|
Neither, it developed or evolved, how ever you want to call it.
It is in us, starting from basic stuff like hey i eat 1 of my 2 banananas so i got only 1 left.
That's math.
Some genuises then combined equations and that did the magic to create formulas and theories 
Rules for the FOSW ![ ^]
if(this.signature != "")
{
MessageBox.Show("This is my signature: " + Environment.NewLine + signature);
}
else
{
MessageBox.Show("404-Signature not found");
}
|
|
|
|
|
A lot of it is just made up, like math that "proves" black holes exist.
Black Holes exist only in the minds of mathematicians.
Even Steven Hawkings is beginning to see the truth.
|
|
|
|
|
dlhale wrote: Black Holes exist only in the minds of mathematicians
That means that I am not a mathematician. No black holes exist in my mind; or, if they do, I haven't seen them (should I try using a mirror?).
|
|
|
|
|
you are confused!
black hole is physics!
math is just a tool about numbers and logic (certainly anything real) used by many people, including physicists....
|
|
|
|
|
Math is just a language. Untruths can be told in any language.
But math is suppose to be unambiguous, so you can tell truths from untruths.
Which is why Steven Hawkings has now realized that the math describing black holes and the event horizon is untrue, it describes things that just can not be.
The math of black holes was "made up" as a way to account for all the "missing mass". But there is a truthful way to account for that mass, it is "The Electric Universe". Look it up, you might learn something.
I am not confused, I understand the math explaining the electric universe. Anyone believing the math of black holes is confused because the math just does not work - it is not unambiguous, it is not truthful.
|
|
|
|
|
dlhale wrote: But math is suppose to be unambiguous, so you can tell truths from untruths.
I refer you to Godel's Incompleteness Theorem which proves that this is impossible!
|
|
|
|
|
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 |
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
