Back to Home

God & Science Forum Message

Forums: Atm · Astrophotography · Blackholes · Blackholes2 · CCD · Celestron · Domes · Education
Eyepieces · Meade · Misc. · God and Science · SETI · Software · UFO · XEphem
RSS Button

Home | Discussion Forums | God and Science | Post
Login

Be the first pioneers to continue the Astronomy Discussions at our new Astronomy meeting place...
The Space and Astronomy Agora
Math As A Way Of (not) Looking

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response To
Posted by Alan on August 25, 2003 05:45:44 UTC

Curiously:

the laws of classical mechanics and QED seem to be resulting from the math-way of describing.

When two masses collide: a minimilistic math description gives an appearance of the familiar laws.

velocity: directed speed per time

direction: generalisation specification (e.g. any two bounding localities referring to another locality gives specification of direction by mutual agreement (like two astronauts referring to a third (observer) to decide "which way is "up" ?).

speed: distance per time.

time: generalisation specification (as pendulum path is general; but specified by next swing)

distance: generalisation

note:

generalisation + generalisation: specification (like "car" + "red" can give "red car").

specification + specification: generalisation
(like red car + blue bus could give "coloured vehicle" say).

(math counting fills the "could" with "must" by forcing numbers by repeating the pattern and counting repeats; by definition of the number of repeats you get "physics laws" seeming compulsory but this appears to come say from "number" itself.

So:

mass at velocity per time (momentum)
GIVES

generalisation (call: "gen.") (the mass) at
gen.spec. ("generalisation specification" as "directed") gen. (distance) per gen.spec (per time)

GIVES

mv = gen. gen.spec. gen./ gen.spec

cancel the gen.specs

get: gen.gen. /1

get: gen.gen

which gives: spec. (as two generalisations can give "specification").

SO "mv" becomes: "spec".

Get a collision: mv meets mv

So "spec" meets "spec"
So get "gen".

BUT to see your two mv's again after the collision

requires the "gen." become "spec." + "spec." IN GEN. (provided by the generalising effect of: "again") which mathematically minimilistically described seems recalibrates back in time the original "spec.'s" ?

Fuller detail not worked out here. Getting muddled.


A minimilistic math description of the scenario presumably gives math-physics structure out of the numbers and effect of definition interactions.

-dolphin

Follow Ups:

Login to Post
Additional Information
Google
 
Web www.astronomy.net
DayNightLine
About Astronomy Net | Advertise on Astronomy Net | Contact & Comments | Privacy Policy
Unless otherwise specified, web site content Copyright 1994-2018 John Huggins All Rights Reserved
Forum posts are Copyright their authors as specified in the heading above the post.
"dbHTML," "AstroGuide," "ASTRONOMY.NET" & "VA.NET"
are trademarks of John Huggins