Drexel dragonThe Math ForumDonate to the Math Forum



Search All of the Math Forum:

Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by Drexel University or The Math Forum.


Math Forum » Discussions » sci.math.* » sci.math.independent

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

Advanced Search

Back to Topic List Back to Topic List Jump to Tree View Jump to Tree View   Messages: [ Previous | Next ]
bacle

Posts: 838
From: nyc
Registered: 6/6/10
Re: plutonium is a FRAUD.
Posted: Feb 13, 2013 10:53 AM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

>
> 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 Non-Euclidean
> 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 Non-Euclidean 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 black-hole, 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 so-called 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 rapp-geometry (similar to
> rapp-music). And today's
> physics, because physics has no axiom set to control
> it, is best
> described as rapp-physics 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 top-heavy in hate-spew from
> search-engine-
> 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 electron-dot-cloud are galaxies




Point your RSS reader here for a feed of the latest messages in this topic.

[Privacy Policy] [Terms of Use]

© Drexel University 1994-2014. All Rights Reserved.
The Math Forum is a research and educational enterprise of the Drexel University School of Education.