Plasma Ribbon Confirms Electric Sun

page: 44
55
<< 41  42  43    45  46  47 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 6 2014 @ 09:50 AM
link   
really interesting how people think all physics is control by corporations...

If it was it would be much better funded... blue skies physics research is funded entirely by public funds from governments... i am sat here and there is no government man in a black suit looking over me. Also i do Dark matter research and let me tell you... no one is making any money from it.




posted on May, 6 2014 @ 10:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: ErosA433
really interesting how people think


The problem is a lack thereof. Things like EU theory give people the feeling of being smart without having to expend any brain power. Learning is hard, it's far easier to feel superior to your fellow man by "learning" something that even a 5 year old could digest (not surprising considering the reasoning follows that of a 5 year old). Beats the hell out of all that boring math and education stuff. Why go through all the years of hard work and necessary precursory steps to learn higher level physics when you can watch a feel good youtube video in under 60 mins?

Unfortunately, education is one area where you can't "fake it until you make it".



posted on May, 6 2014 @ 12:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: GetHyped

originally posted by: ErosA433
really interesting how people think


The problem is a lack thereof. Things like EU theory give people the feeling of being smart without having to expend any brain power. Learning is hard, it's far easier to feel superior to your fellow man by "learning" something that even a 5 year old could digest (not surprising considering the reasoning follows that of a 5 year old). Beats the hell out of all that boring math and education stuff. Why go through all the years of hard work and necessary precursory steps to learn higher level physics when you can watch a feel good youtube video in under 60 mins?

Unfortunately, education is one area where you can't "fake it until you make it".


I'm not sure, looks like most of this EU people have stronger education than most ATS members
www.thunderbolts.info...



posted on May, 6 2014 @ 12:24 PM
link   
a reply to: KrzYma


The Dunning-Kruger effect, named after David Dunning and Justin Kruger of Cornell University, occurs where people fail to adequately assess their level of competence — or specifically, their incompetence — at a task and thus consider themselves much more competent than everyone else. This lack of awareness is attributed to their lower level of competence robbing them of the ability to critically analyse their performance, leading to a significant overestimate of themselves. Put more crudely, they're too stupid to realize they're stupid.
The inverse also applies: competent people tend to underestimate their ability compared to others; this is known as impostor syndrome.
If you have no doubts whatsoever about your brilliance, you could just be that damn good. On the other hand...



posted on May, 6 2014 @ 01:06 PM
link   
without being too damming of people i know, even in science the above applies quite well. I know of people in the collaboration i am with who think of themselves as gods as result of their education being at an elite institute. But the kinds of comments and explanations for things they produce for stuff are of very low quality or are outright wrong. They are however too confident to realize it.

The kind of think where someone makes the statement that convection cell modelling is easy, yet they have never even read an introductory sentence about it let alone a paper or book

There is also the impostor syndrome too where we have a student who is actually very very good yet feels like he is an idiot because of the above.

Science is a mix of socially awkward outcasts typically.... so it is no surprise really
edit on 6-5-2014 by ErosA433 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 6 2014 @ 02:42 PM
link   
a reply to: ErosA433

I quote that !

Looks like education doesn't help at all in some cases...



posted on May, 6 2014 @ 02:47 PM
link   
a reply to: KrzYma

oh it does, it is more about people talking as experts on things they know not about at expert level.

What you miss is that even a none expert scientist, is still an expert compared to a layperson at many (though not all) topics

An example is the whole Tevatron/LEP/LHC making black holes thing... the person who brought that to the media was a biologist who read random papers... He read a random string theory paper and probably understood only the word(s) "black hole" or "singularity" and then media states "scientist say...." when its like... hmmmmm no none expert talking out of his back side. much like many of the comments posted in the science and tech forum



edit on 6-5-2014 by ErosA433 because: (no reason given)
edit on 6-5-2014 by ErosA433 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 6 2014 @ 04:26 PM
link   
a reply to: ErosA433

and that's ATS , people who have own theories and thoughts.



posted on May, 6 2014 @ 04:28 PM
link   
a reply to: KrzYma

People who have their own personal universes and physical law and logic that don't have any resemblance to this universe



posted on May, 6 2014 @ 05:18 PM
link   


I hope you admit Sixty Symbols is quite a scientific information channel, they have funny way to explain but the explanations are purely scientific, at least what they seams to do

Is it a problem if someone looks at the Feynman Diagrams and thinks,
there is no photon particle and particles don't collide or "unvisible" strange virtual forces are at work.

this is one way to describe what you guys think is going on, and it may be easy for calculations...

what if there is another way ? not easier but more correct without probabilities and chances.
Guessing is still not knowing



posted on May, 6 2014 @ 05:40 PM
link   
a reply to: KrzYma


Yeah what if these alternatives could predict interaction probabilities that we can measure? I havent seen that at all... so other than claiming to 'know' when the theories/alternatives don't predict prove or explain anything at all.

Do you know how 'easy' doing calculations with feynman diagrams is?

it isn't easy at all. It is more a tool to allow you to account for all couplings and interactions. and then add in second third (and more) order interactions... what it does is allows a huge level of prediction and gives in some cases extremely high order values that match with experiments.


So far the alternative is struggling to match even basic physics... Feynman diagrams are not really basic physics, so do not try and present it that way.
edit on 6-5-2014 by ErosA433 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 6 2014 @ 07:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: KrzYma
what if there is another way ? not easier but more correct without probabilities and chances.
Guessing is still not knowing
When it has such a high correlation with experiment, why would you call it guessing?

But what if there is another way? I think even Feynman would admit that's possible. If someone presents another way that matches as well with experiment (or better) I'm sure it will be given consideration. The topic of this thread, EU, sure doesn't meet that criterion.

Questioning whether an existing theory is the best one doesn't do anything to prove any one of 100 alternate theories correct.



posted on May, 6 2014 @ 08:10 PM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur

hate to sound like a nodding yes man, but I do believe in very part of that.

What we have might not be right, but it does a very good job so far. If it can be proven wrong and replaced then I would totally welcome it. It would be extremely interesting and totally amazing. So far however, all i see is the denial of basic logic and in many cases the denial of simple bench top experiments that anyone can do and gunning at frontier physics with little more background than drawing a few pretty pictures.

They say, in war you need to know your enemy... the issue is that the alternative dont often know anything about their enemy, but claim lots of how they 'know' the enemy operate... its like the blind leading the deaf!

Id love to consider the alternatives, if they made logical sense... and this is were they fall over



posted on May, 6 2014 @ 09:08 PM
link   
a reply to: ErosA433

Its not about them not getting the job done, its about those diagrams not representing reality. There is more resolution, evolution of knowledge to be done. That is the only problem anyone is having with those diagrams, not arguing they arent helpful, but that to one who is interested in the most that can be known about the quality of reality, those are very bare representations. Of course the background knowledge regarding what all the particles are and their existence means, is what fills in the quality of the bare diagram image. And it is that quality I have been attempting to better grasp and understand by questioning it. So I do agree once one knows the background of all the theories on reality, that total complexity and understanding can be refined into a simple short hand tool like this to describe complex things, almost like how concepts or words and things were refined to single images in the Chinese alphabet...but different.



posted on May, 6 2014 @ 10:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: ErosA433
If it can be proven wrong and replaced then I would totally welcome it. It would be extremely interesting and totally amazing.
I'm not sure it needs to be proven wrong to be replaced, like relativity sort of replaced Newtonian physics without proving it was wrong (in conditions of typical observation), but yes, I would also welcome something better.


originally posted by: ImaFungi
a reply to: ErosA433

Its not about them not getting the job done, its about those diagrams not representing reality. There is more resolution, evolution of knowledge to be done.
If there wasn't more knowledge to be gained, there would be a lot of unemployed scientists, but it seems like there is plenty to keep them busy. So yes, who wouldn't like to see something better? Feynman, like any good scientist, wanted to see something better, even though he helped create the theory, as he inferred with this comment in 1985:

en.wikipedia.org...

Another important critic was Feynman. Despite his crucial role in the development of quantum electrodynamics, he wrote the following in 1985:

"The shell game that we play ... is technically called 'renormalization'. But no matter how clever the word, it is still what I would call a dippy process! Having to resort to such hocus-pocus has prevented us from proving that the theory of quantum electrodynamics is mathematically self-consistent. It's surprising that the theory still hasn't been proved self-consistent one way or the other by now; I suspect that renormalization is not mathematically legitimate."
Modern physicists aren't bothered as much by renormalization, but I imagine they would still like to see a better theory if one was available.
edit on 6-5-2014 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on May, 7 2014 @ 02:11 PM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur

I'm far from an expert here, but there is increasing interest in a modern revival of methods other than Feynman diagrams for both practical and deep conceptual reasons.


www.quantumdiaries.org...

The Feynman diagram construction is nothing but an intuitive way to understand, and with some other rules, construct a very complicated series expansion for the desired result. But people know from experience mathematics that what may be complicated in one representation may turn out to have a simple equivalence. A complicated series might be nothing but a quotient of two other transcendental functions.

