Science ignores its own science and stereotypes!.

[Relative]

My evidence, the continued closed posts on most science forums.

 

My debate, lateral thinking and critical thinking, apart of science, yet ignored by many.

 

https://theoristexplains.wordpress.com/2014/04/23/we-see-through-the-transparent-state-part-5/

 

 

My next article will be about science and its stereo typical nature towards individuals who have freedom of thought. Using lateral and critical thinking to overview science, and the ability to argue, with logic that fits.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

yes or no that lateral and critical thinking is a part of science? the part that comes before any maths?

Edited July 28, 2014 by Relative

[Bignose]

yes or no that lateral and critical thinking is a part of science? the part that comes before any maths?

Yes, of course critical thinking is needed in science. It is needed by both sides. One side can't just go around shouting 'viscosity!' and expect the other side to just nod and accept it, especially when the word is being used in opposition to how it is defined. In the same way, you can't just go around shouting 'magic leprechauns' and expect people to accept that, either.

 

The problem is too many people don't truly understand what critical thinking is, and then also seem to refuse to move to the next step in the process, which is prediction and comparing those predictions with measurements. The critical thinking part of it can help you devise models in order to make those predictions, and invent experiments in order to take measurements. But thinking alone is almost meaningless. It is the objective nature of comparing accuracy between prediction and measurement that how allowed science to achieve the state is in today.

 

Consider this. It wasn't all that long ago that critical thinking led to such insights as: the moon is made of green cheese, the earth is round, heat is a fluid called phlogiston, and N-rays. These were then overturned once the prediction and comparison to measurements showed that the thinking was in error.

 

In short, critical thinking alone has led us to a great deal of wrong ideas. The real value of science is prediction and comparison to measurements. Leaving out this step results in mere story telling.

Edited July 28, 2014 by Bignose

[swansont]

“Alas, to wear the mantle of Galileo it is not enough that you be persecuted by an unkind establishment, you must also be right.”

Robert Park

[ajb]

yes or no that lateral and critical thinking is a part of science? the part that comes before any maths?

Lateral and critial thinking are part of science, but depending on what you are actually doing these may not be separate from the mathematics at all!

My next article will be about science and its stereo typical nature towards individuals who have freedom of thought.

And from ealier

 

It is not easy to convey an idea you know, especially when science talks science and i talk street.

I think the problem is that you don't really understand science nor how scientists work. You don't understand the language, which of course can be very specialised sector to sector. Thus, you are very much on the outside looking in. It is great that people take an interest and indeed science and scientists are not above scrutiny.

 

However, this scrutiny can sometimes be like using a medical textbook to try to judge if your car mechanic is good or not. Or indeed vice versa, trying to see if your Dr is any good by comparing what he does to what it says in a car manual. While there maybe some superficial similarities between your Dr and your car mechanic you cannot really judge either by exactly the same criteria.

 

While both are open to scruitny from whoever use their services, a proper and full scrutiny can only be achived by examination by other qualified Drs or mechanics depending on the situation.

 

In science we call this peer-review. Other scientists examine our work before it is pubished. Note that getting peer-reviewed and published does not mean the work is necessarily correct, just that it was carried out to a sufficent standard. Well, in principle that is how it works.

 

The closed-mindedness and so on that "non-scientists" experience is really a reaction to being told you are wrong by people who do not understand the subject at all! Genuine questions may get genuine answers, but remember it is not a good use of a scientists time to teach you the subject via email. Being told to go away and read something is not an insult, scientists say it to each other all the time!

[Relative]

Two interesting posts, and I will have to argue that both are wrong.

 

Critical thinking comes first.

 

My supportive evidence would be Faraday.

 

Without Maxwell and 15 years later, Faradays work would of been pointless.

 

You will actually find if you researched it that maths is made to fit and the predictions are according to the maths, that is made to fit, so of cause it will fit.

The maths comes after, always has and always will to give a numerical meaning.

 

This is why science is stuck and had no breakthroughs in years because you are looking at the maths all the time, models, and sometimes the obvious does not need a model.

 

 

Ideas are meant to be discussed, science does not discuss ideas but only quotes back text book and current thought.

 

None of you ever discussed my ideas , but quoted back text book which I can google, I have your knowledge at my finger tips.

 

 

I do not need current thought, to have a thought and discuss that thought.

 

 

You all are so wrong, and that is not me been arrogant, the maths is made to fit, so actually the technicality is that the maths is meaningless and the critical thinking and lateral thinking, is the reason of questioning to follow in any physical process.

[John Cuthber]

You never sensibly expressed your ideas because you insisted on using the wrong words.

How could anyone discuss them?

[Relative]

''Viscosity is due to the friction between neighboring particles in a fluid that are moving at different velocities.''

 

Hmmm! see, energy could be deemed the same, look at the ionization process in the upper layers of the atmosphere,

 

and no mods im not trying to start the thread again, this is an example to show a point from WIKI.

 

 

Science took it too far and give different names to the same process.

 

 

Water is the medium, atmosphere is the medium, Emr is the medium.

 

 

I miss where there is a difference, when friction is mentioned, and involved in a medium that maintains a constant state.

 

 

The ionization layer is a friction layer between two mediums.

 

So critical thinking easily shows us that the way forward is on those lines of thoughts, and not models or maths, what happened to good old fashioned common sense?

You never sensibly expressed your ideas because you insisted on using the wrong words.

How could anyone discuss them?

Ok JOhn I understand that, but how to express something with out a name, I can only use comparison of words and process comparisons.

''Viscosity is due to the friction between neighboring particles in a medium or of energy that are moving at different velocities.'' +added - in its own cluster or group formation.

I fixed the sentence for you.........it should say that.

example weather systems.

Edited July 28, 2014 by Relative

[ajb]

You will actually find if you researched it that maths is made to fit and the predictions are according to the maths, that is made to fit, so of cause it will fit.

The maths comes after, always has and always will to give a numerical meaning.

Yes and no...it depends on what you are discussing exactly, however it is true that the mathematics may at first be made to fit the observations, it is also true that theoretical physics is guided by the mathematics. My own prespective is very much rooted in the mathematics itself being an important guide. As you like to quote historical examples, I give you Dirac and the prediction of antimatter. Dirac's original work was all mathematical, but he had the leap of faith to double the particle content of the Universe based on the mathematics. A little later Anderson disovered the positron.

 

Not that I would like to directly compare myself with Dirac, just I want to point out the philosophy here.

 

This is why science is stuck and had no breakthroughs in years because you are looking at the maths all the time, models, and sometimes the obvious does not need a model.

Without some model this would not be physics and I assume we are really talking about physics here.

 

Ideas are meant to be discussed, science does not discuss ideas but only quotes back text book and current thought.

This is true if your questions can be answered by a textbook. When you get closer to the frontier of knowledge this is not the case at all. I often discuss ideas with other scientists and sometimes we give each other the "textbook answer", but this is not always avaliable. Infact we hope it is not avaliable so we have something to work on! Also we have bad ideas and things work out different to how we first thought (for better or worse).

 

None of you ever discussed my ideas , but quoted back text book which I can google, I have your knowledge at my finger tips.

 

 

I do not need current thought, to have a thought and discuss that thought.

You may need to rephrase your thoughts and questions in a way we can understand. So far all I got was massive misunderstandings. If these can be addressed by reading a textbook then that will be suggested to you.

 

You all are so wrong, and that is not me been arrogant...

It is amazingly arrogant for someone who does not know science to say that we are all wrong. Please think about this.

 

...the maths is made to fit, so actually the technicality is that the maths is meaningless and the critical thinking and lateral thinking, is the reason of questioning to follow in any physical process.

This just shows that you do not know theoretical physics nor how scientists actually work.

 

I am glad you are interested, but you seem so misguided. If you want to engauge in a meaningful two way exchange and learn some science then you will have a good time here. If you just want to soapbox and proclaim that all science is wrong without taking on board what scientists are saying then I fear your time here will be short. I also fear that you would wear such a ban as a badge of honor and compare yourself with Galileo.

[Relative]

example a lazer, the viscosity of the lazer is greater than the viscosity of the surrounding environment, like a tap running , the velocity of flow having affect.

 

 

So can you see my definition of viscosity now?

 

Would the way forward and should be added to critical and lateral thinking wiki citations, that a definition should be explained firstly to show the context?

[ajb]

and no mods im not trying to start the thread again, this is an example to show a point from WIKI.

Okay, so lets not re-open this and keep this thread on track.

[Relative]

Yes and no...it depends on what you are discussing exactly, however it is true that the mathematics may at first be made to fit the observations, it is also true that theoretical physics is guided by the mathematics. My own prespective is very much rooted in the mathematics itself being an important guide. As you like to quote historical examples, I give you Dirac and the prediction of antimatter. Dirac's original work was all mathematical, but he had the leap of faith to double the particle content of the Universe based on the mathematics. A little later Anderson disovered the positron.

