Insights Blog
-- Browse All Articles --
Physics Articles
Physics Tutorials
Physics Guides
Physics FAQ
Math Articles
Math Tutorials
Math Guides
Math FAQ
Education Articles
Education Guides
Bio/Chem Articles
Technology Guides
Computer Science Tutorials
Forums
Trending
Featured Threads
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
More options
Contact us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
Physics
Classical Physics
Mechanics
Memory and Performance: The Role of Abstraction in Athletic Success
Reply to thread
Message
[QUOTE="Dale, post: 6848681, member: 43978"] Please do not misquote me. If you are going to quote me use the forum's quote feature so that you can identify what I actually said and others can see it in context, which is: No matter how you slice it, a prediction requires more than a description. A description only tells you what actually happened. A prediction is a statement (hypothesis) about what would happen in some hypothetical scenario that has not actually happened. There is simply no way to get a prediction from nothing more than a description. You are misusing the word "description", as I pointed out with my above quote. You will find communication much more effective if you use words correctly. In order to support your claim that science does not explain anything you are misusing the word description. You are taking what a scientific explanation does (make predictions) and trying to hide it in "description". I agree. Noether's theorem requires that the laws of physics can be expressed as a Lagrangian. That is the "specific sense" that you mention. The Lagrangian formalism does most of the heavy lifting in Noether's theorem. This is not correct. It is easy to write down a Lagrangian which does not have conservation of momentum. So we are not assuming the conservation of momentum merely by using the Lagrangian formalism. Where your point is valid is that when we are talking about explanations based on generally accepted assumptions the assumption that the laws of physics can be written in the Lagrangian formalism is a big one. While it is generally accepted and non-controversial for physicists, it may not be so acceptable for non-physicists. We would do good to recall that, but to call it "cheating" is unjustified. It is valid reasoning for the intended audience of this forum. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Post reply
Forums
Physics
Classical Physics
Mechanics
Memory and Performance: The Role of Abstraction in Athletic Success
Back
Top