Tomorrow's headline:

DrRocket · Sep 29, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>First, the Standard Model does not attempt to explain gravity, and it is unknown how to combine quantum field theory which is used for the Standard Model with general relativity which is the best physical model of gravity. This means that there is not a good theoretical model for phenomena such as the early universe</DIV></p><p>This is correct in that it is certainly well known that quantum field theories do not include general relativity and that attempts to develop a quantum field theory that does include general relativity have not been successful.  In particular attempts to build such a theory have resulted in theories that are not renormalizable, hence tend to be plagues by infinities that don't go away.  That issue is quite well known and is one reason for the large amount of research into unification of quantum field theories with relativity -- loop quantum gravity, string theories and their successors, etc.</p><p>That is no reason to reject the standard model in its entirety anymore than one simply rejects Newtonian mechanics due to the advent of relativity.   Both provide excellent predictions so long as one recognizes the domain of validity of the theory.</p><p> Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> For example, the theory contains many seemingly unrelated parameters of the theory i think 21 in all (around 18 parameters in the core theory, plus G, c and h there are believed to be an additional 7 or 8 parameters required for the neutrino masses, although neutrino masses are outside the standard model and the details are unclear). Research also focuses on the Hierarchy problem (why the weak scale and Planck dimensions are so disparate), and attempts to reconcile the emerging Standard Model of Cosmology with the Standard Model of particle physics. Many questions relate to the initial conditions that led to the presently observed Universe.OHHH YEAH & About 85% of the mass of the universe is yet unaccounted-for by any of the particles in the Standard Model -- missing "dark matter". If i make a theory that accounts for only 15% of things would you believe it?ITS non-sense non-imaginative and scrambled information just thrown together <br />Posted by dabiznuss</DIV></p><p>As noted above the standard model does have its limitations and quirks.  Some of your objections are valid and are well known.  Physics is a subject with a rich body of on-going research, and much of that research is directed towards a unification of particle physics with general relativity.  But to conduct such research effectively and intelligently one must understand the standard model and general relativity and work from that knowledge to develop something more complete.</p><p>Your statement that the model is nonsense, is a statement that simply reeks of ignorance and lack of understanding of the process of scientific research.  What lacks imagination is your statement and not the standard model, and certainly not the on-going research in the fundamentals of physics.  In point of fact a great deal of imagination and inventiveness went into the development of quantum field theories and the standard model of particle physics.  Your assertion to the contrary is somewhat insulting to the body of very talented and very imaginative physicists who developed that model, but it is more a comment on your own lack of imagination, knowledge of physics, capability to do or even understand research, and general ignorance and lack of comprehension of things scientific.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

BrianSlee · Sep 29, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The history of science and physics in particular is filled with examples of individuals thinking independently and creatively.  The key is that they pursued their ideas in a rigorous and disciplined manner.  </p><p>I have nothing but admiration for those who can work in a rigorous and disciplined manner to produce creative physics.  </p><p>Feel free to present a serious argument.  But that argument should be rigorous, and specific.</p><p>You need to PROVE your case using rigoroug mathematics and physics.  <br />Posted by DrRocket</DIV><br /><br />This from a person who can't even quote presented papers correctly, excels in drive by negative comments with no basis in physical law or theory and makes his living on this board pasting sophistic arguments instead of physical reasons for his position.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p>"I am therefore I think" </p><p>"The only thing "I HAVE TO DO!!" is die, in everything else I have freewill" Brian P. Slee</p> </div>

DrRocket · Sep 29, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>This from a person who can't even quote presented papers correctly, excels in drive by negative comments with no basis in physical law or theory and makes his living on this board pasting sophistic arguments instead of physical reasons for his position. <br />Posted by BrianSlee</DIV></p><p>Your ad hominem is duely noted.  Your facts are in error, as usual.<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

BrianSlee · Sep 29, 2008

Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Your ad hominem is duely noted.  Your facts are in error, as usual. <br />Posted by DrRocket</DIV><br /><br />Not an ad hominem just an observation.  I would invite anyone to go back and read your posts and make up their own mind.  Maybe if you just stuck to the facts and physical theories and quit calling people cranks and crackpots I would see it differently. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p>"I am therefore I think" </p><p>"The only thing "I HAVE TO DO!!" is die, in everything else I have freewill" Brian P. Slee</p> </div>

dabiznuss · Sep 30, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Not an ad hominem just an observation.  I would invite anyone to go back and read your posts and make up their own mind.  Maybe if you just stuck to the facts and physical theories and quit calling people cranks and crackpots I would see it differently. <br />Posted by BrianSlee</DIV></p><p><font size="4">Yes i agree with you 100%</font><br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

vandivx · Sep 30, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Your ad hominem is duely noted.  <br />Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>if so then its pot calling kettle black<br /><br />but that's typical for your types who on one hand call people cranks and on the other ask for proofs, if you believed and idea cranky, you wouldn't ask for proof or arguments, I know I wouldn't ask anybody for proofs much less for rigorous ones if someone claimed the Moon is made of green cheese, methinks it is spite talking here and not a rational person</p><p>demands  for proofs presuppose rational base of the ideas in question (which may be mistaken or not) and in that case one shouldn't call those base ideas cranky</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

DrRocket · Sep 30, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>if so then its pot calling kettle blackbut that's typical for your types who on one hand call people cranks and on the other ask for proofs, if you believed and idea cranky, you wouldn't ask for proof or arguments, I know I wouldn't ask anybody for proofs much less for rigorous ones if someone claimed the Moon is made of green cheese, methinks it is spite talking here and not a rational persondemands  for proofs presuppose rational base of the ideas in question (which may be mistaken or not) and in that case one shouldn't call those base ideas cranky <br />Posted by vandivx</DIV></p><p>No demand for proofs simply reflects the general norm in conversations that those making claims provide substantiation for those claims.  One can refine a judgment as to the merit and rationality of claims on the basis of the response to the demands for proofs.  Lack of proof shows lack of basis and rationality behind unsubstantiated claims.  Rational claimants can provide the requested substantiation.  Cranks cannot.<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

BrianSlee · Sep 30, 2008

Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>No demand for proofs simply reflects the general norm in conversations that those making claims provide substantiation for those claims.  One can refine a judgment as to the merit and rationality of claims on the basis of the response to the demands for proofs.  Lack of proof shows lack of basis and rationality behind unsubstantiated claims.  Rational claimants can provide the requested substantiation.  Cranks cannot. <br />Posted by DrRocket</DIV><br /><br />So if a person stands up and disagrees with an idea or concept and asks for proof of a concept, aren't they bound by scientific principle to then participate in reviewing any purported proofs provided and applying due dilligence to the process of review?  And if they still disagree are they not also on the hook to explain why they still disagree in scientific and mathmatical terms instead of with retorts and one line negative comments? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p>"I am therefore I think" </p><p>"The only thing "I HAVE TO DO!!" is die, in everything else I have freewill" Brian P. Slee</p> </div>

kyle_baron · Sep 30, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>If  you really believe the standard model of particle physics is an accurate description, and we will find the HIGG'S particle. Your imaginations must have left you when you were 6 years old. <br />Posted by dabiznuss</DIV></p><p><strong>After being programmed in physics and mathematics, if Dr. Rocket ever used his imagination, it could be fatal, and it might even kill him.  <img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/content/scripts/tinymce/plugins/emotions/images/smiley-laughing.gif" border="0" alt="Laughing" title="Laughing" /></strong><br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="4"><strong></strong></font></p> </div>

DrRocket · Sep 30, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>After being programmed in physics and mathematics, if Dr. Rocket ever used his imagination, it could be fatal, and it might even kill him.  <br />Posted by kyle_baron</DIV></p><p>Someday, perhaps in the far far distant future, you and your 3 compadres may learn enough to be able to differentiate between being open-minded and empty-headed.  I doubt it but can hope.  </p><p>Scientists are quite open-minded and imaginative.  But that imagination is of a disciplined variety, constrained to be compatible with that which has been demonstrated to be accurate under known conditions and not given to flights of pure fancy and utter delusion.  Hallucinations are not a sign of real vision.</p><p>As I tried to inform you in a related thread a requirement for the Ph.D. degree in scientific fields is a significant, original contribution to the body of knowledge in the discipline.  That requires a kind of imagination that crackpots cannot fathom.  Critizing mainstream science and scientists without the slightest understanding of the foundations of science or any real experience in research is just plain ignorant.</p><p>Real criticism and real scientific creativity takes real knowledge, real thought, and real discipline.  Shallow and artificial criticism of the sort engaged in by crackpots takes only a keyboard.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

BrianSlee · Sep 30, 2008

Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Someday, perhaps in the far far distant future, you and your 3 compadres may learn enough to be able to differentiate between being open-minded and empty-headed.  I doubt it but can hope.  Scientists are quite open-minded and imaginative.  But that imagination is of a disciplined variety, constrained to be compatible with that which has been demonstrated to be accurate under known conditions and not given to flights of pure fancy and utter delusion.  Hallucinations are not a sign of real vision.As I tried to inform you in a related thread a requirement for the Ph.D. degree in scientific fields is a significant, original contribution to the body of knowledge in the discipline.  That requires a kind of imagination that crackpots cannot fathom.  Critizing mainstream science and scientists without the slightest understanding of the foundations of science or any real experience in research is just plain ignorant.Real criticism and real scientific creativity takes real knowledge, real thought, and real discipline.  Shallow and artificial criticism of the sort engaged in by crackpots takes only a keyboard. <br />Posted by DrRocket</DIV><br /><br />Still running from serious questions and using sophistry to hide from questions you dont want to answer.  <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p>"I am therefore I think" </p><p>"The only thing "I HAVE TO DO!!" is die, in everything else I have freewill" Brian P. Slee</p> </div>

DrRocket · Oct 1, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Still running from serious questions and using sophistry to hide from questions you dont want to answer.  <br />Posted by BrianSlee</DIV></p><p>If you ever actually pose a serious question you will receive a serious answer.  <br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

DrRocket · Oct 1, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>So if a person stands up and disagrees with an idea or concept and asks for proof of a concept, aren't they bound by scientific principle to then participate in reviewing any purported proofs provided and applying due dilligence to the process of review?  And if they still disagree are they not also on the hook to explain why they still disagree in scientific and mathmatical terms instead of with retorts and one line negative comments? <br />Posted by BrianSlee</DIV></p><p>That rather depends on whether a serious and rigorous proof is attempted.  One need not review purported proofs in detail once the invalidity is clear.  It is not necessary to find all mistakes amid a plethora of such.  One is enough.<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

vandivx · Oct 2, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>No demand for proofs simply reflects the general norm in conversations that those making claims provide substantiation for those claims.  One can refine a judgment as to the merit and rationality of claims on the basis of the response to the demands for proofs.  Lack of proof shows lack of basis and rationality behind unsubstantiated claims.  Rational claimants can provide the requested substantiation.  Cranks cannot. <br />Posted by DrRocket</DIV><br />"<font color="#ff0000">the general norm in conversations</font>" is not calling your opponents names especially what you ask for reasoned argument</p><p>in civilized discussion if one thinks an idea false, one simply disagrees without making slighting comments towards the person who came up with it, that you have need to do make such comments only reveals your insecurity of your position behind the stale bastion of centuries old theories that are due for serious revision - the evidence of that is the half a century stalemate as far as big progress in physics goes, it was one thing when for example the founders of QM failed to come up with some reasonable physical explanation behind their theories and quite another when no progress had been made more than half a century hence nevermind the piling up of one mystery after another with no solution in sight, those so bright phds of yours with inedependent and rigorous thinking and imagination don't seem to do the trick I dare to claim</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

dabiznuss · Oct 2, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>If you ever actually pose a serious question you will receive a serious answer.  <br />Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p> Are you claiming i have never posed an imaginative or seriouse question? Honestly, I also have a degree in physics<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

dabiznuss · Oct 2, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>"the general norm in conversations" is not calling your opponents names especially what you ask for reasoned argumentin civilized discussion if one thinks an idea false, one simply disagrees without making slighting comments towards the person who came up with it, that you have need to do make such comments only reveals your insecurity of your position behind the stale bastion of centuries old theories that are due for serious revision - the evidence of that is the half a century stalemate as far as big progress in physics goes, it was one thing when for example the founders of QM failed to come up with some reasonable physical explanation behind their theories and quite another when no progress had been made more than half a century hence nevermind the piling up of one mystery after another with no solution in sight, those so bright phds of yours with inedependent and rigorous thinking and imagination don't seem to do the trick I dare to claim <br />Posted by vandivx</DIV></p><p> </p><p>I agree with you VANDIVX!!! DR. Rockets' PHD has not completed any work that im aware of<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

DrRocket · Oct 2, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> Are you claiming i have never posed an imaginative or seriouse question? Honestly, I also have a degree in physics <br />Posted by dabiznuss</DIV></p><p>Read the post.  It was not addressed to you.<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

DrRocket · Oct 2, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> I agree with you VANDIVX!!! DR. Rockets' PHD has not completed any work that im aware of <br />Posted by dabiznuss</DIV></p><p>Is that sentence supposed to make sense?  Degrees do not complete any work, any time, any where.  In fact degrees, being inanimate, don't actually DO anything.</p><p>If you intended to say something more along the lines of the fact that you are not aware of my professional work, that would quite likely be quite true.  There are many things of which you are not aware. <br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

DrRocket · Oct 2, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>"the general norm in conversations" is not calling your opponents names especially what you ask for reasoned argumentin civilized discussion if one thinks an idea false, one simply disagrees without making slighting comments towards the person who came up with it, that you have need to do make such comments only reveals your insecurity of your position behind the stale bastion of centuries old theories that are due for serious revision - the evidence of that is the half a century stalemate as far as big progress in physics goes, it was one thing when for example the founders of QM failed to come up with some reasonable physical explanation behind their theories and quite another when no progress had been made more than half a century hence nevermind the piling up of one mystery after another with no solution in sight, those so bright phds of yours with inedependent and rigorous thinking and imagination don't seem to do the trick I dare to claim <br />Posted by vandivx</DIV></p><p>You have steadfastly refused to provide even a decent definition of what it is that you consider to be a reference frame for your "absolute motion", let alone any sensible discussion of the physics.  There is a reason why clear definitions and rigorous substantiation are required in serious scientific discussion. It separates the scientists from the cranks.</p><p>I am not quite sure what you mean be a half-century of lack of progress in physics.  Much of quantum chromodynamics is more recent than that, as is the unification of the theory of the weak and electromagnetic forces into the electroweak theory.  The work of Hawking, Penrose, and Ellis on the implications of general relativity for the big bang and black hole physics is of much more recent origin.  There has been quite a lot of good physics done in the last 50 years.</p><p>The piling up of mysteries is a GOOD thing.  It shows us what we don't know and provides concrete problems to be explained and to act as a metric for judging potential new and better theories.  This is not a sign of weakness of physics, but a source of strength.  It simply proves that more remains to be done.  The depth and subtlety of the open problems also shows the great progress that has been made thus far. There is no insecurity in this position nor any hiding behind and "stale bastion".  Physics is a dynamic and exciting science.  It is not complete, and that lack of completeness is the source of the vitality of the research associated with progress.  The existing knowledge provides a strong framework with which to erect new and better theories.  It is a framework on which one can build, and not one that is in need of being torn down.</p><p>If by lack of progress you are simply refering to the failure to produce a theory unifying quantum chromodynamics, the electroweak theory and general relativity, then you are correct in that no such theory has yet been produced.  But Witten et al have made attempts to do just that through string theory and Smolin and others have attacked th problem through loop quantum gravity, but no one has been successful.  But suppose that success in this effort were to be achieved.  Then in principle we would have produced the fundamental laws that govern literally everything.  Would it then follow that, in your opinion, there could never again be any progress in physics ?<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

kyle_baron · Oct 2, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Is that sentence supposed to make sense?  Degrees do not complete any work, any time, any where.  In fact degrees, being inanimate, don't actually DO anything.If you intended to say something more along the lines of the fact that you are not aware of my professional work, that would quite likely be quite true.  There are many things of which you are not aware. <br />Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p><strong>P</strong>iled <strong>H</strong>igh and <strong>D</strong>eep.  I don't have any doubts that you have a Phd  in Rocketry.  My doubt, is whether the work you've done to get your Phd involves original ideas (concepts) or just adds new knowledge to the exisiting data base.  So, why don't you tell us about your Phd?  Start with the status quo at the time, then how your Phd changed the field of rocketry forever.  Is the information in a Phd thesis copyrighted?<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="4"><strong></strong></font></p> </div>

