Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Bad Astronomer
This thread, like so many before it, is making no progress at all. I am going to lock it.
|
This is clearly a very sensitive issue for the mainstream just now, especially given the number of 'big surprises' that Deep Impact has provided.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Ian Tresman
I am NOT saying that maths does not have its place, and that it is unimportant. But if maths was so important, then most of the other threads on Bad Astronomy, popular books on science, etc, would also be "useless".st of topics.
|
Math highlights the differing approaches between PC and BB/GR theories. PC works backwards from observation, and has made a number of accurate predictions on this basis*, whereas BB/GR related theories start out with perfect theoretical principles and extrapolate mathematically. Observations (Red shift, etc.) are distorted to fit the ideological picture.
Math can also be a weakness, as a famous philosopher and mathemetician pointed out.
"Physics is mathematical not because we know so much about the physical world, but because we know so little." Bertrand Russell
Also
"Since the mathematicians have invaded the theory of relativity, I do not understand it myself any more." Einstein
"To the extent that the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not true; and to the extent that they are true, they do not refer to reality." Einstein
It is no small irony that mainstream reliance on math can be interpreted as both a strength and a weakness. It is certainly no guarantee of truth.
* I can forward a peer-reviewed paper about Alfven's successful predictions to anyone who is interested. PM me