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: Ste on 4 Feb 2010 15:40 On 4 Feb, 12:20, "Cwatters" <colin.wattersNOS...(a)TurnersOakNOSPAM.plus.com> wrote: > > Peer reviewed scientific papers are hidden away on subscription sites > where as the cranks publish openly. And whose fault is that exactly? Scientists can't expect to act as gatekeepers to knowledge, and then complain that too few people understand their work. > It would be interesting to know who the general public trusts most these > days? Scientists or politicians? I dare say neither.
From: glird on 4 Feb 2010 15:57 On Feb 3, 9:06 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? The trouble is either A: that the phuies don't understand the physical realities treated by their own equations, thus neither do most people; or B: that the phuies DO understand those things but make believe that they don't. Why B? Because "Where ignorance is bliss til folly to be wise". ?? "Bliss" means "LOTS of DOLLARS", paid by the people to the not-so- phuies for their endlessly ongoing "pure research". glird
From: Paul Stowe on 4 Feb 2010 16:49 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. 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. 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. Good luck in getting any cogent answer here. Regards, Paul Stowe
From: Uncle Al on 4 Feb 2010 17:00 john wrote: > > On Feb 4, 9:44 am, Uncle Al <Uncle...(a)hate.spam.net> wrote: > > Urion 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? > > > > To criticize is to volunteer - propose empirically valid solutions. > > The proton is a standing wave of energy > that perfectly resonates with the > frequency of space, absorbing energy from it > thus creating gravity idiot -- Uncle Al http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/ (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals) http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz4.htm
From: Ace0f_5pades on 4 Feb 2010 17:14
On Feb 4, 3:06 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? Yes. on a less serious note, just look at the varied responses to a straight forward question. This thread has evoked/provoked such connections of a vast array of responses, that its almost reasonable to say, the only thing missing is the kitchen sink -- oh scrap that, it just made it in.lol but seriously, physics is a lot more rigid -- But it SUCKS at simplicity failings include, definitions -- i.e. aether? (cant even decide if it exists yet) but I would argue it does exist and define as aether -- (definition3) a medium with properties that promotes electromagnetic waves through a vacuum. here's, maybe, some terms u've never heard before all expressing units of acceleration baggage -- mixed use of unit systems. i.e. [1 slug] = ft/(ss); [1 glug] = m/(ss); & [1 mug] = cm/(ss); incomplete comprehension -- even in well understood subjects ..i.e. quantized packets of energy doesn't express why it is so, only that it addresses the problem of cumulative energy? connections -- modelling, simplifications, over complication, misplaced context. corrupted data. i.e. global warming. the simple of it is -- "its a mess." |