Things to Reject in 21st Century Physics
in [Physics]
|
Prev: Deepwater Horizon BP Oil Spill - A Geophysical Theory That Needs Consideration
Next: EINSTEINIANA: THE FUNDAMENTAL NIGHTMARE
From: Thomas Heger on 12 Jul 2010 14:55 Y.y.Porat schrieb: > On Jul 12, 3:38 pm, Thomas Heger <ttt_...(a)web.de> wrote: >> Y.Porat schrieb: >> >>> GR will never dolve anything in microcosm!!! >>> no need tobe a genius tomake that prediction >>> it needs to be an idiot *not to make* that >>> prediction !!! >>> aspace is nothing >>> all the attaction forces are >>> properties of mass !! >>> not of curved space !!! >> Actually GR talks about *curved spacetime*. Space is flat and nothing, >> by definition. But that nothing has properties, we call fields. One of >> those is called gravity, > > why ?? > because you say so ??? > > 2 > waht are those fields composed of ?? > of pieces of vacuum ???!!! > Well, I don't know. Possibly 'nothing'. This is very hard to believe, but maybe we have no material background at all. Only connections, that build patterns, that we call matter. Maybe a fluid of some kind would work, but I simply don't know. So I exclude this question from my model. Maybe someone else has an idea. > the rest is word salad No. I had spent some time on this subject and think, my idea is correct. But it could be - of course- wrong. I only bet on mine, while you bet on yours. TH
From: Tom Roberts on 12 Jul 2010 20:30 Thomas Heger wrote: > Tom Roberts schrieb: >> Robert L. Oldershaw wrote: >>> Physics can be thought of as primarily the mathematical modeling of >>> nature. >> yes. Not merely "can be", but rather "is". >> > I'm an engineer and not really interested in mathematical models, but > interested in the 'machinery' -or- how things function. All of engineering is based on the mathematical models of physics. All of it. The "how things function" is really how THE MODELS function. >>> Natural philosophy is the attempt to understand how nature actually >>> works and how nature really is. >> That is utterly hopeless. > Maybe hopeless for you. But don't try to steer people away of at least > trying to understand. It's useless for people to waste their time on something that is impossible. I'm trying to "steer" people into channels that are not impossible. No matter what they do, at best they are going to understand some model, not "how nature actually works". At worst they're going to be like so many contributors around here -- completely clueless. >> We humans can never know "how nature actually works" or "how nature >> really is". > This is because 'knowing' is about things already known. No. I can clearly learn new things, though I certainly relate them to things already known. But about the world I can only learn about models of the world, because thoughts can at best be models of the world. > Since the > 'machinery of the universe' is unknown, we cannot know. But we can find > out, or at least try. Trying is hopeless. It's MUCH better to understand the limitations of your mind and work within them, rather than pinning your hopes on the impossible. >> This ought to be obvious, because your mind can process only thoughts, >> and thoughts can at best be MODELS of "how nature actually works" or >> "how nature really is". > I personally prefer pictures instead of mathematical models. > Illustrations have no limits, only some restrictions, mainly to be flat. > But good artists can overcome this by an arsenal of tricks. Images need not be flat. Or static. But they, too, are at best MODELS of the world. "Ceci n'est pas une pipe." -- Magritte. "The map is not the territory." -- Korzybski (and others) "But you've got to know the territory!" -- Meredith Willson >> There is, of course, a reason why our models of everyday phenomena >> are so good: we humans have evolved this as our primary means of >> survival. > This is a description of a stone-age-man, misguided as a physicist. Nonsense. Humans today survive by our wits, not our superior senses, exceptional strength, or powerful teeth and claws. By having good models of the world we can manipulate it to our own benefit, and have done so ENORMOUSLY. Our models are not perfect, and we rarely take into account the full consequences of future impacts of our actions. This last will become increasingly obvious and disastrous to our children and grandchildren, as it is only recently (few decades) that human actions have had consequences on a global scale. > Do you really believe, they are like that? Look at all the humans around you, including yourself. How did they (and you) obtain their food to survive in the past week? Reflect on how much we have modified the world in order to build farms, highways, automobiles, trains, supermarkets, refrigerators, and all the other components that went into providing food for you and your neighbors. Then think about how all that is only possible because we have good and accurate models of how the world works, that permit us to figure out how to manipulate it in ways we desire. Of course it is also necessary for people to have good models of their SOCIAL environment. Today, the major danger for virtually all humans is due to other humans, not traditional predators. But soon, global environmental effects may become significant factors in most people's well being and survival. Tom Roberts
From: Tom Roberts on 12 Jul 2010 20:33 Robert L. Oldershaw wrote: > [...] When your mind starts processing things other than thoughts, perhaps your claims will make sense. Until then, your thoughts can at best be MODELS of the world. So model building is all there is for us poor humans. Tom Roberts
From: Tom Roberts on 12 Jul 2010 20:40 Robert L. Oldershaw wrote: > Predictions that are prior, quantitative, non-adjustable, feasible, > and unique to the theory being tested. As I have pointed out before, neither "prior" nor "unique" are required. Science is not history, and those two aspects are related to history, not science. They may well be desirable, but they most definitely are not required. You forgot that no testable prediction can be significantly in conflict with the corresponding measurement, within the domain of the theory. And you forgot that the set of successfully tested predictions should span the domain of the theory. Tom Roberts
From: Y.y.Porat on 12 Jul 2010 22:40
On Jul 12, 7:51 pm, P > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > ------------------ > > > nasty pig demagogue ***parrot** !! > > dont tell me what i did or not > > I don't have to tell you. It's in the record that you thought that > millions of scientists were working on quantum gravity. It's also in > the record that it's your foot-tapping expectation that they should > have gotten an answer in the last 50 years. ------------------- waht i wnated to say is that milloins of scientits saw those theories nad ate them nonsense without blinking an eye as you did it as well !! > > > just answer BASIC physics questions" > > > what are the properties of space ??!!! > > Quite a few. > - curvature > - impedance > - permittivity > - permeability > - electric field > - magnetic field > - gravitational field > Quite a few others too... >----------------- you are rediculous !!! it is as you would say a cat is a butterfly becuse it has legs wings sensors etc etc !! i have a little question to you: if we will put our sun system including earthe etc in location A of space and then move it to another location ''B'' in space will the properis of space A (after moving our sun system from it ) will it be (remain ) the same properties as the whole properties of location B in space ?? TIA Y.Porat ------------------- > > before syatting to run > > we have anough hamd waivares here > > no need for another*** pompous **farther !! > > learn fist to walk > > before running > > i dont want to quote the more rude say ... > > 2 > > if you dont mind you can get from me a few private lessons > > about how to do pioneering science THAT YOU NEVR DID !!! > > BESIDE STEELING IDEAS AND MATERIAL FROM OTHERS !!! > > Y.Porat > > ------------------------ Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > |