Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #386446
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | sci.physics.relativity |
| Subject | Re: Is euclidean geometry falsified? |
| Date | 2016-06-22 11:52 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <dsu9ajFilm5U1@mid.individual.net> (permalink) |
| References | (1 earlier) <d9fe4d5a-12ea-42eb-b1fa-dba4bf035367@googlegroups.com> <nk98cf$1jrp$1@gioia.aioe.org> <1d782a41-a4ed-4839-b458-492f808805c8@googlegroups.com> <nkbfs4$pdv$1@gioia.aioe.org> <1c31314c-c8c2-4255-be8b-88f4a6087acf@googlegroups.com> |
On 22/06/2016 12:06 AM, Y wrote: > On Tuesday, June 21, 2016 at 11:36:07 PM UTC+10, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 6/21/2016 12:38 AM, Y wrote: >>> On Tuesday, June 21, 2016 at 3:16:03 AM UTC+10, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> On 6/16/2016 6:20 AM, Y wrote: >>>>> Resounding no. >>>>> >>>>> Mathematics aren't selected on their ability to model the world, they are selected for their >>>>> internal consistency. As it happens, Euclidean geometry is internally consistent, and has >>>>> found countless applications (including in nearly all engineering). >>>>> >>>>> -y >>>>> >>>> >>>> When you say "Mathematics aren't selected on...", can you explain >>>> selected for what? >>>> >>>> Riemannian geometry is just as internally consistent as Euclidean >>>> geometry. So what would then be the selection criteria? >>> >>> >>> In mathematics, models are selected via proof (i.e. internal consistency). In science, >>> mathematics are selected via evidence and the ability to measure predictions. >>> >>> The selection criteria for Reimannian geometry in science, which is also internally consistent >>> mathematically, is ability to demonstrate accuracy when being used to make predictions about the >>> world. You couldn't derive this from how I explained it ? >> >> OK, so just to catch up here, you cannot disprove Euclidean geometry >> mathematically, because it is internally consistent. But the mathematics >> of Riemannian geometry is selected scientifically because of its >> accuracy in making predictions about the world -- that is, on its >> ability to accurately model the world. >> >>> >>> -y >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables > > > > btw, did you see the result of my ball and peg board experiment OB ? I was wondering when you were going to rip it to pieces, and was kind of hoping for your input. > > > -y > I looked at it. There is some vague resemblance to an interference pattern, but that's as far as it goes. You'd have to construct a mathematical model of what's going on to see whether you have anything more than just a superficial similarity. Sylvia.
Back to sci.physics.relativity | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Is euclidean geometry falsified? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-06-16 01:07 -0700
Re: Is euclidean geometry falsified? Y <yanarchi@hotmail.com> - 2016-06-16 04:20 -0700
Re: Is euclidean geometry falsified? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-06-16 04:36 -0700
Re: Is euclidean geometry falsified? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-20 12:16 -0500
Re: Is euclidean geometry falsified? Y <yanarchi@hotmail.com> - 2016-06-20 22:38 -0700
Re: Is euclidean geometry falsified? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-06-20 23:23 -0700
Re: Is euclidean geometry falsified? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-21 08:36 -0500
Re: Is euclidean geometry falsified? Y <yanarchi@hotmail.com> - 2016-06-21 07:02 -0700
Re: Is euclidean geometry falsified? Y <yanarchi@hotmail.com> - 2016-06-21 07:06 -0700
Re: Is euclidean geometry falsified? Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-06-22 11:52 +1000
Re: Is euclidean geometry falsified? Y <yanarchi@hotmail.com> - 2016-06-27 09:50 -0700
Re: Is euclidean geometry falsified? Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2016-06-16 06:37 -0700
Re: Is euclidean geometry falsified? Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-06-17 10:12 -0500
Re: Is euclidean geometry falsified? Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-06-17 17:34 +0200
Re: Is euclidean geometry falsified? Y <yanarchi@hotmail.com> - 2016-06-18 03:11 -0700
Re: Is euclidean geometry falsified? Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-06-17 17:55 +0200
Re: Is euclidean geometry falsified? Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-06-18 13:00 +1000
Re: Is euclidean geometry falsified? Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-06-18 21:54 +0200
Re: Is euclidean geometry falsified? Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-06-20 10:56 +1000
Re: Is euclidean geometry falsified? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-06-19 23:09 -0700
Re: Is euclidean geometry falsified? Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-06-20 19:19 +1000
Re: Is euclidean geometry falsified? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-06-20 02:43 -0700
Re: Is euclidean geometry falsified? Y <yanarchi@hotmail.com> - 2016-06-18 03:14 -0700
Re: Is euclidean geometry falsified? Virgil <VIRGIL@VIRGIL.com> - 2016-06-18 10:41 -0600
Re: Is euclidean geometry falsified? Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-06-18 21:58 +0200
Re: Is euclidean geometry falsified? Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2016-06-17 14:27 -0700
Re: Is euclidean geometry falsified? Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-06-17 23:46 +0200
Re: Is euclidean geometry falsified? JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-06-17 15:33 -0700
Re: Is euclidean geometry falsified? Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-06-18 21:30 +0200
Re: Is euclidean geometry falsified? JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-06-17 15:45 -0700
Re: Is euclidean geometry falsified? A Nony Mouse <abc@cef.ghi> - 2016-06-17 17:08 -0600
Re: Is euclidean geometry falsified? Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-06-18 21:38 +0200
Re: Is euclidean geometry falsified? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-06-17 16:12 -0700
Re: Is euclidean geometry falsified? A Nony Mouse <abc@cef.ghi> - 2016-06-17 18:39 -0600
Re: Is euclidean geometry falsified? Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-06-18 21:40 +0200
Re: Is euclidean geometry falsified? JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-06-18 15:17 -0700
Re: Is euclidean geometry falsified? RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2016-06-21 09:45 -0700
Re: Is euclidean geometry falsified? Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-06-19 12:06 -0500
Re: Is euclidean geometry falsified? Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-06-19 20:50 +0200
Re: Is euclidean geometry falsified? Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-06-20 12:16 +1000
Re: Is euclidean geometry falsified? Virgil <VIRGIL@VIRGIL.com> - 2016-06-19 22:15 -0600
Re: Is euclidean geometry falsified? Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-06-20 14:29 +1000
Re: Is euclidean geometry falsified? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-06-19 23:27 -0700
Re: Is euclidean geometry falsified? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-06-20 11:08 -0700
Re: Is euclidean geometry falsified? Y <yanarchi@hotmail.com> - 2016-06-20 01:53 -0700
Re: Is euclidean geometry falsified? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-06-20 02:17 -0700
Re: Is euclidean geometry falsified? Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2016-06-20 08:39 -0700
Re: Is euclidean geometry falsified? JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-06-20 11:31 -0700
Re: Is euclidean geometry falsified? Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-06-20 20:51 +0200
Re: Is euclidean geometry falsified? JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-06-20 12:13 -0700
Re: Is euclidean geometry falsified? Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-06-20 21:44 +0200
Re: Is euclidean geometry falsified? JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-06-20 15:46 -0700
Re: Is euclidean geometry falsified? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-06-20 23:10 -0700
Re: Is euclidean geometry falsified? JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-06-21 09:04 -0700
csiph-web