Klaynos Posted March 25, 2008 Share Posted March 25, 2008 *bangs his head on the desk* Learn what modern science is and then come back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zephir Posted March 25, 2008 Author Share Posted March 25, 2008 How do you think the computer models it? The computer simulation isn't required to solve any formal model. You can use the particle simulation of fluid (for example the Lattice Boltzmann simulation), without writing any differential equation. This is how the simulation bellow was computed. If I should derive the formal model of it at first, I would spend the whole rest of my life by this task. Because the string theorists don't know, what they're computing, theyre required to combine the formal model from scratch by blind combinations of equations from existing theories, which are believed to be working with infinite precision. No wonder, the understanding of the physical model proceeds so slowly. They're simply cannot see the forest for woods. The result is growing landscape of mutually incompatible theories. Learn what modern science is and then come back. I don't know, what the "modern science" means for you. For me it's completelly undefined concept. What I can just see, even the simplest concepts weren't considered, tested the lessl, just because they cannot be formalized so easily. Therefore I don't want to understand the "modern science", I want to understand the Universe and to collect some testable predictions about it. I'd reccomend you to do the same. After all, if you want to compute somethings, you're on wrong place here. This is not computational forum. Albert Einstein: "Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not even sure about the former." If the above is true, why to start the understanding of the reality by its apparently more difficult part? I'm just following the principle of least action, as usually. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klaynos Posted March 25, 2008 Share Posted March 25, 2008 How do you understand the universe with just words? You need to model the universe to understand it, you need maths! Modern science is about prediction and experiment. You've not done either. Ah, and now we're referring to a higher authority and strawmaning in one go, nicely done... nicely done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zephir Posted March 25, 2008 Author Share Posted March 25, 2008 ..You need to model the universe to understand it, you need maths. And how you can derive this math without using of existing theories, if you don't understand the subject? By such approach you're required to develop the physics only by combination of existing equations (like the string theorists are doing), are you? Furthermore, you're not required to understand model completely, you're just required to derive some testable predictions of it. And such derivation doesn't required to be formal, just unambiguous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klaynos Posted March 25, 2008 Share Posted March 25, 2008 It's called first principles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zephir Posted March 25, 2008 Author Share Posted March 25, 2008 It's called first principles. Briefly the postulates. What the AWT basically says, is, the Universe is random inertial stuff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klaynos Posted March 25, 2008 Share Posted March 25, 2008 Ah yes, the dictionary the last resort of the attempted modern physics overturner... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zephir Posted March 25, 2008 Author Share Posted March 25, 2008 ..the dictionary the last resort... Basically yes, because the scope of AWT is limited just by semantical rules. For example the physicaly relevant definition of existence - try to find some without dictionary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klaynos Posted March 25, 2008 Share Posted March 25, 2008 I've said it before, I'll say it again, no maths, no physics. Definitions in physics often are not in dictionaries... this has been discussed many times before just search the forums for "dictionary" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zephir Posted March 25, 2008 Author Share Posted March 25, 2008 .. no maths, no physics.. Does it mean, the claim: "The Earth is revolving around Sun, because of shape of Lunar craters and sequence of Venus phases" doesn't belong the physics? Then Galileo wasn't physicist and he should be burned like crank. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klaynos Posted March 25, 2008 Share Posted March 25, 2008 This may shock you but physics has moved along a bit in the last 450 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zephir Posted March 25, 2008 Author Share Posted March 25, 2008 This may shock you but physics has moved along a bit in the last 450 years. Does it mean, the sentence "The Earth is revolving around Sun, because of shape of Lunar craters and sequence of Venus phases" is insufficient for confirmation of heliocentric model from the contemporary physics perspective? I'm afraid, the string theorists would be quite happy, if they could prove their theory so easily. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klaynos Posted March 25, 2008 Share Posted March 25, 2008 Does it mean, the sentence "The Earth is revolving around Sun, because of shape of Lunar craters and sequence of Venus phases" is insufficient for confirmation of heliocentric model from the contemporary physics perspective? Unless you define your statements using maths. Yes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zephir Posted March 25, 2008 Author Share Posted March 25, 2008 Unless you define your statements using maths. Yes. OK, how to define the order of Venus phases by mathematical way? You should be able to do it, or such reasoning cannot serve for validity proof of heliocentric model at all. You can prove only, such derivation exist in literature. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klaynos Posted March 25, 2008 Share Posted March 25, 2008 You're right it shouldn't be too hard, and I'm sure it's not but I'm trying to write something important atm so don't have the time to do it.... Some of us have real science to be getting on with... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zephir Posted March 25, 2008 Author Share Posted March 25, 2008 ...Some of us have real science to be getting on with... What is real science, after then? The finding of more complex arguments, when those simple are relevant enough? Because you can get more money for longer time, when keeping the physics more difficult to understand for publicity? Do you know, how the witchmans and Holy Church are working? Do you know, why Holy Church has denied the Galileo or Darwin? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klaynos Posted March 25, 2008 Share Posted March 25, 2008 OK, look seriously just because you don't get the maths, and seem confused by what modern physics is, does not mean it's wrong and you're right with your lovely little words. My real science is the energy dependent characterisation of the magneto-optical properties of thin films. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ydoaPs Posted March 25, 2008 Share Posted March 25, 2008 Zephir, mathematics is the language with which physicists explain the universe. You cannot fully explain some things without mathematics. And for others, mathematics makes the explanation a lot more compact and accurate. For example: how would you explain the relation between the magnetic and electric fields? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zephir Posted March 25, 2008 Author Share Posted March 25, 2008 ...My real science is the energy dependent characterisation of the magneto-optical properties of thin films... If so, why are you spending time here? Somebody, who is interested about how the field theories are working can find inspiration, while for you such topic is meaningless. ..You cannot fully explain some things without mathematics.. Can you explain the turbulence or multiparticle condensation in full just by math? Can you explain the Victoria falls by using of math? If yes, who can understand and to use such explanation for further predictions? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klaynos Posted March 25, 2008 Share Posted March 25, 2008 Because general physics interests me, and my current research are is fundemenatally an interaction between quantum mechanics and light/other EM radiation. My next research project will be even more light dependent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
5614 Posted March 25, 2008 Share Posted March 25, 2008 Zephir: you're fighting an uphill battle, to state the obvious. The aether is a long discussed topic, for hundreds of years in fact, but we are finally quite certain that the topic has been settled and there is no aether. Look at the MM experiment, relativity and the likes and it soon becomes quite apparent that there is no aether. On top of this things like Maxwell's equation have been so thoroughly tested they each of the 4 equations are justified in being called Laws. If you come along and try to present any theory that differs from these you are going to need very very solid evidence against the current theories, because they have passed every test imaginable, and have been scrutinised from every angle, and still passed. If you tell us they're wrong we're simply not going to believe you unless you have some real solid and convincing evidence. It takes a long time for new concepts in physics to be accepted, look at the paper to Nobel prize time period, or at any big turning point in physics. Only if you can really present your theory and convince others you are correct, and stand up under theoretical and mathematical scrutiny will your theory ever be taken seriously. My real science is the energy dependent characterisation of the magneto-optical properties of thin films.Well it sure sounds complicated enough to be classified as real physics! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zephir Posted March 25, 2008 Author Share Posted March 25, 2008 ..how would you explain the relation between the magnetic and electric fields?.. The Aether foam is behaving like undulating urethane mattress. Therefore every deformation in one direction leads to the reciprocal deformation in those perpendicular one, shifted by half-period. Easy to understand for everybody. And you, how can you explain this stuff? I mean really explain, not just to describe by using of equations, which were compiled just from this experimental evidence. ...at the MM experiment, relativity and the likes and it soon becomes quite apparent that there is no aether.... Was the dense aether concept ever considered in interpretation of MM-experiment? If not, how can you say the above? ...it takes a long time for new concepts in physics to be accepted.. If so, why they're denied so quickly? ...if you tell us they're wrong we're simply not going to believe you unless you have some real solid and convincing evidence. By Popper's methodology every theory should be considered wrong. Your stance is violating official scientific methodology. And I'm not even saying, they're wrong, I'm just saying, you cannot explain their postulates. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klaynos Posted March 25, 2008 Share Posted March 25, 2008 The MM experiment was an attempt to prove the aether.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ydoaPs Posted March 25, 2008 Share Posted March 25, 2008 The Aether foam is behaving like undulating urethane mattress. Therefore every deformation in one direction leads to the reciprocal deformation in those perpendicular one, shifted by half-period. Easy to understand for everybody. Perpendicular how? There's more than one way to be perpendicular. [math]{\nabla}{\cdot}{E}=\frac{\rho}{\epsilon_0}[/math] [math]{\nabla}{\cdot}{B}=0[/math] [math]{\nabla}{\times}{E}=-\frac{\partial{B}}{\partial{t}}[/math] [math]{\nabla}{\times}{B}={\mu_0}{J}+{\mu_0}{\epsilon_0}{\frac{\partial{E}}{\partial{t}}}[/math] Where [math]\rho[/math] is electric charge density, B is magnetic field, E is electric field, [math]\epsilon_0[/math] is permittivity of free space, [math]\mu_0[/math] is magnetic permeability of free space, J is current density, and t is time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zephir Posted March 25, 2008 Author Share Posted March 25, 2008 The MM experiment was an attempt to prove the aether.... Just the thin Aether, which should behave like reference frame towards the moving bodies. Not like the underwater with respect to surface wave spreading. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts