[lyner]

Here's an example of where a concept on it's own fails to deliver the goods. A favourite of dilettante alternate science was to say that "science tells us that a bumblebee shouldn't be able to fly." Science has never, in fact, said that. If you try to scale an aeroplane down to bumblebee size , using aerodynamics, it won't fly. However, when you introduce the electric forces between air and bee molecules you find that the viscosity is very significant and the bee IS allowed to fly legitimately.
Unless you appreciate the actual values of all the quantities involved you can't predict what will happen.

Bringing gender  and personality into this business solves nothing. There's no need to throw your toys out of your pram because I keep telling you that you're wrong. I have done the same to BC, frequently and he usually responds with a valid argument, based on Science, which is worthy of respect and consideration. I don't remember him ever having said I was horrid to him.

[witsend]

Unless you appreciate the actual values of all the quantities involved you can't predict what will happen. Sophiecentaur

That is NOT right.  Unless you know how to do the measurements you cannot explain what happens. That's what MATH does.  But by measuring the flight parameters does NOT describe the bee - only how it moves in the air.

 

[lyner]

To know what actually happens you have to know the values. How would you be able to say that molecular attraction affects a bee but not an aeroplane if someone hadn't already measured the quantities and understood how to include the dimensions of the flying machine in the calculations?

I am not concerned with "describing the bee", I am concerned with discussing how / why it manages to fly. I am saying that the two dominant aspects of flight of a bee and a plane are different because of the actual values of the variables involved. It is very risky to disregard this.

The 'holistic' approach is all very fine but, to get to a conference on 'holistic' science, the delegates rely on specific aspects of Science and Engineering when they get on board the aeroplane they travel on.

I can see that you want Science to be something other than what it actually is. I'm afraid that your approach to Science would not have taken us further than witches, warlocks and alchemists. In your use of so many modern scientific words and ideas, you are just hitching a ride on the backs of a legion of 'real' Scientists who reached their conclusions by the very methods that you are rejecting.
For your approach to be valid you should have started from scratch.

Have you ever tried to teach Science or Maths, I wonder? I should reserve your comments to areas in which you have some experience.

Btw, when you collect your wages, do you just appreciate the concept of pay or are you also a tiny bit interested in how much you get?

[witsend]

Sophiecentaur, I get it that math is required to measure.  It is a really reliable and dependable tool.  I've heard it argued that God Himself must be mathematician because it's so relevant.

But I have a question.  Through the use of MATH I was able to get to the mass size ratio of the photon to the electron.  It's one of those questions that are out there.  Not hugely interesting.  But nonetheless, there is no known relationship.  But with ONE self consistent argument I could prove that the proton could ONLY BE 1836 times greater than an electron.  But to get there I needed to give a photon a relative size of 1 and a proposed magnetic particle the relative size of 0.5 in relation to the photon.  I argued this with SUMS and with CONCEPTS and with LOGIC. 

With this argument I was able to propose the actual properties of the photon, the electron, the proton and the neutron which are entirely consistent with their known properties.  But it has the added advantage of giving the particle a physical body.  No longer a mathematical abstraction - but an actual proposed conceptually realisable thing.  SURELY THAT IS SCIENCE?

You have simply ignored it.  No comment at all other than to say I'm arm waving.  Why is that?

If you argued sundry points with Bored Chemist I am not aware of them.  It must have been in threads before my joining this forum.  But I can assure you that you have NEVER argued a single point that I have ever raised other than a fatuous reference to my glider analogy which was only intended to prove that the abstract mathematical concept COULD be understood through analogy.  In this instance I used the glider flight as the analogy.

And I did not understand your wages reference.  If you're saying that I'm trying to get more out than I put in - you are REALLY mistaken.

[lyner]

But with ONE self consistent argument I could prove that the proton could ONLY BE 1836 times greater than an electron.

Show me, please.
The "arm waving" comment was there because you have only made assertions and not shown the steps in your argument. Show us these Sums and Logic. To deserve any recognition, these new ideas need to be presented in rigorous detail.

I think your memory is short. I gave a lot of detailed comments about your circuit measurements - you did not seem to see their significance, though.

"Sundry"? I think that, before you dismiss them as sundry, you should read a few.

The wages reference: You say that the concept is more important than the number. Is the amount you earn not more important to you than the concept of someone earning money?

[witsend]

Show me, please. Sophiecentaur

You asked me this before.  I extracted the appropriate paragraph and posted it in the thread on Over unity.  You ignored that post.

In fact, your precise undertaking was to try and get to grips with my field model provided first that I could show you some, ANY mathematics at all.  I took you at your word - somewhat naively.  I did not know, then, that you were simply intent on criticising me regardless of any evidence to the contrary.  I now know better.
 

[lyner]

Did you really think that paragraph constituted a derivation or proof?
It was merely an assertion with no reasoning. To convince the world about a scientific idea it is necessary to use two or more established facts and show that combining these together leads to a definite conclusion. If you make a numerical claim then the way the source data is used to produce that number must be shown. You have to 'show your workings' as in an exam. Did you do that? I seem to reacall that you got very cross about it.
Was there some Maths?
Most people with a new hypothesis would be only too pleased to demonstrate their idea with as much evidence as possible.

[lyner]

Would you try to learn a language just using a dictionary?

A really good novel and an equally good english to ? dictionary and I think I might be up for the challenge.  It may be laborious to begin with but I reckon that at the end of that exercise you'd have a fair grasp of the language.

Perhaps we should teach languages in School that way.

[witsend]

SophieC - I'm knee deep at work.  I'll post later this evening.  Hope you'll be there.

[lyner]

Don't whimp out on this one- I shall be disappointed if you do.

[witsend]

sophiecentaur - I'm not sure that I should argue my model on Socratus' thread.  Please advise.

[lyner]

put your money where your mouth is- I'm sure he won't mind.

[witsend]

I've posted under 10 dimensional binary system.