New book calls science a "Priesthood"

James R said:
Pincho Paxton:



What arrows?

You constantly talk about things that you don't define or explain in any way. This is one of the reasons why everything you post is useless. It's like a smoke and mirrors game with you, by which you try to give the impression that you're saying something deep while in reality you're saying nothing at all. The problem you face is that there are plenty of people here who can see right through you.



Unquantified, unexplained, useless rubbish.



What error? Change G how? How does G "point" anywhere? What are these "arrows" you keep talking about?

I'm sure we won't see any answers to any of these questions from you.



You just introduced an asteroid out of nowhere. G is a number, not a push. In other words, meanignless nonsense from you.



How can a number be backwards?



More nonsense.



Strange, since they invented it.



More useless rubbish.



You have no theory. You only have a bunch of disconnected words. You have picked up some random elements of jargon and that's all you have. You don't know what any of it means. You obviously have no training or understanding of anything in physics. You can't do maths. All you have is bluff, an overblown ego, and a wild overconfidence in your own capacities.
Click to expand...

Arrow = the direction of anything you like, in this case Gravity. It means to point, it means direction, pointer... go there.

Many quote answers do not work, I can't see the relationship to my answers, and your questions. The site is yours, you should know that the code does not let me read my own quotes in your replies. So I can't see what you are asking me without scrolling up, and down the screen all over the place.
 
Pincho Paxton:

So, if I understand you correctly, you're saying that the directions of everything in physics are wrong. Is that correct? Please back this up with examples and appropriate mathematics, immediately.

As for quotes, try this:

Select the text of the post you wish to quote (including your own quotes). Hit CTRL-C. That tells your computer that you wish to copy the selected text.

Now, hit the "post reply" button at the bottom of the thread.

Select the box that pops up, and hit CTRL-V. That tells your computer to paste the previously-copied text into the reply box.

Problem solved.

I'm a little surprised that a genius such as yourself hasn't managed to work this out for himself.
 
James R said:
Pincho Paxton:

So, if I understand you correctly, you're saying that the directions of everything in physics are wrong. Is that correct? Please back this up with examples and appropriate mathematics, immediately.

As for quotes, try this:

Select the text of the post you wish to quote (including your own quotes). Hit CTRL-C. That tells your computer that you wish to copy the selected text.

Now, hit the "post reply" button at the bottom of the thread.

Select the box that pops up, and hit CTRL-V. That tells your computer to paste the previously-copied text into the reply box.

Problem solved.

I'm a little surprised that a genius such as yourself hasn't managed to work this out for himself.
Click to expand...

CTRL-C, CTRL-V doesn't work properly either.. I already worked that out.

Yes the directions of almost everything are wrong.
I use logic. Logic which is beyond you. Is it a ban-able offence to be beyond understanding?
 
Yes, it ought to be a banable offence to be beyond understanding. This is a Forum - a place where people come to disuss, argue, debate - all of which requires understanding and being understandable.

Those who can't meet thoes rather minimal qualifications have no place here.
 
Pincho Paxton:

You have not posted your examples and mathematics.

Please post them now.
 
James R said:
Pincho Paxton:

You have not posted your examples and mathematics.

Please post them now.
Click to expand...

Math's is science's biggest mistake, I refuse to follow the priesthood. The universe doesn't use maths, so I don't use maths, I use propagation of particles. Being as we have computers nowadays we can evaluate the universe from the particle level.
 
Pincho Paxton said:
Math's is science's biggest mistake, I refuse to follow the priesthood. The universe doesn't use maths, so I don't use maths, I use propagation of particles. Being as we have computers nowadays we can evaluate the universe from the particle level.
Click to expand...
Sure you can - after you plug the formulas in. :bugeye:
 
gmilam said:
Sure you can - after you plug the formulas in. :bugeye:
Click to expand...


I in no way endorse what PP is saying, but I will make a comment in response to your response.


If I recorded a video of some apples on a table, and then a hand grabs some apples and takes them off the table, how many apples are on the table?

You seem to not understand what the purpose of math is. Math is to physics as language is to thoughts. Math is to describe reality the best it can. Math itself is not reality. The apples on the table are reality. The 4-2=2 is to describe reality.
 
Motor Daddy said:
I in no way endorse what PP is saying, but I will make a comment in response to your response.


If I recorded a video of some apples on a table, and then a hand grabs some apples and takes them off the table, how many apples are on the table?

You seem to not understand what the purpose of math is. Math is to physics as language is to thoughts. Math is to describe reality the best it can. Math itself is not reality. The apples on the table are reality. The 4-2=2 is to describe reality.
Click to expand...
As a programmer, I can tell you that a program is also not reality. In actuality, a computer is a very stupid machine. For a computer to do anything someone has to write a program. The instructions contained in that program are going to be in the form of... (you guessed it...) mathematical equations.
 
gmilam said:
As a programmer, I can tell you that a program is also not reality. In actuality, a computer is a very stupid machine. For a computer to do anything someone has to write a program. The instructions contained in that program are going to be in the form of... (you guessed it...) mathematical equations.
Click to expand...

