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: Robert L. Oldershaw on 13 Jul 2010 12:15 On Jul 13, 1:53 am, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > That you can't even predict the spectrum of the Hydrogen atom is amusing. ------------------------------------------------------ One cannot predict that which is already known. Did you mean retrodict? Sigh, what a piece of work you are, Woofster. RLO www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw
From: Sam Wormley on 13 Jul 2010 13:06 On 7/13/10 11:15 AM, Robert L. Oldershaw wrote: > On Jul 13, 1:53 am, eric gisse<jowr.pi.nos...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> That you can't even predict the spectrum of the Hydrogen atom is amusing. > ------------------------------------------------------ > > One cannot predict that which is already known. Did you mean > retrodict? > You are wrong, Oldershaw. Any new theory of gravity, for example, must correctly predict the perihelion precession of planets in the solar system and elsewhere. Furthermore, GTR must still correctly predict the perihelion precession of planets in the solar system and elsewhere. Often predictions are test to high and higher precision as technology advances. New physics often comes about when accuracy increases to find a discrepancy between prediction and observation.
From: maxwell on 13 Jul 2010 14:11 On Jul 12, 5:33 pm, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > 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 Agreed, Tom, it's all about models. But there are models and models. We can create mathematical models, conceptual (language) models, picture models, etc. Math models are the weakest when applied to the real world as they are simply deductive from the machinery of the math used. They rely on interpretation of the symbols, especially to mapping observables in measurements (for physics, anyway). Language models have been used for millennia - they are called natural philosophy when used to describe nature. They use a much richer modeling toolset than math (a subset of natural language) and can be applied to situations which cannot be mapped to numbers - this can still generate a shared understanding by humans. Best of all are pictures, as they appeal to the largest part of the human brain - the visual system. We, like other higher animals, have developed a rich method of mapping the real world (although macroscopic) using visual techniques; the old saw still has truth: "a picture is worth a thousand words". Unfortunately, theoretical physics has been hijacked by applied mathematicians in the last 100 years so that only the first toolset (math) is considered valid. The result has been a few very successful SWAGs (simple wild assed guesses) i.e. equations that can be applied in very simple situations, such as SpecRel, Maxwell's Equations, Schroedinger's Equation, etc. The equations came first & there is still disagreement over the meaning of the symbols. Since these equations were introduced to solve specific 'toy' problems they have been of little use for extending the engineering contributions on which our civilization is built. The problem here (if I may speak for some of your disputants) is that this process has got lost. As St Albert once said: "imagination is more powerful than knowledge" & mathematical physicists are demonstrably deficient in creative insights or new physical concepts. I agree with RLO that the state of modern physics is grossly disappointing - a revolution is needed.
From: eric gisse on 13 Jul 2010 21:36 Robert L. Oldershaw wrote: > On Jul 13, 1:53 am, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> That you can't even predict the spectrum of the Hydrogen atom is amusing. > ------------------------------------------------------ > > One cannot predict that which is already known. Did you mean > retrodict? > > Sigh, what a piece of work you are, Woofster. > > RLO > www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw You can't do it, so you hide being semantic word games.
From: Thomas Heger on 14 Jul 2010 00:19
Tom Roberts schrieb: > Thomas Heger wrote: >> Tom Roberts schrieb: ... >> 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. You apparently mean models of the social environment - 'the society' - in economical and political sense, including the human interrelations. As you also appear to mean a specific subset of the human race to be in charge of this subject to manipulate it in behalf of their own interests, I had to make clear, that we do disagree in this subject, too. TH |