Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
If anything there is the possibility that information tunnels. That means it removes the superluminal suspects.
There is an effect of centrifugal force that makes people lighter at the equator
Oh no! Here we go again! []
There is no centrifugal force acting to push people away from the surface of the earth. However there is a centripetal force required to keep them rotating with the surface of the Earth.
Weight is a measure of the reaction between a body and gravity, and that reaction acts in a direction radially outwards from the centre of the earth. The centripetal force acts towards the centre of the Earth, although in this case it's quite small, so the net effect is to reduce the reaction to the force of gravity i.e., the weight, slightly.
Oh there is a reason... What that reason is escapes me now, and I will try and find out, but contrary to what foolosophy states, physics is not truely a matter of biasm. There are fundamental and sturdy reasons for us to assume or postulate certain physics phenomena.
If you don't have a scientific reason for disliking it, that doesn't leave much to discuss on a science forum.
I said that I dont dislike QM - I use it often in my professional work environment.
Out of curiosity, what work do you do that you use QM often?
If you don't have a scientific reason for disliking it, that doesn't leave much to discuss on a science forum.
Perhaps you claim that the world is non deterministic because of your literal interpretation of the conclusions that QED generates?Even, but not only for this. The determinism we are discussing here is related, for example, to the fact that a quantum system as an elementary particle had an exact position in space before being measured. Do you agree with it?
String Therory is a good example of this.String theory is not a "proper" physics theory, yet.
ST is a mathematical philosophy. At this point you cant validate the theory via experimentation or observation.QuoteAny theory that is PURELY based on mathematical axioms and cannot be verified by observation and/or experimentation, is simply a philosophy - a Religious doctrineIf it wants to be a physical theory, yes. If it wants to be a mathematical theory it's another story.QuoteQuantum Mechanics is another very good example of a Theory that makes accurate predictions and can be supported by experiment and observations BUT in essence is a collection of insane probability functions that have been arrogantly applied to the microscopic world by its high priests because they are not clever enough at this time to think of a deterministic theoryNo, it's simply because "the world" IS NOT deterministic.
If you don't have a scientific reason for disliking it, that doesn't leave much to discuss on a science forum.
Quantum Mechanics is another very good example of a THeory that makes accurate predictions and can be supported by experiment and observations BUT in essence is a collection of insane probability functions that have been arrogantly applied to the microscopic world by its high priests because they are not clever enough at this time to think of a deterministic theory[Emphasis mine]
Foolosophy,
You're railing against quantum mechanics a lot, which is fine, but your arguments against it make it clear that you don't understand how it's formulated, that you're basing your arguments on emotion and that you have some grudge against those who don't agree with your views. Do you have any scientific reasoning behind your grudge against QM?
Did anyone have any other ideas for any more writeups... I was thinking about doing one now on the Klein-Gordon equation.
It's not clear to me what you mean with your statement. Can you make a better example? Because there isn't, IMHO, so much difference with physics: physics too must have theories based on postulates (and definitions); you can't make a single statement without them.Mathematics is not dilusional; it's logical.
Mathematics is an abstract philosophy that is based on idealised axioms that require spiritual faith to maintain their apparent immutability.
(For example its a mistake to lump numeracy and mathematics into the same basket. Only one of these is abstract)
It certainly cant be with the stochastic nuerosis that Quantum Physicists are inflicted by.
Why not?
,,,the fundamentals of QED are based upon the admission of "error" - that's why ridiculous counter intuitive conclusions are spawned. (the fact that QED has great predictive accuracy and is a useful mathematical tool is not relevant)
How is it founded upon the admission of "errors"? Can you give specific examples? (I'm not saying you're wrong here--there are reasons not to think that QED is the full story, but these claims seem a bit strong from what I know of it.)
Stochastic methods are based on the quantification of errors
Thats what the statistical nature of QED is founded upon
Ah. That's the problem. It isn't based on quantifying errors. It's built on probability from the ground up, not on quantifying errors.
It certainly cant be with the stochastic nuerosis that Quantum Physicists are inflicted by.
Why not?
,,,the fundamentals of QED are based upon the admission of "error" - that's why ridiculous counter intuitive conclusions are spawned. (the fact that QED has great predictive accuracy and is a useful mathematical tool is not relevant)
How is it founded upon the admission of "errors"? Can you give specific examples? (I'm not saying you're wrong here--there are reasons not to think that QED is the full story, but these claims seem a bit strong from what I know of it.)
Of course QM exist. Take a look in the hat box, see? It's waving at you, it's like the Ascot, either you are there, or you're a nobody as the colonel used to say.