questfortruth
Well-Known Member
I can write a book of 500 pages, but I can not sell it. The paper is just one part of it.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Disproof of all Science
- Thread starter questfortruth
- Start date
-
- Tags
- mathematics
Spirit of Light
Be who ever you want
You can not sell it because nobody wants to produce it for you? Right?
If yes, does not that tell you something about your theory can be wrong?
Spirit of Light
Be who ever you want
If all theoretical science is wrong, that means your theory is wrong too, right?
Hilbert's equation?!?!? The above is arcane foolishness, and has nothing to do with the basis math of science. I think you have been reading to many of David Hilbert's cartoon's Dilbert. Now the real story of the mathematician David Hilbert that is another story, see below.
Math is a tool of physics not the language. The language of physics can be any language in the world, and Methodological Naturalism is the methods of Science.
David Hilbert - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org › wiki › David_Hilbert David Hilbert was a German mathematician and one of the most influential and universal ..... Heisenberg's matrix mechanics and Erwin Schrödinger's wave equation and his namesake Hilbert space plays an important part in quantum theory.
questfortruth
Well-Known Member
A Fundamental Physics Law Just Failed a Test Using Nanoscale ObjectsThis was so intriguing that I had to take you off Ignore to find out what you are on about.
Nono-scale is I presume a (Freudian) slip for nano-scale. But tell me, where do you read that Planck's Law does not apply at this scale?
You can certainly publish online 500 pages, or even several times that, without as much as a real expense. If it even vaguely hints at the levels of wonderful results that you claim, one would expect that publishing, say, the first 100 pages would be enough to make your publishing rights make George R.R. Martin look forgotten by comparison.
We are just that stubborn, apparently.
Or something.
questfortruth
Well-Known Member
I have fix. I am the DOCTOR WHO.
Spirit of Light
Be who ever you want
WHO?????
questfortruth
Well-Known Member
I have absolutely no money nor authority. Thus, I can not make my book to be even opened for millions and millions. Just for 20 my friends, perhaps.
If you can write it, you can publish it online.
exchemist
Veteran Member
Aha, thanks for the link. It's sort of interesting but it does not conclude that Planck's Law is wrong.
What it is doing is testing the limits of applicability of the law, which is something rather different. As I said, the law was formulated for an ensemble. But it is also formulated on the basis of an assumed relationship between frequency and the number of oscillators, which works very well for macroscopic objects. What they've done here is make an emitter and an absorber that are actually smaller than the wavelength of the radiation frequency range they are interested in. And they have found a resonance phenomenon that couples the emitter and the absorber to the radiation, such that it increases the rate of emission and absorption relative to what Planck's Law predicts. (They don't give enough details in the press release for me to understand what the physics is behind this, but I'm guessing phonons will be involved somewhere along the line, as it is IR radiation and the vibration modes of crystalline solids are often treated as quantised by means of phonons. My guess is what they have done is a bit like producing an emission and absorption line spectrum, rather than the usual black body frequency continuum curve. But I speculate and I'm not a physicist.)
None of this means any textbooks have to be thrown away, or that any application of Planck's Law in other fields of science has to be reappraised. All it means is that there is an interesting phenomenon here that someone may one day dream up a use for.
But thanks again: I learn something new every day!
(P.S. If anyone with a physics background can comment further on this I'd be intrigued to understand more about it.)
Last edited:
ratiocinator
Lightly seared on the reality grill.
The negative answer to Hilbert's question provided by Gödel's incompleteness theorems doesn't mean that mathematics, and hence science, is wrong. What it says is that you can't have a recursively axiomatisable (meaning that there is an algorithm that can identify axioms) version of number theory that is complete or can prove its own consistency.
Your "paper" is bizarre. For example, it is totally incorrect to say "there is no infinite number of anything, let alone infinite number of axioms for arithmetic", in fact you can easily have a recursively axiomatisable theory with an infinite number of axioms.
questfortruth
Well-Known Member
There can be very many independent axioms, but their number can not be infinite. Look: if there is no limit in velocity, it simply means, that velocity can be whatever, even zero. But saying "Omnipresence" you mean, that velocity is infinite. But Omnipresence has no direction, thus, velocity can not be infinite.
what is the 'nono-scale? I've heard of nano scale, and understand what that means...so what is the 'nono-scale?
Now then, in your one-page 'article,' you assert several things, but do not demonstrate them...such as what exactly is the planck black body law, and how exactly is it wrong. Specifically. Mathematically. Physics is mathematical, but your assertions are not demonstrated in mathematics. Please demonstrate that you actually do understand what it is you're talking about.
You can't just say "they found"...who, specifically, published in which journal, when?
And, even if it is the case that 'Science' is wrong in relation to the planck black body law, it does not mean that all of science is wrong. So, instead of just saying 'it's wrong,' please explain specifically and mathematically how it is wrong, and what do you propose that is right?
ratiocinator
Lightly seared on the reality grill.
You didn't say anything about independent. That's why the actual condition is that theory must be recursively axiomatisable, rather than have a finite number of axioms. For example, Peano arithmetic includes the first-order induction schema, which introduces an infinite number of axioms of a certain form.
None of which actually addresses your basic mistake in thinking that this means mathematics is somehow wrong.
leov
Well-Known Member
Imo, we just what we know now is not enough to answer many questions, science is lurking in fringes of knowledge, get more of popcorn.
Yet in theory you used your computer to post this thread, and not in the jokes forum. How interesting
That's engineering and manufacturing, not science