swansont Posted December 23, 2011 Posted December 23, 2011 In my mind no author of a theory can claim its true they can only present it for consideration. . . On the other hand they can believe it's true. . . And when that consideration is that it fails? Say, on trivial grounds like unit analysis?
zapatos Posted December 23, 2011 Posted December 23, 2011 In my mind no author of a theory can claim its true they can only present it for consideration. . . On the other hand they can believe it's true. . . If you don't mind me asking, have you found support for your theory elsewhere? Are you reevaluating your theory in light of the responses and suggestions you've received on this forum?
Bignose Posted December 23, 2011 Posted December 23, 2011 (edited) In my mind no author of a theory can claim its true they can only present it for consideration. . . On the other hand they can believe it's true. . . OK, please think of your idea as considered and then rejected because it does not follow the measurements made every single day. When I measure the height of a table, I get an answer in inches, or centimeters, or meters -- all units of length. I don't get units of energy, or velocity, or mass. "How high is the table? Oh, about 16 kilograms" -- is completely nonsensical. Or going to the bank to cash a check and receiving gallons of urine in return -- it is nonsensical. E=mR is the same way. The left hand side is asking: "how many units of energy are there?" The right hand side is answering the equivalent of "15 bananas". The right hand side HAS to answer the question with units of energy. Otherwise there is no communication at all, and any mathematics loses all meaning. There has never been a correct equation that the units on the left hand side and the right hand side are not the same. Never. So, either you've come up with the lone example out there -- a truly extraordinary case which is going to need some truly extraordinary evidence (I'd also like to know how tall a table of 16 kilograms is), or it is wrong. Again, every single measurement ever taken to date suggests the second -- that an equation with left and right hand sides without the same units is wrong. It is not impossible that yours is the exception, but considering the entire body of measurements that mankind has ever taken, is doesn't seem likely right now. So, like I wrote in response to your quote, think of your idea as considered and rejected then. Because despite the title of the thread, the equation is completely illogical compared to every single measurement ever taken ever. Edited December 23, 2011 by Bignose
knowerastronomy Posted December 23, 2011 Author Posted December 23, 2011 (edited) And when that consideration is that it fails? Say, on trivial grounds like unit analysis? ah ha Now I know how Galileo felt when he didn't follow the rules, mathematics and formulas laid down by the church. . . I am absolutely positive his work didn't pass dimensional analyses. . . If you don't mind me asking, have you found support for your theory elsewhere? Are you reevaluating your theory in light of the responses and suggestions you've received on this forum? Yes the response to the videos has been positive while the websites have had many views but so far there has been no response. . . There has been no cause to reevaluate the theory because it fits all the scientific observations and experiments. . .That was the criteria laid down in the beginning. . . Long held Theory's, old physics and mathematics were re evaluated. . . OK, please think of your idea as considered and then rejected because it does not follow the measurements made every single day. When I measure the height of a table, I get an answer in inches, or centimeters, or meters -- all units of length. I don't get units of energy, or velocity, or mass. "How high is the table? Oh, about 16 kilograms" -- is completely nonsensical. Or going to the bank to cash a check and receiving gallons of urine in return -- it is nonsensical. E=mR is the same way. The left hand side is asking: "how many units of energy are there?" The right hand side is answering the equivalent of "15 bananas". The right hand side HAS to answer the question with units of energy. Otherwise there is no communication at all, and any mathematics loses all meaning. There has never been a correct equation that the units on the left hand side and the right hand side are not the same. Never. So, either you've come up with the lone example out there -- a truly extraordinary case which is going to need some truly extraordinary evidence (I'd also like to know how tall a table of 16 kilograms is), or it is wrong. Again, every single measurement ever taken to date suggests the second -- that an equation with left and right hand sides without the same units is wrong. It is not impossible that yours is the exception, but considering the entire body of measurements that mankind has ever taken, is doesn't seem likely right now. So, like I wrote in response to your quote, think of your idea as considered and rejected then. Because despite the title of the thread, the equation is completely illogical compared to every single measurement ever taken ever. Fare enough I am trying to state that Energy is Matter Rotating Matter not Rotating has no Energy The faster matter rotates the more energy it has. . . you can't have energy without matter to relate to. . . This is why I don't like using mathematics to explain things. It doesn't convey the real meaning or understanding of the situation. . . I like this post because it is about science even though it might violate some rules. . . Edited December 23, 2011 by knowerastronomy
swansont Posted December 23, 2011 Posted December 23, 2011 ah ha Now I know how Galileo felt when he didn't follow the rules, mathematics and formulas laid down by the church. . . I am absolutely positive his work didn't pass dimensional analyses. . . Ah, the Gailileo gambit. It is not enough to wear the mantle of Galileo: that you be persecuted by an unkind establishment. You must also be right. Robert Park And: really? What part of Galileo's work didn't fit with dimensional analysis? Observational science doesn't really use it. I am trying to state that Energy is Matter Rotating Matter not Rotating has no Energy The faster matter rotates the more energy it has. . . you can't have energy without matter to relate to. . . This is why I don't like using mathematics to explain things. It doesn't convey the real meaning or understanding of the situation. . . I like this post because it is about science even though it might violate some rules. . . The highest energy states of alkali atoms have the minimal amount of rotational energy; there is no rotational angular momentum, so all you have are the spins of the electron and nucleus. There are lower-energy states that have more angular momentum. In K-38, you can excite the nucleus (i.e. add energy) and make it have no net angular momentum at all — it's a zero nuclear spin state. Trivially falsified.
knowerastronomy Posted December 23, 2011 Author Posted December 23, 2011 Ah, the Gailileo gambit. It is not enough to wear the mantle of Galileo: that you be persecuted by an unkind establishment. You must also be right. Robert Park And: really? What part of Galileo's work didn't fit with dimensional analysis? Observational science doesn't really use it. The highest energy states of alkali atoms have the minimal amount of rotational energy; there is no rotational angular momentum, so all you have are the spins of the electron and nucleus. There are lower-energy states that have more angular momentum. In K-38, you can excite the nucleus (i.e. add energy) and make it have no net angular momentum at all — it's a zero nuclear spin state. Trivially falsified. You are talking about the world of atomic energy. . .We have Gravity, Friction and Centrifugal forces. . . In the particle (sub sub atomic) world things are different, there is an interdependent community of U1 Particles. . . Gravity Energy and Space relate differently. . . I wasn't comparing Galileo's theory or work to mine, only his feelings. . .
Bignose Posted December 23, 2011 Posted December 23, 2011 (edited) The faster matter rotates the more energy it has. . . 1) depending on the reference frame -- if you use a rotating reference frame, the kinetic energy of rotation can change and 2) this has been well described by the [dimensionally sound] equation [math]E = \frac{1}{2} I \omega^2[/math] with I is the moment of inertia and [math]\omega[/math] is the angular speed. But, rotational energy is only 1 form of energy, there are lots of other forms... For that matter, depending on the reference frame, rotational energy can appear to be translational energy and vice versa. There really is nothing all that sacrosanct about rotational energy. Edited December 23, 2011 by Bignose
swansont Posted December 23, 2011 Posted December 23, 2011 You are talking about the world of atomic energy. . .We have Gravity, Friction and Centrifugal forces. . . In the atomic world, gravity is negligible, friction is nonexistent and centrifugal forces are, as always, pseudoforces. In the particle (sub sub atomic) world things are different, there is an interdependent community of U1 Particles. . . Gravity Energy and Space relate differently. . . Here's where you need to actually flesh out your ideas and make specific predictions and conform to the idea of falsifiability. Your statements fail on the atomic scale. What evidence do you have that they are true on this sub-sub-atomic scale? If I can replace the constituents of your model with "fairies" and it makes no difference to the outcome, because it can't be tested, then it's not going to be accepted. Such as: In the particle (sub sub atomic) world things are different, there is an interdependent community of fairies. Not particularly useful or scientific, is it? We need a coherent framework describing how these U1 particles behave and how they could be detected. I wasn't comparing Galileo's theory or work to mine, only his feelings. . . The point of the quote is: Galileo was right, so his feelings were justified. Having someone simply demand evidence and/or point out that you are wrong isn't persecution. The burden of proof is upon you to demonstrate that you are right.
