Experiments to contact "other universes" in the multiverse.

On Thursday, 23 August 2018 03:11:23 UTC+2, Quadibloc wrote:
On Wednesday, August 22, 2018 at 5:31:34 AM UTC-6, Gary Harnagel wrote:

It's been said that mathematics doesn't tell you anything you
don't already know.

That would only be true if I knew all the logical consequences of every fact I
knew. Only God is that smart.

John Savard

Which god of the hundreds of thousands "known to exist" but impossible to cough recreate in the lab?

On Wednesday, August 22, 2018 at 10:44:08 AM UTC-6, Paul Schlyter wrote:

On Wed, 22 Aug 2018 04:31:31 -0700 (PDT), Gary Harnagel
wrote:

And one can choose axioms that allow us to prove anything
mathematically- including things that are contrary to nature.

Sure, but the REAL test is does nature approve of them.

What you call "REAL test" belongs to physics, not mathematics.

Physics IS nature, and YOU are the one that brought THAT up :-)

Mathematics is strictly logical philosophy which in principle has
nothing to do with Nature, i.e. physics. So you can choose your
axioms so your mathematics becomes very useful for physics. Or you
can choose your axioms so your mathematics has no use at all for
physics. If done property, both will be equally valid as
mathematics.
Don't confuse the utility of math with its validity, they are very
different things.

I'm of the stripe that USES mathematics to solve real-world
problems, not one who LOVES mathematics for its own sake.
I would never have been a Riemann, or any number of pure
mathematicians. I learned that when I got a "C" in Advanced
Calculus but an "A" in partial differential equations :-)

On Wednesday, August 22, 2018 at 11:48:10 PM UTC-6, Chris.B wrote:

On Thursday, 23 August 2018 03:11:23 UTC+2, Quadibloc wrote:

On Wednesday, August 22, 2018 at 5:31:34 AM UTC-6, Gary Harnagel wrote:

It's been said that mathematics doesn't tell you anything you
don't already know.

That would only be true if I knew all the logical consequences
of every fact I knew.

I believe that was the point of the sort-of-quote. I believe
Heinlein is the one who wrote that but I can't seem to find it.

Only God is that smart.

John Savard

But scientists have done amazingly well at figuring it out.

Which god of the hundreds of thousands "known to exist" but
impossible to cough recreate in the lab?

If you could create a god, what would that make you?

But suppose you were given proof of His existence, as some have?

"Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me,
and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me
have.� -- Luke 24:39

On Wednesday, August 22, 2018 at 1:45:34 PM UTC-7, Gerald Kelleher wrote:

The distinction between the illusory loops of the slower moving planets vs the actual loops of the faster moving planets closer to the Sun than the Earth is a case in point ...

Do you still deny that the slower-moving inferior planets also display illusory loops?

https://www.lunarplanner.com/Images/...et%20Paths.gif

https://www.lunarplanner.com/Images/.../Venus-Ret.jpg

https://tinyurl.com/ycwgwo7g

Think again!

On Wednesday, August 22, 2018 at 11:48:10 PM UTC-6, Chris.B wrote:
On Thursday, 23 August 2018 03:11:23 UTC+2, Quadibloc wrote:
On Wednesday, August 22, 2018 at 5:31:34 AM UTC-6, Gary Harnagel wrote:

It's been said that mathematics doesn't tell you anything you
don't already know.

That would only be true if I knew all the logical consequences of every fact I
knew. Only God is that smart.

Which god of the hundreds of thousands "known to exist" but impossible to cough recreate in the lab?

Any God having the property of omniscience. Qualifications would have only
created burdensome prose.

John Savard

On Thursday, August 23, 2018 at 7:49:00 PM UTC+1, palsing wrote:
On Wednesday, August 22, 2018 at 1:45:34 PM UTC-7, Gerald Kelleher wrote:

The distinction between the illusory loops of the slower moving planets vs the actual loops of the faster moving planets closer to the Sun than the Earth is a case in point ...

Do you still deny that the slower-moving inferior planets also display illusory loops?

Venus shows the same closed loop around the Sun as the satellites of Jupiter show around their parent planet -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wJiYoNN9lKk


There is no means to dispense with the circle of illumination (phases) of Venus which direct its faster moving and smaller orbital circumference. When they get around to it, the Earth will display the same closed loop as seen from the wider circumference and slower moving Mars.

There are no illusory loops of Venus nor Mercury seen from Earth, the only back and forth or direct/retrograde motion of the faster moving planet against the background stars is its normal running its circuit.

The secret is how the Sun is set up as a stationary and central reference by using the transition of the stars from evening to morning appearance or from left to right of the Sun. The horizon acts as a sunshade to mark these magnificent astronomical events but you unfortunates squander your imagination with theoretical rubbish but perhaps not all.

On Thursday, August 23, 2018 at 7:49:00 PM UTC+1, palsing wrote:



https://www.lunarplanner.com/Images/...et%20Paths.gif

https://www.lunarplanner.com/Images/.../Venus-Ret.jpg

https://tinyurl.com/ycwgwo7g

Think again!


There is no room for illusory loops of Venus or Mercury and I wish organisations to succeed in presenting how we see the faster moving and smaller orbital circumferences of Venus and Mercury as they run their circuits of the Sun just as we see the satellites run their circuits of their parent planets -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HD9k6wSt-Wo

The Sun is always at the centre of the motions of the inner planets hence observed phases in sequence seen from a slower moving Earth and the back and forth motion gauged against the background stars in the process -

http://astronomer-wpengine.netdna-ss...s_of_venus.jpg

There is already time lapse footage of Venus overtaking the Earth at a point where the central Sun is in view but none that condenses the long term faster motion of that planet -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_7U5VbasKr4&t=6s

For whatever reason, I have to come here and refresh the perspectives which partition the illusory loops where the Sun is not the centre of those motions and the actual loops where the Sun is at the centre. It is time for others to contribute in a meaningful way and leave those caught up in theoretical tinsel to their own devices.

On 19/08/2018 17:54, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Sun, 19 Aug 2018 08:58:30 -0700 (PDT), RichA
wrote:

String theory may be untestable, but it's the best theory
going.

It is mathematically elegant. But in the scientific sense, it's a
very weak theory, because as David pointed out, much of it lacks
any way of being tested.

String theory only exists because the math says it should. Though
they'll never actually see a string, admittedly. Maybe they'll
develop some kind of observation (like proving the Big Bang via
expansion observation) that'll help it out?

Any good theory needs to generate predictions that can be tested. So
yeah, a predicted observation would be great. Elegant math doesn't
cut it. Math isn't science. Math isn't related to how the Universe
works.


Although that is true it is often the adoption of new cutting edge
mathematics by younger physicists that breaks down the old established
paradigms and methods of solving problems. Strict Euclidean geometry
constructions was never going to be able to cope with gravity or general
relativity (even though they could be solved that way).

It took calculus and then later non-Euclidean goemetry to make gravity
and general relativity reasonably tractable at a level that could be
taught in universities. It would be nigh on impossible to teach it using
strict Greek ruler and compass construction methods.

Sometimes we get lucky and some new pure mathematics happens to fit or
is capable of being made to fit a description of the universe we are in.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

On Sunday, August 19, 2018 at 10:54:15 AM UTC-6, Chris L Peterson wrote:

Any good theory needs to generate predictions that can be tested. So
yeah, a predicted observation would be great. Elegant math doesn't cut
it. Math isn't science. Math isn't related to how the Universe works.

It certainly is true that one can do all kinds of things in math, and in
isolation, mathematics can't tell you which parts of itself correspond to which
parts of the Universe.

So what you're trying to say certainly is right in one sense.

But how the Universe works *does* seem to be *very* well related to the _right_
mathematics. It's the tool par excellence for working out the consequences of
what we know about the Universe and making predictions - whether of planetary
motions or weather forecasts.

John Savard

This is all self-aggrandizement stuff that bears no relation to astronomy but rather aspirations of mathematicians that have always been around in some disruptive shape or form. Leibniz noted this -

"These are the imaginings of incomplete- notions-philosophers who make space an absolute reality. Such notions are apt to be fudged up by devotees of pure mathematics, whose whole subject- matter is the playthings of imagination, but they are destroyed by higher reasoning" Leibniz

Not only destroyed by higher reasoning but by glorious imaging and time lapse but nowadays it is only a matter of leaving the hype behind and dealing with what is in front of 21st century society.

There was never a 'theory of gravity', there was an attempt to incorporate attraction into a universal format that attempted to graft experimental sciences into predictive astronomy by determining that the attraction of apple and Earth was the same as the Earth and the Sun with tides and the moon bridging the difference.

Once each year this thumbsucking exercise appears while all around new insights backed with imaging is being presented. It doesn't matter whether these insights are acknowledged or not, only that they are there anyway for people to adopt,modify,adapt and work with.