SirIsaac

Haha, Hi there.

Another equally plausible MOND model is one in which the gravitational constant G increases with distance. This is what is observed in the orbits of stars around the center of a galaxy.

Of course, this is a pseudo-increase caused by, you guessed it, dark matter.

Sooner or later, the physics community will come to their senses and realize that every massive particle is surrounded by its own dark matter halo. This is the reason that measurements of the gravitational constant G suffer from a high uncertainty problem not seen with other physics measurements.

Then it will become obvious that the halo is a neutral electric field created by real photons, not virtual photons.

Rebel Science

The problem with MOND is that it's just math. It doesn't explain anything in terms of cause and effect because it doesn't have a physical basis. The problem with the cold dark matter model is that it posits a massive, slow moving particle. A slow massive particle would be attracted to other bodies and to other dark matter particles and form clumps in orbit. This is not observed.

There's a better hypothesis that not only explains the cause of gravity, but also posits that dark matter consists of positive and negative electric photons that continually radiates from all massive particles. Lots of it. They can't be detected electrically because their net effect is neutral but they still cause gravity.

https://medium.com/@RebelScience/demystifying-gravity-and-da...

The biggest problem with DL is its inherent inability to effectively generalize. Without generalization, edge cases are an insurmountable problem, something that the autonomous vehicle industry found out the hard way after wasting more than $100 billion by betting on DL.

Yes, pretty much. In my opinion, perception is generalization. To perceive a bicycle is to perceive many types of qualities or properties about it that can also be applied to a potentially infinite number of other objects. The brain can perform this generalization instantly without having stored previous representations (bicycle patterns) in memory.

A great example of non-representational intelligence is the honeybee's brain. It has less than 1 million neurons but it can handle zillions of patterns/objects in its 3D environment. It would be impossible for it to store all those zillions of patterns in its tiny brain. It uses the world itself as its own model.

For these reasons, deep learning is irrelevant to AGI.

Dreyfus was a very intelligent man. He knew the difference between representational and non-representational systems. As Yann LeCun has said many times, deep learning is the learning of representations. That's all anyone needs to know in order to understand Dreyfus's thesis. The brain does not need a prior representation of a bicycle to perceive a bicycle. A DNN would be blind to a bicycle without a prior representation. Did you read the article?

I'm done here. Thanks for your input.

Ok. Thanks for the exchange.

> This equation is not some core law of the universe.

> It's simple to the point of not being especially interesting.

Either you don't realize what you're saying or you are playing a game of deception.

1. This equation is indeed a core law of the universe.

2. It is extremely interesting because it has a specific meaning. It expresses the kinetic energy of a massive body in motion.

3. More specifically, it means that E = mc² does not represent what Einstein claimed it did. It represents the maximum kinetic energy that a massive body can have. This is why it is extremely interesting.

Thank you for the exchange.

Coriolis was wrong. The work done has nothing to do with distance. It only has to do with velocity. Accelerating the body from 0 to a final velocity is the work. This is what force does. If you know the distance and the acceleration, you can use them to calculate the final velocity with the well-known kinematics equation v² = 2ad. That is all. Likewise, if you know the elapsed time and the acceleration you can use the formula v = at to get the final velocity. It's simple, really.

Thanks for the comment. I see your point but I don't think it's a matter of definition. There is no doubt that the correct equation is Ek = mv². Since velocity v² = 2ad, it follows that mv² = 2mad = 2Fd. The work done is the acceleration of the body which is perfectly expressed in mv². The distance traveled is a result of the acceleration not the cause of it. Only the change in velocity matters. At least, that is my take on it.

Sorry. Ek = mv² is the correct formula, not the simplest. And it does not express rest energy but kinetic energy. This is obvious, no?

The ½ comes from integrating W = Fd. No one is arguing against that.

The equation should be W = mv² = 2Fd. Why? because v² = 2 a*d.

Thanks. I admit that my previous article was in error but this new article uses a different approach to the problem. It shows that the current equation was never meant to replace the previous one. Coriolis clearly wrote that he used vis viva = ½mv² for purposes of convenience.

Edit: I'm grateful for our previous exchange. You pointed out new places and ideas that were useful to my research.

In my opinion, Ek = mv² contradicts special relativity. The maximum energy is E = mc². There can be no doubt about it. And it is not rest energy. It is obviously kinetic energy. But that's just me.

"Abstract

In this article, we argue that there is a subtle error in Newton’s work equation, W = Fd. It should be W = 2Fd instead."

In my opinion, it is not Einstein's equation. It's Newton's equation applied to the speed of light. It's not v=0 but v=c. It just so happens that mc² is also the potential energy of a body at rest.

Yes, a photon's energy is all kinetic but so what? Newton's equation specified massive bodies.

Again, the 1/2 is BS but the winner of this debate is still to be determined.

>"proportional to mv²" also means "proportional to 1/2 mv²" and "proportional to 123.45 mv²".

Yes. This is my point. The error has never been found experimentally because everything eventually gets resolved to Newton's E = Fd. Dividing every result by 2 makes no difference because the proportions do not change.

I still don't see why gravitational mass is a problem but I'll keep looking into it.

I don't yet see how inertial mass would differ from gravitational mass if the K.E. equation is changed. I'll need to think about it some more.

We are currently preparing an experiment to test the prediction of our theory that will leave no doubt. If we are right, textbooks everywhere will have to change, at the very least.

I don't believe it. They're probably measuring mass and velocity and applying the formula afterwards. That doesn't prove anything. Back in Leibniz' days, they would use soft clay and measure the depths of the indentations made by falling weights. This was accurate enough to tell them that the kinetic energy was proportional to mv².

> mv² = 2mgh

I think I now know what you mean. You mean that a mass will gain kinetic equal to 1/2 mv² by the time it hits the ground from a height of h. This doesn't prove your claim. Using my own derivation of kinetic energy, I get mgh = mv². Here's why:

PE = mgh is the same thing as Newton's Work equation, W = Fd = mad. Why? Because g is acceleration (a) and h is distance (d).

> Not every value is divided by 2. Only the K.E. term is divided by 2. The P.E. term is not.

I'm not sure what that means.

> If you ever find where Young worked out the equivalency to P.E. then you'll find he had m v² = 2 m g h.

I don't get it. mv² is not equal to 2mgh. That makes no sense.

I understand French. I looked through the document. I could not find any place where Coriolis derived kinetic energy. He was apparently using someone else's derivation.

By simple substitution, anyone can easily derive E = mv² from Newtonian equations. One starts with W = Fd = mad, and go from there. There is no need to integrate the difference in initial and final velocities (as is currently being done) because this is already assumed in the definition of acceleration. The 1/2 is a mistake and I stand by it.

I don't need Einstein's equation. Momentum is already assumed in kinetic energy and kinetic energy assumes massive bodies. This is the reason for using mass in the formula. I have no idea why you want the kinetic energy to be 0. The equation assumes a moving body. Thus v cannot be equal to zero.

By the way, using the correct kinetic energy formula, one can arrive at this striking analogy:

E/Ek = c/v

This tells us that the rest energy (E) of a body is to its kinetic energy (Ek) what the speed of light (c) is to its velocity (v).

> Energy and momentum are preserved. m g h = 1/2 m v² is tested over and over again in ballistics experiments in intro physics labs.

If every result is divided by 2, that is not a test. It's a useless convention. It is silly to solve W = fd by integrating over velocities. The equation is already given. Going from fd to mv² is a simple matter of substitutions.

It is easy to derive Ek = mv² from Newtonian equations. Young was highly educated in the math and physics of his time. You're right, I can't find his derivation anywhere but this does not mean he did not derive it mathematically.

> Ergo, this quoted 'maximum kinetic energy' claim is wrong.

Not true. The values you quoted are measured values. They are as much determined by the observed phenomena as by the instruments used to measure them. When you measure, include the measurer. This is something that relativists need to learn.

For example, the constancy of the speed of light is false. Physicists should always make sure they are referring to the constancy of the measured speed of light. They are not the same thing.