The Flat Earth Society
Other Discussion Boards => The Lounge => Topic started by: da_mo_is_here on April 22, 2019, 02:45:15 AM
-
As the title says, I am studying Physics at University in Germany and will start the second Semester this week. I am here because the "flat earth movement" has made a lot of noise and I personally think there is way too much aggression and hate involved in discussions on Youtube and the media.
I am not here to call anyone an idiot or pretend that I am source of all knowledge, no do I want to insult anyone. I simply want to offer my perspective, clear up misunderstandings and misinformation that is out there and maybe even learn something myself.
If you are happy to talk to me, go right ahead, but If I may I would set up a few rules/guidelines for this discussion:
1. Don't come here if you just want to make your opponent loose. Be open minded and change your mind if the evidence/arguments leave you no choice
2. There isn't much space for emotions when having a non-biased view. Your feelings sure are useful in many areas of your life but they are rather distracting when you need to be neutral. Therefor if you feel very good/very angry about something that you write or that someone else wrote, than that is more a sign that you should lean back for a second and think again.
3. If you post an opinion, say and acknowledge that it is an opinion. If you post facts, provide a source.
4. Statements like "It does not exist", "It is wrong" etc. are pointless without an explanation and evidence.
5. Evidence must be unambiguous to a reasonably degree. Dropping a Microphone is no proof for gravity, it is evidence of an (apparent) force.
6. Understand that some things are too advanced and complicated to understand for the average person and that's ok. In that case one needs to accept that he is not fit to discuss that topic.
7. Math is pure logic. Physics is 80% Mathematics.
Lastly I only have to say that one of the most important things I've learned in the previous semester is how little I actually know. Watching all of Neil DeGrasse Tyson sure makes you feel like you understand the universe but after a few lectures you start to realize how boiled down and simplified all of that really is. Therefor I will be very careful when making statements about stuff like the big bang, General Relativity or quantum Physics. I will only say things that I am reasonably confident about.
I hope this turns out well.
-
Because you're a college student, people here are generally twice as old as you are. in this respect, your try that sets the rules and tries to teach something will not work here. If you can find time from girls, learn real physics occasionally. It is more beneficial for you.
you won't find flat earth believers here who will care of your whims.
-
Because you're a college student, people here are generally twice as old as you are. in this respect, your try that sets the rules and tries to teach something will not work here. If you can find time from girls, learn real physics occasionally. It is more beneficial for you.
you won't find flat earth believers here who will care of your whims.
I am 20 years old which I guess makes me more than capable of having a conversation with older people.
If you can't even get off of you high horse then you aren't the right person for this thread anyways.
-
Because you're a college student, people here are generally twice as old as you are. in this respect, your try that sets the rules and tries to teach something will not work here. If you can find time from girls, learn real physics occasionally. It is more beneficial for you.
you won't find flat earth believers here who will care of your whims.
I am 20 years old which I guess makes me more than capable of having a conversation with older people.
If you can't even get off of you high horse then you aren't the right person for this thread anyways.
I am the only right person can intervene this thread. Because you need to get advice more than everything you need. But you seem a youth unable to get advice.
-
Do you like ice cream?
Bees: good or evil?
How often do you climb trees?
Why does the chicken cross the road?
Who would win in a dance off?
-
Who would win in a dance off?
Specifically the dance off between yours truly and a one legged cone-head!
As a German, do you think that the recent decision of the UK to shoot itself repeatedly in the foot whilst waving a flag, will result in war in Europe?
Do you have any recipies for canned fish?
-
Hello da mo,
Here are my questions:
As a German do you have an opinion on the Mueller report?
Why is Space Cowgirl always plotting against me?
I have recently purchased a new house. Do you know where the sprinkler turn on valves are?
What is your opinion on the Phobos incident?
And finally can you provide a layman's explanation of the concept of Universal Acceleration in the context of Flat Earth Theory so that I can post it in the Faq?
Thanks
-
Who would win in a dance off?
Specifically the dance off between yours truly and a one legged cone-head!
Ilene is not much of a dancer
-
As the title says, I am studying Physics at University in Germany and will start the second Semester this week. I am here because the "flat earth movement" has made a lot of noise and I personally think there is way too much aggression and hate involved in discussions on Youtube and the media.
I am not here to call anyone an idiot or pretend that I am source of all knowledge, no do I want to insult anyone. I simply want to offer my perspective, clear up misunderstandings and misinformation that is out there and maybe even learn something myself.
If you are happy to talk to me, go right ahead, but If I may I would set up a few rules/guidelines for this discussion:
1. Don't come here if you just want to make your opponent loose. Be open minded and change your mind if the evidence/arguments leave you no choice
2. There isn't much space for emotions when having a non-biased view. Your feelings sure are useful in many areas of your life but they are rather distracting when you need to be neutral. Therefor if you feel very good/very angry about something that you write or that someone else wrote, than that is more a sign that you should lean back for a second and think again.
3. If you post an opinion, say and acknowledge that it is an opinion. If you post facts, provide a source.
4. Statements like "It does not exist", "It is wrong" etc. are pointless without an explanation and evidence.
5. Evidence must be unambiguous to a reasonably degree. Dropping a Microphone is no proof for gravity, it is evidence of an (apparent) force.
6. Understand that some things are too advanced and complicated to understand for the average person and that's ok. In that case one needs to accept that he is not fit to discuss that topic.
7. Math is pure logic. Physics is 80% Mathematics.
Lastly I only have to say that one of the most important things I've learned in the previous semester is how little I actually know. Watching all of Neil DeGrasse Tyson sure makes you feel like you understand the universe but after a few lectures you start to realize how boiled down and simplified all of that really is. Therefor I will be very careful when making statements about stuff like the big bang, General Relativity or quantum Physics. I will only say things that I am reasonably confident about.
I hope this turns out well.
Do you know how to write code?
Some of my lab mates who were dual majoring in physics were yelled at as none of them could write code in any language.
-
As the title says, I am studying Physics at University in Germany and will start the second Semester this week. I am here because the "flat earth movement" has made a lot of noise and I personally think there is way too much aggression and hate involved in discussions on Youtube and the media.
I am not here to call anyone an idiot or pretend that I am source of all knowledge, no do I want to insult anyone. I simply want to offer my perspective, clear up misunderstandings and misinformation that is out there and maybe even learn something myself.
If you are happy to talk to me, go right ahead, but If I may I would set up a few rules/guidelines for this discussion:
1. Don't come here if you just want to make your opponent loose. Be open minded and change your mind if the evidence/arguments leave you no choice
2. There isn't much space for emotions when having a non-biased view. Your feelings sure are useful in many areas of your life but they are rather distracting when you need to be neutral. Therefor if you feel very good/very angry about something that you write or that someone else wrote, than that is more a sign that you should lean back for a second and think again.
3. If you post an opinion, say and acknowledge that it is an opinion. If you post facts, provide a source.
4. Statements like "It does not exist", "It is wrong" etc. are pointless without an explanation and evidence.
5. Evidence must be unambiguous to a reasonably degree. Dropping a Microphone is no proof for gravity, it is evidence of an (apparent) force.
6. Understand that some things are too advanced and complicated to understand for the average person and that's ok. In that case one needs to accept that he is not fit to discuss that topic.
7. Math is pure logic. Physics is 80% Mathematics.
Lastly I only have to say that one of the most important things I've learned in the previous semester is how little I actually know. Watching all of Neil DeGrasse Tyson sure makes you feel like you understand the universe but after a few lectures you start to realize how boiled down and simplified all of that really is. Therefor I will be very careful when making statements about stuff like the big bang, General Relativity or quantum Physics. I will only say things that I am reasonably confident about.
I hope this turns out well.
Do you know how to write code?
Some of my lab mates who were dual majoring in physics were yelled at as none of them could write code in any language.
Not yet but we are highly encouraged to learn it. I personally am somewhat confident in Latex and gnuplot although those aren't really programming languages.
-
Hello da mo,
Here are my questions:
As a German do you have an opinion on the Mueller report?
Why is Space Cowgirl always plotting against me?
I have recently purchased a new house. Do you know where the sprinkler turn on valves are?
What is your opinion on the Phobos incident?
And finally can you provide a layman's explanation of the concept of Universal Acceleration in the context of Flat Earth Theory so that I can post it in the Faq?
Thanks
What do you mean by universal acceleration?
I can't really say anything about political stuff because I don't have much time and interest in politics.
-
Hello da mo,
Here are my questions:
As a German do you have an opinion on the Mueller report?
Why is Space Cowgirl always plotting against me?
I have recently purchased a new house. Do you know where the sprinkler turn on valves are?
What is your opinion on the Phobos incident?
And finally can you provide a layman's explanation of the concept of Universal Acceleration in the context of Flat Earth Theory so that I can post it in the Faq?
Thanks
What do you mean by universal acceleration?
I can't really say anything about political stuff because I don't have much time and interest in politics.
Mentioned here
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=1324.msg566288#msg566288
And here
https://wiki.tfes.org/Universal_Acceleration
It's a subject that regularly comes up.
-
you won't find flat earth believers here
-
Hello da mo,
Here are my questions:
As a German do you have an opinion on the Mueller report?
Why is Space Cowgirl always plotting against me?
I have recently purchased a new house. Do you know where the sprinkler turn on valves are?
What is your opinion on the Phobos incident?
And finally can you provide a layman's explanation of the concept of Universal Acceleration in the context of Flat Earth Theory so that I can post it in the Faq?
Thanks
What do you mean by universal acceleration?
I can't really say anything about political stuff because I don't have much time and interest in politics.
Mentioned here
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=1324.msg566288#msg566288
And here
https://wiki.tfes.org/Universal_Acceleration
It's a subject that regularly comes up.
As far as I understand Universal Acceleration from the wiki link it basically means that there is a force which accelerates the flat earth upwards. Since only the earth but not the objects (people, cars, etc.) are accelerated one can feel the downward acceleration from the point of view of a person. The source of that force is unknown.
This is actually a very good theory and would be a valid explaination. The only problem is that Gravity is the source of the acceleration. Gravity is proven to exist by e.g. the Cavendish experiment:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cavendish_experiment
I have also personally seen this experiment performed in one lecture. Gravity is also the reason why a flat earth would not be possible at the size that the earth is. It would immediately crumble into a sphere. Here is the explanation:
Imagine an empty universe into which you place two small objects with masses m and M at distance r. There are no external forces and the objects don't move in the first instance of time. What would happen is that both objects would accelerate towards eachother. The cause for that is a force which we will now name Gravity. It has the strength F=GmM/r² (Don't worry, I wont go that deep into the math). How exactly that force works and why it is there is not important right now, all that matters is that it is there as soon as you have massive objects. Anyways, the objects accelerate until they bump into eachother.
You can imagine the scenario with 3 or more object. They would all accelerate towards a single point. Suppose you increase the amount of objects and place them at random locations and even at random times. They would all accelerate or "fall" towards the center of mass of all objects. By the random placement the most likely shape this would form in the end is a sphere but suppose it does not.
Suppose it forms a disk-like shape such as the flat earth. If you add more objects and make the disk bigger and bigger (remember that the disk is made up of countless small objects) then at some point the force that is applied to one object that is at the edge would be greater than the integrity of the disk itself. Since the attraction is bigger, that object would break off of the side of the disk and fall towards the center. The same thing would happen to every single object that is at the edge of the disk.
I hope this makes sense to you.
-
Hello da mo,
Here are my questions:
As a German do you have an opinion on the Mueller report?
Why is Space Cowgirl always plotting against me?
I have recently purchased a new house. Do you know where the sprinkler turn on valves are?
What is your opinion on the Phobos incident?
And finally can you provide a layman's explanation of the concept of Universal Acceleration in the context of Flat Earth Theory so that I can post it in the Faq?
Thanks
Sprinkler turn on/off valves will be inside, most likely by your main water shutoff. Outside could have a secondary valve.
There is a chance it’s located somewhere else. There should be a removable cover if it’s located behind a finished wall.
-
crouton. He is right. I too hope it makes a sense to you. 8)
-
crouton. He is right. I too hope it makes a sense to you. 8)
If it doesn't, you can tell me which part and I will try to explain it better.
Or if you have a problem/better explanation then just say it.
-
Can you explain why I automatically think there's a spambot on the loose whenever I see your sn and the title of this thread?
-
Can you explain why I automatically think there's a spambot on the loose whenever I see your sn and the title of this thread?
I don't know. I am on this site for the first time and I didn't even know that these threads happen often...
Also, would a bot reply?
-
Are you sure you're not a spambot looking for love on the FES?
-
Are you sure you're not a spambot looking for love on the FES?
I'm pretty sure but I could be wrong ;)
-
crouton. He is right. I too hope it makes a sense to you. 8)
If it doesn't, you can tell me which part and I will try to explain it better.
Or if you have a problem/better explanation then just say it.
I don't think I need an explanation and I think I've mentioned crouton, not to you. Even so thank you, at least you've tried to do something to explain me even it was not required. If I need it so I remind you.
-
A student with no canned fish recipies? Bot!
-
I'd love to ask you a question.
Can you please justify that Physics is 80% mathematics? What do you have to say to nominalists who present several strong arguments against this? What of, specifically, the arguments made by Field in Science Without Numbers? Where does this magic "80%" number come from, and what does it in actuality represent?
-
I'd love to ask you a question.
Can you please justify that Physics is 80% mathematics? What do you have to say to nominalists who present several strong arguments against this? What of, specifically, the arguments made by Field in Science Without Numbers? Where does this magic "80%" number come from, and what does it in actuality represent?
The 80% is more of a feeling than some test result or so. According to my experience and friends from higher semesters as well as professors I talked to, what we do most of the day is calculation. Be that solving differential equations or simpler problems, the vast majority of work is math.
That is because math is a tool which is mainly used to derive conclusions from known values.
As I said, math is pure logic, 1=1 is simply true, there are no conditions. Similarly nature is I guess per definition logic as well and physics is the study of nature. So the strong relationship between math and physics is obvious.
Personally I think there is an extreme misunderstanding about physics out there. People look to e.g. Neil DeGrasse Tyson (as I did) or Bill Nye or watch documentaries. But all they say is extremely boiled down and simplified. They tell you the conclusions and ideas that were inspired by long processes of actual experimentation and evaluation of test results but they couldn't explain the actual reasons even if the explanation took an entire week. Their job is more to inspire people, not to teach them.
I mean sure, stuff like the many worlds theory, Schrödingers cat, and so on is awesome to think about but that's not what physics/ science is about. No one knows what happens during the double slit experiment and the math only tells you what happens before and after. One can wonder if new universes are created each time there is a seemingly random event but that's not the point. Science and especially physics is about explaining phenomena but also about simply predicting outcomes from given circumstances.
But that doesn't mean that it is boring. I personally find it extremely fascinating that you can more or less describe a (simplified version of) an entire storm system with an equation that fits in one line. (In the end it is more complicated than that but still).
I guess what I am trying to say is that yes, Physics is mostly math.
-
I'd love to ask you a question.
Can you please justify that Physics is 80% mathematics? What do you have to say to nominalists who present several strong arguments against this? What of, specifically, the arguments made by Field in Science Without Numbers? Where does this magic "80%" number come from, and what does it in actuality represent?
The 80% is more of a feeling than some test result or so. According to my experience and friends from higher semesters as well as professors I talked to, what we do most of the day is calculation. Be that solving differential equations or simpler problems, the vast majority of work is math.
That is because math is a tool which is mainly used to derive conclusions from known values.
As I said, math is pure logic, 1=1 is simply true, there are no conditions.
Actually, this depends on axiom. It is entirely conceivable to choose a set of axioms in which 1 != 1. The conditions are the axioms of choice.
Similarly nature is I guess per definition logic as well and physics is the study of nature. So the strong relationship between math and physics is obvious.
My argument is that such a tie is not obvious, especially given one can perform physics without the use of mathematics.
Personally I think there is an extreme misunderstanding about physics out there. People look to e.g. Neil DeGrasse Tyson (as I did) or Bill Nye or watch documentaries. But all they say is extremely boiled down and simplified. They tell you the conclusions and ideas that were inspired by long processes of actual experimentation and evaluation of test results but they couldn't explain the actual reasons even if the explanation took an entire week. Their job is more to inspire people, not to teach them.
I agree very strongly with this.
I mean sure, stuff like the many worlds theory, Schrödingers cat, and so on is awesome to think about but that's not what physics/ science is about. No one knows what happens during the double slit experiment and the math only tells you what happens before and after. One can wonder if new universes are created each time there is a seemingly random event but that's not the point. Science and especially physics is about explaining phenomena but also about simply predicting outcomes from given circumstances.
In actuality, science isn't about explaining phenomena. What you are thinking about is aristotelian science which predates the scientific revolution. Science aims to describe. One cannot find 'true cause.'
But that doesn't mean that it is boring. I personally find it extremely fascinating that you can more or less describe a (simplified version of) an entire storm system with an equation that fits in one line. (In the end it is more complicated than that but still).
I guess what I am trying to say is that yes, Physics is mostly math.
If physics is mostly math, how can it be performed without use of math? I am happy to provide justification here if necessary, just ask.
-
I'd love to ask you a question.
Can you please justify that Physics is 80% mathematics? What do you have to say to nominalists who present several strong arguments against this? What of, specifically, the arguments made by Field in Science Without Numbers? Where does this magic "80%" number come from, and what does it in actuality represent?
The 80% is more of a feeling than some test result or so. According to my experience and friends from higher semesters as well as professors I talked to, what we do most of the day is calculation. Be that solving differential equations or simpler problems, the vast majority of work is math.
That is because math is a tool which is mainly used to derive conclusions from known values.
As I said, math is pure logic, 1=1 is simply true, there are no conditions.
Actually, this depends on axiom. It is entirely conceivable to choose a set of axioms in which 1 != 1. The conditions are the axioms of choice.
Similarly nature is I guess per definition logic as well and physics is the study of nature. So the strong relationship between math and physics is obvious.
My argument is that such a tie is not obvious, especially given one can perform physics without the use of mathematics.
Personally I think there is an extreme misunderstanding about physics out there. People look to e.g. Neil DeGrasse Tyson (as I did) or Bill Nye or watch documentaries. But all they say is extremely boiled down and simplified. They tell you the conclusions and ideas that were inspired by long processes of actual experimentation and evaluation of test results but they couldn't explain the actual reasons even if the explanation took an entire week. Their job is more to inspire people, not to teach them.
I agree very strongly with this.
I mean sure, stuff like the many worlds theory, Schrödingers cat, and so on is awesome to think about but that's not what physics/ science is about. No one knows what happens during the double slit experiment and the math only tells you what happens before and after. One can wonder if new universes are created each time there is a seemingly random event but that's not the point. Science and especially physics is about explaining phenomena but also about simply predicting outcomes from given circumstances.
In actuality, science isn't about explaining phenomena. What you are thinking about is aristotelian science which predates the scientific revolution. Science aims to describe. One cannot find 'true cause.'
But that doesn't mean that it is boring. I personally find it extremely fascinating that you can more or less describe a (simplified version of) an entire storm system with an equation that fits in one line. (In the end it is more complicated than that but still).
I guess what I am trying to say is that yes, Physics is mostly math.
If physics is mostly math, how can it be performed without use of math? I am happy to provide justification here if necessary, just ask.
Yeah, how do you perform Physics without math? I personally think that math also serves as a kind of guide for when my intuition is no longer capable of working with physics problems...
-
Yeah, how do you perform Physics without math?
That's all going to come down to how you define maths. Something like, say, graph theory isn't going to have much in common in terms of proof structure with the equation-focused topics people typically think of, but that doesn't mean it's not maths, though some people do make that argument.
At a certain point you end up saying either that maths and logic are synonyms, or that they're not. If they are then you need it for physics, or indeed anything. If they're not, then you can do plenty of physics without it (though you may not be able to be as detailed, it's certainly possible) but also you're working with a limited definition of what maths is.
The Cavendish experiment was mentioned earlier. While that was intended just to measure the gravitational constant, it gets used as evidence for it, and even if you take out all figures you can still use the experiment to observe and draw a conclusion. Maths helps formalise it so you can make numerical predictions, but you'd be able to conclude that there was a force at play without a single number. Whether or not that's still mathematical comes down to your definition.
-
Yeah, how do you perform Physics without math?
That's all going to come down to how you define maths. Something like, say, graph theory isn't going to have much in common in terms of proof structure with the equation-focused topics people typically think of, but that doesn't mean it's not maths, though some people do make that argument.
At a certain point you end up saying either that maths and logic are synonyms, or that they're not. If they are then you need it for physics, or indeed anything. If they're not, then you can do plenty of physics without it (though you may not be able to be as detailed, it's certainly possible) but also you're working with a limited definition of what maths is.
The Cavendish experiment was mentioned earlier. While that was intended just to measure the gravitational constant, it gets used as evidence for it, and even if you take out all figures you can still use the experiment to observe and draw a conclusion. Maths helps formalise it so you can make numerical predictions, but you'd be able to conclude that there was a force at play without a single number. Whether or not that's still mathematical comes down to your definition.
I think that at some point just thinking about whats going on without any maths will not be possible anymore. For example (I don't pretend to understand anything about quantum physics) a tutor (guy who has his masters and helps lower semester students) told me that he had to calculate something about particles in an abstract space that does not have a clear metric. This more or less means that in that space you can no longer define the meaning of e.g. if one particle is to the left or right of another. Don't ask me the context, he talked about it for a few minutes but I didn't really understand any of it. But he basically wanted to make a point about how abstract mathematics has application and it wasn't just some special case. I mean that is literally something you can not per definition imagine. Same as higher dimentional math.
Complex numbers for example can be illustrated but they do not really represent a physical thing (Try imagining a two dimensional angle). But lots of physical problems depend on them.
You can sure think about Physics and let your intuition play with it, but that is not really something you can get a job with later on, is it?
-
I have recently purchased a new house. Do you know where the sprinkler turn on valves are?
99% of the time these are in your laundry room or where the hot water heater is.
-
I think that at some point just thinking about whats going on without any maths will not be possible anymore. For example (I don't pretend to understand anything about quantum physics) a tutor (guy who has his masters and helps lower semester students) told me that he had to calculate something about particles in an abstract space that does not have a clear metric. This more or less means that in that space you can no longer define the meaning of e.g. if one particle is to the left or right of another. Don't ask me the context, he talked about it for a few minutes but I didn't really understand any of it. But he basically wanted to make a point about how abstract mathematics has application and it wasn't just some special case. I mean that is literally something you can not per definition imagine. Same as higher dimentional math.
Complex numbers for example can be illustrated but they do not really represent a physical thing (Try imagining a two dimensional angle). But lots of physical problems depend on them.
You can sure think about Physics and let your intuition play with it, but that is not really something you can get a job with later on, is it?
You'd be surprised what you can get an intuition for. Changing metrics, once you get the gist, is surprisingly simple. If you know what a metric is, then you know that in a space without one there's no good way to list distances between locations in that space. To use complex numbers as another example, normally we can easily say when one number is bigger than another, but how does that translate to complex numbers? Is 14+i bigger or smaller than 18i? It's an obvious conclusion, coming strictly from equation-free logic, that runs counter to what might be consider intuitive but it's still an easy answer. Really it comes down to what your intuition is based on, if you think from first principles or have some things set in stone and work based on that (which... honestly that's probably the difference between mathematicians and physicists) and explaining that is... ambiguous as to whether or not it actually needs any maths. The definitions might be mathematical, but that's heading for a tautology.
I definitely agree that maths is what makes a lot of things workable, but I also think it gets used inaccurately in some discussions, and it's hard to pinpoint exactly why because it tends to be because people alternate between two definitions. On one hand saying that maths is necessary for any science to take place because you need the basic concepts of positive, negative etc plus the logical aspects of it to draw any conclusions (all very true) but then only acknowledging that maths is present if it's of the narrower, equation-centric variety. The former is necessary, the latter is sufficient but not inherently necessary to developing an outline of a model. The model will just lack a few details.
-
How much wood could a woodchuck chuck if a woodchuck could chuck wood?
-
How much wood could a woodchuck chuck if a woodchuck could chuck wood?
Are you measuring location or velocity?
-
How much wood could a woodchuck chuck if a woodchuck could chuck wood?
"If a woodchuck could chuck wood he could chuck about 700 pounds of wood ;)".
An Answer to the Question? (https://www.thoughtco.com/tongue-twisters-woodchuck-1210400)
Unanswered questions don't always sit right with people.
In 1988, state wildlife conservation officer Richard Thomas of New York attempted to figure out just how much a wood a woodchuck could chuck, if a woodchuck was capable of doing so and had the inclination.
Woodchucks don't actually chuck (throw) wood, of course, but, since they are a burrowing rodent, they do know well how to toss around some dirt.
So Thomas took to calculating a typical size of a woodchuck burrow, which consists of three rooms and a tunnel leading to it that is roughly six inches wide and extends 25 to 30 feet. He determined that 35 square feet of soil needed to be excavated to create such a burrow. Knowing that a cubic foot of soil weighs 20 pounds, he calculated that a woodchuck can chuck 700 pounds of dirt. This calculation led Mr. Thomas, by extension, to an answer to what was then an 85-year-old question. Should a woodchuck be so inclined, Thomas concluded, he could chuck about 700 pounds of wood as well.
-
I'd love to ask you a question.
Can you please justify that Physics is 80% mathematics? What do you have to say to nominalists who present several strong arguments against this? What of, specifically, the arguments made by Field in Science Without Numbers? Where does this magic "80%" number come from, and what does it in actuality represent?
The 80% is more of a feeling than some test result or so. According to my experience and friends from higher semesters as well as professors I talked to, what we do most of the day is calculation. Be that solving differential equations or simpler problems, the vast majority of work is math.
That is because math is a tool which is mainly used to derive conclusions from known values.
As I said, math is pure logic, 1=1 is simply true, there are no conditions.
Actually, this depends on axiom. It is entirely conceivable to choose a set of axioms in which 1 != 1. The conditions are the axioms of choice.
Similarly nature is I guess per definition logic as well and physics is the study of nature. So the strong relationship between math and physics is obvious.
My argument is that such a tie is not obvious, especially given one can perform physics without the use of mathematics.
Personally I think there is an extreme misunderstanding about physics out there. People look to e.g. Neil DeGrasse Tyson (as I did) or Bill Nye or watch documentaries. But all they say is extremely boiled down and simplified. They tell you the conclusions and ideas that were inspired by long processes of actual experimentation and evaluation of test results but they couldn't explain the actual reasons even if the explanation took an entire week. Their job is more to inspire people, not to teach them.
I agree very strongly with this.
