Quantitative theory

[Ilya Geller]

10 minutes ago, joigus said:

Here's an explanation that's as good as yours: Light is not reflected, there's no reflection of light. Photons know all along where they have to go.

There. Now prove I'm wrong.

The existence of laser:

A laser differs from other sources of light in that it emits light which is coherent. Spatial coherence allows a laser to be focused to a tight spot, enabling applications such as laser cutting and lithography. Spatial coherence also allows a laser beam to stay narrow over great distances (collimation), enabling applications such as laser pointers and lidar (light detection and ranging). Lasers can also have high temporal coherence, which allows them to emit light with a very narrow spectrum. Alternatively, temporal coherence can be used to produce ultrashort pulses of light with a broad spectrum but durations as short as a femtosecond.
 

Laser doesn't’ reflect.

Philosophical substantiation of Quantitative Theory in the Internal Relations theory of Analytical Philosophy, in the ideas of Hegel and Bradley. The theory had not been developed (till I came) and is practically unknown to anyone, left in ruins at the beginning of the twentieth century. Instead, the theory of External Relations of the same philosophy, built by Lord Russell and the English philosopher Moore, took its place on the pedestal.
External Relations considers bodies as material points, without going into the internal processes taking place in them. Internal considers the same bodies as points of accumulation and sees the world through internal changes.

[studiot]

4 minutes ago, Ilya Geller said:

Laser doesn't’ reflect.

That is contrary to my direct experience.

 

The rest of this nonsense seems to me to be a best a hoax generated by some computer program to create quasi logical links between entries in a scientific dictionary.

At worst is could be advertising for the commercial sites you have linked to at lexiclonedotcom.

 

 

 

[Ilya Geller]

25 minutes ago, joigus said:

Here's an explanation that's as good as yours: Light is not reflected, there's no reflection of light. Photons know all along where they have to go.

There. Now prove I'm wrong.

The presence of electron's spin, as well as the presence of maxims in the interference pattern, suggests that your "knowledge" is a product of the laws of coherent photon emission.

[studiot]

52 minutes ago, joigus said:

You might as well say that everything's made of two elements: mumbo and jumbo.

+1

The funny thing is that he has said this (only two things), amongst other things in his 'papers' .

[Bufofrog]

38 minutes ago, Ilya Geller said:

Laser doesn't’ reflect.

 

This sure looks like reflection to me.

[Ilya Geller]

Just now, Bufofrog said:

 

This sure looks like reflection to me.

What you are observing (on the image) is the emission of coherent photons; the proof: only a part comes out, and another part stays-remains in the material. Also laser produces photons from its atoms, not reflects.
The observed "reflection" is the emission of photons, the result of photoeffect, in order to get back to a "stationary-stable state" in the spirit of Bohr. What you call "reflected photons" are not the photons that entered the material, these are brand new from the atoms.

[studiot]

7 minutes ago, Ilya Geller said:

What you are observing (on the image) is the emission of coherent photons; the proof: only a part comes out, and another part stays-remains in the material. Also laser produces photons from its atoms, not reflects.
The observed "reflection" is the emission of photons, the result of photoeffect, in order to get back to a "stationary-stable state" in the spirit of Bohr. What you call "reflected photons" are not the photons that entered the material, these are brand new from the atoms.

So why do the reflective surfaces not emit this light under other conditions ?

And when they do emit light, that light is not generally of the same colour as the incident light that they reflect ?

Have you ever

1) Built a laser

2) Experimented with a laser ?

3) Used a laser for any (practical) purpose ?

Edited September 4, 2022 by studiot

[joigus]

43 minutes ago, studiot said:

The funny thing is that he has said this (only two things), amongst other things in his 'papers' .

Yes.

It's all a big resounding, reverberating mantra, with no physics in it, no mathematics in it, and full of embarrassing contradictions with many things we know --see picture from @Bufofrog above.

We've seen it before.

The only question is: How long is it going to take?

And BTW, I'm still waiting for anything even remotely shadowing "quantitative".

Not a chance.

 

[studiot]

22 minutes ago, joigus said:

And BTW, I'm still waiting for anything even remotely shadowing "quantitative".

Not a chance.

Isn't two a a number ?

 

 

[Ilya Geller]

My point about Internal Relations theory (Analytic Philosophy) as the basis of Quantitative, is very important! Without understanding that I rejected the generally accepted in science for more than 300 years (since Newton began to operate with material points) theory, that I deny (to some degree) the theory of External Relations — it will be difficult to understand me and what I jabber about!
For example, there is no geometry in Quantitative; that is, geometric shapes, lines and planes — impossible to build anything using an accumulation point with no bounds. (There are only chords with cut ends, in the spirit of the Beltrami model.) There is also no Arithmetic with its addition and subtraction operations. There are only differential equations, the concept of a limit, an integral and striving toward a single limit (1 = 0).
However External is build of the geometries and Arithmetic. On the recognition that material pond exist. Thus I use the fresh (only a tad more than 100 years old) stuff: Internal.
 

1 hour ago, joigus said:

Yes.

It's all a big resounding, reverberating mantra, with no physics in it, no mathematics in it, and full of embarrassing contradictions with many things we know --see picture from @Bufofrog above.

We've seen it before.

The only question is: How long is it going to take?

And BTW, I'm still waiting for anything even remotely shadowing "quantitative".

Not a chance.

 

Newton's law of universal gravitation, developed (by your humble servant)taking into account accumulation points. Here is my answer!
Could you please show me just one, any law of interaction in physics for three or more bodies? There are none! Not one, always only two bodies. Thus, my Quantitative is designed for only two bodies, and this is the reason why I deny “a feather and a lead ball in a vacuum”: there are at least three bodies (in it) and an unknown number of watches. In my Quantitative there are only two (accumulation points) and only one watch. No tricks with synchronization and Lorentz transformation! This "pen-lead ball" is incorrect and lead to the error.
Now, just show me any modern theory that considers the force of interaction, and does not instead describe the resulting accelerations, velocities and energies? THERE IS NOT ONE! Except for my Quantitative One. I am and my theory the only exception.

Truct me, you’ve never seen something like this before.

[studiot]

51 minutes ago, Ilya Geller said:

Could you please show me just one, any law of interaction in physics for three or more bodies? There are none! Not one, always only two bodies.

The problem with trying to argue with real scientists when you know so little, and in particular trying to lay down absolutes, is that you soon get found out.

 

The formation of potassium aluminium sulphate requires 3 bodies. Indeed the formation of any substantial quantity requires this many times over.

Potassium alum - Wikipedia

Any gardner will attest to this

[Ghideon]

1 hour ago, Ilya Geller said:

Could you please show me just one, any law of interaction in physics for three or more bodies? There are none! Not one, always only two bodies.

Can you show us your analysis of the three-body problem* ?

Please explain how your analysis, based on two bodies(?), differs from mainstream science observations and models.

 

*) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-body_problem 
(edit: or check @joigus N-body problem example below)

 

Edited September 4, 2022 by Ghideon
x-post; adding reference to joigus post

[joigus]

1 hour ago, Ilya Geller said:

My point about Internal Relations theory (Analytic Philosophy) as the basis of Quantitative, is very important! Without understanding that I rejected the generally accepted in science for more than 300 years (since Newton began to operate with material points) theory, that I deny (to some degree) the theory of External Relations — it will be difficult to understand me and what I jabber about!
For example, there is no geometry in Quantitative; that is, geometric shapes, lines and planes — impossible to build anything using an accumulation point with no bounds. (There are only chords with cut ends, in the spirit of the Beltrami model.) There is also no Arithmetic with its addition and subtraction operations. There are only differential equations, the concept of a limit, an integral and striving toward a single limit (1 = 0).
However External is build of the geometries and Arithmetic. On the recognition that material pond exist. Thus I use the fresh (only a tad more than 100 years old) stuff: Internal.
 

Newton's law of universal gravitation, developed (by your humble servant)taking into account accumulation points. Here is my answer!
Could you please show me just one, any law of interaction in physics for three or more bodies? There are none! Not one, always only two bodies. Thus, my Quantitative is designed for only two bodies, and this is the reason why I deny “a feather and a lead ball in a vacuum”: there are at least three bodies (in it) and an unknown number of watches. In my Quantitative there are only two (accumulation points) and only one watch. No tricks with synchronization and Lorentz transformation! This "pen-lead ball" is incorrect and lead to the error.
Now, just show me any modern theory that considers the force of interaction, and does not instead describe the resulting accelerations, velocities and energies? THERE IS NOT ONE! Except for my Quantitative One. I am and my theory the only exception.

Truct me, you’ve never seen something like this before.

(My emphasis.)

One example? Easy enough: An Ising magnet. You get a reasonably good treatment of it with the mean-field approximation, in which you consider each magnet interacting with the average field of every other magnet in the crystal. The approximation gets better and better every time you extend the number of nearest neighbours (1st nearest neighbours, 2nd, etc.) in order to calculate the mean field.

Another example? The N-body problem in gravitation.

Another one? A Bose condensate.

Another one? Superfluid Helium

Another one? A proton (3 quarks plus gluons)

Do you want more? Studiot already mentioned chemical reactions with 3 molecules.

Any gas that's not ideal, and therefore presents phase transitions...

I think I've made my point.

In fact, there are practically no actual 2-body problems in Nature. 2 bodies is just an approximation that's useful only because it's exactly solvable, and because there are instances in which it's close enough to what's going on that it's worth studying in detail. It almost never happens in reality.

[Ilya Geller]

14 minutes ago, joigus said:

(My emphasis.)

One example? Easy enough: An Ising magnet. You get a reasonably good treatment of it with the mean-field approximation, in which you consider each magnet interacting with the average field of every other magnet in the crystal. The approximation gets better and better every time you extend the number of nearest neighbours (1st nearest neighbours, 2nd, etc.) in order to calculate the mean field.

Another example? The N-body problem in gravitation.

Another one? A Bose condensate.

Another one? Superfluid Helium

Another one? A proton (3 quarks plus gluons)

Do you want more? Studiot already mentioned chemical reactions with 3 molecules.

Any gas that's not ideal, and therefore presents phase transitions...

I think I've made my point.

In fact, there are practically no actual 2-body problems in Nature. 2 bodies is just an approximation that's useful only because it's exactly solvable, and because there are instances in which it's close enough to what's going on that it's worth studying in detail. It almost never happens in reality.

Agree. In Quantitive actually only one body (accumulation point) with two interacting parts and the constant G. Through the equation (page 5) the force of interaction/ elastic/ inertia is calculated within one point.

39 minutes ago, joigus said:

(My emphasis.)

One example? Easy enough: An Ising magnet. You get a reasonably good treatment of it with the mean-field approximation, in which you consider each magnet interacting with the average field of every other magnet in the crystal. The approximation gets better and better every time you extend the number of nearest neighbours (1st nearest neighbours, 2nd, etc.) in order to calculate the mean field.

Another example? The N-body problem in gravitation.

Another one? A Bose condensate.

Another one? Superfluid Helium

Another one? A proton (3 quarks plus gluons)

Do you want more? Studiot already mentioned chemical reactions with 3 molecules.

Any gas that's not ideal, and therefore presents phase transitions...

I think I've made my point.

In fact, there are practically no actual 2-body problems in Nature. 2 bodies is just an approximation that's useful only because it's exactly solvable, and because there are instances in which it's close enough to what's going on that it's worth studying in detail. It almost never happens in reality.

 

 In Quantitative, as you can see, there is actually only one body (accumulation point) with two interacting parts (also accumulation) and the constant G. For the calculation everything is divided into pairs, the elastic force is found for each, vectors are constructed (in Minkovski) and the resultant is found.
Using the equation (p. 5) the force of interaction/ elastic/ inertia is calculated within a single accumulation point.

About Ising (you meant Ernst Ising?) — too difficult for my plebeian taste and he didn’t know about my elaboration of Maxwell’s equations, rewritten into molar masses and volumes:
1) The law for the increment of molar volume: the increment of molar volume leads to the appearance of the elastic force, manifested as electricity D.
2) The law for the increment of molar mass: the increment of molar mass leads to the appearance of the elastic force, manifested as magnetism B.
3) The law of transition of an increment of molar mass into an increment of molar volume: this increment of one leads to an increment of the other E.
4) The law of transition of an increment of molar volume into an increment of molar mass: this increment of one leads to an increment of the other H.

Thus nothing to talk about.

I don't need Euler-style refinements, I don't need these crazy calculations and numerical methods. I'm fine without them!

[studiot]

17 minutes ago, Ilya Geller said:

Thus nothing to talk about.

I am reporting failure to address my example, (also noted by Joigus) as a breach of forum rules.

You cannot make potassium aluminium sulphate without the interaction of 3 separate and distinct bodies.

You introduced molar quantities and mass: the dynamics of this reaction proceeds in accordance with the law of mass action.

[swansont]

!

Moderator Note

Your refusal to provide a model and evidence violates the forum rules. You are not to re-introduce this topic.