"PD" wrote:
-- "hanson" wrote:



hanson wrote:
Hey Paul, there appears to be a wholesale, broadside
onslaught and slaughter onto Scientific Orthodoxy.
== First Einstein's crap was doubted & then dismantled,
and now it's QMs' turn.
== The Gems of Physics modeling are dying & being
discarded.
== There is a Science Renaissance in the making
the peasants have taken up the pitchforks.
== There is now a Science Spring, forget the Arab Spring.

Get with it Paul, become an influence, a leader of the Sci-Rebellion!

PS:
Brad Guth must be celebrating. He had
enough of the FUD and the FUD masters.

Paul wrote:
Oh, come, come, hanson.
There will always be doubters. There are people who doubt the
dinosaurs lived 125 million years ago, there people who doubt that we
ever landed on the moon, there are people who doubt that the earth is
in fact round. There was a poster to this group that doubted that (-1)
x (-1) = 1. The fact that there are goofball doubters for just about
anything you can imagine does not mean that the subject is at risk,
let alone dismantled.

hanson wrote:
.... ahahahaha.. Sure there have & will be always doubters.
But there also have been transitions from Ptolemy to Bruno
to Hubble etc. One era dismantled the previous one.
Science is an evolving, living, cultural anthropic thing!...
**Believe** it or not and no pun intended.

Paul wrote:
You can taunt all you want that scientists are not teaching properly
if there is a failure to convince every man, woman, and child of this
claim or that claim. Scientists are not so foolish as to snap onto
that bait.

hanson wrote:
What taunt?.. What bait?... All sciences, even physics & math,
are social enterprises. === No money -- No physics... ===
Your loss, Paul. ...... ahahahahaha... ahahahahanson


----------- orig. example post of issue at hand --------------------

"john" wrote:
On Jun 7, 6:16 am, Paul PD wrote:
On Jun 7, 1:00 am, john wrote:
On Jun 6, 7:59 pm, (Michael Moroney)
wrote:

john wrote:
When you are able to map the
pathways of the 30 individual electrons of Benzene
according to your 'model',
using AutoCad, or somesuch, please feel free
to squawk.

PD writes:
Actually, electrons in atoms don't have pathways per se, since
Newtonian trajectories are inconsistent with the Heisenberg
uncertainty principle. So drawing pathways, with Autocad or Maya or a
#2 Ticonderoga pencil, is not a representation of reality, John.

Moroney wrote:
That's just the biggest reason why your model fails, John. Each one of
those 30 electrons has an exact position and velocity (and thus
momentum)
at any given point in time. Quantum Mechanics states that this is
impossible.

John wrote:
So, you think because my model succeeds in
explaining Benzene, it has failed because
your model says it can't be done?

Paul wrote:
Drawing a path for electrons to go is not an "explanation", John. It
is not comparable to any *measurable* quantities.
What you've done is like coloring in a picture of an atom to claim
that protons are red and neutrons are blue. It explains nothing.

john wrote:
Well, the proponents of QM are like the
"""model""" itself: way too slippery to get a grip
on- twisting and turning away from any 'logical' explanation.

Proponents of QM actually eschew logic- braying out
their creed: "There IS no logic", they hee-haw. "Our
theory says so. No pathways, no pattern, no plan."

Unfortunately one look at Life is all it takes
for anyone with brains to see that they are wrong.