Piss off. Get warts or something.
Why do most people find science boring?
- Thread starter Magical Realist
- Start date
Piss off. Get warts or something.
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
Ah, the real Dr_Toad reveals himself. Forget about the subject under discussion, let's concentrate on semantics. Now do you understand why most people find science boring. You certainly are.
And shows you ignorance of the language spoken in Holland. And are you now going to try and teach me my native language (which is not German)?
p.s. Y'all is not a southern English word. It is a southern US word (as well as southern African)
And shows you ignorance of the language spoken in Holland. And are you now going to try and teach me my native language (which is not German)?
p.s. Y'all is not a southern English word. It is a southern US word (as well as southern African)
In other words Schemelzers theory doesn't have to work. Probably why nobody uses it for doing an actual analysis.
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
Very erudite of you. I am impressed with you truly astounding eloquence and scientific knowledge.
what I find boring is your philosophical bent on the subject of time. Who gives a crap whether you think time is a fundamental component of our universe, or not. Useless information.Ah, the real Dr_Toad reveals himself. Forget about the subject under discussion, let's concentrate on semantics. Now do you understand why most people find science boring. You certainly are.
And shows you ignorance of the language spoken in Holland. And are you now going to try and teach me my native language (which is not German)?
p.s. Y'all is not a southern English word. It is a southern US word (as well as southern African)
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
There you have it. Laymen try to participate and are ridiculed by the "elite" class. So who is the boring party here?
Would rather have me say 2+2=4 ?
p.s. it seems to me my argument is supported by Minkowski himself. Are you going to dismiss him also?
Last edited:
LOL. Dr_Toad.
Being a layman isn't an excuse for choosing ignorance. I'm dismissing you. IE you. Who gives a crap about why you think time isn't a fundamental component of this universe.There you have it. Laymen try to participate and are ridiculed by the "elite" class. So who is the boring party here?
Would rather have me say 2+2=4 ?
p.s. it seems to me my argument is supported by Minkowski himself. Are you going to dismiss him also?
actually, most people find it difficult likely because of the sheer volume of work involved in getting it right, plus research, and the simple fact that most people are not taught how to differentiate between pseudoscience and science... this is most prevalent in people who make the wrong assumption that philosophy is a scientific subject and relevant to/necessary for science to progress. Science progresses because there is always a question "why"...
What does this even mean? that you are a layman seeking to comprehend science?
another question: why does philosophy being spouted by any person have any relevance to the argument?
the question, i thought, was "why do most people find science boring"... philosophy is not a science.
one of the biggest arguments for this is simply the methodology used for philosophy: there is no requirement for objective empirical evidence. Philosophy is also subjective to the individual and thus can be different for every person, regardless of specific wording or constraints. Science, however, is not that way.
as noted above: the biggest reason for the "boring" feeling re: science is simply the huge investment that is required for comprehension of the topics, and that doesn't even include specialties in any particular field, such as QM, QED, Neurology, Astrophysics, or any other...
this is intimidating to most people, but add in the heavy mathematical requirements and you get a fear based response as well. This is also one reason that there are such huge portions of the societies and cultures that fear it or fight against it, from conspiracy ideation to religious fanatics.
It is far easier for someone to believe in what they can't explain than work hard to learn why things can be explained... especially as it is usually culturally acceptable to simply follow the peer pressures for things like religion or other cultural defense mechanisms against knowledge (like conspiracy theory). Most cultures grow up learning to accept the little lies as real or acceptable in their own society in one way, shape or form.
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
By who's standard am I ignorant? Please point out where I have displayed ignorance.
I am certainly not embarrassed by the term layman. But I am embarrassed that "learned perons" automatically assume that a layman is ignorant and uninformed, then wonder why people find science boring. It's not science that is boring, it's the scientists who are boring.
But I have yet to see a coherent refutation of my proposition. Of course there can't be because I am not disputing concensus science. I am merely expanding on a viewpoint which was first declared by Minkowski.
Are you going to insult Minkowski. In any case, my discussion was with Schmelzer. You don't like it, stay out of it.
And for that matter you may want to check your spelling of Schmelzer's name. It's rude to misspell a name and warrants an apology.
You see how easy it is to cast a shadow over a person's intellect or attention.
Last edited:
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
Why would I want to explain that what has alread been explained by the experts, with accompanying mathematical proofs. Now, that would be boring, IMO.
I assure you that I have no agenda other than exactly what I post, which is never in conflict with concensus science.
I was not even aware of that paticular Minkowsky quote, until I ran across it accidentally. If I had known this beforehand, I would just have quoted him. It would have spared me hours of typing and suffering ridicule for a missspelled word. Give me a break will you..
However, if you want to call Minkowski a philosopher and not a scientist, have at it. Let's say, philosophically I understand that quote completely . I also understand David Bohm's hierarchy of Orders and the Pilot Wave..
Is there anyone here who disagrees with Minkowski or Bohm? I don't. So what's the problem?
p.s. the word "boring" relates to psychology, another one of those non-sciences? It's not my OP.
Last edited:
Schmelzer
Valued Senior Member
You should not believe it. If you prefer to believe into Gods, UFOs, wormholes or causal loops, feel free to believe into this. Yes, I will repeat myself, I couldn't care less.
My interpretation is interesting for those who do not follow the mystification of the equations of GR, thus, are ready to think that they are only approximations, with limits of applicability, and that these limits are reached not only near the singularities, but also for solutions with closed causal loops or for wormholes.
It is also interesting for those who are not ready to give up fundamental principles like causality (Reichenbach's principle of common cause) and realism to preserve a particular interpretation of the Einstein equations.
