|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
The Progressive Niceness of Science
On Monday, December 4, 2017 at 7:00:17 AM UTC, Gerald Kelleher wrote:
Magnetism is a visible form of attraction but with the empirical 'gravity' getting in the way, the ability to use electromagnetic analogies to large scale objects is lost. You are always dropping hints about how electromagnetism affects planetary orbits, I wish you would spell it out. It sounds much funnier than your dual rotation spiel. |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
The Progressive Niceness of Science
On Sunday, December 3, 2017 at 6:02:08 PM UTC-7, Davoud wrote:
Gary Harnagel: ...There are some universe-shaking things yet to discover. One of them is the problem of dark matter. Another is the incompatibility of general relativity and quantum electrodynamics: once a viable quantum gravity theory is achieved, it will drastically change our conception of cosmology, IMHO. When do you reckon that will happen? Tomorrow? Next year? Next decade? 50 years? Who knows? There are several avenues of quantum gravity being investigated. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/quantum-gravity/ |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
The Progressive Niceness of Science
On Monday, December 4, 2017 at 12:00:17 AM UTC-7, Gerald Kelleher wrote:
Magnetism is a visible form of attraction So is gravity. I suppose people have already mentioned the "Cavendish experiment" to you? Because like electrical charges repel, however, electrostatic forces tend to operate only on small scales. Electromagnetism fares somewhat better - but it is still far weaker than gravity on large scales. A bar magnet can outpull the Earth's gravity, but the Earth's own magnetism needs a sensitive compass needle to detect it, while gravity is obvious everywhere. John Savard |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
The Progressive Niceness of Science
On 03/12/2017 15:35, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Sat, 2 Dec 2017 09:45:41 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc wrote: An Ars Technica article gave me this link: http://chem.tufts.edu/answersinscien...ityofwrong.htm which is an essay by the (horrors!) _science fiction_ writer Isaac Asimov that explains why, although the scientific theories of today will doubtless be improved upon in the future, they can indeed be accepted as a very close approach to truth, superior to that which we had in the past. It's a point I've made often, that some people have problems with: it appears that we have reached the point where we substantively understand the Universe and have an accurate model of reality. Some You can never be sure that someone tomorrow will not announce an experiment that shows our understanding of how the structure of spacetime, gravity and quantum mechanics interact is completely wrong. A new theory that explains the novel experiment will still include every theory we have today as weak field limiting cases but will also correctly predict the outcome of the new experiment and suggest other places to look for novel results. people like to compare that to past aphorisms about everything useful having been invented or similar, but the fact is, when we look at the growth of knowledge, the big stuff is looking pretty solid. I can't think of a major theory that has been overturned in the last century or so. We look at all the core ideas of physics and all we see is more and more support from additional independent lines of evidence. And Steady state universe took something of a violent beating in the 1960's. There have been embarrassing after dinner speeches at physic conferences to the effect that physics would be solved in a couple more decades. This was just before radioactivity and photoelectric effect showed up. where new concepts have come along- dark energy and dark matter are good examples- we don't see them replacing the theories we already worked with, but simply refining them. (I increasingly prefer not to look at science in terms of "theories", but rather in terms of "models", which are how we understand complex systems which are described by multiple individual theories.) Dark energy is one where the ad hoc nature of its invocation does beg the question as to whether some of our physics is wrong on the largest scales. You could argue the same for dark matter too and some do. I tend to view our understanding now as looking like a jigsaw puzzle. There are still lots of missing pieces, but the landscape we see in the many pieces which are already in place isn't going to somehow change into something different as we continue to add pieces. There is less scope for things to change radically. But it is entirely possible that a new and better mathematical formalism will eventually arise that contains present day quantum mechanics as a limiting case. -- Regards, Martin Brown |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
The Progressive Niceness of Science
On Tue, 5 Dec 2017 16:16:09 +0000, Martin Brown
wrote: It's a point I've made often, that some people have problems with: it appears that we have reached the point where we substantively understand the Universe and have an accurate model of reality. Some You can never be sure that someone tomorrow will not announce an experiment that shows our understanding of how the structure of spacetime, gravity and quantum mechanics interact is completely wrong. Nor do I make any such claim. But I do think such a thing is increasingly unlikely. Steady state universe took something of a violent beating in the 1960's. Because by the 1960s the steady state universe was largely a fringe belief system, well outside of scientific consensus. (I recall a party in the late 1970s where Fred Hoyle was expounding on it, while pretty much everybody around him was just looking embarrassed.) Dark energy is one where the ad hoc nature of its invocation does beg the question as to whether some of our physics is wrong on the largest scales. You could argue the same for dark matter too and some do. That's a possibility. But again, these things fit in so well with existing theory that it's far more likely we'll simply refine our understanding of their nature than overturn something like GR. Indeed, even if these things turn out to represent totally different physics, at this point that new physics is likely to look like some additional term in a GR equation. Revision, not replacement. There is less scope for things to change radically. But it is entirely possible that a new and better mathematical formalism will eventually arise that contains present day quantum mechanics as a limiting case. I'm not sure what you mean by that. |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
The Progressive Niceness of Science
On Tuesday, December 5, 2017 at 5:32:35 PM UTC, Chris L Peterson, Martin Brown
There is an issue going on over here in the Western isles of Europe where a group called the DUP who live back in the 17th century politics find it impossible to adapt to 21st century concerns. Their heritage rests on a victory known as the Battle of Aughrim on the 12th July 1691 but because the 'enlightened' British academics refused to accept the necessary calendar correction employed by most of Continental Europe via the Vatican until another 60 years later, they have to give the title to the Battle of the Boyne which became the 12th after they made the correction (that battle happened July 1st in the old calendar). Strange people who don't so much live out their lives in the late 17th century academic concerns and can't adapt to contemporary imaging but just as dull and dismal as the DUP. |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
The Progressive Niceness of Science
On Sunday, 3 December 2017 02:41:37 UTC-5, Chris.B wrote:
On Saturday, 2 December 2017 18:45:44 UTC+1, Quadibloc wrote: An Ars Technica article gave me this link: http://chem.tufts.edu/answersinscien...ityofwrong.htm which is an essay by the (horrors!) _science fiction_ writer Isaac Asimov that explains why, although the scientific theories of today will doubtless be improved upon in the future, they can indeed be accepted as a very close approach to truth, superior to that which we had in the past. John Savard Science has the unique advantage of pluralism and growing equality on the human hierarchical scale. No longer can a rich, pompous, white ass, with a Professorship, poo poo a distant Chinese, Indian or African upstart with a much better idea. The upstart is quite probably leading the team in the nearest university. Despite not having enjoyed the rich kid's, monopolistic, fast track to guaranteed academia. The only degrees rich people ever got in which they could then fake their way through a career are liberal arts degrees which are basically worthless anyway. |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
The Progressive Niceness of Science
On Saturday, 16 December 2017 05:25:53 UTC+1, RichA wrote:
On Sunday, 3 December 2017 02:41:37 UTC-5, Chris.B wrote: Despite not having enjoyed the rich kid's, monopolistic, fast track to guaranteed academia. The only degrees rich people ever got in which they could then fake their way through a career are liberal arts degrees which are basically worthless anyway. Thank you for sharing your [uniquely biased] insight [again.] Imagine a world where all enjoy equal status and equal opportunity. That global revolution may be coming a lot sooner than you could possibly imagine. The stresses to the present system are the daily stuff of increasingly unfiltered, news headlines. Our present leadership's clowning has made countless individuals seriously question the right to govern by force of privilege alone. A combination of AI, robotics, the internet and mass unemployment will steadily sweep away the present, narrow privileges. Helping to remove their power to discard most of humanity to act as cheap, mindless workers, consumers and innocent victims of greed. The present system is almost indistinguishable from mass, global slavery. That is now changing fast as the filtration begins of the powerful by means of increasingly negative publicity. Victims finally have access to the unfiltered, global media to express their moral outrage. Owning the "justice" system, by means of expensive teams of lawyers, is no longer a guaranteed acquittal. The lawyers have lost their power to protect the guilty from the global media, lynch mob. A few, privileged innocents will be hung out to dry but then literally billions of others have never enjoyed anything remotely, like, true justice. A few scholarships do not mean equal opportunity in the Western world. China now manufactures more engineers and scientists than the present Western system of filtration of the masses in favour of the privileged few. While the disillusioned brats of the wealthy increasingly descend into drugs, drink and vacuous escapism. Anything to hide from their guilt and shame at their undeserved, lottery win. When they never even had to "invest" in a single ticket. All lottery wins, including life itself, are paid for by the countless losers. A pyramid scam, on a global scale, lasting for countless millennia. With endless rollovers to keep the ever-hopeful "investing" constantly in their system. We should all be eternally grateful to Strumpet. He repeatedly proves that privilege is no measure of a man. That investing in his privilege can somehow protect us from literally anything. We no longer believe in the countless, empty promises in exchange for our vote. The World and American voters were never given any real choice. The Devil you know? Or the Devil you don't? That is the real lesson for humanity. Perhaps AI, alone, can offer a fairer alternative for all? Nothing invented by man has worked in their favour so far. |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
The Progressive Niceness of Science
RichA wrote:
On Sunday, 3 December 2017 02:41:37 UTC-5, Chris.B wrote: On Saturday, 2 December 2017 18:45:44 UTC+1, Quadibloc wrote: An Ars Technica article gave me this link: http://chem.tufts.edu/answersinscien...ityofwrong.htm which is an essay by the (horrors!) _science fiction_ writer Isaac Asimov that explains why, although the scientific theories of today will doubtless be improved upon in the future, they can indeed be accepted as a very close approach to truth, superior to that which we had in the past. John Savard Science has the unique advantage of pluralism and growing equality on the human hierarchical scale. No longer can a rich, pompous, white ass, with a Professorship, poo poo a distant Chinese, Indian or African upstart with a much better idea. The upstart is quite probably leading the team in the nearest university. Despite not having enjoyed the rich kid's, monopolistic, fast track to guaranteed academia. The only degrees rich people ever got in which they could then fake their way through a career are liberal arts degrees which are basically worthless anyway. The facts seem to suggest you’re wrong. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education...t/engineering/ |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
The Progressive Niceness of Science
On Saturday, 16 December 2017 10:29:39 UTC+1, Mike Collins wrote:
RichA wrote: On Sunday, 3 December 2017 02:41:37 UTC-5, Chris.B wrote: On Saturday, 2 December 2017 18:45:44 UTC+1, Quadibloc wrote: An Ars Technica article gave me this link: http://chem.tufts.edu/answersinscien...ityofwrong.htm which is an essay by the (horrors!) _science fiction_ writer Isaac Asimov that explains why, although the scientific theories of today will doubtless be improved upon in the future, they can indeed be accepted as a very close approach to truth, superior to that which we had in the past. John Savard Science has the unique advantage of pluralism and growing equality on the human hierarchical scale. No longer can a rich, pompous, white ass, with a Professorship, poo poo a distant Chinese, Indian or African upstart with a much better idea. The upstart is quite probably leading the team in the nearest university. Despite not having enjoyed the rich kid's, monopolistic, fast track to guaranteed academia. The only degrees rich people ever got in which they could then fake their way through a career are liberal arts degrees which are basically worthless anyway. The facts seem to suggest you’re wrong. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education...t/engineering/ You appear to be nitpicking from a very small database. Not all billionaire's are equal. ;-) |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
WTF Progressive Collapse??? | G=EMC^2TreBert | Misc | 2 | January 1st 15 12:29 AM |
WTF Progressive Collapse??? [OST + EMP = GZ] | Arc Michael | Misc | 3 | December 30th 14 05:42 AM |
Progressive Political Party Platform | kT | Policy | 15 | October 8th 08 05:56 PM |
Progressive Mayor | Double-A | Misc | 15 | December 15th 06 10:02 AM |
progressive precession | wahid | Misc | 5 | January 31st 06 04:26 PM |