<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><!-- generator="wordpress/2.0.5" -->
<rss version="2.0" 
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/">
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Physical quantity</title>
	<link>http://globalpioneering.com/wp02/physical-quantity/</link>
	<description>Transfer scientific authority to people</description>
	<pubDate>Fri, 16 May 2008 23:46:05 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.0.5</generator>

	<item>
		<title>by: Axioms, algorithms and scientific revolutions at Freedom of Science</title>
		<link>http://globalpioneering.com/wp02/physical-quantity/#comment-21370</link>
		<pubDate>Wed, 14 May 2008 12:10:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://globalpioneering.com/wp02/physical-quantity/#comment-21370</guid>
					<description>[...] The mechanics part of the Principia is very thin. In fact, there is no &#8220;Newtonian mechanics&#8221; in Newton&#8217;s Principia. This is true because Newton did not use units. Modern physics, on the other hand, is defined as a consistent system of units made of physical quantities. Newton&#8217;s astronomical computations in the Principia are independent of axioms and laws of book 1. They are simple applications of Kepler&#8217;s rule. Subsequent generations of Newtonians turned this tiny sample of proportional computations into a vast consistent system of units known today as Newtonian mechanics. [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[&#8230;] The mechanics part of the Principia is very thin. In fact, there is no &#8220;Newtonian mechanics&#8221; in Newton&#8217;s Principia. This is true because Newton did not use units. Modern physics, on the other hand, is defined as a consistent system of units made of physical quantities. Newton&#8217;s astronomical computations in the Principia are independent of axioms and laws of book 1. They are simple applications of Kepler&#8217;s rule. Subsequent generations of Newtonians turned this tiny sample of proportional computations into a vast consistent system of units known today as Newtonian mechanics. [&#8230;]
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: Physics and metaphysics at Freedom of Science</title>
		<link>http://globalpioneering.com/wp02/physical-quantity/#comment-21137</link>
		<pubDate>Fri, 09 May 2008 13:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://globalpioneering.com/wp02/physical-quantity/#comment-21137</guid>
					<description>[...] In physics anything which is not a physical quantity is metaphysics. There is no exception to this rule. Example: &#8220;Newton&#8217;s laws&#8221; is not a physical quantity therefore &#8220;Newton&#8217;s laws&#8221; is metaphysics and does not belong to scientific physics. Laws, principles, axioms, definitions, conjectures and similar philosophical stuff are independent of scientific physics. If we define physics as the science that studies physical quantities then we must accept that philosophical stuff belongs to metaphysics and not to physics. A physical quantity is defined as [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[&#8230;] In physics anything which is not a physical quantity is metaphysics. There is no exception to this rule. Example: &#8220;Newton&#8217;s laws&#8221; is not a physical quantity therefore &#8220;Newton&#8217;s laws&#8221; is metaphysics and does not belong to scientific physics. Laws, principles, axioms, definitions, conjectures and similar philosophical stuff are independent of scientific physics. If we define physics as the science that studies physical quantities then we must accept that philosophical stuff belongs to metaphysics and not to physics. A physical quantity is defined as [&#8230;]
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: Fundamental constants of physics at Freedom of Science</title>
		<link>http://globalpioneering.com/wp02/physical-quantity/#comment-20151</link>
		<pubDate>Thu, 01 May 2008 23:17:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://globalpioneering.com/wp02/physical-quantity/#comment-20151</guid>
					<description>[...] Contact        &#171; Physical quantity [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[&#8230;] Contact        &laquo; Physical quantity [&#8230;]
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: Data types of F=ma at Freedom of Science</title>
		<link>http://globalpioneering.com/wp02/physical-quantity/#comment-20133</link>
		<pubDate>Thu, 01 May 2008 21:24:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://globalpioneering.com/wp02/physical-quantity/#comment-20133</guid>
					<description>[...] Each and every term of the fundamental equation of physics cancel out of the formulas to compute orbits. The terms F, m and a all have type authority. Physicists include them in their equations to save Newton&#8217;s authority.  It appears that in physics, the definition of &#8220;physical quantity&#8221; says nothing about the properties of the physical quantity. In physics a physical quantity is a number multiplied by a unit. See this post. [&#8617;]Is there no limit how far deep into the absurd physicists will push physics in order to save Newton&#8217;s authority? [&#8617;]ShareThis [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[&#8230;] Each and every term of the fundamental equation of physics cancel out of the formulas to compute orbits. The terms F, m and a all have type authority. Physicists include them in their equations to save Newton&#8217;s authority.  It appears that in physics, the definition of &#8220;physical quantity&#8221; says nothing about the properties of the physical quantity. In physics a physical quantity is a number multiplied by a unit. See this post. [&#8617;]Is there no limit how far deep into the absurd physicists will push physics in order to save Newton&#8217;s authority? [&#8617;]ShareThis [&#8230;]
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
</channel>
</rss>
