/sci/ - Science & Math

>>14718753
>modern
>published in 2004
the funny part is that physics has discovered exactly nothing since 2004, so the book is still valid even though its practically from the previous century
physics discoveries from 1904 - 1922
>like a goldmine filled with diamonds
vs
physics discoveries from 2004 - 2022
>laughs in your face

>>14718753
Because you are an angular momentum conserver which is one step below a flat earther.

>>14718821
Honestly, it covers all the advanced math basics. Once you have studied it, then you can proceed to acquire more precise books on desired topics.

>>14718835
Yea, it covers that angular momentum is conserved as long as you accept that “it spins faster” and do not measure it because. If you measure, COAM is false.

>>14718846
It doesn't. Try reading it next time ;)

>>14718772
>2004
>practically from the previous century

>>14718898
So you are claiming that it does not imagine that angular momentum is conserved

>>14718846
COAM is a myth spread by people like Hegel and Goethe. Good job recognizing this. I suggest you look up Ken Wheeler's video on COAM

>>14718981
Electric Universe just makes more sense. The Standard Model is irrational schizo nonsense and is not actual science especially due to COAM. "Scientists" will go on a century-long search for the invisible magic matter before they will admit that gravity is probably secondary to the other infinite range but 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 times stronger force in the universe (the non-dark, actually real part of the universe that is) that is 99.9% made up of a state of matter that interacts strongly to the field of said stronger force.

>>14718846
>>14718981
Wallace Thornhill the proverbial thorn in the side of gravity and COAM; shills everywhere. In 10 years time, the electric universe will be mainstream. Join the winning team.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5AUA7XS0TvA

This thread got derailed by COAM schizos.
/sci always delivers

>>14718772
Yeah everything has basically sucked since 2007.
On a lighter note, look at videogames from 1995 - 2000

Then look at the last 5 years to today, it's a fucking joke.

>>14719026
The schizo is the one imagining COAM is true when you have never seen anything confirming it schizo.

>>14719026

>>14719000
Fuck off you ignorant psychotic moron.

>>14719067
COAM shill

>>14719062
the moon confirms it every night

>>14719066
It is a psychotic individual who is obsessed with spreading pictures of the person that they are incapable of defeating the arguments from. Psycho

>>14719083
>I-It is a psychotic individual who is obsessed with spreading pictures of the person that they are incapable of defeating the arguments from. Psycho!!!

>>14719070
Shill shill. I support COAE idiot.

>>14719086
Shill harder

>>14719085
When it is accepted that COAE is true and coam is false, then how stupid are you going to feel?

>>14719091
Only in your dreams, faggot!

>>14719090
How idiotic are you to be insulting the person who is changing the course of history? What is it like to be the one responsible for interfering with the progress of humanity. All because you are ignorant and dogmatic.

>>14719100
You'll be forgotten the second you die.

>>14719095
Nope. The truth has to succeed because all of the evidence supports it. The fact that you deny all evidence does not make you right.

>>14719107
COAE is not common sense, COAM is

>>14719101
Nope, I wi be remembered in 300 years time as the person who faced insults and rejection for being right. And people will wonder how idiots like yourself could have been so obviously stupid.

>>14719111
nah, you'll be put in some mass grave in bumfuck nowhere Zimbabwe and be forgotten about.

>>14719109
Incorrect. COAE is common sense which is why engineers use it. In denial that they contradict COAM.

COAM contradicts common sense in that it predicts 12000 rpm for a typical ball on a string demonstration which common sense tells us is wrong.

>>14719120
Common sense was retroactively refuted by Guenon (pbuh), like so many other foolish notions

>We have said that pragmatism represents the final outcome of all the modern philosophy and marks the lowest stage in its decline; but outside the philosophical field there also exists, and has already existed for a long time, a diffused and unsystematized pragmatism which is to philosophical pragmatism what practical materialism is to philosophical materialism, and which merges into what people generally call “common sense.” This almost instinctive utilitarianism is inseparable, moreover, from the materialistic tendency: common sense consists in not venturing beyond the terrestrial horizon, as well as in not paying attention to anything devoid of an immediate practical interest; it is “common sense,” above all, that regards the world of the senses as alone being real and admits of no knowledge beyond what proceeds from the senses; and even this limited degree of knowledge is of value in its eyes only in so far as it allows of satisfying material needs and also sometimes because it feeds a certain kind of sentimentalism, since sentiment, as must be frankly admitted at the risk of shocking contemporary “moralism,” really is very closely related to matter. No room is left in all this for intelligence, except in so far as it may consent to be put to the service of practical ends, acting as a mere instrument subordinated to the requirements of the lowest or corporeal portion of the human individual, “a tool for making tools,” to quote a significant expression of Bergson’s: “pragmatism” in all its forms amounts to a complete indifference to truth.

>>14719114
I have never lived in zimbabwe delusional idiot.

>>14719124
you have

>>14719121
You claim that COAM is common sense. And now this. Wtf ???

>>14719127
Guenon refuted COAE

>>14719125
No. I grew up In Rhodesia. I have never lived in Zimbabwe twit.

>>14719121
He looks and sounds like an incel brainlet.

>>14719129
Bullshit. Nobody has shown a ball on a string doing 12000 rpm. Ignoramus.

>>14719133
Guenon has

>>14719131
Same thing, you fucking racist

>>14719121
Rene Guenon is the most correct, smartest, and most important person of the twentieth century. There was no smarter, deeper, clearer, absolute Guenon and probably could not be. It is no coincidence that the French traditionalist René Allé in one collection dedicated to R. Guenon compared Guenon with Marx. It would seem that there are completely different, opposite figures. Guenon is a conservative hyper-traditionalist. Marx is a revolutionary innovator, a radical overthrower of traditions. But Rene Halle rightly guessed the revolutionary message of each of Guenon's statements, the extreme, cruel noncomformity of his position, which turns everything and everything upside down, the radical nature of his thought.

The fact is that René Guenon is the only author, the only thinker of the twentieth century, and maybe many, many centuries before that, who not only identified and confronted with each other secondary language paradigms, but also put into question the very essence of language. The language of Marxism was methodologically very interesting, subtly reducing the historical existence of mankind to a clear and convincing formula for confronting labor and capital. Being a great paradigmatic success, Marxism was so popular and won the minds of the best intellectuals of the twentieth century. But R. Guenon is an even more fundamental generalization, an even more radical removal of masks, an even broader worldview contestation, putting everything into question.

>>14719133
>>14719127
>>14719120
Atomism and COAE refuted by Guenon
>If, as must be done in this instance, the word atom be taken in its true sense of “ indivisible,” a sense which modern physicists no longer give to it, it may be said that an atom, since it cannot have parts, must also be without area; now the sum of elements devoid of an area can never form an area; if atoms fulfill their own definition, it is then impossible for them to make up bodies. To this well-known and more-over decisive chain of reasoning, another may also be added, employed by Shankaracharya in order to refute atomism 1: two things can come into contact with one another either by a part of themselves or by the whole; for atoms, devoid as they are of parts, the first hypothesis is inadmissible; thus only the second hypothesis remains, which amounts to saying that the aggregation of two atoms can only be realized by their coincidence purely and simply, whence it clearly follows that two atoms when joined occupy no more space than a single atom and so forth indefinitely: so, as before, atoms, whatever their number, will never form a body. Thus atomism represents nothing but a sheer impossibility, as we pointed out when explaining the sense in which heterodoxy is to be understood ; [...]

>>14719140
Nope. Not the same thing you fucking grasping at straws to make insults piece of shit. Face the fact that 12000 rpm objectively falsified COAM you fucking ignorant piece of shit.

>>14719153
Zimbabwe is what it used to be called before racist colonialists like you enslaved the place. Fucking racist piece of shit

>>14719150
Bullshit is still bullshit. No matter how long and drawn out you bull the shit.

>>14719154
No it is not you delusional fucking idiot. It was called southern Rhodesia.

>>14719154
Stop faking character assassination just because you are unable to defeat my paper you evasive fucking lying weasel. Fuck you.

>>14719159
>>14719162
racist motherfucker. You're wrong https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Kingdom_of_Zimbabwe

>>14719157
refuted by Guenon

>>14719164
The name of the place changed and I lived there when it was one name and not the other. You making that somehow racist is a stretch which you do for no other reason than to evade the fact that you are too stupid and ignorant and prejudiced to admit that you have failed to defeat my maths.

>>14719165
Nope. Cannot possibly be refuted by him. Which equation number has he contested? Delusional moron.

>>14719091
>>14719086
You're wrong. Newtonian mechanics' main idea is the idea of being able to express the relation between forces and movement (F=dp/dt), this allows us to express interactions between objects numerically, thus describing them more precisely, and thus understanding them more profoundly. Now suppose we did as guenon said and replaced + with x, then, in order to for instance describe the interaction of an oscillator (an oscillating pendulum for instance) with a good approximation, then by using Newton's law, we would have after some calculations what is known as an ordinary differential equation (equation with derivatives, in this case, second degree, of the form ax'' + bx' + cx + d = 0). Now with +, you can use math to solve this, and so you can by solving it describe entirely the movement of the oscillator with a good approximation, and so you have understood it better. With Guenon's way of doing things, you would not be able to solve this, (ax''bx'cxd=1) and even if you could, what you would find would be utterly complicated and wouldn't even describe accurately the system, simply because what he is describing does not correspond to the reality (the relation between the forces is not a relation of proportionality, the signs + and x have a well-defined meaning in physics because of their mathematical properties) but only describes what HE views as reality. His way of doing things is not science (both in the platonic sense and the modern sense) since he does not try to better understand the world using it. He already has a vision of the world he has gained from reading ancient texts or whatever, and is just blindly following, not even once doubting the thing he believes in. I too hate the scientism of anglos, but I believe that you guys are just like them, you blindly follow a doctrine and act as if it destroys all others (your Guenon btfo'd is the same as their Dawkins btfo'd).

>>14719178
You are delusional.

>>14719178
>>14719091
>>14719086
At no point does Guenon use any sound reasoning to argue for his case, and at no point does he define, even slightly, the word he uses.
Now I am going to end this with something that just came up to me: maybe guenon meant that + become x and 0 becomes 1, basically, just exchange the signs without the meaning (0x0=2 for 1+1=2 for instance, and 0+2=2 for 1x2=2) even though I doubt he meant this, that is, for obvious reason, absolutely retarded, since it is literally the same thing...

>>14719177
The sacred indefinitude of the natural numbers makes this question meaningless.

>>14719181
So guenon is wrong. And my arguments use only sound reasoning and cannot be defeated at all, so COAM is objectively false.

>>14719180
you're pathetic man, everyone knows that you're just the same guy spamming these unfunny posts. truly pathetic, unauthentic and bugman behavior. you're just adopting esoteric views to seem cool and use it as a replacement for your personality, because deep down you're an empty shell. the worst part about this is that you're also stupid.

>>14719185
Guenon is an advocate of COAE btw. That other guy was trolling

>>14719186
No. I have made a historical discovery and am facing the personal attack and blind rejection that every other significant scientific discovery ever made in history triggered.

You are following the established tradition blindly and refusing to consider the possibility that there can be any fault with it.
That is why you neglect the evidence and personally insult me.

>>14719185
You'd actually agree with Guenon if you read him. The guy even says at some point that the notation Fa/b + Fb/a = 0 (newton's equilibrium law) is false because 0 represents a lack of manifestation, and so the law should be rewritten as n x n' = 1 (n and n' being the intensity of the forces) because the equilibrium should symbolise the unity of "Being". This is absolutely retarded and some of the most pseud shit I've ever seen, how the fuck are you supposed to apply Newton's law with that? The Newtonian would lose all its interests, which is the ability to rigorously calculate the intensity of the interaction between objects (good luck solving ODE's if you replace + with x... it's almost as if he never did actual physics before).
He says math and science have lost its meaning due to Newton's laws being wrong
This is what you get where instead of rigor and logic you choose to just blindly follow past thoughts and traditions, all his arguments are arguments from authority (muh leibniz) or just unfounded and undefined claims/objects (muh "Being"/"Principle"). This is why people working in humanities should never speak about STEM, especially if they believe in nonsense (which is the case of all the "mystical" pseuds some of you seem to worship lately).
I am thankful though, I've never laughed this much reading a book before. Thanks Guenon.

>>14719189
No, he is not. That is nonsense. You are deluded.

>>14719195
He says Newton's laws are wrong, which means COAM is wrong

>>14719192
I do not agree with anyone that comes up with so much bullshit. The truth is always simple.

>>14719197
>The truth is always simple
prove it

>>14719191
Math doesn't exist and is the subjective assimilation of the man without organs within the Dionysian plane of Osiris. Only once you realize Iamblicus symbolically castrated Plato retroactively can you realize that the last man of the Kali Yuga was, paradoxically, the spectacle of capital that ontologically perished in the race war of years gone by. Thus, when John Baptist said that he was unworthy of losing the sandals of the man that would soon arrive, he fully assimilated the symbolic hierarchy of post-modernism and the flows that parasitically circulate within its own solar anus. To be cast away from the veil of the hylic nature one has to read the Mūlamadhyamakakārikā and fully commit self-death, not to the Oedipal complex of course, but rather to the life fulfilling machine of capital that violates every single categorical imperative and leads one on into the realm of beyond-being-self when one can only see the reflected Id as the Psychic self of Shankara, as Guenon (pbuh) once said.

That's just my opinion

>>14719062
In Decline of the West Spengler criticized the notion of universal transcultural mathematics and of constant progress of knowledge within that unified framework Rather he asserts that mathematics is the expression of the unique soul of each culture thus Western mathematics is not a continuation of Greek mathematics because Greek mathematics was already a finished project by the time of Euclid who completed the remaining task of synthesizing the knowledge that had been accumulated through centuries
Greek culture is concerned with pure locality that is man and his immediate surroundings which implies mathematics of the local: geometry
By contrast Faustian mathematics concerns itself chiefly with problems of infinity (for Faustian civilization has infinite space as its symbolic form) infinite sets and numbers which can't be said to exist in the same way as rational numbers (irrational numbers (that capture pure becoming as opposed to Greek pure being),complex numbers,quaternions etc)
Historically advances in development of calculus of infinitesimals coincided with parallel developments in the world of science art and politics (Bruno's idea of infinite universe, Newton's conception of uniform linear motion as a default state of bodies as opposed to Aristotelian notion of natural place, introduction of perspective in painting specifically Western concept of infinite everlasting progress of society etc)
Faustian mathematics has played itself out. If we were to sketch the outline of the state of contemporary mathematics a complete lack of true innovation would definitely be a distinguishing feature. The last truly innovative development in mathematics was the introduction of topology
Since then the whole mathematical world seemed to have been more concerned with systematizing and finding connections between subdivisions of already existing material (Grothendieck, Bourbaki, category theory) as well as solving simple-sounding problems in the most inelegant of ways

>>14719203
This has to be a troll. Such a sheer level of pseudery is impossible to pull off unironically.

>>14719199
I have but you neglect evidence which does not agree with the established traditional beliefs.
http://www.baur-research.com/Physics/MPS.pdf

>>14719206
Yes, probably bot generated bullshit.

>>14719209
off-topic

>>14719191
you're not funny

wtf is this thread. Someone ban John so this doesn't happen in the future.

>Not Springer
Disgusting

>>14721490
this

>>14718753
bumping this gem

>>14718981
>angular momentum is conserved
All moment is conserved.