Tests for TOE on a speculation via correct scientific procedure

[ajb]

You could and probably are wrong there. With a TOE I suspect just the same revolution as GR & QM made possible. Understanding the fundamentals makes it all much easier.

But people still use classical mechanics and field theory all the time.

 

It will most likely change how we view a lot of things, but for the most people interested in what ever phenomena they are interested in will use the appropriate tools. And people develop tools all the time.

 

 

My point is for a first testable concept you don't need to be an expert again you are applying to high a norm.

There are plenty of things anyone can investigate at home using only school physics. However, in my experience and this seems backed up talking to others, "amateurs" are unlikely to make significant contributions to modern physics.

 

The exception here could be astronomy where lots of small telescopes all the time beats a big one used occasionally. And then, this is will the collection of data. The analysis will most likely be done by professional astronomers.

 

I'm only pointing you where to look for TOE in a granted broad sense, based on the objectively verifiable rule of addressing all problems and taking in all observations in their essence.

 

Okay, but the reality is that this is not enough. For sure Swansont is not going to change his research direction based on broad statements and statements that don't stand up to scrutiny.

 

 

Oh I do understand that it is breathtakingly complex.

Ok good.

Edited September 3, 2013 by ajb

[kristalris]

I don't state any such position.

 

My stated position is that I want theories that make good predictions. And that I in no way will support any concept that makes worse predictions just for the sake of being a theory of everything. Lack of accurate predictions severely limits the usefulness of any idea. This is no different.

 

And lastly I have always stated that when someone wants to replace a theory, they need to show up with more accurate predictions than the current theory. At face value, this is an exceptionally easy hurdle to understand: the model that makes the most accurate predictions is favored. But, do understand that the current theories, GR & QM, have been supremely successful in their respective domains.

 

I have no doubt that there is something missing. QM & GR are known to be incorrect in that they are at least missing something. But, no self respecting scientist is going to just toss them out until there is a replacement that is at least as good.

 

And since your supposed better idea has already been busted -- been show to be significantly worse than the ideas was have currently -- it really has very little scientific value. Scientific value is almost wholly based on how accurately predictions can be made.

Your position is inwardly contradictory. I incorporate GR & QM and thus don't best them within their respective regimes as you demand. I only marry them in a broad way and show you where to start looking in a broad way. (GR and QM just as newton are laws of physics. Like the law of the flat earth is still a law when making a paper chart of a city.)

 

Problem is you scientists have not been trained to work vague areas such as crime scenes. You see someone lying on the floor still breathing with what seems a bullithole. What should you then do? Well see as a layman if it is a patient in need of medical attention and two also alert the police on a possible crime. Both could be wrong assumptions based on the evidence with hindsight.

 

A crime scene is worked not with a priori precision. It is worked best with making a scenario with the evidence at hand. From broad to fine.

 

Where are the present day Einsteins and Newtons? Statistically they are there in science and physics as well. Given that the fundamental rules of TOE are simple like E = mc2 then it must be possible to reach TOE within this decade. Like Kennedy pledged to put a man on the moon within the decade. In order to do that you must jump by accurately tested inherently inaccurate guesswork of the creative minds to the moon or to TOE.

 

I.e. it will take on average given a 1/10 for an Einstein twenty Einsteins to jump in order of one getting there in the first attempt. Knowing that even Einstein will only have a 1/20 chance in the second attempt. The latter due to psychology that everyone including Einsteins are prone to tunnelvision.

 

But if you trash everyone at the first mistake you will have no-one try anymore. This no TOE within the decade.

 

All I state is that my concept is an adult guess not infringing on any scientific observation and answering all questions in a testable way. I see none other BTW doing that. Inaccurate as it may be. Inherently so like a crime scene in first instance when you still have no clue.

 

AND BTW my idea has not been busted. Only have I been proved wrong concerning the present definition of an atom and a ion. Given that I admit that mistake that has no relevance against a layman, like not knowing what a temporal lobe is, proves nothing. It only proves that you don't know the rules on evidence and proof concerning areas with little as yet data. On which you have clearly not been trained.

Edited September 3, 2013 by kristalris

[ACG52]

A lawyer arguing physics. Right or wrong doesn't matter, just the words.

[kristalris]

A lawyer arguing physics. Right or wrong doesn't matter, just the words.

Still hurting are we, after the repeated mauling you got? As usual no argument anywhere in sight only cookey monstering.

But people still use classical mechanics and field theory all the time.

 

It will most likely change how we view a lot of things, but for the most people interested in what ever phenomena they are interested in will use the appropriate tools. And people develop tools all the time.

 

 

 

There are plenty of things anyone can investigate at home using only school physics. However, in my experience and this seems backed up talking to others, "amateurs" are unlikely to make significant contributions to modern physics.

 

The exception here could be astronomy where lots of small telescopes all the time beats a big one used occasionally. And then, this is will the collection of data. The analysis will most likely be done by professional astronomers.

 

 

 

Okay, but the reality is that this is not enough. For sure Swansont is not going to change his research direction based on broad statements and statements that don't stand up to scrutiny.

 

 

 

Ok good.

Agree with all you say, yet it is wrong not to try and change this. Problem is indeed that the production department has taken over the research department because the researchers who dare to make mistakes by trial and error are always in the minority. They need to be organised differently.

Edited September 3, 2013 by kristalris

[ACG52]

 

 

Still hurting are we, after the repeated mauling you got?

You mean you dancing around declaring 'victory', while saying nothing?

[swansont]

 

Agree with all you say, yet it is wrong not to try and change this. Problem is indeed that the production department has taken over the research department because the researchers who dare to make mistakes by trial and error are always in the minority. They need to be organised differently.

 

I am curious how you come by your information, because I see evidence of researchers trying new things all the time. And really the last thing scientists need is to be "organized", especially by anyone who doesn't understand how science works.

[ajb]

Problem is indeed that the production department has taken over the research department because the researchers who dare to make mistakes by trial and error are always in the minority. They need to be organised differently.

 

Where are you getting your information on how scientists work?

 

As a research mathematician I can tell you that a large part of it is trial and error. One tries something, usually there is some reason to try a particular approach, and it fails. You may have missed something or misunderstood part of the construction or there is a loop-hole in the proof etc. Sometimes you see this yourself or quite often it arises due to conversations with other researchers.

 

 

Sometimes errors are pointed out at the peer-review level once a piece of work has been submitted for publication. Hopefully serious errors don't get published, but sometimes someone will point out an error/omission after publication!

 

Researchers who make mistakes by trial and error are in the majority, in my opinion. I am sure others here will echo my sentiments. EDIT: Swansont just did!

Edited September 3, 2013 by ajb

[swansont]

 

Researchers who make mistakes by trial and error are in the majority, in my opinion. I am sure others here will echo my sentiments.

 

Indeed. I remember something my advisor told me (surely paraphrasing someone else): if we knew what we were doing, it wouldn't be called research. There's a lot of trial and error. You try new things, not knowing if they'll work, or work better than what you already have. But the goal is to make some sort of progress, so you try new things that you think will work.

[Bignose]

But if you trash everyone at the first mistake you will have no-one try anymore. This no TOE within the decade.

I am not trashing anyone, nor do I think my position has been contradictory in any way.

 

It has been very, very clear: the model that makes the most accurate predictions is considered the best.

 

The 'trashing' is only to note that promotion of an idea that cannot do any better than the current ideas is at the very least premature and misplaced. That the best promotion any new idea can have is to demonstrate that is makes at least as good predictions of the current best ideas. Far, far too often a new idea is hailed as being more logical, or more beautiful, when those considerations are far lesser than predictive accuracy. So, I wish people would hold off on the promotion and exalting of an idea until has been compared to the existing best ideas. And I also wish people would accept that when their idea does worse compared to the current best ideas, that it isn't personal -- it just means that their idea isn't better than another idea. They need to accept that unless an idea makes better predictions, it really isn't all that interesting.

 

 

On the question of trials and errors:

 

I believe the computer code I wrote for my thesis underwent 11 major revisions (total re-writes) and over 200 minor revisions by the time I was finished. I didn't re-write the code over and over for fun, it was because some aspect was tried and found lacking. Trial and error is the majority of the work in my experience (both personal as well as colleagues I knew) as well.

Edited September 3, 2013 by Bignose

[kristalris]

Where are you getting your information on how scientists work?

 

As a research mathematician I can tell you that a large part of it is trial and error. One tries something, usually there is some reason to try a particular approach, and it fails. You may have missed something or misunderstood part of the construction or there is a loop-hole in the proof etc. Sometimes you see this yourself or quite often it arises due to conversations with other researchers.

 

 

Sometimes errors are pointed out at the peer-review level once a piece of work has been submitted for publication. Hopefully serious errors don't get published, but sometimes someone will point out an error/omission after publication!

 

Researchers who make mistakes by trial and error are in the majority, in my opinion. I am sure others here will echo my sentiments. EDIT: Swansont just did!

Well we finally agree on something then.Where I got my information on how scientists work? Well not that it is relevant, because it is a variation on an argument of authority, yet it for some poses a valid argument in sales and of course for others against in sales, I'll tell you where I got my information.

 

As a six year old I can remember my dad who I thought to be someone internationally selling glue in a tie was working a large machine with another guy. Both looking extremely concentrated.

 

Later my dad told me he was in the process of getting the saw to work cutting the aluminium honeycomb for the shock absorbers of the lunar module in the weekend for Grumman. He had sold this to Grumman that he could on an educated guess. Taking the saw in the weekend with several very expensive blocks to try. It - the educated guess - worked first time. Later he told me that the problem lay in not having the formula for what was later known as shading. Carpets with long hairs pointing in the wrong direction. Anyway what made it all work was Kennedy stating he wanted to put a man on the moon within the decade. And put up the money to boot. That, and the balls of the guys who knowingly took extreme risks got the job done. especially the astronauts. Had the strut failed due to shading or what not it would of been a sorry sight. Especially for the families of the astronauts.

 

Anyway ever since I have been taken along on business trips by my dad during my holidays who was an ex pilot and aeronautical engineer in the research department of Fokker who made it possible to glue the F27. On these trips I as a kid saw the Concorde and Airbus at Toulouse being ripped apart etc etc.

 

That and what I was taught in science classes taught me the basics of science, mathematics, physics research production and sales from a very young age.

 

I myself successfully worked crime scenes. In effect same difference.

 

Problem is in our western society that the research department has been taken over by production and sales. It thus becomes more and more bureaucratic. This because born researchers who are capable of making adult guesses are always in the minority at any meeting or in any democratic society. Hence the running gag of the Vogons in a hitchhikers guide to the galaxy (beware of Vogons sighting poetry because you are then in mortal danger i.e. non creative people make childish guesses, yet seem intelligent on basis of book wisdom) and many other famous literary works. As history repeatedly shows.

 

Take the repeated statement that my idea has been busted whereas in truth the only error I made was in not knowing the definitions of atom and ion. And then say they accept trial and error? Clearly not then because it was only a formal mistake. Materialy in truth it fits brilliantly on a analogy given beforehand of the helicopter. Yet they keep on stating this blatant lie s a fact. I don't blame anyone it is psychology at work. They can't help themselves.

 

Anyway we must state goals like getting to a TOE within the decade and organise research departments in schooling, science and law with the creative open minds in the lead therein that will get us where we in wisdom should go. Be it to the moon or to TOE.

[Bignose]

Where I got my information on how scientists work? Well not that it is relevant, because it is a variation on an argument of authority,

then, by completely the same way, your opinion on the matter is also a variation on argument by authority. Several of us who have worked or do work in research environments have seen in action methods that conflict with your opinion. I guess formally, until someone surveys 1000 working scientists and ask them how much trial and error is involved this will remain unknowable. But, I don't think you can support your broad statements on how it is summarily rejected.

 

Take the repeated statement that my idea has been busted whereas in truth the only error I made was in not knowing the definitions of atom and ion. And then say they accept trial and error?

First and foremost, you yourself said it would be busted. It was your own words.

 

But secondly, what you are witnessing is this trial and error. You tried an idea, you presented for a very informal peer review here, and people have shown you why your idea doesn't fit into what is already known. That is, where your idea is in error compared to what is already known.

 

In many ways, doesn't this exactly demonstrate that the system is working?

[ajb]

Anyway we must state goals like getting to a TOE within the decade and organise research departments in schooling, science and law with the creative open minds in the lead therein that will get us where we in wisdom should go. Be it to the moon or to TOE.

Must we set a TOE as a goal of physics? Who would officially set that as a goal?

 

We do have lots of research departments in physics and mathematics.

 

Anyway, I am glad you told us where you get your information from. So you do not actually have any experience of scientific research within a university or similar? If this is so, then you have to be careful with your opinions, they may not be well founded.

 

Problem is in our western society that the research department has been taken over by production and sales. It thus becomes more and more bureaucratic.

More bureaucratic is probably right. There are more forms and regulations than ever. Also it is generally true that research grants seem to be more and more "applied" in nature and that fundamental research could get sidelined at some point. Governments like to see profitable products quickly.

 

Anyway, I am not sure how relevant that really here.

 

This because born researchers who are capable of making adult guesses are always in the minority at any meeting or in any democratic society.

Minority maybe, but these people are valued and wanted. The point is they can then either iron out the details themselves or guide others to do so. This is why I value the contact with experienced older professors who have a feeling for the subjects based on many years of "trial and error".

 

 

Take the repeated statement that my idea has been busted whereas in truth the only error I made was in not knowing the definitions of atom and ion. And then say they accept trial and error? Clearly not then because it was only a formal mistake.

It suggest you really have little idea about physics. But that aside, your ideas seem to have been busted with or without that mistake. Anyway they are not tight enough for anyone to really take them as a testable prediction worthy of a lot of attention.

Edited September 3, 2013 by ajb

[swansont]

I don't see any mention of being exposed to actual scientific research. I see an engineering problem solved and no other relevant experience. What you are presenting is a fantasy. At best, if your experiences were relevant it would be an anecdote or two, which is still not evidence of a systemic problem.

[kristalris]

A then, by completely the same way, your opinion on the matter is also a variation on argument by authority.

 

B Several of us who have worked or do work in research environments have seen in action methods that conflict with your opinion. I guess formally, until someone surveys 1000 working scientists and ask them how much trial and error is involved this will remain unknowable. But, I don't think you can support your broad statements on how it is summarily rejected.

 

 

C First and foremost, you yourself said it would be busted. It was your own words.

 

D But secondly, what you are witnessing is this trial and error. You tried an idea, you presented for a very informal peer review here, and people have shown you why your idea doesn't fit into what is already known. That is, where your idea is in error compared to what is already known.

 

E In many ways, doesn't this exactly demonstrate that the system is working?

A Incomprehensible. I state beforehand that my roots in this respect are irrelevant. So LR =1. Where then do I make a statement based on an argument of authority? I gave an a priori of 1 / 1000 of an Einstein on TOE of 1 / 10 thua 1 / 10000. I have not given this in evidence as posterior so no argument of authority in any way on my part. Apart from the fact that had I given it as such it would of given evidence of being more likely wrong than right and on a reasonable norm for deciding then proven me wrong. I - contrary to you cun suis - have thus not committed this fallacy.

 

B. Boy oh boy do you get your stuff mixed up. Research per logical definition is about out of the box trying to solve the unknown. Unanimous current science of psychology holds that then the personality trait of openness is required for that feat in order to be creative: i.e. generate testable idea's given the inherent limited data. also it is inherently on TOE striving for a paradigm shift. For that you need to be of independent thought and thus have nothing in the form of an argument of authority. Authority only provides an a priori. In my case we had already established that I'm a layman. So it isn't a sort of mean in which you see 80% of people doing it wrong that provides you with a nom as you obviously think.

 

In production however - or in the production department within research for doing the hard work of checking everything where no creativity is required - authority is a necessity for determining what to do. You can only logically correctly reject something out of hand if you have a position on TOE yourself. Because otherwise where is it based on. Experience and knowledge on TOE? There is none, that is the point.

 

C. My own words give what probative value on being exactly the correct term for an expert given the a priori knowledge that I'm a layman? Especially if the main point is that you may - not even as an expert - concerning - any - question regarding TOE be to exact. Why? Logic! If you know you don't know, well ten don't be more exact about it.

 

What probative value do you want to give my error in not knowing the exact difference between an atom and an ion? LR 1,0000001? And how does that way in on your conclusion "busted?" especially so because earlier on you said you don't work with proof. Doesn't busted mean for you "disproven"? But we had a posterior odds for you being correct 1 / near infinity and for me the other way round remember? Apart from that isn't the LR of this mistake not been dealt with in the a priori fact that I'm a layman? Of course it is so LR 1.

 

BTW my words? So what? What rule are you applying to what end? If it is about finding the truth you're in a sorry state. For the fact that the helicopter analogy that was given before those words and after the claimed disproof in all objectivity fits like a gem. It shows something you scientists agree in not knowing why it is that a lead ion can only be brought close to c. My explanation that the electron hitting c is a brilliant explanation. LR 1000000 / 1. Yet you on a double counted LR 1,00000something want to disprove it without using proof?

 

Yes says you but all of us - who are very authoritative - agree so we know this to be wrong as an explanation where we ourselves don't have an explanation.

BTW apples fall down from the tree. Taking this literally implies that I'm not talking QM or trees on the other side of the earth seen from here. Every apple that is observed falling down adds to the evidence that this is indeed a correct law of physics that was taken thus as being proven ages ago.

 

Ergo you have proven the opposite from what you state. You've used production norms in stead of reasearch ones. It follows logic and not what a group of people bestow on themselves think to know that.

 

The peer review entails nothing more than stating "busted" without bases, for my own words can't logically form that bases as I've just pointed out.

 

No, the probandum is to get to a TOE ASAP. The system is getting more and more formalistic. Proof they formalistic was of trying to bust my concept based on a slight misunderstanding that should of been clear from the outset by you knowing me to be a layman. Formalism clogs up the system getting anywhere ASAP.

I don't see any mention of being exposed to actual scientific research. I see an engineering problem solved and no other relevant experience. What you are presenting is a fantasy. At best, if your experiences were relevant it would be an anecdote or two, which is still not evidence of a systemic problem.

Oh dear the Apollo program was not a great scientific achievement everybody thought but just an engineering problem solved. I guess you want to rephrase that but any way:

 

No mate not just an engineering problem solved Grumman couldn't get it to work and failed so went to the guy they knew had done the job at Fokker in research. I guess if you where the researcher involved you would have done a better job and done real scientific research getting the formula for shading? And how long would that have taken you? For ever if you are not very creative because as far as I know the formula is still out there unsolved. Do you think you could of tinkered this, where Grumman failed and my dad succeeded without the formula? Not just an engineering problem then eh?

 

The Apollo program was an ant heap of engineers getting the job done. Indeed not doing science in the sense you are clearly at. This was risk taking flying with stuff that was not tested to the extent that one had the formula that could be tested further. The entire program had many many of these shortcuts taken. If you are not open minded (like we know Einstein, Newton, darwin etc all where) to a degree, you simply can't compute this. Above average ideas worth testing never spring to mind or are seen for what they are worth. Neither then good creative observation. What is it that I am actually observing. Is it indeed what the authority wants me to believe? Or something else? That is what was needed to observe what the machine was doing whilst cutting it. Excellent observation mixed in with a lot of knowledge and experience and the creative touch to try it in a different way not at random.

 

You are preoccupied with my authority, yet that is irrelevant. You prove the problem.

[swansont]

Oh dear the Apollo program was not a great scientific achievement everybody thought but just an engineering problem solved.

How exactly were you involved in the Apollo project?

 

 

I guess you want to rephrase that but any way:

 

No mate not just an engineering problem solved Grumman couldn't get it to work and failed so went to the guy they knew had done the job at Fokker in research. I guess if you where the researcher involved you would have done a better job and done real scientific research getting the formula for shading? And how long would that have taken you? For ever if you are not very creative because as far as I know the formula is still out there unsolved. Do you think you could of tinkered this, where Grumman failed and my dad succeeded without the formula? Not just an engineering problem then eh?

