The Numerology is Essence of Physical Science
Aleksandr Timofeev
submit to the language of mathematics.
All science is a numerology. Long live numerology.
Whether you believe to me?
If you do not trust me, then read further.
======================================================================
From: a_n_ti...@my-deja.com (Aleksandr Timofeev)
Newsgroups:
sci.physics,sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics.particle,sci.astro,alt.sci.physics.new-theories
Subject: Re: Chirality, occurring in the cosmic realm?
Date: 26 Feb 2002 09:24:56 -0800
Uncle Al <Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
news:<3C73DA8F...@hate.spam.net>...
> "Y.Porat" wrote:
[snip]
>
> > i am a structural engineer with 38 years of 3d practical work
> > i was spendind about 5 years about studying crystals
> > and the connection between them and nuc, and atomic structure.
> [snip]
>
> There isn't any relationship between nuclear structure and crystal
> structure. The best you can do is isotope effect - which is unrelated
> to nuclear structure aside from total contents. Prediction of crystal
> structure from molecular structure is art.
Here old giddy and thoughtless Uncle Al has got in his own trap.
Below, I shall translate to plain English physical sense of a
content of the text written by Uncle Al:
The quantum mechanics represents the very weak tool for
deriving valuable outcomes, which have the very important
practical applications for prediction of physical and chemical
properties of materials.
A word "art" here has following sense:
The quantum mechanics is a very complicated numerology, and it
is very difficult to receive desirable outcome with the help of
a mathematical apparatus of a quantum mechanics.
And so we see here, that old giddy Uncle Al does not trust
a complicated numerology of a mathematical apparatus of
a quantum mechanics.
Old thoughtless Uncle Al is very wise in this case, since for
example, the numerology of a mathematical apparatus of a quantum
mechanics does not give practically important outcomes for
superconductor materials, etc., etc.
> This is a nice way of saying it is often wrong.
"numerology & numerology & numerology & numerology"
Old thoughtless Uncle Al is very wise in this case, since for
example, the numerology of a mathematical apparatus of a quantum
mechanics does not give practically important outcomes.
> One might just as easily tilt at windmills
> by implying national economies can be analyzed and predicted.
Old thoughtless Uncle Al is very wise in this case, since
there is QM numerology, QM is the Numerology of very high gold test.
> Google heteroskedasticity 15,000 hits
>
> The value of a scientific discipline is inversely proportional to the
> square of the number of excuses it makes.
>
> > > > if i am right with that observation, what is the reason
> > > > for it ?
>
> Look up "radius ratios" "coordination number" "Mandelung energy..." A
> sphere can touch 12 identical spheres maximum. If you vary the sizes,
> work the geometry. You might crack a book or two on the subject.
> University libraries are filled with books on crystallography and
> physics of the solid state.
" University libraries are filled with books on crystallography and
physics of the solid state. "
Here old giddy Uncle Al has got in his own trap once again.
Here old giddy Uncle Al offers to replace a numerology of
a mathematical apparatus of a quantum mechanics with a more
simple numerology, this numerology is a theory of combinations
of units (balls or...) of Euclidean space.
Old giddy and thoughtless Uncle Al is very wise in this case, since
Uncle Al offers to replace a complicated numerology QM with a simple
numerology in a Euclidean space.
All science is a numerology. Long live numerology.
In the Nature there is no Nature's law, which binds the Nature to
submit to language of mathematics.
> If there were an easier way to do it, it
> would be used.
In the Nature there is no Nature's law, which binds the Nature to
submit to language of mathematics.
All science is a numerology. Long live numerology.
> [snip]
>
> Folsk have already done all the skull sweat and gotten optimized
> answers. Six months in the lab will save you an afternoon in the
> library.
Uncle Al offers to do pure a numerology instead of experimental
research of a nature.
[Y.Porat]
--------------------- i think i saied it many times:
i am a structural engineer, still on job
38 years,
but spent many years on scince research,
and that is just the point: beware (not just you personaly)
of my structural ability and education (-:)
seriously speaking i think
all those qm people have not enogh tools
to cope with those 3d complicated and very acurate structures
they mostly educated and trained to cope with a flat paper
with mathematical formulas on it,
---------------------
In the Nature there is no Nature's law, which binds the Nature to
submit to language of mathematics.
All science is a numerology. Long live numerology.
The Fibonacci Numbers
http://www.mcs.surrey.ac.uk/Personal/R.Knott/Fibonacci/fibnat.html#pinecones
I express large thanks Larry Hecht for attracting of my attention to
papers written by American astonomer Benjamjn Peirce and by American
scientist Louis Agassiz.
======================================================================
Benjamin Peirce was the editor of the first English edition of
Gauss's "Theory of the Heavenly Bodies According to Conic Sections",
("Theory of the Motion of the Heavenly Bodies Moving about the Sun
in Conic Sections" by Karl Friedrich Gauss. Library of Congress
Catalog Number: 63-19953, 1963, Dover )
Agassiz's name was synonymous with science in America
through the l870s.
Louis Agasiz, "Contemplations of God in the Cosmos," Christian
Examiner, L (1851), 1-17.
Here you can read the part of Dr Louis Agasiz's
"ESSAY ON CLASSIFICATION" connected with a role of Fibonacci
numbers in a Nature.
FUNDAMENTAL RELATIONS OF ANIMALS 127
"ESSAY ON CLASSIFICATION" 132
by Louis Agassiz, 1857
SECTION XXXI
COMBINATIONS IN TIME AND SPACE OF VARIOUS KINDS
OF RELATIONS AMONG ANIMALS
[snip]
Let us now look back upon some of the leading features alluded
to before, omitting the simpler relations of organized beings to
the world around, or those of individuals to individuals, to
consider only the different parallel series we have been comparing
when showing that in their respective great types the phenomena of
animal life correspond to one another, whether we compare their
rank as determined by structural complication with the phases of
their growth, or with their succession in past geological ages;
whether we compare this succession with their embryonic growth, or
all these different relations with each other and with the
geographical distribution of animals upon earth.
----- The same series everywhere! ------------
These facts are true of all the great divisions of the animal
kingdom, so far as we have pursued the investigation; and though,
for want of materials, the train of evidence is incomplete in some
instances, yet we have proof enough for the establishment of this
law of a universal correspondence in all the leading features which
binds all organized beings of all times into one great system,
intellectually and intelligibly linked together, even where some
links of the chain are missing. It require considerabe familiarity
with the subject even to keep in mind the evidence, for, though
yet imperfectly understood, it is the most brilliant result of the
combined intellectual efforts of hundreds of investigators during
half a century. The connection however, between the facts, it is
easily seen, is only intellectual; and implies therefore the agency
of intellect as its first cause.
And, if the power of thinking connectedly is the priviledge of
cultivated minds only; if the power of combining different thoughts
and of drawing from them new thoughts is a still rarer privilege of
a few superior minds; if the ability to trace simultaneously several
trains of thought is such an extraordinary gift, that the few cases
in which evidence of this kind has been presented have become a
FUNDAMENTAL RELATIONS OF ANIMALS 131
matter of historical record (Cesar dictacing several letters at the
same time), though they exhibit only the capaciry of passing rapidly,
in quick succession, from one topic to another, while keeping the
connecting thread of several parallel thoughts: if all this is only
possible for the highest intellectual powers, shall we by any false
argumentation allow ourselves to deny the intervention of a Supreme
Intellect in calling into existence combinations in nature, by the
side of which all human conceptions are child's play?
If I have succeeded, even very imperfectly, in showing that the
various relations observed between animals, and the physical world,
as well as between themselves, exhibit thought, it follows that the
whole has an Intelligent Author; and it may not be out of place to
attempt to point out, as far as possible, the difference there may be
between Divine thinking and human thought.
Taking nature as exhibicing thought for my guide, it appears to
me that while human thought is consecutive, Divine thought is
simultaneous, embracing at the same time and forever, in the past,
the present, and the future, the most diversified relations among
hundreds of thousands of organized beings, each of which may present
complications again, which, to study and understand even imperfectly,
as for instance, Man himself, Mankind has already spent thousands
of years. And yet, all this has been done by one Mind, must be the
work of one Mind only, of Him before whom Man can only bow in
grateful acknowledgment of the prerogatives he is allowed to enjoy
in this world, not to speak of the promises of a future life.
I have intentionally dismissed many points in my argument with
mere questions, in order not to extend unduly a discusion which is
after all only accessory to the plan of my work. I have felt
justified in doing so because, from the point of view under which
my subject is treated, those questions find a natural solution which
must present itself to every reader. We know what the intellect of
Man may originate, we know its creative power, its power of
combination, of foresight, of analysis, of concentration; we are,
therefore prepared to recognize a similar action emanating from a
Supreme Intelligence to a boundless extent. We need therefore not
even attempt to show that such an Intellect may have originated all
the Universe contains; it is enough to demonsttate that the
constitution of the physical
132 ESSAY ON CLASSIFICATION
world and, more particularly, the organization of living beings in
their connection with the physical world, prove in general the
existence of a Supreme Being as the Author of all things. The task
of science is rather to investigate what has been done, to inquire
if possible how it has been done, than to ask what is possible for
the Deity, as we can know that only by what actually exists.
To attack such a position, those who would deny the intervention in
nature of a creacive mind must show that the cause to which they
refer the origin of finite beings is by its nature a possible cause,
which cannot be denied of a being endowed with the attributes we
recognize in God. Our task is therefore completed as soon as we
have proved His existence. It would nevertheless be highly
desirable that every naturalist who has arrived at similar
conclusions should go over the subject anew from his point of
view and with particular reference to the special field of his
invesrigations; for so only can the whole evidence be brought out.
I foresee already that some of the most striking illustrations
may be drawn from the morphology of the vegetable kingdom,
especially from the characteriscic succession and systemacical
combination of different kinds of leaves in the formation of the
foliage and the flowers of so many plants, all of which end their
development by the production of an endless variety of fruits.
The inorganic world, considered, in the same light, would not fail
to exhibit also unexpected evidence of thought, in the character
of the laws regulating the chemical combinations, the action of
physical forces, the universal attraction, etc., etc. Even the
history of human culture ought to be investigated from this point
of view. But I must leave it to abler hands to discuss such topic.
SECTION XXXII
RECAPITULATION
[snip]
======================================================================
Uncle Al
>
> In the Nature there is no Nature's law, which binds the Nature to
> submit to the language of mathematics.
Noether's theorem, Euler's equation. TILT. (Bear in mind that
Noether was a girl and she just whacked your pee-pee but good.)
> All science is a numerology. Long live numerology.
Only supportable in quantum mechanics - and admitted so by its
practitioners ("the math is only metaphor).
[290-line snip]
Why don't you aggregate your slop at a website, post the URL, and we
will economically ignore it? Then, go e-mail yourself until you get
the issues resolved. (You post from Deja, but do you surf from Web
TV?)
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" The Net!
Byron Chan
It also implies a determinism.
I'm a number 7 therefore I follow a number 7 lifestyle. Its a must inorder
for numerology to have any validity.
Numerology differs in math, since it is unlikely you could manipulate
algebraically or for that matter perform any operation on numerological
quantities and interpret those results in any respectible way.
Aleksandr Timofeev
news:<u85otre...@corp.supernews.com>...
> Numerology is subjective.
Agree wholeheartedly. It is Absolute True. The human abstract thinking
functions on the basis of the subjective _human_ approach to the
analysis of _subjective_ _sensations_ accessible to perception of the
man. The world is given to the man in sensations and extremely
speculative reasonings of the man on sensations or reasoning from
the facts.
> It also implies a determinism.
Agree entirely. The world is given to the man in sensations and
extremely speculative reasonings of the man on sensations or
reasoning from the facts.
With one a stipulation, only minor part of the people is able
to think and thinks. The absolute majority of the people operates
with stereotypes of thinking, which ones learn during tutoring
(Unkle Al is one of vivid examples). ;^(
>
> I'm a number 7 therefore I follow a number 7 lifestyle. Its a must
> inorder for numerology to have any validity.
>
> Numerology differs in math,
Disagrees absolutely.
The numerology is a guessing on numbers, the method of a guessing
has not a value, coincidence of values of process of a guessing and
significance of coincidences with the real of Real World have only
practical value for the people and appropriate psychological outcome
of trust to a methods or technique of a guessing.
I repeat again:
==================================================================
In the Nature there is no Nature's law, which binds the Nature to
submit to the language of mathematics.
==================================================================
> since it is unlikely you could manipulate
> algebraically or for that matter perform any operation on numerological
> quantities and interpret those results in any respectible way.
It is a roughest logic error.
See example of a pure scientific numerology below.
The wit of the Man has property very much frequently to make an
errors.
"Most mistakes in philosophy and logic occur because
the human mind is apt to take the symbol for reality". Alby
See message:
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&newwindow=1&threadm=e16a4a22.0202220901.78585585%40posting.google.com&rnum=6&prev=/groups%3Fas_q%3Dtimofeev%26as_ugroup%3Dsci.*%26num%3D50%26as_scoring%3Dd%26hl%3Dru
3. The modern modern theories of motion of planets are
a pure numerology.
................^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
The theorists Astronomers (Celestial mechanics), proceeding from
political interests, carefully hide from a public, that " the most
exact modern theories of motion of planets " are a pure numerology.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
The problems of construction of the precision theories of motion of
planets are so difficult, that some theorists come to ideas of chaos,
i.e. they deny possibility of construction of the precision analytical
theory of motion of planets. Now there are very many numerical
theories of motion of planets, but theory giving exact co-ordinates
of planets for large time intervals does not exist. These theories
use various sets " of the most exact fundamental astronomical
parameters of a solar system ", but we have not the precision theory
of motion of planets till now.
See a pure numerology:
http://people.ne.mediaone.net/moshier/
and
http://people.ne.mediaone.net/moshier/#Astronomy
In any most exact theory the empirical corrections " are used "
which have not physical interpretation. The reason is very simple,
in the fundamentals of the theoretical astronomical concepts really
there are error postulates.
On my sight, the principle of equivalence gives the greatest
contribution to errors the theories of motion of planets.
I repeat again:
==================================================================
In the Nature there is no Nature's law, which binds the Nature to
submit to the language of mathematics.
==================================================================
Byron Chan
all and how I can sum up a reply:
"Most mistakes in philosophy and logic occur because
the human mind is apt to take the symbol for reality".
Mathmatics are not just symbols or words. They model the physical world.
One can have 100 of languages with each language describing the number 1 in
a different way. In the end its representation is understood, there are no
issues to what that 1 means.
1 apple, in terms of quantity and the definition of the apple is 1 apple.
Sorry if you already understood this, from having quickly view this message
it appeared such error from that statement was made.
Another thing about Chaos.
Chaos theory doesn't imply all things are going to crazy in the world and
that things can't be modeled. It states that as the complexity of a system
increases, new laws are created in the universe. At least thats the very
rough concept of it.
