Quote Originally Posted by SergeMak View Post
No, you can't.
Still I insist that I can. It is not about physics - it is about mathematics. Well, OK, no matter. All I question is why one kind of anisotropy makes "unity" while particular case of the same anisotropy (with c=infinity) doesn't.

Quote Originally Posted by SergeMak View Post
The history of science disproves this assertion.
For me it is not an assertion. It is a definition of term "natural sciences". What is behind objectivity is behind science. Natural laws are not speculative descriptions like "oscillations of ether" or whatever. Natural laws are mathematics plus limitations that work - as far as they work. If we know how to calculate the results corectly - we know the law. All the rest are just ways to help human brains manipulate it - the perception as you say. Perception of the science in not a science itself.

If you remember all of that was because I disagree that "Time machine" was a "prediction" Einstein's RT. It is just your way of perception came in resonance with a sentence by Wells. Some personal associations.

Quote Originally Posted by SergeMak View Post
The truth is we study reality not directly as it is, but designing descriptive mental models that can fall near or far from the truth. The more we study Nature the more complicated our models became, the nearer to the truth we get, but I rather doubt if the definitive description of Nature is possible...
Yep. Cognition means building generalized models. Model is a simplified description of the object. If the description is complete it is not a model any more. Again terminology...