On Theoretical Mathematical Models

[mooeypoo]

Another excellent point. So we can use reason, based on a plethora of supporting evidence ... experimental, observational, and even ( partial ) mathematical evidence to decide if the model warrants further research, and exploration. Mathematically, experimentally, observationally.

 

Isn't it nice that the model has many many ways it could be falsified! So that leaves us with just 'completing the math' to determine it's true value.

Only if the model has no other flaws.

 

Perhaps it will end up with little, or no value after all. But if we can throw money at Frampton's 'empty packet' universe, or Turok's magical 'time reversal' universe, or Green's 10^500 universes, then it seems rational to explore an apparently 'sensible' solution that has no such bizarre requirements to function.

If they have no flaws, and the fit evidence, they would get research grant. Similar research venues *do* get money "thrown at them" if they manage to demonstrate they actually have potential.

 

That's the difference between investing money and wasting money.

 

~moo

[Sisyphus]

If a model A makes all of the same correct, specific, quantifiable predictions that model B makes, plus correct, specific, quantifiable predictions that model B fails to make, then it is a better model. Otherwise, it isn't. Whether it "makes sense" to any particular person is completely irrelevant.

 

History is full of scientists who are highly skeptical of new models, yes. This is part of how and why science works. It is not full of scientists who dismiss model A in favor of model B. Scientists become scientists because they want to expand and refine human knowledge, i.e. directly contrary to enforcing dogma.

[pywakit]

Unless you can do it in a new and novel way. There can be lot to learn in the "doing" even if the "results" are not surprising.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

 

Be very careful about comparing yourself to Einstein or Hubble. It is usually unrelated to any argument about the validity of any theory. It is generally seen a inadvisable unless there is a real connection, for example you went to the same school as Hubble.

 

Missed the point of the OP. Was not comparing myself to these scientists. I was merely pointing out that scientists can and do ignore evidence corroborated on many levels because it conflicts with their world view.

 

 

The biggest problem when someone (not thinking of you specifically) proposes a "new theory" that is not formulated well and is rather generic is that it can be very difficult to point to specific issues. Sometimes things are based on very obvious misunderstandings and sometimes things are not formulated in a way as to make specific predictions or testable hypothesis.

 

I understand. But I repeat ... the model is quite specific enough for a bright human to understand 'generically' what the process is. It really doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out the process here.

 

A physical theory is synonymous with a mathematical model. It may well be true that models started with some "physical insight" but ultimately these need to be stated mathematically. Almost inevitably the mathematical formulation will "feedback" into the "physical interpretation" and can change ones perspective.

 

Yes. Can't wait for someone to put the theory to math. That will reveal much about the theory. Perhaps it will reveal fatal flaws. Perhaps it will support it 100%. But despite the mathematical underpinnings, it is obvious that the model is not 'crack pot' or fairy dust, or completely out of touch with our current undersatanding of physics, GR, QM, gravity, and our most recent observational discoveries.

 

So, "physical interpretation" what is that? A lot of people think that this is the theory. In reality it is a description of a mathematical calculation or construct using "physical ideas and language". This is what you will read in most popular science books. The ideas and ethos of some calculation.

 

Ok.

 

Physical interpretation can be very useful in theoretical and mathematical physics. It can guide you and lead to ideas you may not have seen in the "pure maths". But it is not substitute for the real work.

 

Agreed.

 

Also sometimes physical interpretation and analogies can lead to ill-posed questions. These really arise from not looking at the mathematical framework. Often a little understanding of the mathematics will make such questions "vanish". Great examples of this are "what is the universe expanding into?" and almost every question about virtual particles.

 

Another good point. However, we have observational capabilities now that are beginning to answer some of these 'pointless' questions.

 

The last point I would make .... math is an imperfect tool. Brilliant scientists begin with the basics ... then somehow end up at extremely diverse solutions. Frampton's 'solution' starts with basic math and physics ... continues on through extremely advanced math ( and physics, I presume ) and ends up with empty packets sprouting an infinite number of new universes from 'nothing'.

 

Turok? Same process. Now his math and physics says time can ( and will ) reach an 'arbitrary' point and reverse.

 

Green? Once again. Very good understanding of math, and physics ... yet he arrives at 26 mythical dimensions.

 

Reason says .... somebody, if not ALL the somebodies ... made a mathematical mistake. Clearly, logically ( lol ) they can't all be right.

 

So my point is, at this stage of mathematics, and our observations, maybe it's time we started giving some thought to REASON in our exploration of the universe.

 

Doesn't mean we have to start exploring every conceivable mythical possibility. There is nothing 'rational' about belief systems. They have ZERO physical evidence to back them.

 

But we should be taking the time, through all our billions in resources to examine rational assesments ( hypotheses/theories ) based on actual evidence, and at least partially supported by proven math.

 

That make sense?

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Yes. Making attack the first line of defence for a model you are proposing.

 

If you wish to discuss the same topic on these boards, then you are going to have to do so according to the conventions of the discipline the topic belongs to, as well as the rules of SFN. Now I realise that this thread has been more of a grudge match than a debate, but I'm hoping (perhaps optimistically) that the participants will learn from the mistakes made.

 

There is a grudge match only if both, or all parties carry a grudge. I am not built that way. I am simply defending myself against incessant, irrational attacks. The person in question continues to 'make it personal' while claiming I am the one doing so. I have better things to do with my life than carry grudges.

 

Pointing out specific errors is not 'personal'. It's just the reality of the situation. The mod has made the same claim many times. Yet has never actually pointed out WHAT the problems are. Just keeps saying that "our experts told you it has problems and you ignore them."

 

Well, Miss Sayonara3, that is not true. I did address the 'problems' ... one by one. With referenced material to support my arguments. They did not reciprocate. It was "we are experts". I showed them that their information was either dated, or just plain inaccurate. ( which they, as a group, refused to acknowledge, btw )

 

So the one remaining 'problem' was/is my lack of formal training in math/physics. I never disagreed with that assessment. In fact, I announced it from the start.

 

Yet even with that 'decimating' admission, the 'experts' allowed my model to remain on the mains for 33 days. It seems they were willing to overlook this glaring deficiency to allow them to attack my model on it's 'other' merits.

 

But they lost every argument. Every single argument. I supported my model with referenced material over and over. They provided NO evidence to back their arguments.

 

And that is the reality of what happened Soyanora3. so then they were reduced to insisting it was unfalsifiable ( in reaction to ... apparently ... my comments about ST being unfalsifiable.)

 

Within minutes of my posting 20 ways my model could be falsified right now ... or in the near future .... Martin ( unbeknownst to me ) moved my thread to speculations with ZERO explanation, and against policy ... anonymously.

 

I think, under the circumsatances, I have handled this abusive behavior reasonably well. I just keep pointing to the reality of the events, and offer to re-address their 'problems'. And at times I begin to lose patience. I'm human, and I am not being treated all that well.

 

I'm told over and over, if I can't stand THIS heat, I won't last a second under REAL peer-review.

 

Well, the fact that I'm still standing says something, doesn't it?

 

Soyanora3, if you can prove someone made an error, and they either ignore it, or refuse to acknowledge it, and refuse to address it in any manner .... well, this is not rational debate anymore. This is now ego, and pride.

 

By contrast, I have made several factual errors. None critical to the function of my model, thankfully, but still ... errors. In every case I acknowledged the errors, apologized, and thanked them for correcting me.

 

Rational debate is a two-way street. So far, it's been one-way. Again, considering the amount of frustration this brings, I think I have handled myself quite well.

 

If I am treated rudely, or disrespectfully, I repay in kind. When I am treated as a rational human, deserving of respect, I am a sweetheart. The proof of this is in the posts.

 

Fact Soyanora3 : Your 'experts' weren't. They knew next to nothing about our current state of astrophysical, astronomical, and cosmological knowledge.

 

These people all lacked the credentials in either training, or awareness of the facts as we know them today.

 

My battle has been against ignorance ... not intelligence. They simply lacked the pertinent facts. They ignored all my evidence, then claimed I was the ignorant one.

 

I really have tried hard to educate your experts with patience, and humor. But they don't care to have a layman 'teach' them anything. And their actions have made that quite clear. It is simply inconceivable to them that a layman coud be right ... and they could be wrong.

 

But they were. And they continue to be. And they continue to ignore every bit of evidence that proves me right, and them wrong.

 

So even though I am being subjected to this onslaught of irrational behavior, I continue to hang in there ... assuming that at some point reality will sink in.

 

This is the best assessment I can give you of the current situation.

[Sayonara]

"Miss"?

 

I suggest that you stop demanding people "prove" things to you. Especially me.

In this context the word "prove", apart from carrying a very specific scientific meaning, connotes a bargaining position which you simply don't hold.

[mooeypoo]

pywakit, if you don't stop being obnoxious when you speak to people, you will not continue to be here. Sayonara is not a "Miss" even if he *WAS* a woman (which he isn't), and no one here owes you anything.

 

If you want a debate, that's fine, but you better start behaving like a human being and stop disrespecting the people who put the time to actually consider - and reply - to what you're saying.

 

Go over our rules and our etiquette. Pronto.

 

~moo

[pywakit]

If a model A makes all of the same correct, specific, quantifiable predictions that model B makes, plus correct, specific, quantifiable predictions that model B fails to make, then it is a better model. Otherwise, it isn't. Whether it "makes sense" to any particular person is completely irrelevant.

 

History is full of scientists who are highly skeptical of new models, yes. This is part of how and why science works. It is not full of scientists who dismiss model A in favor of model B. Scientists become scientists because they want to expand and refine human knowledge, i.e. directly contrary to enforcing dogma.

 

So if model B can make observational predictions, then that is good, right? If those predictions are not made by model B, then we have an improvement. Excellent.

 

Mine does.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

pywakit, if you don't stop being obnoxious when you speak to people, you will not continue to be here. Sayonara is not a "Miss" even if he *WAS* a woman (which he isn't), and no one here owes you anything.

 

If you want a debate, that's fine, but you better start behaving like a human being and stop disrespecting the people who put the time to actually consider - and reply - to what you're saying.

 

Go over our rules and our etiquette. Pronto.

 

~moo

 

No disrespect intented. I thought he was female.

[ajb]

How do we define reason?

 

I am sure that all scientists think their work is reasonable in the sense that it is based on a sound logical argument based on some initial premise. There maybe some question about the initial premise (starting assumptions). However all scientists are aware of these.

 

By "reasonable" do you mean something more informal like "common sense"? If so, we are all too aware that our common experiences are not sufficient to explain at lot of natural phenomena observed.

[pywakit]

"Miss"?

 

I suggest that you stop demanding people "prove" things to you. Especially me.

In this context the word "prove", apart from carrying a very specific scientific meaning, connotes a bargaining position which you simply don't hold.

 

Again, no disrespect intended. And I never asked you to prove anything.

[mooeypoo]

 

 

No disrespect intented. I thought he was female.

Your Insult->Apology routine is getting old. Even if Sayo was a woman, calling "her" "Miss", is derogatory. And I am speaking as a woman.

 

This isn't the 1950s. "miss." My goodness.

 

Instead of apologizing all the time, how about you just be respectful to begin with.

 

~moo

[pywakit]

How do we define reason?

 

I am sure that all scientists think their work is reasonable in the sense that it is based on a sound logical argument based on some initial premise. There maybe some question about the initial premise (starting assumptions). However all scientists are aware of these.

