Re: The Fifth Dimension
From: David McAnally (D.McAnally_at_i'm_a_gnu.uq.net.au)
Date: 06/30/04
- Next message: Peter K.: "Re: Five illiterates are *not * better than one"
- Previous message: Bilge: "Re: Magnetic field and relative motion"
- Maybe in reply to: Leonard Pardin: "The Fifth Dimension"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: 30 Jun 2004 16:33:24 GMT
leoppard@MailAndNews.com (Leonard Pardin) writes:
>"Elk" <flobbins77@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<cbsd6r$bmi$1@daisy.noc.ucla.edu>...
>>
>> Take heed of what Dave has said, Leonard. In fact, everyone in this group
>> take heed. There is MUCH to learn before you begin making any assumptions
>> about modern physics. Math, especially, is a prerequisite for ALL of
>> physics, both classical and modern!
>>
>> Elk
> I don't question the importance of mathematics to physics. But the
>mathematical symbols must relate to reality. If a mathematician works
>out a complicated equation and concludes that light is really composed
>of tiny little elves with flashlights, can't we none-mathematicians
>question his results? Can't we question his interpretations and
>suggest that somewhere in all those numbers he might have gone astray?
So, Pardin, exactly who do you think has concluded that light is composed
of tiny little elves with flashlights - apart from yourself, that is?
> Look around you in alt.physics.relativity; you will see an
>astounding array of nonsense offered up with differential and integral
>calculus supporting every stage of the ridiculous. They offer
>mathematical proof that gravity is a thing that falls down or up, that
>time goes backward, that empty space has gaping holes, and other such
>wonderful discoveries. I don't really care if their math is correct
>or not--one absurdity times the square root of seven absurdities is
>still absurd.
How are you going to distinguish between mathematics which is rigourous
and correct, and mathematics which isn't, considering that you have not
gone to the trouble to familiarise yourself sufficiently with mathematics
to be able to judge this? You would look at an absurd conclusion from
somebody who is mathematically incompetent, and then extrapolate that
conclusion of absurdity to people who are competent.
The difference between you and many others on this group is that the
others have a sufficient competence in mathematics to be able to tell when
an argument is mathematically sound. You do not have that sort of
competence.
David
And all dared to brave unknown terrors, to do mighty deeds,
to boldly split infinitives that no man had split before -
and thus was the Empire forged.
-----
- Next message: Peter K.: "Re: Five illiterates are *not * better than one"
- Previous message: Bilge: "Re: Magnetic field and relative motion"
- Maybe in reply to: Leonard Pardin: "The Fifth Dimension"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
