On Aug 5, 10:36=A0pm, "hhc...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
" <hhc...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> Then how would you descibe such a model, except by using the language
> of mathematics? Would you prefer a bunch of mindless arm waving, that
> that cannot make any predictable results nor be subject to
> experimental tests?
I prefer something called "natural philosophy". It is where the
understanding of phenomena comes through the creation of "models" that
make the phenomena "reasonable". You idea that somehow mathematics is
a "model" is nonsense. Mathematics are a human-created systems and
those systems can be created ANY self-consistent way we choose! Hence
you call "ideas" like "the properties of nothing at all" or "particles
existing or not existing depending upon if we are thinking about them"
or "a changing B field creates an E field and a changing E field
creates a B field" a "model" subject to "predictable results".
Obviously you have no idea what you are talking about. Your whole
physics is BASED upon the "unpredictability of results"! Saying that
on average you know the "statistics" so you therefore know
"everything" about the subject is like saying you know where the next
hit is going to land because you know a players batting average.
Idiot!
> > So barfing out Maxwells equations and saying that "explains it all" is
> > nonsense. In fact, you have failed to read what I wrote because most
> > of you are barfing maxwell's equations in non-causal form which means
> > that they don't even apply as MATH let alone as reality!
>
> Hate to tell you this my young, ignorant friend, but analytical
> results with predictable and measirable consequences is what science
> is all about. If you believe otherwise, you are posting in the wrong
> newsgroup.
Hate to tell you my old omniscient friend, but mathematics is a MAN
MADE system and can be put together any way you like so long as you
are self-consistent! While in many cases mathematical systems seem to
mimic reality which allows one to use mathematics to make predictions
of phenomena that turn out true, the mathematics does not give one
UNDERSTANDING. So do parallel lines meet at infinity or do they not
meet there? Which one does math "explain" as the true one? Oh wait!
Parallel lines BOTH meet at infinity as well as NEVER MEET ever! The
"physics" of it simply has to recognize the fact that two mutually
exclusive things are always true under the right conditions! That is
how screwed up your thinking is! You think that these kind of "arm-
waving explanations" make sense in some manner! They do not. Hence the
im****tance of "natural philosophy".
PhD stands for "doctor of philosophy" and the "philosophy" referred to
happens to be "natural philosophy"!
I presume that wikipedia is about as close as you get to ever seeing
an advanced degree in person.
> The simple fact is that if you cannot calaibrate your model in
> meaningful parameters capable of being measured, and accompany them
> with some sort of a relation****p (mathematical or otherwise) that can
> be employed to numerically make meaningful predictions of results,
> then you don't have any model at all.
And if all you can do is point to mathematics and say, "see the math
say that two mutually exclusive things are both true", then you have
nothing but a bunch of insane ramblings. Mathematics do indeed
quantify and "calibrate" a model but they are NOT (repeat NOT) the
model! So yes, the role of mathematics is as you say valid, but with
out any logical framework upon which to hang the math, all you have is
imaginary worlds which can be anything you say they are. Sure fiction
is fun, but then you are posting in the wrong newsgroup. Try
cosmology.
> Without this, all that you will have is a bit of meaningless words and
> arm waving, similiar to that of one of today's presidential
> candidates. =A0It will fool some people into believing that you know
> what you are talking about, but the wind will go out of your sails
> once people realize that all you are selling is hot air, which cannot
> put food on anyone's dinner table!
Why do I suspect I've put more food on my table creating practical
applications of scientific models than you have with your
presentations of mathematics as some kind of "ultimate truth". In
case you never noticed, "real" mathematicians eschew anything that is
"applied" and consider it a badge of honor to sell "hot air". I
presume that also is you.
> If you cannot hack the details or math required in science, then for
> heavens's sake get you lazy ass out of the scientific kitchen!
I can "hack" BOTH the details and the "math" required by science. You
apparently can only hack the math.
So if you really want to spend your life in a presidential candidate's
imaginary dreamworld then for heaven's sake go get a job teaching
mathematics somewhere and you'll never have to understand how anything
"works" again. Oh wait! You probably already do have that job!
Moron.
Unfortunately, none of this BS by you or me is the subject of this
thread so how about we stow it?
|
