- 112
- 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..."
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.
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: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 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. :rofl: 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.
If you would learn PEDMAS: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.
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?).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.