Saturday, September 20, 2025

Galileo İki Yeni Bilim kitabında düzgün hareket aksiyomları

Galileo, İki Yeni Bilim kitabında 3 çeşit hareket tanımlıyor:

(1) Düzgün veya tekdüze hareket, 

(2) Doğal olarak hızlanan hareket, 

(3) Zorunlu hareket ya da fırlatılan şeylerin hareketi.

Biz burada düzgün hareket bölümünü inceliyoruz.

Galileo ilk olarak düzgün hareketten ne anladığını bir tanım olarak veriyor:

Eşit, yani tekdüze hareketi, hareket eden şeyin hangi eşit zaman aralıklarında olursa olsun, kat ettiği kısımları birbirine eşit olan hareket olarak anlıyorum.

Bu tanımdan sonra Galileo 4 tane aksiyom veriyor.

Düzgün hareket aksiyomları

Aksiyom 1

Aynı düzgün harekette, daha uzun zamanda alınan yol daha fazladır. (Sabit hız için)

\[\dfrac{s_1}{s_2} = \dfrac{t_1}{t_2}\]

Aksiyom 2

Aynı düzgün harekette, daha uzun yol için geçen süre daha uzundur. (birincinin ters yönden ifadesi)

\[\dfrac{t_1}{t_2} = \dfrac{s_1}{s_2}\]

Aksiyom 3

Aynı sürede, daha büyük hızla alınan yol daha fazladır.

\[\dfrac{s_1}{s_2} = \dfrac{v_1}{v_2}\]

Aksiyom 4

Aynı sürede daha fazla yol alanın hızı daha büyüktür. (üçüncünün ters yönden ifadesi)

\[\dfrac{v_1}{v_2} = \dfrac{s_1}{s_2}\]

Yorum

  • 1 ve 2, “düzgün harekette yol–zaman doğru orantılıdır” ifadesini iki farklı yönden garanti ediyor.
  • 3 ve 4, “hız–yol–zaman” ilişkisini kuruyor, özellikle hız tanımını netleştiriyor.

Bütün tabloyu tek bir cümlede şöyle özetleyebiliriz:

\[\text{Sabit hız için: } \frac{s}{t} = v \quad \Rightarrow \quad s \propto t \quad \text{ve} \quad s \propto v\]

Galileo neden bu kadar basit ve aşikar kavramları birer aksiyom olarak yazıyor?

Galileo’nun bu dört aksiyomu “çok basitmiş gibi” görünüyor ama aslında ileride ispatlayacağı teoremleri dayandıracağı matematiksel omurgayı kuruyor.

Eğer bu aksiyomları baştan kesinleştirmese, birisi çıkıp (mesela, Diyaloglar'ın kahramanlarından Simplicio) çıkıp “neden süre ile yol orantılı olsun ki?” ya da “neden daha uzun sürede daha çok yol alınsın?” diye itiraz edebilirdi. Galileo bu tür itirazların önünü almak için, herkesin kabul edeceği en basit gözlemleri “matematik aksiyomu” gibi koyuyor.

Böylece:

  • Düzgün hareket = yol ile zamanın orantılı olması,
  • Hız kavramı = yol ile zamanın oranı,

şeklinde açık ve tartışmasız hale geliyor.

Bu nokta, Galileo’nun düşünüş tarzını anlamak açısından çok değerli: önce çok temel ve herkesin kabul edeceği aksiyomlarla başlıyor, sonra adım adım yeni kavramları (ivme, serbest düşme kanunları vb.) bu sağlam temeller üzerine inşa ediyor.

Özetin özeti

Aksiyom 1

(Hız sabit)

\[\text{mesafe} \;\propto\; \text{süre}\]
  • Mesafe süreye doğru orantılıdır.
  • Daha uzun sürede daha uzun mesafe alınır.

Aksiyom 2

(Aksiyom 1’in ters ifadesi) (Hız sabit)

\[\text{süre} \;\propto\; \text{mesafe}\]
  • Süre mesafeye doğru orantılıdır.
  • Daha uzun mesafe, daha uzun süre gerektirir.
  • Matematiksel olarak 1’den çıkarılabilir, ama Galileo iki yönlü olarak ifade ederek kesinlik sağlar.

Aksiyom 3

(Süre sabit)

\[\text{mesafe} \;\propto\; \text{hız}\]
  • Mesafe hızla doğru orantılıdır.
  • Daha büyük hızla, aynı sürede daha uzun mesafe alınır.

Aksiyom 4

(Aksiyom 3’ün ters ifadesi) (Süre sabit)

\[\text{hız} \;\propto\; \text{mesafe}\]
  • Hız mesafeyle doğru orantılıdır.
  • Aynı sürede daha uzun mesafe alanın hızı daha büyüktür.
  • Yine 3’ten çıkarılabilir, ama hız tanımını netleştirmek için ayrıca belirtilir.

Sonuç

  • 1 ve 2: “mesafe ↔ süre” ilişkisini tanımlıyor.
  • 3 ve 4: “mesafe ↔ hız” ilişkisini tanımlıyor.
  • Her ikisinde de bir “yön” diğerinden çıkarılabilir, ama Galileo dönemin matematiksel titizliği gereği ikisini de koymuş.

Bu aksiyomlardan sonra Galileo düzgün yani tekdüze hareket ile ilgili 6 tane teorem veriyor. Bundan sonra bu 6 teoremi inceleyeceğiz.

Wednesday, September 17, 2025

Galileo İki Yeni Bilim: Düzgün hareket tanımı

Galileo'nun İki Yeni Bilim kitabında 3. Gün'e baştan başlayıp sonuna kadar okumak istiyorum.

Galileo 3. Gün'ü için planını şöyle açıklıyor:

"Bu incelemeyi üç kısma ayıracağız. İlk kısımda düzgün veya tekdüze hareket ile ilgili olanı ele alacağız; ikinci kısımda doğal olarak hızlanan hareket hakkında yazacağız; ve üçüncü kısımda ise zorunlu hareket ya da fırlatılan cisimlerin hareketi üzerine çalışacağız."

Galileo, 3. Gün'ü bir giriş yazısı ile başlıyor. Daha sonra düzgün hareket konusuna giriyor. Düzgün hareketi incelemek için sadece bir tanım yapması gerektiğini söylüyor. O tanımı da şöyle veriyor:

“Eşit, yani tekdüze hareketi, hareket eden şeyin hangi eşit zaman aralıklarında olursa olsun kat ettiği kısımları birbirine eşit olan hareket olarak anlıyorum.”

Galileo bu tanımı bir de şerh düşüyor:

Galileo'nun şerhi:

Yalnızca "eşit zamanlarda eşit mesafeler kat eden" şeklinde tanımlanan eski tanıma "herhangi" ekini, yani "bütün eşit zamanlarda" ekini getirmek uygun görünüyor. Çünkü, hareket eden bir cismin bazı eşit zamanlarda eşit mesafeler kat etmesi, fakat bu aynı zamanların daha küçük, kendi içinde eşit parçalarında kat edilen mesafelerin eşit olmaması mümkün olabilir.

Galileo burada "eski tanım" diyerek Aristo'ya atıfta bulunuyor ve şöyle bir ayırım yapıyor:

Eski tanım: 

(Aristotelesçi ya da geleneksel anlayış): “Eşit zamanlarda eşit mesafe → tekdüze hareket.”

  • Galileo’nun eklemesi: yalnızca belirli eşit zaman dilimleri için değil, hangi eşit zaman dilimini seçersen seç aynı kural geçerli olmalı.

Yani Galileo “tekdüzelik” kavramını her ölçekte garanti altına almak istiyor. Sadece birim olarak seçilmiş bir süre (örneğin 1 saniye ya da 1 dakika) için değil, 2 saniye, 10 saniye, hatta 0.5 saniye için de eşit mesafeler geçilmiş olmalı.

Karşı örnek: Ortalama hız \(\neq\) Tekdüze hareket

  • İlk 30 dakikada → 50 km
  • İkinci 30 dakikada → 10 km
  • Toplam 1 saatte → 60 km

Buradan ortalama hız:

$$v_{\text{avg}} = \frac{60}{1} = 60 \,\text{km/saat}$$

Eğer tanımı sadece “eşit zamanlarda eşit yol alınır” diye verseydik, bunu yanlış anlayıp şöyle diyebilirdik:

“Bir saatte 60 km gidildi, demek ki hız 60 km/saat.”

Ama Galileo’nun eklediği “hangi eşit zaman aralıkları olursa olsun” şartı burada devreye giriyor:

  • İlk yarım saatte: 50 km
  • İkinci yarım saatte: 10 km

Eşit zaman aralıklarında (0.5 saat + 0.5 saat) eşit mesafe alınmamış → dolayısıyla bu hareket tekdüze değil.

Böylece Galileo, tanımını ortalama hız gibi kaba bir ölçüye indirgemiyor. Onun “düzgün” dediği hareket, gerçekten her zaman diliminde eşitliği koruyan, bozulmayan bir düzen.

Bu da modern dille söylersek: hızın anlık olarak hep aynı olması. (Yani bugünkü matematikte türev kavramına çok yakın bir sezgi.)

Thursday, September 11, 2025

Galileo'nun İki Yeni Bilim kitabında 3. Gün, 6. Teorem'in incelenmesi

Daha önce VII. teoremi incelemiştik. Burada VI. teoreme bakıyoruz. Galileo'nun sözlerini blok alıntı olarak yazdım. Bu teoremin bir de "Mekanik ilkeleri kullanarak aynı sonuç elde edilebilir..." diye başlayan ikinci bölümü var, orayı daha sonra incelemeyi planlıyorum.  

(Teoremin tümünü inceleminin sonuna ekledim)



TEOREM VI. ÖNERME VI 
Dikey bir çemberin en yüksek ya da en alçak noktasından çevreyi kesen herhangi eğik düzlemler çizilirse, bu kirişler boyunca iniş zamanları birbirine eşittir.
\(BD\) ve \(CE\)'yi çapa dik çizin; düzlemlerin yükseklikleri \(AE\) ve \(AD\) arasında \(AI\)'yı orta orantılı yapın ve \(FA \cdot AE\) ve \(FA \cdot AD\) dikdörtgenleri sırasıyla \(AC\) ve \(AB\)'nin karelerine eşit olduğundan, \(FA \cdot AE\) dikdörtgeninin \(FA \cdot AD\) dikdörtgenine oranı \(AE\)'nin \(AD\)'ye oranı kadar olduğundan, \(AC\)'nin karesinin \(AB\)'nin karesine oranı \(AE\) uzunluğunun \(AD\) uzunluğuna oranı kadar olduğu çıkar.

(1)...Galileo bu orantıları yazıyor (benzer üçgenler $AFC$ ve $ACE$ ve $AFB$ ve $ADB$'yi kullanarak):

\[FA \cdot AE = (AC)^2\]\[FA \cdot AD = (AB)^2 \]

(2)...Sonra,

\[\frac{FA \cdot AE}{FA \cdot AD} = \frac{AE}{AD}\]

(3)...Sadeleştirerek,

\[\frac{(AC)^2}{(AB)^2} = \frac{AE}{AD}\]

çıkarımını yapıyor.

Fakat \(AE\) uzunluğunun \(AD\)'ye oranı \(AI\)'nin karesinin \(AD\)'nin karesine oranı kadar olduğundan, \(AC\) ve \(AB\) doğrularının karelerinin birbirine oranı \(AI\) ve \(AD\) doğrularının karelerinin oranı kadar olduğu, dolayısıyla \(AC\) uzunluğunun \(AB\) uzunluğuna oranının \(AI\)'nin \(AD\)'ye oranı kadar olduğu çıkar.

(4)...Galileo bu orantıyı yazıyor:

\[\frac{AE}{AD} = \frac{(AI)^2}{(AD)^2}\]

(5)...Galileo bu orantıyı \(EA\) ve \(AD\) arasındaki \(AI\) orta orantılısından buluyor. Orta orantılı tanım gereği, \(AI\), \(AE\) ile \(AD\)’nin geometrik ortalamasıdır; bu yüzden,

\[(AI)^2 = AE \cdot AD\]

(6)...İki tarafı \((AD)^2\)'ye böldüğümüzde:

\[\frac{(AI)^2}{(AD)^2} = \frac{AE\cdot \cancel{AD}}{(AD)^\cancel{2}} = \frac{AE}{AD}\]

(7)...(3)'le (4)'ü birleştirelim,

\[\frac{(AC)^2}{(AB)^2} = \frac{(AI)^2}{(AD)^2}\]

(8)...Karelerin oranı, uzunlukların oranının karesiyle aynı:

\[\left (\frac{AC}{AB}\right )^2 = \left (\frac{AI}{AD}\right )^2\]

(9)...Dolayısıyla,

\[\frac{AC}{AB} = \frac{AI}{AD}\]

Fakat daha önce \(AC\) boyunca düşüş süresinin \(AB\) boyunca düşüş süresine oranının, \(AC\)'nin \(AB\)'ye ve \(AD\)'nin \(AI\)'ye oranlarının çarpımına eşit olduğu gösterilmişti; fakat bu son oran \(AB\)'nin \(AC\)'ye oranı ile aynıdır.

Dolayısıyla \(AC\) boyunca düşüş süresinin \(AB\) boyunca düşüş süresine oranı, \(AC\)'nin \(AB\)'ye ve \(AB\)'nin \(AC\)'ye oranlarının çarpımıdır.

Bu sürelerin oranı bu nedenle birdir. Böylece önermemiz çıkar.

(10)...Galileo 5. teoremde bu sonucu bulmuştu:

\[\frac{t_{AC}}{t_{AB}} = \frac{AC\cdot AD}{AB\cdot AI}\]

(11)...Yukarda (9)'da bulduğumuz \(AC/AB = AI/AD\)'nin tersini alalım:

\[\frac{AB}{AC} = \frac{AD}{AI}\]

(12)...(10)'da \(AD/AI \Longrightarrow AB/AC\) değişimini yapalım:

\[\frac{t_{AC}}{t_{AB}} = \frac{\cancel{AC}\cdot \cancel{AB}}{\cancel{AB}\cdot \cancel{AC}} = 1\]

(13)...Böylece, Galileo’nun iddia ettiği gibi, farklı kirişler boyunca iniş sürelerinin eşit olduğu ispatlanmış oldu:

\[t_{AC} = t_{AB}\]

**********************************

Teoremin tümü

TEOREM VI. ÖNERME VI Dikey bir çemberin en yüksek ya da en alçak noktasından çevreyi kesen herhangi eğik düzlemler çizilirse, bu kirişler boyunca iniş zamanları birbirine eşittir.

\(GH\) yatay doğrusu üzerinde dikey bir daire çizin. En alt noktasından - yatay ile teğet noktasından - \(FA\) çapını çizin ve en üst nokta \(A\)'dan, çevre üzerindeki herhangi noktalar olan \(B\) ve \(C\)'ye eğik düzlemler çizin; o zaman bunlar boyunca düşüş süreleri eşittir.

\(BD\) ve \(CE\)'yi çapa dik çizin; düzlemlerin yükseklikleri \(AE\) ve \(AD\) arasında \(AI\)'yi orta orantılı yapın; ve \(FA \cdot AE\) ve \(FA \cdot AD\) dikdörtgenleri sırasıyla \(AC\) ve \(AB\)'nin karelerine eşit olduğundan, \(FA \cdot AE\) dikdörtgeninin \(FA \cdot AD\) dikdörtgenine oranı \(AE\)'nin \(AD\)'ye oranı kadar olduğundan, \(AC\)'nin karesinin \(AB\)'nin karesine oranı \(AE\) uzunluğunun \(AD\) uzunluğuna oranı kadar olduğu çıkar.

Fakat \(AE\) uzunluğunun \(AD\)'ye oranı \(AI\)'nin karesinin \(AD\)'nin karesine oranı kadar olduğundan, \(AC\) ve \(AB\) doğrularının karelerinin birbirine oranı \(AI\) ve \(AD\) doğrularının karelerinin oranı kadar olduğu, dolayısıyla \(AC\) uzunluğunun \(AB\) uzunluğuna oranının \(AI\)'nin \(AD\)'ye oranı kadar olduğu çıkar.

Fakat daha önce \(AC\) boyunca düşüş süresinin \(AB\) boyunca düşüş süresine oranının, \(AC\)'nin \(AB\)'ye ve \(AD\)'nin \(AI\)'ye oranlarının çarpımına eşit olduğu gösterilmişti; fakat bu son oran \(AB\)'nin \(AC\)'ye oranı ile aynıdır.

Dolayısıyla \(AC\) boyunca düşüş süresinin \(AB\) boyunca düşüş süresine oranı, \(AC\)'nin \(AB\)'ye ve \(AB\)'nin \(AC\)'ye oranlarının çarpımıdır.

Bu sürelerin oranı bu nedenle birdir. Böylece önermemiz çıkar.

Mekanik ilkeleri kullanarak aynı sonuç elde edilebilir, yani düşen bir cismin \(CA\) ve \(DA\) mesafelerini geçmek için eşit süreler gerektireceği, aşağıdaki şekilde gösterildiği gibi.

\(BA\)'yı \(DA\)'ya eşit ayır ve \(BE\) ile \(DF\) diklerini indir; mekanik ilkelerden, eğik \(ABC\) düzlemi boyunca etkiyen momentum bileşeninin toplam momentuma oranının \(BE\)'nin \(BA\)'ya oranı kadar olduğu çıkar; benzer şekilde \(AD\) düzlemi boyunca momentum, toplam momentumuna oranı \(DF\)'nin \(DA\)'ya, yani \(BA\)'ya oranı kadardır.

Dolayısıyla aynı ağırlığın \(DA\) düzlemi boyunca momentumu, \(ABC\) düzlemi boyunca momentuma oranı \(DF\) uzunluğunun \(BE\) uzunluğuna oranı kadardır; bu nedenle, aynı ağırlık birinci kitabın ikinci önermesine göre eşit sürelerde, \(CA\) ve \(DA\) düzlemleri boyunca \(BE\) ve \(DF\) uzunluklarının birbirine oranı kadar mesafeler geçecektir. Fakat \(CA\)'nın \(DA\)'ya oranının \(BE\)'nin \(DF\)'ye oranı kadar olduğu gösterilebilir. Böylece düşen cisim iki \(CA\) ve \(DA\) yolunu eşit sürelerde geçecektir.

Dahası, \(CA\)'nın \(DA\)'ya oranının \(BE\)'nin \(DF\)'ye oranı kadar olduğu gerçeği şu şekilde gösterilebilir: \(C\) ve \(D\)'yi birleştir; \(D\)'den, \(AF\)'ye paralel \(DGL\) doğrusunu çiz ve \(AC\) doğrusunu \(I\)'de kessin; \(B\)'den \(BH\) doğrusunu çiz, yine \(AF\)'ye paralel.

O zaman \(\angle ADI\) açısı \(\angle DCA\) açısına eşit olacaktır, çünkü \(LA\) ve \(DA\) eşit yaylarını görürler, ve \(\angle DAC\) açısı ortak olduğundan, \(\triangle CAD\) ve \(\triangle DAI\) üçgenlerinin ortak açının etrafındaki kenarları birbirine orantılı olacaktır; buna göre \(CA : DA = DA : IA\), yani \(BA : IA\), yani \(HA : GA\), yani \(BE : DF\) kadardır.

Quod erat demonstrandum.

Aynı önerme daha kolay şu şekilde gösterilebilir: \(AB\) yatay doğrusu üzerinde çapı \(DC\) dikey olan bir daire çiz.

Bu çapın üst ucundan çevreyle buluşmaya uzanan herhangi bir eğik düzlem \(DF\) çiz; o zaman, bir cismin \(DF\) düzlemi boyunca düşmesinin \(DC\) çapı boyunca düşmesi ile aynı süreyi alacağını söylüyorum.

\(FG\)'yi \(AB\)'ye paralel ve \(DC\)'ye dik çiz; \(FC\)'yi birleştir; ve \(DC\) boyunca düşüş süresi \(DG\) boyunca düşüş süresine, \(CD\) ve \(GD\) arasındaki orta orantılının \(GD\)'nin kendisine oranı kadar olduğundan; ve aynı zamanda \(DF\), \(DC\) ve \(DG\) arasında orta orantılı olduğundan, yarı daire içine yazılan \(\angle DFC\) açısı dik açı olduğundan ve \(FG\), \(DC\)'ye dik olduğundan, \(DC\) boyunca düşüş süresinin \(DG\) boyunca düşüş süresine oranının \(FD\) uzunluğunun \(GD\)'ye oranı kadar olduğu çıkar.

Fakat \(DF\) boyunca düşüş süresinin \(DG\) boyunca düşüş süresine oranının \(DF\) uzunluğunun \(DG\)'ye oranı kadar olduğu zaten gösterilmişti; dolayısıyla \(DF\) ve \(DC\) boyunca düşüş süreleri, \(DG\) boyunca düşüş süresi ile aynı oranı taşır; sonuç olarak eşittirler.

Benzer şekilde, çapın alt ucundan \(CE\) kirisini çizerse, aynı zamanda ufka paralel \(EH\) doğrusunu çizerse ve \(E\) ile \(D\) noktalarını birleştirirse, \(EC\) boyunca düşüş süresinin \(DC\) çapı boyunca düşüş süresi ile aynı olacağı gösterilebilir.

SONUÇ I Buradan, \(C\) veya \(D\)'den çizilen tüm kirişler boyunca düşüş sürelerinin birbirine eşit olduğu çıkar.

SONUÇ II Aynı zamanda, herhangi bir noktadan dikey bir çizgi ve düşüş süresinin aynı olduğu eğik bir çizgi çizilirse, eğik çizginin dikey çizginin çap olduğu yarı dairenin bir kirişi olacağı da çıkar.

SONUÇ III Dahası, bu düzlemlerin eşit uzunluklarının dikey yükseklikleri düzlemlerin uzunluklarının kendileri gibi birbirine orantılı olduğunda, eğik düzlemler boyunca düşüş süreleri eşit olacaktır; böylece, son önceki şekilde \(CA\) ve \(DA\) boyunca düşüş sürelerinin, \(AB\)'nin dikey yüksekliği (\(AB\), \(AD\)'ye eşit olmak üzere), yani \(BE\)'nin, \(DF\) dikey yüksekliğine oranı \(CA\)'nın \(DA\)'ya oranı kadar olması koşuluyla, eşit olduğu açıktır.

Sunday, September 7, 2025

Galileo'nun İki Yeni Bilim kitabında 3. Gün, 7. Teorem'in incelenmesi

Galileo’nun İki Yeni Bilim adlı kitabında üçüncü günün konusu ağırlıklı olarak eğik düzlemler ve serbest düşüş hareketidir. Burada Galileo, cismin bir eğik düzlem üzerindeki iniş süresinin hangi büyüklüklere bağlı olduğunu geometrik yöntemlerle incelemeye çalışır.

Bu yazıda 3. Gün’de yer alan 7. Teorem’i ele alacağız. Teorem, özel bir orantı kurulduğunda iki farklı eğik düzlem üzerindeki iniş sürelerinin eşit olduğunu gösteriyor. Galileo’nun geometriyle fiziği nasıl birleştirdiğini görmek için oldukça güzel bir örnek.


Teoremin tam metni

Galileo'nun İki Yeni Bilim Kitabı, 3. Gün, 7. Teorem, 7. Önerme (Crew ve de Salvio tercümesinde, sayfa, 194-195)

İfade: 

Eğer iki eğik düzlemin yükseklikleri, uzunluklarının kareleri ile aynı oranda ise, hareketsiz durumdan başlayan cisimler bu düzlemleri eşit sürelerde kateder.

İspat:

Farklı uzunluklara ve farklı eğimlere sahip iki düzlem alalım, \(AE\) ve \(AB\), ki bunların yükseklikleri sırasıyla \(AF\) ve \(AD\) olsun: \(AF\) ile \(AD\) arasındaki oran, \(AE\)’nin karesi ile \(AB\)’nin karesi arasındaki oranla aynı olsun; o zaman, derim ki, \(A\) noktasından hareketsiz durumdan başlayan bir cisim, \(AE\) ve \(AB\) düzlemlerini eşit sürelerde kateder.

Düşey bir çizgiden, yatay paralel çizgiler \(EF\) ve \(DB\)’yi çizelim, ki \(DB\) çizgisi \(AE\) düzlemini \(G\) noktasında kessin.

\[FA:DA = (EA)^2:(BA)^2\]

olduğundan ve

\[FA:DA = EA:GA \]

olduğundan, buradan

\[EA:GA = (EA)^2:(BA)^2 \]

sonucu çıkar.

Dolayısıyla, \(BA\), \(EA\) ile \(GA\) arasında bir orta orantılıdır.

Şimdi, \(AB\) boyunca iniş süresi, \(AG\) boyunca iniş süresine, \(AB\)’nin \(AG\)’ye oranına eşit bir oranda bağlıdır ve ayrıca \(AG\) boyunca iniş süresi, \(AE\) boyunca iniş süresine, \(AG\)’nin \(AG\) ile \(AE\) arasındaki orta orantılıya, yani \(AB\)’ye oranına eşittir. Buradan, ex aequali (eşitlikten), \(AB\) boyunca iniş süresi, \(AE\) boyunca iniş süresine, \(AB\)’nin kendisine oranına eşittir.

Bu nedenle süreler eşittir.

Q.E.D.


İspatın mantığı

Teoremin şartı

Farklı uzunluklara ve farklı eğimlere sahip iki düzlem alalım, \(AE\) ve \(AB\), ki bunların yükseklikleri sırasıyla \(AF\) ve \(AD\) olsun: \(AF\) ile \(AD\) arasındaki oran, \(AE\)’nin karesi ile \(AB\)’nin karesi arasındaki oranla aynı olsun; o zaman, derim ki, \(A\) noktasından hareketsiz durumdan başlayan bir cisim, \(AE\) ve \(AB\) düzlemlerini eşit sürelerde kateder.

Yani,

\[AF : AD = (AE)^2 : (AB)^2\]

Eğik düzlemler bu orantılarda inşa edilirlerse \(AB\) ve \(AE\) üzerinde düşüş süreleri aynı olacaktır.

Geometrik ilişki

İspata başlarken Galileo Öklid'den VI.2'yi kullanıyor:

\[AF : AD = AE :AG\]

Yani, \(AFE\) üçgeninde, \(FE\)'ye paralel çizilen \(BD\) çizgisi karşılıklı kenarları orantılı olarak bölüyor.

Çıkarım

Bu iki ifadede \(AF : AD\)'ye eşit olan iki orantıyı birleştiriyoruz:

\[AE : AG = (AE)^2 : (AB)^2\]

Orta orantılı

\(AB\), \(AE\) ve \(AG\) arasında orta orantılıdır:

\[(AB)^2 = AE \times AG\] Bu sonuç bir önceki orantıdan çıkıyor. Çapraz çarpım yapalım: \[(AB)^2\times \cancel{AE} = AG\times (AE)^\cancel{2}\] Yani, \[(AB)^2= AE\times AG\] $AB$, $AE$ ve $AG$ arasında orta orantılıdır.

İniş süreleri

\(AB\) ve \(AG\) üzerinde iniş süresi

\[t_{AB} : t_{AG} = AB : AG\]

\(AG\) ve \(AE\) üzerinde iniş süresi

\[t_{AG} : t_{AE} = AG : AB\]

Ex aequali

\[\frac{t_{AB}}{\cancel{t_{AG}}} \times \frac{\cancel{t_{AG}}}{t_{AE}} = \frac{\cancel{AB}}{\cancel{AG}} \times \frac{\cancel{AG}}{\cancel{AB}} \Longrightarrow \frac{t_{AB}}{t_{AE}} = 1\]

Q.E.D

\(t_{AB} : t_{AE}= 1\) olduğuna göre,

\[t_{AB} = t_{AE}\]

Sorular

Galileo neden \(t_{AG} : t_{AE} = AG : AB\) yazıyor?

Galileo'nun kendi bulduğu serbest düşüş yasasına göre

\[t_{AG} : t_{AE} = \sqrt{AG} : \sqrt{AE}\]

olması gerekiyor çünkü, aynı düzlem üzerinde serbest düşüşte,

\[\text{düşüş süresi}\propto \sqrt{\text{uzunluk}}\]

Peki Galileo düşüş sürelerini yanlış mı yazmış? Hayır Galileo, kareköklerle çalışmıyor, \(\sqrt{AG} : \sqrt{AE}\) ifadesini basit bir oran olarak, \(x/y\), şeklinde ifade etmek istiyor. Bunun içinde, orta oranlı kavramını kullanıyor:

\[(AB)^2 = AG \times AE\]

\(AB\), \(AG\) ve \(AE\) arasında orta orantılıdır. Orta orantılı ilişkisini kullanarak, Galileo'nun geometrik orantısı \(AG : AB\)'nin, serbest düşüş yasası \(\sqrt{AG} : \sqrt{AE}\) ile aynı olduğunu gösterebiliriz:

Geometrik oranın karesini alalım:

\[\left ( \frac{AG}{AB}\right)^2 = \frac{(AG)^2}{(AB)^2}\]

\((AB)^2\) yerine \(AG\times AE\) yazalım,

\[\left ( \frac{AG}{AB}\right)^2 = \frac{(AG)^\cancel{2}}{\cancel{AG}\times AE} = \frac{AG}{AE}\]

Böylece, şunu ispatlamış olduk,

\[\left ( \frac{AG}{AB}\right)^2 = \frac{AG}{AE}\]

Karekök alalım,

\[ \frac{AG}{AB} = \frac{\sqrt{AG}}{\sqrt{AE}}\]

Galileo'nun yazdığı geometric oranın (\(AG/AB\)) serbest düşüş yasası \((\sqrt{AG}/\sqrt{AE})\) ile birebir eşit olduğunu göstermiş olduk.


Galileo neden \(t_{AB} : t_{AG} = AB : AG\) yazıyor?

Burada, bir önceki soruda olduğu gibi Galileo, eğik düzlem üzerinde serbest düşüş yasasını kullanmıyor gibi gözüküyor. Eğik düzlem üzerinde serbest düşüş yasası,

\[t \propto \frac{\text{uzunluk}}{\sqrt{\text{yükseklik}}}\]

Yani, bizim geometriye göre, Galileo,

\[\frac{t_{AB}}{t_{AG}} = \frac{AB/\sqrt{AD}}{AG/\sqrt{AD}}\]

yazmalıydı.

Fakat burada açıkça görüyoruz ki, yükseklikler aynı olduğu için, \(\sqrt{AD}\) terimleri eleniyor. Yani, Galileo'nun ifadesi doğru!


Sonuç

Galileo’nun bu teoremi ilk bakışta modern serbest düşüş yasasıyla çelişiyor gibi görünebilir. Çünkü biz bugün, eğik düzlem üzerindeki sürelerin

$$t \propto \frac{\text{uzunluk}}{\sqrt{\text{yükseklik}}}$$

ilişkisine uyduğunu biliyoruz. Ancak Galileo “karekök” diliyle değil, geometri diliyle konuşuyor: orta orantılı kavramını kullanarak, modern fiziğin öngördüğü karekök oranlarını eşdeğer bir biçimde ifade ediyor.

Böylece görüyoruz ki Galileo’nun geometrik ispatı aslında serbest düşüş yasasıyla tamamen uyumludur. Onun yaptığı şey, hareketi cebirsel formüllerle değil, klasik orantılar ve ex aequali kuralı ile açıklamaktır. Bu yaklaşım, 17. yüzyılda geometri ile fiziğin nasıl iç içe geçtiğini ve Galileo’nun bilim tarihindeki özel yerini çok güzel yansıtır.

Özet

Galileo'nun bu güzel teoremi bu 7 adımda özetlenebilir:

(1) Önermenin şartı

\(AF : AD = (AE)^2 : (AB)^2\)

(2) Öklid VI.2

\(AF :AD = AE : AG\)

(3) Çıkarım

\(AE : AG = (AE)^2 : (AB)^2\)

(4) Orta orantılı

\((AB)^2 = AE\times AG\)

(5) İniş süresi (AB, AG üzerinden)

\(t_{AB} : t_{AG} = AB : AG\)

(6) İniş süresi (AG, AE üzerinden)

\(t_{AG} : t_{AE} = AG : AB\)

(7) Ex aequali

\((t_{AB} : \cancel{t_{AG}})\times \cancel{t_{AG}} : t_{AE} = \cancel{AB} : \cancel{AG} \times \cancel{AG} :\cancel{AB}\)

\(\Longrightarrow t_{AB} : t_{AE} = 1\)

\(\Longrightarrow t_{AB} = t_{AE}\)

Q.E.D

Friday, February 21, 2025

Is timeless travel possible?

 1. I call "timeless travel" the ability to travel distances without time passing.

2. Timeless travel is the defining property of Newton's force. This force forms orbits by bending straight lines into circles and then powers the orbit by interacting with the orbiting body. Newton's force achieves all these supernatural feats by traveling timelessly. Newton's force is everywhere at once. In physics the unit of being everywhere at once is called "Newton".

3. There is an absurdity here. Speed is defined as $$s=\frac{d}{t}$$.

4. But in timeless travel we have $$s=\frac{d}{}$$

5. In timeless travel $t$ is not zero nor does it have any other value, it just does not exist in the formulas, that's what "timeless" mean. $$s=\frac{d}{}$$ is a lame equation, where a term is missing. You would be surprised how wide-spread lame equations are in physics. They are not visible because the missing term is usually filled in with a placeholder term or a crutch.

6. And Newton the greatest sophist and self-promoting scientific fraud ever lived was able to sell this timeless travel as a physical thing and his disciples still protect Newton's lame definition of speed by using slimy and slippery tricks of rhetorical sophistry.

7. I think calling Newton's force "supernatural" does not make justice to Newton's fame, we ought to call it a fairy tale force.


Tuesday, January 21, 2025

Why short forces are short and why do physicists love equivocation so much?


0. Matt Strassler wrote a dumbed down popularization (“Why short range forces short range?”) that needs further deconstruction to be comprehensible.

2. Strassler has a tendency to overcomplicate what he tries to simplify for his lay readers by trying to coin cute words like "wavicle" in order to avoid mathematics or rather to protect his lay readers from the proprietary language physicists call “mathematics”.

In scholastic fields such as academic physics one of the highest rewards a professional physicist can hope to have is to coin a word that all his colleagues accept and use. Of course, the top reward is to have a physical unit named after you but for this you need to be a dead white male. After all, there are only a limited number of units that can be named but anyone can invent a new word such as “wavicle” and try to make it accepted into the physics jargon. You may obtain more professional points by establishing a new name then having published 100 papers in high prestige scholarly journals.

It looks like so far Strassler is the only one using the cute word “wavicle” because this is not really a new physical quantity but a new name for an old concept, namely, wave-particle duality. Strassler is just playing naming games.

3. The problem for me is that in physics fundamental words like field, wave and particle are equivocations. These words have at least two meanings, one valid in the "classical" realm and one valid in the "quantum" realm.

4. Just as Aristotelians divided the world into the terrestrial and celestial realms, each governed by distinct rules, modern physicists have partitioned the universe into two separate domains governed by different physical laws (three, if we include General Relativity). It is no surprise, then, that physicists have spent over a century attempting to "unify" these conceptual silos they have created—so far without success.

5. In the case of waves, the word “wave” refers to two fundamentally different entities both called waves. One of the waves can be "scaled up and down" arbitrarily and the other has a limit on how much it can be scaled down. These are two different entities.

6. The unit of study in physics for millennia has been the "particle" or the "atom".

7. Particles were defined as the indivisible units that made up the world. Physicists called these units "matter". Newton formalized this atomic materialist worldview and added his supernatural universal cause of all motion acting between particles and setting them in motion. Newton called this universal occult cause "force" and by propaganda he had the world accept his supernatural cause as a physical cause. Huygens, Leibniz and in our time Einstein all recognized that Newton’s “force” was a supernatural cause and criticized Newton for introducing occult causes to physics. But Newtonism won because Newton had successfully established his own school based on his supernatural cause he called “force”. Newton replaced Aristotle as the master of European scholasticism and his disciples filled in the gaps in Newton’s Principia and created the consistent system of units we know today as “Newtonian mechanics.” Newtonism also won over Einstein’s attempts to replace Newton’s occult force with his own gravitational theories that did not include supernatural causes, that is, his General Theory of Relativity.

8. But experiments done in the early 20th century confused physicists and they decided that the unit of study of physics must be fields not particles.

10. But physicists never dumped the word particle.

11. They started to call some properties of fields such as excitations "particles" and thus entered the realm of scholastic sophistry and proved that an atomic materialist worldview is the unquestionable dogma of physics. All experiments, regardless of what they say, must be interpreted to support the dogma of atomic materialism. Even if this can only be done by the sophistry of calling waves “particles”.

12. I think physicists' real problem is a professional problem not physics problem. They've been doing business as "particle physicists" for such a long time that they are unwilling to change their professional title to "field physicists" or "excitations of the field physicists" instead they keep changing the meaning of the word particle to save their professional title.


comment at HN 21.1.25

Your comment is helpful, thanks. I also discussed this with chatgpt and he said similar things: “Strassler’s term "indivisible waves" seems to be his unique phrasing to make these ideas more intuitive for a lay audience. Physicists usually use more formal language, such as ‘quantized excitations of a field’ or ‘wave-particle duality.’

But my problem is different.

Below I use the word “particle” to mean “a three dimensional indivisible unit,” and nothing else. A particle is not a mathematical point as Strassler suggests when he describes a particle as a “dot.” And a particle is not a wave. If Strassler decides to call waves “particles”, waves do not magically become particles. Ever since the scientific revolution we have not explained natural phenomena by magic.

I read Strassler quote again: 

In a quantum world such as ours, the field’s waves are made from indivisible tiny waves, which for historical reasons we call “particles.” Despite their name, these objects aren’t little dots...

My interpretation of this quote is like this:

> In a quantum world such as ours the field’s waves are made from indivisible tiny waves...

This means that the world is made of quantum fields and fields are waves and not particles [particle are indivisible units, Strassler calls them “little dots”].

This is a clear statement. Strassler is saying that our world is quantum and it is made of fields. Fields are not particles. The unit of study of physics is now fields, not particles. There are no particles in this world because the field is made of waves. These waves are not particles. But they differ from the classical waves because they can only be scaled down to a certain length.

> ...which for historical reasons we call “particles”. Despite their name these objects aren’t little dots [they are not indivisible units with extension].

Strassler’s quote makes it clear that the building blocks of the world are waves, not particles. In this world of ours there are no particles in the sense of indivisible units. It is only that Strassler chooses to call these waves “particles.” This is just a naming convention.

If someone decides to call “monkey” the animal we know and love as a “donkey”, obviously the long eared cute animal will not become a monkey just because someone decided to call it “monkey”. This play on words can only create confusion. If we are calling an animal with the name of another animal we are only exposing ourself as a sophist.

This is exactly what Strassler is doing. He is intentionally trying to corrupt the meanings of well established words by loading them with new meanings. He is playing naming games. Calling a wave particle does not make the wave a particle. Then why call a wave particle? No sane person would call a wave “particle” unless he has something to hide and wants to deceive us or even deceive himself.

To me, if true, the fact that the building blocks of the world are waves is a big and fundamental discovery because it proves that the world is not atomic and matterful as Newton assumed. There are no forces acting between particles because particles do not exist.

This is where the problem lies for physicists. Atomic materialism is their professional dogma and they need to save it despite the experiments contradicting it. But this dogma cannot be saved by using sophistry and calling waves particles.


 

Sunday, January 19, 2025

Newton: A man with many fantastical attributes

1. Newton has many fantastical attributes:

   1. Newton is the thrice-great sophist, our Hermes Trismegistus of sophistry. Newton employs a technique of sophistry he invented himself called "in-your-face sophistry". Newton does not need to hide from you that he is deceiving you with his sophistry. This is how great a sophist he is. [Examples to come]

   2. Newton is the great appropriator. Newton never encountered a concept he could not steal by renaming it. He stole from Descartes by renaming Descartes' first law of motion as Newton's first law of motion. What a genius this Newton was! He stole Kepler's Third Law and rearranged its terms and called it Newton's Laws.

   3. Newton is the great euphemist and grandmaster of circumlocution.

   4. Newton is an occultist and supernaturalist.

   5. A genius of marketing

Newton's translation of Emerald Tablet

Newton did not consider his natural philosophy and his work in the supernatural as two separate endeavors.

We have Newton's translation of the Emerald Tablet

Tis true without lying, certain and most true.

That which is below is like that which is above

and that which is above is like that which is below

to do the miracle of one only thing


For Newton the following is also true:


That which is beyond is like that which is within

that which is within is like that which is beyond


For Newton that which is natural is that which is supernatural


For Newton, natural (within) and supernatural (beyond) is the same thing.


This is why Newton does not hesitate to explain natural phenomena with a supernatural cause like his God.

This is why Newton has no scruples explaining natural phenomena like orbits with a supernatural cause he calls "force".


Explaining natural phenomena with supernatural causes is not an exception in Newton, on the contrary, this is Newton's main method. Newton should never be compared to rational and true scientists such as Huygens and Leibniz but to John Dee. Newton is an occultist like John Dee. The only difference is that Newton is a better mathematician than Dee.

- "As above, so below"


Thursday, August 22, 2024

A new definition of subset

 1. I don't think it is necessary to have two words to indicate parts of a set, namely, subset and proper subset.

2. Let's drop "proper subset" and define "subset" to be the current definition of "proper subset". This is what mathematicians do in practice anyway. They use "subset" when they mean "proper subset". 

The above screenshot is a Mathematica function that lists all "subsets" of a set. But except the last one (equality) they are all "proper subsets". This means that mathematicians do not respect their own definitions of "subset" and "proper subset".

A new definition of subset   

1. Given two sets A and B, we say that B is a subset of A if every element of B is an element of A but A has at least one more element.

2. In other words, given that $\mathbf{A} \neq \mathbf{B}$, $\mathbf{B}$ is a subset of $\mathbf{A}$ if all the elements of $\mathbf{B}$ are elements of $\mathbf{A}$ and $\mathbf{A}$ has at least one more element.

3. This definition covers all possible situations a set can be partitioned except when $\mathbf{A}=\mathbf{B}$.

4. If $\mathbf{A}=\mathbf{B}$ it is silly to say that $\mathbf{A}$ includes $\mathbf{B}$ or that $\mathbf{B}$ includes $\mathbf{A}$. Since they are equal neither is a part of the other. No Cantorian rhetorical sophistry can change this fact. It's funny that mathematicians accept easily and never question rhetorical sophistry if it comes from a dead mathematician with fame and authority.

5. There are various ways to draw equal sets as subsets with Venn diagrams.




6. If $\mathbf{A}$ and $\mathbf{B}$ are equal we call them equal. There is no reason to define the word "subset" as a synonym to the word "equal". There is no subset relation between sets that are equal.

7. The "subset" and "proper subset" jargon is invented in order to claim that equal sets are subsets of each other, that is, one is a part of the other. But if $\mathbf{A}=\mathbf{B}$ neither is a part of the other.

8. Mathematicians corrupted the words "whole" and "part" by denying Euclid's Common Notion 5: The whole is greater than the part.

9. In this case we have two wholes: $\mathbf{A}=\{1,2,3\}$ and $\mathbf{B}=\{1,2,3\}$

10. $\mathbf{A}=\mathbf{A}$ must be different than $\mathbf{A}=\mathbf{B}$.

11. To say $\mathbf{A}=\mathbf{A}$ you need to clone $\mathbf{A}$ and create a new set. We must name this new set with a name other than $\mathbf{A}$, e.g., $\mathbf{A'}$ and then we say $\mathbf{A}=\mathbf{A'}$

12. $\mathbf{A}=\mathbf{A}$ doesn't make sense because a whole is not a part of itself.

13. No one is saying that equality implies whole/part relationship but when mathematicians say that every set is a subset of itself they are implying that the whole is part of itself.

14. To say that "a set is a subset of itself" is rhetorical sophistry and play on words "whole" and "part".

15. I respect Euclid's Common Notion 5 and I don't see any reason to deny that the whole is greater than the part. This means simply that the big is greater than the small. Only paradox loving set theoristas deny this Common Notion to save their beloved set theory.

16. If we accept and respect Euclid's Common Notion 5 that the whole is greater than the part, a set cannot be a subset of itself because the whole (the set) cannot be a part (subset) of itself. Equals will not contain one another except in the absurd world of the set theory.

17. The part cannot be equal to the whole. To say that the whole = the part is sophistry because the definitions of "whole" and "part" are being redefined on the fly and on the sly.

18. What justifications do mathematicians have to deny Euclid's Common Notion 5?


Sunday, August 11, 2024

Does infinity belong to mathematics

 Bertrand Russell in the Preface to his Introduction to Mathematical Philosophy writes:

Much of what is set forth in the following chapters is not properly to be called "philosophy," though matters concerned were included in philosophy so long as no satisfactory science of them existed. The nature of infinity and continuity, for example, belonged in former days to philosophy, but belongs now to mathematics.

Russell must be the right person to make such a statement, he was both a philosopher and mathematician.

But how does he justify the claim that philosophical infinity is now mathematical infinity. 

I don't think these two can be reconciled. Philosophical infinity is something else and mathematical infinity is something else.

I'm still looking to find a satisfactory definition of the word infinite in mathematics.

Unordered or ordered

1. I'm commenting from this article by James D. Fearon of Stanford University


2. I'm curious to know how we can define a set as an unordered collection then we can talk about "ordered sets." If a set is defined as unordered there cannot be ordered sets.

3. I know that, I'm sure that, there is an explanation, in fact I suspect that there exists a "Zermalo's axiom" that lets us write ordered sets even though we defined sets as unordered. Or we may say "ordered sets are not really ordered in the sense of the original definition so there is no contradiction."

4. So I'd like to know how mathematicians rationalize ordered sets even though an ordered collection in mathematics is called a sequence.

5. Let's look at an explicit example.

6. On page 1, Fearon writes:


The order of elements in the set does not matter.


7. So the set $\mathbf{A} = \{\; 0, 1, 2, 3\;\}$ and $\mathbf{A} = \{\; 1, 2, 0, 3\;\}$ are the same set.

8. A set is defined as an unordered collection of elements.

9. So far so good. A set is unordered. Order of elements does not matter. But now let's look at the next page where he explains infinite sets.

10. He first gives an example with the set construction notation:

$$\mathbf{S}= \{\; s : 0 < s < 1\; \}$$

11.  So, $\mathbf{S}$ is a set containing elements $s_n$ between $0$ and $1$.

12. Fearon explains:


In this method a set is defined by specifying the property or properties that characterizes or is true of all elements of the set.


13. This is standard mathematics too.

14. Then, he gives another example:


Occasionally, you will also see notation like the following for an infinite set:


$$\mathbf{T} = \{\; 0, 1, 2, 3\; \ldots \;\}$$


where it is understood that the ellipsis means that the set proceeds as indicated.


15. But $\mathbf{T}$ is an ordered collection, so it cannot be a set. To call $\mathbf{T}$ a set contradicts the standard definition of a set.

16. $\mathbf{T}$ is not a set because it is ordered. Ordered collections are called "sequences". So why are mathematicians calling a sequence a set?

17. If $\mathbf{T}$ were to be a set I could write it like


$$\mathbf{T} = \{\; 3, 0, 2, 1\; \ldots \;\}$$


18. But now ellipsis makes no sense. We cannot say "the ellipsis means that the set proceeds as indicated."

19. $\mathbf{T} = \{\; 3, 0, 2, 1\; \ldots \;\}$ has no order so we cannot know how to continue this set. Ellipsis implies and assumes order, when there is no order ellipsis makes no sense.

20. So, which one of Zermalo's famous axioms allows us to write ordered sets even though we defined a set to be an unordered collection?

21. I can almost hear the answer. "An ordered set is not really ordered, it is Zermalo-ordered, or Dedekind-ordered or Cantor-ordered which is according to $N$'th order logic is not really order at all. Where is this nasty odor of scholastic sophistry is coming from?


Wednesday, August 7, 2024

Beauty of the particular

 The goal of generalization had become so fashionable that a generation of mathematicians had become unable to relish beauty in the particular, to enjoy the challenge of solving quantitative problems, or to appreciate the value of technique. 

Abstract mathematics was becoming inbred and losing touch with reality; mathematical education needed a concrete counterweight in order to restore a healthy balance.

[...]

Some people think that mathematics is a serious business that must always be cold and dry; but we think mathematics is fun, and we aren't ashamed to admit the fact.

From: Concrete Mathematics: A foundation for computer science, by Graham, Knuth and Patashnik

Wednesday, July 24, 2024

What's in an empty set?

 1. We denote a set like this: [ a b c ]. It doesn't matter what type of brackets we use. Curly brackets will do too. And if we define "space" as our separator we don't need to use commas either.

2. [ a b c ] shows a set with three elements in it.

3. By defining a set this way, we assume that the set and its elements are two different objects and that these elements are in a container that we call a "set". I don't agree. For me, elements are the set.

4. We have two options:


1. Brackets are part of the set

 1. When we remove all the elements, we are left with brackets only. We call these brackets "empty set".

 2. According to the assumption that "brackets are part of the set", when we remove all elements, we are left with brackets that do not contain any elements.

 3. In order to say that there is such a thing as an "empty set", we need to assume that the brackets are part of the set.


2. Brackets are not part of the set

 1. In this case we assume that the elements are the set: Set = Elements

 2. When we remove the elements, there is nothing left.

 3. Brackets are not part of the set, they are just a visual aid for people.

 4. When the elements a b c are removed from the set [ a b c ], nothing remains: [We need to put the symbol for "nothingness" here, but we do not have such a symbol because nothingness is nothing. "Zero" is not a symbol of nothingness.]

 5. When the elements are removed, nothing is left and there is no empty set. These brackets "[ ]" do not represent "nothingness". Mathematicians call two brackets an empty set!

 6. Therefore, if we accept that brackets are not part of the set, there can be no such thing as an "empty set". An "empty set" can only be a metaphysical and mystical object, such as the "set of nothingness" that only set theory fanatics can see.

 7. We have a similar situation in geometry. Dotted lines drawn as visual aids in geometric figures are not part of the figure. These dotted lines used to be called "occult" lines.

8. I.B. Cohen explains the occult lines in his translation of Newton's Principia:

In Newton's time, the adjective "occult" was used to denote "a line drawn in the construction of a figure but not forming part of the finished figure, as well as a dotted line."

9. Therefore, mathematicians need to decide whether the brackets delimiting the elements of a set are occult or not. One or the other. Upholding both violates the certainty principle* of mathematics.

10. But mathematicians chose to define brackets as occult or non-occult as they wish, case by case. This is called casuistry and turns the set theory into a garbage dump of nonsense.

11. So, for non-empty sets the brackets are assumed not to exist, but for empty sets the brackets are real and are assumed to be part of the set. This is called a rhetorical sophistry and has no place in mathematics.

12. In short, mathematicians reify the brackets when it suits their needs, and ignore them when it does not.

13. To me, elements are the set. When there are no elements, there is no set.

14. Mathematicians talk about "elements in a set" as if the elements were in a container.

15. Dear mathematicians, you must make up your mind and choose one of the options. If the set consists of elements only, then when there are no elements, there is no set, and therefore there is no empty set. ("An empty set" is a set, right? If there is no set, there is no empty version of the set.)

16. Computer languages ​​also have the concept of sets. The empty set also exists as a placeholder. Likewise, in mathematics, you can use the empty set as a placeholder. You can replace this placeholder symbol later with an actual set if you wish. However, a placeholder is not a set. A placeholder is not an "empty set" either. A placeholder cannot have the properties of a set because it is not a set. For example, you can't say "a placeholder is a subset of every set". But when you say "the empty set is a subset of every set", you exactly do that.

17. A non-mathematical absurd and nonsensical concept such as the "empty set", is a "patch" created to save another nonsense called "mathematical induction".

* Certainty principle: One word, one definition. Each word is defined once.



Set representation without brackets

1. We can even go one step further and write sets without brackets: a b c

2. This way, when we remove the elements a b c, we can clearly see that no "empty set" remains.


   

An example from football: Empty team

1. Teams A  and B  are playing.

2. The players of team A  constantly commit hard fouls and one by one receive red cards. And then we see that there are no players from team A left on the field.

3. Since no players from team A are left on the field the referee decides to stop the game.

4. He's right. A team consists of players, without players there is no team.

5. However, a set theorist watching the game objects to referee's decision to stop the game. Even though no players from team A are on the field, the team is still on the field as an "empty team" and the game must continue, says he, this genius set theorist.

6. So, according to the rules of set theory, team A is still in the field because removing players does not mean removing the team from the field. Even if there are no players, there is a team. The team still exists on the field as an empty team with zero cardinality.

7. There is no doubt that according to the set theory, an empty set is still a set even though it has no elements, similarly, a team is still a team even if it has no players.

8. This seems like absurd reasoning to me.


Note: Of course, according to the rules, if a team remains with 7 players, the game will stop anyway. In other words, it is not realistic for 11 players to receive red cards. But isn't it even more absurd to have a team with zero players on the field? 


Tuesday, July 23, 2024

Mathematical casuistry: The nothingness of the empty set


 1. This is set notation. It doesn't matter what kind of bracket we use. Curly brackets are fine too.

2. This notation shows a set with three elements in it.

3. If we describe a set this way we would be assuming that the set and its elements are two different objects and that elements are in a container we call a "set". To me this is not the case. Elements are the set.

****

Instead of reading watch the video...

***

4. We have two possibilities:

   1. Brackets are part of the set

      1. When we remove all the elements we are left only with brackets. We call these brackets "an empty set".

      2. In this case when we remove all the elements only the brackets remain with no elements in them.

      3. In order to be able to say that such a thing as «empty set» exists we must assume that brackets are part of the set and when we remove the elements the brackets remain with nothing in them.

   2. Brackets are not part of the set

      1. In this case we assume that the elements are the set.

      2. When we remove the elements nothing remains. 

      3. Brackets are not part of the set, they are only a visual help for humans.

      4. When the elements a b c are removed from the set [ a b c ] nothing is left: [Here we are supposed to put a symbol of "nothing" but we don't have such a symbol because nothing is nothing. "Zero" is not a symbol for nothing.]

      5. When the elements are removed nothing remains and there is no empty set: [ ]. These brackets "[ ]" do not represent "nothing."

      6. Therefore if we accept that brackets are not part of the set there cannot be something called "empty set". There may be a metaphysical and mystical object called "nothing set" that is only visible to set theory fanatics.

      7. We have a similar case in geometry. In geometric figures dotted lines are not part of the figure. These dotted lines used to be called "occult" lines.

Figure with occult lines from Newton's Principiu

      8. I.B. Cohen explains the occult lines like this in his translation of Newton's Principia: 

In Newton's day, the adjective "occult" was used to denote "a line drawn in the construction of a figure, but not forming part of the finished figure and also to denote a dotted line.

Close-up of the occult line

5. So mathematicians need to decide if the brackets delimiting the elements are occult or not. One or the other. To uphold both is casuistry.

6. Unfortunately for mathematics, mathematicians chose casuistry. They make the brackets occult or not occult case by case as they wish depending on the situation at hand. This love of casuistry turns their set theory into laughable mathematical junk.

Set notation with occult brackets

7. So, for non-empty sets brackets are occult but for the empty set brackets are real and part of the set. This is called casuistry or rhetorical sophistry and it has no place in mathematics.

8. In short, mathematicians are reifying symbols, namely, the brackets when this suits their needs. 

9. To me, elements are the set. When there are no elements there is no set.

10. Mathematicians talk about "elements in a set" as if elements were inside a container.

11. Dear mathematicians, you have to make up your mind and choose one of the options. If the set is the elements then when there are no elements there is no set, and consequently, there is no empty set. ("Empty set" is a set, right? If there is no set, there is no empty version of a set either.)

12. Of course, you may have a placeholder as in computer languages and keep the brackets as placeholders to indicate that you deleted a set but you intend to put it back. But a placeholder is not a set. A placeholder is not the «empty set». A placeholder cannot have properties of a set because it is not a set. You cannot say "a placeholder is a subset of every set". But this is exactly what you are saying when you say, "the empty set is a subset of every set."

13. A nonsense like «empty set» exists to make another nonsense work, namely «mathematical induction».


An example from sports: empty team

1. We are watching a game of football.

2. The players of team A break all the rules of the game and as the game progresses the referee ejects all of the 11 players.

3. Now no players from team A is in the pitch and the referee decides to stop the game.

4. He is right. A team is made of players, when there is no player there is no team.

5. But a set theorist objects. Even if there is no players from team A in the pitch the team as an "empty team" is still in the pitch and the game must go on.

6. So according to the rules of the set theory the team A is still in the pitch because removing the players does not remove the team. Team is still present as an empty team of 0 cardinality.

7. There is no doubt that an empty set is still a set even though it is empty so a team is still a team even though it has no players.

8. Sounds like absurd reasoning to me.


Saturday, July 20, 2024

Opting out of the set theory

  1. It seems that several prominent mathematicians including Kroenecker objected to the set theory.
  2. Mathematics, physics and philosophy are academic and scholastic fields practiced by « learned doctors ». These professional are in competition to own academic subjects.
  3. The word « infinity » was owned by philosopher for millennia, but in the 19th century mathematicians « stole » infinity from philosopher and made infinity a mathematical object. Or at least they tried by using the set theory as false witness. To me they failed.
  4. The culprit is Herr Cantor. He initiated the sick process of incorporating the metaphysical concept of infinity into the precise science of mathematics. Mathematicians could not quantify infinity instead they transformed mathematics into metaphysics.
  5. Mathematics is about definitions.
  6. Any symbol in mathematics can be defined arbitrarily by other symbols.
  7. Mathematical definitions do not attribute « meaning » to the defined word. If they did, that would be physics not mathematics. In mathematics « a » can mean anything. It only has mathematical meaning as a quantity. In physics « a » can be « acceleration » or some other named quantity.
  8. For instance, we have a definition of number by Euclid as multiplicity of units...

Saturday, November 26, 2022

We can only observe the observable universe

This is a nice tautology. You are saying "we can only observe the observable universe." This is true. 

You admit that we do not observe the universe that we cannot observe. This is true too. But we can only know what we can observe. Therefore, we do not know what we cannot observe. We do not know the universe as a whole because we cannot observe the universe as a whole.

Physicists know that they don't know the universe as a whole but they invent a creation myth called the Big Bang which is defined as the beginning of the universe as a whole. How do you know the beginning of the universe as a whole if you don't know the universe as a whole?

Cosmology is a hoax. Physicists first need to learn the difference between the words "cosmos" and "the universe as a whole".

 

Friday, November 4, 2022

The hoax called "cosmology"

On these lecture notes, Section 7.3 is called “Our Universe”. What does “Our Universe” mean? Do you have a definition of the word “universe”? No, you don’t, you use it without defining it. Cosmologists study an undefined entity called “universe”. They refuse to define what the word “universe” means. For this reason alone cosmology cannot be considered a science.

I counted 33 instances of the word “universe” and none of it is defined. From the context I gather that you use the word “universe” to mean both a “cosmos” and “the universe as a whole”. “Cosmos” and “universe as a whole” are not synonyms. Physicists do not care to ackowledge the difference between a cosmos and the universe as a whole. On the contrary, they love to conflate the two because cosmology is based on this deliberate confusion.

We have no way of knowing what a physicist means when he uses the word “universe.” And they like it that way. 

Imagine a medical doctor using the words “flue”, “covid” and “allergy” as synonyms. Can he trust him?

A cosmos is a harmonious system defined by physicists. Example: Friedman-Robertson-Walker cosmos.

Cosmos is defined to be understandable by the mathematical tools currently used by physicists. Cosmos is not the universe as a whole. But physicists, the modern scholastic Doctors of Philosophy, define a cosmos and then, with a sleight of hand, define their cosmos as the universe as a whole. This secret assumption makes cosmology a hoax.

Physicists use the words “cosmos”, “universe”, “observable universe” and “universe as a whole” interchangeably. These words are synonymes in physics:

cosmos == universe == observable universe == universe as a whole

So, for a physicist, the observable universe is the universe as a whole.

Cosmologists always assume implicitly that the observable universe is the whole universe. This is the oldest trick in cosmology.

The undeniable truth is that physicists do not know the universe as a whole because no information reach us from beyond the observable universe. 

The Undeniable Truth that No One Can Deny Even the Most Arrogant Physicist:

The Undeniable Truth #1:

No information come to us from beyond the observable universe.

There is only one conclusion any rational person can draw from the Undeniable Truth #1:

Undeniable Conclusion #1:

We don’t know the universe as a whole and never will.

But physicists working in the field of cosmology are not bound by the Aristotelian logic or by any kind of logic. Physicists are professional sophists who must conform observations to the official physics doctrine.

When confronted with the Undeniable Truth #1, how will a cosmologist reason? 

A cosmologist must pretend to study the universe as a whole, otherwise all his authority will disappear. His job is to pretend to reveal the unknowable secrets of the universe as a whole to the rest of us who do not have his alleged supernatural powers.

The cosmologist desperately wants the observable universe to be the whole universe, but he knows that it is not, so what does he do? He creates multiple wholes(!). 

The word “universe” means “the whole”, therefore, the word universe does not have a plural because “multiple wholes” is sophistry and does not make sense. But the cosmologist writes the word universe as “universes”. Cosmologist reasons, “we don’t see beyond the observable universe, therefore there must a multiplicity of universes(!).”

The sophist who calls himself “cosmologist” is studying a cosmos that he defined himself. He is not studying the universe as a whole.

Physicists enjoy a government enforced monopoly on cosmological topics and they feel free to corrupt scientific reasoning to practice the cosmological hoax.

Why? Because academic physicists doing cosmology are scholastic Doctors of Philosophy and their only goal is to move up in the academic ladder by revealing the unknowable secrets of the universe.

The Undeniable Truth #1 proves that we don’t know the universe as a whole and we will never know the universe as a whole. If you are aware of this fact and you still claim to know the universe as a whole by sophistical casuistry and casuistical sophistry then you will be called a charlatan and a hoaxster.

Anyone who claims to know the universe as a whole while knowing that he cannot know the universe as a whole because no information comes to us from beyond the observable universe is a charlatan and a hoaxster in the same class of confidence men as the sellers of the Brooklyn Bridge. Pretending to know something you don’t know is charlatanism.

General Relativity is not exempt from this rule. Einstein did not know the universe as a whole and he knew he did not know the universe as a whole but went ahead and computed the radius of the universe anyway. Einstein the charlatan computed the radius of the whole universe. Einstein used the authority of mathematics to hide his charlatanism.

Edwin Hubble observed 19 galaxies and concluded all galaxies in the universe as a whole were receding from us. This is charlatanism. Not only charlatanism but a farce.

* * *

Your status as a teacher is different. You just teach legal doctrine of physics. “Doctor” means somebody who is licensed to teach the doctrine to new initiates. This is what you are doing. You are not making a new discovery. You just teach absurd fairy tales and creation myths cloaked in the language of mathematics as science. 

You are only guilty of using mathematics as false witness. But in physics this is not a crime, it is a feature.

Friday, October 28, 2022

How physicists corrupted the word particle


As a comment to the above twit:

The transformation of the word “particle” is not a simple case of physicists changing the meaning of an English word to create a new physics jargon.

Loading the word "particle" with new meanings has fundamental implications in physics. This is not a matter of linguistics.

The definition of the word “particle” defines our understanding of the world.

Let's look at what Newton meant by the word “particle” . Newton assumed a material world and said:

God in the beginning formed matter in solid, massy, hard, impenetrable movable particles.

(Isaac Newton, Optics, 1704, Book III, page: 375)

Newton defines "particle" as an indivisible spherical unit of matter with a finite radius.

There is no ambiguity in Newton’s definition. A Newtonian particle is not “an excitation of the field”; it is not “a statistical bump in data”, it is not “quanta”; it is a spherical object with a finite radius. This has been the definition of particle since Democritus.

If you call anything which is not a sphere with finite radius a “particle” you will be guilty of corrupting the word “particle” by redefining it.

"Particle" is not only the name of a physical entity but it is the symbol of a worldview. "Particle" represents the materialist world view. Materialism is the Newtonian doctrine that defines the world as discontinuous, particulate and forceful. According to this doctrine the world is discontinuous (not continuous like a field) and made of indivisible units called particles which are set in motion by supernatural forces the cause of which is God. This is the physical(!) world physicists believe in. 

This particulate, discontinuous and matterful world has been physics dogma since Newton. But with the development of the electrical sciences, physicists started to find "particles" in electric beams. Accordingly, physicists who specialized in electricity started to call themselves "particle physicists."

Again, the word "particle" here is a symbol of a worldview. If you see the world as particles (and forces) you’ll be assuming without question the particulate world defined by Newton.

But these "particles" physicists started to see in their electrical experiments showed that the world is not really particulate. The closer they looked, they did not see smaller and smaller spheres but instead they saw that the world is made of fields. Their experiments contradicted their beloved Newtonian dogma of a discontinuous world.

At this point the right thing to do for physicists was to give up the Newtonian particulate worldview and accept that the world is not particulate. But Newton's authority in physics is such that Newton cannot be contradicted by any experiments. Physicists are members of the Cult of Newton and none of them had the courage to deny the Newtonian doctrine and assert the authority of their experiments.

As good scholastics physicists chose to load the word particle with new meanings which contradicted the original historical meaning of the word "particle".

It is clear that the word "particle" no longer means "solid, massy, hard, impenetrable movable" units of matter. But it may mean "quantized field fluctuations." Quantized means something like standing waves; they may look like particles but they are not particles in the Newtonian sense.

In order not to give up the Newtonian particulate worldview physicists started to play on words and defined the word "particle" as many times as necessary to describe quantum phenonema. Quantum is not particle. Physicists call a quanta "particle" in order not to give up their sacred Newtonian particulate world doctrine.

An "excitation in quantum field" is not a particle in the Newtonian sense, physicists call it particle because they don't want to give up their Newtonian doctrine. They choose to fit experiments into their Newtonian doctrine.

The world is not particulate. This is what quantum observations show.

Phyiscists who call themselves particle physicists prefer to fit the world into their professional title rather than accept that the world is not particulate.

This is why physicists chose to corrupt the good old world "particle" by loading it with contradictory meanings.

This is not merely an English language question, it is a fundamental question. Is the world particulate? Or is the world made of fields? If the world is fields, give up your Newtonian doctrine and stop calling the field a particle.


Saturday, September 17, 2022

Big-G: Deus ex machina

 Big-G: Deus ex machina (PDF)

Did Cavendish measure the so-called Newtonian so-called gravitational so-called constant G? No. He didn’t.

In the 19th century, two centuries after Newton’s definition of his "universal" force of attraction, there was still no experimental verification of it.

Physicists desperately needed an experimental verification of this sanctified force so they defined the Cavendish experiment posthumously in the 19th century as the experiment that measured G for the first time.

But first they needed to define G and this was done by C.V. Boys.

G was defined in 1894, Henry Cavendish conducted his experiment in 1798. G was defined 96 years after Cavendish experiment. 

Saturday, September 10, 2022

Shampoos and spacetimes

Physicists use the word “spacetime” as if it were a well-defined entity with unique properties. There are more branded spacetimes than there are shampoo brands.

There is a shampoo for each type of hair. You have oily hair, there is a shampoo for it. You are pregnant, and there is a shampoo for pregnant women, helping you to have the best looking hair during pregnancy.

Same with spacetimes. Visit the Einsteinium Spacetimes Supermarket and in the shelves you can find a spacetime for the requirements of any academic paper. Do you need a stationary spacetime, there is one just for you. This simple spacetime will solve your stationary spacetime needs very efficiently.

Maybe you need an asymptotically flat spacetime because you just bought a shiny new black hole from our Singularities Department and you need a matching asymptotically flat spacetime, then you are in the right place. Einsteinium has it for you.

Maybe you need spherically symmetric spacetimes. You are a beginner and you are writing your first spacetimes paper and you are too nervous and you wanted a simple spacetime. We have you covered with our spherically symmetric spacetime.

If you cannot decide which Lambda to use for your Cosmological Constant, our Cosmological Constants shelves are the best stocked in the industry; we have the usual zero, positive and negative Lambdas but also many many more; for instance, you can try our Lamda gauged to a variable Newtonian constant G which is well suited for Multiscale Diffusion spacetimes. Be the first to try this exciting new product in your institution.

Maybe you are a mid-career spacetimeologist and you need a spacetime conforming to the quality specifications of the Petrov classifications system, then we recommend a Petrov type II spacetime. But don’t use Petrov type I spacetimes because it has been shown with a definitive null experiment that Petrov type I spacetimes clearly violate General Relativity’s Type LXCDM-II Einsteinian Railroad Embankment Simultaneity Paradox Anomaly. So stay away from it. (You see, we have a great customer service and each and every one of our sales force has a PhD on Spacetimeology. Don’t hesitate to ask any questions that you may have on any products we sell.)

We have many spacetimes on sale. You might want to look at them and buy them in bulk to be used later in any boilerplate spacetimes paper you may need to churn out in the future.

Good news! Our Minkowsky spacetimes are on sale. Minkowsky spacetime is one of the oldest spacetimes, the spacetime that started it all, and it is on sale now. In fact, if you buy Thick Branes Type Warped spacetimes we’ll throw in a Minkowsky spacetime for you.

On our upscale spacetimes shelves, you can find organic, hand made, Bianchi type spacetimes. Buy one, you won’t regret it.

We also have very nice exotic spacetimes. One is called the classic Newtonian spacetime where space and time are absolute; we have a spacetime without the space coordinates, real exotic stuff; and we have spacetimes with space, time, vacuum, mass, multiverse and quintessence coordinates all combined in a Cartesian Vortexial Coordinate System. This is the Swiss Army Knife of spacetimes, all values can be adjusted with steampunk-type knobs. Just to understand the Cartesian Vortexial Coordinates System you will need half a century of study in a monastery in the French countryside. 

But we have plain vanilla spacetimes too. One is coordinateless spacetime, this is the anti-reified coordinate system, there are no reified coordinates, no space and no time. This spacetime is suitable only for blackholes that were approved by Hawking before he died. We have a spacetime used by NASA where only photographable black holes live. This is very expensive because it is a proprietary spacetime. Ask your institution for availability.

We have all kinds of reference frames. Inertial and otherwise. We stock the best inertial frames in the industry with the best official General Relativistic observers wearing the official lab coats with Einstein’s portrait on the back done in the style of the famous Che Guevera poster. After all Einstein was no less revolutonary than Che. These obervers observe using only the best quality Zeiss-made observational tools. These officially sanctioned observers only use simultaneity gauges made simultaneously in China and Germany. Nothing but the best. All your simultaneity needs is covered in Einsteinium, the market of choice of all discerning spacetimeologists.

Do you like Gowdy spacetimes? We have it. We have this type of spacetime in two flavors: Polarised and non-polarized. You can mix and match Gowdy spacetimes with Multiwarped spacetimes (either polarized or not). The possibilities are endless.

If you are in a classical mood, you can have our Riemannian spacetimes and complete it with a Gödel-type spacetime and publish a nice looking paper without even trying.

And finally, if you are a real connoiseur of spacetimes and a fan of homogeneity and isotropy you may try the spacetime with the best provenance ever: the Friedmann–Lemaître–Robertson–Walker spacetime. 

# # #

And then a physicist can write a sentence like this: 

«The ultimate origin of the speed of light limit lies in the structure of spacetime.»

Which spacetime? 

Which fabric of which spacetime? 

All shampoos at least have something in common: water. The fabric of all shampoos have water in it. But the spacetimes in the spacetimes zoo have nothing in common. They were invented to be different so that their inventors could collect some academic points. They were just invented out of the blue. 

“Out of the blue” meaning, “Einstein’s Field Equations” because you can massage Einstein’s Equations to get any solution you want. Einstein’s equations is the goose that lays golden spacetimes for golden careers. The large number of spacetimes mentioned above proves this fact. So, the mantra “according to Einstein’s Equations” means nothing more than “I made up some spacetimes to fit my needs”.

“Spacetime” is the best example of scholastic hair splitting. You take an innocent word and corrupt it by loading it with infinite number of meanings. This is casuistry, the favorite tool of scholastic doctors of philosophy and theology since the beginning of time. Load a word with multiple meanings and pick and choose a meaning that confirms to what you want to prove in your paper. Casuistry can’t fail.

And hair splitting in physics is not limited to spacetimes. How many species of Big Bangs are there, do you know? Hot, cold, tepid Big Bangs... just to name a few. Then there is vacuum with its countless species. Let’s not forget black holes. There are so many species of black holes that even physicists cannot name them all. The list of “physical” concepts hair-split to charlatanism goes on and on. 

Disgusting! I don’t know what other word describes modern academic physics.


References:

1. Stationary spacetime

2. Asymptotically flat spacetime

3. Spherically symmetric spacetimes

4. Petrov type II spacetime

5. Minkowsky spacetime

6. Thick Branes Type Warped spacetime

7. Bianchi type spacetime

8. Gowdy spacetime

9. Multiwarped spacetime

10. Riemannian spacetime

11. Friedmann–Lemaître–Robertson–Walker spacetime


Galileo İki Yeni Bilim kitabında düzgün hareket aksiyomları

Galileo, İki Yeni Bilim kitabında 3 çeşit hareket tanımlıyor: (1) Düzgün veya tekdüze hareket,   (2) Doğal olarak hızlanan hareket,   (3...