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

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.

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

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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

--
Saucerheads - denying the blatantly obvious since 2000.

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