I am not a physicist. I'm not very good at complex mathematics. If I came up with a new theory, I would have 0 credibility. Whatever I come up with has probably been considered or ruled out by actual physicists. Is this right? If so, is this forum only for educational purposes? If there was a forum where actual physicists discussed theories, there should be a password to keep out the cranks. Here, we have to relegate ourselves to answering questions and debunking fallacies.
Any thoughts?
It is entirely possible for a non-physicist to come up with a valid theory. Through sheer chance, a full blown crank might intuit something which turns out to be true. In fact, I'm sure quite a bit of the correct physics espoused by cranks here came about that way, although these examples are rediscoveries, not discoveries.
There's also the autodidacts, who might have an equivalent education to a real physicist, and in his or her spare time actually does some real physics.
But the odds, man... The odds are so astronomical that any crank could stumble upon a valid theory which science has not yet discovered, and the logistics of giving one's self an education on par with a PhD in physics are so difficult, that it's a non-consideration, most of the time.
Every once in a blue moon, I'll come across a crank theory that's over my head. Generally, these tend to be very narrow in scope (offering an alternate qualitative explanation of a very specific observed phenomenon to the mainstream, which purports to demonstrate more predictive power through it's quantitative model) and highly mathematically complex in comparison to regular crank theories, which may include no maths, and speak to a unified field theory. These I do not dismiss or disparage, because I cannot falsify them. However, many crank theories are based on allegories which can be mathematically modeled with very little skill in math. These are the sorts of theories which I tend to discredit and refer to as "crank" theories.
In my experience, only one person on this site has ever presented a theory which falls into the former category. The rest of the yokels here all try to explain phenomenon by analogizing to other phenomenon, and generally ignore any aspects of this analogy which don't fit with their mental picture. Either that, or they blatantly misstate accepted physics.
There's also the autodidacts, who might have an equivalent education to a real physicist, and in his or her spare time actually does some real physics.
But the odds, man... The odds are so astronomical that any crank could stumble upon a valid theory which science has not yet discovered, and the logistics of giving one's self an education on par with a PhD in physics are so difficult, that it's a non-consideration, most of the time.
Every once in a blue moon, I'll come across a crank theory that's over my head. Generally, these tend to be very narrow in scope (offering an alternate qualitative explanation of a very specific observed phenomenon to the mainstream, which purports to demonstrate more predictive power through it's quantitative model) and highly mathematically complex in comparison to regular crank theories, which may include no maths, and speak to a unified field theory. These I do not dismiss or disparage, because I cannot falsify them. However, many crank theories are based on allegories which can be mathematically modeled with very little skill in math. These are the sorts of theories which I tend to discredit and refer to as "crank" theories.
In my experience, only one person on this site has ever presented a theory which falls into the former category. The rest of the yokels here all try to explain phenomenon by analogizing to other phenomenon, and generally ignore any aspects of this analogy which don't fit with their mental picture. Either that, or they blatantly misstate accepted physics.
It's a relief to hear that some people actually do know what they are talking about. I find it humorous that some of the crank theories actually might have some truth to them. I'm just worried that physics is beyond the point where someone can come in with a radically new and basic idea that overturns the scientific world like Einstein did with Relativity. Then again, that's probably what they thought before Einstein came along.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Jul 6 2009, 01:55 PM)
I'm just worried that physics is beyond the point where someone can come in with a radically new and basic idea that overturns the scientific world like Einstein did with Relativity. Then again, that's probably what they thought before Einstein came along.
It probably is. The fact of the matter is that without an education in physics, you cannot do the work necessary to take a hypothesis and form a coherent theory out of it.
A crank could come up with a true hypothesis, but to model it and produce a coherent theory simply requires skills they don't have. There's always a chance they could play with numbers enough to actually do it, but then, there's also a chance my guitar will spontaneously turn into a beautiful, bisexual woman who thinks my fiancee is the hottest chic in the world.
It probably is. The fact of the matter is that without an education in physics, you cannot do the work necessary to take a hypothesis and form a coherent theory out of it.
A crank could come up with a true hypothesis, but to model it and produce a coherent theory simply requires skills they don't have. There's always a chance they could play with numbers enough to actually do it, but then, there's also a chance my guitar will spontaneously turn into a beautiful, bisexual woman who thinks my fiancee is the hottest chic in the world.
QUOTE (MjolnirPants+Jul 6 2009, 02:08 PM)
There's always a chance they could play with numbers enough to actually do it, but then, there's also a chance my guitar will spontaneously turn into a beautiful, bisexual woman who thinks my fiancee is the hottest chic in the world.
LOL, if only, right?
I like this forum because I can correct my own misunderstandings by bouncing them off other people. It's also nice for the occasional LULZ.
LOL, if only, right?
I like this forum because I can correct my own misunderstandings by bouncing them off other people. It's also nice for the occasional LULZ.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Jul 6 2009, 02:39 PM)
I like this forum because I can correct my own misunderstandings by bouncing them off other people. It's also nice for the occasional LULZ.
I'm with you on both of those, although I'd likely place them in the opposite order.
One good thing about all the wackos here is that they lower the bar. Go to www.physicsforums.com and try to bounce some misunderstandings off of the people there and you'll end up banned. Any hint that you're espousing your own theories (even if you say "I'm not trying to pass this off as my own theory, I just want to know if this is right" in your post) will raise the ire of the moderators and admins there.
Here, so long as you put in a disclaimer that you don't know what you're talking about, most folk are glad to assume you're not a crank until you prove yourself to be one.
I'm with you on both of those, although I'd likely place them in the opposite order.
One good thing about all the wackos here is that they lower the bar. Go to www.physicsforums.com and try to bounce some misunderstandings off of the people there and you'll end up banned. Any hint that you're espousing your own theories (even if you say "I'm not trying to pass this off as my own theory, I just want to know if this is right" in your post) will raise the ire of the moderators and admins there.
Here, so long as you put in a disclaimer that you don't know what you're talking about, most folk are glad to assume you're not a crank until you prove yourself to be one.
QUOTE (MjolnirPants+Jul 6 2009, 03:02 PM)
Go to www.physicsforums.com and try to bounce some misunderstandings off of the people there and you'll end up banned. Any hint that you're espousing your own theories (even if you say "I'm not trying to pass this off as my own theory, I just want to know if this is right" in your post) will raise the ire of the moderators and admins there.
Damn, we should send Meem there, lol.
Damn, we should send Meem there, lol.
If no one minds.. I have a bit of a different opinion.
If I had a new theory of physics or whatever.. I would not post it here.
Instead, I would first make every possible effort to learn actual physics first... with an eye to developing my new insight. I would either earn a degree in physics or at least achieve it's equivalent in knowledge.
I would then communicate with as many experts in the field as will talk to me. If I am rejected, I would learn more... enough that I can be taken seriously.
I have communicated with a number of experts in my field of expertise (history) and was quite willing to forward my credentials if asked. Fairly often I was not asked, I imagine because it was obvious to the person I was communicating with that I knew what I was talking about. Despite it's obvious generalities history, much like physics, has it's own lingo and inside information that is generally not available if you are not very familiar with the subject.
My next step would be to establish a proper paper on the subject and seek to have it published in a peer reviewed journal. If my work is sufficiently erudite, it would be best to have several experts review it first. In either case, the peer review process will tell me much about what else is needed.
In either case, I should be prepared to defend my work with facts.... not generalities and/or insults.... and those facts should be addressed to people who can understand the problem... not the general public.
I originally came to these forums in search of specific knowledge to answer a specific and rather urgent (to me) concern. That concern was addressed and the information was provided and I am quite grateful for it. I remain largely because I have had a number of excellent conversations here (and elsewhere) and that is something I rather enjoy.
I also cannot abide people who try to pass off false information as truth ... for reasons that have to do with why I came here in the first place. So.. if someone does, I tend to get a bit huffy.
If I had a new theory of physics or whatever.. I would not post it here.
Instead, I would first make every possible effort to learn actual physics first... with an eye to developing my new insight. I would either earn a degree in physics or at least achieve it's equivalent in knowledge.
I would then communicate with as many experts in the field as will talk to me. If I am rejected, I would learn more... enough that I can be taken seriously.
I have communicated with a number of experts in my field of expertise (history) and was quite willing to forward my credentials if asked. Fairly often I was not asked, I imagine because it was obvious to the person I was communicating with that I knew what I was talking about. Despite it's obvious generalities history, much like physics, has it's own lingo and inside information that is generally not available if you are not very familiar with the subject.
My next step would be to establish a proper paper on the subject and seek to have it published in a peer reviewed journal. If my work is sufficiently erudite, it would be best to have several experts review it first. In either case, the peer review process will tell me much about what else is needed.
In either case, I should be prepared to defend my work with facts.... not generalities and/or insults.... and those facts should be addressed to people who can understand the problem... not the general public.
I originally came to these forums in search of specific knowledge to answer a specific and rather urgent (to me) concern. That concern was addressed and the information was provided and I am quite grateful for it. I remain largely because I have had a number of excellent conversations here (and elsewhere) and that is something I rather enjoy.
I also cannot abide people who try to pass off false information as truth ... for reasons that have to do with why I came here in the first place. So.. if someone does, I tend to get a bit huffy.
QUOTE (RobDegraves+Jul 6 2009, 03:54 PM)
I also cannot abide people who try to pass off false information as truth ... for reasons that have to do with why I came here in the first place. So.. if someone does, I tend to get a bit huffy.
You have our thanks for that
You have our thanks for that
QUOTE (MjolnirPants+Jul 6 2009, 07:08 PM)
It probably is. The fact of the matter is that without an education in physics, you cannot do the work necessary to take a hypothesis and form a coherent theory out of it.
A crank could come up with a true hypothesis, but to model it and produce a coherent theory simply requires skills they don't have. There's always a chance they could play with numbers enough to actually do it, but then, there's also a chance my guitar will spontaneously turn into a beautiful, bisexual woman who thinks my fiancee is the hottest chic in the world.
Yes but if that happened, I would lay even odds that she would start gently weeping and you would look down and notice your floor needs sweeping.
A crank could come up with a true hypothesis, but to model it and produce a coherent theory simply requires skills they don't have. There's always a chance they could play with numbers enough to actually do it, but then, there's also a chance my guitar will spontaneously turn into a beautiful, bisexual woman who thinks my fiancee is the hottest chic in the world.
Yes but if that happened, I would lay even odds that she would start gently weeping and you would look down and notice your floor needs sweeping.
QUOTE (RobDegraves+Jul 6 2009, 03:54 PM)
If no one minds.. I have a bit of a different opinion.
I don't think it's all that different.
When I mentioned being able to get away with running misunderstandings by the people here, I was implying that it's something I've done, which is true. However, the reason I did so is generally because I expect those ideas would be wrong. If for some reason I ever were to think up anything that I couldn't falsify with a thought experiment, I'd most certainly follow the steps you described.
I don't think it's all that different.
When I mentioned being able to get away with running misunderstandings by the people here, I was implying that it's something I've done, which is true. However, the reason I did so is generally because I expect those ideas would be wrong. If for some reason I ever were to think up anything that I couldn't falsify with a thought experiment, I'd most certainly follow the steps you described.
QUOTE (buttershug+)
Yes but if that happened, I would lay even odds that she would start gently weeping and you would look down and notice your floor needs sweeping.
Even odds? It's a virtual certainty, as much as her name: Lucille.
Even odds? It's a virtual certainty, as much as her name: Lucille.
There is nothing wrong with conjecture and imagination.
I often indulge in wild flights of imagination...the meaning of life, the Universe, infinities, etc. I often also indulge in creative scholarly pursuits... what it might have actually been like in the various historical periods that I am fond of.. etc. Also in physics... it's fun to look at the great unsolved questions and wonder about them.
However... after that it's a question of ego.
It's one thing to have imagination and creativity. It's quite another to dress our flights of fancy up in the guise of scientific endeavor and to let ourselves believe we can achieve without effort what actually requires years of discipline and labor to achieve.
I can't tell you how often I have had people come to my martial arts class (or any of the ones I trained at) who already believed that they knew how to fight. They had watched the UFC, or boxing or whatever, practiced some of the moves on their friends etc and could not wait to show everyone what they could do. At least in that setting it's easy to demonstrate how wrong they are. Without the years of effort, discipline and practice you have accomplished nothing. In a forum setting sadly, it's much harder to show people that they might need to learn before they can teach.
The first thing to learn is that you need to learn more.
Hell, I need to learn more... much more.
I just need about 20 thousand years to do it
I often indulge in wild flights of imagination...the meaning of life, the Universe, infinities, etc. I often also indulge in creative scholarly pursuits... what it might have actually been like in the various historical periods that I am fond of.. etc. Also in physics... it's fun to look at the great unsolved questions and wonder about them.
However... after that it's a question of ego.
It's one thing to have imagination and creativity. It's quite another to dress our flights of fancy up in the guise of scientific endeavor and to let ourselves believe we can achieve without effort what actually requires years of discipline and labor to achieve.
I can't tell you how often I have had people come to my martial arts class (or any of the ones I trained at) who already believed that they knew how to fight. They had watched the UFC, or boxing or whatever, practiced some of the moves on their friends etc and could not wait to show everyone what they could do. At least in that setting it's easy to demonstrate how wrong they are. Without the years of effort, discipline and practice you have accomplished nothing. In a forum setting sadly, it's much harder to show people that they might need to learn before they can teach.
The first thing to learn is that you need to learn more.
Hell, I need to learn more... much more.
I just need about 20 thousand years to do it
QUOTE (RobDegraves+Jul 6 2009, 10:56 PM)
There is nothing wrong with conjecture and imagination.
I often indulge in wild flights of imagination...the meaning of life, the Universe, infinities, etc. I often also indulge in creative scholarly pursuits... what it might have actually been like in the various historical periods that I am fond of.. etc. Also in physics... it's fun to look at the great unsolved questions and wonder about them.
However... after that it's a question of ego.
Too true, too true... Metaphysical musings are as familiar to most skeptics and scientists as they are to any crank, the difference being the amount of important we assign to them.
The main problem being that a person can pretend you're wrong, even if they know you're right, and after a while, they can even come to believe it, despite the fact that they once knew better.
A person cannot pretend he doesn't have two black eyes, a dislocated shoulder and a nose that's in contact with his left cheek.
Err, at least not without some seriously mental problems.
The main problem being that a person can pretend you're wrong, even if they know you're right, and after a while, they can even come to believe it, despite the fact that they once knew better.
A person cannot pretend he doesn't have two black eyes, a dislocated shoulder and a nose that's in contact with his left cheek.
Err, at least not without some seriously mental problems.
The first thing to learn is that you need to learn more.
So is the last thing you need to learn, in any education. IMHO, of course.
Nice Zen
.
Thirty spokes converge on the hub of a wheel
But the use of the cart depends on the part of the hub that is void.
With high walls all round a clay bowl is molded
But the use of the bowl depends on the part of the bowl that is void.
Put doors and windows in the house as you build
But the use of the house depends on the part of the house that is void.
Advantage is had from what is there;
Usefulness arises from what is not.
But the odds, man... The odds are so astronomical that any crank could stumble upon a valid theory which science has not yet discovered, and the logistics of giving one's self an education on par with a PhD in physics are so difficult, that it's a non-consideration, most of the time.
Hello all
I have been off line because I have been working, and my work is so demanding I can hardly look at anything but details of my job, much less read a few posts now and then.
Before the people who came up with wonderful theories and then took them to the next step and provided some type of proof of theory, were they just simply a crank?
Look at the Wright Brothers, Tesla, Einstein,Galileo!
Understanding must not be limited to how you come to understand.
A person can learn without any education or connection with a building.
I often indulge in wild flights of imagination...the meaning of life, the Universe, infinities, etc. I often also indulge in creative scholarly pursuits... what it might have actually been like in the various historical periods that I am fond of.. etc. Also in physics... it's fun to look at the great unsolved questions and wonder about them.
However... after that it's a question of ego.
Too true, too true... Metaphysical musings are as familiar to most skeptics and scientists as they are to any crank, the difference being the amount of important we assign to them.
QUOTE
I can't tell you how often I have had people come to my martial arts class (or any of the ones I trained at) who already believed that they knew how to fight. They had watched the UFC, or boxing or whatever, practiced some of the moves on their friends etc and could not wait to show everyone what they could do. At least in that setting it's easy to demonstrate how wrong they are. Without the years of effort, discipline and practice you have accomplished nothing. In a forum setting sadly, it's much harder to show people that they might need to learn before they can teach.
The main problem being that a person can pretend you're wrong, even if they know you're right, and after a while, they can even come to believe it, despite the fact that they once knew better.
A person cannot pretend he doesn't have two black eyes, a dislocated shoulder and a nose that's in contact with his left cheek.
Err, at least not without some seriously mental problems.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I can't tell you how often I have had people come to my martial arts class (or any of the ones I trained at) who already believed that they knew how to fight. They had watched the UFC, or boxing or whatever, practiced some of the moves on their friends etc and could not wait to show everyone what they could do. At least in that setting it's easy to demonstrate how wrong they are. Without the years of effort, discipline and practice you have accomplished nothing. In a forum setting sadly, it's much harder to show people that they might need to learn before they can teach. |
The main problem being that a person can pretend you're wrong, even if they know you're right, and after a while, they can even come to believe it, despite the fact that they once knew better.
A person cannot pretend he doesn't have two black eyes, a dislocated shoulder and a nose that's in contact with his left cheek.
Err, at least not without some seriously mental problems.
The first thing to learn is that you need to learn more.
So is the last thing you need to learn, in any education. IMHO, of course.
I am curious, when speaking of any endeavor is there not other factors to take into the equation? How bad do you want it ? Do you have an aptitude for it ,that is to say do you take to it naturally? Rob, do you think it would have made any difference if those unskilled in martial arts where willing to die to prove you wrong? That is just a question, do not get huffy.It is human nature to overcome odds. Education and experience are pivotal in any endeavor but, how bad do you want it?
I have no reason to get huffy.
To answer your question...
No.
It would not have mattered at all.
Ask any good practitioner or teacher of martial arts. It does not matter what you believe. You can make yourself lose... but you cannot make yourself win.
If they are willing to die to prove me wrong... it would be better that they be willing to learn.
A quick bit on being a natural. I hear that fairly often as well.
Being a natural is quite helpful but it is not the determinate factor in martial arts. Training, discipline and preparation are far more important.
To answer your question...
QUOTE
Rob, do you think it would have made any difference if those unskilled in martial arts where willing to die to prove you wrong?
No.
It would not have mattered at all.
Ask any good practitioner or teacher of martial arts. It does not matter what you believe. You can make yourself lose... but you cannot make yourself win.
If they are willing to die to prove me wrong... it would be better that they be willing to learn.
A quick bit on being a natural. I hear that fairly often as well.
Being a natural is quite helpful but it is not the determinate factor in martial arts. Training, discipline and preparation are far more important.
It is like a little movie camera I have in my head that has all the pictures of what I think the universe is about. I get ideas of which I am fairly sure, but then new data comes my way and I have to revise my thinking. It is probably not uncommon that people work up their own theories in their minds. I do not think it wrong if the person says what he or she thinks is true, but should always leave room to revise their view.
Naturally the professional physicists have an advantage because they have the math ability and such. They can put it to the test better than we dreamers.
Naturally the professional physicists have an advantage because they have the math ability and such. They can put it to the test better than we dreamers.
I would have to say we can come up with all the theories we can dream of. But without the math, we will never really know if it is truly valid 
(until someone who does know the math could give assistance). There is the chance we may understand the basic idea, but lack the tools to prove it.
However.... we could also use pre-existing facts/concepts, in an attempt to make some sort of new interpretation, but that is still far from becoming an actual theory. Utilizing pre-existing facts, if being used in the correct context, would assist in proving the validity of the theory being proposed (again math would be required to seal the deal).
All in all, i think it is possible, but it would require some dedication and self-teaching to understand the concepts themselves, plus the help of the real physicists or university level phys-students that frequent this forum to do the actual math associated with your ideas.
(until someone who does know the math could give assistance). There is the chance we may understand the basic idea, but lack the tools to prove it.However.... we could also use pre-existing facts/concepts, in an attempt to make some sort of new interpretation, but that is still far from becoming an actual theory. Utilizing pre-existing facts, if being used in the correct context, would assist in proving the validity of the theory being proposed (again math would be required to seal the deal
). All in all, i think it is possible, but it would require some dedication and self-teaching to understand the concepts themselves, plus the help of the real physicists or university level phys-students that frequent this forum to do the actual math associated with your ideas.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Jul 6 2009, 06:23 PM)
I am not a physicist. I'm not very good at complex mathematics. If I came up with a new theory, I would have 0 credibility.
But this would not mean you were "wrong." Only that you had 0% credibility.
If, in fact, your theory, whatever that theory might be, was correct, then what to say of all those who had judged you and/or your ideas on the basis of your 'credibility.?'
Such folk would be misguided at the very best, and criminally negligent at the very worst, if, that is, such theories had life or death implications.
- RF
But this would not mean you were "wrong." Only that you had 0% credibility.
If, in fact, your theory, whatever that theory might be, was correct, then what to say of all those who had judged you and/or your ideas on the basis of your 'credibility.?'
Such folk would be misguided at the very best, and criminally negligent at the very worst, if, that is, such theories had life or death implications.
- RF
QUOTE (Raphie Frank+Oct 3 2009, 08:03 PM)
But this would not mean you were "wrong." Only that you had 0% credibility.
If, in fact, your theory, whatever that theory might be, was correct, then what to say of all those who had judged you and/or your ideas on the basis of your 'credibility.?'
Such folk would be misguided at the very best, and criminally negligent at the very worst, if, that is, such theories had life or death implications.
Let's say that an illiterate man offers you a (verbal) treatise on "Hamlet" by William Shakespeare. He admits that he's never read Shakespeare, but he did watch "Romeo+Juliet" once. He tells you that he has never even watched a dramatized version of "Hamlet." His experience with "Hamlet" is his friend reading to him the blurb from the back of a DVD cover. What probability would assign the likelihood that this man knows what he's talking about?
If, in fact, your theory, whatever that theory might be, was correct, then what to say of all those who had judged you and/or your ideas on the basis of your 'credibility.?'
Such folk would be misguided at the very best, and criminally negligent at the very worst, if, that is, such theories had life or death implications.
Let's say that an illiterate man offers you a (verbal) treatise on "Hamlet" by William Shakespeare. He admits that he's never read Shakespeare, but he did watch "Romeo+Juliet" once. He tells you that he has never even watched a dramatized version of "Hamlet." His experience with "Hamlet" is his friend reading to him the blurb from the back of a DVD cover. What probability would assign the likelihood that this man knows what he's talking about?
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Oct 4 2009, 12:30 AM)
Let's say that an illiterate man offers you a (verbal) treatise on "Hamlet" by William Shakespeare. He admits that he's never read Shakespeare, but he did watch "Romeo+Juliet" once. He tells you that he has never even watched a dramatized version of "Hamlet." His experience with "Hamlet" is his friend reading to him the blurb from the back of a DVD cover. What probability would assign the likelihood that this man knows what he's talking about?
The question ought not to be (IMHO) "Did this man read Hamlet?" But, rather, does this man recognize the pattern of human conduct that Hamlet represents?
In order to discern this pattern, one need not observe the "performance," so much as the reaction of the audience observing said performance and the conversation which accompanies such observation. And this 'reaction' is one that one need not be literate in order to 'read.'
Just a thought and JMHO.
Best,
RF
P.S. Many quite intelligent people, I would dare say, never learned to read...
The question ought not to be (IMHO) "Did this man read Hamlet?" But, rather, does this man recognize the pattern of human conduct that Hamlet represents?
In order to discern this pattern, one need not observe the "performance," so much as the reaction of the audience observing said performance and the conversation which accompanies such observation. And this 'reaction' is one that one need not be literate in order to 'read.'
Just a thought and JMHO.
Best,
RF
P.S. Many quite intelligent people, I would dare say, never learned to read...
Just a quick opinion here if no one minds.
Intelligent is not the same as learned. Learned is not the same as intelligent.
However... This is a little metaphor that I rather like. I often use it for my students.
Think of a glass of water.
Without the glass, water just flows out on the floor and you can't drink it.
Without water, the glass is empty and useless.
In this case, water is intelligence and creativity... the glass is knowledge and learning.
Without intelligence and creativity, knowledge is dry and futile.
Without knowledge and learning, intelligence has no basis to work with.
They need each other in order to be useful.
QUOTE
P.S. Many quite intelligent people, I would dare say, never learned to read...
Intelligent is not the same as learned. Learned is not the same as intelligent.
However... This is a little metaphor that I rather like. I often use it for my students.
Think of a glass of water.
Without the glass, water just flows out on the floor and you can't drink it.
Without water, the glass is empty and useless.
In this case, water is intelligence and creativity... the glass is knowledge and learning.
Without intelligence and creativity, knowledge is dry and futile.
Without knowledge and learning, intelligence has no basis to work with.
They need each other in order to be useful.
An excellent metaphor, Rob. I already plan to borrow it sometime.
Best,
RF
Best,
RF
QUOTE
They need each other in order to be useful.
Nice Zen
. Thirty spokes converge on the hub of a wheel
But the use of the cart depends on the part of the hub that is void.
With high walls all round a clay bowl is molded
But the use of the bowl depends on the part of the bowl that is void.
Put doors and windows in the house as you build
But the use of the house depends on the part of the house that is void.
Advantage is had from what is there;
Usefulness arises from what is not.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Jul 6 2009, 06:23 PM)
I am not a physicist. I'm not very good at complex mathematics. If I came up with a new theory, I would have 0 credibility. Whatever I come up with has probably been considered or ruled out by actual physicists. Is this right? If so, is this forum only for educational purposes? If there was a forum where actual physicists discussed theories, there should be a password to keep out the cranks. Here, we have to relegate ourselves to answering questions and debunking fallacies.
Any thoughts?
Its hard to argue with a mathematical theorem.
Any thoughts?
Its hard to argue with a mathematical theorem.
You can argue against its interpretation though.
I think that's more than possible, and I see arguments that it is in fact more plausible than the realist type views.
However, there are different ways to think of this.
However, there are different ways to think of this.
Speaking from a historical point of view, there has never been a person from outside the establishment that has made any contribution to physics at all. The most commonly (and erroneously) cited example is Einstein who worked in a patent office, however, he already had a PhD in theoretical physics around the time he published his papers on special relativity.
A bit closer to "amateurs" doing real work are some mathematicians; Fermat for example. This is still not quite a "non mathematician doing maths" because back in their day the difference between mathematical research and a mathematics degree was a lot less, and Fermat certainly had a degree. There hasn't been anyone like this in the last 300 years at least.
All this is in contrast to the science where amateurs with enthusiasm and a certain depth of pocket can produce a professional standard of work. It is astronomy which is obviously an experimental science rather than theoretical. Amateur observatories are responsible for a good amount of astronomical research that goes on today.
A bit closer to "amateurs" doing real work are some mathematicians; Fermat for example. This is still not quite a "non mathematician doing maths" because back in their day the difference between mathematical research and a mathematics degree was a lot less, and Fermat certainly had a degree. There hasn't been anyone like this in the last 300 years at least.
