Posted on 08/13/2018 8:50:15 AM PDT by C19fan
Best recent examples: 1. The atomic bomb may cause atoms other than the uranium or plutonium to explode ending the Earth. They weren't 100% sure of the chain reaction. It's in the original documents. 2. The Hadron Collider was also considered to become a massive new devastating disaster, according to some scientists. Luckily, those scientists were wrong again.
Most every new physics theory paper says, "could, would, may, possibly, potentially, etc.", until it's proven wrong by more "ifs, coulds, may be's, and on". This is why I question mathematicians and their equations and theoretical physicists. Applied physics is another matter. There are certain absolutes in physics such as certain Newton laws, but all brilliant mathematicians currently and in the near future will never explain how the singularity came into existence.
Also, doubt they will ever have observable empirical data what gravity is. They can do their math on white boards all life long, but still not explain what gravity is, nor how it was created, nor reproduce it, nor counter its force. Yes, they can calculate the effects of gravity on the size of the mass and the locality of other mass, but what is it?
Really? Why is it that throughout history so many math equations were proven incorrect? Are you thinking of simple arithmetic? Do your research. Here's a start: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_disproved_mathematical_ideas
Don't trust wikipedia?...try Googling "mathematics proven wrong". There are many examples with much of certain equations built on theorem, which is a synonym for theory:
https://www.quora.com/What-do-you-call-a-theorem-that-is-proved-wrong
It's like we argue on this forum that certain scientists believe in anthropogenic global warming. They start with the concept and bias their research to their thesis. They never adjust for lack of Sun Spots or Earthly natural changes in ocean temps or air streams or volcanoes, etc.
Mathematicians do the same thing because they want a conclusion to their hypothesis. Then they write papers that their colleagues accept as logical due to the perceived theorem until someone comes along and creates a new equation that counters the old. Think Einstein and Hawking for recent reference. Even their equations are now in question.
Sheese, there have been countless mathematicians through decades that proved earlier equations wrong. Do I need to research all those mathematicians for you?
Even the renowned astronomer Copernicus used math to build his theory of the Earth orbiting the Sun. However, his math also said the Sun was motionless in space and was the center of the Universe. WRONG.
As I've said earlier, show me a mathematician who can explain the origin of the singularity or even gravity on their white boards. Good luck. Disclaimer: I'm not a religious person and barely a Deist. Have a nice day on our Third Rock from a small Star.
not every math theorem is proven correct... sheesh you would think that math was not a good thing
but the incredible amount of math that provides provable results in the real work totally out-weighs some incorrect things.
You would with the math you know until you get a better equation. Sometimes that takes more than one try, the mistakes made do not disprove the real results.
One may look at hundreds of ideas until you hit the correct one. Look at relativity. Do you argue that the stunningly accurate math for that is no good because Newtonian math that came before it is now not 100% correct?
Wrong, I believe mathematics has brought civilization to its current point. Without it, we'd still be living in trees or caves.
"You would with the math you know until you get a better equation. Sometimes that takes more than one try, the mistakes made do not disprove the real results."
Of course. But those mistakes DO disprove earlier hypothesis. Websters: A hypothesis is an assumption, an idea that is proposed for the sake of argument so that it can be tested to see if it might be true. In the scientific method, the hypothesis is constructed before any applicable research has been done, apart from a basic background review.
Chemistry theorem that hypothesizes certain combinations of molecules will produce a specific effect have been proven wrong time and again, and they currently still find errors in their experiments, especially in regard to medications.
"One may look at hundreds of ideas until you hit the correct one. Look at relativity. Do you argue that the stunningly accurate math for that is no good because Newtonian math that came before it is now not 100% correct?"
Yes, I get that it takes time to hit the correct answer. However, you make my point earlier in this thread about Newton and his laws not being 100% anymore. Which brings me back to my original point. I had questions how certain math theorems can be considered so absolute when new equations come along and DO disprove earlier theorems.
My secondary point was why can't the best minds figure out what gravity is? Or what caused the super-heated basketball sized singularity to come into existence out of nothingness? As I've said, I'm not suggesting anything spiritual, but just asking why there are no equations on white boards to explain gravity (the universal glue) or how the singularity appeared.
I don't think we will ever understand those 2 questions, unless some parallel universe entity informs us, which there is no empirical proof that such universes exist besides some theorem math on a board.
BTW, I read where string theory reached a dead end. Am I wrong? Also, do you believe Dark Matter is real or are the math geniuses just working their calculations to explain their hypothesis there should be more matter in the Universe? And what the heck is dark energy? That one I don't get at all. I know the term "dark" means undetected, so don't bother. Thank you for this discussion.
you’re talking about APPLIED math - that is experimentally incorrect always, until it’s not.
Gravity is explained in Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity.
It is not really a ‘force’ at all- it is a warping of the fabric space/time.
A bowling ball dropped onto a rubber sheet is a great 2-dimensional analogy. It makes an indentation in the sheet, and if you roll a smaller ball near it, then it will curve along the indented fabric.
No ‘force’ makes it change direction, it follows the curved fabric.
Space is the same.
It always concerns me when I hear them trying to create a formula that combines all the ‘forces’ and they include gravity.
Gravity is an apparent force, not a real force. The same way that physicists use the ‘normal force’ to explain the table holding an object up off the floor when gravity is pulling it down.
The ‘normal force’ supplied upwards from the table equals the ‘gravitational force’ pushing it downwards, which is why it stands still in equlibrium.
Now... what is this ‘fabric’... that is the big question.
LOL..."until it's not". Please explain what APPLIED math is as opposed to theoretical math. I'm learning so much from you folks on this thread.
I suggested in this thread that time is a human construct and not a reality of another dimension. Someone then stated the fact that the International Space Station (ISS) has to adjust their clocks in relation to terrestrial clocks because of their velocity around the planet. However, he did say if could be another phenomenon.
So, still not convinced it is not a simple human mind observation to delineate between life experiences. What do you think about time being another dimension? Do the white boards prove such? I'm willing to accept empirical math as in 1+1=2.
Time is another dimension.
The space stations clocks have to be adjusted due to relativistic effects.
The GPS satellites too.
Granted we are talking milliseconds here- but it is enough to put you into a river or over a cliff if not mathematically corrected. (by MATH!)
Again, a theorem. Not proven.
It is not really a force at all- it is a warping of the fabric space/time."
Again math calculation theorem. How does the void of space, minus asteroids/meteors and random atoms running about from gases and particles forming cosmic bodies have a fabric? A void is a void. Shall I give you that definition?
"A bowling ball dropped onto a rubber sheet is a great 2-dimensional analogy. It makes an indentation in the sheet, and if you roll a smaller ball near it, then it will curve along the indented fabric."
Heard it a thousand times in other analogies like drawing a straight line on a paper and then bending it into itself when the line connects. Theory.
"It always concerns me when I hear them trying to create a formula that combines all the forces and they include gravity. Gravity is an apparent force, not a real force. The same way that physicists use the normal force to explain the table holding an object up off the floor when gravity is pulling it down. The normal force supplied upwards from the table equals the gravitational force pushing it downwards, which is why it stands still in equlibrium.
That's contradictory to what I read years back that sub-atomic particles are actually energy not mass as we used to understand. So, unless that theorem has been proven false, what is the energy that the table is using to keep the energy of the object falling towards the "fabric" of gravity?
Now... what is this fabric... that is the big question."
And you just repeated my initial question about gravity, or what you call an "apparent force". You say above Einstein explained gravity, so why is that a question to you?
Since you don't consider gravity a "normal force", what do you consider the "normal forces" of our known Universe? Serious question. Of course it comes down to your definition of what "force" is, as in what is is? Haha.
Are you a mathematician and/or physicist or a hobbyist?
BTW, you never address my question about the singularity (the basketball) appearance out of nowhere. You can't because it is beyond our math, logic, reasoning, and comprehension of what we call the Universe.
Newton has been proven partially wrong. Copernicus was absolutely wrong in his math about the Sun being stationary and the center of the Universe. Einstein's and Hawking's math are now in question, as has others through the centuries. Mathematics is not an exact science. It's guys on a chalk or white board replacing certain numerical values with certain symbols and doing the basic arithmetic from there.
I will ask you the same 2 questions I've asked everyone on this thread:
1. Is there such a dimension called time or is it a human mind construct?
2. How did the singularity (super-heated basketball) poof into existence out of nowhere?
Don't give me math equations, tell me why you believe time is real. Then give me an explanation that the basketball magically appeared out of nowhere. You can't.
I thank you for any courteous reply, but I will tell you and other mathematicians and/or physicists, you will never know the answer to those two (2) most basic questions. I doubt our species will ever evolve enough to answer those questions. Theories will come and go, but doubt those 2 will ever be resolved.
Plus what the heck is gravity? Some other apparently learned poster on this thread told me Einstein explained it in his THEORY of Relativity. Plus he said it was not a true force, but an apparent force.
But then some entity from a parallel universe may appear and give us the answers to the Universe, which is more hokum from physicists who need to write papers for their graduate degrees and sell books.
Yes, that has me pondering. It could be another phenomenon which shows our math is not end all.
My initial reaction, without any heavy thinking, is to disagree.
Math IS an exact science, perhaps the only one. 1 + 1 = 2 is always true. What is not necessarily always true are the assumptions we make as to the underlying physics of our universe. Newtonian mechanics works adequately for the scales in which we live our lives, but perhaps not on galactic scales. I have lived most of my career in the world where Newtonian physics is adequate to get by, but it does have limitations as proven by experiments that have shown space warping, time dilation, and gravity wells, things that are very difficult to comprehend, much less measure.
A Theorem is NEVER able be ‘proven correct’, and that is by definition of a what a theorem is.
Because no matter how many times it works, all it takes is one case to prove it incorrect.
So, Einstein’s theory of relativity is withstanding all testing so far. And so far there has been not one instance where it is proven to be incorrect.
The bigger issue to me is the fact that everyone recognizes that string theory is currently untestable and un-falsifiable and then they get upset when this untestable, un-falsifiable theory claims that we are living in a universe that cant exist.
So string theory is even more useless than before, because not only does it have no predictive/testable value, it doesn’t even model our own universe right? Wonderful.
A provable mathematical theorem (in the sense of Euclid) and a scientific theory (in the sense of explaining a hypothesis) are two very different things.
Einstein has a theory of relativity, not a theorem. Granted, he used mathematical theorems as tools to help construct it. However, the overall result is a scientific theory that attempts to explain physical obervations. It is not a mathematical theorem (a proof deduced step by step logically from basic mathematical axioms without reference to the outside world).
Einstein:s theory is simply a more useful physical approximation of reality than what Newton came up with. It is better because it covers a wider range of physical situations, for example objects moving near the speed of light. Newton’s theory is still useful (and much easier to work with) when dealing with our everyday experiences with baseballs and such but it breaks down under extrene conditions.
It is possible that one day Einstein’s theory will be replaced by an even better approximation of physical reality, one that unifies gravity with quantim mechanics to give us even more predictive value, such as what happens around a black hole where Einstein’s theory breaks down near the singularity as the factors take on infinite values and no longer work.
It is easy to mix up ‘theory’ with ‘theorem’. You see it sometimes in the lay press. After all they sound similar, and math theorems are useful tools used in constructing an experimentally testable scientific theory to explain a hypothesis, but they are not the same thing.
huh?
But a hypothesis is nothing more than a glorified conjecture, which everyone knows can be the equivalent of an educated guess.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.