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

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #455854 > unrolled thread

The #1 DUMBEST Belief in Physics

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

Contents

  The #1 DUMBEST Belief in Physics benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-04-13 15:03 -0400
    The #1 DUMBEST Belief in Physics "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-04-13 12:08 -0700
    Re: The #1 DUMBEST Belief in Physics JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-04-13 12:09 -0700
      Re: The #1 DUMBEST Belief in Physics "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-04-13 12:24 -0700
        Re: The #1 DUMBEST Belief in Physics "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-04-13 13:15 -0700
          Re: The #1 DUMBEST Belief in Physics "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-04-13 13:19 -0700
      Re: The #1 DUMBEST Belief in Physics benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-04-13 19:21 -0400
        Re: The #1 DUMBEST Belief in Physics JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-04-13 16:24 -0700
          Re: The #1 DUMBEST Belief in Physics Rusty Willard <wuut@yaiw.wu> - 2018-04-14 14:06 +0000
            Re: The #1 DUMBEST Belief in Physics "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-04-14 11:09 -0700
            Re: The #1 DUMBEST Belief in Physics benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-04-14 14:19 -0400
        Re: The #1 DUMBEST Belief in Physics Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2018-04-21 16:56 +0200
          Re: The #1 DUMBEST Belief in Physics benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-04-21 13:43 -0400
            Re: The #1 DUMBEST Belief in Physics "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-04-21 11:25 -0700
            Re: The #1 DUMBEST Belief in Physics Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-04-21 19:43 -0500
              Re: The #1 DUMBEST Belief in Physics Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2018-04-22 17:40 +0200
                Re: The #1 DUMBEST Belief in Physics "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-04-22 09:07 -0700
                Re: The #1 DUMBEST Belief in Physics Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-04-23 10:47 -0500
                  Re: The #1 DUMBEST Belief in Physics Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2018-04-26 20:12 +0200
                    Re: The #1 DUMBEST Belief in Physics JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-04-26 12:57 -0700
                      Re: The #1 DUMBEST Belief in Physics Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-04-26 15:05 -0700
                      Re: The #1 DUMBEST Belief in Physics Jim Emile <leuu@wwjw.ce> - 2018-04-27 20:42 +0000
                        Re: The #1 DUMBEST Belief in Physics JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-04-27 13:57 -0700
                          Re: The #1 DUMBEST Belief in Physics Erin Koff <umhn@cniwwe.im> - 2018-04-27 21:08 +0000
                            Re: The #1 DUMBEST Belief in Physics JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-04-27 16:26 -0700
                              Re: The #1 DUMBEST Belief in Physics Erin Koff <umhn@cniwwe.im> - 2018-04-28 11:00 +0000
    Re: The #1 DUMBEST Belief in Physics Rusty Willard <wuut@yaiw.wu> - 2018-04-13 19:22 +0000
      Re: The #1 DUMBEST Belief in Physics benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-04-13 19:24 -0400
        Re: The #1 DUMBEST Belief in Physics Libor P Striz <poutnik@privacy.net> - 2018-04-14 02:44 +0200
        Re: The #1 DUMBEST Belief in Physics Rusty Willard <wuut@yaiw.wu> - 2018-04-14 10:20 +0000
          Re: The #1 DUMBEST Belief in Physics Libor P Striz <poutnik@privacy.net> - 2018-04-14 13:32 +0200
            Re: The #1 DUMBEST Belief in Physics Rusty Willard <wuut@yaiw.wu> - 2018-04-14 13:53 +0000
            Re: The #1 DUMBEST Belief in Physics benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-04-14 14:14 -0400
          Re: The #1 DUMBEST Belief in Physics benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-04-14 14:10 -0400
            Re: The #1 DUMBEST Belief in Physics "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-04-14 11:26 -0700
            Re: The #1 DUMBEST Belief in Physics "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-04-14 11:30 -0700
              Re: The #1 DUMBEST Belief in Physics "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-04-14 11:46 -0700
                Re: The #1 DUMBEST Belief in Physics "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-04-14 11:55 -0700
                  Re: The #1 DUMBEST Belief in Physics "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-04-14 12:08 -0700
    Re: The #1 DUMBEST Belief in Physics Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2018-04-14 11:59 +1000
      Re: The #1 DUMBEST Belief in Physics "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-04-13 19:02 -0700
        Re: The #1 DUMBEST Belief in Physics JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-04-13 20:24 -0700
    Re: The #1 DUMBEST Belief in Physics Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-04-13 22:51 -0500
      Re: The #1 DUMBEST Belief in Physics Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2018-04-17 17:26 -0700
    The #1 DUMBEST Belief in Physics "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-04-13 21:17 -0700
      The #1 DUMBEST Belief in Physics "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-04-13 21:21 -0700
    Re: The #1 DUMBEST Belief in Physics Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2018-04-14 21:00 +0200
      Re: The #1 DUMBEST Belief in Physics "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-04-14 12:15 -0700
      Re: The #1 DUMBEST Belief in Physics benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-04-14 15:28 -0400
        Re: The #1 DUMBEST Belief in Physics "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-04-14 12:50 -0700
          Re: The #1 DUMBEST Belief in Physics "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-04-14 13:05 -0700
        Re: The #1 DUMBEST Belief in Physics Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2018-04-14 22:07 +0200
    Re: The #1 DUMBEST Belief in Physics Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-05-16 06:14 +0100
      Re: The #1 DUMBEST Belief in Physics "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2018-05-16 13:50 +0200
        Re: The #1 DUMBEST Belief in Physics Ursula Vankeuren <aln@divweo.id> - 2018-05-16 19:31 +0000
        Re: The #1 DUMBEST Belief in Physics Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2018-05-16 12:48 -0700
        Re: The #1 DUMBEST Belief in Physics mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-05-16 21:10 -0700
          Re: The #1 DUMBEST Belief in Physics Steve BH <sbharris@gmail.com> - 2018-05-16 21:30 -0700
            Re: The #1 DUMBEST Belief in Physics mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-05-16 21:56 -0700
            Re: The #1 DUMBEST Belief in Physics Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-05-18 10:33 -0500
              Re: The #1 DUMBEST Belief in Physics Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2018-05-18 21:10 +0200
              Re: The #1 DUMBEST Belief in Physics mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-05-20 00:14 -0700
    Re: The #1 DUMBEST Belief in Physics paul jark <jarkpaulsmith@gmail.com> - 2018-05-19 06:21 -0700

Page 3 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4  Next page →

#455888

Sylvia Else wrote 

On 14/04/2018 5:03 AM, benj wrote: 
> So what is the number 1 dumbest belief in physics? 
> 
> That has to be the view of the aether deniers. 
> 
> Their view is that electomagnetic waves do not need a medium. To sum up 
> their religion, it is that light, heat, radio etc. are all produced by 
> "probability waves in nothing at all"! 

You're conflating the phenomenon itself with the mathematics used to 
describe it. The probability wave tells us the likelihood of finding a 
particle. It is not suggested that the probability wave exists in the 
real world. 

Sylvia. 

Sylvia Else ..... Vice Obfuscator in Chief

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

#455894

On Friday, April 13, 2018 at 7:02:08 PM UTC-7, David (Kronos Prime) Fuller wrote:
> Sylvia Else wrote 
> 
> On 14/04/2018 5:03 AM, benj wrote: 
> > So what is the number 1 dumbest belief in physics? 
> > 
> > That has to be the view of the aether deniers. 
> > 
> > Their view is that electomagnetic waves do not need a medium. To sum up 
> > their religion, it is that light, heat, radio etc. are all produced by 
> > "probability waves in nothing at all"! 
> 
> You're conflating the phenomenon itself with the mathematics used to 
> describe it. The probability wave tells us the likelihood of finding a 
> particle. It is not suggested that the probability wave exists in the 
> real world. 
> 
> Sylvia. 
> 
> Sylvia Else ..... Vice Obfuscator in Chief

This is not a response with a content.

