 |
|
Rogan Josh
|
|
Frogger: the SR transformation holds (in flat space) irrespective of who wrote it down (or what they were thinking at the time) - it is pretty amazing that Maxwell had SR invariant laws before anyone thought of SR.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jon Miller
|
|
physics rocks
Jon Miller
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jon Miller
|
|
chemistry is very much like condensed matter/solid state
Jon Miller
|
|
| |
|
|
|
SpencerH
|
 |
Co-Ruler of my patch of land south of Birmingham Alabama
Feb 2002
time: 23:26
|
|
But relativity wasnt confirmed by observation until fairly recently which makes it math when it was written doesnt it? Or are you pushing math into the realm of fantasy/science fiction i.e. that it can never be proven by physical measurement?
Last edited by SpencerH on 18-02-2003 at 01:28
|
|
| |
|
|
|
gunkulator
|
|
Newton - head and shoulders above the rest. All laws of motion and force combined into a single theory. Brilliant and elegant.
The only reason modern man can confidently undertake major engineering projects today is that the we have the assurance of our mathematical models made possible by Newton's laws. Everything from the Apollo Program to the Chunnel are part of his legacy.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
LDiCesare
|
|
La Ferté sous Jouarre France
Jan 2001
time: 05:26
|
|
Noone mentionning mathematicians (except Newton, who did a lot of math work but is praised as a physician)?
Poincarre.
This man laid out the foundations of relativity. Without his work, Einstein wouldn't have accomplished anything. Also, Poincarrre's accomplishments are numerous in the mathematical domain, he proved the validity of recursive proofs, and provided the most useful tools to all the 20th century physicists and matheaticians.
I'd probably rate Galileo Galielei above NEwton because the latter was such a son of a b***.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ramo
|
 |
Austin, Texas, USA
Oct 1999
time: 23:26
|
|
quote:
Not intrinsically untestable, but it wasnt testable for some years after writing. |
It was always testable, it just wasn't tested until a couple years later.
quote:
My analogy wasnt the best, but if math is by definition not testable through observations of the physical world then its theorums are analogous to religious beliefs |
Actually, I would say that mathematical theorems are the exact opposite of religious beliefs. Mathematical theorems say assuming such and such is true, something-or-other follows. Religious beliefs (or any other kinds of beliefs) make no such qualifiers. No religious person would say that assuming God exists and assuming he said x and y, you should do a and b. A religious believer need not worry about whether assumptions are true as believing means taking an assumption for granted. Similarly, no mathematician would say that everything is an analytic function, so you can always expand everything into a convergent power series. No sane person "believes" that everything is an analytic function. You have to find something that fits the definition of an analytic function first before you can expand it into a power series.
quote:
and that the science of physics is merely 'applied mathematics'. |
Pretty much everything is application of math, physics most of all. Not sure what you're getting at, though.
Last edited by Ramo on 18-02-2003 at 06:22
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
SpencerH
|
|
Co-Ruler of my patch of land south of Birmingham Alabama
Feb 2002
time: 23:26
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ramo
Actually, I would say that mathematical theorems are the exact opposite of religious beliefs. Mathematical theorems say assuming such and such is true, something-or-other follows. Religious beliefs (or any other kinds of beliefs) make no such qualifiers. No religious person would say that assuming God exists and assuming he said x and y, you should do a and b. |
I wouldnt call them opposite at all. They're different in that initial belief vs assumption , but similarly different from science since they are both non-testable by physical observation.
quote:
Pretty much everything is application of math, physics most of all. Not sure what you're getting at, though. |
It seems to me that your separation of math and physics is an arbitrary one. I appreciate the distinction that physics may take math into a physical realm (hence my description of physics as applied mathematics). Your point was that a mathematical theorum wasnt testable by observation and was therefore not science. My problem with that is how one would know for sure when writing a theorum that it's testable (and therefore physics) or not (and therefore math). You look back in time and say that Einstein knew that his work would be testable, but I ask how did he know that? Did Schroedinger know that someone would find a way to prove his theorum? Did he envision supercomputers and the scientific and engineering steps that allow these things to be tested? Given this blurring between math and physics at the moment of a theorums conception how can you make a distinction in terms of science and non-science?
Last edited by SpencerH on 18-02-2003 at 07:10
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:26.
Apolyton Time is 00:26. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
17-02-2003 21:21
So did Gauss, 'course he was more of a mathematician than a scientist.
|