I KNEW it!

Numion said:
Physics is just a formal system that has an isomorph in the real world, but one can't prove the former with latter.
And this principle applies to all external realities, even to the mere existence of an external reality [Let x be a member of the Universe set...].
Of course all of this doesn't mean try to understand that reality, or to use our understanding to our benefit, it just means we should be careful with our conclusions :)
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Numion said:
Matter is conserved? If you mean matter as in atoms, it is not.

He said... and you quoted... conservation of matter/energy. That implies to me he perfectly understands the actual situation.
 

Psion said:
He said... and you quoted... conservation of matter/energy. That implies to me he perfectly understands the actual situation.

Well since he said that the law is proven, I doubt his understanding is perfect.
 

Numion said:
Besides, physics laws aren't proven. They're just ideas to which the universe seems to conform to, until measurements to the contrary are made. Like law of gravity seemed to govern the movement of planets around the sun, but Einstein came up with a more precise theory. After a while some irregularities in the trajectories of some planets were noticed, to the tune of Einsteins theory.

I tend to think the same. Physics is a description of the world for practical purposes (usually following into one of two cases: guess the consequence of a cause; guess the cause of a consequence). There's no "truth" in physics, there is only good or bad description. Furthermore, it has nothing to do with belief, despite what many say :)
 

Li Shenron said:
Nice article! :)

But is really a soccer ball covered in pentagons? I thought it was some pentagons and some exagons...

It's been a long time since official tournament footballs (what is this soccer you're talking about ;) ) have used pentagons or hexagons (used either depending on the maker IIRC). Now most of them are very smooth spheres, with some of them having a single seam joining them.
 

Numion said:
Well since he said that the law is proven, I doubt his understanding is perfect.

Perhaps. But really, aren't you splitting hairs a bit and/or beating up on his terminology? I mean sure, just like one time we beleived matter to be truly conserved, and found that there was an exception, there may still be further exceptions. But physicists and engineers use the laws of conservation day in and day out as if they were absolutely reliable. Because, well, they pretty much are, so long as you take all factors into account.
 


Psion said:
Perhaps. But really, aren't you splitting hairs a bit and/or beating up on his terminology? I mean sure, just like one time we beleived matter to be truly conserved, and found that there was an exception, there may still be further exceptions. But physicists and engineers use the laws of conservation day in and day out as if they were absolutely reliable. Because, well, they pretty much are, so long as you take all factors into account.

Perhaps I am splitting hairs. But matter is not conserved. Energy is, charge is, momentum is, angular momentum is. Matter as in mass is not. Matter as in particles is not. IIRC, been a while since I touched the subject :heh:

Loss of weight is not an exception. Weight 2 O and C molecule before and after combustion. Miniscule difference in weight. To the tune of (deltaM)C^2 = energy released.

Another by-product of einsteins is that we do not live in textbook euclidean 3d geometry - but rather that the mass in space determines the geometry. For most approximations euclidean is ok.
 

Numion said:
Perhaps I am splitting hairs. But matter is not conserved.

But matter/energy is. Which is what he said. Sounds like you are bashing him over a technical impreciseness that he didn't make.
 

Remove ads

Top