Advancements in Vortex Mathematics

[spinn_MP]

"Omnibus, you are absolutely right...."

Rotfl!
What a mathematician you are!

[Omnibus]

"Omnibus, you are absolutely right...."

Rotfl!
What a mathematician you are!

spam

[MrMag]

"Omnibus, you are absolutely right...."

Rotfl!
What a mathematician you are!

He wants to sound intelligent yet all his comments are trivial and off topic. What a joke.

[Omnibus]

He wants to sound intelligent yet all his comments are trivial and off topic. What a joke.

What a joke, indeed, to write posting as the one above.

[Omnibus]

It is not trivial and it is not off topic to ask what is the basis to claim connection with physics when a mathematical result is presented claiming such connection. That, of course, is not for people who are not scientists to understand. These people, however, should try to learn and not get encouraged by trolls to respond incoherently and interrupt the discussion.

It is a common fallacy nowadays to substitue mathematical results for physical findings. Our friend here isn't at all an exception. That approach is the rule in some circles and that has to change if physics is to regain its integrity. Physics makes mathematics, not vice versa. Mathematics is only a language which makes physics easier to present. In other words, mathematics in physics is only a tool. It is something extraneous to physics which only helps it. A significant physical result or any physical result for that matter will not become less significant or less physical if it can be expressed in words, avoiding any use of math. Many times, however, using math makes it more convenient to express physics clearly. On the other hand, there are many valuable mathematical results which have no physical meaning whatsoever. Those interested in science have to learn those distinctions in order to avoid unnecessary confusion.