Jerry White29 said:Who are these people on the alternative forums who supposedly don't know math? Better question—what exactly do you think constitutes mathematical knowledge? Because when I read posts from those alternative crowd, they all seem to know their math just fine😬.
Respect, Professor.
I recently worked through a simple polynomial for parabolic interpolation entirely in my head
From your posts and links, it's clear you're a top-tier mathematician—but then again, FOIevac is also an elite mathematician based on his contributions. Since I know significantly less than both of you, it’s hard for me to judge who holds the edge, but I haven't seen anyone else on this forum with more mathematical depth than you two. It's a shame FOIevac was banned.
If you look at the post by that skeptic claiming to be a physicist here
http://www.example-us-forum.com/showthread.php?p...3#post85679813 "Energy is
E = int F ds "
Since you're a mathematician, you can better see where the error lies in the derivation for kinetic energy here
" ds = (ds/dt)dt = v dt "
And then integrated here
" E = int m (dv/dt) v dt "
Technically, that's mathematically sound, but physically incorrect because the integration should have been performed with respect to s, not t
Following your advice, I actually wrote a paper. So far, though, it feels like a waste of time because there aren't enough interested parties willing to properly review my mathematical derivations
In America, the only serious publication I've found is the *Mathematical Gazette*, which I hold in high regard, but that journal focuses on pure mathematics rather than the application of math to physics. As for dedicated physics journals, it seems there's nothing available besides the *Math-Physics Journal*, which is really geared toward high school students.
I'm not sure if the *Midwest Mathematical Review* ever looked at my work regarding the kinetic energy derivations I sent them, nor do I know if they reviewed the pieces from the *Science Quarterly* journal, assuming I even sent them to the editors' direct email.
In my paper, I specified how to integrate with respect to s(t), not t
Integrating by t yields the solution E = m * (v^2) / 2
Do you want to know how I integrated the following expression with respect to s(t)?
int m * ( dds(t) / (dt^2) ) * ds(t)
Which resulted in the solution
m * ( (ds(t) / dt)^2 )
?
If we take the following expression
int m * ( dds / (dt^2) ) * ds = 0
Because
dds / (dt^2) = ( (s + ds) - 2*s + (s - ds) ) / (dt^2) =
( s + ds - 2*s + s - ds ) / (dt^2) = 0 / (dt^2) = 0
But since s is a function of t, then
dds(t) / (dt^2) = ( s(t + dt) - 2*s(t) + s(t - dt) ) / (dt^2) = s''(t)
It took me nearly the entire summer to figure out how to integrate with respect to ds(t) to get the result
E(s(t)) = m * ( (ds(t) / dt)^2 )
Therefore, int m * ( dds(t) / (dt^2) ) * ds(t) = m * ( (ds(t) / dt)^2 )
I solved this using two different mathematical derivations that yield the exact same result, and I've submitted these proofs to the email addresses of several American mathematical journals. Can you believe I figured it out that way?
Is it any wonder that nobody cares about the actual truth regarding kinetic energy?
http://www.example-us-forum.com/showthread.php?p...1#post89411331 ?
Maybe you're just some math theorist—which would explain why you don't seem to care one bit about how any of this actually works in the real world.
