Actually, calculus is wrong, it has several foundational errors and is a tickling dangerous bomb that shouldn't be teached or used. Almost nobody cares today. I leave you some introductory articles which refound calculus on a solid basis.
http://milesmathis.com/are.html
http://milesmathis.com/calcsimp.html
http://milesmathis.com/flaw.html
http://milesmathis.com/lemma.html
http://milesmathis.com/avr.html
The Un-unified Field: and other problems - Miles Mathis
http://www.amazon.com/Un-unified-Field-other-problems/dp/1452005141/
Oh, I almost forgot! Congrats! You prove yourself a good subject obeying the state-academia! From here to the FED!
According to Miles pi is 4 in circular motion and is "really an acceleration"...
"When the King is far the people are happy." Chinese proverb
For Alexander Zinoviev and the free market there is a shared delight:
"Where there are problems there is life."
Player, I have been there. I have seen all these websites with internet amateur scientists, from Electrical Universe Theory to Vaccines Don't Work to Ice Age incoming. All of those websites made with terrible 1990s HTML and promises of groundbreaking work on the field done by people working outside their area of expertise.
I don't intend to criticise those people, who very much love what they do, and who may even have a point (who knows?).
I do intend to criticise their tagging-along internet champions who tout their theories and run around internet message boards declaring anybody who believes something to be "sheeple". And all because of one website they read on the internet. I am not diminishing or degrading these tag-alongs, because such people do include intelligent folk with whom I am on good terms and correspondence. The problem is that over-the-top internet contrarianism has done zero to discuss anything serious and reflects a common problem of human nature to look like a messiah on the internet.
In truth, if Ice Age were the establishment's belief, these internet contrarians would be Global Warming advocates and if Miles Mathis' views were the establishment's views, then these contrarians would be hardcore calculus advocates.
PLAYER WRITES:
"Player, I have been there." First error. "I have seen all these websites" Second. "all" really? "amateur scientists" the three errors per line in reasoning proccess dares to call others "amateurs" "Electrical Universe Theory" Not my favorite, but hardly worse than big-banged heliocentric rotating 4.5 billion old sphere governed by either Newton or Einstein's followers (hard to choose who was more wrong and did more harm) "Vaccines Don't Work" Logical conclusion of a wrong theory (Pascalian instead of Bechamp). Another point of attack is to consider they work fine, from the point of view that their objective is not the officialy given one. "Ice Age incoming" Unlike the tax-eaters state-Academia you worship, I recognize the complexity of making such predictions. I do believed there was a flood like event that change the world we live in, and that it happened a few centuries ago, in the last millenia (all history previous to that is false or misdated. You have been told fairy tales by state court-historians) "All of those websites made with terrible 1990s HTML" Error. Maybe they have the appearance of 90's because they were made in the 90! Or maybe you give more attention to the colors instead of the thesis being given, that would seriously question your intelectual capabilities and therefore your capability to judge any theory. "promises of groundbreaking work" because "groundbreaking work" can only come from NASA and big government agencies right? Never from the garage of an enterpreuner. Are you sure you are in the right forum? Do you understand the nature of the state and of institutions and enterpreunership? "on the field done by people working outside their area of expertise." Sure, because the secrets of nature are locked until you get a state license, nature will beep a message 'unauthorized access', they will connect with the university and check whetever electricity should act or refuse to act in front of you in anger. "I don't intend to criticise those people" Error. You just did exactly that in the three lines above. And more error because you are not able to criticize them. "who very much love what they do" Unlike the tax-eater at the state-academia who love our money. Hmm.. who should we trust? "and who may even have a point (who knows?)" Who knows? Maybe anybody with an active brain and the will to check what they say themselves? Have you ever check the curvature of the Earth? The distance to the Sun? Are you a scientist or a loud-speaker for the State-Academia? Are you repeating what they tell you or do you ever test anything on your own to verify their claims? "I do intend to criticice their tagging-along" Funny, I thought those championed in the State-Academia should be the ones to be criticized and analyzed and those censored given a fair chance. You do the opposite, worship the State-Approved Heroes and criticize their critics. "declaring anybody who believes something to be "sheeple". " I call every single man who believes anything from the state without checking a sheeple. May it be history or astronomy. Sheeple means blind-follower. None of you have ever read how the distance to the sun is measured, question it, search for other explanations/theories or tried to do it yourself. You are blindly following the State-Approved claims it's Academis is tasked to spread. "and all because of one website they read on the internet" So, Truth depend on a majority vote now? "has done zero to discuss anything serious" You are not in a state of mind to seriously discuss or question anything. "In truth, if Ice Age were the establishment's belief, these internet contrarians would be Global Warming advocates" Yeah, it's called debate, oppositing views, alternate theories, also checking, verifying, it's how knowledge advances. It's also called questioning, or demanding proof or presenting other theories. What you prefer is one-minded close unified unquestioned sacred discourse, protected not by Inquisition but by indoctrination and more effective self-censorship where people are afraid to speak their minds out of fear because we all "know" what we've been told in school and must be true and people like you will do the State's job of gathering the questioning sheeples back to the herd with a reprimand "don't listen to that internet guys, they are amateurs..." as you just did.
