What they call it a constant is not constant!

[SURUMA]

mara nyingi kwenye kusoma kwangu sayansi nimekutana na maneno,'assume other terms are constant'. kuna wakati i also assumed so as to proceed with my calculations, "fake calculations". siku moja nilipokuwa kwenye lecture ya fluid mechanics, lecturer aliandika formula hii; PV=nRT kisha ikafuatiwa na hii; PV/T= constant,mwanafunzi mmoja akauliza what is that constant? akajibiwa ni nR mwingine akauliza is that real constant? lecturer akasema; unajua sometimes we assume so as to simplify life! hahahaha

if you are intelligent enough utakubaliana na mimi there is no science without assumption and this is the weakness of science because those terms what they are calling them constants are not constant,they are always changing and affecting the results.

kuna Engineer mmoja nilikuwa naongea nae kuhusiana na suala hili la assumptions in science akaniambia kama watu wangekuwa wanajua assumptions made while designing aeroplane wasingepanda! nikamwambia they are moving with faith ndiyo maana wanapanda.hitimisho tulilofikia ni kuwa sayansi haina ukweli kwasababu haizingatii vigezo vyote,kwanza hawavijui vyote na kwa vile wanavyovijua wanashindwa kuvidhibiti because they are always changing na changamoto kubwa zaidi ni kuwa those factors are changing randomly, hii ina maana kuwa those factors will never be controlled and therefore science will never be real. science is all about probability!! never trust science,it is changing randomly.

what are your views?

fikiria hili 0-2 wanasema ni -2,swali unawezaje kutoa vitu kutoka sehemu ambayo havipo? kiuhalisia jibu ni kuwa haiwezekani!,jibu la -2 ni la kufikirika,ila jibu halisi ni kuwa haiwezekani.

"make assumptions to simplify life"

There is a saying thet in LIFE A TRUE CONSTANT IS CHANGE ITSELF! Mimi naamini msemo huu, kwa vile hakuna kitu kilichokuwa constant.

 

[Kijakazi]

hujanielewa kwa kuwa umeathirika na elimu ya kufikirika.kusema nR haiathiriwi kwa vyovyote na P,V or T ni kujidanganya sana,kama haviathiriani visingekuwa na uhusiano,nakushauri tafakari upya bila kufungwa na written documents za wanasayansi,read in details hizo factors sambamba na n,R.utauna vinavyoathiriana, hakuna kilicho constant

coming to PI nianze hivi;kuna mwanafalsaya mmoja aliwahi kusema matatizo yaliyopo duniani hayawezi kuisha kwakuwa wakati wa kuyatatua watatuzi wanajikuta kuwa ni sehemu ya matatizo.ni dhahiri umeamua kuiamini sayansi bila kujua misingi yake,nini hasa kipo ndani yake.mfano uliyoutoa kwamba PI ni constant you are very wrong,nakushauri akili za wengine changanya na zakwako.PI is not constant,kaangalie how PI were derived na hii pia ni kwa formula zote,if you analyse them critically utagundua wakati wa kuzipata hizo mnazoziita constant kuna some parameters which are not constant but assumed constant,huu ni ubatili.ni sawa na TANESCO kuwalipa kihalali DOWANS kwa mkataba fake wa RICHMOND.na unapoongelea PI unaibua hoja ya msingi inayodhihirisha kushindwa kwa sayansi,ni hiki kitu wanakiita 'infinity' hebu gawanya 22 kwa 7 halafu unipe jawabu kamili.

hakuna mtu mwenye uwezo wa kufanya chochote kuwa constant.hakuna mtu mwenye uwezo wa kudhibiti all factors afecting his/her results.narudia kusema,"what they are calling it constant is not constant".A well recognized genius Albert Einstern ambaye nahisi ni scientist mzuri kuliko wewe,hisia zangu ni kutokana na majibu yako ya hovyo hovyo,wakati Einstern anafanya analysis zake about subatomic particles,about energy!, alikwamia hapo.alipoona things are moving randomly na hakuna mtu mwenye uwezo wa kuvidhibiti, he came to conclusion kwamba 'things were as they were because of ALMIGHTY GOD' na ili asionekane yupo biased akasema or any name you can call the source.kwangu jina hilo ni MUNGU.Ni MUNGU tu ndiye mwenye uwezo wa kudhibiti vyote,yupo above the nature.

