1 |
Alan McKinnon <alan.mckinnon@×××××.com> wrote: |
2 |
|
3 |
> On 03/04/2015 23:11, Fernando Rodriguez wrote: |
4 |
> > That's the problem with science in general. The one thing it may |
5 |
> > never be able to answer is "why?". Take gravity as an example. We |
6 |
> > got really good models for it, we can predict how it influences |
7 |
> > even light with great accuracy but what are the underlying |
8 |
> > mechanisms? We may never know. Einstein would say it's because |
9 |
> > matter bends space, but what is the underlying mechanism for that? |
10 |
> > We just take his word for it because he gave us equations that work |
11 |
> > better than anything else we've come up with so far. |
12 |
> |
13 |
> |
14 |
> The scientific community is very well aware that it cannot answer the |
15 |
> question "why?", and in fact, true science doesn't even try. |
16 |
> |
17 |
> Science never proves anything, it only fails to disprove a realistic |
18 |
> workable model. |
19 |
> |
20 |
> For the sake of simplicity and brevity we often says "according to |
21 |
> Einstein's theory matter bands space so therefore..." or even simplify |
22 |
> that to "matter bands space so therefore...", all the time |
23 |
> understanding that it's just a model, and could be totally wrong |
24 |
> about the real underlying truth. |
25 |
> |
26 |
> This is in no way a "problem" with science. It is by design. |
27 |
|
28 |
That's exactly the point. Theories are not the reality. They are "just" |
29 |
tools to predict the processes we are detecting (Plato's Cave). |
30 |
|
31 |
One thing that I don't understand is, why the fact that gravity can be |
32 |
described by a theory of bended space-time is leading to the assumption, |
33 |
that there really exists such a "rubber cloth" like space. |
34 |
A resonant circuit can be described as a spring-mass like mechanism. But |
35 |
nobody would really assume that there exists little springs inside such a |
36 |
circuit. :-) |
37 |
|
38 |
-- |
39 |
Regards |
40 |
wabe |