Two slit experiment
in [Physics]
|
Prev: Apollo Mission: a Giant Leap Discrediting Greenhouse Gas Theory
Next: Misconceptions from bad use of language was Re: Two slit experiment
From: Huang on 6 Jun 2010 13:21 > > 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 Any physical theory which satisfies these things will be called physics - whether it is based on mathematics or not.
From: Inertial on 6 Jun 2010 20:36 "Huang" <huangxienchen(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.
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? |