 

By "reasonable" do you mean something more informal like "common sense"? If so, we are all too aware that our common experiences are not sufficient to explain at lot of natural phenomena observed.

 

No. I don't mean common sense. I mean correlating all the evidence. There is a lot of evidence that flies in the face of common sense.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Your Insult->Apology routine is getting old. Even if Sayo was a woman, calling "her" "Miss", is derogatory. And I am speaking as a woman.

 

This isn't the 1950s. "miss." My goodness.

 

Instead of apologizing all the time, how about you just be respectful to begin with.

 

~moo

 

Blame my mother. I was raised to be respectful of women.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

If a model A makes all of the same correct, specific, quantifiable predictions that model B makes, plus correct, specific, quantifiable predictions that model B fails to make, then it is a better model. Otherwise, it isn't. Whether it "makes sense" to any particular person is completely irrelevant.

 

History is full of scientists who are highly skeptical of new models, yes. This is part of how and why science works. It is not full of scientists who dismiss model A in favor of model B. Scientists become scientists because they want to expand and refine human knowledge, i.e. directly contrary to enforcing dogma.

 

My model was not formulated by me standing in the kitchen 'imagining things'. It is the culmination of following the evidence for over 50 years.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Only if the model has no other flaws.

 

 

If they have no flaws, and the fit evidence, they would get research grant. Similar research venues *do* get money "thrown at them" if they manage to demonstrate they actually have potential.

 

That's the difference between investing money and wasting money.

 

~moo

 

Here again, you claim it has flaws. But refuse to name one.

 

And again, you cast aspersions on something you clearly know little about by implying that money spent researching my theory is money 'wasted'.

 

Sorry Moo. My model DOES fit the evidence.

[mooeypoo]

Your "model" isn't a model (read the definition of a model) and we explained why in a closed thread.

 

It was closed for a reason. You refuse to accept it, that's your problem. We are NOT reopening the subject here again.

 

~moo

[Sayonara]

No disrespect intented. I thought he was female.

[pywakit]

Okay, let's discuss definitions for a second.

 

If we were in a LEGO forum, a model would mean colorful building blocks arranged in a specific construct.

A model might mean something different in philosophy. Or construction.

 

This, however, is a science forums, and when we say "Model" we mean a scientific model. A scientific model requires very clear properties to be called a model. A model *describes* a phenomena scientifically and mathematically. Without math, a model is not a model, it is a hypothetical philosophy.

 

So let's get our definitions straight here, please. We are in a science forum and not in a free-for-all philosophy forum. It's not about what you wish, or how you feel, or what your opinion is. Science isn't about feelings, or wishes or opinions. It's about empirical data and strict definitions.

 

Let's start using them. This is not a model. It's an idea. It might one day turn into a model. It's not yet one.

 

~moo

 

Moo, you are the one who continues to bring up 'feelings' and 'opinions'. I just keep posting evidence to support the model. Or I did, until you ( mods ) locked it. You continue to deny the potential validity of the model. You continue to claim it has problems. You still can't seem to point one out.

 

Why do you think the model is undeserving of research, and exploration ... and FUNDING? Because it has 'problems' you can't/won't delineate?

[mooeypoo]

Then go right ahead and see if you can find a "proper" mathematician and publish.

 

Good luck. Now stop debating a closed thread and either get back to the original topic, which was (supposedly) about a general issue.

 

Reopening closed threads is against the rules.

 

~moo

[insane_alien]

oh many people have pointed out the problems to you. you just flat out ignored it.

[Sisyphus]

So if model B can make observational predictions, then that is good, right? If those predictions are not made by model B, then we have an improvement.

 

I don't know what you mean by "observational." But ignoring that word, then no, that isn't sufficient for anything. The new model has to make all of the same, quantifiable predictions as the old model, in addition to observations the old model failed to make.

 

For example, the Ptolemaic model of the cosmos was very good at making predictions of almost everything observable by looking up at the sky with the naked eye. In fact, you can still use his book to determine exactly where things are in the night sky at any given moment. However, it did have some minor inconsistencies. Copernicus came up with a model that resolved those inconsistencies. However, that's not all he did. He showed, quantifiably, that his model was able to accurately predict all the same events that Ptolemy did, and continue to do so for future events. Copernicus' model was not just "the Earth goes around the Sun." It was specific and predictive.

[ajb]

No. I don't mean common sense. I mean correlating all the evidence.

 

That is what scientists do.

 

In bridging the gap between theory and observation is the branch of physics (I'm thinking of physical theories here) known as phenomenology. The idea here is to see if the models fit the data to an acceptable degree.

[pywakit]

Bottom line here is ...

 

My model fits the current evidence. The current evidence does not fit the BBT, or any other publically available model ( according to my research ).

 

Because none of you are up to speed on current astronomy, astrophysics, and cosmolgogical models, you 'claim' my model has problems.

 

I have made every reasonable attempt to bring you up to speed, but for whatever reasons you have chosen to ignore the evidence I have provided.

 

Until you can absorb the new information, the latest research and observations, you are operating in the dark.

 

Please take the time to do your research. Get current. Perhaps my model will have far less flaws than you currently believe it does.

 

Thank you.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

oh many people have pointed out the problems to you. you just flat out ignored it.

 

That is not a factual statement. I have ignored nothing.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

That is what scientists do.

 

In bridging the gap between theory and observation is the branch of physics (I'm thinking of physical theories here) known as phenomenology. The idea here is to see if the models fit the data to an acceptable degree.

 

It does fit the data.

[mooeypoo]

Your model is no longer under debate here pywakit. That thread was closed.

Follow our rules, please.

 

 

If you want to continue lecturing about your model, I suggest you open a blog.

 

~moo

[ajb]

My model fits the current evidence.

 

The thing is your original thread was closed. It is considered bad form and against the rules to open a new thread on the same topic.

 

I am happy to continue to discuss models in general, the ethos of theoretical physics or anything else related. But not your specific model. I don't want this thread to end up like the last one, which I fear it has.

[ponderer]

Okay, let's discuss definitions for a second.

 

If we were in a LEGO forum, a model would mean colorful building blocks arranged in a specific construct.

A model might mean something different in philosophy. Or construction.

 

This, however, is a science forums, and when we say "Model" we mean a scientific model. A scientific model requires very clear properties to be called a model. A model *describes* a phenomena scientifically and mathematically. Without math, a model is not a model, it is a hypothetical philosophy.

 

So let's get our definitions straight here, please. We are in a science forum and not in a free-for-all philosophy forum. It's not about what you wish, or how you feel, or what your opinion is. Science isn't about feelings, or wishes or opinions. It's about empirical data and strict definitions.

 

Let's start using them. This is not a model. It's an idea. It might one day turn into a model. It's not yet one.

 

~moo

 

Well that's funny, because I would distinguish a model, from a theory. Theories are mathematically defined.

 

Models, well perhaps I am using the wrong term. You know, I built models when I was a kid. They looked like a small non-functional immitation of the real thing. They had the appearance, but not all the details that made them completely functional.

 

Some people were amazing, they build model cars from scratch that were fully functional. Does that mean the others weren't really models?

[ajb]

Well that's funny, because I would distinguish a model, from a theory. Theories are mathematically defined.

 

 

In theoretical physics a physical theory is synonymous with a mathematical model.

 

By model we mean a mathematical construction that can be used to describe (part of) the natural world.

 

There is also a mathematical meaning to the word model as in model theory. (Some how I think this is closer to your meaning.) In model theory one uses mathematical logic to study algebraic structure. Loosely, an algebraic structure that gives meaning to the sentences of a formal language is a model of the formal language.

 

In a sense the model here is a "realisation" of the formal language as an algebraic structure.

[pywakit]

oh many people have pointed out the problems to you. you just flat out ignored it.

 

Allow me to give several examples of the 'problems' associated with my model.

 

These are 'expert' opinions.

 

1. Black holes appear likely to be limited to 10 billion sols. ( reference 'someone I know familiar with cosmology' )

 

I provided a plethora of 3rd party referenced, peer-reviewed material easily contradicting this 'someone'. Current research clearly points to BHs achieving far greater mass than 10 billion sols. In fact, GR predicts that they can contain an INFINITE amount of mass.

 

2. There is no way in physics for a black hole to 'fly apart'.

 

Again, I provided many material sources to rebutt this assertion. From Einstein, to the simple fact that centrifugal force, or massive head-on collision of UBER-massive black holes could achieve conditions similar to the BB.

 

Their argument also made many assumptions which are not proven. It is not a 'fact' that BHs are infinitely dense/small. In fact, QM rejects that possibility. And GR breaks down before we reach infinitely small.

 

3. There is no way BHs on the 'opposite' sides of our ever expanding universe could ever be in either gravitational communication, or that even if they were, the gravitational force would be too weak to overcome the accelerating recession.

 

I showed how both these assertions have no basis in fact. Current research shows UMBHs formed very early in our universe. In all probability. long before galaxy formation. And those very same BHs would have been in communication then, and are still now .... now matter the distance between them.

 

I also showed how merging BHs consolidate gravitational attraction. And that new evidence shows BHs merges are much much more common than we believed just a couple of years ago.

 

In short, and these are just 3 examples of 'problems' that I have been accused of ignoring, the evidence is in my favor. And contradicts the assertions of the experts.

 

I have been dealing with any and all objections from the start. I have ignored NONE. And to be contunually accused of doing so is simply incorrect.

 

Insane alien just did it again in his post. Claims I have ignored the problems, yet fails to cite a specific problem. Not trying to be mean here, but this is not rational. It does not agree with the facts in evidence. Yet the same irrational claims are repeated over and over.

 

You say the model has 'problems'.

 

I ask ... what problems? Specify.

 

You say ... you are ignoring the experts. It has problems.

 

I say ... ok. What problems? Specify.

 

You say ... You continue to ignore the problems.

 

There is nothing rational in these exchanges.

 

PLEASE SPECIFY THE PROBLEMS!

 

There is nothing 'personal' in this request.

 

JUST SPECIFY THE PROBLEMS!

[mooeypoo]

Some people were amazing, they build model cars from scratch that were fully functional. Does that mean the others weren't really models?

 

Really, without any 'theory' at all? I find that hard to believe, but I would love to see references for it..

 

Regardless, though, When I posted my 'what is a model' post, I specifically talked about what is a scientific theoretical physics model - the models which describe the universe. What you describe is not a scientific theoretical physics model. As my example with the "LEGO" models, this has different properties, too. It's irrelevant to the case at hand which speaks of theoretical physics models, scientific ones, which must follow a very specific set of rules to be considered a 'model' or theory.

 

~moo

[pywakit]

The thing is your original thread was closed. It is considered bad form and against the rules to open a new thread on the same topic.

 

I am happy to continue to discuss models in general, the ethos of theoretical physics or anything else related. But not your specific model. I don't want this thread to end up like the last one, which I fear it has.

 

That's because Moo chose to make it personal. She used my OP to attack me and my model. It was not my intent .... clearly from the content of the OP to 're-instate' my cosmological thread.

 

The OP was merely a series of observations on the state of mathematical theories, and their relationships to the actual, physical universe.

 

There was no real choice but to rebutt her grossly inaccurate mischaracterizations. The fact that she ever so carefully didn't SAY my model does not change the intent, or meaning of her post.

 

I could have ignored it, but she opened the door with her comments. She should have kept her commentary confined to the OP, without thinly veiled references to me and my model.

 

That is the reality of the situation.