11–20 of 38 posts
Some of those articles are just a modern Tantra - no one is seriously trying to refute these models because lots of people have a comfortable, high social status living out of it, just like modern theologians or tibetologists - they know the mantras and it's current interpretations, and the question of "How real it is" is frowned upon. Generalisations aside (however valid and useful) most of this theoretical physics…
Some of those articles are just a modern Tantra - no one is seriously trying to refute these models because lots of people have a comfortable, high social status living out of it, just like modern theologians or tibetologists - they know the mantras and it's current interpretations, and the question of "How real it is" is frowned upon. Generalisations aside (however valid and useful) most of this theoretical physics…
Is that you jonathan tooker?
Similarly, the main question of physics used to be "how everything is", not how do we think everything might be.
A map is not a territory, a model is not what is. It is that simple and infallible.
Its treatments of experiments is as if they were mere side notes to the real thing. The Tools section might include something like a ruler, clock, or basic physical tools used to observe nature with.
Almost nothing about experiments. Physics is an experimental science, based on observation of nature. Its treatments of experiments is as if they were mere side notes to the real thing. The Tools section might include something like a ruler, clock, or basic physical tools used to observe nature with.
Criticizing focused educational site for not being comprehensive enough is not valid.
Some of those articles are just a modern Tantra - no one is seriously trying to refute these models because lots of people have a comfortable, high social status living out of it, just like modern theologians or tibetologists - they know the mantras and it's current interpretations, and the question of "How real it is" is frowned upon. Generalisations aside (however valid and useful) most of this theoretical physics…
With that said it’s at least possible that the commenter is alluding to a trend in physics research that is so concerning to practicing physicists and mathematicians that books called things like “The Trouble with Physics” and “Not Even Wrong” are being written and published.
I’m little better than a layman as concerns physics, but I’ve been around the block with organizational dysfunction amongst a group of super smart people, and I don’t find it at all implausible that String Theory is the “Docker-First” of physics funding.
Almost nothing about experiments. Physics is an experimental science, based on observation of nature. Its treatments of experiments is as if they were mere side notes to the real thing. The Tools section might include something like a ruler, clock, or basic physical tools used to observe nature with.
Almost nothing about experiments. Physics is an experimental science, based on observation of nature. Its treatments of experiments is as if they were mere side notes to the real thing. The Tools section might include something like a ruler, clock, or basic physical tools used to observe nature with.
I strongly disagree "Physics concepts explained" has no need to add anything about experiments. The focus of the site is learning concepts. Criticizing focused educational site for not being comprehensive enough is not valid.
I learned about many physics concepts with simple experiments in elementary school. They can certainly be extended and adapted for an adult audience.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I strongly disagree "Physics concepts explained" has no need to add anything about experiments. The focus of the site is learning concepts. Criticizing focused educational site for not being comprehensive enough is not valid.
I strongly disagree. Experiencing concepts first-hand through experiments improves learning and understanding, excites curiosity, and teaches practices that can be used in other disciplines. I learned about many physics concepts with simple experiments in elementary school. They can certainly be extended and adapted for an adult audience.
It's not meant to be the only source for learning physics. It is focused reference site for concepts. Having focus and focusing on just one viewpoint is a good thing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is that you jonathan tooker?
Before Hegel and his abstract bullshit, the main question of philosophy was "What is real", not what a mind can imagine. Similarly, the main question of physics used to be "how everything is", not how do we think everything might be. A map is not a territory, a model is not what is. It is that simple and infallible.
Well, philosophy is known to ask questions for which there are no answers. As to (theoretical) physics, I think we should look at it first and foremost as a computational tool (similar to applied mathematics) which is the way it has been since Newton, then it becomes clear that physics does indeed help understand "how everything is" - in the sense that it helps us predict the results of experiments, and I am not sure if it even makes sense to talk about a "higher level of understanding" than that. A map is definitely not a territory, but it can indeed be (and will always remain to be) both "true" and "false" to a certain degree; similarly, no one in their right mind would say that physics is, should, or can be equivalent to the reality (aspects of) which it merely reflects.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is that you jonathan tooker?
Before Hegel and his abstract bullshit, the main question of philosophy was "What is real", not what a mind can imagine. Similarly, the main question of physics used to be "how everything is", not how do we think everything might be. A map is not a territory, a model is not what is. It is that simple and infallible.
I assure you, philosophy of physics is much more complicated than that, and a lot of senior physicists and leaders in the community are aware of these subtleties, and constantly argue about it.