RELIGOUS SCIENTISM - "WHERE IS THE MATH"?

[Native]

I know all too well how the present Thunderbolts society can result in all kinds of "cranky comments" from fellow debaters who have not analysed and considered the embedded shortcomings in their own conventional cosmology.

Abstract
Third episode in the Misconception series on the EU Model - with an emphasis on how science is practiced, interpreted, publicized, and absorbed by society.

Math isn't science, and science isn't math. For example, planetary orbits were believed to be perfectly circular. When proven false, a mathematical workaround was devised - epicycles. Although mathematically elegant, the epicyclic model failed to reflect reality both on the Solar System and Galactic scales.

Mathematics can describe nature with precision - it's known as the language of the universe - although how it's interpreted can be subjective and even lost in translation.

Building science on math is putting the cart before the horse - like running an enterprise with only accountants under a delusional business model.

Author and independent researcher David Drew analyzes in this video the role of mathematics in cosmology and in the scientific method.

Other Links in this series:
May 11, 2024 Misconception #1: Where's the Problem? | Thunderbolts
• Misconception #1: Where's the Problem...
June 21, 2024 Misconception #2: Where's the Science? | Thunderbolt
• Misconception #2: Where's the Science...
--------------
Thoughts and comments anyone?

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

At a fundamental level maths can be used to describe, most if not all of, what we call science.

One can not judge mathematics by earlier errors, or the present inability to solve problems.

When both the practice and theory of science and the maths agree, the chances of it being a correct solution is very high indeed.
However on rare occasions serendipity plays a part and even though the science and maths appear to agree, later research proves otherwise.
In such cases the math has not failed but it's application has.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

I would suggest that the science of everything will be found to relate to electro magnetism and quantum physics. Though the direct relationship between them is not yet clear.
This will no doubt be describable by mathematics.but not defined by it, a neat distinction.

 

[Audie]

I know all too well how the present Thunderbolts society can result in all kinds of "cranky comments" from fellow debaters who have not analysed and considered the embedded shortcomings in their own conventional cosmology.

Abstract
Third episode in the Misconception series on the EU Model - with an emphasis on how science is practiced, interpreted, publicized, and absorbed by society.

Math isn't science, and science isn't math. For example, planetary orbits were believed to be perfectly circular. When proven false, a mathematical workaround was devised - epicycles. Although mathematically elegant, the epicyclic model failed to reflect reality both on the Solar System and Galactic scales.

Mathematics can describe nature with precision - it's known as the language of the universe - although how it's interpreted can be subjective and even lost in translation.

Building science on math is putting the cart before the horse - like running an enterprise with only accountants under a delusional business model.

Author and independent researcher David Drew analyzes in this video the role of mathematics in cosmology and in the scientific method.

Other Links in this series:
May 11, 2024 Misconception #1: Where's the oblem? | Thunderbolts
• Misconception #1: Where's the Problem...
June 21, 2024 Misconception #2: Where's the Science? | Thunderbolt
• Misconception #2: Where's the Science...
--------------
Thoughts and comments anyone?

The perfect circle orbits was christian nonsense.

And as with yecs etc rearguard battle against
evolution they found mathematicians devoid of
integrity to concoct " proof" tailored to the task.

Sunspots caused similar unrest for the heavenly perfection
people.

I'd say your vid-man is trying to make much of strawman and false dichotomy.

I doubt btw that the workaround you mention matches the
data any better than the currently popular disproofs of abio and ToE.

 

[cladking]

I would suggest that the science of everything will be found to relate to electro magnetism and quantum physics. Though the direct relationship between them is not yet clear.

I shouldn't be surprised except you have omitted all consideration of life and consciousness.

This will no doubt be describable by mathematics.but not defined by it, a neat distinction.

No. This is cart before the horse if it's true that reality is manifested logic and math is quantified logic. There will necessarily be a correlation between math and reality but not because reality is math or math is reality. This correlation (our conscious ability to understand the correlation) will forever depend chiefly on experiment because only experiment can reveal the reality to keep them together. It will always be possible to go off on a tangent to reality and have the math to back it up. Only experiment can underlie theory.

 

[cladking]

When both the practice and theory of science and the maths agree, the chances of it being a correct solution is very high indeed.

No.

Unfortunately it simply doesn't work this way. So long as logic and facts underlie an hypothesis it will most probably dovetail with the math. If it doesn't survive experiment than the hypothesis is tossed aside but if it is supported by experiment it is not proof. Rather it merely becomes the best guess at the current time. It is the best explanation in terms of the prevailing paradigm.

Certainly past errors and current weaknesses do reflect on the current paradigm and any other.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

I shouldn't be surprised except you have omitted all consideration of life and consciousness.



No. This is cart before the horse if it's true that reality is manifested logic and math is quantified logic. There will necessarily be a correlation between math and reality but not because reality is math or math is reality. This correlation (our conscious ability to understand the correlation) will forever depend chiefly on experiment because only experiment can reveal the reality to keep them together. It will always be possible to go off on a tangent to reality and have the math to back it up. Only experiment can underlie theory.

I made no distinction about which came first. Sometimes the math gives clues on which experiments to attempt and which scenarios are impossible math and science go together.

 

[cladking]

I made no distinction about which came first. Sometimes the math gives clues on which experiments to attempt and which scenarios are impossible math and science go together.

Yes!!! There is a correlation between reality and math.

But this correlation has always existed whether science is right or wrong and history has shown it's always wrong and always subject to tweaking and paradigm shifts.

When we apply math to make new hypotheses we necessarily assume current models are correct and calculate accordingly. Without experiment to tie the math to reality it is utterly meaningless.

 

[cladking]

When we apply math to make new hypotheses we necessarily assume current models are correct and calculate accordingly. Without experiment to tie the math to reality it is utterly meaningless.

For instance it is becoming increasingly clear there are major flaws in the big bang model. What effect will its total overhaul or elimination have on all of the math underlying modern cosmology?

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

For instance it is becoming increasingly clear there are major flaws in the big bang model. What effect will its total overhaul or elimination have on all of the math underlying modern cosmology?

This is how science progresses. Sometimes experiment, theories, or maths suggest new avenues, it always has ramifications.

 

[cladking]

This is how science progresses. Sometimes experiment, theories, or maths suggest new avenues, it always has ramifications.

Perhaps we're in much closer agreement than is apparent.

But I certainly agree with the premise of the thread that many of the "explanations" of science might bear little relationship with the underlying reality.

 

[Native]

At a fundamental level maths can be used to describe, most if not all of, what we call science.

One can not judge mathematics by earlier errors, or the present inability to solve problems.

Well, math brakes down in all significant areas i cosmology as for instants in the assumed "black holes", so it obviously cannot comply in the overall cosmology.

However on rare occasions serendipity plays a part and even though the science and maths appear to agree, later research proves otherwise.
In such cases the math has not failed but it's application has.

Or in such cases the assumed and applicated theory has failed.

 

[Native]

I'd say your vid-man is trying to make much of strawman and false dichotomy.

I don´t think so as he´s just trying to point out the obvious mathematical shortcomings when used in cosmology and astrophysics.

 

[Native]

When we apply math to make new hypotheses we necessarily assume current models are correct and calculate accordingly. Without experiment to tie the math to reality it is utterly meaningless.

Agreed with that. This excludes solid evidences of a Big Bang, "dark matter" and "dark energy" and really leave math only to apply to terrestrial and industrial matters.

 

[Native]

Regarding the IMO very strange idea of a Big Bang, the conventional scientists are very busy patching this hypothesis when being met by the JWST observations.
"The formation process must have taken place much faster, making full grown galaxies when only stars should be there in the early Universe" - thus contradicting the conventional ideas of formation by gravity in general.

 

[Regiomontanus]

I know all too well how the present Thunderbolts society can result in all kinds of "cranky comments" from fellow debaters who have not analysed and considered the embedded shortcomings in their own conventional cosmology.

Abstract
Third episode in the Misconception series on the EU Model - with an emphasis on how science is practiced, interpreted, publicized, and absorbed by society.

Math isn't science, and science isn't math. For example, planetary orbits were believed to be perfectly circular. When proven false, a mathematical workaround was devised - epicycles.

Wrong. Kepler first showed that orbits are elliptical.

Some orbits are very close to circular, others very elongated. 0 < e < 1

Epicycles are much much older and were essentially a fudge factor because people thought orbits had to be circular (it was the perfect shape, the Greeks thought, so 'obviously' orbits had to be circular).

 

[Regiomontanus]

Regarding the IMO very strange idea of a Big Bang, the conventional scientists are very busy pathing this hypothesis when being met by the JWST observations.
"The formation process must have taken place much faster, making full grown galaxies when only stars should be there in the early Universe" - thus contradicting the conventional ideas of formation by gravity in general.

While the JWST is giving us some amazing insights about the early universe, so far the current, concordant model (lamda cold dark matter model) in cosmology is still the best one out there. It is true though that if we detect galaxies just a little older than the current record holders, some things will need to be reconsidered

 

[Audie]

I don´t think so as he´s just trying to point out the obvious mathematical shortcomings when used in cosmology and astrophysics.

Then why bother of its news of the obvious

 

[Native]

Wrong. Kepler first showed that orbits are elliptical.

Math is the OP here, no matter who observed the elliptical planetary motions.

Some orbits are very close to circular, others very elongated. 0 < e < 1

This only goes for planets in our solar system and not for stars, planets and dwarf galaxies orbiting the Milky Way center..

Besides: "Many planets beyond our solar system follow nearly circular orbital paths". So no rules without exceptions.

 

[Native]

Then why bother of its news of the obvious

So, you didn't come to any conclusions from watching the video?