Notices
Results 1 to 39 of 39
Like Tree10Likes
  • 1 Post By Daecon
  • 3 Post By Strange
  • 2 Post By AlexG
  • 2 Post By Strange
  • 1 Post By AlexG

Thread: define physics

  1. #1 define physics 
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    200
    I will start my journey into the world of Physics with a fundamental question.What is Physics?
    I think the relation between math and physics is like a string of beads. The string being math and the beads representing the physical world.
    What do you think people?


    believer in ahimsa
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,919
    The Wikipedia definition seems reasonable:
    Quote Originally Posted by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physics
    the natural science that involves the study of matter and its motion through space and time, along with related concepts such as energy and force.
    Maths is just a tool that is used to build the quantitative models and theories that make it a useful science rather than idle speculation.


    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Professor Daecon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    1,288
    Physics is the operating system of the Universe.

    Mathematics is the programming language it's written in.

    Howard Roark likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    中国 江苏镇江
    Posts
    17
    Quote Originally Posted by parag29081973 View Post
    I will start my journey into the world of Physics with a fundamental question.What is Physics?
    I think the relation between math and physics is like a string of beads. The string being math and the beads representing the physical world.
    What do you think people?
    Physics is a way makes us know universe and all in universe. It teaches us to make all industries around us, and teaches us to realize what we imagine. Physics is not means only special physics, like the happening in physics laboratory. Physics, its principle controls all the human beings eats, makes, lives, and thinks. I can tell like this, Physics decides Chemistry, Biology, Geography, Cosmography, and even Philosophy. In fact, by Physics human beings get to know how this world being built, how it works, how we should live, and who we are. Physics right is what the all knowledge we human being have.

    Of course, Physics is not unique method make us know that all. The other way to make you know this world is religion.
    Physics make languages and rationalism as its tools to help people enclose and enter it. The religion’s tools make people to know is faith and spiritualism.

    Math is right one of the languages to know and express physics. Physics can as well be described by literal expression. So when I see a too much long and too much boring formula, I will make my head get a doubt: if it comes from the one really knows the particle movement? Fortunately I stand side quite many this kinds of physics-formula. Some physicists build quantum architectures on classic acknowledges, so that what I called footbath-water formula very unfortunately was brought to this world.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    11,748
    Quote Originally Posted by loongjohn View Post
    Physics decides Chemistry, Biology, Geography, Cosmography, and even Philosophy.
    I'm not sure that physics decides philosophy. Informs it, certainly, but philosophy investigates questions that physics won't, and can't, touch.

    Of course, Physics is not unique method make us know that all. The other way to make you know this world is religion.
    And you were doing so well up to this point.
    Never mind.

    Math is right one of the languages to know and express physics.
    The main language.

    Physics can as well be described by literal expression.
    Not accurately.
    And, generally, not usefully.

    So when I see a too much long and too much boring formula, I will make my head get a doubt: if it comes from the one really knows the particle movement? Fortunately I stand side quite many this kinds of physics-formula. Some physicists build quantum architectures on classic acknowledges, so that what I called footbath-water formula very unfortunately was brought to this world.
    Not entirely sure what you're saying here, but it sounds like you're somewhat dubious about maths.
    Which isn't a good idea when it comes to physics.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    中国 江苏镇江
    Posts
    17
    [QUOTE=Dywyddyr;456322]
    Quote Originally Posted by loongjohn View Post
    Physics decides Chemistry, Biology, Geography, Cosmography, and even Philosophy.
    I'm not sure that physics decides philosophy. Informs it, certainly, but philosophy investigates questions that physics won't, and can't, touch.
    I want say that Philosophy can deduce, develop and grow very much blossomy with philosophy as its language. This tree can extend her limbs, vegetate her leaves, open her flowers and produce her fruits. However, I have to remind you, that this tree plant her root in earth of the physics, that’s the Logic.
    Human beings lives in what a world it looks like, they induce to what a logic it sounds. It’s right the world condition that physics describing decided the logics in the world.
    Hi, Mr.XXXX. In your home town, at one month’s end, right after you have hard-served your boss for a whole month, according habit at your town, should it make you pay to your boss $20000? Or should it be turned reverse?




    And you were doing so well up to this point.
    Never mind.
    If you are doing so quite well as well, you should ask for it to your Father.




    Math is right one of the languages to know and express physics.
    The main language.
    Physics can as well be described by literal expression.
    Not accurately.
    And, generally, not usefully.
    Math is the language to describe Physics with ration-expressing function. A formula’s inventor of course knows what he tells by it. However, could the inventor make sure the later students all know it well? Let’s ask more, is it exist the possibility that inventor make a wrong math formula to express?
    By the way I want ask you, do you regard a man body’s mass value almost equal to that all atoms inside have their mass sum up? What make his body have current weight that it would not change too much even he feel hot or cold?
    Just to think slowly before giving me answer, all formulas in the books you read invalidate.




    Not entirely sure what you're saying here, but it sounds like you're somewhat dubious about maths.
    Which isn't a good idea when it comes to physics.
    I never doubt math. Math is the unique acknowledge independent from physics. But I doubt such many physics formulas whose inventors wrote with math.
    Have you get right answer for the question above? It’s a question, and more a hint I give you.
    Last edited by loongjohn; August 31st, 2013 at 08:37 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,919
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    中国 江苏镇江
    Posts
    17
    The one stand above MATHEMATICIAN is: GODS.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,919
    Quote Originally Posted by loongjohn View Post
    The one stand above MATHEMATICIAN is: GODS.
    If such things exist.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Anti-Crank AlexG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    2,809
    Oh, mathematicians definitely exist. I've met some.
    Strange and RedPanda like this.
    Its the way nature is!
    If you dont like it, go somewhere else....
    To another universe, where the rules are simpler
    Philosophically more pleasing, more psychologically easy
    Prof Richard Feynman (1979) .....

    Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig, es ist nicht einmal falsch!"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,919
    Quote Originally Posted by AlexG View Post
    Oh, mathematicians definitely exist. I've met some.
    They are pretty implausible, though.
    AlexG and RedPanda like this.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    中国 江苏镇江
    Posts
    17
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by loongjohn View Post
    The one stand above MATHEMATICIAN is: GODS.
    If such things exist.
    Who else can make world from NOTHING?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    11,748
    Quote Originally Posted by AlexG View Post
    Oh, mathematicians definitely exist. I've met some.
    Anecdote!
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,919
    Quote Originally Posted by loongjohn View Post
    Who else can make world from NOTHING?
    So first you assume the world was made from nothing. And then you assume that only gods can do that. A lot of assumptions but not much in the way of evidence and logic - as would be required by a science such as physics, for example.

    You need to drop the mumbo-jumbo if you are going to study science.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Anti-Crank AlexG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    2,809
    Quote Originally Posted by loongjohn View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by loongjohn View Post
    The one stand above MATHEMATICIAN is: GODS.
    If such things exist.
    Who else can make world from NOTHING?
    Any mathematician with the right axioms.
    Its the way nature is!
    If you dont like it, go somewhere else....
    To another universe, where the rules are simpler
    Philosophically more pleasing, more psychologically easy
    Prof Richard Feynman (1979) .....

    Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig, es ist nicht einmal falsch!"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Anti-Crank AlexG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    2,809
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by AlexG View Post
    Oh, mathematicians definitely exist. I've met some.
    Anecdote!
    Ok, I'll try to think of one.
    Dywyddyr likes this.
    Its the way nature is!
    If you dont like it, go somewhere else....
    To another universe, where the rules are simpler
    Philosophically more pleasing, more psychologically easy
    Prof Richard Feynman (1979) .....

    Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig, es ist nicht einmal falsch!"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Forum Professor Daecon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    1,288
    Quote Originally Posted by AlexG View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by loongjohn View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by loongjohn View Post
    The one stand above MATHEMATICIAN is: GODS.
    If such things exist.
    Who else can make world from NOTHING?
    Any mathematician with the right axioms.
    Really? I thought all you needed was a compass and a ruler.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    中国 江苏镇江
    Posts
    17
    Quote Originally Posted by Daecon View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by AlexG View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by loongjohn View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by loongjohn View Post
    The one stand above MATHEMATICIAN is: GODS.
    If such things exist.
    Who else can make world from NOTHING?
    Any mathematician with the right axioms.
    Really? I thought all you needed was a compass and a ruler.
    Once this world is proven a ZERO, I wonder then what you will think or speak?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    中国 江苏镇江
    Posts
    17
    Quote Originally Posted by PhDemon View Post
    Is this a language problem or a brain problem?

    If you're going to destroy the "physics tower" you'll need more than dumb assertions and assumptions.

    The nutjobs are out in force tonight...
    Mice, please don’t so hurry to deduce it a brain problem. Otherwise, it will be so impolite that you or else by any chance deduces you have same trouble.
    Science is rationalism. So please don’t guess someone being how, even someone takes out a inconceivable result.

    Mice, why don’t we so many have a talk about mass of an atom in this thread or your new thread?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    中国 江苏镇江
    Posts
    17
    Do you need me to open a QQ group for dogy fight? of course, for physicist.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    中国 江苏镇江
    Posts
    17
    Quote Originally Posted by PhDemon View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by loongjohn View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by PhDemon View Post
    Is this a language problem or a brain problem?

    If you're going to destroy the "physics tower" you'll need more than dumb assertions and assumptions.

    The nutjobs are out in force tonight...
    Mice, please don’t so hurry to deduce it a brain problem. Otherwise, it will be so impolite that you or else by any chance deduces you have same trouble.
    Science is rationalism. So please don’t guess someone being how, even someone takes out a inconceivable result.

    Mice, why don’t we so many have a talk about mass of an atom in this thread or your new thread?
    There is no rationality in any of your posts. I don't think I'll miss much by just ignoring your witless dribbling.
    To the water footbath, drinking or not, it is upon your attitude however is not rationalism itself, more not science itself.
    I don’t drink it.

    This world has so much. We can discover, however would better not to invent.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    11,748
    Quote Originally Posted by loongjohn View Post
    Once this world is proven a ZERO
    That's unlikely, unless you're positing a very strange definition of "zero".
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Forum Professor Daecon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    1,288
    Nonsense translation to be of the Engrish. Please to be not using the Google for translation.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    中国 江苏镇江
    Posts
    17
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by loongjohn View Post
    Once this world is proven a ZERO
    That's unlikely, unless you're positing a very strange definition of "zero".
    Hi duck, I will not rewrite something’s definition when trying to explain somewhat.

    Hint II, could you observe your surroundings? You will find we all together live in a reciprocal space of opposite one.
    I said, this world has total mass of zero.

    We can discover, however would better not to invent.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    11,748
    Quote Originally Posted by loongjohn View Post
    Hi duck, I will not rewrite something’s definition when trying to explain somewhat.
    So presumably you're using the standard definition:
    1. The numerical symbol 0; a cipher.
    2. Mathematics a. The identity element for addition.
    b. A cardinal number indicating the absence of any or all units under consideration.
    c. An ordinal number indicating an initial point or origin.
    d. An argument at which the value of a function vanishes.
    None of which apply, or can rationally be applied, to "this world".
    How about (same link):
    a. Having no measurable or otherwise determinable value.
    Again, obviously and self-evidently not applicable.
    Then again, we have...
    b. Informal Absent, inoperative, or irrelevant in specified circumstances
    If your specified circumstances happen to be "I'm going to completely ignore any evidence to the contrary" then, possibly, it could be applied.

    Hint II, could you observe your surroundings?
    I not only could but I actually do.

    You will find we all together live in a reciprocal space of opposite one.
    This is nonsensical at best and wrong at worst.

