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 (), 301 guests, and 0 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Posts
Top Posters(30 Days)
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2
#29776 03/10/09 05:07 PM
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
T
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940

As repugnant as it seems, there are sites from which one can learn about actual science.
An example is MIT Open Courseware.

MIT 8.01 Physics I: Classical Mechanics, Fall 1999
http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=F688ECB2FF119649

You can browse the entire list at:
http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=MIT&view=playlists

There are other universities and private individuals who are developing and have developed course material for YouTube. Of course, some of the material varies in quality. But the MIT stuff is, unsurprisingly, pretty good.

Alternatively, one could simply pull an understanding from one's backside through meditation, biblical exegesis, or finding a crank to teach it.


.
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
tff

Quote:
As repugnant as it seems, there are sites from which one can learn about actual science.


I think this is a great idea and would greatly help many who choose to take up a career in engineering , or in any of the actual sciences that are availiable.

Im not sure why you think theyre repugnant , but perhaps being a follower of the evoloutionist cults , you are offended by actual science.

do they also offer courses online that follow attempt to explain are about the teachings of darwhineans?




3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 498
Z
Superstar
Offline
Superstar
Z
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 498
Originally Posted By: TheFallibleFiend
..one can learn about actual science...
LOL, what the "actual science" is supposed to mean? For example, mainstream science doesn't explain, why bodies are moving along straight path, it only introduces a math regression of this finding. You can never get this explanation on YouTube.

Complete science should always supply a complete explanation - not only formal description of reality.

Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
T
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940

"Im not sure why you think theyre repugnant"
Obviously I was not intending that I consider studying actual science repugnant - particularly since my own background is in engineering and I work with scientists every day of my life. (In fact, both of my main bosses are PhD physicists.)

"do they also offer courses "
Let's be clear that like so many of the other cranks on this site, you have no interest whatsoever in learning the actual science.

Zephir,
AWT should be reserved for NQS. At best it's fringe stuff. From how many hard science forums have you been banned?


Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 498
Z
Superstar
Offline
Superstar
Z
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 498
Originally Posted By: TheFallibleFiend
...From how many hard science forums have you been banned?..
Does it change a truthfulness of my claims? If AWT would be wrong, why not to refute it?

If it's correct, why to bother with other mainstream theories, which were proven to be limited/inconsistent already?

Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
T
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940

"If AWT would be wrong, why not to refute it? "
Perhaps people think that there's not enough there as to be worthy of refutation or perhaps they think they have refuted you, but that you just ignore their comments or do not understand them.

You could look at it as a failure on your part to adequately explain the genius of your new theory.

"If it's correct, why to bother with other mainstream theories,"
That's a mighty big supposition.

" which were proven to be limited/inconsistent already? "
In order to understand what the current science actually says as opposed to what a non-scientist says that it says?





Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 498
Z
Superstar
Offline
Superstar
Z
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 498
Originally Posted By: TheFallibleFiend
You could look at it as a failure on your part to adequately explain the genius of your new theory
Some people like it. So it's rather your problem, not mine - don't you think?

It's true, these people aren't usually those, who have carrier in professional physics - but why I should expect wonderful reactions just from people, who are dealing with concurrent theories - you can tell me? Especially when considering fact, AWT render them idiots, because it explain things just by model, which these people have denied for years. It's not easy to accept openly just the theory, which negates whole your philosophy and renders you unqualified in the eyes of the whole society. I know about it - and these people knows about it, too.

After all, why do you think, I have been banned from so many "hard science" forums? It's because, I'm spreading nonsenses, which can be refuted easily? There are many people, who are saying a much more absurd things - but they're ignored, because they cannot impeach qualification of forum moderators and mainstream science proponents.

For me such decision is completely neutral, though. If some possibility to explain reality by Aether model exists, why to hide it in face of other people? People should know about such possibility despite the dirty looks of proponents of alternative theories.

Or do you believe in opposite?

Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
T
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940


"It's true, these people aren't usually those, who have carrier in professional physics"
Aren't usually. But some of your harshest critics do have careers in physics. Do you? Are you a technician?

"It's because, I'm spreading nonsenses, which can be refuted easily?"
Maybe because you have been refuted and don't actually acknowledge or understand the refutation? Maybe because what you're saying is just nonsense and you are emotionally incapable of acknowledging it?

"Or do you believe in opposite? "
I believe it is extremely difficult to follow what you are saying.


Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 498
Z
Superstar
Offline
Superstar
Z
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 498
Quote:
..Do you? Are you a technician?..
Is such question relevant to AWT or whatever else theory?
Quote:
....what you're saying is just nonsense..
Why it should be nonsense? If you have no explanation, why I should consider it a refutation?
Quote:
..it is extremely difficult to follow what you are saying..
No doubt, I can see it. The very first response of yours is out of logics, for example ("But some of your harshest critics do have careers in physics").

Whole my previous post was about it.

Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
T
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940

I asked "..Do you? Are you a technician?.."
You responded "Is such question relevant to AWT or whatever else theory?"

Previously you had said, "It's true, these people aren't usually those, who have carrier in professional physics"

Why should you expect a response from professional physicists if you are not one yourself?

Why would you think less of the responses from those who are not professional physicists, if you are not one yourself?

What you are saying is nonsense. It could be that your views are complete genius and you are failing to communicate your ideas very well. For a long time now this seemed as likely as the other view to me. But now I suspect not. It's seeming more and more likely that you're just a run of the mill crank.

Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 498
Z
Superstar
Offline
Superstar
Z
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 498
Originally Posted By: TheFallibleFiend
Why should you expect a response from professional physicists, if you are not one yourself?
Why not, if they have time to comment my posts? After all, what does it mean? Einstein wasn't professional physicist, Lissy Garret isn't professional physicist..
Originally Posted By: TheFallibleFiend
It's seeming more and more likely..
What's seeming is a dream. Wake up.

Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
T
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
Originally Posted By: Zephir
Originally Posted By: TheFallibleFiend
Why should you expect a response from professional physicists, if you are not one yourself?
Why not, if they have time to comment my posts? After all, what does it mean? Einstein wasn't professional physicist, Lissy Garret isn't professional physicist..


What I'm asking is why would you esteem so lightly the opinions of people who are not professional physicists when you are not one yourself?

Put another way, why should professional physicists have a lower standard than you do for whom they will take seriously?

Also, are you so sure that none of those who have responded to you is a professional physicist? Why would you even care?

I am not familiar with Lissy Garret. After he became famous, he surely was a professional physicist. Even before that, Einstein was in every sense a practicing physicist. Before the works that made him famous, he was already quite well-known because of his work on capillarity. What other works have you produced in physics? Have you published in any peer-reviewed journals? Are you too smart for that?

That is, nobody ever doubted that Einstein actually understood the Newtonian physics he was displacing.


Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 498
Z
Superstar
Offline
Superstar
Z
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 498
Originally Posted By: TheFallibleFiend
..why should professional physicists have a lower standard...
Well, try to define the "height of standard" quantity, please. Should the scientific theory be consistent at logical, rather then formal level - or vice-versa?

For example, Ptolemy's geocentric theory is able to compute the intervals of solar eclipes and planet conjunctions with high precision due its advanced formal approach based on abstract geometry (an epicycle model, in particular) and it was used so for whole medieval age with success.



Whereas heliocentric model is poorly defined in formal way, because it relies of validity of gravitational law and mass of planets, which cannot be measured well. It only enables us to predict order of Venus phases by using of the naive picture bellow. Please consider, this is still the only testable prediction of heliocentric model, because it's formal theory wasn't elaborated yet. No equations means no calculations, it means no quantitative predictions.



Now, suppose the order of Venus phases was observed experimentally in telescope and it was found confirming heliocentric model firmly, whereas denying the geocentric one.

Now the question is: which theory scientists should prefer under such circumstances for future? The quantitative, but falsified qualitatively - or the qualitative with no quantitative predictions?

This example can serve as a quite practical measure of standard preference and priorities in science. Could you explain/support your stance by some rigorous proof?
Originally Posted By: TheFallibleFiend
..After he became famous, he surely was a professional physicist...
I see? Would I become a "proffesional physicist", when becoming famous?
Originally Posted By: TheFallibleFiend
..Have you published in any peer-reviewed journals?...
Are you kidding me? I wasn't allowed to present my ideas even on laymen forums, like this one..


Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
T
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940

"..why should professional physicists have a lower standard..."

"Well, try to define the "height of standard" quantity, please. "

I'm afraid you're missing my point. If you can ignore responses to your theory by people because you believe the majority of them are not professional physicists, then why should professional physicists not hold your views to the same standard?

"I wasn't allowed to present my ideas even on laymen forums, like this one.."
Word gets around. I can a number of forums where you did present your ideas, were answered, and then kept spamming your "theory" on the channel. At least that was my perspective - you were answered, you didn't like the answer, and then took every opportunity to continue bringing up your theory that most knowledgeable people seem to think doesn't actually explain anything.


"Would I become a "proffesional physicist", when becoming famous?"
Again, you miss the point. He was respected BEFORE he became famous. People could tell that he actually knew what he was talking about. If you are actually very brilliant, that is not what is being conveyed by your posts.


Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 498
Z
Superstar
Offline
Superstar
Z
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 498
Originally Posted By: TheFallibleFiend
If you can ignore responses to your theory by people because you believe the majority of them are not professional physicists, then why should professional physicists not hold your views to the same standard?
What are you talking about? Do you have feeling, I'm ignoring responses of other people?
Originally Posted By: TheFallibleFiend
you were answered, you didn't like the answer
Why did you ignored my question concernign standards of science? You're using words like "scientific standards", so I asked you, which model fits the scientific standards better. If you're unable to decide it at the case of commonly known theories, why do you feel competent to judge some AWT, you can tell me?

Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
T
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
I asked "You could look at it as a failure on your part to adequately explain the genius of your new theory"


You responded "It's true, these people aren't usually those, who have carrier in professional physics but why I should expect wonderful reactions just from people, who are dealing with concurrent theories - you can tell me? Especially when considering fact, AWT render them idiots "

So you seem to be saying that the people who are responding to you are not professional physicists so you don't have to listen to them, but also that you don't have to listen to those who ARE professional physicists, because they are "dealing with concurrent theories," i.e. they actually know something about physics.

I then ask "If you can ignore responses to your theory by people because you believe the majority of them are not professional physicists, then why should professional physicists not hold your views to the same standard?"

So now you ask "What are you talking about? Do you have feeling, I'm ignoring responses of other people? "

I'm saying, yes. You appear to be ignoring the responses of people on other fora and just restating your opinion over and over. You ignore them if they are not physicists. You ignore them if they are physicists.

The presentation of your "theory" might just as well go something like this: "bababababababababababababababa .... now refute that! I dare you!"


The reader looks at your message and says, "refute what? it's nonsense?"

Very little of what you say makes any sense. Maybe part of it is a language issue. But I can't help thinking you're just a crank. You think you know more than professional physicists who are just idiots in your book.

Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 498
Z
Superstar
Offline
Superstar
Z
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 498
Originally Posted By: TheFallibleFiend
You think you know more than professional physicists who are just idiots in your book
What you're thinking/believing about ME is completely irrelevant to my theory. AWT could be found written on the wall of some prehistoric cave, and nothing would change about its true value. Author's person can have a meaning for psychology and sociology, but not for description of physical reality. You apparently never understood, author of theory is completely irrelevant with respect to theory validity and it has no meaning to title him at all. Validity and relevancy of theory is defined by its postulate set, nothing else. After postulation of theory, virtually nobody - even its author - can change its true value.

But religion people (like you) are tending to meritocracy or even deism obstinately. They don't consider (new) ideas, until they don't become a part of intersubjective religion, because they've no ability to think and talk about ideas, but about theirs authors only (who are usually considered a God or prophets). Sorry, but I'm not spending my time in discussions with religious people about their religion.

So, back to "scientific standards", which you introduced naively into discussion. Which solar system model fits the "scientific standards" better by your understanding? Why are you using phrases, which you cannot apply even to a simple example? Should I take you seriously by your own criterions for future ?

Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 498
Z
Superstar
Offline
Superstar
Z
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 498
Originally Posted By: TheFallibleFiend
..The reader looks at your message and says, "refute what? it's nonsense?"..
He can think about it, but saying so is not enough. How by your opinion the "nonsense" is defined? Without relevant definition of nonsense you are unable to distinguish between "sense" and "nonsense", thus rendering yourself as incompetent for further discussion, again. A hint 1: such definition isn't a matter of your subjective feeling, but a predicate logic. To call something a "nonsense" isn't so arbitrary game, as you're apparently believing. Hint 2: every statement not containing an implication is a tautology with true value undefined.

So, lets say, we have a following situation: I'm explaining a Pythagorean theorem to my dog. He listens me less or more carefully, but he apparently does not understand it at all. Does it mean, a Pythagorean theorem is a "nonsense"? If not, which other criterion(s) we should apply here?

Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
T
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940

"I'm explaining a Pythagorean theorem to my dog."
Well, I think it tells me something very important about you that you might try to explain such a thing to your dog ... oh, oh ... I get it everyone else is no smarter than a dog compared to the vast intellect of the genius who devised the ultimate "theory" of AWT! That's an imaginative scenario.

I have a different scenario. Suppose some "random" fellow from the local sanitarium attempts to explain Goedel's theorem to a professor of physics. Maybe this fellow got a science award in third grade. And maybe he's actually read a lot of books. Maybe he was in the room next to Goedel, but see he thinks he's smarter than Goedel. None of the other inmates and none of the nurses can understand Goedel and none of them can understand the random fellow either. But the professor of physics, well, he can't quite follow Goedel - and he's not absolutely sure he believes Goedel, but he can at least distinguish that Goedel makes some sense and the other fellow none.



Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 498
Z
Superstar
Offline
Superstar
Z
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 498
Originally Posted By: TheFallibleFiend
..everyone else is no smarter than a dog compared to the vast intellect...
With respect to practical results concerning your ability to answer the following questions:

1) How to define "scientific standards", if we want to use them as a criterions of theory validity?
2) Which solar system theory we should prefer by these standards and why?
3) How to define and qualify "nonsense"?
4) Is Pythagorean theorem a nonsense by this definition, if it cannot be understood by dog, for example?

your level of understanding of subject is really comparable to those of dog. Sorry, but I have no further questions for you.

Page 1 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 UsokW
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