Experiments to contact "other universes" in the multiverse.

There is no one way, procedure or policy to approach astronomy yet, much like traffic rules, practitioners who deal with timekeeping and perspective astronomy must accept agreed restrictions meant to prevent reckless use of observations.

“Better still, if someone wishes, he can assign to the sky those motions of the earth that [Copernicus] adds to the first two, and use the same calculation
procedures. But that highly learned and intelligent man considered it inadvisable, on account of these undisciplined minds, to invert the entire
system of his hypotheses, and he contented himself with having established
that which was sufficient for the true discovery of phenomena.� Gemma Frisius

To make it easier for observers in a positive way, they are no longer saddled with the framework that Copernicus, Kepler and Frisius had to deal with as the mathematics of predictions within the calendar timekeeping framework doesn't operate for the perspectives of the faster moving Venus and Mercury in terms of direct/retrogrades.

". . . the ancient hypotheses clearly fail to account for certain important matters. For example, they do not comprehend the causes of the numbers, extents and durations of the retrogradations and of their agreeing so well with the position and mean motion of the sun. Copernicus alone gives an explanation to those things that provoke astonishment among other astronomers, thus destroying the source of astonishment, which lies in the ignorance of the causes." 1596, Mysterium Cosmographicum, Kepler


All this means that the astronomy which links Copernicus to Ptolemy via timekeeping cannot account for the direct/retrogrades of Venus and Mercury so the train wreck which occurred at the time of the Galileo affair must be dealt with, not by mathematicians but by observers with common sense and a clear goal.

I think we managed to come down from the trees and graduate to caves before inventing mathematics.

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

If you ask me, it's kind of a dirty trick that Mother Nature has
pulled, making it so that her deep workings are expressible only
through mathematics so abstruse that only a handful of people in the
world can comprehend those workings, and even the brightest of them
haven't attained a full understanding. If I were designing a universe I
would make its deepest mechanics accessible to every sentient being.
(If that shows a bias toward sentience, so be it.)

I attended a talk not so long ago in which a quantum
physicist/philosopher said "You know the questions that keep me awake
at night? It's not 'why the quantum' or 'what came before the big
bang.' I worry about those questions in the daytime. What keeps me
awake are the questions 'why mathematics' and 'why is it necessary to
explain the way the world works in mathematical‹and only
mathematical‹terms?' We have some ideas how the Universe began, and we
know with considerable precision when it began. We don't know how or
when mathematics began. Or why."

Who taught the sunflowers about the Fibonacci sequence, anyway?

--
I agree with almost everything that you have said and almost everything that
you will say in your entire life.

usenet *at* davidillig dawt cawm

On Wed, 22 Aug 2018 00:18:19 -0400, Davoud wrote:
Paul Schlyter:
These marks are not meaningless. Their meaning are rigirously
defined, often in a way which is beyond comprehension for
non-specialists.

If you ask me, it's kind of a dirty trick that Mother Nature has
pulled, making it so that her deep workings are expressible only
through mathematics so abstruse that only a handful of people in the
world can comprehend those workings, and even the brightest of them
haven't attained a full understanding. If I were designing a
universe I
would make its deepest mechanics accessible to every sentient being.
(If that shows a bias toward sentience, so be it.)

I attended a talk not so long ago in which a quantum
physicist/philosopher said "You know the questions that keep me
awake
at night? It's not 'why the quantum' or 'what came before the big
bang.' I worry about those questions in the daytime. What keeps me
awake are the questions 'why mathematics' and 'why is it necessary
to
explain the way the world works in mathematical‹and only
mathematical‹terms?' We have some ideas how the Universe began, and
we
know with considerable precision when it began. We don't know how or
when mathematics began. Or why."

Who taught the sunflowers about the Fibonacci sequence, anyway?

The alternatives would be a universe describe le in some other way,
or not describable at all. f it was so, would you then sleep better
at night?

On Wednesday, 22 August 2018 06:30:56 UTC+2, Paul Schlyter wrote:

The alternatives would be a universe describe it in some other way,
or not describable at all. If it was so, would you then sleep better
at night?

Imagine a universe limited to the descriptive ravings of 1313½?

On Tuesday, August 21, 2018 at 7:47:32 AM UTC-6, Chris L Peterson wrote:

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.

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

Math is just symbolic manipulation, and the result depends
upon the axioms chosen.

So true.

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.

But their applicability in this universe can be tested by
experiment.

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.

Math is a tool, and like any tool, it has to be used properly
for the specific job at hand.

The peculiar thing is, human logic actually works in the real
world. The problem is, as you say, it requires postulates (axioms)
that are supported by experiment in order to "work."

All the self-regarding hype of mathematicians here in this newsgroup is based on a single mistake that distinguishes timekeeping astronomy from the astronomy where perspectives come into play. To be fair, the nature of the mistake was difficult to spot within the framework on which a Sun centered system and a moving Earth was constructed and therein existed a problem exploited by mathematicians as they originally tried to equate timekeeping predictions in astronomy with predictions found in experiments.

The system of predictions for astronomical events is based on 1461 days/rotations to four orbital circuits formatted in the calendar framework of 365/366 days/rotations. It is immediately apparent that a year does not correspond to one orbit of the Earth around the Sun as the equivalent number of rotations does not match one of the four circuits. What muddied the water was when the first accurate clocks emerged and the Equation of Time was not linked to the calendar format as it should but unfortunately linked directly to one orbital period as fractional days and rotations -

"Here take notice, that the Sun or the Earth passeth the 12. Signes,
or makes an entire revolution in the Ecliptick in 365 days, 5 hours 49
min. or there about, and that those days, reckon'd from noon to noon,
are of different lenghts; as is known to all that are vers'd in
Astronomy. Now between the longest and the shortest of those days, a
day may be taken of such a length, as 365 such days, 5. hours &c. (the
same numbers as before) make up, or are equall to that revolution: And
this is call'd the Equal or Mean day, according to which the Watches
are to be set; and therefore the Hour or Minute shew'd by the Watches,
though they be perfectly Iust and equal, must needs differ almost
continually from those that are shew'd by the Sun, or are reckon'd
according to its Motion. But this Difference is regular, and is
otherwise call'd the Aequation.." Huygens

On this basis Newton created his contrived absolute/relative time,space and motion definitions by assuming apparent/true motions to observations and especially direct/retrogrades. I doubt very much if another individual is capable of dealing with the tangle of difference references which constitute restrictions to productive and creative research but if there is I haven't come across them.

It really is worth the effort to untangle falsehoods from facts and perhaps long, long overdue.

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.

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.

It is unfortunate that people would rather waste their imagination by following mathematical theorists than exercise their common sense and their intuitive judgement of motions to celebrate what people do day in and day out.

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 -

https://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap031216.html

http://www.insideastronomy.com/uploa...0_7_128459.jpg


I suppose people not satisfied with the moons,planets stars and galaxies that make up our Universe and imagine others would never be satisfied with anything yet here is the first time that direct/retrogrades of planets have been touched since 1514 or so and nobody cares to enjoy it.

Giving credit where it is due to astronomers in other eras and even appreciating their mistakes along with the wrong turns made by those a number of centuries ago should be part of the competitive atmosphere.

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