Excuse me? You missed the point. Newton's revolutionary work was on Gravity. He didn't mention the graviton, duh, he described gravity. The graviton is today's hide and seek.
TOTAL FIELD THEORY w'out mathematics
- Thread starter Kaiduorkhon
- Start date
I'm sorry I think you are missing the point, it is incorrect to say that Newton's work on mechanics was based on a hypothetical particle, it isn't.
So, do you take everything literally? If you have paid even the slightest attention, Kai's writing is colorful.
I have paid attention and I disagree it isn't colourful, it's black and white, at least on my browser.
I recommend reading this book:
lightandmatter dot com /area1book1 dot html
Of particular interest are pages 19-24
OK, have it your way. I was just pointng out the obvious.
Kaiduorkhon
Registered Senior Member
“ Originally Posted by Kaiduorkhon
Introductory Note:
Newton asserted ‘Hypothesis non fingo’. - ‘I make no hypothesis’. Yet, his entire, unarguably revolutionary Classical Mechanics was based on the hypothetical particle that science has yet to assuredly accommodate. ”
alephnull:
This is wrong. Well, that is assuming you're referencing the 'graviton'.
Kaiduorkhon: '...assuming you're referencing the graviton'.
alephnull:
Newton didn't base anything on a hypothetical particle, if you read through his work at no point does he make any assumption on the existence of a graviton. It has no bearing on his work.
Kaiduorkhon:
This is the second time this 'correction' has been hurled. The first was by 'BenTheMan', as quoted in my book.
Newton not only did not make any assumption of the existence of a graviton, string 'theory's' ongoing expedition in search of one is lost in the undrained swamp. My work moreover predicts that no 'graviton' will ever be found, any more than any so called 'particle' (a microcosmic system with a discontinuous 'surface' separating it from the space surrounding it).
alephnull:
His work would hold up even if the graviton did not exist.
Kaiduorkhon:
'...even if the graviton did not exist.' That's an anachronism.
(Gravitons don't exist, the burden of proof is upon you and yours.)
alephnull:
Classical mechanics describes the motion and interaction of macroscopic objects, which makes no assumptions based on any hypothetical particles.
Kaiduorkhon:
The concept of 'billiard ball like objects' - particles by any other name, has been around since early Greek atomism. The heirs of Classical Mechanics attached the labels of 'Newtonian concept' to several sobriquets and supplementary names he didn't initiate, including, for that matter (as it were), not only the 'concept of an attractive force', but also, 'billiard ball like particles'.
The quote this rhubarb is based on (this time) is in the introduction to all of the (hand edited and condensed) 'particles':
"Yet, his entire, unarguably revolutionary Classical Mechanics was (and still is) based on the hypothetical particle that science has yet to assuredly accommodate."
You guys really oughtta be more careful with the quick fixes, you keep hurting yourself in your desperate haste to scramble for the high ground.
"This is wrong. Well, that is assuming you're referencing the 'graviton'."
'Assume', is it, this time... (Hee haw?)
At irregular intervals, the world press and scientific journals at large will report on contradictions and disqualifications of Einstein's theories. Modifications of the works of Newton and Einstein, for example, do correctly occur. Whereas, until the foundations of physical science represented by Newton and Einstein, for example, are replaced with some more improved system, the displacement of the work of the issued giants of science is confined to whatever slight adjustment, accompanied by whatever hype dissertation.
Then, there are the ambitions of physicists attempting to discover, isolate or insulate gravity waves (Refer 'gravitons').
And yet, like the 4th Dimension, the only appropriate question regarding phenomenological gravity, is, 'Where is it not?'.
Yet still, Contemporary Physics and its mentors continue to brush aside electromagnetism (in the micro and macrocosms) in - high and low, large and small - probes, hunts, expeditions and searches for gravity waves (Where are they not? The bespectacled adventurers are wearing the corrective lenses they're frantically looking for).
"Although relativity theory replaces gravity by a geometrical warping of space-time, it leaves many basic questions unanswered. Does this warping take place instantaneously through space or does it propagate like a wave motion? Almost all physicists agree that the warping moves like a wave and that these waves travel with the speed of light. There is also good reason (sic) to believe that gravity waves consist of tiny indivisible particles of energy called "gravitons." In 1969, Joseph Weber, at the University of Maryland, announced that his equipment, consisting of huge aluminum cylinders, had detected gravity radiation. It seemed to be coming from cataclysmic events at the center of the Milky Way. Since then, dozens of attempts have been made to confirm Weber's claim, some by physicists with detecting equipment more sensitive than Weber's. The results have been negative. The present consensus is that Weber misinterpreted his readings, and that gravity waves have not yet been observed (Have not yet been proven)...
“As for gravitons, no one has any knowledge of what a graviton is like, although many physicists are trying to invent theories that will predict some of its properties. Presumably it contains a tiny bit of space-time curvature, otherwise large numbers of gravitons would be unable to transmit curvature through space. At the moment the graviton, like the particle physicists' quark,' remains a hypothetical beast that physicists hope someday to capture."
- p. 106, THE RELATIVITY EXPLOSION, by Martin Gardner
Introductory Note:
Newton asserted ‘Hypothesis non fingo’. - ‘I make no hypothesis’. Yet, his entire, unarguably revolutionary Classical Mechanics was based on the hypothetical particle that science has yet to assuredly accommodate. ”
alephnull:
This is wrong. Well, that is assuming you're referencing the 'graviton'.
Kaiduorkhon: '...assuming you're referencing the graviton'.
alephnull:
Newton didn't base anything on a hypothetical particle, if you read through his work at no point does he make any assumption on the existence of a graviton. It has no bearing on his work.
Kaiduorkhon:
This is the second time this 'correction' has been hurled. The first was by 'BenTheMan', as quoted in my book.
Newton not only did not make any assumption of the existence of a graviton, string 'theory's' ongoing expedition in search of one is lost in the undrained swamp. My work moreover predicts that no 'graviton' will ever be found, any more than any so called 'particle' (a microcosmic system with a discontinuous 'surface' separating it from the space surrounding it).
alephnull:
His work would hold up even if the graviton did not exist.
Kaiduorkhon:
'...even if the graviton did not exist.' That's an anachronism.
(Gravitons don't exist, the burden of proof is upon you and yours.)
alephnull:
Classical mechanics describes the motion and interaction of macroscopic objects, which makes no assumptions based on any hypothetical particles.
Kaiduorkhon:
The concept of 'billiard ball like objects' - particles by any other name, has been around since early Greek atomism. The heirs of Classical Mechanics attached the labels of 'Newtonian concept' to several sobriquets and supplementary names he didn't initiate, including, for that matter (as it were), not only the 'concept of an attractive force', but also, 'billiard ball like particles'.
The quote this rhubarb is based on (this time) is in the introduction to all of the (hand edited and condensed) 'particles':
"Yet, his entire, unarguably revolutionary Classical Mechanics was (and still is) based on the hypothetical particle that science has yet to assuredly accommodate."
You guys really oughtta be more careful with the quick fixes, you keep hurting yourself in your desperate haste to scramble for the high ground.
"This is wrong. Well, that is assuming you're referencing the 'graviton'."
'Assume', is it, this time... (Hee haw?)
At irregular intervals, the world press and scientific journals at large will report on contradictions and disqualifications of Einstein's theories. Modifications of the works of Newton and Einstein, for example, do correctly occur. Whereas, until the foundations of physical science represented by Newton and Einstein, for example, are replaced with some more improved system, the displacement of the work of the issued giants of science is confined to whatever slight adjustment, accompanied by whatever hype dissertation.
Then, there are the ambitions of physicists attempting to discover, isolate or insulate gravity waves (Refer 'gravitons').
And yet, like the 4th Dimension, the only appropriate question regarding phenomenological gravity, is, 'Where is it not?'.
Yet still, Contemporary Physics and its mentors continue to brush aside electromagnetism (in the micro and macrocosms) in - high and low, large and small - probes, hunts, expeditions and searches for gravity waves (Where are they not? The bespectacled adventurers are wearing the corrective lenses they're frantically looking for).
"Although relativity theory replaces gravity by a geometrical warping of space-time, it leaves many basic questions unanswered. Does this warping take place instantaneously through space or does it propagate like a wave motion? Almost all physicists agree that the warping moves like a wave and that these waves travel with the speed of light. There is also good reason (sic) to believe that gravity waves consist of tiny indivisible particles of energy called "gravitons." In 1969, Joseph Weber, at the University of Maryland, announced that his equipment, consisting of huge aluminum cylinders, had detected gravity radiation. It seemed to be coming from cataclysmic events at the center of the Milky Way. Since then, dozens of attempts have been made to confirm Weber's claim, some by physicists with detecting equipment more sensitive than Weber's. The results have been negative. The present consensus is that Weber misinterpreted his readings, and that gravity waves have not yet been observed (Have not yet been proven)...
“As for gravitons, no one has any knowledge of what a graviton is like, although many physicists are trying to invent theories that will predict some of its properties. Presumably it contains a tiny bit of space-time curvature, otherwise large numbers of gravitons would be unable to transmit curvature through space. At the moment the graviton, like the particle physicists' quark,' remains a hypothetical beast that physicists hope someday to capture."
- p. 106, THE RELATIVITY EXPLOSION, by Martin Gardner
Last edited:
Kaiduorkhon
Registered Senior Member
“ Originally Posted by quantum_wave
So, do you take everything literally? If you have paid even the slightest attention, Kai's writing is colorful. ”
alephnull:
I have paid attention and I disagree it isn't colourful, it's black and white, at least on my browser.
I recommend reading this book:
lightandmatter dot com /area1book1 dot html
Of particular interest are pages 19-24
Kaiduorkhon:
The last ('Time Cube comes to mind') recommendation you made - www.timecube.com - proved out to be very colorful - and of particular interest - indeed.
Including the small portion of it that I posted on page 26, post #251 - You know, that post that you replied: "I have no idea what you're saying", to... It was what you said that was at point...
There's an essay out, titled:
'The Art of Missing the Point: When you can't Afford to Catch On.'
I might recommend that you read it, but then, there's always the possibility that your wrote it, as well.
So, do you take everything literally? If you have paid even the slightest attention, Kai's writing is colorful. ”
alephnull:
I have paid attention and I disagree it isn't colourful, it's black and white, at least on my browser.
I recommend reading this book:
lightandmatter dot com /area1book1 dot html
Of particular interest are pages 19-24
Kaiduorkhon:
The last ('Time Cube comes to mind') recommendation you made - www.timecube.com - proved out to be very colorful - and of particular interest - indeed.
Including the small portion of it that I posted on page 26, post #251 - You know, that post that you replied: "I have no idea what you're saying", to... It was what you said that was at point...
There's an essay out, titled:
'The Art of Missing the Point: When you can't Afford to Catch On.'
I might recommend that you read it, but then, there's always the possibility that your wrote it, as well.
It was a valid assumption. You said a hypothetical particle, which it is, which physics is yet to assuredly accommodate, which is definitely your view on the graviton. The sentence was ambiguous and incorrect.
When, in classical mechanics, we refer to something as a point particle, we do not mean it is an electron, proton, graviton, etc. we just mean it an object of negligible size so as to make calculations easier by reducing degrees of freedom.
A physical system, such as classical mechanics, can make pretty much any assumption it likes, so long as it is logically valid and makes predictions that can be backed up experimentally. That's what science is, you should read the link in my last post.
Some aspects of classical mechanics can be described using the billiard ball particle analogy, but it's only an analogy, it is not implying that particles are tangible spherical objects.
Surely you get past thinking of sub atomic particles as billiards when you're a teenager.
Particle interactions cannot be correctly explained by Newtonian mechanics, hence the invention of quantum mechanics.
I fail to see the crux of your point. Can you explain it to me in one sentence?
Do you know what a particle is?
Let me quote Steven Weinberg : "Let me declare first of all that there is no difficulty in saying what is meant by a particle. A particle is simply a physical system that has no continuous degrees of freedom except for its total momentum."
I'm going to break this down for you so you do not miss the point.
I said that after reading your work, the only conclusion I could draw is that it 'is not even wrong'. This is a well known term used in science for work that is based on assumptions that are known to be incorrect, or on theories that cannot be falsified or used to predict anything.
I then said 'TimeCube' comes to mind. This wasn't a recommendation.
TimeCube is also well known in the science community (particularly forum goers) as the author received a lot of publicity when he offered a large reward to anyone that could disprove his 'Theories'.
The trouble being they're also 'not even wrong' and hence cannot be disproved.
No it isn't.
First you can’t pick out humor in an obviously hilarious post.
Then you take literally what is obviously not meant literally.
Then you joke about taking things literally by saying there is no color in Kai’s posts because they are black and white on your screen.
Then when you address having been accused of assuming things which is the first thing that is pointed out to amateurs, you deny it.
Do you agree that you are “not even wrong”, or at least quite wrong lately?
The reason I said "I assume.." is because I wasn't sure how to interpret the sentence; it has been explained to me and I now know how to interpret it and it is still incorrect.
I didn't say, "since I know you are referring to the graviton.." . I honestly wasn't sure how the sentence was to be read.
I fail to see how Kai's post about the standard model is a joke, clearly my hilarity unit is malfunctioning.
You do not know what 'not even wrong' means even though I explained it.
I admit I was wrong in my assumption, but what's the problem with that? I owned up to it and explained how I misinterpreted it.
EDIT: Also, when did I deny making an assumption? How could I even deny it when I clearly said: "assuming that.."
Kaiduorkhon
Registered Senior Member
Let me declare first of all that there aren't any particles - that is, microcosmic objects having 'surfaces' making them discontinuous from the space surrounding them. (That's one sentence.)
---------------------------------------------------------------
'Particle physicists', bear a title, with no particles upon which to perch.
Until further notice, all of 'particle physics' is a colossal misnomer.
The term is acceptable in a colloquial sense, but not scientifically accurate.
Comparable to saying that the sun 'rises' and 'sets'. It's acceptable in a colloquial sense, but not scientifically accurate.
Buckminster Fuller reminds us of the misnomers of 'sun-up' and 'sun-set', by calling them 'spin-in', and 'spin-out'...
---------------------------------------------------------------
'Particle physicists', bear a title, with no particles upon which to perch.
Until further notice, all of 'particle physics' is a colossal misnomer.
The term is acceptable in a colloquial sense, but not scientifically accurate.
Comparable to saying that the sun 'rises' and 'sets'. It's acceptable in a colloquial sense, but not scientifically accurate.
Buckminster Fuller reminds us of the misnomers of 'sun-up' and 'sun-set', by calling them 'spin-in', and 'spin-out'...
Another assumption, and wrong. How long do you think a person has to follow science discussions before they know what "not even wrong" means?
You do not know what it really means to be an elementary particle, so I can understand why, from your point of view, 'particle physics' might be a colloquialism.
http://docs.google.com/viewer?url=http://www.slac.stanford.edu/pubs/beamline/27/1/27-1-weinberg.pdf
There is no maths in the above link, just Weinberg talking about some basic particle physics. It's actually a good little read.
Do you know of wave-particle duality? Do you believe it to be true?
Here was your response. Is this were you acknowledged you had made a mistake in your assumption. I don't see it.
Well then I apologise, you simply made a mistake and used it in the wrong context.
Again you have a problem with literal translations.
You are looking at the wrong post. That post has nothing to do with my assumption, it is about my comment regarding the time cube.
Also, me not acknowledging it is not the same as me denying it. Or am I being too literal again?
It's not personal. I used the aforesaid term "tongue in cheek" and you accused me of not knowing what the term meant instead of picking up that I was being facetious.
Last edited: