Actually, calculus is wrong, it has several foundational errors and is a tickling dangerous bomb that shouldn’t be teached or used. Almost nobody cares today. I leave you some introductory articles which refound calculus on a solid basis.
The Un-unified Field: and other problems - Miles Mathis
Oh, I almost forgot! Congrats! You prove yourself a good subject obeying the state-academia! From here to the FED!
According to Miles pi is 4 in circular motion and is “really an acceleration”…
Player, I have been there. I have seen all these websites with internet amateur scientists, from Electrical Universe Theory to Vaccines Don’t Work to Ice Age incoming. All of those websites made with terrible 1990s HTML and promises of groundbreaking work on the field done by people working outside their area of expertise.
I don’t intend to criticise those people, who very much love what they do, and who may even have a point (who knows?).
I do intend to criticise their tagging-along internet champions who tout their theories and run around internet message boards declaring anybody who believes something to be “sheeple”. And all because of one website they read on the internet. I am not diminishing or degrading these tag-alongs, because such people do include intelligent folk with whom I am on good terms and correspondence. The problem is that over-the-top internet contrarianism has done zero to discuss anything serious and reflects a common problem of human nature to look like a messiah on the internet.
In truth, if Ice Age were the establishment’s belief, these internet contrarians would be Global Warming advocates and if Miles Mathis’ views were the establishment’s views, then these contrarians would be hardcore calculus advocates.
PLAYER WRITES:
“Player, I have been there.”
First error.
“I have seen all these websites”
Second. “all” really?
“amateur scientists”
the three errors per line in reasoning proccess dares to call others “amateurs”
“Electrical Universe Theory”
Not my favorite, but hardly worse than big-banged heliocentric rotating 4.5 billion old sphere governed by either Newton or Einstein’s followers (hard to choose who was more wrong and did more harm)
“Vaccines Don’t Work”
Logical conclusion of a wrong theory (Pascalian instead of Bechamp). Another point of attack is to consider they work fine, from the point of view that their objective is not the officialy given one.
“Ice Age incoming”
Unlike the tax-eaters state-Academia you worship, I recognize the complexity of making such predictions.
I do believed there was a flood like event that change the world we live in, and that it happened a few centuries ago, in the last millenia (all history previous to that is false or misdated. You have been told fairy tales by state court-historians)
“All of those websites made with terrible 1990s HTML”
Error. Maybe they have the appearance of 90’s because they were made in the 90! Or maybe you give more attention to the colors instead of the thesis being given, that would seriously question your intelectual capabilities and therefore your capability to judge any theory.
“promises of groundbreaking work”
because “groundbreaking work” can only come from NASA and big government agencies right? Never from the garage of an enterpreuner. Are you sure you are in the right forum? Do you understand the nature of the state and of institutions and enterpreunership?
“on the field done by people working outside their area of expertise.”
Sure, because the secrets of nature are locked until you get a state license, nature will beep a message ‘unauthorized access’, they will connect with the university and check whetever electricity should act or refuse to act in front of you in anger.
“I don’t intend to criticise those people”
Error. You just did exactly that in the three lines above. And more error because you are not able to criticize them.
“who very much love what they do”
Unlike the tax-eater at the state-academia who love our money. Hmm.. who should we trust?
“and who may even have a point (who knows?)”
Who knows? Maybe anybody with an active brain and the will to check what they say themselves?
Have you ever check the curvature of the Earth? The distance to the Sun?
Are you a scientist or a loud-speaker for the State-Academia?
Are you repeating what they tell you or do you ever test anything on your own to verify their claims?
“I do intend to criticice their tagging-along”
Funny, I thought those championed in the State-Academia should be the ones to be criticized and analyzed and those censored given a fair chance. You do the opposite, worship the State-Approved Heroes and criticize their critics.
"declaring anybody who believes something to be “sheeple”. "
I call every single man who believes anything from the state without checking a sheeple. May it be history or astronomy.
Sheeple means blind-follower. None of you have ever read how the distance to the sun is measured, question it, search for other explanations/theories or tried to do it yourself. You are blindly following the State-Approved claims it’s Academis is tasked to spread.
“and all because of one website they read on the internet”
So, Truth depend on a majority vote now?
“has done zero to discuss anything serious”
You are not in a state of mind to seriously discuss or question anything.
