The foolish dream (at the cost of public resources) of official physics for a "theory of everything"?

"The perception that all the phenomena of Nature are systematically interconnected drives science to prove this interconnection throughout, both in general and in detail. But an adequate, exhaustive scientific statement of this interconnection, the formulation in thought of an exact picture of the world system in which we live, is impossible for us, and will always remain impossible. If at any time in the evolution of mankind such a final, conclusive system of the interconnections within the world - physical as well as mental and historical – were brought to completion, this would mean that human knowledge had reached its limit, and, from the moment when society had been brought into accord with that system, further historical evolution would be cut short – which would be an absurd idea, pure nonsense.

Mankind therefore finds itself faced with a contradiction; on the one hand, it has to gain an exhaustive knowledge of the world system in all in its interrelations; and on the other hand, because of the nature both of man and of the world system, this task can never be completely fulfilled. But this contradiction lies not only in the nature of the two factors – the world, and man – it is also the main lever of all intellectual advance, and finds its solution continuously, day by day, in the endless progressive evolution of humanity just as for example mathematical problems find their solution in an infinite series or continued fractionations. Each mental image of the world system is and remains in actual fact limited, objectively through the historical stage and subjectively through the physical and mental constitution of its maker". ( Frederick Engels, Anti-Dühring)

Two things, experimental science is expensive, and there is more trend to theory.

Nowadays published research comes mainly from large well funded groups, which subsist well.

That have prestigious

names.

Maybe many journals do not get any really significant work, just a rehash of old problems.

War and problems interrupts much progress. When the river dries, you start taking anything.

Its hard to give prizes to mathematicalized quasi-science. The Swedish council decisions on

the Nobel prize are hard. They constantly look around for good original work, some of the choices come

from long ago already. Sure, any decision will be fairly subjective.

Howdy Abdul Malek,

No. It's "good news" when new things are discovered, but the implications of "Gospel" are misleading for sincere research in general and it will not deflect the insincere.

Theory of Everything at this stage of our ignorance is press release stuff, however much press it gets. A more inclusive theory would be nice, however. In a short story by Damon Runyon, "A Story Goes With It," tips on betting on horses always have to have a story to justify the tip: don't bet unless you believe the story. Funding for T. O. E.'s is usually being done on the possibility provided in the story (they were called Dog and Pony Shows decades ago), not on the expectation that issues still unknown will be included in "everything." Funding may be careful career-wise, but it is not random or "building a bridge lengthwise on the Mississippi River" to use up the funds (an old joke about bureaucrats).

Who is responsible? Humanity, and the side affects of self-seeking persons after income with more personal than public concern for the source. So, what is new there? "The cost of public resources?" It is a sad fact in opposition to common sense that absurd circulation of money (value, benefit, ??), from which circulation individuals are able to catch a little is better than ideal use by persons who would conceive such an ideal. Democracy is terrible, but the wise methods of government always go wrong along the way and actually are able to be worse. Similarly, excessive care of human resources (using them only for "worthwhile" expenses) will yield disaster, called depression. In circulation, 100 of whatever kind of value become a thousand, while in a "safe" deposit box remain they remain zero.

Humans are gregarious in general and they gather around where others are for good reason, there are no signposts out where genius finds "New Gospel" insights and most persons should not take that unguided risk. The history of successful discovery has too much inefficiency and individuality in it to worry about the group using up the money. Those discoverers will do it anyway and they are not obvious in advance. Give a gold prospector the lion's share of his find and thousands will prospect on speculation. It's very efficient for gold users.

"If at any time in the evolution of mankind such a final, conclusive system of the interconnections within the world - physical as well as mental and historical – were brought to completion, this would mean that human knowledge had reached its limit, and, from the moment when society had been brought into accord with that system, further historical evolution would be cut short – which would be an absurd idea, pure nonsense." How much human resource has been spent reading this absurd quote? and Mankind therefore finds itself faced with a contradiction; on the one hand, it has to gain an exhaustive knowledge of the world system in all in its interrelations; and on the other hand, because of the nature both of man and of the world system, this task can never be completely fulfilled.

Not to worry. Although, the secret for an individual life is to be born in the right location in the right era. Then much of these "absurd idea" and "contradiction" problems don't affect you.

Happy Trails, Len

Leonard Hall > "Not to worry. Although, the secret for an individual life is to be born in the right location in the right era. Then much of these "absurd idea" and "contradiction" problems don't affect you."

I am sorry to say that you are are (perhaps opportunistically) resorting to solipsism to avoid the social scientific problems of humanity in general.

The "absurd idea" you refer to is the root of all knowledge and "contradiction" is the very source of change, motion, evolution, development, in other words, existence and life! The following is what Hegel had to say on this issue: "For, as against contradiction, identity is merely the determination of the simple immediate, of dead being; but contradiction is the root of all movement and vitality; it is only in so far as something has a contradiction within it that it moves, has an urge and activity” . While you seem to be pacified with self-preoccupation, I am afraid, it is of no help to humanity and society - a primary condition of your own existence, Sir! Happy living!

Howdy Abdul Malek,

No need to be "sorry to say," we all have opinions. I wrote also more significant things than the light-meaning observation you quoted. Actually, long before Hegel, Plutarch noted in his life of Agesilaus "Natural philosophers are of the opinion that, if strife and discord should be banished from the universe, the heavenly bodies would stand still, and all generation and motion would cease in consequence of the general harmony. And so the Spartan law-giver seems to have introduced the spirit of ambition and contention into his civil polity as an incentive to virtue, desiring that good citizens should always be somewhat at variance and in conflict with one another, and deeming that complaisance which weakly yields without debate, which knows no effort and no struggle, to be wrongly called concord."

"Solipsism" is the quality of being very self-centered or selfish: or the view or theory that the self is all that can be known to exist. I don't think that applies here. I objected to: ". . . from the moment when society had been brought into accord with that system, further historical evolution would be cut short . . .." in defense of the richness of humanity and learning, that is, for me such a moment could not occur. I also objected to: "Mankind therefore finds itself faced with a contradiction; on the one hand, it has to gain an exhaustive knowledge of the world system in all in its interrelations; and on the other hand, because of the nature both of man and of the world system, this task can never be completely fulfilled." I do not object to contradiction, I find Plutarch wise, but I found the quotes in your post unbelievable and noted that opinion. ". . . a final, conclusive system of the interconnections within the world . . ." and ". . . that human knowledge had reached its limit . . ." are not absurd?

I knew a teacher who often said "Give me a rebel every time!" and she meant something on which I believe you and I agree, if you look deeper you shall find I am not guilty of "pacified with self-preoccupation." But then, discussion without contradiction would be dead, would it not - at least useless. Curiosity is the root of all knowledge not contradiction or strife - perhaps.

Actually, I am in sympathy, perhaps even empathy, with your opening idea that a "foolish dream" is wasting a lot of resources. That I see the issue in a different historical perspective is perhaps more accurate than an idea that I do not see. Your post is an interesting argument about wise funding and meaningful recognition, to be sure.

Happy Trails, Len

Leonard Hall : Thanks for the further clarification of your views and the quote from Plutarch. The idea of “contradiction” in Greek philosophy originated much earlier than Plutarch, with Heraclitus’ dialectics (idea of dynamis and change) in opposition to the Identity (the idea of stasis, permanence) of his contemporary, Parmenides and of the Eleatics in general. Heraclitus posited the brilliant germ of dialectics with the following immortal words of intuition, “Everything comes into being and passes out of existence due to inner conflict (“contradiction” for Hegel).”

