Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics > #720860 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2018-12-25 14:23 -0800 |
| Last post | 2018-12-26 02:47 +0000 |
| Articles | 3 — 2 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics
1-Comparative Analysis of failures & fumblers of Logic with failures of Physics// one thinks 3 OR 2 =5 with 3 AND 2 = 1 while the other thinks proton to electron is 938MeV vs .5MeV when truly it is 840MeV to 105MeV Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-12-25 14:23 -0800
fake MECHANISMS Re: Comparative Analysis of failures of Logic with failures of Physics// one thinks 3 OR 2 =5 with 3 AND 2 = 1 while the other thinks proton to electron is 938MeV vs .5MeV when truly it is 840MeV to 105MeV Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-12-25 14:59 -0800
Re: Archimedes "Village Idiot" Plutonium flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-12-26 02:47 +0000
| From | Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-25 14:23 -0800 |
| Subject | 1-Comparative Analysis of failures & fumblers of Logic with failures of Physics// one thinks 3 OR 2 =5 with 3 AND 2 = 1 while the other thinks proton to electron is 938MeV vs .5MeV when truly it is 840MeV to 105MeV |
| Message-ID | <fc358dc3-72d5-4599-aa5f-4ef5f8826192@googlegroups.com> |
Newsgroups: sci.math Date: Tue, 25 Dec 2018 14:05:49 -0800 (PST) Subject: 1-Comparative Analysis of failures & fumblers of Logic with failures of Physics// one thinks 3 OR 2 =5 with 3 AND 2 = 1 while the other thinks proton to electron is 938MeV vs .5MeV when truly it is 840MeV to 105MeV From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com> Injection-Date: Tue, 25 Dec 2018 22:05:49 +0000 1-Comparative Analysis of failures & fumblers of Logic with failures of Physics// one thinks 3 OR 2 =5 with 3 AND 2 = 1 while the other thinks proton to electron is 938MeV vs .5MeV when truly it is 840MeV to 105MeV 1-Comparative Analysis of failures & fumblers of Logic with failures of Physics// one thinks 3 OR 2 =5 with 3 AND 2 = 1 while the other thinks proton to electron is 938MeV vs .5MeV when truly it is 840MeV to 105MeV This is an attempt to learn why Logic and Physics has so many failures, yet they still manage to make a career out of it. It is worth noting for the sake of history why so many in Logic fail to grasp even the essentials of *logic* yet still manage to make a career out of it. Compare them to those in physics, who never grasp a understanding of Angular Momentum what it is and thus blind all their life long career in physics thinking that you can have a proton at 938MeV, electron at .5MeV and still have Chemistry covalent bonding. So what I want to analyze, is how we can have so many intellectuals and a career in science, but who have a microgram brain of Logic to do science. Whether there is some SOCIOLOGY function that allows airheads to enter Logic and to enter Physics when they really should seek a career elsewhere. And see if there is a common-hole-in-the-head in both groups why they fail to even understand the Baby Steps of their profession in Logic or Physics. LIST OF Failed Physicists, in no order, going back to about 1979 when the idiocy of Standard Model of physics was in full bloom. And in the list below, is what I mean that in the long view of physics history, the Nobel prize has become a joke for there are more mistakes than is there actual true physics Steven Weinberg Peter Higgs Sheldon Glashow Murray-GellMann Edward Witten Rainer Weiss Kip S. Thorne Barry C. Barish David J. Thouless F. Duncan M. Haldane John M. Kosterlitz Takaaki Kajita Arthur B. McDonald Francois Englert Saul Perlmutter Brian P. Schmidt Adam G. Riess Makoto Kobayashi Toshihide Maskawa Yoichiro Nambu John C. Mather George F. Smoot Roy J. Glauber David J. Gross Hugh David Politzer Frank Wilczek Raymond Davis Jr. Masatoshi Koshiba Riccardo Giacconi Gerardus 't Hooft Martinus J.G. Veltman Jerome I. Friedman Henry W. Kendall Richard E. Taylor Carlo Rubbia Simon van der Meer Subramanyan Chandrasekhar William Alfred Fowler Kenneth G. Wilson Kai M. Siegbahn James Watson Cronin Val Logsdon Fitch Sheldon Lee Glashow Abdus Salam Steven Weinberg . . little fishes . . John Baez Brian Greene Lisa Randall Alan H. Guth Michael E. Brown Konstantin Batygin LIST of failed Logicians Source- Wikipedia list of logicians (alive ones) Peter Bruce Andrews Lennart Aqvist Henk Barendregt John Lane Bell Nuel Belnap Paul Benacerraf Jean Paul Van Bendegem Johan van Benthem Jean-Yves Beziau Andrea Bonomi Nicolas Bourbaki (a group of logic fumblers) Alan Richard Bundy Gregory Chaitin Jack Copeland John Corcoran Dirk van Dalen Martin Davis Michael A.E. Dummett John Etchemendy Hartry Field Kit Fine Melvin Fitting Matthew Foreman Michael Fourman Harvey Friedman Dov Gabbay L.T.F. Gamut (group of logic fumblers) Sol Garfunkel Jean-Yves Girard Siegfried Gottwald Jeroen Groenendijk Susan Haack Leo Harrington William Alvin Howard Ronald Jensen Dick de Jongh David Kaplan Alexander S. Kechris Howard Jerome Keisler Robert Kowalski Georg Kreisel Saul Kripke Kenneth Kunen Karel Lambert Penelope Maddy David Makinson Isaac Malitz Gary R. Mar Donald A. Martin Per Martin-Lof Yiannis N. Moschovakis Jeff Paris Charles Parsons Solomon Passy Lorenzo Pena Dag Prawitz Graham Priest Michael O. Rabin Gerald Sacks Dana Scott Stewart Shapiro Theodore Slaman Robert M. Solovay John R. Steel Martin Stokhof Anne Sjerp Troelstra Alasdair Urquhart Moshe Y. Vardi W. Hugh Woodin John Woods Now I should include the authors of Logic textbooks for they, more than most, perpetuate and crank the error filled logic, the Horrible Error of 4 OR 3 = 7 with 4 AND 3 = 1, that is forced down the throats of young students, making them cripples of ever thinking straight and clearly. Many of these authors have passed away but their error filled books are a scourge to modern education George Boole, William Jevons, Bertrand Russell, Kurt Godel, Rudolf Carnap, Ludwig Wittgenstein, Willard Quine, Alfred North Whitehead, Irving Copi, Michael Withey, Patrick Hurley, Harry J Gensler, David Kelley, Jesse Bollinger, Theodore Sider,  David Barker-Plummer, I. C. Robledo, John Nolt, Peter Smith, Stan Baronett, Jim Holt, Virginia Klenk, David Agler, Susanne K. Langer, Gary M. Hardegree, Raymond M. Smullyan, John Venn, William Gustason, Richmond H. Thomason, partial list for now, scientists that are just memorization not masters Re: Analysis of failures..Logic with failures of Physics// one thinks 3 OR 2 =5 with 3 AND 2 = 1 while the other thinks proton to electron is 938MeV vs .5MeV when truly it is 840MeV to 105MeV On Sunday, December 23, 2018 at 2:13:59 AM UTC-6, Archimedes Plutonium wrote: > I think i know what the final conclusion is going to be. That so many scientists enter their profession, including logicians and moved by Memorization, not of what is truly needed— little memory but a huge instinct intuition for the truth. Our education system and the way we teach science is 95% memorization. The real scientists are hands on do it yourself and only go to books or teacher when stuck. > Yes, I am pretty sure I know the sociology underpinning of why so many scientists in various fields and even mathematicians and logicians are so much of a crank and not a scientist at all, is because their understanding of science is basically MEMORIZATION. They can recite memorized things with ease. But memory is only a tiny fraction of what it requires to be a true scientist. A true scientist, hard to believe but knows his/her science without ever having to read about it and to memorize something. Instead, they already have those ideas in their mind, and the problem they face is whether they can get those understandings to emerge from out of their minds. A true scientist, has the truth of science already built inside him, and when he reads about science or sees science that is related to what is internal to him already, that extra measure of awareness brings forth the truth. In your typical college campus of scientists, about 90% are memorization advocates, not true scientists. And all those attacking bark dogs chasing after AP on sci.math, sci.physics, all of them are never scientists at all, and the only thing they can offer is what they memorized or read from some literature. A true scientist of his field is able to start at some point, and move and progress to other conclusions and ideas in his science. This happens to me many times where I do not even want to know what the state of the art is on some specific topic, no, I want to derive the conclusions by myself with primitive ideas. This happened to me many times and then some attack dog would come in and say-- congratulations AP, you rediscovered the Simpson Rule or the Stokes theorem, etc. I fondly remember finding a formula for factorials some years ago back, and up pops a attack dog saying, congratulations AP, you rediscovered Stirling's formula. And my thought would be, thank goodness no-one interrupted me in my rediscovery, because a master of science has to see it for themselves, that is how I discovered a ellipse is never a conic. A master of his science, needs little memorization and needs to rediscover items-- rediscover them on his own terms to make sure all is sound and valid. Such a thing happened to AP when looking into the fake-sinusoid of sine function, that one day years back I stumbled upon the ellipse in a conic while looking at sine function, and had to rediscover whether the ellipse is actually a conic. And the rest is history. But to a novice of science that is a professor of science most of them are memorization aficionados. They easily memorize, and so they can look at a conic section for 10,000 years solid and never ever dawn on them-- maybe the ellipse is not a conic. AP
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-25 14:59 -0800 |
| Subject | fake MECHANISMS Re: Comparative Analysis of failures of Logic with failures of Physics// one thinks 3 OR 2 =5 with 3 AND 2 = 1 while the other thinks proton to electron is 938MeV vs .5MeV when truly it is 840MeV to 105MeV |
| Message-ID | <c9063c77-b4c8-4df8-a102-6d6854da97e8@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #720860 |
Newsgroups: sci.math Date: Tue, 25 Dec 2018 14:50:55 -0800 (PST) Subject: fake MECHANISMS Re: Comparative Analysis of failures of Logic with failures of Physics// one thinks 3 OR 2 =5 with 3 AND 2 = 1 while the other thinks proton to electron is 938MeV vs .5MeV when truly it is 840MeV to 105MeV From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com> Injection-Date: Tue, 25 Dec 2018 22:50:55 +0000 fake MECHANISMS Re: Comparative Analysis of failures of Logic with failures of Physics// one thinks 3 OR 2 =5 with 3 AND 2 = 1 while the other thinks proton to electron is 938MeV vs .5MeV when truly it is 840MeV to 105MeV Now there is more than just memorization involved for why so much of the hard sciences like physics, chemistry, biology and logic and math are so full of error because the people doing these sciences are just Memorization good, but not Reasoning-good. There is more to the explanation, and the comparative analysis of Logic and Math with their hideous and obnoxious 3 OR 2 = 5 with 3 AND 2 = 1 while on the flip side of the coin in physics with their never able to understand what is Angular Momentum and thus they think the chemistry bond can occur with proton= 938MeV with electron= .5MeV, when even a idiot without science has a feel and sense that angular momentum for chemistry to exist must be proton = 840MeV with electron=muon= 105MeV. So, there is more than just Memorization that entrenches idiot physics, idiot logic, idiot math. And the reason I want to make this COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS, is by comparing we can perhaps spotlight why a science becomes terribly terribly in error for hundreds of years. Not only Memorization without Reason but I think a equal culprit, an equal devil of understanding is when a science proffers a false MECHANISM. So Memorization without Reason, and fake Mechanism are the downfalls of true science. Boole and Jevons started formal logic and formal math with their algebra, and they applied a horrible Mechanism of OR, is to them the Mechanism of **Either...Or... Or... Both**. Idiots of logic find no wrong, no harm in a inclusive-Or. They are scatterbrained to think that Logic has a primitive connector that is the composite of OR with attached AND. Absurdly idiotic to think Logic and Math was grounded in a Self Contradiction -- either or or both, at the very beginning of modern logic and math, and the fools and hypocrites never able to notice-- "hey-- you idiot-- that is a self contradiction in terms". But equally menacing in physics, was that by 1897 JJ Thomson discovered a particle of .5MeV and throughout the 20th century-- quantum mechanics was mostly about the concept of Angular Momentum and by around 1930 Dirac says quantum mechanics is dead unless we have a magnetic monopole. So in the 1930s along comes Anderson & Neddermeyer and discover a electron called the muon that is 105MeV. But then, not a single physicist, not even my hero Paul Dirac, was able to realize that if you multiply 9 times 105 you get to 945 which is short of 940 of the neutron and within 1% of sigma error. So that by REASONING, you see that the true proton is 840MeV and combined with the Muon, you can have Chemistry with the chemistry covalent bond. So, all physicists of the 20th century were blind and not a single one of them ever truly understood what ANGULAR MOMENTUM was, was all about. Because you just simply cannot have H2 molecule with a proton at 938 and electron at .5 MeV So why so much blindness in Logic in Math in Physics? Is it because they are Memorization freaks with no Reasoning abilities? I think the answer has to be more than just memorization. That the physicists of the 20th century were blinded by a false Mechanism, just as the Logic and Math people were blinded by the False Mechanism of Either..Or..Or.. Both. The false mechanism of physics would be-- they never understood ANGULAR MOMENTUM. And what is different about Angular Momentum that most every human encounters is that Angular Momentum is a multiplication of an Area, while Linear Momentum is a multiplication of a scalar line. Few people can understand the difference in multiplying by area and multiplying by a number. So that if we multiply Y by 2 we have 2Y as linear momentum, but if we multiply Y by 2*10 = 20 we have 20Y. Everyone in the 20th century, even my hero Dirac, could not see that Angular Momentum was vastly different from Linear Momentum, and this crippled them into never seeing the muon was the true electron inside of atoms. AP
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-26 02:47 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Archimedes "Village Idiot" Plutonium flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test |
| Message-ID | <pvuq4p$o70$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #720860 |
Math Failure Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> fails: >Subject: Re: #4-12 Exercises and homework with angles // ages 12-13// Teaching True Mathematics 2018 WARNING TO PARENTS: Archimedes Plutonium is offering to trach your children his broken math. BEWARE! He will corrupt the minds of your children! He teaches there are no negative numbers, no complex numbers, he teaches a sine wave isn't a sine wave plus many, many other instances of bad math. Nobody knows why he wishes to corrupt the minds of children like this. Perhaps he wants everyone to be a failure at math, just like he is. Perhaps he is an agent of Putin and Russia, or maybe of China, in order to make sure they will continue to dominate the trade economy. But the point is, stay away, if he offers to give or sell you his dangerous book!
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web