“In truth, if Ice Age were the establishment’s belief, these internet contrarians would be Global Warming advocates”
Yeah, it’s called debate, oppositing views, alternate theories, also checking, verifying, it’s how knowledge advances. It’s also called questioning, or demanding proof or presenting other theories. What you prefer is one-minded close unified unquestioned sacred discourse, protected not by Inquisition but by indoctrination and more effective self-censorship where people are afraid to speak their minds out of fear because we all “know” what we’ve been told in school and must be true and people like you will do the State’s job of gathering the questioning sheeples back to the herd with a reprimand “don’t listen to that internet guys, they are amateurs…” as you just did.
What I wanted to say is that if we have discovered corruption in faculties by the spreading of erronous Keynesian concepts… could the same happen in other faculties and sciences?
Getting rid of state’s money is as important as getting rid of state’s misconceptions on sciences and the physical world.
Aircrafts fly, don’t they? How can calculus be wrong, than?
http://www.rqriley.com/wrights.htm
“the Wright Brothers’ conquest is equally as impressive as their technical achievement. Neither Orville nor Wilbur had graduated from High School. They had no formal training in the scientific theories and methodologies considered essential to designing a successful flying machine, so their chance of success was remote. As a result, they received no financial support. Their experiments had to be supported entirely with their own money.”
Curious…the inventor of airplane had no scientific background at all! Maybe that’s why they succeed! They weren’t poisoned with calculus and absurd mathematical models in virtual reality with no relation to the world… maybe they live in our world, unlike the physicians like Einstein who never did anything outside his mental imaginations.
Math is one thing, it could look great on a book, or on paper, the problem is in bringing math models to apply to reality, to the physical world, that’s the big problem, they are different things, that’s one of the biggest problems today, the addiction to math and the forgotten notion that they are different worlds and a careful transition is critical from theoretical math in paper/imagination to it’s relation to real matter on this world.
And your argument is a fallacy too, do planes fly thanks to calculus or in spite of calculus? The same with the state.
I imagined you would reply on these lines. Ok, fine. Modern fighter planes, starting from the F-16 onwards are all designed for negative stability, i.e. they cannot fly. The fact that they do is a only due to computers which make microadjustments in order to keep it in the air (the idea is to make th eplase very agile).
Now, how can we imagine such microadjustments, hundreds by the second, to be possible to code into a computer if we have only the Wright’s know-how at our disposal? No calculus there?
I mention flight as one example, but I could say engineering in general. My understanding is that the wonders of modern engineering would have been impossible to design without calculus.
Math vs. economics or the state is not in the same position as math vs. engineering, as in engineering you can isolate factors.
Player, cut out a 10" diameter card-board wheel/circle. Wrap a piece of thread around its circumference. Measure its length. Is it closer to 31.4" or 40"?
Z.
[EDIT: Wow, my 1,000-th post here. Never thought it would get this far.]
there are a lot of accurate and inaccurate things on these alternative science and math sites. you can’t collectivize them.
here is something good i found in 5 minutes on the Miles Mathis site:
Likewise, I believe in the accuracy and usefulness of many of the equations of QED. But QED is still in large part a heuristic math posing as a theory. Even Feynman admitted this before he died, to the chagrin of most in the field.
why the crazy-huge font? but anway, this is totally correct. heuristic math posing as a physical model. the general public funds this stuff believing it is a physical model. they believe they have the physical model, so no one goes looking for it. this is how science dies.
as for the rest, i will read it and report back.
in the meantime, anyone interested in this type of thing will surely enjoy reading this entire thread if you are interested in problems stemming from improper use of math in physics and other fields.
nice quote from the site:
Very few people know anything about [relativity]. The few that do are working on billion-dollar projects—to discover the graviton or launch the next satellite. The last thing they want is some theoretical controversy to get in the way of funding.
interesting claim, especially considering the inherent problems of government funding of science:
Einstein is famous for stating that a theorist should be able to explain his theory to an eighth grader, but he did not practice what he preached. Like his precursors, he could not explain his theory even to his peers. Relativity has remained uncorrected for a century not because it is flawless but because, as written, it has been impervious to understanding. Nor was this imperviousness an accident. Some might argue that Einstein simply fell a little short in places—no theory is born in complete and perfect form. But this belief cannot hold: Einstein imported the tensor calculus into Special Relativity himself, though it was completely unnecessary and ill-advised. He did this mainly as a public relations move, to impress the mathematical elite, to dress his theory up for the trip to Princeton.
looks like he might be onto some of the problems i mentioned in that other thread where we specifically were debating infinity and infinitessimals:
Mathematicians spent two millennia refining an error. The calculus is true, but its theory is false. It does not work the way anyone has ever thought it does, or for the reason anyone has ever thought it does. It has nothing to do with infinitesimals or limits.
i’m almost afraid to report it, but this guy is making sense:
I maintain that time is simply a measurement of movement. This is its most direct definition. Whenever we measure time, we measure movement. We cannot measure time without measuring movement. The concept of time is dependent upon the concept of movement. Without movement, there is no time. Every clock measures movement: the vibration of a cesium atom, the swing of pendulum, the movement of a second hand.
In this way time can be thought of as a distance measurement. When we measure distance, we measure movement. We measure the change in position. When we measure time, we measure the same thing, but give it another name. Why would we do this? Why give two names and two concepts to the same thing? Distance and Time. I say, in order to compare one to the other. Time is just a second, comparative, measurement of distance.
in this, what he is saying is that “the car is moving at 60 miles per hour” is the same as saying “the car is moving at 60 miles per 15 degrees of the movement of the sun across the sky” (15 = 360/24, so 15 degrees of movement is what we call an “hour”). the modern equivalent is “the car is moving at 60 miles per some huge number of angstroms traced by the vibration of a cesium atom”.
and he is saying absolutely uniform time is an incoherent concept, because time is always relative, by definition, as operationally it is always just a comparison of (measured) distances traveled.
this guy gets it (at least part of it); 4D space is absurdity dressed up to sound like YOU can’t understand it, in other words to intimidate:
Four-dimensional Space
Minkowski is known as the father of four-dimensional space. In his theory, time becomes a fourth dimension, mathematically equivalent to x, y, and z. In fact, by setting his quadratic equation equal to 1, instead of to zero, Minkowski implied that time travels at a right angle to all three of the other dimensions. It was therefore equivalent to a spatial vector, travelling orthogonally. It so doing, it created what mathematicians call symmetry. The t variable could then be incorporated into matrices as an absolute equal to the other distance variables.
This theory was appealing to those who are attracted to mathematical esoterica, but unfortunately it is completely false. As I have shown, time is a measurement of movement. Without movement there is no time. But this movement already has a direction, determined by x, y, z: it cannot be given a secondary vector. All motion is a vector, and that vector must coincide to some distance vector within the 3-d continuum x, y, z. So to state that time has a vector outside this continuum is false. If time is a measurement of motion and all motion is contained in x, y, z, then time cannot be outside of or external or superadded to x, y, z.
Did the genius right this 5 minutes ago or 5 meters ago? or never and always because he is a 3dman in a 3dworld for which time is absent ?
5 meters of what?
Who said that time was absent?
(Wasn’t he trying to define the dimension of “time” in terms of the three dimensions of “space”, rather than saying that it’s “absent”?)
Einstein himself was very wary of abstract math, purposely avoiding it until 1912. Put simply, he “did not trust it.” But in that year he discovered Gauss, and called on his friend Grossman to help him with the math. A couple of years later Einstein was hired in Berlin, and there he got even better help, from Hilbert and Klein, no less. Einstein had asked the wolf in at the front door.
I don’t think it is an accident or coincidence that the first thing the wolf tried to do is take over the house. Hilbert, after schooling Einstein on all the latest techniques, tried to beat Einstein to the punch by publishing the theory of General Relativity two weeks before him. He didn’t succeed in this dastardly trick, but amazingly history has not held it against him. Einstein quickly forgave him, and now Hilbert is treated as the greatest mathematician of the 20th century. But to me, this incident perfectly presaged the way the 20th century would go. The mathematics department, invited to consult, would see its opportunity to steal the show, and it has since stolen the show. Someone like Feynman could throw barbs at the math department, but this was only misdirection. The top mathematicians could look back over their shoulder in feigned opposition, only because they had already taken over the physics department. Feynman was not smirking at mathematics, he was smirking at mathematicians who were too narrow to crossover and become famous, like he had. It was as if to say, “We now own physics, the queen of the sciences and the modern kingmaker, and you guys prefer to argue over trivialities like Fermat. That will never win you a Nobel Prize or a trip to the White House.”
5 meters traced out by a cesium atom in an atomic clock ago, perhaps, or 5 meters of the sun’s movement across the sky relative to a church steeple ago.