Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #384318 > unrolled thread
| Started by | benj <nobodyxx@gmail> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-05-26 15:00 -0400 |
| Last post | 2016-06-05 14:30 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 65 — 10 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
How to be a "real" scientist. benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-05-26 15:00 -0400
Re: How to be a "real" scientist. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-05-26 12:18 -0700
Re: How to be a "real" scientist. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-05-26 17:15 -0700
Re: How to be a "real" scientist. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-05-26 21:47 -0500
Re: How to be a "real" scientist. Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-05-27 07:11 +0200
Re: How to be a "real" scientist. benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-05-27 02:28 -0400
Re: How to be a "real" scientist. Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-05-28 08:26 +0200
Re: How to be a "real" scientist. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-05-28 06:26 -0700
Re: How to be a "real" scientist. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-05-28 13:03 -0700
Re: How to be a "real" scientist. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-05-28 17:04 -0700
Re: How to be a "real" scientist. Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-05-29 04:48 +0200
Re: How to be a "real" scientist. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-05-28 22:25 -0700
Re: How to be a "real" scientist. John Heath <heathjohn2@gmail.com> - 2016-05-31 06:01 -0700
Re: How to be a "real" scientist. benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-05-31 12:06 -0400
Re: How to be a "real" scientist. Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-05-31 23:54 +0200
Re: How to be a "real" scientist. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-06-03 11:14 -0500
Re: How to be a "real" scientist. Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-06-05 16:12 +0200
Re: How to be a "real" scientist. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-05-31 11:02 -0700
Re: How to be a "real" scientist. Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-05-31 20:13 +0200
Re: How to be a "real" scientist. John Heath <heathjohn2@gmail.com> - 2016-05-31 15:58 -0700
Re: How to be a "real" scientist. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-05-31 16:40 -0700
Re: How to be a "real" scientist. John Heath <heathjohn2@gmail.com> - 2016-05-31 18:07 -0700
Re: How to be a "real" scientist. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-05-31 21:24 -0700
Re: How to be a "real" scientist. John Heath <heathjohn2@gmail.com> - 2016-06-01 20:22 -0700
Re: How to be a "real" scientist. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-05-31 23:25 -0700
Re: How to be a "real" scientist. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-06-01 11:20 -0700
Re: How to be a "real" scientist. Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-06-01 20:38 +0200
Re: How to be a "real" scientist. John Heath <heathjohn2@gmail.com> - 2016-05-28 20:08 -0700
Re: How to be a "real" scientist. Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-05-29 08:08 +0200
Re: How to be a "real" scientist. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-05-28 23:27 -0700
Re: How to be a "real" scientist. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-05-29 07:00 -0700
Re: How to be a "real" scientist. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-05-29 23:47 -0700
Re: How to be a "real" scientist. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-05-29 18:48 -0700
Re: How to be a "real" scientist. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-05-30 12:08 -0700
Re: How to be a "real" scientist. RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2016-05-29 00:03 -0700
Re: How to be a "real" scientist. "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-05-29 08:34 -0700
Re: How to be a "real" scientist. Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-05-29 22:49 +0200
Re: How to be a "real" scientist. "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-05-29 19:22 -0700
Re: How to be a "real" scientist. "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-05-29 19:42 -0700
Re: How to be a "real" scientist. "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-05-29 19:56 -0700
Re: How to be a "real" scientist. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-05-31 09:56 -0500
Re: How to be a "real" scientist. benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-05-31 11:53 -0400
Re: How to be a "real" scientist. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-05-31 15:27 -0500
Re: How to be a "real" scientist. Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-05-31 22:32 +0200
Re: How to be a "real" scientist. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-05-31 14:29 -0700
Re: How to be a "real" scientist. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-05-31 23:23 -0700
Re: How to be a "real" scientist. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-05-31 23:41 -0700
Re: How to be a "real" scientist. Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-05-31 19:48 +0200
Re: How to be a "real" scientist. Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-06-01 21:01 +0200
Re: How to be a "real" scientist. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-06-01 16:38 -0700
Re: How to be a "real" scientist. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-06-01 16:58 -0700
Re: How to be a "real" scientist. Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-06-03 06:13 +0200
Re: How to be a "real" scientist. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-06-02 23:38 -0700
Re: How to be a "real" scientist. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-06-03 08:12 -0700
Re: How to be a "real" scientist. Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-06-04 06:23 +0200
Re: How to be a "real" scientist. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-06-04 14:05 -0700
Re: How to be a "real" scientist. Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-06-05 10:49 +0200
Re: How to be a "real" scientist. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-06-05 11:52 -0700
Re: How to be a "real" scientist. Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-06-05 21:32 +0200
Re: How to be a "real" scientist. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-06-05 14:28 -0700
Re: How to be a "real" scientist. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-06-06 00:11 -0700
Re: How to be a "real" scientist. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-06-06 08:04 -0700
Re: How to be a "real" scientist. Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-06-06 17:17 +0200
Re: How to be a "real" scientist. Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-06-05 10:37 +0200
Re: How to be a "real" scientist. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-06-05 14:30 -0700
Page 2 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 Next page →
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-31 16:40 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <bbcf8b43-a070-4472-914d-f2246bf7fac3@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #384707 |
On Tuesday, May 31, 2016 at 3:58:49 PM UTC-7, John Heath wrote: > On Tuesday, May 31, 2016 at 2:02:54 PM UTC-4, JanPB wrote: > > On Tuesday, May 31, 2016 at 6:01:33 AM UTC-7, John Heath wrote: > > > On Sunday, May 29, 2016 at 1:25:31 AM UTC-4, JanPB wrote: > > > > On Saturday, May 28, 2016 at 7:48:51 PM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote: > > > > > Am 29.05.2016 02:04, schrieb JanPB: > > > > > > On Saturday, May 28, 2016 at 1:03:31 PM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > >> JanPB wrote: > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> On Friday, May 27, 2016 at 11:26:41 PM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote: > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> It is legal to criticise whatever you like in physics (or any other > > > > > >>>> science). > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> But your critique will not get very far. Especially inside such > > > > > >>>> locked-in communities critique will not be heard, since the insiders > > > > > >>>> have no interest in listening to challenging statements from outside. > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> No. It doesn't work that way. The reality is that _in fact_ there are no "challenging statements" > > > > > >>> in physics (or mathematics) "from the outside" to speak of(*). Physics and mathematics have > > > > > >>> evolved to the point where a significant amount of time and honest work is required to even > > > > > >>> understand the subject fully, let alone contribute to it. > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> So the people "inside" can tell right away that such "challenges" are worthless but the > > > > > >>> "challengers" cannot