Your ignorance and intransigence is astounding, and unforgivable. I can only imagine you lack the power to see yourself as others do.
It is not an easy skill to obtain, but you ought to get some inkling from time to time of how hopeless your case is.
It’s not even as if I have made a single scientism claim. In fact you will find in me an enthusiastic critic of bad science, but unlike you I do not take it to absurd and ridiculous lengths beyond which no one but an idiot would fear to tread.
I’m still waiting for a scrap of evidence about your absurd claims,
Time to whip out the big guns. You ready guys?
Slope of a tangent line:
slope = rise / run
for a polynomial curve in the y=mx+b format, the rise is of course y, and for the run we consider a hypothetically infinitesimally small section of the curve h
So the rise will be (y+h)-(y) / h
So for, the curve x^2, we get (x+h)^2-(x)^2/h, which simplifies to (x^2 + 2xh + h^2) - (x^2) / h, which simplifies to 2xh+h. Wondering what to do with the h now? Get rid of it, it’s infinitely small. The derivative of x^2 is 2x. You can find the slope of a tangent line at any point on the curve x^2 by plugging the value for x into 2x.
Now, derivatives and tangent lines are neat, but integrals take the cake; the process of finding a derivative for a tangent line is inversely related to finding the area under curve. We can find the area between two points on the curve y=x^2 by finding the inversely related anti-derivative, which for x^2 is (x^3)/3
Tensors and vectors make derivatives and integrals boring by comparison, but we’d be here all night if I tried to give an explanation and I don’t want to mess it up, I’d be lying if I said I understood them completely
You want to know why people get a little bit [size=200]COOKY[/size] when the topic of calculus comes up? Because it can make people money doing nothing
and neither Newton nor Leibniz nailed it right away if I remember correctly. You can’t say either of them ‘didn’t do it’ because England’s got their prize dog now
No; if you ask me, the little trick with h, the infinitesimally small point on the curve ( or infinitesimally small secant line really), is practically alchemical subscript - it blows me away.
I thought I was pretty good with algebra, and that’s all that finding a derivative is - it’s just algebra, but worked out in a way that no one else had thought of before. It’s not trig, or math involving large numbers or anything like that - it was just genius.
I personally find trigonometry harder than calculus, but calculus is far more impressive.
With trigonometry I just remember the basic rules with sine, cosine, and tangent, and never worry about how advanced it gets. But just the approach calculus uses is more advanced because it requires thought, where as trigonometry just relies on ratios and the end result of basic trig can be found with measurement.
That being said, the idea of a limit was being used to find Pi long before it was deemed ‘calculus’. And why they ever went about trying to credit two people with inventing it is beyond me (except for the obvious reason, which was money and prestige)
Leibniz got it, as his notation was adopted. I think you will find that “England” got second prize in this respect.
But I thought this was about science. Maths is only one tool of science.
The claim that all modern science is based on Faith is absurd. I just think you guys are watching too much “Discovery Channel”.
Everytime I have seen that I am horrified by the hopeless presentation and the idiotic speculations presented as facts. The entire channel is full of morons.
Then there is the popular press, which includes magazines, news and populist books, all of which are guilty of the crime of presenting bullshit as if it were science.
But anyone who reads decent books might have come across the real stuff.
Here’s something you might be interested in.
The idea of it was ancient. All Leibniz did was adopt it to modern math language. And for that, he deserves credit. But he did not invent it. Similar with Newton and gravity. Newton certainly did not invent the idea of gravity and was actually sued for trying to steal credit for it. He won the suit based on the fact that he provided a means to measure it and admitted that he didn’t originally think of the idea of it.
The enlightenment era was about revelation through measuring, not new concepts. The only new concepts they promote turn out to be false; eg. Relativity and Quantum Mysticism.
This wise scientist is claiming that the expansion of the universe is an empirically proven fact! That is certainly the most valuable discovery in the experimental physics ever.
He must be a genius and i am wondering why he is not awarded with the Noble Prize yet!
Like I said, since WW2, Science has been made into a religion. You are not allowed to question its prophets or its dogma. If you attempt doing so, you will be “Jesus teaching in the Jewish temple”. If you keep questioning them at Physics-Forum, they will lock the thread, delete the most offending posts, and/or ban you for life.
They are there to preach their holy gospel, not to question it.
And ALL of the physics forums throughout the internet are that way with extremely few exceptions for very small forums where people knowledgeable of physics never show up.
The excuse “personal theories rarely accomplish anything and only attract crackpots” is paramount to saying, “disbelievers rarely contribute anything and only attract demons”. If you can’t ban the doubt, ban the doubter.
Those running your world very seriously could not care less of truth. They care only for dominion, nothing more.
The appearance of the universe conforms exactly to the thought that the universe is expanding. Do you have a problem with that, or is it his use of language?
What does not change is the empirical evidence. And I am sure that if you could get Copurnicus in a room with Ptolemy they could both agree on the observations, and agree that this did not defy physics. Ptolemy would insist that the earth was at the centre, and Copernicus that the sun was. But as Wittgenstein asked what we it “look like”, and the answer to both systems would be as it appears.
Eventually you have to choose, and be prepared to change.
There are now more reasons that the heliocentric model has to work whilst the geocentric one cannot; reasons that we not understood until much later. But the inherent physics and the observable universe is assumed to be a constant…
And the appearance of the universe does NOT “conform exactly to the thought”. It generally conforms to that thought, and many other thoughts … never mind that appearances are notably deceptive.
If you had a long series of cups wherein every 6th cup was empty and all others had an apple in them, you could count on your fingers up to five cups with apples. The 6th cup would then always have no apple. Many people can repeat that experiment thousands of times. Thus it can be scientifically proven that the empty cups are empty because you only have five fingers on your hand.
The “theory” is that BECAUSE we see light of a lower spectrum than our other theories would predict, red shifting has occurred.
The “theory” is that BECAUSE the universe is expanding, we see that red-shift.
