Mathematics is an axiomatically deductive system of logic which means it is a subset of logic
There are also non mathematical axiomatically deductive systems of logic such as syllogisms
So therefore all mathematics is based on logic whereas not all logic is based on mathematics
Actually, they have quite a bit of evidence concerning how many people will yield to a math presentation while scoff at a logic presentation. They fear the math more, so they avoid it and bow.
Many people fear mathematics, and many people are cynics. Now, combine this two facts, please!
They don’t merely fear the math, they respect it as well. Combined, you get many people whining about everything … else.
If they did not respect it, then they would not be cynics. So the furtive (secret) respect is already a part of the definition of “cynic”.
James S Saint: Arminius:Many people fear mathematics, and many people are cynics. Now, combine this two facts, please!
They don’t merely fear the math, they respect it as well.
If they did not respect it, then they would not be cynics. So the furtive (secret) respect is already a part of the definition of “cynic”.
Yeah … I guess.
Many people fear mathematics, and many people are cynics. Now, combine this two facts, please!
‘Many’ is too vague to draw any conclusions from here.
The special theory of relativity has been disproved theoretically
At present, mainstream physicists seem to have fully accepted Einstein’s Special Theory of Relativity (STR) and to take it as the foundation of modern physics because the theory appears perfectly logical and its predictions seem to be supported by numerous experiments and observations. However, if one re-examines these experiments carefully and with an open mind, serious problems may emerge. The paper has examined many experiments that are considered as the evidences of relativistic effects, but found they either have null effects or are wrongly interpreted or calculated. For example, the behaviours of clocks in Hefele-Keating experiment interpreted as the results of relativistic time dilation caused by the relative speed of an inertial reference frame are actually absolute and do not change with the change of inertial reference frames; the corrected calculation of Fizeau experiment based on Newton’s velocity addition formula is much closer to the experimental measurement than the result calculated based on the relativistic velocity addition formula.
.
.
In fact, Hefele-Keating experiment indicates the existence of a medium in the space that can slow down the frequencies of atomic clocks when they have velocities relative to the medium, and Fizeau experiment reveals the existence of a medium called aether relative to which the speed of light is constant, though it is possible that the medium to slow down atomic clocks may be different from aether as multiple media may coexist in the space.The existence of aether means that the two postulates of STR are wrong for light and electromagnetic waves because the speed of light and the electromagnetic wave equations should be valid only in the inertial reference frame moving with the local aether, just like the acoustic wave equation valid only in the inertial reference frame moving with the local air.
.
.
The relationship between the STR space-time and Galilean space-time has revealed that the time dilation and length contraction of the STR in a moving inertial reference frame observed on the stationary inertial reference frame are just illusions.
.
.
All these findings lead us to conclude that the STR as a theory of physics is wrong. Thus, all relativistic spacetime model based physics theories (electromagnetic theory, quantum field theory, general theory of relativity, big bang theory, string theories, etc) become questionable.
The special theory of relativity has been disproved theoretically
At present, mainstream physicists seem to have fully accepted Einstein’s Special Theory of Relativity (STR) and to take it as the foundation of modern physics because the theory appears perfectly logical and its predictions seem to be supported by numerous experiments and observations. However, if one re-examines these experiments carefully and with an open mind, serious problems may emerge. The paper has examined many experiments that are considered as the evidences of relativistic effects, but found they either have null effects or are wrongly interpreted or calculated. For example, the behaviours of clocks in Hefele-Keating experiment interpreted as the results of relativistic time dilation caused by the relative speed of an inertial reference frame are actually absolute and do not change with the change of inertial reference frames; the corrected calculation of Fizeau experiment based on Newton’s velocity addition formula is much closer to the experimental measurement than the result calculated based on the relativistic velocity addition formula.
.
.
In fact, Hefele-Keating experiment indicates the existence of a medium in the space that can slow down the frequencies of atomic clocks when they have velocities relative to the medium, and Fizeau experiment reveals the existence of a medium called aether relative to which the speed of light is constant, though it is possible that the medium to slow down atomic clocks may be different from aether as multiple media may coexist in the space.The existence of aether means that the two postulates of STR are wrong for light and electromagnetic waves because the speed of light and the electromagnetic wave equations should be valid only in the inertial reference frame moving with the local aether, just like the acoustic wave equation valid only in the inertial reference frame moving with the local air.
.
.
The relationship between the STR space-time and Galilean space-time has revealed that the time dilation and length contraction of the STR in a moving inertial reference frame observed on the stationary inertial reference frame are just illusions.
.
.
All these findings lead us to conclude that the STR as a theory of physics is wrong. Thus, all relativistic spacetime model based physics theories (electromagnetic theory, quantum field theory, general theory of relativity, big bang theory, string theories, etc) become questionable.
Science has become more and more a function of politics. Scientists have become politically correct functionaries of the cynical rulers.
If those who are not scientists want to have scientific solutions, then they have to use their own brains in the first place.
Kant wrote:
[list]“Habe Mut, dich deines eigenen Verstandes zu bedienen!”
[size=85](Immanuel Kant, Beantwortung der Frage: Was ist Aufklärung?, 1784.)[/size]
Translation:
“Have courage to use your own mind!”[/list:u]
Philosophy without metaphysics is like science without physics. This would mean the beginning of the end - in both cases.
Imagine there is no metaphysics and no physics anymore, because both are indirectly forbidden by the government. There is merely something like a socialpsychological religion which is called “science”. And one day you see this:
What are your thoughts?
Arminius:Philosophy without metaphysics is like science without physics. This would mean the beginning of the end - in both cases.
Imagine there is no metaphysics and no physics anymore, because both are indirectly forbidden by the government. There is merely something like a socialpsychological religion which is called “science”. And one day you see this:
What are your thoughts?
I suspect that I wouldn’t change much. I am the “problem-solver” type and thus always seek a means to better things. And that invariably leads to stepping on the Devil’s toes, which in turn leads to having to solve ALL problems … the very inspiration for metaphysics - the seeking of the underlying principles. And my particular metaphysics endeavor was not created from modern science nor ancient religion, thus would no doubt have spawned to be the same - a logic and rationality based ontology (the engineer’s solution).
And as always, I would rather live in the spirit of love than die in the fear of loss. Understanding of metaphysics or not doesn’t change that.
Arminius: Arminius:Philosophy without metaphysics is like science without physics. This would mean the beginning of the end - in both cases.
Imagine there is no metaphysics and no physics anymore, because both are indirectly forbidden by the government. There is merely something like a socialpsychological religion which is called “science”. And one day you see this:
What are your thoughts?
I suspect that I wouldn’t change much. I am the “problem-solver” type and thus always seek a means to better things. And that invariably leads to stepping on the Devil’s toes, which in turn leads to having to solve ALL problems … the very inspiration for metaphysics - the seeking of the underlying principles. And my particular metaphysics endeavor was not created from modern science nor ancient religion, thus would no doubt have spawned to be the same - a logic and rationality based ontology (the engineer’s solution).
And as always, I would rather live in the spirit of love than die in the fear of loss. Understanding of metaphysics or not doesn’t change that.
Alright. But I when I said that “there is no metaphysics and no physics anymore” I meant that there is no knowledge about metaphysics and physics anymore.
And now, look at the picture again:
Alright. But I when I said that “there is no metaphysics and no physics anymore” I meant that there is no knowledge about metaphysics and physics anymore.
And now, look at the picture again:
I understood you the first time. But realize that knowledge comes from somewhere. Metaphysics and understanding must be born. I am one of those guys.
If people are not allowed to question and think at all, then yeah, I would be greatly different. Probably we all would not care. And when we looked at the sky with all of its wonders, we wouldn’t even notice. I would look up for a half of a second and then go about my business not giving a second thought to what I had seen (along with the rest of the zombies).
Things only become wondrous by that inner questioning and the hope it inspires, without which all things are either mundane (the “void”) or threatening. Without question, there is no heart, there is no mind, merely mechanism (what a government is supposed to be … not the people suffering it).
It reminds me a bit of this:
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony.
Else:
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.
It reminds me a bit of this:
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony.
Else:
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.
Well… Of course, the second phrase contradicts the first… The person making the argument is asleep by their own definition! Go figure…
The “else”… But it says in this age of sleep… So it defines the age!
The sooner the better.
TO ALL.
What do you think about this:
And think of helices, for example.
And think of helices, for example.
For an example of what?
The shape of movement could be a spiral.