>> >By the way, the fellow, I believe, Dr. Niel Bohr, who mathematically
> >demonstrated the existence of electrons, did win a Nobel Prize.
> Aah, so I make up mathematics for something that has never been seen
> and then get some Nobel Prize?
> Let me guess, and if they had said it are energy conglomerates that
> can make round energy hulls, though able to sort of go to energy
> comets with a trail behind, and he had made mathematics for that,
> then he'd gotten it for that if the according folks had thought that
> worthy enough?
>> If you want ignore my doubts about some stuff to do with that electron
> model, do, like you did that important stuff with the candle; that one
> back then could have made you famous if that had been what you are
I think that maths does have a place in proving many things. Hence, if
something has been conclusively proven by maths and later also confirmed
by circumstantial experiments, etc.; scientifically I would have no
reason to reject its scientific merit. But, I would not accept anything
that is purely "mathematical modelling" having no concrete basis in
reality nor proving anything in reality.
Of course I am not after fame. Like they say: "curiosity kills a cat."