Re: SR and GR without math
From: Dirk Van de moortel (dirkvandemoortel_at_ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com)
Date: 10/01/04
- Next message: AllYou!: "Re: Define a clock"
- Previous message: ZZBunker: "Re: How to tell if a theory is a good one"
- In reply to: Paul Bramscher: "Re: SR and GR without math"
- Next in thread: Bill Hobba: "Re: SR and GR without math"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Fri, 01 Oct 2004 18:54:43 GMT
"Paul Bramscher" <brams006_nospam@tc.umn.edu> wrote in message news:cjhu40$8qh$1@lenny.tc.umn.edu...
> Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
>
> > "Paul Bramscher" <brams006_nospam@tc.umn.edu> wrote in message news:cjhs53$8e9$1@lenny.tc.umn.edu...
[snip]
> >>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?
>
> Because it's currently the dominant set of theories, and nearly totally
> mathematics.
>
> > What remains of classical Newtonian Mechanics?
>
> Not much -- and it proved to be wrong on empirical (not mathematical)
> basis. Good case in point.
But there is nothing wrong with Newtonian Mechanics,
provided we clearly state under which circumstances it is
valid. It is extremely mathematical as well, and certainly
much more dominant than SR and GR.
>
> > I'll ask again: can you express the proportionality between
> > force and acceleration without mathematics?
> > Can you express acceleration without mathematics?
>
> I'm not asking for that. I'm asking what remains when you reduce the
> math out. I'm not arguing that it's a bona fide theory, or in any way
> synonymous with the theory. I'm only arguing that what remains is
> what's most exposed to empirical falsifiabilty. Indeed, it's the only
> thing that ultimately remains to falsification.
You can't get rid of the math, just like you can't get rid
of words in psychology :-)
Dirk Vdm
- Next message: AllYou!: "Re: Define a clock"
- Previous message: ZZBunker: "Re: How to tell if a theory is a good one"
- In reply to: Paul Bramscher: "Re: SR and GR without math"
- Next in thread: Bill Hobba: "Re: SR and GR without math"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
