4 ms·

It's a lovely mysterious incantation, like the (worked-over by Heaviside) Maxwell equations. But (used much like Latin), they don't speak to any human beings ex

It's a lovely mysterious incantation, like the (worked-over by Heaviside) Maxwell equations. But (used much like Latin), they don't speak to any human beings except those that have the leisure and capacity to learn all that math ... and then to acquire a voluminous mental store of evidence to apply it to. Real truth is plain. Newton's equations are approachable, closer to human experience and comprehension. Feynman's diagrams, perhaps a step in the right direction. True? Science is not math; it has no proofs. A 'theory' is the expression of a model that's stood the test of time - but one piece of evidence can force it to be re-built. Science forces us to search for and adapt to the new. Feynman said, "When someone says ‘science teaches such and such’, he is using the word incorrectly. Science doesn’t teach it; experience teaches it."

qart 6y ago
> Science is not math; it has no proofs. A couple of the earliest things I recall proving in physics classes: 1. acceleration due to gravity on earth g is the same ~9.8 m/s² for all objects whose mass is negligible compared to the mass of the earth. 2. if it weren't for atmospheric drag, thrown projectiles fall at velocities much smaller than the escape velocity would trace a parabolic curve. In what sense were these not proofs?
- j7ake 6y ago
  Your statements about the world provide a theory that can be used to do an experiment to support or disprove your theory, but there is nothing that can prove that theory like proofs in a mathematical theorem. Scientific theories are used to support a wide range of phenomenon, but are later superceded by better theorems that can encompass more phenomena. Experimental evidence can provide support for the theory, can disprove a theory, but cannot prove the theory. Unrelated to mathematical proofs, but there are counter examples for each of your statements. 1. The acceleration due to gravity on earth is not constant, it varies depending on location (easy to experimentally refute that it's not 9.8 everywhere). For example, being on mount everest versus at sea level in the Arctic would give different rates of acceleration. Adding a tilde in front of 9.8 m/s^2 doesn't help make the statement look like a proof. 2. Given that acceleration due to gravity is not constant, then the trajectory will no longer be a parabolic curve.
  - qart 6y ago
    This is bad-faith misreading. I never claimed that acceleration due to gravity is exactly the same at all points on earth. There are very small local variances, all accountable by known principles of classical mechanics. I never said or implied that adding a tilde in front of 9.8 m/s^2 helps make the statement look like a proof. I'm not interested in nitpicky arguments. Good bye.

qart 6y ago

> Science is not math; it has no proofs. A couple of the earliest things I recall proving in physics classes: 1. acceleration due to gravity on earth g is the same ~9.8 m/s² for all objects whose mass is negligible compared to the mass of the earth. 2. if it weren't for atmospheric drag, thrown projectiles fall at velocities much smaller than the escape velocity would trace a parabolic curve. In what sense were these not proofs?

j7ake 6y ago
Your statements about the world provide a theory that can be used to do an experiment to support or disprove your theory, but there is nothing that can prove that theory like proofs in a mathematical theorem. Scientific theories are used to support a wide range of phenomenon, but are later superceded by better theorems that can encompass more phenomena. Experimental evidence can provide support for the theory, can disprove a theory, but cannot prove the theory. Unrelated to mathematical proofs, but there are counter examples for each of your statements. 1. The acceleration due to gravity on earth is not constant, it varies depending on location (easy to experimentally refute that it's not 9.8 everywhere). For example, being on mount everest versus at sea level in the Arctic would give different rates of acceleration. Adding a tilde in front of 9.8 m/s^2 doesn't help make the statement look like a proof. 2. Given that acceleration due to gravity is not constant, then the trajectory will no longer be a parabolic curve.
- qart 6y ago
  This is bad-faith misreading. I never claimed that acceleration due to gravity is exactly the same at all points on earth. There are very small local variances, all accountable by known principles of classical mechanics. I never said or implied that adding a tilde in front of 9.8 m/s^2 helps make the statement look like a proof. I'm not interested in nitpicky arguments. Good bye.