Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #384318 > unrolled thread

How to be a "real" scientist.

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity

Contents

  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 1 of 4  [1] 2 3 4  Next page →

#384318 — How to be a "real" scientist.

The secret to being a "real" scientists as you've probably heard from 
the amateurs here like Odd Boinker is to use the "scientific method".

This method that every knows is very simple and anyone can learn it.

First you must find someone with ESP and SUPERPOWERS. These are people 
who are able to know what people believe without them saying anything 
and also are able to use their "powers" to know which laws of nature are 
true and which are just kook nonsense.

Sure guys like Hawking can do this, but closer to home we have our own 
HVAC who can provide this information.

Then the scientific method consists only of listening to what HVAC says 
is true and what is Kook talk and accept and believe it all as gospel 
without question.

Then, when you repeat this wisdom to others less informed than yourself, 
you will be hailed as a "real scientist"!

Yep, it's just that simple!

Having business cards printed with nothing on them helps add 
authenticity to your credentials.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#384324

On Thursday, May 26, 2016 at 12:00:32 PM UTC-7, benj wrote:
> The secret to being a "real" scientists as you've probably heard from 
> the amateurs here like Odd Boinker is to use the "scientific method".
> 
> This method that every knows is very simple and anyone can learn it.
> 
> First you must find someone with ESP and SUPERPOWERS. These are people 
> who are able to know what people believe without them saying anything 
> and also are able to use their "powers" to know which laws of nature are 
> true and which are just kook nonsense.
> 
> Sure guys like Hawking can do this, but closer to home we have our own 
> HVAC who can provide this information.
> 
> Then the scientific method consists only of listening to what HVAC says 
> is true and what is Kook talk and accept and believe it all as gospel 
> without question.
> 
> Then, when you repeat this wisdom to others less informed than yourself, 
> you will be hailed as a "real scientist"!
> 
> Yep, it's just that simple!
> 
> Having business cards printed with nothing on them helps add 
> authenticity to your credentials.

Sour grapes and jealousy.

--
Jan

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#384354

benj wrote:
> 
> The secret to being a "real" scientists as you've probably heard from
> the amateurs here like Odd Boinker is to use the "scientific method".



Albert Einstein did not use the "scientific method", ...why should
anyone else?


Just because it works for some doesn't mean it's working for those
some...the illusion is is that it works.


Bernie Mardoff used a method to bilk billions, it didn't work...but it
worked.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#384371

On 5/26/16 5/26/16   2:00 PM, benj wrote:
> [...]

You obviously don't have a clue....


Tom Roberts

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#384376

Am 26.05.2016 21:00, schrieb benj:
> The secret to being a "real" scientists as you've probably heard from
> the amateurs here like Odd Boinker is to use the "scientific method".
>
> This method that every knows is very simple and anyone can learn it.
>
> First you must find someone with ESP and SUPERPOWERS. These are people
> who are able to know what people believe without them saying anything
> and also are able to use their "powers" to know which laws of nature are
> true and which are just kook nonsense.
>
> Sure guys like Hawking can do this, but closer to home we have our own
> HVAC who can provide this information.
>
> Then the scientific method consists only of listening to what HVAC says
> is true and what is Kook talk and accept and believe it all as gospel
> without question.
>
> Then, when you repeat this wisdom to others less informed than yourself,
> you will be hailed as a "real scientist"!
>
> Yep, it's just that simple!
>
> Having business cards printed with nothing on them helps add
> authenticity to your credentials.

Actually the 'scientific method' works a little different.

What you describe is 'Voodoo Academics' (Hoghwarts College):

There you have high priests, which wear only bones, feathers and a 
bow-tie and repeatedly write their magic prayers on large black pieces 
of plywood.

And all the wanna-be priests sit in rank and files and watch and listen, 
but doze in, after a few repetitions through the secrecy of a high 
pitched tone, created by that magic stone, the high-priest is using.

But occasionally someone awakes and shouts out out 'Heureka!' (and doze 
in again).

With trained hypnotic voice the high-priest transfers his secret wisdom 
to his chosen apprentices, who stand up asleep and follow their master 
to his private sanctum.

 From these selected few the best are chosen to become assistant 
sorcerers. After subsequent initiation into the secret art of Voodoo 
science, the high-priests helpers are allowed to carry the holy items, 
like briefcase and lunchbox, into the auditorium. A privilege which is 
jealously observed by non-selected.

If the apprentice is then trained enough to repeat the magic rituals 
without hesitation, he gets graduated to a low-rank-priest and can, 
after a short time, have own assistent-apprentices.

To prove to be worthy for promotion, he had to repeat his masters wisdom 
faultlessly and often and in all possible situations. He has also the 
duty to through magic thunder on all followers of rival sorcerers.

If that is also managed successfully, the former assistant gets 
initiated into the inner sect and promoted to a high priest himself.

Through the magic of such a splendid organisation it is possible to 
maintain continuity of wisdom undisturbed over the ages.

TH

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#384378

On 05/27/2016 01:11 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 26.05.2016 21:00, schrieb benj:
>> The secret to being a "real" scientists as you've probably heard from
>> the amateurs here like Odd Boinker is to use the "scientific method".
>>
>> This method that every knows is very simple and anyone can learn it.
>>
>> First you must find someone with ESP and SUPERPOWERS. These are people
>> who are able to know what people believe without them saying anything
>> and also are able to use their "powers" to know which laws of nature are
>> true and which are just kook nonsense.
>>
>> Sure guys like Hawking can do this, but closer to home we have our own
>> HVAC who can provide this information.
>>
>> Then the scientific method consists only of listening to what HVAC says
>> is true and what is Kook talk and accept and believe it all as gospel
>> without question.
>>
>> Then, when you repeat this wisdom to others less informed than yourself,
>> you will be hailed as a "real scientist"!
>>
>> Yep, it's just that simple!
>>
>> Having business cards printed with nothing on them helps add
>> authenticity to your credentials.
>
> Actually the 'scientific method' works a little different.
>
> What you describe is 'Voodoo Academics' (Hoghwarts College):
>
> There you have high priests, which wear only bones, feathers and a
> bow-tie and repeatedly write their magic prayers on large black pieces
> of plywood.
>
> And all the wanna-be priests sit in rank and files and watch and listen,
> but doze in, after a few repetitions through the secrecy of a high
> pitched tone, created by that magic stone, the high-priest is using.
>
> But occasionally someone awakes and shouts out out 'Heureka!' (and doze
> in again).
>
> With trained hypnotic voice the high-priest transfers his secret wisdom
> to his chosen apprentices, who stand up asleep and follow their master
> to his private sanctum.
>
>  From these selected few the best are chosen to become assistant
> sorcerers. After subsequent initiation into the secret art of Voodoo
> science, the high-priests helpers are allowed to carry the holy items,
> like briefcase and lunchbox, into the auditorium. A privilege which is
> jealously observed by non-selected.
>
> If the apprentice is then trained enough to repeat the magic rituals
> without hesitation, he gets graduated to a low-rank-priest and can,
> after a short time, have own assistent-apprentices.
>
> To prove to be worthy for promotion, he had to repeat his masters wisdom
> faultlessly and often and in all possible situations. He has also the
> duty to through magic thunder on all followers of rival sorcerers.
>
> If that is also managed successfully, the former assistant gets
> initiated into the inner sect and promoted to a high priest himself.
>
> Through the magic of such a splendid organisation it is possible to
> maintain continuity of wisdom undisturbed over the ages.
>
> TH

Pretty much. 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!)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#384481

Am 27.05.2016 08:28, schrieb benj:

