Re: "Testing Einstein in Space: The Gravity Probe B Mission"


Jan Panteltje wrote:
On a sunny day (Fri, 19 May 2006 21:33:14 GMT) it happened Sam Wormley
<swormley1@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in <uQqbg.156303$oL.155228@attbi_s71>:

Jan Panteltje wrote:
On a sunny day (Fri, 19 May 2006 21:15:06 GMT) it happened Sam Wormley
<swormley1@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in <uzqbg.156286$oL.16619@attbi_s71>:>

Models are mathematical


Need not be.

There are many models possible.
Start thinking.

Can you give us an example of a model in physics that is
not mathematical, Jan Panteltje?

OK, now I throw a ball and you catch it.
Do you (your brain) use math to calculate the extrapolated path so it
can move your hands to the position where the ball will be?
No it uses a much better, faster system, the neural net.'It has, in it,
not only the model of the flight of that ball, but the model of all the
mathematics you know,
And for normal functioning people a model of physics in the sense of
'physical events and their effect'.
It has a model of you, what you think you are, what you know, what you need
and the world around you.
All that without math.
So that is one.
A simple small model airplane is for example an other, you need no math to
make a stable one.
It can be scaled up later, even for that you need no math (think).

There are a thousand if not a zillion models possible that are
'math free (tm)' that are extremely useful and in use everyday.
Math is just a very limited model of reality.
It has it uses, but only so much, it can neither model reality in all its
detail nor replace it.
It is no religion, although some here seem to think so.
It is the lock on creativity and understanding once your formulas are taken
as law, once your dogma[s] makes it into your formulas, and then things will
be stuck.

For a thousand years if it so happens.

Thank you. You said that better than I did or could.

.

Relevant Pages