and I will demonstrate to you that it is not rigorous.

The laws themselves are not rigorous. That is , they all have exceptions. Math itself is not rigorous because it has the exceptions of emergent solutions, solutions that cannot be derived from the postulates of the math... The same is true of physics and even more so since we know that all the laws of physics are approximations which require the existense of phenomena that has never been adequately explained.

Quantum mechanics for example requires either particles coming back from the future or a collapse theory that has never been derived.

The best you can do is say that some proposition is rigorous enough to agree with experiment to within a certain accuracy. But that is inherently approximate.

It takes a spam to know a spam.

Regards,

Richard

• Arguing with you could make me seem a fool - carefuluniverse - February 22, 2002 - 19:39 UTC
  • Feynman said physicists can not predict - dolphin - February 24, 2002 - 05:12 UTC
    • and thus being no certainy, is there still logic? - spazcon - February 24, 2002 - 06:33 UTC
      • Probability is not a myth - yanniru - February 24, 2002 - 20:13 UTC
        • But ask "Why doesn't the dog bark?" - dolphin - February 25, 2002 - 08:35 UTC
          • The argument about what is already known - yanniru - February 25, 2002 - 15:06 UTC
            • c, g, and h - dolphin - February 26, 2002 - 08:22 UTC
              • Your knowledge of science - yanniru - February 26, 2002 - 14:45 UTC
                • Will explain; blunt comments welcome - dolphin - February 27, 2002 - 10:43 UTC
                  • Thanks for the tolerance - yanniru - February 27, 2002 - 16:21 UTC
                    • Thanks. See new topic on Planck's constant! - dolphin - March 2, 2002 - 04:57 UTC
  • Where's the beef - yanniru - February 24, 2002 - 20:18 UTC