x
Monkeymind
- 16 Apr 2012 16:06 UTC; 6 points) 's comment on Our Phyg Is Not Exclusive Enough by (
- 15 Apr 2012 22:51 UTC; 3 points) 's comment on Our Phyg Is Not Exclusive Enough by (
x
x
x
x
x
x
Thank you, yes, I can understand nouns. You point at something and give it a name. I can understand three. I can’t understand how ‘three’ can travel. Because there is no such thing as ‘a’ three. I can also not understand how a three can travel in a non specific direction. I can understand how three apples can travel on a truck or through the air if I throw them. I can conceptualize these things quite easy. I can understand the 3 dimensions of LWH. I can visualize all kinds of 3 dimensional shapes. I can not visualize 4 dimensions and according to Steven Hawking, no one can.
Although I can plot a sine wave on a graph or observe it on an o-scope, I can see that these things are representative of something that is happening....an event. I can not visualize a ‘wave’. I can visualize someone waving their hand in the air. I understand a wave is a disturbance through a medium. The hand disturbs air molecules. The wave does not travel the hand does.
We use math to describe waves and energy and fields. When theories use these words interchangeably as nouns and verbs, I realize that it is not only grammatically incorrect at times, it is nonsensical and so I must disregard what I am being told.
x
Nouns and verbs can not be used interchangeably. You can warm your gun but you can’t fire your feet. Love doesn’t move mountains and one can not carry a force.
If we are chatting like two good ole boys then fine, we don’t necessarily have to define terms. If you are making a hypothesis, then you had better define your KEY TERMS. To be used scientifically words must be precise, unambiguous and non-contradictory.
Science describes what has already happened. I can predict the sun will come up tomorrow, but if the sun supernovas and disintegrates the earth...well so much for my prediction.
OK, now we are getting somewhere. Predictions and wild guesses! QM only makes correct predictions if one invents massless particles like photons. The LHC will never discover a massless particle no matter how many billions of dollars are poured into it. Marge Simpson was right!
x
x
The point is QM has to invent non-existent massless particles to make their math come out. Nature could care less about mathematical constructs or models.
And BTW, speaking of point, can you define point for me? Everyone here seems to want to tell me what I don’t understand. Perhaps you can educate me.
OK, then draw a dimensionless point for me. If you can’t do that then describe it.
Yes, and you are not answering any questions I put forth further illustrating monkeyminds at work here. Care to show me where I don’t understand physics. I can argue that you do not. In general because physics should be abut objects that exist and in particular because you can not give me a hypothesis of what object mediates the phenomena of light, let alone a theory which explains your hypothesis. All you seem to be capable of doing is be condescending.
I plus thee for humor! That’s what I thot. Now how many of these makes up a one inch line?
x
Sorry, I did not understand what you meant by Clippy. Never heard of it b4, so I answered hastily. I use Monkeymind everywhere. I used this avatar originally when discussing evolution with theists, and just kept the name.
I am being serious, and so obviously my questions are serious, and they must be good ones because so far, there have been few reasonable answers. One may say that it is because I truly do not understand the topic(s). Feel free to set me straight any time, rather than just telling me I don’t understand.
If you would like to show me where my ignorance lies or that my thinking is flawed, I would appreciate it. I don’t like being wrong, but I don’t mind being corrected. In fact, I desire it so that I do not have to continue holding on to outdated or non-useful explanations.
However, let me state that I do not necessarily think there is a wrong or a right conclusion to the scientific method. Just explanations which are rational or not rational. Explanations that make sense or do not make sense. If this is the flaw in my thinking you are alluding to, then feel free to make a case for that. If it is about the thot experiment of computer generated amplitudes being fired at make believe half-silvered mirrors, then I am all ears.
Theoretical physics is conceptual. Technology (mostly trial & error) is empirical.
Maybe in the process, I will learn something and I can help you realize the limitations of math and the current state of your (apparently collective) understanding and use of the scientific method.
x