I mean sure, stuff like the many worlds theory, Schrödingers cat, and so on is awesome to think about but that's not what physics/ science is about. No one knows what happens during the double slit experiment and the math only tells you what happens before and after. One can wonder if new universes are created each time there is a seemingly random event but that's not the point. Science and especially physics is about explaining phenomena but also about simply predicting outcomes from given circumstances.
In actuality, science isn't about explaining phenomena. What you are thinking about is aristotelian science which predates the scientific revolution. Science aims to describe. One cannot find 'true cause.'
But that doesn't mean that it is boring. I personally find it extremely fascinating that you can more or less describe a (simplified version of) an entire storm system with an equation that fits in one line. (In the end it is more complicated than that but still).
I guess what I am trying to say is that yes, Physics is mostly math.
If physics is mostly math, how can it be performed without use of math? I am happy to provide justification here if necessary, just ask.
Yeah, how do you perform Physics without math? I personally think that math also serves as a kind of guide for when my intuition is no longer capable of working with physics problems...
Field did so by axiomizing Newton's laws with no reference to functions or numbers. He started with Hilberts Axioms and added extra relations between points to do the work formally done by calculation and vector fields - and he did so without use of hilbert's abstract points and instead had them refer to real physical points.
From there he used this to show that every fact provable in 'normal physics' is also provable in his system, making mathematical physics a conservative extension of his theory - and thus a useful fiction.
-
I'll pull out the book when I get home and go over the first part of this if you'd like. It has been a moment and I'm afraid I'll misrepresent it.
-
How much wood could a woodchuck chuck if a woodchuck could chuck wood?
Metric or Imperial woodchuck?
-
How much wood could a woodchuck chuck if a woodchuck could chuck wood?
Metric or Imperial woodchuck?
The one I posted was an imperial one with inches, feet and pounds - a good old backwardwoods American one.
-
It hurts when I pee,
what should I do?
Stop peeing.
-
Too many answers are being provided by people who are not the OP. This is your final warning to cut it out.
And OP, there are several wisdoms that you have ignored. It is your obligation to answer each and every one of them. This is your final warning. Answer the questions. WE NEED YOUR ANSWERS.
As moderators, we really shouldn't issue joke warnings :).
-
As moderators, we really shouldn't issue joke warnings :).
I thought we were in CN :-[ I deleted it
-
Is diet soda healthier than regular soda?
-
Is diet soda healthier than regular soda?
I am conducting a study on this subject. I estimate that I've drank 14600 liters of soda over the last 20 years. I'll let you know if I get cancer.
-
I'd love to ask you a question.
Can you please justify that Physics is 80% mathematics? What do you have to say to nominalists who present several strong arguments against this? What of, specifically, the arguments made by Field in Science Without Numbers? Where does this magic "80%" number come from, and what does it in actuality represent?
The 80% is more of a feeling than some test result or so. According to my experience and friends from higher semesters as well as professors I talked to, what we do most of the day is calculation. Be that solving differential equations or simpler problems, the vast majority of work is math.
That is because math is a tool which is mainly used to derive conclusions from known values.
As I said, math is pure logic, 1=1 is simply true, there are no conditions.
Actually, this depends on axiom. It is entirely conceivable to choose a set of axioms in which 1 != 1. The conditions are the axioms of choice.
Similarly nature is I guess per definition logic as well and physics is the study of nature. So the strong relationship between math and physics is obvious.
My argument is that such a tie is not obvious, especially given one can perform physics without the use of mathematics.
Personally I think there is an extreme misunderstanding about physics out there. People look to e.g. Neil DeGrasse Tyson (as I did) or Bill Nye or watch documentaries. But all they say is extremely boiled down and simplified. They tell you the conclusions and ideas that were inspired by long processes of actual experimentation and evaluation of test results but they couldn't explain the actual reasons even if the explanation took an entire week. Their job is more to inspire people, not to teach them.
I agree very strongly with this.
I mean sure, stuff like the many worlds theory, Schrödingers cat, and so on is awesome to think about but that's not what physics/ science is about. No one knows what happens during the double slit experiment and the math only tells you what happens before and after. One can wonder if new universes are created each time there is a seemingly random event but that's not the point. Science and especially physics is about explaining phenomena but also about simply predicting outcomes from given circumstances.
In actuality, science isn't about explaining phenomena. What you are thinking about is aristotelian science which predates the scientific revolution. Science aims to describe. One cannot find 'true cause.'
But that doesn't mean that it is boring. I personally find it extremely fascinating that you can more or less describe a (simplified version of) an entire storm system with an equation that fits in one line. (In the end it is more complicated than that but still).
I guess what I am trying to say is that yes, Physics is mostly math.
If physics is mostly math, how can it be performed without use of math? I am happy to provide justification here if necessary, just ask.
Yeah, how do you perform Physics without math? I personally think that math also serves as a kind of guide for when my intuition is no longer capable of working with physics problems...
Field did so by axiomizing Newton's laws with no reference to functions or numbers. He started with Hilberts Axioms and added extra relations between points to do the work formally done by calculation and vector fields - and he did so without use of hilbert's abstract points and instead had them refer to real physical points.
From there he used this to show that every fact provable in 'normal physics' is also provable in his system, making mathematical physics a conservative extension of his theory - and thus a useful fiction.
Ok, I guess this is somewhat out of my league yet, the deeper mathematics is something I will go through in future semsters, so I can't really say much about that. However as far as I understand it, there roughly are two "directions" that physics is "performed" in. One is experimental physics which more or less is what the name implies. The other is theoretical physics which is something I guess your statement would fit in. Here the point is no longer to figure out the value of G so to say but it is more about focusing on the mathematical side of physics. It is way more mathematics heavy than experimental physics.
