(Hoping for a success ... in sending this reply)

Dear Eckard,

A) For the history of negative numbers:

1) http://nrich.maths.org/public/viewer.php?obj_id=5961

2) http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/Negative_Numbers

3) "Lazare Carnot (1753-1823), member of the Academy of Science and famous mathematician:

" to really obtain an isolated negative quantity, it would be necessary to cut off an effective quantity from zero, to remove something of nothing: impossible operation. How thus to conceive an isolated negative quantity? "; Geometry of position, 1803.

" The numbers can be only positive; it is the quantities that can be negative or positive. A negative quantity is defined by an opposition to a positive quantity: a path in a direction, a path in the contrary direction; a profit, a debt... "

http://www.gobiernodecanarias.org/educacion/3/Usrn/penelope/uk_confboye.htm#elements

Negative numbers seem to "work" when the final result is positive but when the result is negative their physical meaning is none.

After all "negative numbers are distortion of physical logic".

B) Who is the first?

"Leucippus (5th c. BCE) is the earliest figure whose commitment to atomism is well attested. He is usually credited with inventing atomism. According to a passing remark by the geographer Strabo, Posidonius (1st c. BCE Stoic philosopher) reported that ancient Greek atomism can be traced back to a figure known as Moschus or Mochus of Sidon, who lived at the time of the Trojan wars. This report was given credence in the seventeenth century: the Cambridge Platonist Henry More traced the origins of ancient atomism back, via Pythagoras and Moschus, to Moses. This theologically motivated view does not seem to claim much historical evidence, however."

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/atomism-ancient/#1

Regards,

Ioannis

  • [deleted]

  • Post #17

Dear Ioannis,

Thank you for the details. I was trained as an EE, I trained EEs for decades, and therefore I like linearizing and complex calculus. Hopefully you will nonetheless enjoy the essay I recently submitted.

Incidentally, are you aware of Vaihinger and Christian Betsch?

Eckard

  • [deleted]

  • Post #18

Dear Ioannis,

Lazare Carnot died in 1823 in Magdeburg. Magdeburg's Otto von Guericke University was build close to the location where he was buried. Experts of thermodynamics discovered by chance a stone with the name Carnot. They were excited although the grave did not belong to their idol Sadi Carnot who was the son of Lazare. Nonetheless, a memorial of Lazare Carnot was erected. It shows his head on top of three twisted against each other slabs of rock, symbolizing changing political situations. So far I only was aware of him as a politician and engineer. I am surprised that he also dealt with justification of differential calculus. Maybe, he did not understand that it is linked with linearisation, i.e. use of positive and negative numbers?

What about Christian Betsch, he won in 1925 a 1,000,000 Mark price in a competition organized by the friends of the "as if" with his book "Fiktionen in der Mathematik" perhaps because he did not hurt proponents of set theory. In particular Adolf Fraenkel appreciated it.

Eckard

  • [deleted]

  • Post #19

Dear Ioannis,

When your message was cut, you might have used a symbol that is not tolerated here, maybe the symbol for smaller than.

Eckard

Dear Eckard,

Thank you for your informative replies (about Vaihinger and Christian Betsch). However, I would like to emphasize that my essay takes the unconceivable reality as a logical (and mathematical) fact (according to Godel's work, although many refuse to accept the reality they can not perceive) and tries to formulate a coordination system that unconceivable part of reality could be accommodated in. The philosophical consequences are left to the readers that unfortunately find to these an easy field of critisism. In other words, I added nothing more, on these aspect, than Godel has found decades before.

Regards, Ioannis

    17 days later

    Hi Ioannis, I especially liked your back-to-basics thinking in this essay. Very good work and most appreciated. I wish I'd done my own diagrams and scanned them in now!

    Dear Alan,

    I appreciate your kind words. Any contribution in any form is highly welcomed but I feel hand made figures give a personal note to science. Science is personal (in the sense that even physical sciences are related to scientists' philosophy) although this is not the common opinion. I feel better looking at the figures of Newton's books although in some cases accurate graphs are a necessity.

