|
0000
9,319 posts
60 months
|
Gene Vincent said: The Universe is infinite Stating wild theory as fact really is your speciality. There's a thread on homeopathy that's missing your input.
|
|
|
Gene Vincent
Original Poster
4,002 posts
27 months
|
AJI said: Reading through this thread and a few other GV posts I see a few people going on the 'attack' for no other reason than (1) lack of understanding or (2) lack of reasoning powers.
...but I do notice he's never really the one to start off a mud slinging match. You'd noticed! 
BD, it is fine for the general public to not realise the difference, quite a few 'scientists' don't understand the distinction either. But it is important for the proper understanding of things, a Mathematician working in the area I work in will never mix the two, Physicists will. A Physicist will see no difference and for his discipline that is correct, but I see them as two distinct definitions because I have resolution issues with the concept of a null Universe that are quite distinct from the 'positive' Cosmos. I have to account for things within this discipline, a Physicist has no such issues or will not address them directly, in short a Physicist will use what a Mathematician has previously provided for them to work with. It's a professional shibboleth, it labels someone as clearly as anything I can think of.
|
|
|
Gene Vincent
Original Poster
4,002 posts
27 months
|
0000 said: Gene Vincent said: The Universe is infinite Stating wild theory as fact really is your speciality. There's a thread on homeopathy that's missing your input. See what I mean BD? The Universe is infinite, but the Cosmos is not, everything we can view is within the finite Cosmos. 0000 labels himself as not really knowing much, just what he's garnered from various articles and TV. Anything he says after declaring his ignorance on the subject is subject to that bit of self-revelation. Cruel, but that's life.
|
|
|
hairykrishna
8,970 posts
72 months
|
GV, when you say you're a theoretician - is this your job? Do you get paid to do it? i.e. do you work at a university?
|
|
|
Gene Vincent
Original Poster
4,002 posts
27 months
|
To put this Universe/Cosmos separation in terms appropriate for a car website, one is Turbocharging the Supercharging, ostensibly they both blow air under pressure into the engine but they are distinctly different in delivery and method of production.
If you went to the garage and spoke to an engineer about your turbocharger when you drove in there with a VW G60, and then started telling how to repair the cars turbo... my guess is that when you left the garage he'd be having a huge laugh at your expense.
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
walm
3,441 posts
71 months
|
AJI said: If you dissagree with comments/statements then instead of insulting text why not provide an in depth argument with proper reasoning. Ha! If only. It's not worth it. He just insults you and throws in words he doesn't understand in reply. Which is boring. For example... absolutism isn't an example of scientific close-mindedness. GV has made a category mistake. Coming up with a theory that the laws of physics are the same everywhere doesn't mean you refuse to accept the possibility that you might be wrong. Einstein spent much of his career attempting to disprove his own theories because (unlike GV) he was open to the idea that he might be wrong. (Particularly when some of the direct results of your theory come up with troubling conclusions such as the EPR thought experiment.) The constants he mentions are defined numbers. Of course they don't change. Pi will always be what it is because we define it. He is confusing scientific theories with scientific definitions and then calling ME stupid. A more reasonable response would have been, "we define time, hence it is like a constant such as pi". That has merit.
|
|
|
Gene Vincent
Original Poster
4,002 posts
27 months
|
walm said: He is confusing scientific theories with scientific definitions and then calling ME stupid. I think you'll find that my first post was a definition of time, an accepted definition of time, so accepted that there are no provisos in any theory, 't' is never broken down, it remains just 't' with whatever qualifier you wish to append, but 't' remains constant at the point of reaction. I don't have to call you stupid (actually I think I used the term dumb) there really is no need.
|
|
|
davepoth
19,903 posts
68 months
|
Gene Vincent][me said: E = mc^2, the equivalence of mass to energy... religious?[/me]
[you]Not the whole story though, is it?[/you]
As far as equivalence is concerned, yes, absolutely. The most recent and most accurate test results (published in 2005) don't quite add up, showing an admittedly slight difference between what E=MC^2 predicted and what they got. Care to explain?
|
|
|
Gene Vincent
Original Poster
4,002 posts
27 months
|
davepoth said: Gene Vincent][me said: E = mc^2, the equivalence of mass to energy... religious?[/me]
[you]Not the whole story though, is it?[/you]
As far as equivalence is concerned, yes, absolutely. The most recent and most accurate test results (published in 2005) don't quite add up, showing an admittedly slight difference between what E=MC^2 predicted and what they got. Care to explain? Easy, computational error. Remember all the recent Higgs discovery? If E 'didn't in even the tiniest extent' = mc^2 the results would be worthless. In short, at times we need to test our apparatus, programs etc and the 'best test' if you can conjure it is to test it against E=mc^2. Add up your input and see if the output is equal, if it's not then you know the level of accuracy of your equipment. You're flogging a dead horse here mate.
|
|
|
jbudgie
1,625 posts
81 months
|
|
|
davepoth
19,903 posts
68 months
|
Gene Vincent said: Easy, computational error.
Remember all the recent Higgs discovery?
If E 'didn't in even the tiniest extent' = mc^2 the results would be worthless.
In short, at times we need to test our apparatus, programs etc and the 'best test' if you can conjure it is to test it against E=mc^2.
Add up your input and see if the output is equal, if it's not then you know the level of accuracy of your equipment.
You're flogging a dead horse here mate. Was it though? Have you checked? Or are you just going to have blind faith?
|
|
|
Gene Vincent
Original Poster
4,002 posts
27 months
|
davepoth said: Gene Vincent said: Easy, computational error.
Remember all the recent Higgs discovery?
If E 'didn't in even the tiniest extent' = mc^2 the results would be worthless.
In short, at times we need to test our apparatus, programs etc and the 'best test' if you can conjure it is to test it against E=mc^2.
