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:
when a science is run by axioms, not by idiosyncratic cranks of physics; are there 10^603 magnetic monopoles? #1224 New Physics #1344 ATOM TOTALITY 5th ed
Replies:
0




when a science is run by axioms, not by idiosyncratic cranks of physics; are there 10^603 magnetic monopoles? #1224 New Physics #1344 ATOM TOTALITY 5th ed
Posted:
Feb 12, 2013 5:18 PM


Now if we examine the history of the axiom system of geometry in mathematics, we realize that the two NonEuclidean geometries would not have come about without axioms, because it is easy to pinpoint the error of the Euclidean axiom of parallel lines. So that it was a mistake in the parallel axiom itself.
Now using that fact for the Maxwell Equations as axioms, we can understand that the equations without magnetic monopoles is another error of axioms. And just because the illogical physicists for the most of the physics community of the 20th century were illogical bards, just because they were ignorant of axiom systems and how they keep a science community logically sound in mind and experiment, that they ended up deleting magnetic monopoles and wanted experimental proof of magnetic monopoles.
Now we cannot blame Maxwell for deleting magnetic monopoles, because Maxwell never knew of the neutrino. But in the 20th century, the neutrino was available about 1930s and for the next 70 years or more, a logical physicist should have recognized that the neutrino was the magnetic monopoles.
Unfortunately, physics in that 70 years was so filled up with kook and propaganda physics of Standard Model, that there was not a hope or prayer for any physicist to shuck that propaganda for which they had been fed. Especially when you anoint kook physics with several Nobel prizes. By year 2013, the Nobel prize is running a batting average of more fake and fiction physics rather than true physics. There is a greater chance of physics fakery being awarded each year now than a chance that the award goes for something true and lasting physics.
When you have the true physics of Radioactivity, then, since it is the true physics, you are able to use the Maxwell Equations to begin to tell the mean life, and half life of radioactive nuclei. Something that the fakery of the Standard Model with its silly claim of Weak to EM unification never was able to do, and in fact, it never predicted anything. The Nobel prize in physics has become a kook award in physics.
But let me mention one other fact about Axiom systems because in mathematics the great house of geometry has the best axiom system ever, except for now, in that the Maxwell Equations is a far better axiom system for all of Physics and because mathematics is a subset of physics, that the Maxwell Equations subsumes the geometry axioms. In other words, in the future going forwards, we are able to derive the axioms of geometry and number theory right out of the Maxwell Equations. Already, in a prior post of mine, I was able to show how to derive both the Schrodinger and Dirac Equations by a summation of terms of the 4 Maxwell Equations.
But math has a second house called Number theory or Algebra and it never had its axioms until starting around 1860s and culminating with the Peano axioms. The Peano axioms have a major flaw, just as the geometry axioms had the error or flaw of the parallel postulate which when fixed allowed the NonEuclidean geometries. The flaw of the Peano axioms, its major flaw, is that it never relates the boundary between finite and infinite. Number theory has constant incessant chatter about finite and infinite, yet these illogical bards never had the mental acuity to seek that borderline. I discovered that boundary some years back to be where pi digits have three zero digits in a row, about 10^603 as the borderline between finite and infinite.
Now, since Physics is the larger science than is mathematics and where math is a subset of physics. I wonder if we get a number of 10^603 as points in space for physics. So, I wonder if the Universe at large has 10^603 points comprising the total Universe. Those points would be neutrinos as magnetic monopoles and thus there are 10^603 magnetic monopoles for the total of Space. Mind you, there would be only say 10^80 or 10^160 electrons and protons. But they reside in a Universe that requires at least 10^603 magnetic monopoles.
You see, when your science is not grounded in an axiom system, then what happens is old codgers of men impose their own silly and stupid idiosyncratic views upon that science, masquerading as the truth. This is inevitable because the pressure by society as a whole is for an explanation, and if there is no axiom system in between and in the way of cranks telling the world how it runs and operates, then those cranks are going to be honored and given Nobel prizes when they are peddling fake physics.
When a science has axioms as the guiding light of their science, chances are cranks and kooks are not going to intercede and impose their fakeries on the rest of society. And with an axiom system in guidance, chances are that the true physics is revealed and reported.

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