I guess I also just want to clarify what I mean by "mathematics". Usually people think of the stuff you do at school when talking about math, which is doing calculations, solving functions etc. That is however more of a useful but small part of the thing. I'd be an idiot if I were to pretend to understand what mathematics is in its entirety but a big part is proving statements from given circumstances (as you already said) and building a sort of structure which can describe and handle patterns, relations etc. To be honest, I can't remember the last time I saw an actual number being used in a math lecture.
Also, to be honest I am kind of impressed that you seem to know quite a lot about mathematics (provided you understand what you wrote ;) , which I certainly do not entirely). What is your motivation to believe in the flat earth, if you do? Math isn't easy for anyone, so you must have put a lot of effort into learning it. With all the logic thinking necessary, I would think that you should also have a similar approach to physics and the real world in which (not only by my judgement) a flat earth would not be possible.
BTW, sorry for not responding for some time, the semester has started.
-
That's okay, da_mo_is_here. You don't have to reply right away on a forum.
-
If you met a man in the street who said all the garage mechanics in the world were Moomins, and you were a garage mechanic, you may stop and have an amusing time with this character, but if from across the street came the call, that for all who were interested there was a game of Murder-ball about to start, would you follow that call or continue the fruitless task of debating madness?
I ask this philosophical question as we play were-penguin here, a game of such complicity and complexity that it has up to this time driven two members of this society completely mad, others have left never to return, it is not for the faint hearted or feeble of mind and as such new blood is continually needed to replace the fallen and the weak.
Heed the call from across the street, test your metal in the true colosseum, or continue to futilely bang your head against those who may from time to time sound like intelligent humans but are in fact Moomins spouting from a scientific dictionary.
-
If you met a man in the street who said all the garage mechanics in the world were Moomins, and you were a garage mechanic, you may stop and have an amusing time with this character, but if from across the street came the call, that for all who were interested there was a game of Murder-ball about to start, would you follow that call or continue the fruitless task of debating madness?
I ask this philosophical question as we play were-penguin here, a game of such complicity and complexity that it has up to this time driven two members of this society completely mad, others have left never to return, it is not for the faint hearted or feeble of mind and as such new blood is continually needed to replace the fallen and the weak.
Heed the call from across the street, test your metal in the true colosseum, or continue to futilely bang your head against those who may from time to time sound like intelligent humans but are in fact Moomins spouting from a scientific dictionary.
I'm not sure if I correctly understand what you wrote, are you asking why I am even trying to talk to people from this site?
It is because I want to understand why people believe in this stuff even though there is clear evidence and logic that the earth is not flat. Sure, some people believe it because of their religion I guess and I can't do anything about that. But also a lot seem to believe it because it somehow makes sense to them.
I am sick of this "battle" where each side just throws half thought up arguments into the world, thinking they are oh so smart and the others oh so dumb and stupid. Insulting people and calling them idiots might make you feel better about yourself but it sure as hell does not solve any problems or persuade people. I want to have a conversation, where everyone gets to talk and has a chance to go beyond their own ignorance. I guess I see myself in a position where I can honestly say that I know the earth to be round not because someone told me but because the evidence that I know leaves me no choice but to believe it. If you give a hundred people the exact same information, they should all derive the exact same conclusion. That is obviously not the case, maybe because not everyone has the same info or maybe because people are too biased. I want to at least provide the missing info.
Maybe I am too young and naive to realize that I am wasting my time, but from my point of view it seems that too many people drift into this stuff which is very bad. So I at least try to help it. If in the end I make no progress then at least I tried and you have no excuse when you don't know something that I could have told you.
-
So, you won't be playing were-penguin then?
-
So, you won't be playing were-penguin then?
I don't really know what that is. What do you mean by that?
-
This.
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=80667.0
-
Easy on da_mo. He's just in first year physics. He doesn't yet have the intense training in theoretical physics that it takes to play were-penguin.
-
This.
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=80667.0
Haha, I'm intrigued but I think I'll have to pass.
-
top or bottom?
-
top or bottom?
top.
-
Well, since there aren't many responses, let me ask you why you believe that the earth is flat.
What are your reasons? What evidence persuaded you and why don't you trust the evidence provided by more official sources?
-
This is the Lounge, if you want to talk about FE you can start a thread in FE General, or read one of the thousands of threads that already ask that question.
-
Alright da mo, I've got a question for you.
What are you intending to do with a physics degree?
-
Alright da mo, I've got a question for you.
What are you intending to do with a physics degree?
I'm not sure yet. If I make it to a Ph.D I guess I will do that. If I turn out to be good enough I will go into research hopefully. This is so far just a distant dream but I'd like to contribute to the advancement of nuclear fusion which seems like a ridiculously hard thing to do but is absolutely worth pursuing. If it proves that you can get energy out of it and if a few other things go right too then it is practically an infinite energy source.
-
This is the Lounge, if you want to talk about FE you can start a thread in FE General, or read one of the thousands of threads that already ask that question.
Oh ok, sorry.
-
Alright da mo, I've got a question for you.
What are you intending to do with a physics degree?
I'm not sure yet. If I make it to a Ph.D I guess I will do that. If I turn out to be good enough I will go into research hopefully. This is so far just a distant dream but I'd like to contribute to the advancement of nuclear fusion which seems like a ridiculously hard thing to do but is absolutely worth pursuing. If it proves that you can get energy out of it and if a few other things go right too then it is practically an infinite energy source.
Nice. I don't know much about pursuing careers in pure research. Is the idea of working at a university more appealing to you than working for an industry?
-
Alright da mo, I've got a question for you.
What are you intending to do with a physics degree?
I'm not sure yet. If I make it to a Ph.D I guess I will do that. If I turn out to be good enough I will go into research hopefully. This is so far just a distant dream but I'd like to contribute to the advancement of nuclear fusion which seems like a ridiculously hard thing to do but is absolutely worth pursuing. If it proves that you can get energy out of it and if a few other things go right too then it is practically an infinite energy source.
Nice. I don't know much about pursuing careers in pure research. Is the idea of working at a university more appealing to you than working for an industry?
I guess so. The last thing I want to do is help some random car company design a slightly more aerodynamic car. That might be appealing for some people but not for me. I want to at least help make the world a better place by discovering/developing new and better ways of doing important things (such as fusion). That is my main motivation.
-
The last thing I want to do is help some random car company design a slightly more aerodynamic car.
Increase efficiency, reduce pollution.
Why do you hate the Planet? ;D
-
The last thing I want to do is help some random car company design a slightly more aerodynamic car.
Increase efficiency, reduce pollution.
Why do you hate the Planet? ;D
What I meant is that I don't want to be the bitch of some industry giant so that he can make millions off of a minor improvement. I mean look at Tesla for example. Love them or hate them, they have already revolutionized the automotive industry. They have made few giant steps in little time while other companies just go for many tiny steps that take forever. They make a lot of profit that way but that only benefits them, not everyone else.
A slightly better car is good of course, but if it is just a little bit better while it could be revolutionary then it becomes something bad.
-
The days of a lone genius making giant strides by picking low hanging fruit are long gone. These days progress is made incrementally by an army of engineers and scientists.
-
Well, since there aren't many responses, let me ask you why you believe that the earth is flat.
Pro-tip: hardly anyone here actually thinks the earth is flat. It's more of a LARP thing.
In fact most regulars got bored of talking about the shape of the planet, and are here for the banter.
-
Well, since there aren't many responses, let me ask you why you believe that the earth is flat.
Pro-tip: hardly anyone here actually thinks the earth is flat. It's more of a LARP thing.
In fact most regulars got bored of talking about the shape of the planet, and are here for the banter.
In a nutshell.
-
The days of a lone genius making giant strides by picking low hanging fruit are long gone. These days progress is made incrementally by an army of engineers and scientists.
Yeah, but it feels like the size of those increments is chosen so that profit is maximized, but not progress. Before Tesla became a thing everyone thought that electric and self driving cars are half a decade away. They more or less did it in 10 years. And they got most big companies to follow them.
To get back to the example of fusion, no single company has the resources to fund a project like ITER. Even ITER is financed by several countries at once. There are no small steps that will get you from todays nuclear reactors to a fusion reactor (that outputs energy), you are forced to make big steps and focus on innovation.
Speaking of geniuses being rare, I might be wrong about this but it at least feels like that has always been the case. These household names like Newton, Edison, Planck, Heisenberg, Einstein, etc. are pretty spread out over the past centuries. On the other side, maybe we are getting so advanced as a species that at some point no individual can be capable of having the necessary understanding to change the world is a huge way.
-
Well, since there aren't many responses, let me ask you why you believe that the earth is flat.
Pro-tip: hardly anyone here actually thinks the earth is flat. It's more of a LARP thing.
In fact most regulars got bored of talking about the shape of the planet, and are here for the banter.
Oh, that's good to know.
-
Crabby Jim has been posting that message for years now. He's lying.
-
Before Tesla became a thing everyone thought that electric and self driving cars are half a decade away. They more or less did it in 10 years.
If I am to believe your assertion, Tesla really seems to have stifled the electric car industry! ;D
To the greater point you were making, I think it's important not to confuse scientific innovation with commercial development and exploitation. The innovations aren't dictated by profits. The implementations of them, possibly.
-
Crabby Jim has been posting that message for years now. He's lying.
I'm sorry, I forgot you prefer to be known as a "flat earth enthusiast". Though you don't seem to show much enthusiasm for it these days. :P
-
Crabby Jim has been posting that message for years now. He's lying.
I'm sorry, I forgot you prefer to be known as a "flat earth enthusiast". Though you don't seem to show much enthusiasm for it these days. :P
I've never referred to myself as a "flat earth enthusiast", I don't know why you are making stuff up! Also, I'm not enthused about posting in the upper forums, that part is true. It's the same shit posted over and over by a new batch angry globularists all the time. They'll post their lists of questions that have been discussed hundreds of times already, and then declare victory when no one can bother to reply, then the permanoobs have a circlejerk to celebrate.
-
If I smacked you in the face today, would you feel it tomorrow?
-
The days of a lone genius making giant strides by picking low hanging fruit are long gone. These days progress is made incrementally by an army of engineers and scientists.
....Before Tesla became a thing everyone thought that electric and self driving cars are half a decade away. They more or less did it in 10 years. And they got most big companies to follow them.
...
People thought self driving cars were 5 years away and Tesla did it in 10?
-
Well, since there aren't many responses, let me ask you why you believe that the earth is flat.
Pro-tip: hardly anyone here actually thinks the earth is flat. It's more of a LARP thing.
In fact most regulars got bored of talking about the shape of the planet, and are here for the banter.
Too right Mrs Crab person. Most of the complete flat earth nutters only post in the flat earth believers section. Its well worth a look.
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=3575.0;topicseen