Re: Re: Re: Re: Math & Physics The obvious problem with this argument is that it amounts to saying if you could train a bunch of monkeys to randomly press keys, they'd eventually churn out the consitution of the united states. Yes, you'd win a lot more than a nobel prize if you could train monkeys this well, but I am trying to say that the fact that the model embodies anything related to 'masses of all the known particles' (for instance) then it must have gotten something right about the physical world??? You can't build a random number generator that produces the masses of all known particles, nor can you build any such black box (without having provided SOME physically interpretable mechanism into it). :bugeye:
Re: Dense I just mean to say that Nobel Prize winners have a tendency to tell stories about their models. Something few other physicists would do with as much freedom. But its irrelevant regardless. Ignore me. :m:
i minored in classics. the first one, well i don t know what suffodere means, something like subdue? i think the root, foedere, means decay. "let false logic subdue your whole philosphy" false logic has no power over me or my philosophy. i like to only use correct logic in my thinking. i m not sure what this quote is supposed to mean. the second one: "if you know how to read this, then you have too much education" i don t agree. i don t have nearly enough education, and if i can somehow manage it, i will never leave school. there is just so much to know. it will take a lifetime to get it all.
sounds like the thesis of s wolfram s new book, from what i know of it. i dunno... call me conservative, but i like modern mathematics, real numbers, and calculus. i m bettin on that horse.
Lethe, i've read as much pseudoscience as I can - I'm off for a break. See you in a few months, perhaps, Keep up the good fight, Ron.
Re: Kidnapped I think it's quite funny that you're the author of the post that supports your view, Dan K. McCoin. - Warren
WARREN Please check Physlink.Com. Ever here of cut and paste? Guess I should point out that my Word Pad doesn't cut and paste for the past 3 days but I copied it to my self via Outlook Express, saved it to a file I labled Temp File and then posted it here. I only talk to myself after 10:00PM.
Escape Goat BS from a PHD I am quite sure nobody here really cares to check this out but because certain PHD's that can't properly solve a (3) clock problem, like to cast enuendo. slander, double talk and pretend he is superior and his challenger is a without any standing (when most of what I have said is also supported by other PHD's by the way), I make available here the truth. The post regarding the trend of physics to favor mathematical concepts over the study of physical reality was expressed by an aeronautical engineer here: http://www.physlink.com Under: Discussion Forum Catagory Group: General Physics Discussion Topic: "Is mathematics The Right Tool?" By: fiziwig 02 - 18 - 2003 1:22 PM Original 02 - 18 - 2003 5:44 PM Follow up to message. Surely you have something stronger than this Warren. Don't you think the thread has shifted just a bit from your initial assualt? PS: To not piss people off again, since it has been brought to my attention that I don't deliver well, my reference to "pretend superior" does not infer that I think I am superior. I recognize the Warren is a very accomplished and educated person. Far more so than I. But I also know some things that he clearly doesn't want to know and attempt to avoid acknowledge it by any means.
1) Actually, MacM, I'm about to post a reply to your three-clock problem. It doesn't involve any "McCoin Paradox," unfortunately. 2) I'm not a PhD... not yet anyway. 3) Who cares what an aeronautical engineer says about physicists? How is anyone besides a physicist in a position to judge the work physicists do? If the plumber came to fix your toilet, you'd do well to resist the urge to tell him how to do it. None of these people really know what they're talking about. Besides, it's an opinion -- who cares what they think anyway? Let it go. Deep breath. - Warren
McCoin? Is that the McDonald's solution to the economic problems, or the replacement for the penny? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
chroot Rest chroot, Resign not until you have resolved the 3 clock problem. Talk is cheap. Conditions of the test: One clock on earth v = 0; clock C One clock at v = 0.2c in space; clock A Once clock at v = 0.3c in space; clock B Only linear velocity is tested for 10 hours time C. Clocks are all started and stopped at the same instant. So that doesn't relate to any particular clock view. How that is achieved is of no signifigance. It is done by any means that achieves the goal. It is a stipulated conditions of the test. Oh by the way should you actually find a way to Get C and A to agree as to the time loss between A and B; don't forget this time that ALL clocks include B and I want to see B also lose the correct amount of time A/B. No return paths, no a/d Do the computations and make the clocks all agree with every observers view of reality after the clocks are stopped and returned to earth to read elapsed time during the test. When you do that and do that correctly then I will resign, not before. When you say the conditions of the test are impossible then I will tell you that is why Relativity is an invalid view of physical reality. Please post your respons under the UniKEF topic for I will not continue to rspond under somebodyelse's thread. Oh by the way should you by some fluke actually get C and A to agree on a common time loss between a/B, don't forget this time that ALL clocks includes observer of clock B. I expect to see you make B agree on the A/B time loss. Nobody has addressed that yet. Good luck genius. I believe it was you that made reference to an old saying that I should try to remember. And you are satisified with Relativity, then I have an old saying for you to remember. "Intelligence is knowing to believe only half of what you hear. Genius is knowing which half". Edited by MacM on 02-20-03 at 07:15 PM
Moved One at a time chroot, I will only address one at a time. Right now the shoe is on your foot. KID. I wish, I suspect I am considerably your senior, junior. Further I will not respond to further verbal assualts or put downs. It is act like an intelligent adult or get ignored. If you don't have the umph to resolve the 3 clock problem, that is not my problem. All further communication for UniKEF and the 3 clock problem is moved out of the mainstream to not clutter the MSB. It may be found under topic "UniKEF". If he continues to post here be pissed at him not me. Thank you.
Moved James R., As you know my response have been moved to the topic UniKEF to stop cluttering up the board. Thanks
Aahhhhh, sciforums! Smell it, taste it, soak it up. This is the essance of it all, right here. Are you gone again chroot? BTW this was the last thread, I like saving the last thread Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
That shit sounds cool. Kinda hypnotic. (on a funny related note, the other day I saw this chick with a crazy shirt and huge tits and thought to myself "oh dude! hypnotits!". LOL. Or is it simply a mirror of the current limitations of comprehension? It could be both I suppose if it turns out that the current wave function is actually perfectly descriptive of objective reality. It would probably even be accurate if the current theory is a valid approximation of whatever turns out to be 'truth'. I do however often ponder if some key pieces of the puzzle aren't missing, making an accurate model currently fundamentally impossible, though it still may be a valid approximation it's difficult to assess that without knowing if there are missing pieces. Quite the connudrum.
