That's what I'm saying, Wave. At some point the model must fail to work because its central constant can never be shown to such. My sense? Relativity will likely change in direct respect of that incoherency. I mean, what's light speed constancy in a black hole?
Wow! I want such thing, I want such thing! I patent right now new chorus effect for musical instruments! 🙂
You had better tell the international weights and measures people, as they are about to define c as a constant. If you are right, aircraft will fall out of the sky and maybe the sun will refuse to rise.serengetiplains said:
I liked the piece by Susan Blackmore. There is one hole in her argument: if the paranormal thing she is investigating happens to be caused by something or someone who is both more intelligent and powerful than us and who does not wish to be examined in that way then the experiment may give a null result. This is why you cannot prove or disprove the existence of a deity: you can't prove a negative, and He might have reasons why he won't let a sceptic prove a positive.
To give a slightly silly analogy: if I knocked on the door of Buckingham Palace and demanded proof that Elizabeth Windsor actually exists and that she is my Queen, if I am lucky some flunky would send me away with a flea in my ear (if I am unlucky I would have a long conversation with Special Branch). Why? She's the Queen; she doesn't have to justify herself to the likes of me.
Of course they do, but it is the scale. It is their ability to direct your attention, not the camera. The very best are the simple dexterity, slight of hand, or whatever you call it. I don't care about making elephants disappear on stage as viewed by a camera. Have you ever seen a slow motion view of someone who can deal any of the top or bottom 10 cards at will?
Third possibility: Betty will come to the door and demand of you, "Where were you when I laid the foundations of England? Who determined the size, if you know it? Who stretched the line? Where were the foundations attached? Or who laid the cornerstone?"
I suppose that would convince you. 😀
I tend to agree with you... I very much enjoy watching good sleight-of-hand. It may be, though, that the stage magic is more sophisticated at directing your attention, while the hand is just quicker than the eye. The stage setting is usually more grandiose, but there's something appealing of the smaller scale and everyday objects of close-up magic. (btw, I own copies of Erdnase's and Bobo's classic books on cards and coins respectively.)
Anyway, I wasn't intending to get into theology or conjuring, though at some level there's obvious parallels. This should all be taken in the context of a philosophy of science. Real-unreal, true-false, proven-unproven have different meanings at a magic show, a courtroom, or a laboratory. I personally feel mixing science and religion is a disservice to both.
The analogy to sleight of hand is apt- as humans with human brains, we are very, very skilled at fooling ourselves. Magicians are experts at understanding the ways that we allow our senses to fool us into arriving at false conclusions and the ways in which our memories can be prospectively altered. The latter is not well appreciated (and is a particular stock-in-trade for psychics and cold readers), but integral to understanding. If you ever get an opportunity to have someone describe what they think happened during a mentalist or psychic's performance, then compare this to a tape of the actual performance, you'll be greatly amused.
Buckingham Palace has fleas!
Of course the Queen has to justify herself to you and every other subject. What are her qualifications as Queen? She was born. (And she has, shall we say, whimsical taste in clothes?)
But on a more serious note. Science and religion are coming back together again. Although they were never really separated. What we know of as God created the universe. And science exists to explain it. But before you tie me to the rationalist stake and light the fire. I believe in God as Aquinas does, as the prime mover. Ritual, orthodoxy and the like were created by human beings, not God.
If you look at a map of the known universe it is expanding in roughly one direction in a more or less conical shape. More like a shotgun blast than a unidirectional explosion. So if you go back to before the big bang directionality was already there. Implying that it was instigated from somewhere else and not from nowhere.
I suspect that very soon, maybe even in our lifetimes, we may be able to get God on the phone.
Of course the Queen has to justify herself to you and every other subject. What are her qualifications as Queen? She was born. (And she has, shall we say, whimsical taste in clothes?)
But on a more serious note. Science and religion are coming back together again. Although they were never really separated. What we know of as God created the universe. And science exists to explain it. But before you tie me to the rationalist stake and light the fire. I believe in God as Aquinas does, as the prime mover. Ritual, orthodoxy and the like were created by human beings, not God.
If you look at a map of the known universe it is expanding in roughly one direction in a more or less conical shape. More like a shotgun blast than a unidirectional explosion. So if you go back to before the big bang directionality was already there. Implying that it was instigated from somewhere else and not from nowhere.
I suspect that very soon, maybe even in our lifetimes, we may be able to get God on the phone.
Maybe many absolutes do exist, but aren't observable. This tends to force the physicist to confront one thing he hates the most, metaphysics.
On the contrary, some physicists are very interested in metaphysics. There were lots of metaphysical debates around the time that quantum mechanics started. Einstein's objections to it were metaphysical, as he couldn't argue with the accuracy of its predictions. Maybe you don't know enough real physicists?
Science in Turmoil - Are we Funding Fraud?
by Dr. Jeremy Dunning-Davies
Science in Turmoil - Are we Funding Fraud?
For those unable to afford the printed book, a pdf copy of all but one chapter is available (see link at bottom of page).
Absolutes do not exist. At the heart of humanity is fear. Fear of death, the unknown, or chaos. Humans assume the antidote for fear is order. And absolutes of any kind are the ultimate expression of order. We see the physical world as orderly. But when viewed at the quantum level there is no order. In fact there is nothing but chaos. Particles don't even exist continuously. They wink in and out of existence. Their being isn't even constant let alone their properties.
Absolutes only exist as an artifact of observation. And the act of observing changes what we observe.
Remember metaphysics came first. The forced dichotomy between physics and metaphysics was an attempt to enforce order by denying what could not be explained and separating it from that which could. Physics is not the answer to metaphysics it is a rationalization. Kinda catchy though...
Absolutes only exist as an artifact of observation. And the act of observing changes what we observe.
Remember metaphysics came first. The forced dichotomy between physics and metaphysics was an attempt to enforce order by denying what could not be explained and separating it from that which could. Physics is not the answer to metaphysics it is a rationalization. Kinda catchy though...
Please pay attention on background. Coincidence?
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
The use of the word crackpot or crank seems to question the sanity of the dissidents accused of heresy even when the science is recognized to have flaws and the conventional scientists have their own limitations.
I don't think we have any need for that hypothesis.7n7is said:
There is a distinction which can be drawn between crackpots and dissidents. One difference is that most crackpots don't actually understand the thing they claim to disagree with. Their ideas are usually simply barmy, and can be shown to be false - if anyone can be bothered to try to explain it to them, often not worth it as they won't understand the explanation.
Someone who starts off as a dissident can sometimes end up as a crackpot. The pressure of being something of a lone voice can cause emotional damage over many years. It is sad when this happens.
You can be mainstream in one area, and a crackpot in another. A good example of this is Eric Laithwaite, an EE professor at Imperial College. He did brilliant work in linear motors and magnetic levitation, then veered off sideways into gyroscopes and anti-gravity. It was very embarrassing for his colleagues. I remember seeing a seminar in which a physicist from Imperial showed that EL was simply wrong but the maths to do this involved using Lagrangian mechanics which most UK engineers have never heard of, let alone studied.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.