No one has ever claimed that people don't have a right to say all sorts of ignorant things. Likewise, there is nothing preventing people from pointing out that the things being said are ignorant. And further, there is nothing preventing people from making constructive suggestions on how to reduce one's ignorance.
If someone is content with ignorance, that is also their right.
There is no one who is not an amateur at something even you!
I do not believe you do not discuss things you know very little about possibly in magazines. From that discussion you pick things up and learn this whole site is a good example! DIY audio<<<because you are not a masters degree electronic engineer you should not discuss it..sorry I disagree!
The bottom line is guidance is one thing, bullying people into silence is another!
Regards
M. Gregg
Last edited:
I suspect that Einstein took the trouble to understand that which he criticised. Hence, his criticism carries some weight - even if it turns out that he was wrong.Bonsai said:
You can say what you like about QM. Nobody is trying to stifle your free speech. We are merely pointing out that such free speech, if uninformed by knowledge, is not going to achieve anything apart from perhaps a little entertainment. There is certainly unlikely to be any enlightenment of QM fans or critics.M Gregg said:
Most people have some intuitive ideas about flowers. Intuitive ideas about QM are almost always wrong, unless informed by a physics education at a suitable level.
I said
(underline now added). That is not a ban on free speech; just a comment on its likely content - especially on an audio website where Fourier denial etc. is rife. There are deep connections between Fourier analysis and the Schrodinger formulation of QM; the former is the simpler of the two.DF96 said:
So ask your questions, but don't expect meaningful answers unless the question has meaning.
DF96,
I would think you would find this mildly amusing (knowing your interests).
All I ask is read it! Probably take you about 2 mins.
So I ask the question from the link do you see any possibility of Absolute nothing?
The reason I ask is partly because of entanglement partly because of the lack etc of the big bang.
Its not the main link its just one that contains an outline..
As posted before:
http://mymultiplesclerosis.co.uk/bt...ichio-kaku-professor-andrei-linde-neil-turok/
Regards
M. Gregg
Last edited:
M Gregg, I find it perplexing that you equate someone disagreeing with you, or even commenting that what you posted is "nonsense", (or any other adjective!) with bullying, censorship or attempting to stop free speech. 
If you don't like someone's opinion or ideas, either put up a reasoned response or ignore them! Are you really such a delicate little flower that you are damaged by a different view?
If you don't like someone's opinion or ideas, either put up a reasoned response or ignore them! Are you really such a delicate little flower that you are damaged by a different view?
M Gregg, I find it perplexing that you equate someone disagreeing with you, or even commenting that what you posted is "nonsense", (or any other adjective!) with bullying, censorship or attempting to stop free speech.
Cliffforest,
I know you of old, so I'm not going to bite.
I find it interesting that someone regards the information posted as nonsense without even taking the time to read it.
Regards
M. Gregg
M Gregg,
With all due respect I find your many musings in non-audio science threads to be very reminiscent of the 3AM bong and blotter acid philosophy sessions of my early 20's. It's not that it isn't great fun to speculate and wonder about the fundamental mysteries unfettered by actual understanding, rather it's that the circle of those who will similarly enjoy and participate tend to be at a similar level of non-understanding. On a forum like diyAudio there will be many who, fettered by their understanding but wishing to help move you towards enlightenment, will point out basic issues like, "That question doesn't make any sense". You seem to view these inputs as malevolent when they are every bit as straightforward as someone pointing out in an audio topic how Ohm's Law works when a poster clearly doesn't grasp it. For reference, I'm an engineer with lots of classical physics background and many years ago I read the Feynman lectures. At the time it was enlightening but I can't say much stuck with me or that I would ruminate about QM without refreshing my memory.
With all due respect I find your many musings in non-audio science threads to be very reminiscent of the 3AM bong and blotter acid philosophy sessions of my early 20's. It's not that it isn't great fun to speculate and wonder about the fundamental mysteries unfettered by actual understanding, rather it's that the circle of those who will similarly enjoy and participate tend to be at a similar level of non-understanding. On a forum like diyAudio there will be many who, fettered by their understanding but wishing to help move you towards enlightenment, will point out basic issues like, "That question doesn't make any sense". You seem to view these inputs as malevolent when they are every bit as straightforward as someone pointing out in an audio topic how Ohm's Law works when a poster clearly doesn't grasp it. For reference, I'm an engineer with lots of classical physics background and many years ago I read the Feynman lectures. At the time it was enlightening but I can't say much stuck with me or that I would ruminate about QM without refreshing my memory.
