shintashi
- 117
- 1
"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..."
The discussion revolves around the nature of theories in physics, particularly the tension between theories based on logic versus those based on mathematics and experimentation. Participants explore the implications of accepting theories that may be based on flawed logic or manipulated mathematics, and how this affects our understanding of concepts such as gravity and the expansion of the universe.
Participants exhibit significant disagreement on the nature of gravity, the role of mathematics in scientific theories, and the validity of certain historical interpretations of physics. There is no clear consensus on these issues, and multiple competing views remain present throughout the discussion.
Some participants express uncertainty about the definitions and implications of key concepts, such as the nature of gravity and the relationship between logic and mathematics. There are also unresolved questions regarding the manipulation of mathematical models and their correspondence to physical reality.
Excellent counter-argument!Entropy said: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.
Better than logic. It quantifies assumptions and makes testable predictions.urtalkinstupid said:Yes, I agree math is logic.
If mathematical theory is fundamentally flawed [illogical], then observational evidence should routinely defy predictions.urtalkinstupid said:What if this logic wasn't too logical in the first place?
Show how Einstein manipulated the math to pull off this hoax and you will be famous.urtalkinstupid said: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].
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.urtalkinstupid said: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.
Agreed. See post by Warren.urtalkinstupid said:This again gave fault to the logic approach. What you observe is not always what is happening.
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.urtalkinstupid said: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.
urtalkinstupid said: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 propagate 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.
![]()
[itex] <br /> If you would learn PEDMAS:<br /> d = (v/t) + (a*(t^2))/2[/itex]urtalkinstupid said: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.[/itex]
urtalkinstupid said:chroot, I know that I'm making these theories. No offense taken. I know my ideas are crazy. No need to reiterate wha everyone is saying. I don't like going with what everyone is saying. I like to play the devils advocate in most cases. Yea, I've only had one year of actually academic physics. I didn't like the way it was taught. That's why I think the way I do about physics. Heheh, I was one of the few people who had an A in my physics class. Teacher went hard on us. I will continue to make these out of line theories until I'm made a believer. So far, I've yet to run into any information that is good enough to sway my mind.
Optical illusions are something that make observations seem what they are not. That's how I how I think of most physics theories right now.chroot, I do thank you for actually being nice about it though. Glad you can tolerate my rambling.
![]()
You're going to have to go looking for it - it won't come to you. Education is a choice. That said, if you do enroll in a physics course or major, please go into it with the mindest that you don't know much and make an honest attempt to learn what is being taught. Don't just reject what you are being taught because you don't "like" it. After 8 years of advanced physics you may find you agree with the current accepted undersanding.urtalkinstupid said:So far, I've yet to run into any information that is good enough to sway my mind.
is one of the most ignorant, biased statements I have ever seen. It is elitist, nonconstructive, and completely politically incorrect.
...which is virtually exactly what I said. Looks like you're just as elitist, nonconstructive, and completely politically incorrect as I.What I'm getting at, is if you're going to rewrite the laws of physics, make sure you find out what you are rewriting.
Speaking of ignorance, Einstein was a relatively successful physicist before he was a patent clerk.shintashi said:chroot.. first let me say that such a statement as
"Since you so openly admit that you've only had one year of high-school physics, why on Earth do you think you're competent to produce your own theories? "
is one of the most ignorant, biased statements I have ever seen. It is elitist, nonconstructive, and completely politically incorrect.
A person's mind is like a sponge. If they fill their heads with nonsense, they have little room for new ideas. there is a saying " you can't teach an old dog new tricks". Some of the greatest minds of our time were miserable failures in school. Examples include founders of major philosophies and religions, the CEO of Kinkos, Einstein...
shintashi said:chroot.. first let me say that such a statement as
"Since you so openly admit that you've only had one year of high-school physics, why on Earth do you think you're competent to produce your own theories? "
is one of the most ignorant, biased statements I have ever seen. It is elitist, nonconstructive, and completely politically incorrect.
shintashi said:Congratulations, Chroot. No good deed goes unpunished. You try to rescue a few bright minds from the pit of ignorance [political or otherwise] and you get what you deserve.
shintashi said:A person's mind is like a sponge. If they fill their heads with nonsense, they have little room for new ideas. there is a saying " you can't teach an old dog new tricks". Some of the greatest minds of our time were miserable failures in school. Examples include founders of major philosophies and religions, the CEO of Kinkos, Einstein, and George W. Bush... oh wait.. he DID have an Ivy league education ... didn't he...shintashi said:Education is like a vaccination. It does not cure ignorance, it only helps prevent it.
shintashi said:Meanwhile, not to be one sided...
- a person really should do a lot of studying before they go about rewriting the laws of physics. Newton was spending a lot of time at the college in Europe, most good inventors and theorists spent thousands of hours in direct conversation with the brightest minds in the world. Who was it who said " Thy mind, oh man ?"shintashi said:Can't argue with that. I like that 'study before theorizing' concept.
[QUOTE=shintashi]While the reality of 95% of the first 5 years of physics in college is nothing more than regurgitation and math homework - something anyone with an excessive amount of spare time and motivation could do, there comes a point in time when you have to approach the masters/ph.d level of material, which is where you generally want to be, when composing theories.You can't learn from the mistakes of others before you have walked a mile in their mocassins. Interestingly enough, however, I remember more of the math and science I 'reguritated' than the pizza and beer in between.
shintashi said:This level requires something called "research" and research is not cheap, it is not easy. In research a person wants to stay up on current events, but they will also want to explore their whacky ideas. Take the keely dynasphere for instance. It apparently hasn't worked since Keely was alive. But hey, the people who believe in it, still build their prototypes. They still travel the country and attend the conventions. They still know how to spell (I hope), and do math.shintashi said:And we have them to thank for the underpinnings of modern physics.
What I'm getting at, is if you're going to rewrite the laws of physics, make sure you find out what you are rewriting. A good piece of advice, is studying the origin of any existing theory, before finding out what their conclusions were. This has been a big help to me. Several times, I've found that the holes in a theory begin with its foundation, and more than once, their is someone who worked on the original theory who not only disagreed with the final result, but would probably agree with (insert your theories here).Bookies make a living off of people who buck the odds.
shintashi said:We as theorists, have a duty to keep an open mind, not an empty mind. Do not trust everything you read that is published in science magazines and on the news. It changes like the wind. Search it out. Find out for yourself, and never trust anything your teacher tells you, until you have worked it out for yourself.shintashi said:Conspiracy theory is alive and well. Teachers are the root of all evil... mindless servants of the overlords of mainstream science.
Believe it or not, some of us would just like to know the truth and share that knowledge with those who care and are willing to put enough effort into it to understand the truth.