The renormalization might not have a physical meaning, it could just be part of the dirty mathematical infrastructure & scaffolding. It's like complaining about Michelangelo's results when he's still has the scaffolding & masking tape up.

The best results come when that equivalence comes from some very deep mathematics, say like the insights of Ramanjuan.
edit on 7-5-2014 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)
edit on 7-5-2014 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 8 2014 @ 02:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: mbkennel

www.quantumdiaries.org...
Thanks for the link, it's interesting reading. I know when Feynman first showed his diagrams, they were too difficult for most to use until others came along and figured out more systematic ways to apply them, and I think Freeman Dyson helped with that if I recall correctly. As that link states it can still get very complicated very quickly trying to model actual interactions at CERN when enough different particles are involved. I figured people would still be trying to improve and simplify their use, and it seems like Nima has an interesting approach though I have no idea about how well it works.


The Feynman diagram construction is nothing but an intuitive way to understand, and with some other rules, construct a very complicated series expansion for the desired result. But people know from experience mathematics that what may be complicated in one representation may turn out to have a simple equivalence. A complicated series might be nothing but a quotient of two other transcendental functions.
Right, so, if there's a simple equivalence yet to be discovered, that would make a nice discovery.


The renormalization might not have a physical meaning, it could just be part of the dirty mathematical infrastructure & scaffolding. It's like complaining about Michelangelo's results when he's still has the scaffolding & masking tape up.
Yes, I find such an analogy quite plausible, but after a reasonable period of time, Michelangelo was expected to finish and the scaffolding would be removed. If it's really analogous to scaffolding, I think Feynman might be disappointed we still haven't figured out a better way to see it without the scaffolding.


The best results come when that equivalence comes from some very deep mathematics, say like the insights of Ramanjuan.
I think you mean Ramanujan and yes, I've seen Ramanujan cited in efforts to evaluate multiloops Feynman integrals, but this paper on that topic states an absence of a "rigorous mathematical proof" which may be related to why Feynman called the mathematical processes "dippy", which I suppose was his cute word for "not rigorous"?

Method of Brackets and Feynman diagrams evaluation

In this work we present the relation between method of brackets and the master theorem of Ramanujan in the evaluation of multivariable integrals, in this case Feynman diagrams...

Until now this technique does not have a rigorous mathematical proof. In this work we show that the method of brackets is a generalization of Ramanujan’s master theorem (RMT). However, this theorem is not sufficient to explain mathematically the bracket’s technique in complete form.
They go on to talk about their work involving Schwinger’s parametric representation of the diagram converted into a sum of hypergeometric functions, but it's unclear to me if they are claiming this provides a rigorous mathematical proof...they don't state so explicitly but I can't tell if they're trying to imply it.



posted on May, 10 2014 @ 06:35 AM
link   
Is it known; Where there is no EM radiation, how the EM field exists?

How does the electric field component exist in relation to the magnetic field component, everywhere in space, where there is no EM radiation?



posted on May, 10 2014 @ 07:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: ImaFungi
Is it known; Where there is no EM radiation, how the EM field exists?

How does the electric field component exist in relation to the magnetic field component, everywhere in space, where there is no EM radiation?

Dragonridr said he was saying this for the last time at the top of page 43:


originally posted by: dragonridr
Ok for the last time no EM fields do not exist everywhere they require a particle in motion. This is what vector fields are all about.
You keep saying they exist everywhere and Dragonridr keeps telling you they don't. How many times do you expect the same answer to be repeated?

An example of where they for the most part don't exist is inside a Faraday Cage:


Faraday cages cannot block static or slowly varying magnetic fields, such as the Earth's magnetic field (a compass will still work inside). To a large degree, though, they shield the interior from external electromagnetic radiation if the conductor is thick enough and any holes are significantly smaller than the wavelength of the radiation.
Here's a picture of a Faraday room. With the lights off, there's practically no EM radiation inside. Turn the lights on, and you've got EM radiation coming from the light fixture.

edit on 10-5-2014 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on May, 10 2014 @ 10:48 AM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur

MbKennel says they do exist everywhere, which was in agreence of what I have learned of 'field theory' and he seems smarter then Dragonrider.

Field theory is meaningless without fundamental fields existing everywhere, how do you not know this. Or are you proposing EM radiation is stored in infinite amounts within the electron?





new topics
top topics
 
55
<< 41  42  43    45  46  47 >>

log in

join


Haters, Bigots, Partisan Trolls, Propaganda Hacks, Racists, and LOL-tards: Time To Move On.
read more: Community Announcement re: Decorum