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.

 

Cranks and Physics

page: 5
11
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 4 2012 @ 09:33 PM
link   
reply to post by metalshredmetal
 


There is no such thing as "Mainstream" Science.

Because there is no opposite to it. You cannot have "Fringe" Science, or anything of the like. It is either science or it's not. One or the other.

If a bunch of weirdos come out of the woodwork and claim things that can't be backed by scientific method, then quite simply, it is not science, it is a faith based construct.

The end.




posted on Feb, 5 2012 @ 01:12 AM
link   
reply to post by boncho
 


I have been saying that for months!

Nobody gives me any stars. what gives?



posted on Feb, 5 2012 @ 01:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by BBalazs
reply to post by boncho
 


I have been saying that for months!

Nobody gives me any stars. what gives?


I gave both you and Boncho stars.

My opinion is that it is somewhat arrogant to believe that our consciousness sets the state of reality at a quantum scale.

It appears to me that we have observed some strange stuff, at close to the limits of our measurement, and not finding an immediate mechanism, have assumed a link to our observation. This is, to me, "magical thinking" and does not really expose the truth. We need to pursue "mechanistic thinking" to get at the true answers.



posted on Feb, 5 2012 @ 03:52 PM
link   
reply to post by chr0naut
 




We need to pursue "mechanistic thinking" to get at the true answers.

Do you mean like realizing the difference between "observing" and mechanical interaction? Do you have any math to support this idea! I'm with you on this. Attributing the loss of air pressure when you place the gauge on the valve stem to observational effect is ridiculous. Electronic TPMS can indicate psi all day without affecting the pressure. That's just one pathetic example but I find it extremely indicative of basic problems with what passes for evidence.



posted on Feb, 5 2012 @ 04:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by DenyObfuscation
reply to post by chr0naut
 




We need to pursue "mechanistic thinking" to get at the true answers.

Do you mean like realizing the difference between "observing" and mechanical interaction? Do you have any math to support this idea! I'm with you on this. Attributing the loss of air pressure when you place the gauge on the valve stem to observational effect is ridiculous. Electronic TPMS can indicate psi all day without affecting the pressure. That's just one pathetic example but I find it extremely indicative of basic problems with what passes for evidence.


Yes, in the case of the quantum realm, we are most often looking at populations of particles and the process of observation is throwing one lot of particles against another to see how they "bounce".

What I am also getting at is that our perceived consciousness is entirely dependent on its substrate of quantum reality. When we see, say, wave particle duality expressing exclusively in a particular mode and seeming to be dependent upon our observation, it seems that no-one is thinking that the observation is dependent upon observed, and not that the observed is dependent on the observation.

I'm trying to think of a mathematically unambiguous way of describing this and still haven't done so (If I have a brainwave, I'll post it & message you).

In words; we cannot observe what does not exist to observe. Hence, it is the state of reality which determines the outcome of observation. Consciousness need not play any part. The mechanism that creates the situation that we observe is not the consciousness of the observer by some weird action, but consists of forces and actions that are more mundane and are perhaps too small or diffuse for us to detect.




edit on 5/2/2012 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 5 2012 @ 06:28 PM
link   
reply to post by BBalazs
 

The reason I didn't star it is because I have a different point of view.


Originally posted by boncho
If a bunch of weirdos come out of the woodwork and claim things that can't be backed by scientific method, then quite simply, it is not science, it is a faith based construct.
This much is true and we completely agree on. In fact as you know I agree with the vast majority of your posts here and I think you're an excellent contributor to this site. However I can't really agree with this:


There is no such thing as "Mainstream" Science.

Because there is no opposite to it. You cannot have "Fringe" Science, or anything of the like. It is either science or it's not. One or the other.
I can't guarantee this wikipedia article is 100% correct, but in concept, I do happen to agree more or less with this assessment:


Fringe science


Three classifications of scientific ideas have been identified (center, frontier, fringe) with mainstream scientists typically regarding fringe concepts as highly speculative or even strongly refuted.[1] However, according to Rosenthal "Accepted science may merge into frontier science, which in turn may merge into more far-out ideas, or fringe science. Really wild ideas may be considered beyond the fringe, or pseudoscientific."

So if you're counting, that's 4 classifications. Three classifications within science (which by the way are usally posited by scientists with PhDs in their field and not some guy who claims a formal education is a hindrance), and a fourth classification outside of science....pseudoscientific. Sometimes pseudoscientific theories can be made by PhD scientists too.

Now to prove my point, here is a specific example of science that was not considered mainstream at the time:

scign.jpl.nasa.gov...