--
Jan

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

#455897

On 4/13/18 2:03 PM, benj wrote:
> Their view is that electomagnetic waves do not need a medium.

In our best model of electromagnetic waves, classical electrodynamics, 
no medium is required -- EM waves can propagate through vacuum.

But that is an APPROXIMATION. A better theory is that all of 
electromagnetism is composed of quantum objects called photons. They, 
too, need no medium to propagate.

> To sum up 
> their religion, it is that light, heat, radio etc. are all produced by 
> "probability waves in nothing at all"!

Probability CLEARLY needs no medium.

> the 
> "nothing" of space can have properties.

Hmmm. What "medium" is required for bullets to propagate? If none is 
needed for them, then similarly none is needed for photons to propagate. 
Ditto for whatever "properties" you think space must have.

	The quantum field theories we use to model electrodynamics
	and particle physics are fiber bundles with space-time as
	the base manifold. This is not "properties of space" as
	you fantasize, but rather a MUCH more complicated world
	than simply space (or rather, spacetime).

The properties you mistakenly think apply to space (or spacetime), 
really apply to the fibers. Where they belong.

> Waves by definition are stresses in SOMETHING 
> that can propagate outward from one point to another.

Not to a physicist. To physicists, waves are solutions of some wave 
equation. Wave equations are characterized by being elliptic 
partial-differential equations with second-order spatial and temporal 
derivatives. That specific structure gives such waves the ability to 
self-propagate. Self-propagation is the distinguishing characteristic of 
waves, not "stresses is something".

	In those QFTs, the wave equation applies to the fibers,
	not to the base manifold (spacetime).

> [... further diatribe based on serious misconceptions]

Tom Roberts

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

#456267

On Friday, April 13, 2018 at 8:51:37 PM UTC-7, tjrob137 wrote:
> On 4/13/18 2:03 PM, benj wrote:

> > Their view is that electomagnetic waves do not need a medium.
> 
> [... further diatribe based on serious misconceptions]

Yes, denying the existence of the Aether got to be the dumbest things the self-styled physicists can do.  After all, there is not a single experiment that says so.  <shrug>

Also, the null results of the MMX spawns finite number of transforms which all of them says the Aether must exist.  Needless to say that the Lorentz transform is not among them, the observed time dilation for the Lorentz transform is dependent on relative speed, but Larmor’s transform is based on absolute speeds.  <shrug>

Oh, how can we not forget about the solutions to the set of differential equations known as the field equations.  They also spawn infinite solutions, and not all of them exhibit black holes.  Yet, these idiots manage to claim the Schwarzschild metric as the truly, rightful solution.  The mathematics of these differential equations do not prefer the Schwarzschild metric by any means.  <shrug>

SR and GR are manmade laws of physics from the ground up.  It is a fvcking joke.  <shrug>

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

#455899

((((1 kg * G) / (c^2)) / (m / kg)) / (m^3)) * ((c^5) / (hbar * (G^2))) * (planck length^2) = 1 kg^2 / m^4


Classical Friedmann Density
(((0.5 kg * G) / (c^2)) / (m / kg)) / (m^3) = 3.71295774e-28 kg / m^3

Planck Density 
(c^5) / (hbar * (G^2)) = 5.15518844e+96 kg / m^3


Time Dilation * Length contraction 

(Plank Length)^2

LUMINIFEROUS AETHER MEDIUM!!!!!!!

 

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

#455900

((((1 kg * G) / (c^2)) / (m / kg)) / (m^3)) * ((c^5) / (hbar * (G^2))) * (planck length^2) = 1 kg^2 / m^4 


Classical Friedmann Density 
(((0.5 kg * G) / (c^2)) / (m / kg)) / (m^3) = 3.71295774e-28 kg / m^3 

Planck Density 
(c^5) / (hbar * (G^2)) = 5.15518844e+96 kg / m^3 


Time Dilation * Length contraction 

(Plank Length)^2 

LUMINIFEROUS AETHER MEDIUM!!!!!!! 



((13.88805 billion light years) * planck length * c * pi) / 2 = 0.999999935 m^3 / s

Quantum LUMINIFEROUS AETHER MEDIUM!!!!!!!!!!!

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

#455951

Am 13.04.2018 um 21:03 schrieb benj:
> So what is the number 1 dumbest belief in physics?
>
> That has to be the view of the aether deniers.
>
> Their view is that electomagnetic waves do not need a medium. To sum up
> their religion, it is that light, heat, radio etc. are all produced by
> "probability waves in nothing at all"! By denying aether they make the
> bold assertion that nothing at all can have properties. That the
> "nothing" of space can have properties. When it comes to electromagnetic
> phenomena, they suggest that behavior can exist without anything which
> possesses the behavior. It's clearly an insane view.
>
> Take the case of waves. Waves by definition are stresses in SOMETHING
> that can propagate outward from one point to another. Can one stress
> "nothing at all"? The question makes no sense at all. Hence if radio
> energy is waves then it is stresses of some kind in space that propagate
> outward. If space is "nothing at all" then WHAT is being stressed?
>
> The whole aether denier theory has sunk into a morass where only blind
> religious belief can save it from the mental hospital. It clearly is NOT
> science, so what is it doing there?


Actually you can create something from nothing. This is called 'pair 
production'.

If you create two worlds and populate each one with one of the twins, 
each world would look like ours.

Now you certainly say: that is not possible.

But actually it is. If you have two anti-symmetric rotations, which add 
together to nothing, than one could move - say - down and the other up.

In spacetime view you only need two directions of time: one forward and 
one backwards (which is 'down' in the view of relativity).

Both these world have internally positive directions of time, only in 
respect to the other they are both negative.

So the worst mistake in physics is not the denial of 'aether', but the 
assumption of a universal ('external') time.

If you would give that up, you could find much better models.

TH



btw: my own model you find here

https://docs.google.com/present/view?id=dd8jz2tx_3gfzvqgd6

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

#455953

In spacetime view you only need two directions of time: one forward and 
one backwards (which is 'down' in the view of relativity). 

Both these world have internally positive directions of time, only in 
respect to the other they are both negative. 

So the worst mistake in physics is not the denial of 'aether', but the 
assumption of a universal ('external') time. 

If you would give that up, you could find much better models. 

TH 

Yes.... exactly so

(1 / (((0.5 planck length)^3) / ((0.5 planck length) / c))) / (299792458 kg) = 1.70377849e+53 m^-3 kg^-1 s

1.70377849e+53 = Mass universe 

http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Bekenstein-Hawking_entropy

