 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Natural Science Forum / Physics / General Physics / February 2007what is physics?
hello everybody! would anybody gives me a solid explenation of physics. > hello everybody! would anybody gives me a solid explenation of physics. Physics is any mathematical model of empirical observation that survives falsification. A model that cannot be tested is math not physics (or any science). A model that is contradicted by valid observation - even once - is wrong.  SignatureUncle Al http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/ (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals) http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2 > > hello everybody! would anybody gives me a solid explenation of physics. > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Uncle Alhttp://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/ > (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2 Uncle Al's response is pretty good, and I would only add a couple comments. 1. Physical models that make the same predictions about observations are indistinguishable in value. In most cases, the difference between models is quantitative ("this much") rather than qualitative ("this will happen, and that won't), and this is the reason why mathematics is usually an instrumental component of physics. It is remotely possible that a model may succeed because it makes *qualitative* predictions that no other models make (Darwinian evolution is one case), but that is rare. A model that makes qualitative predictions, where a competing model makes quantitative predictions, is considered unacceptably inferior. 2. Most physical models have a declared domain of applicability. That is, they model phenomena assuming certain constraints are respected. For example, modeling momentum as (mass x speed) works only if you're talking about slow-moving, massive objects. As another example, the so- called Standard Model is declared to work only on scales less than 1 TeV or so. Sometimes models are considered successful because they work quantitatively over a wider domain than other competing models. Cranks' attempts at doing physics usually suffer from failing to respect one of these attributes or one of the attributes that Uncle Al alluded to. PD > Cranks' attempts at doing physics usually suffer from failing to > respect one of these attributes or one of the attributes that Uncle Al > alluded to. The ironic part of this is that Mr. Schwartz' CHI calculations are pure math--no physics. There is no predictive component. There really isn't any descriptive compenent other than in describing the geometry of a crystal. I.e. it doesn't describe any physics. Mr. Schwartz seems to be able to spot a crank everywhere except in the mirror. Thomas. > > > hello everybody! would anybody gives me a solid explenation of physics. > [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > > PD That POV will earn you the bellhop's two dollars. You didn't add anything. You diluted Al's term "mathematical-model" so that mathematical absurdities such as you defend eleswhere with bogus interpretations (H&K) can be included. They can not. << The essential elements of a scientific method are iterations, recursions, interleavings, and orderings of the following: Characterizations (Quantifications, observations, and measurements) Hypotheses (theoretical, hypothetical explanations of observations and measurements) Predictions (reasoning including ***logical deduction*** from hypothesis and theory) >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method IOW...absurd math is not science and it is not physics regardless of where the street magician moves the pea. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problematic_physics_experiments Sue... > > > hello everybody! would anybody gives me a solid explenation of physics. > [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > > PD ------------ Mr PD &co. if i say that the reaction to a force is exactly and oppositlely equall to the action force is it physics ??? dod you noticed a bit of a mathematical model in it ?? while you say that space- time is curved is it physics where is the mathematical model in it ?? while we discoverthrough a telescope that the universe is expanding is it a physical finding ?? where is the mathematical model here ?? if you discover that the nuc is small compaired to the Atom size where is it ? if you dsicover that a mirror is reflection light where is the mathmatical model is i tnot physics if you disciver that in order to move a mass you need force is it not a physics finding even before defining the connection between force and mass?? lets say it the other way ***could physics be without the net physics findings !!** so comon fucken mathematicians !! sitting all day on their arm chaires and decorating themselves with the feathers that belong to other opeople just give some respect to the real actors and founders of physics (provided that YOU ARE REALY INTERESTED IN ADVANCE OF SCIENCE !!! and not just in your **pomous* farting into your arm chaires !!) ATB Y.Porat -------------------- On Feb 22, 7:15 > observation - even once - is wrong. > > -- > > Uncle Alhttp://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/ [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > > PD ------------ Mr PD &co. if i say that the reaction to a force is exactly and oppositlely equall to the action force is it physics ??? dod you noticed a bit of a mathematical model in it ?? while you say that space- time is curved is it physics where is the mathematical model in it ?? while we discoverthrough a telescope that the universe is expanding is it a physical finding ?? where is the mathematical model here ?? if you discover that the nuc is small compaired to the Atom size where is it ? if you dsicover that a mirror is reflection light where is the mathmatical model is i tnot physics if you disciver that in order to move a mass you need force is it not a physics finding even before defining the connection between force and mass?? lets say it the other way ***could physics be without the net physics findings !!** so comon fucken mathematicians !! sitting all day on their arm chaires and decorating themselves with the feathers that belong to other opeople just give some respect to the real actors and founders of physics (provided that YOU ARE REALY INTERESTED IN ADVANCE OF SCIENCE !!! and not just in your **pomous* farting into your arm chaires !!) ATB Y.Porat -------------------- >> hello everybody! would anybody gives me a solid explenation of physics. > > Physics is any mathematical model of empirical observation that > survives falsification. A model that cannot be tested is math not > physics (or any science). A model that is contradicted by valid > observation - even once - is wrong. Couldn't have explained it worse. And you combined physics and doing physics in one paragraph. Gracefull bug off now so I can explain it to this dude. The rest of this post is for him. Physics is the study and correlation of those sensory inputs we have that are most vital to our survival. Light and visual input (eyes), weight (muscles), size/distance (touch). In correlating them we have developed brains that hold enormous amounts of memory. Thus we can perceive and study motion, sound, heat, time, etc. Any such activity requires possessing and utilizing memory. What distinguishes us from non-living matter. How we do physics is another matter. We do it by continually making guesses and seeing whether it is consistent with what we observe. We keep failing but each time we make a different guess incorporating more data. Just like how we first learned to walk upright when we were one year old. A kid or a grown up does it all the time but the purposes are different from what a physicist does them for. Every once in a long while our guesses _happen_ to match what we observe. When that happens physics of that subject has taken one little more step towards understanding that subject. An important fact about doing physics: We can do physics because very early after getting born we get used to the process of failing and bouncing right back to try it again with a little more information this time. Signature"she'r cherA migi ke tuye ghAfiyash bemuni?" > hello everybody! would anybody gives me a solid explenation of physics. Observation, investigation and explanation of Nature's phenomena. Some morons will tell you it is inventing theories. > hello everybody! would anybody gives me a solid explenation of physics. >Observation, investigation and explanation of Nature's phenomena. > >Some morons will tell you it is inventing theories. Everything that you need to know about physics can be found right here >>> http://sciphysicsopenmanuscript.blogspot.com/ If you dont see it there, it probably aint important. >> hello everybody! would anybody gives me a solid explenation of physics. > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > If you dont see it there, it probably aint important. Everything that you need to know about physics is contained in the sentence "Observation, investigation and explanation of Nature's phenomena." If you don't see it there it isn't important, never mind "probably"; your punctuation sucks. >> hello everybody! would anybody gives me a solid explenation of physics. > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > If you dont see it there, it probably aint important. >Everything that you need to know about physics is contained in >the sentence >"Observation, investigation and explanation of Nature's phenomena." > >If you don't see it there it isn't important, never mind "probably"; your punctuation sucks. Silly bearded man - I have revealed the secrets of the UNIVERSE you silly man. seriously though - I think that James Harris ran away for good. I have'nt seen him for a couple weeks now. Meanwhile, I've been messing around with some stochastic integration, and looking at some statistical physics things. It's pretty neat, but thus far all I have seen is stuff which is too standard for my tastes. >>> hello everybody! would anybody gives me a solid explenation of physics. >> [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > seriously though - Don't be so foolish, you cannot possibly be serious. > I think No, no, you don't. that James Harris ran away for good. I have'nt > seen him for a couple weeks now. > > Meanwhile, I've been messing around with some stochastic integration, and > looking at some statistical physics things. It's pretty neat, but thus far > all I have seen is stuff which is too standard for my tastes. <yawn> On Feb 23, 11:50 pm, "Androcles" <Engin...@hogwarts.physics.co.uk> wrote: > >>> hello everybody! would anybody gives me a solid explenation of physics. > [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > > - Show quoted text - U2, GET f.cked > On Feb 23, 11:50 pm, "Androcles" <Engin...@hogwarts.physics.co.uk> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 47 lines] > > U2, GET f.cked He does anytime he finds a suitable and willing woman. Arseholes like you don't qualify. On Feb 23, 4:12 pm, "Dr. V I Plankenstein" <Plankenste...@stle.sci> wrote: > "Dr. V I Plankenstein" <Plankenste...@stle.sci> wrote in messagenews:TM-dnTYd1KcVyUPYnZ2dnUVZ_qarnZ2d@comcast.com... > [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > > - Show quoted text - Get f.cked > > >> hello everybody! would anybody gives me a solid explenation of physics. > > [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > > Get f.cked Gladly. I'll be happy to hump your mouth anytime you like. You were offering to blow me - right ? > Everything that you need to know about physics can be found right here >>> > http://sciphysicsopenmanuscript.blogspot.com/ I think you can learn from Iran's Shah time minister of higher education :) I posted something about it in this forum. Go read it at: http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/f07822917378fe77?dmode =source&hl=en Signature"mAhe derakhshande cho penhAn shavad shabpare bAzigare meydAn shavad" > hello everybody! would anybody gives me a solid explenation of physics. I find the descriptions given so far, at best, confusing. So, while I'm sure that what I have to offer is somewhat inaccurate and incomplete, I'm afraid that I feel compelled to add my unintelligent and uneducated voice to choir. Physics is a science, meaning that it employs the scientific method of repeatable measurements to validate it's rules. Mathematics, on the other hand, is the theory of measurement, and is therefore a toolkit for science. Mathematics itself is not a science. Generally speaking, physics is comprised of several logically and historically derived categories. In general, they consist of: Classical physics which comprises the physics before the "standard model", and is composed of: Mechanics, which deals with the rules of motion. Thermodynamics, which deals with energy in general and heat energy specifically. Electrodynamics which details electromagnetic energy. The standard model adds: Relativity, which further refines classical physics on a large scale by positing additional postulates. Quantum Mechanics, which does the same on a small scale. Physic is a "low level" science, since other natural exact sciences, such as chemistry and biology could be derived from physics (and, hence, could be consider branches of physics but are classified separately because of the historical and natural circumstances under which they were derived and exhibited). > hello everybody! would anybody gives me a solid explenation of physics. I thought this was pretty good: http://stupidevilbastard.com/Images2/sciencevsfaith.png |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.