Einstein proposed a 'theory' of relationships which (mathematically) made sense.
Made sense.
Before any scientific energy was spent on it, it was based entirely on a rational explanation of certain ambiguities.
Such speculation, on this board, is equated to metaphysics.
The board continues to denigrate new ideas (unless they conform to some accepted scientific dictum.)
I make this point as christianed "Wankhead" for my efforts to communicate here. The Board accepts this 'sobriquet' as a perfectly reasonable criticism. So I use it in their face. It does not appear to me to be the intelligent response to new ideas that I would have expected from scientists.
May I ask the Board for its response.
QUOTE (Nowtime+Aug 20 2009, 03:08 PM)
Einstein proposed a 'theory' of relationships which (mathematically) made sense.
Made sense.
Before any scientific energy was spent on it, it was based entirely on a rational explanation of certain ambiguities.
Such speculation, on this board, is equated to metaphysics.
The board continues to denigrate new ideas (unless they conform to some accepted scientific dictum.)
I make this point as christianed "Wankhead" for my efforts to communicate here. The Board accepts this 'sobriquet' as a perfectly reasonable criticism. So I use it in their face. It does not appear to me to be the intelligent response to new ideas that I would have expected from scientists.
May I ask the Board for its response.
This is a load of crap.
First off, no-one on this board has put the same level of mathematical rigor into their 'theories' as Einstein.
Second, no-one on this board who has advanced any 'theory' has ever offered a feasible method of testing their theory. Einstein did.
Third, you act like a wankhead. How the hell do you expect us to treat you?
Made sense.
Before any scientific energy was spent on it, it was based entirely on a rational explanation of certain ambiguities.
Such speculation, on this board, is equated to metaphysics.
The board continues to denigrate new ideas (unless they conform to some accepted scientific dictum.)
I make this point as christianed "Wankhead" for my efforts to communicate here. The Board accepts this 'sobriquet' as a perfectly reasonable criticism. So I use it in their face. It does not appear to me to be the intelligent response to new ideas that I would have expected from scientists.
May I ask the Board for its response.
This is a load of crap.
First off, no-one on this board has put the same level of mathematical rigor into their 'theories' as Einstein.
Second, no-one on this board who has advanced any 'theory' has ever offered a feasible method of testing their theory. Einstein did.
Third, you act like a wankhead. How the hell do you expect us to treat you?
QUOTE
Before any scientific energy was spent on it, it was based entirely on a rational explanation of certain ambiguities.
Actually, it was based on Maxwell's equations of electomagnetism. All discoveries and theories were and are based on what's come before. Nothing in physics has arisen de novo
Einstein made a prediction of a star's apparent position during an eclipse.
He was right.
A lot of people say things that out and out contradict already existing observations.
Dark matter denialists seem to be the most common. There are areas where the stars are blocked by something. It's matter, it's dark, it's dark matter, but that doesn't stop some people from saying that dark matter does not exist.
He was right.
A lot of people say things that out and out contradict already existing observations.
Dark matter denialists seem to be the most common. There are areas where the stars are blocked by something. It's matter, it's dark, it's dark matter, but that doesn't stop some people from saying that dark matter does not exist.
QUOTE (MjolnirPants+Aug 20 2009, 08:21 PM)
This is a load of crap.
First off, no-one on this board has put the same level of mathematical rigor into their 'theories' as Einstein.
Second, no-one on this board who has advanced any 'theory' has ever offered a feasible method of testing their theory. Einstein did.
Third, you act like a wankhead. How the hell do you expect us to treat you?
Science?
Does this fathead expect another Einstein before he could give his approval?
"NO ONE" is a little less than scientific.
And how are "actions" on this Board viewed?
What disgusting epithets are you capable of, WITHOUT ANY CONSTRAINT FROM AUTHORITY
First off, no-one on this board has put the same level of mathematical rigor into their 'theories' as Einstein.
Second, no-one on this board who has advanced any 'theory' has ever offered a feasible method of testing their theory. Einstein did.
Third, you act like a wankhead. How the hell do you expect us to treat you?
Science?
Does this fathead expect another Einstein before he could give his approval?
"NO ONE" is a little less than scientific.
And how are "actions" on this Board viewed?
What disgusting epithets are you capable of, WITHOUT ANY CONSTRAINT FROM AUTHORITY
QUOTE (Nowtime+Aug 20 2009, 04:49 PM)
Science?
Does this fathead expect another Einstein before he could give his approval?
"NO ONE" is a little less than scientific.
And how are "actions" on this Board viewed?
What disgusting epithets are you capable of, WITHOUT ANY CONSTRAINT FROM AUTHORITY
Last time I checked, there was no "Creating Scientific Theories for Dummies."
Scientific theories are not a hobby. You don't create them in your spare time.
Unless you are a professional scientist with a woeful understanding of the internet, your theories aren't worth jack.
Does this fathead expect another Einstein before he could give his approval?
"NO ONE" is a little less than scientific.
And how are "actions" on this Board viewed?
What disgusting epithets are you capable of, WITHOUT ANY CONSTRAINT FROM AUTHORITY
Last time I checked, there was no "Creating Scientific Theories for Dummies."
Scientific theories are not a hobby. You don't create them in your spare time.
Unless you are a professional scientist with a woeful understanding of the internet, your theories aren't worth jack.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Aug 20 2009, 10:14 PM)
Last time I checked, there was no "Creating Scientific Theories for Dummies."
Scientific theories are not a hobby. You don't create them in your spare time.
Unless you are a professional scientist with a woeful understanding of the internet, your theories aren't worth jack.
Do your studies involve the checking-out of books for dummies?
Einstein, the Patent clerk, did all his theorizing on Company time?
You have no idea how theories are formed! It's only in spare time that the ideas can be worked out.
Do you have a 'woeful' understanding of the internet? How tragic. Even you can't pretend to be a scientist. Professional? Give me a break.
Theory either stands on its own merits or it doesn't.
And Time often plays a big part in its acceptance.
Scientific theories are not a hobby. You don't create them in your spare time.
Unless you are a professional scientist with a woeful understanding of the internet, your theories aren't worth jack.
Do your studies involve the checking-out of books for dummies?
Einstein, the Patent clerk, did all his theorizing on Company time?
You have no idea how theories are formed! It's only in spare time that the ideas can be worked out.
Do you have a 'woeful' understanding of the internet? How tragic. Even you can't pretend to be a scientist. Professional? Give me a break.
Theory either stands on its own merits or it doesn't.
And Time often plays a big part in its acceptance.
QUOTE (Nowtime+Aug 20 2009, 07:31 PM)
Do your studies involve the checking-out of books for dummies?
Einstein, the Patent clerk, did all his theorizing on Company time?
You have no idea how theories are formed! It's only in spare time that the ideas can be worked out.
Do you have a 'woeful' understanding of the internet? How tragic. Even you can't pretend to be a scientist. Professional? Give me a break.
Theory either stands on its own merits or it doesn't.
And Time often plays a big part in its acceptance.
Einstein had a couple things that you don't: education and genius. In sincerely doubt that you have any kind of science degree. The fact that you don't understand why science education is necessary is the very reason why you are not qualified or able to make a valid scientific theory.
Einstein, the Patent clerk, did all his theorizing on Company time?
You have no idea how theories are formed! It's only in spare time that the ideas can be worked out.
Do you have a 'woeful' understanding of the internet? How tragic. Even you can't pretend to be a scientist. Professional? Give me a break.
Theory either stands on its own merits or it doesn't.
And Time often plays a big part in its acceptance.
Einstein had a couple things that you don't: education and genius. In sincerely doubt that you have any kind of science degree. The fact that you don't understand why science education is necessary is the very reason why you are not qualified or able to make a valid scientific theory.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Aug 21 2009, 12:50 AM)
Einstein had a couple things that you don't: education and genius. In sincerely doubt that you have any kind of science degree. The fact that you don't understand why science education is necessary is the very reason why you are not qualified or able to make a valid scientific theory.
Some people say it was his wife who was the smart one.
Theories live or die on the evidence.
And some theories are stillborn. Ones that say something needs to be a wave to have momentum for example.
Some people say it was his wife who was the smart one.
Theories live or die on the evidence.
And some theories are stillborn. Ones that say something needs to be a wave to have momentum for example.
QUOTE (AlexG+Aug 20 2009, 08:27 PM)
Actually, it was based on Maxwell's equations of electomagnetism. All discoveries and theories were and are based on what's come before. Nothing in physics has arisen de novo
I agree, of course, that the basis was already there, (although I would have thought of Lorenz and Poincare, because I was thinking Special) but you do a severe injustice when you say "Nothing" in physics has arisen de novo.
Would you disagree that the jump that Einstein made from Special to General, in terms that his "space curvature" demanded tensors, was an original and brilliant innovation. "His"idea.
Forgive me but de novo appears to me an argument only justified in retrospect. The slightest indication of a previous idea may be represented as the basis for what, in reality, was a total disregard for convention.
I would have to go back in history for any references, I know, because science, now, is a conservative-progressive activity.
QUOTE (buttershug+Aug 21 2009, 12:56 AM)
Some people say it was his wife who was the smart one.
Theories live or die on the evidence.
And some theories are stillborn. Ones that say something needs to be a wave to have momentum for example.
Buttershuq,
Now there's a jolly thought !
Do you have any evidence to offer the astonished readers. (Me) I'm not one for the parades of "Equalizers" but I don't think it would be too hard to believe that "they" could beat the brain level exisiting here.
I like the evidenciary theme and mourn the loss that only fathers can feel.
All I can say in ending is a gentle wave.
Theories live or die on the evidence.
And some theories are stillborn. Ones that say something needs to be a wave to have momentum for example.
Buttershuq,
Now there's a jolly thought !
Do you have any evidence to offer the astonished readers. (Me) I'm not one for the parades of "Equalizers" but I don't think it would be too hard to believe that "they" could beat the brain level exisiting here.
I like the evidenciary theme and mourn the loss that only fathers can feel.
All I can say in ending is a gentle wave.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Aug 20 2009, 10:14 PM)
Last time I checked, there was no "Creating Scientific Theories for Dummies."
Scientific theories are not a hobby. You don't create them in your spare time.
Unless you are a professional scientist with a woeful understanding of the internet, your theories aren't worth jack.
I hate getting in disagreements with buttress, because he can make me sorry I did - but I also like his posts better for disagreeing with, so in a way I must commend that he makes it interesting.
I disagree that you can't create theories in your spare time. Anyone who can understand a concept can experiment with it and question it. If you can't understand it you can't question it, though, so of course there are going to be elitists who try to prevent anyone who doesn't understand everything they do from thinking critically about what they DO understand.
It is highly likely that a person with relatively little knowledge of a field or theory can raise questions about it that others more familiar with don't. This does not constitute development of a theory in and of itself, but if the right person gives consideration to the question, that person may well be able to create a theoretical development that was entirely or partly stimulated by the relatively naive contribution of the "tourist" for lack of a better word.
It is dismaying to hear seemingly well-achieved people like buttress devalue the worth of other people's ideas and theories. If he was secure in his own level of knowledge, he wouldn't need to put these people down, but could instead take advantage of his insights to challenge them to think further about theirs.
Either buttress is a good researcher and a bad teacher (many such people exist) or he's a frustrated scientist who's work is getting a lot of negative critique and so he's taking it out on others by doing the same.
Buttress, I love you brother, so I'm only saying this to give you some perspective, not to start a bullying war. Your posts are the most interesting on this forum at least half the time.
Scientific theories are not a hobby. You don't create them in your spare time.
Unless you are a professional scientist with a woeful understanding of the internet, your theories aren't worth jack.
I hate getting in disagreements with buttress, because he can make me sorry I did - but I also like his posts better for disagreeing with, so in a way I must commend that he makes it interesting.
I disagree that you can't create theories in your spare time. Anyone who can understand a concept can experiment with it and question it. If you can't understand it you can't question it, though, so of course there are going to be elitists who try to prevent anyone who doesn't understand everything they do from thinking critically about what they DO understand.
It is highly likely that a person with relatively little knowledge of a field or theory can raise questions about it that others more familiar with don't. This does not constitute development of a theory in and of itself, but if the right person gives consideration to the question, that person may well be able to create a theoretical development that was entirely or partly stimulated by the relatively naive contribution of the "tourist" for lack of a better word.
It is dismaying to hear seemingly well-achieved people like buttress devalue the worth of other people's ideas and theories. If he was secure in his own level of knowledge, he wouldn't need to put these people down, but could instead take advantage of his insights to challenge them to think further about theirs.
Either buttress is a good researcher and a bad teacher (many such people exist) or he's a frustrated scientist who's work is getting a lot of negative critique and so he's taking it out on others by doing the same.
Buttress, I love you brother, so I'm only saying this to give you some perspective, not to start a bullying war. Your posts are the most interesting on this forum at least half the time.
QUOTE (light in the tunnel+Aug 20 2009, 09:08 PM)
I disagree that you can't create theories in your spare time. Anyone who can understand a concept can experiment with it and question it. If you can't understand it you can't question it, though, so of course there are going to be elitists who try to prevent anyone who doesn't understand everything they do from thinking critically about what they DO understand.
I should amend my original statement. It is possible, but most people don't have the spare time to conduct comprehensive fact-finding. Science isn't about concepts, science is about evidence. If you don't know the evidence, you won't understand the concepts. I don't know your profession, so I will attempt a common analogy. If you were a mechanic, would you trust the advice of someone who had just wiki'd "Internal Combustion Engine" to repair a car? Would you be slightly offended if they told you that you were repairing the car wrong? There is a possibility that they are right, but there is a 99.9% chance that they are wrong.
The people who actually work in the field are much better equipped to ask the right questions. Again, it's like if our imaginary amateur mechanic asks if a specific part needs to be replaced. They might be right, but not for the right reasons.
The people who actually work in the field are much better equipped to ask the right questions. Again, it's like if our imaginary amateur mechanic asks if a specific part needs to be replaced. They might be right, but not for the right reasons.
It is dismaying to hear seemingly well-achieved people like buttress devalue the worth of other people's ideas and theories. If he was secure in his own level of knowledge, he wouldn't need to put these people down, but could instead take advantage of his insights to challenge them to think further about theirs.
Full disclosure: I am not a scientist nor a teacher. What I know is that scientific research is not something that is easily done. I know that there are many many things that I do not know. What I believe in is the process. When I see examples of actual scientific innovation occurring outside of the process, I will change my beliefs.
While GR is both original and brilliant, it did not arise de novo, but came to a large degree from the works of Riemann and Minkowski and Mach. See Appendix 5, Relativity and the Problem of Space, in the 1952 edition of Einstein's Relativity: The Special and General Theory
Anyone who can understand a concept can experiment with it and question it.
If you can't understand it you can't question it, though, so of course there are going to be elitists who try to prevent anyone who doesn't understand everything they do from thinking critically about what they DO understand.
Questioning by the tourists could be quite beneficial. It really is up to the elitists to decide.
If the elitists had any confidence, they could even discuss new ideas with tourists.
I'm sorry to use your post for this but you put it from the 'inside' which, of course, I can't do. I hope you will forgive me. Being labelled a "Wankhead" lowers the barrier of good manners somewhat.
I try to get that in every so often.
What do they say, "Lest we forget". Of course you would not know the reference.
While GR is both original and brilliant, it did not arise de novo, but came to a large degree from the works of Riemann and Minkowski and Mach. See Appendix 5, Relativity and the Problem of Space, in the 1952 edition of Einstein's Relativity: The Special and General Theory
Riemann's mathematics would not have been used by a lesser man and then you would have had him as the basis for some other genius's achievements.
I will not accept anything that is not based on science. Your position is based not on any science, but on your preconceptions. You can't accept or grasp something, so you say it cannot be. Space is far from empty. It is filled with all manner of fields and particles. According to string theory, the fabric of space is composed of strings. You look out in space and say 'I can't see anything, so there's nothing there'.
EVERYTHING they did was based on the previous successes of science.
All you've shown us here is that you don't know how science and scientists work.
I will not accept anything that is not based on science. Your position is based not on any science, but on your preconceptions. You can't accept or grasp something, so you say it cannot be. Space is far from empty. It is filled with all manner of fields and particles. According to string theory, the fabric of space is composed of strings. You look out in space and say 'I can't see anything, so there's nothing there'.
If science is specific, you should be able to name the fields that curve to influence light.
What is your explanation in string or any other theory for the "curvature" that occurs in space.
The mathematics, of course, I have said is or are impeccable.
How do yo explain the curvature, physically, Alex ?
As a scientist.
First define what you mean by 'physically'. When you touch something, what is interacting? What happens 'physically'?
First define what you mean by 'physically'. When you touch something, what is interacting? What happens 'physically'?
Can't answer, AlexG ?
"Of or produced by the forces of physics"
Did you want me to give you a definition that you could argue with, Alex?
Instead of answering the question.
That's not an answer. That's simply restating that physical is physical.
That's not an answer. That's simply restating that physical is physical.
Did you want me to give you a definition that you could argue with, Alex?
Instead of answering the question.
No, but you want a simplistic answer to a non-simplistic question. So first we must define that you mean by physical.
When you touch something, do you think you are making any 'physical' contact between the protons, neutrons and electrons which make up the atoms, which make up the molecules which make up your skin? Do they actually have no distance between them?
I should amend my original statement. It is possible, but most people don't have the spare time to conduct comprehensive fact-finding. Science isn't about concepts, science is about evidence. If you don't know the evidence, you won't understand the concepts. I don't know your profession, so I will attempt a common analogy. If you were a mechanic, would you trust the advice of someone who had just wiki'd "Internal Combustion Engine" to repair a car? Would you be slightly offended if they told you that you were repairing the car wrong? There is a possibility that they are right, but there is a 99.9% chance that they are wrong.
QUOTE
It is highly likely that a person with relatively little knowledge of a field or theory can raise questions about it that others more familiar with don't. This does not constitute development of a theory in and of itself, but if the right person gives consideration to the question, that person may well be able to create a theoretical development that was entirely or partly stimulated by the relatively naive contribution of the "tourist" for lack of a better word.
The people who actually work in the field are much better equipped to ask the right questions. Again, it's like if our imaginary amateur mechanic asks if a specific part needs to be replaced. They might be right, but not for the right reasons.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| It is highly likely that a person with relatively little knowledge of a field or theory can raise questions about it that others more familiar with don't. This does not constitute development of a theory in and of itself, but if the right person gives consideration to the question, that person may well be able to create a theoretical development that was entirely or partly stimulated by the relatively naive contribution of the "tourist" for lack of a better word. |
The people who actually work in the field are much better equipped to ask the right questions. Again, it's like if our imaginary amateur mechanic asks if a specific part needs to be replaced. They might be right, but not for the right reasons.
It is dismaying to hear seemingly well-achieved people like buttress devalue the worth of other people's ideas and theories. If he was secure in his own level of knowledge, he wouldn't need to put these people down, but could instead take advantage of his insights to challenge them to think further about theirs.
Full disclosure: I am not a scientist nor a teacher. What I know is that scientific research is not something that is easily done. I know that there are many many things that I do not know. What I believe in is the process. When I see examples of actual scientific innovation occurring outside of the process, I will change my beliefs.
QUOTE
Would you disagree that the jump that Einstein made from Special to General, in terms that his "space curvature" demanded tensors, was an original and brilliant innovation. "His"idea.
While GR is both original and brilliant, it did not arise de novo, but came to a large degree from the works of Riemann and Minkowski and Mach. See Appendix 5, Relativity and the Problem of Space, in the 1952 edition of Einstein's Relativity: The Special and General Theory
QUOTE (light in the tunnel+Aug 21 2009, 02:08 AM)
Anyone who can understand a concept can experiment with it and question it.
If you can't understand it you can't question it, though, so of course there are going to be elitists who try to prevent anyone who doesn't understand everything they do from thinking critically about what they DO understand.
Questioning by the tourists could be quite beneficial. It really is up to the elitists to decide.
If the elitists had any confidence, they could even discuss new ideas with tourists.
I'm sorry to use your post for this but you put it from the 'inside' which, of course, I can't do. I hope you will forgive me. Being labelled a "Wankhead" lowers the barrier of good manners somewhat.
I try to get that in every so often.
What do they say, "Lest we forget". Of course you would not know the reference.
QUOTE (AlexG+Aug 21 2009, 02:27 AM)
While GR is both original and brilliant, it did not arise de novo, but came to a large degree from the works of Riemann and Minkowski and Mach. See Appendix 5, Relativity and the Problem of Space, in the 1952 edition of Einstein's Relativity: The Special and General Theory
Riemann's mathematics would not have been used by a lesser man and then you would have had him as the basis for some other genius's achievements.
QUOTE (Nowtime+Aug 20 2009, 09:35 PM)
Questioning by the tourists could be quite beneficial. It really is up to the elitists to decide.
If the elitists had any confidence, they could even discuss new ideas with tourists.
Would you discuss the technical details of your profession with a passersby on the street? Would you take them seriously when they make uneducated comments? If you showed them your business plan and they said "that's ugly" would you take that as a serious comment?
If the elitists had any confidence, they could even discuss new ideas with tourists.
Would you discuss the technical details of your profession with a passersby on the street? Would you take them seriously when they make uneducated comments? If you showed them your business plan and they said "that's ugly" would you take that as a serious comment?
QUOTE (Nowtime+Aug 20 2009, 09:40 PM)
Riemann's mathematics would not have been used by a lesser man and then you would have had him as the basis for some other genius's achievements.
I will certainly agree that Einstein was not a lesser man, and was the premier genius of the first half of the 20th century. The man is one of my idols. But all the work he did was based upon that which came before him.
To quote Newton, "If I have seen further it is only by standing on the shoulders of giants."
I will certainly agree that Einstein was not a lesser man, and was the premier genius of the first half of the 20th century. The man is one of my idols. But all the work he did was based upon that which came before him.
To quote Newton, "If I have seen further it is only by standing on the shoulders of giants."
On the subject of originality, How would it be received on this board.
Are you so died in the wool that you cannot accept anything that is not based on previous doctrine or accepted speculation. Please: Space cannot curve. It is empty.
Of course the mathematics proves correct !
The mathematics does not prove that it is "Space" that is curving. The mathematics proves that something is curving and that it affects light.
Can anyone disagree.
Don't criticize/condemn/ridicule. Just state what is incorrect so that a tourist might learn.
Are you so died in the wool that you cannot accept anything that is not based on previous doctrine or accepted speculation. Please: Space cannot curve. It is empty.
Of course the mathematics proves correct !
The mathematics does not prove that it is "Space" that is curving. The mathematics proves that something is curving and that it affects light.
Can anyone disagree.
Don't criticize/condemn/ridicule. Just state what is incorrect so that a tourist might learn.
QUOTE
Are you so died in the wool that you cannot accept anything that is not based on previous doctrine or accepted speculation. Please: Space cannot curve. It is empty.
I will not accept anything that is not based on science. Your position is based not on any science, but on your preconceptions. You can't accept or grasp something, so you say it cannot be. Space is far from empty. It is filled with all manner of fields and particles. According to string theory, the fabric of space is composed of strings. You look out in space and say 'I can't see anything, so there's nothing there'.
QUOTE (AlexG+Aug 21 2009, 02:46 AM)
I will certainly agree that Einstein was not a lesser man, and was the premier genius of the first half of the 20th century. The man is one of my idols. But all the work he did was based upon that which came before him.
To quote Newton, "If I have seen further it is only by standing on the shoulders of giants."
Yes, AlexG, the shoulders of Giants. Everyone an individual of spectacularly brilliant intellectual achievement. Not a person who gropes among the worker-drones for something to find for himself.
These great minds did not waste time on the previous successes of science. They had an idea and they fought it out to a conclusion. Then, they grappled with a bigger notion and found a way to make it work. They had to use science on the way but it was never a well of knowledge to rely on. (It has many conflicting resources). They always "felt" their way to their new achievements.
This is how science happens Alex.
To quote Newton, "If I have seen further it is only by standing on the shoulders of giants."
Yes, AlexG, the shoulders of Giants. Everyone an individual of spectacularly brilliant intellectual achievement. Not a person who gropes among the worker-drones for something to find for himself.
These great minds did not waste time on the previous successes of science. They had an idea and they fought it out to a conclusion. Then, they grappled with a bigger notion and found a way to make it work. They had to use science on the way but it was never a well of knowledge to rely on. (It has many conflicting resources). They always "felt" their way to their new achievements.
This is how science happens Alex.
QUOTE
These great minds did not waste time on the previous successes of science... They had to use science on the way but it was never a well of knowledge to rely on
EVERYTHING they did was based on the previous successes of science.
All you've shown us here is that you don't know how science and scientists work.
QUOTE (AlexG+Aug 21 2009, 03:01 AM)
I will not accept anything that is not based on science. Your position is based not on any science, but on your preconceptions. You can't accept or grasp something, so you say it cannot be. Space is far from empty. It is filled with all manner of fields and particles. According to string theory, the fabric of space is composed of strings. You look out in space and say 'I can't see anything, so there's nothing there'.
If science is specific, you should be able to name the fields that curve to influence light.
What is your explanation in string or any other theory for the "curvature" that occurs in space.
The mathematics, of course, I have said is or are impeccable.
How do yo explain the curvature, physically, Alex ?
As a scientist.
QUOTE
How do yo explain the curvature, physically, Alex ?
First define what you mean by 'physically'. When you touch something, what is interacting? What happens 'physically'?
QUOTE (AlexG+Aug 21 2009, 03:36 AM)
First define what you mean by 'physically'. When you touch something, what is interacting? What happens 'physically'?
Can't answer, AlexG ?
"Of or produced by the forces of physics"
Did you want me to give you a definition that you could argue with, Alex?
Instead of answering the question.
QUOTE
"Of or produced by the forces of physics"
That's not an answer. That's simply restating that physical is physical.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| "Of or produced by the forces of physics" |
That's not an answer. That's simply restating that physical is physical.
Did you want me to give you a definition that you could argue with, Alex?
Instead of answering the question.
No, but you want a simplistic answer to a non-simplistic question. So first we must define that you mean by physical.
When you touch something, do you think you are making any 'physical' contact between the protons, neutrons and electrons which make up the atoms, which make up the molecules which make up your skin? Do they actually have no distance between them?
QUOTE (Nowtime+Aug 20 2009, 04:49 PM)
Science?
Science.
"Fathead?"
What are you, 12?
I expect a capable person, that is all. You are not capable, nor are any of the cranks here.
"Fathead?" What are you, 12?
I expect a capable person, that is all. You are not capable, nor are any of the cranks here.
"NO ONE" is a little less than scientific.
Find me a crank theory on this forum with the same level of mathematical rigor as Einstein's presentation of GR, I dare you.
No actions take place here. Only words.
No actions take place here. Only words.
What disgusting epithets are you capable of, WITHOUT ANY CONSTRAINT FROM AUTHORITY
What epithets? I merely repeated what you already referred to yourself as. You're the one who called me a fathead.
You want epithets? How about Jackhole, Ignoramus, Idiot, Retard, Naval-Gazer, Nimrod, Dipshit, Buffoon, Mоrоn, Imbecile, or just plain old Dumbass?
Find me a crank theory on this forum with the same level of mathematical rigor as Einstein's presentation of GR, I dare you.
Does this sum up the scientific acumen of this Board?
To find another "crank" theory with Einstein's genius in the mathematics.
This is fairly typical of cranks. A crank believes that study is unnecessary, and that by the use of their imagination and the awesome power of their intellect, they can understand and explain the universe.
Imagination is a fine thing. But if it's not coupled with knowledge, it's useless.
This is fairly typical of cranks. A crank believes that study is unnecessary, and that by the use of their imagination and the awesome power of their intellect, they can understand and explain the universe.
Imagination is a fine thing. But if it's not coupled with knowledge, it's useless.
Knowledge is just the nuts and bolts of things, Alex.
If I want to build something with nuts and bolts, there is usually an abundance of available information, or people, if the project needs others.
The project, or whatever it is that I'm going to build, is an idea which takes shape out of my understanding of things.
It may need knowledge to produce it, but the concept is not really affected by knowledge in its idea phase.
Ideas, theories are produced from what we already understand and that understanding is rarely based on a specific knowledge of something. Usually one finds a problem and then goes looking for the answer. Knowledge, in that case, is something we never foresaw the need for until the problem arose. Specific.
You call me a crank. Alex. I have seen knowledge cripple an activity and attitude completely restore it.
[Moderator: Suspended 3 days for inappropriate usage of the forum. Points argued seem stupid to me. Or as "Dirty" Harry Callahan said: "A man's got to know his limitations." That's science. creativity outside those bounds is not useful. Finding out if you can do something is scientific. Trying to do something when repeated efforts have clearly shown you that the goal is beyond your means is wasteful and unscientific. Trying to build a mass-market flying car: idiotic. Trying to find out why people unintentionally die in traffic so as to see if preventing it is simple: smart. Your capabilities limit what visions can be realized. Pooh-poohing reality leaves one bitter, alone and unhappy even if you keep your vision unsullied. Something like this happened in the career of Akira Kurosawa, the Japanese film director.
On a related note: Former forum mafia member suspended 15 days for inappropriate usage of forum. Try to keep the scatological comments to on topic scientific discussion, okay?]
You only demonstrate that you know nothing about science, the scientific method, and scientists.
Science.
QUOTE
Does this fathead expect another Einstein before he could give his approval?
"Fathead?"
What are you, 12?I expect a capable person, that is all. You are not capable, nor are any of the cranks here.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Does this fathead expect another Einstein before he could give his approval? |
"Fathead?"
What are you, 12?I expect a capable person, that is all. You are not capable, nor are any of the cranks here.
"NO ONE" is a little less than scientific.
Find me a crank theory on this forum with the same level of mathematical rigor as Einstein's presentation of GR, I dare you.
QUOTE
And how are "actions" on this Board viewed?
No actions take place here. Only words.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| And how are "actions" on this Board viewed? |
No actions take place here. Only words.
What disgusting epithets are you capable of, WITHOUT ANY CONSTRAINT FROM AUTHORITY
What epithets? I merely repeated what you already referred to yourself as. You're the one who called me a fathead.
You want epithets? How about Jackhole, Ignoramus, Idiot, Retard, Naval-Gazer, Nimrod, Dipshit, Buffoon, Mоrоn, Imbecile, or just plain old Dumbass?
QUOTE (MjolnirPants+Aug 21 2009, 04:14 AM)
Find me a crank theory on this forum with the same level of mathematical rigor as Einstein's presentation of GR, I dare you.
Does this sum up the scientific acumen of this Board?
To find another "crank" theory with Einstein's genius in the mathematics.
QUOTE (Nowtime+Aug 21 2009, 12:07 AM)
Does this sum up the scientific acumen of this Board?
To find another "crank" theory with Einstein's genius in the mathematics.
The level of scientific acumen on this board is, if averaged, very low.
There are a few real physicists, a handful of non-physicists who know something about the subject and can understand explanations from the physicists, a few who don't understand and know they don't understand, and a whole slew of cranks, who don't know anything while they're convinced they have the answers.
To find another "crank" theory with Einstein's genius in the mathematics.
The level of scientific acumen on this board is, if averaged, very low.
There are a few real physicists, a handful of non-physicists who know something about the subject and can understand explanations from the physicists, a few who don't understand and know they don't understand, and a whole slew of cranks, who don't know anything while they're convinced they have the answers.
QUOTE (AlexG+Aug 21 2009, 05:13 AM)
The level of scientific acumen on this board is, if averaged, very low.
There are a few real physicists, a handful of non-physicists who know something about the subject and can understand explanations from the physicists, a few who don't understand and know they don't understand, and a whole slew of cranks, who don't know anything while they're convinced they have the answers.
Alex
You know the one about those who can do, do and those who can't teach.
Well, I added a corollary
There are those who can think and those who can't, study.
From what I have seen of the "scientists" here, the world would be better off if they were less arrogant. They have no position but reflected glory from their studies of other 'People' who were thinkers rather than students or scholars.
I have been impressed by three people here. One was thrown off the board. Another changed his name, and the third , as a good Samaritan, escapes me.
Not much of a recommendation for anyone to approach with new ideas.
There are a few real physicists, a handful of non-physicists who know something about the subject and can understand explanations from the physicists, a few who don't understand and know they don't understand, and a whole slew of cranks, who don't know anything while they're convinced they have the answers.
Alex
You know the one about those who can do, do and those who can't teach.
Well, I added a corollary
There are those who can think and those who can't, study.
From what I have seen of the "scientists" here, the world would be better off if they were less arrogant. They have no position but reflected glory from their studies of other 'People' who were thinkers rather than students or scholars.
I have been impressed by three people here. One was thrown off the board. Another changed his name, and the third , as a good Samaritan, escapes me.
Not much of a recommendation for anyone to approach with new ideas.
QUOTE
There are those who can think and those who can't, study.
This is fairly typical of cranks. A crank believes that study is unnecessary, and that by the use of their imagination and the awesome power of their intellect, they can understand and explain the universe.
Imagination is a fine thing. But if it's not coupled with knowledge, it's useless.
QUOTE (AlexG+Aug 21 2009, 05:41 AM)
This is fairly typical of cranks. A crank believes that study is unnecessary, and that by the use of their imagination and the awesome power of their intellect, they can understand and explain the universe.
Imagination is a fine thing. But if it's not coupled with knowledge, it's useless.
Knowledge is just the nuts and bolts of things, Alex.
If I want to build something with nuts and bolts, there is usually an abundance of available information, or people, if the project needs others.
The project, or whatever it is that I'm going to build, is an idea which takes shape out of my understanding of things.
It may need knowledge to produce it, but the concept is not really affected by knowledge in its idea phase.
Ideas, theories are produced from what we already understand and that understanding is rarely based on a specific knowledge of something. Usually one finds a problem and then goes looking for the answer. Knowledge, in that case, is something we never foresaw the need for until the problem arose. Specific.
You call me a crank. Alex. I have seen knowledge cripple an activity and attitude completely restore it.
[Moderator: Suspended 3 days for inappropriate usage of the forum. Points argued seem stupid to me. Or as "Dirty" Harry Callahan said: "A man's got to know his limitations." That's science. creativity outside those bounds is not useful. Finding out if you can do something is scientific. Trying to do something when repeated efforts have clearly shown you that the goal is beyond your means is wasteful and unscientific. Trying to build a mass-market flying car: idiotic. Trying to find out why people unintentionally die in traffic so as to see if preventing it is simple: smart. Your capabilities limit what visions can be realized. Pooh-poohing reality leaves one bitter, alone and unhappy even if you keep your vision unsullied. Something like this happened in the career of Akira Kurosawa, the Japanese film director.
On a related note: Former forum mafia member suspended 15 days for inappropriate usage of forum. Try to keep the scatological comments to on topic scientific discussion, okay?]
QUOTE
Ideas, theories are produced from what we already understand and that understanding is rarely based on a specific knowledge of something. Usually one finds a problem and then goes looking for the answer. Knowledge, in that case, is something we never foresaw the need for until the problem arose. Specific.
You only demonstrate that you know nothing about science, the scientific method, and scientists.
QUOTE (Nowtime+Aug 21 2009, 01:10 AM)
[...On a related note: Former forum mafia member suspended 15 days for inappropriate usage of forum. Try to keep the scatological comments to on topic scientific discussion, okay?]
This seems almost like it's referring to me... "Scatalogical comments"?
But I'm obviously still here.
Maybe Geoff opened his mouth a bit too much in a post that's been removed...
This seems almost like it's referring to me... "Scatalogical comments"?
But I'm obviously still here.
Maybe Geoff opened his mouth a bit too much in a post that's been removed...
QUOTE (MjolnirPants+Aug 21 2009, 02:39 PM)
This seems almost like it's referring to me... "Scatalogical comments"?
But I'm obviously still here.
Maybe Geoff opened his mouth a bit too much in a post that's been removed...
Damn, I thought he was talking about you. Maybe he forgot to ban you? Glad to have you around
But I'm obviously still here.
Maybe Geoff opened his mouth a bit too much in a post that's been removed...
Damn, I thought he was talking about you. Maybe he forgot to ban you? Glad to have you around
Somebody can see your IP addresses. 
Ain't it loverly? Just like a real forum!
Ain't it loverly?
Just like a real forum!
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Aug 21 2009, 01:45 PM)
Damn, I thought he was talking about you. Maybe he forgot to ban you? Glad to have you around
The more I think about it, the more I think it actually referred to Geoff. He's got "Member of the Disbanded Forum Mafia." in his signature.
Thanks for the sentiments, though.
The more I think about it, the more I think it actually referred to Geoff. He's got "Member of the Disbanded Forum Mafia." in his signature.
Thanks for the sentiments, though.
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.