This is a Pythagorean-sounding opinion. God made the universe rational so that a rational mind could figure it out. Number is not essential to nature. We abstract number from nature. Mathematics is useful only after facts are discovered through experiment.
That is false; many times a "what the heck?" mathematical model suddenly becomes "hey, it works in practice too" (see: imaginary numbers, relativity and other seemingly non-intuitive subjects).
You obviously haven't read enough of the history of science. If you had, you wouldn't be able to say the above with as much confidence.
I just want to say a few things about relativity because it's a pet-peeve of mine. Relativity has not been proven at all. It is a completely irrational theory. It says nature is structured in a certain way, but this structure precludes the mechanical possibleness of the effects we actually observe. The simplest example is gravity. Einstein, using Riemannian ideas, postulated some kind of "underlying" fabric which he called space-time. Gravity is then said to be the "slope" or "dimple" in this fabric into which surrounding objects of lesser mass "fall."
But there's a problem with that idea. It was very eloquently stated by Nikola Tesla a long time ago (eloquent because he framed it as a simple question).
I now paraphrase Tesla: If gravity is the "slope" of this fabric, what's causing things to fall down the slope? Gravity? Then why talk about a "fabric"?
And here's Tesla's unabashed opinion of the theory: "relativity is like a beggar dressed in royal robes that ignorant people take for a king."
The reason I take Tesla more seriously on this matter than any other physicist is the fact that he discovered more about the actual
operation of fundamental forces than any other physicist I can think of besides Michael Faraday (who btw was also convinced that gravity was related, or part of, electromagnetism).
There has never been one piece of technology derived from relativity because it describes a universe that does not exist except in the mind of men.
On the other hand, James Clerk Maxwell's mathematical expressions of the empirical discoveries about electromagnetism contained in the lab notes of Faraday and other experimenters have to an extent been useful. However, they were impossible without the prior empirical work. And NOW, a number of electrical engineers and physicists all over the world are finding that the four Maxwell-Heaviside equations they've been using DO NOT SUFFICIENTLY DESCRIBE ALL ELECTROMAGNETIC PHENOMENA. Guess what problem they have now? They can't get funding for their projects because their projects are considered "fringy." Why the fringe label? It doesn't agree with the accepted MATH.
That's not science. That's geo-centrism all over again. The examples of this are innumerable.
Do not put the cart before the horse. Most physicists now do that. As a result, we're not moving very much anymore.
I think we are moving forward a lot, just that we do not immediately have applications for what is known. Take anti-matter for instance. A highly complex subject, yet, can be formed (in tiny amounts for a short while), and subject to theories which are highly structured, not yet proven with experiment totally. Most of it is done with complex math/physics (the edges of math and physics become blurry at this stage). The math is done before the experiment.
The math is NOT done before the experiment! This is a totally inaccurate understanding of how physics used to be done. Faraday had no mathematical (let alone formal
) education whatsoever. He never used a single equation in his laboratory. But his discoveries (such as electric induction) make our modern life possible.
Mathematics is a tool that can show quantity relations between items. This is useful in a science that permits direct experimentation with its subject such as chemistry, physics to certain extents, biology, etc. But if you postulate a mathematical model in a field such as astronomy or cosmology, or in an attempt to derive a "unified field theory," you are in BIG trouble. Direct experimentation is rarely (if ever yet) possible in astrophysics, and thus, dominated by mathematicians (as it once was by geo-centrists), it becomes dogmatic, rather than empirical. It is the same in theoretical physics. I can give you numerous examples of people who have discovered phenomena in the 20th century that defy Newtonian mechanics or relativistic mechanics, but can't publish because of the dogmatism in the field. The MATH says no.
It's not science. It's becoming religion.
It's my own fault for not posting the above links in my thread-starting post. But if you are going to disagree with me about this topic, you really need to read that material. The authors (especially Ralph Juergens, a civil engineer, who wrote the two papers listed first) are actually somewhat more conservative than I have been.
It is very weird to make statements which defy conventional theory without any supporting arguments. You did it backwards
It would have been much more productive had you explained yourself before, otherwise, it sounds like cracked up conspiracy theories. I did not disagree with the new theories (new to me) yet (I didn't read them yet).
I had no idea I was sounding like a peddler of weird conspiracy theories. That never crossed my mind. Are you sure you weren't reading that into my posts a little?