Do mathematicians understand Physics?
Forum: Mathematics Forum
- Do mathematicians understand Physics?
0 of 1 (0%)
Mathematics is not written for mathematicians.
Mathematics is written for physics, for Nature.
This simple fact has been forgotten in science.
After the war, in Russia, there were many thieving
gangs and I , as a boy, rotated among one of them.
They had their own language, thieves’ jargon.
No one could understand them.
Now I read some mathematical articles and they remind me
of that forgotten thieves’ slang.
Are you laughing? Is this ridiculous?
For me it isn’t ridiculous because mathematicians stole
the picture of reality from us. Because they make us poor and stupid.
Why do I say so?
I will try to prove it and explain my point of view.
It began in 1905 when Einstein created SRT,
(theory of photon/electron’s behaviour).
Minkowski, tried to understand SRT using 4D space.
Poor young Einstein, reading Minkowski’s interpretation,
said, that now he couldn’t understand his own theory.
“ Einstein, you are right, it is difficult to understand SRT
using 4D space. But it is possible using my 5D space”
- said Kaluza in 1921.
This theory was tested and found insufficient.
“Well”, said another mathematicians, - “maybe 6D, 7D,
8D, 9D spaces will explain it”. And they had done it.
But the doubts still remain.
“OK”,they say, “we have only one way to solve this problem.
We must create more complex D spaces”.
And they do it, they use all their power, all their super intellects
to solve this problem.
Glory to these mathematicians !!!!
But there is one problem.
To create new D space, mathematicians must add a new parameter.
It is impossible to create new D space without a new parameter.
And the mathematicians take this parameter arbitrarily
(it fixed according to his opinion, not by objective rules).
The physicist, R. Lipin explained this situation in such way:
“Give me three parameters and I can fit an elephant.
With four I can make him wiggle his trunk…”
To this Lipin’s opinion it is possible to add:
“with one more parameter the elephant will fly.”
The mathematicians sell and we buy these theories.
Where are our brains?
Please remember, many D spaces were born as a wish
to understand SRT (theory of photon/electron’s behaviour).
But if someone wants to understand, for example, a bird
(photon/electron)itself and for this he studies only
its surroundings, will he be successful?
If I were a king, I would publish a law:
every mathematician who takes part in the creation
of 4D space and higher is to be awarded a medal
“To the winner over common sense”.
Because they have won us over using the
absurd ideas of Minkowski and Kaluza.
I asked some mathematician:
Are there many different D spaces in the math/physicist’s works.
Are there limits to these D spaces?
Maybe is 123 D spaces the last and final space?
“I think there are as many opinions on this as there are people
giving thought to the issue.” My own opinion is that since the more
immediately obvious 123 D option
(either parabolic, flat or hyperbolic) did not allow,
despite all efforts, reconciling the various theories,
then there is a need to try something else.
Maybe the time has come to try something else.
And what is mathematical opinion about the photon itself?
Here is one example how mathematician tries to solve the problem.
Russian scientist professor V.P. Seleznev created a “toro model”
of light quanta. According to this model, the light quanta is a constant
volume ring (like bublik). The speed of it is different and this fact gives
a possibility to understand all the natural phenomena of light,
to overcome all contradictions in physics and to offer a new
technology. So it is written in the book .
The secrets of Universe, 1998, V.D. Demin. Page 377
Glory to this scientist!
Glory to this professor!
But I have only one question - Can this toro volume ring model
(like a bublik) have volume in the vacuum?
The answer is NO.
According to J. Charles law ( 1787), when the temperature falls down
to 1 degree, the volume decreases on 1/273. And when the
temperature reaches -273 degrees, the volume disappears
and particles become flat figures. Charles law was confirmed by
other physicists: Gay-Lussac, Planck, Nernst, Einstein.
So, according to Charles law the “ toro volume ring model ”
is only a mathematic illusion.
There are many different models of photon.
Some scientists say:
“The darkest subject in the Science is light quanta.”
To choose the correct one, we needs to ask a question.
Which geometrical form can a photon have in a vacuum?
Now mathematics goes ahead of science and physics follows it.
Mathematicians carry the posters
“Forward to abstraction”, “Forward to the absurd”
and we all follow them. We march bravely on the dinosaur’s path.
Alert Webmaster & Moderators|
0 of 1 (0%) readers agree with this message. Hide votes What is this?
How do you feel about this message?
Hide this question
|DISCLAIMER Information available on this page and on CureZone is provided for informational purposes only and is not intended as a substitute for the advice provided by a healthcare professional or any information contained on or in any product label or packaging. You should not use the information on CureZone for diagnosing or treating a health problem or disease, or prescribing any medication or other treatment. Answers, comments and opinions provided on CureZone are not intended to substitute for informed professional medical, psychiatric, psychological, tax, legal, investment, accounting, or other professional advice. CureZone does not endorse, and expressly disclaims liability for any product, manufacturer, distributor, service or service provider mentioned or any opinion expressed in messages, comments or articles on CureZone. Your use of this website indicates your agreement to these terms and those published here. Read more ...||