this thread is for Rpenner

Discussion in 'Physics & Math' started by Jason.Marshall, Dec 8, 2014.

  1. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,173
    Well, using a word like that in the wrong context, when writing about maths, is pretty fatal to the credibility of the writer.

    A basic knowledge of punctuation would also help your ability to communicate - and possibly to think as well. Clear communication requires clarity of thought: I find it helpful to my own thinking if I have to put my ideas into words for others to understand.
     
    Russ_Watters likes this.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Jason.Marshall Banned Banned

    Messages:
    654
    Perhaps you are correct but that does not change the accuracy of the calculations.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Russ_Watters Not a Trump supporter... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,051
    You need both to be able to publish. No editor will even read, much less publish an article that is badly written. Beyond that, as rpenner pointed out, the corrections are not accurate, only approximate.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Jason.Marshall Banned Banned

    Messages:
    654
    I agree this is why I said it was a work in progress this is a build up to a larger perspective I am working on so I decided to share my current progress, I did not deem this a finish product worthy of publishing.
     
  8. Jason.Marshall Banned Banned

    Messages:
    654
    Yet again you lack comprehension, but think what you like you are entitled to your opinion.
     
  9. OnlyMe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,914
    Does this mean that you are going to try and clean up the presentation? And incorporate corrections to the math.., which are important to a finished product?
     
  10. OnlyMe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,914
    What you have been presenting is largely incomprehensible, for most readers. Rpenner does at seem to be able to pull something out, to clarify.
     
  11. Jason.Marshall Banned Banned

    Messages:
    654
    yes
     
  12. Jason.Marshall Banned Banned

    Messages:
    654
    frac{Pi}{sqrt{pi *2}} = H

    (H*r)^2*2= A

    sqrt{(H*r) ^2*2} = SS

    SS= square side
    A= area of a circle
     
    Last edited: Dec 16, 2014
  13. Neddy Bate Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,121
    How about using the equation which describes the perimeter of a circle:
    r² = x² + y²

    And using the equation which describes the area of a rectangle:
    a = Δx * Δy

    And then simply summing up all of the areas of the rectangles which fit inside the perimeter of the circle.
     
  14. Jason.Marshall Banned Banned

    Messages:
    654
    Why not I don't see a problem with that as long as you can get the correct answer.
     
  15. OnlyMe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,914
    I had some problems when I first began studying geometry and algebra. Mainly because I saw the solutions without going through all the traditional steps. It was not until later that I understood, part of the purpose in "doing the math" is not just in arriving at the correct solution.., it is developing a way of thinking and problem solving that you don't always learn, taking short cuts or even sometimes non-traditional approaches. Which could have their place and even advantages and yet not teach the underlying problem solving aspect of the more traditional step by step approach.

    Again for emphasis: Sometimes the math is not about the answer, it is about learning a way of thinking and approaching the problem that will be useful later on.

    Did I garble that?
     
  16. Jason.Marshall Banned Banned

    Messages:
    654

    No I agree I just never really had the chance the fully develop the proper techniques in a formal way I can see it in my own way but I have to work on expressing it clearly to others communication is my worst skill, I also noticed on your profile you are a retired physicist so I have a lot of respect for your professional background.
     
  17. OnlyMe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,914
    Not a retired physicist! I majored in physics a long long time ago...
     
  18. Jason.Marshall Banned Banned

    Messages:
    654
    I suppose there is not much of a difference if you can understand the logical construct of the science and you have an empirical insight its always valid universally.
     
  19. rpenner Fully Wired Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,833
    No it isn't. Empirical insight is not valid universally and we know this because Newton's, Einstein's and Planck's empirical insight was transformative, revolutionary and profound, but did not stand forever inviolable. While such empirical insight opened up new frontiers in humanity's understanding of physical behavior, it didn't even universally apply within the lifetime of these individual scientists. Newton got side-tracked by problems of alchemy and numerology. Einstein's career tapered off into unfruitful cul-de-sacs. Planck spent years hoping the quantum mechanics he discovered was more side-effect than a fundamentally revolutionary paradigm. These are not the careers of people with unerring insight into physics, but rather of very bright people with careers that peak sharply as the world conspires to place them in the spotlight of history. These are not gods, but diligent, smart and dedicated men who also happened to have some good fortune and the tools to act on that.

    So if Einstein, Newton and Planck could failings of understanding, philosophy or connection with reality, realize that it is the burden of the true scientist to be his own worst critic and to wrestle with questions like "how do I know that self-evident thing is true." A feeling of certainty is not enough. Knowing is not enough. Knowing reliably, repeatably and communicably in a verifiable fashion is what is required.
     
  20. Jason.Marshall Banned Banned

    Messages:
    654

    I suppose you are right hard work is always a must and is admirable, I admire Newton, Einstein, and Plank all the same because they all added a fundamental huge piece of the scientific perspective we use today. As well as Gauss, Euclid ,Archimedes and Pythagoras, Eratosthene and even lambert, there are more but these guys come to mind easily. Heck even Heisenberg even though I am biased towards Einstein but I grown fond of probability Just like I still believe Newtonian determinism can still co-exist with Einstein's relativity...I can really see all the fundamental forces becoming officially unified in the not too far future. Have you seen flatland?... I think that movie is a good metaphor that describes the psyche of human society.
     
    Last edited: Dec 16, 2014
  21. someguy1 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    726
    Newton showed for all time that the universe could be understood by rational thought; and that its laws are written in the language of mathematics.

    Newton therefore supercedes all scientists in importance, even as his theory of gravity is refined by modern scientific understanding. It was Newton who gave us the very concept of scientific understanding in the first place.

    Newton well understood that his theory of gravity was descriptive and not explanatory. He knew that he did not know what gravity was, or how instantaneous action at a distance could happen. He merely wrote down how gravity behaved.

    He understood what so many modern scientists don't: That science is about studying how observable phenomena behave; it's not about claiming you understand the ultimate how and why.

    BTW as far as his studies in alchemy, I read an article that claimed that he wasn't doing woo-woo alchemy; but was really more doing early chemistry; and that his studies in that direction were part of his science.

    Of course he spent the bulk of his time looking for coded messages in the Bible. Strange man, the author of our rational world, who had so many seemingly occult pursuits.
     
    Last edited: Dec 16, 2014
    Jason.Marshall likes this.
  22. Jason.Marshall Banned Banned

    Messages:
    654


    I would have to say between Newton and Einstein its hard to pick which one I admire more but I believe as science advances into the future Determinism will once again become the dominant paradigm, Because when I look at Newton's work compared to Einstein's work compared to Heisenberg work I see them as all the same they are actually not competing paradigms but different perspectives of determinism that's probably why am so into Newton's work, even thought I can fully accept relativity and probability as correct perspectives in the end of it all I think determinism will have the last word even beyond the multiverse and multiple dimension theory of String theory. Just my opinion thought. Personally I think the bible does have important contributions to math and science but we just have to be able to comprehend the point that is being communicated , so am not at all surprised at Newton curiosity... after all the Egyptians had a great influence on the bible and they were hardcore mathematicians " The kingdom of heaven" new Jerusalem...even the Multiverse I assume falls inside of determinism
     
    Last edited: Dec 17, 2014
  23. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,173
    Re Newton's alchemy and numerology, I read a biography of him called "The Last Sorcerer", which devotes a lot of space to his non- or pseudo- scientific pursuits. It is at pains to make the point that Newton lived at a very early point in the development of science as we know it today. He and the other proto-scientists of his era were struggling to disentangle what we now call science from the traditions of thought of the time, both philosophical and religious. It is reading history backwards to criticise him too much for this.

    In fact, on another forum, there was recently an exchange about why chemistry as we now know it only got started (with Lavoisier) about a century after physics. Chemistry is arguably harder to sort out, because the interacting systems are hard to isolate. Natural materials are messy mixtures, so it must have been hard to come up with the correct identification and classification into elements , compounds and mixtures of compounds. Whereas with light, or astronomy, the system is comparatively clear and simple to analyse. So alchemy survived longer than Ptolemaic astronomy.
     

Share This Page