Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Favorite quotes

  1. Jul 25, 2004 #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..."
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Jul 25, 2004 #2
    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.
     
  4. Jul 25, 2004 #3
    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.
     
  5. Jul 25, 2004 #4

    chroot

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    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
     
  6. Jul 25, 2004 #5

    chroot

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Excellent counter-argument!

    - Warren
     
  7. Jul 25, 2004 #6
    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.
     
  8. Jul 25, 2004 #7

    chroot

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    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. :wink: 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
     
  9. Jul 25, 2004 #8
    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.
     
  10. Jul 25, 2004 #9

    chroot

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    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
     
  11. Jul 25, 2004 #10

    Chronos

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member
    2015 Award

    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.
     
    Last edited: Jul 25, 2004
  12. Jul 25, 2004 #11
    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...
     
  13. Jul 25, 2004 #12

    chroot

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    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
     
  14. Jul 25, 2004 #13
    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. :biggrin: 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. :biggrin: 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. :frown: Warren you are a cool guy also. You are actually nice about this stuff unlike a few people. :smile:
     
  15. Jul 25, 2004 #14

    Alkatran

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    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.
     
  16. Jul 25, 2004 #15
    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.
     
  17. Jul 25, 2004 #16

    Alkatran

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    If you would learn PEDMAS:
    d = (v/t) + (a*(t^2))/2
     
  18. Jul 25, 2004 #17

    chroot

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    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
     
  19. Jul 26, 2004 #18
    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 :)
     
  20. Jul 26, 2004 #19
    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. :biggrin: chroot, I do thank you for actually being nice about it though. Glad you can tolerate my rambling. :biggrin:
     
  21. Jul 26, 2004 #20

    Alkatran

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    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?).
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: Favorite quotes
  1. Looking for a quote (Replies: 13)

  2. Feynman's quote (Replies: 8)

Loading...