Tangointhenight Posted February 21, 2009 Posted February 21, 2009 This is very interesting, someone should watch this guy he is very smart.
ajb Posted February 21, 2009 Posted February 21, 2009 (edited) Could you post a short synopsis? First question is who is the guy your refer to? That way we are all prepared for the discussion. What are your thoughts on this? ---------------------------------- Taken from the website of Nila Gaede (the guy in the videos I think?) "Mission statement: To utterly destroy the idiotic religions known as General Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, and String Theory." Very offensive use of language and suggestive of a quack and charlatan. Edited February 21, 2009 by ajb
Sayonara Posted February 21, 2009 Posted February 21, 2009 This is very interesting, someone should watch this guy he is very smart. And yet all he has are arguments from personal incredulity. Epic fail. 1
ajb Posted February 21, 2009 Posted February 21, 2009 His website seems more like an attach on the personality of mathematical physicists rather than any well put together argument against relativity. Sick, vile and offensive I'd say.
Tangointhenight Posted February 21, 2009 Author Posted February 21, 2009 His website seems more like an attach on the personality of mathematical physicists rather than any well put together argument against relativity. Sick, vile and offensive I'd say. he makes a conviceing argument. Example, mathimachians cant draw time, they cant explain it.
ydoaPs Posted February 21, 2009 Posted February 21, 2009 he makes a conviceing argument. Could you paraphrase it here?
ajb Posted February 21, 2009 Posted February 21, 2009 I don't see anything on the website http://www.youstupidrelativist.com/ that is anything but a rant and much of the claims are not true. Please, just forget it.
Tangointhenight Posted February 21, 2009 Author Posted February 21, 2009 Could you paraphrase it here? I don't see anything on the website http://www.youstupidrelativist.com/ that is anything but a rant and much of the claims are not true. Please, just forget it. read this, all of it then make conclusion. http://youstupidrelativist.com/03GR/03BlackHole/00SumBH.html
ajb Posted February 21, 2009 Posted February 21, 2009 (edited) He does not understand the concept of a physical theory and a model. This I believe is why he is so confused. I don't think he knows much about classical general relativity and black holes. His question of what black holes are into suggest this. Please do some real reading into the subjects. It is difficult and will take a long time. All he as done is point to the things he does not understand. That is fine, but what is wrong is to suggest that no-one understands. Questioning science scientifically is good, only by questioning will we advance. Just by trying to take the piss is no good for anyone. It is a fact that modern physics is difficult and relies on mathematics. No short cut I am sorry. Before listening to this rubbish pick up a popular science book or ask on here. Edited February 21, 2009 by ajb
Tangointhenight Posted February 21, 2009 Author Posted February 21, 2009 He does not understand the concept of a physical theory and a model. This I believe is why he is so confused. I don't think he knows much about classical general relativity and black holes. His question of what black holes are into suggest this. Please do some real reading into the subjects. It is difficult and will take a long time. All he as done is point to the things he does not understand. That is fine, but what is wrong is to suggest that no-one understands. Questioning science scientifically is good, only by questioning will we advance. Just by trying to take the piss is no good for anyone. It is a fact that modern physics is difficult and relies on mathematics. No short cut I am sorry. Before listening to this rubbish pick up a popular science book or ask on here. I read a bunch of books on realtivity, and even finished reading a brief history in time. but the point is that science is supposed to be understandble by anyone, einstein said, your theory should be understood by a barmaid. Modern science is so complex that they lost sight of reality.
insane_alien Posted February 21, 2009 Posted February 21, 2009 I read a bunch of books on realtivity, and even finished reading a brief history in time. but the point is that science is supposed to be understandble by anyone, einstein said, your theory should be understood by a barmaid. Modern science is so complex that they lost sight of reality. The point of science is to describe reality. And, the reality of the situation is that reality is not always straight forward and intuitive. Anybody COULD understand these theories but they would need to learn the precursors first. Just like anybody COULD understand a book written in french, they would just need to learn the french language first. 1
Sayonara Posted February 21, 2009 Posted February 21, 2009 I read a bunch of books on realtivity, and even finished reading a brief history in time. but the point is that science is supposed to be understandble by anyone, einstein said, your theory should be understood by a barmaid. Modern science is so complex that they lost sight of reality. This is not a problem with science, it is a problem with the degree to which you are prepared to devote the time and energy to understanding what other people have figured out. Arguments from incredulity or ignorance hold no intellectual merit and have no scientific or rational credibility. Case closed.
ajb Posted February 21, 2009 Posted February 21, 2009 I don't think there should be a point of science being understandable to everyone. There are plenty of things that any given scientist or mathematician will not know, particularly in fields they do not directly work in. Even then, there will be things in their field they don't understand. Put simply, there is not enough time and too many questions to learn it all. What science should be is open and accessible to any and everyone. You can get hold of papers, articles, lecture notes, reviews, books etc (not always free though). As science is mostly funded by the public is should also be accountable. However, I do believe that public understanding of science is important. The big problem, which you have pointed out is that much of it is too technical to convey to a general audience. This is not confined to the general public as it can be difficult for scientists to communicate amongst themselves. I have given talks to an interested, but not highly mathematically sophisticated general audience on the mathematical foundations of general relativity. All of them got something out of it. I would love to be able to do the same with some of my work, but it is just too involved to explain to someone outside of my field.
Tangointhenight Posted February 21, 2009 Author Posted February 21, 2009 The point of science is to describe reality. And, the reality of the situation is that reality is not always straight forward and intuitive. Really????? Science is to describe reality, not explain weird that is what my teacher crammed into my brain. Explanation not desribing.
ajb Posted February 21, 2009 Posted February 21, 2009 Really????? Science is to describe reality, not explain weird that is what my teacher crammed into my brain. Explanation not desribing. Explain in what sense? The best it can do really is tell you "how" something is happening (via a theory or model). What it cannot do is tell you "why". I think "describe" and "explain" have the same meaning here.
Kaeroll Posted February 21, 2009 Posted February 21, 2009 I read a bunch of books on realtivity, and even finished reading a brief history in time. but the point is that science is supposed to be understandble by anyone, einstein said, your theory should be understood by a barmaid. Modern science is so complex that they lost sight of reality. So your basic point is that because it's not immediately intuitive, or requires study, it's wrong? (Also - I've never quite got this 'Einstein said this therefore it's true' malarky. He also dismissed quantum mechanics...)
Sayonara Posted February 21, 2009 Posted February 21, 2009 "Description" in the sense that scientists use it is a form of explanation. If you are still in school or at college then I would not concern yourself too much with trying to evaluate all of physics - it's simply far too complex and vast for your level of expertise. This isn't aimed at you personally; it's just a matter of fact. At undergraduate level and below, the aim is mostly to teach you how to approach and understand science, rather than teaching you the secrets of the universe. If your teachers are failing at this task then that is something you need to take up with your school/college.
ajb Posted February 21, 2009 Posted February 21, 2009 I have had a good look at the website http://www.youstupidrelativist.com It is full of misconceptions and lies. The author has no idea how a physicist or mathematician works and even less about the subject matters. I just hope no one listens to the drivel and rants.
Mokele Posted February 21, 2009 Posted February 21, 2009 The author of the video has no clue how science actually works. He sits there, jabbering pointlessly, and accomplishes nothing. Science isn't about talking, or making a good argument. It's about experimental evidence. If he's really so sure about his claims, then he should design an experiment to test them. No experiment, no argument. Either point to an explicit experimental test, or this thread will be closed.
