Why are there so many unsolved problems in physics?
in [Physics]
|
Prev: SERC: Forests are growing faster, climate change appears to driving accelerated growth
Next: 'Marshall' is a disgusting troll
From: BURT on 7 Feb 2010 19:10 On Feb 7, 11:15 am, glird <gl...(a)aol.com> wrote: > On Feb 6, 1:08 pm, Paul Stowe <theaether...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > Our current civilization will probably not last 500 more years, > > So, if we want answers we better get 'em quickly... > > So ask some questions! > > glird Science is very young so is civilization. Give it a million years to grow and then you will see you are nuts to think science has advanced highly. Mitch Raemsch
From: eric gisse on 7 Feb 2010 22:20 Paul Stowe wrote: > On Feb 3, 6:06 pm, Urion <blackman_...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >> Here is a list of unsolved problems in modern physics from wikipedia: >> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unsolved_problems_in_physics >> >> Why are so many problems? Don't you think there is something seriously >> wrong with our understanding of physics and the universe or are we >> just overcomplicating things? > > Short answer, yes there is something seriously wrong with our current > approach and models. Not so much in the narrow model domains, but in > understanding the overall integrated interplay and system. It's like > the tale of the three blind men groping and trying to describe an > Elephant. GR & SR don't describe nature they describe certain > behavioral characteristics 'of' nature with no attempt to understand > what brings that behavior about. Likewise, QM, QED, QCD do the same. General relativity and quantum theory exactly - to all available precision - describe their respective domains of applicability. You can scream all you want about how the map is not the territory, and the people who actually know this stuff will mutter "duh" and move on to actually figuring stuff out. > It is my opinion that the current crop of physicists are too arrogant > and set in their convictions that they 'know' and have the proper > answers (like the Big Bang Hypothesis) to be even willing to rethink > fundamental premises. While you are the model of zen-like contemplation who always considers opinions that aren't his own? Both descriptions are completely wrong. Physicists routinely test their hypotheses, otherwise it wouldn't be science. Let's focus on the big bang theory, since you rail on it constantly. Have you read the papers that discuss how the CMBR is shown to be of higher temperature at higher redshifts in a manner that exactly corresponds with orthodox theory? Have you read the papers that describe how the expansion hypothesis has been directly tested by observing the falloff in luminosity as a function of redshift? Have you read any papers on the subject recently? At all? Or are you content in your opinion as well as your own arrogance? Let's see if you can name one aspect of the big bang theory that has not been tested. > And, that is precisely what will be required to > begin to answer most of those questions. For example, the Pioneer > Effect is correctly and precisely predicted by a well known > alternative model of gravity. Ah, and which 'alternative model of gravity' would that be? And would the effect be the one of Anderson et.al., or the one that survives 1/3 smaller with approximate thermal modeling for a portion of the trip done by Turyshev, et.al. ? If any of this is news to you, perhaps you aren't nearly as interested in learning about the world we live in as you wish us to believe. > > Good luck in getting any cogent answer here. Probably because this is a USENET newsgroup that has no requirement for its' participants to be educated in the subjects they wish to rant and scream about. Case in point - have you formally studied physics? > > Regards, > > Paul Stowe
From: BURT on 7 Feb 2010 22:26 On Feb 7, 7:20 pm, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Paul Stowe wrote: > > On Feb 3, 6:06 pm, Urion <blackman_...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > >> Here is a list of unsolved problems in modern physics from wikipedia: > > >>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unsolved_problems_in_physics > > >> Why are so many problems? Don't you think there is something seriously > >> wrong with our understanding of physics and the universe or are we > >> just overcomplicating things? > > > Short answer, yes there is something seriously wrong with our current > > approach and models. Not so much in the narrow model domains, but in > > understanding the overall integrated interplay and system. It's like > > the tale of the three blind men groping and trying to describe an > > Elephant. GR & SR don't describe nature they describe certain > > behavioral characteristics 'of' nature with no attempt to understand > > what brings that behavior about. Likewise, QM, QED, QCD do the same. > > General relativity and quantum theory exactly - to all available precision - > describe their respective domains of applicability. You can scream all you > want about how the map is not the territory, and the people who actually > know this stuff will mutter "duh" and move on to actually figuring stuff > out. > > > It is my opinion that the current crop of physicists are too arrogant > > and set in their convictions that they 'know' and have the proper > > answers (like the Big Bang Hypothesis) to be even willing to rethink > > fundamental premises. > > While you are the model of zen-like contemplation who always considers > opinions that aren't his own? Both descriptions are completely wrong. > > Physicists routinely test their hypotheses, otherwise it wouldn't be > science. > > Let's focus on the big bang theory, since you rail on it constantly. > > Have you read the papers that discuss how the CMBR is shown to be of higher > temperature at higher redshifts in a manner that exactly corresponds