You probably can appreciate more, the quote from Engels (my direct source of scientific inspiration) in the context of the following publication on epistemology: http://www.e-journal.org.uk/shape/papers/Special%2064.pdf

And the following RG question on ontology: “What is the Most Fundamental Essence of Humanity?” : https://www.researchgate.net/post/What-is-the-Most-Fundamental-Essence-of-Humanity#view=64be9abd037cb819b30c4e67/37

Best regards,

Abdul

Howdy Abdul Malek ,

Agreed. A pleasant accord. You clarified Plutarch's "Natural philosophers are of the opinion . . .." well. Actually, I like Heraclitus' "~ One cannot step into the same river twice.~" best, but then I've been fascinated by flow since my 5th Spring, watching snowmelt runoff into puddles then.

Happy Trails, Len

Juan Weisz > "Two things, experimental science is expensive, and there is more trend to theory."

Other than the Kantian subjective idealism and brain-cooked logical/mathematical categories used in modern theoretical physics and cosmology led by Einstein, in foolish attempts to know “the Mind of God” in “a theory of everything”; my greatest reproach, reprimand and indictment is reserved for the so-called “experimental proofs” of the esoteric theories of modern physics. These “proofs” are subjectively motivated after the fact, deceptive, contrived or some even false, lured by the promise of fame and recognition and are totally corrupt. What is more, Kant’s subjective idealism of logical/mathematical categories can only know the phenomena (the smile of the Cheshire Cat) perceived through the senses of men, but not the noumena (the objective reality or the Cat itself), which for Kant, is an “unknowable thing-in-itself”. The mighty thinker Kant warned philosophy to abate its claim of any knowledge of objective reality! Also, to save causality in philosophy, Kant said, “I Found it necessary to make room for faith”.

The discovery of the quantum (uncertainty) phenomena of objective reality by the turn of the 20th century and the breakdown of causality in physics; forced causality loving Einstein to import Kantian subjective idealism and logical/mathematical categories to deal with the problem of uncertainty in physics and to take resort to brain-cooked esoteric theories. While Kant warned against claim to any knowledge of objective reality, Einstein and his followers made their brain-cooked and esoteric theories as gold-standard tools to gain knowledge of physical reality; with the only requirement that these theories need “experimental proof” as to their validity or falsifiability – a criteria devised by an opportunist, an apologist and the turn-coat “Marxist” Karl Popper. All these are meant to trick the unsuspecting and noncritical population to accept these useless theories as scientific; because these theories reinforce the ruling ideas of regressive and decadent monopoly capitalism.

This disgraceful practice of “proofs” was initiated by no other than the science representative Arthur Eddington, of war-crisis prone British Imperialism, whose deliberately false claim of “proving” of Einstein’s theory of General Relativity (GR) from the bending of starlight; brought an obscure Einstein to world-fame overnight; and in the bargain, putting “salt to the wound” of rising German fascism. Eddington doubled down on his false claim by asserting (according to the American physicist Steven Weinberg), “Experimental data are valid only when supported by a good theory”. This arrogance of blatant falsehood has since formed the modus operandi for all subsequent “proofs” of the brain-cooked and esoteric theories of modern official physics and cosmology; because of the prevailing notion that these theories are mathematically and symmetrically perfect, ”renormalizable” etc., and hence must be “good and trustworthy theories”; and hence the claim of “proof” would never be questioned. Thus, we now have incontrovertible “proof” of “Big Bang” creation, “Black Hole”, Gravitational Waves etc., ad nauseum; entities that even Einstein (1) and Eddington (2) claimed as impossible from theoretical perspective alone! Eddington mockingly said, "The gravitational waves travel at the speed of thought". The bestowing of benediction on the proofs of these fantasy entities (including the God Particle) by the Vatican and the Nobel Committee represents the greatest ever insult to human intellect!

Traditionally, scientific theories representing positive knowledge (as opposed to brain-cooked fantasy, fancy, myths etc.), never needed any proof at all, because such theories arose from practice or accidental and unexpected discoveries and in turn led to even more advanced and elaborate social/historical practice, technology etc. These theories are proved millions of times each day through the practice of men. As the saying goes, “proof of the pudding in its eating”! Objective truth can come only through direct physical, material interaction of men with Nature through living practice, technology etc., in their subjective action to change the condition of their existence. There is no other way for positive knowledge! “The question whether objective truth can be attributed to human thinking is not a question of theory but a practical question. In practice man must prove the truth, i.e., the reality and power, the “this-sidedness” of his thinking. The dispute over the reality or non-reality of thinking which is isolated from practice is a purely scholastic question”. Karl Marx, “Theses on Feuerbach”.

https://www.muzsik.org/blog/2021/04/physics-cooked-up-in-ones-brain/

References:

1. A. Einstein, The Annals of Mathematics, Second Series, Vol. 40, No. 4 (Oct., 1939), pp. 922-936

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/8dd0/dfafef0c53c428fdc3b58f8099aafcf7d089.pdf

2. A.S. Eddington, F.R.S., The Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, Series A, Containing Papers of a Mathematical and Physical Character. The Propagation of Gravitational Waves. page 268, (Received October 11, 1922)

Howdy Abdul Malek ,

I expect Juan Weisz will reply well, but I wish to express empathy with your post. I have sought to understand fluid dynamics in a similarly strained world.

I am reminded of Bishop Berkley's objections to the flood of confidence that humanity finally had reality by the throat using Newtonian principles. And I learn: The association of Hegel with Thesis - Antithesis - Synthesis that I was going to mention got corrected: "Fichte introduced into German philosophy the three-step of thesis, antithesis, and synthesis, using these three terms. Schelling took up this terminology. Hegel did not. He never once used these three terms together to designate three stages in an argument or account in any of his books." (Wikipedia on Hegel), sigh - so much for the unchecked "truths" that so many folks follow. The idea, however, is behind my light-meaning, yet significant, observation that the human landscape is continually changing, and to quote a comment in a video "An ancient Chinese curse is 'May you live in interesting times.'"

I do consider it important, however, after a review of the thoughts of followers who do not understand with the depth of the master's conception, to follow that review by freeing the creator from the travesties of "disciples." We need the rhetoric to combat the latest "truth" craze in every human fad, but as Gibbon pointed out when writing the history of Emperor Constantine, history was nearly impossible because everything available was either vituperation or adulation. Moderation, also.

A SCUBA diver in our conversation on a train commented that one may become confused underwater as to which way is up. "What do you do?" "Release a bubble." Early transatlantic flight problem, lost in cloud and uncertain of which way was down. What to do? Drop a pencil. Philosophy, natural and conceptual, will survive. "Life tries everything, and the survivors try everything" is how I wrote it elsewhere about evolution. But it is painful to watch sometimes.

Happy Trails, Len

P. S. On Kant: I vaguely remember reading in his work something like "~. . . if I were wrong in what I have written, humans do not have free will . . .~" but I have not relocated it. So? Philosophers are interesting, and of course for Immanuel Kant free will was important. lfh

Leonard Hall >"Fichte introduced into German philosophy the three-step of thesis, antithesis, and synthesis, using these three terms. Schelling took up this terminology. Hegel did not. He never once used these three terms together to designate three stages in an argument or account in any of his books." (Wikipedia on Hegel),

Thanks for you kind words and the passage from Wiki. It is true (as far as I know) that Hegel never used this rather mechanical form of dialectical change, evolution etc. Hegel's take was (according to Engels) "The negation of the negation".

