Interesting vid: Murray Gell-Mann: Beauty and truth in physics

[ModestGamer]

iow, trolling. If you are purposefully trying to play ignorant, you're doing a fine job of it.

Sometimes its amusing to watch the humans fight to grasp reality. You do realize your percpetion gets in the way of you understanding more of the universe.

Already explained to you. And it's "action at a distance," not "reaction at a distance."

Well thats a humongus misnomer. It is reaction. Not action. There is that annoying perecption issue again. if the gravitation field effect the sun "our star we orbit" wavers we notice that effect. Reaction not action. Our planet reacts by a change in orbit.

What if jackalopes had wings too? Ever consider that?

What is jackalopes were the bossonhiggs.

It's a fundamental property of particles and our universe that just is. Drop a pebble in a pond and you get a wave motion. Sound travels in waves.

WHY does this happen.

You're asking a question that's akin to wondering why water is wet. Answering that question is not fundamental to understanding or explaining water.

water isn't wet. wet is a human perception.

The problem is that it implies a faulty assumption - that without knowing absolutely everything we can't understand anything at all or that our knowledge must be wrong.

the Standard model is a FUALTY ASSUMPTION. Weigh evidence. Collect evidence. Process data. Now the issue is when you have a bias built into your measurement. Ergo. We assume there are many particles and then when we find varying energy decays rates. We have backed our conclusion, but when you constantly change your input you get more particles. Thats not terrifically consistent. Not to mention we can't see the particles just the energy signatures. The only consistent thing to come out of the accelrators is this. As you add energy you get more and more enegetic outputs. That is the TRUTH. Nothing more. everything else is in fact a assumption.

Here is a great for instance. guy has mill with a accuracy of 0.0001. Best micrometer in the shop reads 0.001 how accurately is that job producded. your accuracy is only as good as your measurement.

See the problem ?

It's not the gravity particle. The Higgs boson allegedly mediates mass, not gravity.

Now this is a assumption. Mediating mass. Is it not entirely likely that mass and gravity are intertwined interactions of some unknown/undefined energy that creates the appearance of mass and gravity. You cannot have one without the other.

As far as putting energy in, the energy is required because particles like the Higgs boson are massive. Particle physicists are essentially creating mass from energy. (You know, e=mc2) In order to create them a huge amount of energy must be used.

actually they are measuring energy decay rates. Nothing more. the assumptions begin with the data intepretation.

First off, you tend to ge bogged down in philosophical considerations and not actual scientific questions.

the science is biased by our own pecptual problems. the issue is both philosohical and technical.

Secondly, there's no point in removing time from space unless you're trying to consider another universe that is not our own. Without it space would not exist in the first place because nothing would have ever expanded. Without time none of us would be here so it's NOT just some human paradigm. The only thing human about time is the word we ascribe to it.

Time as we define it is a aboslutely human construct. It therefore should not be included in the understanding of space. the 2 are likely not interelated in anyway.

 

[Gibsons]

Nah. This guy honestly believes the stuff he's spouting. After all, he is a 9/11 truther and his physics knowledge is about right on par with that of most truthers.

ya think so, huh?

Tell us, are you going to troll from here on out, or will you get bored eventually?

 

[ModestGamer]

ya think so, huh?

Tell us, are you going to troll from here on out, or will you get bored eventually?

tasteslikechicken again makes assumptions about something. a critical thinking mistake. I am not trolling. I am challenging the assumptions science makes about a great many things.

some might take that as trolling. Other might ask themselves. Wow there are massive holes in the data. Maybe thats why we have such convoluted thoerys for such simple things. If there is one mistake quantum mechanics is making or any discipline of high energy physics. It is using the speed of light as a constant.

for instance multiple dimensions or one of the many other odditys that flys in the face of stability. If we remove the constant of light speed and allow particles to travel faster then light. Magically a great many issues with wierd quantum behavior are lifted.

to adress his comment about being a 911 truther. there is a huge difference between debliberate negligence and deliberate action. He has yet to learn that distinction.

 

[PowerEngineer]

Interesting name, "Modest". Well, maybe not...

Your starting point seems to have been that no one (not even noted physicists) should extrapolate theories from facts (even though that is the essense of the scientific method), and now you're arguing that we should put credance in your alternate views of reality that presume facts that aren't demonstrated (and in fact violate facts that have been, such as a speed of light limit). Frankly, you now seem to be more guilty of embracing unsubstantiated theories than the physicists you denegraded.

Another "highly technical" thread that has deteriorated into an "I believe" religion/philosophy thread...

🙁

 

[ModestGamer]

uuuggghhh.

when will people get it that einstine simply used the speed of light becuase it was consistent. not that is was a universal constant. he also had to fudge the math a bit to fix the graivty transmission problem.

its in the math. if your willing to look at it.

Thats not what I am saying BTW. I am saying when you come up with bizzare thoerys to adress simple mechanics. The thoery can't be right.

My point is that if we keep going off on crazy tangents of mathmatical lunacy "which is essentially what quantum mechanics is" then we stop observing the data dn start trying to mold it to fit the predictions.

IE light is not the fastest thing in the universe. someone has already proven this with quantum entanglment.


Here is a great example if your board.

Great proboability game actually.

take a strobe light and mark a fan blade on a fan. locate the fan blade with the mark to one position in space. Observe the blade.

Did its velocity change ? no.

did the emergence of the mark as you observed it change ?

yes.

unless you had a oddly syncronized strobe and fan.

the problem with quantum mechanics is just that.

Interesting name, "Modest". Well, maybe not...

Your starting point seems to have been that no one (not even noted physicists) should extrapolate theories from facts (even though that is the essense of the scientific method), and now you're arguing that we should put credance in your alternate views of reality that presume facts that aren't demonstrated (and in fact violate facts that have been, such as a speed of light limit). Frankly, you now seem to be more guilty of embracing unsubstantiated theories than the physicists you denegraded.

Another "highly technical" thread that has deteriorated into an "I believe" religion/philosophy thread...

🙁

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

tasteslikechicken again makes assumptions about something. a critical thinking mistake. I am not trolling. I am challenging the assumptions science makes about a great many things.

some might take that as trolling. Other might ask themselves. Wow there are massive holes in the data. Maybe thats why we have such convoluted thoerys for such simple things. If there is one mistake quantum mechanics is making or any discipline of high energy physics. It is using the speed of light as a constant.

for instance multiple dimensions or one of the many other odditys that flys in the face of stability. If we remove the constant of light speed and allow particles to travel faster then light. Magically a great many issues with wierd quantum behavior are lifted.

to adress his comment about being a 911 truther. there is a huge difference between debliberate negligence and deliberate action. He has yet to learn that distinction.

You are not challenging anything. Like most truthers you make wild, speculative claims that don't have a shred of solid, verifiable evidence to back them up and go on to claim everyone else just isn't opening up their mind to see the truth. You can dupe some people with that crap where 9/11 is concerned. With physics it just doesn't fly. The Standard Model has been thoroughly tested and verified time and time again by many of the brightest minds of humanity. The weird quantum behavior of particles has been tested and shown to be, in fact, true. Yet you want to step in and claim it's wrong based on the wave of your hand alone, dismissing all scientific evidence and observations in the process.

If you have some solid evidence that the Standard Model and quantum theory are wrong other than pure speculation and 'ifs' that are not couched in reality, bring it on. You might actually be able to make an interesting point if you had that capability. I highly doubt you do though and you'll continue down the ridiculous path you're trodding now instead.

 

[ModestGamer]

You are not challenging anything. Like most truthers you make wild, speculative claims that don't have a shred of solid, verifiable evidence to back them up and go on to claim everyone else just isn't opening up their mind to see the truth. You can dupe some people with that crap where 9/11 is concerned. With physics it just doesn't fly. The Standard Model has been thoroughly tested and verified time and time again by many of the brightest minds of humanity. The weird quantum behavior of particles has been tested and shown to be, in fact, true. Yet you want to step in and claim it's wrong based on the wave of your hand alone, dismissing all scientific evidence and observations in the process.

If you have some solid evidence that the Standard Model and quantum theory are wrong other than pure speculation and 'ifs' that are not couched in reality, bring it on. You might actually be able to make an interesting point if you had that capability. I highly doubt you do though and you'll continue down the ridiculous path you're trodding now instead.

right and string thoery is how proveable ? There is alot of good observation. The real issue is stepping back and looking at the data from a new perspective.

