this thread is for Rpenner

Jason.Marshall said:
don't quote me for accuracy of grammar or anything else for that matter am just sharing my work so anyone can point out mistakes then I can fix them if possible but yes I may not have used all terms or definitions in the correct context but I know what I mean. This step here of peer review is meant to address any inaccuracies in my findings that I may have overlooked.
Click to expand...

Well, using a word like that in the wrong context, when writing about maths, is pretty fatal to the credibility of the writer.

A basic knowledge of punctuation would also help your ability to communicate - and possibly to think as well. Clear communication requires clarity of thought: I find it helpful to my own thinking if I have to put my ideas into words for others to understand.
 
exchemist said:
Well, using a word like that in the wrong context, when writing about maths, is pretty fatal to the credibility of the writer.

A basic knowledge of punctuation would also help your ability to communicate - and possibly to think as well. Clear communication requires clarity of thought: I find it helpful to my own thinking if I have to put my ideas into words for others to understand.
Click to expand...

Perhaps you are correct but that does not change the accuracy of the calculations.
 
Jason.Marshall said:
Perhaps you are correct but that does not change the accuracy of the calculations.
Click to expand...
You need both to be able to publish. No editor will even read, much less publish an article that is badly written. Beyond that, as rpenner pointed out, the corrections are not accurate, only approximate.
 
OnlyMe said:
If you were presenting anything seriously approaching a functional theory, you would take the time to clean up some of your admitted short comings in presentation. That along with rpenner's several attempts to straighten out some misconceptions or to be very generous miscommunications, does suggest to me that, unless you are willing to put the effort into your presentation to make it generally intelligible, you should either take it to Alternative Theories or back to your own drawing board until.., it has matured sufficiently for presentation here in Physics & Math.
Click to expand...

I agree this is why I said it was a work in progress this is a build up to a larger perspective I am working on so I decided to share my current progress, I did not deem this a finish product worthy of publishing.
 
Russ_Watters said:
You need both to be able to publish. No editor will even read, much less publish an article that is badly written. Beyond that, as rpenner pointed out, the corrections are not accurate, only approximate.
Click to expand...
Yet again you lack comprehension, but think what you like you are entitled to your opinion.
 
Jason.Marshall said:
I agree this is why I said it was a work in progress this is a build up to a larger perspective I am working on so I decided to share my current progress, I did not deem this a finish product worthy of publishing.
Click to expand...

Does this mean that you are going to try and clean up the presentation? And incorporate corrections to the math.., which are important to a finished product?
 
How about using the equation which describes the perimeter of a circle:
r² = x² + y²

And using the equation which describes the area of a rectangle:
a = Δx * Δy

And then simply summing up all of the areas of the rectangles which fit inside the perimeter of the circle.
 
Jason.Marshall said:
Why not I don't see a problem with that as long as you can get the correct answer.
Click to expand...

I had some problems when I first began studying geometry and algebra. Mainly because I saw the solutions without going through all the traditional steps. It was not until later that I understood, part of the purpose in "doing the math" is not just in arriving at the correct solution.., it is developing a way of thinking and problem solving that you don't always learn, taking short cuts or even sometimes non-traditional approaches. Which could have their place and even advantages and yet not teach the underlying problem solving aspect of the more traditional step by step approach.

Again for emphasis: Sometimes the math is not about the answer, it is about learning a way of thinking and approaching the problem that will be useful later on.

Did I garble that?
 
OnlyMe said:
I had some problems when I first began studying geometry and algebra. Mainly because I saw the solutions without going through all the traditional steps. It was not until later that I understood, part of the purpose in "doing the math" is not just in arriving at the correct solution.., it is developing a way of thinking and problem solving that you don't always learn, taking short cuts or even sometimes non-traditional approaches. Which could have their place and even advantages and yet not teach the underlying problem solving aspect of the more traditional step by step approach.

Again for emphasis: Sometimes the math is not about the answer, it is about learning a way of thinking and approaching the problem that will be useful later on.

Did I garble that?
Click to expand...


No I agree I just never really had the chance the fully develop the proper techniques in a formal way I can see it in my own way but I have to work on expressing it clearly to others communication is my worst skill, I also noticed on your profile you are a retired physicist so I have a lot of respect for your professional background.
 
Jason.Marshall said:
No I agree I just never really had the chance the fully develop the proper techniques in a formal way I can see it in my own way but I have to work on expressing it clearly to others communication is my worst skill, I also noticed on your profile you are a retired physicist so I have a lot of respect for your professional background.
Click to expand...

Not a retired physicist! I majored in physics a long long time ago...
 
Jason.Marshall said:
if you can understand the logical construct of the science and you have an empirical insight its always valid universally.
Click to expand...
No it isn't. Empirical insight is not valid universally and we know this because Newton's, Einstein's and Planck's empirical insight was transformative, revolutionary and profound, but did not stand forever inviolable. While such empirical insight opened up new frontiers in humanity's understanding of physical behavior, it didn't even universally apply within the lifetime of these individual scientists. Newton got side-tracked by problems of alchemy and numerology. Einstein's career tapered off into unfruitful cul-de-sacs. Planck spent years hoping the quantum mechanics he discovered was more side-effect than a fundamentally revolutionary paradigm. These are not the careers of people with unerring insight into physics, but rather of very bright people with careers that peak sharply as the world conspires to place them in the spotlight of history. These are not gods, but diligent, smart and dedicated men who also happened to have some good fortune and the tools to act on that.

So if Einstein, Newton and Planck could failings of understanding, philosophy or connection with reality, realize that it is the burden of the true scientist to be his own worst critic and to wrestle with questions like "how do I know that self-evident thing is true." A feeling of certainty is not enough. Knowing is not enough. Knowing reliably, repeatably and communicably in a verifiable fashion is what is required.
 
rpenner said:
No it isn't. Empirical insight is not valid universally and we know this because Newton's, Einstein's and Planck's empirical insight was transformative, revolutionary and profound, but did not stand forever inviolable. While such empirical insight opened up new frontiers in humanity's understanding of physical behavior, it didn't even universally apply within the lifetime of these individual scientists. Newton got side-tracked by problems of alchemy and numerology. Einstein's career tapered off into unfruitful cul-de-sacs. Planck spent years hoping the quantum mechanics he discovered was more side-effect than a fundamentally revolutionary paradigm. These are not the careers of people with unerring insight into physics, but rather of very bright people with careers that peak sharply as the world conspires to place them in the spotlight of history. These are not gods, but diligent, smart and dedicated men who also happened to have some good fortune and the tools to act on that.

So if Einstein, Newton and Planck could failings of understanding, philosophy or connection with reality, realize that it is the burden of the true scientist to be his own worst critic and to wrestle with questions like "how do I know that self-evident thing is true." A feeling of certainty is not enough. Knowing is not enough. Knowing reliably, repeatably and communicably in a verifiable fashion is what is required.
Click to expand...



I suppose you are right hard work is always a must and is admirable, I admire Newton, Einstein, and Plank all the same because they all added a fundamental huge piece of the scientific perspective we use today. As well as Gauss, Euclid ,Archimedes and Pythagoras, Eratosthene and even lambert, there are more but these guys come to mind easily. Heck even Heisenberg even though I am biased towards Einstein but I grown fond of probability Just like I still believe Newtonian determinism can still co-exist with Einstein's relativity...I can really see all the fundamental forces becoming officially unified in the not too far future. Have you seen flatland?... I think that movie is a good metaphor that describes the psyche of human society.
 
Last edited:
Jason.Marshall said:
Just like I still believe Newtonian determinism can still co-exist with Einstein's relativity.
Click to expand...

Newton showed for all time that the universe could be understood by rational thought; and that its laws are written in the language of mathematics.

Newton therefore supercedes all scientists in importance, even as his theory of gravity is refined by modern scientific understanding. It was Newton who gave us the very concept of scientific understanding in the first place.

Newton well understood that his theory of gravity was descriptive and not explanatory. He knew that he did not know what gravity was, or how instantaneous action at a distance could happen. He merely wrote down how gravity behaved.

He understood what so many modern scientists don't: That science is about studying how observable phenomena behave; it's not about claiming you understand the ultimate how and why.

BTW as far as his studies in alchemy, I read an article that claimed that he wasn't doing woo-woo alchemy; but was really more doing early chemistry; and that his studies in that direction were part of his science.

Of course he spent the bulk of his time looking for coded messages in the Bible. Strange man, the author of our rational world, who had so many seemingly occult pursuits.
 
Last edited:
someguy1 said:
Newton showed for all time that the universe could be understood by rational thought; and that its laws are written in the language of mathematics.

Newton therefore supercedes all scientists in importance, even as his theory of gravity is refined by modern scientific understanding. It was Newton who gave us the very concept of scientific understanding in the first place.

Newton well understood that his theory of gravity was descriptive and not explanatory. He knew that he did not know what gravity was, or how instantaneous action at a distance could happen. He merely wrote down how gravity behaved.

He understood what so many modern scientists don't: That science is about studying how observable phenomena behave; it's not about claiming you understand the ultimate how and why.

BTW as far as his studies in alchemy, I read an article that claimed that he wasn't doing woo-woo alchemy; but was really more doing early chemistry; and that his studies in that direction were part of his science.

Of course he spent the bulk of his time looking for coded messages in the Bible. Strange man, the author of our rational world, who had so many seemingly occult pursuits.
Click to expand...



I would have to say between Newton and Einstein its hard to pick which one I admire more but I believe as science advances into the future Determinism will once again become the dominant paradigm, Because when I look at Newton's work compared to Einstein's work compared to Heisenberg work I see them as all the same they are actually not competing paradigms but different perspectives of determinism that's probably why am so into Newton's work, even thought I can fully accept relativity and probability as correct perspectives in the end of it all I think determinism will have the last word even beyond the multiverse and multiple dimension theory of String theory. Just my opinion thought. Personally I think the bible does have important contributions to math and science but we just have to be able to comprehend the point that is being communicated , so am not at all surprised at Newton curiosity... after all the Egyptians had a great influence on the bible and they were hardcore mathematicians " The kingdom of heaven" new Jerusalem...even the Multiverse I assume falls inside of determinism
 
Last edited:
someguy1 said:
Newton showed for all time that the universe could be understood by rational thought; and that its laws are written in the language of mathematics.

Newton therefore supercedes all scientists in importance, even as his theory of gravity is refined by modern scientific understanding. It was Newton who gave us the very concept of scientific understanding in the first place.

Newton well understood that his theory of gravity was descriptive and not explanatory. He knew that he did not know what gravity was, or how instantaneous action at a distance could happen. He merely wrote down how gravity behaved.

He understood what so many modern scientists don't: That science is about studying how observable phenomena behave; it's not about claiming you understand the ultimate how and why.

BTW as far as his studies in alchemy, I read an article that claimed that he wasn't doing woo-woo alchemy; but was really more doing early chemistry; and that his studies in that direction were part of his science.

Of course he spent the bulk of his time looking for coded messages in the Bible. Strange man, the author of our rational world, who had so many seemingly occult pursuits.
Click to expand...

Re Newton's alchemy and numerology, I read a biography of him called "The Last Sorcerer", which devotes a lot of space to his non- or pseudo- scientific pursuits. It is at pains to make the point that Newton lived at a very early point in the development of science as we know it today. He and the other proto-scientists of his era were struggling to disentangle what we now call science from the traditions of thought of the time, both philosophical and religious. It is reading history backwards to criticise him too much for this.

In fact, on another forum, there was recently an exchange about why chemistry as we now know it only got started (with Lavoisier) about a century after physics. Chemistry is arguably harder to sort out, because the interacting systems are hard to isolate. Natural materials are messy mixtures, so it must have been hard to come up with the correct identification and classification into elements , compounds and mixtures of compounds. Whereas with light, or astronomy, the system is comparatively clear and simple to analyse. So alchemy survived longer than Ptolemaic astronomy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top