Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #410654 > unrolled thread

Why should I learn mathematics to understand physics

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity

Contents

  Why should I learn mathematics to understand physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-23 17:27 -0600
    Re: Why should I learn mathematics to understand physics "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2017-02-23 19:23 -0800
    Re: Why should I learn mathematics to understand physics Serg Io <invliad@invalid.com> - 2017-02-23 21:35 -0600
      Re: Why should I learn mathematics to understand physics benj <nobody@yahoo.com> - 2017-02-24 06:20 -0500
        Re: Why should I learn mathematics to understand physics Serg Io <invliad@invalid.com> - 2017-02-24 06:22 -0600
    Re: Why should I learn mathematics to understand physics mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-02-23 23:02 -0800
    Re: Why should I learn mathematics to understand physics benj <nobody@yahoo.com> - 2017-02-24 05:28 -0500
      Re: Why should I learn mathematics to understand physics jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-02-24 20:00 +0000
        Re: Why should I learn mathematics to understand physics benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2017-02-25 03:19 -0500
          Re: Why should I learn mathematics to understand physics jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-02-25 17:48 +0000
            Re: Why should I learn mathematics to understand physics Bret Noss <osotr@rwtropsws.org> - 2017-02-25 18:41 +0000
              Re: Why should I learn mathematics to understand physics jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-02-25 19:07 +0000
                Re: Why should I learn mathematics to understand physics Bret Noss <osotr@rwtropsws.org> - 2017-02-25 19:35 +0000
        Re: Why should I learn mathematics to understand physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-25 13:34 -0600
          Re: Why should I learn mathematics to understand physics benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-02-25 17:01 -0500
            Re: Why should I learn mathematics to understand physics jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-02-25 22:21 +0000
              Re: Why should I learn mathematics to understand physics benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-02-25 17:56 -0500
                Re: Why should I learn mathematics to understand physics jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-02-26 01:22 +0000
                  Re: Why should I learn mathematics to understand physics benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-02-25 21:18 -0500
                    Re: Why should I learn mathematics to understand physics jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-02-26 02:58 +0000
            Re: Why should I learn mathematics to understand physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-26 15:44 -0600
              Re: Why should I learn mathematics to understand physics benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2017-02-26 22:45 -0500
                Re: Why should I learn mathematics to understand physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-27 07:22 -0600
                  Re: Why should I learn mathematics to understand physics benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-02-27 16:53 -0500
      Re: Why should I learn mathematics to understand physics JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-02-24 14:41 -0800
    Re: Why should I learn mathematics to understand physics Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-24 03:45 -0800
    Re: Why should I learn mathematics to understand physics Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-24 03:48 -0800
      Re: Why should I learn mathematics to understand physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-24 07:33 -0600
        Re: Why should I learn mathematics to understand physics Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-24 06:50 -0800
          Re: Why should I learn mathematics to understand physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-24 10:09 -0600
    Re: Why should I learn mathematics to understand physics kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-02-24 06:27 -0800
      Re: Why should I learn mathematics to understand physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-24 09:14 -0600
        Re: Why should I learn mathematics to understand physics mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-02-24 07:42 -0800
        Re: Why should I learn mathematics to understand physics kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-02-24 12:44 -0800
          Re: Why should I learn mathematics to understand physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-25 13:34 -0600
          Re: Why should I learn mathematics to understand physics moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-02-27 16:35 +0000
      Re: Why should I learn mathematics to understand physics moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-02-24 17:40 +0000
        Re: Why should I learn mathematics to understand physics kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-02-24 12:45 -0800
          Re: Why should I learn mathematics to understand physics moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-02-27 07:10 +0000
    Why should I learn mathematics to understand physics matt.rush200@outlook.com - 2017-02-24 07:11 -0800
      Re: Why should I learn mathematics to understand physics Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-02-25 20:08 +1100
        Re: Why should I learn mathematics to understand physics matt.rush200@outlook.com - 2017-02-25 02:47 -0800
          Re: Why should I learn mathematics to understand physics Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@hotspam.not> - 2017-02-25 12:55 +0100
            Re: Why should I learn mathematics to understand physics John Heath <heathjohn2@gmail.com> - 2017-02-25 11:36 -0800
            Re: Why should I learn mathematics to understand physics Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-02-26 15:01 +1100
          Re: Why should I learn mathematics to understand physics Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-02-26 00:12 +1100
            Re: Why should I learn mathematics to understand physics Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-02-26 15:06 +1100
              Re: Why should I learn mathematics to understand physics matt.rush200@outlook.com - 2017-02-26 07:13 -0800
                Re: Why should I learn mathematics to understand physics Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-02-27 12:59 +1100
              Re: Why should I learn mathematics to understand physics Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-02-27 01:08 +0000
                Re: Why should I learn mathematics to understand physics Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-02-27 13:00 +1100
                  Re: Why should I learn mathematics to understand physics Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-02-27 07:15 +0000
                    Re: Why should I learn mathematics to understand physics Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-02-27 19:58 +1100
            Re: Why should I learn mathematics to understand physics matt.rush200@outlook.com - 2017-02-26 01:08 -0800
              Re: Why should I learn mathematics to understand physics Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-02-26 20:43 +1100
                Re: Why should I learn mathematics to understand physics matt.rush200@outlook.com - 2017-02-26 06:26 -0800
                  Re: Why should I learn mathematics to understand physics "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-26 08:57 -0800
                    Re: Why should I learn mathematics to understand physics "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-26 09:15 -0800
                      Re: Why should I learn mathematics to understand physics "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-26 09:37 -0800
                        Re: Why should I learn mathematics to understand physics "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-26 09:49 -0800
                          Re: Why should I learn mathematics to understand physics "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-26 10:00 -0800
                            Re: Why should I learn mathematics to understand physics "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-26 10:12 -0800
                            Re: Why should I learn mathematics to understand physics "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-26 10:18 -0800
                              Re: Why should I learn mathematics to understand physics "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-26 10:59 -0800
                  Re: Why should I learn mathematics to understand physics Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-02-27 09:57 +1100
                    Re: Why should I learn mathematics to understand physics matt.rush200@outlook.com - 2017-02-27 00:42 -0800
                      Re: Why should I learn mathematics to understand physics Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-02-27 20:10 +1100
                        Re: Why should I learn mathematics to understand physics matt.rush200@outlook.com - 2017-02-27 12:05 -0800
                          Re: Why should I learn mathematics to understand physics Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-02-28 12:24 +1100
                            Re: Why should I learn mathematics to understand physics matt.rush200@outlook.com - 2017-02-27 18:11 -0800
                          Re: Why should I learn mathematics to understand physics matt.rush200@outlook.com - 2017-02-27 18:00 -0800

Page 1 of 4  [1] 2 3 4  Next page →

#410654 — Why should I learn mathematics to understand physics

I've heard repeatedly from some of the more ignorant posters on this 
group that mathematics is not central for physics. Usually they say this 
to have an excuse for avoiding something they find difficult.

Mathematics has several functions for a physicist:

-- It's a way of doing deductive reasoning rigidly correctly, because 
the rules of algebra and calculus enforce logical consistency. So 
dipping into mathematics and then doing algebraic steps is a way of 
"thinking clearly".

-- It's a kind of language, just like a string of letters like "apple" 
brings to mind a concept in your mind. Some kinds of equations are 
recognizable and give a physicists an immediate conceptual connotation. 
This is probably the most mysterious part for people not so conversant 
in the language. There are certain simple things that people can learn 
quickly, like "steeply falling/rising" or "approaching an asymptote" or 
"oscillating" or "vanishes here and there" or "proportional to" and the 
like.

-- It's a remarkable fact that, if you can write the laws of physics 
that control a physical system as a set of equations, then the solutions 
of those equations will *automatically* tell you the allowed behaviors 
that system will exhibit. The solutions will often be functions of 
variables, which may mean a trajectory, or the way that a system evolves 
with time, or something else.

-- The problem with ordinary language is that words sometimes have extra 
baggage, so that unwanted associations clutter things up. Mathematics 
has a kind of leanness about it, where it means only what it says and 
nothing more, which is great for precise descriptions. This is really 
important for new things for which we don't really have good words. A 
good example of this is "spin", a term used in quantum mechanics to 
describe a trait of electrons, say. In ordinary usage this conveys that 
there is some point on the body that is going in a circle around an 
axis; but this connotation doesn't actually apply to electrons, which as 
far as we can tell don't have any spatial extent. But the mathematical 
description of spin conveys exactly what it does mean for electrons, 
without spurious and incorrect implications.

-- The test of physical hypotheses is comparison with experiment. But 
two completely different hypotheses might have the same *qualitative* 
description for something happening. Where the power to discriminate 
between these two competing hypotheses is in a *numerical* computation 
of a *quantitative* prediction. The measurement produces a NUMBER. It is 
easy to compare this NUMBER with a NUMBER that comes from a quantitative 
prediction. It either matches (within precision) or it doesn't. A good 
example was Newtonian gravity vs. Einsteinian relativity. Both predict 
the bending of light around a stellar object, but they predict different 
numbers for how much. It has been measurement data then that ruled out 
Newtonian gravity even though qualitatively it got right the fact that 
it bends.

-- 
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#410672

On Thursday, February 23, 2017 at 3:27:06 PM UTC-8, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> I've heard repeatedly from some of the more ignorant posters on this 
> group that mathematics is not central for physics. Usually they say this 
> to have an excuse for avoiding something they find difficult.
> 
> Mathematics has several functions for a physicist:
> 
> -- It's a way of doing deductive reasoning rigidly correctly, because 
> the rules of algebra and calculus enforce logical consistency. So 
> dipping into mathematics and then doing algebraic steps is a way of 
> "thinking clearly".
> 
> -- It's a kind of language, just like a string of letters like "apple" 
> brings to mind a concept in your mind. Some kinds of equations are 
> recognizable and give a physicists an immediate conceptual connotation. 
> This is probably the most mysterious part for people not so conversant 
> in the language. There are certain simple things that people can learn 
> quickly, like "steeply falling/rising" or "approaching an asymptote" or 
> "oscillating" or "vanishes here and there" or "proportional to" and the 
> like.
> 
> -- It's a remarkable fact that, if you can write the laws of physics 
> that control a physical system as a set of equations, then the solutions 
> of those equations will *automatically* tell you the allowed behaviors 
> that system will exhibit. The solutions will often be functions of 
> variables, which may mean a trajectory, or the way that a system evolves 
> with time, or something else.
> 
> -- The problem with ordinary language is that words sometimes have extra 
> baggage, so that unwanted associations clutter things up. Mathematics 
> has a kind of leanness about it, where it means only what it says and 
> nothing more, which is great for precise descriptions. This is really 
> important for new things for which we don't really have good words. A 
> good example of this is "spin", a term used in quantum mechanics to 
> describe a trait of electrons, say. In ordinary usage this conveys that 
> there is some point on the body that is going in a circle around an 
> axis; but this connotation doesn't actually apply to electrons, which as 
> far as we can tell don't have any spatial extent. But the mathematical 
> description of spin conveys exactly what it does mean for electrons, 
> without spurious and incorrect implications.
> 
> -- The test of physical hypotheses is comparison with experiment. But 
> two completely different hypotheses might have the same *qualitative* 
> description for something happening. Where the power to discriminate 
> between these two competing hypotheses is in a *numerical* computation 
> of a *quantitative* prediction. The measurement produces a NUMBER. It is 
> easy to compare this NUMBER with a NUMBER that comes from a quantitative 
> prediction. It either matches (within precision) or it doesn't. A good 
> example was Newtonian gravity vs. Einsteinian relativity. Both predict 
> the bending of light around a stellar object, but they predict different 
> numbers for how much. It has been measurement data then that ruled out 
> Newtonian gravity even though qualitatively it got right the fact that 
> it bends.
> 
> -- 
> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Some have that physics as the state of reality altogether 
is very much a "mathematical existence", or "existence 
mathematically".

This is phrased variously as some "mathematical universe 
hypothesis", as from the physics side, or "mathematical 
platonism", for the concreteness or "real existence" of 
mathematical objects, from the mathematical side.

Either of these are aspects of some "Theory of Everything", 
"Ultimate Theory", "Grand Unified Theory" - which would be 
a logically mathematical scientific theory of nature.

Philosophically, any or all of these are compatible with 
theological interpretations, of most any sort (for the 
physics as scientific, as about the ubiquitous success 
of mathematics, and any higher power as "better" at logic).  

Concepts in physics can be approached thematically then 
qualitatively, but the qualitative is eventually qualitative, 
and nothing in physics is anti-mathematical.

So, not only is mathematics inherent in mathematical physics, 
and the anti-mathematical is anathema to science, but some 
have that the neatest, simplest, clearest organization of 
the concrete realm is of a constant, consistent, and complete 
mathematical theory of everything (scientific, strong platonism).

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#410674

On 2/23/2017 5:27 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> I've heard repeatedly from some of the more ignorant posters on this
> group that mathematics is not central for physics. Usually they say this
> to have an excuse for avoiding something they find difficult.
>

there is Math with out physics. (real physics that is)

there is no physics without Math.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#410696

On 02/23/2017 10:35 PM, Serg Io wrote:
> On 2/23/2017 5:27 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> I've heard repeatedly from some of the more ignorant posters on this
>> group that mathematics is not central for physics. Usually they say this
>> to have an excuse for avoiding something they find difficult.
>>
>
> there is Math with out physics. (real physics that is)
>
> there is no physics without Math.
>
Nonsense. There is no law that says mathematics is the only language 
that can be used in physics. In fact is isn't always used. But for some 
things it's just more compact and convenient, not philosophically 
essential. the problem is that today those who think they are doing 
physics are really doing mathematics and pretend it physics.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#410701

On 2/24/2017 5:20 AM, benj wrote:
> On 02/23/2017 10:35 PM, Serg Io wrote:
>> On 2/23/2017 5:27 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>> I've heard repeatedly from some of the more ignorant posters on this
>>> group that mathematics is not central for physics. Usually they say this
>>> to have an excuse for avoiding something they find difficult.
>>>
>>
>> there is Math with out physics. (real physics that is)
>>
>> there is no physics without Math.
>>
> Nonsense. There is no law that says mathematics is the only language
> that can be used in physics. In fact is isn't always used. But for some
> things it's just more compact and convenient, not philosophically
> essential. the problem is that today those who think they are doing
> physics are really doing mathematics and pretend it physics.

I cant think of any part of (real) physics that is not described by math.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#410686

Because after some learning mathematics
I can notice, that your moronic physics 
has rejected its oldest and second best
working part.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#410695

On 02/23/2017 06:27 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote a bunch of blather as usual:
> I've heard repeatedly from some of the more ignorant posters on this
> group that mathematics is not central for physics. Usually they say this
> to have an excuse for avoiding something they find difficult.
>
> Mathematics has several functions for a physicist:

Snip blather.

1. Mathematics is PURE fantasy. It has NO basis in reality.

2. Any connection between mathematics and reality is simply assumed 
dogma. Mathematics is not more real than reality.

3. theories may be written in the language of mathematics but theories 
are NEVER correct. Science is NEVER "settled" (No matter what the 
"climate change" fraudsters may tell you)

4. Using mathematics in science to deduce new theories is CERTAIN to 
fail because it has been mathematically proved that there are things 
that are true in mathematics that mathematics CANNOT prove to be true!

5. Even a computer is limited in complexity level of mathematics it can 
calculate leaving vast areas of "truth" untouched.

6. The analogy between mathematics and reality can be useful but it is 
by no means certain. EACH analogy must be tested to see if it is true. 
There is NO guarantee it will be and in fact often it is NOT!

7. And lastly, education experts have determined that nobody ever uses 
mathematics once they get out of school which is why it is being removed 
from the curriculum just like cursive writing which texting has rendered 
useless.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#410766

In sci.physics benj <nobody@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On 02/23/2017 06:27 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote a bunch of blather as usual:
>> I've heard repeatedly from some of the more ignorant posters on this
>> group that mathematics is not central for physics. Usually they say this
>> to have an excuse for avoiding something they find difficult.
>>
>> Mathematics has several functions for a physicist:
> 
> Snip blather.
> 
> 1. Mathematics is PURE fantasy. It has NO basis in reality.
> 
> 2. Any connection between mathematics and reality is simply assumed 
> dogma. Mathematics is not more real than reality.
> 
> 3. theories may be written in the language of mathematics but theories 
> are NEVER correct. Science is NEVER "settled" (No matter what the 
> "climate change" fraudsters may tell you)
> 
> 4. Using mathematics in science to deduce new theories is CERTAIN to 
> fail because it has been mathematically proved that there are things 
> that are true in mathematics that mathematics CANNOT prove to be true!
> 
> 5. Even a computer is limited in complexity level of mathematics it can 
> calculate leaving vast areas of "truth" untouched.
> 
> 6. The analogy between mathematics and reality can be useful but it is 
> by no means certain. EACH analogy must be tested to see if it is true. 
> There is NO guarantee it will be and in fact often it is NOT!
> 
> 7. And lastly, education experts have determined that nobody ever uses 
> mathematics once they get out of school which is why it is being removed 
> from the curriculum just like cursive writing which texting has rendered 
> useless.

Does benj really believe this inane crap or is he just posting it to
get his troll fix?
 

-- 
Jim Pennino

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#410808

On 02/24/2017 03:00 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> In sci.physics benj <nobody@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On 02/23/2017 06:27 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote a bunch of blather as usual:
>>> I've heard repeatedly from some of the more ignorant posters on this
>>> group that mathematics is not central for physics. Usually they say this
>>> to have an excuse for avoiding something they find difficult.
>>>
>>> Mathematics has several functions for a physicist:
>>
>> Snip blather.
>>
>> 1. Mathematics is PURE fantasy. It has NO basis in reality.
>>
>> 2. Any connection between mathematics and reality is simply assumed
>> dogma. Mathematics is not more real than reality.
>>
>> 3. theories may be written in the language of mathematics but theories
>> are NEVER correct. Science is NEVER "settled" (No matter what the
>> "climate change" fraudsters may tell you)
>>
>> 4. Using mathematics in science to deduce new theories is CERTAIN to
>> fail because it has been mathematically proved that there are things
>> that are true in mathematics that mathematics CANNOT prove to be true!
>>
>> 5. Even a computer is limited in complexity level of mathematics it can
>> calculate leaving vast areas of "truth" untouched.
>>
>> 6. The analogy between mathematics and reality can be useful but it is
>> by no means certain. EACH analogy must be tested to see if it is true.
>> There is NO guarantee it will be and in fact often it is NOT!
>>
>> 7. And lastly, education experts have determined that nobody ever uses
>> mathematics once they get out of school which is why it is being removed
>> from the curriculum just like cursive writing which texting has rendered
>> useless.
>
> Does benj really believe this inane crap or is he just posting it to
> get his troll fix?
>
>
If you are so smart, chimp, then why don't you show us what you think is 
wrong and show me the error of my ways. Bet you can't.

(PS. Be smart like HVAC and keep your mouth shut and talk about sex or 
ghosts instead so you don't get your ass handed to you)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#410840

In sci.physics benj <nobody@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 02/24/2017 03:00 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>> In sci.physics benj <nobody@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> On 02/23/2017 06:27 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote a bunch of blather as usual:
>>>> I've heard repeatedly from some of the more ignorant posters on this
>>>> group that mathematics is not central for physics. Usually they say this
>>>> to have an excuse for avoiding something they find difficult.
>>>>
>>>> Mathematics has several functions for a physicist:
>>>
>>> Snip blather.
>>>
>>> 1. Mathematics is PURE fantasy. It has NO basis in reality.
>>>
>>> 2. Any connection between mathematics and reality is simply assumed
>>> dogma. Mathematics is not more real than reality.
>>>
>>> 3. theories may be written in the language of mathematics but theories
>>> are NEVER correct. Science is NEVER "settled" (No matter what the
>>> "climate change" fraudsters may tell you)
>>>
>>> 4. Using mathematics in science to deduce new theories is CERTAIN to
>>> fail because it has been mathematically proved that there are things
>>> that are true in mathematics that mathematics CANNOT prove to be true!
>>>
>>> 5. Even a computer is limited in complexity level of mathematics it can
>>> calculate leaving vast areas of "truth" untouched.
>>>
>>> 6. The analogy between mathematics and reality can be useful but it is
>>> by no means certain. EACH analogy must be tested to see if it is true.
>>> There is NO guarantee it will be and in fact often it is NOT!
>>>
>>> 7. And lastly, education experts have determined that nobody ever uses
>>> mathematics once they get out of school which is why it is being removed
>>> from the curriculum just like cursive writing which texting has rendered
>>> useless.
>>
>> Does benj really believe this inane crap or is he just posting it to
>> get his troll fix?
>>
>>
> If you are so smart, chimp, then why don't you show us what you think is 
> wrong and show me the error of my ways. Bet you can't.

What is wrong is either you are a raving kook or a troll desperate
for attention.


-- 
Jim Pennino

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#410844

jimp wrote:

>>> Does benj really believe this inane crap or is he just posting it to
>>> get his troll fix?
>>>
>> If you are so smart, chimp, then why don't you show us what you think
>> is wrong and show me the error of my ways. Bet you can't.
> 
> What is wrong is either you are a raving kook or a troll desperate for
> attention.

You are incapable. Seemingly a half-engineer.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#410855

In sci.physics Bret Noss <osotr@rwtropsws.org> wrote:
> jimp wrote:
> 
>>>> Does benj really believe this inane crap or is he just posting it to
>>>> get his troll fix?
>>>>
>>> If you are so smart, chimp, then why don't you show us what you think
>>> is wrong and show me the error of my ways. Bet you can't.
>> 
>> What is wrong is either you are a raving kook or a troll desperate for
>> attention.
> 
> You are incapable. Seemingly a half-engineer.

Yet another nym to kill file.


-- 
Jim Pennino

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#410861

jimp wrote:

> In sci.physics Bret Noss <osotr@rwtropsws.org> wrote:
>> jimp wrote:
>> 
>>>>> Does benj really believe this inane crap or is he just posting it to
>>>>> get his troll fix?
>>>>>
>>>> If you are so smart, chimp, then why don't you show us what you think
>>>> is wrong and show me the error of my ways. Bet you can't.
>>> 
>>> What is wrong is either you are a raving kook or a troll desperate for
>>> attention.
>> 
>> You are incapable. Seemingly a half-engineer.
> 
> Yet another nym to kill file.

You can't even put two tensors together.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#410858

On 2/24/2017 2:00 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> In sci.physics benj <nobody@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On 02/23/2017 06:27 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote a bunch of blather as usual:
>>> I've heard repeatedly from some of the more ignorant posters on this
>>> group that mathematics is not central for physics. Usually they say this
>>> to have an excuse for avoiding something they find difficult.
>>>
>>> Mathematics has several functions for a physicist:
>>
>> Snip blather.
>>
>> 1. Mathematics is PURE fantasy. It has NO basis in reality.
>>
>> 2. Any connection between mathematics and reality is simply assumed
>> dogma. Mathematics is not more real than reality.
>>
>> 3. theories may be written in the language of mathematics but theories
>> are NEVER correct. Science is NEVER "settled" (No matter what the
>> "climate change" fraudsters may tell you)
>>
>> 4. Using mathematics in science to deduce new theories is CERTAIN to
>> fail because it has been mathematically proved that there are things
>> that are true in mathematics that mathematics CANNOT prove to be true!
>>
>> 5. Even a computer is limited in complexity level of mathematics it can
>> calculate leaving vast areas of "truth" untouched.
>>
>> 6. The analogy between mathematics and reality can be useful but it is
>> by no means certain. EACH analogy must be tested to see if it is true.
>> There is NO guarantee it will be and in fact often it is NOT!
>>
>> 7. And lastly, education experts have determined that nobody ever uses
>> mathematics once they get out of school which is why it is being removed
>> from the curriculum just like cursive writing which texting has rendered
>> useless.
>
> Does benj really believe this inane crap or is he just posting it to
> get his troll fix?

Oh, it's just Ben stirring the pot. He's past the point of saying 
anything useful.


-- 
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#410879

On 2/25/2017 2:34 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 2/24/2017 2:00 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>> In sci.physics benj <nobody@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> On 02/23/2017 06:27 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote a bunch of blather as usual:
>>>> I've heard repeatedly from some of the more ignorant posters on this
>>>> group that mathematics is not central for physics. Usually they say
>>>> this
>>>> to have an excuse for avoiding something they find difficult.
>>>>
>>>> Mathematics has several functions for a physicist:
>>>
>>> Snip blather.
>>>
>>> 1. Mathematics is PURE fantasy. It has NO basis in reality.
>>>
>>> 2. Any connection between mathematics and reality is simply assumed
>>> dogma. Mathematics is not more real than reality.
>>>
>>> 3. theories may be written in the language of mathematics but theories
>>> are NEVER correct. Science is NEVER "settled" (No matter what the
>>> "climate change" fraudsters may tell you)
>>>
>>> 4. Using mathematics in science to deduce new theories is CERTAIN to
>>> fail because it has been mathematically proved that there are things
>>> that are true in mathematics that mathematics CANNOT prove to be true!
>>>
>>> 5. Even a computer is limited in complexity level of mathematics it can
>>> calculate leaving vast areas of "truth" untouched.
>>>
>>> 6. The analogy between mathematics and reality can be useful but it is
>>> by no means certain. EACH analogy must be tested to see if it is true.
>>> There is NO guarantee it will be and in fact often it is NOT!
>>>
>>> 7. And lastly, education experts have determined that nobody ever uses
>>> mathematics once they get out of school which is why it is being removed
>>> from the curriculum just like cursive writing which texting has rendered
>>> useless.
>>
>> Does benj really believe this inane crap or is he just posting it to
>> get his troll fix?
>
> Oh, it's just Ben stirring the pot. He's past the point of saying
> anything useful.


Isn't it funny that when people are ignorant and prejudiced about things 
they always thing that people telling them the truth about them are insane?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#410880

In sci.physics benj <benj@nobody.net> wrote:
> On 2/25/2017 2:34 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> On 2/24/2017 2:00 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>> In sci.physics benj <nobody@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>> On 02/23/2017 06:27 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote a bunch of blather as usual:
>>>>> I've heard repeatedly from some of the more ignorant posters on this
>>>>> group that mathematics is not central for physics. Usually they say
>>>>> this
>>>>> to have an excuse for avoiding something they find difficult.
>>>>>
>>>>> Mathematics has several functions for a physicist:
>>>>
>>>> Snip blather.
>>>>
>>>> 1. Mathematics is PURE fantasy. It has NO basis in reality.
>>>>
>>>> 2. Any connection between mathematics and reality is simply assumed
>>>> dogma. Mathematics is not more real than reality.
>>>>
>>>> 3. theories may be written in the language of mathematics but theories
>>>> are NEVER correct. Science is NEVER "settled" (No matter what the
>>>> "climate change" fraudsters may tell you)
>>>>
>>>> 4. Using mathematics in science to deduce new theories is CERTAIN to
>>>> fail because it has been mathematically proved that there are things
>>>> that are true in mathematics that mathematics CANNOT prove to be true!
>>>>
>>>> 5. Even a computer is limited in complexity level of mathematics it can
>>>> calculate leaving vast areas of "truth" untouched.
>>>>
>>>> 6. The analogy between mathematics and reality can be useful but it is
>>>> by no means certain. EACH analogy must be tested to see if it is true.
>>>> There is NO guarantee it will be and in fact often it is NOT!
>>>>
>>>> 7. And lastly, education experts have determined that nobody ever uses
>>>> mathematics once they get out of school which is why it is being removed
>>>> from the curriculum just like cursive writing which texting has rendered
>>>> useless.
>>>
>>> Does benj really believe this inane crap or is he just posting it to
>>> get his troll fix?
>>
>> Oh, it's just Ben stirring the pot. He's past the point of saying
>> anything useful.
> 
> 
> Isn't it funny that when people are ignorant and prejudiced about things 
> they always thing that people telling them the truth about them are insane?
 
Isn't it funny that when trolls are recognized as such the ad hominems gush? 
 

-- 
Jim Pennino

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#410886

On 2/25/2017 5:21 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> In sci.physics benj <benj@nobody.net> wrote:
>> On 2/25/2017 2:34 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>> On 2/24/2017 2:00 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>> In sci.physics benj <nobody@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 02/23/2017 06:27 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote a bunch of blather as usual:
>>>>>> I've heard repeatedly from some of the more ignorant posters on this
>>>>>> group that mathematics is not central for physics. Usually they say
>>>>>> this
>>>>>> to have an excuse for avoiding something they find difficult.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Mathematics has several functions for a physicist:
>>>>>
>>>>> Snip blather.
>>>>>
>>>>> 1. Mathematics is PURE fantasy. It has NO basis in reality.
>>>>>
>>>>> 2. Any connection between mathematics and reality is simply assumed
>>>>> dogma. Mathematics is not more real than reality.
>>>>>
>>>>> 3. theories may be written in the language of mathematics but theories
>>>>> are NEVER correct. Science is NEVER "settled" (No matter what the
>>>>> "climate change" fraudsters may tell you)
>>>>>
>>>>> 4. Using mathematics in science to deduce new theories is CERTAIN to
>>>>> fail because it has been mathematically proved that there are things
>>>>> that are true in mathematics that mathematics CANNOT prove to be true!
>>>>>
>>>>> 5. Even a computer is limited in complexity level of mathematics it can
>>>>> calculate leaving vast areas of "truth" untouched.
>>>>>
>>>>> 6. The analogy between mathematics and reality can be useful but it is
>>>>> by no means certain. EACH analogy must be tested to see if it is true.
>>>>> There is NO guarantee it will be and in fact often it is NOT!
>>>>>
>>>>> 7. And lastly, education experts have determined that nobody ever uses
>>>>> mathematics once they get out of school which is why it is being removed
>>>>> from the curriculum just like cursive writing which texting has rendered
>>>>> useless.
>>>>
>>>> Does benj really believe this inane crap or is he just posting it to
>>>> get his troll fix?
>>>
>>> Oh, it's just Ben stirring the pot. He's past the point of saying
>>> anything useful.
>>
>>
>> Isn't it funny that when people are ignorant and prejudiced about things
>> they always thing that people telling them the truth about them are insane?
>
> Isn't it funny that when trolls are recognized as such the ad hominems gush?
>
Isn't it funny when stalkers follow you all over the net because they 
are so obsessed with you. Chimp's obsession with my greatness is 
understandable and excused, though.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#410894

In sci.physics benj <benj@nobody.net> wrote:
> On 2/25/2017 5:21 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>> In sci.physics benj <benj@nobody.net> wrote:
>>> On 2/25/2017 2:34 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>> On 2/24/2017 2:00 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>> In sci.physics benj <nobody@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On 02/23/2017 06:27 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote a bunch of blather as usual:
>>>>>>> I've heard repeatedly from some of the more ignorant posters on this
>>>>>>> group that mathematics is not central for physics. Usually they say
>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>> to have an excuse for avoiding something they find difficult.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Mathematics has several functions for a physicist:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Snip blather.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 1. Mathematics is PURE fantasy. It has NO basis in reality.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 2. Any connection between mathematics and reality is simply assumed
>>>>>> dogma. Mathematics is not more real than reality.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 3. theories may be written in the language of mathematics but theories
>>>>>> are NEVER correct. Science is NEVER "settled" (No matter what the
>>>>>> "climate change" fraudsters may tell you)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 4. Using mathematics in science to deduce new theories is CERTAIN to
>>>>>> fail because it has been mathematically proved that there are things
>>>>>> that are true in mathematics that mathematics CANNOT prove to be true!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 5. Even a computer is limited in complexity level of mathematics it can
>>>>>> calculate leaving vast areas of "truth" untouched.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 6. The analogy between mathematics and reality can be useful but it is
>>>>>> by no means certain. EACH analogy must be tested to see if it is true.
>>>>>> There is NO guarantee it will be and in fact often it is NOT!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 7. And lastly, education experts have determined that nobody ever uses
>>>>>> mathematics once they get out of school which is why it is being removed
>>>>>> from the curriculum just like cursive writing which texting has rendered
>>>>>> useless.
>>>>>
>>>>> Does benj really believe this inane crap or is he just posting it to
>>>>> get his troll fix?
>>>>
>>>> Oh, it's just Ben stirring the pot. He's past the point of saying
>>>> anything useful.
>>>
>>>
>>> Isn't it funny that when people are ignorant and prejudiced about things
>>> they always thing that people telling them the truth about them are insane?
>>
>> Isn't it funny that when trolls are recognized as such the ad hominems gush?
>>
> Isn't it funny when stalkers follow you all over the net because they 
> are so obsessed with you. Chimp's obsession with my greatness is 
> understandable and excused, though.
 
Isn't it funny trolls have a hyper-inflated view of their worth?

 

-- 
Jim Pennino

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#410896

On 2/25/2017 8:22 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> In sci.physics benj <benj@nobody.net> wrote:
>> On 2/25/2017 5:21 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>> In sci.physics benj <benj@nobody.net> wrote:
>>>> On 2/25/2017 2:34 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>>> On 2/24/2017 2:00 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>>> In sci.physics benj <nobody@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 02/23/2017 06:27 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote a bunch of blather as usual:
>>>>>>>> I've heard repeatedly from some of the more ignorant posters on this
>>>>>>>> group that mathematics is not central for physics. Usually they say
>>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>> to have an excuse for avoiding something they find difficult.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Mathematics has several functions for a physicist:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Snip blather.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 1. Mathematics is PURE fantasy. It has NO basis in reality.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 2. Any connection between mathematics and reality is simply assumed
>>>>>>> dogma. Mathematics is not more real than reality.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 3. theories may be written in the language of mathematics but theories
>>>>>>> are NEVER correct. Science is NEVER "settled" (No matter what the
>>>>>>> "climate change" fraudsters may tell you)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 4. Using mathematics in science to deduce new theories is CERTAIN to
>>>>>>> fail because it has been mathematically proved that there are things
>>>>>>> that are true in mathematics that mathematics CANNOT prove to be true!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 5. Even a computer is limited in complexity level of mathematics it can
>>>>>>> calculate leaving vast areas of "truth" untouched.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 6. The analogy between mathematics and reality can be useful but it is
>>>>>>> by no means certain. EACH analogy must be tested to see if it is true.
>>>>>>> There is NO guarantee it will be and in fact often it is NOT!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 7. And lastly, education experts have determined that nobody ever uses
>>>>>>> mathematics once they get out of school which is why it is being removed
>>>>>>> from the curriculum just like cursive writing which texting has rendered
>>>>>>> useless.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Does benj really believe this inane crap or is he just posting it to
>>>>>> get his troll fix?
>>>>>
>>>>> Oh, it's just Ben stirring the pot. He's past the point of saying
>>>>> anything useful.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Isn't it funny that when people are ignorant and prejudiced about things
>>>> they always thing that people telling them the truth about them are insane?
>>>
>>> Isn't it funny that when trolls are recognized as such the ad hominems gush?
>>>
>> Isn't it funny when stalkers follow you all over the net because they
>> are so obsessed with you. Chimp's obsession with my greatness is
>> understandable and excused, though.
>
> Isn't it funny trolls have a hyper-inflated view of their worth?

Funny? Is HVAC funny? Yeah, I guess he is. Are you funny? No. I think 
mostly you shout at kids to get off your lawn.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#410897

In sci.physics benj <benj@nobody.net> wrote:
> On 2/25/2017 8:22 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>> In sci.physics benj <benj@nobody.net> wrote:
>>> On 2/25/2017 5:21 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>> In sci.physics benj <benj@nobody.net> wrote:
>>>>> On 2/25/2017 2:34 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/24/2017 2:00 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>>>> In sci.physics benj <nobody@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 02/23/2017 06:27 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote a bunch of blather as usual:
>>>>>>>>> I've heard repeatedly from some of the more ignorant posters on this
>>>>>>>>> group that mathematics is not central for physics. Usually they say
>>>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>>> to have an excuse for avoiding something they find difficult.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Mathematics has several functions for a physicist:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Snip blather.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 1. Mathematics is PURE fantasy. It has NO basis in reality.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 2. Any connection between mathematics and reality is simply assumed
>>>>>>>> dogma. Mathematics is not more real than reality.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 3. theories may be written in the language of mathematics but theories
>>>>>>>> are NEVER correct. Science is NEVER "settled" (No matter what the
>>>>>>>> "climate change" fraudsters may tell you)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 4. Using mathematics in science to deduce new theories is CERTAIN to
>>>>>>>> fail because it has been mathematically proved that there are things
>>>>>>>> that are true in mathematics that mathematics CANNOT prove to be true!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 5. Even a computer is limited in complexity level of mathematics it can
>>>>>>>> calculate leaving vast areas of "truth" untouched.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 6. The analogy between mathematics and reality can be useful but it is
>>>>>>>> by no means certain. EACH analogy must be tested to see if it is true.
>>>>>>>> There is NO guarantee it will be and in fact often it is NOT!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 7. And lastly, education experts have determined that nobody ever uses
>>>>>>>> mathematics once they get out of school which is why it is being removed
>>>>>>>> from the curriculum just like cursive writing which texting has rendered
>>>>>>>> useless.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Does benj really believe this inane crap or is he just posting it to
>>>>>>> get his troll fix?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Oh, it's just Ben stirring the pot. He's past the point of saying
>>>>>> anything useful.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Isn't it funny that when people are ignorant and prejudiced about things
>>>>> they always thing that people telling them the truth about them are insane?
>>>>
>>>> Isn't it funny that when trolls are recognized as such the ad hominems gush?
>>>>
>>> Isn't it funny when stalkers follow you all over the net because they
>>> are so obsessed with you. Chimp's obsession with my greatness is
>>> understandable and excused, though.
>>
>> Isn't it funny trolls have a hyper-inflated view of their worth?
> 
> Funny? Is HVAC funny? Yeah, I guess he is. Are you funny? No. I think 
> mostly you shout at kids to get off your lawn.

Get your troll fix yet?

 

-- 
Jim Pennino

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 4  [1] 2 3 4  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity

csiph-web