0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
quote: Now, what question would a respectable scientist - being impervious to dogma - ask first, before investigating the matter any further?
quote:Originally posted by rosy.. I wouldn't personally know how even to approach the maths!
quote:Originally posted by daveshortsI was talking in more general terms, but you are picking an arbitrary mass of about 1000 billion solar masses surely it is not meaningful to quote the answer to more than 1-2 significant figures?I am not saying that there is anything wrong with your calculation, just that you are quoting the answer to a ridiculous accuracy... possibly a bit picky but you did start it
quote:I really wish you were so tenacious about seeing the the importance of a difference between observation and theory when it concerns a difference of an order of 3, a 1000 times, as observed, instead of going on about something maybe differing at 4 digits behind the comma.
quote:Oh, I like to do my heretic-burning preferably aboard oil-tankers filled with the best high-octane stuff, btw. And then take the chopper out. What you take me for, barbaric?
quote:Originally posted by rosyOh honestly people. Rob, if you're bored with this discussion no-one's making you take part.Clearly this doesn't really apply to a discussion forum when we all know you've copied and pasted out of a calculator and perhaps in this context my small mickey-taking was a bit childish.I can't work out how bothered I should be...If not, well, to be honest I can't get all that excited ....Eh? I thought you were suggesting...
quote:Furthermore, I'd say Dave is perfectly capable of answering for himself, don't you think?
quote:Maybe you should make fewer assumptions, be less bothered, and not get all that excited, then?
quote:Anyway: nice experiment to show how even scientists can fall for dogma: any scientist willing to conduct it with me by answering the following question:A black hole has been reported sitting at the center of a galaxy close to 450 million lighyears away, and it has a size calculated to be around 3,5 to 5 lightyears in diameter.Yet, there is something totally impossibly wrong with it. Something that defies our astronomic common sense.Now, what question would a respectable scientist - being impervious to dogma - ask first, before investigating the matter any further?
quote:Originally posted by TronixChimera, with no offense intened, seems to be following this set of beliefs.
quote:Originally posted by daveshorts When you say that Quantum physics is getting too mathematical and not grounded in experiment this is a bit like saying that all footballers are paid too much. [........] The deeper socialogical point is interesting. I think that rebellion against science have been happening regularly ever since poison gas was invented in WW1.
quote:Originally posted by rosyI shouldn't have thought that avian flu would turn the world population against scienctists, because that really is just a natural phenomenon... zoonoses happen, we have to deal with them. Possibly cheap air travel isn't going to help but that's hardly the scientists' fault at this stage. I don't rate your chances of tying in even the quantisation of energy with common sense, let alone the further reaches of physics... on a macro scale quantisation just makes my head hurt.... but all the same, it provides a damn good explaner/predictor of exactly how really very complicated molecules will react! Not to mention the spectroscopy which allows us to figure out what we've got/made.Mind you, if you do find a way let me know 'cos it might make my life easier!!!!
quote:Originally posted by daveshorts What do you mean by not being able to draw a line from QM to classical physics? If you look at most big things with QM they behave as they would with classical mechanics. In the same way that you can approximate relativity to newtonian mechanics in some circumstances, or QM to wave theories of light to optics... (We can't do QM to General relativity, as this is keeping lots of theorists busy atm) We can't go the other way, but why should we be able to? we can't with any other part of physics... QM is probably involves more maths to do this but it still works. You can use classical analogies for bits of QM, wave analogies are very useful, and for what I do balls rolling down bumpy slopes happen to come out of the maths, but we are fundamentally creatures of the classical world rather than the quantum one so it is going to be hard work. I wonder whether you could build a version of Quake working on bits of QM and bring up a generation of kids to whom microscopic scale behaviours are more intuitive. I think there are various other formulations of QM that produce the same maths but involve different interpretations of what is going on, which may be more to your taste..http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretations_of_quantum_mechanics