All this is in contrast to the science where amateurs with enthusiasm and a certain depth of pocket can produce a professional standard of work. It is astronomy which is obviously an experimental science rather than theoretical. Amateur observatories are responsible for a good amount of astronomical research that goes on today.
I'll second that amateur astronomers provide a lot of 'real' scientific data.
Not all of these people are 'physicists'
Not all of these people are 'physicists'
All valid points.
QUOTE (Beer w/Straw+Oct 4 2009, 07:52 AM)
Its hard to argue with a mathematical theorem.
Then you need more practice arguing.
Then you need more practice arguing.
QUOTE (buttershug+Oct 4 2009, 01:19 PM)
Then you need more practice arguing.
That was a quote from Stephwen Hawkings Cambridge lectures. when the Russian's were against the theory of the big bang. If I remember correctly.
That was a quote from Stephwen Hawkings Cambridge lectures. when the Russian's were against the theory of the big bang. If I remember correctly.
QUOTE (O_o+Oct 4 2009, 09:23 AM)
I'll second that amateur astronomers provide a lot of 'real' scientific data.
Not all of these people are 'physicists'
From my point of view none of these people are physicists, they are astronomers (that's not meant a a slight btw). They do valid research on an area that is quite close to physics.
Not all of these people are 'physicists'
From my point of view none of these people are physicists, they are astronomers (that's not meant a a slight btw). They do valid research on an area that is quite close to physics.
Rob,
I like to think of water all alone in space without an imperfect, unnaturally formed container, as close as it can get to being a perfect sphere forming it's own shape and not being manipulated containers. Too bad we aren't all space men though, the only thing we seem to find are limitations and barriers.
We are made of 99.9% nothing, what is the something? Nothing, makes any sense. The Universe is the craziest thing we know of. It makes me feel impossibly and eternally stupid to try and imagine how it would arise from nothing, that cannot be the case right? What's the .1%?
Cause and effect? Action and reaction? Like, what hairless, softskined, upright walking monkey really ... truly ... and genuinely thinks they have a chance at understanding, discovering, or knowing .... "What does it all mean?"
"I know,"
Nothing.
I like to think of water all alone in space without an imperfect, unnaturally formed container, as close as it can get to being a perfect sphere forming it's own shape and not being manipulated containers. Too bad we aren't all space men though, the only thing we seem to find are limitations and barriers.
We are made of 99.9% nothing, what is the something? Nothing, makes any sense. The Universe is the craziest thing we know of. It makes me feel impossibly and eternally stupid to try and imagine how it would arise from nothing, that cannot be the case right? What's the .1%?
Cause and effect? Action and reaction? Like, what hairless, softskined, upright walking monkey really ... truly ... and genuinely thinks they have a chance at understanding, discovering, or knowing .... "What does it all mean?"
"I know,"
Nothing.
QUOTE (MjolnirPants+Jul 6 2009, 01:43 PM)
But the odds, man... The odds are so astronomical that any crank could stumble upon a valid theory which science has not yet discovered, and the logistics of giving one's self an education on par with a PhD in physics are so difficult, that it's a non-consideration, most of the time.
Hello all
I have been off line because I have been working, and my work is so demanding I can hardly look at anything but details of my job, much less read a few posts now and then.
Before the people who came up with wonderful theories and then took them to the next step and provided some type of proof of theory, were they just simply a crank?
Look at the Wright Brothers, Tesla, Einstein,Galileo!
Understanding must not be limited to how you come to understand.
A person can learn without any education or connection with a building.
QUOTE (rethinker+Oct 12 2009, 09:59 PM)
Before the people who came up with wonderful theories and then took them to the next step and provided some type of proof of theory, were they just simply a crank?
Look at the Wright Brothers, Tesla, Einstein,Galileo!
Understanding must not be limited to how you come to understand.
A person can learn without any education or connection with a building.
Galileo held the chair in mathematics in Pisa, and taught Geometry, Mechanics and Astronomy at the University of Padua.
Einstein had a doctoral degree in Physics and Mathematics from Zurich Polytechnic. He was a PhD.
Tesla studied at Austrian Polytechnic and Charles-Ferdinand University, worked for years as an engineer's assistant and engineer, and studied under the likes of Ernst Mach and Tivadar Puskás long before he ever made a name for himself.
The Wright brothers contributed surprisingly little to modern avionics and aviation, they merely managed to puzzle out a few issues of aerodynamics and engineering which today would be taught at a high school level (in the US, no less), and only after years of experience building bicycles and using actual scientific methodology in their study of birds. In other words, they worked and studied hard in order to do something no more complex than your average honor roll Senior could do today.
So please, give me some more examples of people 'lacking in education' who made a contribution to science, you ignorant dipshit.
Look at the Wright Brothers, Tesla, Einstein,Galileo!
Understanding must not be limited to how you come to understand.
A person can learn without any education or connection with a building.
Galileo held the chair in mathematics in Pisa, and taught Geometry, Mechanics and Astronomy at the University of Padua.
Einstein had a doctoral degree in Physics and Mathematics from Zurich Polytechnic. He was a PhD.
Tesla studied at Austrian Polytechnic and Charles-Ferdinand University, worked for years as an engineer's assistant and engineer, and studied under the likes of Ernst Mach and Tivadar Puskás long before he ever made a name for himself.
The Wright brothers contributed surprisingly little to modern avionics and aviation, they merely managed to puzzle out a few issues of aerodynamics and engineering which today would be taught at a high school level (in the US, no less), and only after years of experience building bicycles and using actual scientific methodology in their study of birds. In other words, they worked and studied hard in order to do something no more complex than your average honor roll Senior could do today.
So please, give me some more examples of people 'lacking in education' who made a contribution to science, you ignorant dipshit.
HG wells, but I guess you could say he was more of a prophet of profit?
As for the belittlement of the Wright brothers, kindergarteners can make wheels, so the fact the some jackass nomads made them thousands of years ago is of no magnificence. The who cares if there a teraflop computers that a middle-school kid can use to design 30% more efficient solar panels today, it makes the college computer the size of a house meaningless. The fact is, if point a was not where it was .... point b, c, d, e, and f whatever would not be where they are.
Good to know, you still hold the crown for not following through, Mr. hammer pants
Apply your wright brothers logic to Galileo, high-school kids could have held the chair that schmuck held, so no big deal. You make your own point mute.
QUOTE
"I know that I know nothing" (Ancient Greek: ἓν οἶδα ὅτι οὐδὲν οἶδα hen oída ... —To seem to know is prepared on all."
As for the belittlement of the Wright brothers, kindergarteners can make wheels, so the fact the some jackass nomads made them thousands of years ago is of no magnificence. The who cares if there a teraflop computers that a middle-school kid can use to design 30% more efficient solar panels today, it makes the college computer the size of a house meaningless. The fact is, if point a was not where it was .... point b, c, d, e, and f whatever would not be where they are.
Good to know, you still hold the crown for not following through, Mr. hammer pants
Apply your wright brothers logic to Galileo, high-school kids could have held the chair that schmuck held, so no big deal. You make your own point mute.
I could also argue that Aristotle was a non physicist that did physics. But I believe this discussion is about modern physics. I would only go as back as Newton. So I would say that Kepler and Galileo were not physicists. Tesla I don't believe did any real physics ,he made some outlandish claims mind you, but was an inventor.
But my main point being: Einstein had a degree in physics. Just because the first job he landed out of university was working in a patent office, didn't mean he wasn't a physicist.
But my main point being: Einstein had a degree in physics. Just because the first job he landed out of university was working in a patent office, didn't mean he wasn't a physicist.
Beer!
But he was crazy, and everyone thought he was crazy, and that his idea was stupid, and he was joke because he never actually proved GR, everyone else did. Einstein wasn't a physicist either, he was a dreamer that happened to major in physics.
(in my book-I know that doesn't count for anything) Physicists think they know everything.
The Universe makes absolutely no sense what so ever, but yet it seems to have all these laws and rules that hold true 99.9% of the time.
But he was crazy, and everyone thought he was crazy, and that his idea was stupid, and he was joke because he never actually proved GR, everyone else did. Einstein wasn't a physicist either, he was a dreamer that happened to major in physics.
(in my book-I know that doesn't count for anything) Physicists think they know everything. The Universe makes absolutely no sense what so ever, but yet it seems to have all these laws and rules that hold true 99.9% of the time.
QUOTE (Meem+Oct 12 2009, 10:39 PM)
HG wells, but I guess you could say he was more of a profit.
HG Wells made no significant contributions to science, unless you count 'inspiration to become a scientist' a significant contribution.
HG Wells made no significant contributions to science, unless you count 'inspiration to become a scientist' a significant contribution.
QUOTE (Beer w/Straw+)
I could also argue that Aristotle was a non physicist that did physics...
So I would say that Kepler and Galileo were not physicists.
By the standards of his day, Aristotle was quite well educated. I would call him a physicist. He attended no university, but then, I'm quite certain there were no universities for him to attend during his lifetime.
As for Johannes Kepler, well, he actually had a formal education in physics, although from what I understand, his 'major' was theology. However, he did teach mathematics and astronomy at the University of Graz, indicating that he was quite well educated in the subjects.
Tesla is a truly interesting case... I liken him to John Nash a lot, in that I'm quite sure he was very mentally unstable, yet very very intelligent. You're absolutely right about him not contributing too much to physics, rather being a well-accomplished (if somewhat dishonestly prideful) inventor. I would call him more of an electrical engineer than a physicist specializing in electromagnetism.
Tesla is a truly interesting case... I liken him to John Nash a lot, in that I'm quite sure he was very mentally unstable, yet very very intelligent. You're absolutely right about him not contributing too much to physics, rather being a well-accomplished (if somewhat dishonestly prideful) inventor. I would call him more of an electrical engineer than a physicist specializing in electromagnetism.
But he was crazy, and everyone thought he was crazy, and that his idea was stupid, and he was joke because he never actually proved GR, everyone else did. Einstein wasn't a physicist either, he was a dreamer that happened to major in physics. (in my book-I know that doesn't count for anything) Physicists think they know everything.
1. Einstein was not considered to be crazy at the time he published GR. He was a well-respected physicist thanks to his work in electromagnetism and thermodynamics.
2. Einstein was not expected by anyone to prove his own theories. He was a physicist, not an astronomer, and astronomy was the means to prove GR.
3. By any definition, Einstein was a physicist. That you claim otherwise is pointless, except as evidence of your own disconnect from reality.
So I would say that Kepler and Galileo were not physicists.
By the standards of his day, Aristotle was quite well educated. I would call him a physicist. He attended no university, but then, I'm quite certain there were no universities for him to attend during his lifetime.
As for Johannes Kepler, well, he actually had a formal education in physics, although from what I understand, his 'major' was theology. However, he did teach mathematics and astronomy at the University of Graz, indicating that he was quite well educated in the subjects.
QUOTE
Tesla I don't believe did any real physics ,he made some outlandish claims mind you, but was an inventor.
Tesla is a truly interesting case... I liken him to John Nash a lot, in that I'm quite sure he was very mentally unstable, yet very very intelligent. You're absolutely right about him not contributing too much to physics, rather being a well-accomplished (if somewhat dishonestly prideful) inventor. I would call him more of an electrical engineer than a physicist specializing in electromagnetism.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Tesla I don't believe did any real physics ,he made some outlandish claims mind you, but was an inventor. |
Tesla is a truly interesting case... I liken him to John Nash a lot, in that I'm quite sure he was very mentally unstable, yet very very intelligent. You're absolutely right about him not contributing too much to physics, rather being a well-accomplished (if somewhat dishonestly prideful) inventor. I would call him more of an electrical engineer than a physicist specializing in electromagnetism.
But he was crazy, and everyone thought he was crazy, and that his idea was stupid, and he was joke because he never actually proved GR, everyone else did. Einstein wasn't a physicist either, he was a dreamer that happened to major in physics. (in my book-I know that doesn't count for anything) Physicists think they know everything.
1. Einstein was not considered to be crazy at the time he published GR. He was a well-respected physicist thanks to his work in electromagnetism and thermodynamics.
2. Einstein was not expected by anyone to prove his own theories. He was a physicist, not an astronomer, and astronomy was the means to prove GR.
3. By any definition, Einstein was a physicist. That you claim otherwise is pointless, except as evidence of your own disconnect from reality.
QUOTE (Meem+Oct 13 2009, 03:54 AM)
Beer!
But he was crazy, and everyone thought he was crazy, and that his idea was stupid, and he was joke because he never actually proved GR, everyone else did. Einstein wasn't a physicist either, he was a dreamer that happened to major in physics. (in my book-I know that doesn't count for anything) Physicists think they know everything.
The Universe makes absolutely no sense what so ever, but yet it seems to have all these laws and rules that hold true 99.9% of the time.
He was not crazy. He was a dreamer but with the math skill to back it up. And you don't have to do experiments just make testable predictions. And it was also noticed that the orbit of Mercury didn't exactly follow Newton's laws before he published his theory.
But he was crazy, and everyone thought he was crazy, and that his idea was stupid, and he was joke because he never actually proved GR, everyone else did. Einstein wasn't a physicist either, he was a dreamer that happened to major in physics.
(in my book-I know that doesn't count for anything) Physicists think they know everything. The Universe makes absolutely no sense what so ever, but yet it seems to have all these laws and rules that hold true 99.9% of the time.
He was not crazy. He was a dreamer but with the math skill to back it up. And you don't have to do experiments just make testable predictions. And it was also noticed that the orbit of Mercury didn't exactly follow Newton's laws before he published his theory.
I would most certainly count inspiration to become a scientist a factor, how could you not? Just imagine if we could hop in a time machine, and go back and zap something in the past that would have a an easier to identify effect, like say we go back in time and erase the Beatles from history. Do You not think other bands would never be "born?" Hell, I mean I could impact science in the greatest way in human history and never know it. Seriously what if something I say or do in my life time carries into someones else life etc maybe it is something as simple as saying something to someone that has a chain effect on events and person x has a kid because of the dumbest interaction imaginable? I let Jane Doe in-front of me at the checkout line at the store, and because she got through when her friend calls her she is able to answer the phone, otherwise she would not have, nor would she have returned the call right away. By doing that, she would have not been at the bar for Bob to make a pass at her and score. They have a kid later on who becomes a scientist and discovers how to make a perpetual motion machine, and he helps synthesize water.
And the reason it all happens because of all these randomly occurring events happening, one of them being my allowing Jane to get in-front of me at the store. I know it's stupid right? But what's crazy is *** like that has happened and will happen. Maybe those discoveries were not made but maybe something else smaller but never the less eventful. That's how I think of a random universe ... which doesn't see so random 99% of the time. It doesn't make any sense, why should I? I'm never going to understand it, so why not enjoy it within the realm of reason and being kind to my fellow stupid, crazy, human beings.
No euphoria .... but if it was, I'd buy the world a coke and give you the first one!
I recently tried to help a fellow human being, and I did something you would have liked for me to do. I ignored my gut feeling and intuition and ended up getting my car stolen, true story. The funny thing is though I have not animosity towards the guy at all. I feel sorry for him, but he'll never get help from me again, he will be getting jail time though. Consequences and repercussions, I should have done the crazy thing and listened to my "gut," not the waste of space in-between my ears that puts more garbage in than it filters out. I am at the point where I am ready to give up on the majority of human beings. I want to sell my house, move to a smaller town mountain community, get a simple job, live a simple life, have a kid, and teach her/him how to avoid all the BS and smell it. Maybe just maybe I will push him/her towards science. Who knows ...
Why so serious .... I think i made it pretty clear I was being silly ... Mr hammer in the pants that shoots lightening? You really need to work on the follow through.
And the reason it all happens because of all these randomly occurring events happening, one of them being my allowing Jane to get in-front of me at the store. I know it's stupid right? But what's crazy is *** like that has happened and will happen. Maybe those discoveries were not made but maybe something else smaller but never the less eventful. That's how I think of a random universe ... which doesn't see so random 99% of the time. It doesn't make any sense, why should I? I'm never going to understand it, so why not enjoy it within the realm of reason and being kind to my fellow stupid, crazy, human beings.
No euphoria .... but if it was, I'd buy the world a coke and give you the first one!
I recently tried to help a fellow human being, and I did something you would have liked for me to do. I ignored my gut feeling and intuition and ended up getting my car stolen, true story. The funny thing is though I have not animosity towards the guy at all. I feel sorry for him, but he'll never get help from me again, he will be getting jail time though. Consequences and repercussions, I should have done the crazy thing and listened to my "gut," not the waste of space in-between my ears that puts more garbage in than it filters out. I am at the point where I am ready to give up on the majority of human beings. I want to sell my house, move to a smaller town mountain community, get a simple job, live a simple life, have a kid, and teach her/him how to avoid all the BS and smell it. Maybe just maybe I will push him/her towards science. Who knows ...
QUOTE
3. By any definition, Einstein was a physicist. That you claim otherwise is pointless, except as evidence of your own disconnect from reality.
Why so serious .... I think i made it pretty clear I was being silly ... Mr hammer in the pants that shoots lightening? You really need to work on the follow through.
QUOTE (Meem+Oct 12 2009, 11:20 PM)
I would most certainly count inspiration to become a scientist a factor, how could you not? Just imagine if we could hop in a time machine, and go back and zap something in the past that would have a an easier to identify effect, like say we go back in time and erase the Beatles from history. Do You not think other bands would never be "born?" Hell, I mean I could impact science in the greatest way in human history and never know it. Seriously what if something I say or do in my life time carries into someones else life etc maybe it is something as simple as saying something to someone that has a chain effect on events and person x has a kid because of the dumbest interaction imaginable? I let Jane Doe in-front of me at the checkout line at the store, and because she got through when her friend calls her she is able to answer the phone, otherwise she would not have, nor would she have returned the call right away. By doing that, she would have not been at the bar for Bob to make a pass at her and score. They have a kid later on who becomes a scientist and discovers how to make a perpetual motion machine, and he helps synthesize water.
Your argument holds water...
...
...
...
...
So long as you can prove to me that important contributors to science (or in your analogy, music) wouldn't have been inspired by someone else in the same way.
PS. It's impossible to prove that.
In matters of human interaction, I've learned that a "gut feeling" usually happens for a reason.
I was once walking down a street in a rather bad neighborhood when I saw an attractive woman walking towards me. I got a gut feeling that something wasn't right, and listened to it. Because I listened to it, I was ready when her 'boyfriend' tried to sneak up behind me with a knife to mug me while I was giving the woman the cigarette she'd asked me for, and was able to 'diffuse' the situation quickly. (And to end the speculation I know you'd engage in about what I mean by that, I'll simply tell you. I kicked him in his nuts so hard I felt his heart beating in my toes. He was then too busy puking to rob me, and the woman was not inclined to learn how I'd react if she took up where her partner-in-crime left off.) Later, I realized that the woman I'd seen wasn't dressed like a hooker, and wasn't doing anything to avoid me (a rather unsavory-looking individual), which was what set off my gut feeling. One or the other of those conditions had been met every single time I encountered a lone woman in that part of town, at that time of night.
I'm sure that if you continue to remember and analyze your experience, you will eventually realize what it was that set off your gut feeling. In the future, you should listen to your gut in such matters, as it comes to workable conclusions much faster than your head does. (No, that is not an insult, merely something which holds true for anyone.)
In matters of human interaction, I've learned that a "gut feeling" usually happens for a reason.
I was once walking down a street in a rather bad neighborhood when I saw an attractive woman walking towards me. I got a gut feeling that something wasn't right, and listened to it. Because I listened to it, I was ready when her 'boyfriend' tried to sneak up behind me with a knife to mug me while I was giving the woman the cigarette she'd asked me for, and was able to 'diffuse' the situation quickly. (And to end the speculation I know you'd engage in about what I mean by that, I'll simply tell you. I kicked him in his nuts so hard I felt his heart beating in my toes. He was then too busy puking to rob me, and the woman was not inclined to learn how I'd react if she took up where her partner-in-crime left off.) Later, I realized that the woman I'd seen wasn't dressed like a hooker, and wasn't doing anything to avoid me (a rather unsavory-looking individual), which was what set off my gut feeling. One or the other of those conditions had been met every single time I encountered a lone woman in that part of town, at that time of night.
I'm sure that if you continue to remember and analyze your experience, you will eventually realize what it was that set off your gut feeling. In the future, you should listen to your gut in such matters, as it comes to workable conclusions much faster than your head does. (No, that is not an insult, merely something which holds true for anyone.)
I am at the point where I am ready to give up on the majority of human beings. I want to sell my house, move to a smaller town mountain community, get a simple job, live a simple life, have a kid, and teach her/him how to avoid all the BS and smell it. Maybe just maybe I will push him/her towards science. Who knows ...
The 'cynicism' you might see in this if you read it later would serve you in good stead, but you have a long way to go towards learning how to spot BS yourself before you can start teaching your children how to.
I don't agree with that. A certain level of understanding would be required for someone to actually intuit a more accurate physical theory than those we have currently, and laymen (myself and others like me included) simply don't have that knowledge.
If you could highlight the agreement part your making out that you addressed to Uaa, let me know. Take your time because I don't see it anywhere. I could be .... so wrong though. You always get so "mentally-physical," it causes you to swing wildly and you miss the ball or pop it up, follow-through man.
"I have a time machine in my pants, want to see your future?"
Flying,
The funny thing is with all that 'edumacation' and math, they still can't prove ***? And some of them are just as certifiably loony as the cranks are except .... they are really good in math and have degrees? Math doesn't mean *** because math makes sense the beginning of the universe doesn't make any sense.
Your argument holds water...
...
...
...
...
So long as you can prove to me that important contributors to science (or in your analogy, music) wouldn't have been inspired by someone else in the same way.
PS. It's impossible to prove that.
QUOTE
I recently tried to help a fellow human being, and I did something you would have liked for me to do. I ignored my gut feeling and intuition and ended up getting my car stolen, true story. The funny thing is though I have not animosity towards the guy at all. I feel sorry for him, but he'll never get help from me again, he will be getting jail time though. Consequences and repercussions, I should have done the crazy thing and listened to my "gut," not the waste of space in-between my ears that puts more garbage in than it filters out.
In matters of human interaction, I've learned that a "gut feeling" usually happens for a reason.
I was once walking down a street in a rather bad neighborhood when I saw an attractive woman walking towards me. I got a gut feeling that something wasn't right, and listened to it. Because I listened to it, I was ready when her 'boyfriend' tried to sneak up behind me with a knife to mug me while I was giving the woman the cigarette she'd asked me for, and was able to 'diffuse' the situation quickly. (And to end the speculation I know you'd engage in about what I mean by that, I'll simply tell you. I kicked him in his nuts so hard I felt his heart beating in my toes. He was then too busy puking to rob me, and the woman was not inclined to learn how I'd react if she took up where her partner-in-crime left off.) Later, I realized that the woman I'd seen wasn't dressed like a hooker, and wasn't doing anything to avoid me (a rather unsavory-looking individual), which was what set off my gut feeling. One or the other of those conditions had been met every single time I encountered a lone woman in that part of town, at that time of night.
I'm sure that if you continue to remember and analyze your experience, you will eventually realize what it was that set off your gut feeling. In the future, you should listen to your gut in such matters, as it comes to workable conclusions much faster than your head does. (No, that is not an insult, merely something which holds true for anyone.)
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I recently tried to help a fellow human being, and I did something you would have liked for me to do. I ignored my gut feeling and intuition and ended up getting my car stolen, true story. The funny thing is though I have not animosity towards the guy at all. I feel sorry for him, but he'll never get help from me again, he will be getting jail time though. Consequences and repercussions, I should have done the crazy thing and listened to my "gut," not the waste of space in-between my ears that puts more garbage in than it filters out. |
In matters of human interaction, I've learned that a "gut feeling" usually happens for a reason.
I was once walking down a street in a rather bad neighborhood when I saw an attractive woman walking towards me. I got a gut feeling that something wasn't right, and listened to it. Because I listened to it, I was ready when her 'boyfriend' tried to sneak up behind me with a knife to mug me while I was giving the woman the cigarette she'd asked me for, and was able to 'diffuse' the situation quickly. (And to end the speculation I know you'd engage in about what I mean by that, I'll simply tell you. I kicked him in his nuts so hard I felt his heart beating in my toes. He was then too busy puking to rob me, and the woman was not inclined to learn how I'd react if she took up where her partner-in-crime left off.) Later, I realized that the woman I'd seen wasn't dressed like a hooker, and wasn't doing anything to avoid me (a rather unsavory-looking individual), which was what set off my gut feeling. One or the other of those conditions had been met every single time I encountered a lone woman in that part of town, at that time of night.
I'm sure that if you continue to remember and analyze your experience, you will eventually realize what it was that set off your gut feeling. In the future, you should listen to your gut in such matters, as it comes to workable conclusions much faster than your head does. (No, that is not an insult, merely something which holds true for anyone.)
I am at the point where I am ready to give up on the majority of human beings. I want to sell my house, move to a smaller town mountain community, get a simple job, live a simple life, have a kid, and teach her/him how to avoid all the BS and smell it. Maybe just maybe I will push him/her towards science. Who knows ...
The 'cynicism' you might see in this if you read it later would serve you in good stead, but you have a long way to go towards learning how to spot BS yourself before you can start teaching your children how to.
QUOTE (Meem+Oct 13 2009, 04:20 AM)
I would most certainly count inspiration to become a scientist a factor, how could you not? Just imagine if we could hop in a time machine, and go back and zap something in the past that would have a an easier to identify effect, like say we go back in time and erase the Beatles from history. Do You not think other bands would never be "born?" Hell, I mean I could impact science in the greatest way in human history and never know it. Seriously what if something I say or do in my life time carries into someones else life etc maybe it is something as simple as saying something to someone that has a chain effect on events and person x has a kid because of the dumbest interaction imaginable? I let Jane Doe in-front of me at the checkout line at the store, and because she got through when her friend calls her she is able to answer the phone, otherwise she would not have, nor would she have returned the call right away. By doing that, she would have not been at the bar for Bob to make a pass at her and score. They have a kid later on who becomes a scientist and discovers how to make a perpetual motion machine, and he helps synthesize water.
And the reason it all happens because of all these randomly occurring events happening, one of them being my allowing Jane to get in-front of me at the store. I know it's stupid right? But what's crazy is *** like that has happened and will happen. Maybe those discoveries were not made but maybe something else smaller but never the less eventful. That's how I think of a random universe ... which doesn't see so random 99% of the time. It doesn't make any sense, why should I? I'm never going to understand it, so why not enjoy it within the realm of reason and being kind to my fellow stupid, crazy, human beings.
No euphoria .... but if it was, I'd buy the world a coke and give you the first one!
I recently tried to help a fellow human being, and I did something you would have liked for me to do. I ignored my gut feeling and intuition and ended up getting my car stolen, true story. The funny thing is though I have not animosity towards the guy at all. I feel sorry for him, but he'll never get help from me again, he will be getting jail time though. Consequences and repercussions, I should have done the crazy thing and listened to my "gut," not the waste of space in-between my ears that puts more garbage in than it filters out. I am at the point where I am ready to give up on the majority of human beings. I want to sell my house, move to a smaller town mountain community, get a simple job, live a simple life, have a kid, and teach her/him how to avoid all the BS and smell it. Maybe just maybe I will push him/her towards science. Who knows ...
Why so serious .... I think i made it pretty clear I was being silly ... Mr hammer in the pants that shoots lightening? You really need to work on the follow through.
You sound like THIS http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existentialism
And the reason it all happens because of all these randomly occurring events happening, one of them being my allowing Jane to get in-front of me at the store. I know it's stupid right? But what's crazy is *** like that has happened and will happen. Maybe those discoveries were not made but maybe something else smaller but never the less eventful. That's how I think of a random universe ... which doesn't see so random 99% of the time. It doesn't make any sense, why should I? I'm never going to understand it, so why not enjoy it within the realm of reason and being kind to my fellow stupid, crazy, human beings.
No euphoria .... but if it was, I'd buy the world a coke and give you the first one!
I recently tried to help a fellow human being, and I did something you would have liked for me to do. I ignored my gut feeling and intuition and ended up getting my car stolen, true story. The funny thing is though I have not animosity towards the guy at all. I feel sorry for him, but he'll never get help from me again, he will be getting jail time though. Consequences and repercussions, I should have done the crazy thing and listened to my "gut," not the waste of space in-between my ears that puts more garbage in than it filters out. I am at the point where I am ready to give up on the majority of human beings. I want to sell my house, move to a smaller town mountain community, get a simple job, live a simple life, have a kid, and teach her/him how to avoid all the BS and smell it. Maybe just maybe I will push him/her towards science. Who knows ...
Why so serious .... I think i made it pretty clear I was being silly ... Mr hammer in the pants that shoots lightening? You really need to work on the follow through.
You sound like THIS http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existentialism
QUOTE (Meem+Oct 12 2009, 10:39 PM)
As for the belittlement of the Wright brothers, kindergarteners can make wheels, so the fact the some jackass nomads made them thousands of years ago is of no magnificence. The who cares if there a teraflop computers that a middle-school kid can use to design 30% more efficient solar panels today, it makes the college computer the size of a house meaningless. The fact is, if point a was not where it was .... point b, c, d, e, and f whatever would not be where they are.
I just saw this....
You're really stupid when you get going, yanno that?
WRONG!!!! You know next to nothing about the history of mathematics, dumbass.
It was far more complicated than you'd give them credit for back in those days. I wouldn't say a PhD in mathematics in Galileo's time would compare to one today, but I'm quite sure he could wipe the floor with a high school graduate.
I just saw this....
You're really stupid when you get going, yanno that?
QUOTE
Apply your wright brothers logic to Galileo, high-school kids could have held the chair that schmuck held, so no big deal. You make your own point mute.
WRONG!!!! You know next to nothing about the history of mathematics, dumbass.
It was far more complicated than you'd give them credit for back in those days. I wouldn't say a PhD in mathematics in Galileo's time would compare to one today, but I'm quite sure he could wipe the floor with a high school graduate.
QUOTE (MjolnirPants+Oct 12 2009, 10:30 PM)
Galileo held the chair in mathematics in Pisa, and taught Geometry, Mechanics and Astronomy at the University of Padua.
Einstein had a doctoral degree in Physics and Mathematics from Zurich Polytechnic. He was a PhD.
Tesla studied at Austrian Polytechnic and Charles-Ferdinand University, worked for years as an engineer's assistant and engineer, and studied under the likes of Ernst Mach and Tivadar Puskás long before he ever made a name for himself.
The Wright brothers contributed surprisingly little to modern avionics and aviation, they merely managed to puzzle out a few issues of aerodynamics and engineering which today would be taught at a high school level (in the US, no less), and only after years of experience building bicycles and using actual scientific methodology in their study of birds. In other words, they worked and studied hard in order to do something no more complex than your average honor roll Senior could do today.
So please, give me some more examples of people 'lacking in education' who made a contribution to science, you ignorant dipshit.
These people came to understand something by using every means they could come to understand.
Yes they educated themselves by using what they were taught.
There was a time when they did not understand and slowly by using gathered information were able to bring forward what they then offered to the world.
A large percentage of us do math,and do it well,because we seem to be able to come to the right answers.
It is the math we use everyday, called process of elimination.
Einstein had a doctoral degree in Physics and Mathematics from Zurich Polytechnic. He was a PhD.
Tesla studied at Austrian Polytechnic and Charles-Ferdinand University, worked for years as an engineer's assistant and engineer, and studied under the likes of Ernst Mach and Tivadar Puskás long before he ever made a name for himself.
The Wright brothers contributed surprisingly little to modern avionics and aviation, they merely managed to puzzle out a few issues of aerodynamics and engineering which today would be taught at a high school level (in the US, no less), and only after years of experience building bicycles and using actual scientific methodology in their study of birds. In other words, they worked and studied hard in order to do something no more complex than your average honor roll Senior could do today.
So please, give me some more examples of people 'lacking in education' who made a contribution to science, you ignorant dipshit.
These people came to understand something by using every means they could come to understand.
Yes they educated themselves by using what they were taught.
There was a time when they did not understand and slowly by using gathered information were able to bring forward what they then offered to the world.
A large percentage of us do math,and do it well,because we seem to be able to come to the right answers.
It is the math we use everyday, called process of elimination.
QUOTE (rethinker+Oct 12 2009, 11:41 PM)
These people came to understand something by using every means they could come to understand.
Yes they educated themselves by using what they were taught.
There was a time when they did not understand and slowly by using gathered information were able to bring forward what they then offered to the world.
A large percentage of us do math,and do it well,because we seem to be able to come to the right answers.
It is the math we use everyday, called process of elimination.
These people all received formal or informal educations in the relevant fields, with the possible exception of the Wright brothers, who -as I already pointed out- contributed nothing of note beyond making a single accomplishment after years of study.
Your point was clearly that an education is not required to make a contribution to science. I proved you wrong by invalidating every example you gave. The fact that you continue to harp on rhetoric instead of contesting anything I said only serves to demonstrate that you are incapable of arguing your point with any facility, and incapable of the level of intellectual honesty required to simply concede the point.
You can argue the value of being an autodidact from here to eternity, and never be able to make a serious case for it, because so few autodidacts have contributed anything of note to any field of science in the past several hundred years (before which time science was so primitive that your claims actually had value).
The ironic thing is that I myself am a scientific autodidact. I have absolutely no formal education in the science whatsoever, beyond that required of a high school graduate in the US. The irony of it all lies in the fact that while I am well (and self) educated -at least by the standards of the layman- in various fields of science, my contributions are not noteworthy, and consist entirely of helping the odd ignorant layman avoid falling for the BS that cranks like you spew.
I suppose it's also slightly ironic that -being the recipient of the form of education you seem to prize above all others- I find myself in near-total agreement with the mainstream in all scientific matters.
Yes they educated themselves by using what they were taught.
There was a time when they did not understand and slowly by using gathered information were able to bring forward what they then offered to the world.
A large percentage of us do math,and do it well,because we seem to be able to come to the right answers.
It is the math we use everyday, called process of elimination.
These people all received formal or informal educations in the relevant fields, with the possible exception of the Wright brothers, who -as I already pointed out- contributed nothing of note beyond making a single accomplishment after years of study.
Your point was clearly that an education is not required to make a contribution to science. I proved you wrong by invalidating every example you gave. The fact that you continue to harp on rhetoric instead of contesting anything I said only serves to demonstrate that you are incapable of arguing your point with any facility, and incapable of the level of intellectual honesty required to simply concede the point.
You can argue the value of being an autodidact from here to eternity, and never be able to make a serious case for it, because so few autodidacts have contributed anything of note to any field of science in the past several hundred years (before which time science was so primitive that your claims actually had value).
The ironic thing is that I myself am a scientific autodidact. I have absolutely no formal education in the science whatsoever, beyond that required of a high school graduate in the US. The irony of it all lies in the fact that while I am well (and self) educated -at least by the standards of the layman- in various fields of science, my contributions are not noteworthy, and consist entirely of helping the odd ignorant layman avoid falling for the BS that cranks like you spew.
I suppose it's also slightly ironic that -being the recipient of the form of education you seem to prize above all others- I find myself in near-total agreement with the mainstream in all scientific matters.
Mc Hammer, I know how to spot bs, (in most cases) I just can't deal with it anymore that's the problem. I want space-men to show up and take me away to xannado whatever that place is. I'm not jaded, I'm just going through the motions. I tried to help someone that needed help. I even fought the wife to give this person help. In the future, my efforts will remained focused on kids because you can't teach an old dog new tricks ... right?
Beer, I sound like so many things, I think the most accurate is certifiably nuts. And if the world around me (the one I see on the news everyday) is sane, I am more than happy with that assessment.
"The world is a prison," and currently I'm stuck in the general population. What can I say, I made the mistake of moving to Texas?
Beer, everything is existential right? Nothing actually ever touches just energy fields? At least that is what I saw on some physics program a while back. Seems like potatoes and patatoes to me. It's all Greek.
(edit)
McHammer,
I myself wouldn't say that it's impossible. I know you would disagree but unlike the recent man I tried to help out, I would simply ask some scientists for the proof of prior events of indirect relation which they would-might say inspired them to become scientists. Some people, you can actually take their word for it?
Ona crazy Meem side-note, the closest star in the universe is like what 11,000 light years away from Earth or something like that? I mean, "for all we know" None of what we look at beyond our immediate surroundings is still there? Well none might be going a bit too far, but just imagine if say 75% of "the star-field" vanished 3 days from now ... what would we know about that? That's the kid of stupid *** that goes through my head head, I mean who doesn't like a good what if scenario?
Beer, I sound like so many things, I think the most accurate is certifiably nuts. And if the world around me (the one I see on the news everyday) is sane, I am more than happy with that assessment.
"The world is a prison," and currently I'm stuck in the general population. What can I say, I made the mistake of moving to Texas?
Beer, everything is existential right? Nothing actually ever touches just energy fields? At least that is what I saw on some physics program a while back. Seems like potatoes and patatoes to me. It's all Greek.
(edit)
QUOTE
PS. It's impossible to prove that.
McHammer,
I myself wouldn't say that it's impossible. I know you would disagree but unlike the recent man I tried to help out, I would simply ask some scientists for the proof of prior events of indirect relation which they would-might say inspired them to become scientists. Some people, you can actually take their word for it?
Ona crazy Meem side-note, the closest star in the universe is like what 11,000 light years away from Earth or something like that? I mean, "for all we know" None of what we look at beyond our immediate surroundings is still there? Well none might be going a bit too far, but just imagine if say 75% of "the star-field" vanished 3 days from now ... what would we know about that? That's the kid of stupid *** that goes through my head head, I mean who doesn't like a good what if scenario?
QUOTE (Meem+Oct 12 2009, 11:50 PM)
Mc Hammer, I know how to spot bs,
Yet you've espoused and defended the notion that certain ancient structures were built by -or with the help of- aliens.
I'm quite the master at spotting bullshit, and my BS detector is beeping away right now...
Yet you've espoused and defended the notion that certain ancient structures were built by -or with the help of- aliens.
I'm quite the master at spotting bullshit, and my BS detector is beeping away right now...
Anything is possible? It doesn't seem reasonable to you? Not likely? I don't "believe," hero, I have no reason to. But, I will entertain possibility, and it's reasonable ... or would you prefer a God explanation, maybe humans used to possess super-human powers, and something like in the TV show heroes, when 2012 rolls around on dec 21, we will have our powers again? Or maybe those dumb twits that couldn't do high-school engineering today were smarter with less schooling, degrees, and awards then you give them credit for? Who knows, there's no proof we need my time machine to prove that too.
QUOTE (Meem+Oct 13 2009, 12:08 AM)
Anything is possible? It doesn't seem reasonable to you? Not likely? I don't "believe," hero, I have no reason to. But, I will entertain possibility, and it's reasonable ... or would you prefer a God explanation, maybe humans used to possess super-human powers, and something like in the TV show heroes, when 2012 rolls around on dec 21, we will have our powers again? Or maybe those dumb twits that couldn't do high-school engineering today were smarter with less schooling, degrees, and awards then you give them credit for? Who knows, there's no proof we need my time machine to prove that too.
Sometimes I wish you'd just hop in your time machine, set it for 3.5 billion years ago, turn it on, then step outside and take a deep breath.
But that would require you building a working time machine. Sigh.
Sometimes I wish you'd just hop in your time machine, set it for 3.5 billion years ago, turn it on, then step outside and take a deep breath.
But that would require you building a working time machine. Sigh.
I'm sure you would! I know you love to hate me. It's ok though, it turns me on. You're still not working out that thought problem of yours though. Why would I have to do anything else but just open the door? the outside (lack) of atmosphere would instantly be inside with me. Come on man, go big or go home! 
"I have a working time machine in my pants, want to see your future?"
"I have a working time machine in my pants, want to see your future?"
QUOTE (Meem+Oct 13 2009, 12:19 AM)
I'm sure you would! I know you love to hate me.
Who said anything about hate? Only you, meem. Only you...
Who said anything about hate? Only you, meem. Only you...
QUOTE (Meem+Oct 13 2009, 04:50 AM)
Ona crazy Meem side-note, the closest star in the universe is like what 11,000 light years away from Earth or something like that?
For future reference ... Alpha Centauri is 4.37 light years away from us. The number of stars within an 11,000 light year radius of us would certainly be in the millions.
For future reference ... Alpha Centauri is 4.37 light years away from us. The number of stars within an 11,000 light year radius of us would certainly be in the millions.
Having read this thread I'd say that a non=physicist could probably not ever come up with a valid theory. However, that doesn't mean that one couldn't make some substantial contribution via intuition. Many great scientific discoveries happen when a scientist has a moment of clarity or a sudden burst of intuition.
I'd imagine someone somewhere amongst the existing 6 billion brains currently alive has at some point posited a more accurate model of the universe than we use right now. But the chance that such a person has the education and/or training to pass along their amazing insight is relatively small.
I can imagine a smart physicist that decides to sit down with a random collection of 1,000 people for a couple of years and discuss the universe constantly. Such a physicist might come away from the experience with some great concept/idea that he could translate scientifically. In that sense, the non-physicist would be directly responsible for the valid theory.
And yes ... what I'm saying sounds like the monkey typing shakespeare metaphor.
I'd imagine someone somewhere amongst the existing 6 billion brains currently alive has at some point posited a more accurate model of the universe than we use right now. But the chance that such a person has the education and/or training to pass along their amazing insight is relatively small.
I can imagine a smart physicist that decides to sit down with a random collection of 1,000 people for a couple of years and discuss the universe constantly. Such a physicist might come away from the experience with some great concept/idea that he could translate scientifically. In that sense, the non-physicist would be directly responsible for the valid theory.
And yes ... what I'm saying sounds like the monkey typing shakespeare metaphor.
QUOTE (uaafanblog+Oct 13 2009, 03:59 AM)
I'd imagine someone somewhere amongst the existing 6 billion brains currently alive has at some point posited a more accurate model of the universe than we use right now. But the chance that such a person has the education and/or training to pass along their amazing insight is relatively small.
I don't agree with that. A certain level of understanding would be required for someone to actually intuit a more accurate physical theory than those we have currently, and laymen (myself and others like me included) simply don't have that knowledge.
This part I can get behind. I have no trouble imagining that given enough time and people, a layman might ask just the right question of a physicist to enable that physicist to construct a better theory than anything we have right now.
The difference between the two is the presence of knowledge in the physicist in your second example. From where I sit, that's the key. If one could combine that level of knowledge with the wide variety of thought processes that arise from a large group of laymen, then I think that would be a good thing.
Of course, that's just another reason to push for more science education and less crankery. With all the cranks out their pushing their own pet ideas, it's hard for the layman to to know what questions he or she should put their mind to.
I don't agree with that. A certain level of understanding would be required for someone to actually intuit a more accurate physical theory than those we have currently, and laymen (myself and others like me included) simply don't have that knowledge.
QUOTE
I can imagine a smart physicist that decides to sit down with a random collection of 1,000 people for a couple of years and discuss the universe constantly. Such a physicist might come away from the experience with some great concept/idea that he could translate scientifically. In that sense, the non-physicist would be directly responsible for the valid theory.
This part I can get behind. I have no trouble imagining that given enough time and people, a layman might ask just the right question of a physicist to enable that physicist to construct a better theory than anything we have right now.
The difference between the two is the presence of knowledge in the physicist in your second example. From where I sit, that's the key. If one could combine that level of knowledge with the wide variety of thought processes that arise from a large group of laymen, then I think that would be a good thing.
Of course, that's just another reason to push for more science education and less crankery. With all the cranks out their pushing their own pet ideas, it's hard for the layman to to know what questions he or she should put their mind to.
I have somewhat changed my opinion that non physicists can't do real physical theories. Just by some blog http://news.aol.ca/article/woman-with-half...ors%2F720285%2F
I don't know Hammer man, physicists, most will probably tell you that of everything there is to know or understand about the universe, they don't know much of anything. And out of the things we think we know, most are not certain, just highly probable. I'm not saying they are dumb by any means, but most certainly they shouldn't be blind. If it's a random universe, why can't some random person hold a part to the puzzle? There more communication there is, the more we will learn. Now, if you're a mystical jackass like myself, the reason some dumb schmuck might know it but be unable to explain it fully, because we aren't quite ready for "it." I know, I know that's just silly talk. It could be a mundane experience or maybe it could be a genuine idea, but I cannot say it is not possible, not highly probable, but possible.
Have you ever watched Eureka? Maybe something like the sheriff? A simple approach to a complex idea?
Have you ever watched Eureka? Maybe something like the sheriff? A simple approach to a complex idea?
QUOTE (Meem+Oct 13 2009, 11:36 PM)
I don't know Hammer man, physicists, most will probably tell you that of everything there is to know or understand about the universe, they don't know much of anything. And out of the things we think we know, most are not certain, just highly probable. I'm not saying they are dumb by any means, but most certainly they shouldn't be blind. If it's a random universe, why can't some random person hold a part to the puzzle? There more communication there is, the more we will learn. Now, if you're a mystical jackass like myself, the reason some dumb schmuck might know it but be unable to explain it fully, because we aren't quite ready for "it." I know, I know that's just silly talk. It could be a mundane experience or maybe it could be a genuine idea, but I cannot say it is not possible, not highly probable, but possible.
An idea, however correct, is worthless without the expertise to back it up. Einstein's Relativity succeeded because he provided the mathematical and theoretical framework to prove that light could be affected by a gravitational field. If someone came up to you and declared that "EVERYTHING IS MADE OF STRINGS!!!" but they didn't have the mathematical model to back it up, then their idea is worthless. You make the analogies after you figure out the details, not before.
An idea, however correct, is worthless without the expertise to back it up. Einstein's Relativity succeeded because he provided the mathematical and theoretical framework to prove that light could be affected by a gravitational field. If someone came up to you and declared that "EVERYTHING IS MADE OF STRINGS!!!" but they didn't have the mathematical model to back it up, then their idea is worthless. You make the analogies after you figure out the details, not before.
QUOTE (Meem+Oct 13 2009, 10:36 PM)
I don't know Hammer man, physicists, most will probably tell you that of everything there is to know or understand about the universe, they don't know much of anything. And out of the things we think we know, most are not certain, just highly probable. I'm not saying they are dumb by any means, but most certainly they shouldn't be blind. If it's a random universe, why can't some random person hold a part to the puzzle? There more communication there is, the more we will learn. Now, if you're a mystical jackass like myself, the reason some dumb schmuck might know it but be unable to explain it fully, because we aren't quite ready for "it." I know, I know that's just silly talk. It could be a mundane experience or maybe it could be a genuine idea, but I cannot say it is not possible, not highly probable, but possible.
Have you ever watched Eureka? Maybe something like the sheriff? A simple approach to a complex idea?
You have once again proven yourself incapable of understanding a simple idea communicated in your own native language, and once again demonstrated your own lack of intelligence in doing so.
I made it explicitly clear in my last post to uaafanblog that I certainly believe that a layman may 'hold a piece of the puzzle' as you put it. I also made it explicitly clear that I believe a layman lacks the knowledge to understand which piece of the puzzle it is, or even that he holds a piece.
Your stupidity never ceases to amaze me.
Oh, and I love Eureka, but the science content of that show is ridiculously below par, even by the standards of sci-fi television (this means your reference to it is worthless as far as making any sort of point goes). I mean, when Stargate has more accurate science than your show, you're really doing something wrong.
Even if it is very funny.
Have you ever watched Eureka? Maybe something like the sheriff? A simple approach to a complex idea?
You have once again proven yourself incapable of understanding a simple idea communicated in your own native language, and once again demonstrated your own lack of intelligence in doing so.
I made it explicitly clear in my last post to uaafanblog that I certainly believe that a layman may 'hold a piece of the puzzle' as you put it. I also made it explicitly clear that I believe a layman lacks the knowledge to understand which piece of the puzzle it is, or even that he holds a piece.
Your stupidity never ceases to amaze me.
Oh, and I love Eureka, but the science content of that show is ridiculously below par, even by the standards of sci-fi television (this means your reference to it is worthless as far as making any sort of point goes). I mean, when Stargate has more accurate science than your show, you're really doing something wrong.
Even if it is very funny.
QUOTE
QUOTE (uaafanblog @ Oct 13 2009, 03:59 AM)
I'd imagine someone somewhere amongst the existing 6 billion brains currently alive has at some point posited a more accurate model of the universe than we use right now. But the chance that such a person has the education and/or training to pass along their amazing insight is relatively small.
I'd imagine someone somewhere amongst the existing 6 billion brains currently alive has at some point posited a more accurate model of the universe than we use right now. But the chance that such a person has the education and/or training to pass along their amazing insight is relatively small.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| QUOTE (uaafanblog @ Oct 13 2009, 03:59 AM) I'd imagine someone somewhere amongst the existing 6 billion brains currently alive has at some point posited a more accurate model of the universe than we use right now. But the chance that such a person has the education and/or training to pass along their amazing insight is relatively small. |
I don't agree with that. A certain level of understanding would be required for someone to actually intuit a more accurate physical theory than those we have currently, and laymen (myself and others like me included) simply don't have that knowledge.
If you could highlight the agreement part your making out that you addressed to Uaa, let me know. Take your time because I don't see it anywhere. I could be .... so wrong though. You always get so "mentally-physical," it causes you to swing wildly and you miss the ball or pop it up, follow-through man.
"I have a time machine in my pants, want to see your future?"
Flying,
The funny thing is with all that 'edumacation' and math, they still can't prove ***? And some of them are just as certifiably loony as the cranks are except .... they are really good in math and have degrees? Math doesn't mean *** because math makes sense the beginning of the universe doesn't make any sense.
QUOTE (Meem+Oct 14 2009, 12:32 PM)
Math doesn't mean *** because math makes sense
Could you expand on this point a little more?
Could you expand on this point a little more?
QUOTE (Meem+Oct 14 2009, 08:32 AM)
The funny thing is with all that 'edumacation' and math, they still can't prove ***? And some of them are just as certifiably loony as the cranks are except .... they are really good in math and have degrees? Math doesn't mean *** because math makes sense the beginning of the universe doesn't make any sense.
I smell a straw man argument.
Give examples.
I smell a straw man argument.
Give examples.
Flying,
I smell someone grasping for straws.
If you really need for me to explain what I said, you're not smart enough to understand it, or not ready to accept it.
If you really need for me to explain what I said, you're not smart enough to understand it, or not ready to accept it.
math makes sense the beginning of the universe doesn't make any sense.
Beer,
Do you think there will ever be a mathematical equation that explains existence? Math is based on zero, nothing, Nada. How can you get something form nothing, and how can there ever be nothing if nothing is something, it doesn't make any sense. Before the beginning of the universe, there was nothing, then the great turtle crawled out of the sea with the universe on its back? That's as good of an explanation as any, to make sense of it all.
It never ends, but is always ending,
it never begins, but is always beginning
it never stops in one space
it has no limits, it's in every place
There is no time, but the clock is ticking
it is running, but never runs out
it has rules, measures, and definition
but it makes no sense, only supposition
I could speculate or hypothesize some sensible solution
but as soon as a do there's some sort of temporal distortion
man, this makes no sense ... what the flux!!
Greene's theorem, newton's law
what the flux is this matter
nothing
lets go have a beer with a straw
I smell someone grasping for straws.
QUOTE
Give examples
If you really need for me to explain what I said, you're not smart enough to understand it, or not ready to accept it.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Give examples |
If you really need for me to explain what I said, you're not smart enough to understand it, or not ready to accept it.
math makes sense the beginning of the universe doesn't make any sense.
Beer,
Do you think there will ever be a mathematical equation that explains existence? Math is based on zero, nothing, Nada. How can you get something form nothing, and how can there ever be nothing if nothing is something, it doesn't make any sense. Before the beginning of the universe, there was nothing, then the great turtle crawled out of the sea with the universe on its back? That's as good of an explanation as any, to make sense of it all.
It never ends, but is always ending,
it never begins, but is always beginning
it never stops in one space
it has no limits, it's in every place
There is no time, but the clock is ticking
it is running, but never runs out
it has rules, measures, and definition
but it makes no sense, only supposition
I could speculate or hypothesize some sensible solution
but as soon as a do there's some sort of temporal distortion
man, this makes no sense ... what the flux!!
Greene's theorem, newton's law
what the flux is this matter
nothing
lets go have a beer with a straw
QUOTE (Meem+Oct 14 2009, 11:09 AM)
If you really need for me to explain what I said, you're not smart enough to understand it, or not ready to accept it.
Keep trying! You're getting better at insults, I promise! Someday you will insult someone, and they will actually care.
Math is the most basic of all the sciences.
The progression is:
Math -> Physics -> Chemistry -> All other scientific fields
If you can't do math, you can't do anything.
Keep trying! You're getting better at insults, I promise! Someday you will insult someone, and they will actually care.
Math is the most basic of all the sciences.
The progression is:
Math -> Physics -> Chemistry -> All other scientific fields
If you can't do math, you can't do anything.
You're wrong again,
I can breathe. If you can't breathe, you can't do anything. But anyhow, keep grasping for those straws.
I can breathe. If you can't breathe, you can't do anything. But anyhow, keep grasping for those straws.
QUOTE (Meem+Oct 14 2009, 11:37 AM)
You're wrong again,
I can breathe. If you can't breathe, you can't do anything. But anyhow, keep grasping for those straws.
Unfortunately for you, you have zero credibility. You have shown yourself to be completely incompetent when it comes to basic scientific understanding. You seem to think that the "Come one, come all" approach to science would actually improve science. You're just being deliberately dense, and I wouldn't shed a tear if you were perma-banned.
I can breathe. If you can't breathe, you can't do anything. But anyhow, keep grasping for those straws.
Unfortunately for you, you have zero credibility. You have shown yourself to be completely incompetent when it comes to basic scientific understanding. You seem to think that the "Come one, come all" approach to science would actually improve science. You're just being deliberately dense, and I wouldn't shed a tear if you were perma-banned.
Still holding tightly to those straws I see. What does this have to do with anything? your personal opinion of me, that has nothing at all to do with your claimed topic of question? Seriously, you couldn't find a straw man so you made one?
My basic understanding of science is incompetent?
Should we start the list now? Of the things I can prove 100% false about this statement? Where's your method? Get back to the basics, give me a call.
My basic understanding of science is incompetent?
QUOTE
If you can't do math, you can't do anything.
Should we start the list now? Of the things I can prove 100% false about this statement? Where's your method? Get back to the basics, give me a call.
QUOTE (Meem+Oct 14 2009, 11:45 AM)
Still holding tightly to those straws I see. What does this have to do with anything? your personal opinion of me, that has nothing at all to do with your claimed topic of question? Seriously, you couldn't find a straw man so you made one?
You speak for yourself, unfortunately.
It's not just my opinion, look at your warn level.
You speak for yourself, unfortunately.
It's not just my opinion, look at your warn level.
You're still off topic.
There's another thing we could put on your list, here's on for mine you still don't seem to understand, I don't care?
Are you a carebear? You're so sweet.
Since you're so smart, you can give me a link to the math that explains how anything at all exists. Not anything about matter, size, shape, gravity, light, laws, observation, but the simple fact that anything at all exists, and .... if at some point it did not exist how did it come to exist.
You're so smart, I bet you can make perfect sense of that.
"If you're a carebear, -"I'm your huckleberry."
There's another thing we could put on your list, here's on for mine you still don't seem to understand, I don't care?
Are you a carebear? You're so sweet.
Since you're so smart, you can give me a link to the math that explains how anything at all exists. Not anything about matter, size, shape, gravity, light, laws, observation, but the simple fact that anything at all exists, and .... if at some point it did not exist how did it come to exist.
You're so smart, I bet you can make perfect sense of that.
"If you're a carebear, -"I'm your huckleberry."
Meem try and understand what "necessary but not sufficient means".
Math is necessary but it is not enough. FBM didn't say it was the be all and end all of doing anything. Just that it was needed to do anything.
It's like saying you need eggs to make a Caesar salad. You do but you also need other ingredients.
Math is necessary but it is not enough. FBM didn't say it was the be all and end all of doing anything. Just that it was needed to do anything.
It's like saying you need eggs to make a Caesar salad. You do but you also need other ingredients.
I respectfully disagree, that one needs math to do anything - scientifically. Logic, method, reason, purpose, idea, yes. Math not so much. Math is how I could communicate what it is that happens when I jump. I understand how it works without knowing math, but math would give me the ability to describe it on paper, and it would also give me the ability to break down nearly all of the mechanics of my jump (or something else) but it would fail miserably at explaining why I jump and when without set conditions. Math does not explain choice. Why do I jump, because I choose to, not because of condition of a-z that I might be in.
The universe makes no sense; from the stand point of how is it here, not ho does it work, math makes sense of how things work, and in most cases why but ... it fails to explain existence, unless zero is not zero and is a real number.
Zero, the only whole number, everything or anything else is a multiple or derivative of zero! Wait, that doesn't make any sense zero + zero x cannot equal anything else but zero! Now, I am being halfway serious but mostly silly.
Have a good day, don't forget to breathe before you do your maths!
The universe makes no sense; from the stand point of how is it here, not ho does it work, math makes sense of how things work, and in most cases why but ... it fails to explain existence, unless zero is not zero and is a real number.
Zero, the only whole number, everything or anything else is a multiple or derivative of zero! Wait, that doesn't make any sense zero + zero x cannot equal anything else but zero! Now, I am being halfway serious but mostly silly.
Have a good day, don't forget to breathe before you do your maths!
QUOTE (Meem+Oct 14 2009, 07:32 AM)
If you could highlight the agreement part your making out that you addressed to Uaa, let me know. Take your time because I don't see it anywhere. I could be .... so wrong though.
Does it hurt to be this stupid, meem? I mean, I can't imagine it not hurting, but I've never been that stupid, so I don't really know.
In other words, the "unconscious math" that guides our conscious actions seems to me to have many of the markers of what a large percentage of expert posters to this forum would term, not math at all, but "mysticism" and/or "numerology."
Best,
Raphie
Have you ever studied projectile physics?
There is tons of math there.
Can you throw a ball and hit a target?
Do you not realize how much math must be performed by your brain to do that?
Just to add to what Meem said, that isn't even math. It's not even proper programming.
Just to add to what Meem said, that isn't even math. It's not even proper programming.
Being ignorant is not "thinking outside the box". That is being "out of the loop."
Learn what all is encompassed in "math".
Does it hurt to be this stupid, meem? I mean, I can't imagine it not hurting, but I've never been that stupid, so I don't really know.
QUOTE (Me+)
This part I can get behind. I have no trouble imagining that given enough time and people, a layman might ask just the right question of a physicist to enable that physicist to construct a better theory than anything we have right now.
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=432196
As for the rest of your post? It's just more worthless, pointless, unintelligent rhetoric that's been said before by other stupid people and will be said again by yet more stupid people.
EDIT: I just saw this stupidity....
Really? Then, without using any math, tell me how far a bullet will travel if it's a perfect sphere, 1cm in diameter, made from pure lead, fired at 1773 fps, perfectly parallel to the ground, at a height of 4 feet in no atmosphere.
Come on, you said it can be done without math.
As for the rest of your post? It's just more worthless, pointless, unintelligent rhetoric that's been said before by other stupid people and will be said again by yet more stupid people.
EDIT: I just saw this stupidity....
QUOTE
I respectfully disagree, that one needs math to do anything - scientifically. Logic, method, reason, purpose, idea, yes. Math not so much.
Really? Then, without using any math, tell me how far a bullet will travel if it's a perfect sphere, 1cm in diameter, made from pure lead, fired at 1773 fps, perfectly parallel to the ground, at a height of 4 feet in no atmosphere.
Come on, you said it can be done without math.
QUOTE (Meem+Oct 14 2009, 12:26 PM)
I respectfully disagree, that one needs math to do anything - scientifically. Logic, method, reason, purpose, idea, yes. Math not so much. Math is how I could communicate what it is that happens when I jump. I understand how it works without knowing math, but math would give me the ability to describe it on paper, and it would also give me the ability to break down nearly all of the mechanics of my jump (or something else) but it would fail miserably at explaining why I jump and when without set conditions. Math does not explain choice. Why do I jump, because I choose to, not because of condition of a-z that I might be in.
Logic is math.
Math is logic.
Conscious breathing does require math.
if(need-to-breathe==true)
{
breathe();
}
else
{
//don't breathe
}
Math.
Logic is math.
Math is logic.
Conscious breathing does require math.
if(need-to-breathe==true)
{
breathe();
}
else
{
//don't breathe
}
Math.
QUOTE (Meem+Oct 14 2009, 03:09 PM)
Do you think there will ever be a mathematical equation that explains existence? Math is based on zero, nothing, Nada. How can you get something form nothing, and how can there ever be nothing if nothing is something, it doesn't make any sense. Before the beginning of the universe, there was nothing, then the great turtle crawled out of the sea with the universe on its back? That's as good of an explanation as any, to make sense of it all.
I think the answer to the universe is 42, but we aren't asking the right questions yet.
I think the answer to the universe is 42, but we aren't asking the right questions yet.
Beer,
I agree.
Hammerman,
Saying that a laymen holds a piece by asking the right question isn't the possibility being referred to. I think you understand that. We are talking about ideas here.
Flying ...
Man, ... you are really trying to grasp. What you're doing is thinking -calculating about breathing, you don't need math to breathe retard. Monkies do not need math to breathe, shall we go on? "I think I should breathe, still not math."
If I don't breathe, I will die = math ??? Holy bull-chit batman!
Conscious breathing Jesus man .... you sound like a crank.
HEY EVERYONE CONCIOUS BREATHING EQUALS MATH!!!!!
WHERE"S MY NOBEL!!!
I agree.
Hammerman,
Saying that a laymen holds a piece by asking the right question isn't the possibility being referred to. I think you understand that. We are talking about ideas here.
Flying ...
Man, ... you are really trying to grasp. What you're doing is thinking -calculating about breathing, you don't need math to breathe retard. Monkies do not need math to breathe, shall we go on? "I think I should breathe, still not math."
If I don't breathe, I will die = math ??? Holy bull-chit batman!
Conscious breathing Jesus man .... you sound like a crank.
HEY EVERYONE CONCIOUS BREATHING EQUALS MATH!!!!!
WHERE"S MY NOBEL!!!
QUOTE (Meem+Oct 14 2009, 06:24 PM)
Man, ... you are really trying to grasp. What you're doing is thinking -calculating about breathing, you don't need math to breathe retard. Monkies do not need math to breathe, shall we go on? "I think I should breathe, still not math."
If I don't breathe, I will die = math ??? Holy bull-chit batman!
It's simple math/logic, granted, but there is logic in every thing that you do.
Name one scientific theory that is math-free.
If I don't breathe, I will die = math ??? Holy bull-chit batman!
It's simple math/logic, granted, but there is logic in every thing that you do.
Name one scientific theory that is math-free.
QUOTE (Meem+Oct 14 2009, 04:26 PM)
Why do I jump, because I choose to, not because of condition of a-z that I might be in.
Do you jump into danger?
If not then math is involved.
If not safe to jump then don't jump.
Do you ever jump to a certain spot?
Lots of math there albeit at an unconscious level.
Do you jump into danger?
If not then math is involved.
If not safe to jump then don't jump.
Do you ever jump to a certain spot?
Lots of math there albeit at an unconscious level.
QUOTE (buttershug+Oct 14 2009, 11:00 PM)
Do you ever jump to a certain spot?
Lots of math there albeit at an unconscious level.
I happen to agree with you buttershug, but in relation to human decision making, a common sense view might well hold that the maths involved are neither rigorous nor precise, involving a tremendous amount of, relatively speaking, "on the fly" rule of thumb approximations based on prior formal and practical knowledge and/or opinions and/or relative value weightings of what might constitute danger or not danger that we then, also in approximate manner, aggregate into some final probability estimate that guides future choice.
In other words, the "unconscious math" that guides our conscious actions seems to me to have many of the markers of what a large percentage of expert posters to this forum would term, not math at all, but "mysticism" and/or "numerology."
That such mystical and/or numerological thought processes should, by and large, prove so effective in protecting us from dangers great and small on a daily basis is to me a source of endless fascination and amazement.
Best,
Raphie
Lots of math there albeit at an unconscious level.
I happen to agree with you buttershug, but in relation to human decision making, a common sense view might well hold that the maths involved are neither rigorous nor precise, involving a tremendous amount of, relatively speaking, "on the fly" rule of thumb approximations based on prior formal and practical knowledge and/or opinions and/or relative value weightings of what might constitute danger or not danger that we then, also in approximate manner, aggregate into some final probability estimate that guides future choice.
In other words, the "unconscious math" that guides our conscious actions seems to me to have many of the markers of what a large percentage of expert posters to this forum would term, not math at all, but "mysticism" and/or "numerology."
That such mystical and/or numerological thought processes should, by and large, prove so effective in protecting us from dangers great and small on a daily basis is to me a source of endless fascination and amazement.
Best,
Raphie
QUOTE (Raphie Frank+Oct 14 2009, 11:28 PM)
In other words, the "unconscious math" that guides our conscious actions seems to me to have many of the markers of what a large percentage of expert posters to this forum would term, not math at all, but "mysticism" and/or "numerology."
Best,
Raphie
Have you ever studied projectile physics?
There is tons of math there.
Can you throw a ball and hit a target?
Do you not realize how much math must be performed by your brain to do that?
QUOTE (buttershug+Oct 15 2009, 12:37 AM)
Can you throw a ball and hit a target?
Do you not realize how much math must be performed by your brain to do that?
Same outcome, buttershug, yes, as one might achieve via the application of the mathematics of projectile physics, but the way of achieving that result is likely not at all the same. We are almost certainly not performing, unconsciously or consciously, differential equations in our heads.
Which is not a statement I make just because "I feel like it," but because this is what empirical research strongly seems to indicate; and which also is not a statement I make to suggest that mathematics is not involved, but rather to suggest that we might well need to reconsider and/or open up some of our ideas about just what can be considered "mathematics"...
Might I suggest to you "Gut Feelings" by Gerd Gigerenzer, director of the Max Planck Institute for Human Development? In that book, intended for a general audience, Gigerenzer exposits at length regarding the underlying processes at work, not when throwing a ball, but when catching one (I cannot recall offhand if he discusses ball-throwing per se...).
Best,
Raphie
About Gerd Gigerenzer
via Wikipedia
Gerd Gigerenzer (born September 3, 1947) is a German psychologist who has studied the use of bounded rationality and heuristics in decision making, especially in medicine. A critic of the work of Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky, he argues that heuristics should not lead us to conceive of human thinking as riddled with irrational cognitive biases, but rather to conceive rationality as an adaptive tool that is not identical to the rules of formal logic or the probability calculus.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerd_Gigerenzer
Do you not realize how much math must be performed by your brain to do that?
Same outcome, buttershug, yes, as one might achieve via the application of the mathematics of projectile physics, but the way of achieving that result is likely not at all the same. We are almost certainly not performing, unconsciously or consciously, differential equations in our heads.
Which is not a statement I make just because "I feel like it," but because this is what empirical research strongly seems to indicate; and which also is not a statement I make to suggest that mathematics is not involved, but rather to suggest that we might well need to reconsider and/or open up some of our ideas about just what can be considered "mathematics"...
Might I suggest to you "Gut Feelings" by Gerd Gigerenzer, director of the Max Planck Institute for Human Development? In that book, intended for a general audience, Gigerenzer exposits at length regarding the underlying processes at work, not when throwing a ball, but when catching one (I cannot recall offhand if he discusses ball-throwing per se...).
Best,
Raphie
About Gerd Gigerenzer
via Wikipedia
Gerd Gigerenzer (born September 3, 1947) is a German psychologist who has studied the use of bounded rationality and heuristics in decision making, especially in medicine. A critic of the work of Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky, he argues that heuristics should not lead us to conceive of human thinking as riddled with irrational cognitive biases, but rather to conceive rationality as an adaptive tool that is not identical to the rules of formal logic or the probability calculus.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerd_Gigerenzer
QUOTE (Raphie Frank+Oct 14 2009, 07:56 PM)
Same outcome, buttershug, yes, as one might achieve via the application of the mathematics of projectile physics, but the way of achieving that result is likely not at all the same. We are almost certainly not performing, unconsciously or consciously, differential equations in our heads.
It doesn't matter if it's differential calculus or basic arithmetic, it's still math.
You're solving approximations of formulas which tell you where it would hit if thrown X hard, or in other words, you're doing algebra.
You are absolutely doing math in your head when aiming to hit a target with a ball.
It doesn't matter if it's differential calculus or basic arithmetic, it's still math.
You're solving approximations of formulas which tell you where it would hit if thrown X hard, or in other words, you're doing algebra.
You are absolutely doing math in your head when aiming to hit a target with a ball.
What the hell, I just realized that this is my thread, LOL
Even psychologists wouldn't jump out and say: "The brain does math." They're still stuck on "W T F is this brain thing anyway?"
That is if your not doing math homework though.
That is if your not doing math homework though.
I know it's doesn't count for anything, but if "I" "me" am not, are not, is not actively crunching numbers, looking at formulas, pushing keys on a calculator, I hardly consider myself to be doing terrific velocity and trajectories problems, if any simple math at all. Math is math, jump rope is jump rope. I'm not making love to you baby, i'm calculating thrust, and the number of cycles it takes to reach climax. Please, you must lay absolutely still because I don't have room for any variables in my calculations, oh no sounds either. I must set define conditions to get explicit results.
OMG!!! she's mutating I did not foresee this, this is not in my figures!
I mean seriously, Mike Tyson, Dennis Rodman, Daryl Strawberry, Alvin Iverson, are all closet mathematical geniuses? I think you get my point, I get the group point ... but it's just like the universe, good in theory still doesn't make any sense.
And if we reverse it, which it should be a two-way street .... Einstein had a mean cross-over, Newton could run over 400lb linemen and cut on a dime, and Schrodinger has one hell of an uppercut.
I'm not here to profess my universal knowledge, just to slam a few books down and maybe get some thoughts going? If required, I'll put on bells and do a dance too, wait too late!
OMG!!! she's mutating I did not foresee this, this is not in my figures!
I mean seriously, Mike Tyson, Dennis Rodman, Daryl Strawberry, Alvin Iverson, are all closet mathematical geniuses? I think you get my point, I get the group point ... but it's just like the universe, good in theory still doesn't make any sense.
And if we reverse it, which it should be a two-way street .... Einstein had a mean cross-over, Newton could run over 400lb linemen and cut on a dime, and Schrodinger has one hell of an uppercut.
I'm not here to profess my universal knowledge, just to slam a few books down and maybe get some thoughts going? If required, I'll put on bells and do a dance too, wait too late!
Seriously Meem... you have to be on drugs. I have no idea why you are here at all. For that matter.. why are you here?
I am here because I wub you Rob 
QUOTE
Logic is math.
Math is logic.
Conscious breathing does require math.
if(need-to-breathe==true)
{
breathe();
}
else
{
//don't breathe
}
Math.
Math is logic.
Conscious breathing does require math.
if(need-to-breathe==true)
{
breathe();
}
else
{
//don't breathe
}
Math.
Just to add to what Meem said, that isn't even math. It's not even proper programming.
Why isn't it "proper" programming?
Mr. Rpenner,
You have stumbled across a deeper question, maybe not quite the intention you had, but you know how I love to run with things. Well, not scissors.What exactly are we talking about programing here? Computers, kids, adults, the future?
{42}l{e}
You have stumbled across a deeper question, maybe not quite the intention you had, but you know how I love to run with things. Well, not scissors.What exactly are we talking about programing here? Computers, kids, adults, the future?
{42}l{e}
QUOTE (H2O+Oct 15 2009, 01:51 PM)
Just to add to what Meem said, that isn't even math. It's not even proper programming.
if($blood->o2_concentration < MINO2LIMIT)
{
$lungs->breathe();
}
Happy now?
if($blood->o2_concentration < MINO2LIMIT)
{
$lungs->breathe();
}
Happy now?
I'm not ... that's not math, that's a concept describing a function which itself does not need the concept of the function to function.
If (flying->butt_brain<MININTELLIMT)
{
flying->@$$();
}
Sorry, couldn't resist.
If (flying->butt_brain<MININTELLIMT)
{
flying->@$$();
}
Sorry, couldn't resist.
QUOTE (H2O+Oct 15 2009, 05:51 PM)
Just to add to what Meem said, that isn't even math. It's not even proper programming.
Being ignorant is not "thinking outside the box". That is being "out of the loop."
Learn what all is encompassed in "math".
It's pretty obvious... Meem is only here to stir up crap and be annoying. He has no intent of carrying on a normal or intelligent conversation.
That said.. he's still better than reading Ivan's BS.
Just my opinion of course.
That said.. he's still better than reading Ivan's BS.
Just my opinion of course.
QUOTE (Meem+Oct 14 2009, 11:40 PM)
I know it's doesn't count for anything, but if "I" "me" am not, are not, is not actively crunching numbers, looking at formulas, pushing keys on a calculator, I hardly consider myself to be doing terrific velocity and trajectories problems, if any simple math at all. Math is math, jump rope is jump rope. I'm not making love to you baby, i'm calculating thrust, and the number of cycles it takes to reach climax. Please, you must lay absolutely still because I don't have room for any variables in my calculations, oh no sounds either. I must set define conditions to get explicit results.
OMG!!! she's mutating I did not foresee this, this is not in my figures!
I mean seriously, Mike Tyson, Dennis Rodman, Daryl Strawberry, Alvin Iverson, are all closet mathematical geniuses? I think you get my point, I get the group point ... but it's just like the universe, good in theory still doesn't make any sense.
And if we reverse it, which it should be a two-way street .... Einstein had a mean cross-over, Newton could run over 400lb linemen and cut on a dime, and Schrodinger has one hell of an uppercut.
I'm not here to profess my universal knowledge, just to slam a few books down and maybe get some thoughts going? If required, I'll put on bells and do a dance too, wait too late!
Ever heard of a straw man argument? That's what you're engaging in. Probably not on purpose, because you're so stupid, but still.
1. Math can be done by approximations, it need not be precise. X plus Y equals some number between 30 and 56 is valid math.
2. There is more to athletic skill than good hand-eye coordination. Mike Tyson would never have been a champion if he didn't have a lot of strength, speed, toughness and stamina.
3. You're an idiot, and whenever you argue with me you're just making it more obvious for anyone else who reads your posts. Do yourself a favor and just stick to asking questions.
OMG!!! she's mutating I did not foresee this, this is not in my figures!
I mean seriously, Mike Tyson, Dennis Rodman, Daryl Strawberry, Alvin Iverson, are all closet mathematical geniuses? I think you get my point, I get the group point ... but it's just like the universe, good in theory still doesn't make any sense.
And if we reverse it, which it should be a two-way street .... Einstein had a mean cross-over, Newton could run over 400lb linemen and cut on a dime, and Schrodinger has one hell of an uppercut.
I'm not here to profess my universal knowledge, just to slam a few books down and maybe get some thoughts going? If required, I'll put on bells and do a dance too, wait too late!
Ever heard of a straw man argument? That's what you're engaging in. Probably not on purpose, because you're so stupid, but still.
1. Math can be done by approximations, it need not be precise. X plus Y equals some number between 30 and 56 is valid math.
2. There is more to athletic skill than good hand-eye coordination. Mike Tyson would never have been a champion if he didn't have a lot of strength, speed, toughness and stamina.
3. You're an idiot, and whenever you argue with me you're just making it more obvious for anyone else who reads your posts. Do yourself a favor and just stick to asking questions.
QUOTE (Beer w/Straw+)
Even psychologists wouldn't jump out and say: "The brain does math." They're still stuck on "W T F is this brain thing anyway?"
If so, it's only because psychologists don't tend to think in ways amenable to such a conclusion. Ask a neurologist though, and he'll wax eloquent on what a wonderful computer the human brain is.
Seriously, if anyone can come up with a method by which you can figure out just how hard to throw a ball, and when to release it in order to hit a target that doesn't involved doing at least some math, let me hear it. Simply responding incredulously to my claim doesn't accomplish anything.
If so, it's only because psychologists don't tend to think in ways amenable to such a conclusion. Ask a neurologist though, and he'll wax eloquent on what a wonderful computer the human brain is.
Seriously, if anyone can come up with a method by which you can figure out just how hard to throw a ball, and when to release it in order to hit a target that doesn't involved doing at least some math, let me hear it. Simply responding incredulously to my claim doesn't accomplish anything.
QUOTE (MjolnirPants+Oct 16 2009, 03:02 AM)
Seriously, if anyone can come up with a method by which you can figure out just how hard to throw a ball, and when to release it in order to hit a target that doesn't involved doing at least some math, let me hear it. Simply responding incredulously to my claim doesn't accomplish anything.
My post doesn't actually say that the brain subconsciously does not do "math..."
Meem will go on arguing that a farmer dancing in his bean patch is like a God. Making this thread very sorry to look at. (Maybe just for me though.)
My post doesn't actually say that the brain subconsciously does not do "math..."
Meem will go on arguing that a farmer dancing in his bean patch is like a God. Making this thread very sorry to look at. (Maybe just for me though.)
QUOTE (Beer w/Straw+Oct 16 2009, 02:13 AM)
My post doesn't actually say that the brain subconsciously does not do "math..."
Then I must admit I don't get your post....
You've really managed to capture the spirit of Meem with that one...
Then I must admit I don't get your post....
QUOTE
Meem will go on arguing that a farmer dancing in his bean patch is like a God. Making this thread very sorry to look at. (Maybe just for me though.)
You've really managed to capture the spirit of Meem with that one...
QUOTE (MjolnirPants+Oct 16 2009, 03:13 PM)
Then I must admit I don't get your post....
What I meant was that saying the subconscious/unconscious mind does math, in psychology, is a blanket statement. I feel anyway. Hence, this thread can go WAY off-topic.
What I meant was that saying the subconscious/unconscious mind does math, in psychology, is a blanket statement. I feel anyway. Hence, this thread can go WAY off-topic.
I guess I should say, since math encompasses everything, there is a perfectly good mathematical explanation for the emergent qualities of what we call emotion?
And there is a perfectly good explanation for why life is an emergent quality of the universe.
And there is a perfectly good explanation why the universe has emerged
from nothing -
sounds like really bad math
And if it is all math, it CANNOT be random, math follows rules. Something from nothing does not follow the rules of math, unless what we think is math is totally flawed.
So, is the universe eternal? Always is, always was, always will be? Is there no such thing as nothing, or is nothing something?
Hammer pants,
You brought athletes into this conversation, not me. Don't get mad when your straws are lit on fire.
And there is a perfectly good explanation for why life is an emergent quality of the universe.
And there is a perfectly good explanation why the universe has emerged
from nothing -
sounds like really bad math
And if it is all math, it CANNOT be random, math follows rules. Something from nothing does not follow the rules of math, unless what we think is math is totally flawed.
So, is the universe eternal? Always is, always was, always will be? Is there no such thing as nothing, or is nothing something?
Hammer pants,
You brought athletes into this conversation, not me. Don't get mad when your straws are lit on fire.
QUOTE (Meem+Oct 16 2009, 01:24 PM)
I guess I should say, since math encompasses everything, there is a perfectly good mathematical explanation for the emergent qualities of what we call emotion?
And there is a perfectly good explanation for why life is an emergent quality of the universe.
And there is a perfectly good explanation why the universe has emerged
from nothing -
sounds like really bad math
While sand grains are small, they can still form a mountainous sand-dune.
Everything follows the rules of math, vectors and physics.
Probability is still a form of math.
And there is a perfectly good explanation for why life is an emergent quality of the universe.
And there is a perfectly good explanation why the universe has emerged
from nothing -
sounds like really bad math
While sand grains are small, they can still form a mountainous sand-dune.
Everything follows the rules of math, vectors and physics.
Probability is still a form of math.
QUOTE (Meem+Oct 16 2009, 12:24 PM)
I guess I should say, since math encompasses everything, there is a perfectly good mathematical explanation for the emergent qualities of what we call emotion?
And there is a perfectly good explanation for why life is an emergent quality of the universe.
And there is a perfectly good explanation why the universe has emerged
from nothing -
sounds like really bad math
And if it is all math, it CANNOT be random, math follows rules. Something from nothing does not follow the rules of math, unless what we think is math is totally flawed.
1. The phrase is "Emergent property."
2. You're setting up another straw man, and being stupid about it, too.
3. Math alone isn't enough, but logic (of which math is a subset) is. (Hint, math doesn't have inherent if/then operations).
4. Yes, there are perfectly good explanations for all of that.
5. Your argument about randomness is pointless and a non-sequitur.
And there is a perfectly good explanation for why life is an emergent quality of the universe.
And there is a perfectly good explanation why the universe has emerged
from nothing -
sounds like really bad math
And if it is all math, it CANNOT be random, math follows rules. Something from nothing does not follow the rules of math, unless what we think is math is totally flawed.
1. The phrase is "Emergent property."
2. You're setting up another straw man, and being stupid about it, too.
3. Math alone isn't enough, but logic (of which math is a subset) is. (Hint, math doesn't have inherent if/then operations).
4. Yes, there are perfectly good explanations for all of that.
5. Your argument about randomness is pointless and a non-sequitur.
QUOTE
You brought athletes into this conversation, not me. Don't get mad when your straws are lit on fire.
No, I didn't. You did, dumbass. And that bit about "straws lit on fire" is just honestly one of the stupidest responses I could imagine. It's like a 3 year old trying to be witty.
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.