|
|
Post by Ward on Dec 29, 2016 9:32:09 GMT -6
So throughout my perusal of you smart people over the years, I've come upon some really great nuggets of wisdom (and quite a few turds, you know who you are Oh yeah? Challenge accepted. Exhibit A: Harmonics only exist on guitars, and my Ibanez super-Strat Steve Vai 9 string makes more of them when I plug it into my marshmallow stacks turned up to 11 SEE??? |
|
|
|
Post by svart on Dec 29, 2016 10:16:29 GMT -6
Because it was mentioned... The great theories of science that change the way we see things are in nearly all cases those, that do not render the previous ones useless, but work in ranges that supercede their predecessors. This doesn't mean there is no faulty science - there is a lot of them. So, sure we use Newton still to explain everyday mechanics, and it is awfully useful to understand motion the way Newton did. No matter how old this view of things is. It is a simplified model of all mechanics that is perfectly usable in the context of human's directly explorable environment. And Einstein does not change this at all and never intended to. Very controversely discussed theories imply huge changes and often directly contradict previously used models of how we see nature. In the field of paraphysics or parascience or esoterics this is a very common practice. Here in Germany, e.g. the theory of "homeopathy" was developed and feeds a whole industry that relies on it. And our health minister declared homeopathic pills to be "medicine" in the sense of our German drug laws. That is, what lobbies can do - bringing politicians to the point, where they contradict elementary science, completely incompatible to everything we know about the laws of nature in the fields of physics and chemistry. I had medical doctors that i thought were reasonable people that at some point started to talk me into homeopathic or other "alternative" medicine. Shocking for me, because i can not trust somebody who denies the fundamental laws of chemistry and at the same time prescribes "real" medicine. From my perspective, this is dangerous, at least... And this is not rare at all, a lot of germans fiercly defend the use of homeopathic products with always the same false information and invalid studies that in all cases where they have been reproduced showed that there is no other effect than the placebo effect and the "evidence" came from manipulation of data or systematical errors. Therefore my sarcasm regarding medical science... A bit similar to american phenomena of the fundamental religious lobbies that lead to politicians denying evolution and even politicians who really should know better act and talk like there is an "alternative" history of this planet that is equal to evolution. In my opinion we reached a point in history, where there is a very obvious stagnation of education in bigger parts of the population of our countries, while on the other hand the avantgarde of serious science is not made understandable for the public and stays there as a kind of magic black box for the average joe. There is an advancing education gap, that in IMHO is in direct relation to an advancing income gap, advancing poverty in the lower income groups and a shift to the right in politics in all industrialised countries with also a new conservativism and religious explanations taking over... Kind of scares me for the future.... The way I look at it is mainly because I'm a cynic. I believe that every person does things for personal gratification. You don't see a lot of straight "replacement" of theories, because a lot of theories are both unable to be proven, as much as they are unable to be disproven. It's easier for those at the top to continue working with what they believe to be true, than to create new theories.. Or it could be as simple as riding the coattails of previous work to fame and fortune (much like Neil Degrase Tyson, Bill Nye, etc..) Most of those theories rely heavily on other man-made constructs, such as "time", which has no other bearing on the universe other than being a device that makes things more orderly for humans to classify their surroundings. Since "time" is completely man-made, relying on "time" as a constant in formulas to explain unexplainable phenomenon is purely based on the human desire to master their universe. As such, we base theories on "time", but as observational science progresses and new data is taken, we find that the "time" constant breaks down and causes failure of current equations to agree with observations, so rather than admit maybe it's all just wholly incorrect, we start inventing other "time" theories such as parallel universes to explain why the human construct, "time", doesn't work. We continue to do this until we reach ridiculously complex theories that are recursive and ultimately result in circular logic. In other words, we continue on creating more complex mathematics to explain why we are continuously incorrect, rather than stepping back to admit that maybe as humans, we simply will never be able to fathom what we see, or maybe that it's just a whole lot more simple than we will admit. That's why I follow a lot of alternate ideas for theoretical physics, especially those that center on simplicity and agreement with real-world observational sciences, rather than purely academic theoretical wankery. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 29, 2016 12:57:54 GMT -6
The way I look at it is mainly because I'm a cynic. I believe that every person does things for personal gratification. You don't see a lot of straight "replacement" of theories, because a lot of theories are both unable to be proven, as much as they are unable to be disproven. It's easier for those at the top to continue working with what they believe to be true, than to create new theories.. Or it could be as simple as riding the coattails of previous work to fame and fortune (much like Neil Degrase Tyson, Bill Nye, etc..) Most of those theories rely heavily on other man-made constructs, such as "time", which has no other bearing on the universe other than being a device that makes things more orderly for humans to classify their surroundings. Since "time" is completely man-made, relying on "time" as a constant in formulas to explain unexplainable phenomenon is purely based on the human desire to master their universe. As such, we base theories on "time", but as observational science progresses and new data is taken, we find that the "time" constant breaks down and causes failure of current equations to agree with observations, so rather than admit maybe it's all just wholly incorrect, we start inventing other "time" theories such as parallel universes to explain why the human construct, "time", doesn't work. We continue to do this until we reach ridiculously complex theories that are recursive and ultimately result in circular logic. In other words, we continue on creating more complex mathematics to explain why we are continuously incorrect, rather than stepping back to admit that maybe as humans, we simply will never be able to fathom what we see, or maybe that it's just a whole lot more simple than we will admit. That's why I follow a lot of alternate ideas for theoretical physics, especially those that center on simplicity and agreement with real-world observational sciences, rather than purely academic theoretical wankery. I've been saying this for years and I'm glad I'm not the only one who thinks this way, although a little tip never say these sentences at a science convention. "How many dimensions do you have to invent before the math fits?" and "Time is man made, your constant's mean jack". I believe I was lucky to get out alive. Nerd rage in it's fullest.. |
|
|
|
Post by svart on Dec 29, 2016 14:25:00 GMT -6
The way I look at it is mainly because I'm a cynic. I believe that every person does things for personal gratification. You don't see a lot of straight "replacement" of theories, because a lot of theories are both unable to be proven, as much as they are unable to be disproven. It's easier for those at the top to continue working with what they believe to be true, than to create new theories.. Or it could be as simple as riding the coattails of previous work to fame and fortune (much like Neil Degrase Tyson, Bill Nye, etc..) Most of those theories rely heavily on other man-made constructs, such as "time", which has no other bearing on the universe other than being a device that makes things more orderly for humans to classify their surroundings. Since "time" is completely man-made, relying on "time" as a constant in formulas to explain unexplainable phenomenon is purely based on the human desire to master their universe. As such, we base theories on "time", but as observational science progresses and new data is taken, we find that the "time" constant breaks down and causes failure of current equations to agree with observations, so rather than admit maybe it's all just wholly incorrect, we start inventing other "time" theories such as parallel universes to explain why the human construct, "time", doesn't work. We continue to do this until we reach ridiculously complex theories that are recursive and ultimately result in circular logic. In other words, we continue on creating more complex mathematics to explain why we are continuously incorrect, rather than stepping back to admit that maybe as humans, we simply will never be able to fathom what we see, or maybe that it's just a whole lot more simple than we will admit. That's why I follow a lot of alternate ideas for theoretical physics, especially those that center on simplicity and agreement with real-world observational sciences, rather than purely academic theoretical wankery. I've been saying this for years and I'm glad I'm not the only one who thinks this way, although a little tip never say these sentences at a science convention. "How many dimensions do you have to invent before the math fits?" and "Time is man made, your constant's mean jack". I believe I was lucky to get out alive. Nerd rage in it's fullest.. Working in high-science related professions, you always run into folks who've been at the top for long enough to start being conceited. Metaphorically, they "believe their shit doesn't stink". Unfortunately that also comes with the lack of humility. Most of those guys at the top have been lauded for so long, they no longer realize that they are working within the confines of human intelligence, and that their knowledge is finite, but rather believe that anyone who says otherwise is a simpleton who simply can't fathom the breadth of their understanding. Nothing more than ego fluffing. They work in a vacuum where no one else exists to keep them grounded. They are free to craft vast theories without any sort of logical constraints, and to bend mathematics to fit theories (free parameters..) and otherwise dismiss skepticism and critique as folly. It's no surprise that for the huge amount of money we spend on rather low return experiments, that very little comes from them besides data that can be interpreted many ways. It's interesting to read articles about folks designing tests for theories that they don't know even exist, but fail to talk about the irony that arises from the question.. If you don't know how something works, how can you design a test to even prove it? I suppose it's a lot like asking a person who was born blind to describe colors. They don't have any basis for that knowledge, so it's nigh impossible to do. Which is the circular logic I spoke of earlier. The test is designed based on the limitation of human intelligence, to test for something that is not yet comprehended, so how do you know the results you receive are actually proof of what you intended to test for? What if you accidentally detected something different but were too engrossed in proving your theory that you bent the math to fit your theory, and completely missed the truth of the moment? |
|
|
|
Post by chasmanian on Dec 29, 2016 18:27:04 GMT -6
I have been following this thread with the greatest of interest. a couple thoughts, in no particular order: - I love everything that you guys have written. I am absolutely amazed at how intelligent you all are. I have certainly been challenged by some of the things that you have written. and disagreed. and then someone will post more about their thoughts, and why they think the way they do, and I say to myself, wow, that guy is really bright. - I have been hanging out at the Astrophysics sub-forum of Astronomyforums.net for years. it is so awesome and interesting. there is one guy there in particular, who knows a lot. about many many subjects, in addition to astrophysics, and all physics. - it has happened many times on that forum, that people come on and say things about Dark Matter. I think its the best we got right now, to explain some stuff. and there is a lot evidence for it. I'm not sure now, I just don't remember how high the confidence level is, for it to being correct. I think there is room, for there to be other explanations for what is causing the observations we observe, than Dark Matter. but, like I said, it is the best we have right now. - on that forum, I have learned a lot about the Scientific Method. that is to say, how Science works. and things like how a Theory means something other than, the way that that word is used, and commonly understood. A Theory, is a lofty term. it means that it has passed rigorous criteria to earn that title. - there are some interesting ideas expressed on that forum, about things like Falsifiability (Karl Popper is someone who may have invented the concept). and there's something about Theories cannot ultimately be proven. they can only be disproven. and if they are NOT disproven, then they are accepted. Theories are good, if they can successfully predict test results. - also, regarding how Science works, as more is learned about things, new Theories may have to include and be in agreement with old Theories. but the new Theory, may introduce a higher more advanced level of precision, for measurements and such. - Time is such an interesting concept, indeed. I have spent time trying to learn about Relativity theories and such. nearly none about the Quantum stuff. though, I will spend more time on that, when I have more time, when I retire. years ago, I asked a lot of questions on the forum. I was told over and over, that the answer is in the Math. so I've been learning a bit about the Math of Relativity. there is a LOT to learn. - there is a German theoretical physicist who has a blog called Backreaction. her blog is fun to read. backreaction.blogspot.com/-ok thats about it. I will say again, I am really amazed at how bright you ALL are. I learned something from every one of your posts. |
|
|
|
Post by svart on Jan 1, 2017 11:11:52 GMT -6
 Tesla's words sum up my beliefs in a way that I couldn't possibly have matched. |
|
|
|
Post by M57 on Jan 1, 2017 11:57:51 GMT -6
On the other hand, fumbling around experimenting guess and check style until you get it right makes us no different from any other animal. Mr. Tesla's remark was reactionary. It is our ability to creatively model in the abstract that enables us to understand the workings of the universe the way we do, otherwise, we'd all be living in a world informed by the Newtonian model. Think about the sub-atomic particles that have recently been 'discovered' because they were predicted by models developed decades ago. Some of Einstein's predictions (based on equation after equation) have taken near a century to confirm. It's possible if not probable that a new planet will be 'discovered' in the next year or so, but if it is as far as I'm concerned, it has already discovered by the team that predicted it's existence and worked out where to look. Tesla was both right and wrong. To argue for one side or the other is to deny that science is a delicate dance of the theoretical with the confirmable. One is no less valuable than the other. That's my POV and I'm sticking to it until I change my mind.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bob Olhsson on Jan 1, 2017 12:45:41 GMT -6
Science is modeling. There is no such thing as a scientific "fact" however many models have never effectively been disproven so for practical purposes they can be treated as facts. (This is why there is no conflict at all between religion and science!)
While there is no evidence of humans being able to detect sin waves above around 22 kHz., many events above that frequency can affect the sound down below 22kHz. "Bandwidth" is a gross oversimplification of a very complex system.
|
|
|
|
Post by b1 on Jan 1, 2017 15:01:19 GMT -6
Many times and in many areas, "some" feel the need to break out of the box for fulfillment/enlightenment... only to find they're stepping into a larger box that needs to be recalculated, when the previous parameters do not align. That's where "religion" and science are in the closest proximity for the "scientist"... and that being the place where the child and the faithful dwells... The wise must become foolish to advance into wisdom and understanding.
|
|
|
|
Post by NoFilterChuck on Jan 2, 2017 5:30:21 GMT -6
"we'd all be living in a world informed by the Newtonian model."
um, aren't all the highways, roads and buildings we live in and drive on (basically all the stuff we use every day) designed using Newtonian physics rules?
|
|
|
|
Post by M57 on Jan 2, 2017 6:10:46 GMT -6
"we'd all be living in a world informed by the Newtonian model." um, aren't all the highways, roads and buildings we live in and drive on (basically all the stuff we use every day) designed using Newtonian physics rules? Yep, we'd have trains and roads and cars - but no GPS. Well, not accurate GPS. |
|
|
|
Post by chasmanian on Jan 2, 2017 10:01:09 GMT -6
the effects of Relativity (Special and General) are very interesting. here is an article about GPS that I really love. it shows how the mathematics of Relativity, are valuable and are used to make super precise corrections to Newtonian calculations. these are tiny differences, that would add up to make GPS unusable, if they were not factored in. this is well worth reading. www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/gps.html |
|
|
|
Post by kilroyrock on Jan 2, 2017 22:43:07 GMT -6
Probably the biggest part of all this that blows my mind is that sound, light, x-rays, god knows what else are all the same thing but just vibrations at different speeds, if that's even the right word for it. Mind boggling, right?
|
|
|
|
Post by NoFilterChuck on Jan 3, 2017 1:46:51 GMT -6
Probably the biggest part of all this that blows my mind is that sound, light, x-rays, god knows what else are all the same thing but just vibrations at different speeds, if that's even the right word for it. Mind boggling, right? light is an electromagnetic wave. It doesn't physically push anything, unlike soundwaves. sound is what happens when pressure waves in the air cause our ear-drums to move. What's amazing to me is that in order to convert a sound wave into a light wave, you need to use a microphone to convert that physical pressure wave into an electromagnetic wave. And then you gotta use some other gadgets to transform it into the visible spectrum. |
|
|
|
Post by M57 on Jan 3, 2017 6:11:29 GMT -6
light is an electromagnetic wave. It doesn't physically push anything, unlike soundwaves. sound is what happens when pressure waves in the air cause our ear-drums to move. What's amazing to me is that in order to convert a sound wave into a light wave, you need to use a microphone to convert that physical pressure wave into an electromagnetic wave. And then you gotta use some other gadgets to transform it into the visible spectrum. Transform is somewhat of a misnomer; as soon as you start messing with it, it's just a representation, but I'm OK with the word from an artistic point of view. |
|
|
|
Post by svart on Jan 3, 2017 7:24:39 GMT -6
Probably the biggest part of all this that blows my mind is that sound, light, x-rays, god knows what else are all the same thing but just vibrations at different speeds, if that's even the right word for it. Mind boggling, right? light is an electromagnetic wave. It doesn't physically push anything, unlike soundwaves. sound is what happens when pressure waves in the air cause our ear-drums to move. What's amazing to me is that in order to convert a sound wave into a light wave, you need to use a microphone to convert that physical pressure wave into an electromagnetic wave. And then you gotta use some other gadgets to transform it into the visible spectrum. Actually, light is supposedly an elementary particle called a photon. Anything from heat (infrared) to X/gamma rays are photons of various energies. And yes, they do push. In fact, there are space travel designs called "Solar sails" that use the push of photons as propulsion. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_sailAnd you know me by now, I can't stop at that.. We actually don't *know* that photons actually exist. It's another un-provable theory along with other subatomic particles that we don't have undeniable proof they exist. We know that light exerts a pressure, so it must be a physical particle. We know that higher energy light destroys matter, so we can assume it must be a particle. We know that it is affected by gravity and magnetism, so it must be a particle. Nonetheless we can also *see* the effects of *something* on the physical world around us, but for all of that, we have never actually been able to *see* a photon itself, nor prove that they exist in the way we believe they do. |
|
|
|
Post by M57 on Jan 3, 2017 9:03:42 GMT -6
It is true - photons may not exist. We've simply propped them up with "equation upon equation," but no one has ever seen one. Let' play this game out. I'm not absolutely sure that any of you actually exist (with the exception of jcoutu, who I have actually met). You are pretty much all theoretical beings. For instance, it's possible you've all been created by the singularity, which is here, but no one knows it yet.
|
|
|
|
Post by svart on Jan 3, 2017 9:18:37 GMT -6
It is true - photons may not exist. We've simply propped them up with "equation upon equation," but no one has ever seen one. Let' play this game out. I'm not absolutely sure that any of you actually exist (with the exception of jcoutu, who I have actually met). You are pretty much all theoretical beings. For instance, it's possible you've all been created by the singularity, which is here, but no one knows it yet. How very Schrodinger of you.. |
|
|
|
Post by NoFilterChuck on Jan 3, 2017 15:58:35 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by svart on Jan 4, 2017 8:44:40 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by chasmanian on Jan 4, 2017 18:54:01 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by svart on Jan 5, 2017 8:42:34 GMT -6
Yep. I know. So man doesn't understand why things happen, makes up ideas about invisible matter that creates the universe yet is impossible to see do anything directly, interact with anything, or otherwise expose itself to us, simply because they cannot believe that they cannot understand the randomness of existence.. So man doesn't understand why things happen, makes up ideas about invisible deity that creates the universe yet is impossible to see do anything directly, interact with anything, or otherwise expose itself to us, simply because they cannot believe that they cannot understand the randomness of existence.. Completely different, because science. |
|
