Science ignores its own science and stereotypes!.

[ajb]

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.

I did have a quick look at your blog...I am not sure what to say.

 

 

 

 

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

Scientists are often ignorant, that is why we have science. There are plenty of things scientists do not know.

 

 

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

At the risk of offending you, we get this a lot here. People read a few pop-sci books and think there must be an easier way to describe this. It falls into the "if I don't understand it, it must be wrong" argument of why science is wrong.

Edited July 28, 2014 by ajb

[Relative]

I did have a quick look at your blog...I am not sure what to say.

 

 

 

 

 

Scientists are often ignorant, that is why we have science. There are plenty of things scientists do not know.

 

 

 

At the risk of offending you, we get this a lot here. People read a few pop-sci books and think there must be an easier way to describe this. It falls into the "if I don't understand it, it must be wrong" argument of why science is wrong.

About 3 years of science forums. Hours of wiki and links.

and my blog says it all, how it is, with no illusions of the universe, basic physics,

[ajb]

About 3 years of science forums. Hours of wiki and links.

and how many textbooks, papers, review articles and discussions with scientists?

[swansont]

example a lazer

 

 

You mean a laser? Something that was predicted theoretically before it was made in the lab?

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.

 

How many years?

[ajb]

You mean a laser? Something that was predicted theoretically before it was made in the lab?

Wasn't we talking about just this the other day? I feel ashamed to have missed the above error!

[Relative]

"if I don't understand it, it must be wrong" argument of why science is wrong. ''

 

 

But i do understand,

 

and how many textbooks, papers, review articles and discussions with scientists?

I think I have had lots of discussions with scientists, including a huge thread with mass views.

The internet is full of current knowledge. The forums provide discussion.

You mean a laser? Something that was predicted theoretically before it was made in the lab?

How many years?

yes a laser, and so the idea came first, not the maths etc.

Science relies on time, time is not correct. Ageing of the planet etc, all incorrect. Does any one want to argue my maths?

[ajb]

yes a laser, and so the idea came first, not the maths etc.

Lasers came from Einstein's calculations relating to atomic absorption and emission. It is just not clear how you could separate so clearly the intial idea of a laser from the quantum mechanics of absorption and emission.

[swansont]

yes a laser, and so the idea came first, not the maths etc.

No, the math came first, by a few decades. Einstein's A and B coefficients and the rate equations predate the laser.

[Relative]

Lasers came from Einstein's calculations relating to atomic absorption and emission. It is just not clear how you could separate so clearly the intial idea of a laser from the quantum mechanics of absorption and emission.

Hey?, the idea is simple, send an energy beam that is different to the surrounding energy, hence a laser,

 

you do it with tv signals, radio waves, that is how they work, a different energy to the surrounding energy level. Nothing complicated about it.

No, the math came first, by a few decades. Einstein's A and B coefficients and the rate equations predate the laser.

Yes but einsteins maths were made to fit also, all maths from the beginning was made to fit, so of cause it would fit.

and all calculations , well most are based on time which is incorrect.

This thread will get locked before any one has challenged my time maths.

Edited July 28, 2014 by Relative

[ajb]

Hey?, the idea is simple, send an energy beam that is different to the surrounding energy, hence a laser,

LOL, no it is not quite that simple. As swansont points out, the basic mathematics do describe a laser was put in place by Einstein when considering atomic absorption and emission in 1917. It was later that Einstein's predicted stimulated emission was experimentally observed. (Again we have an example of a calculation predating the observation!) Then after that people started to think about lasers, I think this was in the 1940's. I am sure you can find a detailed history online.

[Relative]

Do you know through science i can prove online poker to have a huge flaw in the process, but again no one was interested.

 

So science where have the balls gone to take on the big cats?

LOL, no it is not quite that simple. As swansont points out, the basic mathematics do describe a laser was put in place by Einstein when considering atomic absorption and emission in 1917. It was later that Einstein's predicted stimulated emission was experimentally observed. (Again we have an example of a calculation predating the observation!) Then after that people started to think about lasers, I think this was in the 1940's. I am sure you can find a detailed history online.

thank you for the information. The thing was Einstein would of had a creative vision and actually created it in his head. Still the idea comes first, he did not make some maths out of the blue and the maths made lasers.

