Re: simple rules
- From: PD <TheDraperFamily@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 8 Apr 2008 09:04:45 -0700 (PDT)
On Apr 8, 8:53 am, Ralf Callenberg <ralf.callenb...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
What I never understood with your approach: there are theories for
nature out there which have been proven over and over, which have been
thought over and which are accessible on diffent level of abstraction.
Some of them are even beautiful. Why don't you spend your afford
learning them first? If you hope to find something of a royal path to
understanding physics completely without maths: there isn't one.
Well, I think I know the answer to that. If you are trying to teach
yourself what has been learned already, then there are co-requisite
skills that have to be acquired in order to get very far in that
exercise. That is, the work involved in learning what is already known
is driven by the level of effort invested by others and not by you.
However, if you choose to only explore your own ideas, then you only
have to explore them to the level of effort, skills and preparation
that you have in hand. You take them as far as you can and are
comfortable with. The mistake comes in saying that what you've done as
part of that exercise is still physics.
PD
.
- References:
- simple rules
- From: Thomas Heger
- Re: simple rules
- From: PD
- Re: simple rules
- From: Thomas Heger
- Re: simple rules
- From: PD
- Re: simple rules
- From: Thomas Heger
- Re: simple rules
- From: PD
- Re: simple rules
- From: Thomas Heger
- Re: simple rules
- From: PD
- Re: simple rules
- From: Thomas Heger
- Re: simple rules
- From: PD
- Re: simple rules
- From: Thomas Heger
- Re: simple rules
- From: Ralf Callenberg
- Re: simple rules
- From: Thomas Heger
- Re: simple rules
- From: Ralf Callenberg
- simple rules
- Prev by Date: Re: GR THEORY IS NOT EVEN FALSE!
- Next by Date: Re: GR THEORY IS NOT EVEN FALSE!
- Previous by thread: Re: simple rules
- Next by thread: Re: simple rules
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|