Quote:
Originally Posted by Gillianren
Yeah, I'd like to see some numbers, too. I probably won't understand them, but they need to be there. There need to be measurements, calculations, a reason to believe there's actually a theory, instead of a bunch of words that don't seem to me to mean anything. I don't understand why direct answers seem to be so hard to produce. Even some questions that should be yes or no take three paragraphs. Something that's answerable by equations is instead answered by a stream of words. All I see is words, and none of them seem to be evidence of anything other than that Jerry doesn't agree with the mainstream, and I think we all knew that going in.
|
READ THE LAST POST: Tell me again I am not providing evidence; and you will have to define for me what you consider evidence, because I don't know.
Math is an abstraction, not reasoning. Every mathematical problem you can model of can be computed in binary logic: Ones and Naughts. Most of the physics that is taught, up to a graduate level is simplifications - we all know a ball does not follow a truly hyperbolic path because of air resistance and such. ANY mathematical solution to these complex issues must be simplified.
Words convey logic, reasoning, draw analogies that don't suffer the same ambiguities of simplified mathematical solutions. Feynman said if you can't explain it at a freshman level, you really don't understand it. The Origin of Species draws on many examples that today can be completely characterized in statisticaleze. But if Darwin would have chosen to outline his theory mathematically, he would have had to formally declare definitions in a field that did not exist in his day, and try to do so without losing most of his audience.
Tests of theories usually require mathematical reductions, and here I am handicapped as well: I could go into a very detailed mathematical explanation of as to why the Huygens science team totally whiffed in their scientific evaluation of Huygens descent. I have studied the results, in excruciating mathematical detail, but so what? Who in their right mind would accept my evaluation, my assumptions that are so different from a team of mission scientists? Given the response of audiences when I have thrown simplified formulas on a white board, or offered analysis of data the differs widely from mission scientists; I have chosen other lines of logic, such as pointing out mainstream scientists are really stretching the data to get the answers they need, and occasionally publish what they do not understand.
Besides, does the mailman go for a walk on his day off?