And if I am so bad at science, why can no one challenge my time, my time destroying science....and all that you know.

[ajb]

Do you know through science i can prove online poker to have a huge flaw in the process, but again no one was interested.

Well write it up and submit it for publication. I am sure you can find a journal interested in computer science, online security and similar. This is outside my area, so others may have suggestions.

 

So science where have the balls gone to take on the big cats?

Most scientists are intereted in studying nature not things like online gambling. That said, there are people studying such things. Again, this is outside my area so I don't know any good place to start looking into it.

[John Cuthber]

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?

OK, for a start, you have demonstrated your lack of understanding by not knowing how to spell laser. Normally that would be irrelevant, but it's an acronym so spelling it with a Z indicates that you not only don't know how the word is spelled, but that you don't know how it works.

 

Anyway, let's consider an argon laser.

The viscosity or argon is documented here

http://www.nist.gov/data/PDFfiles/jpcrd401.pdf

and that for air is given here

http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/air-absolute-kinematic-viscosity-d_601.html

 

The values near room temp (in µPa) sec are

Ar 22.59

Air 15

 

Obviously the gas in the laser is hotter and that will make it more viscous.

 

So, in answer to your question.

Yes, I can see your "definition" of viscosity.

It is wrong.

Do you see why?

 

So when you say "a definition should be explained firstly to show the context?" you miss the point.

the definition is the same regardless of the context- otherwise it stops making sense.

 

If I choose to redefine "dog" as "whatever animal I happen to be looking at" then I can point at a fish and say "dogs can breathe underwater" or I can point at a crow and say "dogs can fly" and so on.

It is sort of true (because of the definition of "dog" I'm using, but it is impossible to work with.

For example, the definition makes it impossible to answer the question "do we usually get wool from dogs?"

 

Since part of the use of science is to answer questions, your approach simply won't work.

[Relative]

OK, for a start, you have demonstrated your lack of understanding by not knowing how to spell laser. Normally that would be irrelevant, but it's an acronym so spelling it with a Z indicates that you not only don't know how the word is spelled, but that you don't know how it works.

 

Anyway, let's consider an argon laser.

The viscosity or argon is documented here

http://www.nist.gov/data/PDFfiles/jpcrd401.pdf

and that for air is given here

http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/air-absolute-kinematic-viscosity-d_601.html

 

The values near room temp (in µPa) sec are

Ar 22.59

Air 15

 

Obviously the gas in the laser is hotter and that will make it more viscous.

 

So, in answer to your question.

Yes, I can see your "definition" of viscosity.

It is wrong.

Do you see why?

 

So when you say "a definition should be explained firstly to show the context?" you miss the point.

the definition is the same regardless of the context- otherwise it stops making sense.

 

If I choose to redefine "dog" as "whatever animal I happen to be looking at" then I can point at a fish and say "dogs can breathe underwater" or I can point at a crow and say "dogs can fly" and so on.

It is sort of true (because of the definition of "dog" I'm using, but it is impossible to work with.

For example, the definition makes it impossible to answer the question "do we usually get wool from dogs?"

 

Since part of the use of science is to answer questions, your approach simply won't work.

I can see your point, and yes there may be other words that explain my ideas better, but when I see the word and explanation that sounds like what I am thinking, then surely that is the word to use?

and it will take me a while to read through the links thx, i will answer your question when I have read them and understand them.

[ajb]

I can see your point, and yes there may be other words that explain my ideas better, but when I see the word and explanation that sounds like what I am thinking, then surely that is the word to use?

Generally one has to take care using words that already have a very specific meaning in a branch of science. Also, you should not invent new names (or notation) for concepts that are already well established.

[Relative]

Well write it up and submit it for publication. I am sure you can find a journal interested in computer science, online security and similar. This is outside my area, so others may have suggestions.

 

 

Most scientists are intereted in studying nature not things like online gambling. That said, there are people studying such things. Again, this is outside my area so I don't know any good place to start looking into it.

Yes but the science behind the problem, in discovering the problem, writes a whole new chapter in variance, something that has no meaning yet or words for it. It would need some maths that hard, I wish Einstein was about.

[John Cuthber]

Do you know through science i can prove online poker to have a huge flaw in the process, but again no one was interested.

 

And if I am so bad at science, why can no one challenge my time, my time destroying science....and all that you know.

I rather doubt that you can show any problem with on-line poker that's not already known about.

 

We have challenged you, repeatedly and you just sit there with your fingers in your ears saying "Lah Lah Lah I'm not listening"

[Relative]

Generally one has to take care using words that already have a very specific meaning in a branch of science. Also, you should not invent new names (or notation) for concepts that are already well established.

Well established, my point, you are taught to believe and not question some areas. You take time measurement for granted to be true for example. You are so far of track with that one, and the obvious speaks for itself.

 

 

Viscosity , another word for density in my eyes,

[John Cuthber]

...when I see the word and explanation that sounds like what I am thinking, then surely that is the word to use?

But viscosity is obviously not the word for whatever it is that you are thinking about.

It has a clear explanation in terms of momentum flux and velocity gradient that can not possibly apply to whatever it is that you are thinking.

If it "sounds like " it to you then you don't understand it.

Don'y you think you ought to find out what a word means before you use it?

Edited July 28, 2014 by John Cuthber

[Relative]

I rather doubt that you can show any problem with on-line poker that's not already known about.

 

We have challenged you, repeatedly and you just sit there with your fingers in your ears saying "Lah Lah Lah I'm not listening"

Because it has no name, it has no maths, it has some obvious logic, I do not know what to call it , I can only explain it in simple explanation to understand, I have had people agree with me, but no one wants to do anything about it.

But viscosity is obviously not the word for whatever it is that you are thinking about.

It has a clear explanation in terms of momentum flux and velocity gradient that can not possibly apply to whatever it is that you are thinking.

Because what I am thinking about is not in current science, so can you understand from my view how hard that is to convey across?

[John Cuthber]

 

 

Viscosity , another word for density in my eyes,

As I said, you are willfully refusing to listen.

Because it has no name, it has no maths, it has some obvious logic, I do not know what to call it , I can only explain it in simple explanation to understand, I have had people agree with me, but no one wants to do anything about it.

Because what I am thinking about is not in current science, so can you understand from my view how hard that is to convey across?

Start a thread on it and we can look at the "logic"

 

There are essentially no ideas that are not part of current science.

The last "example" you gave was the asler which has been understood for nigh a century.

The problem is not with what science knows, but your refusal to knuckle down and learn what science can tell you.

[ajb]

Well established, my point, you are taught to believe and not question some areas.

Not true, scientists question established science all the time.

 

You take time measurement for granted to be true for example.

I don't understand what you mean by "true".

 

You are so far of track with that one, and the obvious speaks for itself.

You will need to explain this carefully.

 

Viscosity , another word for density in my eyes,

But both viscosity and density have specific meanings. (I assume you mean mass density here)

 

In fact the shear viscosity and the kinematic viscosity are related by the mass denisty! So, although not the same you are right that mass density and viscosity are related.

[Relative]

As I said, you are willfully refusing to listen.

Start a thread on it and we can look at the "logic"

 

There are essentially no ideas that are not part of current science.

The last "example" you gave was the asler which has been understood for nigh a century.

The problem is not with what science knows, but your refusal to knuckle down and learn what science can tell you.

I have knuckled down at times , but every time I come across something that is not logically correct, or has an alternative that also works, am I suppose to ignore that, and allow myself to learn something that I deem to be wrong or misunderstood?

 

I know your definition of viscosity, honey and water, but I also know that weather systems have different energy levels and density, gases, a laser through smoke, etc.

 

and ok, i will start another thread and simply show you that online poker is flawed in a big way, i will do that later though , and hopefully you can give what i have found a name.

[ajb]

I have knuckled down at times , but every time I come across something that is not logically correct, or has an alternative that also works, am I suppose to ignore that, and allow myself to learn something that I deem to be wrong or misunderstood?

I think this goes to show you have to be careful deeming something wrong. Don't fall into the trap of "because I don't understand it, it must be wrong". You need a real reason to deem somthing wrong.

[Relative]

I think this goes to show you have to be careful deeming something wrong. Don't fall into the trap of "because I don't understand it, it must be wrong". You need a real reason to deem somthing wrong.

Yes I do understand that, and I did have cause for reason, especially when I considered the measurement of time. And knowing distance etc, is based on time.

I am aware that I may have some misconceptions......