Re: space-time + matter/energy OR space-time-matter


Michael Hell wrote:
Eric Gisse wrote:
Michael Hell wrote:
Eric Gisse wrote:
Michael Hell wrote:
Eric Gisse wrote:

[snip]
How fortunate for you since now you don't actually have to learn
anything complex....like math.

Yes, very fortunate.

The new ideas are that simpler mathematics which yield greater
complexity are the more appropriate tools for the new generation of
physicists than pre-digital mathematics.

Since you have no education in physics, I find it interesting that you
feel you are capable of saying what is and what is not a more
appropriate tool.

You never even learned calculus, how can you make that kind of
judgement?

The question at hand is: can continuous functions produce the
complexity of all the universe's phenomena in one theory?

Wrong answer.

How can you judge anything regarding physics or mathematics when your
education is at the high school level?


I'm not really judging anything.

Really?

For a guy who doesn't have an education in physics or mathematics, you
seem pretty sure of yourself.


I was just relating some of the new ideas floating around.

Lets see.

You have no idea what the "old ideas" are, much less how they are used.
But you feel these "new ideas", which you also don't know understand,
are worth considering?

When are you going to learn calculus? You have such a boner for
Leibniz's ideas, why do you shun calculus?

.

Quantcast