Phi for All

In science, a theory is the best you can get. You seem to be referring to a more popular usage of the term, which basically means, "an untested idea that sounds logical and may be correct". If something is called a theory in science, it won't be called anything better, even if more evidence confirms it. And if its refuted, it will lose its classification as a viable theory.

Math is the language of physics. Languages are tools we use to accomplish specific tasks. Math as a tool has an incredibly robust application in science because of its precision. Like anything, you can use other tools to accomplish the work, but science without math is imprecise, and has to rely on subjective words to describe the universe. Words don't translate with the kind of precision you need to do science well. It's hard to think of any area where math can't help with a solution. Poetry and music might seem to be on the opposite end of some scale from math, but rhythms and patterns can be modeled mathematically. Even abstract applications like... what I feel like having for breakfast, are going to involve some math (how many pieces of bacon can I have and still claim to be intelligent?).

Perhaps you're basing your judgement on misinformation? Relativity doesn't attempt to explain the start of the universe. Einstein's work is hardly intuitive, but it certainly seems to work in the real world. I'm wondering how Earth gets a pass up until the last half hour of the Big Rip. I thought it would only take a few billion years for our sun to go red giant, which will either burn us up or scatter all the planets due to the change in mass.

And a scientist would better be able to realize the failure because the theory was put together rationally (even though it turned out wrong), so evidence that refutes it is viewed equally rationally. In reviewing the methodology, emotions are detrimental to rigorous work. Those who don't have the education but "study QM on their own" have emotionally invested in their own understanding. They've probably had some blinding insights based on their marvelous ability to intuit complex mathematics (to the point where they don't need them at all!). They can't follow the reasonable bread-crumb trail because they've been busy leaping joyously to their own conclusions. Their "theories" aren't a map telling others how to get there; instead they're a story with inadequate references about how you might arrive if you felt exactly the way they do about it.

I'm seeing that it's partially the misuse of the term "logic". Many of those people think logic is when things make sense to them. They think that if something they say seems perfectly understandable, they must be doing science. But I think the bigger culprit is that most of these people have reached whatever conclusions they've reached via their emotions, rather than reason (which is what they think of as logic). If this type of person hears something that gives them a "gut feeling", they'll use "intuition" to extrapolate based on unsound methods. And once they reach a conclusion in this manner, it's very difficult to persuade them it's wrong. You can't use reason, because it just "feels right", and that carries more weight in these people's minds. If you use reason and rational thinking to examine a phenomenon, and gather evidence on which to base conclusions, you'll be much more likely to understand what's going on. And when better data comes along that trumps your explanation, you'll be in a better position to understand that, too, and change your ideas accordingly.

We call them disasters, but they show that the planet is geologically active. I don't think we'd want it any other way.

It's great for picking up hitchhiking lobsters, too.

It even works to prevent piles in April, and can protect you from moist winds.

Grandpas too? With regard to screws, nuts and bolts, I was always told to "Start all before tightening any" (meaning "Put them all in loosely before you tighten any of them firmly"). Every time I tried to save time by avoiding this, I had to go back and redo some unevenness. It's one of those nice little tips that's not very intuitive and saves quite a bit of trial and error. WRT eggs, I've always wondered why grannies were known for "sucking eggs". I understand that you need to remove the insides to decorate the shell so it doesn't smell, but either granny is having raw egg for lunch, or she's spitting them back into a bowl so she can bake a cake later. Wouldn't it have been more hygienic to blow it into the bowl in the first place? Perhaps someone should have taught grandma a thing or two about removing albumin and vitellus from eggshells.

Which came first, the pickled onion, or the pickled egg?

I trust audio patterns even less than visual ones. Especially when it comes to vague sounds like rain on falling leaves. I was firmly convinced one night that a woman was walking up and down the sidewalk beneath my bedroom in high-heeled shoes, because that's exactly what it sounded like. And every time I went to the curtains to see her, it stopped. It turned out to be the plastic piece on the end of the curtain pull. The evening breeze made the curtains stir, and that set the cord in motion, making it tick against the wall. It stopped when I looked because I was moving the curtain and the pull cord. At the time though, I was absolutely sure of what I was hearing. Water sounds are tricky. I've heard what I thought was heavy wind in the tall pines, only to find out twenty minutes later that river rapids were up ahead, making that constant roar that sounded more like wind at a distance. I'm just very skeptical. We're so good at filling in the blanks in patterns we see and hear.

! Moderator Note Moved to the Trash.

! Moderator Note We can't meander like this in the Physics section. It drives the physicists crazy, like folding a map wrong. I'm tempted to move this to Philosophy, but in truth it's a speculation, and we have a section for that. As in all the sections here at SFN, we ask for above-average rigor in supporting your ideas as much as you can with evidence. If you're here to make your idea better, or find out that it's just plain wrong (as most ideas in science are), you're in the right place. If you just want people to "play along" with unsupported guesswork, you should go to one of the sites on the web where they love that sort of thing. We've found that discussion is more meaningful when it's grounded in sound methodology. Moved to Speculations. Please take some time to read the rules we have for that section. Thanks for understanding.

! Moderator Note Andrei_62, this is NOT a blog, it's a discussion forum. The last time you were here, you posted and never replied to the people who wanted to talk about your idea. If you aren't willing to discuss what you post here, you're in violation of our NO SOAPBOXING rule, and I'll have to close this thread. Please respond to the members, but don't discuss this modnote here. Report it if you object, so we don't disrupt this conversation.

Thanks very much, to you and all the other working science professionals who contribute their resources to the discussions here. We're a far cry from peer review, but we can only sustain the level of scientific rigor we have because of you pros and your generosity when it comes to knowledge.

There are places on the web you can toss ideas around and plenty of people will "play along". This isn't one of them. We determined that, in order to insure the time we spend in discussion is meaningful, we need a higher level of rigor than those other sites. We discuss science, plain and simple. We don't "play along" because we respect your time and intelligence. We think it's better to have the flaws in your idea pointed out early, so you either know what to fix or you realize your idea is completely wrong and you can stop wasting time on it. So who is actually showing you more respect, the person who "plays along" with an idea in an area you may be ignorant about, or the person who tells it to you straight, and gives you the benefit of their learning?

My perspective is NOT that GR is a tool for creating the absolute frame of reference, because that's wrong. There is no absolute reference frame. GR tells us that all frames are relative. As for the rest, it makes no sense. Perhaps because you start from a flawed premise. But I also realize that you didn't arrive at this belief rationally, so it will do no good to use rational arguments to show you its flaws. It won't make any difference with this type of belief. In fact, confirmation bias is so strong with this kind of belief, the more actual evidence I can show for my arguments, the more it will convince you you're right. I appreciate the discussion, and wish you well with the rest of it, but it's depressing to think you believe god created fire. And insulting, in a way. I'll leave you to it.

! Moderator Note Let's leave this Lounge thread to the people who find it of value.

Um, no. Relativity doesn't mean facts are different for each person. In fact, the principle of relativity says that the equations defining the laws of physics that govern the universe have the same form in ALL reference frames. It doesn't mean your world is different than mine, it means we need to distinguish between different frames of reference when describing the universe. If you based your beliefs on this bit of misunderstanding, you might want to study Relativity a bit deeper.

! Moderator Note David Levy, you know the rules we have here. This is a science forum with above average requirements for rigor when offering speculative concepts. If you can't follow those rules, you should go to someplace that is more tolerant of unsupported guesswork. It's assumed that people who come here for discussion want more than that. It's what our membership has requested, and what the site owners have tasked the staff to oversee. It's clear you don't understand what you're criticizing, and you continue to make bald assertions rather than asking questions. You're behaving like a complete crackpot and it won't be tolerated any more. Either provide some support for your ideas, reply to the specific questions you're being asked, or this thread will be closed like the others. Please follow our rules or leave, David Levy. I'm sorry to have to be so blunt, but you just don't seem to be listening. Report this post if you want to talk about it, but don't talk about this modnote here.

OK, thanks for clarifying that.

Except for that nagging evidence that you could verify if you chose to. It exists, thousands of people who do understand it work with it, you're on a computer so you're working with it. Nothing like that exists to support the existence of god(s), whether you chose to look for it or not. It's that verification capability that distinguishes science from any other type of belief. The difference between faith and trust.

I say you must have made it up simply because you haven't shown any supportive evidence for these claims. They're assumptions on your part from your OP that you haven't yet explained. This could be part of the problem. Atheists don't believe, they have a lack of belief. I don't disbelieve in god(s), I have no beliefs about god(s) at all. Just like I'm not anti-stamps just because I don't collect them. Also, science isn't looking for proof, just a preponderance of evidence supporting the best explanations. And I don't get your asteroid analogy. How can you have a universe that is simultaneously a higher power and NOT a higher power?

No, I use the term "magical sky fairy" to denote the supernatural aspect of god(s). Everything we know about so far has a perfectly rational, natural explanation. We didn't always have this knowledge though, and we used god(s) to explain what we couldn't understand. As we gained this natural-world understanding through observation and experimentation, our god explanations began to get squeezed out of the gaps in our knowledge. So far, there's not a single phenomenon we know of that would require an explanation using supernatural means. The preponderance of evidence would suggest that god(s) and magic aren't needed for a concept of consciousness. So yes, you made up EVERYTHING in reference to this god. Unless you have some evidence you aren't sharing.

What is god if not a magical sky fairy? And relativity isn't "one thing for me and another thing for you". What changes is the frame of reference, not the theory. If you're OK with having your own "version" of god that fits the way you think things should be, you aren't alone. A lot of people decide they can make stuff up/interpret God's meaning just as well as the next guy. I think that's what most people who believe in god(s) do, take in the basic doctrines and then tweak for personal reasons. I think it's why religion is more popular than science. Less work, less learning, and you get to make changes to suit your personality. A lot of people don't like science because of the rigorous approach. If religion was held to the same standards, I don't think it would be nearly as pervasive. It appeals partially because it really is different for every person. I also hope you don't think I'm "making fun" of anything you say. I think more people have your kinds of belief than do mine.