Page 1 of 1

### Differential calculus defined by differences - what more meaningful ?

Posted: Sat Aug 08, 2015 8:08 pm
Hi!

I just discovered a philosopher, who re-define differential calculus by itself - knowing: not limit of a quotient having a denominator "going to zero".
The name of the philosopher is Miles Mathis. His algorithm is in part Four:
http://milesmathis.com/are.html
-No "infinitesimal" calculus.

As he write on his paper about exponentials, infinitesimal calculus is not more exact, but less!
http://milesmathis.com/expon.html
Knowing you cannot go under the basis of the exponent, in which case you would obtain more imprecision, because the unity define your curve!
The only way to become more precise, being to precise the measure (as measuring in angstrom in place of meters).

With "infinitesimal" calculus, you do not go "to zero" nor "access a point". As the limit is defined, for a distance on the "x", the mathematician can find a "y" as near as he will from the function - but that does not imply in any case that we "access the point". It remains distances comparisons.

In particular, derivatives and integrals were applied in any sense, knowing we are told to obtain the acceleration in differentiating the velocity with respect to the time, while nowadays we actually differentiate the curve (acceleration) to find a velocity.
Finding instantaneous velocity were insane, since the reverse problem of finding a velocity from an instant is a theoretical absurdity.

### Re: Differential calculus defined by differences - what more meaningful ?

Posted: Sun Aug 09, 2015 12:24 am
NielsBohr wrote:Finding instantaneous velocity were insane, since the reverse problem of finding a velocity from an instant is a theoretical absurdity.
I completely agree with you, although Werner Heisenberg was inclined to a different view. Unfortunately for poor Werner his simple misunderstanding of the obvious led to a mathematical model for the sub-atomic world which makes no sense. C'est la vie.
NielsBohr wrote:With "infinitesimal" calculus, you do not go "to zero" nor "access a point".
Once again I completely agree and for many years this was also very poorly understood in physics. However nowadays most have learnt the error of their ways and the singularity has gone the way of phlogiston and the luminiferous aether.

### Re: Differential calculus defined by differences - what more meaningful ?

Posted: Sun Aug 09, 2015 12:53 pm
Hi Obvious Leo,

I did not expect an according answer!

Actually, I did not know what to expect from an english forum (Miles Mathis were censored from US universities, although he is approved by a NASA astrophysicist). But I can tell you that a french "science" forum became rapidly somewhat hostile after such a post - they are so sure (maybe exactly because they were hard to accept) that their "truths" taught in school are "knowledge" in a kind.

When I was physics student, I did not believe in knowledge anymore - so changed of profession.

-To remain on this topic: I was sure, not more than 2 months ago, that the indetermination principle was really a discover of Heisenberg without mathematical underlying concept. Although understandable in such, Mathis make it so much clear.

I worshiped several physicists, as my pseudo let it know, but with this philosopher, all my physics idols are vanished. Newton would have seen at the finger, and the others would have followed him! It is just barely believable.

### Re: Differential calculus defined by differences - what more meaningful ?

Posted: Sun Aug 09, 2015 1:43 pm
Physics is not without its uses but the models of physics are not physical models. They are merely mathematical representations of physical models which confer on themselves a powerful predictive authority but no explanatory authority whatsoever, a point made expressly clear by Einstein throughout his life and one which was nicely summed up by your namesake.

"Mathematics can be used to prove ANYTHING"....Albert Einstein

"It is NOT the role of the physicist to explain what the universe is but merely to determine what he can meaningfully say about its behaviour"....Niels Bohr.

### Re: Differential calculus defined by differences - what more meaningful ?

Posted: Sun Aug 09, 2015 2:28 pm
Thanks for the quotations, and lol for Einstein.

Okay, if I understand Bohr, its is about the difference between noumenons and phenomenons...

I was (almost) of the point of view of Einstein to nowadays.

But depending on Mathis, it would be the reverse of your introduction. If I understand him (and he is clear), (physical) science could explain but I am not sure about its prediction.