I just gave you a great example of the problem with quantum mechanics and how probobality can actually show particle position without actually knowing how the particle got there. If you took the time to run the experiment I gave you. You would find you can predict the position of the fan without knowing the relative velocity of it. you can see small snipets of the motion and based on rigorus data collection come up with a way to predict where it will be 90% of the time. Be right and still be wrong.

Now interject into that formula a constant and you wind up with some bizarre math to explain things.

Can sub atomic particles exist in 2 places at the same time.

Most likely not.

Could we be totally mis judging the velocity based on a very arbitrary judgement call in physics.

Yes.

but you as usuall missed the point.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

right and string thoery is how proveable ? There is alot of good observation. The real issue is stepping back and looking at the data from a new perspective.

Why are you suddenly jumping to string theory? It's in the develomental stage and is not widely accepted like the Standard Model and quantum theory, the two theories you are attempting to dismiss.

I just gave you a great example of the problem with quantum mechanics and how probobality can actually show particle position without actually knowing how the particle got there. If you took the time to run the experiment I gave you. You would find you can predict the position of the fan without knowing the relative velocity of it. you can see small snipets of the motion and based on rigorus data collection come up with a way to predict where it will be 90% of the time. Be right and still be wrong.

Um, no. Your "experiment" requires that the blade position be preset. iow you begin by influencing the location of the dot on that fan blade thereby influencing its initial position. By doing so you remove any analogy to quantum behavior.

Now interject into that formula a constant and you wind up with some bizarre math to explain things.

Such as? Please provide that math for us to see.

Can sub atomic particles exist in 2 places at the same time.

Most likely not.

Could we be totally mis judging the velocity based on a very arbitrary judgement call in physics.

Yes.

but you as usuall missed the point.

You have to make a point in the first place in order for one to be missed. The plain, old fact of the matter is that you continue to demonstrate that you really don't know even the basics of this subject and the only person you're fooling into believing you do is yourself.

 

[ModestGamer]

Why are you suddenly jumping to string theory? It's in the develomental stage and is not widely accepted like the Standard Model and quantum theory, the two theories you are attempting to dismiss.


Um, no. Your "experiment" requires that the blade position be preset. iow you begin by influencing the location of the dot on that fan blade thereby influencing its initial position. By doing so you remove any analogy to quantum behavior.


Such as? Please provide that math for us to see.


You have to make a point in the first place in order for one to be missed. The plain, old fact of the matter is that you continue to demonstrate that you really don't know even the basics of this subject and the only person you're fooling into believing you do is yourself.

You really don't understand WTf you are talking about do you ?

You make a comment about my crazy thoery. I point to a crazy thoery.

you make comments about how totally unproveable my experiment is. yet you won't go through the experiment to find out for yourself. I bet you can roll the math up if your board. BTW pick a constant any constant and figure out the statiscal anlysis. You'll find it fiarly easy to predict how often the blade will apear at 12 3 6 9 oclock.

its not hard.

why should I show you the math. You are the self proclaimed expert.

You refuse to consider the fact that quantum mechanics is WRONG or at least fiarly misguided.

the first rule of any scientific undertaking aside from rigorus methodology is.

ASSUME NOTHING

I will be the first person to tell you. I don't have all the answers. I will say I refuse to see mathmatical models as proof of shit especially when they don't seem to validate much of anything.

Talking about assumptions.

Why does a photon travel in a wave ?

I don't know. but it is a question worth asking.

 

[ModestGamer]

Here I'll throw you a bone to chew on

eistine had it kind of right with e=mc2

but the issue is the constant and some rather wrong assumptions about a few things.

E = energy output

m = atomic/subatomic density " however small you'd like to define that"
c = velocity

so rethink that for a minute.

e= mc2 as in the equation is correct. The assumption about veloctys is incorrect.Not to mention the duality of exspressing energy 2 times in the equation.

http://www.articlesbase.com/technol...ial-relativity-fundamentally-flawed-9075.html

more people are doubting the basis of modern physics. Just becuase it worked for what they needed it for. doesn't exactly make it correct.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

You really don't understand WTf you are talking about do you ?

Alanis Morrisette thanks you. She know has a valid example of ironic.

You make a comment about my crazy thoery. I point to a crazy thoery.

And? I pointed out that string theory is not widely accepted in the first place and is ultimately a non sequitur on your part. Your initial argument is that theories like the Standard Model and quantum theory are invalid. Bringing up string theory does not invalidate them and demonstrates a desperation on your part.

you make comments about how totally unproveable my experiment is. yet you won't go through the experiment to find out for yourself. I bet you can roll the math up if your board. BTW pick a constant any constant and figure out the statiscal anlysis. You'll find it fiarly easy to predict how often the blade will apear at 12 3 6 9 oclock.

its not hard.

I explained it to you already. A spinning fan blade is not a representation of quantum behavior. That you don't seem to recognize that fact makes you appear clueless on the subject because you don't even comprehend why it's not a valid analogy in the first place.

why should I show you the math. You are the self proclaimed expert.

It's called backing up your own claims. It's pretty much an internet standard. Let me explain how it works - You make a claim, you back it up. Very simple, no?

You refuse to consider the fact that quantum mechanics is WRONG or at least fiarly misguided.

I consider the fact that the essentials of quantum mechanics has been consistantly validated by science. I consider that quantum mechanics does't have all the answers, but the fundamentals of what we do know are sound. It may be a small part of a bigger picture that we don't yet see, but the basics won't change, the big picture will.

the first rule of any scientific undertaking aside from rigorus methodology is.

ASSUME NOTHING

I will be the first person to tell you. I don't have all the answers. I will say I refuse to see mathmatical models as proof of shit especially when they don't seem to validate much of anything.

Talking about assumptions.

Why does a photon travel in a wave ?

I don't know. but it is a question worth asking.

Who is assuming here? I'm using existing scientific knowledge that has been validated over and over and over as my argument. You, otoh, are making claims for which you can't provide even the first shred of solid evidence.

You also seem to want to imply that the things we don't yet know somehow invalidate that which we do know. It's logical fallacy after logical fallacy with you. You claim you don't have all of the answers yet ask a question we don't yet have the answer to, and you surely know there's not an answer to that yet. What's the point of being so disingenuous? It certainly doesn't further your argument to any degree. If anything it just makes you look foolish.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Here I'll throw you a bone to chew on

eistine had it kind of right with e=mc2

but the issue is the constant and some rather wrong assumptions about a few things.

E = energy output

m = atomic/subatomic density " however small you'd like to define that"
c = velocity

so rethink that for a minute.

e= mc2 as in the equation is correct. The assumption about veloctys is incorrect.Not to mention the duality of exspressing energy 2 times in the equation.

http://www.articlesbase.com/technol...ial-relativity-fundamentally-flawed-9075.html

more people are doubting the basis of modern physics. Just becuase it worked for what they needed it for. doesn't exactly make it correct.

lol. I guess I was wrong about one thing. You have to be a troll. Nobody can be that dumb.

Later. You're a complete waste of time.

 

[ModestGamer]

lol. I guess I was wrong about one thing. You have to be a troll. Nobody can be that dumb.

Later. You're a complete waste of time.

do the math. It still works and it removes a constant which IS unproveable.

light is simply the fastest thing we have measured consistenly. the only reason we can measure the speed of light is becuase it is slow enough for us to measure and it travels in a very easily managed way. IE we can see light. We also have ways to determine the speed of light beuase it travels over vast distances making the calculation of such speed a doable deal.

The only idiot.

is you.

BTW try rethinking your college education. You didn't learn the most important aspect they offer in college. Then again, do they teach that anymore ?

Critical thinking skills.

 

[ModestGamer]

Alanis Morrisette thanks you. She know has a valid example of ironic.


And? I pointed out that string theory is not widely accepted in the first place and is ultimately a non sequitur on your part. Your initial argument is that theories like the Standard Model and quantum theory are invalid. Bringing up string theory does not invalidate them and demonstrates a desperation on your part.


I explained it to you already. A spinning fan blade is not a representation of quantum behavior. That you don't seem to recognize that fact makes you appear clueless on the subject because you don't even comprehend why it's not a valid analogy in the first place.


It's called backing up your own claims. It's pretty much an internet standard. Let me explain how it works - You make a claim, you back it up. Very simple, no?


I consider the fact that the essentials of quantum mechanics has been consistantly validated by science. I consider that quantum mechanics does't have all the answers, but the fundamentals of what we do know are sound. It may be a small part of a bigger picture that we don't yet see, but the basics won't change, the big picture will.


Who is assuming here? I'm using existing scientific knowledge that has been validated over and over and over as my argument. You, otoh, are making claims for which you can't provide even the first shred of solid evidence.

You also seem to want to imply that the things we don't yet know somehow invalidate that which we do know. It's logical fallacy after logical fallacy with you. You claim you don't have all of the answers yet ask a question we don't yet have the answer to, and you surely know there's not an answer to that yet. What's the point of being so disingenuous? It certainly doesn't further your argument to any degree. If anything it just makes you look foolish.

The standard model is not proven. the entire field is based on enegry signatures and signature propogation.

try again.

then again people siad alot of people cutting new territory were nuts to.

BTW why does light travel in a wave ?

 

[Gibsons]

Q for the mods: Is ModestGamer going to be allowed to infect and destroy half the threads on this forum, or should we put him on ignore, or what?

I thought the OP of this thread was really interesting and might have generated some good discussion, but it's obviously all about ModestGamer now.

 

[ModestGamer]

Q for the mods: Is ModestGamer going to be allowed to infect and destroy half the threads on this forum, or should we put him on ignore, or what?

I thought the OP of this thread was really interesting and might have generated some good discussion, but it's obviously all about ModestGamer now.

LOL. your a pretty bag ass. But you already knew that.

If you don't agree with me. Silence or I keel you. .

 

[Born2bwire]

Q for the mods: Is ModestGamer going to be allowed to infect and destroy half the threads on this forum, or should we put him on ignore, or what?

I thought the OP of this thread was really interesting and might have generated some good discussion, but it's obviously all about ModestGamer now.

Eh, it's why I don't post in Highly Technical anymore. Has anyone actually reported him though? Mods probably haven't noticed the thread at all.

But yes, I do have to agree. TasteLikeChicken's avatar is awesome. :awe:

EDIT: Oh God! TLC even gave him a little hat!!! :awe: :awe: :awe:

 

[A_Dying_Wren]

do the math. It still works and it removes a constant which IS unproveable.

light is simply the fastest thing we have measured consistenly. the only reason we can measure the speed of light is becuase it is slow enough for us to measure and it travels in a very easily managed way. IE we can see light. We also have ways to determine the speed of light beuase it travels over vast distances making the calculation of such speed a doable deal.

The only idiot.

is you.

BTW try rethinking your college education. You didn't learn the most important aspect they offer in college. Then again, do they teach that anymore ?

Critical thinking skills.

Reading skills would help too. The site that you cited is completely sparse on any sort of hard information, written by an "engineer" i.e. someone whom I wouldn't take cutting edge physics advice notwithstanding the fact his understanding of physics is a lot better than my own. Even worse perhaps he sounds an awful lot like a conspiracy theorist. And I quote from the site:

"New observations made by many scientists and engineers appear to contradict the great German scientist's ideas. Apparently there are implicit contradictions present within Relativity's foundational ideas, documents and equations. One individual has even pointed that quotations from the 1905 document and Einstein's contemporaries as well as interpretations of the Relativity equations clearly and concisely describe a confused and obviously erroneous theory."

Truly damning stuff we have here. Oh but wait,

Most notably, experiments using particle accelerators have sped particles to incredible velocities which apparently provide confirmation of Einstein's theory. However, doubts remain in the scientific community who have never totally given up the comfort of a Newtonian world view.

So if we can still provide confirmation of Einstein's equation using the data from the best technology we have, who the heck are you to say we're completely off? Now of course if we did find something out of the ordinary or if another equation is formulated which is equally valid given current data (which will be able to be tested anyhow) we will indeed need to radically relook at the physics but until then I'm not seeing where the issue is. Perhaps if you can provide some credentials we might be more inclined to believe one so enlightened as yourself.

Q for the mods: Is ModestGamer going to be allowed to infect and destroy half the threads on this forum, or should we put him on ignore, or what?

I thought the OP of this thread was really interesting and might have generated some good discussion, but it's obviously all about ModestGamer now.

Tis a shame indeed. I thought a discussion on the beauty of physics could genuinely go somewhere. Between ModestGamer, William and the lack of moderation in this subforum there's little point visiting it.