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.