understand why. Instead, they claim some weird "conspiracies" and > > > > > >>> vent on the Internet. > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> (*) except philosophical > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> -- > > > > > >>> Jan > > > > > >> > > > > > >> That is complete garbage! > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> Real physics comes from...'understanding' without the mathematics. > > > > > > > > > > > > Without understanding the mathematics you have no understanding of physics. > > > > > > > > > > > Mathematics in physics deals with numbers of observed systems in nature. > > > > > > > > > > It is now possible (and to some degree observable), that the meaning of > > > > > these numbers does not match the real function of what is meant by those > > > > > numbers in the observed phenomenon. > > > > > > > > > > For example: physicists often use 'eV' as units of mass of particles and > > > > > justify this by the formula E=m*c². > > > > > > > > > > But a) the formula itself is wrong and b) does not allow a unit of > > > > > energy to measure mass. (At least they should say eV/c².) > > > > > > > > > > Now the physicists add obscurity by saying 'c=1' and this would be > > > > > 'natural'. > > > > > > > > > > The meaning of this number '1' is not a mathematical question, but one > > > > > of the metaphysical interpretation of what is described in a > > > > > mathematical way. > > > > > > > > > > Since '1' has no units, it is obviously a ratio of some kind of similar > > > > > measures, what cancels out units. The meaning is something like : > > > > > > > > > > light travels with one lightyear per year. > > > > > > > > > > But that is - even if mathematically correct - a stupid statement, since > > > > > the terms 'light, year and light-year' are interlocked, that this is > > > > > obvious. > > > > > > > > > > Mathematicians don't care for the underlying interpretation of their > > > > > numbers, since that is a question, which physicists have to care for. > > > > > > > > > > But if physicists refuse to interpret their numbers, the entire system > > > > > of natural science will fail and instead deliver meaningless nonsense, > > > > > which is nevertheless mathematical correct. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > TH > > > > > > > > Man, you are confused! There is nothing I can do within the space of a forum posting > > > > to explain the basics to you. > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Jan > > > > > > If you are falling into a black hole any calculations you make in your defense will not alter the events that are about to happen. Real science is in trenches working in a lab not staring at patterns in numbers like a physic. Faraday was a real scientist. Maxwell was just a bean counter basking in the lime light of Faraday. > > > > A standard claim by someone who doesn't want to do the work and learn the > > mathematics. It has been posted around here too many times to count: > > "mathematics is unnecessary, it obscures my genius intuition", etc. > > > > It's 100% baloney. People like Faraday would stand no chance today, it's only > > possible to contribute this way when the science in question is still young. > > Today this is no longer feasible. > > > > -- > > Jan > > I did not say mathematics is unnecessary? Please do not put words in my mouth. I am saying mathematics is best left to computers as they are faster and best of all they will not think. No, that's wrong. You are confusing mathematics with computation. > Bean counters insist on thinking and having opinions. I'm talking about mathematics, not "bean counting". > Therein is the problem. Their mathematics is fine provided they know their place in the back seat not driving the car. That's only 1/2 of the story. Sometimes the mathematics does the driving, sometimes not. > The problem is they do not know their place and want to think and have opinions. Computers avoid the dreaded bean counter with an opinion problem. You are confusing mathematics with computer science. > Why would anyone in their right mind think they can do physics if they are not rolling their sleeves actually doing physics? This is a non-sequitur. -- Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Heath <heathjohn2@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-31 18:07 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <7d2f273c-6980-4336-965b-20ca087ff72b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #384710 |
On Tuesday, May 31, 2016 at 7:40:14 PM UTC-4, JanPB wrote: > On Tuesday, May 31, 2016 at 3:58:49 PM UTC-7, John Heath wrote: > > On Tuesday, May 31, 2016 at 2:02:54 PM UTC-4, JanPB wrote: > > > On Tuesday, May 31, 2016 at 6:01:33 AM UTC-7, John Heath wrote: > > > > On Sunday, May 29, 2016 at 1:25:31 AM UTC-4, JanPB wrote: > > > > > On Saturday, May 28, 2016 at 7:48:51 PM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote: > > > > > > Am 29.05.2016 02:04, schrieb JanPB: > > > > > > > On Saturday, May 28, 2016 at 1:03:31 PM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > > >> JanPB wrote: > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> On Friday, May 27, 2016 at 11:26:41 PM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote: > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > >>>> It is legal to criticise whatever you like in physics (or any other > > > > > > >>>> science). > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > >>>> But your critique will not get very far. Especially inside such > > > > > > >>>> locked-in communities critique will not be heard, since the insiders > > > > > > >>>> have no interest in listening to challenging statements from outside. > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> No. It doesn't work that way. The reality is that _in fact_ there are no "challenging statements" > > > > > > >>> in physics (or mathematics) "from the outside" to speak of(*). Physics and mathematics have > > > > > > >>> evolved to the point where a significant amount of time and honest work is required to even > > > > > > >>> understand the subject fully, let alone contribute to it. > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> So the people "inside" can tell right away that such "challenges" are worthless but the > > > > > > >>> "challengers" cannot understand why. Instead, they claim some weird "conspiracies" and > > > > > > >>> vent on the Internet. > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> (*) except philosophical > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> -- > > > > > > >>> Jan > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> That is complete garbage! > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> Real physics comes from...'understanding' without the mathematics. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Without understanding the mathematics you have no understanding of physics. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mathematics in physics deals with numbers of observed systems in nature. > > > > > > > > > > > > It is now possible (and to some degree observable), that the meaning of > > > > > > these numbers does not match the real function of what is meant by those > > > > > > numbers in the observed phenomenon. > > > > > > > > > > > > For example: physicists often use 'eV' as units of mass of particles and > > > > > > justify this by the formula E=m*c². > > > > > > > > > > > > But a) the formula itself is wrong and b) does not allow a unit of > > > > > > energy to measure mass. (At least they should say eV/c².) > > > > > > > > > > > > Now the physicists add obscurity by saying 'c=1' and this would be > > > > > > 'natural'. > > > > > > > > > > > > The meaning of this number '1' is not a mathematical question, but one > > > > > > of the metaphysical interpretation of what is described in a > > > > > > mathematical way. > > > > > > > > > > > > Since '1' has no units, it is obviously a ratio of some kind of similar > > > > > > measures, what cancels out units. The meaning is something like : > > > > > > > > > > > > light travels with one lightyear per year. > > > > > > > > > > > > But that is - even if mathematically correct - a stupid statement, since > > > > > > the terms 'light, year and light-year' are interlocked, that this is > > > > > > obvious. > > > > > > > > > > > > Mathematicians don't care for the underlying interpretation of their > > > > > > numbers, since that is a question, which physicists have to care for. > > > > > > > > > > > > But if physicists refuse to interpret their numbers, the entire system > > > > > > of natural science will fail and instead deliver meaningless nonsense, > > > > > > which is nevertheless mathematical correct. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > TH > > > > > > > > > > Man, you are confused! There is nothing I can do within the space of a forum posting > > > > > to explain the basics to you. > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > Jan > > > > > > > > If you are falling into a black hole any calculations you make in your defense will not alter the events that are about to happen. Real science is in trenches working in a lab not staring at patterns in numbers like a physic. Faraday was a real scientist. Maxwell was just a bean counter basking in the lime light of Faraday. > > > > > > A standard claim by someone who doesn't want to do the work and learn the > > > mathematics. It has been posted around here too many times to count: > > > "mathematics is unnecessary, it obscures my genius intuition", etc. > > > > > > It's 100% baloney. People like Faraday would stand no chance today, it's only > > > possible to contribute this way when the science in question is still young. > > > Today this is no longer feasible. > > > > > > -- > > > Jan > > > > I did not say mathematics is unnecessary? Please do not put words in my mouth. I am saying mathematics is best left to computers as they are faster and best of all they will not think. > > No, that's wrong. You are confusing mathematics with computation. > > > Bean counters insist on thinking and having opinions. > > I'm talking about mathematics, not "bean counting". > > > Therein is the problem. Their mathematics is fine provided they know their place in the back seat not driving the car. > > That's only 1/2 of the story. Sometimes the mathematics does the driving, > sometimes not. > > > The problem is they do not know their place and want to think and have opinions. Computers avoid the dreaded bean counter with an opinion problem. > > You are confusing mathematics with computer science. > > > Why would anyone in their right mind think they can do physics if they are not rolling their sleeves actually doing physics? > > This is a non-sequitur. > > -- > Jan In the science of controlling social attitudes social hysteresis is required. If attitudes are 2 and you want 5 then you take them to 8 and hopefully they fall back to a 5. Racial discrimination in the USA is an example. To stop this a goal of 8 is used. Even a hint of a racist remark can ruin careers. A few years of this and social attitudes settle at a 5 where no one cares what someones race is. Its now a 5 , a non issue. For myself to present my position on mathematicians I need to go for "8" with a set goal of "5". Demeaning remarks such as dreaded bean counter opinion is my way of going for 8. The 5 goal is bean counters should support research by building the best model they can and leave it at that. Let research and philosophy of science decide what it means and the best course to proceed. Too many bean counters in physics today looking for patterns in numbers. We need more Faradays looking under rocks not thinking what is under rocks. Toronto university in Canada is an example Faraday type research where cracks are starting to develop in both uncertainty principle and entanglement. Both uncertainty and entanglement were contributions made by die heart bean counters that stepped outside their station in life.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-31 21:24 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <852d8f08-0729-4045-a7a6-f2f2f8782a06@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #384718 |
On Tuesday, May 31, 2016 at 6:07:12 PM UTC-7, John Heath wrote: > On Tuesday, May 31, 2016 at 7:40:14 PM UTC-4, JanPB wrote: > > On Tuesday, May 31, 2016 at 3:58:49 PM UTC-7, John Heath wrote: > > > On Tuesday, May 31, 2016 at 2:02:54 PM UTC-4, JanPB wrote: > > > > On Tuesday, May 31, 2016 at 6:01:33 AM UTC-7, John Heath wrote: > > > > > On Sunday, May 29, 2016 at 1:25:31 AM UTC-4, JanPB wrote: > > > > > > On Saturday, May 28, 2016 at 7:48:51 PM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote: > > > > > > > Am 29.05.2016 02:04, schrieb JanPB: > > > > > > > > On Saturday, May 28, 2016 at 1:03:31 PM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > > > >> JanPB wrote: > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > >>> On Friday, May 27, 2016 at 11:26:41 PM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote: > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > >>>> It is legal to criticise whatever you like in physics (or any other > > > > > > > >>>> science). > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > >>>> But your critique will not get very far. Especially inside such > > > > > > > >>>> locked-in communities critique will not be heard, since the insiders > > > > > > > >>>> have no interest in listening to challenging statements from outside. > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > >>> No. It doesn't work that way. The reality is that _in fact_ there are no "challenging statements" > > > > > > > >>> in physics (or mathematics) "from the outside" to speak of(*). Physics and mathematics have > > > > > > > >>> evolved to the point where a significant amount of time and honest work is required to even > > > > > > > >>> understand the subject fully, let alone contribute to it. > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > >>> So the people "inside" can tell right away that such "challenges" are worthless but the > > > > > > > >>> "challengers" cannot understand why. Instead, they claim some weird "conspiracies" and > > > > > > > >>> vent on the Internet. > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > >>> (*) except philosophical > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > >>> -- > > > > > > > >>> Jan > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> That is complete garbage! > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> Real physics comes from...'understanding' without the mathematics. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Without understanding the mathematics you have no understanding of physics. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mathematics in physics deals with numbers of observed systems in nature. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It is now possible (and to some degree observable), that the meaning of > > > > > > > these numbers does not match the real function of what is meant by those > > > > > > > numbers in the observed phenomenon. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > For example: physicists often use 'eV' as units of mass of particles and > > > > > > > justify this by the formula E=m*c². > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But a) the formula itself is wrong and b) does not allow a unit of > > > > > > > energy to measure mass. (At least they should say eV/c².) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Now the physicists add obscurity by saying 'c=1' and this would be > > > > > > > 'natural'. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The meaning of this number '1' is not a mathematical question, but one > > > > > > > of the metaphysical interpretation of what is described in a > > > > > > > mathematical way. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Since '1' has no units, it is obviously a ratio of some kind of similar > > > > > > > measures, what cancels out units. The meaning is something like : > > > > > > > > > > > > > > light travels with one lightyear per year. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But that is - even if mathematically correct - a stupid statement, since > > > > > > > the terms 'light, year and light-year' are interlocked, that this is > > > > > > > obvious. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mathematicians don't care for the underlying interpretation of their > > > > > > > numbers, since that is a question, which physicists have to care for. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But if physicists refuse to interpret their numbers, the entire system > > > > > > > of natural science will fail and instead deliver meaningless nonsense, > > > > > > > which is nevertheless mathematical correct. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > TH > > > > > > > > > > > > Man, you are confused! There is nothing I can do within the space of a forum posting > > > > > > to explain the basics to you. > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > Jan > > > > > > > > > > If you are falling into a black hole any calculations you make in your defense will not alter the events that are about to happen. Real science is in trenches working in a lab not staring at patterns in numbers like a physic. Faraday was a real scientist. Maxwell was just a bean counter basking in the lime light of Faraday. > > > > > > > > A standard claim by someone who doesn't want to do the work and learn the > > > > mathematics. It has been posted around here too many times to count: > > > > "mathematics is unnecessary, it obscures my genius intuition", etc. > > > > > > > > It's 100% baloney. People like Faraday would stand no chance today, it's only > > > > possible to contribute this way when the science in question is still young. > > > > Today this is no longer feasible. > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Jan > > > > > > I did not say mathematics is unnecessary? Please do not put words in my mouth. I am saying mathematics is best left to computers as they are faster and best of all they will not think. > > > > No, that's wrong. You are confusing mathematics with computation. > > > > > Bean counters insist on thinking and having opinions. > > > > I'm talking about mathematics, not "bean counting". > > > > > Therein is the problem. Their mathematics is fine provided they know their place in the back seat not driving the car. > > > > That's only 1/2 of the story. Sometimes the mathematics does the driving, > > sometimes not. > > > > > The problem is they do not know their place and want to think and have opinions. Computers avoid the dreaded bean counter with an opinion problem. > > > > You are confusing mathematics with computer science. > > > > > Why would anyone in their right mind think they can do physics if they are not rolling their sleeves actually doing physics? > > > > This is a non-sequitur. > > > > -- > > Jan > > In the science of controlling social attitudes social hysteresis is required. If attitudes are 2 and you want 5 then you take them to 8 and hopefully they fall back to a 5. Racial discrimination in the USA is an example. To stop this a goal of 8 is used. Even a hint of a racist remark can ruin careers. A few years of this and social attitudes settle at a 5 where no one cares what someones race is. Its now a 5 , a non issue. For myself to present my position on mathematicians I need to go for "8" with a set goal of "5". Demeaning remarks such as dreaded bean counter opinion is my way of going for 8. The 5 goal is bean counters should support research by building the best model they can and leave it at that. Let research and philosophy of science decide what it means and the best course to proceed. Too many bean counters in physics today looking for patterns in numbers. We need more Faradays looking under rocks not thinking what is under rocks. Toronto university in Canada is an example Faraday type research where cracks are starting to develop in both uncertainty principle and entanglement. Both uncertainty and entanglement were contributions made by die heart bean counters that stepped outside their station in life. Don't post until you get sober. -- Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Heath <heathjohn2@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-01 20:22 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <7f662d37-857f-49f0-b0e2-49eec90bad9e@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #384725 |
On Wednesday, June 1, 2016 at 12:24:46 AM UTC-4, JanPB wrote: > On Tuesday, May 31, 2016 at 6:07:12 PM UTC-7, John Heath wrote: > > On Tuesday, May 31, 2016 at 7:40:14 PM UTC-4, JanPB wrote: > > > On Tuesday, May 31, 2016 at 3:58:49 PM UTC-7, John Heath wrote: > > > > On Tuesday, May 31, 2016 at 2:02:54 PM UTC-4, JanPB wrote: > > > > > On Tuesday, May 31, 2016 at 6:01:33 AM UTC-7, John Heath wrote: > > > > > > On Sunday, May 29, 2016 at 1:25:31 AM UTC-4, JanPB wrote: > > > > > > > On Saturday, May 28, 2016 at 7:48:51 PM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote: > > > > > > > > Am 29.05.2016 02:04, schrieb JanPB: > > > > > > > > > On Saturday, May 28, 2016 at 1:03:31 PM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > > > > >> JanPB wrote: > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > >>> On Friday, May 27, 2016 at 11:26:41 PM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote: > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > > >>>> It is legal to criticise whatever you like in physics (or any other > > > > > > > > >>>> science). > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > > >>>> But your critique will not get very far. Especially inside such > > > > > > > > >>>> locked-in communities critique will not be heard, since the insiders > > > > > > > > >>>> have no interest in listening to challenging statements from outside. > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > >>> No. It doesn't work that way. The reality is that _in fact_ there are no "challenging statements" > > > > > > > > >>> in physics (or mathematics) "from the outside" to speak of(*). Physics and mathematics have > > > > > > > > >>> evolved to the point where a significant amount of time and honest work is required to even > > > > > > > > >>> understand the subject fully, let alone contribute to it. > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > >>> So the people "inside" can tell right away that such "challenges" are worthless but the > > > > > > > > >>> "challengers" cannot understand why. Instead, they claim some weird "conspiracies" and > > > > > > > > >>> vent on the Internet. > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > >>> (*) except philosophical > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > >>> -- > > > > > > > > >>> Jan > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> That is complete garbage! > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> Real physics comes from...'understanding' without the mathematics. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Without understanding the mathematics you have no understanding of physics. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mathematics in physics deals with numbers of observed systems in nature. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It is now possible (and to some degree observable), that the meaning of > > > > > > > > these numbers does not match the real function of what is meant by those > > > > > > > > numbers in the observed phenomenon. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > For example: physicists often use 'eV' as units of mass of particles and > > > > > > > > justify this by the formula E=m*c². > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But a) the formula itself is wrong and b) does not allow a unit of > > > > > > > > energy to measure mass. (At least they should say eV/c².) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Now the physicists add obscurity by saying 'c=1' and this would be > > > > > > > > 'natural'. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The meaning of this number '1' is not a mathematical question, but one > > > > > > > > of the metaphysical interpretation of what is described in a > > > > > > > > mathematical way. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Since '1' has no units, it is obviously a ratio of some kind of similar > > > > > > > > measures, what cancels out units. The meaning is something like : > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > light travels with one lightyear per year. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But that is - even if mathematically correct - a stupid statement, since > > > > > > > > the terms 'light, year and light-year' are interlocked, that this is > > > > > > > > obvious. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mathematicians don't care for the underlying interpretation of their > > > > > > > > numbers, since that is a question, which physicists have to care for. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But if physicists refuse to interpret their numbers, the entire system > > > > > > > > of natural science will fail and instead deliver meaningless nonsense, > > > > > > > > which is nevertheless mathematical correct. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > TH > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Man, you are confused! There is nothing I can do within the space of a forum posting > > > > > > > to explain the basics to you. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > Jan > > > > > > > > > > > > If you are falling into a black hole any calculations you make in your defense will not alter the events that are about to happen. Real science is in trenches working in a lab not staring at patterns in numbers like a physic. Faraday was a real scientist. Maxwell was just a bean counter basking in the lime light of Faraday. > > > > > > > > > > A standard claim by someone who doesn't want to do the work and learn the > > > > > mathematics. It has been posted around here too many times to count: > > > > > "mathematics is unnecessary, it obscures my genius intuition", etc. > > > > > > > > > > It's 100% baloney. People like Faraday would stand no chance today, it's only > > > > > possible to contribute this way when the science in question is still young. > > > > > Today this is no longer feasible. > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > Jan > > > > > > > > I did not say mathematics is unnecessary? Please do not put words in my mouth. I am saying mathematics is best left to computers as they are faster and best of all they will not think. > > > > > > No, that's wrong. You are confusing mathematics with computation. > > > > > > > Bean counters insist on thinking and having opinions. > > > > > > I'm talking about mathematics, not "bean counting". > > > > > > > Therein is the problem. Their mathematics is fine provided they know their place in the back seat not driving the car. > > > > > > That's only 1/2 of the story. Sometimes the mathematics does the driving, > > > sometimes not. > > > > > > > The problem is they do not know their place and want to think and have opinions. Computers avoid the dreaded bean counter with an opinion problem. > > > > > > You are confusing mathematics with computer science. > > > > > > > Why would anyone in their right mind think they can do physics if they are not rolling their sleeves actually doing physics? > > > > > > This is a non-sequitur. > > > > > > -- > > > Jan > > > > In the science of controlling social attitudes social hysteresis is required. If attitudes are 2 and you want 5 then you take them to 8 and hopefully they fall back to a 5. Racial discrimination in the USA is an example. To stop this a goal of 8 is used. Even a hint of a racist remark can ruin careers. A few years of this and social attitudes settle at a 5 where no one cares what someones race is. Its now a 5 , a non issue. For myself to present my position on mathematicians I need to go for "8" with a set goal of "5". Demeaning remarks such as dreaded bean counter opinion is my way of going for 8. The 5 goal is bean counters should support research by building the best model they can and leave it at that. Let research and philosophy of science decide what it means and the best course to proceed. Too many bean counters in physics today looking for patterns in numbers. We need more Faradays looking under rocks not thinking what is under rocks. Toronto university in Canada is an example Faraday type research where cracks are starting to develop in both uncertainty principle and entanglement. Both uncertainty and entanglement were contributions made by die heart bean counters that stepped outside their station in life. > > Don't post until you get sober. > > -- > Jan You do not believe myself nor did you google to confirm. It seems there is nothing left to do but raise a beer in your honor , cheers.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-31 23:25 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <92d8f85c-81a2-4bbf-97cb-00716c13b2e0@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #384710 |
W dniu środa, 1 czerwca 2016 01:40:14 UTC+2 użytkownik JanPB napisał: > On Tuesday, May 31, 2016 at 3:58:49 PM UTC-7, John Heath wrote: > > On Tuesday, May 31, 2016 at 2:02:54 PM UTC-4, JanPB wrote: > > > On Tuesday, May 31, 2016 at 6:01:33 AM UTC-7, John Heath wrote: > > > > On Sunday, May 29, 2016 at 1:25:31 AM UTC-4, JanPB wrote: > > > > > On Saturday, May 28, 2016 at 7:48:51 PM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote: > > > > > > Am 29.05.2016 02:04, schrieb JanPB: > > > > > > > On Saturday, May 28, 2016 at 1:03:31 PM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > > >> JanPB wrote: > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> On Friday, May 27, 2016 at 11:26:41 PM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote: > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > >>>> It is legal to criticise whatever you like in physics (or any other > > > > > > >>>> science). > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > >>>> But your critique will not get very far. Especially inside such > > > > > > >>>> locked-in communities critique will not be heard, since the insiders > > > > > > >>>> have no interest in listening to challenging statements from outside. > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> No. It doesn't work that way. The reality is that _in fact_ there are no "challenging statements" > > > > > > >>> in physics (or mathematics) "from the outside" to speak of(*). Physics and mathematics have > > > > > > >>> evolved to the point where a significant amount of time and honest work is required to even > > > > > > >>> understand the subject fully, let alone contribute to it. > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> So the people "inside" can tell right away that such "challenges" are worthless but the > > > > > > >>> "challengers" cannot understand why. Instead, they claim some weird "conspiracies" and > > > > > > >>> vent on the Internet. > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> (*) except philosophical > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> -- > > > > > > >>> Jan > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> That is complete garbage! > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> Real physics comes from...'understanding' without the mathematics. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Without understanding the mathematics you have no understanding of physics. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mathematics in physics deals with numbers of observed systems in nature. > > > > > > > > > > > > It is now possible (and to some degree observable), that the meaning of > > > > > > these numbers does not match the real function of what is meant by those > > > > > > numbers in the observed phenomenon. > > > > > > > > > > > > For example: physicists often use 'eV' as units of mass of particles and > > > > > > justify this by the formula E=m*c². > > > > > > > > > > > > But a) the formula itself is wrong and b) does not allow a unit of > > > > > > energy to measure mass. (At least they should say eV/c².) > > > > > > > > > > > > Now the physicists add obscurity by saying 'c=1' and this would be > > > > > > 'natural'. > > > > > > > > > > > > The meaning of this number '1' is not a mathematical question, but one > > > > > > of the metaphysical interpretation of what is described in a > > > > > > mathematical way. > > > > > > > > > > > > Since '1' has no units, it is obviously a ratio of some kind of similar > > > > > > measures, what cancels out units. The meaning is something like : > > > > > > > > > > > > light travels with one lightyear per year. > > > > > > > > > > > > But that is - even if mathematically correct - a stupid statement, since > > > > > > the terms 'light, year and light-year' are interlocked, that this is > > > > > > obvious. > > > > > > > > > > > > Mathematicians don't care for the underlying interpretation of their > > > > > > numbers, since that is a question, which physicists have to care for. > > > > > > > > > > > > But if physicists refuse to interpret their numbers, the entire system > > > > > > of natural science will fail and instead deliver meaningless nonsense, > > > > > > which is nevertheless mathematical correct. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > TH > > > > > > > > > > Man, you are confused! There is nothing I can do within the space of a forum posting > > > > > to explain the basics to you. > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > Jan > > > > > > > > If you are falling into a black hole any calculations you make in your defense will not alter the events that are about to happen. Real science is in trenches working in a lab not staring at patterns in numbers like a physic. Faraday was a real scientist. Maxwell was just a bean counter basking in the lime light of Faraday. > > > > > > A standard claim by someone who doesn't want to do the work and learn the > > > mathematics. It has been posted around here too many times to count: > > > "mathematics is unnecessary, it obscures my genius intuition", etc. > > > > > > It's 100% baloney. People like Faraday would stand no chance today, it's only > > > possible to contribute this way when the science in question is still young. > > > Today this is no longer feasible. > > > > > > -- > > > Jan > > > > I did not say mathematics is unnecessary? Please do not put words in my mouth. I am saying mathematics is best left to computers as they are faster and best of all they will not think. > > No, that's wrong. You are confusing mathematics with computation. > > > Bean counters insist on thinking and having opinions. > > I'm talking about mathematics, not "bean counting". > > > Therein is the problem. Their mathematics is fine provided they know their place in the back seat not driving the car. > > That's only 1/2 of the story. Sometimes the mathematics does the driving, > sometimes not. > > > The problem is they do not know their place and want to think and have opinions. Computers avoid the dreaded bean counter with an opinion problem. > > You are confusing mathematics with computer science. When talking about mathematics, it's always good to remind taht your idiot guru has rejected the oldest and important part of it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-01 11:20 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <644de1d1-8138-4599-aebc-0576dca4cf66@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #384738 |
On Tuesday, May 31, 2016 at 11:25:22 PM UTC-7, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > W dniu środa, 1 czerwca 2016 01:40:14 UTC+2 użytkownik JanPB napisał: > > On Tuesday, May 31, 2016 at 3:58:49 PM UTC-7, John Heath wrote: > > > On Tuesday, May 31, 2016 at 2:02:54 PM UTC-4, JanPB wrote: > > > > On Tuesday, May 31, 2016 at 6:01:33 AM UTC-7, John Heath wrote: > > > > > On Sunday, May 29, 2016 at 1:25:31 AM UTC-4, JanPB wrote: > > > > > > On Saturday, May 28, 2016 at 7:48:51 PM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote: > > > > > > > Am 29.05.2016 02:04, schrieb JanPB: > > > > > > > > On Saturday, May 28, 2016 at 1:03:31 PM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > > > >> JanPB wrote: > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > >>> On Friday, May 27, 2016 at 11:26:41 PM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote: > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > >>>> It is legal to criticise whatever you like in physics (or any other > > > > > > > >>>> science). > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > >>>> But your critique will not get very far. Especially inside such > > > > > > > >>>> locked-in communities critique will not be heard, since the insiders > > > > > > > >>>> have no interest in listening to challenging statements from outside. > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > >>> No. It doesn't work that way. The reality is that _in fact_ there are no "challenging statements" > > > > > > > >>> in physics (or mathematics) "from the outside" to speak of(*). Physics and mathematics have > > > > > > > >>> evolved to the point where a significant amount of time and honest work is required to even > > > > > > > >>> understand the subject fully, let alone contribute to it. > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > >>> So the people "inside" can tell right away that such "challenges" are worthless but the > > > > > > > >>> "challengers" cannot understand why. Instead, they claim some weird "conspiracies" and > > > > > > > >>> vent on the Internet. > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > >>> (*) except philosophical > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > >>> -- > > > > > > > >>> Jan > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> That is complete garbage! > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> Real physics comes from...'understanding' without the mathematics. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Without understanding the mathematics you have no understanding of physics. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mathematics in physics deals with numbers of observed systems in nature. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It is now possible (and to some degree observable), that the meaning of > > > > > > > these numbers does not match the real function of what is meant by those > > > > > > > numbers in the observed phenomenon. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > For example: physicists often use 'eV' as units of mass of particles and > > > > > > > justify this by the formula E=m*c². > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But a) the formula itself is wrong and b) does not allow a unit of > > > > > > > energy to measure mass. (At least they should say eV/c².) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Now the physicists add obscurity by saying 'c=1' and this would be > > > > > > > 'natural'. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The meaning of this number '1' is not a mathematical question, but one > > > > > > > of the metaphysical interpretation of what is described in a > > > > > > > mathematical way. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Since '1' has no units, it is obviously a ratio of some kind of similar > > > > > > > measures, what cancels out units. The meaning is something like : > > > > > > > > > > > > > > light travels with one lightyear per year. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But that is - even if mathematically correct - a stupid statement, since > > > > > > > the terms 'light, year and light-year' are interlocked, that this is > > > > > > > obvious. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mathematicians don't care for the underlying interpretation of their > > > > > > > numbers, since that is a question, which physicists have to care for. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But if physicists refuse to interpret their numbers, the entire system > > > > > > > of natural science will fail and instead deliver meaningless nonsense, > > > > > > > which is nevertheless mathematical correct. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > TH > > > > > > > > > > > > Man, you are confused! There is nothing I can do within the space of a forum posting > > > > > > to explain the basics to you. > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > Jan > > > > > > > > > > If you are falling into a black hole any calculations you make in your defense will not alter the events that are about to happen. Real science is in trenches working in a lab not staring at patterns in numbers like a physic. Faraday was a real scientist. Maxwell was just a bean counter basking in the lime light of Faraday. > > > > > > > > A standard claim by someone who doesn't want to do the work and learn the > > > > mathematics. It has been posted around here too many times to count: > > > > "mathematics is unnecessary, it obscures my genius intuition", etc. > > > > > > > > It's 100% baloney. People like Faraday would stand no chance today, it's only > > > > possible to contribute this way when the science in question is still young. > > > > Today this is no longer feasible. > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Jan > > > > > > I did not say mathematics is unnecessary? Please do not put words in my mouth. I am saying mathematics is best left to computers as they are faster and best of all they will not think. > > > > No, that's wrong. You are confusing mathematics with computation. > > > > > Bean counters insist on thinking and having opinions. > > > > I'm talking about mathematics, not "bean counting". > > > > > Therein is the problem. Their mathematics is fine provided they know their place in the back seat not driving the car. > > > > That's only 1/2 of the story. Sometimes the mathematics does the driving, > > sometimes not. > > > > > The problem is they do not know their place and want to think and have opinions. Computers avoid the dreaded bean counter with an opinion problem. > > > > You are confusing mathematics with computer science. > > When talking about mathematics, it's always good to remind > taht your idiot guru has rejected the oldest and important > part of it. When posting to a public forum, it's always good to avoid writing exclusively laughable nonsense. -- Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-01 20:38 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <nina2q$63a$1@node2.news.atman.pl> |
| In reply to | #384769 |
Użytkownik "JanPB" napisał w wiadomości grup dyskusyjnych:644de1d1-8138-4599-aebc-0576dca4cf66@googlegroups.com... > When talking about mathematics, it's always good to remind > taht your idiot guru has rejected the oldest and important > part of it. |When posting to a public forum, it's always good to avoid writing exclusively |laughable nonsense. It's good, but surely can't be expected from relativistic fanatics. So, isn't euclidean geometry the oldest and important part of mathematics or didn't your idiot guru rejected it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Heath <heathjohn2@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-28 20:08 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <1061de4a-68b3-4db6-97b2-3bfe1f65113a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #384524 |
On Saturday, May 28, 2016 at 8:04:02 PM UTC-4, JanPB wrote: > On Saturday, May 28, 2016 at 1:03:31 PM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote: > > JanPB wrote: > > > > > > On Friday, May 27, 2016 at 11:26:41 PM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote: > > > > > > > > It is legal to criticise whatever you like in physics (or any other > > > > science). > > > > > > > > But your critique will not get very far. Especially inside such > > > > locked-in communities critique will not be heard, since the insiders > > > > have no interest in listening to challenging statements from outside. > > > > > > No. It doesn't work that way. The reality is that _in fact_ there are no "challenging statements" > > > in physics (or mathematics) "from the outside" to speak of(*). Physics and mathematics have > > > evolved to the point where a significant amount of time and honest work is required to even > > > understand the subject fully, let alone contribute to it. > > > > > > So the people "inside" can tell right away that such "challenges" are worthless but the > > > "challengers" cannot understand why. Instead, they claim some weird "conspiracies" and > > > vent on the Internet. > > > > > > (*) except philosophical > > > > > > -- > > > Jan > > > > That is complete garbage! > > > > > > Real physics comes from...'understanding' without the mathematics. > > Without understanding the mathematics you have no understanding of physics. > > -- > Jan Reality can not be understood without a symbolic mathematical model of that reality ? This sounds like the tail waging the dog. Bean counters belong in the back seat not the front seat. They should build a math model around test results hopefully without thinking to screw it up while real scientist do the tests. String theory with 20 dimensions is a fine example of what happens when bean counters start thinking and having opinions.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-29 08:08 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <nie12g$keu$1@node1.news.atman.pl> |
| In reply to | #384524 |
Użytkownik "JanPB" napisał w wiadomości grup dyskusyjnych:ae6c9baf-7b1c-4263-a678-2fa83dd92e43@googlegroups.com... |Without understanding the mathematics you have no understanding of physics. And with your idiotic belief in immutable mathematical truth you've never had a chance.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-28 23:27 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <574A8BE7.4AEE@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #384524 |
JanPB wrote: > > On Saturday, May 28, 2016 at 1:03:31 PM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote: > > JanPB wrote: > > > > > > On Friday, May 27, 2016 at 11:26:41 PM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote: > > > > > > > > It is legal to criticise whatever you like in physics (or any other > > > > science). > > > > > > > > But your critique will not get very far. Especially inside such > > > > locked-in communities critique will not be heard, since the insiders > > > > have no interest in listening to challenging statements from outside. > > > > > > No. It doesn't work that way. The reality is that _in fact_ there are no "challenging statements" > > > in physics (or mathematics) "from the outside" to speak of(*). Physics and mathematics have > > > evolved to the point where a significant amount of time and honest work is required to even > > > understand the subject fully, let alone contribute to it. > > > > > > So the people "inside" can tell right away that such "challenges" are worthless but the > > > "challengers" cannot understand why. Instead, they claim some weird "conspiracies" and > > > vent on the Internet. > > > > > > (*) except philosophical > > > > > > -- > > > Jan > > > > That is complete garbage! > > > > > > Real physics comes from...'understanding' without the mathematics. > > Without understanding the mathematics you have no understanding of physics. > > -- > Jan I understand... 'this thing of yours'.. this invention yous call...Math, is just another language yous invented. But, you're under an illusion that it's real. You are sooo close to the math trees, that you have to climb mountains and bigger moutains in order to see the math forest. You're in a mandelbrot. http://guciek.github.io/web_mandelbrot.html The more you click the deeper you fall in the more complicated it gets...you become, infected.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-29 07:00 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <a2d75827-a6cf-4699-9000-af7dd91b28db@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #384534 |
On Saturday, May 28, 2016 at 11:27:24 PM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote: > JanPB wrote: > > > > On Saturday, May 28, 2016 at 1:03:31 PM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote: > > > JanPB wrote: > > > > > > > > On Friday, May 27, 2016 at 11:26:41 PM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote: > > > > > > > > > > It is legal to criticise whatever you like in physics (or any other > > > > > science). > > > > > > > > > > But your critique will not get very far. Especially inside such > > > > > locked-in communities critique will not be heard, since the insiders > > > > > have no interest in listening to challenging statements from outside. > > > > > > > > No. It doesn't work that way. The reality is that _in fact_ there are no "challenging statements" > > > > in physics (or mathematics) "from the outside" to speak of(*). Physics and mathematics have > > > > evolved to the point where a significant amount of time and honest work is required to even > > > > understand the subject fully, let alone contribute to it. > > > > > > > > So the people "inside" can tell right away that such "challenges" are worthless but the > > > > "challengers" cannot understand why. Instead, they claim some weird "conspiracies" and > > > > vent on the Internet. > > > > > > > > (*) except philosophical > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Jan > > > > > > That is complete garbage! > > > > > > > > > Real physics comes from...'understanding' without the mathematics. > > > > Without understanding the mathematics you have no understanding of physics. > > > > -- > > Jan > > > I understand... > 'this thing of yours'.. > this invention yous > call...Math, > > is just another > language yous > invented. > > But, you're under > an illusion that it's real. > > You are sooo close > to the math trees, that > you have to climb > mountains and bigger > moutains in order to > see the math forest. > > You're in a mandelbrot. > http://guciek.github.io/web_mandelbrot.html > > The more you click > the deeper you fall in > the more complicated it > gets...you become, > infected. No. Don't invent excuses, it is simply as I said. It's really nothing exotic, you'd similarly insist that a surgeon be competent before operating on you, etc. -- Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-29 23:47 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <0eb846e6-d080-46bd-b6ea-9e106910ea8e@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #384540 |
W dniu niedziela, 29 maja 2016 16:00:47 UTC+2 użytkownik JanPB napisał: > On Saturday, May 28, 2016 at 11:27:24 PM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote: > > JanPB wrote: > > > > > > On Saturday, May 28, 2016 at 1:03:31 PM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote: > > > > JanPB wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Friday, May 27, 2016 at 11:26:41 PM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > It is legal to criticise whatever you like in physics (or any other > > > > > > science). > > > > > > > > > > > > But your critique will not get very far. Especially inside such > > > > > > locked-in communities critique will not be heard, since the insiders > > > > > > have no interest in listening to challenging statements from outside. > > > > > > > > > > No. It doesn't work that way. The reality is that _in fact_ there are no "challenging statements" > > > > > in physics (or mathematics) "from the outside" to speak of(*). Physics and mathematics have > > > > > evolved to the point where a significant amount of time and honest work is required to even > > > > > understand the subject fully, let alone contribute to it. > > > > > > > > > > So the people "inside" can tell right away that such "challenges" are worthless but the > > > > > "challengers" cannot understand why. Instead, they claim some weird "conspiracies" and > > > > > vent on the Internet. > > > > > > > > > > (*) except philosophical > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > Jan > > > > > > > > That is complete garbage! > > > > > > > > > > > > Real physics comes from...'understanding' without the mathematics. > > > > > > Without understanding the mathematics you have no understanding of physics. > > > > > > -- > > > Jan > > > > > > I understand... > > 'this thing of yours'.. > > this invention yous > > call...Math, > > > > is just another > > language yous > > invented. > > > > But, you're under > > an illusion that it's real. > > > > You are sooo close > > to the math trees, that > > you have to climb > > mountains and bigger > > moutains in order to > > see the math forest. > > > > You're in a mandelbrot. > > http://guciek.github.io/web_mandelbrot.html > > > > The more you click > > the deeper you fall in > > the more complicated it > > gets...you become, > > infected. > > No. Don't invent excuses, it is simply as I said. It's really nothing exotic, you'd similarly > insist that a surgeon be competent before operating on you, etc. Tell me, poor idiot, if a surgeon yelled that common sense is a set of prejudices - would you allow him to operate you?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-29 18:48 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <574B9BFC.305E@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #384534 |
