I object. I passed the comprehensive science exams without having to even take the courses (comped the basic science courses) at a Big Ten university. Take your criticism of me to link
Last edited:
TOTAL FIELD THEORY w'out mathematics
- Thread starter Kaiduorkhon
- Start date
Kaiduorkhon
Registered Senior Member
Not going to ignore you, AlphNumeric. E=MC2 happens to be a mathematical expression of a segment of my work. Of course it also happens to be mathematics. You just proved yourself to be very helpful with this correction, which I acknowledge, I still don't understand much of. And you're right about derivation - I derived the word from your usage of it.
The next post I put in place will be the major portion of what I left pending, when I asked you about E=MC2. Whereas, I still maintain that the radius of the (exemplary coordinate system) earth, is constantly accelerating, and that the E=MC2 formula is related to it.
Which university and what kind of exams? If you claim I'm wrong I will gladly post a few questions which my 1st year students are asked for their homeworks and see if you can answer.
We've already established that even when I provide links to posts of yours where you make claims I wish to challenge or want you to justify you refuse to answer them. You use your "Please post criticism of me in [link]" method to keep all the criticism in your thread and then you refuse to respond to said criticism. As such I will continue to criticism you where and when I feel its relevant. If you don't wish to respond then so be it. I tried, you refused. I'm not going to jump through any hoops for you when you've made it clear you have no intention of responding to any criticism of you.
Unless you can include momentum in those equation the result is wrong and your work not correct.
Kia, yesterday I reread chapter thirteen to get a better grasp on the 'translatory moment'. I see how your reference to it applies to the my "testing understanding" posts and your replies. Maybe there is a little Tao or Yin Yang in it, but which is better, Yin Yang or quantum leap? At that level of order (or disorder) there is no perfect accounting for energy in other theories. The "@" makes good sense and ties in with TFT at the quantum level IMHO. The straight line doesn't close on itself in space, but it closes on itself in time. Thanks.
Last edited:
A big ten university. First year required basic science courses. I have no interest in proving anything to you.
What university is it that you are teaching first year students? What is the name and course number? Are you listed as the instructor?
And on topic, in Kai's book, what is a translatory moment?
You've already proven you have physics knowledge inferior to university students.
I thought you knew who I am? And my university doesn't list instructors for courses, it only lists lecturers on publicly viewable websites. In order to find out marks, get course information, lecture notes, feedback etc our students have to sign into a thing called 'Blackboard'. If you don't know who I am then I'm happy to keep it like that.
Besides, I'm more than happy to point to plenty of posts by myself on these forums where I demonstrate beyond 1st year university physics knowledge and illustrate I can solve such problems. I'm certain you can't do the same. Alternatively I'm happy for you and I to start a new thread over in maths and physics and go through a few questions from sheets here. I did those when I was an undergrad and if you're half competent, so you claim, a few from the 1st term of 1st year shouldn't hold any problem for you. What do you say? I'm offering (or challenging) you a chance to show you're not a lying hack who would fail such courses, which you claim I'm incorrect in claiming. Why don't you step up for once?
So much for you stepping up and putting your knowledge where your mouth is. As usual, you illustrate why you've failed spectacularly at physics.
Kaiduorkhon
Registered Senior Member
“ Originally Posted by Kaiduorkhon
You consistently bypass the standard school regarding the non physicality of dimensions under three. ”
AlphaNumeric:
I love how cranks complain that the standard approaches to science are wrong and then fall back on precisely those same 'standard school' ideas to justify why people should listen to them. No one said "Anything under 3 dimensions is unphysical" to me and certainly objects of less than 3 dimensions are everywhere in any physics degree.
Kaiduorkhon:
How can an 'object' (a manifest physical space-time occupying entity) be a 'physical' manifestation, when it has only length, with no depth, and breadth, with no depth?
“ Originally Posted by Kaiduorkhon
Dr. Michio Kaku refers to these kinds of considerations as 'embarassing', since string 'theory' improvises 'one and two dimensional strings and membranes', extensively. ”
AlphaNumeric:
And once again you ignore how the entirity of quantum mechanics before string theory involved zero dimensional objects. Particles are modelled as points.
Kaiduorkhon:
'Mass points', to be specific - at the center of which is a neutron, proton or photon.
AlphaNumeric:
Besides, if there are more dimensions to space-time then your logic fails. If space is 5 dimensional then why do you think objects of 3 dimensions are the valid ones?
Kaiduorkhon:
Space-time is at least 6-Dimensional, it manifests as 'solid' matter in 4 dimensions, which invariably generate the 5th & 6th dimensions of electricity and magnetism. A 3-Dimensional entity is not undergoing accelerating expansion and consequently may be a black hole - an entity that becomes as physically small and dense as the 4-D universe becomes large and tenouous around it.
“ Originally Posted by Kaiduorkhon
In your own words, 'If you make a claim, the onus is on you to justify it'.
Make your case. ”
AlphaNumeric:
Right after you explicitly demonstrate you model electromagnetism.
Kaiduorkhon:
That information is in my book, p.p. 96 - 112.
“ Originally Posted by Kaiduorkhon
Maxwell was working with measurably manifest effects of electromagnetism, Newton was working with measurably manifest effects of gravity, Dirac was working with measurablly manifest effects of 'particles' (charges of electricity), Stokes was working with measurably manifest effects of gravity (rates of descent in viscous fluids). String 'theorists' allege to be working with measurably manifest effects of GR and QM; whereas, their objective - including a quantitative prediction - has yet to be realized. ”
AlphaNumeric:
All of those people were members of the Cambridge mathematics department in their day.
Kaiduorkhon:
As previously qualified, it is not clear to me how - in many cases - mathematics transcends the realm of physical measureability; particularly in the case of string 'theory', which, as I have said before, utilizes one dimensional considerations as palpable instruments of real space-time.
“ Originally Posted by Kaiduorkhon
You would have me immersed in educating myself not on the cutting edge of physics, but rather, out on a limb, with physics. Your string 'theory' resonates with a castle in the sky, where all it's architects agree that all it needs to be successful, is more bricks, building blocks and wiring. 'F (Father) theory' is the most recently added, ponderous building material. ”
AlphaNumeric:
Firstly, none of that retorts my criticism that your "What does M stand for?"
Kaiduorkhon:
'M theory' is a more recent way of alluding to string 'theory'. Is it not?
AlphaNumeric:
comments have nothing to do with actually knowing anything about M theory.
Kaiduorkhon:
M 'theory' is just as mysterious to me as is string 'theory'.
AlphaNumeric:
Secondly, why complain about the idea of you going out on a limb when you're pushing your own decades old unpublished work.
Kaiduorkhon:
The longevity of a given proposition may or not have bearing on its tenability.
AlphaNumeric:
Thirdly, if you knew about F theory you'd know its just Type IIB string theory in 10 dimensions where the complexified dilaton, which has SL(2,Z) modular invariance, can be viewed as a toric fibre over the space-time base manifold and thus forms a twelve dimensional bundle. Upon compactification of the base space to you can express the bundle as but the space-time dimension of the space remains 10.
Or didn't you follow that because all you know about F theory is gleaned from pop science books and infact you have no actual knowledge of it at all?
Kaiduorkhon:
Of course I don't follow that - it's mathematical, innercircle shop-talk among string 'theorists'.
“ Originally Posted by Kaiduorkhon
Until the required measurments are made, it's not theory. ”
AlphaNumeric:
A rose by any other name...
Kaiduorkhon:
'... can be predicted to grow and bloom, and, it does.'
“ Originally Posted by Kaiduorkhon
Will you please elaborate on what you mean by that? ”
AlphaNumeric:
The massless sector of all string theories includes a bosonic spin 2 particle whose equations of motion are the Einstein Field Equations. That is, by definition, the graviton.
“ Originally Posted by Kaiduorkhon
Gravitational waves' are the expanding charges of matter, the expanding dynamic of which is the causal identity of GR. ”
AlphaNumeric:
So quit bitching about it in string theory.
