on those grounds. I wouldn't be surpised if pre 1900 science is always considered 'real science' by cranks because it's something they can just about understand without actually having to put time into learning science and heaven forbid they get off their asses and actually LEARN something
Why bother putting in effort to learn a powerful model of the universe when you can just say it's BS and default back to the easier theories of days gone by.
I stress that it is NOT 'physicists' that are 'wrong', it is their 'ignoring' of possible CONCRETE MODELS which may give their ABSTRACT MODELS more MEANING and consistency....and which may provide necessary insights which may 'cover the gaps' which a purely 'abstract' model may have (as can be seen NOW).
That is, while mathematical relationships are evident from the equations/manipulations, the MEANING/MECHANISMS are still 'missing'.
Fortunately, many mainstream scientists ARE considering the 'meaning' of their 'equations' in terms of SOMETHING 'TANGIBLE' which their 'terms' may be relating to in a PHYSICAL SENSE rather than just in mathematical-interrelationship sense.
I do NOT disparage mathematicians that do NOT themselves disparage physicists.
It ALL BEGAN as NATURAL PHILOSOPHY and 'diverged' into pure maths and theoretical physics....at the expense of DIRECT COMPREHENSION of the WHOLE PICTURE along the way. One of my hopes is to bring ALL the disciplines together again. Hence the TOE approach I have which will eventually ALSO require MATHEMATICS and PHILOSOPHY to 'complete' the TOE 'picture' for us humans.
I agree with you that anyone merely saying "modern physicists/mathematicians are wrong", are NOT helpful. But I would be reluctant to put ALL people NOT enamoured with the 'modern' situation into the SAME category....I distinguish INDIVIDUALS by their efforts....and not merely their stance.
Tolerance of diversity is a STRENGTH in my book, hehehe.
RC.
.
QUOTE (AlphaNumeric+Oct 28 2006, 01:25 PM)
Firstly it was that E=mc^2 and the arbitrary boundary condition of the wave equation are not compatible, as you claimed.
What does it mean - I cannot have the foam shaken in the bottle, because of math says, some boundary conditions exists here? As you can see, by using of math is possible to derive whatever nonsense. And the Euler is even proud of it..
What does it mean - I cannot have the foam shaken in the bottle, because of math says, some boundary conditions exists here? As you can see, by using of math is possible to derive whatever nonsense. And the Euler is even proud of it..
QUOTE (AlphaNumeric+Oct 28 2006, 01:25 PM)
...then, he showed that if you start with a wave equation governed system in n dimensions where the energy starts low and you link string density to energy, you still end up with energy conservation and the energy doesn't go into a cascade effect like you claimed....
When the energy of foam is low, it corresponds to thin foam with spares bubbles. Nevertheless, such foam can collapse by it's own gravity, thus obtaining kinetic energy, so the energy conservation law isn't violated. Euler simply forget to consider the potential energy of foam.
When the energy of foam is low, it corresponds to thin foam with spares bubbles. Nevertheless, such foam can collapse by it's own gravity, thus obtaining kinetic energy, so the energy conservation law isn't violated. Euler simply forget to consider the potential energy of foam.
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Oct 29 2006, 06:40 AM)
Tolerance of diversity is a STRENGTH in my book, hehehe.
Quite!
Quite!
QUOTE (Zephir+Oct 29 2006, 07:10 AM)
And the Euler is even proud of it..
Proud? Not really. Enjoy using it to demonstrate just how stupid you actually are? Definitely. Here they are again:
Proud? Not really. Enjoy using it to demonstrate just how stupid you actually are? Definitely. Here they are again:
QUOTE (Zephir+Oct 29 2006, 07:10 AM)
Euler simply forget to consider the potential energy of foam.
I used the exact mathematics you've said Arm Waving Twaddle is based on. The major problem here, which I've mentioned before, is that you don't understand either of the proofs (despite the fact you reckon you know about topology and chaos - lol), so you have no idea how to dispute them.
However, as I've also mentioned before, this leads on to the squirming we are currently observing. Top entertainment.
I used the exact mathematics you've said Arm Waving Twaddle is based on. The major problem here, which I've mentioned before, is that you don't understand either of the proofs (despite the fact you reckon you know about topology and chaos - lol), so you have no idea how to dispute them.
However, as I've also mentioned before, this leads on to the squirming we are currently observing. Top entertainment.
QUOTE (Zephir+Oct 29 2006, 08:10 AM)
What does it mean - I cannot have the foam shaken in the bottle, because of math says, some boundary conditions exists here? As you can see, by using of math is possible to derive whatever nonsense. And the Euler is even proud of it..
