Sujet : Re: Spacetime
De : ross.a.finlayson (at) *nospam* gmail.com (Ross Finlayson)
Groupes : sci.physics.relativityDate : 21. Jul 2024, 21:36:22
Autres entêtes
Message-ID : <dOOcnY74C_va7AD7nZ2dnZfqn_idnZ2d@giganews.com>
References : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
User-Agent : Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.6.0
On 07/20/2024 11:21 PM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
W dniu 21.07.2024 o 06:31, Ross Finlayson pisze:
>
"Why do GPS satellites both have clocks and receive
timing information from the ground station?"
>
Explaining "why they do" is - most unfortunately -
not changing the fact that they do. Common sense
was warning your idiot guru. So it was announced
"a collection of prejudices".
>
And as for your theory of everything - any
engineer can tell you: a tool for everyhing is
useful for nothing. Well, you may always
hope for an exception.
>
>
>
Well, at least a "Theory of Everything" must start
with a "logical, mathematical theory a foundations",
as it's always a "Mathematical Physics", and regardless
whether the mathematical interpretation lines up with
the physical interpretation lines up with the data,
it's always a mathematical physics and there's the
ubiquitous success of mathematics in physics, thusly,
any foundations of physics or "the theory" demands
a foundations of mathematics the "the theory".
"A Theory"
So, foundations of mathematics and foundations of physics
go together indubitably, and especially as to how there
are multiple law(s) of large numbers (infinity, infinitesimals)
and continuity, with respect to all such matters of continuum
mechanics, including the quantized version the quantum mechanics.
It's a continuum mechanics, ....
So, mathematics _owes_ physics better (and, less) mathematical
models, to automatically equip the physical models, to
result better.