I often use (as Engels did) this expression in my works. For example I have shown in my following publication that Isaac Newton (by extension Albert Einstein) through their mathematical idealism (perfectly circular orbits of the planets in the solar system and universal gravitational attraction - no repulsive force, no contradiction), negated Kepler's elliptical orbits (centrifugal force) and Leibniz's vis viva in particular and the Copernican revolution in general and thereby, forced theoretical physics and cosmology into a blind alley, groping in the darkness. Only a dialectical "negation of the negation" of Newtonian/Einsteinian metaphysics can put physics back on its glorious path pioneered by Copernicus and on to a point of departure!

"KEPLER -NEWTON -LEIBNIZ -HEGEL Portentous and Conflicting Legacies in Theoretical Physics, Cosmology and in Ruling Ideas" Article KEPLER -NEWTON -LEIBNIZ -HEGEL Portentous and Conflicting Le...

"Quō Vādis Theoretical Physics and Cosmology? From Newton's Metaphysics to Einstein's Theology!" Article Quō Vādis Theoretical Physics and Cosmology? From Newton's M...

Abdul

I dont find that much

In your presentation

To contradict.

Generally i think science is based

More on empirics so i like

English philosophers more than

Continental ones.

The hydrogen atom spectra was

Available far before it was understood

By bohr and schrodinger

Perhaps the bending of light

Will eventally be understood in classical

Terms f=dp/dt light has momentum

Well both kepler and newton

Had elliptic orbits

Dont undestand this emnity with

English science

Juan Weisz > "Well both kepler and newton Had elliptic orbits"

Totally false! Please read the following publication in full and note the new (dialectical) gravitational potential proposed as against Newtonian gravitational potential. And please show if you can, anything wrong with these assertions!

"KEPLER -NEWTON -LEIBNIZ -HEGEL Portentous and Conflicting Legacies in Theoretical Physics, Cosmology and in Ruling Ideas" Article KEPLER -NEWTON -LEIBNIZ -HEGEL Portentous and Conflicting Le...

"Dont undestand this emnity with English science"

English (WRONG) "science", has been the ruling idea of capitalism since Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein had to put some mathematical polish on it in vain attempts to combat the "Evil Quanta", after it made it's appearance at the turn of the 20th century and we see this drama continuing till today; condemning natural science and humanity to the present conundrum of crises! Only a dialectical negation of "British Science" can bring back the glory of the Copernican revolution - the greatest ever revolution in human history!

One publication wont change

Tons of previous history

Juan Weisz > "One publication wont change Tons of previous history"

You unfortunately, seem to have no sense of history, while you try to score a point in the name of "history"!

You, even forgot the historical fact (that you must know claiming to be a physicist) that just one publication, namely, "De revolutionibus orbium coelestium" CHANGED millions of tons of previous history"! And only one publication can again do the same to restore historical and objective truth!

You, my friend are trying to use your incapability and impotence in face of a challenge; as a virtue, in the defence of your rotten science!

Auf Wiethesehen

Howdy Abdul Malek ,

I appreciate the history you have provided and encourage you in your effort to have it appreciated by others. However, we disagree. "Kepler's Laws of planetary motion (following the Copernican revolution in cosmology), according to Leibniz and his follower Hegel, for the first-time in history discovered the keys to what Hegel called the absolute mechanics mediated by dialectical laws, which drives the celestial bodies, in opposition to finite mechanics in terrestrial Nature developed by mathematical and empirical sciences, but that are of very limited scope." No. I have read through Page 5 of the reference. There is little point in my reading further because I do not recognize myself in any of the groups in the reference or here. I do understand the intensity of your objection to the course of science against the worldview of the reference. I also have read enough comparative mythology and writings from other cultures to recognize that our differences are likely to remain. On the other hand, while "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” – George Santayana, does not mean it should be used to replace the present, it is important to have it in mind to "season" the present and future.

In my opinion, Newton did not shrink mechanics into a limited scope, and if one cares to do so, one may even see his three laws of motion and the law of gravitation in terms of contradiction/conflict/negation. The first law of motion states that velocity must be forced to change; the second law of motion states the magnitude of that force for a given change; the third law of motion states that whatever is pushed, pushes back. Gravitation is about the nature of the force in a planetary system, and using it produces elliptic orbits for the planets and a slight wobble of the earth in reaction. Brahe and Kepler's observations leading to Kepler's ellipse for the orbit of Mars are present in Newton's elliptical orbit. The "the absolute mechanics mediated by dialectical laws" of Hegel is incorporated, but the dialectic is different, more explicit, than anything like the "music of the spheres" per Kepler. And Kepler's effort to explain planetary motions and location in a solar system swirl with added use of recently published work by Gilbert on planetary magnetic fields is no more dialectical than Newton's effort. Inertia of Newton's first and second laws against gravitational attraction is quite possible absolute mechanics.

I try not to mess up another's inquiry by mistakes on my part, so I wonder about the genuine objective here - I believe it is a question about how the universe "works," and how that working may best be comprehended. Explanation of what's wrong may be misleading, especially if "lighting a candle in the darkness" provides insufficient illumination and response, and the explanation takes on sufficient intensity. "Who," "who thought," and "who acted" take over from "what" in that case and distort the inquiry.

Kepler, Leibniz, Hegel: Kepler's Laws of planetary motion (following the Copernican revolution in cosmology), according to Leibniz and his follower Hegel, for the first-time in history discovered the keys to what Hegel called the absolute mechanics mediated by dialectical laws, which drives the celestial bodies, . . .. "Modern natural science ignores Leibniz and Hegel at its own peril!" What do we know about these laws beyond their being dialectical? "In an exclusive article on “Hegel and the Philosophy of Physics”, J.N. Findlay [8] writes, “'There is no case in Hegel where a philosophical interpretation of Nature is not scientifically documented'." Oh, how? And was the documentation different from modern experiments? Is "Leibniz’s more appropriate 'Radial Planetary Orbital Equation'” actually better for anyone else? Please explain.

Newton, Einstein: Newton wrongly extended and imposed finite mechanics on the absolute mechanics of the cosmic bodies in the form of his Law of one-sided Universal Gravitational Attraction, by distorting and misrepresenting Kepler’s profound laws and in opposition to Leibniz’s more appropriate “Radial Planetary Orbital Equation”. The still-prevailing error by Newton, not only shows the limitation of mathematical idealism and prejudice driven modern cosmology in the form of Einstein’s theories of relativity; but also, have made gaining positive knowledge of the cosmos an impossibility. It has impaired social/historical development of humanity by reinforcing old and decadent ruling ideas. But, gravitation was not considered one sided by Newton, both masses attract; and alternatives, extensions, revisions of relativity are subjects of major efforts in modern science, not all of which are about science instead of about demoting a person. How has humanity suffered when persons like yourself are pursuing your vision as part of the basis for future science?

It is too easy to blame crushing socioeconomic forces and political (tribal) power as the cause of present science, for despite a force far more dominant in its time than any today, (this quote just came in:) "just one publication, namely, "De revolutionibus orbium coelestium" CHANGED millions of tons of previous history!" But, Copernicus was right, well mostly: "Copernicus was hampered by his insistence on preserving the idea that celestial bodies had to travel in perfect circles — he "was still attached to classical ideas of circular motion around deferents and epicycles, and spheres." (Wikipedia on the publication noted.) So, it was Copernicus that used circles with additions while Newton found ellipses. Interesting.

Are you right enough? if so, all will be well. Meantime, I encourage also dialectic rather than instead to enrich future discovery, and perhaps even funding and prizes - after all, it took a "string" speculation decades to become respectable, as usual with new approaches.

Happy Trails, Len

Many of us have worked out

The consequences

Of newtonian mechanics on

Orbits in couses of rational mechanics

Equal areas in equal times holds

And is equivalent to conservation

Of angular momentum in A problem with

Central forces.i have a copy of newtons work

It all seems solid to me

Leonard Hall . I am sorry to say that you did not grasp the real essence of my opposition to Newton's and Einstein' theories of gravity - these involve considered scientific, mathematical and philosophical issues. I have debated these issues extensively in RG over the last half a decade. My RG profile indicated that many well-known physicist in RG including a Nobel Laureate read my articles (in full); but so far no one showed the temerity to challenge my claims. I am sorry, I have to use such strong words against my opponents. You can guess the reason why from the puerile and dismissing (without any justification) comment of Dr. Juan Weisz above. I must say that Juan is the most sober of the lot that I came across!

I have no time to go into details here again. I can only say that Einstein's theory of gravity or GR is a total fiction, based on abstract geometrical constructs that absolutely have no basis in objective reality. Einstein towards the end of his life, termed GR as his "Castle in the Air". My work based on Hegel's philosophy of space and time and an independent formulation of Lorentz Transform (LT) shows how arbitrarily fabricated it is; simply based on the axiomatic truth of the universal constancy of the velocity of light. It is an axiomatic truth like the same axiomatic truth of Newton's universal gravitational attraction. You cannot make science based on axiomatic truths! If you need any axiomatic truth, then we have the father of ALL axiomatic truths - everything or process in the universe that be, is the will and wish of God. You can use this truth anytime, anywhere and everywhere, without fail. If God needs to give Newton and Einstein matter and motion through a "First Impulse"; then HE can do all other things without the need of Newton's or Einstein's theories!

Please see my following publication that shows how much LT and Minkowski-Einstein "spacetime" are nothing but arbitrary fabrications that must conform to to the axiomatic truth and hence have absolutely no basis in objective reality. INSPIRE>HEP: https://inspirehep.net/literature/2158754

Newton's theory based on Galileo's inverse square law works perfectly in terrestrial Nature (on or near the surface of the Earth). An apple from a tree for sure falls down on Newton's head- it never goes up. So, Newton inductively transfer this truth to anywhere in the universe. This "universal attraction" is at the root of all Big/Black/Dark cosmic Monsters. Newton and Einstein cannot take a single step in terrestrial Nature without his Third Law (equal and opposite reaction) but they can comfortably hop on a mathematical magic carpet to ride on a photon, go to the core of a black hole and so on anywhere in the universe!.

I would urge you to read my article on Newton's theory very carefully, specially the mathematical relations near the end, to see the difference between Newton's circular orbit (no centrifugal force) and Leibniz's vis viva equation. Please do not depend on Wikipedia for science. But if you do, please see how even Wiki, clearly says that in astrophysics, Leibniz's vis viva equation and not Newton's equation of universal gravitational attraction is being used.

I understand that my dialectics-based views are outrageous to most people used with causality-based perspective; and hundreds of years (since Newton) conformity. But as even Plutarch's dialectics would tell you that conformity is no guide to science or positive knowledge!

Must go.

Regards, Abdul

Howdy Abdul Malek ,

It seems we share a failure to grasp the real essence of one another's views. I have been working on mine for the last half century and I expect we will remain at odds. If you were to read any of my ideas on RG, no addiction to conformity worth noting would be found, although I see many issues in keeping with accepted interpretations of data and other experience. I am thought outrageous in places too.

I also must go after thanking you for a very interesting and informative view of science in history. I shall part aware and appreciative, if not convinced. I have held open a larger awareness of the universe than will fit into anyone's confident assertions for some time, including mine as aware of my own ignorance. The history of science might be quite amusing in 2323!

Happy Trails, Len

Leonard Hall : Perhaps, the difference between the essence of the dialectical and the classical Newtonian approach may be clear from the following copy of my dialogue with Prof. Tsekov in another RG forum:

[Roumen Tsekov added a reply

5 days ago

Striving for social liberty and economic freedom is a manifestation of the Second Law of thermodynamics:

Preprint Social Thermodynamics 2.0

Abdul Malek added a reply

5 days ago

Roumen Tsekov : Thanks for your contribution to this forum. But I must say that your work is a well formulated scholastic thesis and conforms to the recent trend of the mathematization of the social sciences to bring them at par with the "prestige" of the physical sciences; but it is in vain; ill advised and potentially dangerous, because as I have shown (even) through my own works that the mathematization of the physical sciences already has led to disastrous results and crisis for humanity. I cannot afford the time to go into details and only wish to deal with some main points here:

1. The World View (Epistemology): Your work is based on causality and formal logic (no contradiction), which Hegel termed as “the view of understanding” (or metaphysics) as opposed to his “view of reason “ (or dialectics), with contradiction. Historically, and as a requirement of class rule the world view of Metaphysics prevailed over Dialectics (at least from the time of the early Greeks) and continues to this day. But metaphysics, as the evolutionary heritage of man as a species, only works reasonably satisfactorily in his everyday life experience (the so-called good old common-sense) in terrestrial Nature. But beyond these homely precincts, in the realms of the microcosm of the quantum world and the macrocosm of the galaxies, this view only gives rise to mysteries, fantasies etc.; but no positive knowledge; the fate modern theoretical physics faces! This view fails even in everyday social/political life as Hume and Kant found out, and the reason why, Kant declared objective reality as an unknowable thing-in-itself and warned philosophy to abate any claim to the knowledge of the noumena (reality) and to take resort to subjective idealism (of brain-cooked logical categories) to deal only with the phenomena; man perceives through the senses. But even this mighty formulator of ‘logical categories’, “found it necessary to deny knowledge in order to make room for faith“; i.e. mystery! Albert Einstein, faced with the same problem with causality after the recognition of the quantum phenomena, adopted Kantian subjective idealism (of brain-cooked mathematical categories) to deal with the problems of physics but reached the same result’s as that of Kant; with even far greater mysteries and fantasies!

Through my decades long scientific works, I claim to have demonstrated the wrong headedness of this causality-based approach. Please see my last few and very recent comments in the following theoretical physics and philosophy forums: https://www.researchgate.net/post/Speed_of_light_independent_of_the_speed_of_the_source_or_constant_for_all_observers

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Can_philosophy_help_to_innovate_and_develop_scientific_theory

2. The laws of Nature vs. the laws of society: The history of the development human society proves to be essentially different from that of Nature and the specific laws working in one domain cannot be arbitrarily or mechanically transferred (as you and others are doing) to another domain; even though (different) objective laws are in work in both the domains. As Engels suggested, “In Nature … there are only blind unconscious agencies acting upon one another and out of whose interplay the general laws comes into operation…….In history of society, on the other hand, the actors are all endowed with consciousness, are men acting with deliberation or passion, working towards definite goals; nothing happens without a conscious purpose, without an intended aim.” But in this realm also, in the final analysis, objective laws assert themselves; but are higher laws and essentially different from the specific laws working in the realm of Nature.

3. Equilibrium vs, Contradiction: The concept of “equilibrium” used in thermodynamics and natural sciences is the view of stasis (not dynamis) and metaphysics and is defective. It is a short-term, apparent and conditional phenomena to a subjective observer. As modern quantum electrodynamics (QED) shows and dialectics asserts, unconditional motion, change, development is the mode of any existence. So, “equilibrium” can only be apparent and conditional. What is really involved in equilibrium of two opposites existing in apparent harmony, in fact involves contradiction. Marx in his Capital, Vol. I, and in the section, “The Metamorphosis of Commodities”; “… exchange of commodities implies contradictory and mutually exclusive conditions…but develops a modus vivendi, a form in which they can exist side by side.”

In the case of the solar system, Hegel severely criticized Newton’s one-sided law of universal gravitational attraction and no-contradiction (equilibrium) in the planetary motion involving circular orbits; ignoring the empirically observed elliptical orbits of Kepler. Marx (following Hegel) in the same paragraph as above wrote, “The ellipse is a form of motion which, while allowing this contradiction to go on, at the same time, reconciles it.”

I have shown through some recent publications how terribly wrong Newton’s Law (based on causality, no-contradiction equilibrium) is and how it (reinforced by equally brain-cooked idealist theories of Einstein) has lead to the fantasies and Fairy Tales in modern cosmology – a disaster and a crisis for natural science! Please see:

Article KEPLER -NEWTON -LEIBNIZ -HEGEL Portentous and Conflicting Le...

Article THE CONCEPTUAL DEFECT OF THE LAW OF UNIVERSAL GRAVITATION OR...

4. The Conservation Laws: The concept of conservation laws used in thermodynamics and physics are equally apparent, conditional, approximate and only has limited validity for particular realms only.; and completely breaks down at quantum level. In the following RG question, I have tried to elaborate on these issues: "Ex nihilo nihil fit“? Are You Certain Mr. Einstein and Mr. Heisenberg?: https://www.researchgate.net/post/Ex_nihilo_nihil_fit_Are_You_Certain_Mr_Einstein_and_Mr_Heisenberg2

So, in my view, your work (and similar works by others), has only academic and scholastic value, but unfortunately, no scientific merit!

Roumen Tsekov added a reply

5 days ago

Thank you for your comments. The only thing I can add is to cite Marx:

The question whether objective truth can be attributed to human thinking is not a question of theory but is a practical question.

Abdul Malek added a reply

4 days ago

Roumen Tsekov : Thanks for your input. Marx's gist of materialist dialectics contained in "Theses on Feuerbach", particularly the one you quote (in part, the full is shown below for emphasis), constitutes the criteria of positive knowledge and is my sharpest tool in combating Kantian brain-cooked subjective idealism and endless scholasticism that has infected and seriously corrupted modern official and mainstream philosophy and theoretical natural sciences in particular.

“The question whether objective truth can be attributed to human thinking is not a question of theory but a practical question. In practice man must prove the truth, i.e., the reality and power, the “this-sidedness” of his thinking. The dispute over the reality or non-reality of thinking which is isolated from practice is a purely scholastic question”. K. Marx, Theses on Feuerbach

My decades long scientific works based on and guided by materialist dialectics and its defence against virulent attack by metaphysical (Kantian scholasticism) opponents have reached a stage, where I can now claim victory; as I in fact did in the in a theoretical physics forum of RG:]

Howdy Abdul Malek ,

I affirm supporting your efforts in your work by offering my opinions, pro and con, but I shall not embrace your work because I have my own. I must work with my own understanding, whether you agree or not. Repetition of views I have written were unacceptable after careful reflection will not cause them to become acceptable, whoever agrees or disagrees. Similarly, you do not agree with Juan Weisz and I that Newton's orbits were elliptical as we have seen in our reading of history.

Leibniz was wrong about centrifugal force. Centrifugal force is obvious to the casual bystander and deeply held common knowledge. That is why Newton's breakthrough concept, his insight that made the study of motion physics instead of mysticism was in his First Law: "Newton's first law of motion is also known as the law of inertia. It states that a body continues to remain in the state of rest or motion until an external force is applied." The fictitious "centrifugal force" is covered in Newton's Third Law, but it is like many magnificent myths that must be considered with care for one's own life. Newton's Second Law was "standing on the shoulders of giants" since Galileo's experiments had clarified motion so deeply. Inertia in his First Law was the critical insight in my view, and inertia answer's the need of dialectic for contradiction.

When sent overseas, I loaned a friend my Britannica Great Books set. When I returned he asked if it looked okay and I noted that the back of the Plato volume did not look worn enough. It turns out that his dog had chewed the back, so he replaced the volume. I have come to question the usefulness of Plato's version of dialectic, although I greatly affirm what we know about the person, Socrates. Similarly, the dialectic of which you write is not acceptable description of the nature of Nature in my view, and no number of pages will convince me it is. We even disagree on the "facts" of history in the wording of original documents. I think the following paragraph from your post is sufficient explanation because you have defended strongly its historicity and yet I find it in error as I have written more than once above:

"In the case of the solar system, Hegel severely criticized Newton’s one-sided law of universal gravitational attraction and no-contradiction (equilibrium) in the planetary motion involving circular orbits; ignoring the empirically observed elliptical orbits of Kepler. Marx (following Hegel) in the same paragraph as above wrote, “The ellipse is a form of motion which, while allowing this contradiction to go on, at the same time, reconciles it.”"

The paragraph is inaccurate. Newton's First Law makes this paragraph historically inaccurate, clearly revealing that Hegel did not comprehend Newton any better than you feel I comprehend you -- but this has all been written.

Happy Trails, Len

A circular orbit does have

A centrifugal force

Its a inertial force in a non

Inertial system mvv/r

Howdy Juan Weisz ,

"Centrifugal force" is the experience, like in a car turning, but in formal physics it is better to realize the "conflict/contradiction" between inertia and centripetal force. In a really abstract approach, which may be "actual," forces disappear in natural responses to fields. It is the centripetal force that acts, centrifugal "force" just puts on a good show.

Solon warned Thespis around 600 BC in Athens that people would come to believe the fictions presented by actors, like believing in centrifugal force because one feels it. So, what is real? and why bother? Life offers choices.

Happy Trails, Len

Its real in the accelerated system

Ie the car or orbiting satelite.

Outside you can ignore it.

Howdy Juan Weisz,

Your wording is okay in context, of course, but then your world view in the incident is based on effects rather than causes. Do you really want it to be? I find the issue meaningful, whatever fuss can be made with words about "relative" or "real, "cause" or "effect". It's a matter of choice. I've expressed my choice and my reason for worrying about the validity of actor's truths without knowing who wrote the screen play.

A fun quiz: You have a balloon filled with helium gas in a closed vehicle. In an unaccelerated system (except for gravitation), the balloon is pressed against the headliner by buoyancy. You accelerate the system by stepping on the vehicle accelerator. Which way does the balloon move in the vehicle while the vehicle is accelerating? and why? What is "real?"

Happy Trails, Len

Thats a known trick to

Ask students.it goes forward

The pressure goes behind

Howdy Juan, Weisz,

I didn't know it was a known trick. I had observed it years ago and explained it to myself. I have found learned persons who had not heard about it yet and answered wrongly. Sorry. Of course, some reader may not be so sophisticated, and "The pressure goes behind" is not very a very complete answer to why. Oh well, since it's so well known why bother?

Happy Trails, Len

Discorsive philosophy is not

The best tool when there are very specific technical matters involved in specific

Sciences

Leonard

I did not give a full explanation.

First observe that a heliom ballon raises in the atmosphere.

An equivalent gravity field arises opposite

To the acceleration by the equivalence

Principle.

So it goes forward

Howdy Juan Weisz,

Well, okay. I prefer a Kinetic Theory treatment of the air with the vehicle acceleration included; the equivalence principle is another valid view and this is a good illustration of it. Also, useful is fine in it's proper use, but understanding helps select "its proper use." We are on a thread of real importance to an individual. Whether "centrifugal force" or "a dialectic contradiction experienced by planets through inertia in conflict with a centripetal force of gravitation" is the better view is affected by that location.

To have a way of considering a brilliant effort by Leibniz in his "Radial Planetary Orbital Equation" as misled by "centrifugal force" struck me as important here, because here whether an approach works is far less important than a larger understanding of what causes planets to orbit. Should Abdul Malek, to whom I am writing as well as to yourself, recall from the discussion that Copernicus was the circular orbit proposer, recognize that Newton's orbits were elliptical, and further recognize that he may find dialectic for planetary orbits without requiring unyielding affirmation of persons or publications, his case may be strengthened. I have proposed such a view. I think the dialectic method is a perspective that ought not be locked in the past but ought to be permitted to grow in harmony with itself as we include new discoveries about our universe. That the dialectic contains an equilibrium of contradiction leading to a stable orbit is actually affirmation, not denial, of dialectical method, and any equilibrium is temporary in the universe we experience.

Abdul has his own path, and I may be way off in my effort to propose accord between differing views. Certainly our assertions that Newton's orbits are elliptical have not altered his path, but then, lives are full and focus is important. We were invited by the discussion to offer replies; he is the one to choose what to use.

Happy Trails, Len

Leonard Hall : Thanks for your participation in this discussion and the elaborate exposition of your views on these issues. Your concern with me seems to be related to my dialectical perspective of astrophysics and cosmology. Please note that I never contested the validity of classical mechanics, which men historically developed from their primitive stage and is on going and neither Newton’s terrestrial gravitation, which is based on Galileo’s works. My primary opposition is against Newton’s (and Einstein’s) extra-terrestrial gravitation in general and of the solar system in particular. On this issue it seems that our views are irreconcilable. While you represent the official and mainstream views, my position is heretical and the exact opposite. Under these circumstances, the only thing we can do is to agree to disagree and thereby preserve our mutual respect for one another!

You apparently do/did not contest my dismissal of the validity of LTs, “spacetime”, SR and GR and the whole edifice of modern theoretical physics and cosmology based on these concepts. One of my publications (scientific and philosophical) on these issues is now added as a resource and hence its acceptance by INSPIRE, which serves the High Energy Physics (HEP) community – a recognition that helped me to silence many of my virulent and abusive opponents in RG. INSPIRE>HEP: https://inspirehep.net/literature/2158754

The following is what "INSPIRE" says in their website: "INSPIRE (http://inspirehep.net/) is a trusted community hub that helps researchers to share and find accurate scholarly information in high energy physics. It serves as a one-stop information platform for HEP community, comprising 8 interlinked databases on literature, conferences, institutions, journals, researchers, experiments, jobs and data. Run in collaboration by CERN, DESY, Fermilab, IHEP, IN2P3, and SLAC, it has been serving the scientific community for almost 50 years. Previously known as SPIRES, it was the first website outside Europe and the first database on the web. Close interaction with the user community and with arXiv, ADS, HEPData, ORCID, PDG and publishers is the backbone of INSPIRE’s evolution".

But one thing I must emphasize (in conclusion) that I am more confident in refuting Newton’s theory of one-sided universal gravitational attraction, than my refutation of Einstein’s theories. In the case of Newton’s theories, I am mainly representing the views of Kepler (Tycho Brahe); Newton’s contemporary and direct antagonist Leibniz and later severe critic and opponent Hegel. Hegel’s criticism of Newton, his world view (“understanding”) and physics/astrophysics was scathing, amounting to ethnic slur of British empiricism. Hegel rejected the Principia's 'proofs' of Kepler's laws - proofs which he characterized as "demonstrational jugglery and counterfeiting”. That Hegel’s severe criticism is well informed is recognized even by an adverse modern critic of Hegel, like philosopher H. Paulucci, [“Hegel and the Celestial Mechanics of Newton and Einstein”, in Hegel and the Sciences, Eds. R.S. Cohen and M.W. Wartofsky, (1984)]. In Paulucci’s words, “One must emphasize that Hegel's criticism was well informed. Certainly, he knew the Philosophiae naturalis principia mathematica and Opticks first hand and had the requisite training in mathematics to comprehend what he read. Through hundreds of well-documented pages of his Science of Logic (large and small) and Philosophy of Nature, Hegel explores the meaning of Newton's fluxional calculus, his concepts of space, time, mass, inertia, centripetal and centrifugal forces, his laws of motion, his gravitational world-system, and, finally, his theory of light and colors. Particularly under the headings 'Quantity' and 'Measure' in the Logic and 'Mechanics' in the Philosophy of Nature, Newton's doctrine provides much of the empirical datum upon which the Hegelian philosophical dialectic operates”.

The fact that an erudite modern thinker of Hegel’s stature would risk his legacy with such strong stance against Newtonian physics at a time when it would seem like lunacy, speaks for the seriousness and the fundamental way Hegel differed with the epistemology of the established order represented by Newtonian natural science and on the contrary his confidence on the revolutionary nature of his dialectical science. But from Hegel’s point of view (like that of Leibniz), it was a risk worth taking, in view of his conviction that Newtonian metaphysics and the mathematization of physics would impair further positive knowledge of the cosmos in particular and of natural science in general and that Newtonian metaphysics is a counter-revolution to undo the revolutionary developments brought on by Copernicus, Kepler et al., and with the potential to revive blind faith of theology and the regressive ruling order of feudalism, undermining the democratic revolution in Europe.

Hegel therefore, foresaw the rise of the impotent mathematical idealism of Einstein and a decadent ruling order under monopoly capitalism – the exact opposite outcome of the bourgeois democratic revolution which even as the official philosopher of the Prussian monarchy, Hegel had welcomed so enthusiastically! This explains the reason why Hegel made a challenge to Newtonian theoretical physics and cosmology the central issue of his philosophy and science in particular and a challenge to all pre-Hegelian epistemology and world view in general. Hegel tauntingly wrote “Newton gave physics an express warning to beware of metaphysics, it is true; but to his own honor, be it said, he did not obey his own warning”. A cursory reading of Hegel’s Encyclopedia of Philosophical Sciences in its three parts, a) The Science of logic (the short version), b) The Philosophy of Nature and c) The Philosophy of Mind/Spirit, would clearly show that Hegel took Newton as his principal adversary in the clash of his new revolutionary world outlook and considered himself as the principal inheritor of the scientific revolution brought forth by Copernicus, Kepler and Leibniz. If Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica is the magnus opus of Newton, then Enzyklopädie der Philosophischem Wissenschaften of Hegel is his counter magnus opus – a veritable dialectical negation of Newton.

The historical fact that Newton’s brain-cooked metaphysics of circular orbits prevailed over the observational evidence of Tycho Brahe and the brilliant three laws of Kepler, had nothing to do with the scientific and philosophical merit of Newton’s views. The British Imperial political domination (as least) in Europe of that time, the Church and more importantly, Galileo’s unfortunate insistence on the circular orbits of the planetary system, despite repeated pleas by Kepler to accept the elliptical orbits,were the primary factors that helped Newton’s defective theory of “universal gravitational attraction” to prevail; and continue to do so with the help of opportunistic world monopoly capitalism.

Compliant official physics shamefully even now, try to explain away (creating confusion) the effect of fundamental and radical difference between the “circular orbit” and the elliptical orbits as if Newton’s theory is equivalent (as our friend Juan Weisz tries to show ) or that “centrifugal force” is an "illusion" (as official physics and you insist). I cited my article again below, to emphasize scientifically, mathematically and philosophically that the idea of an elliptical orbit vs. circular orbit makes a vast difference in the astrophysics of the solar system in particular and an exactly opposite view of cosmology than the one provided by Newtons and Einstein’s theories of gravity; which in essence brings back a geocentric (Epicycle) cosmology of mediaeval decadence!