Add up your input and see if the output is equal, if it's not then you know the level of accuracy of your equipment.
You're flogging a dead horse here mate. Was it though? Have you checked? Or are you just going to have blind faith? Well, you failed to post a link, but there was no need really, it will be a computational error. Hardly a month has gone by since Einsteins work was published that someone somewhere has posed the question about him being wrong, some have been proved to be so, one that hasn't is his statement on equivalence (E=mc^2) it remains constant, accurate and succinct. it is all you need to know regarding equivalence, after that you just go about your work and ensure that if you work in that domain you check that you haven't loaded one side against the other. You are just another person with incomplete knowledge making assessments on something you fundamentally do not understand. Every month you are joined by others.
|
|
|
davepoth
19,903 posts
68 months
|
Gene Vincent said: Well, you failed to post a link, but there was no need really, it will be a computational error.
Hardly a month has gone by since Einsteins work was published that someone somewhere has posed the question about him being wrong, some have been proved to be so, one that hasn't is his statement on equivalence (E=mc^2) it remains constant, accurate and succinct. it is all you need to know regarding equivalence, after that you just go about your work and ensure that if you work in that domain you check that you haven't loaded one side against the other.
You are just another person with incomplete knowledge making assessments on something you fundamentally do not understand.
Every month you are joined by others. http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/releases/einste...There you go. As I said, how can you tell it was a computational error? I know it almost certainly was, but how can you put blind faith in a belief like that? -edit- The main thing I understand about science is that no real scientist will ever take anything as a certainty, an absolute, or an end point.
|
|
|
Gene Vincent
Original Poster
4,002 posts
27 months
|
davepoth said: Gene Vincent said: Well, you failed to post a link, but there was no need really, it will be a computational error.
Hardly a month has gone by since Einsteins work was published that someone somewhere has posed the question about him being wrong, some have been proved to be so, one that hasn't is his statement on equivalence (E=mc^2) it remains constant, accurate and succinct. it is all you need to know regarding equivalence, after that you just go about your work and ensure that if you work in that domain you check that you haven't loaded one side against the other.
You are just another person with incomplete knowledge making assessments on something you fundamentally do not understand.
Every month you are joined by others. http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/releases/einste...There you go. As I said, how can you tell it was a computational error? I know it almost certainly was, but how can you put blind faith in a belief like that? Two ways. First, this is my manor, so to speak, I have to test my own work against it occasionally to ensure what I do is right. But the big tell-tale was the date... if you'd said 'today' or even possibly 'yesterday' then I wouldn't be on here, I'd be rather busy... If Einsteins E=mc^2 is ever changed trust me, I'd know within seconds... 7 years and I didn't know? I should cocoa!
|
|
|
Gene Vincent
Original Poster
4,002 posts
27 months
|
davepoth said: The main thing I understand about science is that no real scientist will ever take anything as a certainty, an absolute, or an end point. You understand wrong. We are not a new version of a new noble priesthood with some vow of continual questioning no matter how bloody pointless it may be. That is a formula to descend into a new Dark Age. We'd get nowhere. We build on the work of others (you've heard that before, doubtless) and once we see it works we use it until it breaks, if it doesn't break but instead it just becomes more resilient when put under further and greater extension then we have to accept that it is beyond doubt. The creed you think applies does not, it would be a straight jacket.
|
|
|
davepoth
19,903 posts
68 months
|
Gene Vincent said: Two ways.
First, this is my manor, so to speak, I have to test my own work against it occasionally to ensure what I do is right.
But the big tell-tale was the date... if you'd said 'today' or even possibly 'yesterday' then I wouldn't be on here, I'd be rather busy...
If Einsteins E=mc^2 is ever changed trust me, I'd know within seconds... 7 years and I didn't know?
I should cocoa! So, has anyone managed to clear up that minor discrepancy in the seven years since the paper that this result comes from (I don't have a subscription to Nature unfortunately)? It's a bit like Pi. Nobody has ever said "That's good enough", otherwise we would still use three.
|
|
|
0000
9,319 posts
60 months
|
Gene Vincent said: 0000 said: Gene Vincent said: The Universe is infinite Stating wild theory as fact really is your speciality. There's a thread on homeopathy that's missing your input. See what I mean BD? The Universe is infinite, but the Cosmos is not, everything we can view is within the finite Cosmos. 0000 labels himself as not really knowing much, just what he's garnered from various articles and TV. Anything he says after declaring his ignorance on the subject is subject to that bit of self-revelation. Cruel, but that's life. Professor Joseph Silk, Head of Astrophysics, Department of Physics, University of Oxford disagrees with you. Albert Einstein said: Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former Indeed. Perhaps you know better though. 
|
|
|
Gene Vincent
Original Poster
4,002 posts
27 months
|
Yeah, in 2001 he did.
I'm not certain but around that I too would not have been as definitive as I am today.
I'm sure if you'd asked Einstein what equivalence was all about in 1895 he'd have been a bit perplexed as it was a good few years later that he came up with E=mc^2.
Quoting someones thoughts from 2001 as being in some way conclusive, especially in the light of ongoing expansion of knowledge, is not really that strong a position to hold, don't you think?
Back then the dichotomy of results that led to his indecisiveness was not resolved by the mathematics of the day.
|
|
|
jbudgie
1,625 posts
81 months
|
jbudgie said: Where do you work Gene ? Any reason why you never answer this question ?
|
|
|
Gene Vincent
Original Poster
4,002 posts
27 months
|
davepoth said: It's a bit like Pi. Nobody has ever said "That's good enough", otherwise we would still use three. Actually Pi is always done to 'good enough'... it is just that our 'good enough' changes, but the definition of pi (pi = circumference/diameter) has remained constant since time began!
|
|
