4 ms·

I liked the original post at https://www.motionmountain.net/9lines.html https://www.motionmountain.net/9lines.html , except for a couple of words I point out

I liked the original post at https://www.motionmountain.net/9lines.html https://www.motionmountain.net/9lines.html , except for a couple of words I point out below. After reading your comment I looked at the original post with a view to identifying its basic perspective. https://www.motionmountain.net/9lines.html https://www.motionmountain.net/9lines.html was clearly not written by a physicist, as it includes the line "The nine lines contain physics, chemistry, material science, biology, medicine, geology, astronomy, engineering and computer science. It appears that the nine lines contain all natural sciences!" which is not a physics type of statement. Obviously, physics contains everything, just the way "bits contain all software". Observing that doesn't make someone a programmer, in my opinion. Why stop at physics, chemistry, material science, biology, medicine, geology, astronomy, engineering and computer science (list provided). A physicist could correctly state: "Physics contains all aspects of chemistry, Earth science / Geology, Oceanography/ marine science, Meteorology, astronomy, biology, molecular interactions, physiological mechanisms, evolution, botany / plant science(s), Zoology, Ecology, etc." However, it is kind of like saying text comprises all of the words of Shakespeare. Well, sure, but that doesn't mean that you get Shakespearean criticism from writing a text editor. It's two different fields. The author has an interesting outsider view shown in https://www.motionmountain.net/9lines.html https://www.motionmountain.net/9lines.html However, the lines "Isn't this incredible?" and "Enjoy searching for answers." are sarcastic and disrespectful to the work actual physicists put into their discipline for decades and the author should be ashamed for this tone. If they want to be a physicist they should observe and learn from physicists at every opportunity. (I'm not one, by the way.) Ignoring the rude sarcasm, we can correctly summarize the document as "Physics governs everything. Period." It's not a physics document. It is (or rather ought to be) a tribute to physicists and the unbreakable laws of physics.

PrettyPebble 5y ago
Thank you for your candid feedback. I belong to those working in physics for decades. To avoid such misunderstandings in future, I improved a few lines. One remark: the text is really meant to state that the specific 9 lines given do contain all of physics (and thus all other natural sciences). The argument differs from "words and Shakespeare": the nine line describe nature exactly, within measurement precision. That is the central content of that page. It is not that physics governs everything. It is that those specific 9 lines describe all measurements, all observations, and contain all equations. This is a much stronger statement.

PrettyPebble 5y ago

Thank you for your candid feedback. I belong to those working in physics for decades. To avoid such misunderstandings in future, I improved a few lines. One remark: the text is really meant to state that the specific 9 lines given do contain all of physics (and thus all other natural sciences). The argument differs from "words and Shakespeare": the nine line describe nature exactly, within measurement precision. That is the central content of that page. It is not that physics governs everything. It is that those specific 9 lines describe all measurements, all observations, and contain all equations. This is a much stronger statement.