Bignose Posted December 23, 2011 Posted December 23, 2011 Now I know how Galileo felt when he didn't follow the rules, mathematics and formulas laid down by the church. . . I am absolutely positive his work didn't pass dimensional analyses. . . I wasn't comparing Galileo's theory or work to mine, only his feelings. . . But you WERE comparing works, because you claimed (without any backing or citation) that Galileo's work didn't pass dimensional analysis. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Look, it is perfectly fine to have new ideas. I'd even agree that if you look at the body of work that string theory has produced versus what it promised, that questioning it is fair. That new ideas are needed. For that matter, science always welcomes new ideas. But they are also always put through a crucible to see how good the idea is. No idea is simple accepted because it has a good story around it, or because is passes a gut-check or is logical to one or many people. A very first crucible is: do the units match? Again, never ever ever ever has there been a correct equation with unmatched units. Ever! Then the second crucible is: does the prediction match the experimental results. The equations we have out there today have passed these two tests. That is why they are currently favored. Lastly, just because the theories that are out there today are illogical to YOU, why do you immediately think that they are illogical to everybody? Why do you think you are The Great Decider about what theories are and aren't logical? -------------------------------------------------- The following may come across as mean-spirited, because tone is not easily conveyed across the written media of a forum like this, so please believe me when I write that I in no way intent for it to be mean at all: But it is rather obvious that you have not studied very much about the current knowledge in physics. Don't you think that if you did study it more, study both the development of the theory and the experiments that have been done and are being done, that the current state may start to seem at least a little more logical to you? Rather than just decrying it as illogical and ignoring all the evidence to date, learn about the current state. Stand on the shoulders of the giants before you and go from there. Again, I completely think that new and creative ideas are needed, but the ultimate test of science is not what one's intuitive or sense of logic says is okay. These can lead people in the wrong direction. That is why the scientific method was developed. It really is this simple: if your predictions match experiments better than any other theory, then your theory is deemed the best.
knowerastronomy Posted December 23, 2011 Author Posted December 23, 2011 But you WERE comparing works, because you claimed (without any backing or citation) that Galileo's work didn't pass dimensional analysis. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Look, it is perfectly fine to have new ideas. I'd even agree that if you look at the body of work that string theory has produced versus what it promised, that questioning it is fair. That new ideas are needed. For that matter, science always welcomes new ideas. But they are also always put through a crucible to see how good the idea is. No idea is simple accepted because it has a good story around it, or because is passes a gut-check or is logical to one or many people. A very first crucible is: do the units match? Again, never ever ever ever has there been a correct equation with unmatched units. Ever! Then the second crucible is: does the prediction match the experimental results. The equations we have out there today have passed these two tests. That is why they are currently favored. Lastly, just because the theories that are out there today are illogical to YOU, why do you immediately think that they are illogical to everybody? Why do you think you are The Great Decider about what theories are and aren't logical? -------------------------------------------------- The following may come across as mean-spirited, because tone is not easily conveyed across the written media of a forum like this, so please believe me when I write that I in no way intent for it to be mean at all: But it is rather obvious that you have not studied very much about the current knowledge in physics. Don't you think that if you did study it more, study both the development of the theory and the experiments that have been done and are being done, that the current state may start to seem at least a little more logical to you? Rather than just decrying it as illogical and ignoring all the evidence to date, learn about the current state. Stand on the shoulders of the giants before you and go from there. Again, I completely think that new and creative ideas are needed, but the ultimate test of science is not what one's intuitive or sense of logic says is okay. These can lead people in the wrong direction. That is why the scientific method was developed. It really is this simple: if your predictions match experiments better than any other theory, then your theory is deemed the best. When you ridicule peoples intelligence it tells me how your mind works and how you perceive things. . . Its a reflection on your Character and does nothing to bolster your position. . . It really doesn't matter to anyone but you. . . really! I thought we were discussing science but here we go again defending our knowledge. . . I'm smarter than you. . . How boring. . .
Bignose Posted December 23, 2011 Posted December 23, 2011 (edited) No where did I ridicule nor comment on your intelligence in the least. I did comment on your apparent ignorance of the scientific method, and what makes an equation meaningful. This is why I put the preface in there, hoping to avoid such a misunderstanding. There is nothing wrong with being ignorant on a topic -- no human being knows about every subject. We are all continuously learning. What I do consider wrong is that when one is told that they are ignorant on a subject, but there is nothing done to remedy that ignorance or indeed are even hostile to learning about that subject. Unfortunately, that is what I think is happening here. People are commentating on your idea, providing suggestions on ways to make it meaningful, to make it better, and you deliberately remain ignorant on learning about the ways to make it better. Relish in it, even. I really wonder why. Every time someone has suggested a way to make my work better, I've at least looked into the suggestions. Sometimes it wasn't worth the time, but a great deal of the time it was. So, really, why the deliberate remaining ignorance? Why don't you want to make your idea better? Did you bother to even read the majority of my previous post? I actually think I gave you a compliment by saying things like science needs new and fresh ideas. Edited December 23, 2011 by Bignose 2
knowerastronomy Posted December 24, 2011 Author Posted December 24, 2011 (edited) 1) depending on the reference frame -- if you use a rotating reference frame, the kinetic energy of rotation can change and 2) this has been well described by the [dimensionally sound] equation [math]E = \frac{1}{2} I \omega^2[/math] with I is the moment of inertia and [math]\omega[/math] is the angular speed. But, rotational energy is only 1 form of energy, there are lots of other forms... For that matter, depending on the reference frame, rotational energy can appear to be translational energy and vice versa. There really is nothing all that sacrosanct about rotational energy. OK point well taken I admit that E is to finite it imply's all energy. . . In the sub sub atomic world of particle physics there would be oscillating wave energy. . . This has to be rethought. . . Edited December 24, 2011 by knowerastronomy
md65536 Posted December 24, 2011 Posted December 24, 2011 OK point well taken I admit that E is to finite it imply's all energy. . . In the sub sub atomic world of particle physics there would be oscillating wave energy. . . This has to be rethought. . . You might find it useful to consider that rotation involving two dimensions around a third dimension's axis can be described as complementary sinusoidal oscillations in each of the two dimensions (sine and cosine ie. "complement sine"). If my wording is bad please correct me. For any sinusoidal oscillation, you may be able to imagine a cosine oscillation in some visible or hidden dimension, that can turn any particle described as oscillating in one dimension, into one (perhaps coupled with an imaginary component) described as rotating in two dimensions. Bignose said your idea was rejected because the math fails, but I disagree. Your theory is rejected because the math fails. Ideas are a bit more subjective. I'd reject your idea because there's no need for nor evidence of these U1 particles, but as I said an idea is vague and is also easily modified. I'd be more intrigued if your idea were evolved away from "U1 particles are the exclusive reality" maybe towards something like "Since energy can be converted to different forms, it is always(?) possible to express it in terms of some other imaginary and/or immeasurable form (such as in the kinetic energy of rotating U1 particles), in a way that is unfalsifiable due to its immeasurabilty." Then, since it's unfalsifiable, it might be more a philosophical argument than a scientific one? However, if it could be proven scientifically, it would show that there is always another way to express the energy of a system, so perhaps spinning U1 particles are as good as any other form of energy, but it would also suggest that "spinning particles" is arbitrary and the same energy can be interpreted in other ways that are just as "real". You said earlier that your theories were intended to correspond to existing theories, but they go against special relativity. In SR, the universal speed limit of c is (ironically?) logically a consequence of some observations and assumptions about how light behaves. If you have a good reason why it is wrong, then perhaps it is possible to prove it. If you know it, you should be able to show it. But that's been attempted countless times for over a century now. If your reason for it being wrong is only that it doesn't make sense, then it will be FAR EASIER to learn it and figure out why it makes sense, than to try to find some contradictory evidence.
