How much of the "accepted" knowledge in mathematics and physics fields do we know to be true?
Everything that you could check. I.e. set up real experiment that will prove or disprove them.
How much of them are reasonably doubtful?
Everything that you could not check. I.e. everything that could not be proven or disproven by real experiment.
That is why every real scientist do everything to think out how to experimentally prove his theory.
Especially as it pertains to what may be taught in universities nowadays.
IDK how they teach youth in universities now, but I was teached mostly to think, not just learn by rote some formulas or laws. I was teached of how all that things works and tied together, how to find relations and connections and it was much better than learning by rote, because if you get an ability to think that way, you could anytime derive any law or formula form the very basic knowledge. Also you could find new laws and formulas if you found a new relation or connection.
Looking at complete disability to make their own conclusions from some related facts in most young people I think that situation in education changed heavily and not to the best.
Do you think one field is worth studying more than the other?
It depends on your own interest and curiosity, not on some fashion, profit, whatever. In any case it is better to choose field you really interested in, even there could be much more popular or profitable fields. Science is about curiosity and attempt to uncover the secrets of Universe or God's plan if you wish, not about doing some boring uninteresting job for money. If you are not interested, Universe/God will not share its secrets with you. :)
Same here. I was a math major back in the 90s. It was about proofs and learning logic, not memorization. Sure, you could memorize a list of formulas but it was much easier (and encouraged) to memorize one or two and know how to adapt them to what you needed.
Most of our tests were 'open book' because the book wasn't going to help you if you couldn't do logic.
I have no idea how much of that has changed with the 'math is rassis' attitude of today or even if they teach anything other than politics in schools.
The math is pretty set in stone, but modern physics has all sorts of guesswork theories. Scientists make mathematical models based on their assumptions, but then the data goes against the model, so they make up a new variable to "correct" the formula to make it fit with their assumptions. The math is correct in that the calculations work out, but to say it applies to the real world is where the stretches and fabrications come in.
I do believe there are plenty of smart and honest scientists, and the good ones admit they are guessing on such theories. One problem is the push for education has many mediocre minds getting Ph.Ds, so I think there are plenty of genuine believers of questionable theories in academia who legitimately just aren't smart enough to question the theories.
Remember when they buried some scientists deep under the earth in order to look for dark matter ... And they looked for so long that they saw an atom of noble gas decay?
Modern Physics is just finding ways to lie your way into some grant money.
There was a post-doc theoretical physicist I used to talk to when I was in college, and I remember asking him how much he hung out with his colleagues. His answer was never outside of work, because in his experience "all they talk about is grants, and if they aren't directly talking about money, they are indirectly talking about it."
He was working at his third major university at that point, and it held true for those outside his workgroup too. I'm sure he wasn't the only guy like himself, but most weren't. I was in the math department which was next to the physics, so I sometimes ate lunch at tables next to the university's more public physicists: I personally heard a professor (who had a show on Discovery or Science Channel) directly talking about grants!
I did take physics classes from a couple really smart physics professors who did more useful work than the guy who was sometimes on TV, and they came off as low key and humble.
I don't know if there's an easy way to find an answer to this, but this is something that has been haunting me for a long time. I read the universe in a nutshell and a brief history of time when I was a teenager, and I was in awe about the world of theoretical physics and astrophysics...
Fast forward a few years, I start to see holes in everything…
Fast forward a few more years, and I'm so cynical that I start making predictions that run counter to mainstream science (e.g., predicting that the "faster than light neutrinos" would turn out to be bullshit, which came true a couple weeks later), and I start seeing more and more of these "just bet on the opposite" predictions coming true.
Right around that time or slightly before then I started down this path of "what if everything we were told is bullshit", so I started searching for clues, things that there would be no way to even know what to search for, and my first breakthrough moment was something called "phantom time hypothesis". This notion that at least a majority of the "dark ages" could've possibly not even existed, I started questioning everything at that point, wondering if Napoleon Bonaparte ever existed or the Roman empire, etc. I was at this point where I realized "well I guess they could just make up a story for every artifact we find and tell everybody that's official history".
I've spent a lot of time researching into the "mud flood" and the possibility of recent global resets, etc., but there is no complete picture to be had.
It's only 10% of the battle to know that much of what we have learned is fake. The other 90% is the hard part, and I feel like I'm 10% down that path... which puts me at about 19% of the way down the path figuring out some semblance of our real story :/
But then I started thinking about something even more sinister… Imagine you knew how things worked, like let's say that you knew how to generate energy, in the form of heat, output from a metal (e.g., what we about as a "Uranium isotope"). Now imagine you make up a science to explain this, but the science you make up masks the rest of the story, while allowing for experimental proofs of your theory to succeed. IOW, there could be some underlying science that we don't even know about, but, as long as we're able to generate heat from this metal, we believe the story as it's told.
IOW, imagine everything we were told about how "nuclear power" works was completely made up, including the notion that there are neutrons, protons, electrons, etc. This seems completely ludicrous until you imagine going back in time with something like a green laser pointer and telling some troglodyte that it's a bunch of miniature people holding leaves in front of miniature camp fires inside of this tube you're holding; and that that's where the green laser is coming from. And that if they push the button on the back it pokes the miniature people with a needle to encourage them to make a fire. So, as an experiment, you tell the troglodyte to push the button, and, lo and behold, the green laser comes out, so of course you must be right. How would they know? More importantly, how is this any different, other than the level of complexity involved in the story that's being told and the experiments used.
We have to at least be open to the possibility of this, at least with regards to any science that cannot be directly observed with simple magnification (e.g., without a scanning electron microscope or large hadron collider).
alot of what you said makes sense. I think theres a few specific areas of mainstream science that were hijacked. Modern history is a complete fabrication, your right literally any story could have been fabricated
I also think physics is being completely manipulated the deeper you go down. Personally i think Einstein wasn't trying to "prove" anything with general relativity, I think he created it to disprove the electric universe theory or shift people away from exploring it. what if he was wrong and we built entire areas and fields of science off that instead of looking into whats actually going on.
with in Biology also theres the big issue of virology, no matter what i look into or read about now it all leads me back to the fucking the germ vs terrain theroy and thats a tough pill to swallow.
this is without even going into the social sciences😑. TLDR the cake is a lie
I absolutely agree, especially pertaining the Einstein bit. In fact, even though I didn't mention it, one of my biggest moments of disillusionment was when I learned that the most interesting theories Einstein "came up with" were actually lifted directly from Ernst Mach.
I'll explain why pure Mathematics is unquestionable to the same extent as deductive logic is unquestionable. I leave the other sciences to others better informed.
The modern notion of mathematics is very agnostic. You can invent your own language, logic and axioms and whatever conclusions you derive is valid mathematics (within your system). But mathematicians like to be able to work together, so they use a common system. The logic and axioms (the "ZFC" axioms) for this system would make sense even to a child, adding minimum possible additional rules (countable on one hand) for completeness (for cases we do not encounter in real life and thus have no "common sense" for).
Thus math has nothing to do with our universe (unlike other sciences). It is a completely invented thing. It has nothing to do with what is true in our existence. It only exists in and "talks about" its own system. As it doesn't deal with our world, it is safe from politics. No financial or other incentive to falsify results. No new discovery within our universe can affect it.
It is the only science where each student is required to fully verify everything he is taught (talking about university and higher pure math which comes with proofs for everything unlike school math which doesn't). In fact, math is verified every time it is learned because you can't understand it without also verifying it (all you need is pencil and paper). Thus, mathematics taught in universities has been checked and re-checked probably hundreds of thousands of times. Newly published math is verified in full during peer review (at least in quality journals), but more importantly, it will be by everyone who learns it in the future.The more it is learned, the more verified it becomes (i.e. the result is repeatable).
If you find an error in anyone's proof, you can publish a counterexample or derive a contradiction and be assured the mathematics community will accept it. There's zero tolerance for incorrectness and there is a strong urge for completeness and maximum generality. That's why I love math. It's a model for all sciences to emulate.
PS: Long ago there was a view that math represents some truth about our universe, so there was a notion of what should or shouldn't be math. But in the 20th century, that view became extinct, thanks to the crisis caused by Cantor's work.
As u/JuanTitor points out, when you take this pure math and try to apply it to our universe to make predictions, that requires interpretation and thus that process is art not science. The science part comes in when you verify this mathematical model against observations. Even if it checks out, it should only be accepted provisionally, not as truth. The absolute truth is unknowable through science.
I agree with several of the above posters. Mathematics is abstract, logical, and a system that is carefully built using logic. It is useful in many different ways, especially in technical fields.
Physics has many mind-warping theories that are currently investigated/believed by many but I suspect the science has stalled, caught on bad theories/models.
Note that within physics/astronomy, the p-value (probability used to rule out coincidences in statistics) is way higher than in medicine/biology.
Personally, I think statistics, pure mathematics, applied mathematics, algorithms etc are fantastic topics to study because they help with understanding everything. Statistics especially helps see through BS in media and in published journal articles. "Lies, damn lies, and statistics." I say this as someone with a degree in engineering and another in computer science. A colleague of mine doing similar work did mathematics followed by a GIS masters.
You can't corroborate Newtonian physics with quantum physics either, but I don't see anyone changing the way they design cars or ping pong paddles because of that. Sure, once you get into the quantum world there's oodles of bullshit to be found.
Being in margins of Einstein-like logic, you absolutely have no way even to really measure speed of light in one direction. And speed of light is assumed basic constant in the whole theory of special relativity. And it is not the only one suspicious and strained thing there.
The assumption of constant speed of light is part of what can be (and had been tested). The theory leads to predictions and I'm aware of some of those predictions being tested true. I'm not aware of any being tested false (though I'm sure there's plenty we have no answer for). Do you have any examples of a prediction being proven false?
You can't measure speed of light in one direction according to special relativity. You could measure only average of forth and back speeds of light returned by distant mirror. It is unknown, if that speeds are equal.
There are a lot of logical loops in relativity theories.
Do you have any examples of a prediction being proven false?
Gunter Nimtz. In first experiments got 4.7c speed of signal transmission. Later replications, including made by other groups showed that tunneling time seems to be zero ("Our experimental results give a strong indication that there is no real tunneling delay time"), even through 1 meter gap as in Nimtz experiments. Speed of light is not the highest possible speed. There are no any predicted casuality violations observed during transmission of a signal with a speed much higher than speed of light.
If Harold White et.al. finaly create a warp bubble (see Alcubierre drive) in their experiments, that will finally bury relativity theory.
Everything that you could check. I.e. set up real experiment that will prove or disprove them.
Everything that you could not check. I.e. everything that could not be proven or disproven by real experiment.
That is why every real scientist do everything to think out how to experimentally prove his theory.
IDK how they teach youth in universities now, but I was teached mostly to think, not just learn by rote some formulas or laws. I was teached of how all that things works and tied together, how to find relations and connections and it was much better than learning by rote, because if you get an ability to think that way, you could anytime derive any law or formula form the very basic knowledge. Also you could find new laws and formulas if you found a new relation or connection.
Looking at complete disability to make their own conclusions from some related facts in most young people I think that situation in education changed heavily and not to the best.
It depends on your own interest and curiosity, not on some fashion, profit, whatever. In any case it is better to choose field you really interested in, even there could be much more popular or profitable fields. Science is about curiosity and attempt to uncover the secrets of Universe or God's plan if you wish, not about doing some boring uninteresting job for money. If you are not interested, Universe/God will not share its secrets with you. :)
Same here. I was a math major back in the 90s. It was about proofs and learning logic, not memorization. Sure, you could memorize a list of formulas but it was much easier (and encouraged) to memorize one or two and know how to adapt them to what you needed.
Most of our tests were 'open book' because the book wasn't going to help you if you couldn't do logic.
I have no idea how much of that has changed with the 'math is rassis' attitude of today or even if they teach anything other than politics in schools.
The math is pretty set in stone, but modern physics has all sorts of guesswork theories. Scientists make mathematical models based on their assumptions, but then the data goes against the model, so they make up a new variable to "correct" the formula to make it fit with their assumptions. The math is correct in that the calculations work out, but to say it applies to the real world is where the stretches and fabrications come in.
I do believe there are plenty of smart and honest scientists, and the good ones admit they are guessing on such theories. One problem is the push for education has many mediocre minds getting Ph.Ds, so I think there are plenty of genuine believers of questionable theories in academia who legitimately just aren't smart enough to question the theories.
Remember when they buried some scientists deep under the earth in order to look for dark matter ... And they looked for so long that they saw an atom of noble gas decay?
Modern Physics is just finding ways to lie your way into some grant money.
There was a post-doc theoretical physicist I used to talk to when I was in college, and I remember asking him how much he hung out with his colleagues. His answer was never outside of work, because in his experience "all they talk about is grants, and if they aren't directly talking about money, they are indirectly talking about it."
He was working at his third major university at that point, and it held true for those outside his workgroup too. I'm sure he wasn't the only guy like himself, but most weren't. I was in the math department which was next to the physics, so I sometimes ate lunch at tables next to the university's more public physicists: I personally heard a professor (who had a show on Discovery or Science Channel) directly talking about grants!
I did take physics classes from a couple really smart physics professors who did more useful work than the guy who was sometimes on TV, and they came off as low key and humble.
I don't know if there's an easy way to find an answer to this, but this is something that has been haunting me for a long time. I read the universe in a nutshell and a brief history of time when I was a teenager, and I was in awe about the world of theoretical physics and astrophysics...
Fast forward a few years, I start to see holes in everything…
Fast forward a few more years, and I'm so cynical that I start making predictions that run counter to mainstream science (e.g., predicting that the "faster than light neutrinos" would turn out to be bullshit, which came true a couple weeks later), and I start seeing more and more of these "just bet on the opposite" predictions coming true.
Right around that time or slightly before then I started down this path of "what if everything we were told is bullshit", so I started searching for clues, things that there would be no way to even know what to search for, and my first breakthrough moment was something called "phantom time hypothesis". This notion that at least a majority of the "dark ages" could've possibly not even existed, I started questioning everything at that point, wondering if Napoleon Bonaparte ever existed or the Roman empire, etc. I was at this point where I realized "well I guess they could just make up a story for every artifact we find and tell everybody that's official history".
I've spent a lot of time researching into the "mud flood" and the possibility of recent global resets, etc., but there is no complete picture to be had.
It's only 10% of the battle to know that much of what we have learned is fake. The other 90% is the hard part, and I feel like I'm 10% down that path... which puts me at about 19% of the way down the path figuring out some semblance of our real story :/
But then I started thinking about something even more sinister… Imagine you knew how things worked, like let's say that you knew how to generate energy, in the form of heat, output from a metal (e.g., what we about as a "Uranium isotope"). Now imagine you make up a science to explain this, but the science you make up masks the rest of the story, while allowing for experimental proofs of your theory to succeed. IOW, there could be some underlying science that we don't even know about, but, as long as we're able to generate heat from this metal, we believe the story as it's told.
IOW, imagine everything we were told about how "nuclear power" works was completely made up, including the notion that there are neutrons, protons, electrons, etc. This seems completely ludicrous until you imagine going back in time with something like a green laser pointer and telling some troglodyte that it's a bunch of miniature people holding leaves in front of miniature camp fires inside of this tube you're holding; and that that's where the green laser is coming from. And that if they push the button on the back it pokes the miniature people with a needle to encourage them to make a fire. So, as an experiment, you tell the troglodyte to push the button, and, lo and behold, the green laser comes out, so of course you must be right. How would they know? More importantly, how is this any different, other than the level of complexity involved in the story that's being told and the experiments used.
We have to at least be open to the possibility of this, at least with regards to any science that cannot be directly observed with simple magnification (e.g., without a scanning electron microscope or large hadron collider).
alot of what you said makes sense. I think theres a few specific areas of mainstream science that were hijacked. Modern history is a complete fabrication, your right literally any story could have been fabricated
I also think physics is being completely manipulated the deeper you go down. Personally i think Einstein wasn't trying to "prove" anything with general relativity, I think he created it to disprove the electric universe theory or shift people away from exploring it. what if he was wrong and we built entire areas and fields of science off that instead of looking into whats actually going on.
with in Biology also theres the big issue of virology, no matter what i look into or read about now it all leads me back to the fucking the germ vs terrain theroy and thats a tough pill to swallow.
this is without even going into the social sciences😑. TLDR the cake is a lie
I absolutely agree, especially pertaining the Einstein bit. In fact, even though I didn't mention it, one of my biggest moments of disillusionment was when I learned that the most interesting theories Einstein "came up with" were actually lifted directly from Ernst Mach.
I mean, the earth is flat and they lie to us with the globe
Fair to assume most of mainstream Science™ is due for an audit
I'll explain why pure Mathematics is unquestionable to the same extent as deductive logic is unquestionable. I leave the other sciences to others better informed.
The modern notion of mathematics is very agnostic. You can invent your own language, logic and axioms and whatever conclusions you derive is valid mathematics (within your system). But mathematicians like to be able to work together, so they use a common system. The logic and axioms (the "ZFC" axioms) for this system would make sense even to a child, adding minimum possible additional rules (countable on one hand) for completeness (for cases we do not encounter in real life and thus have no "common sense" for).
Thus math has nothing to do with our universe (unlike other sciences). It is a completely invented thing. It has nothing to do with what is true in our existence. It only exists in and "talks about" its own system. As it doesn't deal with our world, it is safe from politics. No financial or other incentive to falsify results. No new discovery within our universe can affect it.
It is the only science where each student is required to fully verify everything he is taught (talking about university and higher pure math which comes with proofs for everything unlike school math which doesn't). In fact, math is verified every time it is learned because you can't understand it without also verifying it (all you need is pencil and paper). Thus, mathematics taught in universities has been checked and re-checked probably hundreds of thousands of times. Newly published math is verified in full during peer review (at least in quality journals), but more importantly, it will be by everyone who learns it in the future.The more it is learned, the more verified it becomes (i.e. the result is repeatable).
If you find an error in anyone's proof, you can publish a counterexample or derive a contradiction and be assured the mathematics community will accept it. There's zero tolerance for incorrectness and there is a strong urge for completeness and maximum generality. That's why I love math. It's a model for all sciences to emulate.
PS: Long ago there was a view that math represents some truth about our universe, so there was a notion of what should or shouldn't be math. But in the 20th century, that view became extinct, thanks to the crisis caused by Cantor's work.
As u/JuanTitor points out, when you take this pure math and try to apply it to our universe to make predictions, that requires interpretation and thus that process is art not science. The science part comes in when you verify this mathematical model against observations. Even if it checks out, it should only be accepted provisionally, not as truth. The absolute truth is unknowable through science.
I agree with several of the above posters. Mathematics is abstract, logical, and a system that is carefully built using logic. It is useful in many different ways, especially in technical fields.
Physics has many mind-warping theories that are currently investigated/believed by many but I suspect the science has stalled, caught on bad theories/models.
Note that within physics/astronomy, the p-value (probability used to rule out coincidences in statistics) is way higher than in medicine/biology.
Personally, I think statistics, pure mathematics, applied mathematics, algorithms etc are fantastic topics to study because they help with understanding everything. Statistics especially helps see through BS in media and in published journal articles. "Lies, damn lies, and statistics." I say this as someone with a degree in engineering and another in computer science. A colleague of mine doing similar work did mathematics followed by a GIS masters.
Sounds dubious.
You can't corroborate Newtonian physics with quantum physics either, but I don't see anyone changing the way they design cars or ping pong paddles because of that. Sure, once you get into the quantum world there's oodles of bullshit to be found.
Good thing I'm an ME then isn't it?
Haha! :)
Being in margins of Einstein-like logic, you absolutely have no way even to really measure speed of light in one direction. And speed of light is assumed basic constant in the whole theory of special relativity. And it is not the only one suspicious and strained thing there.
Just an example.
The assumption of constant speed of light is part of what can be (and had been tested). The theory leads to predictions and I'm aware of some of those predictions being tested true. I'm not aware of any being tested false (though I'm sure there's plenty we have no answer for). Do you have any examples of a prediction being proven false?
You can't measure speed of light in one direction according to special relativity. You could measure only average of forth and back speeds of light returned by distant mirror. It is unknown, if that speeds are equal.
There are a lot of logical loops in relativity theories.
Gunter Nimtz. In first experiments got 4.7c speed of signal transmission. Later replications, including made by other groups showed that tunneling time seems to be zero ("Our experimental results give a strong indication that there is no real tunneling delay time"), even through 1 meter gap as in Nimtz experiments. Speed of light is not the highest possible speed. There are no any predicted casuality violations observed during transmission of a signal with a speed much higher than speed of light.
If Harold White et.al. finaly create a warp bubble (see Alcubierre drive) in their experiments, that will finally bury relativity theory.
I have an open mind, so I will take the time to check this out. That said, it's still making my nostril hairs shimmy.
Simple explanation about speed of light in one direction - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pTn6Ewhb27k
And that dude is definitely not in any meaning an opponent of official narrative, nor scientists he interviewed.