On the subject of gravity and the Scientific Method...
The differences between a mathematician and a physicist
Here I will be transcribing the interesting discussion concerning gravity and the Scientific Method debate that we're having with DoctorDave on YouTube (August 2009).
001 Bill: "you have built your entire video series around the frequent ad hominem assertion that experimental and theoretical physicists are idiots"
Ad hominem seems to be what you're doing. In my case, that theoretical physicists are idiots is an inescapable, scientific conclusion. I even define the term:
"If what you are telling me now is - equations and experiments are IMPORTANT, perhaps even ESSENTIAL, they are just not the part of the process that YOU call science... that's very different."
Again, doc. You are taking things out of context just to win points. Here. I'll give you ten points. Is that enough for your wounded ego?
Let's put things in perspective so that you don't make me look so bad. Let's even the score a bit so that casual browsers don't get the wrong impression
For the last 100 years, the mathematicians have held that Physics IS Science:
"All science is either physics or stamp collecting" E. Rutherford
Other idiots go further and claim that Math IS the language of Physics:
Conclusion: The establishment claims that Math is the language of Science.
Yet Math only DESCRIBES. Math has no mandate or authority to do more than that. And still the mathematiciansinsist that it IS Science. So it's settled. The mathematicians of the world are a bunch of idiots. I think that there's nothing more to argue. Agreed?
I didn't start this war, doc. The mathematicians did. They are the ones that claim that MATH = Science. That is the status quo. That's the misconception we need to destroy. That's the target. Not me.
Just to make sure that I didn't misunderstand or misconstrue, another of these idiots of the establishment, Donald Simanek says it so that a baby can understand it:
" Why? Students often ask questions with the word why in them. 'Why is the sky blue?' 'Why do objects fall to earth?' 'Why are there no bodies with negative mass?' 'Why is the universe lawful?' What sort of answers does one desire to such a question? What sort of answers can science give? If you want some mystical, ultimate or absolute answer, you won't get it from science. Philosophers of science point out that science doesn't answer why questions, it only answers how questions. Science doesn't explain; science describes."
So now it turns out that you nitpick me for saying that Math and descritption are NOT part of Science. Is this all you've got, doc? Since you couldn't answer any of my science Qs you harp on this?
Before you can attack me, you should first go to the idiots of YOUR religion and straighten them out. Educate them and convince them that Math and experiment alone are not Science and that they are idiots for holding such opinions. Only then do you have the moral right to come here and nitpick about whether I said this or meant that. Fair enough?
If, on the other hand, YOU still believe that Math and experiment constitute Science, then that's what we have to work on. Not on what I said!
In fact, you seem to insist that that's the case when in your last post you say:
"Mercury doesn't always move at the same speed. It speeds up and slows down. It's not always the same distance from the Sun, it moves in an elliptical path"
Who cares whether Merk speeds up or moves closer to the Sun at times? What does this have to do with explanations?
We have observed that Merk orbits the Sun. Period! We're done with description. It doesn't matter how fast or how close.
WHY? That's what a scientist wants to understand. If you can't tell the audience WHY, all your Math and experiments are poppycock. And if the mathematicians and experimentalists insist that they're done doing Science and begin opening the champagne bottles, then, yes, they are idiots. The use of this qualifier is scientific. It follows from definitions. In fact, a mathematician takes pride in saying that he's a stupid idiot.
You don't believe me?
Here. I'll let Leo Susskind do the honors of presenting the closing arguments:
"Modern science is difficult and often counterintuitive…Where intuition and common sense failed, they had to create new forms of intuition, mainly through the use of abstract mathe- matics… When common sense fails, uncommon sense must be created…Of course we must use uncommon sense sensibly but we hardly need Horgan to tell us that… human cognition does not operate according to principles of common sense."
003 doc: I guess I'm still constrained to 500 words at a time, though. No matter - only have a few more points.
First, your reverse accusation of 'ad hominem' attacks doesn't hold water. I've critiqued your arguments, said you were flat out WRONG about a few things, and used your own words against you - - none of these things are arguments based on PERSONAL attacks, such as calling your opponents stupid and idiots, which you have built into both your video titles and website URL.
As for my "attack", I have been trying to to get you to admit that - EVEN IF you consider the "science" part to be the explaining - that without experiments and quantitative descriptions, your "Science" has NOTHING TO EXPLAIN.
Rather than concede this, your tone has grown increasingly defensive.
Your statement that it's enough to know that Mercury goes around the Sun, without knowing anything more precise than that, hearkens back to an Aristotelian view of the job of explanation. Explanations must do more than sound good. They must explain a phenomenon in ALL ITS DETAIL. This it is not enough to know that "things fall". One must also EXAMINE falling things to see if heavier things fall faster, and to know exactly how they fall. Do they speed up? Linearly? This is important to know!
For example - you say you wish to "Explain" gravity. Well, what does gravity do? It holds planets in orbit. But a solar system where the planets move in ellipses with the sun at one FOCUS, and one where the planets orbit with the Sun at the CENTER of the ellipse would imply two completely different kinds of gravity. IN once case, the strength of gravity decreases w/ distance. In the second case, it increases linearly. Before we can EXPLAIN gravity, we MUST describe it - precisely.
So, without a precise quantitative description of nature, your notion of science as an act of Why-Explaining has no target that it can meaningfully address. This is why I say to you - that EVEN IF you regard why-explanations as the only meaningful goal of science, it is ridiculous to denigrate the task of describing nature quantitatively and performing precise controlled experiments. Without these task being done by SOMEONE, you would have nothing to talk about in your videos.
I harped endlessly on the magnetic repulsion between current-carrying wires because it is a PERFECT example. It is NOT an obvious feature of nature. It's not something that you would have just happened to notice in your gazing about, asking questions about the world. It is, like many phenomena of nature, a SUBTLE effect that is only uncovered by CAREFUL EXPERIMENTATION. Without which, you would not know that it was a fact in need of explanation.
Likewise the whole NOTION that gravity acting between planets and the Sun is the SAME gravity that causes a brick to fall on your foot comes from a careful quantitative consideration of the orbits of the planets and the Moon by Newton. Before Newton's idea of universal gravitation, it simply NEVER OCCURRED to anyone that the force UP THERE had anything at all to do with the force DOWN HERE. Denigrate his "explanation" all you want, but you can not deny that your very notion of gravity is his own
So I'm not even trying to get you to let go of your explanation-only requirement for Science right now, because I think I can work around that. I'm trying to get you to admit that the people who have spent the last 400 years doing careful experiments and making a careful quantitative study of the phenomena of nature are NOT "idiots" Bill. They are not engaged in something "Stupid". They are doing the heavy lifting without which you would have nothing interesting TO explain at all.
004 Bill: " I guess I'm still constrained to 500 words at a time"
Not really, doc. Again, YouTube is not very user friendly for this type of discussion, and if I could make life easier on you, believe me, I would. I have no intention of obtaining favorable strategical positioning in our discussion by taking advantage of YouTube's shortcomings. If it makes life easier on you, please feel free to use the comments section in my YouTube. I will transcribe to this platform whatever comments you post anyway.
005 Bill: "I have been trying to to get you to admit that - EVEN IF you consider the "science" part to be the explaining - that without experiments and quantitative descriptions, your "Science" has NOTHING TO EXPLAIN...without a precise quantitative description of nature, your notion of science as an act of Why-Explaining has no target that it can meaningfully address. "
Pardon my French, but your argument is nonsense. It is sure to fail. I don't need to know whether the orbit is elliptical or circular or to relate the gravity of Merk to the dropping of a shoe here on Earth. This realization is anecdotal and perhaps helps the thinker zero in on the explanation, but it is not a necessary ingredient to resolve the issue before us. And certainly quantities play no role whatsoever in this task.
Let's assume you lived 3000 years ago. You have no knowledge of Einstein, Newt or even of Plato. You look up and see the Moon. Now it is here. Later it is there. You eventually conclude that the Moon is a globular object that circles (or 'ellipses') the Earth. We don't need to know how fast it's going or how much the it weighs or how many kilometers it measures around its belly or whether its orbit is circular or elliptical. All we need to know is, "Why doesn't the Moon fly away? What binds it to the Earth?" This is the ONLY question we need to answer. This is strictly a qualitative issue.
The mathematicians have never been able to answer this question. The reason is clear. They have EQUATED artificial Math (which has nothing at all to do with nature or with the physical world) with Science. They have developed all sorts of standards and gadgets to measure ever more accurately in terms of these standards. The mathematicians (who usurped the title 'physicists') can simulate the motion of Merk to the nearest Angstrom. Yet they still offer irrational explanations for the most basic part of this phenomenon: Why doesn't Merk fly away?
I ask, "In what way has any mathematician from Newt to Hawk contributed to our understanding of WHY Merk is faithful to the Sun? What does any of the issues you just raised (orbital shape, heaviness, etc) have to do with answering WHY?" If the Moon were heavier or orbited along a more elongated ellipse or orbited in the opposite direction, would that change the qualitative explanation GR offers for gravity: warped space?
006 Bill: "I'm trying to get you to admit that the people who have spent the last 400 years doing careful experiments and making a careful quantitative study of the phenomena of nature are NOT "idiots" Bill. They are not engaged in something "Stupid"
The work of ALL the mathematicians has been in vain as far as Science is concerned. Science is about EXPLAINING WHY and ONLY about EXPLAINING WHY. Science is NOT about developing gadgets or running experiments or doing calculations. Science is about theories, not about describing ever more accurately. The mathematicians have contributed nothing to Science. So far, Math has come up with warped space, virtual particles, and 1D strings. That's Math Phyz in a nutshell for you.
If all that the mathematicians have done in the last 400 years is do experiments and measurements to DESCRIBE phenomena more accurately AND, in addition, call this 'doing science', then yes, they are stupid idiots. There is no other scientific term we can use to qualify them.
So again, it is you who has to go tell the mathematicians that they are not doing Science if all they do is experiments and develop equations to describe ever more accurately. You're beating up on the wrong guy.
007 Bill: "IF you consider the "science" part to be the explaining... your "Science"
The 'explanation' version of Science is not 'mine'. The explanation version is the rational version. It is THE rational version because we can use the terms Science and Scientific Method consistently (i.e. scientifically). Your 'description = Science' version is unscientific because it implies that greater accuracy is more scientific (again, quantitative). You are more 'correct' than the other 'scientist' because your calculation is more precise. That's what the Math Morons have concluded in the debate between Einstein and Newt:
For instance, the guy develops an artifact that can measure color more accurately. He uses this device to determine that the chair is not really red unless it is exactly 6401.999999 Angstroms. Will another 9 help us understand WHY we see red instead of Blue? Will we answer WHAT it is that is coming in physical contact with our eyes if we know the weight or size of a photon?
008 doc: The notion that "it goes around" is enough of a description to get started on the job of why-explaining is ridiculous.
I asked again and again if your "explanation" of gravity accounts for it getting weaker or stronger as objects get further apart. Why? Because it MAKES A DIFFERENCE!
You say - "Gravity attracts!! It keeps the Moon from flying away! Enuff said!"
But is that enough? Is that all we need to know about gravity before we start deciding how or why it works?
For example - does the gravitational pull between two objects get WEAKER when they move apart (like with two magnets) or STRONGER (like a spring or a rope)? What difference does THAT make you ask?
Well if gravity gets weaker like 1/r2, then planets will move in ellipses w/ the Sun at a focus, and outer planets will move slower than inner planets.
If gravity gets stronger like a SPRING - then planets will move in an elliptical orbit with the Sun at the CENTER and outer planets will move FASTER!
009 Bill: "Gravity attracts!! It keeps the Moon from flying away! Enuff said! Is that all we need to know about gravity before we start deciding how or why it works?”
Yes.
does the gravitational pull between two objects get WEAKER when they move apart (like with two magnets) or STRONGER (like a spring or a rope)?
Aaaahhh, my dear doc! We have several different questions before us.
1. The Moon goes around the Earth. We have two celestial objects: Moon and Earth. Why doesn’t the Moon fly away. 2. The Moon does not go in exact circular orbits but rather in elliptical orbits. 3. The tug of the Earth on an astronaut here on Earth is stronger than the tug of the Moon on the same astronaut standing on the Moon.
And we could probably list a few more.
No doubt, these are all questions of Science. They are all WHY questions. Not one of them require magnitudes or standards (meter, kilograms, seconds). We do not need a precise measurement to the nth degree to understand the difference between elliptical and circular or stronger and weaker. Stronger and weaker are qualitative terms of Physics and NOT quantitative terms of Math. We do NOT need to know by HOW MUCH weaker or stronger to entertain the questions above.
010 Bill: "if gravity gets weaker like 1/r2, then planets will move in ellipses w/ the Sun at a focus, and outer planets will move slower than inner planets. If gravity gets stronger like a SPRING - then planets will move in an elliptical orbit with the Sun at the CENTER and outer planets will move FASTER!
1. You didn’t need to state 1/r2. This was interesting info, but not necessary to answer the question. 2. You gave a scientific (rational) explanation for why we should rule out the spring model. (Congratulations!) But as you can see, you didn’t need the 1/r2 part. The words elliptical, stronger, etc. are qualitative words of Physics.
011 doc: "What Newton did was to determine from HOW the planets moved, what the PROPERTIES of the gravitational force must be - it depends on mass, not composition... it depends on separation, not velocity... it decreases as the square of the distance... not linearly or logarithmically or with the cube.
Without these facts at hand... without the PROPERTIES of the gravitational attraction specified - what hope can one possibly have of "EXPLAINING" it?
012 Bill: “it depends on mass”
I thought it depended on the number (and type) of atoms that comprise the celestial object. What is mass, doc? I thought mass was the same as weight. I thought we determined mass by placing the elephant on a scale and taking its weight. Isn’t mass specified in terms of kilograms and pounds just like weight? What am I missing here?
013 doc: Would you trust a doctor who said, when you began to list your symptoms - "Oh no! I don't need all your silly detail and DESCRIPTIONS. All I need to know is that you're sick. And now I will EXPLAIN to you why you are sick"
Or... maybe you would. That's how a lot of "alternative" medicine works. See, i.e.... chiropracty. "Oh? You don't feel well? Hold still! *CRACK* Now, you're better!!"
Perhaps this is a bad road to take, though. Let's leave medical quacks to their own videos.
Anyway, bad doctors aside, the only point I'm trying to make is this.
014 Bill: I agree. This was a misconceived analogy, doc, but it is nonetheless a good way to highlight a couple of points:
1. I don’t need to know exactly how many cancerous cells the patient had to understand why she died.
2. The doctor needs to list all the symptoms and other details to DIAGNOSE (i.e. research) the problem. The doctor may also need to list the symptoms and details to PERSUADE his peers (politics) that his conclusions are correct. The doctor does NOT need to quantify or list minute details to EXPLAIN that the patient has a black eye BECAUSE her husband punched her last night.
014 doc: Nature is subtle. Plenty of facts about nature are not immediately obvious to the naked eye. Water is made of atoms and molecules. There is a smallest amount of electrical charge. White light is made of different colors. The gravitational force gets weaker as two objects get farther apart. The list goes on.
Plenty of people in the last 2000 years have gotten their explanations of nature WRONG. Why?
Often it was because they did not understand the phenomenon they wanted to explain in enough detail. Aristotle's "explanation" of motion fails b/c he did not recognize the principle of inertia. Descartes "explanation" of orbital motion (vortices) failed because he did not recognize its inability to explain QUANTITATIVELY what the planets DO.
Before you explain, you must describe. Before you explain PRECISELY, you must describe
Your bigger difference with my notion of science is over the issue of Why-Explaining vs. How-Describing - and I understand that. In fact, I sympathize with your position somewhat - and I'd like to devote a later series of comments to the subject of "why" questions and the different types of answers.
But I actually think the MORE important issue is your discounting of the importance of quantitative description in science. It is indispensable, and you use it in your videos, even while denying it.
015 Bill: “your discounting of the importance of quantitative description in science. It is indispensable, and you use it in your videos, even while denying it.”
You confuse politics with Science, doc. The only reason I invoke Newt is for EVIDENCE and the ONLY purpose of evidence is to persuade the jury. I invoke Newt so that I can have SUPPORT for my explanation that people can relate to.
I could just as well have given my presentation and described that two bodies attract each other stronger the closer they are together and then proceeded to explain in terms of EM ropes. Instead, I added a little bit of evidence, improved my description, and tell the crowd that Newt already showed mathematically (artificial symbols and standards) that mass * mass/ dist^2 is the relation. This is only PR. It is not necessary to EXPLAIN that two bodies attract each other BECAUSE every pair of atoms is interconnected by an EM rope and that the more atoms each has, the more ropes and hence the stronger the attraction. I don’t need to clarify how many ropes to EXPLAIN why two bodies attract each other. I would need to specify the number of ropes to EXPLAIN the speed at which two objects approached each other.
016 doc: Every time you say that two wires attract. Every time you say the Moon feels a pull directly towards the Earth. Every time you imply that interference and diffraction depend on frequency and wavelength. Every time you make allusions to atoms or electrons. Every time you EXPLAIN some feature of nature that is not immediately visible to the naked eye, you are making use of 400 years of careful experimentation and quantitative description, without which these "facts" would not exist for you at all.
017 Bill: Again, doc. Once we observe a phenomenon objectively and determine that it is indeed a fact, that’s when Science starts. Observing and quantifying a phenomenon and getting ever more precise values is not Science. What Roemer, Bradley, Fizeau/Foucault, and Michelson/Morley did was NOT Science. They just determined thru different methods more accurate values for the speed of light. They never told us WHY light travels so fast. That’s the difference between Science and Math.
018 doc: The "fable" that all we need to do is look at the Moon to know that a force binds it to the Earth is belied by the realities of history. You treat facts like the property of inertia which keeps the Moon moving, and the fact that circular motion requires a central force as if they are somehow self-evident and obvious upon a little reflection. They are NOT. We KNOW they are not, b/c nobody thought of them for 2000 years.
You are not smarter than everyone who lived from 0 AD until 1600. You simply have the benefit of hindsight. You denigrate the mathematical tools of Newton while at the same time reaping their benefits in each and every one of your "explanations".
Inertia, centripetal force, the phenomenological unification of orbital motion and ordinary "falling" motion... each of these ideas arose not from the application of pure reason, but from the application of quantitative tools to motion.
019 Bill: We didn’t need the mathematicial tools or equations or quantities. The fact remains that with these tools and measurements the mathematicians still cannot give us a rational explanation for something as simple as “WHY doesn’t Merk escape from the Sun.” This should tell you that there is something fundamentally wrong with your methodology.
I didn’t stand on the shoulders of giants like Newt. I read qualitative results and reached my conclusions from those papers and testimonials. I tried to VISUALIZE rather than CALCULATE or get more accurate measurements or run experiments to corroborate. I didn’t build an accelerator and a bubble chamber in my basement to smash ‘particles’ to get more particles so that I could give them a Greek letter name and earn a Nobel.
I tried to see how I could EXPLAIN the phenomenon documented by the researcher(s). I didn’t need to roll balls along an inclined plane like Galileo allegedly did nor go to a mountain and uncover a lantern to realize HOW FAST light actually is. I took their seemingly honest descriptions at face value.
Did Millikan PROVE that the concept ‘charge’ comes in discrete packets or did he ASSUME that he was staring at an invisible ‘particle of charge’ going up and down in the chamber? Maybe he was gawking at a knot sliding along a rope like a bead on an abacus. How would he know if he TOOK FOR GRANTED that he was gaping at a discrete entity?
Therefore, his accurate measurement of the particle the mathematicians call ‘charge’ misled generations of researchers. It did not add. It subtracted from Science.
020 doc: Johannes Kepler devoted HUGE amount of intellectual energy to the question of WHY there were 6 planets and not some other number. He believed that there had to be a REASON for the construction of the cosmos in all its detail, so there had to be a reason for 6 rather than some other number, and a reason WHY they orbited WHERE they did and at those particular speeds.
He had ideas about musical notes and scales. He had ideas about the 5 Platonic Solids. None of which we consider very scientific. Why don't we consider this a scientific type of inquiry anymore? (Setting aside the fact that there were planets Kepler didn't know about!) It's because we accept that happenstance and accident have a role to play in the history of the universe. There is no REASON why we have 8 or 9 planets instead of some other number other than- well, that's just the way things happened to clump up. There is no LAW or RULE behind the fact. It just IS. So, some "Why" type questions have the answer - "Because"!
021 Bill: Your confusion comes from the fact that you have no idea what a 'why' question is for the purposes of Science, doc. You confuse the 'why' of ordinary speech with the 'why' of the Scientific Method.
Example: At Live Science, they list 10 greatest mysteries of 'science'. They include issues such as: "How many species exist on earth" and "Where is the Rest of the Universe?" where they talk about the hypothetical existence of dark matter. These are not WHY questions for the purposes of Science. Existence is not a WHY type of issue. We just need to define the word exist and we're done. It is the mathematicians who have converted these irrelevant issues into 'scientific' topics.
Kepler did not EXPLAIN anything. In fact, it would have been ludicrous to explain WHY there are 6 planets. What would the answer to such a question possibly be, that "The reason there are 6 planets is so that we could visit them some day." (Line of reasoning used by mathematicians who invented the idiotic Anthropic Principle)
022 doc: Now, there are other types of why questions that seek explanations for empirical facts. For example - chemists notice that carbon has a weight of 12 units, nitrogen 14 units, and oxygen 16 units. (I'm rounding off a little for simplicity here). Is there a REASON that these numbers are so close to whole-numberish ratios? Or are the numbers "just because" like Kepler's six planets?
One possibility is that there are some little BITS of matter with a weight of about ONE unit, and that carbon atoms have 12 of them, nitrogen 14, and oxygen 16. This is pretty close to the truth, and a little more investigation along there lines will lead us to the modern theory of the constitution of the nucleus.
So what have we done? We have explained a purely EMPIRICAL fact - the weights of the elements - by invoking a model of their structure.
Most scientists consider this a reasonable type "explanation". Now this doesn't mean we have explained EVERYTHING. It doesn't mean that we have a complete knowledge about the make-up of these new theoretical entities (protons and neutrons) or that we have not generated NEW why questions about THOSE. We almost certainly have. But that doesn't mean we haven't accomplished something important.
What have we done? We have taken a bunch of DISCONNECTED empirically measured facts (individual masses of several dozen elements) and discovered a REASON that those numbers are what they are, based on a SINGLE theoretical framework. The masses of the elements are not what they are "just because" like the 6, 8, 9 or however many planets we have in our solar system. They are what they are for a REASON.
So - this is ONE type of "why" explanation that science DOES do.
(more to come)
023 Bill: "Most scientists consider this a reasonable type "explanation". Now this doesn't mean we have explained EVERYTHING."
Explained EVERYTHING? Surely, you jest, doc!
I assure you, doc, that you haven't explained nothin' so far. That's why you correctly put the word "explanation" within quotations.
In Science, it works in reverse. As long as Mendeleev just classified chemical elements according to properties, he was just an accountant, and Accounting is not really a discipline of Science. [btw - The same goes for those who work feverishly (and expensively) to construct the Std Mod.] But the mathematicians elevated Mendeleev to the status of hero when, in their jargon, he 'predicted' the properties of yet undiscovered elements.
Unfortunately, in Science we don't do predictions. We leave that peculiar activity to astrologers, palm readers and mathematical physicists. In Science, we ONLY explain. What Mendeleev explainED was the observED periodicity of properties. He was able to EXPLAIN (theory) the behavior of chemical elements after making the ASSUMPTION (hypothesis) that there are discrete units of whatchmacallits we call 'atomic weight'. This notion together with others eventually led to the erroneous consensus that discrete particles underlie atoms, charge, fields, waves, and light. It also led Mend to SPECULATE that this periodicity would likely be extended to yet undiscovered elements.
Not only do we NOT do predictions in Science, but we certainly can't predict what already exists. For instance, can you predict THIS chair? Did Mend "predict the EXISTENCE of Radon?" Or did Radon 'already' exist? Did Columbus predict (future) the existence of a land on the other side of the ocean or did this land exist before (past, present) he sailed? (If you wish to answer the Q, please begin by defining the strategic word 'exist' UNAMBIGUOUSLY.)
024 doc: This path from empirical "whyless" facts to model-based phenomenon is exemplified in the Newtonian gravitational theory we were discussing earlier.
One of the things Kepler did that WAS "scientific" was to determine not only that planets moved in elliptical orbits, but that they sped up and slowed down in a precise way, and that there was a simple mathematical relationship between the size of their orbits (a) and the amount of time (P) it took the planet to go around. (P^2~a^3) But... Why?
Kepler tried to find all sorts of "reasons" for the relationship... based on things like harmonic ratios between musical notes and whatnot, but the correct explanation for Kepler's Laws had to wait for Newton.
Newton showed that a central attractive force that varied inversely as the square of the distance was all that was needed to "explain" Kepler's laws. In other words, ANY orbit under an attractive 1/r2 force will obey Kepler's Laws. This is another sort of "why" answer.
What we have here is a CAUSAL why-explanation that reduces an empirical (observed) relationship to its underlying causal law. Kepler's empirical laws are not fundamental to orbital motion. Orbital motion is governed by a force of gravitational attraction that obeys a particular mathematical law, and that law produces the motions that Kepler observed.
025 Bill: "the correct explanation for Kepler's Laws had to wait for Newton... Newton showed that a central attractive force that varied inversely as the square of the distance was all that was needed to "explain" Kepler's laws. In other words, ANY orbit under an attractive 1/r2 force will obey Kepler's Laws. This is another sort of "why" answer."
We have neither laws nor explanation so far, doc. So far all we have are descriptions. Again, that's why you put the words "explain" and "why" within quotations. You realized on your own that these are NOT explanations.
And just to rub it in, I will repeat Simanek's Law, Principle, or whatever you wish to call it
" Why? Students often ask questions with the word why in them. 'Why is the sky blue?' 'Why do objects fall to earth?' 'Why are there no bodies with negative mass?' 'Why is the universe lawful?' What sort of answers does one desire to such a question? What sort of answers can science give? If you want some mystical, ultimate or absolute answer, you won't get it from science. Philosophers of science point out that science doesn't answer why questions, it only answers how questions. Science doesn't explain; science describes."
There are NO explanations in the entire religion of Mathematical Physics! The reason is clear. A long time ago, the mathematicians decided that explanations were not a part of Science. They call explanations 'Philosophy.' So they don't stoop that low to look for explanations. They are content with descriptions which they mistake for and call 'explanations.'
026 doc: Now, we have not identified the cause of gravitational attraction, mind you. We have identified gravitational attraction AS the cause of P^2~a^3
027 Bill: Now this would qualify as an explanation if you could just 'explain' it.
028 doc: As was the case in the nuclear chemistry example - we have not necessarily explained everything that needs explaining, or uncovered all there is to know about the underlying mechanism. We may have created new "why" questions along the way. That's ok. That happens in science. It does not take anything away from the explanatory power of Newton's Law of Gravitation as a powerful theoretical and mathematical construct to provide a connection between previously disconnected facts and observations.
Ok. So I think I've made my point as forcefully as I can that - without precise quantitative descriptions, Science simply has nothing to "explain" - because we don't know anything about nature in enough detail to know if our explanations are doing their job well enough.
029 Bill: "without precise quantitative descriptions, Science simply has nothing to "explain"
I disagree and lodge a formal protest: You did NOT show this at all.
030 doc: Now I want to turn my attention to the topic of How vs. Why, or what you call "describing" vs. "explaining". This won't be short, though - because there are several types of "why" questions we can ask about nature.
Johannes Kepler devoted HUGE amount of intellectual energy to the question of WHY there were 6 planets and not some other number. He believed that there had to be a REASON for the construction of the cosmos in all its detail, so there had to be a reason for 6 rather than some other number, and a reason WHY they orbited WHERE they did and at those particular speeds.
He had ideas about musical notes and scales. He had ideas about the 5 Platonic Solids. None of which we consider very scientific.
You are missing the point about the Newton. You may be only USING the "qualitative" part of the results, but ideas WOULD NOT EXIST without the quantitative observations and theoretical work behind them.
031 Bill: I reiterate, you did not show this at all.
032 doc: If the Moon speeds up and slows down while orbiting, how can you be SURE that gravity pulls the Moon directly towards Earth? There could be some part of the pull that was tangent to the motion, speeding it up and slowing it down. How do you know it doesn't depend on the speed of the Moon?
033 Bill: These are not questions of Science. In Science, we are not SURE of nothin' and we do not KNOW nothin'. The only thing we KNOW for SURE in Science is that we are ignorant (at least in the sense that you invoke). The only one that KNOWS for SURE is my Momma Nature. All that us petty little humans can do is explain and persuade our 'peers'.
034 doc: You believe gravity to be a purely central force that does NOT depend on velocity because Newton showed MATHEMATICALLY that this is all that was required to match the observed orbits of the planets. Your qualitative notion of gravity is born of Newton's quantitative description of gravity and would not exist otherwise.
It is NOT self evident that all forces depend on distance and not velocity - see, for example, the force exerted on a charged particle by a magnet - which DOES depend on v
So again - the properties you ascribe to gravity - it depends on "how much" matter (since you have a problem with the word mass) but not what type... it depends on distance but not speed... it is purely radial with no tangential component... these properties are NOT purely qualitative, because the reason we (and YOU) believe them to be TRUE is that they have provided a correct QUANTITATIVE match with our careful observations.
So you are being dishonest when you claim not to stand on the shoulders of Newton. Without Newton and Galileo, you would be making videos explaining how invisible ropes hold the planets in their Ptolemaic epicycles, and why they pull rocks down but fire UP.
It was their application of quantitative tools to the study of nature that revealed the inadequacy of the old "explanations". And it is the SPECIFIC quantitative results of their physics that inform the basic working concepts you use.
035 Bill: You are confusing Man's reduction of a qualitative phenomenon expressed in the form artificial hieroglyphs that a select group of humans can understand with what Mother Nature does out there. Mother Nature and Father U never went to school, doc. They are mathematically illiterate! They understand Newt's equation as much as a snail.
(doc: You too, Bill!)
(Bill: Okay doc, let's not get personal.)
If we had never invented Math, we could still have documented relations in terms of qualitative parameters: BIG and SMALL, HEAVIER and LIGHTER, FARTHER and NEARER, STATIC and DYNAMIC. The fact that Newt took the trouble to express these relations in terms of predefined standards so that we could synthesize qualitative relations in a neat little equation does not make him a hero in Science. An equation is just a quantitative description based on artificial standards that WE invented. We do NOT need Mathematics to understand the physical world.
Did the fact that both Newt and Al describe with pinpoint accuracy how Merk orbits give us any insight into what causes gravity?
Absolutely not! Today, QM still relies on Newt's corpuscles (gravitons), which he probably insinuated (or would have), and GR on Al's warped space to get around. When push comes to shove, the mathematician points to the fine print:
1. Science only describes. 2. That's a philosophical question. 3. Warped space is just a mathematical construction and not a physical wall. We use equations to hold Merk in place. 4. And 'particle' is just a euphemism for 'wavepacket', which is not really a physical entity, but actually a mathematical description of where a dot may be located in space. It's this equation which knocks electrons from polished metal. The surface of a variable comes in contact with the face of the 0D electron. 5. We have never seen a 0D particle of the abstract concept mass. We can't even find the particle of weight. Congress didn't authorize funds to build a bigger smasher to find the Higgs. And as we all know, what is experimentally unverifiable lies outside the bounds of science. 6. Our equations are so fine tuned that they can 'predict' the day that you were born. You just gotta study Math if you wanna understand. 7. We have many experimental confirmations of relativity and quantum and not a single one that debunks them. The only minor problem is that they contradict each other. That's why we have now moved away from GR and QM and onto ST. 8. Then why does GPS work?
9. All the mathematicians of the world believe in warped space and gravitons, Bill. What's the matter with you? 10. Okay peers! Bill is still unconvinced. Come on, guys. Let's resolve this democratically. All those in favor of Bill say "Aye"! 11. We cannot explain this petty Galaxial Rotation Problem, so rather than discard relativity, we decided to include a fudge factor known as Dark Angels. The reason you can't see these angels is that they are transparent and don't interact well with light. (Milgrom: Ah, guys! I have a different formula to describe gravity. Mine is scientific.) 12. Oh, and we can't explain the unexpected deceleration of the Pioneers either, but we're collecting data. Must be equipment malfunction. 13. LIGO hasn't collected any waves yet, but tomorrow we will look at a different amplitude. We'll get a basketfull of them packets! 14. GPB was a huge success. It confirmed that the gyroscope rubbed its belly against space. It's got scratch marks. See?
So again, Newt didn't contribute anything to Science and neither did anyone after him. All they did was take measurements and describe. None was a scientist. They were all accountants, stamp collectors, museum curators. They just classified stuff. Certainly, Newt's "Hypotheses non fingo" will go down in infamy in scientific history together with "I do not define time, space, place and motion, as being well known to all." You just don't start a scientific dissertation by telling the jury that you have no idea WHAT you're going to talk about. It only adds insult to injury when the prosecutor doesn't even provide a theory (i.e. an explanation). I bought tickets to listen to a scientist EXPLAIN gravity using rational MEDIATORS. I want my money back!
036 doc: I think you put the WHY argument before the end of the NEWTON argument.
037 Bill: Sorry doc. I thought I went by the time in which the comments were posted. Please let me know what paragraph should precede which.
038 doc: By the way, the careful reader will notice that your response to my account of why explanations in science was exactly what I said it would be.
Who says Scientists don't "predict"?! :)
Anyway - I think the Simanek quote you've used twice here is at best, simplistic. Especially because he gives such different types of "why" questions. Why is the sky blue? That ABSOLUTELY has a scientific answer! It has to do with molecule sizes and the wavelength-dependency of light-scattering. There is no better example one can give of the kind of why-question that science DOES answer.
039 Bill: "Why is the sky blue? That ABSOLUTELY has a scientific answer!"
Now don't get excited on me, doc, because I totally agree. "Why is the sky blue?" is a scientific question. Why there are 6 or 8 or 9 planets is not.
040 doc: The functional dependency of scattering on wavelength is the only "why" answer that the questions requires. WHATEVER your model for light - be it waves, particles, aether or ropes - it must have the feature that it correctly describes Rayleigh scattering. (If it doesn't, it's not a good model) And so whatever the MECHANISM is, the only meaningful REASON WHY the sky is blue is the 1/wavelength^4 part of the phenomenon of the scattering process, not the details of the model, since they must agree
And so, you see, it is BECAUSE scientific explanations must be quantitative to be useful, that the MECHANISM, which you consider the MOST important part of the explanation, is sometimes the LEAST important part! Not that the mechanism (what light is) is not important or interesting by itself, it just doesn't necessarily add anything new to the explanation of the phenomenon. (For example - knowing that protons are made of quarks is of no particular interest to chemists.)
041 Bill: "The functional dependency of scattering on wavelength is the only "why" answer that the questions requires... the only meaningful REASON WHY the sky is blue is the 1/wavelength^4 part"
Once again you kid yourself, doc.
I begin by rephrasing Simanek's Law of Mathematical Physics now for third or fourth time:
"The religion of Mathematical Physics doesn't explain; the religion of Mathematical Physics only describes.".
As penance, I order you tomemorize this by heart in front of a mirror every day for the next two weeks. Have your students memorize it by heart, too.
Here is the wiki answer. Whether it is a reliable or authoritative source is immaterial for the purposes of my instant argument. My point is that we don't need any Math WHATSOEVER to provide a scientific EXPLANATION. Indeed, Math does NOT explain absolutely anything. It ONLY describes. It has no authority to explain. You have trouble accepting this and continue to try to convince me that Math 'explains' (always within quotations).
"Rayleigh scattering of sunlight in clear atmosphere is the main reason why the sky is blue: Rayleigh and cloud-mediated scattering contribute to diffuse light (direct light being sunrays)... Rayleigh scattering (named after the English physicist Lord Rayleigh) is the elastic scattering of light or other electromagnetic radiation by particles much smaller than the wavelength of the light. It can occur when light travels in transparent solids and liquids, but is most prominently seen in gases."
We're done! No Math, no accurate measurement, no bull! We have an explanation and needed no equations or functions or variables or numbers. The above EXPLANATION is 100% qualitative.
Now, you don't have to believe this version. Maybe there's another explanation. Only Mother Nature and Father U know for sure. They are the ones who run the show. But this is an explanation.
Having said that, I must take it all back and state that this explanation is unscientific. It is unscientific because a crucial component of the Scientific Method is the hypothesis: the objects, definitions, and assumptions. And the requirement of the Scientific Method is that the proponent BEGIN at the hypothesis BEFORE telling us his theory.
What is a particle? What in the world does the prosecutor of this theory mean by "wavelength of the light?" The only waves I know of are the ones that wash onto the beach. And they're made of water which in turn is made of molecules which are made of atoms. Is this what light is? A bunch of undulating atoms?
In other words, the proponent ASSUMED that we are all familiar with and accept that light IS a plane, 2D (width and height only) transverse 'wave'. He tells us that this ABSTRACT CONCEPT bangs against particles (which hopefully are not those 'wavepackets' YOU talked about) and 'scatter'.
This is an irrational explanation. 'A' wave is NOT a physical object for the purposes of Physics. There is no such 'thing' as 'a' wave in Physics. 'A' wave is a VERB, not a noun! Therefore, 'a' wave cannot collide against 'a' wavepacket. Not in Science! Two concepts such as love and justice cannot crash against each other and turn into a 3D cube like they do at the accelerators. The explanation for annihilation and creation is irrational. The CONCEPT energy cannot turn into a 3D particle (object)! The sound of a fart does not turn into brown shit when it hits the wall! Not in Science!
So until the proponent can tell us WHAT physical objects underlie HIS theory, he does not have a rational one. In Science, we begin with the hypothesis BEFORE we move on to the theory. We say:
"Folks! Today, I'm going to EXPLAIN my theory of WHY (or HOW, mechanism) the sky is blue."
hypothesis:
1. valid, rational objects (meaning we point to an image or figure or mockup or statue). Without a shape in front of us, we are NOT doing Physics! We cannot do Physics without physical objects!
2. definitions: key words defined as restrictively as possible for crisp communication.
3. statement of the facts or assumptions: initial scene; paint a picture for the audience of who or what the main characters in the movie (theory) will be.
We have pointed to and named the objects. We have defined our strategic words, those that make or break our theory, and we have illustrated a picture of the phenomenon we are going to explain. The proponent can now move on to explain his theory. This is the rational way of explaining a theory to someone.
The mathematical physicists just need to point to 'a' wave and a particle and tell us what they mean by 'wavelength' BEFORE they begin to explain their theory of why the sky is blue.
The first word we must define in Physics is the word OBJECT. We absolutely need to know what an OBJECT is for the purposes of Physics. Not one mathematician in the last 400 years has defined what an object is. Not one textbook of Physics begins by defining the word object, ironically the word which the entire discipline hovers about. So it is not surprising that the contemporary mathematicians end up MOVING locations, geodesics, wavepackets, waves, energy, mass, force, time, gravity itself, charge, fields, black holes, 0D point and virtual particles, from one location to another without batting an eyelash. Their eyes are not trained to catch the movement of concepts in papers and theses and dissertations because no one has ever clarified to them in school the difference between an object and a concept.