knowerastronomy Posted December 25, 2011 Author Posted December 25, 2011 (edited) You might find it useful to consider that rotation involving two dimensions around a third dimension's axis can be described as complementary sinusoidal oscillations in each of the two dimensions (sine and cosine ie. "complement sine"). If my wording is bad please correct me. For any sinusoidal oscillation, you may be able to imagine a cosine oscillation in some visible or hidden dimension, that can turn any particle described as oscillating in one dimension, into one (perhaps coupled with an imaginary component) described as rotating in two dimensions. Bignose said your idea was rejected because the math fails, but I disagree. Your theory is rejected because the math fails. Ideas are a bit more subjective. I'd reject your idea because there's no need for nor evidence of these U1 particles, but as I said an idea is vague and is also easily modified. I'd be more intrigued if your idea were evolved away from "U1 particles are the exclusive reality" maybe towards something like "Since energy can be converted to different forms, it is always(?) possible to express it in terms of some other imaginary and/or immeasurable form (such as in the kinetic energy of rotating U1 particles), in a way that is unfalsifiable due to its immeasurabilty." Then, since it's unfalsifiable, it might be more a philosophical argument than a scientific one? However, if it could be proven scientifically, it would show that there is always another way to express the energy of a system, so perhaps spinning U1 particles are as good as any other form of energy, but it would also suggest that "spinning particles" is arbitrary and the same energy can be interpreted in other ways that are just as "real". You said earlier that your theories were intended to correspond to existing theories, but they go against special relativity. In SR, the universal speed limit of c is (ironically?) logically a consequence of some observations and assumptions about how light behaves. If you have a good reason why it is wrong, then perhaps it is possible to prove it. If you know it, you should be able to show it. But that's been attempted countless times for over a century now. If your reason for it being wrong is only that it doesn't make sense, then it will be FAR EASIER to learn it and figure out why it makes sense, than to try to find some contradictory evidence. Thank You for your insight. . . Its because of this forum that I have had a major rethink about energy. . .The hypothesis I was using was only 99% correct. . . That will not do in Physics. . . Sinusoidal Oscillations rang a bell in my head. . . As you know, but a lot of others ignore, the Universe is interdependent on oscillations and they play a huge roll on how Particles, Atoms, Galaxy's and Black Holes behave. . . Even the formation of sub atomic particles are closed oscillators. . . Getting back to energy, it is my thought that at the basic level, (sub sub atomic) Energy can only be described as the movement of matter. . . It can only exist with matter. . . Energy is matter rotating, (the most common) oscillating in group waves and vibrating, etc. . . Who can possibly disagree with that. . . I know, I know, It doesn't fit Dimensional Analysis. . . The Universe says Haa who cares. . Oh by the way, Merry Christmas to the Forum. . . Edited December 25, 2011 by knowerastronomy
Klaynos Posted January 3, 2012 Posted January 3, 2012 Thank You for your insight. . . Its because of this forum that I have had a major rethink about energy. . .The hypothesis I was using was only 99% correct. . . That will not do in Physics. . . How can you make such a statement without numerical predictions and experimental comparison? Sinusoidal Oscillations rang a bell in my head. . . As you know, but a lot of others ignore, the Universe is interdependent on oscillations and they play a huge roll on how Particles, Atoms, Galaxy's and Black Holes behave. . . An FRS once said to me "it's always a good place to begin by assuming simple harmonic motion, it might not be right but chances are it'll be a good approximation". It is surprisingly true. Even the formation of sub atomic particles are closed oscillators. . . Getting back to energy, it is my thought that at the basic level, (sub sub atomic) Energy can only be described as the movement of matter. . . It can only exist with matter. . . Energy is a property of stuff. There are lots of different forms. Energy is matter rotating, (the most common) oscillating in group waves and vibrating, etc. . . Who can possibly disagree with that. . . I can easily argue with energy is matter rotating as can others please see previous replies. Potential energy for example requires no movement to exist. I know, I know, It doesn't fit Dimensional Analysis. . . The Universe says Haa who cares. . No, actually the universe says that dimensional analysis is always correct so in fact it's tell you that you are wrong. Completely and utterly wrong, I seriously suggest you do some serious thinking and background reading.
knowerastronomy Posted January 4, 2012 Author Posted January 4, 2012 How can you make such a statement without numerical predictions and experimental comparison? An FRS once said to me "it's always a good place to begin by assuming simple harmonic motion, it might not be right but chances are it'll be a good approximation". It is surprisingly true. Energy is a property of stuff. There are lots of different forms. I can easily argue with energy is matter rotating as can others please see previous replies. Potential energy for example requires no movement to exist. No, actually the universe says that dimensional analysis is always correct so in fact it's tell you that you are wrong. Completely and utterly wrong, I seriously suggest you do some serious thinking and background reading. You obviously have no training in logic and relativity. . . You have a vague understanding of Science but have a good understanding of mathematics. . . May I suggest that you put aside your criticisms what works and don't, because it hasn't been proven mathematically. . . This is not the way the Universe works. . . The Universe didn't evolve because of equations. . . It takes a nonprejudicial, unbiased, free thinker to discover this. . . The "Logical Universe Theory" is on the right path to understanding and offers the only known worthy explanations of all known observations and experiments. . . It will stand the test of time. . .
Bignose Posted January 4, 2012 Posted January 4, 2012 (edited) You obviously have no training in logic and relativity. . . You have a vague understanding of Science but have a good understanding of mathematics. . . May I suggest that you put aside your criticisms what works and don't, because it hasn't been proven mathematically. . . This is not the way the Universe works. . . The Universe didn't evolve because of equations. . . It takes a nonprejudicial, unbiased, free thinker to discover this. . . The "Logical Universe Theory" is on the right path to understanding and offers the only known worthy explanations of all known observations and experiments. . . It will stand the test of time. . . wow, quite a set of cojones to be so sure that the Universe follows your logic and that all of the professionals who have studied it in depth with equations, that are also based on logic by the way, are so very wrong. Where does this hubris comes from, I wonder? Where does one get such confidence to be so very sure that tools like dimensional analysis (shown correct literally billions of times over) and mathematics (also shown correct literally billions of times over) are wrong? Furthermore, if you are so convinced that these tools are all so wrong, why are you trying to even bother to speak with those of us on here that are going to stick to these tools that have proven themselves right so many times? -or- To put it more succinctly, if you are so convinced that your logic and way is so very vastly superior, why aren't you busy writing your own papers and books instead of trolling our forum? Clearly, we're not going to be converted by what you've posted to date, so unless you have some actual new evidence that conforms to what us math-using, dimensional-checking people not trained in logic are looking for, why are you bothering to waste time here? Clearly, we are at an impasse, and posting the same stuff that we're going to have problems with constitutes trolling, really. I'm just suggesting that you may prefer to just start writing on your own webpage rather than butting heads with those of us who are going to continue to insist upon dimensional consistency. Edited January 4, 2012 by Bignose
md65536 Posted January 4, 2012 Posted January 4, 2012 You obviously have no training in logic and relativity. . . You have a vague understanding of Science but have a good understanding of mathematics. . . May I suggest that you put aside your criticisms what works and don't, because it hasn't been proven mathematically. . . This is not the way the Universe works. . . The Universe didn't evolve because of equations. . . It takes a nonprejudicial, unbiased, free thinker to discover this. . . The "Logical Universe Theory" is on the right path to understanding and offers the only known worthy explanations of all known observations and experiments. . . It will stand the test of time. . . Hmm, where do you think mathematics comes from? Do you think it always existed or was developed independent of a physical reality? Most mathematics is based on physical things, and when new physical concepts are discovered often new mathematics are invented to describe it... just like new words are invented to describe new things. You wouldn't say that the universe evolved because of words, would you? Yet you write about the universe. Similarly, the math only describes the universe. Like consistency in writing, consistency in the math corresponds to consistency in reality, and like words the math can convey meaning. But why am I telling you this? I'm just an unwashed, unworthy idiot. Your highness. Check http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/62667-crackpottery/ for some helpful tips. Or try slogging through http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/61438-is-philosophy-relevant-to-science/ for a glimpse of the ghost of christmas future.
Ophiolite Posted January 4, 2012 Posted January 4, 2012 But why am I telling you this? I'm just an unwashed, unworthy idiot. Your highness. Several pages ago you took me to task for suggesting knowerastronomy should grow up. I've never felt any reluctance to say 'I told you so', for you seem to have formed a parallel opinion. The only justification for the ongoing dialogue with knowerastronomy - and it is excellent justification - is to ensure that lurkers and the inexperienced are not misled by his rhetoric and nonsense. He began by saying foolish things. His persistence in saying the same things in the face of contrary evidence demonstrates that he is a fool. This is not an ad hominem, but an objective assessment of his character as revealed in his own posts.
Klaynos Posted January 4, 2012 Posted January 4, 2012 You obviously have no training in logic and relativity. . . You have a vague understanding of Science but have a good understanding of mathematics. . . May I suggest that you put aside your criticisms what works and don't, because it hasn't been proven mathematically. . . This is not the way the Universe works. . . The Universe didn't evolve because of equations. . . It takes a nonprejudicial, unbiased, free thinker to discover this. . . The "Logical Universe Theory" is on the right path to understanding and offers the only known worthy explanations of all known observations and experiments. . . It will stand the test of time. . . Further reason for me to implore you to do some background reading on what science is. What your idea has offered so far is a foundation stone that is demonstrably false.
knowerastronomy Posted January 4, 2012 Author Posted January 4, 2012 wow, quite a set of cojones to be so sure that the Universe follows your logic and that all of the professionals who have studied it in depth with equations, that are also based on logic by the way, are so very wrong. Where does this hubris comes from, I wonder? Where does one get such confidence to be so very sure that tools like dimensional analysis (shown correct literally billions of times over) and mathematics (also shown correct literally billions of times over) are wrong? Furthermore, if you are so convinced that these tools are all so wrong, why are you trying to even bother to speak with those of us on here that are going to stick to these tools that have proven themselves right so many times? -or- To put it more succinctly, if you are so convinced that your logic and way is so very vastly superior, why aren't you busy writing your own papers and books instead of trolling our forum? Clearly, we're not going to be converted by what you've posted to date, so unless you have some actual new evidence that conforms to what us math-using, dimensional-checking people not trained in logic are looking for, why are you bothering to waste time here? Clearly, we are at an impasse, and posting the same stuff that we're going to have problems with constitutes trolling, really. I'm just suggesting that you may prefer to just start writing on your own webpage rather than butting heads with those of us who are going to continue to insist upon dimensional consistency. No, the Universe follows its own logic. . . I just discovered it. . . Further reason for me to implore you to do some background reading on what science is. What your idea has offered so far is a foundation stone that is demonstrably false. Your assessment of the Universe is based on the faulty assumption of rules and supposedly mathematical proof. . . Can your mathematics explain the birth of a human being. . . I think not. . . Then why do you presume to mathematically predict the birth of a Universe. . .