It's true you can't use maths to prove your model, because plenty of mathematically possible systems aren't possible in reality. However, you can use maths to prove your model is inconsistent or doesn't have the same logical outcomes as you claim. That is what Euler has done in this case, shown your claimed results are not what your postulates logically predict.
The fact you can't understand this is evidence you have absolutely no idea how to go about creating a proper working model of something.
waiting my plane home... this related to other posts... obviously experiment rules maths, otherwise we get all the errors of hawking, and theological physics... which believes maths rules the Universe 'the language of god is mathematics' i rather say 'the languages of god are infinite' (hindi proverb)...
in fact math is a language derived of geometry, language of space, and it is excellent describe all concepts related to space, but it fails grossly to grasp the complexit of phenomena associated to other realms.
Example, it has introduced fundamental simplifications in the concept of time... better explained with words, the language of past-present-future, the 3 dimensions of evolutionary time
In that sense the wider concept of time is change (aristotle), and we distinguish morphological change (studied by evolution and biologiy a verbal theory) and translational change (studied by physics),
However physicists of the theleological group (those who think math suffice to study all) tend to believe that translation change-time is all the time needed. Hence all the bubbling about travelling in time to the past, etc...
In fact the opposite seems certain after Einstein: actually translational change is also morphological, evolutionary provoked by the changes of form of the space-time body of the Universe...
'
Conclusion... there are limits to what a single science can now, the true path should be not simplification but complexity and that will require to put all sciences togethe with all languages
The fact you can't understand this is evidence you have absolutely no idea how to go about creating a proper working model of something.
QUOTE (Zephir+Oct 29 2006, 08:10 AM)
Euler simply forget to consider the potential energy of foam.
Nope, there is a potential energy term in his equations, you just don't realise it because you don't know any maths.
Nope, there is a potential energy term in his equations, you just don't realise it because you don't know any maths.
QUOTE (AlphaNumeric+Oct 29 2006, 02:33 PM)
The fact you can't understand this is evidence you have absolutely no idea how to go about creating a proper working model of something.
What I can understand, the elastic foam fulfills both the wave equation, both the mass-equivalence principle without problem.
What I can understand, the elastic foam fulfills both the wave equation, both the mass-equivalence principle without problem.
Some people sure are stupid all right. LOL!
waiting my plane home... this related to other posts... obviously experiment rules maths, otherwise we get all the errors of hawking, and theological physics... which believes maths rules the Universe 'the language of god is mathematics' i rather say 'the languages of god are infinite' (hindi proverb)... in fact math is a language derived of geometry, language of space, and it is excellent describe all concepts related to space, but it fails grossly to grasp the complexit of phenomena associated to other realms.
Example, it has introduced fundamental simplifications in the concept of time... better explained with words, the language of past-present-future, the 3 dimensions of evolutionary time
In that sense the wider concept of time is change (aristotle), and we distinguish morphological change (studied by evolution and biologiy a verbal theory) and translational change (studied by physics),
However physicists of the theleological group (those who think math suffice to study all) tend to believe that translation change-time is all the time needed. Hence all the bubbling about travelling in time to the past, etc...
In fact the opposite seems certain after Einstein: actually translational change is also morphological, evolutionary provoked by the changes of form of the space-time body of the Universe...
'
Conclusion... there are limits to what a single science can now, the true path should be not simplification but complexity and that will require to put all sciences togethe with all languages
QUOTE (Zephir+Oct 27 2006, 08:49 PM)
Existence of what? I'm saying, without insintric inertia of environment, each the wave would oscillate by infinite frequency.
[equation with a mass term in it]
The light isn't oscillating with the infinite frequency, therefore the environment for light spreading has a finite mass density. I'm not postulating the existence of inertia, only a reason of this existence.
Zephir's reasoning:
A ) If there is a massive, homogeneous, linearly elastic material then the wave motion equation applies where the speed of the wave is inversely proportional to square root of the density of the material.
B ) Maxwell (alt. QED) says (among other things) that light propages via a wave equation with a velocity term.
C ) Therefore light must propagate through a massive, homogeneous, linearly elastic material.
But ( A ) reads "If ... " not "If and only if ... " so the reasoning is flawed.
By way of illustration here is an equally falacious chain of reasoning:
A1 ) If a Czech wants to talk about a sword, he will use the term "metch" ( sorry, no Czech fonts here, and my point is phonetic anyway, the actual spelling is closer to mec ).
B1 ) Arnoos Tepas is a Medival collector of Russian swords, which he calls "metch"
C1 ) Arnoos Tepas must be Czech.
In actually, metch is a Russian word also. Arnoos Tepas, I think is Latvian. Same word, different language.
Likewise, A + B = B + A is used in many places in math: vector spaces, communative groups, etc. The equation is not the context. Maxwell's equations look very much nicer in the language of differential geometry, and predict the same observables, so the "simpler" model without the ether is preferred unless experimental demonstration of the properties of the ether is made. This is why the various 19th century theories of a dragged ether were ruled out prior to Michelson-Morely and why the M-M null result is regarded as so important as putting the last nail in the coffin of 19th century theories. By all reasoning Michelson had prior to 1881, the experiment should have worked.
Lorentz' student Einstein unified the relativity of poderable matter and light. Zhang and Zhu have done a lot of work of pointing out where Einstein's math is open to interpretation, and there is perhaps room for experimental modification of SR, but its going to come from either experimentalists or theorists who can follow more than two pages of equations at a time. Zephir demonstratably remains neither.
[equation with a mass term in it]
The light isn't oscillating with the infinite frequency, therefore the environment for light spreading has a finite mass density. I'm not postulating the existence of inertia, only a reason of this existence.
Zephir's reasoning:
A ) If there is a massive, homogeneous, linearly elastic material then the wave motion equation applies where the speed of the wave is inversely proportional to square root of the density of the material.
B ) Maxwell (alt. QED) says (among other things) that light propages via a wave equation with a velocity term.
C ) Therefore light must propagate through a massive, homogeneous, linearly elastic material.
But ( A ) reads "If ... " not "If and only if ... " so the reasoning is flawed.
By way of illustration here is an equally falacious chain of reasoning:
A1 ) If a Czech wants to talk about a sword, he will use the term "metch" ( sorry, no Czech fonts here, and my point is phonetic anyway, the actual spelling is closer to mec ).
B1 ) Arnoos Tepas is a Medival collector of Russian swords, which he calls "metch"
C1 ) Arnoos Tepas must be Czech.
In actually, metch is a Russian word also. Arnoos Tepas, I think is Latvian. Same word, different language.
Likewise, A + B = B + A is used in many places in math: vector spaces, communative groups, etc. The equation is not the context. Maxwell's equations look very much nicer in the language of differential geometry, and predict the same observables, so the "simpler" model without the ether is preferred unless experimental demonstration of the properties of the ether is made. This is why the various 19th century theories of a dragged ether were ruled out prior to Michelson-Morely and why the M-M null result is regarded as so important as putting the last nail in the coffin of 19th century theories. By all reasoning Michelson had prior to 1881, the experiment should have worked.
Lorentz' student Einstein unified the relativity of poderable matter and light. Zhang and Zhu have done a lot of work of pointing out where Einstein's math is open to interpretation, and there is perhaps room for experimental modification of SR, but its going to come from either experimentalists or theorists who can follow more than two pages of equations at a time. Zephir demonstratably remains neither.
Hi all.
Talking of 'dragging' the fabric of spacetime (or aether or whatever, hehehe), has anyone got any info on what's happened with the "gravity probe-B" experiment? Any results?
.
Talking of 'dragging' the fabric of spacetime (or aether or whatever, hehehe), has anyone got any info on what's happened with the "gravity probe-B" experiment? Any results?
.
RealityCheck,
If you mean testing Einstein prediction with the Gravity Probe B.
GP-B, to see if frame dragging fit the theory, then I hope this is what you needed.
Best
ciao_
yquantum
Two sources in which to find the information needed.
Explanation & results:
http://www.nasa.gov/missions/science/gpb_tests.html
Please do not overlook all type in blue (click for updates.....).
If you mean testing Einstein prediction with the Gravity Probe B.
GP-B, to see if frame dragging fit the theory, then I hope this is what you needed.
Best
ciao_
yquantum
Two sources in which to find the information needed.
Explanation & results:
http://www.nasa.gov/missions/science/gpb_tests.html
Please do not overlook all type in blue (click for updates.....).
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Oct 31 2006, 01:08 AM)
Hi all.
Talking of 'dragging' the fabric of spacetime (or aether or whatever, hehehe), has anyone got any info on what's happened with the "gravity probe-B" experiment? Any results?
.
fabric of spacetime exists only in the mind
in the universe the fabric is spacematter
Talking of 'dragging' the fabric of spacetime (or aether or whatever, hehehe), has anyone got any info on what's happened with the "gravity probe-B" experiment? Any results?
.
fabric of spacetime exists only in the mind
in the universe the fabric is spacematter
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.