Re: Knowing what you know not about what should be known

[Herbert H Gottlieb <herbgottlieb@JUNO.COM>]

I believe that there is some confusion in Jeremy's assertion (below) that
"formulas must have physical causes" .  Formulas are merely condensed
mathematical expressions that summarize observed phenomena.  For example,
the formula F=ma
summarizes our observations of the relations and interactive effects
among accelerations, forces, and masses. Sometimes, as in the case of the
formula f=ma, the formulas break down as conditions become extreme.

Similarly, the Boyle's law and the Charles' law formulas break down as
pressures rise to high values or volumes become smaller and smaller.

Herb Gottlieb from New York City
(Where even our census data, published every few years, is broken down by
race, age, and sex)


On Sun, 20 Jun 2004 18:11:27 -0700 Jeremy Batterson
<jeremybatterson@YAHOO.COM> writes:
> Sirs/Madames,
>
> It seems that I can find NO ONE who will answer the
> following simple question. And this is a question
> which is very central to everything we are meant
> to know about the matter, so that, by NOT knowing it, we really know
> NEXT TO NOTHING  about that important something about which we
> thought we knew at least more than nothing. But, how do we know more
> than nothing about ANY something, if we know not anything whence the
> something arises from something else besides itself, or, in the
> alternative case, about how it arise from itself, itself (unless we
> were to unreasonably say that  something arise from nothing)?
>
>
>
> When I ask people this simple question, they either can't answer it
> , or revert to a tautalogy as in, “It is true
> because the formula says it is," or “It is true for exactly the
> reason that it is so,” or even, “it is true because Newton
> discovered it to be just as it is,” instead of explaining the
> physical CAUSE of the formula.
>
> Sometimes, the people who answer thusly, even seem to be covering up
> for the fact that they KNOW NOT, but are only repeating something
> that they think they must repeat. But there is not crime in knowing
> not, but only in pretending to know that which we know not, and, I
> believe, a crime in not seeking to know what we know not.
>
> So, here is the KNOT:
> We say the the force is the product of masses
> divided by the square of the distance between them,
> and it is readily understandable why we say the
> square of distance, since this is simply the falling
> off according to the inverse square. But, why do
> we say PRODUCT of masses? What is the physical
> cause of that?  If you know about that, I will be very grateful for
> your reply. Seriously, I have NEVER gotten a real explanation of
> this.
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Jeremy Batterson
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Do you Yahoo!?
> New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages!


Herb Gottlieb from New York City
A friendly  place to live and visit