Naked Science Forum
On the Lighter Side => New Theories => Topic started by: guest39538 on 21/03/2016 11:06:32
-
IT is little worth to even consider science to learn science and to try to think about science presenting your own ideas, it does not matter if your theory has the best logic in the world, especially if the end result of your theory does not really produce anything, in simple terms if the theory cant be formed into something that makes money or has a use where funding can be obtained, then it is is not worth the paper it is written on.
Enough said, pointless having sections on new theories, may as well stick up a communist banner because that is the reality of the internet.
(I think the body snatchers have had Colin, I have seen such a change occur).
-
Money and prestige are very important in science. These two things are hoarded and can result in new theories never having a chance, if they threatened to divert these resources. Theories that are more acceptable, will not step on anyone's toes and will therefore not challenge the status quo. Specialization theories are more accepted since studying the left eye of the cockroach does not intrude on those who's study the right eye. If you theorize the visual cortex this may intrude and be resisted.
A new theory, that challenges the status quo, even if valid and useful, could mean another theory will become obsolete, if they are mutually exclusive. Nobody in the horse and buggy industry wanted the horseless carriage to succeed. They know it would compete for the same resources and consumers of transportation.
On the other hand, presenting new theories, although hitting the industry wall, will nevertheless help the consumer of theories realize that some traditions need to change. The horseless carriage, although different, made some people realize this form of transport allows much more speed and utility. Old dogs who don't wish to learn new tricks, will not see this because they will be preoccupied on avoiding new tricks.
What I have found is, in science there are some people who are good at getting resources. However, they lack the self generation of quality theory. They know how to work the system like a salesman, but may not generate good theories to justify these resources for the longer term.
They will sometimes steal theory from those who don't know how to work the system. You may see your theories in the literature, years later. Sometimes alternate theory sections are place holders for the theory black market which deals in stolen ideas. You will not get any credit, out of fear of plagiarism. However, by having it written down in these public internet records, you still own the idea.
-
Enough said, pointless having sections on new theories, may as well stick up a communist banner because that is the reality of the internet.
Very wrong I think, I love that there was such a furore between the followers of Huygens and Newton over which theory of light was correct and I think it is very important that people are worried about something that is so fundamental to life. It is something to be passionate about and it is such a pity that so many have been befuddled by maths into accepting something so hoydenish and unacceptable. That is the reason I have theories, because to be frank, the present theories are so sketchy and unsatisfactory that surely something better could be done than that.
-
Enough said, pointless having sections on new theories, may as well stick up a communist banner because that is the reality of the internet.
Very wrong I think, I love that there was such a furore between the followers of Huygens and Newton over which theory of light was correct and I think it is very important that people are worried about something that is so fundamental to life. It is something to be passionate about and it is such a pity that so many have been befuddled by maths into accepting something so hoydenish and unacceptable. That is the reason I have theories, because to be frank, the present theories are so sketchy and unsatisfactory that surely something better could be done than that.
The point you are missing is that regardless what we all think of present theory , it does work. My theories for example I am certain are the truth, however though the value of the universe k=1 and k=0 simultaneous, only k=1 has value and is what science uses making all my theory a useless thing.
My theory may help in some understanding, but there is no way EVER science could allow me to succeed in anyway when I do not even have education qualifications of any description.
The world likes to perceive that educated people are smarter in some way , patronising the people who just could not be bothered.
They will not accept things without maths, that is for sure, even if the reality is what is been suggested.
-
Money and prestige are very important in science. These two things are hoarded and can result in new theories never having a chance, if they threatened to divert these resources. Theories that are more acceptable, will not step on anyone's toes and will therefore not challenge the status quo. Specialization theories are more accepted since studying the left eye of the cockroach does not intrude on those who's study the right eye. If you theorize the visual cortex this may intrude and be resisted.
A new theory, that challenges the status quo, even if valid and useful, could mean another theory will become obsolete, if they are mutually exclusive. Nobody in the horse and buggy industry wanted the horseless carriage to succeed. They know it would compete for the same resources and consumers of transportation.
On the other hand, presenting new theories, although hitting the industry wall, will nevertheless help the consumer of theories realize that some traditions need to change. The horseless carriage, although different, made some people realize this form of transport allows much more speed and utility. Old dogs who don't wish to learn new tricks, will not see this because they will be preoccupied on avoiding new tricks.
What I have found is, in science there are some people who are good at getting resources. However, they lack the self generation of quality theory. They know how to work the system like a salesman, but may not generate good theories to justify these resources for the longer term.
They will sometimes steal theory from those who don't know how to work the system. You may see your theories in the literature, years later. Sometimes alternate theory sections are place holders for the theory black market which deals in stolen ideas. You will not get any credit, out of fear of plagiarism. However, by having it written down in these public internet records, you still own the idea.
Perhaps if people like yourself backed ideas and defended ideas a bit more , then the theorist poster would not be overwhelmed by the science defense and science would have to concede to defeat.
-
The point you are missing is that regardless what we all think of present theory , it does work. My theories for example I am certain are the truth, however though the value of the universe k=1 and k=0 simultaneous, only k=1 has value and is what science uses making all my theory a useless thing.
The claim by Physicists that their theory can never, even in a million years, be explained in words, is particularly obnoxious, especially when the mathematics involved is so absurd, and yet at the same time the same physicists claim in extravagant and adulatory terms that the theory evolved is perfection itself, is absurd. There is no other word for it.