https://photos.app.goo.gl/C49aNNCBAEHYd2Ng1

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

#455955

On 4/14/2018 3:00 PM, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 13.04.2018 um 21:03 schrieb benj:
>> So what is the number 1 dumbest belief in physics?
>>
>> That has to be the view of the aether deniers.
>>
>> Their view is that electomagnetic waves do not need a medium. To sum up
>> their religion, it is that light, heat, radio etc. are all produced by
>> "probability waves in nothing at all"! By denying aether they make the
>> bold assertion that nothing at all can have properties. That the
>> "nothing" of space can have properties. When it comes to electromagnetic
>> phenomena, they suggest that behavior can exist without anything which
>> possesses the behavior. It's clearly an insane view.
>>
>> Take the case of waves. Waves by definition are stresses in SOMETHING
>> that can propagate outward from one point to another. Can one stress
>> "nothing at all"? The question makes no sense at all. Hence if radio
>> energy is waves then it is stresses of some kind in space that propagate
>> outward. If space is "nothing at all" then WHAT is being stressed?
>>
>> The whole aether denier theory has sunk into a morass where only blind
>> religious belief can save it from the mental hospital. It clearly is NOT
>> science, so what is it doing there?
> 
> 
> Actually you can create something from nothing. This is called 'pair 
> production'.
> 
> If you create two worlds and populate each one with one of the twins, 
> each world would look like ours.
> 
> Now you certainly say: that is not possible.
> 
> But actually it is. If you have two anti-symmetric rotations, which add 
> together to nothing, than one could move - say - down and the other up.
> 
> In spacetime view you only need two directions of time: one forward and 
> one backwards (which is 'down' in the view of relativity).
> 
> Both these world have internally positive directions of time, only in 
> respect to the other they are both negative.
> 
> So the worst mistake in physics is not the denial of 'aether', but the 
> assumption of a universal ('external') time.
> 
> If you would give that up, you could find much better models.
> 
> TH

Time is a separate problem. Pair production isn't exactly something from 
nothing. pairs do not spontaneously arise out of "nothing" like the BB 
theory. of course you do end up with matter and antimatter and charge of 
both positive and negative types. But what does that mean? Nobody knows 
what charge is. The rule is charge is conserved. Can't be created from 
nothing unless you create equal and opposite amounts. But are you 
"creating" charge? Or are the charges always there but just invisible 
because they cancel each other out? It's a key question.


> btw: my own model you find here
> 
> https://docs.google.com/present/view?id=dd8jz2tx_3gfzvqgd6

I have seen this before very interesting, only if you include a few more 
dimensioins in your spacetime" you'd be much closer to a TOE.

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

#455957

(((1.70377849e+53 (m^3) (kg^(-1)) (s^(-2))) / (1 (m^2))) * (Planck length^2)) * ((2^5) * (5^6) * 3) = 6.67590032e-11 m^3 kg^-1 s^-2

G*1.00027274 = 6.67590029e-11

((2^5) * (5^6) * 3)  = 1500000

((2^5) * (5^6) * 3) = Fibonacci 

= https://photos.app.goo.gl/eDDlMMKsFjC5Uz0F2

= https://photos.app.goo.gl/FlS1ndVxqSGhcO5D2

= https://photos.app.goo.gl/F1rmnVv8YsXStMQD2

= Golden Gnomon

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_triangle_(mathematics)#Golden_gnomon