>>> The secret to being a "real" scientists as you've probably heard from
>>> the amateurs here like Odd Boinker is to use the "scientific method".
>>>
>>> This method that every knows is very simple and anyone can learn it.
>>>
>>> First you must find someone with ESP and SUPERPOWERS. These are people
>>> who are able to know what people believe without them saying anything
>>> and also are able to use their "powers" to know which laws of nature are
>>> true and which are just kook nonsense.
>>>
>>> Sure guys like Hawking can do this, but closer to home we have our own
>>> HVAC who can provide this information.
>>>
>>> Then the scientific method consists only of listening to what HVAC says
>>> is true and what is Kook talk and accept and believe it all as gospel
>>> without question.
>>>
>>> Then, when you repeat this wisdom to others less informed than yourself,
>>> you will be hailed as a "real scientist"!
>>>
>>> Yep, it's just that simple!
>>>
>>> Having business cards printed with nothing on them helps add
>>> authenticity to your credentials.
>>
>> Actually the 'scientific method' works a little different.
>>
>> What you describe is 'Voodoo Academics' (Hoghwarts College):
>>
>> There you have high priests, which wear only bones, feathers and a
>> bow-tie and repeatedly write their magic prayers on large black pieces
>> of plywood.
>>
>> And all the wanna-be priests sit in rank and files and watch and listen,
>> but doze in, after a few repetitions through the secrecy of a high
>> pitched tone, created by that magic stone, the high-priest is using.
>>
>> But occasionally someone awakes and shouts out out 'Heureka!' (and doze
>> in again).
>>
>> With trained hypnotic voice the high-priest transfers his secret wisdom
>> to his chosen apprentices, who stand up asleep and follow their master
>> to his private sanctum.
>>
>> From these selected few the best are chosen to become assistant
>> sorcerers. After subsequent initiation into the secret art of Voodoo
>> science, the high-priests helpers are allowed to carry the holy items,
>> like briefcase and lunchbox, into the auditorium. A privilege which is
>> jealously observed by non-selected.
>>
>> If the apprentice is then trained enough to repeat the magic rituals
>> without hesitation, he gets graduated to a low-rank-priest and can,
>> after a short time, have own assistent-apprentices.
>>
>> To prove to be worthy for promotion, he had to repeat his masters wisdom
>> faultlessly and often and in all possible situations. He has also the
>> duty to through magic thunder on all followers of rival sorcerers.
>>
>> If that is also managed successfully, the former assistant gets
>> initiated into the inner sect and promoted to a high priest himself.
>>
>> Through the magic of such a splendid organisation it is possible to
>> maintain continuity of wisdom undisturbed over the ages.
>>
>> TH
>
> Pretty much. 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).

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.

But the general public can (and occasionally will) believe outsiders 
more, if their story is convincing and they find ways, to distribute 
their ideas.

This does not happen very often, but it does sometimes.

In these rare cases the 'establishment' finds their privileged position 
challenged, since the spot of interest had moved to where they aren't 
and what they do not control.

Such rare 'scientific revolutions' can cause kind of landslide in the 
establishment and are among their least desirable developments (besides 
'end of the world' - or similar).


TH

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#384499

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

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#384511

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.



The "inside" are worthless hypocrites..

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#384524

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

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#384526

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

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#384530

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

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#384644

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.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#384660

On 05/31/2016 09:01 AM, 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.

Well, yeah, but you are going to have a hard time making that case today 
in the post-Einstein paradigm!  Today the quality of a "scientist" is 
judged by the complexity and obscurity of his mathematics. The more 
incomprehensible they are, the "greater" is the scientist thought to be.

Thus, today Maxwell is regarded as science God, and all of the 20th 
century electromagnetic technology is just regarded as engineering and 
manufacturing. The days when experimental discovery were valued with say 
Faraday or Tesla are gone and replaced with math fantasy. 
Experimentalists like Tesla have been censored from all textbooks and 
still widely ridiculed as a "kook" to be ignored.

This is how far things have shifted from experimental reality to 
mathematical fantasies!

Just look at CERN. The massive and complex apparatus is phenomenal. But 
in today's world it's just regarded as "engineering". All the 
"excitement" is over some computer bump believed to validate Higgs 
mathematics.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#384700

Am 31.05.2016 18:06, schrieb benj:

>>
>> 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.
>
> Well, yeah, but you are going to have a hard time making that case today
> in the post-Einstein paradigm! Today the quality of a "scientist" is
> judged by the complexity and obscurity of his mathematics. The more
> incomprehensible they are, the "greater" is the scientist thought to be.
>
> Thus, today Maxwell is regarded as science God, and all of the 20th
> century electromagnetic technology is just regarded as engineering and
> manufacturing. The days when experimental discovery were valued with say
> Faraday or Tesla are gone and replaced with math fantasy.
> Experimentalists like Tesla have been censored from all textbooks and
> still widely ridiculed as a "kook" to be ignored.
>


The was the young German Martin Grusenick, who made an experiment in the 
fashion of Michelson Morley, but vertical.

He found significant fringe shift, if the interferometer was rotated 
over a vertical plain. These results were declared invalid, because they 
do not fit into what is believed to be true.

Another completely ignored experimenter is John Hutchison, who made 
interesting experiments with high voltages and high frequencies.

Then we have a large 'community', which have build something like 'free 
energy devices', what is apparently not allowed to exist.

