Search All of the Math Forum:
Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by
NCTM or The Math Forum.


Math Forum
»
Discussions
»
sci.math.*
»
sci.math
Notice: We are no longer accepting new posts, but the forums will continue to be readable.
Topic:
comparing the history of axioms in mathematics and physics #1221 New Physics #1341 ATOM TOTALITY 5th ed
Replies:
1
Last Post:
Feb 13, 2013 10:53 AM



bacle
Posts:
838
From:
nyc
Registered:
6/6/10


Re: plutonium is a FRAUD.
Posted:
Feb 13, 2013 10:53 AM


> > axioms for Physics 2012; axioms for geometry ancient > Greeks; axioms > for algebra 1860's > > Now let us do some history lessons about a science > and having the > smarts and intelligence to ground the science in a > axiom set.
You have neither; that's why you need to fraudulently take social security. Because you don't have the intelligence to support yourself, FRAUD.
> > Geometry started out in Ancient Greek times with the > recognition that > it needed a axiom set in order to prove things for > that science of > geometry, and by doing so,
False. Your making things up, as usual, you FRAUD.
laying the axiomatic > foundation of geometry > so long ago, that geometry became the most advanced > science in both > mathematics and physics.
Geometry is not a science, you fucking baboon.
So advanced was geometry > that by 1830's the > Euclidean axioms developed the NonEuclidean > geometry.
Learn how to write, imbecile, how can a Euclidean axiom develop other axioms. How stupid are you, I mean, seriously. Go back to 5th grade an learn basic grammar and basic writing skills, FRAUD.
In other words, > if geometry had not been a science based on axioms, > we would not have > had NonEuclidean geometry by 1830s.
Pure speculation; would have, should have. As usual, no evidence to back up anything you say. Some scientist you are, speculating but never looking for evidence. You are a FRAUD > > Geometry is an example of a science that starts with > a axiom set,
FALSE. Y
but > Algebra is an example of a science that had no axiom > set until the > axioms of the Natural Numbers of 1860s. So before > 1860s, Algebra was > mostly a loose collection of a lot of rules and > topics not connected > into a whole. Algebra before axioms was > compartmental. > > Now let us look at Physics. It has never had a axiom > set over all of > physics and it has suffered tremendously because it > is today a vast > array of unconnected compartmental vagaries and > irrelevancies. > Remember the saying that a "horse is a camel, > designed by a > committee". That is the state of affair of Physics by > 2012. When > Physics does not have a axiom set, then it has > thousands of cranks and > crackpots with their pet theory in our (your) face. > Without axioms for physics, then Hawking can peddle > his pet crankery > of dense matter going into blackhole, or Bardeen > Cooper Schrieffer > can peddle their crankery of electrons joining up in > pairs, or Peter > Higgs can peddle his crankery of a boson that creates > mass, or Gell > Mann and Weinberg can peddle crankery of quarks and > Standard Model. > And a huge list of socalled physicists peddling > whatever it is they > like and cherish at the moment and peddle it as if it > is physics, when > in truth, it is just they silly idiosyncratic like > and pleasure, not > science. > > When you have a axiom set on the subject of physics, > you are not > allowed to violate or trespass beyond the tenets of > those axioms. > > Physics could have established the Maxwell Equations > as the axioms of > physics, just as Number theory started the axioms in > the 1860s which > ended up as the Peano axioms for the Natural Numbers > and gave algebra > a firm foundation. > > But physicists were not bright enough, not clear nor > logical enough in > the 20th century, a century where any foolish crank > and crackpot could > bowl over the entire physics community with their > silly and stupid > ideas. They could do it because there was no axiom > set to raise alarm > that they were beyond true physics. > > If the Maxwell Equations had been seen as the axiom > set, then we would > not have had a black hole theory, nor a Big Bang > theory, nor quarks, > strings, BCS theory, Standard Model, Higgs boson and > numerous other > nonsense. We would now be not burdened by all that > worthless nonsense > because all of those items violated the Maxwell > Equations. > > If geometry had never started with Euclid axioms and > polished into the > Hilbert axioms and the nonEuclidean geometries, then > geometry would be > similar to the state and condition that Physics finds > itself in by > 2013. In geometry without axioms we would have > horoscopes as geometry, > or we would have rappgeometry (similar to > rappmusic). And today's > physics, because physics has no axiom set to control > it, is best > described as rappphysics for it is so poor in truth > content, that it > is like being in music class, not physics class. "Let > me sing you a > song..." > > Now it is not as bad of a picture as I painted above > of Physics. Even > though Physics has never had a axiom set, per se, > plainly in view, > that Physics as had a tacit, hidden, underlying axiom > set. I speak of > the "units measure" pervading physics. The units of > force, > acceleration, velocity, momentum, angular momentum, > energy, distance, > time, and other units. > > Ever since Ancient Greek times to 2012, physics has > had a hidden axiom > set that imposed its logic upon physicists of "Units > Measure", but > that axiom set needs to be replaced by a far better > axiom set. In year > 2012, I realized as the first physicist, that the > Maxwell Equations, > the Symmetrical Maxwell Equations is the axiom set > over all of > Physics. > We need to add a fifth axiom that says all the facts > of Chemistry is > the 5th axiom. > > Now what a axiom set does for physics, is that it not > only eliminates > the shenanigans of nonsense of Standard Model, Higgs > boson, quarks, > strings, black holes and Big Bang etc etc. But a > Maxwell Equations > axioms instantly unifies all of physics and all the > forces of physics. > > So where early 1900s physicists were looking to unify > the 4 forces and > unify thermodynamics to other physics, that > immediately all is unified > since the Maxwell Equations derives all things of > physics (along with > the Chemistry axiom). > > So my point in this post, is to paint the broad wide > picture of the > history of science. That a science without an axiom > set, is a science > that is riff with nonsense and polluted with crankery > and > crackpottery. > >  > > Google's archives are topheavy in hatespew from > searchengine > bombing. Only Drexel's Math Forum has done a > excellent, simple and > fair archiving of AP posts for the past 15 years as > seen here: > > http://mathforum.org/kb/profile.jspa?userID=499986 > > Archimedes Plutonium > http://www.iw.net/~a_plutonium > whole entire Universe is just one big atom > where dots of the electrondotcloud are galaxies



