10Likes
August 30th, 2013, 06:57 AM
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?
The Wikipedia definition seems reasonable:
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.Originally Posted by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physics
Physics is the operating system of the Universe.
Mathematics is the programming language it's written in.
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.
I'm not sure that physics decides philosophy. Informs it, certainly, but philosophy investigates questions that physics won't, and can't, touch.
And you were doing so well up to this point.Of course, Physics is not unique method make us know that all. The other way to make you know this world is religion.
Never mind.
The main language.Math is right one of the languages to know and express physics.
Not accurately.Physics can as well be described by literal expression.
And, generally, not usefully.
Not entirely sure what you're saying here, but it sounds like you're somewhat dubious about maths.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.
Which isn't a good idea when it comes to physics.
[QUOTE=Dywyddyr;456322]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.I'm not sure that physics decides philosophy. Informs it, certainly, but philosophy investigates questions that physics won't, and can't, touch.
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?
If you are doing so quite well as well, you should ask for it to your Father.And you were doing so well up to this point.
Never mind.
Math is right one of the languages to know and express physics.
Physics can as well be described by literal expression.The main language.
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?Not accurately.
And, generally, not usefully.
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.
I never doubt math. Math is the unique acknowledge independent from physics. But I doubt such many physics formulas whose inventors wrote with math.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.
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.
The one stand above MATHEMATICIAN is: GODS.
If such things exist.
Oh, mathematicians definitely exist. I've met some.
They are pretty implausible, though.
Who else can make world from NOTHING?If such things exist.
Anecdote!
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.
Any mathematician with the right axioms.Who else can make world from NOTHING?If such things exist.
Ok, I'll try to think of one.Anecdote!
Really? I thought all you needed was a compass and a ruler.Any mathematician with the right axioms.Who else can make world from NOTHING?If such things exist.
Once this world is proven a ZERO, I wonder then what you will think or speak?Really? I thought all you needed was a compass and a ruler.Any mathematician with the right axioms.Who else can make world from NOTHING?If such things exist.
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?
Do you need me to open a QQ group for dogy fight? of course, for physicist.
To the water footbath, drinking or not, it is upon your attitude however is not rationalism itself, more not science itself.There is no rationality in any of your posts. I don't think I'll miss much by just ignoring your witless dribbling.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?
I don’t drink it.
This world has so much. We can discover, however would better not to invent.
That's unlikely, unless you're positing a very strange definition of "zero".
Nonsense translation to be of the Engrish. Please to be not using the Google for translation.
Hi duck, I will not rewrite something’s definition when trying to explain somewhat.That's unlikely, unless you're positing a very strange definition of "zero".
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.
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.
I not only could but I actually do.Hint II, could you observe your surroundings?
This is nonsensical at best and wrong at worst.You will find we all together live in a reciprocal space of opposite one.
Unless you can show, categorically, that this the case then all you're doing is making empty claims.I said, this world has total mass of zero.
Again, this is incorrect by any standard definition.
The way you're doing?however would better not to invent.
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.
Blah blah blah.
No, you post nonsense.I sound, and hint you.
On the contrary, forum etiquette, at the very least, requires that you support your contentions.But I’m not obliged to persuade you how.
It's how science is done.
Presumably because you don't have a rational explanation and you're just trolling.I always hint, and then give a smile.
Are you going to reply to my previous post?
Last edited by Dywyddyr; August 31st, 2013 at 11:34 PM.
I will not quote footbath water to explain another footbath water.Are you going to reply to my previous post?
It’s said that many had advised Galileo to drink Aristotle’s that water. He didn’t.
So, basically, you've got nothing.
Thanks.
Just another 拖钓
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
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.This is inscrutable. I must insist that your posts be intelligible. Otherwise, you will be gone.
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.
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?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.
This is just another trolling crank.Is the one studying Quantum Space Reforming obliged to make everyone else understood?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.
曳曲柄
I think loongjohn is probably just a bit crazy, but in any case, not a useful member of the forum. He's gone.
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.
| « i just got some questions about water electrolysis | What can cause periodic interference (constructive interference occurs every 9 mm when the reference mirror is shifted) in OCT setup? » |
| Bookmarks |
Bookmarks |
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
