Why did Einstein add Riemannian geometry, and invent the space-time dimension, if not to save his equations? And why was Voigt's transformation, not based on Relativistic assumptions ignored?
Someone knowledgeable can correct me but mathematics is reality. The difference is that math is metaphysical reality and as such is true by necessity (if correct) while our world is physical reality. The problem is and this is the way I understand our good dr. F that these guys are mixing up physical and metaphysical reality creating all this mess.
Yes maths can explain what is physically proven. By themselves they are not proofs per se, but only meta-explanations or meta data in the form of an equation. If unsupported by evidence they can't be 'science' by themselves.
An example is Ohm's 'law' (maybe someday this is disproven). Ohm discussed the limits of voltage and current power. Tesla read this and understood what it meant re the distribution of electricity. Edison did not understand the maths or what they meant. Tesla created AC, Edison could not. Tesla said that Ohm provided some maths insights which helped with his AC designs. But without Tesla these maths would just remain abstract metadata as you say. So this is a good example of a partnership between abstract equations and engineering.
That's an interesting example and further illustrates what I hinted to, namely that while some math might be true it doesn't necessarily propagates to physical reality. Hence, the need for physical proof. But isn't this too limiting on science? If some model is giving forecasts consistent with observation isn't it sufficient from practical point of view? Even though it's just saving appearances as you say? For example if astronomy says we got 3 models consistent with observation, we are done, no further proof possible, let theology decide the rest ;-) I know they'll never say that but that would be ok, wouldn't be?
Models can perhaps provide a framework of understanding. This is common in IT for instance, yet I can develop many frameworks to solve the underlying business-IT issue. My framework might be elegant, simple, or convoluted and arcane, but it gets the job done. It does not mean it should be an immanent 'law'.
For example, you can ask, 'Why does the cat jump so well' - you can 'postulate' some theories, from observations. If 3 theories appear to be 'correct', and can be proven to be accurate, it will come down to a philosophical choice (for example, my philosophical choice is that the cat jumps high because the cat god inspires this and given my framework and maths I have proven this to be a valid postulate; ie theogony, Hesiod etc).
The issue with much of 'the science' is that the proofs are non-existent, or the framework is not understood, (see Godel's theorem, which is the next post), yet everyone is to agree that it is a 'law' and a postulate.
So now we have the absurdity where you can explain the perihelion of Mercury quite easily without Einstotle's incomprehenisble maths, but it is wrong because, tautologically, it is unsupported by those very maths!
Same is true for all of cosmology, geology, climate etc.
Thanks David. "Which came first - reality or mathematics?" Good question. Some great physicists including Nordenson and Ives eviscerated the fantasy worlds of maths and Relativity. Will post some info on their contributions based on experiments (1930s~). Akin to DS Miller who had 200.000 experiments disproving Einstotle's dogma. Then we have Tesla and his gravity theory which is looking increasingly valid (Einstotle's GTR gravity is wrong, though every online source, AI etc says the opposite). Reality should be investigated without prejudice and facts accepted until they are proven to be incorrect.
I suggest you look into Theory of Everything (if you haven't already) and Double-slid (quantum physics). I know at least one of those are based on lies.
Excellent and very interesting. Looking forward to the next bit. Which came first - reality or mathematics?
Someone knowledgeable can correct me but mathematics is reality. The difference is that math is metaphysical reality and as such is true by necessity (if correct) while our world is physical reality. The problem is and this is the way I understand our good dr. F that these guys are mixing up physical and metaphysical reality creating all this mess.
Yes maths can explain what is physically proven. By themselves they are not proofs per se, but only meta-explanations or meta data in the form of an equation. If unsupported by evidence they can't be 'science' by themselves.
An example is Ohm's 'law' (maybe someday this is disproven). Ohm discussed the limits of voltage and current power. Tesla read this and understood what it meant re the distribution of electricity. Edison did not understand the maths or what they meant. Tesla created AC, Edison could not. Tesla said that Ohm provided some maths insights which helped with his AC designs. But without Tesla these maths would just remain abstract metadata as you say. So this is a good example of a partnership between abstract equations and engineering.
That's an interesting example and further illustrates what I hinted to, namely that while some math might be true it doesn't necessarily propagates to physical reality. Hence, the need for physical proof. But isn't this too limiting on science? If some model is giving forecasts consistent with observation isn't it sufficient from practical point of view? Even though it's just saving appearances as you say? For example if astronomy says we got 3 models consistent with observation, we are done, no further proof possible, let theology decide the rest ;-) I know they'll never say that but that would be ok, wouldn't be?
Models can perhaps provide a framework of understanding. This is common in IT for instance, yet I can develop many frameworks to solve the underlying business-IT issue. My framework might be elegant, simple, or convoluted and arcane, but it gets the job done. It does not mean it should be an immanent 'law'.
For example, you can ask, 'Why does the cat jump so well' - you can 'postulate' some theories, from observations. If 3 theories appear to be 'correct', and can be proven to be accurate, it will come down to a philosophical choice (for example, my philosophical choice is that the cat jumps high because the cat god inspires this and given my framework and maths I have proven this to be a valid postulate; ie theogony, Hesiod etc).
The issue with much of 'the science' is that the proofs are non-existent, or the framework is not understood, (see Godel's theorem, which is the next post), yet everyone is to agree that it is a 'law' and a postulate.
So now we have the absurdity where you can explain the perihelion of Mercury quite easily without Einstotle's incomprehenisble maths, but it is wrong because, tautologically, it is unsupported by those very maths!
Same is true for all of cosmology, geology, climate etc.
Thanks David. "Which came first - reality or mathematics?" Good question. Some great physicists including Nordenson and Ives eviscerated the fantasy worlds of maths and Relativity. Will post some info on their contributions based on experiments (1930s~). Akin to DS Miller who had 200.000 experiments disproving Einstotle's dogma. Then we have Tesla and his gravity theory which is looking increasingly valid (Einstotle's GTR gravity is wrong, though every online source, AI etc says the opposite). Reality should be investigated without prejudice and facts accepted until they are proven to be incorrect.
I suggest you look into Theory of Everything (if you haven't already) and Double-slid (quantum physics). I know at least one of those are based on lies.