COW

[swansont]

!

Moderator Note

 

You still haven't given any example, but you have gone off on new tangents and made more unsupported claims. This needs to stop; it's a violation of the guidelines you must follow in speculations

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/86720-guidelines-for-participating-in-speculations-discussions/

 

[Capiert]

"Coe & com seem unreliable,"

 

to whom?

 

 

"(algebraically) they can NOT be confirmed"

Actually, they can

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noether's_theorem

 

You can stop now Capiert, at least until you can show why she was wrong.

Math_Polarity_Quirk_in_Physics_2016_05_30_1026_1418_PS_Wi.docx

 

Hi John

 

I question, whether you've grasped the problem (of this theme) correctly,

with the info provided, as

when I see all this calculus stuff from Noether.

We have a (math) syntax problem, rather than a math, physics or calculus problem.

From experience we know calculus does NOT show us where the problem is.

 

However, with the problem in mind, maybe we can see if calculus is able to address it.

 

 

So here comes the big question John.

 

kinetic energy

KE=m*((v1^2)-(v0^2))/2

&

momentum

mom=m*(((2*h*g+(v0^2))^0.5)-v0)

 

both h=height fallen (e.g. -1m) & g=freefall_acceleration -9.8m/(s^2)

are negative values,

& v0=initial speed can also be negative when not zero. (e.g. thrown -2m/s)

 

Kinetic energy is obviously not a vector, but momentum is.

 

How can Noether's theorem guarantee the "negative polarity" "angle integrity"

when the momentum formula('s syntax) can't?

(Rooting squared_negatives rotates to positive 360°, but negatives are 180°.

How do you know when things such as speed are negative, from so_called positive (=minus_squared) values?)

What is that for a proof then? It's rediculous.

Noether's theorem won't find that (math syntax) problem.

(That problem is buried in the operation.)

 

Please show me that Noether's calculus (theorem) will extract (or maintain) the negative polarities for that momentum equation, with a simple example.

 

If it can't, then it is no proof.

You are the specialist there.

I don't see that I am asking the world.

That lies in your region of competence to make it obvious.

I've laid my cards on the table.

I think the audience understands the issue. Maybe Not? Depends on their intelligence, or character?

 

(At least then we can discuss the limitations of calculus.)

i.e. That's not being nasty. I'm interested in learning whether she can track negative polarity (angle).

Does she deal with syntax integrity? (I don't know. Do you?)

 

Can she prove a reverse_ability, for tracking the angles?

 

Does she recover the negative polarity (e.g. in momentum's speed)?

Napier's syntax does for (polarity) purbreds (=homologous pair products);

but not for (polarity) hybrids (=hetrogenous pair products).

It cannot identify which term the negative character belongs to. That's a weakness.

Did she use Napier's syntax? No? Sorry weakness to her proof, also.

But not even Napier's syntax is enough to solve the (whole) problem, of hybrids' ambiguity of polarity. I.e. which (1 of 2) gets the minus sign.

 

I expect her proof works perfectly for values that all stay positive.

How does she deal with indefinite Integrals? That use negative 1 exponents?

 

 

In response to your questioning (doubt): (rufly, drift, don't take it too serious, meant in fun)

Hey Capiert! Ahh, your theory? Where does it fit, in ours? Can you show us? We dont know where it belongs (exactly). Our math proofs say the opposite. If you're right, where did we go wrong? Can you help us? We've only got a vague idea where it might fit in.

(We dont know where to begin? Maybe you do?)-Tickle.

 

Or something like that, so it's clear what were talking about.

 

Cheers.

Edited May 30, 2016 by Capiert

[Strange]

We have a (math) syntax problem, rather than a math, physics or calculus problem.

 

 

Please show us exactly what the nature of this problem is.

[John Cuthber]

From experience we know calculus does NOT show us where the problem is.

Prove that.

Simply cite an example of where calculus gets the wrong answer.

 

You have repeatedly claimed that calculus doesn't work.

"I am sorry to have to tell you it's corrupt."

"Industry has dumped calculus"

"Industry & top consulting companies do NOT recommend calculus"

"If you need an exact, accurate answer,

all the time,

then calculus will NOT do!"

and so on.

 

 

But you have completely failed to back up that claim.

Until you do so, nobody is going to take you seriously.

If someone posted that "Eighteen is not a number"

would you expect that claim to be taken seriously without evidence?

Well, your claim makes no more sense than that.

[swansont]

Math_Polarity_Quirk_in_Physics_2016_05_30_1026_1418_PS_Wi.docx

 

Hi John

 

I question, whether you've grasped the problem (of this theme) correctly,

with the info provided, as

when I see all this calculus stuff from Noether.

We have a (math) syntax problem, rather than a math, physics or calculus problem.

From experience we know calculus does NOT show us where the problem is.

 

However, with the problem in mind, maybe we can see if calculus is able to address it.

 

 

So here comes the big question John.

 

kinetic energy

KE=m*((v1^2)-(v0^2))/2

&

momentum

mom=m*(((2*h*g+(v0^2))^0.5)-v0)

 

both h=height fallen (e.g. -1m) & g=freefall_acceleration -9.8m/(s^2)

are negative values,

& v0=initial speed can also be negative when not zero. (e.g. thrown -2m/s)

 

Kinetic energy is obviously not a vector, but momentum is.

 

How can Noether's theorem guarantee the "negative polarity" "angle integrity"

when the momentum formula('s syntax) can't?

(Rooting squared_negatives rotates to positive 360°, but negatives are 180°.

How do you know when things such as speed are negative, from so_called positive (=minus_squared) values?)

What is that for a proof then? It's rediculous.

Noether's theorem won't find that (math syntax) problem.

(That problem is buried in the operation.)

 

Please show me that Noether's calculus (theorem) will extract (or maintain) the negative polarities for that momentum equation, with a simple example.

 

 

 

"That momentum equation" is not strictly correct. It is written as a scalar equation, meaning that assumptions have been applied to it already. It is not a generally applicable equation. It only works for a specific case.

 

IOW the problem is with the practitioner, not the physics.

[Capiert]

Hi John, I think you are missing the context in which I mean.

I prefer to write long sentences. But this website recommends shorter. That comprimise goofed.

I still want to answer your questions, but need time to prepare them. (Can't tell you how long, & I cannot tell you if I will be completely be successful, for your requirements. But I find your presentation fair. Includinding strange's.)

What does disturb me however is not being able to show how I meant what I said. My english is not the best. Sometimes (often) it comes out the wrong way.

Prove that.

Simply cite an example of where calculus gets the wrong answer.

C=Exact-Approximation

C=Error. Nobody uses C. (Lack of rigor.)

Approximation is the notation everybody uses.

Euclidian geometry: C=0. Non_Euclidian: C=?

Indefinite Integrals produce a discontinuity.

I must conclude, be careful.

 

You have repeatedly claimed that calculus doesn't work.

"I am sorry to have to tell you it's corrupt."

I gave you the reference for that. M.M. You returned a personal attack instead of picking the article apart to show his weaknesses.

"Industry has dumped calculus"

There I mean, there are companies that do not bother with calculus. They have FEM instead. I naturally ask why. Especially when calculus is faster, e.g. instant answers. FEM can take hours & days to calculate.

"Industry & top consulting companies do NOT recommend calculus"

Said differently, I don't hear them all praising calculus. Instead what I see is that they prefer the finite element method instead of calculus. I see there are FEM software systems sold than a calculus system. Again I must ask why? e.g. Catia.

"If you need an exact, accurate answer,

Yes if C is not included, how can you expect an accurate answer?

all the time,then calculus will NOT do!"

and so on.

 

The "all the time" pertains to the deduction with C.

It looks like errors can happen.

If you want to eliminate all error possibility of C goofing things up,

then avoid calculus altogether, until you can determine C.

Nobody can tell me what C is. I.e. a general formula.

I must deduce we have a weakness,

because an infinitesimal error multiplied by infinity produces something (significant).

Newton did not want to publish, because it was not exact.

I must conclude, oh weakness, error.

 

 

But you have completely failed to back up that claim.

Until you do so, nobody is going to take you seriously.

If someone posted that "Eighteen is not a number"

would you expect that claim to be taken seriously without evidence?

Naturally not. I know you're right there.

Well, your claim makes no more sense than that.

As I said, I would like to dig up some numbers if I can.

I'll need some time to prepare, because you have found me empty handed.

-Cheers

[John Cuthber]

Hi John, I think you are missing the context in which I mean.

Context has nothing to do with it.

You made a lot of claims that are absurd.

Either retract them or justify them.

As far as I can tell you have got it backwards- FEM is easier to do (computationally) than calculus. But it is calculus that gives the right answer. The FEM systems produce approximations.

Things like this "Said differently, I don't hear them all praising calculus. "

won't do. It's not the same thing said differently- it is saying something totally different.

It's like saying that business has abandoned chairs because you don't hear business praising how useful chairs are.

Well, of course you don't. That's because it is so obvious that nobody needs to say it.

 

So, once again...

You made a lot of claims that are absurd.

Either retract them or justify them.

[Strange]

Hi John, I think you are missing the context in which I mean.

I prefer to write long sentences. But this website recommends shorter. That comprimise goofed.

I still want to answer your questions, but need time to prepare them. (Can't tell you how long, & I cannot tell you if I will be completely be successful, for your requirements. But I find your presentation fair. Includinding strange's.)

What does disturb me however is not being able to show how I meant what I said. My english is not the best. Sometimes (often) it comes out the wrong way.

As I said, I would like to dig up some numbers if I can.

I'll need some time to prepare, because you have found me empty handed.

-Cheers

 

 

You have repeatedly claimed that calculus, and mathematics generally, doesn't work. How can you make these claims but not have the evidence to back them up?

 

I assume you have no such evidence and there is nothing at all wrong with mathematics. Perhaps the problem is with your understanding of mathematics?

[Capiert]

Context has nothing to do with it.

You made a lot of claims that are absurd.

If you take my language so formally,

instead of trying to understand what I mean

then "hopeless(ly absurd)".

 

Either retract them or justify them.

My only justification is my intention. i.e. What's meant, not what's said.

 

As far as I can tell you have got it backwards- FEM is easier to do (computationally) than calculus.

Easier? Doesn't it take longer? e.g. "more" complex? More to do.

 

But it is calculus that gives the right answer.

I have my doubts. How is the area of a sphere calculated?

For me the shell thickness, in the middle, can not have the same volume on both sides (outside, & inside).

The calculation looks rather strange. Everybody is happy with it though.

 

The FEM systems produce approximations.

Quite probably so.

 

Things like this "Said differently, I don't hear them all praising calculus. "

won't do. It's not the same thing said differently- it is saying something totally different.

I think that they are different, has already been declared, (previously).

You make it sound as though that wasn't so.

The later is what I mean, instead. You get the sentences, not the jist (of the paragraph?). You hold onto the tree, & loose the forest (theme).

What I don't do the short way, I try to do the long way. (A picture to complete.)

It's like saying that business has abandoned chairs because you don't hear business praising how useful chairs are.

Actions speak louder than words. If the business did leave the chairs. (Please don't put the cart before the horse. Reverse annalogy is obviously absurd, but you're using it, not me. "because"). It would be a logical reverse deduction. Yes.

Well, of course you don't. That's because it is so obvious that nobody needs to say it.

Simply, 2 facts in, an answer out. Any answer.

 

So, once again...

You made a lot of claims that are absurd.

Either retract them or justify them.

How may I retract them? (What is required?)

What should I say to your pleasure,

that will alieviate the pain.

Above is what was intended.

Not what was stated before.

Is that something like what you want to hear?

(You are so formal, I do not know how to deal with you.)

 

If you were interested in the jist of (communication) things,

don't you think it would be better, when something is noticed wrong to question

whether so .. is intended,

to stay on theme?

 

If your answer is no,

then I'll assume

you want to correct & improve my english, for the future,

& I thank you in advance.

Edited May 31, 2016 by Capiert

[Strange]

If you take my language so formally,

instead of trying to understand what I mean

then "hopeless(ly absurd)".

 

My only justification is my intention. i.e. What's meant, not what's said.

 

 

We are not mind readers. We can only respond to what you say, not what you are thinking.

 

 

 

I have my doubts.

 

You are unable to provide any reason for those doubts. Therefore there is no reason for anyone to take them seriously. Unless you can show, in suitable mathematical detail, that calculus is incorrect, then your doubts are irrelevant.

 

 

 

How may I retract them? (What is required?)

 

 

All you need to do is admit that you have made some foolish and unsupported claims, that you agree they were wrong and you won't repeat them.

 

It takes some courage to admit you are wrong (the first few times - I can assure you, from experience, that it gets easier with practice).

[swansont]

You have given no links to references to back up your claim that calculus is corrupt.

 

The problem is that computers don't do calculus very well. It's easier to program finite element calculations, and computers can do calculations quickly. Your claim is like saying that nobody runs on two legs because robots don't do it; it's trivially wrong and misses the point.

[John Cuthber]

It's hard to know if his writing style is a linguistic thing, or just because he's trying to cover up that fact that he knows he's talking nonsense.

I started off giving him the benefit of the doubt.
I'm revising that policy and assuming he's just a troll.

[ajb]

I don't see much mathematics from Capiert.

 

There are several things one could mean by symmetries and conservation laws, but the usual meaning is in terms of Noether's theorem:

 

"Every differentiable (or just continuous) symmetry of the action of a physical system has a corresponding conserved charge".

 

Some point here are

 

i) The whole theorem is formulated and stated in terms of differentiable/continuous transformations and so one can think about infinitesimal transformations, which is really what the theorem is about. The set-up of calculus and the calculus of variation is the correct one.

ii) If the symmetries are not continuous then we do not know what infinitesimal means here; the theory does not directly apply.

iii) Systems that do not have a Lagrangian formulation, but do have continuous symmetries, are not covered by the theorem.

 

So, in some sense you are right, calculus is not correct, but like anything in mathematics it is rather the application that is not correct.

 

Another thing is that there are situations that we have to apply the calculus of variations carefully. For example when we have non-holonomic constraints. Usually imposing the constraint and then using the calculus of variations to get the Euler-Lagrange equations gives you the wrong answer! You need to be cleverer that that

 

There are also various notions of symmetries of the phase dynamics... but maybe this is something for later.

 

Anyway, we would like you to clear up your meaning of 'calculus not working'.

[studiot]

Studiot enters SF website,

Checks very carefully in case capiert has answered his post.

 

Notes that several others have been answered but not his. For the second time.

 

Concludes that capiert would rather continue squabbling with others than proceeding with the one conversation demonstrating rationality.

 

Leaves SF website in disgust.

Edited May 31, 2016 by studiot

[Capiert]

I don't see much mathematics from Capiert.There are several things one could mean by symmetries and conservation laws, but the usual meaning is in terms of Noether's theorem:"Every differentiable (or just continuous) symmetry of the action of a physical system has a corresponding conserved charge".Some point here arei) The whole theorem is formulated and stated in terms of differentiable/continuous transformations and so one can think about infinitesimal transformations, which is really what the theorem is about. The set-up of calculus and the calculus of variation is the correct one.ii) If the symmetries are not continuous then we do not know what infinitesimal means here; the theory does not directly apply.iii) Systems that do not have a Lagrangian formulation, but do have continuous symmetries, are not covered by the theorem.So, in some sense you are right, calculus is not correct, but like anything in mathematics it is rather the application that is not correct.Another thing is that there are situations that we have to apply the calculus of variations carefully. For example when we have non-holonomic constraints. Usually imposing the constraint and then using the calculus of variations to get the Euler-Lagrange equations gives you the wrong answer! You need to be cleverer that that :-)There are also various notions of symmetries of the phase dynamics*... but maybe this is something for later.Anyway, we would like you to clear up your meaning of 'calculus not working'.

e.g. a stupid loophole. A stupid exception, e.g. discontinuity.

I think you did a pretty good job at showing some of the weaknesses, than I ever could. You also know the jargon. What is non-holonomic? The theorem should allow no room for error (the way I see it), but your collieges want a specific example (from the theorem you know). They expect me to argue with things they know & I don't, only in intent to rub me out. That is not a fair discussion. That's sabbotage instead. We all know I started a different discussion yesterday on the other string gravity. That is my prefered arguement basis (common to all); not this 1. Here I am like a fish out of water. I know you want a number example. That's simple enough, but I don't have 1 yet (& it's that simple, too). Because that's not my basis of arguementation. My arguementation, deals with the conclusion (deductions) I made from my derivations. Your arguement would be, why should we use them. Mine would be, if they (those calculations) can present (more) things yours can't then why is it not valid. You will argue that it is not working completely correct; & I will try to show you that your standard needs a few corrections (tweeks), that you are not aware of yet. That is (was) said in an attempt to speed up things to a reasonable discussion (later). The main issues.

*please continue, when appropriate. I have nave not understood all of the implications of the above to make an addiquate stand.

 

(Beloved)

Studiot enters SF website,

As grand as ever!

Checks very carefully in case capiert has answered his post.

Delightful to hear.

 

Notes that several others have been answered but not his. For the second time.

Did you get nothing as a report? #23. Your server kacked up on me as well. I could not confirm anything landed because report was the only option.

 

Concludes that capiert would rather continue squabbling with others than proceeding with the one conversation demonstrating rationality.

Delightful to hear my friend (if I am allowed to say/be so spontaineous).

 

Leaves SF website in disgust.

hm, perhaps not soo bad (as that).

More the PC problems, distractions, & own blinding mistakes

(if I may hide some of that disgust, about the midsts).

More pondering, how to do it best.

E.g. where can I begin correctly.

Cultivating the seeds, & checking their ripeness.

 

I'll try to repost. Please excuse (& forgive) the poetic flare, triggered by your "Whilst"

Nostalgia.

 

Sorry, it still won't upload. I'll have to chop it up later, & send.

Edited June 1, 2016 by Capiert

[ajb]

e.g. a stupid loophole. A stupid exception, e.g. discontinuity.

I think you did a pretty good job at showing some of the weaknesses, than I ever could.

Weaknesses is a poor word here, I have simply stated that the applications of calculus have limits. That is, there are situations when it is the wrong tool: we need a notion of smooth (or partially so) in order to use calculus.

 

It is just about using the wrong tools, for example, using an egg whisk to big a hole in the ground.

 

 

You also know the jargon. What is non-holonomic?

Loosley, a constraint that depends on velocity and not just position.

 

The theorem should allow no room for error (the way I see it)...

What error?

 

Any theorem only holds for the set-up you 'feed into it'. You can't expect a theorem to hold for situations that it, well does not hold! Usually theorems are 'If X is true then Y is true'. If X is not true then why expect anything of Y?

 

 

 

... but your collieges want a specific example (from the theorem you know). They expect me to argue with things they know & I don't, only in intent to rub me out. That is not a fair discussion. That's sabbotage instead.

They want to have a better idea of what you are talking about. A simple example would help. If you cannot provide one, then how can you be sure you are anything like correct in your thinking?

Edited June 1, 2016 by ajb

[swansont]

They expect me to argue with things they know & I don't, only in intent to rub me out. That is not a fair discussion.

Fair isn't the issue here. If you don't know these things, you shouldn't be arguing that they are false.

[studiot]

 

capiert

They expect me to argue with things they know & I don't, only in intent to rub me out. That is not a fair discussion.

 

So don't squabble with 'Them', whoever 'They' are.

 

ajb has shown you several useful pieces of mathematics, including one which you may not have appreciated.

 

There are many 'types' of calculus.

One of these, the calculus of variations ajb mentioned, underlies the Finite Element Methods you brought up.

 

You have managed the beginning of an intelligent discussion about momentum with me, but for some reason seem not to want to continue.

Here is a history

 

My post 5 (I apologise for calling it post 3 before by mistake)

My post 19 a reminder

Your post 22 as reply sensible enough that I nearly gave a +1 (perhaps next time).

My post 23 developing the discussion about momentum.

Your post 24 quoting my post 5 again, but not replying further to it or post 23.

My post 39 another reminder

Your post 40 quoting my post 39. Hilarious, but containing no technical content.

 

Edited June 1, 2016 by studiot

[Strange]

Did you get nothing as a report? #23. Your server kacked up on me as well. I could not confirm anything landed because report was the only option.

 

If you mean the "Report" link at the bottom of each post, that only goes to the moderators not the person who made the post.

[swansont]

 

If you mean the "Report" link at the bottom of each post, that only goes to the moderators not the person who made the post.

 

 

 

And if the report has no merit (including if it's not actually about a rules violation or moderator note) there may be no response. Sometimes you get a message, explaining why a report was inappropriate. Examples would include a report complaining about use of quote tags, or one that contains technical information (and should have been posted as a response) or asking about terminology.

[Capiert]

Congratulations, you seem to have applied your mind to the substance of what I was saying about conservation.

 

Some points arising:

 

No, the momentum is zero by definition of the word stationary.

As an aside, What is the temperature of a single isolated particle?

The temperature of a single particle

would depend on it's speed (& rotation(al energy)). ?

 

Why wouldn't I like it?

Because of the deduction sequence that followed.

 

That is exactly what happens.

 

Play a horizontal fire hose jet onto a vertical wall.

There is a stagnation point at impact where the fluid horizontal momentum is destroyed.

Let us say a (cushion) layer, bouncing thickness. ?

I don't know how thick? 1mm, 1..2 cm? What is practical?

 

However the energy is not destroyed since the fluid still possesses the potential energy due to pressure.

But does not a sort of thing exist for momentum too, such as a spring force? Hooke's Law is linear. F=-x*ks. x=displacement, ks=spring constant.

This pressure is known as the stagnation pressure.

P=F/A. Ok, so force is present. Interesting. Volume for the layer, does not play a role?

 

You should note in this that energy and momentum are different types physical entities.

Hmm, ?

Energy is a scalar

ok, .., Ok! Amount is there.

and thus has no direction.

hhhhhm. ? What is with kinetic energy?

What is with a thrown stone, at an object?

Does the object not recoil, in the direction the stone was thrown.

If an object falls, does not its speed accumulate in 1 direction (down)?

It does not go anywhere, it goes down instead.

The kinetic energy can thus only be a downward one, not directionless. ?

If I throw a ball up, its kinetic energy can only be positive til it stops.

The speed direction can only determine the energy polarity.

The stopped ball will (continuously=analog) change its direction relative to the earth's surface speed accelerating (up) to overcome the ball's speed. We thus see that the ball falls back (down), without any collision, or affect working on it. No shield can interfere with its motion.

Whether in vacuum or not. Your potential energy is a kinetic energy also, while it is so equated. In mechanics, the study of acceleration & speed. An accelerated (inertial) frame. I cannot see that energy has no direction. Everything indicates it has. Water falls down for our generators, it does not go up. DC electricity flows in 1 direction only. AC reverses. Cars travel in straight lines in (only) 1 direction. Their gasoline is scalar mass, for chemical heat energy (temperature, random motion). But every molecule, in an instant of a second is going in 1 direction. Some even rotating, or spinning. But that is all direction, impling vectors. All that energy, surely must be vectorable. Or is the math not competent enough yet, for that? No one has not devised something like that yet. They cannot do it, they are incapable.

Surely there must be a reason why kinetic energy is not a vector, if it is. Because I have seen every indication, that it should be.

 

(1st half transfers til here. 1/2)

[swansont]

A ball has 17 Joules of kinetic energy. Which way is it moving?

[Capiert]

A ball has 17 Joules of kinetic energy. Which way is it moving?

Forwards, naturally.

Which direction does time progress? Forwards, not backwards.

Edited June 2, 2016 by Capiert

[swansont]

Forwards, naturally.

Which direction does time progress? Forwards, not backwards.

 

 

It could be backwards. There's nothing in the formula, or in physics, that makes a distinction.

[Capiert]

It could be backwards. There's nothing in the formula, or in physics, that makes a distinction.

It's clear negative polarity gets lost in the squared speed. Thus KE is useless to determine direction (mathematically).

Can energy be vectorized? i.e. be made into a vector.

Edited June 2, 2016 by Capiert