As you can see in his papers:
http://milesmathis.com/avr.html,
http://milesmathis.com/lemma.html
Several among first Newtons's lemma are wrong, and all modern science is based upon it. As far as science is based on these lemma, math will do anything.

I gain more faith in his way doing maths - because natural language is back, and his methods have intrinsical meaning.

I think we must wary these mathematicians preventing us in using natural language (anyway is there no time in the exams to use it - or only a little bit), and that they are doing so to hide their own catch (as you can see on the neperian logarithm paper).

And as I understand, science would be essentially non predictive due to the right manner of finding velocity from acceleration (or variable acceleration, or variable of variable of...) and not the reverse.

In fact, thank to him, and if science is done right in the next decades, it will be much less esoterical than before.

(You can also see his trigonometry:
http://milesmathis.com/trig.html
- the chain rules do not apply - especially for elementary trig functions as sine or cosine, which shall be linked to each other to find a derivative, because the rate of change of one, is by definition linked to the other. Any mean that invoke isolated derivative would be void.)

### Re: Differential calculus defined by differences - what more meaningful ?

Posted: Sun Aug 09, 2015 9:57 pm
NielsBohr wrote: Okay, if I understand Bohr, its is about the difference between noumenons and phenomenons...
Yes, very much so. What Bohr states here is simple Kant 101. Physics is only able to model the observations of the observer and the observations of the observer are a construct of the observer's consciousness. Put even more simply we can say that instead of modelling what's happening in the world physics can only model what the observer THINKS is happening in the world. Once again Einstein was very alert to this problem.

"It is the THEORY which determines what the observer will observe"....Albert Einstein.

Although I'm very well schooled in mathematical philosophy, Niels, I'm far less fluent with the tools of mathematics and thus I must declare myself unqualified to comment on the mathematical validity of the Mathis papers which you link to. However I read through them and had no difficulty in grasping the general principles he was getting at. In many ways Mathis's objections to Newton's conclusions reminded me of similar objections expressed by Leibniz 300 years ago. In my opinion the disagreements between Leibniz and Newton were the most significant clash of ideas in the history of science and the wrong bloke won the argument because this was more than just a childish spat about who invented the calculus and who stole what from whom. This was a fundamental disagreement about what the calculus could and could not tell us about the very existential nature of space and time. The science of physics was founded by Newton so he got to define these things according to his own narrative of the world as a created entity with its Cartesian space and absolute time, but Leibniz was never having any of it, an obscure fact long forgotten by most. Two hundred years ago Einstein and Minkowski arrived on the scene to attach some embellishments to Newton's ideas but his fundamentally flawed narrative remained untouched.

The universe which physics is currently describing remains a created entity brought into existence by an external causal agent at a finite point in time with a suite of physical laws of unknown origin along with a generous array of mathematical constants whose values can never be explained, even in principle. The models used are an affront to human reason because of this and therefore this so-called "science" has been stranded in a conceptual cul-de-sac for a century. We do not live in a Newtonian universe which means that Newton's mathematics are nothing more than convenient heuristics which are useful for making very accurate but nevertheless approximate predictions about the behaviour of matter and energy. Einstein's efforts to put lipstick on a pig allowed for even more accurate but nevertheless approximate predictions about the behaviour of matter and energy.

However both the Newtonian and the Einsteinian narratives of space and time are fundamentally flawed and thus these models bring us no closer to the ding und sich of our universe. The Noumenon remains hidden from our understanding.

### Re: Differential calculus defined by differences - what more meaningful ?

Posted: Tue Aug 11, 2015 1:01 pm
Obvious Leo wrote:Two hundred years ago Einstein and Minkowski arrived on the scene to attach some embellishments to Newton's ideas but his fundamentally flawed narrative remained untouched.
That's interesting!
Obvious Leo wrote:The universe which physics is currently describing remains a created entity brought into existence by an external causal agent at a finite point in time with a suite of physical laws of unknown origin along with a generous array of mathematical constants whose values can never be explained, even in principle.
When I was young, I read an article about a Big-Bang which happened in all the universe, and would not understand it, but if the universe was a point itself, it remains meaning.
Some think the laws may be preexistent.

But, if the universe created the time, as it is nothing else than a mechanism mesure (or a mesure mechanism), or other mechanisms comparison, (as with a watch or other more sophisticated mean), we can be lead to the idea that time was created itself.

So there would be a paradox of a Universe created but also existing "from always".
Obvious Leo wrote:The models used are an affront to human reason because of this and therefore this so-called "science" has been stranded in a conceptual cul-de-sac for a century. We do not live in a Newtonian universe which means that Newton's mathematics are nothing more than convenient heuristics which are useful for making very accurate but nevertheless approximate predictions about the behaviour of matter and energy. Einstein's efforts to put lipstick on a pig allowed for even more accurate but nevertheless approximate predictions about the behaviour of matter and energy.

However both the Newtonian and the Einsteinian narratives of space and time are fundamentally flawed and thus these models bring us no closer to the ding und sich of our universe. The Noumenon remains hidden from our understanding.
Thank you.

I remember that the absoluteness of the time (and of space) was false, since Newton's times, but I do not remember the arguments of these times.

If the Universe really was created from a point, it appears to me that - outside our earthy conception - there would be in someway an absolute space?

The fact that the "watch" unset itself (that the universe transformed itself) does not mean that the absolute time is completely irrelevant ?

### Re: Differential calculus defined by differences - what more meaningful ?

Posted: Tue Aug 11, 2015 8:39 pm
All of the logical absurdities in physics derive from Newton's a priori assumption that the universe is a created entity which operates according to a suite of laws which we have come to understand as the "laws of physics". There are no such laws because reality is self-organising. The universe just does what she does and it is the observer who codifies this self-organising behaviour into an epistemic system of laws.

Absolutely EVERY paradox and counter-intuitive absurdity in modern physics is directly attributable to this conceptual error.

### Re: Differential calculus defined by differences - what more meaningful ?

Posted: Fri Aug 14, 2015 3:36 pm
Ok, thanks. But, what to propose as a concept in place of this?

Is it to say that the universe existed from always?

### Re: Differential calculus defined by differences - what more meaningful ?

Posted: Fri Aug 14, 2015 8:27 pm
NielsBohr wrote:Is it to say that the universe existed from always?
It would certainly be a good place to start. Once we overthrow the first law of thermodynamics we define a universe which is insufficient to its own existence and thus unknowable. The unknowable lies beyond the reach of scientific or philosophical enquiry and within the domain of the priests and shamans and I very much doubt that human progress will be facilitated by such a retrograde step.

The first thing physics needs to do is establish some metaphysical first principles which establish a framework within which it can interrogate the universe. "The universe is everything that exists" would be a bloody good starting point since the universe is the only thing we can make meaningful statements about anyway.

### Re: Differential calculus defined by differences - what more meaningful ?

Posted: Fri Sep 04, 2015 7:06 pm
NielsBohr wrote:Hi!

I just discovered a philosopher, who re-define differential calculus by itself - knowing: not limit of a quotient having a denominator "going to zero".
The name of the philosopher is Miles Mathis. His algorithm is in part Four:
http://milesmathis.com/are.html
-No "infinitesimal" calculus.

As he write on his paper about exponentials, infinitesimal calculus is not more exact, but less!
http://milesmathis.com/expon.html
Knowing you cannot go under the basis of the exponent, in which case you would obtain more imprecision, because the unity define your curve!
The only way to become more precise, being to precise the measure (as measuring in angstrom in place of meters).

With "infinitesimal" calculus, you do not go "to zero" nor "access a point". As the limit is defined, for a distance on the "x", the mathematician can find a "y" as near as he will from the function - but that does not imply in any case that we "access the point". It remains distances comparisons.

In particular, derivatives and integrals were applied in any sense, knowing we are told to obtain the acceleration in differentiating the velocity with respect to the time, while nowadays we actually differentiate the curve (acceleration) to find a velocity.
Finding instantaneous velocity were insane, since the reverse problem of finding a velocity from an instant is a theoretical absurdity.