A new (dialectics-based) gravitational potential in opposition to the Newtonian one is proposed in this publication, which eliminates need for Big Bang creation, black/dark Cosmic Monster etc., and posts an infinite, eternal and ever-changing universe -the one dialectical epistemology in the person of Epicurus envisioned and all dialectical thinker asserted.

"KEPLER -NEWTON -LEIBNIZ -HEGEL Portentous and Conflicting Legacies in Theoretical Physics, Cosmology and in Ruling Ideas": Article KEPLER -NEWTON -LEIBNIZ -HEGEL Portentous and Conflicting Le...

Regards, Abdul

Howdy Abdul Malek

I think it is wise for us to agree to disagree and retain our mutual respect. I have enjoyed the expansion of awareness here, also.

My involvement has been personal interest in an alternate philosophy from mine and in clarification to support another investigator's efforts. A person should read my independent writings for a more precise picture of my ideas on their own.

Happy Trails, Len

Dear Leonard Hall ,

You wrote, "'Centrifugal force' is the experience, like in a car turning, but in formal physics it is better to realize the "conflict/contradiction" between inertia and centripetal force....It is the centripetal force that acts, centrifugal "force" just puts on a good show."

Centrifugal Force is an inertial force.

As per Newton's second law of motion, applied force Fa produces an acceleration a in a body of mass m. But due to inertia of matter, mass m tends to resist this change in state of its motion by producing an Inertial force Fi which is proportional to mass m and the magnitude of acceleration. This inertial force acts in a direction opposite to the direction of acceleration vector (Fi=-m.a). This is in accordance with Newton's third law of motion which roughly states that to every action there is always an equal and opposite reaction. As such the applied force Fa produces an equal and opposite reaction force Fi which is the inertial force. Since this inertial force is always acting opposite to the direction of acceleration vector, its nature is similar to the friction or drag forces which tend to resist or oppose the motion of the body. Therefore,

Fa = - Fi = m.a

In the case of linear accelerations, there is no separate special name given to this force other than just the Inertial force. But when the acceleration is produced in a direction transverse to the velocity vector, the induced inertial force too will be in a direction transverse to the velocity vector and opposite to the direction of acceleration vector. In a curvilinear or circular motion, the induced transverse inertial force is given a special name - the Centrifugal force. Since inertia of a material body is a real physical entity, the transverse inertial force known as the centrifugal force is also a real physical entity which must always be taken into account in the dynamic analysis of all curvilinear motion.

Article Ionic Gravitation and Ionized Solid Iron Stellar Bodies

Howdy Gurcharn Singh Sandhu ,

What you write is well stated and linguistically correct, the physics is fine, but the issue for me is communication and comprehension. Long ago I was introduced to the wording that real forces are actors and responders are "fictitious forces." You have described them well, but for my purpose of communication clarity, I like to retain the distinction and qualify with "in formal physics." I did use the name in "'Centrifugal force' is the experience, . . .." I feel the same about Drag Force, etc. Fortunately for the undecided, they now have both versions and the rationale for each. I do appreciate your effort in providing your version for them.

Incidentally, on this thread with dialectic so prominent, I also like the wording ". . . better to realize the "conflict/contradiction" between inertia and centripetal force . . .." although I have not seen it before and I doubt it will survive. Also, your "Since inertia of a material body is a real physical entity, the transverse inertial force known as the centrifugal force is also a real physical entity which must always be taken into account in the dynamic analysis of all curvilinear motion." The verb "is" requires great care in communication. Yes take the reaction into account, but . . .. I prefer my version, and I doubt physics will be harmed by either post.

I do believe these issues are important in view of how often I have had to struggle through wordings to understanding. For instance, "Water is sucked up in a well by the pump exerting a Suction Force!" No. It is pushed up by the real force of atmospheric pressure after the pump removes air above the water column reducing the pressure there. Choices.

Happy Trails, Len

"De revolutionibus orbium coelestium" of Nicolas Copernicus (1473 – 1543 A.D.); “Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica” (1642 – 1727 A.D.) of Isaac Newton; Enzyklopädie der Philosophischem Wissenschaften of G.W.F. Hegel (1770 – 1831 A.D.) - the three magnus opus of history; represent the (yet to be completed) dialectical "negation of the negation" in natural science.

Newton did fine, but in some sense was not able to leave the earth due to knowledge

limitations at that time (the 16 hundred century). In those days the atoms and the structre of matter

was a great mystery, and people, including Newton still dabled in alchemy. There was no indication of

modern physics yet.(relativity or QM). If anything it is recent speculators that overreach their time to blame.

"Newton did fine, but in some sense was not able to leave the earth due to knowledge limitations at that time (the 16 hundred century)".

Copernicus, Kepler and Leibniz had the same "knowledge limitations" and probably more; but still were "able to leave the earth".

Newton failed because he was burdened by narrow ruling class interest and blinded by greed and self-glory! History however (in the long run), is very unkind and never rewards this sort of "petit" attributes!

“Philosophy, as the thought of the world, does not appear until reality has completed its formative process, and made itself ready. History thus corroborates the teaching of the conception that only in the maturity of reality does the ideal appear as counterpart to the real, apprehends the real world in its substance, and shapes it into an intellectual kingdom. When philosophy paints its grey in grey, one form of life has become old, and by means of grey it cannot be rejuvenated, but only known. The owl of Minerva,takes its flight only when the shades of night are gathering.” G.W.F. Hegel, Philosophy of Right (1820), "Preface"; translated by S W Dyde, 1896.

Now that sort of commentary

Just shows some kind of grudge

Negation of a negation is afirmation.

But otherwise just double talk.

Aug 1984 is full of that double

Speak.

When or where ignorance is a virtue, objective and historical truth becomes the enemy!

maybe yes, but i'm not able to have a competent opinion; anyway, it is only a hypothesys, which is very hard to verify in experiment; yours, m

Dont know about the philosophy, did not start with Hegel, but for science

You need to have a certain natural technical ability which both Newton and

Leibniz both had.

It was not only Leibniz; even Hegel was a better scientist than Newton, because Hegel not only knew Newton, Hegel followed the correct physics of Kepler and Leibniz! It is not the fault of Hegel that official science and the ruling order of the time, did not accept his correct science; simply because it went against their narrow and selfish interest! And the same Newtonian metaphysics continues even today!

Article Quō Vādis Theoretical Physics and Cosmology? From Newton's M...

It seems that some part of a comment posted two days ago needs to be repeated here, because some “physicists” make comments on issues, without reading or understanding what has been said by the opponents earlier.

@Leonard Hall : [“….. You apparently do/did not contest my dismissal of the validity of LTs, “spacetime”, SR and GR and the whole edifice of modern theoretical physics and cosmology based on these concepts. One of my publications (scientific and philosophical) on these issues is now added as a resource and hence its acceptance by INSPIRE, which serves the High Energy Physics (HEP) community – a recognition that helped me to silence many of my virulent and abusive opponents in RG. INSPIRE>HEP: https://inspirehep.net/literature/2158754

The following is what "INSPIRE" says in their website: "INSPIRE (http://inspirehep.net/) is a trusted community hub that helps researchers to share and find accurate scholarly information in high energy physics. It serves as a one-stop information platform for HEP community, comprising 8 interlinked databases on literature, conferences, institutions, journals, researchers, experiments, jobs and data. Run in collaboration by CERN, DESY, Fermilab, IHEP, IN2P3, and SLAC, it has been serving the scientific community for almost 50 years. Previously known as SPIRES, it was the first website outside Europe and the first database on the web. Close interaction with the user community and with arXiv, ADS, HEPData, ORCID, PDG and publishers is the backbone of INSPIRE’s evolution".

But one thing I must emphasize (in conclusion) that I am more confident in refuting Newton’s theory of one-sided universal gravitational attraction, than my refutation of Einstein’s theories. In the case of Newton’s theories, I am mainly representing the views of Kepler (Tycho Brahe); Newton’s contemporary and direct antagonist Leibniz and later severe critic and opponent Hegel. Hegel’s criticism of Newton, his world view (“understanding”) and physics/astrophysics was scathing, amounting to ethnic slur of British empiricism. Hegel rejected the Principia's 'proofs' of Kepler's laws - proofs which he characterized as "demonstrational jugglery and counterfeiting”. That Hegel’s severe criticism is well informed is recognized even by an adverse modern critic of Hegel, like philosopher H. Paulucci, [“Hegel and the Celestial Mechanics of Newton and Einstein”, in Hegel and the Sciences, Eds. R.S. Cohen and M.W. Wartofsky, (1984)]. In Paulucci’s words, “One must emphasize that Hegel's criticism was well informed. Certainly, he knew the Philosophiae naturalis principia mathematica and Opticks first hand and had the requisite training in mathematics to comprehend what he read. Through hundreds of well-documented pages of his Science of Logic (large and small) and Philosophy of Nature, Hegel explores the meaning of Newton's fluxional calculus, his concepts of space, time, mass, inertia, centripetal and centrifugal forces, his laws of motion, his gravitational world-system, and, finally, his theory of light and colors. Particularly under the headings 'Quantity' and 'Measure' in the Logic and 'Mechanics' in the Philosophy of Nature, Newton's doctrine provides much of the empirical datum upon which the Hegelian philosophical dialectic operates”.

The fact that an erudite modern thinker of Hegel’s stature would risk his legacy with such strong stance against Newtonian physics at a time when it would seem like lunacy, speaks for the seriousness and the fundamental way Hegel differed with the epistemology of the established order represented by Newtonian natural science and on the contrary his confidence on the revolutionary nature of his dialectical science. But from Hegel’s point of view (like that of Leibniz), it was a risk worth taking, in view of his conviction that Newtonian metaphysics and the mathematization of physics would impair further positive knowledge of the cosmos in particular and of natural science in general and that Newtonian metaphysics is a counter-revolution to undo the revolutionary developments brought on by Copernicus, Kepler et al., and with the potential to revive blind faith of theology and the regressive ruling order of feudalism, undermining the democratic revolution in Europe.

Hegel therefore, foresaw the rise of the impotent mathematical idealism of Einstein and a decadent ruling order under monopoly capitalism – the exact opposite outcome of the bourgeois democratic revolution which even as the official philosopher of the Prussian monarchy, Hegel had welcomed so enthusiastically! This explains the reason why Hegel made a challenge to Newtonian theoretical physics and cosmology the central issue of his philosophy and science in particular and a challenge to all pre-Hegelian epistemology and world view in general. Hegel tauntingly wrote “Newton gave physics an express warning to beware of metaphysics, it is true; but to his own honor, be it said, he did not obey his own warning”. A cursory reading of Hegel’s Encyclopedia of Philosophical Sciences in its three parts, a) The Science of logic (the short version), b) The Philosophy of Nature and c) The Philosophy of Mind/Spirit, would clearly show that Hegel took Newton as his principal adversary in the clash of his new revolutionary world outlook and considered himself as the principal inheritor of the scientific revolution brought forth by Copernicus, Kepler and Leibniz. If Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica is the magnus opus of Newton, then Enzyklopädie der Philosophischem Wissenschaften of Hegel is his counter magnus opus – a veritable dialectical negation of Newton.

The historical fact that Newton’s brain-cooked metaphysics of circular orbits prevailed over the observational evidence of Tycho Brahe and the brilliant three laws of Kepler, had nothing to do with the scientific and philosophical merit of Newton’s views. The British Imperial political domination (as least) in Europe of that time, the Church and more importantly, Galileo’s unfortunate insistence on the circular orbits of the planetary system, despite repeated pleas by Kepler to accept the elliptical orbits,were the primary factors that helped Newton’s defective theory of “universal gravitational attraction” to prevail; and continue to do so with the help of opportunistic world monopoly capitalism.

Compliant official physics shamefully even now, try to explain away (creating confusion) the effect of fundamental and radical difference between the “circular orbit” and the elliptical orbits as if Newton’s theory is equivalent (as our friend Juan Weisz tries to show ) or that “centrifugal force” is an "illusion" (as official physics and you insist). I cited my article again below, to emphasize scientifically, mathematically and philosophically that the idea of an elliptical orbit vs. circular orbit makes a vast difference in the astrophysics of the solar system in particular and an exactly opposite view of cosmology than the one provided by Newtons and Einstein’s theories of gravity; which in essence brings back a geocentric (Epicycle) cosmology of mediaeval decadence!

A new (dialectics-based) gravitational potential in opposition to the Newtonian one is proposed in this publication, which eliminates need for Big Bang creation, black/dark Cosmic Monster etc., and posts an infinite, eternal and ever-changing universe -the one dialectical epistemology in the person of Epicurus envisioned and all dialectical thinker asserted.

"KEPLER -NEWTON -LEIBNIZ -HEGEL Portentous and Conflicting Legacies in Theoretical Physics, Cosmology and in Ruling Ideas":

Article KEPLER -NEWTON -LEIBNIZ -HEGEL Portentous and Conflicting Le...

Regards, Abdul]

@please don't write me more on rg

Sorry, i never heard of hegel in math or science.just as a known philosopher.

Actually a circle is a special case of an ellipse when both loci coincide

"Sorry, i never heard of hegel in math or science.just as a known philosopher."

This is the way you were spoon-fed "physics" through the text-books and ignorance deliberately promoted . This is the very reason why the following statement was posted: "When or where ignorance is a virtue, objective and historical truth becomes the enemy!

As to feuds i only know the fight

Between Newton and Leibniz

"Actually a circle is a special case of an ellipse when both loci coincide".

So, one can substitute a circle for an ellipse.; with the same result! It seems that ignorance is not limited to physics, it extends to geometry as well!!!!

i don't know what is the 'new gospel'; please tell me

@ it is about this draft you are asking me?

@i'm sorry, i don't know, so i',m not able to answer to you; yours, mircea

Mircea Ciobanu : Thanks for your interest and comments on this question. Sorry, I did not realize that your comments are specifically directed to me as the author of this question. It is usually understood that anybody participating in this discussion can comment or respond to any comment by others; if they wish to.

I read your article on "physical time" you referred to, with interest. I am not a mathematician, so do not wish to say anything on its mathematical content; but I think you misunderstood Kant's philosophy of space and time. For Kant, space and time are not objective (or real), but are subjective (mental) projection of man, as an abstract "container"; to relate things and events he perceives through his senses.

Only physics, since Galileo and more so since Newton consider space and time as REAL entities; and of course Minkowski and Einstein combined space and time into "spacetime" - an abstract geometrical manifold supposedly with tangible physical, material, metrical etc., attributes.

I totally reject Minkowski-Einstein "spacetime" as well as Newtonian concepts of space and time as real entities and accept the Kantian view and particularly the dialectical view of space and time as proposed by Hegel. In my works, I have attempted to extend Hegel's philosophy of space and time to both the microcosm of quantum electrodynamics (QED) and to the macrocosm of the galaxies and cosmology. Please see my following article as an example:

"The Philosophy of Space-Time: Whence Cometh "Matter" and "Motion"?" Article The Philosophy of Space-Time: Whence Cometh "Matter" and "Motion"?

Regards, Abdul

many thanks, dear abdul; yours, mircea

mamy thanks for the rocomandation