Naked Science Forum
On the Lighter Side => New Theories => Topic started by: socratus on 14/06/2007 11:56:13
-
Who is for whom?
============.
Mathematics is not written for mathematicians.
Mathematics is written for physics, for Nature.
This simple fact is forgotten in the science now.
1.
After war, in Russia there were many thieves' gangs
And I, as a boy, rotated among one of them.
They had their own language, thieves' jargon.
Not anyone could understand them.
Now I read some mathematical articles and they
remind me forgotten thieves' slang.
Are you laughing? Is it ridiculous ?
For me it isn’t ridiculous .
Why?
Because , mathematicians stole the picture
of reality from us . Because they make us
poor and stupid.
Why do you say so?
OK. I will try to prove it and explain my point of view.
=========..
2.
It began in 1905 when Einstein created SRT,
( theory of photon/ electron’s behaviour ).
Minkowski, trying to understand SRT, used 4D space.
Poor young Einstein , reading Minkowski interpretation,
said, that now he couldn’t understand his own theory.
" You are right, it is difficult to understand SRT, using 4D space.
But using my 5D space it is possible" - said Kaluza in 1921.
This theory was checked up and recognized insufficient.
" Well, - said another mathematicians, - maybe 6D, 7D, 8D, 9D
spaces will explain it". And they had done it.
But the doubts still stay.
"OK,- they say, - we have only one way to solve this problem,
we must create more complex D spaces " .
And they do it, they use all their power, all their
super intellectuals to solve this problem.
Glory to these mathematicians !!!!
But……….
But there is one nuance. To create new D space, mathematicians
must take a new parameter. It is impossible to
create new D space without a new parameter.
And the mathematicians take this parameter arbitrarily
( it fixed according to his opinion not objective rules ).
The physicist R. Lipin explained this situation in such way :
“ Give me three parameters and I can fit an elephant. With four
I can make him wiggle his trunk…”
To this Lipin’s opinion it is possible to add :
“ with one more parameter the elephant will fly. “
The mathematicians sell and we buy these theories.
Where are our brains?
Please, remember, many D spaces were born as a whish
to understand SRT ( theory of photon/ electron’s behaviour ).
But if someone wants to understand, for example,
a bird ( photon / electron) itself and for this he
studies only surroundings will he reach success ?
If I am a king , I will publish a law:
every mathematician who takes part in the creation
of 4D space and higher - to award with a medal
" To the winner of a common sense ".
Why?
Because they have won us, using absurd ideas
of Minkowski and Kaluza.
=======..
P.S.
I asked some mathematician :
There are many different D spaces in the math/ physicist’s works.
Are there limits of these D spaces?
Maybe is 123 D space the last and final space ?
He answered:
I think there are as many opinions on this as there
are people giving thought to the issue.
My own opinion is that since the more immediately
obvious 123D option (either parabolic, flat or hyperbolic)
did not allow, despite all efforts, reconciling the various
theories, then there is need to try something else.
Maybe has this time
“then there is need to try something else” come ?
3.
And what is mathematical opinion about photon itself ?
Here is one example how mathematician tries
to solve the problem.
Russian scientist professor V.P. Seleznev created "toro model "
of light quanta. According to this model the light quanta is a
constant volume ring ( like bublik) . The speed of it
is different and this fact gives possibility to understand
all light natural phenomenones, overcome through all
contradictions in the physics and to offer a new technology.
So it is written in the book.
/ Book “The secrets of Universe” 1998.
V.D. Demin. Page 377./
Short explanation is given on 4 pages.
Glory to this scientist .!!!!
Glory to this professor !!!!
But….
But I have only one question .
Can this "toro volume ring model "
( like bublik) have volume in Vacuum ?
The answer is “ NO “
According to J. Charles law ( 1787),
when the temperature falls down on 1 degree
the volume decreases on 1/273. And when the
temperature reaches -273 degrees the volume
disappears and particles become "flat figures ".
The " Charles law" was confirmed by other physicists:
Gay-Lussac, Planck, Nernst, Einstein .
So, according to Charles law
the "toro volume ring model " is only
mathematic illusion .
There are many different models of photon.
To choose the correct one we needs to ask
a question: “ Which geometrical form can
photon have in vacuum ? “
4.
Some scientists say:
" The darkest subject in the science is light quanta."
Maybe now some my readers will understand
better the way on which we must go.
5.
Now mathematics goes ahead science and physics follows it.
Mathematicians carry the posters " Forward to abstract”,
" Forward to absurd” and we all follow them.
We go bravely on dinosaur’s path.
=============.
My thanks to gentlemen : Jim Whitescarver ,
Andre Michaud, Richard Gauthier, “ R.A.” and “ Si “
for helping me to understand the alphabet of mathematical slang.
=============.
http://www.socratus.com
-
According to J. Charles law ( 1787),
when the temperature falls down on 1 degree
the volume decreases on 1/273. And when the
temperature reaches -273 degrees the volume
disappears and particles become "flat figures ".
The " Charles law" was confirmed by other physicists:
Gay-Lussac, Planck, Nernst, Einstein .
Can't pretend to follow most of what you said but surely the bit in quotes is an error? You're trying to apply a 'law' that was derived to describe the behaviour of gases (i.e. freely moving molecules with a typical energy distribution etc...) to a theory of how a photon behaves.
To my mind, this is like trying to use Newton's law of gravitation to try to explain the workings of a digital watch. Never try to apply a rule out of its intended context - you'll just generate nonsense.
-
According to J. Charles law ( 1787),
when the temperature falls down on 1 degree
the volume decreases on 1/273. And when the
temperature reaches -273 degrees the volume
disappears and particles become "flat figures ".
The " Charles law" was confirmed by other physicists:
Gay-Lussac, Planck, Nernst, Einstein .
Can't pretend to follow most of what you said but surely the bit in quotes is an error? You're trying to apply a 'law' that was derived to describe the behaviour of gases (i.e. freely moving molecules with a typical energy distribution etc...) to a theory of how a photon behaves.
To my mind, this is like trying to use Newton's law of gravitation to try to explain the workings of a digital watch. Never try to apply a rule out of its intended context - you'll just generate nonsense.
==============
Planck, Nernst, Einstein confirmed the law
for all particles of matter.
-
Planck, Nernst, Einstein confirmed the law
for all particles of matter.
Do you have a reference for this?
I can't recall it from my days at University, nor have I been able to find anything relating Einstein, Planck or Nernst to Charles's law on the internet.
- I'd like to see how (if?) their work was applied to photons as well as more classical particles.
-
Planck, Nernst, Einstein confirmed the law
for all particles of matter.
Do you have a reference for this?
=======================================
The Charles law ( 1787) straight belong to
the photon/ electron’s theory. The answer is simple.
If I understood it, you can understand too.
You aren’t child, whom I must explain every simple thing.
I can't recall it from my days at University, nor have I been able to find anything relating Einstein, Planck or Nernst to Charles's law on the internet.
- I'd like to see how (if?) their work was applied to photons as well as more classical particles.
-
If I understood it, you can understand too.
You aren’t child, whom I must explain every simple thing.
It's precicely because I am not a child that I'm asking for an explanation. If you can't answer questions about your ideas then you can't expect anyone else to take any notice of them...
Hint: Just because you've posted your text to more than one Science forum (I found three!) doesn't make it correct.
-
Mathematics has always been a language distinct from ordinary language, because it was a language designed to solve different problems.
All languages naturally develop to address the needs of the people using them. Some countries, where there is a string culinary tradition, you will find the language has more words relating to food and the processing of food than in many other languages.
Most languages these days inherit their technology words from English (although in the past this was not always so), mostly because of the primacy of the US economy, so the greatest number of new technology words develop where the new technology develops (although the words themselves often have older roots in languages such as Latin, but their modern usage is clearly English, although not English as would be understood by people who are not familiar with the technology).
If everyone spoke the same language, we would not have the 200 or so different languages that exist around the world today, but only one language we would all talk. Languages have diverged, first into dialects or pigeon languages, and then into whole new languages. Mathematics is just another of these languages. It developed as a dialect of various ancient languages to be able to concisely describe ideas that were not adequately described in the ordinary tongues people used to describe their cookery or their love life. As the ideas of mathematics progressed, so too the language evolved new expressions, just as the English language has evolved to be able to express social and technological ideas that exist today that would have been unimaginable to the English speakers of Shakespeare's time.