with > orthodox theory? > > Have you read the papers that describe how the expansion hypothesis has been > directly tested by observing the falloff in luminosity as a function of > redshift? > > Have you read any papers on the subject recently? At all? Or are you content > in your opinion as well as your own arrogance? > > Let's see if you can name one aspect of the big bang theory that has not > been tested. > > > And, that is precisely what will be required to > > begin to answer most of those questions. For example, the Pioneer > > Effect is correctly and precisely predicted by a well known > > alternative model of gravity. > > Ah, and which 'alternative model of gravity' would that be? > > And would the effect be the one of Anderson et.al., or the one that survives > 1/3 smaller with approximate thermal modeling for a portion of the trip done > by Turyshev, et.al. ? > > If any of this is news to you, perhaps you aren't nearly as interested in > learning about the world we live in as you wish us to believe. > > > > > Good luck in getting any cogent answer here. > > Probably because this is a USENET newsgroup that has no requirement for its' > participants to be educated in the subjects they wish to rant and scream > about. > > Case in point - have you formally studied physics? > > > > > > > Regards, > > > Paul Stowe- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Everyone is fudging these theories when they could see that they are not complete. How long will that take? Mitch Raemsch
From: Mahipal7638 on 7 Feb 2010 22:39 On Feb 7, 7:10 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Feb 7, 11:15 am, glird <gl...(a)aol.com> wrote: > > > On Feb 6, 1:08 pm, Paul Stowe <theaether...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Our current civilization will probably not last 500 more years, > > > So, if we want answers we better get 'em quickly... > > > So ask some questions! > > > glird > > Science is very young so is civilization. Give it a million years to > grow and then you will see you are nuts to think science has advanced > highly. > > Mitch Raemsch BURT UREA REAR TARP Now to write an SMS limited tweet with the completed word square above... Whenever BURT speaks, UREA ebbs and pours out his face and REAR, but thank heavens -- with or without God -- Usenet is shielded by Nature's scientific spacetime fabric like TARP. Did I go over the SMS limit?! O well. It's not that difficult to reduce it to an SMS limited tweet without losing the essence of the WORD squared. Enjo(y)... -- Mahipal
From: Paul Stowe on 7 Feb 2010 23:02
On Feb 7, 7:20 pm, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > PaulStowewrote: > > On Feb 3, 6:06 pm, Urion <blackman_...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > >> Here is a list of unsolved problems in modern physics from wikipedia: > > >>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unsolved_problems_in_physics > > >> Why are so many problems? Don't you think there is something seriously > >> wrong with our understanding of physics and the universe or are we > >> just overcomplicating things? > > > Short answer, yes there is something seriously wrong with our current > > approach and models. Not so much in the narrow model domains, but in > > understanding the overall integrated interplay and system. It's like > > the tale of the three blind men groping and trying to describe an > > Elephant. GR & SR don't describe nature they describe certain > > behavioral characteristics 'of' nature with no attempt to understand > > what brings that behavior about. Likewise, QM, QED, QCD do the same. > > General relativity and quantum theory exactly - to all available precision - > describe their respective domains of applicability. You can scream all you > want about how the map is not the territory, and the people who actually > know this stuff will mutter "duh" and move on to actually figuring stuff > out. > > > It is my opinion that the current crop of physicists are too arrogant > > and set in their convictions that they 'know' and have the proper > > answers (like the Big Bang Hypothesis) to be even willing to rethink > > fundamental premises. > > While you are the model of zen-like contemplation who always considers > opinions that aren't his own? Both descriptions are completely wrong. > > Physicists routinely test their hypotheses, otherwise it wouldn't be > science. > > Let's focus on the big bang theory, since you rail on it constantly. > > Have you read the papers that discuss how the CMBR is shown to be of higher > temperature at higher redshifts in a manner that exactly corresponds with > orthodox theory? > > Have you read the papers that describe how the expansion hypothesis has been > directly tested by observing the falloff in luminosity as a function of > redshift? > > Have you read any papers on the subject recently? At all? Or are you content > in your opinion as well as your own arrogance? > > Let's see if you can name one aspect of the big bang theory that has not > been tested. > > > And, that is precisely what will be required to > > begin to answer most of those questions. For example, the Pioneer > > Effect is correctly and precisely predicted by a well known > > alternative model of gravity. > > Ah, and which 'alternative model of gravity' would that be? > > And would the effect be the one of Anderson et.al., or the one that survives > 1/3 smaller with approximate thermal modeling for a portion of the trip done > by Turyshev, et.al. ? > > If any of this is news to you, perhaps you aren't nearly as interested in > learning about the world we live in as you wish us to believe. > > > > > Good luck in getting any cogent answer here. > > Probably because this is a USENET newsgroup that has no requirement for its' > participants to be educated in the subjects they wish to rant and scream > about. > > Case in point - have you formally studied physics? > > > > Regards, > > > Paul Stowe Deja Vu... |