What I wanted to say is that if we have discovered corruption in faculties by the spreading of erronous Keynesian concepts... could the same happen in other faculties and sciences?
Getting rid of state's money is as important as getting rid of state's misconceptions on sciences and the physical world.
Aircrafts fly, don't they? How can calculus be wrong, than?
http://www.rqriley.com/wrights.htm
"the Wright Brothers' conquest is equally as impressive as their technical achievement. Neither Orville nor Wilbur had graduated from High School. They had no formal training in the scientific theories and methodologies considered essential to designing a successful flying machine, so their chance of success was remote. As a result, they received no financial support. Their experiments had to be supported entirely with their own money."
Curious...the inventor of airplane had no scientific background at all! Maybe that's why they succeed! They weren't poisoned with calculus and absurd mathematical models in virtual reality with no relation to the world... maybe they live in our world, unlike the physicians like Einstein who never did anything outside his mental imaginations. Math is one thing, it could look great on a book, or on paper, the problem is in bringing math models to apply to reality, to the physical world, that's the big problem, they are different things, that's one of the biggest problems today, the addiction to math and the forgotten notion that they are different worlds and a careful transition is critical from theoretical math in paper/imagination to it's relation to real matter on this world. And your argument is a fallacy too, do planes fly thanks to calculus or in spite of calculus? The same with the state.
I imagined you would reply on these lines. Ok, fine. Modern fighter planes, starting from the F-16 onwards are all designed for negative stability, i.e. they cannot fly. The fact that they do is a only due to computers which make microadjustments in order to keep it in the air (the idea is to make th eplase very agile).
Now, how can we imagine such microadjustments, hundreds by the second, to be possible to code into a computer if we have only the Wright’s know-how at our disposal? No calculus there?
I mention flight as one example, but I could say engineering in general. My understanding is that the wonders of modern engineering would have been impossible to design without calculus.
Math vs. economics or the state is not in the same position as math vs. engineering, as in engineering you can isolate factors.
Player, cut out a 10" diameter card-board wheel/circle. Wrap a piece of thread around its circumference. Measure its length. Is it closer to 31.4" or 40"?
Z.
[EDIT: Wow, my 1,000-th post here. Never thought it would get this far.]
there are a lot of accurate and inaccurate things on these alternative science and math sites. you can't collectivize them.
here is something good i found in 5 minutes on the Miles Mathis site:
Likewise, I believe in the accuracy and usefulness of many of the equations of QED. But QED is still in large part a heuristic math posing as a theory. Even Feynman admitted this before he died, to the chagrin of most in the field.
why the crazy-huge font? but anway, this is totally correct. heuristic math posing as a physical model. the general public funds this stuff believing it is a physical model. they believe they have the physical model, so no one goes looking for it. this is how science dies.
as for the rest, i will read it and report back.
in the meantime, anyone interested in this type of thing will surely enjoy reading this entire thread if you are interested in problems stemming from improper use of math in physics and other fields.
nice quote from the site:
Very few people know anything about [relativity]. The few that do are working on billion-dollar projects—to discover the graviton or launch the next satellite. The last thing they want is some theoretical controversy to get in the way of funding.
interesting claim, especially considering the inherent problems of government funding of science:
Einstein is famous for stating that a theorist should be able to explain his theory to an eighth grader, but he did not practice what he preached. Like his precursors, he could not explain his theory even to his peers. Relativity has remained uncorrected for a century not because it is flawless but because, as written, it has been impervious to understanding. Nor was this imperviousness an accident. Some might argue that Einstein simply fell a little short in places—no theory is born in complete and perfect form. But this belief cannot hold: Einstein imported the tensor calculus into Special Relativity himself, though it was completely unnecessary and ill-advised. He did this mainly as a public relations move, to impress the mathematical elite, to dress his theory up for the trip to Princeton.
looks like he might be onto some of the problems i mentioned in that other thread where we specifically were debating infinity and infinitessimals:
Mathematicians spent two millennia refining an error. The calculus is true, but its theory is false. It does not work the way anyone has ever thought it does, or for the reason anyone has ever thought it does. It has nothing to do with infinitesimals or limits.
i'm almost afraid to report it, but this guy is making sense:
I maintain that time is simply a measurement of movement. This is its most direct definition. Whenever we measure time, we measure movement. We cannot measure time without measuring movement. The concept of time is dependent upon the concept of movement. Without movement, there is no time. Every clock measures movement: the vibration of a cesium atom, the swing of pendulum, the movement of a second hand. In this way time can be thought of as a distance measurement. When we measure distance, we measure movement. We measure the change in position. When we measure time, we measure the same thing, but give it another name. Why would we do this? Why give two names and two concepts to the same thing? Distance and Time. I say, in order to compare one to the other. Time is just a second, comparative, measurement of distance.
in this, what he is saying is that "the car is moving at 60 miles per hour" is the same as saying "the car is moving at 60 miles per 15 degrees of the movement of the sun across the sky" (15 = 360/24, so 15 degrees of movement is what we call an "hour"). the modern equivalent is "the car is moving at 60 miles per some huge number of angstroms traced by the vibration of a cesium atom".
and he is saying absolutely uniform time is an incoherent concept, because time is always relative, by definition, as operationally it is always just a comparison of (measured) distances traveled.
this guy gets it (at least part of it); 4D space is absurdity dressed up to sound like YOU can't understand it, in other words to intimidate:
Four-dimensional Space
Minkowski is known as the father of four-dimensional space. In his theory, time becomes a fourth dimension, mathematically equivalent to x, y, and z. In fact, by setting his quadratic equation equal to 1, instead of to zero, Minkowski implied that time travels at a right angle to all three of the other dimensions. It was therefore equivalent to a spatial vector, travelling orthogonally. It so doing, it created what mathematicians call symmetry. The t variable could then be incorporated into matrices as an absolute equal to the other distance variables. This theory was appealing to those who are attracted to mathematical esoterica, but unfortunately it is completely false. As I have shown, time is a measurement of movement. Without movement there is no time. But this movement already has a direction, determined by x, y, z: it cannot be given a secondary vector. All motion is a vector, and that vector must coincide to some distance vector within the 3-d continuum x, y, z. So to state that time has a vector outside this continuum is false. If time is a measurement of motion and all motion is contained in x, y, z, then time cannot be outside of or external or superadded to x, y, z.
Did the genius right this 5 minutes ago or 5 meters ago? or never and always because he is a 3dman in a 3dworld for which time is absent ?
Where there is no property there is no justice; a proposition as certain as any demonstration in Euclid
Fools! not to see that what they madly desire would be a calamity to them as no hands but their own could bring
nirgrahamUK: or 5 meters ago?
or 5 meters ago?
5 meters of what?
nirgrahamUK: or never and always because he is a 3dman in a 3dworld for which time is absent ?
or never and always because he is a 3dman in a 3dworld for which time is absent ?
Who said that time was absent?
(Wasn't he trying to define the dimension of "time" in terms of the three dimensions of "space", rather than saying that it's "absent"?)
If I wrote it more than a few weeks ago, I probably hate it by now.
the plot thickens:
Einstein himself was very wary of abstract math, purposely avoiding it until 1912. Put simply, he "did not trust it." But in that year he discovered Gauss, and called on his friend Grossman to help him with the math. A couple of years later Einstein was hired in Berlin, and there he got even better help, from Hilbert and Klein, no less. Einstein had asked the wolf in at the front door. I don’t think it is an accident or coincidence that the first thing the wolf tried to do is take over the house. Hilbert, after schooling Einstein on all the latest techniques, tried to beat Einstein to the punch by publishing the theory of General Relativity two weeks before him. He didn’t succeed in this dastardly trick, but amazingly history has not held it against him. Einstein quickly forgave him, and now Hilbert is treated as the greatest mathematician of the 20th century. But to me, this incident perfectly presaged the way the 20th century would go. The mathematics department, invited to consult, would see its opportunity to steal the show, and it has since stolen the show. Someone like Feynman could throw barbs at the math department, but this was only misdirection. The top mathematicians could look back over their shoulder in feigned opposition, only because they had already taken over the physics department. Feynman was not smirking at mathematics, he was smirking at mathematicians who were too narrow to crossover and become famous, like he had. It was as if to say, “We now own physics, the queen of the sciences and the modern kingmaker, and you guys prefer to argue over trivialities like Fermat. That will never win you a Nobel Prize or a trip to the White House.”
