|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
What is scientific reality? What is scientific understanding?
Let me go on to add What do we mean when it is said "This scientific
idea is "true" This begs the question "Can any theory really be said to be proven"? Theories are always being replaced by better ones. Are spacetime is great for doing this,especially during the first decades of the twentieth century. More recently in the field of superstring theory. This guy Popper states that a theory can never be proven. This Popper person is highly respected. I now read that physics is the science of "approximations" Those that read my posts know I mention that many times. I'll throw this in here Nothing is exact to the last decimal point. In QM how many exact solutions can you quote? First off you don;t even know the behavior of an electrons in an atom.etc Physicist working in nuclear physics will tell you they have no hope of performing calculations that are exact (Feynman told us that) Again its approximations than hopefully be close enough,and give some sort of result in near agreement with experiment. This though just jumped in. If two electrons have the same spin,they will interact differently than they do if they had opposite spin. So here you can get a different result to experiments if you don't know the direction of the spin. (tricky stuff) Math I read is OK if the figure they are looking for is in "the ballpark" We do the best we can. trying to come up with better theories.,and use them to gain an understanding of the many complicated messy complex universe where in which we live. I wrote this as best i could to give people such as oc friend Wolter a chance to express his gravity idea. Why are so many nasty remarks going on by people that should be tolerant(know better) Name calling is not the way of discussing science. Why is it happening in Alt. astronomy more and more.. Einstein knew his theories were not complete. He will be the first to tell you so. One can say Einstein's theories were a better approximation than Newton's Seems as I'm typing this stuff. I did post the other day that "infinity is a big headache in QM" Well I'll end by saying what I just typed proves we can go with our own theories,and they should be judged in a polite way,and each of us have respect for each other,and be helpful in every way... I will do just that. Why not It nice to be nice. That will be my birthday wish. We should virtual hold hands bow our heads and say as loud as we can G=EMC^2 Bert |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
What is scientific reality? What is scientific understanding?
G=EMC^2 Glazier wrote:
Let me go on to add What do we mean when it is said "This scientific idea is "true" This begs the question "Can any theory really be said to be proven"? Theories are always being replaced by better ones. Are spacetime is great for doing this,especially during the first decades of the twentieth century. More recently in the field of superstring theory. This guy Popper states that a theory can never be proven. This Popper person is highly respected. I now read that physics is the science of "approximations" Those that read my posts know I mention that many times. I'll throw this in here Nothing is exact to the last decimal point. In QM how many exact solutions can you quote? First off you don;t even know the behavior of an electrons in an atom.etc Physicist working in nuclear physics will tell you they have no hope of performing calculations that are exact (Feynman told us that) Again its approximations than hopefully be close enough,and give some sort of result in near agreement with experiment. This though just jumped in. If two electrons have the same spin,they will interact differently than they do if they had opposite spin. So here you can get a different result to experiments if you don't know the direction of the spin. (tricky stuff) Math I read is OK if the figure they are looking for is in "the ballpark" We do the best we can. trying to come up with better theories.,and use them to gain an understanding of the many complicated messy complex universe where in which we live. I wrote this as best i could to give people such as oc friend Wolter a chance to express his gravity idea. Why are so many nasty remarks going on by people that should be tolerant(know better) Name calling is not the way of discussing science. Why is it happening in Alt. astronomy more and more.. Einstein knew his theories were not complete. He will be the first to tell you so. One can say Einstein's theories were a better approximation than Newton's Seems as I'm typing this stuff. I did post the other day that "infinity is a big headache in QM" Well I'll end by saying what I just typed proves we can go with our own theories,and they should be judged in a polite way,and each of us have respect for each other,and be helpful in every way... I will do just that. Why not It nice to be nice. That will be my birthday wish. We should virtual hold hands bow our heads and say as loud as we can G=EMC^2 Bert Works for me - and just as when the drunk man is told by 12 people he is drunk and should believe it, when people point out how nonscientific your ideas are, you should believe it. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
What is scientific reality? What is scientific understanding?
My dear virtual friend Scott Miller. Point out in a clear polite way
how my theories don't follow scientific lines. They are my own ideas,and since I am very knowledgable in physics I stay within its boundaries. I think in more than just one direction. I make predictions on weather based on charts that show weather patterns. I love science with a passion,and never meet anyone that loved science that I disliked. I think in reality you are a nice person,but went astray in the virtual world.where thinking takes place When I get email it is much kinder(like yours in the past. Best to keep in mind Scott Miller "If we all just went to Google,and Google was like a bible all posts would be boring,and not worth posting the same stuff over and over. That is why my thousands of "What if" posts were appreciated over the years. All were different. All were original. I myself found them interesting Go figure Your Hypothetical virtual friend Bert |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
What is scientific reality? What is scientific understanding?