That's great, a computer operates according to a set of instructions. Are you trying to say that in order for apples to be on the table, and then some of the apples taken off the table, that math needs to exist?
 
Motor Daddy said:
That's great, a computer operates according to a set of instructions. Are you trying to say that in order for apples to be on the table, and then some of the apples taken off the table, that math needs to exist?
Click to expand...
No, I'm trying to say that for PP to use computers to model the actions of particles, he's going to have to be able to describe them mathematically. Duh!
 
gmilam said:
No, I'm trying to say that for PP to use computers to model the actions of particles, he's going to have to be able to describe them mathematically. Duh!
Click to expand...

Yeah, that is true, but you would also have to have math to use a computer to describe apples on a table. That doesn't mean math is essential to reality. The reality is, apples are there and then some are consumed whether or not you have math. Math is not required for the universe to exist and be in motion. To imply otherwise is absurd.
 
Motor Daddy said:
Yeah, that is true, but you would also have to have math to use a computer to describe apples on a table. That doesn't mean math is essential to reality. The reality is, apples are there and then some are consumed whether or not you have math. Math is not required for the universe to exist and be in motion. To imply otherwise is absurd.
Click to expand...
This is an argument I've never made. I'm fully aware that math is a language we use to describe reality. I am also fully aware that it's the same language a computer uses. I was responding to PP's claim that he doesn't need math because he can use a computer to evaluate the universe.

Do you see his disconnect here?
 
gmilam said:
This is an argument I've never made. I'm fully aware that math is a language we use to describe reality. I am also fully aware that it's the same language a computer uses. I was responding to PP's claim that he doesn't need math because he can use a computer to evaluate the universe.

Do you see his disconnect here?
Click to expand...

Yes, I already said that's true. My point is that math attempts to describe reality the best it can, and the universe doesn't need math to function, nor does math describe the universe 100% accurately. There is no math that can describe the waves of the ocean, the leaves blowing in a forest, or the motion of a deer in the woods from 12:00-1:00 in the heat of the rut!

Math is an attempt to describe reality. The reality is that you can't split an apple, or anything, into equal parts. Impossible. That is only a bad illusion. The reality is, no two apples are the same.
 
Motor Daddy said:
Yes, I already said that's true. My point is that math attempts to describe reality the best it can, and the universe doesn't need math to function, nor does math describe the universe 100% accurately. There is no math that can describe the waves of the ocean, the leaves blowing in a forest, or the motion of a deer in the woods from 12:00-1:00 in the heat of the rut!

Math is an attempt to describe reality. The reality is that you can't split an apple, or anything, into equal parts. Impossible. That is only a bad illusion. The reality is, no two apples are the same.
Click to expand...
OK? I fail to see the connection with my original comment. I do understand the purpose of math. It is used to describe reality. It is also the language a computer speaks... Therefore, if PP wishes to use a computer... (I'll let you put 2 & 2 together here...)
 
gmilam said:
As a programmer, I can tell you that a program is also not reality. In actuality, a computer is a very stupid machine. For a computer to do anything someone has to write a program. The instructions contained in that program are going to be in the form of... (you guessed it...) mathematical equations.
Click to expand...

My equations have no goals however. What is 100 million apples + 100 million apples?

Well, the apples collapse under their own weight. And my point is that maths says 200 million.

In other words, I don't use direct maths, I try to copy particles exactly so that certain mathematical rules do not happen. Vectors for example should not happen through grain structures. The grain structure is too hap-hazzard to get a straight line vector.

So to avoid all risk of getting a false answer I just use the number 6. I know that a particle needs to obey newtons Law, and I know that you can get 6 particles around 1 particle, so to obey Newtons Laws I have confirmed the use of the number 6. It is hard to confirm anything else.
 
Last edited:
Pincho Paxton said:
My equations have no goals however. What is 1 million apples + 1 million apples?

Well, the apples collapse under their own weight. And my point is that maths says 2 million.
Click to expand...
Not if you lay them out on a single plane. :rolleyes:

You know, when Lucille Ball had to work up a comedy skit around doing a task, like throwing pizza dough, she learned how to throw a pizza crust properly. Only then could she do it wrong and make it funny.

I think it might help your act if you learned the proper approach first.
 
gmilam said:
OK? I fail to see the connection with my original comment. I do understand the purpose of math. It is used to describe reality. It is also the language a computer speaks... Therefore, if PP wishes to use a computer... (I'll let you put 2 & 2 together here...)
Click to expand...

Plugging in formulas is an ATTEMPT to describe reality. Math does not describe reality accurately.

I could use crayons to draw a picture of 4 apples and describe reality better than ANY formula you can produce.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top