Quote from: IceStorm on April 09, 2010, 09:45:58 PM
I understand what you say but there a concept that you dont fully understand in what you wrote, Fact doesn't mean (for scientist)  that you know that if you mix A with B you get C as result  , a fact is Mathematical , take Ohm law for example, if someone don't know the Ohm law you will have a infinite debate with him about his experimentation, because he will not understand correctly how to Mathematically interpret his result, same thing with Lenz law, Faraday Law etc . How many people you see working with capacitor and coil here ? how many have you seen calculating the Inductive Reactance and capacitive Reactance ? but you see them trying to interpret blindly the end result. Doing a experiment is firstly Mathematical, for knowing the end result , if the end result is not what you expected after experimented, there 3 choice, you made a error in your  calculation, you forgot to calculate a parameter , you found a anomaly. There no reason to make blindly a experiment if you have no idea what the solution should look like. By playing with the mathematical concept you can extrapolate new theory and do experiment to prove that you are right. Its the only way for the science to advance. Its why i said that people should learn the current science first, and extrapolate later by having all the current view so they will be able to mix new theory and doing real experiment on new concept (or old concept).Tesla was EE and had a heavy mathematical background, like Moray and many other who was great thinker. Look at tesla colorado note , he never done anything blindly, everything was recorded and mathematicaly confirmed.

Best Regards,
IceStorm

I do understand many things as I have spent time contemplating them (and even more things that I still can not grasp), yet I still can not say that I truly *know* any of them...

What I read from your post above is that Mathematics needs to precede empirical evidence, or as is in many cases today, Mathematics is sufficient proof of something being a fact. I respectfully disagree, because that is a trap based on an assumption that events occur identically from moment to moment, or that the same laws apply throughout the Universe.

If you consider that we are traveling through vastness of space and that each passing moment we are at a different point in that (infinite?) space, the same rules could not possibly apply, because those rules are derived from a formulation that occurred moment (or many moments) ago.

Further more, because we are constantly moving in an unknown (they tell us it's a spiraling) trajectory, we have no evidence to support that we are (will ever be) back to the same spot of that (infinite) space where those formulations were originally derived.

So basically Mathematics is an invention that we use to describe the World around us in so-called exact terms, yet the fundamental premise it is based upon is flawed, namely that the same rules apply from moment to moment and from point in space to point in space.

It is a presumed that every point in (infinite) space is the same with the same properties and so we just proceed based on faith (or take it for granted), instead of applying the scientific method of empirically deriving those parameters by probing and calibrating our knowledge from point to point and from moment to moment (I know it sounds extreme, but in my humble opinion that is the only factual way to be sure).

From where I stand, our orthodox science has stopped, for the most part, conducting empirical tests (I suppose because most things are driven by businesses nowadays and they prefer not to spend money on "wild goose chases" if it's not going to yield them profit). And even worse, we have taken basic principles for granted as unchangeable or immutable, and under that presumption all future conclusions are drawn upon.

Lastly, we have devised new "sciences", and I'll use Quantum Physics as my favourite example, where particles are invented (almost) on a daily basis to fill the gaps in the theory, and where this theory is accepted as if it's gospel, with all new conclusions being drawn based on these (more than) shaky grounds.

And isn't their (Quantum Physics') first doctrine that they don't care where it comes from or how it got there, but that they simply assume (claim) it *is* there and that's their starting point for the whole THEORY (and I emphasize that word because some people use Quantum Physics to explain other things, even existence, as if it is a proven and accepted truth - an axiom).

Quote from: amigo on April 09, 2010, 11:15:59 PM
I do understand many things as I have spent time contemplating them (and even more things that I still can not grasp), yet I still can not say that I truly *know* any of them...

What I read from your post above is that Mathematics needs to precede empirical evidence, or as is in many cases today, Mathematics is sufficient proof of something being a fact. I respectfully disagree, because that is a trap based on an assumption that events occur identically from moment to moment, or that the same laws apply throughout the Universe.

If you consider that we are traveling through vastness of space and that each passing moment we are at a different point in that (infinite?) space, the same rules could not possibly apply, because those rules are derived from a formulation that occurred moment (or many moments) ago.

Further more, because we are constantly moving in an unknown (they tell us it's a spiraling) trajectory, we have no evidence to support that we are (will ever be) back to the same spot of that (infinite) space where those formulations were originally derived.

So basically Mathematics is an invention that we use to describe the World around us in so-called exact terms, yet the fundamental premise it is based upon is flawed, namely that the same rules apply from moment to moment and from point in space to point in space.

It is a presumed that every point in (infinite) space is the same with the same properties and so we just proceed based on faith (or take it for granted), instead of applying the scientific method of empirically deriving those parameters by probing and calibrating our knowledge from point to point and from moment to moment (I know it sounds extreme, but in my humble opinion that is the only factual way to be sure).

From where I stand, our orthodox science has stopped, for the most part, conducting empirical tests (I suppose because most things are driven by businesses nowadays and they prefer not to spend money on "wild goose chases" if it's not going to yield them profit). And even worse, we have taken basic principles for granted as unchangeable or immutable, and under that presumption all future conclusions are drawn upon.

Lastly, we have devised new "sciences", and I'll use Quantum Physics as my favourite example, where particles are invented (almost) on a daily basis to fill the gaps in the theory, and where this theory is accepted as if it's gospel, with all new conclusions being drawn based on these (more than) shaky grounds.

And isn't their (Quantum Physics') first doctrine that they don't care where it comes from or how it got there, but that they simply assume (claim) it *is* there and that's their starting point for the whole THEORY (and I emphasize that word because some people use Quantum Physics to explain other things, even existence, as if it is a proven and accepted truth - an axiom).

You need to understand that ALL the science that we use today and all is derivative are Mathematical concept because Nature itself talk with Mathematics,empirical evidence get confirmed by mathematics , if you cant derivate something from a math point of view its because you don't understand something or some variable are missing. Your terribly wrong in your assumption that we only use a static reference point in calculation, A vector is stationary if taken alone but when incorporated in a function he is not anymore because Time play a role. Quantum Physics is a theory and still need ALOT of work done and experimental proof before getting accepted by all, its the SAME exact thing as the classical physic, it took time and experiment to make the foundation. Mathematical theory need experimental proof to be right and the inverse is true too , when you cant get result its because some variable are missing or the hole concept is bogus but in a way or another , the end result is the same. People today have access to all the knowledge but are too lazy to learn and when i ear "Mathematics is not essential" i can only laugh at that, that mean "Ill not use electronic because it take too much math to realy understand what i want to do" , "ill not experiment because im too lazy to calculate what i have in mind".

With a post like you did , i realy think ill give up , nothing worth to talk here.Realy little people here understand what they do , its just sick. You want to know what its the Myth ? , its not to be able to make a OU machine, its someone with about no knowledge making a ou machine.

My last post.
Best Regards,
IceStorm

In physics math can only describe theory, theory is not the actual WORLD.All discoveries started from anomalies in theories. In 1875 Edison found anomaly but that anomaly WAS never correctly described by theory.What then Elihu Thomson and Edwin Houston proved was that two opposite "etheric forces" eliminate each other . You can apply Maxwell equations if you wish and state it was simply interference of two EM waves, but I state it was two longitudinal pure electric or pure magnetic waves combining into standing wave . What I 've found strange from notes is HUGE secondary emission from all metallic objects ALSO IN OTHER ROOMS made by single etheric force.
I know that my knowledge is minimal but don't you see something strange in that ?
Try to make it using current radio or radar transmitters using the power level they used...

What if EM wave is composed really of two pure longitudinal waves forming standing wave between transmitter and receiver and modulation of that standing wave is what we sense with our equipment ? So all we see is net sum of two longitudinal waves and modulation of that sum which diminish with square area from transmitter.

I think Ice has a point here. He is talking about pure scientific approach to the matter. It is not a question of creativity and trying new things.
As far as I am concerned this approach is the most efficient in discovering new things.
I would appriciate if Ice would contribute to the topic of this debate. Mybe he could explain what tesla ment by term electric activities in the coils.

Blah blah blah, and blah blah blah again!