No, I probably could not have, since this is not my area of expertise. It's still just an anecdote and in no way can you extrapolate this to how all science is done.

 

 

The Apollo program was an ant heap of engineers getting the job done. Indeed not doing science in the sense you are clearly at. This was risk taking flying with stuff that was not tested to the extent that one had the formula that could be tested further. The entire program had many many of these shortcuts taken. If you are not open minded (like we know Einstein, Newton, darwin etc all where) to a degree, you simply can't compute this. Above average ideas worth testing never spring to mind or are seen for what they are worth. Neither then good creative observation. What is it that I am actually observing. Is it indeed what the authority wants me to believe? Or something else? That is what was needed to observe what the machine was doing whilst cutting it. Excellent observation mixed in with a lot of knowledge and experience and the creative touch to try it in a different way not at random.

 

You are preoccupied with my authority, yet that is irrelevant. You prove the problem.

I'm quite confident you have no clue what scientific advances I have made. It appears that "not open-minded" in this case simply means "disagree with you" and I reject that definition.

[Bignose]

So it isn't a sort of mean in which you see 80% of people doing it wrong that provides you with a nom as you obviously think.

I have no desire to reply to the rest of that other than you did a good job of not reading what I wrote or deliberately misunderstanding what I wrote.

 

I only want to reply to this line and say: As a self-defined 'layman' I am not sure where you think you can call the research being done today 'wrong' except for the fact that science hasn't published a theory of everything that is satisfactory to you.

 

I guess the good news is that you don't determine the vast, vast majority of funding for scientific research out there, because I think you are demonstrably ignorant of how real research is conducted and your expectations of what should be happening are unrealistic.

[ajb]

For that you need to be of independent thought and thus have nothing in the form of an argument of authority.

Though if you think "too independently" no one will know what you are on about, or indeed even care!

[kristalris]

Though if you think "too independently" no one will know what you are on about, or indeed even care!

Well "too" implies something is wrong so then you are always right. But if you mean that too independent in the sense of ignoring objective data or being illogical I don't agree.

 

I.e. do you think if a TOE is reached that that will be by mainstream science or by some odd ball that at first no one understood what he / she was on about? (And only later on being accepted and claimed by mainstream science as their own.)

 

Well history shows on and on again as does mainstream psychology that the vast majority doesn't care. So? Do you care?

 

I mean do you understand the need for reaching TOE quickly? I mean the possibility that it very probably - must - be within grasp of humanity?

A. I have no desire to reply to the rest of that other than you did a good job of not reading what I wrote or deliberately misunderstanding what I wrote.

 

B. I only want to reply to this line and say: As a self-defined 'layman' I am not sure where you think you can call the research being done today 'wrong' except for the fact that science hasn't published a theory of everything that is satisfactory to you.

 

C. I guess the good news is that you don't determine the vast, vast majority of funding for scientific research out there, because I think you are demonstrably ignorant of how real research is conducted and your expectations of what should be happening are unrealistic.

A. ?

 

B. As far as I know - maybe with the exception of Krauss et al - no-one has claimed or published a theory of everything to date. (could be wrong though. Enlighten me)

 

Look, you know the psychological tests where you have to fill in the missing bit? You know:

 

Circle Circle .... right answer Circle. Well then on TOE:

 

MN says: Sphere, Sphere I say Sphere most physicists say ......(zilch)... Krauss says Pretzel and religious people God;

MN says: Cube, Cube I say Cube " " " zilch " " something """ God

MN says Crystal, Crystal I say Crystal """"""" zilch Nothing """""""""" God

MN says Wave, Wave I say Wave """""""" zilch Here """"""""""God

MN says Common sense Common sense I say Common sense "" zilch There and nowhere God

 

I could go on for quite a bit along these lines. Get it?

 

You are a mathematician right? Then how can it be that we are arguing what is logic or not?

 

Given that MN is probably a mass murdering illusionist then there must be some simple rules akin E = mc2 that govern it all. Do you dispute that? If not your position is busted (the rest is pure deduction.). If you do dispute that on what evidence then?

A. How exactly were you involved in the Apollo project?

 

 

 

B. No, I probably could not have, since this is not my area of expertise. It's still just an anecdote and in no way can you extrapolate this to how all science is done.

 

 

 

C. I'm quite confident you have no clue what scientific advances I have made. It appears that "not open-minded" in this case simply means "disagree with you" and I reject that definition.

A. Again, I simply openly answered a question that I deemed then already as irrelevant. So, you show relevance in the question on the topic.

 

 

B. Whether anecdote or not the only question is do you believe it to be true or not? I do. Why? well it fits all my observations afterwards as well. That aspect might be relevant.

 

C. You threw the boomerang don't whine when it comes back. You imply to be creative open minded yet only show with the rest that you are extremely narrow minded via the busted blues brother sing along followed by the peer choir singing out of key. (Formalism = extremely narrow minded ergo the extreme opposite of openness linked - undisputed - in psychology to creativity.)

 

Now I stand in awe of people like you who are capable of using the laws of GR and QM etc.. Als long as you stay within those fields that is. As I stand in awe of the pyramids, cathedrals, the Apollo program. The latter as you should but didn't hence the boomerang. Get it?

 

Well then you claim - as do the others - expertise on TOE. That then being outside the fields of GR and QM respectively. Because it should marry the two. Okay then state your claimed authority as I've done: I say I'm a 1 / 1000 Einstein on TOE him being in my estimate 1/10 given as most probable MN to be an illusionist with a simple E = mc2 style answer to be found. (So I'm a layman a priori at 1 / 10000 of being right so a priori probably wrong.

 

Now then what do you (lot) claim?

 

And if you don't claim, where is this busted blues then based on?

[Bignose]

then there must be some simple rules akin E = mc2 that govern it all. Do you dispute that?

I do dispute that, because the universe is under no obligation to seem 'simple' to you, me, or anyone. Hence I strongly dispute the word 'must'.

 

As above, I don't really have a desire to reply to the rest (which mostly looks like gibberish).

[kristalris]

I do dispute that, because the universe is under no obligation to seem 'simple' to you, me, or anyone. Hence I strongly dispute the word 'must'.

 

As above, I don't really have a desire to reply to the rest (which mostly looks like gibberish).

Correct, yet logic dictates that you chose a most probable, and then logic dictates you start investigating this one thus most simple.

 

So what is your prime suspect or do you have no clue as to who?

 

BTW "must" is linked to "then"

Edited September 4, 2013 by kristalris

[Bignose]

So what is your prime suspect or do you have no clue as to who?

I wouldn't say that I have any prime suspects. My point has been for a very long time now, that whatever 'prime suspect' comes out, it won't replace the old theories until it demonstrates that it makes predictions at least as well as the old theories. If it doesn't, then it will no longer remain a 'suspect'. So far, I haven't seem any TOEs proposed that are anywhere near the predictive successes GR and QM have; though, to be fair, I also don't work in this area at all.

[kristalris]

I wouldn't say that I have any prime suspects. My point has been for a very long time now, that whatever 'prime suspect' comes out, it won't replace the old theories until it demonstrates that it makes predictions at least as well as the old theories. If it doesn't, then it will no longer remain a 'suspect'. So far, I haven't seem any TOEs proposed that are anywhere near the predictive successes GR and QM have; though, to be fair, I also don't work in this area at all.

You seem to have missed my point that I agree with you in this respect. My claim doesn't infringe on either GR or QM I even elevate them both to the - BTW logically correct - status of laws of physics.

 

I claim to marry the two in a verbal logical even common sense potentially testable way.

[Bignose]

I claim to marry the two in a verbal logical even common sense potentially testable way.

Then demonstrate how this marriage makes good predictions. It seems like it failed pretty miserably above.

[swansont]

A. Again, I simply openly answered a question that I deemed then already as irrelevant. So, you show relevance in the question on the topic.

 

The topic was your experience in science that gave you the perspective to decide these questions. You brought up the Apollo program. I am asking how you have experience related to the Apollo program.

 

 

B. Whether anecdote or not the only question is do you believe it to be true or not? I do. Why? well it fits all my observations afterwards as well. That aspect might be relevant.

Anecdotes aren't evidence of a broad trend.

 

 

C. You threw the boomerang don't whine when it comes back.

Such a colorful aphorism. Meaningless in this context, unfortunately.

 

You imply to be creative open minded yet only show with the rest that you are extremely narrow minded via the busted blues brother sing along followed by the peer choir singing out of key. (Formalism = extremely narrow minded ergo the extreme opposite of openness linked - undisputed - in psychology to creativity.)

More meaningless imagery. You have no knowledge of my creativity or possible lack thereof. All you really have is that I have the temerity to disagree with you, and that's apparently enough to brand me as being narrow-minded.

 

 

Now I stand in awe of people like you who are capable of using the laws of GR and QM etc.. Als long as you stay within those fields that is. As I stand in awe of the pyramids, cathedrals, the Apollo program. The latter as you should but didn't hence the boomerang. Get it?

 

Where did I say anything disparaging about the Apollo program? It is not mentioned in the thread until you say "Oh dear the Apollo program was not a great scientific achievement everybody thought but just an engineering problem solved." (which was in our discussion about your relevant science background)

 

So no, I don't get it.

 

Well then you claim - as do the others - expertise on TOE. That then being outside the fields of GR and QM respectively. Because it should marry the two. Okay then state your claimed authority as I've done: I say I'm a 1 / 1000 Einstein on TOE him being in my estimate 1/10 given as most probable MN to be an illusionist with a simple E = mc2 style answer to be found. (So I'm a layman a priori at 1 / 10000 of being right so a priori probably wrong.

You butchered Bayesian probabilities enough in this thread. I hesitate to invite any more mayhem.

 

 

And if you don't claim, where is this busted blues then based on?

"Busted" comes from YOUR OWN CLAIM that your theory is busted if you can get things as massive as atoms to move faster than 1/3 c. Now you're whining because it's come back to bite you on the ass. The thing is, anyone with actual credibility with regard to critiquing physics research is quite likely to have known about the LHC and/or RHIC experiments, and not be confused about the difference between an atom or an ion, and many tidbits your posts have missed. It's like the difference between someone pretending to speak a foreign language and someone who actually speaks that language. You may think your utterings sound like science, but to a scientist, it's gibberish.

[ajb]

Well "too" implies something is wrong so then you are always right. But if you mean that too independent in the sense of ignoring objective data or being illogical I don't agree.

I really mean that it is quite possible to "think" one is doing physics while just about everyone else thinks one is not. This can be difficult to judge at times, new ideas are speculative and usually very technical. But sometimes it it very clear what is not physics.

 

 

I.e. do you think if a TOE is reached that that will be by mainstream science or by some odd ball that at first no one understood what he / she was on about? (And only later on being accepted and claimed by mainstream science as their own.)

I would expect it to come from people who really understand the issues and technicalities. Modern physics at this level is very mathematical and requires a good grasp of well established physics. Also it requires some knowledge of how to do research, including interacting with other researchers. This culture and specialised knowledge more of less requires at least the experience of completing a PhD in a relavent subject.

 

That said, it is not impossible for an "outsider" to make contributions, but I find it unlikely. I don't think we really have any good examples of "outsiders" making contributions to modern theoretical physics today. But I am willing to be corrected on this.

 

Well history shows on and on again as does mainstream psychology that the vast majority doesn't care. So? Do you care?

Do I care if major contributions come from "outsiders"? I don't think I care, I just acknowledge that it is unlikley.

 

 

I mean do you understand the need for reaching TOE quickly? I mean the possibility that it very probably - must - be within grasp of humanity?

It is certianly amazing that people are thinking about a TOE and that it maybe possible for mankind to achive this.

 

I must admit, I do not understand the need for reaching a TOE quickly. I don't understand why humans are driven by the quest for knowledge. Nor do I understand why people want to climb mountains or go to the Moon. There are lot of things I don't understand about mankind.