nirgrahamUK:Did the genius right this 5 minutes ago or 5 meters ago?
5 meters traced out by a cesium atom in an atomic clock ago, perhaps, or 5 meters of the sun's movement across the sky relative to a church steeple ago.
don't mean to quote-bomb, but this is so deliciously vicious:
Heisenberg understood first and best how to use mathematics to impress and cow the audience. He also understood first and best how to use mathematics as a tool of propaganda. A math of proper abstraction and complexity could be used to hide all error, to divert all effort, to deflect all criticism. It could be used like a very heavy, very highly decorated quilt, covering the bedbugs beneath. This new abstract math would come not with a foundation, but with a manifesto. It did not have axioms, it had public relations. It was not sold with an explanation, but with an "interpretation", and this interpretation was to be accepted on authority.
Merlin: Aircrafts fly, don't they? How can calculus be wrong, than?
i don't know what MM says about math yet, but it is possible for something to rest on flimsy theoretical underpinnings but still work for certain types of calculation. what this means is that it will work for limited practical uses, but cannot be applied outside that scope...the problem when such things are applied outside their scope, for status and profit.
Wow!
There is a tremendous amount of statements and mathematics taken out of context. A great deal.
Hilbert did find the correct formulation of general relativity before Einstein. This is true. However, Einstein was given the credit because Hilbert based his entire formulation on Einstein's work. It is true that Einstein was weak in the mathematics of differential geometry (differential forms, commutators, Lie derivatives, and so forth)... however, this is SIMPLY because differential geometry was a new mathematics that was never used to describe physical dynamics. This is what many theoretical scientist do... use new mathematics to describe new realms of the universe. Hilbert himself acknowledged this. Up to this point, physicist didn't use the powerful mathematics of differential geometry. 70 years later differential geometry has become a more mainstream (but powerful) mathematics to describe complex analysis. It's not obscure mathematics. It's a form of mathematics that makes calculations much easier to understand in geometric spaces (manifolds). Physicist, chemist, engineers, and mathematicians use it for various problems in their respective fields.
As far as Feynmann's path integration, it's a mathematical tool to describe physical reality. IT WORKS PERFECTLY TO DESCRIBE THE ELECTRODYNAMICS OF THE ATOMIC STRUCTURE WITH THE MOST ABSOLUTE PRECISION. As always, I'm always surprised how pop science interprets what physicist use in the laboratory to some crack pot interpretation that has some bizarre meaning. Path integration is a dubious mathematical construction dealing with infinites. It can have absurd interpretations but the mathematical finalization always works out perfectly to physical representations that are tested in the lab. It's solely the interpretation that is open for debate. However, I can assure you as a physicist, I could care less about interpretation. I only care what I can prove and Feynmann's electrodynamics does this with more accuracy than any other science. I use it everyday to understand molecular behavior with absolute precision.
Mathematics is nothing more than a tool in physics. It is the most powerful tool. However what differentiates mathematics from physics is that physics only cares about the mathematics that can be applied to physical interpretation. The rest of the mathematics (singularities, infinite dimensions, and so forth) is just mathematics. Derivatives, integration, n-forms, k-theory... ect do have meanings physically.
Heisenberg's uncertainty principle was not advanced mathematics and he didn't use it to cow audiences. At the time, matrix algebra and commutator algebra were never used in physics. However, because quantum mechanics is based on the mathematics of the commuators and anti-commutation rules (in vector spaces) it was initially difficult for physicist to understand these new radical principles in physics. It was new mathematics that was only known to the math community. Today any physical chemist or physicist can easily understand these concepts and what they mean conceptually.
I will say while mathematics is essential in the physical sciences. However it has little need in economics. Molecules and atoms behave with predictability... equations can be assigned to atomic and molecular behavior. Humans and social interactions however behave in chaos... there are no equations to predict irrational behavior.
nirgrahamUK:Did the genius right this 5 minutes ago or 5 meters ago? 5 meters traced out by a cesium atom in an atomic clock ago, perhaps, or 5 meters of the sun's movement across the sky relative to a church steeple ago.
That about sums up my position on the matter. Although I can't say much about the topic of calculus as I don't really know what it is exactly.
czelaya:There is a tremendous amount of statements and mathematics taken out of context. A great deal.
everyone here seems to be acknowledging that things like QED can be used to calculate quantities accurately. the issue is physicists seem to have given up on physical modelling. what is the SHAPE of these particles, waves, or whatever? from the modern physicists we get metaphors but no actual physical models from which to make hypotheses based on the physical mechanisms in the models.
So, here is a "refutation" of Mathis (spoiler: no paragraph makes sense). This tells a lot how seriously you can take Player or Zangelbert. Holocaust denial is one thing, there you only have what others tell you, but this is about lacking elementary logic. Too much.
Quantum electrodynamics is the union of quantum mechanics with electrodynamics (a highly geometric theory that can be easily visualized). QED was constructed because physicist needed a quantum method for describing photons and particles that travel close to the speed of light. In addition, particles contain properties, such as spin, that needed a quantum mechanical reconstruction that could deal with Einstein's relativity.
The manifestations of QED are all around you. Every time you see light and its interactions with molecules, you are witnessing QED. QED is tremendously rich with visuals (highly geometric because it deals with electrodynamics), but QED deals with things much smaller than non-relavistic quantum mechanics (the quantum theory of single atoms, molecules, proteins, and larger objects). This is where visualization becomes difficult (abstract) because in the quantum realm the universe is not continuos. Energy, matter, and time exists in discrete bits of information called quanta. In addition, QED represents a picture of the universe that is completely alien. For instance, space at this realm is almost completely void. Quantum mechanics has taught us that atoms are literally empty space, and ALL the interactions we see around us deals with the force fields between atoms, sub-atomic particles, and molecules. You never actually touch objects (ie touch other atoms). You only feel the electro field lines between atoms. If atoms were to touch then essentially nuclear fusion occurs.
As far as particles existing as a wave or particle- that is a much more complicated understanding but the answer to many outside the physics and chemistry community is unsatisfactory (but makes sense). Unless you study and understand the experimentation and physics it won't make sense. Essentially, it's the experiment that determines whether a particle exist as a wave or particle. However, wave-particle duality does exist and it's been proven countless times in laboratories. X-ray crystallographers, solid state chemist, condensed matter physicist, & other scientist witness it everyday in the lab when we use x-rays (high energy photons) to probe into molecules.
The visualization that is difficult to understand with QED is the mathematical path in achieving the answers, not the answer themselves (or final visualization). QED employs a mathematical technique called path integration that is sophisticated, but works out very elegantly in the end. It essentially deals with removing and teasing out other fields in the quantum realm. It's analogous to calculating the weight of an object in water. You first have to remove the surrounding structure of water before you can figure out the weight of that object. Visually that is difficult to picture but conceptually easy to understand.
Other types of visualization in the quantum world is abstract, nonetheless, because you're dealing with properties that are completely outside of human experience. Again the quantum world is different because it is not continuos. It's lumpy because it deals with the most discrete properties of nature.
scineram: So, here is a "refutation" of Mathis (spoiler: no paragraph makes sense). This tells a lot how seriously you can take Player or Zangelbert. Holocaust denial is one thing, there you only have what others tell you, but this is about lacking elementary logic. Too much.
i don't endorse Mathis or his pi=4 proof, as i don't understand it and haven't read his background reconception calculus which is required to understand the long paper anyway. (by the way, he says it is only valid for measurement of motion within his re-worked system of calculus; not that if you wrap a string around a dowel rod the length of string required won't be pi times the diameter of that dowel rod, as that would be obviously wrong. one cannot just look at his pi=4 and call him insane without looking first through his reconception of calculus and calling it wrong or right. he is making a very specific claim, not the one that you would generally think of as pi=4.)
the main criticism i would lob at mathematical physics is that is has ceased to make physical hypotheses, or that when it does it proposes absurdities that are easily shown as absurdities.
czelaya:For instance, space at this realm is almost completely void. Quantum mechanics has taught us that atoms are literally empty space, and ALL the interactions we see around us deals with the force fields between atoms, sub-atomic particles, and molecules. You never actually touch objects (ie touch other atoms). You only feel the electro field lines between atoms.
how is a force field a physical hypothesis, any more than the holy ghost is a physical hypothesis? how are field lines physical things? they are metaphors or heuristics, are they not? this is my point.
You nailed it scineram. Mathis is now dead, as far as Im concerned
My humble blog
It's easy to refute an argument if you first misrepresent it. William Keizer
Player:Actually, calculus is wrong, it has several foundational errors and is a tickling dangerous bomb that shouldn't be teached or used. Almost nobody cares today.
Which is more important to you? Proving that Calculus is wrong or that the Holocaust never existed?
again not defending Mathis, but the refutation scineram posted completely misses the point that his pi=4 proof only applies to measurement of motion. the refutation explicitely rejects his proof because "Mathis is absolutely obsessed with idea that drawing something is absolutely critically important". but the reason he is "absolutely obsessed" with "drawing" is that he is talking ONLY about physical objects tracing out orbits and the like. he makes this perfectly clear at the very start of his paper, and the refuter makes it perfectly clear that he has not acknowledged that qualification. so the rest of the refutation is called into extreme question, as he clearly does not even understand what he is supposed to be refuting.
by the by, this is typical with "anti-crank" sites, and Austrians ought to be used to it. strawmans a-plenty, just like with Krugman.
it is puzzling the kneejerk reactions and claims of "logic" from people who have most probably not verified any of the underlying math themselves. this is appeal to authority disguised as an appeal to logic.
Magnetic and electric field lines are physical objects. Just like light. Electric magnetic field lines help generate electricity.
This was taught at a young age in physical sciences. You have a magnet and you put iron fillings around the magnet. The fillings position themselves spontaneously into the geometric field lines of the magnet.
The electricity that you and I, and the world uses relies on are created by electro-magnetic force fields, in a electrical plant, that generates electron production that gives way to electricity. That same electro-magnetic force is present within molecules, atoms, and sub-atomic particles.
if field lines are physical objects, what is their physical shape?
czelaya: Magnetic and electric field lines are physical objects.[...] This was taught at a young age in physical sciences. You have a magnet and you put iron fillings around the magnet. The fillings position themselves spontaneously into the geometric field lines of the magnet.
Magnetic and electric field lines are physical objects.[...]
But aren't the "field lines" just a way of talking about the regularity that the physical objects arrange themselves in?
Specifically, aren't the magnet and iron fillings the physical objects, and the field lines just the model for how they will organize themselves?
again not defending Mathis, but the refutation scineram posted completely misses the point that his pi=4 proof only applies to measurement of motion.
the link scineram posted goes much deeper than that, to the very heart of Mathis's confused thinking.
An analogy would be if Mathis claimed the emperors new clothes weighed 4 pounds, and were not weightless as some assert, because the emperor was constantly in motion bla bla. Scineram's link then showed that the clothes were weightless because the emperor was naked in the first place.
According to wikipedia, physical objects have mass, which I doubt magnetic fields have. I think a more accurate statement would have been that magnetic fields are physical phenomena [=force fields], whose influence is readily observable on physical objects, those iron filings.
Smiling Dave: physical phenomena
physical phenomena
What's the difference?
Smiling Dave: whose influence is readily observable on physical objects, those iron filings.
whose influence is readily observable on physical objects, those iron filings.
What is there to exercise an "influence" besides some physical objects?
For me, all that I see is a magnet, a bunch of iron fillings, and some regularity in their motion together.
Can you point anything else out?
As Newton taught us all, the physical world we live in is contains two things. There are "objects", which have mass, and there are "forces", which do not.
Wilipedia on force:
In physics, a force is any influence that causes a free body to undergo a change in speed, a change in direction, or a change in shape. Force can also be described by intuitive concepts such as a push or pull....
So a force is an "influence". Nice and vague, but there it is. Newton postulated as an axiom that these things called forces exist. We cannot see them, for they are invisible and have no mass. All we can see is the result of their influence.
So that indeed you are correct in saying that all you can see are the magnet, the filings, and some regularity in their motion. But Newton asked himself "What makes that motion happen?" And he answered, after that apple conked him on the head, that there must be some invisible hand pushing those filings and making them move. He called the invisible hands [whose existence he assumed] "forces".
The only reason everyone accepted this very odd way of looking at things is that it works.