Re: physics without math, a reality?
From: atellex (nospam_at_nospam.com)
Date: 10/11/04
- Next message: Ken Seto: "Re: How to tell if a theory is a good one"
- Previous message: Ken Seto: "Re: How to tell if a theory is a good one"
- In reply to: Spmujq: "Re: physics without math, a reality?"
- Next in thread: Sam Wormley: "Re: physics without math, a reality?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2004 12:36:05 -0500
"Spmujq" <spmujq@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20041011104226.21374.00001801@mb-m15.aol.com...
> Unfortunately mathematics in physics tends to be obfuscatory. Its sole
> usefulness is the analysis of the behavior of the mechanisms involved in a
> physical scenario. This can only be accomplished if a conceptual model is
first
> generated and tested for reasonableness. Mathematics is, after all, a
science
> of how much not how come! Lokkk at the absurdities which follow from
allowing
> mathematics take the lead. Mathematical physicists are foolish enough to
> assert that gravity is not a force in its own right. Some have even
expressed
> the willingness to step through my second story window, hold on by their
finger
> tips,and discuss the subject.
> mathematics is only required to quantify. It does not explain the workings
of
> nature.
>
> Einsteinhoax@aol.com
>
You sir, are a Non-Mathimatical Troll.
If not, What does 1/0 = ? or (-1)^(0.5) = ?
- Next message: Ken Seto: "Re: How to tell if a theory is a good one"
- Previous message: Ken Seto: "Re: How to tell if a theory is a good one"
- In reply to: Spmujq: "Re: physics without math, a reality?"
- Next in thread: Sam Wormley: "Re: physics without math, a reality?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
