Classical Physics is coming back, RELOADED!!!

That doesn't go well with:

Are you certain that your theories are correct or not? If they're incomplete, you cannot claim any certainty.

Seriously, study some physics sometime. Then you can judge whether existing theories, which have already been shown to work under the vast majority of conditions, need to be replaced or just tuned up a bit. If you're not up to date with modern physics, there is no way you can legitimately claim you're in a position to decide this.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

przyk,
You know which is the real state of Physics today?
It is well stated by a phrase of Frank J. Blatt in his succeded book of Physics (I had an 1991 spanish version of the book and I translated back to english):

Do you know what is needed to realize this: HONESTY

Mainly the honesty one must have with himself.

You don't have that.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I'm sorry, what? Are you advocating that we should get the same measurements from different frames? That's... well, that's just silly.

If by "assertions" you mean rigourous math, and by "nervous and agressive" you mean "initially overbearing then dismissive" then you're right - that's what I was. Your overconfidence when central faults are pointed out in your refutations is so misplaced as to laughable. That you continue to cling to them afterwards shows that you have a poor grasp of both the subjects and the scientific process.

You're a joke, whippersnapper.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The irony is so thick that I have trouble finding a fitting analogy.

"The thousands of physicist whose physics made the modern world possible are all wrong. I, with no formal training, and no education in the subject, have the true vision of what physics is all about."

Yeah. Real honest to oneself, that.

 

Enough.

Someone else with just a more productive subject to treat?

 

All your quote shows is that modern physics is counter intuitive to students and professionals alike, but everyone's going along with it because it WORKS. They don't discard any theory just because they don't like the philosophy behind it. It's no secret that Einstein himself disliked quantum mechanics.

I personally hate the thought of a probabilistic (as opposed to deterministic) universe, but the workings of nature are not for me to decide. The apparent contradictions in quantum mechanics, and the fact that the whole theory would fall apart if it weren't for the uncertainty principle - do you think I or anyone else is actually comfortable with that? When I was a lot younger I used to keep looking for ways of sneaking past the speed of light. I hated the thought of a universal speed limit, as it effectively killed my dreams of space travel and being able to visit a distant galaxy, and still having living relatives I'd recognize when I returned.

How's that for honesty?

If you want, here's another quote you might like:

This was part of Richard Feynman's introduction to quantum mechanics in his "Lectures on Physics" Vol III. I highly recommend the three volumes if you want some insight into physics and physicists, and if you haven't already read them.

 

przyk,
But if you and the others really think that way, why do you close the door in my nose to me?
As the title suggest may be I could give a new light in Physics...
I don't understand you all...

 

You don't get it, do you? Going for a theory just because you like it or feel comfortable with it is not how science operates. Nature is the ultimate judge of any theory, not any person's intuition or wishful thinking.

 

przyk,

You really don't know how important the "wishfull thinking" is and ever was for Science and Humanity...

 

I can't believe you just said that. Wishful thinking has only ever hindered science and progress. Good scientists do their best to steer clear of it.

 

przyk,
Yes I'm saying that. You don't know how it helped Humanity and Science progress.
May be you don't get the right meaning of it. I'm talking about getting someway out the reality we are and think how the things should be or must be independently on how they currently could be or exactly opposed as they currently are.
That has to do with imagination and the sense of perfection and goodness.
I realize you are outside about this kind of reasoning.
Do you have imagination?

 

lol Its ironic, but that is exactly what Einstein did with the human concept of time while constructing relativity, and what you are refusing to do in order to understand relativity.

 

martillo,

There is no "should" or "must be." This is exactly where you are departing from science. All you know about the universe is what you observe. Nothing more. The universe is as "perfect" and "good" as it is, not to the extent you want it to be. Imagination is important in science - arguably, it's the only way of making any progress, but you have to remember that your imagination does not govern nature. Your ideas must be guided by experiment and observation, not your personal feelings and preferences.

Basically, imagine, but don't get carried away. Many people have imaginative minds. Many have rational minds. Very few have the best of both worlds.

 

Yes indeed. The point I was making was that Einstein took a stance that there should/must be a better explanation than Lorentz's and thats how we have relativity today instead of aether contraction

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

. Not that he was as arrogant as to think the universe must be how he said it should be.

 

przyk,
as I see you have no imagination at all.

Yes there is and become very important when we are reading wrong things!

 

I think Einstein's main reason for beginning work on his theory was that he couldn't imagine catching up with a light ray. I'm not familiar with the details, but I think it had to do with problems in electromagnetism that would occur if someone could travel at c or faster. Ultimately, his contribution was to show that the assumption of an absolute/aether frame was unnecessary.

Same goes for his general theory. It was well known that the gravitational and inertial masses were equal as far as any measurements could tell, but there was no explanation for this. Einstein assumed it wasn't a coincidence and developed GR out of this. It wasn't just random thinking.

 

przyk,
You kmow, I think I understand now.

You are good memorizing texts isn't it? (something I'm not so good).
And much of what you read stays in your memory.

That's why you are so afraid to catch something new to read!
Specially if the "source" is not well recommended...

Now I got it.

 

Memorizing texts is the worst way to learn anything. I'm not very good at it either, by the way.

If some detail catches my attention, it can stay in my memory for years afterwards, but generally I don't learn this way. It's useful for picking up interesting facts or bits of trivia, but not entire theories (especially in mathematically refined sciences).

I don't agree with your methods, and I don't agree with your reasons for rejecting modern theories (especially given that you aren't as familiar with them as you should be). Basically you've accepted some things as self-evident that I wouldn't. I don't accept anything as self-evident.

Why are you so afraid to study theories that have already been tested? It takes time, but you'll learn a bit about why physicists proposed the theories they did and how they think. I'm going to have to borrow one of your own statements here: you don't know what you're missing.

Some interesting psychology that relates to this is the roles of the right and left hemispheres of the brain. I expect you're predominantly right-brained. I expect Einstein was, too. Left-brained people are the by-the-book type - what you're obviously suggesting I am.

 

przyk,
Let me state in other words.

You are here in the Forum with a great knowledge abiout current theories and what you look for is to talk about all that learned things and solutionate appearing problems with all that knowledge.
Current Physics has an answer to quite every question.
For example how do you explain the wave-like behaviour of electrons? You just admitted that exist the "wave-particle" duality and that is a"property" of the Universe!
Now I understand that.

But there are other kind of people that are not satisfied with that kind of explanations and they are looking for how to make Physics work pretty and fine. They don't believe all is so right today and they are SEARCHING for new ideas, new concepts, errors to be fixed, etc to finally find the right thing, and the right thing is the truth that is the only thing that can run pretty and fine.

That's what my work was made for. For those people!

Now I know you are not that kind, and I just would like that if you know someone in that way, tell him you know about some site full of new ideas that even you don't like very much they can be useful for him.

Can you do that?

I will appreciate and I think they will appreciate too.

 

Hehehe! Like ad-hoc patches on 300 year-old theories to explain observations that other theories have already explained for the last century? That kind of "new" idea? Or perhaps you meant moving a variable to the other side of an equation? I think that idea is as "new" as the ancient Babylonians. You are so hillarious talking about "new" ideas!

-Dale