Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 47

Thread: Why does mathematics works?

  1. Top | #11
    Mazzie Daius fromderinside's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Oregon's westernmost
    Posts
    11,178
    Archived
    18,213
    Total Posts
    29,391
    Rep Power
    54
    Wow. The MC was an agreement between King and lords not the people of GB.

    As for current events: Is Commons going to vote to remain with CM? They're not going on 5 week time off before Queen's speech? Snap elections will take place? GB won't exit CM without a deal?

    Actually I think the CM will extend parting just to keep from having to see their economies stressed by a decline in business because of a British recession.

    You tell me what is and what will change. I think you can sense where I stand here by the questions I posed.

    No sir, it's you who don't know what You're talking about. Few in Parliament, or GB for that matter, care what those in France think beyond whether to change the names of Brittany and Normandy. British folk want to leave the CM because of Germans pushing CM on immigration into a declining european workforce. Rather be racist than employed apparently.

    People in Europe, including Britain, should read, understand and adhere to the economics of Paul Krugman.

    Personally I think CM countries should require at least three language competency, one of being English the language of commerce, and a two year assimilation study program for all immigrants. I'm saying this because I believe that the order of people speaking are English, Mandarin, Hindi, Spanish, French, Arabic.

    With the majority of those entering being from either arabic speaking countries or minor language countries it seems a good buffer for CM countries to do these things to encourage assimilation.
    Last edited by fromderinside; 09-05-2019 at 07:23 PM.

  2. Top | #12
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Location
    seattle
    Posts
    4,924
    Rep Power
    12
    Quote Originally Posted by Speakpigeon View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by fromderinside View Post
    As for facts being changed by perceptions of many you should consider GBs history rather than the discomfort they feel in making it. You are wrong on your perception of change.
    You don't know what you are talking about.
    EB
    Maybe he does not know what he is talking about, but he is certainly talking about what he is knowing about.

    Again, the word law in science does not mean something immutable. Newton's laws of motion work within a bounded space of conditions. Law simply means a model that is so well tested in usage within specified conditions that it is accepted as true within conditions without debate.

  3. Top | #13
    Mazzie Daius fromderinside's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Oregon's westernmost
    Posts
    11,178
    Archived
    18,213
    Total Posts
    29,391
    Rep Power
    54
    ^^^ that.

  4. Top | #14
    Contributor
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    South Carolina
    Posts
    5,293
    Archived
    14,025
    Total Posts
    19,318
    Rep Power
    60

  5. Top | #15
    Mazzie Daius fromderinside's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Oregon's westernmost
    Posts
    11,178
    Archived
    18,213
    Total Posts
    29,391
    Rep Power
    54
    ^^^ too

  6. Top | #16
    Contributor Speakpigeon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Paris, France, EU
    Posts
    6,286
    Archived
    3,662
    Total Posts
    9,948
    Rep Power
    46
    What Is a Law in Science?
    Laws are descriptions — often mathematical descriptions — of natural phenomenon; for example, Newton's Law of Gravity. These laws simply describe the observation.
    Do laws change?
    Just because an idea becomes a law, doesn't mean that it can't be changed through scientific research in the future. The use of the word "law" by laymen and scientists differ. When most people talk about a law, they mean something that is absolute. A scientific law is much more flexible. It can have exceptions, be proven wrong or evolve over time, according to the University of California.

    "A good scientist is one who always asks the question, 'How can I show myself wrong?'" Coppinger said. "In regards to the Law of Gravity or the Law of Independent Assortment, continual testing and observations have 'tweaked' these laws. Exceptions have been found. For example, Newton's Law of Gravity breaks down when looking at the quantum (sub-atomic) level. Mendel's Law of Independent Assortment breaks down when traits are "linked" on the same chromosome."
    "Laws are descriptions (...) of natural phenomenon".

    "Just because an idea becomes a law, doesn't mean that it can't be changed through scientific research in the future".

    Is that clear enough?

    I rest my case.
    EB

  7. Top | #17
    Mazzie Daius fromderinside's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Oregon's westernmost
    Posts
    11,178
    Archived
    18,213
    Total Posts
    29,391
    Rep Power
    54
    idea not equal description.

    Case dismissed.

  8. Top | #18
    Contributor
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    South Carolina
    Posts
    5,293
    Archived
    14,025
    Total Posts
    19,318
    Rep Power
    60
    A law undergoes immense scientific scrutiny. That’s not to say a law cannot be proven false, but in the case of Newton’s laws of motion, the scientific community has not stamped it as false; in fact, it’s still a law! We just recognize the scope of its applicability now.

  9. Top | #19
    Contributor Speakpigeon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Paris, France, EU
    Posts
    6,286
    Archived
    3,662
    Total Posts
    9,948
    Rep Power
    46
    Quote Originally Posted by fast View Post
    A law undergoes immense scientific scrutiny. That’s not to say a law cannot be proven false, but in the case of Newton’s laws of motion, the scientific community has not stamped it as false; in fact, it’s still a law! We just recognize the scope of its applicability now.
    That's sophistry and equivocation. Scientists following Newton thought of the law of gravitation as universal and correct. Mercury put a foot into that.

    Whether scientists today keep referring to the same formula as a law is entirely irrelevant. This formula is no longer seen as the universal and correct formula to describe gravitation because this characterisation is now that of Einstein's relativist formula.

    You may still call it a law but it's no longer the law that applies to the same thing. It was characterised as universal, that is to say as applying to the entire universe, and it is no longer because Relativity says that there are regions of the universe where Newton's formula doesn't apply. And in fact, the relativist formula will be better everywhere. Scientists are currently able to measure the inaccuracy of Newton's formula already in the Earth region.

    Newton's law of universal gravitation
    Newton's law of universal gravitation states that every particle attracts every other particle in the universe with a force which is directly proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between their centers.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton...al_gravitation
    EB

  10. Top | #20
    Mazzie Daius fromderinside's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Oregon's westernmost
    Posts
    11,178
    Archived
    18,213
    Total Posts
    29,391
    Rep Power
    54
    What I grant you is that Newton's laws don't describe what we can measure as well as does the theory of general relativity. All that means is that the mechanics of the presently observable universe can be more precisely measured. That does not make the relations between Force, mass, and acceleration devised by Newton false. When scientists and engineers use Newtons theory to measure requirements and trajectories of devices traveling between bodies one cannot say the theory is false. Theory has come to be a process where one set of generalizations are superseded by another set generalizations when more information comes available. It is not a win lose proposition. In fact units of measure which are derived using Newton's laws are still set as standards of measurement for weight, mass, length and local time.

    Mankind still uses systems of measurement dating to egyption times before any theory of relations between object and motion were derived. Not even those those measure are falsified.

    You should back off from a philosophical principle that the advocate of that principle came to reject. It makes you look, well, stuck in a world where scientific method is frowned upon.

    Scientific_method

    The scientific method is an empirical method of acquiring knowledge that has characterized the development of science since at least the 17th century. It involves careful observation, applying rigorous skepticism about what is observed, given that cognitive assumptions can distort how one interprets the observation. It involves formulating hypotheses, via induction, based on such observations; experimental and measurement-based testing of deductions drawn from the hypotheses; and refinement (or elimination) of the hypotheses based on the experimental findings.
    Theories are targets for experimental test. And as theories come to comver more information it will be superceded by the more powerful theory. That does not mean previous theory is wrong. Usually it means there is more infomatin that can be explained by another formulation.
    Last edited by fromderinside; 09-09-2019 at 05:46 AM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •