Benji XVIArs Praetorianreplya day agoreportignore user
Veritas super omens wrote:
show nested quotes
Because their equations make remarkable predictions (about the future!) that hold true time and again against a plethora of different hypothesis postulated to break their equation.

Von Neumann wrote an interesting essay open-mindedly discussing how the concept of mathematical (and scientific) rigour has changed many times. He himself jokes that he had changed his mind about it three times!

So it’s worth noting that even the idea of what constitutes mathematical rigour can and does evolve.

As he points out, too, the prevailing view of physicists in the 20th century came to be that a theory was a good theory if it either unified a set of previously disparate laws, or made predictions outside of existing observations that were then empirically validated. ie the idea that “physical laws” or theoretical models answer the “why” questions in a deep philosophical sense does not feature. (Hence the famous video where Feynman lectures the interviewer for asking a “why” question about magnetism.) That mindset does not preclude inserting terms into models where necessitated by the empirical facts. The resulting equations are merely our best models. //

phred14Ars Praetorianet Subscriptorreplya day agoreportignore user
Voix des Airs wrote:

I can't tell if this post is for real or not (sorry if it isn't - but in these threads I can't always tell) but if it is then: No. It doesn't work like that. External shells have no gravitational effect.

One of our early exercises in calculus / physics was the Newtonian version of the same effect. Basically as you descend into the Earth (assuming even distribution - close enough) gravitational attraction from any mass at a greater radius than you cancels out. Shoots the Hollow Earth people all to pieces - in Freshman year.