 

Not that I would like to directly compare myself with Dirac, just I want to point out the philosophy here.

 

 

Without some model this would not be physics and I assume we are really talking about physics here.

 

 

This is true if your questions can be answered by a textbook. When you get closer to the frontier of knowledge this is not the case at all. I often discuss ideas with other scientists and sometimes we give each other the "textbook answer", but this is not always avaliable. Infact we hope it is not avaliable so we have something to work on! Also we have bad ideas and things work out different to how we first thought (for better or worse).

 

 

You may need to rephrase your thoughts and questions in a way we can understand. So far all I got was massive misunderstandings. If these can be addressed by reading a textbook then that will be suggested to you.

 

 

It is amazingly arrogant for someone who does not know science to say that we are all wrong. Please think about this.

 

 

This just shows that you do not know theoretical physics nor how scientists actually work.

 

I am glad you are interested, but you seem so misguided. If you want to engauge in a meaningful two way exchange and learn some science then you will have a good time here. If you just want to soapbox and proclaim that all science is wrong without taking on board what scientists are saying then I fear your time here will be short. I also fear that you would wear such a ban as a badge of honor and compare yourself with Galileo.

Thank you , and I have already on one forum proved about the maths been made to fit, I made some maths fit of my own and come up with the correct answers.

You mention, Dirac and anti matter, the point been from my perspective the antimatter came first, not the maths.

 

 

 

The idea and the discovery, and I am been honest when I say I have looked and learnt lots of current science, and I can honestly see with my lines of thought a complete paradox to science that also works.

[ajb]

example a lazer, the viscosity of the lazer is greater than the viscosity of the surrounding environment, like a tap running , the velocity of flow having affect.

This is not how we understantd this at all, and you are risking getting this thread locked as it is now looking like an attempt to discuss ideas that we do not really want to discuss. My advice is to leave your "viscosity" out of this.

 

If you can get your original thread inline with our rules, say you start to present things a bit more mathematically and/or offer real evidence that your ideas are sound, then talk to the moderators about re-opening your thread.

Thank you , and I have already on one forum proved about the maths been made to fit, I made some maths fit of my own and come up with the correct answers.

My point is that this is not always so simple and you cannot just do whatever you like in mathematics and still have non-trivial and interesting structure. But this is probabily another story.

 

You mention, Dirac and anti matter, the point been from my perspective the antimatter came first, not the maths.

But Dirac predicted antimatter from the mathematics before the experimental discovery of antimater. You can check the dates of the publications here yourself.

[Relative]

So you must agree that talking about an idea, even without a model , is what happens before any maths is involved?

 

I accuse science of ignorance, and you agreed that you base your science on the maths, maths is not a result, maths is just a table of contents made to fit. You can not just make a maths formula up and it would work on something, that is backwards.

 

Dirac would of used someones else work, and done some comparison maths and made it fit.

 

From maths that was already made to fit, and by mentioning viscosity I was showing you the context in which you did not understand. An example of how crazy science has become.

 

 

I tried maths once, give science a formula that over rules E=mc2 , with the process , e= mc2 is meaningless.

 

 

So I give you maths and you say Im wrong, so hows that work when My maths worked?

 

including 1 second is equal to 0.288 mile ,

 

 

so please tell me why my maths i made to fit is wrong?

Edited July 28, 2014 by Relative

[ajb]

So you must agree that talking about an idea, even without a model , is what happens before any maths is involved?

It depends on the science. For me, I always have a mathematical framework in mind. My ideas and questions are inherently mathematical. The same is largley true of any theoretical physicists I know. Most of the basic ideas and construct of physics are really mathematical and so it is not so obvious how to separate mathematics from the original idea. For other sciences it maybe a bit easier.

 

 

I accuse science of ignorance, and you agreed that you base your science on the maths, maths is not a result, maths is just a table of contents made to fit.

For me personally, the mathematics is a result, but that is what I am interested in and largley from a mathematical perspective.

 

Anyway, physics is about constructing mathematical models of nature and comparing them with experiment/observations. It is not clear how the two can be very clearly separated. In physics the language is mathematics and thinking mathematically is the norm.

 

In other sciences this is less so, but I have no experience of these.

 

You can just make a maths formula up and it would work on something, that is backwards.

I do not think it works like that. For example, mathematics departments are not full of mathematicians all making up seemingly random systems of axioms to study. It all seems much more rigid than that from the start. But this is a slighty different question to the one you pose. Can any and all mathematics be applied to nature?

 

I don't know the answer to that, no-one does. You may however be interested in the mathematical universe hypothesis of Tegmark.

[Relative]

My maths was correct, you can not tell me I am wrong because I was correct, my time theory over ruled the entire science history,

 

I am 100% logically correct, I do not do error in thought.

[studiot]

It is common for someone who first discovers or makes something new to be granted the honour by society of naming it, be it a cocktail drink, an insect, a mountain or a defined quantity in physics.

 

For this reason you should read the following link to the question

 

Who discovered viscosity?

 

http://classroom.synonym.com/first-discovered-viscosity-17922.html

 

Edited July 28, 2014 by studiot

[Relative]

So can you tell me where my maths is at fault with time?

 

 

if you can not that must make it true.

[ajb]

My maths was correct, you can not tell me I am wrong because I was correct, my time theory over ruled the entire science history,

I do not know the details of your time theory. Also, even if it is mathematically correct it may still not apply to nature. If your theory really seems at odds with things that are well tested then you may have to think again about the theory.

 

 

I am 100% logically correct, I do not do error in thought.

Well, we all have errors in our thoughts. We all make mistakes and have ideas that do not work out. This is normal in science and mathematics. To suggest you are always 100% correct is silly.

Edited July 28, 2014 by ajb

[Relative]

I do not know the details of your time theory. Also, even if it is mathematically correct it may still not apply to nature. If your theory really seems at odds with things that are well tested then you may have to think again about the theory.

 

 

 

Well, we all have errors in our thoughts. We all make mistakes and have ideas that do not work out. This is normal in science and mathematics. To suggest you are always 100% correct is silly.

1 second is equal to 0.288 mile, true, 100% maths correct.

 

So to say Im 100% correct on that is not difficult.

1 second is equal to 0.288 mile, true, 100% maths correct.

 

So to say Im 100% correct on that is not difficult.

yet no one was interested .....

[ajb]

1 second is equal to 0.288 mile, true, 100% maths correct.

They are not equal, for a start the units are different. We would need some context here to even being to make sence of that. Now, if this is part of a closed thread then we probabily should not risk getting this thread closed by covering old ground.

[Strange]

None of you ever discussed my ideas , but quoted back text book

 

I have never understood this aversion to text books. They are, generally, full of reliable (tested) information and are structured to allow one to learn about a subject.

 

It seems that some people prefer unfettered imagination to reality.

[Relative]

They are not equal, for a start the units are different. We would need some context here to even being to make sence of that. Now, if this is part of a closed thread then we probabily should not risk getting this thread closed by covering old ground.

Dont think my time thread was ever closed, think science had no answer, you can see the full workings out on the wordpress blog, there is a link in this thread in the opening posts.

And this is all relative to this thread, my argument would be again I give proof, and it was ignored by science, you ask for proof , i give the proof, but it was ignored.

 

 

So what can science say to that apart from they are ignorant?

 

I have never understood this aversion to text books. They are, generally, full of reliable (tested) information and are structured to allow one to learn about a subject.

 

It seems that some people prefer unfettered imagination to reality.

No strange, all my ideas came from reading all the available knowledge, something was not quite right, so I thought about it.

[Strange]

if you can not that must make it true.

 

No. There are mathematically correct solutions to Einstein's Field Equations, for example, that do not correspond to reality.

 

That is why science relies on quantitative testing of the predictions made by the math.

 

(And as noted by others, your math is "not even wrong" because it fails basic dimensional analysis.)

e= mc2 is meaningless.

 

And yet it works.

[studiot]

 

Relative

all my ideas came from reading all the available knowledge,

 

So have you read the link I posted?

[Relative]

 

So have you read the link I posted?

Yes but I have got to avoid a viscosity conversation.

 

No. There are mathematically correct solutions to Einstein's Field Equations, for example, that do not correspond to reality.

 

That is why science relies on quantitative testing of the predictions made by the math.

 

(And as noted by others, your math is "not even wrong" because it fails basic dimensional analysis.)

 

And yet it works.

and e=mc2 works for what exactly?

 

 

My formula gave meaning to real energy, energy that has no equal.

 

e=mc2 is 1 dimensional thought

Edited July 28, 2014 by Relative