あなたは単独のコメントのスレッドを見ています。

残りのコメントをみる →

[–]yoshiKWick rotate the entirety of academia! -9ポイント-8ポイント  (3子コメント)

Of course there is, by the main theorem of physics1 we can assume that the acceleration is constant, [; a= v_{max} / t ;]. Which gives us a factor of two for the answer compared to constant velocity.

1 Thm: Any interesting quantity can be sufficiently approximated by the linear order.

Proof: If you object to that, please tell someone from the soft sciences. That has two advantages, you are not bothering physicists and you keep the soft sciences bogged down.

[–]dlgn13 2ポイント3ポイント  (2子コメント)

[–]yoshiKWick rotate the entirety of academia! -2ポイント-1ポイント  (1子コメント)

Which part, the claim that physicists know enough math to know when to ignore mathematical rigor in favor of physical plausibility or the claim that other scientists don't?

[–]dlgn13 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

First, the point of physics is to model the universe using math. If it can't be made mathematically rigorous, it's just intuition, or a model that fails in certain cases.

Second, non-analytic functions can occur in nature.

And third, anyone who insults the "soft sciences" is just being a douchebag.