Plate tectonic theory had its beginnings in 1915 when Alfred Wegener proposed his theory of "continental drift." Wegener proposed that the continents plowed through crust of ocean basins, which would explain why the outlines of many coastlines (like South America and Africa) look like they fit together like a puzzle. Wegener was not the first to notice this puzzle-like fit of the continents (Magellan and other early explorers also noticed this on their maps), but he was one of the first to realize that the Earth's surface has changed through time, and that continents that are separated now may have been joined together at one point in the past.

Paleontologists had also found that there were fossils of similar species found on continents that are now separated by great geographic distance. Paleoclimate studies, which concerns examining the climate in Earth's past, revealed that glaciers covered large areas of the world which also are now separated by great geographic distances. These observations seemed to indicate that the Earth's lithosphere had been moving over geologic time.

Wegener's ideas were very controversial because he didn't have an explanation for why the continents moved, just that there was observational evidence that they had.
So there was some evidence for this idea:
1. The shape of the continents and the jigsaw-puzzle like fit, and
2. Evidence of similar fossils on either side of the divide.

So we can't say it was pseudo-scientific...there was SOME evidence to support it...but not enough....so it wasn't considered "mainstream" or "center" science as the wiki article calls it, which I think was probably appropriate since there was no known mechanism at the time to explain the motion.

Once further evidence was gathered confirming the mechanism to explain the motion, this non-mainstream idea quickly became mainstream.

Now if you contrast this with Nassim Haramein who claims a single proton has a greater mass than Mount Everest, not only is there zero evidence to support this, but there's literally a mountain of evidence that directly contradicts it with observation. This is not frontier science, and it's not fringe science. It could be called pseudoscience but "quackery" is probably a more accurate description.



posted on Feb, 6 2012 @ 08:04 PM
link   
in 2012, mainstream science = industry. That is the classification being left out here. Industry has a much bigger say in how science is published and promoted than outsiders do. Outsiders and critics are automatically considered cranks (even when their academic credentials are good), and they have very little say in what passes for science. That has not always been the case (I'm not saying things were perfect in the past, and we do know a lot more now).

The association with industry has caused an intellectual shift which has led inefficient, irrational models of physical phenomena to be somewhat desirable. Industry loves bloat. Einstein himself was hit with this shift and ended up being considered unfashionable, purely for being distrustful of probabilistic methods in physical modelling. People like Feynman (industry LOVES Feynman) wanted you to believe that their math was the only math suitable for the job, and he fought fairly hard to keep it that way (judging by the videos I've seen). This is despite the chaos caused by irrationals, infinitesimals and solutions at a point when it comes to attempt rational, communicative, unified theories of EM phenomena and quantum particle motion. Take a look at the connection between Feynman and renormalization, it is enlightening.

I think the cranks mostly being considered here are those like the marvellously hairy-shouldered Marko Rodin: people who are obviously a joke and should not be considered remotely connected with real physics. But the biggest part of the joke is they get most of their language from Quantum Physics. You don't hear too many of these cranks quoting Newton or Maxwell. Most of their BS comes from the irrationalities of the Copenhagen Interpretation and Einstein's bendy time-space. It's essentially babble, but even so, it is sometimes worth hearing people babble - maybe they'll come up with a diagram, some data or an analogy you wouldn't find elsewhere?



posted on Feb, 7 2012 @ 12:57 AM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


well I still think there is 1 science, albeit in many areas, searching to understand.
you write this:



Three classifications of scientific ideas have been identified (center, frontier, fringe) with mainstream scientists typically regarding fringe concepts as highly speculative or even strongly refuted.[1] However, according to Rosenthal "Accepted science may merge into frontier science, which in turn may merge into more far-out ideas, or fringe science. Really wild ideas may be considered beyond the fringe, or pseudoscientific."


This is post facto!
There is still 1 science, further subdivided into those areas quoted.
It is an ideological breakdown based on where they stand in context to mainstream, center science.
However this does not a separate science make.
Science is not the dogmatic truth, nor does it have anything to do with truth,for it is an understanding of our environment, based observation and material and theories from so derived. Science is not truth. Unless each and every man can interpret and get separate results from observation, I propose there is only 1 science.
Anyway, I never said anything about there not being a mainstream science, I have been pointing out the faith based models of many fringe and pseudosciences.
However it is very hard to put a handle on what "mainstream science" is....After all, according to what, according to who?
I view science as a whole, not as fringe, center, etc.
I also PUT FORTH that ALL KEY INNOVATION, and IDEAS enter from the frindges of science.
Creativity drives science.
Einstein was FRINDGE is his day, when he very first put forth his theories....wouldnt you say?
There is very little innovation in mainstream science, thats why medical science is lost and at a dead end (not ALL of it)
You don't get INVENTIONS, by sitting at the table and thinking logically, its about insight, madness as you will, creativity.
It is also warranted if we are separating science, to separate into theory, modeled, and applied sciences.
I love frontier science, food for though really.
This is why scientific conjuncture can be awesome, as it is often within the limits of the known realm.
However faith based "science" has absolutely NO scientific background, just uses words in a word soup.
It is a parlor trick.
For me pseudoscience, is not science, as its very definition is pseudosceince.




The prefix pseudo- (from Greek ψευδής "lying, false") is used to mark something as false, fraudulent, or pretending to be something it is not.


As you can see pseudoscience, by its definition is false, falsified science.
edit on 7-2-2012 by BBalazs because: (no reason given)

edit on 7-2-2012 by BBalazs because: (no reason given)

edit on 7-2-2012 by BBalazs because: (no reason given)

edit on 7-2-2012 by BBalazs because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 7 2012 @ 02:04 AM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


Touche!

It seems you have one that round in your well presented explanation as to why there is more than one type of science. Now I have the choice to accept it, or become a quack.

I choose the former.






posted on Feb, 7 2012 @ 03:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


Aaah, I knew I'd find some Feynman fans here.


Have you read this paper from Feynman on uncertainty in science ?

www.inf.fu-berlin.de...



posted on Feb, 7 2012 @ 03:24 PM
link   
There is no such thing as " Pseudoscience "

There is only bad science that relies on sophisms and good science that relies on repeatable proofs and peer-reviews.

Of course, we all suffer from the Dunning-Kruger effect from time to time..



posted on Feb, 7 2012 @ 05:32 PM
link   
Cranks, yes.
The Wright brothers were cranks, their machine could never fly.
Tesla was a crank, too, with his laughable idea of AC power.

John Logie Baird was totally insane, he had this really stupid idea that you could send & recieve images electronically.

Completely insane, all of them............



posted on Feb, 7 2012 @ 06:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by chr0naut

Yes, in the case of the quantum realm, we are most often looking at populations of particles and the process of observation is throwing one lot of particles against another to see how they "bounce".

What I am also getting at is that our perceived consciousness is entirely dependent on its substrate of quantum reality. When we see, say, wave particle duality expressing exclusively in a particular mode and seeming to be dependent upon our observation, it seems that no-one is thinking that the observation is dependent upon observed, and not that the observed is dependent on the observation.


Hey chr0naut, can you clarify this a little further. An electron, when observed acts as a particle. When it is not observed it acts as a wave. This to me sounds like the observed being enitirely dependent on the act of observation, not the observation being dependent on the observer.


In words; we cannot observe what does not exist to observe. Hence, it is the state of reality which determines the outcome of observation. Consciousness need not play any part. The mechanism that creates the situation that we observe is not the consciousness of the observer by some weird action, but consists of forces and actions that are more mundane and are perhaps too small or diffuse for us to detect.


Possibly, but this is merely your opinion.

You have to also admit that if any of this is in some way related to the consciousness of the observer, or further still the frame of mind/the beliefs of the observer, then just the very fact you hold this opinion could in fact prevent you from ever experiencing any 'universal weirdness'. This in turn will only serve to validate your point of view to yourself, whether it ultimately proves to be true or not....



posted on Feb, 7 2012 @ 07:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by 1littlewolf

Hey chr0naut, can you clarify this a little further. An electron, when observed acts as a particle. When it is not observed it acts as a wave. This to me sounds like the observed being enitirely dependent on the act of observation, not the observation being dependent on the observer.


This is almost certainly false. There is no wave/particle duality, and it has even less connection with the conscious observation of humans. Simply shifting the causality to the human consciousness does nothing to explain the mechanisms underlying the observed fields, in fact, doing that is at least one degree of abstraction worse than the already mostly unmechanical theories of Quantum Mechanics.

Giving particles (including 'virtual particles') real spin, understanding the possibilities of physical stacked spins, and recognising that all matter is emitting EM particles at all times solves the apparent paradoxes of superposition, duality and entanglement. And it's fairly easy to draw a little sketch to show how that works.



posted on Feb, 7 2012 @ 07:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by yampa

This is almost certainly false. There is no wave/particle duality, and it has even less connection with the conscious observation of humans. Simply shifting the causality to the human consciousness does nothing to explain the mechanisms underlying the observed fields, in fact, doing that is at least one degree of abstraction worse than the already mostly unmechanical theories of Quantum Mechanics.


Okay, I agree that shifting the causality to human consciousness doesn't go any further to explain how it all works on a mechanical level, but that does not mean that it is false.... Are you denying the actual results of the experiment, or are you denying the premise set for by the results?


Giving particles (including 'virtual particles') real spin, understanding the possibilities of physical stacked spins, and recognising that all matter is emitting EM particles at all times solves the apparent paradoxes of superposition, duality and entanglement. And it's fairly easy to draw a little sketch to show how that works.


So how is it that you know this, and yet these paradoxes still remain for many of the world’s most eminent physicist? Also what do you mean by 'spin', and how exactly does the concept of subatomic particles emitting EM particles solve these paradoxes?



edit on 7/2/2012 by 1littlewolf because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 7 2012 @ 07:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by 1littlewolf

So how is it that you know this, and yet these paradoxes still remain for many of the world’s most eminent physicist? Also what do you mean by 'spin', and how exactly does the concept of subatomic particles emitting EM particles solve these paradoxes?



I wouldn't say I know it, it's just a way better explanation than I've seen anyone else come up with. It is not my idea, but I have not much interest in promoting others at this moment.

Spin, like, rotating. Like a pool ball. Consider that a particle with a linear velocity can be rotating axially, and if you add an additional motion, outside this axial spin, then the linear travel of the particle will appear to 'wave'. There is no duality. Photons are simply small, physical particles with slightly complex stacked spins. The idea that you must use probabilistic math to track those motions is a joke. And people will laugh at those who fell for it, in the future.

If electons are emitting EM particles, then anything you have constructed a sensor from is also emitting particles. The emission from this sensor, the emission from the other aspects of you experiment, can and will cause perturbation in the motions of your observed particle. This is trivially shown by the existence of passive laser waveshaping apertures.



posted on Feb, 7 2012 @ 08:39 PM
link   
After really enjoying this thread, I can only say:
IMHO.
There are Hypotheses, being unproven, yet supremely valuable in that they drive science,
And there are laws : Those hypotheses that have been 'proven' to be true.
To convert a hypotheses into a law rigorous scrutiny is required,
the same is true converting laws back into hypotheses.(debunking)

I find it amazing that science only uncovers underlying truths, and in this,it is a pure endeavor, both practically and spiritually.

Its all good
Personally I enjoy a good crank, from time to time.

edit on 7-2-2012 by rom12345 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 7 2012 @ 09:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by yampa

Originally posted by 1littlewolf

So how is it that you know this, and yet these paradoxes still remain for many of the world’s most eminent physicist? Also what do you mean by 'spin', and how exactly does the concept of subatomic particles emitting EM particles solve these paradoxes?



I wouldn't say I know it, it's just a way better explanation than I've seen anyone else come up with. It is not my idea, but I have not much interest in promoting others at this moment.

Spin, like, rotating. Like a pool ball. Consider that a particle with a linear velocity can be rotating axially, and if you add an additional motion, outside this axial spin, then the linear travel of the particle will appear to 'wave'. There is no duality. Photons are simply small, physical particles with slightly complex stacked spins. The idea that you must use probabilistic math to track those motions is a joke. And people will laugh at those who fell for it, in the future.

If electons are emitting EM particles, then anything you have constructed a sensor from is also emitting particles. The emission from this sensor, the emission from the other aspects of you experiment, can and will cause perturbation in the motions of your observed particle. This is trivially shown by the existence of passive laser waveshaping apertures.


Thanks for the explanation. I would though assume that in the lab setting where this experiment was conducted would be full of many different types of equipment all emitting EM particles so it make wonder how much more influence the EM particles would in fact actually have. But having said that I guess the proximity of the sensor to the electron stream would be much closer thereby having the potential to influence it in a much greater way.

Surely this hypothesis would be quite easy to test for, or at the very least set up the experiment in a way where the sensor’s EM particles could in some way be negated from interfering with the particle stream any more than the other bits of equipment necessary to make this experiment work.

Just guessing though......




edit on 7/2/2012 by 1littlewolf because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 7 2012 @ 09:18 PM
link   
reply to post by yampa
 


Wasn't that covered by Wheeler and Feynman ?

en.wikipedia.org...




posted on Feb, 7 2012 @ 09:47 PM
link   
reply to post by yampa
 


alright, i have to say that i don't necessarily disagree with the whole of what you're saying...but what are these "EM particles" that you are referring to?

have they been observed before? or are you hypothesizing?



new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join