Garbage physics to the rescue. These folks are more clever than most and make up a good story, unfortunately since they don't believe in math and theoretical physics they don't understand the very basics of stochastics and noise. Their entire anti-LIGO rant is ludicrous, I told them so but they censored my comments (what else is new?) .
Gravitational Waves – holoscience.com | The ELECTRIC UNIVERSE(R)
I assume time does not exist.
Einstein's friend Godel wrote much about it.
http://www.ams.org/notices/200707/tx070700861p.pdf
Einstein's friend Godel wrote much about it.
http://www.ams.org/notices/200707/tx070700861p.pdf
Attachments
It's easy to quote and link stuff, but understanding it is another matter. Every time one of Einstein's predictions gets a new experimental verification the usual suspects thrash about making up new denial stories, how tiresome.
What baffles me is the moral imperative that somehow Einstein and relativity is horribly wrong. Why do they care?
Because some cannot accept that education, hard work and a drop of genius can make a difference, and is by no means isomorphic with their usual pub "work" over a pint of beer. Also the media is successfully dumbifying science at the Joe Sixpack level on a daily basis, without any responsibility other than selling the illusion of "understanding" packed with advertising for the latest teeth bleaching product.
That, and the fact that Michelson, Einstein, Bohr, Pauli, Feynman, Gell-Mann, Weinberg, Bethe and quite a few others are jews, so their results must necessary hide some sort of zionist plot.
FWIW, IMO the best QM book for beginners (with a degree, though) was written by Leonard Susskind (yet another one of those, what were you thinking?) Quantum Mechanics: The Theoretical Minimum (Theoretical Minimum 2): Amazon.co.uk: Leonard Susskind, Art Friedman: 9780141977812: Books This is the minimum to have any remotely intelligent discussion on QM.
Disclosure: I took QFT in the university, it's way over what an EE needs, but much less than I would enjoy. So I qualify only as a QM/QFT DIYer.
Probably not. But you need to make a clear distinction between physical reality and it's mathematical description.
FWIW, we already know that our mathematical support is by no way unique. About 100 years ago, some smart pants decided to create a constructive mathematics, which, simply put, is dumping the Zermelo axiom out of the mathematics foundation. In laymen term, this means that starting a theorem with "Let 'A' be..." was made illegal. It took about 50 years of efforts to realize that this "new" mathematics is completely coherent and leads to exactly the same results as the conventional approach.
You favorite alien species may find the constructive mathematics (or whatever other breed) as their favorite tool to write e.g. the quantum field equations, which could make them very hard to semantically understand for humans. But the end results (that is, modelling the physical reality) are for sure the same. It is very likely that some areas of physics were taken to the next level (of abstraction, generalization and integration), while others are in behind to ours.
Last edited:
Having had the privilege of an hour of Rai Weiss' time (he actually asked me about noise issues) I find this attitude so ridiculous as to be ignored. OTHO Kip Thorne was brought up LDS the most successful flying saucer cult in history (I think he knows it).
A lot of science is regarded this way in the public domain. Vehement anti-science sentiment is sweeping the US. Science gets in the way of a lot of stuff. Science is conflated with evil and deception.
People are incredulous at what they don't understand. Plus there's Dunning-Kruger syndrome, which seems more or less universally applicable.
People ask me to explain stuff all the time. Then it's "How do you know" and "You're just making it complicated." I've learned that people ask questions that they don't want the answers to.
Just returned from cruise, nice time in Jamacia.
Yes all of the responses are very typical of establishment thinking. I once fought a huge running internal political battle with a very large organazition. They were presented with analysis (hard numbers) on converting to electric drives as opposed to diesel.
The concept was a totally foreign neverland to all of the directors. Now three competitors are operating 100% electric and the old company is slowly fading away.
Yes all of the responses are very typical of establishment thinking. I once fought a huge running internal political battle with a very large organazition. They were presented with analysis (hard numbers) on converting to electric drives as opposed to diesel.
The concept was a totally foreign neverland to all of the directors. Now three competitors are operating 100% electric and the old company is slowly fading away.
Which one of the Axioms?
Zermelo–Fraenkel set theory - Wikipedia
For the constructive mathematics, the non accepted proposition is " Let 'A' not be..."
Layman George
Which one of the Axioms?
Zermelo–Fraenkel set theory - Wikipedia
For the constructive mathematics, the non accepted proposition is " Let 'A' not be..."
Layman George
The Axiom of Choice. Equivalent with the statement "the Cartesian product of a set of non-empty sets is not empty". Or, from a practical perspective, given an infinite set of objects we can choose one, without specifying a rule. Even more casual, one cannot use in math rationale an object without showing a rigorous construction method for that object.
If your point is to try to suggest anything except doing the work to make a case, then it was lost. I'm sure when you bring hard theory and robust test ideas (which to really show something new down at these size scales/sensitivities is a multi-multi BILLION dollar proposal) you will be taken seriously.
I don't know what else to tell you.
That is not my job, I am not an evangelist.
Anyway the many proofs/experiments have been very public since 1980s.
Relativity has been raised to the highest religious levels and believers will not accept any contrary proofs. So you are correct in saying it is pointless, my projects (biomedical) do however assume we have no theoretical limits to obey.
(the motor drives mentioned are 3000-5000hp in a $60B worldwide industry)
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.