It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Primer Fields In a quick review of the paper on gravity, I am not buying it. Too many out on a limb unprovable positions are taken by the authors. They have to introduce curved space time to explain things that we can now explain without curved space time. Then it also introduces the fractal side which I also find unnecessary. It is greatly complicating things from where we are now. Simple is more likely correct. The solution that is offered also does not predict bubble formations from what I can see and in fact miss the bubbles inside of M2-9 that they show. They are simply predicting the ejection of matter, but we now know thanks to the recent Chandra movies of the Vela pulsar that the treatment given pulsars in this paper is not correct. I believe we will find that it all breaks down under careful examination and that is why this paper has not gotten more coverage. It is all just math. I need more than just math or words to get me to believe when a physical solution is required. The solution needs to make sense in the physical world and I find that this paper does not do that. I presume that the math is correct, but does the math truly represent reality? . . .
Originally posted by Mary Rose
I have been very mystified about the use of math in physics and the demand members post for "show me the math!" when someone posts alternative theories. To me, the math is only a tool to use to represent the theory and is not the theory itself, which should stand on the interpretation of what we observe - not on math "proofs."
Originally posted by Angelic Resurrection
Math is important in any new theory, but math cannot stand on its own without experimental verification.
Originally posted by Mary Rose
Originally posted by Angelic Resurrection
Math is important in any new theory, but math cannot stand on its own without experimental verification.
Shouldn't the math originate from observation - either observation of nature itself in action, or observation of experimental outcomes? And shouldn't that observation be delineated clearly before mathematical tools are generated to map it out?
Originally posted by Mary Rose
reply to post by Angelic Resurrection
So, if the math comes first, what does the mathematician base it on?
Not necessarily, look around and you will see oddities not yet observed by any1 else let alone validated.
Originally posted by Mary Rose
reply to post by Angelic Resurrection
I don't mean to be arguing with you. But doesn't some previously validated observation have to be included?
Or does a mathematician simply sometimes make up stuff? Sort of like painting an abstract?
Originally posted by Mary Rose
Appeals to the authority of the mainstream don't impress me.
Originally posted by Angelic Resurrection
Originally posted by Mary Rose
I have been very mystified about the use of math in physics and the demand members post for "show me the math!" when someone posts alternative theories. To me, the math is only a tool to use to represent the theory and is not the theory itself, which should stand on the interpretation of what we observe - not on math "proofs."
Math is important in any new theory, but math cannot stand on its own without experimental verification.
String theory is an example just as is einsteins space - time GR.
Originally posted by Mary Rose
reply to post by Angelic Resurrection
Okay but it's still an observation, correct?
In other words, the mathematician starts with his/her own observation as a starting point or at least it's included at some point in the sequence of events culminating in a mathematical representation?