The comment is based upon this:
Its obvious that with the number of comments that think I'm wrong I accept that perhaps I'm wrong. Unless people are just enjoying having a poke.
So there is no point in going any further.
Its been fun well for me anyway..
Regards
M. Gregg
Last edited:
When I first visited Holland about 45 years ago I met some very happy, hospitable folk there and we wound up talking about this and that, generally BSing.
And I said something, I don't remember what, and one of them said, very seriously, very thoughtfully, "That's the stupidest thing I've ever heard!"
And I thought, "THIS IS MY KIND OF PLACE!"
And I said something, I don't remember what, and one of them said, very seriously, very thoughtfully, "That's the stupidest thing I've ever heard!"
And I thought, "THIS IS MY KIND OF PLACE!"
M. Gregg - not that you'll likely be participating further in this line of conversation, or that he needs any such defence, but Stuart's comment on real vs "pop" science would be predicated on the fact that that (Science) is in fact included in his day job. Among other things he has accumulated over 2 dozen patents in his own field, and has more than a casual familiarity with the scientific method - certainly more of both of those than many of the poseurs wasting bandwidth herein - myself definitely included.
I want to temper what Chris just wrote above a little bit (or to augment it): it's important to appreciate subject matter expertise as well. My Ph.D advisor has a bajillion patents (scientific term), and I wouldn't let him anywhere near QM. We're in the life sciences/medical diagnostics, mostly.
It's very important (and I say that as someone with a large bit of know-it-all personality) to realize what you understand and what you think you understand. That's the value in what SY said about reading at least the background texts of a topic that a plurality of subject matter experts think is a good starting point.
We're in the life sciences/medical diagnostics, mostly. It's very important (and I say that as someone with a large bit of know-it-all personality) to realize what you understand and what you think you understand. That's the value in what SY said about reading at least the background texts of a topic that a plurality of subject matter experts think is a good starting point.
Sy, Einstein had an intellectual problem with it - 'god doesn't play dice with the universe', 'spooky action at a distance' etc. I don't think he ever fully bought into it.
Lighten up man - the people we need to hammer are not the amateur physicists who are simply in awe of nature and filled with wonderment, but the charlatans who sell b.s. knowing full well that what they do is a scientific fraud.
Peace
No, he didn't, but that's the the question- Einstein understood it well and his opinion was based on careful thought. He didn't live long enough to see experimental verification of the points which bothered him most.
And to even understand his objections, you have to understand the basic physics.
To Chris's point, I am NOT a physicist, though I've published a few papers on QM. As with engineering, where I have no training whatever, I know enough about it to discuss things intelligently with people who do actually understand things, but I am not a specialist. For example, I would not feel at all comfortable opining about things like string theory, so I don't. Should I ever get interested enough to want to say things in public, I'd spend the time getting more conversant in the basics and reading the literature.
And to even understand his objections, you have to understand the basic physics.
To Chris's point, I am NOT a physicist, though I've published a few papers on QM. As with engineering, where I have no training whatever, I know enough about it to discuss things intelligently with people who do actually understand things, but I am not a specialist. For example, I would not feel at all comfortable opining about things like string theory, so I don't. Should I ever get interested enough to want to say things in public, I'd spend the time getting more conversant in the basics and reading the literature.
SY, with your knowledge on experimental control, what do you think about the effort to prove that there is "clock difference" between two particles where one is steady and the other one is "accelerated" close to speed of light? This was done at CERN. I couldn't find the detailed information but from what I gathered I don't think it proved anything (not sufficient, like many other efforts after Einstein).
I also had difficulties to separate which ones were Einstein opinions and which were interpretation by his followers. Of course, he wouldn't have put silly words in his thesis or professional papers, but he must have talked to his friends during lunch times (and interpreted accurately by his colleagues).
I remember doing an undergraduate experiment which relied on time dilation working. It was something to do with measuring atmospheric muon decays. The idea is that if time dilation did not work then no muons would be seen at ground level (they are produced by cosmic rays high in the atmosphere).
Time dilation (both relativistic and gravitational) has to be taken into acount by GPS. There is absolutely no doubt that it happens.
Time dilation (both relativistic and gravitational) has to be taken into acount by GPS. There is absolutely no doubt that it happens.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.