Experiments to contact "other universes" in the multiverse.

Driving a car is an intuitive experience as it relies on judgment of motions either fixed or moving hence analogies of roundabout or racetrack circuits always help the observer put planetary or lunar motions into perspective context.

Pascal went to great lengths to describe the differences between the mathematical and intuitive mind and was somewhat successful in describing the advantages/disadvantages of each but in astronomy, especially in judging solar system structure and our place within that structure, most of the difficulties are removed by time lapse, sequential imaging and so on.

The intuitive person should have no problem celebrating the perspectives which split the larger circumferences and slower moving planets from the smaller circumference of Venus and Mercury where the loops are illusory for the slower moving planets and actual loops for the faster moving planets along with their phases -

https://www.popastro.com/images/plan...ary%202012.jpg

https://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap011220.html


Let the theorists wax lyrical about warped space, time travel, multiverses and so on, satisfaction for everyone else comes through new expressions of astronomical imaging and not mathematics.

Paul Schlyter wrote:
On Sun, 19 Aug 2018 10:54:14 -0600, Chris L Peterson
wrote:
Math isn't science. Math isn't related to how the Universe works.

Math is really philosophy.


Gilbert said “Mathematics is a game played according to certain simple
rules with meaningless marks on paper.�.

On Monday, August 20, 2018 at 2:11:38 PM UTC+1, Mike Collins wrote:
Paul Schlyter wrote:
On Sun, 19 Aug 2018 10:54:14 -0600, Chris L Peterson
wrote:
Math isn't science. Math isn't related to how the Universe works.

Math is really philosophy.


Gilbert said “Mathematics is a game played according to certain simple
rules with meaningless marks on paper.�.

Making things up as you go along doesn't inspire anything so had you researched the quote properly you would have discovered something of value.

" For the formalist, arithmetic is a game with signs, which are
called empty. That means they have no other content (in
the calculating game) than they are assigned by their
behaviour with respect to certain rules of combination (rules
of the game)."

https://cs.nyu.edu/pipermail/fom/2005-April/008887.html


Arithmetic as a function of mathematics must refer to some physical thing and therein is the bright shining lie of mathematical empiricism.

The Earth's surface expressed in terms of time and distance is defined as Latitude/Longitude where

15° geographical distance = 1 hour time difference

15 ° rotation per hour equates to 360° in 24 hours.

The Equatorial speed of the Earth is therefore 1037.5 miles per hour or 1669.5 Km per hour within the 24 hour and Lat/Long system.

https://spaceplace.nasa.gov/launch-windows/en/

Unfortunately the people at NASA assign an Equatorial speed of 1041 mile per hour giving a meaningless Equatorial circumference of 24,984 mile circumference.

On Monday, August 20, 2018 at 1:43:24 PM UTC-6, Gerald Kelleher wrote:

Arithmetic as a function of mathematics must refer to some
physical thing and therein is the bright shining lie of
mathematical empiricism.

It certainly is true that if you have one rabbit in a cage, and
then you open the cage and put another rabbit in, you will have
two rabbits in the cage... for a time, at least. (This
observation is not original with me, I forget the original
source.)

Arithmetic works even better with pebbles, and it works very
nicely for financial accounting.

However, mathematicians began to play with quantities such as the
square root of minus one, which doesn't have a square root,
before they found that imagining such numbers created a
mathematical structure that was actually useful for relating
electricity and magnetism.

And just as mathematics, it served as a fountain from which
conformal mappings could be discovered in profusion.

There is a geometrical interpretation of complex numbers, but it
seems unlikely they would have ever been derived from geometry
instead of algebra.

John Savard

On Monday, 20 August 2018 09:11:38 UTC-4, Mike Collins wrote:
Paul Schlyter wrote:
On Sun, 19 Aug 2018 10:54:14 -0600, Chris L Peterson
wrote:
Math isn't science. Math isn't related to how the Universe works.

Math is really philosophy.


Gilbert said “Mathematics is a game played according to certain simple
rules with meaningless marks on paper.�.

Most who criticize math can't understand it much.
Without it, we'd be living in caves and trees.

On Mon, 20 Aug 2018 20:56:07 -0700 (PDT), RichA
wrote:

On Monday, 20 August 2018 09:11:38 UTC-4, Mike Collins wrote:
Paul Schlyter wrote:
On Sun, 19 Aug 2018 10:54:14 -0600, Chris L Peterson
wrote:
Math isn't science. Math isn't related to how the Universe works.

Math is really philosophy.


Gilbert said “Mathematics is a game played according to certain simple
rules with meaningless marks on paper.”.

Most who criticize math can't understand it much.
Without it, we'd be living in caves and trees.

I'm not hearing criticisms, I'm hearing definitions. Nobody is
disputing the utility of math as a tool. But by itself, it tells us
nothing about the Universe. Math is just symbolic manipulation, and
the result depends upon the axioms chosen.

On Tuesday, 21 August 2018 06:27:47 UTC+2, Chris L Peterson wrote:

I'm not hearing criticisms, I'm hearing definitions. Nobody is
disputing the utility of math as a tool. But by itself, it tells us
nothing about the Universe. Math is just symbolic manipulation, and
the result depends upon the axioms chosen.

You make it sound more like a faith or a belief system.

Einstein's "prophecies" held concrete predictions which are still being confirmed.

The only testable prophecies, of a religious nature, merely confirm that many will believe literally anything they are told by the afterlife insurance salesmen.

People are intuitive to a high degree, in this case they can make rapid judgments on what is moving from what isn't in matters of driving their car, steering a boat or landing a plane. This is extended to astronomical observations where they can judge the slower moving planets temporarily fall behind in view as the Earth overtakes them by way of our smaller/faster orbit or indeed how the faster Venus and Mercury run their circuits around the nearby Sun as seen from our slower moving and wider orbital circumference.

When Pascal was describing the intuitive mind as opposed to the mathematical mind, even though the concept of mathematics in his era was different to ours, he was drawing attention to the natural and normal human facilities to judge what is in front of them in terms of motion or what is not moving. Time lapse or sequential imaging does exactly that as it condenses long term imaging into motion and structure that we,as humans, are more familiar with on our level. -

"These [intuitive] principles are so fine and so numerous that a very delicate and very clear sense is needed to perceive them, and to judge rightly and justly when they are perceived, without for the most part being able to demonstrate them in order as in mathematics; because the principles are not known to us in the same way, and because it would be an endless matter to undertake it. We must see the matter at once, at one glance, and not by a process of reasoning, at least to a certain degree. And thus it is rare that mathematicians are intuitive, and that men of intuition are mathematicians, because mathematicians wish to treat matters of intuition mathematically, and make themselves ridiculous, wishing to begin with definitions and then with axioms, which is not the way to proceed in this kind of reasoning. Not that the mind does not do so, but it does it tacitly, naturally, and without technical rules; for the expression of it is beyond all men, and only a few can feel it."

Pascal

https://www.gutenberg.org/files/1826...-h/18269-h.htm


Certainly the partitioning of direct/retrogrades between the faster and slower moving planets as seen from a moving Earth is an example of this common sense intuitive approach but people have become so accustomed to mathematicians and their spiel that they cannot enjoy this type of astronomy without a sense of fear.

On Mon, 20 Aug 2018 22:21:46 -0700 (PDT), "Chris.B"
wrote:

On Tuesday, 21 August 2018 06:27:47 UTC+2, Chris L Peterson wrote:

I'm not hearing criticisms, I'm hearing definitions. Nobody is
disputing the utility of math as a tool. But by itself, it tells us
nothing about the Universe. Math is just symbolic manipulation, and
the result depends upon the axioms chosen.

You make it sound more like a faith or a belief system.

Not at all. But axioms are chosen, they are not properties of nature.
They are not proven, cannot be proven. And one can choose axioms that
allow us to prove anything mathematically- including things that are
contrary to nature. Math is a tool, and like any tool, it has to be
used properly for the specific job at hand.

On Mon, 20 Aug 2018 13:11:34 -0000 (UTC), Mike Collins
wrote:
Paul Schlyter wrote:
On Sun, 19 Aug 2018 10:54:14 -0600, Chris L Peterson
wrote:
Math isn't science. Math isn't related to how the Universe works.

Math is really philosophy.


Gilbert said Mathematics is a game played according to certain
simple
rules with meaningless marks on paper..

These marks are not meaningless. Their meaning are rigirously
defined, often in a way which is beyond comprehension for
non-specialists.