Quotes

shintashi

"A Half Formed theory based upon truth is better than a Fully formed theory based upon lies, but the Fully formed theory is Accepted four times as often..."

urtalkinstupid

I agree. A theory that is based on logic beats any theory based on mathematics anyday. Yet, people choose to only accept theories that observations can be proved through experimentation. Sad, sad world.

Entropy

Math is an invention of logic and is therefore logical to use it.

Logic is relative to what you know (what you observe). So to look (observe) and learn is to increase what you can conclude logically.

chroot

Theories are not based on mathematics. It's funny to me that you dislike the use of experimentation in developing physical models. What good is a theory that has nothing to do with reality? Do you disagree that experiments demonstrate reality?

- Warren

chroot

Excellent counter-argument!

- Warren

urtalkinstupid

Yes, I agree math is logic. What if this logic wasn't too logical in the first place? You can manipulate math all you want. Einstein did so in order to get the results he wanted thus arriving at [itex]E=mc^2[/itex]. The manipulating of math throws off its logic approach. Einstein also had to manipulate math and throw in a cosmological constant in order to give an explanation for the universe expansion. This again gave fault to the logic approach. What you observe is not always what is happening. Logic says that light speed would depend on the velocity of the observer or source of light. Observations and experiments through manipulated math show otherwise.

chroot

Observations and experiment don't involve any mathematical manipulation at all; it's silly of you to argue that they do. Observing that all masses fall at the same speed in a vacuum does not involve any mathematical manipulation; nor does observing that the speed of light emitted by pions moving at 0.99c is still c. There's no math involved. There's a machine that produces high-speed pions. There's another machine that measures the speed of light. Hook them together, and viola.

What you seem to be saying is just that you don't like the results of those experiments. That's fine; you're welcome to dislike anything you like. The rest of us who actually care to understand reality, however, will probably not take you very seriously when your only argument is that you don't like reality.

- Warren

urtalkinstupid

Yea, I understand you chroot. Observing objects falling at the same time in a vaccum does involve math when you are to determine if they will fall at exactly the same time. Through math that can be "proven."

Yea, I work differently. I question things with logic. Wouldn't logic tell you that if gravity were a pull, it would be impossible to say the universe is expanding? We observe that, but can not prove it experimentally. Illogical conclusion: Gravity is a pull; Universe is expanding. Gravity does not pull galaxies together rather it keeps them moving away.

chroot

Where is the math involved in looking at two objects and seeing that they smack the ground at the same time? I certainly don't see any math involed. I think you're grasping at straws.

As far as the expansion of the universe is concerned, you seem to be confusing bound and unbound states. A satellite in orbit around the earth is bound to the earth. The Voyager space probe, on the other hand, was given enough energy to be unbound. You apparently aren't aware that it's easy to determine that the expansion of the universe will not affect bound systems.

You also seem to be quite confused in your concept of the scientific method. There is no such thing as proving something experimentally. Experiments don't prove anything; they provide corroborating evidence. No scientific theory is ever proven.

- Warren

Chronos

Better than logic. It quantifies assumptions and makes testable predictions.

If mathematical theory is fundamentally flawed [illogical], then observational evidence should routinely defy predictions.

Show how Einstein manipulated the math to pull off this hoax and you will be famous.

Incorrect. There was no evidence the universe was expanding until Hubble. Einstein added the cosmological constant because his field equations suggested the universe would be unstable without it.

Agreed. See post by Warren.

Agreed. Bad logic, like bad math will result in bad conclusions. It will also result in bad predictions. Our 'manipulated' math seems to predict and correspond to observation to an amazing extent. Apparently, scientists are equally adept at manipulating observations to agree with their manipulated math.

beatrix kiddo

chroot, do u believe that gravity is an affect of ripples and dents in space-time? what if gravity was caused by bodies emitting and absorbing energy in the universe? maybe instead of looking at gravity as a "pull", we should view it as a push. a push of gravity makes more sense than a pull...

chroot

A push-based gravity does not make sense. There are literally dozens are easy thought experiments against any such ideas. Do a search here on pf for "push gravity" and read all you'd like.

- Warren

urtalkinstupid

The idea of a pull is repugnant. There is no such thing as a pull. You pull on a string. What the opposite reaction? It grabs you and pulls back. Logic says that strings can not pull you. You can push a string though. Allow a force to propogate through the string to where the string is tied down.

Chronos, I'm glad we agree on two things. Cosmological constant, the manipulation of math to make something stable. An attempt to make something right, therefore making the math illogical by manipulation. I've only heard that Einstein manipulated his equations. Maybe from jealously. Observations can't show flaws, because the experimentations through mathematics is not logical. Something that is illogical will appear illogical, thus making them connect to seem logical.

chroot, I thought there was an equation that you could find distance based on acceleration and time. [itex]d=1/2at^2[/itex] From that equation you should be able to tell how long each object will take to fall from the same distance. I don't know; I'm probably confused. Arg, I know nothing can be proven. I didn't mean that. Guess I corrected so many people who say prove that I started saying it. Warren you are a cool guy also. You are actually nice about this stuff unlike a few people.

Alkatran

Please don't turn this into another thread about your obviously flawed theory about "push" gravity. And the theory to find distance from time and acceleration usually involves speed:

D = initialspeed*t + initialaccel*t^2/2

I say initial accel because if the acceleration is changing you need to add more to the equation.

urtalkinstupid

Push theory isn't flawed. There are barely any sources out there that I can look upon for support. Quantum physics allows a push over a pull anyday.

So [itex]D=v_{initial} \cdot t~+~a_{initial} \cdott t^{2/2}[/tex]? I can't really tell because you have it all jumbled up with no separators.

Alkatran

If you would learn PEDMAS:
d = (v/t) + (a*(t^2))/2

chroot

urtalkinstupid:

Please don't take offense, but you've made it quite obvious that you have a great deal to learn before you'll be capable to make any accurate judgements about physical theories. You're still in high school -- go easy. You don't know everything yet. If you continue your education and attend college, you're going to find out very soon just how little you know about the world. Mark my words.

- Warren