Accepted Lies vs. Half-Truths: Why Do We Choose?

[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]

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.

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 $E=mc^2$. 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 vacuum 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]

Yes, I agree math is logic.

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

What if this logic wasn't too logical in the first place?

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

You can manipulate math all you want. Einstein did so in order to get the results he wanted thus arriving at $E=mc^2$.

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

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.

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.

This again gave fault to the logic approach. What you observe is not always what is happening.

Agreed. See post by Warren.

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.

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 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. $d=1/2at^2$ 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]

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. $d=1/2at^2$ 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.

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.[/itex]

 

[Alkatran]

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]

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

 

[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

 

[shintashi]

cheer up people..

flow with the tides of gravity...

and know that the Silver Surfer is the real Hero for the 21st century (at least to science :)

 

[urtalkinstupid]

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.

 

[Alkatran]

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.

We've caught on to the "optical illusions" in physics. I forget the exact term, but it has to do with the observer becoming part of the system by observing. This skewes the results. That's why we have probability clouds for electrons instead of defined orbits (right?).

 

[russ_watters]

So far, I've yet to run into any information that is good enough to sway my mind.

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.

If you choose not to become a physicist (I'm not), I'd recommend you cede to the experts (as I do) and choose to learn from them. It doesn't take much pride-swallowing to accept that a pHd physicist may know more than you about physics.

 

[urtalkinstupid]

Well, all I can say is that my half theory of black holes is now consistent what is known. Hawking's radiation was a theory that has withstood 30 years. It was said that once something enters a black hole, it will never come back out, rather it will be dispersed to a parallel universe. I've always said nothing is lost in black holes, because they don't exists. I think along the lines of what physicists don't. Now, I can actually concur with a little what Hawking's said. My half theory has beaten a full theory so far. I've only had one freaking year of physics so that also accounts for my wild belief in physics.

 

[chroot]

You think along lines that physicists have long since abandoned because they are not useful. 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? Do you not realize how much you have left to learn? Do you realize that physics does not proceed by hand-waving and statements of opinion?

- Warren

 

[shintashi]

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, and George W. Bush... oh wait.. he DID have an Ivy league education ... didn't he...

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 ?"
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.

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.

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).

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.

- Shin

 

[chroot]

is one of the most ignorant, biased statements I have ever seen. It is elitist, nonconstructive, and completely politically incorrect.

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.

...which is virtually exactly what I said. Looks like you're just as elitist, nonconstructive, and completely politically incorrect as I.

- Warren

 

[russ_watters]

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...

Speaking of ignorance, Einstein was a relatively successful physicist before he was a patent clerk.

Yes, the mind is like a sponge. For some reason, some people in their teens choose to fill that sponge with crap and that's how crackpots are born. urtalkinstupid and beatrix kiddo may just be getting their rocks off here, but they're doing a good job making it look like they are on their way.

 

[shintashi]

actually russ, I've only been keeping tabs of the last couple of phrases. I recall something vaguely like an argument, so I posted then, then I saw someone taking social pop shots.

My point is, whatever it was you people were talking about (LOL) a person should not be judged based upon their circumstances or official background, but upon the merits of their efforts, and the quality of their discourse - which is not always within the system.

 

[chroot]

shintasi,

Make it a habit to read the thread before responding.

- Warren

 

[Chronos]

Cold and blunt, chroot. I understand frustration. I come here to get my daily dose. There is nothing wrong with asking questions. That is the essence of science. There is nothing wrong with asking dumb questions. That is the essence of education. But, it gets tiresome answering the same misguided questions time, after time, after time when the 'students' refuse to do any homework. If you want to buck the 'system', show the math. Logic is not the language of science, math is. It works really well, too, if you give it a chance.

 

[Chronos]

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.

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.

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...

Education is like a vaccination. It does not cure ignorance, it only helps prevent it.

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 ?"

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.