RELIGOUS SCIENTISM - "WHERE IS THE MATH"?

[Native]

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

I bet you that the conventional scientists only will change their significant perspectives with a speed of "one past scientist at the time"

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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.

No. What breaks down are the mathematical models, not math itself, that attempt to describe the forces of physics at play.
This is how we know that the models are either wrong or incomplete.

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

"failed" is a big word.

It might be completely incorrect, but it might also just miss a parameter or some such.

It seems to me that in this thread, you are confusing math as a system of logic with the actual models build, using math, as an attempt to explain certain phenomenon of reality.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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.

When we find out things that don't match well with current understanding of the model, then that doesn't necessarily mean the entire model is full blown wrong.

While there are things that big bang theory can't explain, there are other things which it can explain really well. There are also predictions from the model that check out. The evidence for the big bang doesn't disappear when finding evidence / data that doesn't fit into it.

Sometimes a model must be completely replaced to account for the additional evidence + existing evidence.
Sometimes a model must just be adjusted to account for the extra evidence.

 

[Native]

No. What breaks down are the mathematical models, not math itself, that attempt to describe the forces of physics at play.
This is how we know that the models are either wrong or incomplete.

Models brakes down when factual physical observations proves both the models and its connected math wrong. And both is the case in for instants with "black holes".

Besides: Contradicted models doesn´t prevent cosmological scientists to hold onto the connected failed math.

 

[Audie]

Models brakes down when factual physical observations proves both the models and its connected math wrong. And both is the case in for instants with "black holes".

Besides: Contradicted models doesn´t prevent cosmological scientists to hold onto failed math.

" instance"

Why do you keep claiming that " cosmological"
scientists are devoid of scientific integrity?

 

[Native]

While there are things that big bang theory can't explain, there are other things which it can explain really well. There are also predictions from the model that check out. The evidence for the big bang doesn't disappear when finding evidence / data that doesn't fit into it.

Yes, assuming the initial assumption is correct - Which only can be certified in connection with having a genuine Theory of Everything. Otherwise it's just assumptions confirming biased assumptions.

 

[Native]

Why do you keep claiming that " cosmological"
scientists are devoid of scientific integrity?

Not at all. They´re (cosmologists) rather devoid of natural approaches.

 

[Audie]

Not at all. They´re (cosmologists) rather devoid of natural approaches.

You keep claiming what you just denied.

 

[Native]

You keep claiming what you just denied.

Not if you combine and compare the lack of natural approaches with the absence of scientific integrity.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Models brakes down when factual physical observations proves both the models and its connected math wrong. And both is the case in for instants with "black holes".

No. The math is correct in context of the model. It's just that the model doesn't accurately describe reality.
It's perfectly possible to build models of a reality that doesn't exist with perfectly sound math.

Take Newtonian gravity. There was nothing wrong with the math. What was missing was relativity of time. His model didn't account for it.
His math is perfectly sound though. Which is why it is still very useful when applied in contexts where relativistic effects are neglectable.

Besides: Contradicted models doesn´t prevent cosmological scientists to hold onto the connected failed math.

Your insinuations are noted.

Off course, this is not an accurate description of what really goes on.
For example, the model of relativity doesn't seem to work at the beginning of the universe / when trying to unify it with quantum theory.
So either relativity, or quantum theory- or both, are wrong... or something is missing (like newton missed relativity) to be able to unify both models.

But we don't know yet.
Meanwhile, the model of relativity is our best explanation for the phenomenon it accounts for. GPS works.
Meanwhile, the model of quantum physics is also still our best explanation for the phenomenon that model accounts for.

So it's not so much that "scientists desperately hold on to it"... it's just that for the time being they have no other choice.
What would the alternative be? Throw out relativity because it doesn't play nice with quantum theory? We wouldn't have GPS then.......
At present we have no better model to replace it with. So we are stuck with it until we do (or find out what's missing from it).

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Yes, assuming the initial assumption is correct

There is no need for such assumption nor is it relevant.
The point is that you can't just throw it out because it doesn't explain some new datapoint, while it is still the best explanation we have that does explain a bunch of other data points.

So we know it is incomplete at best and wrong at worst.
But until we find out what's missing or which model works better, we are stuck with it as it is still the best explanatory model we have.

- Which only can be certified in connection with having a genuine Theory of Everything. Otherwise it's just assumptions confirming biased assumptions.

Again, there are no assumptions.

It factually explains the things that it does. It factually makes the succesful predictions it does.
It is factually the best we have at the moment - even if we know it is incomplete at best and wrong at worst (because we also know of things it can't account for).

 

[Audie]

Not if you combine and compare the lack of natural approaches with the absence of scientific integrity.

I won't be following your way of just
saying things.

 

[wellwisher]

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?

Math is like a faithful horse that will go anywhere the rider wants it to go. What is more fundamental than math is the conceptual foundation for the math. Once the conceptual foundation is set, the math becomes a useful compact tool to allow expression of that foundation. If the conceptual foundation is wrong the math will still pull the cart to that market. For example, if many computer games we can use the assumption of infinite lives. The math will be designed to accommodate infinite lives, even if infinite lives is not in touch with reality, but is needed for the game logic.

Statistical math or Casino math is interesting in that this type of math has built in fudge factors that allow even bad theory with a poor conceptual foundation to linger via margins of error. This may be the science scam of the century. It is the same math shady politicians and marketers use. The Insurance Industry reaps huge profits since like a casino, the house always wins; the game of chance. That math should not be allowed in science since it preclude needing a logical conceptual foundation, in favor of a black box. In this case, rather than a faithful horse that follow logic the horse becomes the task master with the rider pushed along for the ride. I have been complaining for decades but nobody changes since this is the easiest way to pretend rational science.

 

[Audie]

No. The math is correct in context of the model. It's just that the model doesn't accurately describe reality.
It's perfectly possible to build models of a reality that doesn't exist with perfectly sound math.

Take Newtonian gravity. There was nothing wrong with the math. What was missing was relativity of time. His model didn't account for it.
His math is perfectly sound though. Which is why it is still very useful when applied in contexts where relativistic effects are neglectable.


Your insinuations are noted.

Off course, this is not an accurate description of what really goes on.
For example, the model of relativity doesn't seem to work at the beginning of the universe / when trying to unify it with quantum theory.
So either relativity, or quantum theory- or both, are wrong... or something is missing (like newton missed relativity) to be able to unify both models.
But we don't know yet.
Meanwhile, the model of relativity is our best explanation for the phenomenon it accounts for. GPS works.
Meanwhile, the model of quantum physics is also still our best explanation for the phenomenon that model accounts for.

So it's not so much that "scientists desperately hold on to it"... it's just that for the time being they hate no other choice.
What would the alternative be? Throw out relativity because it doesn't play nice with quantum theory? We wouldn't have GPS then.......
At present we have no better model to replace it with. So we are stuck with it until we do (or find out what's missing from it).

You refer to the claims of scientific dishonesty,
which are the sum and substance of the argument..

We see that all the time esp from yecs.

Even mentioning " ad hom " is as tiresome as
the act its self , but, there it is. A sorry tool used only
by those with nothing else.

I'll let you try to be the one who battles
attitude and unreason, ive made my comments.

 

[cladking]

Take Newtonian gravity. There was nothing wrong with the math. What was missing was relativity of time. His model didn't account for it.
His math is perfectly sound though. Which is why it is still very useful when applied in contexts where relativistic effects are neglectable.

"Neglectable", eh?

Everything in reality affects everything else in reality on a real time basis and you want to neglect what we know about the processes by which they interact! You also want to neglect chaos and every experiment you deem insignificant" or even "irrelevant". There are no insignificant or irrelevant experiments because all math and all experiment apply to all things on a real time basis as well.

In your zeal to reduce reality to a few simple theories you have also reduced an understanding of the big picture to disjointed pixels and scanned lines.


I once had a TV where the picture went out and all that was left was two horizontal lines in the center. Oddly enough if you looked just below these lines and flicked your eyes upward at the proper speed you could catch a glimpse of the picture! I found that a piece of glass held between the lines and my eye when flapped like a bird's wing would produce a tolerable viewing experience.

With radio you didn't need to see the picture at all. But with TV you can't follow the plot without seeing the picture.

 

[Native]

No. The math is correct in context of the model. It's just that the model doesn't accurately describe reality.

Do you really realize what you´re saying here? The reality in contradicting circumstances are that cosmos don´t fit the mathematical models.

Take Newtonian gravity. There was nothing wrong with the math.

Nobody can explain by what dynamic means the Newtonian gravity should work. Until then, we have math superimposed on cosmos instead of the other way around. And according to Einstein, Newtons gravity doesn´t exist at all.

There is no need for such assumption nor is it relevant.

Come on! All theories starts up as assumptions. And all "confirmations" can be nothing but ad hoc bias assumptions with no values as long as significant parts of the initial assumption is proven wrong.

It factually explains the things that it does. It factually makes the succesful predictions it does.
It is factually the best we have at the moment - even if we know it is incomplete at best and wrong at worst (because we also know of things it can't account for).

Well you said it yourself.

 

[Native]

I won't be following your way of just
saying things.

I prefer this conclusion before your next one.

 

[Regiomontanus]

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

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.

The key word in that link is *nearly*. Circular orbits do not exist in nature.

 

[cladking]

I once had a TV where the picture went out and all that was left was two horizontal lines in the center. Oddly enough if you looked just below these lines and flicked your eyes upward at the proper speed you could catch a glimpse of the picture! I found that a piece of glass held between the lines and my eye when flapped like a bird's wing would produce a tolerable viewing experience.

Anyone watching this TV without knowing how to see the picture could not follow the plot or gain any useful visual information to explain the dialog. They would be misled at every turn.

Every time some scientist dies we all get to roll our eyes a little bit and get a new snapshot of reality.

Some will proceed with their pixels and I have no doubt they will forever lecture all who try to see the big picture by any means at all. People extrapolate the math and a handful of pixels into their models of reality that isn't matching the dialog but they never notice.

We can see reality only in snatches. Our word "amen" probably comes from the ancient word "amun" (reality) which meant "That Which is Hidden". It is still hidden but those who believe in science believe they can see it. What they can't see is neglectable and negligible.

 

[Native]

Math is like a faithful horse that will go anywhere the rider wants it to go. What is more fundamental than math is the conceptual foundation for the math. Once the conceptual foundation is set, the math becomes a useful compact tool to allow expression of that foundation. If the conceptual foundation is wrong the math will still pull the cart to that market. For example, if many computer games we can use the assumption of infinite lives. The math will be designed to accommodate infinite lives, even if infinite lives is not in touch with reality, but is needed for the game logic.

Statistical math or Casino math is interesting in that this type of math has built in fudge factors that allow even bad theory with a poor conceptual foundation to linger via margins of error. This may be the science scam of the century. It is the same math shady politicians and marketers use. The Insurance Industry reaps huge profits since like a casino, the house always wins; the game of chance. That math should not be allowed in science since it preclude needing a logical conceptual foundation, in favor of a black box. In this case, rather than a faithful horse that follow logic the horse becomes the task master with the rider pushed along for the ride. I have been complaining for decades but nobody changes since this is the easiest way to pretend rational science.

As always I enjoy your well elaborated replies
Personally, I'm fine with math in terrestrial matters, but it's impossible on the cosmic scales because nothing in space behaves in linear patterns.