vandivx · Oct 3, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>...  The existing knowledge provides a strong framework with which to erect new and better theories.  It is a framework on which one can build, and not one that is in need of being torn down.</p><p>If by lack of progress you are simply refering to the failure to produce a theory unifying quantum chromodynamics, the electroweak theory and general relativity, then you are correct in that no such theory has yet been produced.  But Witten et al have made attempts to do just that through string theory and Smolin and others have attacked th problem through loop quantum gravity, but no one has been successful.  <font color="#ff6600">But suppose that success in this effort were to be achieved.  Then in principle we would have produced the fundamental laws that govern literally everything.  Would it then follow that, in your opinion, there could never again be any progress in physics ?</font> <br />Posted by DrRocket</DIV><br /><br />I believe that framework needs adjustment of some of its parts, not wholesale tearing down but some modifications are in order as well as new additions, I just don't believe even if I had only a passing clue of physics that this science has been brought up to date with no major errors and no need of alterations and that the future progress will simply tack onto the existing framework, I feel almost like saying I envy you your optimism or perhaps it is arrogance</p><p>how many times in past did physicist think they had it right as well as almost finished and than the big revolution and upheaval came and I don't think it will be different this time around, physics is ripe for another step, a century has gone by since Einstein's work of 1905/1916 and another genius is almost overdue now, I smell it I tell you </p><p>I don't think those efforts you mention have any chance to bring the physics to an end and that's even if I didn't think they are not quacker efforts that hark of dark ages and its astrologers and alchemists, I don't think we are anywhere close to the end of physics, instead of an imminent end I sense a great distance laying up ahead although it is rather fogy from my vantage point</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

DrRocket · Oct 8, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Piled High and Deep.  I don't have any doubts that you have a Phd  in Rocketry.  My doubt, is whether the work you've done to get your Phd involves original ideas (concepts) or just adds new knowledge to the exisiting data base.  So, why don't you tell us about your Phd?  Start with the status quo at the time, then how your Phd changed the field of rocketry forever.  Is the information in a Phd thesis copyrighted? <br />Posted by kyle_baron</DIV></p><p>Apparently you are quite ignorant of the requirements for the degree.  It requires a significant original contribution to the discipline, as judged by experts. <br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

kyle_baron · Oct 8, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Apparently you are quite ignorant of the requirements for the degree.  It requires a significant original contribution to the discipline, as judged by experts. <br />Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p><strong>Big Deal.  So What.  We're all waiting for you're significant original contribution to the discipline.  What are you afraid of?</strong><br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="4"><strong></strong></font></p> </div>

DrRocket · Oct 8, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Big Deal.  So What.  We're all waiting for you're significant original contribution to the discipline.  What are you afraid of? <br />Posted by kyle_baron</DIV></p><p>Kyle, I have no intention of replying to your silly post or going through my dissertation in this forum.  That would be quite pointless.  There is nothing here that strike fear, but quite a bit that strikes boredom. I don't have the time or inclination to even attempt to try to explain work at that level to you.  You simply do not have the necessary background. </p><p>Instead, why don't you try to find one of your posted ideas that did not contradict known facts and basic physics. Surely there must be an example somewhere.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

nimbus · Oct 8, 2008

Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Big Deal.  So What.  We're all waiting for you're significant original contribution to the discipline.  What are you afraid of? <br />Posted by kyle_baron</DIV><br />Stop trolling.. ? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

Tomorrow's headline:

DrRocket

Guest

BrianSlee

Guest

DrRocket

Guest

BrianSlee

Guest

dabiznuss

Guest

vandivx

Guest

DrRocket

Guest

BrianSlee

Guest

kyle_baron

Guest

DrRocket

Guest

BrianSlee

Guest

DrRocket

Guest

DrRocket

Guest

vandivx

Guest

dabiznuss

Guest

dabiznuss

Guest

DrRocket

Guest

DrRocket

Guest

DrRocket

Guest

kyle_baron

Guest

vandivx

Guest

DrRocket

Guest

kyle_baron

Guest

DrRocket

Guest

nimbus

Guest

Similar threads

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Share this page