umekubali kuwa assumptions zina madhara kwenye matokeo,japo madhara hayo umeyaita madogo kwa upeo wako,disasters zote unazoziona zinatokeo zinathibitisha kushindwa kwa sayansi,ni matokeo ya kushindwa kudhibiti some factors and they will never control them because they are changing randomly,tutaendelea kufanya assumption kwa ajili ya kujiridhisha lakini hatuna majibu ya mwisho.kusema assumptions ni ushindi kwa sayansi ni mtazamo finyu sana,ushindi wa sayansi ni pale tu watakapoweza kudhibiti all factors affecting their results,watakapoweza kuidhibiti infinity.ndege inaporuka kuna assumption zimefanywa na inapoanguka ni matokeo ya assumptions hizo,this is a failure of science.

about 0-2 napo hujanielewa,nimesema huwezi kutoa vitu mahali ambapo havipo,hiyo haiwezekani.unajibu hoja bila kutafakari,inaelekea kwako kila unachofundishwa darasani ni sahihi ilimradi aliyekuambia ni mwalimu wako,habari za madeni zinatoka wapi? hayo ndiyo mambo ya kufikirika ninayoyazungumzia.swali ni 0-2.huwezi kunidai kama sina kitu chako,huo ni ubatili.nipe halafu unidai, iwe hivi 0+2-2.kunidai ndiyo unipe,yaani 0-2+2 ni usanii,ni uchizi, na ukija kunidai zaidi ya kile chako nilichonacho ni ubatili vile vile.

mkuu,come out of the box! you have a free mind,think critically.wakati unaendelea kubishana na mimi huku unatumia dhana za watu wengine bila kuzipima kwa kina (kama uwezo wa kuzipima unao) huku unasema naona mazingaombe,tafakari the following nonsense; 0!=1! but 0 is not equal to 1,.narudia kusema ni ubatili mtupu.

jibu hili ni kwa wote wenye mtazamo kama wako.

Naomba nikuulize swali dogo sana kama kweli umeilewa "Ideal gas Modell" naomba nielezee kwa kifupi, halafu ndio tuanzie hapo, achana na mambo mengine hayo ni complicated sana, wacha tuanze na "Ideal Gas Modell" kwa maana ndio msingi wa hayo yoote ya huko mbele, hiyo ikikaa sawa basi huko kutakuwa hamna shida!

 

[Kiranga]

Naomba nikuulize swali dogo sana kama kweli umeilewa "Ideal gas Modell" naomba nielezee kwa kifupi, halafu ndio tuanzie hapo, achana na mambo mengine hayo ni complicated sana, wacha tuanze na "Ideal Gas Modell" kwa maana ndio msingi wa hayo yoote ya huko mbele, hiyo ikikaa sawa basi huko kutakuwa hamna shida!

"Ideal gas model" betrays something that is not necessarily practicable.

Something that is more intellectual than practical, like infinity, understandable as an idea, but not provable practically.

The words "ideal" (rooted from idea, not necessarily tangible or experimentally provable) and "model" ( representation, standard, image, not the real thing) betray a superficiality that cannot be ignored.

Kwa hiyo tunarudi pale pale.Vitu kama "idea" na "model" vinazunguka katika assumption.

Uzuri wa sayansi si kwamba unapata picha iliyo sawa 100%. In fact ukiielewa vizuri sana sayansi utaelewa kwamba inakataza 100% accuracy isiyo na qualification. Kwa sababu process ya kupata accuracy ina interfere na results (quantum theory). Kuna mkuu kasema hapo mwanzo kwamba migogoro ya dunia haiwezi kuisha kwa sababu watatuzi wa migogoro wanakuja kuwa sehemu ya mgogoro (Lakhdar Brahimi anyone?).

Vipimo vya dunia haviwezi kuwa 100% accurate kwa sababu process ya kupima inachukua information from kile kinachopimwa, at the very least you will have to look at the measured entity, which means taking photons from it and altering it. Moreover quantum theory has it that an object does not have an absolute value at any particular time, and relativity has it that the very concept of "a particular time" is borne out of the poverty of our large scale and inaccurate view of the universe.

That just as there is no particular hour on the earth (dicounting artificial connivances such as the GMT) there is no Newtonian clock chiming for the entire universe and time is relative to position, speed, the curvature of space, gravity etc. There is no absolute "now".

Uzuri wa sayansi ni kwamba inatupa tools za kuboresha calibrations zetu kuelekea that asymptotic 100% perfection.

Reaching 100% perfection is as impossible by our current scientific knowledge as reaching the speed of light for any massive particle, the more you approach the speed of light the more the particle's mass approaches infinity. If the particle could achieve the speed of light it would require the energy of the universe and then some, and the Lorentz transformation to allow that is an uncancellable singularity.So this remains a Selassian asymptote to be pursued, but never attained.

That's why we don't know anything, we don't even know for sure that we don't know anything if you want to apply that 100% certainty, everything carries a margin of error.

Science's job is to reduce that margin as best as we could.

Thanks to the large scale structure of the physical world we do not need 100% accuracy to build a skyscraper or make a jet, because if that was the threshold, we wouldn't be able to walk due to some minuscule quantum pertubations whose probability is 1 in a googolplex of googolplexes of Graham's numbers.

 

[Kijakazi]

"Ideal gas model" betrays something that is not necessarily practicable.

Something that is more intellectual than practical, like infinity, understandable as an idea, but not provable practically.

The words "ideal" (rooted from idea, not necessarily experimentally provable) and "model" ( representation, standard, image, not the real thing) betray a superficiality that cannot be ignored.

Kwa hiyo tunarudi pale pale.Vitu kama "idea" na "model" vinazunguka katika assumption.

Uzuri wa sayansi si kwamba unapata picha iliyo sawa 100%. In fact ukiielewa vizuri sana sayansi utaelewa kwamba inakataza 100% accuracy isiyo na qualification. Kwa sababu process ya kupata accuracy ina interfere na results (quantum theory).

Uzuri wa sayansi ni kwamba inatupa tools za kuboresha calibrations zetu kuelekea that asymptotic 100% perfection.

Reaching 100% perfection is as impossible by our current scientific knowledge as reaching the speed of light for any massive particle, the more you approach the speed of light the more the particle's mass approaches infinity. If the particle could achieve the speed of light it would require the energy of the universe and then some, and the Lorentz transformation to allow that is an uncancellable singularity.So this remains a Selassian asymptote to be pursued, but never attained.

That's why we don't know anything, we don't even know for sure that we don't know anything if you want to apply that 100% certainty, everything carries a margin of error.

Science's job is to reduce that margin as best as we could.

Thanks to the large scale structure of the physical world we do not need 100% accuracy to build a skyscraper or make a jet, because if that was the threshold, we wouldn't be able to walk due to some minuscule quantum pertubations whose probability is 1 in a googolplex googolplexes.

Nafikiri umekwenda mbali kidogo, lengo la mimi kumuuliza mtoa hoja aliyeuliza kuhusu constant, na baada ya kusoma posti nyingi nimegundua kuna matatizo ya uelewa wa vitu basic kabisa kama Temperature, Pressure, Atoms n.k ambavyo vinahitajika ili kuelewa vitu advanced kama Photon theory etc na mtu akielewa Gas Model theory vizuri hawezi kupata shida kuelewa ni kwa nini kwa mfano ukichukua the equation of state pV=nRT saa nyingine wanasema baadhi ya variable ziko constant au kwa nini ni muhimu ku consider T au Pressure au Volume constant, lengo hasa ni nini, kama mtu akielewa hapo basi nafikiri hatopata shida huko mbele hayo mambo ya Quantum theory are way too advance for this Forum at least kulingana na uchangiaji wa watu wengi humu!