Of course, all the different theories I propose share some properties, which makes them compatible. But, first of all, they all share a close connection with the mainstream theories which are supported by observation - be it GR, the SM of particle physics, or of cosmology. If you want to consider these theories as a house of cards, your choice.
Is there an element they all share? Yes, there is, it is the concept of a preferred foliation, of a preferred time. This is, different from the mystical additional dimensions of string theory, the time we experience in everyday life, which is not described by GR. The time which is the same at above meetings of the twins in the twin paradox, thus, clearly a coordinate time. So, this central idea, shared by all theories I propose, has empirical support already in everyday life. So, I'm not afraid that this "card" will be removed.
Everything else is quite independent. I have simply made the choice to bet on this "card" of a preferred time, and looked for everything which seems useful and interesting but would have to be (or already has been) rejected because it contradicts fundamental relativity which (without empirical evidence) rejects the existence of an absolute time.
I think you are not that stupid that you cannot understand that this does not mean that I reject the use of such false theories as approximations. Simply, approximations are false, truth is not approximate truth, that's all. In this sense, my continuous ether theory of gravity, being a long distance approximation of an atomic ether, is obviously false too, and my SM model is also false because it is only an SR approximation. This is a disagreement about the use of the words "true" and "false" which, surprisingly, does not have physical consequences, because, AFAIU, you also acknowledge that all the theories you name "true" are only approximations.
I will not comment this, the use of words like "inexorable" I leave to exorcists.
It is a consequence of experience, which has destroyed my childhood illusions that all scientists want to know the truth and are ready to care about arguments, thus, those who have the better arguments will be accepted by scientists. This was a naive illusion. I have learned that nobody will accept in public discussions that the other side has the better arguments. So, I have learned not to care about this, by experience.
As well, I have learned not to care about what the mainstream scientists think about my theories. Not because they have arguments which would be hard - they don't. Their strongest argument always has been "you have not yet incorporated this or that into your theory". With the result that some years later I had incorporated this, but the ignorance has not changed even a little bit.
Some time there was the argument "the theory is not published", combined with experiences of extremely unfair rejections, up to "this theory will not be interesting for the readers of this journal". A nice Catch 22: My theories will not be published, because they are not interesting for the readers, and, once they are not published, they are not interesting for the readers. But now I have published my ether theories, and the ignorance remains unchanged.
One, without doubt interesting, radical interpretation of relativity. This radicalism has failed - it appeared impossible to quantize GR based on this radical approach. The violation of Bell's inequality requires to reject realism and causality to preserve it. But this is the fate of radical movements - they do not stop.
Philosophy is part of science, and what Minkowski "philosophied" was a result of the success of Einstein's SR and the non absolute nature of space and time [spacetime] On that score it was more science than philosophy.
And also I have got into a couple of heated debates on this forum re the benefit or otherwise of philosophy. Like I said, it is a part of science, but when Philosophers take it too far, it is just musings.
I have annoyed a philosopher or two by quoting the following.....
Science is what you know. Philosophy is what you don't know.
Bertrand Russell
Just as some can misinterpret Einstein's quote
Imagination is more Important than knowledge
Both of course are indispensible, and imho when Einstein said it, he was simply emphasising Imagination to a particular audience.
On science being boring, certainly not from my angle as a lay person...I read and am in awe of how we are able to discertain with pretty good accuracy how the Universe was and will be. If I don't understand something, I'll ask questions, check out a reputable link, or read a reputable book.
Schmelzer
Valued Senior Member
According to a particular interpretation of GR.
You are about the fact that given the quite large velocity relative to the CMB frame, I have no chance to move in the other direction? Ok, but this is completely unrelated. Because even in the most radical interpretation of GR this is not a fundamental restriction, and the particles in particle accelerators travel forward and back in space without any problem.
No. I can do this. Ok, I don't have to (and will not do this except for payment, because it is indeed boring), but the mathematics for doing this remain the same in the Lorentz interpretation, because the Einstein equations are the same, and the harmonic coordinates are anyway preferred in PPN computations.
(In my theory of gravity, which contains additional terms, there would be some minor corrections. Here, I don't have to make these computations, because I have shown that the Einstein equations of GR appear in the limit $$\Xi,\Upsilon\to 0$$ of my theory and that $$\Xi,\Upsilon$$ have to be very small anyway, to obtain a fit with the cosmological models. This is quite comparable with an ignorance of Einstein's cosmological constant $$\Lambda$$ if one computes the Mercury orbit.)
Schmelzer
Valued Senior Member
As usual for an interpretation of a scientific theory.
It may be, in important parts, about physics. For example, the Born interpretation of QM was, at that time, an interpretation - there was a wave function, it was clear from the results of Schroedinger about hydrogen spectr that it was somehow physically important, but not much more. Then Born has proposed that $$|\psi|$$ is somehow connected to probabilities. Today this part of the intepretation is clearly part of physics, $$|\psi|^2$$ is the probability of measuring a certain outcome. Similarly, kinetic gas theory was, for a long time, only an interpretation. A field-theoretic interpretation would have been possible and compatible with empirical evidence too. Today it is established physics.
Nice quote. The point you have to understand is what follows if one wants to know more than today. In this case, you have to start with what we don't know - that means, with philosophy. Then, if one makes the correct philosophical guess, one has a chance that this philosophy in some future (almost nothing for Born's probability interpretation of QM, centuries for the atomic hypothesis) becomes science.
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
Obviously you have not read my posts carefully enough or you have not understood what I posited, or you are deliberately quoting me out of context. In any case you are completely wrong in that assertion.
NOWHERE have I said that time is not a fundamental component (aspect) of this universe.
Last edited: