|
you are confused again!
you confused the mathematical model of some physical event, with the event itself...
|
|
|
|
|
But that is all that exists, the mathematical model, which can not exist in nature.
Astronomical observations that are called Black Holes are actually Z pinches of massive Berklin Currents. A Berlin current is a flow of plasma where a flow of electrons and a flow of protons create a double helix. These massive flows run down the spiral arms of the galaxy from the massive central stars. These Berklin currents aren't normally visible but are when they interact with cooler matter like gas and dust clouds. A Z pinch is where the flow becomes restricted such that the plasma releases heat/radiation and the plasma cools into atoms. The atoms (gasses and dust) reveals the Berklin current, both the flow into the Z pinch and the flow out the other side. Only some of the plasma cools back to Atoms, most just continues on. This is the phenomenon that Newtonian physicists call black holes with a math model that doesn't work. But the plasma physicist have a very accurate math model that easily predicts behaviors that Newtonian models get wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
ok, so if I understood you correctly, if I were to have a completely wrong mathematical model of movement.
say....
distance travelled = speed * time * time
this would prove that math is bullshit?
I find your lack of logic disturbing! 
Anyhow, about the (allegedly) wrong black hole model
black hole are only partially understood, so their models is obviously still work in progress...
|
|
|
|
|
If I write an equation that describes the behavior of matter as it approaches and crosses he event horizon of a black hole, the behaviour needs to be consistent with the laws of nature. But the equation also needs to be consistent with the mathematical model of the black hole it's self. What Steven Hawkings discovered is that in order for the black hole model to be workable, a workable model of the event horizon is not possible.
So, the math says that the black hole and it's event horizon are mutually exclusive. So, after Hawkings corrected the math, the math proves that the physics of black holes is wrong.
Vulgarity is the feeble attempt of small minds to communicate.
|
|
|
|
|
After carefully reading...
I have to say I have no clue what you are saying or meaning.
And my incomprehension could be surmised by your opening sentence:
dlhale wrote: But that is all that exists, the mathematical model, which can not exist in nature.
What does that even mean?
I will sprout some random definition which might or might not be of any relevance!
A model: A model is not a real phenomenon. It's an attempt at describing mathematically what we know of something with the intent of making prediction. It can be true or false but, at least in physic, it is generally true only in certain range of parameters.. (i.e. when the speed is well inferior to the speed of light, when the spatial imprecision is well above 10^-9 meters, etc...)
A model only exist in the mind of men and text book (and computer memory)
|
|
|
|
|
The mathematical models of black holes do not work, they are not consistent with the actual laws of physics.
And they do not model black holes because black holes do not exist.
|
|
|
|
|
Ok, I got it, you like black holes! Problem solved! 
|
|
|
|
|
Math is a description tool, like a language it is invented.
modified 20-Oct-19 21:02pm.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well. You can use a language (math is a language) to describe your breakfast, you can use it to write a star wars novel. Both descriptions are abstractions of something that existed or not. However they are both abstractions.
You can of course discover star wars, but that is not what is meant here I think.
modified 20-Oct-19 21:02pm.
|
|
|
|
|
Well yeah, to be precise math1) is what we discover about something that already exists.
(I don't have qualms to call that something "math", too, except in a context where these two things need to be distinguished.)
So of course our description is an abstraction, but1) it's a descirption of something that already exists - independent of our senses, our language, our knowledge and understanding. A previously unknown proof is1) the discovery of a property that already existed before the proof was made, and that would exist even if the proof was never found.
Kamen Nik wrote: but that is not what is meant here I think.
What do you think is meant here?
1) according to platonism
|
|
|
|
|
I think we are talking about different things.
That property that has existed before being discovered is not math. It is a property, a concept, whatever.
Math is the human tool to describe it.
it ain’t broke, it doesn’t have enough features yet.
modified 20-Oct-19 21:02pm.
|
|
|
|
|
All human endeavours (language, culture, maths, science) are abstractions and therefore the level of abstraction constitutes invention. Only reality is real.....man. 
|
|
|
|
|
Muharrem B. wrote: What is your opinion
That it is Maths.
Michael Martin
Australia
"I controlled my laughter and simple said "No,I am very busy,so I can't write any code for you". The moment they heard this all the smiling face turned into a sad looking face and one of them farted. So I had to leave the place as soon as possible."
- Mr.Prakash One Fine Saturday. 24/04/2004
|
|
|
|
|
..although the question should probably take the past tense.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mathematics must include all of its branches and that would include arithmetic. So say, multiple objects existed and were observed. That, however, doesn't make mathematics a discovery. It is the association of multiple objects as a group, and making that initial "one and one are different than one" ( . . . and we'll so note it . . . ) that is where mathematics begins.
This is conceptual - and thus - an invention. Two rocks sitting near one another does not have to be thought of as two rocks. Why not simply "A rock" and "A rock" ? That still works. At the same time, they may not be near - but one could still conceive of them as two items that are in some (conceived!) category and then associated.
Our mathematics is a description of observations - and not necessarily the only way one could describe the universe.
| "The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein | | "As far as we know, our computer has never had an undetected error." - Weisert | | "If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you are seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
W∴ Balboos wrote: Our mathematics is a description of observations - and not necessarily the only way one could describe the universe.
No it isn't. You cannot observe a circle, (or any geometric shape come to that), because a circle is inscribed with a line of zero width equidistant at all points of zero dimension from another point of zero dimension. You cannot observe infinity (obviously) or zero or the square root of -1. It's dubious even whether you can observe number in any real sense. Mathematics is merely a system of logic. Any resemblance to real physical phenomena is entirely coincidental!
|
|
|
|
|
Official Pun Reply:
You can count on a number of possible answers.
| "The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein | | "As far as we know, our computer has never had an undetected error." - Weisert | | "If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you are seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
Watch this: [^]
I would say: Math is.
Kitty at my foot and I waAAAant to touch it...
|
|
|
|
|
Discovered 
1. Mathematics is the language of nature.
2. Everything around us can be represented and understood through numbers.
3. If you graph these numbers, patterns emerge.
Therefore: There are patterns everywhere in nature.
from PI[^]
|
|
|
|
|
There's only one thing wrong with that. Every word you've written!
|
|
|
|
|
Mathematics is a cognitive virus which jumped from fleas to early hunter-gatherer hominids in the late Paleolithic, driving said hominids to evolve to be able to count up to twenty (ten fingers, ten toes) quickly. The proto-human hosts reached a modus vivendi with the virus since such counting was useful when figuring out who to kill next, or, who to enslave next.
Since it is an insatiable virus, it soon turned its early homo sapiens hosts into shepherds and farmers where there were more things to count (goats, cattle, sheep, baskets, sheaves, jars).
At this late stage of human co-habitation with Mathematics virii, it is safe to say it is as much an archaic endosymbiotic part of our nervous-system as mitochondrial DNA (once single-celled organisms "captured" by Eukaryotas) is a part of our cellular structure.
The rare human being in modern times who is able to free themselves of the Mathematics virus completely is usually considered an idiot, or insane, or becomes the founder of a new religion. Their lives are short, and their death often violent.
Mathematics appears able to mobilize its hosts into insane clown posses which collectively attack external threats; the exact mechanism by which this social-engineering occurs is not clearly understood, probably because those who reach the point where they could explain it are murdered, or "disappeared," or sent to mental asylums.
Cantor and Godel are good examples of Mathematics defending itself by directing the minds of those rare geniuses who realize what Mathematics actually is into the black-hole of considering the relative magnitude (ordinality, "Aleph") of infinities. Both, these brave souls ended their lives in mental illness, haunted by fears of being poisoned.
Well, what can you say about something that you can't imagine yourself, or the world, without ?
Without Mathematics we would be ... what ? ... as happy as dogs?
cheers, Bill
«I want to stay as close to the edge as I can without going over. Out on the edge you see all kinds of things you can't see from the center» Kurt Vonnegut.
|
|
|
|
|
As the relationships are discovered, a language for describing them is invented.
|
|
|
|
|
Math was invented.
One day, many years ago, a man at prayer was doing his usual thing when a winded messenger from the King came across him praying in a garden. "I've a message for the Prince but I'm exhausted and can continue no further, will you take it to him? It's a matter of national security". Hemming and hawing for a moment, the man at prayer realized it would be to his advantage to help the King in any way he could so he replied "Yes, I'm done praying for the day. Give me this message and I'll take it to the Prince". The messenger reached into his belt pouch and pulled out the coil of leather upon which was scribed a long sequence of characters. "Here, here it is. Under no circumstances is this message to fall into enemy hands for it would compromise the King, the Prince, and every citizen in this land. Take it.
"Oh, but this is too heavy" said the ostensible bearer. "I can't add this to the array of weights my already overburdened frame can support. What with running ... I've got to carry all this stuff too; how will I ever get anywhere? I'll fail at the task, the scytale will fall into the possession of the enemy, and worse yet, I'll have my hands cut off for being on the wrong side, once they decypher it's meaning".
Well, by now, the messenger had begun to recover his strength and was looking a little less peaked in the cheeks. "That's ok. I'm feeling rested now. I'll continue on. I'll do it. Deliver the Kings' message to the Prince." And with a glance up ahead, he got up off the ground, stood on his own two feet again and ran away.
"Phew" said the man to himself, left behind in the garden. "For a minute there, I thought I'd have to actually run with this message to the Prince". And with that he returned to his prayers. Quickly he realized he was done, packed up his things and headed for home.
(The invention of math came to us in the ensuing moments after the brief encounter between the runner and the praying man. The runner got the idea that as long as he kept ahead of the enemy, by taking short breathers along the way, he'd do his job. And get paid. The man praying became lost in the thoughts about being held accountable for the non-delivery of a message entrusted to him by constabulary authorization of, presumeably, a member of the King's court, the loss of both hands, probably a very bloody and painful proposition, and likely his own death. Also there was the fact that he, only a man of prayer, would never get paid for doing this nice thing for the messenger, had he actually managed to stay alive after the intial traumatic ordeal. Not to mention the fact that there was the thinking about how he didn't really have to overburden himself with added weight. All he really had to do was run back to the King, obtain the stick upon which the scytale was originally enscribed with the secret message, reenscribe it, this time in a more secure method, and on something not even a smart enemy would ever think about enscribing code upon in the first place, the man's philactory, and continue back to the spot where the original was entrusted to him, and continue on to deliver it to the Prince.)
I'll have to cut this short. I've got a moral to deliver. Turn over see reverse side for moral.
modified 19-Aug-15 15:39pm.
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
