Science (split from The 11 dimensions of string theory)

[Strange]

11 minutes ago, AUDI R6 said:

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

That isn't math. So it isn't relevant.

But as that person also doesn't see conservation of mass then, by your logic, science must be personal as well: this person sees the universe following different rules than the rest of us.

13 minutes ago, AUDI R6 said:

Because there is real science and science cannot change.

Science has always changed (and always will).

In my lifetime, science has changed:

• The universe being static to the expanding universe
• The continents being fixed and unmoving to plate tectonics
• A "zoo" of subatomic particles to the quark model

And probably other examples I can't think of right now.

[swansont]

1 hour ago, AUDI R6 said:

They moved the instrument relative to the sun.

An interferometer, measuring fractional fringes, where any sort of vibration would wash them out...was moving. The whole interferometer.

Yeah, I'm going to need a citation.

 

 

[AUDI R6]

18 minutes ago, Strange said:

That isn't math. So it isn't relevant.

But as that person also doesn't see conservation of mass then, by your logic, science must be personal as well: this person sees the universe following different rules than the rest of us.

Science has always changed (and always will).

In my lifetime, science has changed:

• The universe being static to the expanding universe
• The continents being fixed and unmoving to plate tectonics
• A "zoo" of subatomic particles to the quark model

And probably other examples I can't think of right now.

The person may understand different laws but this is incorrect and we can it is incorrect because it is a part of reality . Math are not a part of reality.

19 minutes ago, Strange said:

That isn't math. So it isn't relevant.

But as that person also doesn't see conservation of mass then, by your logic, science must be personal as well: this person sees the universe following different rules than the rest of us.

Science has always changed (and always will).

In my lifetime, science has changed:

• The universe being static to the expanding universe
• The continents being fixed and unmoving to plate tectonics
• A "zoo" of subatomic particles to the quark model

And probably other examples I can't think of right now.

When science cannot change I mean the laws were and will be forever.

[Strange]

5 minutes ago, AUDI R6 said:

The person may understand different laws but this is incorrect and we can it is incorrect because it is a part of reality .

The person may misunderstand math but this is incorrect and we can tell it is incorrect because it is part of mathematics.

6 minutes ago, AUDI R6 said:

When science cannot change I mean the laws were and will be forever.

That is not what "science" means.

[AUDI R6]

3 minutes ago, Strange said:

The person may misunderstand math but this is incorrect and we can tell it is incorrect because it is part of mathematics.

That is not what "science" means.

Mathematics are not universal! Human logic may be wrong . Science is a part of reality so regardless the observer we know that those laws govern our universe . But math are personal because they are the creation of human mind.

Edited July 18, 2019 by AUDI R6

[Strange]

7 minutes ago, AUDI R6 said:

Mathematics are not universal!

Wrong.

7 minutes ago, AUDI R6 said:

Human logic may be wrong

If you mean "common sense may be wrong" then, obviously, yes. That is why science doesn't use it.

7 minutes ago, AUDI R6 said:

Science is a part of reality so regardless the observer we know that those laws govern our universe .

That is not what the word "science" means. Go check a dictionary.

Science is a human invention.

 

[iNow]

I checked a dictionary for the word troll. It recommended feedings should cease

[Phi for All]

39 minutes ago, AUDI R6 said:

Mathematics are not universal! Human logic may be wrong . Science is a part of reality so regardless the observer we know that those laws govern our universe . But math are personal because they are the creation of human mind.

Listen, we're a science discussion forum here. If you want to invent a new version of science that's NEVER wrong, you should go somewhere else. You aren't doing what the vast majority of scientists call science, and your replies look like you're a petulant kid who is trolling the professionals with his misunderstandings. I hope that's not the case, but I'm not sure what to do about your willful ignorance. MOST people come here to learn, not to preach unreasonable stances.

I'm not a mathematician, but even I can see that it's the math that's infallible, while our verbal description of theory often falls short (because of human interpretations like YOURS). Science is based on modeled maths, and our theories describe the models. Period. I'm not sure where you learned differently, but it's wrong. If you keep screaming with your fingers in your ears, you won't learn anything.

[Bufofrog]

2 hours ago, AUDI R6 said:

Mathematics are not universal! Human logic may be wrong . Science is a part of reality so regardless the observer we know that those laws govern our universe . But math are personal because they are the creation of human mind.

You keep repeating this incorrect notion over and over but for some reason I am still not convinced!  Maybe if you repeat about 10 more times I will agree with you.

Isn't it weird that your definition of science and math is rejected by physicist, chemists and engineers on this site?  I guess we are wrong.  I can't believe I wasted all those years at the university!  Thanks for clearing this whole science thing up for us!

[Phi for All]

27 minutes ago, Bufofrog said:

Isn't it weird that your definition of science and math is rejected by physicist, chemists and engineers on this site? 

I always hate pointing this out to people because it seems like an Appeal to Authority, but in this case it's especially relevant. I'm grateful for our professional scientists who take their time to help put meaning and trustworthiness into our discussions, and it's my hope that anyone coming here with ignorance can have it dispelled if they're willing to listen and learn to people who do this for a living. 

It's great that people think so highly of science, but it's a methodology that has to be applied correctly by humans, so it can't be infallible, by definition. If science and observation was perfect, we wouldn't need peer review. We wouldn't need theory. We could just observe that all swans are white, claim it to be proven, and never check on swans again.

[FreeWill]

5 hours ago, Phi for All said:

I'm guessing you don't do math. I understand, it's a difficult language. It's the language of physics. 

I always can prove (physically too) that 1*0=1 

How can one correct the math if it is suspected to be wrong? How a mathematical theory is prooven? Re-check it's validity in Nature(physics)?

 

[Strange]

2 minutes ago, FreeWill said:

I always can prove (physically too) that 1*0=1 

No you can't.

2 minutes ago, FreeWill said:

How can one correct the math if it is suspected to be wrong?

Proofs are not usually accepted until they have been checked several times. And often recreated in different ways. Then either the proof is wrong (and rejected) or sometimes the errors are corrected and the proof still stands.

3 minutes ago, FreeWill said:

How a mathematical theory is prooven?

Using mathematics.

3 minutes ago, FreeWill said:

Re-check it's validity in Nature(physics)?

That is not mathematics.

[Phi for All]

1 minute ago, FreeWill said:

How a mathematical theory is prooven? 

* big sigh * Models are the mathematics that describe what we have observed about a system, using symbols and concepts to offer an explanation with precision that words rarely accomplish. 

Theories are the verbal expression of the mathematical models. They are our current best-supported explanations for phenomena. THEY ARE NOT PROOF! Best. Supported. Explanations.

[FreeWill]

25 minutes ago, Strange said:

No you can't

Yes I can. I pay 100$ for an hour to discuss it. You would have to prove that 1*0=0 (physically as well) 

 

25 minutes ago, Strange said:

That is not mathematics

Without the physical reality there is no math.

5 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

THEY ARE NOT PROOF! Best. Supported. Explanations.

Ok.

 

Edited July 18, 2019 by FreeWill

[Mordred]

Answer this question. If the mathematics of physics is so worthless compared to observations.

How is it that the majority of the particles discovered including the neutron was predicted mathematically long before their eventual discovery ?

How did Einstein predict that light would curve around the sun with such precision prior to others observing this effect with the Hades stars?

The history of physics development are full of examples where the mathematics made predictions prior to observations.

Edited July 18, 2019 by Mordred

[Strange]

18 minutes ago, FreeWill said:

Without the physical reality there is no math.

Well, if there is no physical reality then there is nothing. But apart from that, mathematics does not necessarily have any connection to physical reality. 

46 minutes ago, FreeWill said:

How a mathematical theory is prooven? Re-check it's validity in Nature(physics)?

I may have misunderstood what you meant here.

What do you mean by "mathematical theory"? I assumed you meant a mathematical theorem; ie. a mathematical questions that can be proved (or disproved) using purely mathematics.

But if you meant a theory about physics that uses mathematics (such as General Relativity or Newton's theory of gravity) then it is confirmed (not proved) by experimental observations.

3 minutes ago, Mordred said:

Answer this question. If the mathematics of physics is so worthless compared to observations.

How is it that the majority of the particles discovered including the neutron was predicted mathematically long before their eventual discovery ?

How did Einstein predict that light would curve around the sun with such precision prior to others observing this effect with the Hades stars?

And, more than that, it is not enough to just predict that "light will curve round the Sun" (for example). You have to predict how much the light will curve; the reason that GR was confirmed is that it predicted a different amount of curvature than Newtonian gravity (not just "some" curvature)which was then measured and confirmed.

In other words, you can't do physics without math.

[Mordred]

Correct the existence of blackholes is another example. These were predicted decades before any observational evidence. 

Edited July 18, 2019 by Mordred

[Strange]

6 hours ago, AUDI R6 said:

P.S I didnt know it existed or what it said , but it clearly says that math may endanger the development of science.

Please provide a reference for the. (I am genuinely curious what you are talking about)

[AUDI R6]

12 hours ago, Strange said:

Please provide a reference for the. (I am genuinely curious what you are talking about)

 

17 hours ago, Strange said:

Wrong.

If you mean "common sense may be wrong" then, obviously, yes. That is why science doesn't use it.

That is not what the word "science" means. Go check a dictionary.

Science is a human invention.

 

Science always existed and will always exist ..... It is not an invention.

13 hours ago, Strange said:

Please provide a reference for the. (I am genuinely curious what you are talking about)

Search Through the wormhole "Does Time really exist?" . In this episode , there is one physicist who claims that time is an illusion . His idea came from math . But time cant be an illusion . And then there is a philosopher of physics which states that math may endanger the evolution of physics . And there is Lee Smolin as well , who says that time is real . Check the video;)

15 hours ago, Phi for All said:

I always hate pointing this out to people because it seems like an Appeal to Authority, but in this case it's especially relevant. I'm grateful for our professional scientists who take their time to help put meaning and trustworthiness into our discussions, and it's my hope that anyone coming here with ignorance can have it dispelled if they're willing to listen and learn to people who do this for a living. 

It's great that people think so highly of science, but it's a methodology that has to be applied correctly by humans, so it can't be infallible, by definition. If science and observation was perfect, we wouldn't need peer review. We wouldn't need theory. We could just observe that all swans are white, claim it to be proven, and never check on swans again.

Universities are sometimes wrong ! And if someone isn't a physician , this doesn't mean that he is wrong . It is more about how much you have studied , not having a degree in physics.

17 hours ago, Strange said:

Wrong.

If you mean "common sense may be wrong" then, obviously, yes. That is why science doesn't use it.

That is not what the word "science" means. Go check a dictionary.

Science is a human invention.

 

First of all two theories must be connected physically , not just mathematically . And I dont give the definition of science , just science is a part of reality but math isn't/.

[swansont]

32 minutes ago, AUDI R6 said:

And if someone isn't a physician , this doesn't mean that he is wrong . It is more about how much you have studied , not having a degree in physics.

What does one have to do with the other? (physician = medical doctor)

 

32 minutes ago, AUDI R6 said:

 Search Through the wormhole "Does Time really exist?" . In this episode , there is one physicist who claims that time is an illusion . His idea came from math . But time cant be an illusion . And then there is a philosopher of physics which states that math may endanger the evolution of physics . And there is Lee Smolin as well , who says that time is real . Check the video;)

Ironic how you are saying the universities are sometimes wrong but then hang your argument on a vague reference to a couple of individuals who offer their philosphical opinions. Can't they, too, be wrong?

 

[Strange]

26 minutes ago, AUDI R6 said:

Science always existed and will always exist ..... It is not an invention.

You are misusing the word "science". 

It is like saying "science is pink, because it is a flower that grows on a plant with thorns (which, by any other name, would smell as sweet)". 

THAT IS NOT WHAT "SCIENCE" MEANS.

If you are going to make up your own meanings for words, then this whole conversation is pointless.

Science is a human activity, invented by humans.

28 minutes ago, AUDI R6 said:

Search Through the wormhole "Does Time really exist?"

No. It is up to you to provide a proper reference, in other words, a written document. Can you read? I would start with a dictionary.

29 minutes ago, AUDI R6 said:

It is more about how much you have studied , not having a degree in physics.

And, quite obviously, you have not studied anything.

30 minutes ago, AUDI R6 said:

And I dont give the definition of science , just science is a part of reality but math isn't/.

That is the wrong definition of science. You invented that definition. It is wrong.

 

 

2 minutes ago, Strange said:

If you are going to make up your own meanings for words, then this whole conversation is pointless.

It is like Alice in Wonderland:

Quote

‘When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’

‘The question is,’ said Alice, ‘whether you can make words mean so many different things.’

‘The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, ‘which is to be master — that’s all.’

 

[AUDI R6]

1 hour ago, Strange said:

You are misusing the word "science". 

It is like saying "science is pink, because it is a flower that grows on a plant with thorns (which, by any other name, would smell as sweet)". 

THAT IS NOT WHAT "SCIENCE" MEANS.

If you are going to make up your own meanings for words, then this whole conversation is pointless.

Science is a human activity, invented by humans.

No. It is up to you to provide a proper reference, in other words, a written document. Can you read? I would start with a dictionary.

And, quite obviously, you have not studied anything.

That is the wrong definition of science. You invented that definition. It is wrong.

 

 

It is like Alice in Wonderland:

 

Does Time Really Exist?

1 hour ago, Strange said:

You are misusing the word "science". 

It is like saying "science is pink, because it is a flower that grows on a plant with thorns (which, by any other name, would smell as sweet)". 

THAT IS NOT WHAT "SCIENCE" MEANS.

If you are going to make up your own meanings for words, then this whole conversation is pointless.

Science is a human activity, invented by humans.

No. It is up to you to provide a proper reference, in other words, a written document. Can you read? I would start with a dictionary.

And, quite obviously, you have not studied anything.

That is the wrong definition of science. You invented that definition. It is wrong.

 

 

It is like Alice in Wonderland:

 

I know all physics and chemistry regardless of what you think . You cant just understand me because you are stuck with your math or you dont want to understand .

[Mordred]

Really  you know all of physics. Then perhaps you can provide me the CKM mixing  angles  for right hand neutrinos.

If you can't answer that then you Don't know all of physics. Or is that too scientific for you as it involves a number ?

Edited July 19, 2019 by Mordred

[dimreepr]

52 minutes ago, AUDI R6 said:

I know all physics and chemistry regardless of what you think . You cant just understand me because you are stuck with your math or you dont want to understand .

I've never been more convinced that Dunning and Kruger has a point... 

52 minutes ago, AUDI R6 said:

Does Time Really Exist?

Twenty past one.

Edited July 19, 2019 by dimreepr

[MigL]

Assuming there is an absolute reality, independent of observers and with unchanging rules nd laws of operation ( and this may be what AUDI R6 calls science ), all we have ever been able to do is 'poke it with a stick' and make SUBJECTIVE observations of this absolute reality.
Since our observations ae both subjective and limited ,any model we build will be incomplete or use differing paradigms.
As examples, Newtonian gravity/dynamics is incomplete as it doesn't apply to high energy/high speed situations, while GR and QFT are incompatible because they use differing paradigms.

As the only truly accurate and encompassing model of the universe would need to be the universe itself, we build our incomplete models so that we don't introduce any further ambiguities. And since words can have different meanings to different people, we use math, which has clearly defined and universally understood meanings. Mathematics has these properties because it is self-consistent; if you want to call that 'provable' that is your option.

If you want to make the claim that either ( your definition of ) science, and/or ( your definition of ) math, are true/wrong/proven/etc. you should recognize that is subjective, and, at least on this site, you are the only one who thinks so.