Meaning if astronomers do claim the objects of planets can't be modeled
correctly because of chaos, I'am assuming it is because they believe the
complexity of interacting dark matter, the large number of stars in our
vicinity of the galaxy, etc. etc. have made it difficult to do so precisely.
Besides I thought they already modeled the orbits of the planets rather
precisely with the invention of General Relativity years ago.
Of coarse there are going to be some deviations as you'd have to overlook
EVERY gravitional influence.
But having studied numerology myself, I don't know how you could have
managed to take the entire mysticism of Numerology and compare it to
something testable as mathematics and science.
Perhaps numerology does have its similarities, but the fact that it is also
used as a daily horoscope reminder and the fact that such things as
personaility numbers recycle even 9 digits on a calender and the fact that
there are more #1 months then there are #9 months (January = 1, October = 1
and only September = 9) does it make it an imperfect concept at all.
The validity of numerology has been greatly affected merely because of this,
and if you are looking at the mathmatical notion. Then why not discuss math
instead?
Aleksandr Timofeev
> Aleksandr Timofeev wrote:
> >
> > In the Nature there is no Nature's law, which binds the Nature to
> > submit to the language of mathematics.
>
> Noether's theorem, Euler's equation. TILT. (Bear in mind that
> Noether was a girl and she just whacked your pee-pee but good.)
" It was amusing to watch the trained mathematicians perform.
Especially girls ...
It was amusing to everyone.
The pure mathematicians and pseudo-physicists have bring a vast
harm to development of fundamental physics in 20 century."
- Aleksandr Timofeev
----------------------------------------------------------------
"God created the integers and the rest is the work of man."
- Leopold Kronecker
Abstract:
" We have proved an insurmountable limitation of formalization itself
"
" If we want to insist on the non-relativity of our set theoretic
notions, and if we hold that our formal systems to date fail fully
to capture the secret of the real numbers, then we must choose
between the unattractive options:
(1) that the theory of real numbers is inconsistent, hence has no
model, and
(2) that the secret of the real numbers cannot be captured by
any first-order formal system,
i.e. that every attempt will fail either by having no model or
by "incurring" a merely countable model. LST puts us to the choice
between inconsistency and non-categoricity.
If we discard the first of these, then we are left with a view
that implies that our notions of uncountable infinities, including
the continuum, cannot be fully formalized.
As John Myhill put it, in LST we have proved an insurmountable
limitation of formalization itself. "
See message:
http://groups.google.com/groups?q="Morris+Kline"&start=50&hl=ru&newwindow=1&selm=67feca00.0202030419.7f7f2df8%40posting.google.com&rnum=57
================
From: Nathan the Great (The_Grea...@my-deja.com)
Subject: Re: A paradox not involving self-reference
Newsgroups: sci.math, sci.logic
Date: 2002-02-03 04:19:27 PST
================
"Herman Hankel, Richard Dedekind, and Karl Weierstrass all
believed that mathematics is a human creation.... And
Ludwig Wittgenstein (1889-1951, a student of Russell and an
authority in his own right, believed that the mathematician is
an inventor not a discoverer...
The Nobel prize-winning physicist Percy W. Bridgman, in The
Logic of Modern Physics (1946), rejected flatly any objective
world of mathematics. "It is the merest truism, evident at once
to unsophisticated observation, that mathematics is a human
invention." Theoretical science is a game of mathematical
make-believe. All these men contend that mathematics is not
only man-made, but very much influenced by the cultures in
which it is developed."
Morris Kline *, Mathematics: The Loss of Certainty (Oxford
University Press, 1980, ISBN 0-19-502754-X), pp 324-25
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=%22Morris+Kline%22&hl=ru&newwindow=1&selm=335c557b.145946851%40news.teleport.com&rnum=28
----------------------------------------------------
From: Kirby Urner (pd...@teleport.com)
Subject: Is Euclidean space '3-D' by convention or because of certain
undeniable facts?
Newsgroups: sci.math
Date: 1997/04/20
"ALL realities are 'virtual'"
- Kirby Urner
----------------------------------------------------
" All physical science is a numerology. Long live numerology. "
- Aleksandr Timofeev
Aleksandr Timofeev
> Sorry don't have much time to reply, but on a few notes from having read
> it all and how I can sum up a reply:
>
> "Most mistakes in philosophy and logic occur because
> the human mind is apt to take the symbol for reality".
>
> Mathmatics are not just symbols or words. They model the physical world.
>
> One can have 100 of languages with each language describing the number 1
> in a different way. In the end its representation is understood, there
> are no issues to what that 1 means.
>
> 1 apple, in terms of quantity and the definition of the apple is 1 apple.
>
> Sorry if you already understood this, from having quickly view this
> message it appeared such error from that statement was made.
> Another thing about Chaos.
>
> Chaos theory doesn't imply all things are going to crazy in the world and
> that things can't be modeled. It states that as the complexity of a
> system increases, new laws are created in the universe. At least thats
> the very rough concept of it.
>
> Meaning if astronomers do claim the objects of planets can't be modeled
> correctly because of chaos,
I considered planets, which belong to a solar system.
> I'am assuming it is because they believe the
> complexity of interacting dark matter, the large number of stars in our
> vicinity of the galaxy, etc. etc. have made it difficult to do so
> precisely.
All reasonings on a gravitation outside the solar system have a
straight line connection with science fictions, I have not desire
to consider gravitational chimeras.
This " area of science " belongs to charlatans, which make money
deceiving simpletons. The masses of bodies of a solar system are
known with a bad precision, what precision of values of masses can
be for bodies, which are outside of limits of range of space
vehicles?
> Besides I thought they already modeled the orbits of the planets rather
> precisely with the invention of General Relativity years ago.
General Relativity has scientific fancy value inside the solar system.
Inside the solar system the Newton's theory is used!!!
> Of coarse there are going to be some deviations as you'd have to overlook
> EVERY gravitional influence.
I assert an inverse, (carried out by me) the analysis of problems of
mathematical description of motion of bodies of a solar system reduces
in an inference about an inconsistency of the physical laws, which are
used for description of motion of bodies of a solar system.
> But having studied numerology myself, I don't know how you could have
> managed to take the entire mysticism of Numerology and compare it to
> something testable as mathematics and science.
>
> Perhaps numerology does have its similarities, but the fact that it is
> also used as a daily horoscope reminder and the fact that such things as
> personaility numbers recycle even 9 digits on a calender and the fact that
> there are more #1 months then there are #9 months (January = 1, October =
> 1 and only September = 9) does it make it an imperfect concept at all.
>
> The validity of numerology has been greatly affected merely because of
> this, and if you are looking at the mathmatical notion. Then why not
> discuss math instead?
You wrongly suppose, that concept "numerology" has connection only
with an astrology.
Now new empirical physical laws are announced as "numerology".
I shall bring some examples of "numerology" from a history of
physics:
Example 1 Kepler's laws of planetary motion
Example 2 Bode's law
Example 3 Balmer's formula
Example 4 Planck's constant
Example 3:
======================================================
Balmer, Johann Jakob
b. May 1, 1825, Lausanne, Switz.
d. March 12, 1898, Basel
Swiss mathematician who discovered a formula
basic to the development of atomic theory and the
field of atomic spectroscopy.
A secondary-school teacher in Basel from 1859
until his death, Balmer also lectured (1865-90) on
geometry at the University of Basel. In 1885 he
announced a simple formula representing the
wavelengths of the spectral lines of hydrogen--the
"Balmer series" (see spectral line series).
Why the formula held true, however, was not explained until 1913,
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
when Niels Bohr found that it fit into and
supported his theory of discrete energy states within
the hydrogen atom. (See Balmer series.)
Information about this topic in other articles
Balmer, Johann Jakob (Swiss math.)
chemical analysis of hydrogen
in Historical survey
from spectroscopy
in Analysis
from hydrogen
research of spectral line series
in spectral line series
in Light and spectral lines
from atom
To cite this page:
"Balmer, Johann Jakob" Encyclop?dia Britannica Online.
<http://members.eb.com/bol/topic?eu=12188&sctn=1>
[Accessed 30 August 1999].
======================================================
Johann Jakob Balmer has not won the Nobel prize, but I shall win
the Nobel prize in nearest 20 years. :-)
Bob Kolker
Aleksandr Timofeev wrote:
>
> General Relativity has scientific fancy value inside the solar system.
> Inside the solar system the Newton's theory is used!!!
Dead wrong tavarisch. Newton's theory does not account for all the
precession of perihelia of the planets. Nor does it account for bending
of light (from distant stars) around the Sun.
Furthermore Newtonian Gravity is instantenous action at a distance. Tres
weird, da?
Bob Kolker
Aleksandr Timofeev
news:<3C8A3E5F...@attbi.com>...
> Aleksandr Timofeev wrote:
> >
> > _General _Relativity has scientific fancy value inside the solar system.
> > Inside the solar system the Newton's theory is used!!!
>
> Dead wrong tavarisch.
Dead wrong you, dear tavarisch (rus. friend) Bob Kolker!
You have got on a fishing hook of the physical tricksters.
Please, see message:
http://groups.google.com/groups?as_umsgid=8likhs%24h0t%241%40nnrp1.deja.com%20&num=50&hl=en
"If you're really curious, take a look at
"Mercury's Perihelion from Le Verrier to a_Einstein,"
N. T. Roseveare, _Oxford Univ. Press_, 1982.
The 1985 Russian edition kept the same title."
He has described in historical sequence the various conceptual
approaches to a natural phenomenon of a gravitation.
I suppose that this book will be useful to you in your transactions.
"As a historical treatise it blows away many of the currently-accepted
myths about relativity. Even though it is strongly pro-relativity"
" So the relativistic solar system calculations ignore any mass other
than
planets. Should there be any non-spherical matter distribution around
the sun (like the solar wind), as observed by the zodiacal light, then
the GR prediction is "too strong".
{Anyone got a cite for the "latest and greatest" effort along these
lines?)
