Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

String theory is a mathematical model . It hasn't been proven and I guess it will never be . Also it tries to combine general relativity with quantum mechanics which is wrong , due to the nature of quantum mechanics (Quantum mechanics describes the possible outcome of our universe and general relativity describes something which is already a part of our universe) . Well I guess QFT is wrong as well for the same reason but physicists stubbornly dont listen to me :) . 

Posted
  On 7/18/2019 at 10:04 AM, AUDI R6 said:

String theory is a mathematical model . It hasn't been proven and I guess it will never be . Also it tries to combine general relativity with quantum mechanics which is wrong , due to the nature of quantum mechanics (Quantum mechanics describes the possible outcome of our universe and general relativity describes something which is already a part of our universe) . Well I guess QFT is wrong as well for the same reason but physicists stubbornly dont listen to me :) . 

Expand  

General relativity is a mathematical model. It hasn't been proven and it will never be. It does have the advantage of experimental confirmation, though. (same goes for QM)

Posted
  On 7/18/2019 at 11:09 AM, swansont said:

General relativity is a mathematical model. It hasn't been proven and it will never be. It does have the advantage of experimental confirmation, though. (same goes for QM)

Expand  

General relativity has been proven experimentally . Quantum mechanics has been proven experimentally . But you cant combine those 2 theories because QM refers to a possible outcome of our universe and GR refers to the real universe . 

Posted
  On 7/18/2019 at 11:56 AM, AUDI R6 said:

General relativity has been proven experimentally . Quantum mechanics has been proven experimentally .

Expand  

Supported, not proven. Reinforced, not proven. Proof is for math. Science is only ever at best provisional and pending potentially better explanations in the future. 

Posted
  On 7/18/2019 at 12:01 PM, iNow said:

Supported, not proven. Reinforced, not proven. Proof is for math. Science is only ever at best provisional and pending potentially better explanations in the future. 

Expand  

Proof is for math? Ahahahahaha:P . Math is not proof . Science is proof.

  On 7/18/2019 at 12:41 PM, AUDI R6 said:

Proof is for math? Ahahahahaha:P . Math is not proof . Science is proof.

Expand  

Math is the practical use of science.

  On 7/18/2019 at 12:41 PM, AUDI R6 said:

Proof is for math? Ahahahahaha:P . Math is not proof . Science is proof.

Math is the practical use of science.

Expand  

But trying to generate science from math is impossible...

Posted
  On 7/18/2019 at 12:41 PM, AUDI R6 said:

Proof is for math? Ahahahahaha:P . Math is not proof . Science is proof.

Expand  

Back to school! Philosophy and maths work with proofs. Science works with theory, I know you've heard of it! Theories are supported by evidence, NEVER proven, always improving as new knowledge comes along. Seriously, this is something you really need to get straight, otherwise you'll never understand what's going on in science. You're here to learn like the rest of us, right? 

Posted
  On 7/18/2019 at 12:58 PM, Phi for All said:

Back to school! Philosophy and maths work with proofs. Science works with theory, I know you've heard of it! Theories are supported by evidence, NEVER proven, always improving as new knowledge comes along. Seriously, this is something you really need to get straight, otherwise you'll never understand what's going on in science. You're here to learn like the rest of us, right? 

Expand  

Philosophy and math work with proof? Ok prove me that 1+1=2

  On 7/18/2019 at 1:01 PM, AUDI R6 said:

Philosophy and math work with proof? Ok prove me that 1+1=2

Expand  

Prove it dont say it is just because it is.

  On 7/18/2019 at 12:58 PM, Phi for All said:

Back to school! Philosophy and maths work with proofs. Science works with theory, I know you've heard of it! Theories are supported by evidence, NEVER proven, always improving as new knowledge comes along. Seriously, this is something you really need to get straight, otherwise you'll never understand what's going on in science. You're here to learn like the rest of us, right? 

Expand  

Math and philosophy come from human common sense but science is the truth of the universe.

  On 7/18/2019 at 1:01 PM, AUDI R6 said:

Philosophy and math work with proof? Ok prove me that 1+1=2

Prove it dont say it is just because it is.

Math and philosophy come from human common sense but science is the truth of the universe.

Expand  

Math can be wrong , but science can't.

Posted
  On 7/18/2019 at 1:01 PM, AUDI R6 said:

Philosophy and math work with proof? Ok prove me that 1+1=2

Expand  

I'm neither a philosopher nor a mathematician. I'm focused on learning science (although I wish I had a better understanding of the language of physics).

  On 7/18/2019 at 1:01 PM, AUDI R6 said:

Prove it dont say it is just because it is.

Expand  

I'll take it slow. Science uses theory, based on mathematical models, to describe our best supported explanations for various phenomena. Science doesn't deal with "answers" or "proofs". If we did, we'd stop looking when we thought we "proved" something, or that we finally had the "answer'. Instead, we constantly amass more and more evidence, constantly making our theories stronger and stronger, but we don't regard them as some final answer or proof. Because that would be really dumb. 

Religion often claims answers or proof, but science needs to remove as much subjectivity as possible in order to be true to its methodology.

Posted
  On 7/18/2019 at 1:13 PM, Phi for All said:

I'm neither a philosopher nor a mathematician. I'm focused on learning science (although I wish I had a better understanding of the language of physics).

I'll take it slow. Science uses theory, based on mathematical models, to describe our best supported explanations for various phenomena. Science doesn't deal with "answers" or "proofs". If we did, we'd stop looking when we thought we "proved" something, or that we finally had the "answer'. Instead, we constantly amass more and more evidence, constantly making our theories stronger and stronger, but we don't regard them as some final answer or proof. Because that would be really dumb. 

Religion often claims answers or proof, but science needs to remove as much subjectivity as possible in order to be true to its methodology.

Expand  

Science doesnt need math to exist , but math needs science . 

Posted
  On 7/18/2019 at 1:01 PM, AUDI R6 said:

Math can be wrong , but science can't.

Expand  

Science has been wrong many times. It's probably the best demonstration of the power of theory over "proof". If we thought we'd "proven" phlogiston, wouldn't we still think it was right? Because science uses theory, evidence showed science was WRONG about that.

Posted

Wait a minute .... We write science from our observations in the nature and from experiments . So science cant be wrong . Math on the other hand are made from human logic . Human logic can be wrong but nature cant.

Posted
  On 7/18/2019 at 1:14 PM, AUDI R6 said:

Science doesnt need math to exist , but math needs science . 

Expand  

I'm guessing you don't do math. I understand, it's a difficult language. It's the language of physics. All of theory is just verbally describing mathematical models. You have it backwards.

Posted

Math is not the language of physics . There is no language of physics . We use them for practical applications . But you cant derive something general from something special . 

  On 7/18/2019 at 1:19 PM, AUDI R6 said:

Math is not the language of physics . There is no language of physics . We use them for practical applications . But you cant derive something general from something special . 

Expand  

You cant expect math to describe physics .

Posted
  On 7/18/2019 at 11:56 AM, AUDI R6 said:

General relativity has been proven experimentally . Quantum mechanics has been proven experimentally . But you cant combine those 2 theories because QM refers to a possible outcome of our universe and GR refers to the real universe . 

Expand  

No, they haven’t been disproved. Which is an important difference. 

We know they are both consistent with all the evidence we have so far, but there is always the possibility that new evidence will be found. It is very unlikely that either will be disproved but they could be shown to have limited applicability/ accuracy. 

This is a relevant article: https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2019/07/13/ask-ethan-what-does-truth-mean-to-a-scientist/amp/

Posted
  On 7/18/2019 at 1:21 PM, Strange said:

No, they haven’t been disproved. Which is an important difference. 

We know they are both consistent with all the evidence we have so far, but there is always the possibility that new evidence will be found. It is very unlikely that either will be disproved but they could be shown to have limited applicability/ accuracy. 

This is a relevant article: https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2019/07/13/ask-ethan-what-does-truth-mean-to-a-scientist/amp/

Expand  

Both have been confirmed a billion times.....

Posted
  On 7/18/2019 at 1:01 PM, AUDI R6 said:

Philosophy and math work with proof? Ok prove me that 1+1=2

Expand  

One standard approach uses set theory to define integers in terms of axioms and then derive their properties (including addition). 

I can try and find a reference for you later. 

  On 7/18/2019 at 1:01 PM, AUDI R6 said:

Math can be wrong , but science can't.

Expand  

A mathematical proof is always true (unless there is an error).

Science is often (always?) wrong ... to some extent. The phlogiston theory was completely disproved with more evidence.  (Ditto the steady state universe) Newton’s law of gravity was found to be wrong in certain cases. And so on...

Posted
  On 7/18/2019 at 1:27 PM, Strange said:

One standard approach uses set theory to define integers in terms of axioms and then derive their properties (including addition). 

I can try and find a reference for you later. 

A mathematical proof is always true (unless there is an error).

Science is often (always?) wrong ... to some extent. The phlogiston theory was completely disproved with more evidence.  (Ditto the steady state universe) Newton’s law of gravity was found to be wrong in certain cases. And so on...

Expand  

Math come from human logic and human logic may be false . Science cant be wrong because it describes the reality of the universe.

Posted
  On 7/18/2019 at 1:25 PM, AUDI R6 said:

Both have been confirmed a billion times.....

Expand  

Doesn’t mean they always will be. (See also “black swans”)

On the other hand, a mathematical proof only needs to be done once. And then it is true for all time. 

  On 7/18/2019 at 1:29 PM, AUDI R6 said:

Science cant be wrong because it describes the reality of the universe.

Expand  

Our descriptions can be (and often are) wrong. 

  On 7/18/2019 at 1:19 PM, AUDI R6 said:

Math is not the language of physics .

Expand  

It is impossible to do physics without using math to describe it.

  On 7/18/2019 at 1:19 PM, AUDI R6 said:

But you cant derive something general from something special . 

Expand  

Math often does this. 

Posted

Human logic can be wrong but the reality of the universe cant be wrong  . In order to see if we are correct , we need to encounter another civilization similar to ours to see if they can understand our logic . And still there is no guarantee we are correct.

Posted
  On 7/18/2019 at 12:41 PM, AUDI R6 said:

Ahahahahaha

Expand  

Strong counter argument. You've clearly convinced me of the error of my position.

So you're aware... Merely repeating an invalid claim without adding any new information doesn't magically render it correct. Repetition of false claims doesn't somehow make them true.

Posted
  On 7/18/2019 at 1:33 PM, AUDI R6 said:

Human logic can be wrong but the reality of the universe cant be wrong  . 

Expand  

Not sure you know what “logic” means. It is a branch of mathematics and so can be proved to be correct. 

On the other hand, our observations of reality are never perfect and always incomplete. As a result, our scientific theories are often wrong or incomplete. 

Posted
  On 7/18/2019 at 1:42 PM, swansont said:

Where do you think relativity came from? The stork?

Expand  

experiments which proved that electromagnetics propagated at the speed of light for every frame of reference.

  On 7/18/2019 at 1:45 PM, Strange said:

Not sure you know what “logic” means. It is a branch of mathematics and so can be proved to be correct. 

On the other hand, our observations of reality are never perfect and always incomplete. As a result, our scientific theories are often wrong or incomplete. 

Expand  

Logic is what seems right to a human.

Posted
  On 7/18/2019 at 1:46 PM, AUDI R6 said:

experiments which proved that electromagnetics propagated at the speed of light for every frame of reference.

Expand  

Experiments? (please cite them) Or the fact that Maxwells equations worked that way? i.e. the math said so.

And what experiments showed time dilation and/or length contraction, that were performed before 1905?

Posted
  On 7/18/2019 at 1:48 PM, swansont said:

Experiments? (please cite them) Or the fact that Maxwells equations worked that way? i.e. the math said so.

And what experiments showed time dilation and/or length contraction, that were performed before 1905?

Expand  

Michelson-Morley experiment showed that the speed of light is the same for all observers . But this seemed impossible to that era.

  On 7/18/2019 at 1:51 PM, AUDI R6 said:

Michelson-Morley experiment showed that the speed of light is the same for all observers . But this seemed impossible to that era.

Expand  

Einstein then thought that if time was passing slower for observers moving at a relative velocity , the issue would be solved .

  On 7/18/2019 at 1:51 PM, AUDI R6 said:

Michelson-Morley experiment showed that the speed of light is the same for all observers . But this seemed impossible to that era.

Einstein then thought that if time was passing slower for observers moving at a relative velocity , the issue would be solved .

Expand  

Einstein didnt use any math to do the thought I mentioned above . This is science . Not the mathematical models we learn at school.

Or for example the theory of Pauling for electronegativity . He just pubished a mathematical version of its theory later to become applicable and to be used in predictions.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.