“Newton is often credited with the quote, “I frame no hypotheses.” The full phrase is longer: “I frame no hypotheses; for whatever is not deduced from the phenomena, is to be called an hypothesis; and hypotheses, whether metaphysical or physical, whether of occult qualities or mechanical, have no place in experimental philosophy.”

Accepted, but not real.

It's important to discuss the postulates that are currently accepted by some, but do not hold true in reality:

• “Coriolis force” - this force does not actually exist. It is a conditional “force” introduced to describe the behavior of a body when transitioning between different observation systems. There is no source of this force in nature. It doesn’t move anything or act on anything. Oh, how much is explained by it! If anything happens, Coriolis is immediately blamed – and it takes the heat for all the fabrications of “specialists.”
• Satellites don’t fall or miss their planets. They move in orbits where centrifugal forces equal centripetal forces (attraction). There is no free fall with acceleration, and that is why the observed tidal effects are possible. It’s interesting how adherents of this approach see falling - long-term, accelerated, and never increasing speed? The acceleration of curvilinear, but not free, motion compensates for the difference from rectilinear motion.
• Convection inside the planet. Convection cannot occur within the body of a planet. When describing convection, a heating kettle is often used as an example, but a planet is not a kettle; it’s more like a thermos. And there is no, and cannot be, convection in a thermos – there, once the temperature is distributed, it doesn’t change that distribution unless there are external influences. Of course, this is without accounting for small, insignificant losses. If there is no heating of the planet by the Sun, the temperature on the surface goes into the negative, which means that the heating from inside the planet is very small. How can this be imagined at all – a process of heating and cooling simultaneously going on for millions of years in a closed, thermally isolated volume of the planet?? A perpetual motion machine? And why would it need to do that?”These currents are used to explain the generation of the planet’s magnetic field, they are used to explain tectonic movements, and much more.

By accepting the convection hypothesis as a working one and building theories on this basis, ‘scientific workers’ stray far from reality, replacing it with fantasies. And reality, even using the example of a teapot, tells us that a teapot eventually boils over, and there is no convection left, even in it, just turbulent mixing with a single temperature throughout the entire volume. For reference, the boiling point of iron and silica is only 2800 degrees Celsius.

Additionally, it must be noted that convection implies a constant influx of energy. It turns out that there must be an eternal, inexhaustible source of heat inside! The reality observed on the planet provides no examples of this.

Based on what has been said, it must be assumed that everything based on this hypothesis is knowingly false (see Newton’s principle).

· It’s questionable to consider nuclear reaction (radiogenic hypothesis) as the source of maintaining high temperatures inside the planet for the following reasons: lava flowing from volcanoes is not very radioactive, compared to, for example, the radiation in the reactor of a nuclear power plant. Furthermore, the concentration of radioactive elements is very small in the overall mass of the planet, and there are no prerequisites for their concentration in the center. Most of them have a short half-life.

The tide of water in the ocean does not correspond to, but is even the opposite of, the tide (hump) of the Earth’s crust. For example, if you push a plastic plate of soup from below, it will spill over to the edges, and there will be an ebb tide at the point where you are pressing.”

I don't know where to begin, because your question calls for a lengthy reply.

1- First, you might be overestimating pure logic.

Logic can never be wrong but it provably - with a v, not a b - cannot answer a lot of legitimate questions.

Here’s an example : Let's say that you leave your house and you see three cars in a row with number plates bearing the numbers 528, 529, and 530. You think it’s mildly remarkable and you wonder what are the odds of seeing this number sequence ?

Pure logic alone cannot give a definite answer, because the answer depends on how your mind works - your mindstuff. Apart from the two trivial solutions either of you having thought, before you left the house, that you would come across these exact numbers in a row, in which case the odds would be one in a billion, or, you are not into numbers at all and the sequence or any other sequence of numbers does not seem in any way special to you, in which case the odds is one hundred percent, the same as that of you seeing any three numbers in a row, the picture becomes fuzzier and there are a slew of different yet entirely valid answers, all of which depend on your unique mind, your mind as it happens to be, and two people leaving your house and seeing the very same sequence of numbers would logically lead to different probabilities of seeing that sequence, as follows :

If you left your house with no prior idea of the first numbers you'd see, the sequence of the first two numbers, made up of 528 and 529, is not particularly remarkable nor rare. Since you didn't think of any number, there is a 100% certainty that you'd see a first number, which happens here to be 528, and even if you are not specially into numbers, you'd be justified in thinking that 529 constitutes a rather neat albeit unremarkable follow-up sequence to the first number. But then 530 as the third number becomes more uniquely notable in the context of the first two numbers.

But there would also be, depending upon your own familiarity with, and even love of, numbers, other possible notable sequences that would jump out at you and look equally as special to you. Such as, maybe, the corresponding descending order - 528, but then 527 and then there would be a third car with 526 - or a few other sequences such as 528, 628, 728, or sequences that would skip numbers in a recognizable pattern, like 528, 548, 568, or in a slightly less immediately recognizable scheme, 528, 547, 566, and the like. If you immediately see the logical sequence in both 528, 529, 530 and in 528, 628, 728, then the odds of these series happening are, in your own mind, the exact same. If you are not much into numbers, you could probably recognize a dozen such sequences. If on the other hand you are a bit of a numbers freak, you could conceivably recognize, say, thirty thousand or so possible sequence schemes that would seamlessly associate any sequence of three consecutive three-digit numbers.

