All forms of radiation (microwave, gamma rays, visual light, and so forth) are photons traveling at the speed of light. Depending on the frequency of photons, dictates the classification of radiation. Thus, you could say electro-magnetic lines is visible light, but existing at a lower frequency than that of visible light and nothing more. The same radiation that is used in a microwave, if stretched, could become visible light. The only reason we don't see other forms of radiation is because our eyes do not have the biological capacity to interpret other spectrums of radiation. However, you can sense other forms of radiation as heat. You can't see microwaves emitted from a microwave but one can indeed feel the warmth of food once microwaves pass through the food. The sun releases the entire spectrum of radiation, and we all feel it on Earth as heat.
Matter of fact, the study of particle physics entails the study of matter at the particle level. Including the forces of nature.
Aircrafts fly, don't they? How can calculus be wrong, than?
Just because the premises are wrong or the argument is invalid doesn't mean the conclusion is false (or not approximately true). Also, "aircraft" are much older than the intregral and differential calculus.
"I cannot prove, but am prepared to affirm, that if you take care of clarity in reasoning, most good causes will take care of themselves, while some bad ones are taken care of as a matter of course." -Anthony de Jasay
"traveling at the speed of light"
Are you saying it is constant? The same at sea level, atmosphere and space?
"The sun releases"
How far away is the sun, how do you calculate it and with what assumptions?
Also, from where does this "entire spectrum of radiation" comes from?
And if you defend the hydrogen/helium theory, are you aware of faint sun paradox and how do you explain it´s consequential differences in size during the supposedly last billion years of Earth/Sun and it´s influences on life on Earth?
Smiling Dave:He called the invisible hands [whose existence he assumed] "forces". The only reason everyone accepted this very odd way of looking at things is that it works.
The only reason everyone accepted this very odd way of looking at things is that it works.
it works for what? i mean, all we are really doing with the word "force" is reiterating that the magnet is pulling on the filings. we are turning a verb "to pull" into a noun "force"...and we are calling this something novel, something noteworthy!
why bother turning the verb "to pull" into the noun "force" or "field lines"? because, as czelaya's response shows, this allows us to pretend that these forces and field lines are physical objects, and hence to pretend that we have come up with a physical explanation or a model of the underlying physical mechanism by which the magnet pulls on the filings.
the benefit for receiving more state funding is that now no one will attempt to figure out what causes the pull, because we already know it is the force or the force field or the field lines. but what have we learned? only that there is a pull. there is no physical elucidation via these circumlocutions. they are circumlocutions masquerading as physical explanations. what better way to make an unsolvable cash-cow problem than to misdirect people away from even asking the question, because it appears to already be answered?
"what is the physical mechanism by which the magnet pulls the filings?"
"force! field lines!"
"ok, got it."
but all the physicist has done is reiterate that the magnet is pulling on the filings, and used a noun so as to better equivocate between the innocent nominalization of an action verb "to pull" and the not-so-innocent implication that the noun refers to a physical object (though not all physicists are guilty of this; i cannot collectivize).
pulling is caused by pull! hallelujah!
czelaya:All forms of radiation (microwave, gamma rays, visual light, and so forth) are photons traveling at the speed of light.
what is the proposed shape of these photons? is "photons exist" a physical hypothesis or just a heuristic or metaphor?
The speed of light is a constant within the universe.. However, the velocity of light does change depending on the medium. However, it is not that a photon is slowing down, it is simply interacting with the medium it is traveling in to a degree.
Approximately, 93 million miles or 8 1/2 light minutes. The only assumptions that need to be made is that the void is space is essentially empty and that light travels at 3.0x10^8 m/s in a vacuum.
The spectrum of radiation is just an identification system for classifying the frequency of radiation.
I don't know the hydrogen/helium theory (are you talking about the fusion of Hydrogen to Helium and how the mass defect creates pure energy that can be quantified by E=mc^2).
I've never heard anyone state that the sun exists at a constant size. The size of the sun is due to a balancing between inward force of gravit and the energy output created by the fusion process.
Zangelbert,
I agree that there is no great philosophic breakthrough here, or even new insight into what's really going on. Newton's great contributions were his equations, which basically state that you need to add force to change acceleration [but not velocity, as was thought until his time].
I don't think his equations implied that there is nothing to be gained by going deeper, or that there is something to be gained. I don't see how they lead to, or are the result of, some statist conspiracy.
My humble blog
It's easy to refute an argument if you first misrepresent it. William Keizer
not a conspiracy, just bad incentives. going deeper is discouraged. in fact, do you know anyone in the mainstream who is even trying to model the shape of the physical objects in order to discover new physical mechanisms? this is what physics used to be, but now this approach seems to have been completely abandoned in favor of endless mathematical abstractions that don't even attempt to posit new physical mechanisms. this is obscured by all the "physical" metaphors and heuristics, but as you can see if you press a physicist on whether these are really physical mechanisms they will eventually have to admit that they are not, and that they are just metaphors or heuristics.
czelaya: All forms of radiation (microwave, gamma rays, visual light, and so forth) are photons traveling at the speed of light. Depending on the frequency of photons, dictates the classification of radiation. Thus, you could say electro-magnetic lines is visible light, but existing at a lower frequency than that of visible light and nothing more. The same radiation that is used in a microwave, if stretched, could become visible light. The only reason we don't see other forms of radiation is because our eyes do not have the biological capacity to interpret other spectrums of radiation. However, you can sense other forms of radiation as heat. You can't see microwaves emitted from a microwave but one can indeed feel the warmth of food once microwaves pass through the food. The sun releases the entire spectrum of radiation, and we all feel it on Earth as heat. Matter of fact, the study of particle physics entails the study of matter at the particle level. Including the forces of nature.
Okay, all that I see is the magnet, the iron fillings, and some regularity in their motion.
But, to be clear, I'm not limiting what I see to what I can see with my bare eyes. If you point to something that I would need specialized equipment to "see", that would be fine. I'm just asking for us to stick to what we can observe, and not indulge in reifying the language, as if "field lines" is something that actually exists apart from how the physical objects move in relation to each other. As far as I can see, we employ the word "field lines" to talk about how a specific kind of spatial object travels in comparison to another specific kind of spatial object. It's nothing but a convenient "linguistic framework" to talk about how certain physical things shift in contrast to others. In fact, if somebody asks you what a field line is, there's no better answer than just pointing to one, and then explaining why it's useful. It's just a specific part of a certain type of diagram. It's just a symbol for something. There's nothing more to it than that. Well, actually, I can't say that there's nothing else to it; I can only say that I haven't found anything else. So perhaps you could enlighten me.
But, as to your answer, I can't say that I know where you're going. Are you saying that the field lines are a bunch of particles or something like that?
If I wrote it more than a few weeks ago, I probably hate it by now.
we are talking about photons, and i am asking what is their proposed shape, because without a proposed shape they are not physical objects (not even purported to be!) but simply heuristics or metaphors, and that is my point.
Attention: Straw-man argument (Am I the first person ever to honestly recognize I´m about to do that?) "The speed of light is a constant within the universe.. However, the velocity of light does change depending on the medium. However, it is not that a photon is slowing down, it is simply interacting with the medium it is traveling in to a degree." I love physicians, they are like social engineers/politicians, masters of Orwellian-speak. Never give a straight answer in straight terms. Physicians think the difficulties and challenges lie in calculations and the last steps of their theories. That is, their mathematical world where they rule, choose everything and cheat all they want, finally magically transporting abstract imaginations to the physical world in a second. They considered it insulting to lower themselves with definitions, and the actual world we live in, things like explaining experiments are beyond them, they have a need to jump back to mathematics, their safe heaven. You wrote words, but you did not answer the question. Obviously after your transformation into a physician you think it´s an easy stupid irrelevant question, absurd, "common knowledge", "told to us in schoolbooks". My objective was to show you the circular reasonings currently used to "deduce" the Earth/Sun distance, which relies in what they want to prove. The next naive objective of mine was to point out how baseless and unsound is the Hans Bethe theory of the energy source of the Sun, but if you still are at the stage of belief into E=mc^2 and attractive gravity! Then it will take too much time.
Smiling Dave: As Newton taught us all, the physical world we live in is contains two things. There are "objects", which have mass, and there are "forces", which do not. Wilipedia on force: In physics, a force is any influence that causes a free body to undergo a change in speed, a change in direction, or a change in shape. Force can also be described by intuitive concepts such as a push or pull.... So a force is an "influence". Nice and vague, but there it is. Newton postulated as an axiom that these things called forces exist. We cannot see them, for they are invisible and have no mass. All we can see is the result of their influence. So that indeed you are correct in saying that all you can see are the magnet, the filings, and some regularity in their motion. But Newton asked himself "What makes that motion happen?" And he answered, after that apple conked him on the head, that there must be some invisible hand pushing those filings and making them move. He called the invisible hands [whose existence he assumed] "forces". The only reason everyone accepted this very odd way of looking at things is that it works.
As Newton taught us all, the physical world we live in is contains two things. There are "objects", which have mass, and there are "forces", which do not.
Wilipedia on force:
In physics, a force is any influence that causes a free body to undergo a change in speed, a change in direction, or a change in shape. Force can also be described by intuitive concepts such as a push or pull....
So a force is an "influence". Nice and vague, but there it is. Newton postulated as an axiom that these things called forces exist. We cannot see them, for they are invisible and have no mass. All we can see is the result of their influence.
So that indeed you are correct in saying that all you can see are the magnet, the filings, and some regularity in their motion. But Newton asked himself "What makes that motion happen?" And he answered, after that apple conked him on the head, that there must be some invisible hand pushing those filings and making them move. He called the invisible hands [whose existence he assumed] "forces".
As long as we understand that we're not doing anything but modeling how physical objects move, that's fine.
Zangelbert Bingledack: it is puzzling the kneejerk reactions and claims of "logic" from people who have most probably not verified any of the underlying math themselves. this is appeal to authority disguised as an appeal to logic. This made me think. I’m not mathematician and I rely on the work and conclusions of others in my daily life when it comes to math. Of course, no one can be an expert in more than a very few fields, if only because the body of knowledge is so extensive nowadays. Now, assume that calculus is indeed a big bluff. How are you going to convince folks? By proof? We are not experts and will rely on the generally accepted mathematical truth, not on checking proofs ourselves. How many here have gone through the proof in those papers? How many can? By proving it to the established mathematicians? What if they have personal reasons not to espouse your theory? And what of the rest are too dumb to see you proof or have been so much ‘used’ to calculus that they just can’t shake it off? The reason why I’m thinking along these lines is that I see a perfect parallel with Austrian Economics. People cannot understand as this is not their field of expertise, and economists are either dull or have personal reasons not to endorse it (not saying AE is perfect, of course). So, if calculus was wrong, would one have any chance of having this revolutionary idea accepted? One thing is certain, going for the masses, as many purport to do with AE, will just not work, as for economics (and even moral standards)people always go to the established experts, and cannot think for themselves, even if they might otherwise be very independent and courageous people, just like I will not agree that calculus is wrong even if perhaps there is indeed proof. That is why getting libertarianism to the masses will never do it. The Regression theorem is a memetic equivalent of the Theory of Evolution. To say that the former precludes the free emergence of fiat currencies makes no more sense that to hold that the latter precludes the natural emergence of multicellular organisms. | Post Points: 35
it is puzzling the kneejerk reactions and claims of "logic" from people who have most probably not verified any of the underlying math themselves. this is appeal to authority disguised as an appeal to logic.
This made me think. I’m not mathematician and I rely on the work and conclusions of others in my daily life when it comes to math. Of course, no one can be an expert in more than a very few fields, if only because the body of knowledge is so extensive nowadays.
Now, assume that calculus is indeed a big bluff. How are you going to convince folks? By proof? We are not experts and will rely on the generally accepted mathematical truth, not on checking proofs ourselves. How many here have gone through the proof in those papers? How many can?
By proving it to the established mathematicians? What if they have personal reasons not to espouse your theory? And what of the rest are too dumb to see you proof or have been so much ‘used’ to calculus that they just can’t shake it off?
The reason why I’m thinking along these lines is that I see a perfect parallel with Austrian Economics. People cannot understand as this is not their field of expertise, and economists are either dull or have personal reasons not to endorse it (not saying AE is perfect, of course).
So, if calculus was wrong, would one have any chance of having this revolutionary idea accepted? One thing is certain, going for the masses, as many purport to do with AE, will just not work, as for economics (and even moral standards)people always go to the established experts, and cannot think for themselves, even if they might otherwise be very independent and courageous people, just like I will not agree that calculus is wrong even if perhaps there is indeed proof.
That is why getting libertarianism to the masses will never do it.
great points, Merlin.
one thing i want to point out is that calculus really cannot all be a big bluff. but what you are saying stands anyway. there could be major inefficiencies, errors, or absurdities in it, but it could still be that these are adjusted in the necessary ways in the fields where "rubber hits road" so to speak.
for instance, even if calculus was built on handwaving and hence only had very limited application, as long as those limited applications were respected it could be useful physically, even highly useful, as it is.
since pure math can be anything the mathematician wants it to be, it seems far better to focus on scientific applications. modern physics is the one where it really doesn't make sense if the physicist begins to talk about physical models. the fudges and equivocations that may be fine in pure math---where after all the mathematician is simply building a system for his own amusement or edification and any future practical applications will have to choose carefully where it applies and doesn't anyway---can become tools for easy cheating in physics. that is, they can be used to support bad theory, even nonsensical theory, such as 4D space-time, 1D strings, and particle wave "dualities".
i cannot attack math very hard, because the pure mathematician can always claim---rightfully---that they don't knwo ro care about practical applications, and they are creating a system that is as rigorous as they need it to be for whatever their purposes are (including just aesthetics). i have to focus my criticism on the misuse of math in other fields, such as economics and physics, where it has done unspeakable damage for the past 80 or so years.
> I will not agree that calculus is wrong even if perhaps there is indeed proof.
LMAO, it is not "wrong".
Even dogs understand calculus http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=97628&page=1
Guys, the 1600's are calling, they want their mathematics back. Seriously, I think some of these posters are some kind of Luddite shills sent to discredit this site.
"but as regards pure mathematics, i am not too happy with how it takes even the natural numbers as givens (or how it defines them when it does)" - Zanglebert
Zang, before you tackle calculus maybe you should work on figuring out 1+1=2 and then get back to us with your findings. But for those of us not trying to disprove the abacus, this book may be of interest:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Where_Mathematics_Comes_From
"Much of WMCF deals with the important concepts of infinity and of limit processes, seeking to explain how finite humans living in a finite world could ultimately conceive of the actual infinite. Thus much of WMCF is, in effect, a study of the epistemological foundations of the calculus."
to post an outside source when i am making basic logical and semantic observations seems like an appeal to authority. (i cannot speak for Player or Miles Mathis, who attack calculus.)
Zangelbert Bingledack:"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."-Miles Mathis
How does it have nothing to do with infinitesimals or limits?
Why is anyone saying calculus is wrong? Wrong about what? I'm sorry but this whole thread seems silly.
you are quoting my quotation of Miles Mathis. i don't endorse his theories, and even he is not really saying "calculus is straight-up wrong". his argument is apparently more subtle than that, though i have not yet understood it.
as an aside, you certainly do not need infinitesimals or infinity to do calculus, unless by those words you simply mean "small enough" and "large enough" for a given purpose. see the entire discussion at http://mises.org/Community/forums/p/21376/382922.aspx, complete with many visual aids.
Zangelber Bingledack:as an aside, you certainly do not need infinitesimals or infinity to do calculus, unless by those words you simply mean "small enough" and "large enough" for a given purpose.
I assume you say that because "infinity" and "infinitesimals" are only concepts and not actually numbers, or anything that exists in the real world. I'm fine with that. But how is this a problem with calculus?
it isn't a problem with calculus (necessarily). Miles Mathis and Player are the ones making that particular claim.
The very definition of a derivative contains a limit, so if limits are nonsense then the definition is flawed at its foundation. Anyway, very smart people have had problems with the calculus from its very beginning (for instance, George Berkeley had a pretty interesting critique).
However limits are not flawed, so the derivative is fine.
What Berkley criticized in The Analyst as far as I can see is what later became nonstandard analysis. Which I dislike, but is valid and rigorous.
"What Berkley criticized in The Analyst as far as I can see is what later became nonstandard analysis. Which I dislike, but is valid and rigorous."
Or instead of navel-gazing, you can be like the great Leibniz and use infinitesimals with aplomb. While Leibniz and Newton provided tremendous advances in mathematics and physics, Berkeley's pedantic hand-wringing was all for nought: "non-standard analysis can be seen as a belated vindication of Leibniz's mathematical reasoning." - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gottfried_Leibniz