On 23 May 2014 08:57, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote: > On 5/22/2014 12:59 PM, John Clark wrote: > > > Why not? No physicist is going to take your theory seriously or even > call it a theory if you can't calculate with it, if you can't get numbers > out of it so it can be checked with observation. Why is the proton 1836 > times as massive as the electron? Why is the neutron almost the same but > not quite, why is it 1842 times as massive as the electron? Why do > independent protons have a half life of an infinite number of minutes but > independent neutrons have a half life of 10 minutes 11 seconds? > > > See, JKC knows why the world of physics is described by mathematics - no > other kind of description is as explicit and predictive. >
I'm still not convinced that it isn't "out there" though. Anyone who became interested in the same mathematical problems would get the same answers, as far as I can see, regardless of whether they are living in a universe with protons 1836 times as massive as electrons, or one made of completely different constituents. I want a more convincing answer for why maths kicks back than all this vague hand wavy stuff - yes it's explicit and predictive, but why? Why does it work? It still seems unreasonably effective to me. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