Kaiduorkhon:
Your subjection of string 'theory' is a transposition of contexts, as it responds to my statement - 'gravitational waves are the expanding charges of matter'. That is, string 'theory' embraces a mathematical world of unmanifest 'space-times'.
“ Originally Posted by Kaiduorkhon
'Zero Point Energy' (for example) is a non existent standard by which emergent energy is measured. The value of establishing a 'Zero' point, is to facilitate comparison. ”
AlphaNumeric:
Zero point energy is not synonymous with point particles. Zero point energy is the fact the quantum vacuum is not a classical vacuum. Look up your friend Feynman's work on vacuum bubble diagrams.
Or alternatively construct the quantised Hamiltonian for a scalar field.
“ Originally Posted by Kaiduorkhon
Your question willfully capitalizes on my early qualification that I don't do higher math. ”
AlphaNumeric:
So why did you claim the only way to contribute to space-time curvature is by objects which are 3 dimensional? It's a standard homework problem to derive the black hole metric for a point mass.
Kaiduorkhon:
Black holes - if they exist - are the result of a 3 dimensional consideration, becoming as small and dense as the 4 (5 & 6)dimensional universe becomes (relatively) larger and more tenuous surrounding it.
“ Originally Posted by Kaiduorkhon
With the exception of myself, I have not heard 'string theory' called anything but that - the vocabulary of 'string hypothesis' is not in your practiced language, or that of your peers, or that of the public.
”
AlphaNumeric:
And we all know the Democratic Republic of Congo is a military dictatorship but we still call it the DRC. Whatever 'string theory' is called it is what it is.
Kaiduorkhon:
The Vietnam War was called a 'Police Action', but it was still a (ten year) war. Whatever the 'liberation of the South Vietnamese people', and the 'Pacification of the VietCong' is called, is what it is?
('Anything that may be said about the Vietnam War is probably true'. - H. Kissinger)
“ Originally Posted by Kaiduorkhon
By 'approach', I mean that the building of a sky castle probably isn't a tenable idea without a lot of sky hook engineering. Again, comparable to the turtle upon which the rest of the universe balances out. ”
AlphaNumeric:
You admit you odn't know any 'higher maths' so what you view as 'sky hook engineering' could well be perfectly logical methodologies. You admit you're ignorant of basic physics methods, ie mathematical tools, and yet whine its not understandable. I don't go to Japanese and claim their culture is a massive conspiracy of BS because I don't speak their language!
Kaiduorkhon:
Don't recall alluding to string 'theory' as being a conspiracy. Much more comparable to a 'lost platoon'. And I do find your mathematical sorties comparable to what could well be 'sky hook engineering'.
“ Originally Posted by Kaiduorkhon
Thank you for that easily grasped allowance that elements of string 'theory' are 'difficult to grasp'. ”
AlphaNumeric:
Was there anyone ever claiming otherwise? Any technical subject, from neurosurgery to financial analysis to computer coding to particle physics, will have difficult to understand bits. It wouldn't be 'technical' otherwise. Subjects or things considered 'difficult' are not easy, is this a shock to you?
“ Originally Posted by Kaiduorkhon
Speaking of what people are saying, Dr. Michio Kaku is not mentioned here by you - is that due to his mixed candor about the serious problems of string theory? ”
AlphaNumeric:
I don't read his work, I don't watch TV documentaries, I don't read pop science books on string theory and I really couldn't give a whoot about what he says.
I notice you don't mention anything by Johnson, Green, Schwarz, Witten, Myers, Hull, Vafa, Becker, Becker, Polchinski, Balin, Wess, Zumino, Maldacena, Coleman, etc. Could it be you don't read actual work by people working in string theory and you get all your information from people who you know already agree with you and who brush over any and all details in order to sell their books?
Kaiduorkhon:
There are, to my lay knowledge, elements of genius within your string 'theory' ranks. Experts at identifying the exotic flora and fauna encountered in your wilderness treck. IMHO, all that accomplishes is a potentially greater following in what I do consider to be a 'lost platoon'.
AlphaNumeric:
You aren't evaluating string theory for its own merits, you already know you don't like it and so you find people who support your views and ignore all those who don't.
Kaiduorkhon:
It is true that I do not preoccupy myself with addressing 'papers', the contents of which are far beyond my comprehension, mostly due to the elaborate and extensive mathematics involved in them. On the other hand, there are popular science references authored by people who are pro string 'theory', and, who concede the serious - possibly intractable - problems encountered.
You consistently bypass the standard school regarding the non physicality of dimensions under three. ”
AlphaNumeric:
I love how cranks complain that the standard approaches to science are wrong and then fall back on precisely those same 'standard school' ideas to justify why people should listen to them. No one said "Anything under 3 dimensions is unphysical" to me and certainly objects of less than 3 dimensions are everywhere in any physics degree.
Kaiduorkhon:
How can an 'object' (a manifest physical space-time occupying entity) be a 'physical' manifestation, when it has only length, with no depth, and breadth, with no depth?
“ Originally Posted by Kaiduorkhon
Dr. Michio Kaku refers to these kinds of considerations as 'embarassing', since string 'theory' improvises 'one and two dimensional strings and membranes', extensively. ”
AlphaNumeric:
And once again you ignore how the entirity of quantum mechanics before string theory involved zero dimensional objects. Particles are modelled as points.
Kaiduorkhon:
'Mass points', to be specific - at the center of which is a neutron, proton or photon.
AlphaNumeric:
Besides, if there are more dimensions to space-time then your logic fails. If space is 5 dimensional then why do you think objects of 3 dimensions are the valid ones?
Kaiduorkhon:
Space-time is at least 6-Dimensional, it manifests as 'solid' matter in 4 dimensions, which invariably generate the 5th & 6th dimensions of electricity and magnetism. A 3-Dimensional entity is not undergoing accelerating expansion and consequently may be a black hole - an entity that becomes as physically small and dense as the 4-D universe becomes large and tenouous around it.
“ Originally Posted by Kaiduorkhon
In your own words, 'If you make a claim, the onus is on you to justify it'.
Make your case. ”
AlphaNumeric:
Right after you explicitly demonstrate you model electromagnetism.
Kaiduorkhon:
That information is in my book, p.p. 96 - 112.
“ Originally Posted by Kaiduorkhon
Maxwell was working with measurably manifest effects of electromagnetism, Newton was working with measurably manifest effects of gravity, Dirac was working with measurablly manifest effects of 'particles' (charges of electricity), Stokes was working with measurably manifest effects of gravity (rates of descent in viscous fluids). String 'theorists' allege to be working with measurably manifest effects of GR and QM; whereas, their objective - including a quantitative prediction - has yet to be realized. ”
AlphaNumeric:
All of those people were members of the Cambridge mathematics department in their day.
Kaiduorkhon:
As previously qualified, it is not clear to me how - in many cases - mathematics transcends the realm of physical measureability; particularly in the case of string 'theory', which, as I have said before, utilizes one dimensional considerations as palpable instruments of real space-time.
“ Originally Posted by Kaiduorkhon
You would have me immersed in educating myself not on the cutting edge of physics, but rather, out on a limb, with physics. Your string 'theory' resonates with a castle in the sky, where all it's architects agree that all it needs to be successful, is more bricks, building blocks and wiring. 'F (Father) theory' is the most recently added, ponderous building material. ”
AlphaNumeric:
Firstly, none of that retorts my criticism that your "What does M stand for?"
Kaiduorkhon:
'M theory' is a more recent way of alluding to string 'theory'. Is it not?
AlphaNumeric:
comments have nothing to do with actually knowing anything about M theory.
Kaiduorkhon:
M 'theory' is just as mysterious to me as is string 'theory'.
AlphaNumeric:
Secondly, why complain about the idea of you going out on a limb when you're pushing your own decades old unpublished work.
Kaiduorkhon:
The longevity of a given proposition may or not have bearing on its tenability.
AlphaNumeric:
Thirdly, if you knew about F theory you'd know its just Type IIB string theory in 10 dimensions where the complexified dilaton, which has SL(2,Z) modular invariance, can be viewed as a toric fibre over the space-time base manifold and thus forms a twelve dimensional bundle. Upon compactification of the base space to you can express the bundle as but the space-time dimension of the space remains 10.
Or didn't you follow that because all you know about F theory is gleaned from pop science books and infact you have no actual knowledge of it at all?
Kaiduorkhon:
Of course I don't follow that - it's mathematical, innercircle shop-talk among string 'theorists'.
“ Originally Posted by Kaiduorkhon
Until the required measurments are made, it's not theory. ”
AlphaNumeric:
A rose by any other name...
Kaiduorkhon:
'... can be predicted to grow and bloom, and, it does.'
“ Originally Posted by Kaiduorkhon
Will you please elaborate on what you mean by that? ”
AlphaNumeric:
The massless sector of all string theories includes a bosonic spin 2 particle whose equations of motion are the Einstein Field Equations. That is, by definition, the graviton.
“ Originally Posted by Kaiduorkhon
Gravitational waves' are the expanding charges of matter, the expanding dynamic of which is the causal identity of GR. ”
AlphaNumeric:
So quit bitching about it in string theory.
Kaiduorkhon:
Your subjection of string 'theory' is a transposition of contexts, as it responds to my statement - 'gravitational waves are the expanding charges of matter'. That is, string 'theory' embraces a mathematical world of unmanifest 'space-times'.
“ Originally Posted by Kaiduorkhon
'Zero Point Energy' (for example) is a non existent standard by which emergent energy is measured. The value of establishing a 'Zero' point, is to facilitate comparison. ”
AlphaNumeric:
Zero point energy is not synonymous with point particles. Zero point energy is the fact the quantum vacuum is not a classical vacuum. Look up your friend Feynman's work on vacuum bubble diagrams.
Or alternatively construct the quantised Hamiltonian for a scalar field.
“ Originally Posted by Kaiduorkhon
Your question willfully capitalizes on my early qualification that I don't do higher math. ”
AlphaNumeric:
So why did you claim the only way to contribute to space-time curvature is by objects which are 3 dimensional? It's a standard homework problem to derive the black hole metric for a point mass.
Kaiduorkhon:
Black holes - if they exist - are the result of a 3 dimensional consideration, becoming as small and dense as the 4 (5 & 6)dimensional universe becomes (relatively) larger and more tenuous surrounding it.
“ Originally Posted by Kaiduorkhon
With the exception of myself, I have not heard 'string theory' called anything but that - the vocabulary of 'string hypothesis' is not in your practiced language, or that of your peers, or that of the public.
”
AlphaNumeric:
And we all know the Democratic Republic of Congo is a military dictatorship but we still call it the DRC. Whatever 'string theory' is called it is what it is.
Kaiduorkhon:
The Vietnam War was called a 'Police Action', but it was still a (ten year) war. Whatever the 'liberation of the South Vietnamese people', and the 'Pacification of the VietCong' is called, is what it is?
('Anything that may be said about the Vietnam War is probably true'. - H. Kissinger)
“ Originally Posted by Kaiduorkhon
By 'approach', I mean that the building of a sky castle probably isn't a tenable idea without a lot of sky hook engineering. Again, comparable to the turtle upon which the rest of the universe balances out. ”
AlphaNumeric:
You admit you odn't know any 'higher maths' so what you view as 'sky hook engineering' could well be perfectly logical methodologies. You admit you're ignorant of basic physics methods, ie mathematical tools, and yet whine its not understandable. I don't go to Japanese and claim their culture is a massive conspiracy of BS because I don't speak their language!
Kaiduorkhon:
Don't recall alluding to string 'theory' as being a conspiracy. Much more comparable to a 'lost platoon'. And I do find your mathematical sorties comparable to what could well be 'sky hook engineering'.
“ Originally Posted by Kaiduorkhon
Thank you for that easily grasped allowance that elements of string 'theory' are 'difficult to grasp'. ”
AlphaNumeric:
Was there anyone ever claiming otherwise? Any technical subject, from neurosurgery to financial analysis to computer coding to particle physics, will have difficult to understand bits. It wouldn't be 'technical' otherwise. Subjects or things considered 'difficult' are not easy, is this a shock to you?
“ Originally Posted by Kaiduorkhon
Speaking of what people are saying, Dr. Michio Kaku is not mentioned here by you - is that due to his mixed candor about the serious problems of string theory? ”
AlphaNumeric:
I don't read his work, I don't watch TV documentaries, I don't read pop science books on string theory and I really couldn't give a whoot about what he says.
I notice you don't mention anything by Johnson, Green, Schwarz, Witten, Myers, Hull, Vafa, Becker, Becker, Polchinski, Balin, Wess, Zumino, Maldacena, Coleman, etc. Could it be you don't read actual work by people working in string theory and you get all your information from people who you know already agree with you and who brush over any and all details in order to sell their books?
Kaiduorkhon:
There are, to my lay knowledge, elements of genius within your string 'theory' ranks. Experts at identifying the exotic flora and fauna encountered in your wilderness treck. IMHO, all that accomplishes is a potentially greater following in what I do consider to be a 'lost platoon'.
AlphaNumeric:
You aren't evaluating string theory for its own merits, you already know you don't like it and so you find people who support your views and ignore all those who don't.
Kaiduorkhon:
It is true that I do not preoccupy myself with addressing 'papers', the contents of which are far beyond my comprehension, mostly due to the elaborate and extensive mathematics involved in them. On the other hand, there are popular science references authored by people who are pro string 'theory', and, who concede the serious - possibly intractable - problems encountered.
What does 'manifest physical space-time occupying entity' mean? Does a point occur a region of space-time? Yes. Does a line? Yes. Does a plane? Yes. Does a volume? Tes. Can objects of all those dimensionalities contribute to the dynamics of space-time curvature in relativity? Yes. Can all those objects interact within one another in quantum field theory? Yes. Can they all carry charges, momentum, energy, spin etc? Yes.
Please explain why, other than the disdain you have for non-3D objects, such facts still don't allow for non-3D things to be viable objects.
No, points. As in no extension in any direction. No length, breath or depth. No size at all. All fundamental objects in quantum field theory are points. Neutrons, protons etc are not fundamental and their size is in some way measured by the seperation of the quarks which form them. The quarks are points.
You mention people who don't like string theory because of extra dimensions but you ignore the fact their criticism would apply to your work too. You have no evidence of extra dimensions.
My point is that being highly mathematical in education or detail does not preclude the possibility of viable physics. The entity of quantum mechanics follows from Dirac realising that the classical mathematical object of a Poisson bracket could be generalised and applied to quantum mechanics. If you know how to do calculus doing Poisson brackets much of quantum theory is familiar ground. It was only because Dirac remembered an old mathematics lecture he'd once been in that he made the connection.
No. When you construct a quantised string theory which includes both fermions and bosons you find you can do it in a number of ways which lead to a consistent theory. 5 ways infact. This wasn't very good if 'string theory' is supposed to be a unique theory but then Witten realised if you viewed the string as a wrapped up membrane then the 5 ways were just different low energy theories of the same underlying membrane theory, M theory. Its like electric and magnetic fields. You can tell there's something relating them and they are both consistent but they only rreally make sense when you realise they are one and the same, the electromagnetic field.
(Actually, I've just realised that's a poor example as you gon't get electromagnetism either....)
Emphasis mine....
I can tell you more about M theory than I can about semiconductor technology, fluid mechanics or British politics (I'm British).
No, but generally if its been out in the public domain for a long time and no one has taken any interest its likely they aren't going to.
It's technical talk. Doesn't make it wrong or nonsense. Doctors talk technical stuff all the time but I'm damn glad they do. I'd prefer a doctor who knows all the technical work with regards to an illness I might have compared to one who says "What the hell is one of those!". Wouldn't you?
GW are not expanding charges of matter. Electromagnetic waves are not expanding charges, they are caused by accelerating charges, just as GW are caused by accelerating masses.
Scaramouche
Registered Member
James: A theory or hypothesis does not require equations for it to be entirely accurate and valid. That is a big misunderstanding or misconception these days, the idea that it needs equations to be valid, or to simply be a workable hypothesis.
Something like that with no mathematics at all is a guess. If there are no equations there are no quantitative predictions and the whole thing is a colossal waste of time.
Scaramouche
Registered Member
I have not read the material from the beginning of this thread, but is is not relevant to the point.
Theory or hypothesis does not need equations to be valid. As I said earlier, that assumption is a very recent phenomenon which completely ignores the fact that most of our earlier ideas were developed without such things. It is a conceit of mathematicians and those who tend to be unable to think beyond the set of rules they've had presented to them.
It is also, sadly, what causes people to believe that producing an arseload of equations which fit and work and function properly means they've actually produced some sort of truth, despite the complete lack of actual evidence. For example, the idea of multiple universes, or the idea of black holes leading to multiple universes. People draw up some equations that fit together, find no errors, and say "Yep, it's a viable hypothesis because the equations work!", even though there has never been a single shred of evidence supporting such nonsense. That's just one example; it's all over modern physics.
Examples of early hypotheses which functioned yet required no equations include medicinal cures, designs of early war machines, military tactics, early rocketry, navigation by sun position, and more.
Quite simply, the notion that a theory requires equations to be a theory is wrong.
Does it not?
In physics how is a theory going to give predictions if there's no mathematics involved?
If there's no numbers how is it going to be tested? What measurements can be taken to confirm or refute the hypothesis?
Um, no they don't.
And it's a specious, false example.
Keep trying.
What specifically were the hypotheses (theories) forwarded in each case?
Scaramouche
Registered Member
I have actually already answered these, back when I said "Examples of early hypotheses which functioned yet required no equations include medicinal cures, designs of early war machines, military tactics, early rocketry, navigation by sun position, and more."
Let's look at one example: tactics. A general develops an idea, a tactic. It is put into action. It succeeds or it fails. He may try it a hundred times, with consistent or varying results. He can certainly make predictions from it. As for measurements, you can count he bodies afterward.
However, you've fallen to another modern misconception: that the theory or hypothesis must have measurements. This is not true. The theory may yield a binary result: victory or defeat. Yes or no. No need for a measurement, a degree of one thing or the other.
We could look at early rocketry. Mix up some combinations of various substances, try different amounts, until you find a smoking powder sufficiently strong to propel your rocket. Make an arseload of them, fire them off, and see how far they go. Measure the range if you want, so the general can place and use them effectively.
This is nothing. Don't post empty claims like those two.
Don't let your ego goad you into posting silly flamey things like that.
See the examples above. No, I am not going to give you an education in the histories and developments of cooking, medicine, chemistry, warfare, sailing, and so many other fields simply because you lack knowledge of those fields. Do what I've already done, and go learn them.
Did you miss the word "specific"?
Which particular cure?
Which particular tactic?
And generals, (along with scientists) are fully aware that no two battles are the same.
Oops.
Yes or no IS a measurement.
Quite: I think you'll find, as with most of the other examples that that is an example of experiment or trial by error. Not testing a theory. (Check the actual meaning of theory before your next reply).
On the contrary, yours was the empty claim - you provided no examples to substantiate it.
Oh wait, maybe you meant -
Which originated to account for observation, i.e. evidence.
There's a scientific theory on that? Or just speculation?
Another assumption.
Hmm, your ego on display?
Edit: you'll also note (or maybe not) that I said "in physics": which happens to be the subject of this thread.
Hence any theory (or even pseudotheory) should include mathematics if it's going to be of any use (or expect to be).
Last edited:
Gees, I just learned about Logical Positivism half an hour ago and look what breaks out 
.
.Whilst I don't really want to get involved in this thread, I would point out to casual readers that I believe this statement to be an absolute lie.
I work in a "big 10" university, and have taught students from at least three other "big ten" universities, so I'm familiar with the levels of competency expected at these institutions. I don't believe the person in question would pass a high school science exam.
I know you've claimed something to be true. I'm calling you a liar, and I'm giving the readers my reasoning.