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: Y.Porat on 7 Jun 2010 10:59 On Jun 7, 4:31 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jun 6, 10:06 pm, 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 - > > There are tools other than mathematics for producing quantitatively > predictive results? ---------------- my model i s based on mostly arithmetic and geometric structure descriptions !!! nothing like that in your fucken books so ?? moreover !!! as for now YOU HAVE NO CHANCE !!TO DESCRIBE IN A MATHEMATICAL FORMULA WHAT I DESCRIBE IN ONE SIMPLE 3D SKETCH !!! moreover not the slightest mathematical thinking we needed for it yet you i bet you cant even immagine how much thinking reading experimental testing 'endless' many alternatives etc etc and testing it by experimental data was invested in it the only the simplest linear formula i was used in the specific weight analysis Y.Porat -------------------------- Y.P ----------------------------- Y.P ------------------------- Y.P ------------
From: PD on 7 Jun 2010 11:32 On Jun 7, 9:59 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jun 7, 4:31 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jun 6, 10:06 pm, 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 - > > > There are tools other than mathematics for producing quantitatively > > predictive results? > > ---------------- > my model i s based on mostly > arithmetic > and geometric structure descriptions !!! > nothing like that in your fucken books so ?? > moreover !!! > as for now > YOU HAVE NO CHANCE !!TO DESCRIBE IN A MATHEMATICAL FORMULA > WHAT I DESCRIBE IN ONE > SIMPLE 3D SKETCH !!! Even if you have a sketch, if you want a quantitative prediction, you have to do a calculation, even a simple one. > moreover > not the slightest mathematical thinking we needed for it > yet you i bet you cant even immagine how much thinking reading > experimental > testing 'endless' many alternatives etc etc and testing it by > experimental data was invested in it > the only the simplest linear formula i was used > in the specific weight analysis > Y.Porat > -------------------------- > > Y.P > ----------------------------- > Y.P > ------------------------- > > Y.P > ------------
From: Inertial on 7 Jun 2010 11:50 "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:58a976b1-1a96-43e0-936d-c1fd394ba1f1(a)t10g2000yqg.googlegroups.com... > On Jun 7, 4:31 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> On Jun 6, 10:06 pm, 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 - >> >> There are tools other than mathematics for producing quantitatively >> predictive results? > > ---------------------- > see my model Irrelevant to the question being asked.
From: Inertial on 7 Jun 2010 11:51 "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:bdce3c8b-eb16-480b-9dec-74469f0164c4(a)t10g2000yqg.googlegroups.com... > On Jun 7, 4:31 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> On Jun 6, 10:06 pm, 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 - >> >> There are tools other than mathematics for producing quantitatively >> predictive results? > > ---------------- > my model i s based on mostly > arithmetic > and geometric structure descriptions !!! So its mathematics. > nothing like that in your fucken books so ?? > moreover !!! > as for now > YOU HAVE NO CHANCE !!TO DESCRIBE IN A MATHEMATICAL FORMULA > WHAT I DESCRIBE IN ONE > SIMPLE 3D SKETCH !!! Of course you can. > moreover > not the slightest mathematical thinking we needed for it You don't know what 'mathematical thinking' means > yet you i bet you cant even immagine how much thinking reading > experimental > testing 'endless' many alternatives etc etc and testing it by > experimental data was invested in it > the only the simplest linear formula i was used > in the specific weight analysis You model, in order to make predictions is mathematical (geometric) .. not that it DOES make any predictions.
From: Sam Wormley on 7 Jun 2010 12:15
On 6/7/10 7:52 AM, Huang wrote: > On Jun 6, 10:12 pm, Sam Wormley<sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> Have you got ANY example of physics that can be done without >> mathematics? ANY? > > The best example would indeed be the simplest. From there, you can > build up to more complex things. The wording will be vastly different > from what you are accustomed to because you have been using > mathematics during your entire tenure as a scientist. But, the numbers > should jive with equal precision. > > The simplest possible example I can think of at the moment is > rectilinear motion. An object is moving in a straight line. > See: http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Line.html |