A dark future for cosmology

On Dec 28, 11:50*am, Benj wrote:
On Dec 24, 9:31 am, "Painius" wrote:

The Universe is more easily understood using
mathematics. *For example, infinite sets behave
very differently than finite sets. *It helps to have
a solid background in math if one truly wants to
go beyond the many mysterious veils that the
Universe has to offer.

And also provide wondrous opportunities for error and confusion when
reality decides to not follow the man-made math you happen to be
trying to apply to it.

Perfectly good math applied to a false premise can yield such marvels
as endless layering of epicycles, "eleven dimensions" (or whatever
number is currently in vogue), "ever-accelerating expansion" of the
universe, ad nauseum. oc

"oldcoot" wrote in message...
...
On Dec 28, 11:50 am, Benj wrote:
On Dec 24, 9:31 am, "Painius" wrote:

The Universe is more easily understood using
mathematics. For example, infinite sets behave
very differently than finite sets. It helps to have
a solid background in math if one truly wants to
go beyond the many mysterious veils that the
Universe has to offer.

And also provide wondrous opportunities for error and confusion when
reality decides to not follow the man-made math you happen to be
trying to apply to it.

Perfectly good math applied to a false premise can yield such marvels
as endless layering of epicycles, "eleven dimensions" (or whatever
number is currently in vogue), "ever-accelerating expansion" of the
universe, ad nauseum. oc

"Man-made math" This is the biggest mistake
most people make -- even the mathematicians...

Mathematics is not "man-made" in any way, shape
or form. It is a universal tool.

And like i said, before you can nail something down,
you have to know how to wield the hammer.

Everybody thinks Ptolemy misused math to show
that geocentrism was reality. Ptolemy was trying to
nail something down, but it wasn't geocentrism. He
used math quite well to give the people what they
wanted to hear! And to give himself a sense of...

i m m o r t a l i t y

happy new-year days and...
starry starry nights!

--
Indelibly yours,
Paine

P.S. Thank YOU for reading!

P.P.S. (shh) Some secret sites...
http://painellsworth.net
http://savethechildren.org
http://home.secretsgolden.com

"Painius" wrote:

Mathematics is not "man-made" in any way, shape
or form. *It is a universal tool.

Just bein' rained in and feelin' ornery today, so please bear with. So
we're using a base-10 math system arbitrarily derived from our number
of digits. And we (well, the Arabs actually) ingeniously equipped it
with the utterly unique Zero multiplier..
which endows our math with its phenomenal power.
But 'What If' elsewhere in the cosmos there are
other math systems using other 'bases' (e.g., base there, base nine,
twelve, sixteen, or any other 'base')? And 'what if', instead of using
a multiplier like our Zero, another system instead uses the
'interlocking' (or 'overlapping') principle as in the octave, where
the last figure (or 'note') becomes the first of the next group? And
what if a system has no concept of Zero or the 'interlock' principle
at all, like the Roman system? And what if another system, instead of
being based on fingers or toes, is based on something like the
Periodic Table? How would all these possible systems be commonly
translated into a 'Universal Math'?
And hells bells, what if some highly advanced race
uses no math or digitization at all as we know it, but uses an
entirely holographic/holonomic means of perception?
These are a few issues that the 'Primacy of
Math' disciples oughta consider from time to time. Off soapbox. :-)

Everybody thinks Ptolemy misused math to show
that geocentrism was reality. Ptolemy was trying to
nail something down, but it wasn't geocentrism. He
used math quite well to give the people what they
wanted to hear! *

And to give himself a sense of...

* * * * * * * * * *i m m o r t a l i t y

Hear, hear. oc

"oldcoot" wrote in message...
...
"Painius" wrote:

Mathematics is not "man-made" in any way, shape
or form. It is a universal tool.

Just bein' rained in and feelin' ornery today, so please bear with. So
we're using a base-10 math system arbitrarily derived from our number
of digits. And we (well, the Arabs actually) ingeniously equipped it
with the utterly unique Zero multiplier..
which endows our math with its phenomenal power.
But 'What If' elsewhere in the cosmos there are
other math systems using other 'bases' (e.g., base there, base nine,
twelve, sixteen, or any other 'base')?

Actually, there are other places right here
on Earth where other number systems are
used. The Aboriginal people of Australia,
rather than counting with their ten fingers,
began their math using their two hands.
Hence their number system is binary (base
two) rather than decimal.

Nor do "we" restrict ourselves to base ten.
Several other bases including binary, octal
and hexadecimal are commonly used in
science. And conversion between number
systems is an uncomplicated task, even by
hand.

And 'what if', instead of using
a multiplier like our Zero, another system instead uses the
'interlocking' (or 'overlapping') principle as in the octave, where
the last figure (or 'note') becomes the first of the next group?

Even the octal system, base 8, has a zero...

0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 10, 11, 12, . . .

What you describe might be a little confusing
when you get beyond more than a few octaves.
Each octave would have to be identified apart
from the other octaves, much like the clefs and
staffs used in music. But it's really all in what
you're used to. Even an interlocking, overlapping
number system can be converted to any other
number system with or without zero.

And
what if a system has no concept of Zero or the 'interlock' principle
at all, like the Roman system? And what if another system, instead of
being based on fingers or toes, is based on something like the
Periodic Table? How would all these possible systems be commonly
translated into a 'Universal Math'?

Conversion is the key, here, oc. Any number
system can be converted to any other number
system, just like any language can be translated
into the language you best understand. And an
advanced intelligence would have no problem
learning our number systems any more than they
would have a problem learning our languages.

One can see that human beings are not even this
advanced. While we can successfully translate
and learn human languages, modern and ancient
ones, we still appear to have major problems with
the languages of other species, such as dolphinese.
Even chimps can apparently do better than we can
in this respect, as they can learn ASL fairly easily.
And English is one of the hardest languages in the
world to learn as a second tongue.

And hells bells, what if some highly advanced race
uses no math or digitization at all as we know it, but uses an
entirely holographic/holonomic means of perception?
These are a few issues that the 'Primacy of
Math' disciples oughta consider from time to time. Off soapbox. :-)

Sorry, oc, but i don't see the difference. If one
could design a h/h means of perception, would
it not still be organized mathematically? Math
*is* primal, Bill. Unfortunately, past misuse of
math has turned you against this primacy. But
math was a discovery, like fire, and not an
invention like the wheel. When used well, math
can expand our observation/experiment methods
beyond their limited scope.

This is why GR is a "general" extension of SR.
Science studies specific (special) cases, and
then uses math to *generalize*. This is a good
way to learn about things we otherwise would
not know anything about. Further observation
and experiments can then hopefully support,
*refine* or refute some or all of these inferred
generalizations.

Math is like fire. When properly used, fire can
lead to things like the industrial revolution. And
when misused, it can burn down the house.

Yet, we mustn't give up the proper use of fire,
and we mustn't give up the proper use of math.

Everybody thinks Ptolemy misused math to show
that geocentrism was reality. Ptolemy was trying to
nail something down, but it wasn't geocentrism. He
used math quite well to give the people what they
wanted to hear!

And to give himself a sense of...

i m m o r t a l i t y

Hear, hear. oc

happy new-year days and...
starry starry nights!

--
Indelibly yours,
Paine

P.S. Thank YOU for reading!

P.P.S. (shh) Some secret sites...
http://painellsworth.net
http://savethechildren.org
http://home.secretsgolden.com

On Dec 29, 6:21*pm, "Painius" wrote:

When used well, math
can expand our observation/experiment methods
beyond their limited scope.

Agreed, as in nearly all technical fields including our mutual
avocation, electronics.

This is why GR is a "general" extension of SR.
Science studies specific (special) cases, and
then uses math to *generalize*. *

Math as applied in relativity and deep-past cosmology is used to
*describe*. Math is a 'schematic' so to speak, describing *effects*,
but offering no _explanation_ of the literal mechanism _causing_ those
effects. How many professing relativists, who may be virtuosos at
doing The Math, have the foggiest concept of the *mechanism* whose
effects their math is describing? F'rinstance, what is the cryptic
"curvature of space" really describing?

'The Math', perfectly good math, has been applied to the 'no medium',
space- as-void model, describing space _as if_ it were a void. As
such, the model forbids understanding the literal mechanism behind the
"curvature" effect. It forbids understanding that "curvature"
cryptically describes the _acceleration-rate of flowing space_, the
determinant of the 'force of gravity'.

Also, because relativity's math treats space as a void, it makes no
allowance for **density gradients** of a spatial medium such as would
be encountered at deep cosmological distances. Therefore, both SR and
GR, successful as they are 'locally', are 'flat' and will remain so
until such gradients are recognized. Recognition and factoring-in of
these gradients is the natural extension/expansion of both SR and GR,
bringing them out of their present 'flat earth' status based on the
'no medium' mandate.

This is a good
way to learn about things we otherwise would
not know anything about. *Further observation
and experiments can then hopefully support,
*refine* or refute some or all of these inferred
generalizations.

Math is like fire. *When properly used, fire can
lead to things like the industrial revolution. And
when misused, it can burn down the house..

..as when the Primacy of Math directive causes math to be applied to a
false
premise, supporting a Paradigm based on that false premise.

The Primacy of Math provides a shelter for the sluggart and the
laggard. It is the refuge from ever having to confront and explain
_mechanisms of causation_ in cosmology. Just holler "the math IS the
big picture" and all's well.
Off soapbox. :-) oc

"oldcoot" wrote in message...
...
On Dec 29, 6:21 pm, "Painius" wrote:

When used well, math
can expand our observation/experiment methods
beyond their limited scope.

Agreed, as in nearly all technical fields including our mutual
avocation, electronics.

This is why GR is a "general" extension of SR.
Science studies specific (special) cases, and
then uses math to *generalize*.

Math as applied in relativity and deep-past cosmology is used to
*describe*. Math is a 'schematic' so to speak, describing *effects*,
but offering no _explanation_ of the literal mechanism _causing_ those
effects. How many professing relativists, who may be virtuosos at
doing The Math, have the foggiest concept of the *mechanism* whose
effects their math is describing? F'rinstance, what is the cryptic
"curvature of space" really describing?

'The Math', perfectly good math, has been applied to the 'no medium',
space- as-void model, describing space _as if_ it were a void. As
such, the model forbids understanding the literal mechanism behind the
"curvature" effect. It forbids understanding that "curvature"
cryptically describes the _acceleration-rate of flowing space_, the
determinant of the 'force of gravity'.

Also, because relativity's math treats space as a void, it makes no
allowance for **density gradients** of a spatial medium such as would
be encountered at deep cosmological distances. Therefore, both SR and
GR, successful as they are 'locally', are 'flat' and will remain so
until such gradients are recognized. Recognition and factoring-in of
these gradients is the natural extension/expansion of both SR and GR,
bringing them out of their present 'flat earth' status based on the
'no medium' mandate.

This is a good
way to learn about things we otherwise would
not know anything about. Further observation
and experiments can then hopefully support,
*refine* or refute some or all of these inferred
generalizations.

Math is like fire. When properly used, fire can
lead to things like the industrial revolution. And
when misused, it can burn down the house..

..as when the Primacy of Math directive causes math to be applied to a
false
premise, supporting a Paradigm based on that false premise.

The Primacy of Math provides a shelter for the sluggart and the
laggard. It is the refuge from ever having to confront and explain
_mechanisms of causation_ in cosmology. Just holler "the math IS the
big picture" and all's well.
Off soapbox. :-) oc

Well, i can see that you're really down on the
primacy of math thing, so i won't continue to
harp on it.

GR does indeed "describe" the many effects of
gravity, much like a witness might describe a
perp of a crime. In police science, detectives
are also trained to search for a motive--what
caused the criminal to commit the crime? I
think science does this, too, but scientists have
not been too successful with the cause of what
keeps our feet on the ground.

This is a huge void in understanding reality. g

happy new-year days and...
starry starry nights!

--
Indelibly yours,
Paine

P.S. Thank YOU for reading!

P.P.S. (shh) Some secret sites...
http://painellsworth.net
http://savethechildren.org
http://home.secretsgolden.com

Does this include physics?

Saul Levy


On Sat, 29 Dec 2007 11:52:07 GMT, "Painius"
wrote:

"Man-made math" This is the biggest mistake
most people make -- even the mathematicians...

Mathematics is not "man-made" in any way, shape
or form. It is a universal tool.

"Saul Levy" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 29 Dec 2007 11:52:07 GMT, "Painius"
wrote:

"Man-made math" This is the biggest mistake
most people make -- even the mathematicians...

Mathematics is not "man-made" in any way, shape
or form. It is a universal tool.

Does this include physics?

Saul Levy

No, SL, it's about mathematics. Physics, and any
other science, is a man-made discipline. And, of
course, the universal tool of mathematics is one
of several methods that science uses in a most
organized and structured search for reality.

Mathematics was *discovered*, while physics was
invented and refined. It's a subtle difference, like
the one between fire and the wheel.

As an astronomer, i'm sure you already knew this.
May i ask, what first attracted you to a career in
astronomy?

happy new-year days and...
starry starry nights!

--
Indelibly yours,
Paine

P.S. Thank YOU for reading!

P.P.S. (shh) Some secret sites...
http://painellsworth.net
http://savethechildren.org
http://home.secretsgolden.com

Sorry I don't agree. Math is as man-made as physics. Math is not
necessarily any purer than physics.

To repeat myself: I'm NOT an astronomer. Never got a degree. That's
frootie's nonsense. My "career" started because of the sky.

Saul Levy


On Sun, 30 Dec 2007 00:45:52 GMT, "Painius"
wrote:

"Saul Levy" wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 29 Dec 2007 11:52:07 GMT, "Painius"
wrote:

"Man-made math" This is the biggest mistake
most people make -- even the mathematicians...

Mathematics is not "man-made" in any way, shape
or form. It is a universal tool.

Does this include physics?

Saul Levy

No, SL, it's about mathematics. Physics, and any
other science, is a man-made discipline. And, of
course, the universal tool of mathematics is one
of several methods that science uses in a most
organized and structured search for reality.

Mathematics was *discovered*, while physics was
invented and refined. It's a subtle difference, like
the one between fire and the wheel.

As an astronomer, i'm sure you already knew this.
May i ask, what first attracted you to a career in
astronomy?

"Saul Levy" wrote in message
news
On Sun, 30 Dec 2007 00:45:52 GMT,
"Painius" wrote:
"Saul Levy" wrote in message
. ..
On Sat, 29 Dec 2007 11:52:07 GMT,
"Painius" wrote:

"Man-made math" This is the biggest mistake
most people make -- even the mathematicians...

Mathematics is not "man-made" in any way, shape
or form. It is a universal tool.

Does this include physics?

Saul Levy

No, SL, it's about mathematics. Physics, and any
other science, is a man-made discipline. And, of
course, the universal tool of mathematics is one
of several methods that science uses in a most
organized and structured search for reality.

Mathematics was *discovered*, while physics was
invented and refined. It's a subtle difference, like
the one between fire and the wheel.

As an astronomer, i'm sure you already knew this.
May i ask, what first attracted you to a career in
astronomy?

Sorry I don't agree. Math is as man-made as physics. Math is not
necessarily any purer than physics.

To repeat myself: I'm NOT an astronomer. Never got a degree. That's
frootie's nonsense. My "career" started because of the sky.

Saul Levy

That's okay, Saul. Disagreement and skepticism, the
"affordable price we pay for having the benefits of so
powerful a tool as science". -Sagan

Besides, whether or not mathematics was discovered
or invented, it must have taken place a very long, long
time ago. Rudimentary math was used by the ancient
Greeks to measure the varying lengths of days and
nights, as well as the distance to the Moon. Math,
maybe or maybe not "instinctive", would have been
necessary to create and design the very first wheels
(even the rolling logs would have to be similar in
circumference to be effective).

So you don't consider yourself an astronomer, not even
an amateur one? That's alright, too, because i'm in the
same boat. Saying that your "career" started because
of the sky, says to me that you may still have a level of
interest in the sky, which would then explain why you
subscribe to alt.astronomy. I would be glad to hear
more about this if you're so inclined to talk about it.

And if not, that's okay too.

happy new-year days and...
starry starry nights!

--
Indelibly yours,
Paine

P.S. Thank YOU for reading!

P.P.S. (shh) Some secret sites...
http://painellsworth.net
http://savethechildren.org
http://home.secretsgolden.com