Naked Science Forum
General Discussion & Feedback => Just Chat! => Topic started by: guest39538 on 20/07/2016 09:29:30
-
Poor interpretation of elementary evidence can lead to a colossus of errors in future thinking!
-
I would agree that this is exactly what your posts demonstrate.
-
I would agree that this is exactly what your posts demonstrate.
That would be an ambiguous sentence and could mean of either direction in the ''pointing'', I was ''pointing'' at ''them'' and not reflecting on my own observations and thinking that in my ''eyes'' show that ''their'' elementary thinking is a poor interpretation of the ''truth''.
To ''see'' or not to see is the question and the ''truth'' can only be assumed until proven beyond a doubt to be the truth, one can only assume a red apple does not remain a red apple in the ''dark'', the colour may exist ''externally'' of our mind.
-
Poor interpretation of elementary evidence can lead to a colossus of errors in future thinking!
so meta.
-
Poor interpretation of elementary evidence can lead to a colossus of errors in future thinking!
Yes that is often true. There often are several different possible answers which produce similar results. The MM experiment has several different interpretations. Einstein chose one. Others have chosen different answers. I believe that the experiment is not valid.
So there is a whole 100 year period where people have been taught that the MM experiment was valid. thus people have strange ideas of space and time. It is sad that old science is like religious dogma. And one hundred years from now the people will laugh at what was taught today. However eventually the truth will be known. And you tend to be a heretic but it is good to question present scientific beliefs. And this is also good because unless a bright high school student understands things well, the answers are not really valid.
-
Poor interpretation of elementary evidence can lead to a colossus of errors in future thinking!
Yes that is often true. There often are several different possible answers which produce similar results. The MM experiment has several different interpretations. Einstein chose one. Others have chosen different answers. I believe that the experiment is not valid.
So there is a whole 100 year period where people have been taught that the MM experiment was valid. thus people have strange ideas of space and time. It is sad that old science is like religious dogma. And one hundred years from now the people will laugh at what was taught today. However eventually the truth will be known. And you tend to be a heretic but it is good to question present scientific beliefs. And this is also good because unless a bright high school student understands things well, the answers are not really valid.
I do so love when people decide to abandon scientific results based on a fantasy they have about the history of science rather than actually looking at the science. If one ignores the actual scientific evidence, including all the probes launched through the solar system, then one is forced to admit that there is more to relativity theory than simply one experiment. If one would rather think of oneself as particularly bright without bothering to do any work, then imagining that a single experiment is the basis for relativity theory is certainly a good way to do it.
In general, I recommend that one turn to drugs for that sort of high, it is much more honest.
-
Poor interpretation of elementary evidence can lead to a colossus of errors in future thinking!
Yes that is often true. There often are several different possible answers which produce similar results. The MM experiment has several different interpretations. Einstein chose one. Others have chosen different answers. I believe that the experiment is not valid.
So there is a whole 100 year period where people have been taught that the MM experiment was valid. thus people have strange ideas of space and time. It is sad that old science is like religious dogma. And one hundred years from now the people will laugh at what was taught today. However eventually the truth will be known. And you tend to be a heretic but it is good to question present scientific beliefs. And this is also good because unless a bright high school student understands things well, the answers are not really valid.
I do so love when people decide to abandon scientific results based on a fantasy they have about the history of science rather than actually looking at the science. If one ignores the actual scientific evidence, including all the probes launched through the solar system, then one is forced to admit that there is more to relativity theory than simply one experiment. If one would rather think of oneself as particularly bright without bothering to do any work, then imagining that a single experiment is the basis for relativity theory is certainly a good way to do it.
In general, I recommend that one turn to drugs for that sort of high, it is much more honest.
All the work of Einstein has proven to produce excellent results. His math based upon electrical equations is excellent. However he then presents a universe which matches his mathematical analysis. However this does not make his general relativity theory true. He fails to explain gravity so that it is simple to understand. And therefore he does not have the best explanation. That is the problem. As noted by many modern physicists they cannot believe that any object attract another object as if they were tied with some spring.
The most simple force gravity has been misunderstood for over 100 years. Einsteins equations are great since they show the gravitational field. wonderdful but Einstein failed to understand gravity. And the scientists today that ask for copies of my book are trying hard to move beyond the standard model and Einstein to fully understand the universe. One university wanted me to lecture on my theory but at 77 years I can no longer stand before a class like I did years ago as I substituted for my boss who taught at night at Brooklyn Poly graduate as well. thus I cannot accept such offers.
-
He fails to explain gravity so that it is simple to understand.
Boo hoo.
And therefore he does not have the best explanation. That is the problem.
I'm sorry that the world is complicated. Good luck with your wishful thinking.
-
He fails to explain gravity so that it is simple to understand.
Boo hoo.
And therefore he does not have the best explanation. That is the problem.
I'm sorry that the world is complicated. Good luck with your wishful thinking.
Yes the world is complicated the higher up we go in structures. Thus gravity is simple but once you add it to higher and higher structures, the effects of gravity get complex. within our bodies we have some very simple entities. Yet when we build up on them we get the complexity of modern man. In any event it is my opinion that the basic structure of the universe is extremely simple and upon this basic simple structure are unlimited combinations thereby producing an extremely complicated universe.
-
Poor interpretation of elementary evidence can lead to a colossus of errors in future thinking!
Yes that is often true. There often are several different possible answers which produce similar results. The MM experiment has several different interpretations. Einstein chose one. Others have chosen different answers. I believe that the experiment is not valid.
So there is a whole 100 year period where people have been taught that the MM experiment was valid. thus people have strange ideas of space and time. It is sad that old science is like religious dogma. And one hundred years from now the people will laugh at what was taught today. However eventually the truth will be known. And you tend to be a heretic but it is good to question present scientific beliefs. And this is also good because unless a bright high school student understands things well, the answers are not really valid.
I do so love when people decide to abandon scientific results based on a fantasy they have about the history of science rather than actually looking at the science. If one ignores the actual scientific evidence, including all the probes launched through the solar system, then one is forced to admit that there is more to relativity theory than simply one experiment. If one would rather think of oneself as particularly bright without bothering to do any work, then imagining that a single experiment is the basis for relativity theory is certainly a good way to do it.
In general, I recommend that one turn to drugs for that sort of high, it is much more honest.
All the work of Einstein has proven to produce excellent results. His math based upon electrical equations is excellent. However he then presents a universe which matches his mathematical analysis. However this does not make his general relativity theory true. He fails to explain gravity so that it is simple to understand. And therefore he does not have the best explanation. That is the problem. As noted by many modern physicists they cannot believe that any object attract another object as if they were tied with some spring.
The most simple force gravity has been misunderstood for over 100 years. Einsteins equations are great since they show the gravitational field. wonderdful but Einstein failed to understand gravity. And the scientists today that ask for copies of my book are trying hard to move beyond the standard model and Einstein to fully understand the universe. One university wanted me to lecture on my theory but at 77 years I can no longer stand before a class like I did years ago as I substituted for my boss who taught at night at Brooklyn Poly graduate as well. thus I cannot accept such offers.
Well Jerry, I am slowly withdrawing from my delusions of grandeur again after several relapses over time and slipping back into the delusions. However from all my ideas I ever had , I do understand the ''gin-clear'' idea I had, scientists can not imagine spring like properties between objects, however this is simply because they can not see the properties because they are invisible. Only in imagination can one imagine what is really happening in/of the ''gin-clear'', I personally can ''see'' all the springs between bodies.
-
Well Jerry, I am slowly withdrawing from my delusions of grandeur again after several relapses over time and slipping back into the delusions. However from all my ideas I ever had , I do understand the ''gin-clear'' idea I had, scientists can not imagine spring like properties between objects, however this is simply because they can not see the properties because they are invisible. Only in imagination can one imagine what is really happening in/of the ''gin-clear'', I personally can ''see'' all the springs between bodies.
So tell me about the springs that you envision. If you look at the gravitational fields due to the radiation of matter and the expansion of the universe, you get a very complex set of vectors. this results in force vectors pushing objects together and corresponding vectors opposing them. the net result is that there is a straight line between the center of mass of the Earth and the center of mass of the sun. So you can then replace all the complex vectors with a simple spring in your mind, or a rope between the bodies. So you can use an analogy and see all the springs and that is standard physics. the truth is that objects are pushed together but the simple explanation is that they are attracted to each other. Is it important? It makes no difference when traveling to the moon or other planets. So your springs are common ideas and have worked well for hundreds of years.
-
Well Jerry, I am slowly withdrawing from my delusions of grandeur again after several relapses over time and slipping back into the delusions. However from all my ideas I ever had , I do understand the ''gin-clear'' idea I had, scientists can not imagine spring like properties between objects, however this is simply because they can not see the properties because they are invisible. Only in imagination can one imagine what is really happening in/of the ''gin-clear'', I personally can ''see'' all the springs between bodies.
So tell me about the springs that you envision. If you look at the gravitational fields due to the radiation of matter and the expansion of the universe, you get a very complex set of vectors. this results in force vectors pushing objects together and corresponding vectors opposing them. the net result is that there is a straight line between the center of mass of the Earth and the center of mass of the sun. So you can then replace all the complex vectors with a simple spring in your mind, or a rope between the bodies. So you can use an analogy and see all the springs and that is standard physics. the truth is that objects are pushed together but the simple explanation is that they are attracted to each other. Is it important? It makes no difference when traveling to the moon or other planets. So your springs are common ideas and have worked well for hundreds of years.
Springs tell me a lot, I know that red-shift is an impossibility and the physics fails because of ''springs'', a piece of string does not go slack if an object is moving away from the light source, white light remains white light, red and blue is compressed, the physics fails on a simple level.
-
Springs tell me a lot, I know that red-shift is an impossibility and the physics fails because of ''springs'', a piece of string does not go slack if an object is moving away from the light source, white light remains white light, red and blue is compressed, the physics fails on a simple level.
It appears to me that your springs are a model you set up in your mind to explain the universe. In "control system design" engineering courses, electrical components replace mechanical components to help people understand how systems work. for example a capacitor replaces a mass and a spring is replaced by an inductor and friction is replaced by a resistor. then complex mechanical problems are easily solved by electrical equations. So you have simplified problems by replacing gravity with springs.
Is the replacement good? The problem is that you have to get the same answers using your springs for what the scientists measure. If you cannot produce good answers then your spring theory has no value.
-
I do so love when people decide to abandon scientific results based on a fantasy they have about the history of science rather than actually looking at the science. If one ignores the actual scientific evidence, including all the probes launched through the solar system, then one is forced to admit that there is more to relativity theory than simply one experiment. If one would rather think of oneself as particularly bright without bothering to do any work, then imagining that a single experiment is the basis for relativity theory is certainly a good way to do it.
In general, I recommend that one turn to drugs for that sort of high, it is much more honest.
I do not deny that relativity theory has proven to produce excellent results. Einstein's work is a best fit approximation to the experiments and observations of what we see and measure. Yet it fails to physically explain gravity. It is a mathematical model of physical reality but not a physical model. A physical model would explain the nuts and bolts of what is happening. the mathematical model tells us what we will measure.
Do we live in a mathematical universe or a physical universe? That is the question. How are photons transformed when the Earth is moving toward or away from the sun. The Doppler is mathematical but what is the physical mechanism for the transformation?
The mathematicians may be happy with the equations but as an Engineer I want to know the actual detains of the transformations. Einstein has no provided the details. All he has is a set of excellent equations which do not tell us what is happening. Unless we know what is happening, we fail to fully understand the universe.