Science (split from The 11 dimensions of string theory)

[swansont]

4 minutes ago, 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.

M-M showed that we are not moving through the aether. You would get no fringes for a Michelson interferometer that was stationary with respect to the aether.

And relativity was not based on the M-M experiment. The invariance of c was a postulate, not the bulk, of the theory

4 minutes ago, AUDI R6 said:

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

The fact remains that the equations of relativity are derived from postulates, and not the result of an experiment.

[AUDI R6]

There is a whole part of science -> Philosophy of physics which supports what I say . P.S I didnt know it existed or what it said , but it clearly says that math may endanger the development of science.

Just now, swansont said:

M-M showed that we are not moving through the aether. You would get no fringes for a Michelson interferometer that was stationary with respect to the aether.

And relativity was not based on the M-M experiment. The invariance of c was a postulate, not the bulk, of the theory

The fact remains that the equations of relativity are derived from postulates, and not the result of an experiment.

Yes but they repeated the experiment for relative motion as well (if the source of light was moving).

Einstein understood the physical meaning of the Lorentz's transformations . The word physical is important . Math are not physical. They are numbers and letters.

[swansont]

3 minutes ago, AUDI R6 said:

 Yes but they repeated the experiment for relative motion as well (if the source of light was moving). 

Their light source was the sun. How, exactly, did they do this?

[AUDI R6]

1 minute ago, swansont said:

Their light source was the sun. How, exactly, did they do this?

They moved the instrument relative to the sun.

1 minute ago, AUDI R6 said:

They moved the instrument relative to the sun.

 

[Phi for All]

54 minutes ago, AUDI R6 said:

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

You've been given at least two examples where science was wrong and acknowledged it. How can you assert that it CAN'T be wrong?

[AUDI R6]

Just now, Phi for All said:

You've been given at least two examples where science was wrong and acknowledged it. How can you assert that it CAN'T be wrong and?

???

[Phi for All]

4 minutes ago, AUDI R6 said:

???

Phlogiston and steady state theories have both been shown wrong.

[AUDI R6]

Science is not the theories we come up with , are the rules of operation of the universe. And the rules of operation of the universe are absolute at the macroscopic level (where quantum uncertainty and wavefunction can be considered neglible).

And phlogiston has never been proven experimentally.

Math on the other hand are personal based on our ability to do logical thoughts (what is more , less etc).

Edited July 18, 2019 by AUDI R6

[iNow]

1 minute ago, AUDI R6 said:

phlogiston has never been proven experimentally.

And yet it was science for a good stretch of time, thus immediately demonstrating your core position to be wrong.

[AUDI R6]

2 minutes ago, iNow said:

And yet it was science for a good stretch of time, thus immediately demonstrating your core position to be wrong.

Science is not incorrect laws of operation of the universe.

Science is universal , math is not universal so science is more important and more fundamental than math!

[Strange]

51 minutes ago, AUDI R6 said:

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

Which just confirmed what the mathematics said.  

51 minutes ago, AUDI R6 said:

Logic is what seems right to a human.

No. That is called "common sense"; and is very often wrong. For example, it seems to be what you are relying on in your understanding of science.

47 minutes ago, AUDI R6 said:

Einstein didnt use any math to do the thought I mentioned above .

He most certainly did.

[AUDI R6]

1 minute ago, Strange said:

Which just confirmed what the mathematics said.  

No. That is called "common sense"; and is very often wrong. For example, it seems to be what you are relying on in your understanding of science.

He most certainly did.

Logic and common sense are the same thing . So since logic is different from people to people , math are different from people to people.

[Strange]

39 minutes ago, AUDI R6 said:

There is a whole part of science -> Philosophy of physics which supports what I say .

The philosophy of science is part of philosophy, not science. And, in general, it says the exact opposite of what you say. Maybe you should take a course?

40 minutes ago, AUDI R6 said:

but it clearly says that math may endanger the development of science.

Citation needed.

13 minutes ago, AUDI R6 said:

Science is not the theories we come up with , are the rules of operation of the universe.

That is an ... unusual definition. Pretty much every definition I have seen says it is a body of knowledge (about the universe) particularly that developed using the scientific method. 

Can you provide a reference for your definition? Or did you make it up?

14 minutes ago, AUDI R6 said:

And phlogiston has never been proven experimentally.

At the time, it was as good a theory as any other: in other words, it was consistent with all the evidence. Then more evidence showed it to be wrong and an alternative model was developed. This can happen to any theory.

15 minutes ago, AUDI R6 said:

Math on the other hand are personal based on our ability to do logical thoughts (what is more , less etc).

OK. There is a big discussion among philosophers of mathematics and (some) mathematicians about whether mathematics is discovered or invented, but either way: it is not personal. Something proved by one mathematician is true to all mathematicians and for all time.

 

11 minutes ago, AUDI R6 said:

math is not universal

Er, it is.

 

12 minutes ago, AUDI R6 said:

so science is more important and more fundamental than math!

[AUDI R6]

4 minutes ago, Strange said:

The philosophy of science is part of philosophy, not science. And, in general, it says the exact opposite of what you say. Maybe you should take a course?

Citation needed.

That is an ... unusual definition. Pretty much every definition I have seen says it is a body of knowledge (about the universe) particularly that developed using the scientific method. 

Can you provide a reference for your definition? Or did you make it up?

At the time, it was as good a theory as any other: in other words, it was consistent with all the evidence. Then more evidence showed it to be wrong and an alternative model was developed. This can happen to any theory.

OK. There is a big discussion among philosophers of mathematics and (some) mathematicians about whether mathematics is discovered or invented, but either way: it is not personal. Something proved by one mathematician is true to all mathematicians and for all time.

It may be true for all mathematicians but people who dont have the ability to recognize what is more and less have different math.

 

[Strange]

6 minutes ago, AUDI R6 said:

Logic and common sense are the same thing . So since logic is different from people to people , math are different from people to people.

Well, that is the most impressively wrong statement I have heard for a long time.

[AUDI R6]

Just now, AUDI R6 said:

 

Someone who cannot understand what is more and less has different math.

[Strange]

Just now, AUDI R6 said:

It may be true for all mathematicians but people who dont have the ability to recognize what is more and less have different math.

I have no idea what that is supposed to mean.

[AUDI R6]

Just now, Strange said:

Well, that is the most impressively wrong statement I have heard for a long time.

It is actually the same thing.

[Strange]

Just now, AUDI R6 said:

It is actually the same thing.

I would recommend a good dictionary. Or even Wikipedia.

 

[AUDI R6]

Just now, Strange said:

I have no idea what that is supposed to mean.

Imagine someone who cannot understand how many apples he has in basket.Our math to this guy dont apply so math is personal .

Just now, AUDI R6 said:

Imagine someone who cannot understand how many apples he has in basket.Our math to this guy dont apply so math is personal .

 

9 minutes ago, Strange said:

The philosophy of science is part of philosophy, not science. And, in general, it says the exact opposite of what you say. Maybe you should take a course?

Citation needed.

That is an ... unusual definition. Pretty much every definition I have seen says it is a body of knowledge (about the universe) particularly that developed using the scientific method. 

Can you provide a reference for your definition? Or did you make it up?

At the time, it was as good a theory as any other: in other words, it was consistent with all the evidence. Then more evidence showed it to be wrong and an alternative model was developed. This can happen to any theory.

OK. There is a big discussion among philosophers of mathematics and (some) mathematicians about whether mathematics is discovered or invented, but either way: it is not personal. Something proved by one mathematician is true to all mathematicians and for all time.

 

Er, it is.

 

That is sooooo wrong....

[Strange]

1 minute ago, AUDI R6 said:

Imagine someone who cannot understand how many apples he has in basket.Our math to this guy dont apply so math is personal .

For one thing, that sounds more like arithmetic than mathematics.

Secondly, just because one person can't do math, doesn't mean that all math is personal. That would be like saying that because one person can't read, all writing is personal and the meaning varies. (Mind you, as your sentences are making less and less sense, maybe that is true.) 

[AUDI R6]

Math are not universal and differ from person to person based on its ability to understand quantities . But science is universal

[Strange]

Just now, AUDI R6 said:

Math are not universal and differ from person to person based on its ability to understand quantities . But science is universal

If that were true of math (it isn't) then why doesn't science also depend on people's ability to observe the universe or to understand what they see?

[AUDI R6]

Just now, Strange said:

For one thing, that sounds more like arithmetic than mathematics.

Secondly, just because one person can't do math, doesn't mean that all math is personal. That would be like saying that because one person can't read, all writing is personal and the meaning varies. (Mind you, as your sentences are making less and less sense, maybe that is true.) 

You said it cant do math . But from his point of view if we add or remove an apple nothing will change  . So there are personal math.

1 minute ago, Strange said:

If that were true of math (it isn't) then why doesn't science also depend on people's ability to observe the universe or to understand what they see?

Because there is real science and science cannot change.

2 minutes ago, AUDI R6 said:

You said it cant do math . But from his point of view if we add or remove an apple nothing will change  . So there are personal math.

Because there is real science and science cannot change.

Regardless of how someone sees science is part of the reality and math isnt .

Science is universal and since someone disagrees we can say he is wrong . But it doesnt work the same way with math.

[Phi for All]

17 minutes ago, AUDI R6 said:

Logic and common sense are the same thing . So since logic is different from people to people , math are different from people to people.

Wow. That's horrible reasoning, and reasoning is what you really need instead of logic (especially your hamstrung definition of it). You seem to misunderstand the concept of objectivity. If everyone had a different version of maths, where is the objectivity science searches so hard and rigorously to defend? Your definitions are subjective, and therefore worthless in science. 

Where did you get all this misunderstanding, videos and pop science articles? If you can stay here and read more than you post, I can almost guarantee you'll learn something.