ken wrote: ↑Thu Oct 19, 2017 12:49 am

The mathematical description of physics, of what was once seen to happen, was the earth was flat and the sun revolved around the earth.

Although cartography is basically the art of depicting a demonstrably spherical Earth on a 2D page, flat-earthers aside, there has been no serious attempt to describe the world as flat since Anaximander, in about 500BC. It is true that the Ptolemaic model is a mathematical description of a geocentric universe, and the reason it was so successful is that it is reasonably accurate; it actually predicts what can be seen with the naked eye very well.

ken wrote: ↑Thu Oct 19, 2017 12:49 am

Obviously when human beings look at things differently the mathematical description of physics changes.

More to the point, it is when technology advances and enables human beings to see things that were previously invisible to them, that our understanding, and with it our mathematical descriptions change; as was the case with Galileo's telescope.

ken wrote: ↑Thu Oct 19, 2017 12:49 am

If you are under some sort of belief that the mathematical description of physics, in this day and age, is, ultimately, absolutely accurate and thus will not change, then you have another thing coming.

As davidm has pointed out, I am under no such illusion.

ken wrote: ↑Thu Oct 19, 2017 12:49 am

I have asked numerous times, How long would a trip take to travel 4 light years away? What is the MATHS for that?

Well, a light year is about 9.5 trillion km. That’s like driving around the world 240 million times.

Driving non-stop at 100 kmph, that would take over 10 million years. I'm quoting myself there: it's all in my book which you can buy here:

https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/1521884722 If you are allergic to spending money, you can read a slightly different version in my blog:

http://willijbouwman.blogspot.co.uk The maths is simple: multiply 9.5 trillion by 4, and divide by what ever speed you wish to know about. Whatever the answer, that is how long it will take from the point of view of people on Earth.

However, what myself and others are pointing out is that events take longer to happen the faster you are moving, for the simple reason that I have illustrated my book and explained several times in this thread. If you choose not to read it, that is entirely up to you, but please don't tell me I haven't explained the very thing I have gone to considerable pains to explain.

ken wrote: ↑Thu Oct 19, 2017 12:49 am

You have NOT yet given one straightforward answer. There can NOT be two or more mathematical answers to one mathematical problem can there?

The thing is, there can be any number of mathematical models which describe the same phenomenon.

ken wrote: ↑Thu Oct 19, 2017 12:49 am

You have only provided conflicting answers, and, other people have provided even further different answers than you have.

Other people have their own interpretation of special relativity, which is entirely their prerogative. Granted that can lead to confusion, but I'm confident I have been consistent with my responses.

ken wrote: ↑Thu Oct 19, 2017 12:49 am

I can NOT show what does NOT conform with the maths when the maths is not conforming with its own self.

The mathematical model we are discussing is time dilation due to special relativity, which entirely conforms with the observed data.

ken wrote: ↑Thu Oct 19, 2017 12:49 am

I am the One saying to look at

what IS the Universe by looking at what It does.

As it happens, that is exactly what physicists do. What you apparently don't understand is that there are generally 3 parts to a physical theory.

1. The phenomenon. The universe behaves in a way that physicists would like to understand; so the make repeated observations, to ensure that they are seeing something that happens consistently.

2. The mathematical model. Having satisfied themselves that they are investigating something real, they will measure it. They will tweak the parameters, alter the conditions and take a huge number of readings. Then they will sift the data, trying to find patterns which they can describe with numbers.

3. The metaphysical model. Once they are happy that the mathematical model actually works, they may or may not claim that the premises of the mathematical model actually refer to something that 'exists'. So for instance, Einstein argued that 'spacetime' is a spongey sort of stuff that is warped by the presence of matter. Many physicists are wary, even hostile, to any attempt to say that mathematical models accurately describe reality. Partly because, as the history of the Ptolemaic model shows, doing so has a habit of making fools of believers, and partly because whether a mathematical model is 'true', makes no difference to whether it works. "Shut up and calculate!" as various physicists since Bohr are alleged to have said.

ken wrote: ↑Thu Oct 19, 2017 12:49 am

It is human beings who try to make models of what the Universe does, or more correctly make models of what It 'should' do.

It is only nutcases who try to tell the universe what it should do.

ken wrote: ↑Thu Oct 19, 2017 12:49 am

It is plainly obvious WHY human beings are continually changing the 'models', instead of just looking at what the actual truth IS the first time.

But you human beings need to remain open before the can begin to come to understand this.

You human beings? What planet are you from?