G=EMC^2 Glazier wrote:
My dear virtual friend Scott Miller. Point out in a clear polite way how my theories don't follow scientific lines. They are my own ideas,and since I am very knowledgable in physics I stay within its boundaries. I think in more than just one direction. I make predictions on weather based on charts that show weather patterns. I love science with a passion,and never meet anyone that loved science that I disliked. I think in reality you are a nice person,but went astray in the virtual world.where thinking takes place When I get email it is much kinder(like yours in the past. Best to keep in mind Scott Miller "If we all just went to Google,and Google was like a bible all posts would be boring,and not worth posting the same stuff over and over. That is why my thousands of "What if" posts were appreciated over the years. All were different. All were original. I myself found them interesting Go figure Your Hypothetical virtual friend Bert Your ideas (hardly hypotheses, let alone theories) have no scientific merit simply because they lack any predictive capability. Like string theory, they work in your head but they likely don't work in reality because they cannot predict testable results. And that is still the standard in modern science, whether you like it or not. It is you, therefore, that has gone astray in this virtual world. Those with little more science background (and likely less from their responses) think you have knowledge (at least a little more than they) and have such a distaste for what real science is about see you a "hero" for standing up to it. Of course, since you are playing with an empty deck, it is easy to call your bluff. I have done it as have others in the past and you reject those calls as "mean spirited", with your worshippers rooting you on. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
What is scientific reality? What is scientific understanding?
Dear Scott Miller. It was professors at leading universities that found
me interesting. Even want to know where they can get a paper on some of my stuff. Moscow university was a big fan of my "What it" All liked my inertia picture. I'm sure lots of my theories it is true are not based fact or at this spacetime variable by experiment. or direct observation. Maybe Scott Miller I posses some kind of abstract ideas that are not appreciated at this time??. (my thinking is far advanced.) Reality is I do have an explanation or hypothesis designed to account for all of natures mysteries,and my "spin is in theory" shows how space is curved,and I must bring in my "concave and convex space" to show how nature creates space inflating at an accelerating rate Lots of my thinking comes to light in Sci. America mag years later,and that gives my ego a boost. Yes Scott Miller a theory to me is a good idea,and our brains being able to "speculate' is one of its great features It is an art form. You throw string theory at me(you know I like it.for it can't be proven. It is only taking away QM zero dimensional point particle,and replacing it with a one dimensional filament called "strings" Funny thing I think that has a lot more reality to it than a point(dot) Don't you? String theory has been around for 50 years,and it will be taught when we are long gone Don't knock it Scott Miller. Let Edward Witten explain it to you Read the books of Brian Greene These two will be Nobel prize winners . Your long time virtual friend t Who is a lonely man but not getting older thanks to MSP Bert |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
What is scientific reality? What is scientific understanding?
Dear Scott Miller(we go back many moons) keep forgetting to mention
this interesting "fact" Mercury is about a third bigger than our Moon,and has all its features when compared side by side. Here is a kicker Mercury like our Earth has a huge iron core,and our Moon has none. Hmmmm Would I embarrass you Scott Miller if I used the hit ejection theory here. That Mercury was "once upon a time" part of the Earth. It fits better with Mercury than the Moon (yes?) Go figure Bert |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
What is scientific reality? What is scientific understanding?
G=EMC^2 Glazier wrote:
Dear Scott Miller(we go back many moons) keep forgetting to mention this interesting "fact" Mercury is about a third bigger than our Moon,and has all its features when compared side by side. Here is a kicker Mercury like our Earth has a huge iron core,and our Moon has none. Hmmmm Would I embarrass you Scott Miller if I used the hit ejection theory here. That Mercury was "once upon a time" part of the Earth. It fits better with Mercury than the Moon (yes?) Go figure Bert Another swing and a miss. You would have struck out long ago if we kept score. Mercury's large iron core may be the result of a collision as well, a collision that blasted away much of its crust, leaving behind a nearly intact iron core. Remaining material swept up by this object contributes to the crust of Mercury today. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
What is scientific reality? What is scientific understanding?
DearScott Miller You dare use "maybe" How very unscientific. Scott
maybe your thinking bad theories of others screwed up your thinking.It fits. I used "What if" But the posts all had good original science science to show that I was not stupid. Shame on you trying to make your points with "maybe this or maybe that once upon a time" oh ya Your virtual friend bert Maybe you are fudging. A little tap dancing around to cover up the fact of your not having good scientific reasoning. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
What is scientific reality? What is scientific understanding?
|
#10
|
|||
|
|||
What is scientific reality? What is scientific understanding?
Phineas T Puddleduck wrote:
In article , (G=EMC^2 Glazier) wrote: DearScott Miller You dare use "maybe" How very unscientific. Scott maybe your thinking bad theories of others screwed up your thinking.It fits. I used "What if" But the posts all had good original science science to show that I was not stupid. Shame on you trying to make your points with "maybe this or maybe that once upon a time" oh ya Your virtual friend bert Maybe you are fudging. A little tap dancing around to cover up the fact of your not having good scientific reasoning. Are you now being ironic? You guys are the EPITOME of unscientific They call it "profound". -- "To err is human, to cover it up is Weasel" -- Dogbert |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Modern Sci-Fi - the enslavement of scientific reality to religious delusion | [email protected] | Policy | 392 | October 27th 06 10:08 PM |
BBC scientific terminology! | Lawrence | UK Astronomy | 3 | August 5th 05 04:33 PM |
scientific name for sun | Tim923 | Astronomy Misc | 24 | July 4th 04 01:00 AM |
SCIENTIFIC CREATIONISTS | John Carruthers | UK Astronomy | 4 | April 11th 04 08:05 AM |
This may not be scientific | Malcolm Scrimger | SETI | 18 | August 8th 03 07:23 AM |