The Scientific Method # 4

Parry and thrust from shankar :

<you want to know its location 3 seconds from now?>>

Contrast this approach with the approach that I am talking about. Instead of
analysing the motion of particle, u somehow transfer yourself into the
particle. Its like u have got into the particle and moving along with it.
Would not your understanding of the motion of particle now would be better
than what it was with the external analysis by scientific method? Can you
not describe your motion at every single instant of time? When you are doing
a scientific analysis, are you not taking snapshots at discrete intervals
and then trying to construct a continuous picture out of it? At the first
time, the difference is huge because the intervals are large. You refine the
process by decreasing the inter-frame interval and come closer to a
continuous motion at every attempt. However hard you may try u will never
get a really continuous motion as you there is a fundamental conflict
between the two objects (one is discrete and other continuous . To get a
truly continuous frame, you need to have the inter-frame interval zero,
which is not possible in scientific analysis.


Another point with the usage of mathematics for this approximation. Science
in its attempt to make a discrete event as continuous as possible,
introduces the concept of "dt" or 'delta t'. Science has not given a
scientific, mathematical definition of 'delta t'. The definition is of
intuitive nature and to make it mathematical, have introduced the idea of
limits. (tending to zero but not equal to zero. Is it not a proof enough of
the inadequacy of science to explain phenomena?


To give you a even better idea of what I am talking about, say Kislay is in
motion. I capture all his movements for about one hour and apply scientific
analysis on it. I have a wealth of information about Kislay's movement. I
know what was your velocity at a particular time period ( I still doubt, if
science can provide me the information at a particular instant) and you will
not be aware. Yet, I believe you can understand your motion in a much better
sense that I can I ever hope to do. You can, if you want, describe your
motion at a particular instant of time while I cant.

Its already been a long mail, rest in next.

Best Regards,
Sankara Narayanan

And the missive immediately following this reads thus :

Now coming to the SHM problem, what do I do if I want to know its motion
both in space domain and time domain simultaneously? Can science answer it ?
When I say I want to understand the phenomenon, I mean I should be able to
visualize it without any need for external symbols or formulae.
What I mean by understanding SHM, is I should be able to imagine myself as
the pendulum and feel its to- fro motion as if I am the pendulum.

We both know that y(t)= A sin(w*t) is different from y(t) = A'cos(w'*t).
When I say understanding it,I mean I should be able to able to identify that
there is some difference between these two, without constructing their
equations.

Don't u think, we should have a website, that explains these physics
concepts in an intuitive way.

Can we define acceleration as something more than dv/dt?

Best Regards,
Sankara Narayanan