 

[Kiranga]

Nafikiri umekwenda mbali kidogo, lengo la mimi kumuuliza mtoa hoja aliyeuliza kuhusu constant, na baada ya kusoma posti nyingi nimegundua kuna matatizo ya uelewa wa vitu basic kabisa kama Temperature, Pressure, Atoms n.k ambavyo vinahitajika ili kuelewa vitu advanced kama Photon theory etc na mtu akielewa Gas Model theory vizuri hawezi kupata shida kuelewa ni kwa nini kwa mfano ukichukua the equation of state pV=nRT saa nyingine wanasema baadhi ya variable ziko constant au kwa nini ni muhimu ku consider T au Pressure au Volume constant, lengo hasa ni nini, kama mtu akielewa hapo basi nafikiri hatopata shida huko mbele hayo mambo ya Quantum theory are way too advance for this Forum at least kulingana na uchangiaji wa watu wengi humu!

Mzizi hapa ni "lengo hasa nini".

The difference between Applied Math na Pure Math.

Ukitaka kujenga ghorofa unaweza kutumia hesabu zisizotaka 100% acccuracy.

Ukitaka kujua kama ulimwengu unafuata kanuni za hesabu kwa 100% huwezi kutumia zisizotaka 100% accuracy. Not apart from a convergent phase based approach anyway.

Kwa hiyo, sayansi inatusaidia kuunda jet bila kujua hesabu za 100% accuracy, tunaishukuru kwa hilo.

Inatupa udadisi wa kuongeza ujuzi wa kuikaribia 100% accuracy huku ikituonya kwamba 100% accuracy ni ndoto tu, haiwezekani kisayansi, kwa sababu kila knowledge ni asymptotic, bongo zetu zilivyoumbwa tu hazi wezi ku process information kwa 1005 accuracy kwa sababu zina physical limitation. Unaposoma maandishi haya huoni kama yalivyo, bali unayaona kama yalivyokuwa katika history kwa sababu mwanga unachukua muda (however small) kutoka kwenye screen yako mpaka machoni mwako.

Na kama hatutaongelea quantum theory tutajuaje kama iko too advanced kwa forum hii au la? Ina maana hatuna watu wawili wanaoweza kuelewa the bare essentials of quantum theory I advanced here?

Kama wewe ulivyotoa habari za Gas Model Theory na kusema kwamba ni msingi mzuri wa kuelewa kwa nini wanasema kuna constant, ndivyo mimi nilivyotoa mfano wa quantum theory kuonyesha kwamba hakuna constant, nothing is absolute, hata muda hauna constancy, hata kinachoitwa vacuum si vacuum.

 

[Kijakazi]

Na kama hatutaongelea quantum theory tutajuaje kama iko too advanced kwa forum hii au la? Ina maana hatuna watu wawili wanaoweza kuelewa the bare essentials of quantum theory I advanced here?

Kama wewe ulivyotoa habari za Gas Model Theory na kusema kwamba ni msingi mzuri wa kuelewa kwa nini wanasema kuna constant, ndivyo mimi nilivyotoa mfano wa quantum theory kuonyesha kwamba hakuna constant, nothing is absolute, hata muda hauna constancy, hata kinachoitwa vacuum si vacuum.

Sawa nimekupata kabisa! nilisema hivyo tu kutokana na kusoma michango ya watu walio wengi na kugundua kwamba kuna gap kubwa kati ya uelewa wa basic theories zinazoelezea nature na more advanced theories kama Quantum theory n.k labda I were wrong!