Another interesting video I have seen recently was about 'structured 
water', what is yet another 'forbidden subject'.

Or how about growing Earth and (for instance) the nice videos of Neal Adams?

And what do you think about Viktor Schauberger? He build devices to 
transport logs, that seem to violate the laws of nature.

There have been several more, like the guy who build coral castle , 
Townsend Brown, Wilhelm Reich or Royal Rife.

They have all in common, that they didn't find the attention their 
experiment deserved.

TH

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#384909

On 5/31/16 5/31/16 - 4:54 PM, Thomas Heger wrote:
> The was the young German Martin Grusenick, who made an experiment in the fashion
> of Michelson Morley, but vertical.
>
> He found significant fringe shift, if the interferometer was rotated over a
> vertical plain. These results were declared invalid, because they do not fit
> into what is believed to be true.

Not true. The results are invalid because his interferometer is not nearly rigid 
enough to show what he was trying to show. Indeed NO POSSIBLE INTERFEROMETER 
could be rigid enough to rotate in a vertical plane and keep the distances 
between its mirrors constant to a fraction of a wavelength. The strains in real 
materials due to earth's gravity are larger than that.


> Another completely ignored experimenter is John Hutchison, who made interesting
> experiments with high voltages and high frequencies.
> Then we have a large 'community', which have build something like 'free energy
> devices', what is apparently not allowed to exist.

You mean you have a community of fraudsters who are completely unable to 
demonstrate the validity of their "results" to competent people.


> [... more examples showing INCREDIBLE bias and lack of understanding of
>  what science actually is]


Tom Roberts

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#385055

Am 03.06.2016 18:14, schrieb Tom Roberts:

>> The was the young German Martin Grusenick, who made an experiment in
>> the fashion
>> of Michelson Morley, but vertical.
>>
>> He found significant fringe shift, if the interferometer was rotated
>> over a
>> vertical plain. These results were declared invalid, because they do
>> not fit
>> into what is believed to be true.
>
> Not true. The results are invalid because his interferometer is not
> nearly rigid enough to show what he was trying to show. Indeed NO
> POSSIBLE INTERFEROMETER could be rigid enough to rotate in a vertical
> plane and keep the distances between its mirrors constant to a fraction
> of a wavelength. The strains in real materials due to earth's gravity
> are larger than that.


The effect does not necessarily stem from changes of the distance of the 
mirrors.

I have an entirely different explanation. It is more similar to the 
experiments at the Harvard towers.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pound%E2%80%93Rebka_experiment

But I don't want to explain the effect as caused by gravity, but gravity 
as caused by the effect.

Easiest way to explain the concept is to assume, that time would behave 
like a vector, which points towards the centre of the Earth.

Since the surface of planet Earth is curved, these vectors have an 
angle, hence a circle at the bottom is smaller than a circle somewhere 
above.

These 'circles' represent frequency, where smaller radius means higher 
frequency.

These circles are, what a horizontal interferometer would measure, while 
the vertical interferometer would measure the angle between the verticals.
>
>> Another completely ignored experimenter is John Hutchison, who made
>> interesting
>> experiments with high voltages and high frequencies.
>> Then we have a large 'community', which have build something like
>> 'free energy
>> devices', what is apparently not allowed to exist.
>
> You mean you have a community of fraudsters who are completely unable to
> demonstrate the validity of their "results" to competent people.


As a matter of fact, I haven't built any of these devices and do not 
belong to such a community.

But I have heard about it and have seen videos on YouTube.

Sure, without building it yourself  you could not be certain, whether or 
not such devices work (or not).

But unfortunately my resources are limited and till now I wasn't able to 
build  any of these machines.

TH

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#384668

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

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#384673

Użytkownik "JanPB"  napisał w wiadomości grup 
dyskusyjnych:63780676-2d2a-449f-803c-439b24fa7a2e@googlegroups.com...

|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:

A standard screams of an insane fanatic moron. And, when talking about
mathematics, it's always worthy reminding that your idiot guru has
rejected the oldest and one of most important parts of it.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#384707

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. Bean counters insist on thinking and having opinions. Therein is the problem. Their mathematics is fine provided they know their place in the back seat not driving the car. 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. Why would anyone in their right mind think they can do physics if they are not rolling their sleeves actually doing physics?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 4  [1] 2 3 4  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity

csiph-web