Statement:
Things work differently at the level of the very small, so :
1) Several dimensions can be involved, in fact Schrodinger's wave function on which the whole of Quantum Mechanics is based, if followed to its conclusion, involves something like 276 dimensions. Max Born the person who evolved the theory into its present form states:
“ We have two possibilities. Either we use waves in space of more than three dimensions…………..or we remain in three dimensional space, but give up the simple picture of the wave amplitude as an ordinary physical magnitude , and replace it with a purely mathematical concept into which we cannot enter.”
So there you have it physics explained in concepts into which we can never enter and an explanation that involves, at the most basic level, multiple dimensions.
2) Light can either be a particle or a wave, depending upon how it is viewed, but can never possess both properties simultaneously!
The above statement elevated to the level of a principle, the highest level in physics, in spite of the fact that there is nothing even vaguely resembling such phenomena in real life and not a shred of empirical evidence to support it. All on the grounds that at the sub-atomic level things work differently.
3) Continuing with the maths, bringing of infinities amounting to 10 12 to zero and carrying on as if nothing has happened, and performing this multiple times in first normalisation, second normalisation and re-normalisation, all in an attempt to make Maxwell's equations and Huygens theory fit with the findings of Max Planck. Then there is division by zero. All on the grounds that since things are so very different at the sub-atomic level that drastic measures are needed to achieve results. Results which they claim are as close to perfection as anything in this world ! (Would you say all this was not a tiny bit hoydenish ?)
Your own heart felt belief that quantum mechanics works and explains things so clearly ( that it is not clear at all) is truly touching, especially the touch of despair in hoping to achieve anything better awakens the noblest sentiments in the human breast
4) At this very sub-atomic level particles with mass, can diffuse themselves like a wave or a cloud as the circumstances decree and something that is without mass namely the photon is given particle like attributes.
Here is a quote that states the position succinctly:
The electron is present as a cloud. Averaged over the cloud, the positive kinetic energy is half as big as the negative potential energy. More importantly, the cloud really is the state of the electron. It's not a picture of where some dot-like particle probably is. It isn't anywhere in particular. It also doesn't have any particular velocity. In a hydrogen atom, it's certainly not going in a circle. The cloud doesn't go anywhere at all. There's no reason for it to radiate.
The world at a small scale cannot be put together out of anything like the pictures we're used to at a large scale.
5) Then there are the relatively minor irritants in the form of claims that an object can from the point of its origin and during the period of its travel disassociate itself (i.e., become disembodied) and exist everywhere simultaneously and then become whole again at the point that it is detected. OR that a body, with mass, be it an electron, a neutron an alpha particle or even a bucky ball, can be in two places at once, or occupy two places in space simultaneously.
Draw your own conclusion as to whether this is possible or not.
The claim that inanimate, is that the correct word, objects can be cognisant and can change form (according to what we are thinking of at the time) , in fact they have greater cognizance than we ourselves do because they can decide how and in what form to present themselves, depending on what we are thinking.
All fabulously, fabulously entertaining and wonderfully supported by the most complex and abstruse mathematics that the world has ever, seen surely, surely it is the most perfect, perfect theory !
-
The claim by Physicists that their theory can never, even in a million years, be explained in words, is particularly obnoxious, especially when the mathematics involved is so absurd, and yet at the same time the same physicists claim in extravagant and adulatory terms that the theory evolved is perfection itself, is absurd. There is no other word for it.
I would not call it absurd I would call it irrational and not logical however maybe ambiguity is a problem.
They say things like space is expanding then say space is made of nothing so what exactly do they think is expanding?
Clearly the Universe works like this
This is what we observe on earth of objects yet space is still finite and expanding.
>r=<A=<ψ
-
>r=<A=<ψ
We speak of space and galaxies billions of light years distant, yet there is no sound explanation of how electricity propagates in a wire, or how radio waves are formed and propagate. What kind of science is that ? Surely if we have sound explanations for these common everyday phenomena that have been around for more than a hundred years we would better understand the Universe? IF someone, anyone, wishes to contradict the statement that we have no clear idea of how electricity propagates, kindly first explain drift velocity in a direct current and drift velocity in an alternating current.
-
You may have no idea, but the textbook explanations are good enough for most engineers, which is why you can read this. Computers don't just happen - they are built by poeple who understand the physics behind current flow.
There's no shame in ignorance. I can't understand Chinese and I have only a sketchy understanding of photosynthesis, but I can enjoy a good meal in Chinese restaurant, and am thankful to the knowledgeable Chinese farmers and cooks who made it so.
-
J.J. Thomson - Didn't have a great command of math, etc. But he got the ball rolling. Where would we be w/o him?
Science and physics require qualities in a person. Imagination, reason and more. Not all of us can put down in simple equations, the rules that govern things... Doesn't mean we can't discover something new.
It's hard to discover anything new. Much about much has been discovered. Learning what's been discovered and finding things that haven't will continue, and may continue to be harder.
But you never know when something really simple is stumbled upon, opening up a whole bunch of new discoveries, unless you/we try.
-
It is impossible to know everything. No one ever stops learning while capable of doing so. To move any discipline forward one needs a broad knowledge of the subject. To be an interested observer is much easier.