((2^5) * (5^6) * 3)*G*10^4 = 1.001112

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

#455960

(18 degrees * phi * (pi^2)) / 5 = 1.00338419 rad

https://photos.app.goo.gl/F1rmnVv8YsXStMQD2

https://photos.app.goo.gl/eDDlMMKsFjC5Uz0F2

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

#455961

Am 14.04.2018 um 21:28 schrieb benj:
> On 4/14/2018 3:00 PM, Thomas Heger wrote:
>> Am 13.04.2018 um 21:03 schrieb benj:
>>> So what is the number 1 dumbest belief in physics?
>>>
>>> That has to be the view of the aether deniers.
>>>
>>> Their view is that electomagnetic waves do not need a medium. To sum up
>>> their religion, it is that light, heat, radio etc. are all produced by
>>> "probability waves in nothing at all"! By denying aether they make the
>>> bold assertion that nothing at all can have properties. That the
>>> "nothing" of space can have properties. When it comes to electromagnetic
>>> phenomena, they suggest that behavior can exist without anything which
>>> possesses the behavior. It's clearly an insane view.
>>>
>>> Take the case of waves. Waves by definition are stresses in SOMETHING
>>> that can propagate outward from one point to another. Can one stress
>>> "nothing at all"? The question makes no sense at all. Hence if radio
>>> energy is waves then it is stresses of some kind in space that propagate
>>> outward. If space is "nothing at all" then WHAT is being stressed?
>>>
>>> The whole aether denier theory has sunk into a morass where only blind
>>> religious belief can save it from the mental hospital. It clearly is NOT
>>> science, so what is it doing there?
>>
>>
>> Actually you can create something from nothing. This is called 'pair
>> production'.
>>
>> If you create two worlds and populate each one with one of the twins,
>> each world would look like ours.
>>
>> Now you certainly say: that is not possible.
>>
>> But actually it is. If you have two anti-symmetric rotations, which
>> add together to nothing, than one could move - say - down and the
>> other up.
>>
>> In spacetime view you only need two directions of time: one forward
>> and one backwards (which is 'down' in the view of relativity).
>>
>> Both these world have internally positive directions of time, only in
>> respect to the other they are both negative.
>>
>> So the worst mistake in physics is not the denial of 'aether', but the
>> assumption of a universal ('external') time.
>>
>> If you would give that up, you could find much better models.
>>
>> TH
>
> Time is a separate problem. Pair production isn't exactly something from
> nothing. pairs do not spontaneously arise out of "nothing" like the BB
> theory. of course you do end up with matter and antimatter and charge of
> both positive and negative types. But what does that mean? Nobody knows
> what charge is. The rule is charge is conserved. Can't be created from
> nothing unless you create equal and opposite amounts. But are you
> "creating" charge? Or are the charges always there but just invisible
> because they cancel each other out? It's a key question.
>
>
>> btw: my own model you find here
>>
>> https://docs.google.com/present/view?id=dd8jz2tx_3gfzvqgd6
>
> I have seen this before very interesting, only if you include a few more
> dimensioins in your spacetime" you'd be much closer to a TOE.


The paper is already ten years old and not quite, what I would write 
today. Now I have learned a lot of new things and certainly can improve 
this idea.

But I have always suffered from the problem to be just one single person 
and having no support whatsoever. This made it a little annoying to work 
on a subject, that (apparently) nobody wants.

Complex four vectors seem to be the key to the question. Unfortunately 
the are not that easy to use. So I had mainly 'painted' the relations I 
assume important.

But certainly I'll be able soon to program something in 'Euler' or in 
'Lazarus', which could create something more mathematical than my pictures.


TH

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

#458040

On 13/04/2018 20:03, benj wrote:
> So what is the number 1 dumbest belief in physics?


"Time dilation explains why two working clocks will report different 
times after different accelerations. For example, at the ISS time goes 
slower, lagging 0.007 seconds behind for every six months." Wikipedia

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

#458048

Den 16.05.2018 07.14, skrev Keith Stein:
> On 13/04/2018 20:03, benj wrote:
>> So what is the number 1 dumbest belief in physics?
> 
> 
> "Time dilation explains why two working clocks will report different 
> times after different accelerations. For example, at the ISS time goes 
> slower, lagging 0.007 seconds behind for every six months." Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
The dumbest belief is that what is experimentally proved is false.

-- 
Paul

https://paulba.no/

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

#458087

Paul B. Andersen wrote:

> Den 16.05.2018 07.14, skrev Keith Stein:
>> On 13/04/2018 20:03, benj wrote:
>>> So what is the number 1 dumbest belief in physics?
>>  
>> "Time dilation explains why two working clocks will report different
>> times after different accelerations. For example, at the ISS time goes
>> slower, lagging 0.007 seconds behind for every six months." Wikipedia
> 
> The dumbest belief is that what is experimentally proved is false.

You neglect what a proof is made of. Nothing but a correlation. Hence you 
decide to believe a correlation.

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

#458090

On Wednesday, May 16, 2018 at 4:50:50 AM UTC-7, Paul B. Andersen wrote:

> The dumbest belief is that what is experimentally proved is false.

