On Saturday, September 7, 2013 9:41:25 PM UTC+2, Archimedes Plutonium wrote: > So the Maxwell Equations as a closed algebraic set of axioms does not allow for a 4th perpendicular to a given set of 3 perpendiculars. But does the Maxwell Equations, since it is closed algebraically prove anything else of huge importance to physics and mathematics? > > > > Well, yes of course, for in mathematics when your axioms are closed set then they are immune to change. What I mean by that is that if someone comes along and wants to add a 5th equation to the 4 Maxwell Equations, then he is just wasting time, since you cannot make a closed set, more closed. > > > > What can be done perhaps is to compress the 4 Maxwell Equations, although they are already compressed to their limit. What I mean is that in Geometry, they had a large list of axioms of say 24 of them at one time and someone saw that one of them was equivalent to another and so it was deleted > > making 23 axioms. > > > > So the axioms of all of physics and thus all of mathematics since it is a subset of physics are these 5 axioms: > > > > (1) all the facts and data of chemistry > > (2-5) the 4 Maxwell Equations > > > > Now I am trying to think of another physical parameter such as dimensions, as to a proof from the fact that the Maxwell Equations are closed algebraically. > > > > > > On Thursday, September 5, 2013 1:18:50 PM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote: > > > Now what the description of the below proof is in mathematics, is called a "closed algebra set". The rationals in mathematics are a closed algebra set in that if we take any two rationals and add them, we do not arrive at a "new number" not already a rational. So that in the proof that the Maxwell Equations cannot have a 4th dimension because a 4th perpendicular cannot yield a new solution for the already preexisting solutions gained from 3 perpendiculars of 3rd dimension. > > > > > > > > > > > > Now the Natural Numbers: 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, . . are not closed to division because we can take 1 and divide it by 5 and gain a new number not already existing. So that if the Maxwell Equations could take a 4th new perpendicular and arrive at a new solution not already existing with the 3 perpendiculars of 3rd dimension, then the 4th dimension exists, but it does not exist for the reasons stated above. > > > > > > > > > > > > I wrote in sci.physics, a few minutes ago: > > > > > > > > > > > > Maxwell Equations proof that 4th dimension is phony baloney #1461 New Physics #1811 ATOM TOTALITY 5th ed > > > > > > > > > > > > So how does the Maxwell Equations prevent the existence of 4th dimension or higher? > > > > > > > > > > > > It does so in the fact that the Maxwell Equations are linear and so the thought of a **new perpendicular** > > > > > > giving rise to a solution not already existing by the 3 perpendiculars of 3rd dimension is only wishful thinking. Every new perpendicular besides the existing 3 perpendiculars is a preexisting solution already contained in the Maxwell Equations. > > > > > > > > > > > > So that for example if we have a alleged 4th new perpendicular of a moving bar magnet of Faraday's law coming into a Ampere/Maxwell law set-up, that this new alleged 4th perpendicular is already covered by the existing Ampere/Maxwell law. > > > > > > > > > > > > In short, the Maxwell Equations cannot accommodate a new 4th perpendicular and that all solutions to the Maxwell Equations are handled by the existing 3 perpendiculars. > > > > > > > > > > > > What Ptolemy proved that only 3 dimensions can exist in mathematics could not be a general proof because Ptolemy could not bring in Physics and the human mind unable to perceive of a 4th dimension. But when we anchor the proof in the Maxwell Equations we get rid of that last objection, because the Maxwell Equations cannot fit a new 4th perpendicular. > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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
Can you actually prove anything in physics, chemistry or any of the natural sciences?