It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Science is Completely Non-Genius

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 18 2006 @ 11:49 PM
link   
Genius is completely dependent on the nonobservable.

Science is completely dependent on the observable.

Science is not genius.




posted on Apr, 24 2006 @ 03:47 PM
link   
A Genious can see the nonobservable in problems, theories, science

Science is genius.



posted on Apr, 24 2006 @ 03:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by GreatTech
Genius is completely dependent on the nonobservable.

Science is completely dependent on the observable.

Science is not genius.


I agree and this is called logic based on observable behaviour and facts. Good call and I hope some learn from this.

I might argue that true genius comes from hope, the etheral or even the spiritual realms which science refuses to acknowledge too.


But don't be confused by most religion either which portends to understand faith, spirit and other realms so that it can control the here and now. It shows its contempt for that which it worships by secretly salivating for this reality and security therein.



posted on Apr, 25 2006 @ 10:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by GreatTech
Genius is completely dependent on the nonobservable.

Science is completely dependent on the observable.

Science is not genius.


What about the people who make the unobservable observable? Or people who observe something in a different way?

Here's my idea of genius: Cavemen learned that eating animals was pretty good, but that it was hard to get to the animals to kill them. One day, a caveman thought it would be a great idea to stack logs around an area to enclose the animals to make it easier to kill and eat them.

Another example: In the dawn of Quantum Chemistry, people had the notion that there were waves and particles, two completely different things. De Broglie (a high school teacher) hypothesized a relationship between wavelength energy and momentum by juggling a couple of basic physics equations together. This was seen as heresy at the time, considering that momentum involves mass which is attributed to particles. However, it was slowly accepted and he was able to submit the work as a PhD thesis and get his doctorate... even though his thesis was only 10 pages long!

Sometimes a genius is someone looking at something and all of a sudden saying "OH! DUH! How come I didn't see THAT?!?!" Then everyone around them says "OH YEAH! We've been looking at this for years and didn't even see it.

Oppenheimer has genius attributed to him, not for any atomic bomb stuff, but for the Oppenheimer Approximation. When you have diatomic hydrogen, there are two electrons and two protons. Each electron attracts both protons, and vice versa. Each electron repels the other electron, and each proton repels the other proton. The electrons move all around, and in all reality, the protons also move ever so slightly. However, to simplify the math to an acceptable approximation, the Oppenheimer Approximation assumes that the protons do not move at all, even though they do in reality. This model is taught early on in Quantum Physics because it is used to frequently by other scientists to develop new theories. It seems so simple and trivial here, but it is so very important to be able to make approximations.

Even Albert Einstein made some approximations about solid-lattice energies and vibrations that work well for smaller masses and lower energies, but diverge from actual experimental values later on. It is not a bad thing - you can't say that he was stupid or not a genius. He came up with a simple approximation that allowed others to build upon it and get something more accurate.

But I digress. Yes, science is basically observing a cause and an effect, and trying to quantify the relationship. The geniuses behind science are the ones that open up their minds to new explanations. True geniuses develop explanations and then test their ideas, rather than make radical claims such as liars and thieves such as Hutchinson.



posted on Apr, 25 2006 @ 10:53 AM
link   
Kudos to Ralph for the great post with a great example form QM. And a question to GreatTech -- how much exactly do you know about science? Please give me an approximate number and level of difficulty of physics problems (such as in homework) that you have personally solved. Thank you.


[edit on 25-4-2006 by Aelita]



posted on Apr, 25 2006 @ 01:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ralph_The_Wonder_Llama True geniuses develop explanations and then test their ideas, rather than make radical claims such as liars and thieves such as Hutchinson.


You leave him alone!



posted on Apr, 25 2006 @ 02:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Agentdemon

Originally posted by Ralph_The_Wonder_Llama True geniuses develop explanations and then test their ideas, rather than make radical claims such as liars and thieves such as Hutchinson.


You leave him alone!


Aww cmon... didn't you see the string in his video? There is a shadow of a string in the top-left corner of one of his movies. It's a long scene where he has one object "levitating," but there is a shadow that moves and wobbles in synch with the object.

I consider Hutchinson fair game. He has machines that do certain things. He should write down what settings he puts the machines on and formulate a mathematical model of what goes on. How much voltage, how much current, how much capacitance, magnetic field, electric field, etc.



posted on Apr, 25 2006 @ 06:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ralph_The_Wonder_LlamaAww cmon... didn't you see the string in his video? There is a shadow of a string in the top-left corner of one of his movies. It's a long scene where he has one object "levitating," but there is a shadow that moves and wobbles in synch with the object.

I consider Hutchinson fair game. He has machines that do certain things. He should write down what settings he puts the machines on and formulate a mathematical model of what goes on. How much voltage, how much current, how much capacitance, magnetic field, electric field, etc.


He says: "The string is not string but #32-gauge double polythermalized wire on a takeup up reel with 20 to 50000 volts DC. The main apparatus was turned on, causing the toy plastic UFO to fly all about in amazing gyrations. This was a pretest to gryphon films airing this fall for FOX TV. I did not need the extra high voltage 2000 time period so the toy levitated without a high voltage hook up during the filming for gryphon there was a string on the toy no high-voltage dc but interesting movements." — John Hutchison, quoted at the American Antigravity website



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join