Re: SR and GR without math

From: Dirk Van de moortel (dirkvandemoortel_at_ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com)
Date: 09/30/04 

Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2004 21:04:03 GMT

"Paul Bramscher" <brams006_nospam@tc.umn.edu> wrote in message news:cjhs53$8e9$1@lenny.tc.umn.edu...
> Tom Roberts wrote:
>
> > Paul Bramscher wrote:
> >
> >> I've got a question regarding relativity: is there any way to state
> >> SR, GR, or QM fully without mathematics?
> >
> >
> > "fully"? -- no. Approximately, yes. As others have pointed out.
> >
> >
> >> I ask because of the curious problem I've encountered with Karl
> >> Popper and the claim that a scientific statement is one which is
> >> falsifiable.
> >
> >
> > Right. But you don't seem to understand what he meant by "falsifiable".
> > A theory is falsifiable if and only if it is possible to construct an
> > experiment which could measure a value in disagreement with the theory.
> > So, for instance, the theory "God created everything just as we see it"
> > is not falsifiable, because it is not possible to make an observation
> > that would disprove it.
> >
> >
> >> But the problem with any mathematical tautology is that it is *not*
> >> falsifiable,
> >
> >
> > Sure. Mathematics is not physics. Well known, and not a problem.
> >
> >
> >> not due to empirical/experimental evidence to the contrary, but
> >> because math can be proven to be inherently correct beyond the realm
> >> of the empirical.
> >
> >
> > Sure. Mathematics is not physics. So what?
>
> You completely misunderstand my point. Given that math is not physics,
> I asked whether SR & GR can be expressed without math. If not, then
> perhaps you cannot so easily disentangle the two. At that point one is
> led to believe whether SR & GR are in large part non-science.
>
> I don't necessarily agree with this.
>
> But you missed my point. You say math isn't physics. Then show me the
> physics without math.
>
> I view math, logic, set theory, etc. as methodological tools of science,
> as important as lab work, observation, experiment, etc. But they are
> tools of methodology, and should not become totally inseparable from the
> knowledge they purport to grant. And, such, I ask again -- if math
> isn't physics, what remains of SR & GR?

Why do you focus on SR and GR?
What remains of classical Newtonian Mechanics?
I'll ask again: can you express the proportionality between
force and acceleration without mathematics?
Can you express acceleration without mathematics?

Dirk Vdm

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Hard science of evolution
    ... they look at the math carefully and notice the unrealistic ... running through inertia-less pulleys that you encounter in Physics 101. ... And show that fitness really is heritable. ... always wanted to know if there was mathematics that can be used to ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Test2 SPF
    ... I consider math to be a tool with which we construct models of the ... mathematics that describe things that most likely don't exist (e.g. 57 ... physics without math. ... So then the conditions of quantization (the use of the ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Hard science of evolution
    ... they look at the math carefully and notice the unrealistic ... running through inertia-less pulleys that you encounter in Physics 101. ... always wanted to know if there was mathematics that can be used to ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: thought: "traditional" vs "programmer" math?...
    ... in particular, I am left thinking that, although both make use of math, ... beginner in physics and not yet even a beginner at what people who ... actually do mathematics would call mathematics. ... object-oriented programming paradigm. ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Hard science of evolution
    ... they look at the math carefully and notice the unrealistic ... running through inertia-less pulleys that you encounter in Physics 101. ... always wanted to know if there was mathematics that can be used to ...
    (talk.origins)