Yes, just like the null results of the MMX banishing the Aether.  Yet, the null results of the MMX say the longitudinal direction of any object in absolute motion must contract physically.  And the dumbest thing done by the self-styled physicists is to toss out the null results of the MMX.  <shrug>

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

#458122

On Wednesday, 16 May 2018 13:50:50 UTC+2, Paul B. Andersen  wrote:
> Den 16.05.2018 07.14, skrev Keith Stein:
> > On 13/04/2018 20:03, benj wrote:
> >> So what is the number 1 dumbest belief in physics?
> > 
> > 
> > "Time dilation explains why two working clocks will report different 
> > times after different accelerations. For example, at the ISS time goes 
> > slower, lagging 0.007 seconds behind for every six months." Wikipedia
> > 
> > 
> > 
> The dumbest belief is that what is experimentally proved is false.

Even your follow idiots, poor idiot,  could tell you that experiments 
can prove nothing.

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

#458126

On Wednesday, May 16, 2018 at 9:10:56 PM UTC-7, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote:
> On Wednesday, 16 May 2018 13:50:50 UTC+2, Paul B. Andersen  wrote:
> > Den 16.05.2018 07.14, skrev Keith Stein:
> > > On 13/04/2018 20:03, benj wrote:
> > >> So what is the number 1 dumbest belief in physics?
> > > 
> > > 
> > > "Time dilation explains why two working clocks will report different 
> > > times after different accelerations. For example, at the ISS time goes 
> > > slower, lagging 0.007 seconds behind for every six months." Wikipedia
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > The dumbest belief is that what is experimentally proved is false.
> 
> Even your follow idiots, poor idiot,  could tell you that experiments 
> can prove nothing.


And yet if science holds no truth, the success of technology is a miracle. You cannot explain how the bridges and commercial jet airliners stay up, and the cell phones continue to work.

I'm really tired of people on the internet saying science can prove nothing. It obviously proved enough to get a moron on the internet.

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

#458127

On Thursday, 17 May 2018 06:30:52 UTC+2, Steve BH  wrote:
> On Wednesday, May 16, 2018 at 9:10:56 PM UTC-7, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote:
> > On Wednesday, 16 May 2018 13:50:50 UTC+2, Paul B. Andersen  wrote:
> > > Den 16.05.2018 07.14, skrev Keith Stein:
> > > > On 13/04/2018 20:03, benj wrote:
> > > >> So what is the number 1 dumbest belief in physics?
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > "Time dilation explains why two working clocks will report different 
> > > > times after different accelerations. For example, at the ISS time goes 
> > > > slower, lagging 0.007 seconds behind for every six months." Wikipedia
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > The dumbest belief is that what is experimentally proved is false.
> > 
> > Even your follow idiots, poor idiot,  could tell you that experiments 
> > can prove nothing.
> 
> 
> And yet if science holds no truth, the success of technology is a miracle. 

Unfortunately, you left us no choice: to keep OUR technology
working we have to ignore YOUR idiocies. OUR clocks indicate
t'=t, check at GPS, poor idiot.

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

#458275

On 5/16/18 11:30 PM, Steve BH wrote:
> And yet if science holds no truth, the success of technology is a miracle.

Not really. We have no idea whether any current scientific theories or models 
hold any "truth" (in the sense of accurately describing the processes that 
nature actually uses). And we have no prospect of ever knowing this.

But we do know that science has produced a series of ever-improving MODELS of 
the world, and these models are now very accurate in many domains of interest, 
leading to the technology you think is a "miracle" without "truth". In truth 
(pun intended), good models are good enough -- which is fortunate for us humans, 
as that is the best we can ever achieve about the world we inhabit.

	Humans survive in the world via models of it. Think about how
	you find your bed at night, and you'll realize that you have a
	mental model of your domicile, and to go to bed you first
	mentally traverse that model, and then manipulate your body
	correspondingly. You obtained that model via exploration, and
	then validated it via experiment -- science. Nearly everything
	humans do is similar, including the theories/models of science.

Tom Roberts

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

Page 3 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4  Next page →

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

csiph-web