Bignose Posted February 21, 2009 Posted February 21, 2009 I read a bunch of books on realtivity, and even finished reading a brief history in time. but the point is that science is supposed to be understandble by anyone, einstein said, your theory should be understood by a barmaid. Modern science is so complex that they lost sight of reality. I think we should extend this to everything, then. Do you understand every part of your car? Because if not, we probably shouldn't use them either, or believe in them either. How about your computer? Do you understand the design of the chip? If not, you probably shouldn't use your computer or believe in it. How about television, and radio? Do you understand how pictures and sounds are transmitted through the air to arrive to your house? If not, you probably shouldn't believe in them, too. Heck, for that matter, do you understand all the details of how your body functions? What about your brain? Can you explain it to anybody (i.e. your barmaid)? Because, if not, you probably shouldn't believe in it, either. Come on... there is a reason we have experts in every field. There is too much information for everyone to be able to consume it all. You take your car to a mechanic and let Ford and GM design them for you, you let Intel and AMD design your computer chips for you, you let Sony and Panasonic design and build your TVs for you. That's why you go to a doctor when you are sick. We don't do all of these other exceptionally complex things ourselves, why should the study of black holes and other complex scientific things be different? Just like it takes time to understand how to design a car, a computer chip, a TV or radio, or understand parts of the human body, it takes time and study to learn the scientific cosmological theories and the evidence that strongly supports the current theories.
swansont Posted February 21, 2009 Posted February 21, 2009 I read a bunch of books on realtivity, and even finished reading a brief history in time. but the point is that science is supposed to be understandble by anyone, einstein said, your theory should be understood by a barmaid. Modern science is so complex that they lost sight of reality. It was Rutherford who said, "an alleged scientific discovery has no merit unless it can be explained to a barmaid," but no matter. The claim that something is wrong because you don't understand it is flawed.
Royston Posted February 22, 2009 Posted February 22, 2009 (edited) I read a bunch of books on realtivity, and even finished reading a brief history in time. Sorry but I choked on this sentence...you read a bunch of books on relativity, which ones exactly, because to follow that with 'I even finished a brief history of time', makes me wonder what books on relativity you're reading. The latter is a very dated, layman account of physics, and wrapping your head around some of the concepts raised, is quite tough going...however, that doesn't mean your in a position to start making claims against relativity. It may help, Tangointhenight, if we knew a bit about your background, you said earlier you were at school, (if that's the case} please don't start sniping a subject before you understand it. Edited February 22, 2009 by Snail
Mr Skeptic Posted February 22, 2009 Posted February 22, 2009 Really????? Science is to describe reality, not explain weird that is what my teacher crammed into my brain. Explanation not desribing. That is it in a nutshell. "Explaining" isn't really useful. If you look at the scientific method you will see that science is all about making accurate predictions. You could call this describing reality. However, any "explanation" science might do is limited to things that you can see. Newton for example described the force of gravity but noted that he had no idea what causes gravity or what it is, so his theory gave numerical predictions but not so much explanation. On the other hand, something like "God did it" explains anything and everything but predicts nothing. And because quantitative predictions are better than simply qualitative predictions, scientific theories tend to be mathematical. What you may have been thinking about is a scientific model. Unlike theories, models do try to explain why things happen (in a sense) rather than just describing it and making predictions. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedI read a bunch of books on realtivity, and even finished reading a brief history in time. but the point is that science is supposed to be understandble by anyone, einstein said, your theory should be understood by a barmaid. Modern science is so complex that they lost sight of reality. Einstein was a great believer in the simplicity and elegance of nature, as were many scientists. His theory of relativity was simple and elegant, though it does require some advanced math to see that it is simple and elegant. Contrast this to the concept of epicycles, which was easy enough to understand but horribly inelegant -- and they are limited to describing only our planets' motions rather than the entire universe.
iNow Posted February 22, 2009 Posted February 22, 2009 Rutherford said that, not Einstein. Swansont already made this correction. Also, use of the word "even" before "finished reading BHoT" implies to me that he didn't finish reading any of those other books w/o titles. Tangointhenight - Instead of reading books on relativity, I might suggest that you spend some time reading books on logical fallacies and how to properly argue a point in a scientific arena. Enjoy.
Sayonara Posted February 22, 2009 Posted February 22, 2009 To that end, here is an excellent resource which lists and explains the most common logical fallacies: http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ It is well worth the read for students at any level.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now