Dissilusioned with current science an scientific thinking.

[Zeus]

Basically Iv read many articles about current science and how so many scientists are so arrogant to new ideas. I read an article on Einstein who was also big in to philosophy (not everyone realises that most of his teachers were philosiphers) and he likened science mostly physics to an art and human imagination just remember how he came up with general relativity. He said that some of the biggest scientific ideas come from human thought, ditractors such as the royal institute and some other organisation (cant remember so sue me) say science is purly mathmatical and quatifiable and. Whilst I do not deny that science requires quantifiability, mathmatics is a language of science it isnt science. To have mathmatics first then the idea is pure crazy.(Im still working on that description) To discourage human imagination in science by calling i sudo science and destroying a scientists carear and as iv seen, any new idea that does'nt fit within established ideas are not even givin the time of day. Having said that there are loads of crackpots that dont even consider current science. Which I beleave is correct up to a point it is still very flawed just think about how we describe light both a particle and a wave dude thats just flawed its jst a coveinent way to describe it. BUt please dont get me wrong I do not think our current laws of physics are wrong just need expanding apon. But scientists if they find summin they jiggloe with the maths forget the experimental date ie string theory it doesnt even account for gravity. I see simular centiments made as the scientists make, on this forum purely. Forgive my rants incoherence and spelling mistakes I tend to just put down what i think

[Three PhDs]

Basically Iv read many articles about current science and how so many scientists are so arrogant to new ideas. I read an article on Einstein who was also big in to philosophy (not everyone realises that most of his teachers were philosiphers) and he likened science mostly physics to an art and human imagination just remember how he came up with general relativity. He said that some of the biggest scientific ideas come from human thought, ditractors such as the royal institute and some other organisation (cant remember so sue me) say science is purly mathmatical and quatifiable and. Whilst I do not deny that science requires quantifiability, mathmatics is a language of science it isnt science. To have mathmatics first then the idea is pure crazy.(Im still working on that description) To discourage human imagination in science by calling i sudo science and destroying a scientists carear and as iv seen, any new idea that does'nt fit within established ideas are not even givin the time of day. Having said that there are loads of crackpots that dont even consider current science. Which I beleave is correct up to a point it is still very flawed just think about how we describe light both a particle and a wave dude thats just flawed its jst a coveinent way to describe it. BUt please dont get me wrong I do not think our current laws of physics are wrong just need expanding apon. But scientists if they find summin they jiggloe with the maths forget the experimental date ie string theory it doesnt even account for gravity. I see simular centiments made as the scientists make, on this forum purely. Forgive my rants incoherence and spelling mistakes I tend to just put down what i think

Without specifics, I can't say whether I agree with you or not.

[LORD MONK]

What are you getting at. I know you need math to prove whats right in science. And it is takin' from a crock pot and then turned into something right backed by an equation. Even all the way down to a bowling ball will hit the ground at the same timethat a marble will when released at the same time. you still need math to caclulate the expariment. Even though you can do it just by looking at the results, but thats not how science works. They want it down to the milli second in order for it to be writen into science law.

[Zeus]

Mathematics, no doubt, is a very precise and powerful language to describe the physical phenomena and to express the physical concepts. It is rigid and cannot be tinkered with. But still, it is a language and only a language at that. That is it is an expression of thought and not the thought or concept itself. It does supplement and describe but can never supplant physical concepts. I do not therefore agree with Dirac [5] that physical concepts be tinkered with to fit mathematics, and not the other way round. In fact, "tinkering" is NOT the term or need. Ideally, both mathematics and physical concepts must mutually fit without any tinkering and a new math be evolved to express new ideas, since words and math describe the same objective reality within their own limitations. In fact, a language is only a vehicle of thought and not the thought itself. And mathematics is only a language to describe a conceptual model. The strength and correctness of a theory lie in model’s nearness to reality. This book therefore stresses more on the physical concepts. For instance string theory is purely mathematics there is no physical evidence for there existance and hence the maths gave birth to the concept as it neaty fitted. In my opinion the concept should come first and then the maths to expalain it. So much of physics is based solely on maths and if the physical medium that it is maent to describe does not fit it these physicalities are changed. This in itself is wrong science yet it seem science is heading that way. Just consider the multitude of different quarks and leptons and the confusing web of ideas that contradict one anouther because we have no way to observe these things properlyQuantum Theory was formulated as a "mathematical scheme" to circumvent the inability to visualize light’s real nature as a thing to be the wave and particle at the same time. And it in its Copenhagen interpretation, QT went to the extreme to reject objective reality as a metaphysical speculation out side of Physics. In matter of fact, the current mainstream theories have concealed their unclarity about the real natures of light, light medium and vacuum under the exactitude halo of their mathematics. Anouther string theory still can not even mathematically introduce and explain what gravity is heck scientists still dont even know what gravity is exactly. They know its effects but that is it.

OUR universe appears to be unfathomably uniform. Look across space from one edge of the visible universe to the other, and you'll see that the microwave background radiation filling the cosmos is at the same temperature everywhere. That may not seem surprising until you consider that the two edges are nearly 28 billion light years apart and our universe is only 14 billion years old.

Nothing can travel faster than the speed of light, so there is no way heat radiation could have travelled between the two horizons to even out the hot and cold spots created in the big bang and leave the thermal equilibrium we see now.

This "horizon problem" is a big headache for cosmologists, so big that they have come up with some pretty wild solutions. "Inflation", for example.

You can solve the horizon problem by having the universe expand ultra-fast for a time, just after the big bang, blowing up by a factor of 1050 in 10-33 seconds. But is that just wishful thinking? "Inflation would be an explanation if it occurred," says University of Cambridge astronomer Martin Rees. The trouble is that no one knows what could have made that happen.

So, in effect, inflation solves one mystery only to invoke another. A variation in the speed of light could also solve the horizon problem - but this too is impotent in the face of the question "why?" In scientific terms, the uniform temperature of the background radiation remains an anomaly

Anouther problem are Tetraneutrons

Also how do photons of light 'know' where they are going?
Thanks to https://www.newscientistspace.com/ar...mg18524911.600