Two slit experiment
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: In history the fact that the moon fits over the sun was proof of God
Next: Einstein - Special Relativity - a bird's eye view
From: Huang on 6 Jun 2010 23:06 On Jun 6, 7:36 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "Huang" <huangxienc...(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message > > news:4d49a5fc-a034-4004-a839-9c0ed947395c(a)e5g2000yqn.googlegroups.com... > > > > >> > If I invent a tool (other than math) which can > >> > successfully model physical processes, then I would call that physics. > > >> No > > > Science (including physics) is : > > [1] qualitative > > [2] quantitative > > [3] predictive > > [4] reproducible > > [5] falsifiable > > Fine > > > Any physical theory which satisfies these things will be called > > physics - whether it is based on mathematics or not. > > It is it quantitative and predictive, then it is explained mathematically.. You really think that mathematics is the only thing which can accomplish this ? I disagree. There are other tools which are equivalent to mathematics. And Im sure you'll agree that this is a question which is beyond the scope of a mathematical proof -
From: Sam Wormley on 6 Jun 2010 23:12 On 6/6/10 10:06 PM, Huang wrote: > You really think that mathematics is the only thing which can > accomplish this ? I disagree. There are other tools which are > equivalent to mathematics. Have you got ANY example of physics that can be done without mathematics? ANY?
From: Inertial on 6 Jun 2010 23:20 "Huang" <huangxienchen(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message news:bc190776-bd20-4244-8ba4-99938e2f18ff(a)z10g2000yqb.googlegroups.com... > On Jun 6, 7:36 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> "Huang" <huangxienc...(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message >> >> news:4d49a5fc-a034-4004-a839-9c0ed947395c(a)e5g2000yqn.googlegroups.com... >> >> >> >> >> > If I invent a tool (other than math) which can >> >> > successfully model physical processes, then I would call that >> >> > physics. >> >> >> No >> >> > Science (including physics) is : >> > [1] qualitative >> > [2] quantitative >> > [3] predictive >> > [4] reproducible >> > [5] falsifiable >> >> Fine >> >> > Any physical theory which satisfies these things will be called >> > physics - whether it is based on mathematics or not. >> >> It is it quantitative and predictive, then it is explained >> mathematically. > > > You really think that mathematics is the only thing which can > accomplish this ? I disagree. There are other tools which are > equivalent to mathematics. What? And if they are equivalent to mathematics, but not mathematics .. what is the difference? > And Im sure you'll agree that this is a question which is beyond the > scope of a mathematical proof - What question?
From: Inertial on 6 Jun 2010 23:21 "Sam Wormley" <swormley1(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:5vednSz-C70q_pHRnZ2dnUVZ_tednZ2d(a)mchsi.com... > On 6/6/10 10:06 PM, Huang wrote: >> You really think that mathematics is the only thing which can >> accomplish this ? I disagree. There are other tools which are >> equivalent to mathematics. > > Have you got ANY example of physics that can be done without > mathematics? ANY? And in case he tries it .. writing out a mathematical expression in English (like "add this value to that value") doesn't stop it being mathematics .. its just another notation.
From: Y.Porat on 7 Jun 2010 03:08
On Jun 7, 5:06 am, Huang <huangxienc...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Jun 6, 7:36 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > > > > > "Huang" <huangxienc...(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message > > >news:4d49a5fc-a034-4004-a839-9c0ed947395c(a)e5g2000yqn.googlegroups.com... > > > >> > If I invent a tool (other than math) which can > > >> > successfully model physical processes, then I would call that physics. > > > >> No > > > > Science (including physics) is : > > > [1] qualitative > > > [2] quantitative > > > [3] predictive > > > [4] reproducible > > > [5] falsifiable > > > Fine > > > > Any physical theory which satisfies these things will be called > > > physics - whether it is based on mathematics or not. > > > It is it quantitative and predictive, then it is explained mathematically. > > You really think that mathematics is the only thing which can > accomplish this ? I disagree. There are other tools which are > equivalent to mathematics. > > And Im sure you'll agree that this is a question which is beyond the > scope of a mathematical proof - Huang you are wasting your precious time on morn parrots crooks find yourself better teacher of physics i can see and predict clearly the people from far east will beat the pompous 'westerns ' *as they do in economy * !!! because they are more open minded AND LESS ARROGANT !!! ATB Y.Porat ----------------- |