Naked Science Forum
On the Lighter Side => New Theories => Topic started by: PmbPhy on 16/03/2018 14:59:49
-
Having been in this forum for years now and similar ones for two decades now I need to ask this.
Has any one of you ever posted the reply "I was wrong" in response to anything someone said about what you posted? I can say for certainty that I have. What about you?
-
Even in recent memory, I have admitted to having been wrong. I claimed in one thread that Venus should be much cooler underground than it is on the surface. It seemed like a logical assumption since there would be no sunlight deep underground to heat things up. Then Bored Chemist questioned that assumption of mine, which made me examine it in more detail. I then realized that the ground wouldn't have anywhere to radiate all of the excess heat away that it would be receiving from above, so it shouldn't actually be cooler. I admitted as much.
In my recent black hole thread, evan_au reported that one of my equations was wrong. I found out that, yes, it was wrong. I subsequently corrected it.
-
Even in recent memory, I have admitted to having been wrong. I claimed in one thread that Venus should be much cooler underground than it is on the surface. It seemed like a logical assumption since there would be no sunlight deep underground to heat things up. Then Bored Chemist questioned that assumption of mine, which made me examine it in more detail. I then realized that the ground wouldn't have anywhere to radiate all of the excess heat away that it would be receiving from above, so it shouldn't actually be cooler. I admitted as much.
In my recent black hole thread, evan_au reported that one of my equations was wrong. I found out that, yes, it was wrong. I subsequently corrected it.
Awesome. Attitudes like this leads to respect. Bravo.
And regarding Venus, the atmosphere contains gases which relect the radiation back in. ITs referred to as a runaway greenhouse effect. For details see: https://www.space.com/44-venus-second-planet-from-the-sun-brightest-planet-in-solar-system.html
If the core is like Earth's the its molten and thus hot. The deeper we drill the hotter it gets. There was a project several decades ago where the US and the Soviet Union had sort of a "core race" to see who could make the deepest hole. Eventually the US gave up and Russia followed because it was too hot to continue.
-
More times than I can count since 1997, on various forums. Not on here yet (1st post), although I've been told I was wrong repeatedly by someone who clearly had trouble understanding my initial post. I think it's more miscommunication than anything else though, but I could be wrong. It's a little hard to say, since not one single question was asked of me. It felt more like an immediate systematic attack on my intelligence, rather than a two-way exchange of communication, where someone actually tries to understand the others position. Kinda puts one on the defensive right out of the gate. Also kind of a pointless crash and burn over absolutely nothing. No idea if I'm wrong yet though. Odds definitely aren't in my favor. I'll let you know if I'm wrong once I figure it out myself, if you care. I'm certainly not here because I think I'm right, or want to prove I'm right. I honestly do not know either way.
-
I am often wrong about various things. Not just on here. You learn more by making mistakes than simply absorbing information. As long as you are willing to be corrected. This forum is the best opportunity a layman is going to get to learn about science. Not enough posters take advantage of this.
-
Having been in this forum for years now and similar ones for two decades now I need to ask this.
Has any one of you ever posted the reply "I was wrong" in response to anything someone said about what you posted? I can say for certainty that I have. What about you?
I have posted replies that started with the word "oops!".
Does that count?
-
I recall admitting to being wrong a few times, mostly when PmbPhy had pointed out my mistake!
PS And BC, from time to time.
-
I found my mistakes alone because I try to break the law of conservation of the energy and it is impossible for some (near all people in fact) people, so people say only "it is impossible" but like Noether poses hypothesis for its theorem I think there is a leak somewhere. A lot of time I found with calculation or geometry. But when I made a mistake I wrote it.
-
I was wrong thinking mobiles devices could not be used to neuromodulate neuronal activity remotely. ;)
-
I was wrong thinking mobiles devices could not be used to neuromodulate neuronal activity remotely. ;)
You were certainly wrong about that ;D
-
I was wrong thinking mobiles devices could not be used to neuromodulate neuronal activity remotely. ;)
How embarrassing; having to admit that you didn't think the alarm on your mobile 'phone could wake you up.
-
I started a recent post with "I hope I don't murder the maths too much" and concluded with "I am sure there is some factor I have missed", which is a way of admitting that I know I am wrong in advance....
But sometimes a "back of the envelope calculation" can shed some light on a question, without being too rigorous about accuracy.
-
Having been in this forum for years now and similar ones for two decades now I need to ask this.
Has any one of you ever posted the reply "I was wrong" in response to anything someone said about what you posted? I can say for certainty that I have. What about you?
I admit I am wrong when I am wrong, I also will try a new approach if I still think I am correct after other people say I am wrong.
To be shown wrong is the only time I will admit I am wrong, proof is in the pudding as they say.
-
Good question PMBPHY,
We all obey to the action/reaction law. Things have to resist to a change, otherwise they could not change, thus as soon as we feel a resistance, it means that we are actually changing. Unfortunately for humans though, it is only the resistance of others that we feel, and moreover, we have attributed it to bad will in opposition to the good one we think we are offering in return. We are wrong, resistance is necessary, and will is only a byproduct. It takes time to change, that's all. I thought I would never change my mind about SR until I met David Cooper (http://www.magicschoolbook.com/science/relativity) here. His simulations did in two days what nobody succeeded to do in ten years on the forums. Now my problem is reversed: I want to convince physicists to use that kind of simulations to teach relativity. I do feel some resistance, so if I understand well, they are probably changing... :0)
-
I got something spectacularly wrong a few years ago when I thought I'd found a way to detect absolute speed through the fabric of space by identifying an asymmetry. I created a program to test it (a reference-frame camera applying the rules of Lorentz Ether Theory), and the program worked beautifully, showing me that no such asymmetry existed.
That is the best way to test an idea, because the program won't cheat unless it breaks the rules of the model it's supposed to be testing. It's a pity the physics establishment doesn't have the courage to do the same with SR though, because all their simulations cheat either by introducing an external time (that isn't allowed in the model) to govern the coordination of the unfolding of events (so as to avoid event-meshing failures), or they never account for the generation of the Spacetime block at all and simply use a magical eternal block which would need to be built under different laws of physics which they refuse to explore - they simply brush this problem under the carpet, then stick their fingers in their ears and shout "bulabulabulabulabulabula.... for as long as it takes to avoid discussing it.
-
I also expected that contraction would reverse the first time I tried to reversed the acceleration in my simulation on contraction (http://lumiere.shost.ca/Opposite%20accelerations/Opposite%20accelerations.html), and it didn't. I first got upset, then I realized that I might still be right about the principle, and that I had a nice tool to study it. SR specialists think that c is the same in all directions, so when they look at a simulation that shows it isn't, they also see that it uses an ether that doesn't exist, so they don't study it. When we are convinced that something is wrong, we don't do it unless it promises lots of money or lots of pleasure, and unfortunately, all they can expect in this case is to be rejected by their community and to lose their jobs. I don't like to hurt people, and I'm not in a hurry, so I just go on pushing until chance opens the door.