    Regards, narsep

      Yes, I agree with personal touch of hand-drawn diagrams, which reminds me of Leonardo incidentally. You mention Newton and so I'll quickly give my reason why I think he made a fundamental mistake. With regard to the ocean tides, the concept of a gravitational gradient which causes the Earth to squash into a more oblate shape is only one part of a possible solution imo. There's also the possiblity of a non-standard core of the planets and the sun. This has been totally overlooked. It invalidates the Cavendish experiment, devised to 'weigh' the Earth. This assumes that the central cores of the planets are composed of the same material that is found on the external crust! It ain't necessarily so..

      • [deleted]

      • Post #24

      Dear Alan,

      My drawings are nothing to compare with Leo's, however his have science in them too (humour). As far Newton's "fundamental mistake" I agree that his prove for his gravitanional theory is totally wrong but his theory seems to be right (I really have not found a reasonable prove of it).

      Regards, narsep

      There's a good reason why he's wrong though. It's the explanation for the 100,000 year ice age cycle. Milankovitch cycles are not very good if you look into the subject in detail. See the six major problems that arise. The inclination cycle, the up and down motion of the Earth, is a much better fit than eccentricity, which is described in this excellent paper Spectrum of 100-kyr glacial cycle: Orbital inclination, not eccentricity. The suggested mechanism is wrong, but can be replaced with a non-standard core model of the Earth and Sun. The inclination cycle could generate inclination earth-tides, which would increase the strength of the ocean currents. This is a crucial factor in determining the onset of glaciation. It's a good fit, but no-one seems to have thought of this idea before. It's a lot to understand in one go, but well worth the effort imo. Best wishes, Alan

      • [deleted]

      • Post #26

      Dear Ioannis,

      You consider (1) an "unconceivable reality as a logical and mathematical fact" "although many refuse to accept the reality they cannot perceive" (2).

      I am still waiting for comments on my essay. Did you find any indication that I might share either (1) or (2)?

      Do you arrive at similar or different practical implications as do I? I am favoring as a touchstone for theories and also for some applications a unilateral restriction to just positive elapsed time.

      Regards,

      Eckard

      • [deleted]

      • Post #27

      Dear Eckard,

      It is worthless to limit our creativity because of others' different opinions. However we have to persuade them if we think we are right.

      I like your essay with its explicit consideration about the use of negative numbers. Although I agree that a great deal of work and social thinking has been spent on aspects that their only utility is to give reasonable and countable results like negative and imaginary numbers based on CCS, my opinion is that this approach has driven human mind to its limits. Science has to follow an alternative path in seeing Nature and this is not to exclude others of getting part in everybody's Nature (either living in e.g. ecology, poverty ... or spiritually thinking about it e.g. not making science for scientists-ourselves). So if we think some parts of science are fault it is our obligation to "fight" them. This is a way for pressing anybody that could propose an alternative.

      Best wishes, narsep (ioannis)

      • [deleted]

      • Post #28

      Dear Eckard,

      I ask for an excuse if you took what I am saying personally. I use any of your (generally) responce to make my point and I agree that sometimes this is overdone.

      ioannis

      5 days later

      Let us suppose that you collide two beams of protons with opposite directions with the high energy that Large Hadron Collinder (LHC) can provide, what you would expect, according to NCS, concerning the flight direction of the particles produced. That you would get two groups ("flocks") of particles. The ones that would depart from the point of their generation (BB of their local NCS) and would be within their real reality space (X, Y, Z) (with max angle between them approximately 125 degrees) and their entangled antiparticles directed towards the opposite direction (their virtual space) with the same max angle between them. This is in fact the latest "inexplicable" phenomenon observed during LHC's experiments (http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=particles-that-flock).

      • [deleted]

      • Post #31

      He is strong our Eckard No ? Hhihii we like him for that.

      And also hihi you think you are pythagore or what ih ? ahahah the origin of a country do not stipulate a correlation hihihi humor from belgium a little beer

      • [deleted]

      • Post #33

      Infinity/2 ???

      You lost me.

      Eckard

      • [deleted]

      • Post #34

      All the details are in the essay. Please read the full essay and not only the abstract.

      • [deleted]

      • Post #35

      perhaps dear Eckard you can explain him the alephs of Cantor and the real distribution of numbers.

      Steve