Split of the forums Physics & Mathematics

[maddog]

I would like to see the single forum of Physics & Mathematics split each into their own. I

know this may require another moderator rather than the extra burden of one moderator

with two forums to manage. ;)

 

Wish that I had time to lend support. My main function currently is in high demand of my

time.

 

You asked, so I told you.

 

maddog

[Tormod]

Thanks for the suggestion.

 

Can you explain why you think the forum should be split?

[theblackalchemist]

Can i participate?

Physic's majorly uses maths.

Maths major use is in physics.

 

thus i feel it'd be better to keep the symbiosis alive.

My point :)

 

But on splitting the forums up, the line becomes more distinct, as in a question on binomials would go into maths and and a thing on astronomy into physics.

it can be more organised,

 

My Other Point.

 

 

 

 

TBA

[maddog]

Thanks for the suggestion.

 

Can you explain why you think the forum should be split?

My thinking is similar to what "theBlackAlchemist" was saying.

 

In more detail want to read more on math than physics, I don't have to slog through all the stuff on "how Relativity doesn't work" or "how did the universe begin", etc.

 

Similarly, I wish to browse the Physics forum over Math then likewise I would not have to look through multiple threads of "what is a derivative ?", etc.

 

I know it is less a problem with the Math topics as there are fewer. Yet regarding Physics, the threads are rampant less than interesting threads on the same topic.

 

I also understanding that current your staff (or lack of enough) has the current setup about what ya'll can handle. You asked me what I thought would be nice.

 

Like the previous post I think of Astrophysics as really physics, yet I see it being better to split it since this does cut down on the volume.

 

This does create a problem sometimes when a topic may fit in either -- say Black Holes.

 

I didn't mention this but I would like to see an Anthropology/Archealogy forum as well.

This could be a sub-branch of Biology yet does seem separate.

 

Alternately would be some way to have in my profile some common thread topic <tags> that would allow your portal to go and serve me some favorite(s) - threads

when I log in. Not just what you may do already (based on my previous posts). This

would allow me to give input.

 

I come up with so many ideas in a day, I have to give some away to keep my sanity.

 

maddog :)

[Hasanuddin]

I agree. These two categories should be split because they are not the same nor to their goals align.

 

Math is a tool of physics, though it is not physics. Physics is a science, therefore the goal is to account for phenomena empirically known through verifiable evidence and experimentation. Math has no such constraints.

 

Because traditionally we squeeze these two disciplines together into the same box, it leads some to falsely conclude that they are the same and/or inseperable. However, if that were true then it would be impossible to have a class taught on "conceptual physics," though that conclusion is shown false by the university listings across the world possessing such a class.

 

Why does math have to be tethered to Physics, when the applications of math are also central to modern study of Genetics, Chemistry, Climate change, etc? Because math finds application in these fields, does that mean that conceptual deduction has no place there either?

 

That is not to say that a conceptual approach is "better" for Physics, I personally prefer the refinements of math for well-understood areas like kinetics, fluid, etc. However, there are some questions that (e.g., the cosmological ones) that possess some much uncertainty by jumping to formulae, w/out a conceptual roadmap, leads to error and false conclusion. The new Dominium model, (currently being discussed on the Alternative theories board of the Physical Science index) is a case in point. The way it was fashioned was to consider only what is categorically known about the evidentiary record, fashion 100% categorical premises, and then deductively draw categorical conclusions. The result is a model that accounts for all of the previously considered evidentiary anomalies, and is in conflict with none of the concrete and verifiable evidence of the scientific record. Because the process of Deduction was used, math was not needed. Had I tried the same thing shackled to mathematical proofs, nothing could have been accomplished. Because the tried and true deductive process was used (as it is in Genetics or environmental sciences) does that negate a model that accounts for "all" of the empirically known aspects of the phenomenological record? No, that is a goal of a science, and the goal has been met, w/out maths, by the new model.

 

(...perhaps, debate is still ongoing, stayed tuned on the final verdict. Please come and join the debate. It is essential that this model is discussed ASAP)

[freeztar]

Great treatise Has!

 

I agree that it would be better to have separate forums. My guess is that, initially, Hypography was not generating many math threads that were unspecific to physics. As Hypography has matured through the years, I don't think that is the case anymore. Just a guess.

 

As Has so eloquently pointed out, math is used in every scientific discipline. To assume that physics must follow in any mathematical construct is presumptuous, and probably more than not, wrong.

 

Don't get me wrong, I understand why they were put together. Nonetheless, I think it's time to separate them. Why not? :)

[Tormod]

Indeed, why not. I think the case has been well argued. We'll have to find a practical way to split the threads into two forums.

[maddog]

Indeed, why not. I think the case has been well argued. We'll have to find a practical way to split the threads into two forums.

To Freezestar & Tormod: Glad to hear of the interest. Were I not working, I would enjoy

being a moderator in either forum. I feel qualified in both. I enjoy reading threads in

both and I even post threads in both subjects.

 

I agree with all who've said that a thread on "Methods of Group Theory" [math] is not

in the same arena as the "Debate about Cold Fusion" [physics] for example.

 

maddog

[theblackalchemist]

Indeed, why not. I think the case has been well argued. We'll have to find a practical way to split the threads into two forums.

 

Maybe we can initially do a search in that forums, with the strings "calculus", "Geometry" etc. and casually glance through the threads in the search.

if all are ok, then mass move the threads.

after doing that, set a couple of mods extra in each forum, to go through all the threads in case of any misplaced thread and sort hem out.

 

hows that?

 

TBA

[Jay-qu]

The main reason for not having two forums is that it means we have an extra forum! We are trying to cut down the amount of forums here at hypo, so why create another one. There has been no problem with physics and math been one forum because they very commonly overlap AND the popularity of both is relatively small here at hypo. What I mean is that we only ever have a handful of active threads in this forum. If maths was its own forum it would not see much action.

 

This isnt an argument to not split them, just the reason that we havent needed to consider it in the past.