There is one billion distinct sequences of three repeatable numbers. But it so happens that all possible sequences are in fact related within some possible, fully legitimate mathematical scheme : for instance, 528, 001, and 067 are not obviously or visibly related but in fact they are. There is, crucially, an infinity of mathematical functions that can associate any three numbers (of any length), in other words any three finite numbers can be seamlessly associated in an infinity of logical ways, with most ways being rather involved and far from immediately obvious. (This also means that the three numbers of any sequence you'd see, including in the sequence above of 528, 001, and 067 are not only always related by a legitimate mathematical scheme, but in fact by an infinity of such schemes.)

The bottom line is that logic alone is in principle unable to provide an answer as to what the mathematical odds are of the sequence 528, 529, 530 being on display outside your house and you noticing it, unless you had thought of this exact sequence prior : the correct odds directly depend on how many other sequences (such as 528, 525, 522) you would recognize with the same easiness you recognize 528, 529, 530. The hard number that logic would yield entirely depends on the endlessly soft concept of how easily you would spot patterns in numbers. The bottom line is that pure logic cannot be depended upon to always provide incontrovertible truths - as Graham Greene had quite aptly put it, there is always the human factor.

2- Logic is ultimately a subset of mathematics, hence mathematics is more powerful and mightier than mere logic can ever be.

3- Pure logic is ill-equipped to remove hidden cognitive biases from reasoning (Point 1 is only a case in point of that). Mathematics is neutral and powerful within what is, ultimately, a mathematical universe. There are innumerable cases where numbers incontrovertibly prove things that fly in the face of what we would 'logically' think is right. Logic, because it is not neutral, can never be used first (before other tools have been used first.) There are many cases where logic is necessarily fuzzy (listen to two people arguing, or two nations for that matter, or two politicians : within their respective environment, they are all perfectly logical and right. What they miss is the bigger picture - aka more data points. Or listen to a couple arguing : often both are perfectly logical and use the same set of data - they just use different logic systems.)

4- Last but not least. The inability to decide between different scenarios of reality does not stem from lack of logic : it always comes from insufficient data.

Three examples :

3.1 - In 'A Universe From Nothing', Lawrence Krauss shows that cosmologists of the distant future could not possibly ever work out the reasons for the inception of the universe : applying Ockham's razor between different alternative scenarios, the out-of-left-field scenario of a Big Bang would be, on the basis of the observations then available, immediately rejected as fanciful, vanishingly unlikely and outright ridiculous.

3.2 Segueing from above - many profoundly different scenarios can give rise to the exact same apparent Big Bang that we infer, 13 billion years on: for instance, Roger Penrose's, or Martin Bojowald's, or Edward Tryon's, to name but a few. The inability to decide stems from lack of extra essential data (Note that in physics, there are many cases when you can demonstrate both that extra data exist, and that we cannot possibly access such data. Holevo's bound is an example.)

3.3 As a last but telling example - there are some 30, and counting, possibly valid but mutually exclusive interpretations of Quantum Mechanics. These different interpretations can be grouped into three broad categories - Objective collapse, Bohmian collapse, or many-world. We are beginning to narrow down the possibilities, on the basis of advanced mathematics. These scenarios are all perfectly logical. The reason why we cannot decide is because we lack extra data (long story short.)

A further point. The highest strength of infinity that corresponds to anything in our world is aleph-2, and we know of only one item of aleph-2 strength, to wit the number of possible mathematical functions.

This simple fact ensures that any number of mathematical functions can always fit and describe any number of data points (up to and including infinite sets) : that is, for instance, the weakness of M theory (as in, data points can always be subsumed into a version of M theory encompassing ever more dimensions), and it also constitutes a mathematical proof that experimentation is always needed when developing theories of reality. Pure logic can never replace the combination of (math plus experimentation).

Overusing logic to apprehend ontologies could easily lead, as in the case of Krauss's future cosmologists, to utter but hidden meltdowns in factual knowledge

H Chris Ransford Thank you for the response. While one can argue that mathematics is more powerful than logic, you can't have mathematics without logic. You should read the intro to my article https://zenodo.org/records/14997479 as it resolves all of these issues.

check out my page and you will see how almost all questions in nature are solved without mathematics. Mathematics is needed exclusively in pure physics, but not in nature.

Russell Smith, Quote "you can't have mathematics without logic" - it goes without saying, of course.

I had of course read your intro before I presumed to respond.

Regards

Chris

PS - Something that confuses me - your RG profile states that you hold a Bachelor of Arts (BA), whereas you state that you are a BSc in the article. Which is it? Is it both? Your approach seems to me much more typical of someone with a BA, trying to approach issues of mathematics from an Arts standpoint?