Requiem for Relativity

[Jim] <b>Can you say for sure the math is a sure thing in that math of that kind has caused most of the confusion in science.</b> Its not so much the math itself that causes the confusion, but the way the math is used. Equations do not cause things to happen - things that happen cause equations. === [Jim] <b>Observation is good though, so if the subject is seen it would prove the math works.</b> Hmmm. Proving the math is necessary, but not sufficient. === [Jim] <b>Maybe proving the math works(in that it really does predict nature)would be more important than finding the subject.</b> In some cases there are several equations that can predict the outcome of an observation or experiment. Obviously this means that all equations being considered provide the same answer (to within some distance of observed numbers), so in a mathematical sense they are equivalent even though they are not identical. In other cases the same equations are generated by alternate physical explanations, so they are not equivalent (to themselves) in the physical sense. (Dis)proving the math can eliminate a wrong idea, but proving it does not guarantee that you have the right idea. You have to step back from the math and look at the bigger picture (physics) in order to understand reality. === [Jim] <b>And the other way round would be a good thing too.</b> Finding the subject is always a great thing. But sometimes our understanding of nature runs ahead of our ability to measure it. This was the case when we knew that the invisible air around us was composed of some sort of particle, but we had no natural sense or invented mechanism that could actually detect the hypothetical particle. If we could not detect this particle, why did we even think to look? We could use our natural senses to <u>indirectly</u> detect this particle (as in when we feel the wind on our face). And we could use invented machines to indirectly detect it by detecting various side effects (as in when we measure how long it takes a sound to travel a given distance through it). Eventually we developed the mechanisms to directly detect the particle. Our theorizing was close. It turned out that the air was not made of a particle, but of several different particles. NOTE: This process (theorizing about indirectly sensed things) does not always lead us in the right direction. <ul><li>It succeeded in the example above.</li><li>It is probably failing with things like dark matter.</li><li>It is probably succeeding with things like the LCM and classical gravitons.</li></ul> But as we learn to build more sensitive measuring devices, we will develop the ability to sort these things out. Tom has suggested that rather than admit it was wrong, science (IOW scientists) will most likely just adjust things over time to match better and better observations. At some point in this process dark matter will stop being some mysterious, unseeable, mathemagical thing and start being some specific, detectable, physical thing, like elysons or gravitons. === [Jim] <b>It might be better to stop dumping on the powers that be and look at new ways around the stone in the soup.</b> There are two ways to have the tallest building on the block. Sounds like you are about to decide that it is better to stop trying to tear down the ones that are already there and start building a taller one. I applaud you. Regards, LB