Note also that the perihelion "discrepancy" was based on LeVerrier's
calculations from transits of Mercury. And no one had been correcting
the data for bending of light during those pesky superior
conjunctions.
======================================================================
And finally the official _GR numbers did not change when Mariner
passed
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
by Mercury and found that the observed mass of the planet was double
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
what was expected. Throwing the whole construction to have to shift
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ------------------------------------------------
to maintain that precious _GR prediction....."
-----------------------------------------
_greywolf42
======================================================================
> Newton's theory does not account for all the
> precession of perihelia of the planets.
Whether you have any a clear idea of the theories of motion of
planets?
The precession of a perihelion of a planet has the insignificant
energy contribution to a full energy of motion of a planet.
Just insignificance of energy contribution of a precession of a
perihelion of a planet creates an extensive field for various
pseudo-scientific gamble.
In any most exact modern theory of motion of planets
the empirical corrections " are used "
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
which have not physical interpretation.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
===============================================
The reason is very simple,
in the fundamentals of the theoretical astronomical concepts
really there are error postulates.
===============================================
On my sight, the violation of _equivalence_principle_ in a scale
of the solar planetary system gives the greatest contribution to
_the empirical corrections_ of the theories of motion of planets.
The modern modern theories of motion of planets are
a pure numerology.
The theorists Astronomers (Celestial mechanics), proceeding from
political interests, carefully hide from a public, that " the most
exact modern theories of motion of planets " are a pure numerology.
The problems of construction of the precision theories of motion of
planets are so difficult, that some theorists come to ideas of chaos,
i.e. they deny possibility of construction of the precision analytical
theory of motion of planets. Now there are very many numerical
theories of motion of planets, but theory giving exact co-ordinates
of planets for large time intervals does not exist. These theories
use various sets " of the _most _exact _fundamental _astronomical
_parameters (??? ;^) ) of a solar system ", but we have not the
precision theory of motion of planets till now.
See a pure numerology:
http://people.ne.mediaone.net/moshier/
and
http://people.ne.mediaone.net/moshier/#Astronomy
> Nor does it account for bending
> of light (from distant stars) around the Sun.
In 1919 a little that was known about solar atmosphere
(solar corona) and its properties, nobody knew about ejections
of solar substance from a surface of the Sun. What you know about
a refraction of solar rays in earth atmosphere? In youth I studied
a radio physics. I know something about a refraction of
electromagnetic waves. Whether you understand on what subject
I has made a hint? :-)
> Furthermore Newtonian Gravity is instantenous action at a distance. Tres
> weird, da?
Da (yes), it is "weird".
Here you have touched a controversy about
some gravity stuff between Tom Van Flandern
and Steve Carlip in the thread "Speed of Gravity"?:
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl1578805946d&hl=en&newwindow=1&selm=9nm59h%24jde%241%40woodrow.ucdavis.edu
Here you have touched a very interesting physical problem.
This problem is connected to modern error understanding of
the Relativity Principle.
Tom Van Flandern and Steve Carlip dogmatically trust in an
electromagnetic Relativity Principle, that is a _basic _error
of their conceptual approach to a Gravitation.
It is a subject for large and long
separate discussion or lecture.
While a hint in this direction:
----------------------------------------------------------------
From: Aleksandr Timofeev (a_n_ti...@my-deja.com)
Subject: Re: Speed of Gravity
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Date: 2001-09-24 06:28:34
Steve Carlip <car...@dirac.ucdavis.edu> wrote in message
news:<9olrg5$mjt$1...@woodrow.ucdavis.edu>...
[snip]
> My goodness! You think this somehow supports your bizarre idea that
> gravitational fields propagate instantaneously? I suggest that you go
> back to the book and try to understand the remark after eqn. (3.2.9).
> The ``field theory'' approch Feynman is writing about makes it, if
> anything, much easier to see that the propagation speed is c.
I shall try to attract your attention in the
possible alternate approach to a problem of
speed of propagation of interaction considered
in this thread.
The presented below example should be considered
as allegorical.
Let's consider own oscillations of a string with
the fixed ends. In this case oscillations of a
string represent standing waves. All points of
a string make oscillations in the same phase
(analogy - in a problem of two bodies, the bodies
make motion in the same phase too).
Here there is no aberration during motion of parts
of a system and we _have _illusion of an _infinite
_transfer _rate of _interaction_ between parts of
a system - a string or two bodies.
But we perfectly know, that the speed of propagation
of elastic interaction between parts of a string is
limited.
You can ask what analogy can be between own oscillations
of a string and problem of two gravitating bodies?
In case of own oscillations of a string or own oscillations
of a rectangular elastic thin plate we deal with a class of
physical systems located in a _stationary_ _state_.
_stationary_ _state_ !!!
For this reason indicated by Tom Van Flandern the absence
of aberration in gravitational systems can be connected with
a stationary state of gravitational systems.
The given approach is the alternate approach to a problem of
speed of propagation of gravitational interaction considered
in this thread, but the given point of view empirically is
justified by existence of the empirical data for the benefit
of a stationarity of the Solar system and so on.
The paradox of a problem of speed of propagation
of gravitational interaction consists of impossibility to determine
speed of propagation of interaction by motion of parts of a system
located in a stationary state.
The Stationary gravitational system is a system located in a state
of own free oscillations, when all bodies of a system make motion
in the same allegorical "phase".
Comments.
[snip]
> ---
> Aleksandr Timofeev
> http://groups.google.com/groups?ic=1&q=msgid:3B372CA5%40MailAndNews.com
----------------------------------------------------------------
> Bob Kolker
On my sight, here I give a perfect physical example for a
refutation of your presentations about operation of mystical
(empirical !!!) gears of a gravitation inside the Solar system:
"BALMER'S FORMULA" FOR THE SOLAR SYSTEM
http://www3.sympatico.ca/wbabin/paper/timo.htm
--
Best regards,
Aleksandr Timofeev -
"Sumaschedchiy russkiy" - "Dead wrong tavarisch." :-)
Aleksandr Timofeev
> Aleksandr Timofeev wrote:
> >
> > In the Nature there is no Nature's law, which binds the Nature to
> > submit to the language of mathematics.
>
> Noether's theorem, Euler's equation. TILT. (Bear in mind that
> Noether was a girl and she just whacked your pee-pee but good.)
http://surf.de.uu.net/bookland/sci/farce/farce_toc.html
You should know, that mathematics internally is inconsistent.
If Uncle Al has caught essence of this very confusing idea,
Uncle Al can understand a very simple idea:
From the mathematical theorems, inhering to different areas of
mathematics, it is possible to receive any logic corollaries, which
will contradict each other. ;-]
> > All science is a numerology. Long live numerology.
>
> Only supportable in quantum mechanics - and admitted so by its
> practitioners ("the math is only metaphor).
>
> [290-line snip]
It "supportable in" whole area of science:
The creative process cannot be summoned at will or even cajolated
by sacrificial offering. Indeed, it seems to occur most readily
when the mind is relaxed and the imagination roaming freely
Morris Kline
* Morris Kline, Professor Emeritus of Mathematics, Courant
Institute of Mathematical Sciences, New York University
(17 yr old info as per book)
1. Mathematics: The Loss of Certainty
C.1980 Morris Kline ISBN 0-19-502754-X Oxford University Press
=================================================================
"Herman Hankel, Richard Dedekind, and Karl Weierstrass all
believed that mathematics is a human creation.... And
Ludwig Wittgenstein (1889-1951, a student of Russell and an
authority in his own right, believed that the mathematician is
an inventor not a discoverer...
The Nobel prize-winning physicist Percy W. Bridgman, in The
Logic of Modern Physics (1946), rejected flatly any objective
world of mathematics. "It is the merest truism, evident at once
to unsophisticated observation, that mathematics is a human
invention." Theoretical science is a game of mathematical
make-believe. All these men contend that mathematics is not
only man-made, but very much influenced by the cultures in
which it is developed."
From
Morris Kline *, Mathematics: The Loss of Certainty (Oxford
University Press, 1980), pp 324-25
Kline gives the reader a survey of the four or so main approaches to modern
mathematics, and the intuitionist position is one of them. The book is
highly readable. It is also widely available at book stores (in paperback)
such as at B.Dalton's.
-------
»As newer branches of physics - hydrodynamics, elasticity,
electricity, and magnetism - were tackled, it was Newton's
approach to mechanics and astronomy that was adopted. The
quantitative, mathematical methods became the essence of
science, and truth resided most securely in mathematics.«
- Morris Kline: 'Mathematics: The Loss of Certainty'
=================================================================
2. Mathematics in Western Culture,
Morris Kline, Peregrine (Penguin) Edition, 1987
3. Mathematical Thought from Ancient to Modern Times,
Morris Kline, New York, Oxford University Press, 1972
4. "Mathematics and the Physical World" Kline, Morris, New York,
Dover Publications, 1981. The ISBN number is 0-486-24104-1.
5. Why Johnny can't add: the failure of the new math. Kline, Morris,
New York, St. Martin's Press [1973] 173 p. illus. 22 cm.
6. "Calculus: an Intuitive and Physical Approach," Morris Kline,Wiley.
This has the typical calculus-book size (943 pages), but not the typical
content. Kline is very careful to include motivations and applications
to show that the calculus does have real purposes.
Anyway, Kline shows how the Pythagoreans came up with
various mathematical discoveries (abstractions) by manipulating the
pebbles (real objects) which they were using to represent numbers
(metaphors).
I'd say the same for Eric Temple Bell's
"Men of Mathematics" (1937), which was reprinted recently. Bell's
presentation is more in terms of thumbnail biographical sketches
followed by the mathematics the individual was involved with
in something of a harder core mathematical presentation.
Bob Kolker
Aleksandr Timofeev wrote:
>
> You should know, that mathematics internally is inconsistent.
Proof?
Bob Kolker
>
Steve Casselman
can be classed into two basic realms, either it is complete or incomplete.
See the links below
http://www.miskatonic.org/godel.html
http://www.logic.at/kgs/home.html
Steve
"Bob Kolker" <bobk...@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:3CA9E7EF...@attbi.com...
Vertner Vergon
"Steve Casselman" <sc.n...@vcc.com> wrote in message
news:ONoq8.6042$Qm4.3804245136@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...
Vergon:
Mathematics is mathematics -- like the violin is a violin.
The music depends on who's playing.
I've shown where Einstein misinterpreted two mathematical results
which caused all the mystique and intuition disruption associated
with his theory -- which otherwise is fairly mundane.
The violin was good -- but the player made it squeak.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~`
Stephen Speicher
>
> I've shown where Einstein misinterpreted two mathematical results
> which caused all the mystique and intuition disruption associated
> with his theory -- which otherwise is fairly mundane.
>
Of course, all that Vertner Vergon has ever really shown are his
own misinterpretations of Einstein and relativity.
Stephen
s...@compbio.caltech.edu
Welcome to California. Bring your own batteries.
Printed using 100% recycled electrons.
--------------------------------------------------------
Vertner Vergon
"Stephen Speicher" <s...@compbio.caltech.edu> wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.10.102040...@photon.compbio.caltech.edu...
> On Wed, 3 Apr 2002, Vertner Vergon wrote:
> >
> > I've shown where Einstein misinterpreted two mathematical results
> > which caused all the mystique and intuition disruption associated
> > with his theory -- which otherwise is fairly mundane.
> >
>
> Of course, all that Vertner Vergon has ever really shown are his
> own misinterpretations of Einstein and relativity.
Vergon:
You are a good example of the brainlessness that prevails on this NG,
Put your proof where your mouth is -- or do us all a favor and shut up.
I can restate the two Einstein misinterpretations if you want to try
and refute them.
That would be productive unlike the empty headed noises you are making.
Your sniping at my heels like a chihuahua or toy French poodle only
shows what a small man you are.
The Bible (Matthew 7) says, Cast not thy pearls before swine for they
will trample them then turn to destroy you.
Smart book, the Bible.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Vertner Vergon
"Stephen Speicher" <s...@compbio.caltech.edu> wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.10.102040...@photon.compbio.caltech.edu...
> >
> > I've shown where Einstein misinterpreted two mathematical results
> > which caused all the mystique and intuition disruption associated
> > with his theory -- which otherwise is fairly mundane.
> >
>
> Of course, all that Vertner Vergon has ever really shown are his
> own misinterpretations of Einstein and relativity.
Vergon:
You are a good example of the brainlessness that prevails on this NG,
Put your proof where your mouth is -- or do us all a favor and shut up.
I can restate the two Einstein misinterpretations if you want to try
and refute them.
That would be productive unlike the empty headed noises you are making.
Your sniping at my heels like a chihuahua or toy French poodle only
shows what a small man you are.
The Bible (Matthew 7) says, Cast not thy pearls before swine for they
will trample them then turn to destroy you.
Smart book, the Bible.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Stephen
Stephen Speicher
>
> "Stephen Speicher" <s...@compbio.caltech.edu> wrote in message
> news:Pine.LNX.4.10.102040...@photon.compbio.caltech.edu...
> > On Wed, 3 Apr 2002, Vertner Vergon wrote:
> > >
> > > I've shown where Einstein misinterpreted two mathematical results
> > > which caused all the mystique and intuition disruption associated
> > > with his theory -- which otherwise is fairly mundane.
> > >
> >
> > Of course, all that Vertner Vergon has ever really shown are his
> > own misinterpretations of Einstein and relativity.
>
[snip -- childish insults]
>
> I can restate the two Einstein misinterpretations if you want to try
> and refute them.
>
No thank you.
You have been posting your misunderstandings of Einstein and
relativity since at least 1994, and dozens of people have
explained to you 100s of times the various errors you make.
Rather than learn from your errors, you just become further
fortified, demonstrating that you are impervious to reason.
The current overall lack of response to your "technical"
arguments is simply a consequence of frustration experienced by
knowledgeable people who have given up arguing with your
irrationality, combined with the boredom of witnessing the
silliness of your repetitious behavior.
au...@detroit.freenet.org
modern run-of-the-mill computers do up to a googol in fast efficient
calculational ability:
cray or national security, a little higher,
cheap, a little lower.
the universe, however, is almost infinite and CANNOT be represented
correctly,
in terms of scaling, size, bulk, mass, weight: in those terms,
a much higher-ordered numeric system is needed, even for the most
rudimentary, diametric, simple stuff,
the implications on modern sience (modern sci-ence, modern psi-ence) aren't
funny.
today, it's like counting apples on a table with differential and integral
calculus,
coming u with the WRONG numerics, in the WRONG diametric (positive vs.
negative numbers)
with the WRONG answer.
wrong, wrong, wrong, go figure, it's wrong, not right like the nsa said.
do you think people who make a lot of money give a flying fuck about you, or
for that matter any real security,
(_not_ the security of felons in their felony)???
think again.
snip========================================================================
=======================================
"Aleksandr Timofeev" <a_n_ti...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:e16a4a22.02040...@posting.google.com...
Aleksandr Timofeev
Vertner, you should like these good guys: