Correlating Newtonian Model with Einstein's GR

[NotEinstein]

My TOE is generalised. Success-part is only a part of it.

Your TOE consists of two parts: the success-part, which is not universally applicable, and the mechanics part, which is just a reformulation of Newtonian mechanics. In other words, one part is nothing new, and the other doesn't apply to everything. I would hardly call that a TOE.

Well, Newton did not talk about CFS or CRFS.

Please look up the word "reformulation". The fact is, you've don't nothing new except write the maths in a different way.

 

[hansda]

Your TOE consists of two parts: the success-part, which is not universally applicable, and the mechanics part, which is just a reformulation of Newtonian mechanics. In other words, one part is nothing new, and the other doesn't apply to everything. I would hardly call that a TOE.

My paper has two parts. Success-part and the TOE. You can read the abstract of my paper also.

Please look up the word "reformulation". The fact is, you've don't nothing new except write the maths in a different way.

Can you explain, How my CFS/CRFS concepts are reformulation?

 

[NotEinstein]

My paper has two parts. Success-part and the TOE. You can read the abstract of my paper also.

Wait, the success-part is not part of your TOE? Your TOE is solely the CFS/CRFS concept?

Can you explain, How my CFS/CRFS concepts are reformulation?

Apart from those already present in Newtonian mechanics, what axioms and/or premises do you introduce to be able to come to conclusions not already present in Newtonian mechanics? Because I see none. That logically means everything you do with your CFS/CRFS concepts is just notational or deductive in nature. In other words, it can only be a reformulation of Newtonian mechanics, never anything more.

 

[hansda]

Wait, the success-part is not part of your TOE?

No.

Your TOE is solely the CFS/CRFS concept?

Yes.

Apart from those already present in Newtonian mechanics, what axioms and/or premises do you introduce to be able to come to conclusions not already present in Newtonian mechanics? Because I see none.

I think, I already explained this earlier. My statement of TOE is that, "Every Action has got an Unique Technique". This statement you can consider as axiom/premise. Here the term "Technique" can be mathematically explained by CFS/CRFS.

That logically means everything you do with your CFS/CRFS concepts is just notational or deductive in nature. In other words, it can only be a reformulation of Newtonian mechanics, never anything more.

Multiplication and Division can be considered as reformulation of Addition and Subtraction. But can you consider Integration and Differentiation as reformulation of Addition and Subtraction. Integration and Differentiation are basically Multiplication and Division in infinitesimal scale. In my concept of CFS/CRFS time-interval is considered in the infinitesimal scale.

 

[NotEinstein]

I think, I already explained this earlier. My statement of TOE is that, "Every Action has got an Unique Technique". This statement you can consider as axiom/premise. Here the term "Technique" can be mathematically explained by CFS/CRFS.

So your TOE is nothing more than a reformulation of Newtonian mechanics?

Multiplication and Division can be considered as reformulation of Addition and Subtraction.

For non-negative integer numbers I agree that multiplication is just a reformulation of addition. But please explain to me how multiplying by complex numbers or matrices is a reformulation of addition and subtraction?

But can you consider Integration and Differentiation as reformulation of Addition and Subtraction.

I think you'll find that you need "limit taking" as well. But in the end, it all seems to boil down to reformulations of set theory anyway.

Integration and Differentiation are basically Multiplication and Division in infinitesimal scale.

What? Please explain what you mean by this.

In my concept of CFS/CRFS time-interval is considered in the infinitesimal scale.

Yes, you are integrating over forces, just like Newtonian mechanics does.

 

[QuarkHead]

Ugh. Pages and pages of 2 people bickering over nothing.

This unseemly spectacle is of no interest to the general reader, so why not agree to differ and leave it at that?

For what it's worth, since the finest physics minds on the the planet have so far failed to unify gravitation and quantum physics, I doubt an amateur on a science forum will succeed.

 

[NotEinstein]

Ugh. Pages and pages of 2 people bickering over nothing

This unseemly spectacle is of no interest to the general reader, so why not agree to differ and leave it at that?

hansda started this thread, obviously with the intent to have people comment on his/her texts. I am only providing what (s)he asked for.

If you think this is not the place for that, please ask the moderators to move this thread. Or if you think that this should stop, please have the moderators ask me/us to.

For what it's worth, since the finest physics minds on the the planet have so far failed to unify gravitation and quantum physics, I doubt an amateur on a science forum will succeed.

I fully agree. Doesn't mean it's not worth a look. And more importantly, how is hansda going to find out if/where there are any mistakes, if nobody takes the time to point them out?

 

[DaveC426913]

This unseemly spectacle is of no interest to the general reader, so why not agree to differ and leave it at that?

Science is not done by opinion.

 

[QuarkHead]

Science is not done by opinion.

Neither is it done on internet chat-rooms.

 

[DaveC426913]

Neither is it done on internet chat-rooms.

Correct. No one is claiming to be doing science here.
We reference those who do the science, so that we can better understand our world.

This is a science forum. If it doesn't interest you, one must ask why you are participating.

 

[hansda]

For what it's worth, since the finest physics minds on the the planet have so far failed to unify gravitation and quantum physics, I doubt an amateur on a science forum will succeed.

Why do you think, the finest minds of physics are failing to unify GR with QM. What is the difficulty?

 

[hansda]

I fully agree. Doesn't mean it's not worth a look. And more importantly, how is hansda going to find out if/where there are any mistakes, if nobody takes the time to point them out?

Thanks for your interest with my theory.

 

[hansda]

So your TOE is nothing more than a reformulation of Newtonian mechanics?

I dont agree with this statement. But even if it is a reformulation; what is the harm?

For non-negative integer numbers I agree that multiplication is just a reformulation of addition. But please explain to me how multiplying by complex numbers or matrices is a reformulation of addition and subtraction?

This example I gave to differentiate between Integration and Multiplication, as far as reformulation of addition is concerned.

I think you'll find that you need "limit taking" as well. But in the end, it all seems to boil down to reformulations of set theory anyway.

You call it reformulation of set theory. You call it reformulation of Newtonian Mechanics(NM). But set theory is not part of NM.

What? Please explain what you mean by this.

Integration basically is f(x) multiplied by dx, over a range of x. So multiplication is there. Similarly Differentiation is df(x)/dx, at a particular point of x. This is basically division.

Yes, you are integrating over forces, just like Newtonian mechanics does.

In my concept of CFS/CRFS; it is a set of forces. There is no integration over forces. Perhaps you are mixing up with Lagrangian Model.

 

[NotEinstein]

I dont agree with this statement.

Then what additional inputs are you using on top of Newtonian mechanics?

But even if it is a reformulation; what is the harm?

It would be extremely disingenuous to call it your TOE then, wouldn't it?

This example I gave to differentiate between Integration and Multiplication, as far as reformulation of addition is concerned.

That's not an answer to the question; are you withdrawing your statement that multiplication is just a reformulation of addition?

You call it reformulation of set theory. You call it reformulation of Newtonian Mechanics(NM). But set theory is not part of NM.

And I never claim as such, so I don't know why you thought you needed to point this out.

Integration basically is f(x) multiplied by dx, over a range of x.

You do know that "multiplied by dx" is quite sloppy language, and not how integration is defined, right?

So multiplication is there. Similarly Differentiation is df(x)/dx, at a particular point of x. This is basically division.

Same applies here. Please look up how integration and differentiation actually work.

In my concept of CFS/CRFS; it is a set of forces. There is no integration over forces.

And since one can't integrate over a set, you're not integrating at all then? Then what did you mean when you brought up "infinitesimal scale"?

Perhaps you are mixing up with Lagrangian Model.

No, and I don't understand how you would think I confused the two. You do know that you can integrate over a force with Newtonian mechanics? For example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Work_(physics)#Mathematical_calculation

 

[hansda]

Then what additional inputs are you using on top of Newtonian mechanics?

The concept of CFS/CRFS.

It would be extremely disingenuous to call it your TOE then, wouldn't it?

Lagrangian Mechanics is also called reformulation of classical mechanics. So, what is the harm there?

 

[NotEinstein]

The concept of CFS/CRFS.

But that's just a reformulation of already present terms. It's not a new axiom or premise. I cannot allow the derivation of anything more than what Newtonian mechanics already can.

Lagrangian Mechanics is also called reformulation of classical mechanics. So, what is the harm there?

As far as I know, Langrange didn't claim that his mechanics were superior to or better than Newton's. Additionally, Langrangian mechanics represent a different approach: from a completely different foundation the same mechanics are recovered. Your starting point is Newtonian mechanics, and you don't introduce any new axioms or premises. So the situations aren't really comparable.

 

[hansda]

But that's just a reformulation of already present terms. It's not a new axiom or premise. I cannot allow the derivation of anything more than what Newtonian mechanics already can.


As far as I know, Langrange didn't claim that his mechanics were superior to or better than Newton's. Additionally, Langrangian mechanics represent a different approach: from a completely different foundation the same mechanics are recovered. Your starting point is Newtonian mechanics, and you don't introduce any new axioms or premises. So the situations aren't really comparable.

I believe these are your views. I dont think others agree with you.

 

[NotEinstein]

I believe these are your views. I dont think others agree with you.

(You do know I could say the very same to you?)

Even if that is true, that's not an answer to the questions and issues raised.

 

[hansda]

But that's just a reformulation of already present terms.

CFS/CRFS are reformulation of which already present terms?

It's not a new axiom or premise.

From which already known axiom/premise, this can be derived?

I cannot allow the derivation of anything more than what Newtonian mechanics already can.

To be precise, my CFS/CRFS are based on my Instantaneous Law of Inertia.

As far as I know, Langrange didn't claim that his mechanics were superior to or better than Newton's.

Did I claim that, my model is better than Newton's?

Additionally, Langrangian mechanics represent a different approach: from a completely different foundation the same mechanics are recovered.

I observe some similarity between my approach and Lagrangian model. Trajectory of a particle is considered in both these models.

Your starting point is Newtonian mechanics, and you don't introduce any new axioms or premises.

Did Lagrange introduce any new axiom/premise? In my case my Instantaneous Law of Inertia can be considered as a new axiom/premise.

So the situations aren't really comparable.

No new physics is introduced by Lagrangian mechanics compared to Newtonian mechanics; following wikipedia.

 

[hansda]

(You do know I could say the very same to you?)

May be true. People here are not supporting me. Neither they are supporting you.

Even if that is true, that's not an answer to the questions and issues raised.

I answered your questions in the post #179.

For a change, can you answer my questions in the post #171.