The Starmaker wrote: > > JanPB wrote: > > > > On Saturday, May 28, 2016 at 1:03:31 PM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote: > > > JanPB wrote: > > > > > > > > On Friday, May 27, 2016 at 11:26:41 PM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote: > > > > > > > > > > It is legal to criticise whatever you like in physics (or any other > > > > > science). > > > > > > > > > > But your critique will not get very far. Especially inside such > > > > > locked-in communities critique will not be heard, since the insiders > > > > > have no interest in listening to challenging statements from outside. > > > > > > > > No. It doesn't work that way. The reality is that _in fact_ there are no "challenging statements" > > > > in physics (or mathematics) "from the outside" to speak of(*). Physics and mathematics have > > > > evolved to the point where a significant amount of time and honest work is required to even > > > > understand the subject fully, let alone contribute to it. > > > > > > > > So the people "inside" can tell right away that such "challenges" are worthless but the > > > > "challengers" cannot understand why. Instead, they claim some weird "conspiracies" and > > > > vent on the Internet. > > > > > > > > (*) except philosophical > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Jan > > > > > > That is complete garbage! > > > > > > > > > Real physics comes from...'understanding' without the mathematics. > > > > Without understanding the mathematics you have no understanding of physics. > > > > -- > > Jan > > I understand... > 'this thing of yours'.. > this invention yous > call...Math, > > is just another > language yous > invented. > > But, you're under > an illusion that it's real. > > You are sooo close > to the math trees, that > you have to climb > mountains and bigger > moutains in order to > see the math forest. > > You're in a mandelbrot. > http://guciek.github.io/web_mandelbrot.html > > The more you click > the deeper you fall in > the more complicated it > gets...you become, > infected. yous math people have created...too many trees. Those trees need to be ...cut down.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-30 12:08 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <574C8FA2.79B5@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #384524 |
JanPB wrote: > > On Saturday, May 28, 2016 at 1:03:31 PM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote: > > JanPB wrote: > > > > > > On Friday, May 27, 2016 at 11:26:41 PM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote: > > > > > > > > It is legal to criticise whatever you like in physics (or any other > > > > science). > > > > > > > > But your critique will not get very far. Especially inside such > > > > locked-in communities critique will not be heard, since the insiders > > > > have no interest in listening to challenging statements from outside. > > > > > > No. It doesn't work that way. The reality is that _in fact_ there are no "challenging statements" > > > in physics (or mathematics) "from the outside" to speak of(*). Physics and mathematics have > > > evolved to the point where a significant amount of time and honest work is required to even > > > understand the subject fully, let alone contribute to it. > > > > > > So the people "inside" can tell right away that such "challenges" are worthless but the > > > "challengers" cannot understand why. Instead, they claim some weird "conspiracies" and > > > vent on the Internet. > > > > > > (*) except philosophical > > > > > > -- > > > Jan > > > > That is complete garbage! > > > > > > Real physics comes from...'understanding' without the mathematics. > > Without understanding the mathematics you have no understanding of physics. > > -- > Jan the list is too long of those that can do without...the mathematics. From yesterday to Todays.. How about Einstein with his thought experments? or Michael Faraday Charles Darwin or Feynman with his...diagrams? or the top scientist TODAY? Today? The top guy...doesn't use math. Today.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-29 00:03 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <3e2e4022-1b9c-456c-b37d-7ccebbae8b3a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #384481 |
On May 27, Thomas Heger wrote: >>> If that is also managed successfully, the former assistant gets >>> initiated into the inner sect and promoted to a high priest himself. >> >> It's sort like the medical rule: You aren't allowed to > > criticize us unless you are one of us! (And then of course we will have > > the leverage to make sure you don't!) > > Well, actually not.. > It is legal to criticise whatever you like in physics (or any other > science). https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/an-environmental-campaign-that-punishes-free-speech/2016/04/22/e2eafd88-07bc-11e6-b283-e79d81c63c1b_story.html -- Rich
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-29 08:34 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <951e0b11-0914-43db-99fc-f8a0d2b02548@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #384535 |
RichD wrote: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/an-environmental-campaign-that-punishes-free-speech/2016/04/22/e2eafd88-07bc-11e6-b283-e79d81c63c1b_story.html -- Rich Yep ... If they can "gag you" while they rob, rape & Tax you into non-eXistenz. Ministry of Truth.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-29 22:49 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <dr12vjF9ri1U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #384535 |
Am 29.05.2016 09:03, schrieb RichD: > On May 27, Thomas Heger wrote: >>>> If that is also managed successfully, the former assistant gets >>>> initiated into the inner sect and promoted to a high priest himself. >>> >>> It's sort like the medical rule: You aren't allowed to >>> criticize us unless you are one of us! (And then of course we will have >>> the leverage to make sure you don't!) >> >> Well, actually not.. >> It is legal to criticise whatever you like in physics (or any other >> science). > > https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/an-environmental-campaign-that-punishes-free-speech/2016/04/22/e2eafd88-07bc-11e6-b283-e79d81c63c1b_story.html > 'Climate change' is similar to other topics, where occasionally people get in trouble, if they have the 'wrong' opinion. For instance I'm among the supporters of 'Growing Earth' theory, which was invented by a German geologist named Ott Cristoph Hilgenberg. He wrote a book (available only in German) 'Vom wachsenden Erdball' (roughly: 'about the growing Earth ball'), which was published 1930 in Berlin. In this book he wrote, that with growth of Earth the climate would change. But 'growing Earth' is banned and supporters usually get in trouble. Similar phenomena occur in relation with other topics like 'free energy devices', 'structured water', homoeopathy and various others. So: what do these subjects have in common? It's all about money and about how to extract that from the pockets of the people. So, heretic ideas -which could eventually challenge businesses- are not allowed. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-29 19:22 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <b97a32cd-55dc-4dff-bc70-08b17dcafe8e@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #384572 |
Thomas Heger wrote: 'Climate change' is similar to other topics, where occasionally people get in trouble, if they have the 'wrong' opinion. For instance I'm among the supporters of 'Growing Earth' theory, which was invented by a German geologist named Ott Cristoph Hilgenberg. He wrote a book (available only in German) 'Vom wachsenden Erdball' (roughly: 'about the growing Earth ball'), which was published 1930 in Berlin. In this book he wrote, that with growth of Earth the climate would change. But 'growing Earth' is banned and supporters usually get in trouble. Growing earth would be more accepted if mass was viewed as a quantity of entropy & Gravity was that entropy growing as the universe encreased in entropy over all Similar phenomena occur in relation with other topics like 'free energy devices', 'structured water', homoeopathy and various others. So: what do these subjects have in common? It's all about money and about how to extract that from the pockets of the people. Yes, the control of information is the control of money & power So, heretic ideas -which could eventually challenge businesses- are not allowed. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-29 19:42 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <02be0475-4abf-4365-9f49-32ecdcc971e8@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #384583 |
Thomas Heger wrote: So: what do these subjects have in common? It's all about money and about how to extract that from the pockets of the people. TH Inception of the idea ..... global warming is human induced and humans deserve monetary punishment because they are BAD like an infection. Inception = Meme https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V3-a58Wt2tk Inception = shadows on Plato's cave wall https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s5Xo-6-v0as https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hNMZGSzB7EI
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-29 19:56 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <d054d9ac-4710-4536-8376-912a609475b6@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #384584 |
Inception of the global warming MEME Inception of the idea ..... global warming is human induced and humans deserve monetary punishment because they are BAD like an infection. Inception = Meme https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V3-a58Wt2tk Inception = shadows on Plato's cave wall https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s5Xo-6-v0as https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hNMZGSzB7EI Are we still in the Game ?? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o3f521sUTaE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jDGmZ1VQtsw
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web