    I said, this world has total mass of zero.
    Unless you can show, categorically, that this the case then all you're doing is making empty claims.
    Again, this is incorrect by any standard definition.

    however would better not to invent.
    The way you're doing?
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    中国 江苏镇江
    Posts
    17
    There is a basin of clean water.
    I drink, and then wash hands with it.
    This basin passes to the second. This man unfortunately make footbath.
    When it’s turned to you, do you drink or not?

    I sound, and hint you. But I’m not obliged to persuade you how.
    The others have no obligation to prevent you nether. If they prompt you to drink more, I will not oppose.

    I always hint, and then give a smile.
    Last edited by loongjohn; August 31st, 2013 at 10:52 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    11,748
    Quote Originally Posted by loongjohn View Post
    There is a basin of clean water.
    I drink, and then wash hands with it.
    This basin passes to the second. This man unfortunately make footbath.
    When it’s turned to you, do you drink or not?
    Blah blah blah.

    I sound, and hint you.
    No, you post nonsense.

    But I’m not obliged to persuade you how.
    On the contrary, forum etiquette, at the very least, requires that you support your contentions.
    It's how science is done.

    I always hint, and then give a smile.
    Presumably because you don't have a rational explanation and you're just trolling.

    Are you going to reply to my previous post?
    Last edited by Dywyddyr; August 31st, 2013 at 11:34 PM.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    中国 江苏镇江
    Posts
    17
    Are you going to reply to my previous post?
    I will not quote footbath water to explain another footbath water.
    It’s said that many had advised Galileo to drink Aristotle’s that water. He didn’t.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    11,748
    Quote Originally Posted by loongjohn View Post
    I will not quote footbath water to explain another footbath water.
    So, basically, you've got nothing.
    Thanks.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Anti-Crank AlexG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    2,809
    Just another 拖钓
    Its the way nature is!
    If you dont like it, go somewhere else....
    To another universe, where the rules are simpler
    Philosophically more pleasing, more psychologically easy
    Prof Richard Feynman (1979) .....

    Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig, es ist nicht einmal falsch!"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,919
    Quote Originally Posted by loongjohn View Post
    There is a basin of clean water.
    I drink, and then wash hands with it.
    This basin passes to the second. This man unfortunately make footbath.
    When it’s turned to you, do you drink or not?
    You know what, metaphors can be a powerful aid to communication. But only if there is some clue as to what they mean. Your metaphor may make some sense inside your head but, unfortunately, we are not mind readers and I would be surprised if anyone had a clue what you are trying to say.

    Perhaps I can explain it this way: when the elephant takes a bath, the man in the bandanna plays the piano.
    Last edited by Strange; September 1st, 2013 at 09:39 AM. Reason: spelling
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,795
    Quote Originally Posted by loongjohn View Post
    There is a basin of clean water.
    I drink, and then wash hands with it.
    This basin passes to the second. This man unfortunately make footbath.
    When it’s turned to you, do you drink or not?

    I sound, and hint you. But I’m not obliged to persuade you how.
    The others have no obligation to prevent you nether. If they prompt you to drink more, I will not oppose.

    I always hint, and then give a smile.
    This is inscrutable. I must insist that your posts be intelligible. Otherwise, you will be gone.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    中国 江苏镇江
    Posts
    17
    This is inscrutable. I must insist that your posts be intelligible. Otherwise, you will be gone.
    The really valuable science never compels other to understand. It is unnecessary to copy textbook on forum, if this is a real science forum.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    中国 江苏镇江
    Posts
    17
    I must claim that a book, a thesis, or a post and so on are not knowledge itself, even not an expression of knowledge. Each of them is only a carrier of the knowledge. So someone just see them, someone could read them, and someone understand them.

    In the society of so many countries of this world, very many crowds of technicians are needed for operation at almost every corner. Need for professors is some fewer, even it is far from the top. That is why Lorenz Equation and its theory at everywhere was written so clearly, without any doubt, without any space for imagining. If you read along with arithmetic textbook for schoolgirl of grade 1, you are bored by repeated expression, and you have to face very many exercises behind sections, such as "13+7=?". It’s enforcement.
    In this forum no one release Neutron-bomb Technology, because it’s valuable for someone so as to be needless to distribute. And I didn’t see any release about the technologies such as Quantum Squeezing, Quantum teleportation, Quantum Space Reforming and so on. It seems that valuables will not be released, at least will not be out for free.

    I want release a serious of article as carrier of above top-applications knowledge by opening new thread for special subject, anyhow, at this or that forum. They will tell basic conceptions and then applications. These knowledges are so worthy that I will not compel anyone to read or understand. Someone will see them, someone can read, and someone will understand it or part of it.
    I can first-release these articles on you forum, or make them nothing with you. My choice is upon your attitude on behavior of forum. Administrator, when now I have some chapters to finish, you can tell me the opinion or make me gone.
    I will not release worthy articles at wrong forum. It’s to say that some forum is just for technology but not for science.


    Loongjohn

    Sept 2nd, 2013
    Last edited by loongjohn; September 1st, 2013 at 10:43 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    Anti-Crank AlexG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    2,809
    Quote Originally Posted by loongjohn View Post
    This is inscrutable. I must insist that your posts be intelligible. Otherwise, you will be gone.
    The really valuable science never compels other to understand. It is unnecessary to copy textbook on forum, if this is a real science forum.
    The whole point of science is understanding. And what you're posting has nothing to do with science at all.

    This belongs in the trash, locked and you gone.
    Its the way nature is!
    If you dont like it, go somewhere else....
    To another universe, where the rules are simpler
    Philosophically more pleasing, more psychologically easy
    Prof Richard Feynman (1979) .....

    Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig, es ist nicht einmal falsch!"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    中国 江苏镇江
    Posts
    17
    Quote Originally Posted by AlexG View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by loongjohn View Post
    This is inscrutable. I must insist that your posts be intelligible. Otherwise, you will be gone.
    The really valuable science never compels other to understand. It is unnecessary to copy textbook on forum, if this is a real science forum.
    The whole point of science is understanding. And what you're posting has nothing to do with science at all.

    This belongs in the trash, locked and you gone.
    Is the one studying Quantum Space Reforming obliged to make everyone else understood?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #37  
    Anti-Crank AlexG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    2,809
    Quote Originally Posted by loongjohn View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by AlexG View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by loongjohn View Post
    This is inscrutable. I must insist that your posts be intelligible. Otherwise, you will be gone.
    The really valuable science never compels other to understand. It is unnecessary to copy textbook on forum, if this is a real science forum.
    The whole point of science is understanding. And what you're posting has nothing to do with science at all.

    This belongs in the trash, locked and you gone.
    Is the one studying Quantum Space Reforming obliged to make everyone else understood?
    This is just another trolling crank.

    曳曲柄
    Its the way nature is!
    If you dont like it, go somewhere else....
    To another universe, where the rules are simpler
    Philosophically more pleasing, more psychologically easy
    Prof Richard Feynman (1979) .....

    Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig, es ist nicht einmal falsch!"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #38  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,795
    I think loongjohn is probably just a bit crazy, but in any case, not a useful member of the forum. He's gone.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #39  
    CoolSaroj
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    Kathmandu
    Posts
    4
    Mathematics has ruled physics. In every physics problems that I get, there is maths involved in it. And I think maths should involve in physics because the theories need validation from the mathematics.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Similar Threads

  1. Define Religion
    By Selene in forum Scientific Study of Religion
    Replies: 103
    Last Post: April 30th, 2013, 10:10 PM
  2. Define Faith
    By RamenNoodles in forum Scientific Study of Religion
    Replies: 30
    Last Post: March 20th, 2013, 02:10 AM
  3. Can you define God?
    By Quantime in forum Scientific Study of Religion
    Replies: 149
    Last Post: January 24th, 2013, 03:08 AM
  4. Define lukewarm
    By Pong in forum Environmental Issues
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: August 22nd, 2009, 05:59 AM
  5. How do you define God?
    By Mike NS in forum Scientific Study of Religion
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: August 24th, 2007, 12:39 PM
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •