Johannes Kepler – A Mysterious Cosmographist

Re: # 59

OK. Now we are getting somewhere!

So,
T1 -> Before the instance of change = zero
T2 -> AT the instance of change = x
T3 -> After the instance of change = x

Now, can you explain what is T2 minus T1 ? Is it a non-zero value?

---

Khurram,

If you are trying to find ``rate of change of momentum``, you should try to find it in only one single of the obove entities. Which is only T2.

At time T2, value of momentum is x.

There is no question of T2 minus T1.

T2 itself has no breakup. T2 is a single point of time.


Secondly, it is also useless to see change of momentum of only one ball. Momentum of one ball can be changed only through the application of an already existing momentum. Total momentum however remains the same at any time.

@ freethinker # 60

You just have presented few biased opinions of some (may be) renowned figures. They are not important to consider at all. Instead of saying X said this and that, please come to the point and try to prove that a raindrop which is attached to a windscreen of a moving car, can have its speed lesser than windscreen.

@ Kaalchakara

If you want to know the difference between ``Knowledge`` and ``logic``, then please read my following article:

Human Knowledge and its Expression

Scientist do not know what is ``knowledge`` because Knowledge, being an abstract entity, is outside the scope of study of science.

Scientists do not study ``logic`` as well. Because they consider it something opposite to that something about which they know nothing i.e. ``knowledge``.

Even scientific theories take their birth iside of human mind. You cannot say that scientific theories come outside of mind. Mind is also an abstract entity. It is not the physical brain. Scioentists only study physical brain and they don`t study ``mind``. Study of physical brain only can tell reasons of some psychological or other neurological disorders etc. Study of physical brain cannot tell just how scientific or other theories take birth inside of ``mind``. Only study of ``mind`` can tell it.

Only Philosophers can know how any theory can take birth inside of mind. Because only they study such abstract things as ``mind``. So Philosophers can legitimately give their opinion on any theory including scientific theories as well.

Scientists are very poor in abstract conceptions. They can see only visible and solid things which they can count or measure. They become very happy if they successfully count or measure some solid or any detectable entity. That is why they study only mathematics. I was also very much inspired by mathematics when I was not mentally so mature. Just measuring and counting is not equivalent to ``knowledge``.

I also can quote sayings of some renowned people, like who said lower-most level people think only about group and individual differences with respect to their wealth, outlook and beliefs. Midiocre people think only about solid, visible, or measurable or countable things. And the great people think about ideas etc. etc.

Regards!

Gill sahib,

Was Kepler`s work ``Somnium`` the first work of science fiction.

Regards

majumdar:

Thanks for referring to Somnium. I wasn`t aware of it. On searching on internet, I found Gale E. Christianson`s article ``Kepler`s Somnium: Science Fiction and the Renaissance Scientist.`` It was published in ``Science Fiction Studies, #8, Volume 3, Part I, March 1976,`` which gives a good account of Kepler`s biography as well.

Mohammad Gill

I have found following quote in the profile of another chowky.


``It is by intuition that we discover and by logic that we prove.`` Henri Poincare, Mathematician...


I want to add that more prcise name of ``intuition`` is actually ``analogical inference``. Whereas branch of logic whose function is to ``prove`` is the ``deductive logic``.

All types of logic works only on sensory data.

There are two main types of ``sensory data``.

First type is ``ordinary or routine sensory information``.

Second type is ``planned``, or ``controlled``, or ``experimental``, or ``laboratory`` oriented sensory information or data.

First type generates ``analogical inferences``, or so-called ``intuitions``.

Then we confirm the validity of analogical inferences through ``controlled observations``, or ``experiments``.

Then we SHOULD apply deductive logic with the view to interpret the experimental confirmations. Then we should Prove our interpretation by using deductive logic.

Regards!