Re: OK, I'm Ready For the Patronizing Insults From the Resident Gurus!

From: Henri Wilson (H_at_..(Henri)
Date: 10/18/04 

Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2004 23:11:32 GMT

On 17 Oct 2004 20:46:47 -0700, fsegg@uaf.edu (Eric Gisse) wrote:

>H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in message news:<ior5n0hf4h2n8vnc43lhi76sgafl58jia2@4ax.com>...
>> On 16 Oct 2004 21:56:31 -0700, fsegg@uaf.edu (Eric Gisse) wrote:
>>
>> >H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in message news:<n44rm05859clpetpal4v2dl8gcm2umo214@4ax.com>...
>> >[snip]
>> >
>> >>
>> >> Mathematical treatments merely describe what we already observe. In this case,
>> >> how fields behave.
>> >
>> >Right.
>> >
>> >We observed computers before quantum mechanics.
>>
>> Where did you get that idea?
>>
>> >
>> >We observed gravitational lensing before relativity.
>>
>> Where did you get that idea?
>>
>
>I guess I need to explicit with my sarcasm tags...
>
>The mathematical treatments predicted things we have never observed
>before. They pointed us in the right direction.
>
>> >
>> >Right.
>> >
>> >Mathematical treatments have no use other than modeling. None at all.
>>
>> That's actually not what I said. It is posible to make predictions with a
>> mathematical model by changing parameter values.
>
>What is the parameter you have to adjust in SR to get the Compton
>effect?
>What is the parameter you have to adjust in SR to get the increased
>half-lives of particles?
>What is the parameter you have to adjust in GR to get the Mossbauer
>effect?
>What is the parameter you have to adjust in GR to get Mercury's orbit
>correct?

You are being stupid now Geese.
You are clueless.

>
>Well, the last two aren't fair - you don't understand GR. I will be
>generous in the assumption that you understand SR enough to answer the
>first two questions.

SR dosn't exist as far as Im concerned.

>
>> That still doesn't tell you the reasons behind an observation.
>
>So what?
>
>>
>> All known theory so far doesn't reveal to us any 'reason' for
>> action-at-a-distance, which is undoubtedly the biggest physical mystery.
>
>I guess spacetime geometry doesn't satisfy you. I thought geometry was
>your specialty...

Spacetime doesn't exist either.

>
>Again, so what if a physical theory doesn't give you an answer to the
>"Why?" question?
>
>> Einstein's theory on gravitation doesn't help one iota. Nor do maths treatments
>> of electrostatics and magnetism explain why charges attract and repel.
>
>They explain, only so far. The reasons are buried within the theory,
>but you are right - there is no answer to the ultimate "Why?"
>question.

How do you know?
Nobody looks becsuse they seem to think a maths treatment of whahappens is some
kind of explanation.

>
>But again, so what? The theory works irregardless of being unable to
>answer the ultimate question of Why Things Are.
>
>I get the faint impression you don't understand the math behind E&M.

Well, there is quite a lot of it. Which parts did you have in mind?

>
>>
>> >
>> >> That does not delve any deeper into the 'philosophy' behind them.
>> >
>> >Wah.
>> >
>> >Science =/= philosophy. BFD.
>>
>> It is a lot closer than you might think.
>
>No.
>
>Science is testable, philosophy is not.
>
>>
>> Ask yourself, "why does a moving electron experience a force when in a magnetic
>> field", then ask, "what physical mechanism causes that force to be at right
>> angles to both field and velocity?" You can easily describe the effect
>> mathematically using vectors. but....
>
>I look to the math, because the math has yet to fail.
>
>You do forget that math is based heavily in geometry. For many things,
>R^3 - our flat Euclidian space, is the foundation. Geometry satisfies
>me until it breaks, then I look further.

Vector cross products are merely a convention. So is the use of complex planes.
They are useful in describing physical processes but they have NO physical
meaning.

>
>>
>> This verges on philosophy because it asks what exactly gives us an impression
>> of 'three axes at right angles'. Is it physical or psychological?
>
>Verges but does not cross. You do realise that coordinate systems
>don't always have to be orthogonal, right? It makes the math painful
>because dot products of the unit vectors arent 0 anymore.
>
>At any rate, science is testable, philosophy is not.

We agree on something.

but philosophy can tell science where to start looking.

>
>I think this is a very big deal for you. Dollars to doughnuts when you
>asked "Why?" enough, you reached a point where nobody could answer
>your question. At that point, you rejected everything because it
>couldn't satisfy your insatiable desire for everything having a base
>reason.
>
>Either that or at one point someone tossed you an equation you
>couldn't handle. Probably a combination of both.

Don't be an idiot Geese.

>
>>
>> >
>> >> You will never make a physycist Geese.
>> >
>> >Correct...but I will be a physicist.
>> >
>> >How's the crusade against science going, Henri?
>>
>> The 'crusade', geese, is aimed at digging physics out of the Einsteinian rut
>> and setting it going in the right direction again.
>
>Did you ever once think for a little while about how Einstein's ideas
>were accepted? Did you know Einstein's ideas were fought against
>viciously? Even after, but less so, after Eddington's expedition?

So What?

>
>You are ignorant of history. I suggest you take an introductory
>physics class, and spend some time in the library reading about
>Galileo, Newton, Kepler, Corpernicus, Lorentz, Einstein, Planck, etc
>and etc.

I don't live in the past geese.

>
>>
>> >
>> >[snip]
>>
>>
>> HW.
>>
>> www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

HW.

www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Math is Easy, Physics is Hard
    ... Doug's last post included the following:> I am surprised your last post got past the moderators because it looks ... involves understanding concepts i.e. philosophy. ... censor confirms my views on the present sad state of physics. ... As I tried to hint to Doug, math is easy because it is linear ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Speculative mathematics in physics (was: Division by zero. Go ahead and laugh.)
    ... >> I have often heard it said that philosophy as absolute garbage. ... math is itself something of a philosophy. ... you should be a mathematician or a philosopher. ... Math, as it stands, is not an exact model of the uiverse, nor is physics. ...
    (sci.math)
  • Math is Easy, Physics is Hard
    ... Remember, math is easy, physics is hard because it ... involves understanding concepts i.e. philosophy. ... As I tried to hint to Doug, math is easy because it is linear ... Although math is a necessary part of theoretical physics, ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Why a Problem?
    ... believe in mechanistic philosophy and that I believe ... >>The philosophy of physics is in the math. ... > mathematicians, and for those with such limitations, ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Career advice needed.
    ... who post here semiregularly are full professors at math or physics ... provide help to a deserving aspiring student. ... I do know of several cases of a Math graduate program accepting ... study these prereqs on your own from books (by paying a yearly fee you ...
    (sci.physics.research)