| [ Christian ] in KIDS 글 쓴 이(By): parsec ( 먼 소 류 ) 날 짜 (Date): 2001년 12월 6일 목요일 오후 12시 03분 59초 제 목(Title): Re: My travel to Mars About Newton: > Consequently, > You may say that Newtonian mechanics is illogical because it uses > unproved assumption when it was developed. > > (Newton didn't prove the particle state is continuum.) > Most mathematical models in physics are not rigorous. It's a 'model'.(You learn this in the primary school.) But with given model, the conclusion have to follow from the given model in a logical way. So the physical theory fits into the phenomena as far as the model resembles reality. Most of the physical 'law's are really statistical 'law's. Even the statement, "opposite charges pull and same kind of charges push"is a statistical law, to be exact. So fluid mechanics or any physical 'laws' describing a continuum fits as far as the mass of particles behaves as if a continuum. Physical 'law's can only be logical in describing the behavior of the 'model', not reality. That's why you have to find better model to get closer to the nature. I didn't read Newton's work directly, but if he said that 'particle state is continuum, therefore XXX is AAA' there he would be illogical before he proves the premise. But if he said, "Assume particle state is continuum, then it follows that XXX is AAA" it would be a logical statement. But then again if he said "I believe XXX is AAA" then it is illogical because he didn't present the essential element of the syllogism. I remember a quotation from Newton that says his work is based on 'assumptions' and that he is only saying that if the assumption is such and such, the result is so. As far as I know, he knew his job(in a few ways). ◇ ~~~_ _ ∴ ~|~| | _/__, SEP. 11. 2001 _ ∴∴ _ ~ | | ＼ ` Armorica under a tat ,-| `,-,_| |__ | | | A ______|_|__|_|___|__|| | |__|_|_____________________________________ |