Klaynos Posted January 4, 2012 Posted January 4, 2012 Your assessment of the Universe is based on the faulty assumption of rules and supposedly mathematical proof. . . Can your mathematics explain the birth of a human being. . . I think not. . . Then why do you presume to mathematically predict the birth of a Universe. . . The scientific method, which requires comparison to observations, is the best yet found method for modelling the universe. You seem to have some problems with this. I therefore suggest you either do some research or present some evidence that you are better than thousands of very clever people who have gone before you over a great number of years.
knowerastronomy Posted January 4, 2012 Author Posted January 4, 2012 Hmm, where do you think mathematics comes from? Do you think it always existed or was developed independent of a physical reality? Most mathematics is based on physical things, and when new physical concepts are discovered often new mathematics are invented to describe it... just like new words are invented to describe new things. You wouldn't say that the universe evolved because of words, would you? Yet you write about the universe. Similarly, the math only describes the universe. Like consistency in writing, consistency in the math corresponds to consistency in reality, and like words the math can convey meaning. But why am I telling you this? I'm just an unwashed, unworthy idiot. Your highness. Check http://www.sciencefo...7-crackpottery/ for some helpful tips. Or try slogging through http://www.sciencefo...ant-to-science/ for a glimpse of the ghost of christmas future. I love your self deprecating sense of humor. . . Of course what you say about relativity is true. . . Mathematics is just another language and is a way of understanding quantity and relationships but is limited because it tends to be, one way or no way. . . The only way to explain the Universe and its workings is to use all of our knowledge. . . Experiments, Observations, Logic, mathematics, predictions, scenarios, these things will get us there. . . To many people are stuck into a style of thinking that says the Universe has to be complicated. . . I think they go out of their way to make it complicated. . . That adds sort of a legitimacy to there thinking. . . I say the Universe is easy and simple to understand when you put aside all the nonsense and consider all of what we have learned. . . Carl Sagan had a knack for this and I wish I had him to talk to. . . I wish he was still here. . .
md65536 Posted January 4, 2012 Posted January 4, 2012 Several pages ago you took me to task for suggesting knowerastronomy should grow up. I've never felt any reluctance to say 'I told you so', for you seem to have formed a parallel opinion. The only justification for the ongoing dialogue with knowerastronomy - and it is excellent justification - is to ensure that lurkers and the inexperienced are not misled by his rhetoric and nonsense. He began by saying foolish things. His persistence in saying the same things in the face of contrary evidence demonstrates that he is a fool. This is not an ad hominem, but an objective assessment of his character as revealed in his own posts. Previously I was of the opinion that this wasn't a hopeless case, that most people are reasonable and can be reasoned with. It even seemed true, as in this thread there are posts along the lines of "perhaps there are things that I don't know about yet that I should learn..." But it's as if the brain fights it, says "No, too hard" and we quickly see a return to a preference of arguing over learning, and of making statements over asking questions, and justifying missing understanding with a belief that "all that stuff that I don't know enough about is wrong". And then insulting others with it. So I'm disappointed. I don't think our cynicism is good. I think that not all cases are hopeless. I want to believe! Who knows, perhaps there's still hope here. But yes, I think your earlier assessment is correct. 1
knowerastronomy Posted January 4, 2012 Author Posted January 4, 2012 Previously I was of the opinion that this wasn't a hopeless case, that most people are reasonable and can be reasoned with. It even seemed true, as in this thread there are posts along the lines of "perhaps there are things that I don't know about yet that I should learn..." But it's as if the brain fights it, says "No, too hard" and we quickly see a return to a preference of arguing over learning, and of making statements over asking questions, and justifying missing understanding with a belief that "all that stuff that I don't know enough about is wrong". And then insulting others with it. So I'm disappointed. I don't think our cynicism is good. I think that not all cases are hopeless. I want to believe! Who knows, perhaps there's still hope here. But yes, I think your earlier assessment is correct. A Challenge. . . If you can answer these questions I will consed to your brilliance. . . What is Dark Matter? (not what it does) What is Dark Energy? ( again, not what it causes) Why is the Universe Expanding and Accelerating?
Recommended Posts