View Full Version : The Modern Pythagorean

Caledonian

Wednesday, December 29th, 2010, 04:56 AM

How many people here believe that all of existence can be deduced mathmatically or by usage of mathmatical formula?

I think it can.

If all of existence merely revolves around physics or material planes it would then make sense that one can ascertain them mathmatically.

Even thought can be deduced mathmatically where mathmatical statistics is concerned.

All of life and existence is a numbers game.

Wynterwade

Wednesday, December 29th, 2010, 05:33 AM

I sometimes have the same thoughts. I could go on and on about examples of things I believe one day will be possible to understand through complex mathematical computations (with a very small level of error- but still an error nonetheless for reasons I'll get into later in this post) but that would be too hypothetical.

But....

There are numerous things in physics that cannot be explained mathematically. Things like the probability waves of quantum particles (both their location and speed cannot be known because of barriers created by the natural laws of physics in our universe- you cannot break physics laws so you can never know these numbers!).

In physics today, it is impossible to compute this number because of the behavior of quantum particles alone. And since these particles are the building blocks of everything- we are forced to live in uncertainty. Though I have no idea how large that uncertainty truly is- maybe for our size it would be negligible.

paraplethon

Sunday, August 28th, 2011, 01:48 PM

Sorry - but this isn't Pythagorean one bit.

Perhaps you should take up the piano...

Or eat an apple.

WsVcRf

Sunday, August 28th, 2011, 02:58 PM

I sometimes have the same thoughts. I could go on and on about examples of things I believe one day will be possible to understand through complex mathematical computations (with a very small level of error- but still an error nonetheless for reasons I'll get into later in this post) but that would be too hypothetical.

But....

There are numerous things in physics that cannot be explained mathematically. Things like the probability waves of quantum particles (both their location and speed cannot be known because of barriers created by the natural laws of physics in our universe- you cannot break physics laws so you can never know these numbers!).

In physics today, it is impossible to compute this number because of the behavior of quantum particles alone. And since these particles are the building blocks of everything- we are forced to live in uncertainty. Though I have no idea how large that uncertainty truly is- maybe for our size it would be negligible.

We shouldn't confuse a mathematical formalism with reality.

Quantum mechanics uses abstract algebra (structures based on non-logical axioms) instead of real causes, which creates over generalizations or holes in perception.

In any case, quantum mechanics is falsified in multiple ways... here is just one of them; http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/06/110630111540.htm

And just so you know, general relativity is also falsified; http://news.stanford.edu/news/2010/august/sun-082310.html

If you're looking for something more accurate, try GUT-CP;

http://www.blacklightpower.com/theory/bookdownload.shtml

Wynterwade

Monday, August 29th, 2011, 12:17 AM

In any case, quantum mechanics is falsified in multiple ways... here is just one of them;

I see what you're saying. Our current theory is maybe nowhere near being an accurate representation of what really happens in the quantum world (like the example you posted). And also that quantum mechanics is so new that we really should give it many more years to fully develop before we come to any dramatic conclusions about the world.

My physics teacher in college told us that many of the theoretical fields in physics are total garbage. Wish I had asked him exactly why he thought that (he was directing it at string theorists). Your example is a good reason why.

Thanks for the link.

And just so you know, general relativity is also falsified

I don't follow your train of thought here. How is the theory of general relativity dependent upon the decay rate of radioactive isotopes (which is influenced by the sun)?

If you're looking for something more accurate, try GUT-CP;

Do you recommend just ignoring quantum mechanics and only focusing on classical physics? How did you find out about this theory? This is really interesting and I've never heard about it before.

I tried to find some criticism a few years ago of string theory so I bought Peter Woits book "Not Even Wrong".

http://www.amazon.com/Not-Even-Wrong-Failure-Physical/dp/0465092764/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1314572950&sr=8-1

^I still haven't read it though.

How mainstream are Randell L. Mills views of physics?

Thanks for the book recommendation too by the way.

WsVcRf

Tuesday, August 30th, 2011, 04:36 AM

My physics teacher in college told us that many of the theoretical fields in physics are total garbage.

You had a good teacher. Truth be told, all of them are garbage.

How is the theory of general relativity dependent upon the decay rate of radioactive isotopes (which is influenced by the sun)?

'stationary' time dilation is claimed by GR to be a phenomena solely dependent on distance from mass; making the decay rates constants at any particular altitude.

to find that the decay rates are observably NOT constants and in reality a phenomena dependent on a particular kind of radiation!... falsifies GR... and in fact opens the way for making gravity engineerable.

Do you recommend just ignoring quantum mechanics and only focusing on classical physics?

We want to keep some of it, mainly the de Broglie wavelength relationship.

How did you find out about this theory? This is really interesting and I've never heard about it before.

I found it searching for Christopher Langan's work on the internet and came across a page that seemed to mock Langan and Randell Mills because they they are home grown genius not advocated by the scientific community Priest class.

I figured if Mills was counted among Langan for mockery... I would just have to read his stuff. Turns out he's pretty brilliant. And quite a few people from NASA got on to his stuff and I think some of them even work with or for his company.

I tried to find some criticism a few years ago of string theory so I bought Peter Woits book "Not Even Wrong".

^I still haven't read it though.

The problem I have with QM, GR, and ST... is the same; they're replacing claims of REAL causes (i.e. real physics) with abstract algebra.

I think that technique very useful if your intent is to keep people ignorant; as few people can understand the math, and still far fewer will realize no claim of real cause is even being presented in those theories.

How mainstream are Randell L. Mills views of physics?

Thanks for the book recommendation too by the way.

A better question is; Has he predicted anything that's been verified and is his theory ENGINEERABLE?

Yes

Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2019 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.