A discussion for my peers

[Lela XX]

Tphuattrloo_Erlkens

Lela XX

. . . quantum mechanics, QM, QED etc are all nonsense [says] Miles Mathis. . . . big business took over science in the late 1800s and turned it into a joke.

Are you serious? . . . if science was entirely bought up by big business, those business would still want useful and therefore correct results . . . . You got anything to back your second paragraph up? And I skimmed that Miles Mathis' website. . . . some of the first links on google describe him as a crackpot, and they put forth a much, much better argument than you do.

Any time you see someone refer to another person as a Crackpot, it should be obvious that they're not being scientific, when they say that. A real scientist doesn't use derogatory terms to describe other theorists. Science isn't supposed to be like political parties or religions who think their members are perfect and opposing groups are evil or stupid. Society, including the education system, has promoted that kind of antiscientific attitude, largely via male culture. To learn about male culture read John Gray, Deborah Tannen et al.

You said the name-callers make a better argument against Mathis than I make for him. I didn't really make an argument for Mathis. I merely stated the claim that Mathis disproves QM etc. And you merely stated a claim that they make a better argument than I do without bothering to spell out any of their arguments. I'm pretty sure I would consider Mathis' arguments far superior to theirs. That's because it's very easy to see the superiority of Mathis' model of atoms etc. QM has hardly any model at all. They don't explain how particles and atoms attract or repel each other or what's make them unstable etc. Mathis shows that particles and atoms spin and if they're off-balance they fly apart. That explains radioactivity and lots of things.

If you want to learn about corruption in science, you need to read the history of science and read scientists who disagree with conventional science. Halton Arp is one. Read about unschooling to learn what's wrong with the education system. Miles Mathis talks quite a bit about what's wrong with conventional science too. I can help you find this kind of info, if you want.

Here's a start re corruption in science: wanttoknow.info/corruptioninsciencenewsarticles

[Tphuattrloo_Erlkens]

Lela XX

Tphuattrloo_Erlkens

Lela XX

. . . quantum mechanics, QM, QED etc are all nonsense [says] Miles Mathis. . . . big business took over science in the late 1800s and turned it into a joke.

Are you serious? . . . if science was entirely bought up by big business, those business would still want useful and therefore correct results . . . . You got anything to back your second paragraph up? And I skimmed that Miles Mathis' website. . . . some of the first links on google describe him as a crackpot, and they put forth a much, much better argument than you do.

Any time you see someone refer to another person as a Crackpot, it should be obvious that they're not being scientific, when they say that. A real scientist doesn't use derogatory terms to describe other theorists. Science isn't supposed to be like political parties or religions who think their members are perfect and opposing groups are evil or stupid. Society, including the education system, has promoted that kind of antiscientific attitude, largely via male culture. To learn about male culture read John Gray, Deborah Tannen et al.

You said the name-callers make a better argument against Mathis than I make for him. I didn't really make an argument for Mathis. I merely stated the claim that Mathis disproves QM etc. And you merely stated a claim that they make a better argument than I do without bothering to spell out any of their arguments. I'm pretty sure I would consider Mathis' arguments far superior to theirs. That's because it's very easy to see the superiority of Mathis' model of atoms etc. QM has hardly any model at all. They don't explain how particles and atoms attract or repel each other or what's make them unstable etc. Mathis shows that particles and atoms spin and if they're off-balance they fly apart. That explains radioactivity and lots of things.

If you want to learn about corruption in science, you need to read the history of science and read scientists who disagree with conventional science. Halton Arp is one. Read about unschooling to learn what's wrong with the education system. Miles Mathis talks quite a bit about what's wrong with conventional science too. I can help you find this kind of info, if you want.

Here's a start re corruption in science: wanttoknow.info/corruptioninsciencenewsarticles

I'm sorry, but I don't have the time to read several books and entire websites just so I can follow your viewpoint. If you could point me to an article with good citations that proves your point, or a specific section of a book, then I might be able to get an idea of what you're talking about in a realistic amount of time.

I didn't feel it was necessary to link to any of the arguments, because you could find several just by searching his name on google. Pick any of the arguments against him (they have to be arguments, not insults) and give a decent counter-argument, and I'll consider not thinking of Miles as a crackpot. As it is now, I have no arguments for him, and many against.

If your talking about history of science, I'm not really a science historian, but I believe Albert Einstein was a scientist who disagreed with the assumptions of his time, but he was backed up by results.

If you want to know what's wrong with the education system, I remember this nice video on TED that describes how schools kill creativity.

I read the wikipedia article on Men Are from Mars, Women Are from Venus, and I have to agree with the counter viewpoints that there are more differences within genders than between them. But that is only because it fits what I already know, which is a cognitive bias. If you could point me to any good scientific articles instead of pop science, I would gladly take your point seriously.

[chainmailleman]

Tphuattrloo_Erlkens

If your talking about history of science, I'm not really a science historian, but I believe Albert Einstein was a scientist who disagreed with the assumptions of his time, but he was backed up by results.

Not really... in Einstein's own words "It's how you look at it".

[Vannak]

Can we get off the anti-mainstream educational science community bullshit for a minute here?

If you don't know what a dirac delta function is your opinion isn't particularly valued on this topic.

This is a discussion on epistemology, criticisms of the scientific formal community and what not aren't even relevant.

[Layra-chan]

I feel like isotropy, homogeneity and the like come from Occam's razor, or parsimony, or whatever you want to call it, where we assume things are simple until theories built on that idea become untenable. It's an extension of the basic conceit of science, that the universe can be modeled to some degree of accuracy. We have to make some regularity assumptions in order to make a model that works beyond the here and now, so we make the assumptions that say "the laws of the universe apply everywhere and everywhen" and then bend over backwards when this doesn't seem to work: "oh, we're missing a parameter", "this is only an effective theory", "spontaneous symmetry breaking".
Until we have a good reason to think that the laws of physics change over time, Noether's theorem tells us that we should have conservation of the conjugate momentum to time, which we currently call energy. Similarly, until we have a good reason to think that the laws of physics change over space, we also have conservation of momentum. Since we'd really, really like exact position in space and time to be irrelevant, so that our models can apply outside of our offices and laboratories, we want to keep energy and momentum conserved.
Conservation of mass we've had to get rid of in the face of theoretical and experimental evidence, so of course there's no guarantee that we won't be forced to get rid of conservation of energy and momentum yet. But conservation laws are so very nice that we hang onto them, because they allow us to make simpler models.

[Tphuattrloo_Erlkens]

chainmailleman

Tphuattrloo_Erlkens

If your talking about history of science, I'm not really a science historian, but I believe Albert Einstein was a scientist who disagreed with the assumptions of his time, but he was backed up by results.

Not really... in Einstein's own words "It's how you look at it".

Isn't looking at things with something other than the common viewpoint disagreeing with with that viewpoint? And therefore disagreeing with the assumptions used to make that viewpoint?

[Tphuattrloo_Erlkens]

Vannak

Can we get off the anti-mainstream educational science community bullshit for a minute here?

If you don't know what a dirac delta function is your opinion isn't particularly valued on this topic.

This is a discussion on epistemology, criticisms of the scientific formal community and what not aren't even relevant.

Let's not just exclude people because they haven't been to college yet or haven't been ridiculously lucky in their pre-college education/personal research. I know you wanted opinions from people who fit your definition of educated, but there are plenty of other places on the web where a much better ratio of the members will fit that definition. And there are also guilds on this site. Why don't you try starting a conversation like this in the physics guild? Here, you're just isolating yourself and a few like minded individuals on an island without plebs, in front of said plebs. (Hah, I called people plebs!)



But getting back on topic, I agree with the idea of scientific paradigms put forth by Thomas Kuhn. I like to liken it to a single human brain, or a region of it, being a single scientific paradigm, and we learn things that either reaffirm, modify, or outright deny that paradigm as we learn. A paradigm shift would be an equivelant of an epiphany, or a midlife crisis, when, due to all the inconsistancies you've found, you realize the way of looking at things that you've been doing for the last however many years might be wrong, and perhaps realize a better way of looking at things.

I also think that science, or any action really, should be methodical enough that it can be represented by an algorithm. Especially one much better defined than the "Hypothesize, experiment, analyze," that is taught in school. Unfortunately that seems to be the only method taught to most who do not either sign up for a class on philosophy of science or do their own research on the subject.

[chainmailleman]

Tphuattrloo_Erlkens

chainmailleman

Tphuattrloo_Erlkens

If your talking about history of science, I'm not really a science historian, but I believe Albert Einstein was a scientist who disagreed with the assumptions of his time, but he was backed up by results.

Not really... in Einstein's own words "It's how you look at it".

Isn't looking at things with something other than the common viewpoint disagreeing with with that viewpoint? And therefore disagreeing with the assumptions used to make that viewpoint?

How many ways can you look at a something?

Drive a car at 50kmh. What is happening? There are two "logical" explanations. The first being that the car is moving relative to the Earth at rest. And the second is the Earth moving relative to the car at rest.

Which feels the force when you slam into a concrete pillar, stopping you suddenly? If the Earth was moving relative to the car being at rest, the Earth would decelerate 50km in the fraction of a second, also it would be impossible for 2 or more cars to drive in different directions.

A similar argument was made against Einstein's theory back in it's infancy in the first decade of the twentieth century. As you can tell logic was overstepped and the world of science instantly became science fiction. Experimentation was replaced by mathematical theories.

[Tphuattrloo_Erlkens]

chainmailleman

Tphuattrloo_Erlkens

chainmailleman

Tphuattrloo_Erlkens

If your talking about history of science, I'm not really a science historian, but I believe Albert Einstein was a scientist who disagreed with the assumptions of his time, but he was backed up by results.

Not really... in Einstein's own words "It's how you look at it".

Isn't looking at things with something other than the common viewpoint disagreeing with with that viewpoint? And therefore disagreeing with the assumptions used to make that viewpoint?

How many ways can you look at a something?

Drive a car at 50kmh. What is happening? There are two "logical" explanations. The first being that the car is moving relative to the Earth at rest. And the second is the Earth moving relative to the car at rest.

Which feels the force when you slam into a concrete pillar, stopping you suddenly? If the Earth was moving relative to the car being at rest, the Earth would decelerate 50km in the fraction of a second, also it would be impossible for 2 or more cars to drive in different directions.

A similar argument was made against Einstein's theory back in it's infancy in the first decade of the twentieth century. As you can tell logic was overstepped and the world of science instantly became science fiction. Experimentation was replaced by mathematical theories.

Actually, both viewpoints are correct.

Have you ever programmed a game engine? You often set the center of the universe at the player and move everything else around them. You could set the center to some other object, but then mathematical error would accumulate due to the limitations of computers. In fact, this centering is done in almost every single game engine there is.

It doesn't matter that the theory doesn't make sense to you, it has been demonstrated to work by countless experiments.

Im sorry, what was that about experimentation being replaced by mathematical theories? Because I think an experiment in designing any physics simulator would easily disprove your argument of viewpoints. (Oh yeah! Bam! God I'm awesome...)

[Vannak]

People have been reasonably logical for thousands of years. They have sat around and thought about things for decades and come up with absolute nothing. Experiments and knowledge of how to do these things, along with mathematical methods makes one understand how things work. Being logical does not qualify you to take part in this discussion. I don't care if you learn about such a concept from wikipedia (good resource) or from your 2nd level college physics course. If you don't know the appropriate science you have, as said before, nothing of real relevance to put forward.

[chainmailleman]

Tphuattrloo_Erlkens

chainmailleman

Tphuattrloo_Erlkens

chainmailleman

Tphuattrloo_Erlkens

If your talking about history of science, I'm not really a science historian, but I believe Albert Einstein was a scientist who disagreed with the assumptions of his time, but he was backed up by results.

Not really... in Einstein's own words "It's how you look at it".

Isn't looking at things with something other than the common viewpoint disagreeing with with that viewpoint? And therefore disagreeing with the assumptions used to make that viewpoint?

How many ways can you look at a something?

Drive a car at 50kmh. What is happening? There are two "logical" explanations. The first being that the car is moving relative to the Earth at rest. And the second is the Earth moving relative to the car at rest.

Which feels the force when you slam into a concrete pillar, stopping you suddenly? If the Earth was moving relative to the car being at rest, the Earth would decelerate 50km in the fraction of a second, also it would be impossible for 2 or more cars to drive in different directions.

A similar argument was made against Einstein's theory back in it's infancy in the first decade of the twentieth century. As you can tell logic was overstepped and the world of science instantly became science fiction. Experimentation was replaced by mathematical theories.

Actually, both viewpoints are correct.

Have you ever programmed a game engine? You often set the center of the universe at the player and move everything else around them. You could set the center to some other object, but then mathematical error would accumulate due to the limitations of computers. In fact, this centering is done in almost every single game engine there is.

Yes I have programmed a game engine. I had to do it in high school in advanced programming in Java. The game has a world at rest. The three dimensional universe set by xyz co-ordinates with limits. The highest observation point.

If both were correct, which one is moving? The car or the Earth, relative to one another?

[Tphuattrloo_Erlkens]

Vannak

People have been reasonably logical for thousands of years. They have sat around and thought about things for decades and come up with absolute nothing. Experiments and knowledge of how to do these things, along with mathematical methods makes one understand how things work. Being logical does not qualify you to take part in this discussion. I don't care if you learn about such a concept from wikipedia (good resource) or from your 2nd level college physics course. If you don't know the appropriate science you have, as said before, nothing of real relevance to put forward.

Is this a response to me, everyone in this forum in general except for you and a few others, or people in general?

If it's to me, then I'd like to ask how none of my posts put forward anything of relevance.

If it's about everyone in the forums, then go somewhere else, because no matter what your reason, your being exclusive. I know it may be frustrating debating with an endless stream of people, but it pays off when they join you. Unfortunately I don't think there's much you can do if you want to get away from people on a public forum. I still think my suggestion of taking this conversation to a guild is a good idea.

If it's about people in general though, then I agree. But my second paragraph still stands.

[Tphuattrloo_Erlkens]

chainmailleman

Yes I have programmed a game engine. I had to do it in high school in advanced programming in Java. The game has a world at rest. The three dimensional universe set by xyz co-ordinates with limits. The highest observation point.

If both were correct, which one is moving? The car or the Earth, relative to one another?

Both are moving relative to each other. Every partitioning of the 15km velocity between the objects is correct, and entered in to same equations, would give the same answer.

This answer would then be tested, and if the outcome was correct, would prove every single one of those partitions correct, since they all gave the same answer.

(Sorry for being an imbecle in that last post. I got excited.)

[chainmailleman]

Tphuattrloo_Erlkens

chainmailleman

Yes I have programmed a game engine. I had to do it in high school in advanced programming in Java. The game has a world at rest. The three dimensional universe set by xyz co-ordinates with limits. The highest observation point.

If both were correct, which one is moving? The car or the Earth, relative to one another?

Both are moving relative to each other. Every partitioning of the 15km velocity between the objects is correct, and entered in to same equations, would give the same answer.

This answer would then be tested, and if the outcome was correct, would prove every single one of those partitions correct, since they all gave the same answer.

(Sorry for being an imbecle in that last post. I got excited.)

It happens.

Of course they would be the same. Ratios and proportions.

I wish we could discuss this over a game of pool and some fine brews. It's always fun to get a little buzzed and chat about deep physics while having a model in front of us to play with that can act as both observers in rest and motion.

[Tphuattrloo_Erlkens]

chainmailleman

Tphuattrloo_Erlkens

chainmailleman

Yes I have programmed a game engine. I had to do it in high school in advanced programming in Java. The game has a world at rest. The three dimensional universe set by xyz co-ordinates with limits. The highest observation point.

If both were correct, which one is moving? The car or the Earth, relative to one another?

Both are moving relative to each other. Every partitioning of the 15km velocity between the objects is correct, and entered in to same equations, would give the same answer.

This answer would then be tested, and if the outcome was correct, would prove every single one of those partitions correct, since they all gave the same answer.

(Sorry for being an imbecle in that last post. I got excited.)

It happens.

Of course they would be the same. Ratios and proportions.

I wish we could discuss this over a game of pool and some fine brews. It's always fun to get a little buzzed and chat about deep physics while having a model in front of us to play with that can act as both observers in rest and motion.

True, so I guess we could agree they're mathematically correct, but I agree that doesn't give the same understanding one would get from feeling or seeing it in action. I love that vertigo-y feeling of acting as part of such a model by the way, thanks for reminding me of it.