Isn't field theory just as ridiculous as Ptolemy's

>>7975867
I think the very notion of "point in space" is flawed.

>Isn't field theory just as ridiculous as Ptolemy's epicycles ?
I don't see how either of those is ridiculous, even if the later idea faded out.

>it sounds as non-predictive as the epicycles.
Once you fixed which circles sit on one circle, you can predict the future time positions, what's the problem. That's basically Fourier analysis btw.
With fields, you set up dynamics (maybe respecting some symmetries) with unique solutions from given initial conditions.

>>7975890
>Once you fixed which circles sit on one circle, you can predict the future time positions, what's the problem. That's basically Fourier analysis btw.

are you retarded ? you have to make a different set of circles for every single possible configuration of planets in the universe

it's not predictive, just like you have to know the function beforehand to calculate it's fourier transform

>>7975901
I guess you missed that day of PDEs where they talked about "initial boundary value problems".

Just kidding, I know you have never taken a single differential equations course in your life.

>>7975937

Calm down, Barnette

the theory is non-predictive in the sense that even if the solution you found can predict the trajectory from initial boundaries, you still had to know the function beforehand to calculate its FT

Ptolemy didn't have a deterministic equation to solve, he made up a set of circles that looked like the orbits, that were later refined by other mathematicians

Newton Gravitation, theory is predictive, the epicyles are not

>>7975949
>still not understanding what initial conditions are.

>>7975867
>non-predictive

Ptolemy's models were predictive

That's why they were so bad for astronomy, they worked perfectly despite the theory behind them being dead wrong

>>7975976
>>7975980

retards

>>7975949
If epicycles are non-predictive, then how do epicycles know how to create this picture?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QVuU2YCwHjw

>>7975867
>it sounds as non-predictive as the epicycles.

That would be true if field theories weren't incredibly predictive. If I'm honest I don't really get why you would think this, care to explain more?