Welcome to
Science a GoGo's
Discussion Forums
Please keep your postings on-topic or they will be moved to a galaxy far, far away.
Your use of this forum indicates your agreement to our terms of use.
So that we remain spam-free, please note that all posts by new users are moderated.


The Forums
General Science Talk        Not-Quite-Science        Climate Change Discussion        Physics Forum        Science Fiction

Who's Online Now
0 members (), 181 guests, and 2 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Posts
Top Posters(30 Days)
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 2 of 2 1 2
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
T
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940

"1) How to define "scientific standards", if we want to use them as a criterions of theory validity?"
A vast literature abounds on this subject. You don't seem to be interested in reading it.

"2) Which solar system theory we should prefer by these standards and why?"
Above you were asking how we go about defining standards; you did not ask about the particulars of the standards arrived at by the process. This could be a reflection of your mediocre language skills or it could be a reflection of your poor thinking skills.

'3) How to define and qualify "nonsense"?'
I never thought to define it precisely. In the same way, courts don't define "reasonable doubt." That which makes no sense, lacks logical coherence, or is uninterpretable by conventional language.

"4) Is Pythagorean theorem a nonsense by this definition, if it cannot be understood by dog, for example?"
It is nonsense to the dog.


"your level of understanding of subject is really comparable to those of dog."

I'm guessing the same could be said for most everyone else with whom you have attempted to share your genius.

"Sorry, but I have no further questions for you. "

For that I am grateful. Logic is a mystery to you - and your use of language is a mystery to me.

.
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 498
Z
Superstar
Offline
Superstar
Z
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 498
Originally Posted By: TheFallibleFiend
You don't seem to be interested in reading it.
Why I should read about it, if it wasn't able to help you in answer concerning the solar models comparison? I want to see some practical results first.

Anyway, it's apparent, heliocentric model was chosen by just by it's capability to explain things logically, not formally. After all, at the time of Galileo heliocentric model wasn't enable to compute anything: both masses of planets and Sun, both gravitational constant value were not known. It was just a science, who delayed the acceptance of heliocentric model, i.e. the mainstream astronomers, like Tycho de Brahe and others.

The memo is, just the logical reasoning is fundamental part of "scientific standards", not the formal math. Theory like string theory can be full of math - but the single logical argument can refute it. This is the way, which science is using for its reasoning at the end. If so, why we aren't using a logics from the very beginning of scientific theories development? Why should be every mainstream theory based on ad-hoced postulates and formal equations?
Originally Posted By: TheFallibleFiend
It is nonsense to the dog.
Should we use the stance of dogs as a relevant criterion of validity scientific theories, after then? If some dog is barking to new ideas, should we care about it? You decide...

Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
T
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
"Why I should read about it, if it wasn't able to help you in answer concerning the solar models comparison?"

As good a justification as any for willful ignorance.

"I want to see some practical results first."

Yea. The real physicists might ask the same thing of you.

Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 498
Z
Superstar
Offline
Superstar
Z
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 498
Originally Posted By: TheFallibleFiend
...The real physicists might ask the same thing of you. ..
AWT has nothing to do with me, everyone can work on it by the same way, like me. I can ask them instead, why they're ignoring new ideas. Isn't it a pretty piece of ignorance?

Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
R
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
R
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
Zephir, you are not simply proposing, in due humility, a tentative hypothesis. You are taking an arrogant, pseudo-intellectual high ground, based not on substantial knowledge of extant theory but on ignorance. You're expending so much of your life on this pointless exercise; to wit, you've been rabbiting on about AWT for years. Your mantra repeats itself endlessly. If you'd had what it takes to become a scientist then you might have put your time to better use by subjecting yourself to the requisite education. Since you didn't, and haven't, you really ought to do the forums a good deed and put a sock in it.


"Time is what prevents everything from happening at once" - John Wheeler
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 498
Z
Superstar
Offline
Superstar
Z
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 498
Originally Posted By: TheFallibleFiend
.. ..the professor of physics, well, he can't quite follow Gödel - and he's not absolutely sure he believes Gödel, but he can at least distinguish that Gödel makes some sense and the other fellow none...
I'm pretty sure, Gödel himself didn't understand his incompleteness theorem completely, or he would propose a a much more simpler and universal formulation of it. AWT uses so called implicate geometry proposed by Bohm in doing this.

By implicate topology every tautology (i.e. self-referencing claim) is a scalar, i.e. zero rank tensor. It can point to whatever direction, thus effectivelly predicting or extrapolating nothing. Therefore theory is always based on deduction, i.e. logical implication, being an interpolation or even extrapolation of reality between two or more tautological postulates, so called the axioms, thus defining causal arrow of its local time.

From the above follows, every theory must be based on inconsistent postulate set. If it wouldn't, we could replace two or more postulates by single one, thus effectively leading into tautology. But if these postulates are inconsistent, every theory based on them would lead to vague or even mutually contradictive claims in less or more distant perspective, thus illustrating insintric limits of every logical theory. AWT just proposes a way, how to overcome a limits of every causual theory based on sequential logics: it's logic must become implicit in fractally nested way.

Gödel has derived this conclusion (a theorem) for natural number theory based on eleven postulates of Peano algebra. Now we can ask, if AWT is so useless, why we didn't met with such trivial explanation of Gödel theorem a many years before?

Originally Posted By: redewenur
...you are not simply proposing ...a tentative hypothesis...
Of course, AWT is not a hypothesis, but a fully fledged, testable theory.

Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
T
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
GR by Leonard Susskind at Stanford:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hbmf0bB38h0&feature=channel_page

Susskind is one of the originators of String Theory.

Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
R
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
R
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
Thanks, TFF. Watched the first video, and intend to watch the remaining six. Very good, but also worth watching for L. Susskind's fascinating presentation.


"Time is what prevents everything from happening at once" - John Wheeler
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
T
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940

Page 2 of 2 1 2

Link Copied to Clipboard
Newest Members
debbieevans, bkhj, jackk, Johnmattison, RacerGT
865 Registered Users
Sponsor

Science a GoGo's Home Page | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Contact UsokÂş»­¾W
Features | News | Books | Physics | Space | Climate Change | Health | Technology | Natural World

Copyright © 1998 - 2016 Science a GoGo and its licensors. All rights reserved.

Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5