| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"scientist" |
| Date: |
20 May 2007 03:27:14 AM |
| Object: |
Explaining what isn't physics |
Are there any academics on this list? How do you explain to humanities
majors taking an introductory level course that books such as Evan
Harris Walker's The Physics of Consciousness: The Quantum Mind and the
Meaning of Life are not credible physics, even if the author is a
physicist, without alienating your students?
.
|
|
| User: "Androcles" |
|
| Title: Re: Explaining what isn't physics |
20 May 2007 04:13:58 AM |
|
|
"scientist" <scientist30@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1179649634.397952.240730@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
: Are there any academics on this list?
No, but there may be some clairvoyants.
What list?
.
|
|
|
| User: "BioFreak" |
|
| Title: Re: Explaining what isn't physics |
20 May 2007 05:14:36 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 20 May 2007 09:13:58 GMT, Androcles wrote:
"scientist" <scientist30@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1179649634.397952.240730@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
: Are there any academics on this list?
No, but there may be some clairvoyants.
What list?
Hahahhah :))))
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Explaining what isn't physics |
20 May 2007 03:31:57 AM |
|
|
In article <1179649634.397952.240730@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>, scientist <scientist30@gmail.com> writes:
Are there any academics on this list? How do you explain to humanities
majors taking an introductory level course that books such as Evan
Harris Walker's The Physics of Consciousness: The Quantum Mind and the
Meaning of Life are not credible physics, even if the author is a
physicist, without alienating your students?
You explain to them the scientific method and the matter of empirical
confirmation. And that any opinion by a physicist, no matter how
famous, which is not currently backed by experimental evidence, is
just this, an opinion.
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
.
|
|
|
| User: "=?UTF-8?Q?Jeff=E2=80=A6Relf?=" |
|
| Title: Not all " opinions " are equal. |
20 May 2007 04:06:07 AM |
|
|
Not all " opinions " are equal.
For example, I'm not observing the moon right now,
but I assert that it's still there.
.
|
|
|
| User: "T Wake" |
|
| Title: Re: Not all " opinions " are equal. |
20 May 2007 07:47:14 AM |
|
|
"Jeff.Relf" <Jeff_Relf@Yahoo.COM> wrote in message
news:Jeff_Relf_2007_May_20_4_@Cotse.NET...
Not all " opinions " are equal.
Very true.
Yours are generally worthless.
For example, I'm not observing the moon right now,
but I assert that it's still there.
Well done. I am sure Xeno would be proud of you.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Shubee" |
|
| Title: Re: Explaining what isn't physics |
20 May 2007 07:46:23 AM |
|
|
On May 20, 1:31 am, wrote:
In article <1179649634.397952.240...@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>, scientist <scientis...@gmail.com> writes:>Are there any academics on this list? How do you explain to humanities
majors taking an introductory level course that books such as Evan
Harris Walker's The Physics of Consciousness: The Quantum Mind and the
Meaning of Life are not credible physics, even if the author is a
physicist, without alienating your students?
You explain to them the scientific method and the matter of empirical
confirmation. And that any opinion by a physicist, no matter how
famous, which is not currently backed by experimental evidence, is
just this, an opinion.
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
m...@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
I believe that you have a very outdated view of physics that David
Hilbert would not approve. Hilbert accepted all mathematically
conceivable universes as physics [1][2].
Shubee
1. http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf
2. http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/physics/pdf/0405/0405110v1.pdf
.
|
|
|
| User: "T Wake" |
|
| Title: Re: Explaining what isn't physics |
20 May 2007 07:53:00 AM |
|
|
"Shubee" <e.shubee@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1179665183.154913.97140@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
On May 20, 1:31 am, wrote:
In article <1179649634.397952.240...@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>,
scientist <scientis...@gmail.com> writes:>Are there any academics on this
list? How do you explain to humanities
majors taking an introductory level course that books such as Evan
Harris Walker's The Physics of Consciousness: The Quantum Mind and the
Meaning of Life are not credible physics, even if the author is a
physicist, without alienating your students?
You explain to them the scientific method and the matter of empirical
confirmation. And that any opinion by a physicist, no matter how
famous, which is not currently backed by experimental evidence, is
just this, an opinion.
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
m...@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
I believe that you have a very outdated view of physics that David
Hilbert would not approve. Hilbert accepted all mathematically
conceivable universes as physics [1][2].
Shubee
1. http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf
2. http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/physics/pdf/0405/0405110v1.pdf
I find this post entertainingly ironic.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dirk Van de moortel" |
|
| Title: Re: Explaining what isn't physics |
20 May 2007 08:17:49 AM |
|
|
"Shubee" <e.shubee@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1179665183.154913.97140@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
On May 20, 1:31 am, wrote:
In article <1179649634.397952.240...@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>, scientist <scientis...@gmail.com> writes:>Are there any
academics on this list? How do you explain to humanities
majors taking an introductory level course that books such as Evan
Harris Walker's The Physics of Consciousness: The Quantum Mind and the
Meaning of Life are not credible physics, even if the author is a
physicist, without alienating your students?
You explain to them the scientific method and the matter of empirical
confirmation. And that any opinion by a physicist, no matter how
famous, which is not currently backed by experimental evidence, is
just this, an opinion.
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
m...@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
I believe that you have a very outdated view of physics that David
Hilbert would not approve. Hilbert accepted all mathematically
conceivable universes as physics [1][2].
Hilbert was a brilliant mathematician, and/but everythng he said
about physics, was right off the mark.
You are a poor amateur mathematician, and everything you say
about physics, doesn't come even close to a mark.
Mathematics is not science. It is just its *****.
Dirk Vdm
.
|
|
|
| User: "Shubee" |
|
| Title: Re: Explaining what isn't physics |
20 May 2007 09:13:55 AM |
|
|
On May 20, 6:17 am, "Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvandemoor...@ThankS-NO-
SperM.hotmail.com> wrote:
Hilbert was a brilliant mathematician, and/but everythng he said
about physics, was right off the mark.
Physics is exactly what David Hilbert said it was. The two references
cited [1][2], especially the second, prove that Hilbert was far ahead
of Einstein in his time. Actually, the second reference proves what a
dullard Einstein was. In reference [2], U. Majer and T. Sauer show
that Einstein's 1923 unified field theory was nothing more than the
result Hilbert achieved in 1915.
Shubee
1. http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf
2. http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/physics/pdf/0405/0405110v1.pdf
.
|
|
|
| User: "T Wake" |
|
| Title: Re: Explaining what isn't physics |
20 May 2007 09:20:07 AM |
|
|
"Shubee" <e.shubee@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1179670435.193289.210670@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
On May 20, 6:17 am, "Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvandemoor...@ThankS-NO-
SperM.hotmail.com> wrote:
Hilbert was a brilliant mathematician, and/but everythng he said
about physics, was right off the mark.
Physics is exactly what David Hilbert said it was.
Says who?
The two references
cited [1][2], especially the second, prove that Hilbert was far ahead
of Einstein in his time. Actually, the second reference proves what a
dullard Einstein was. In reference [2], U. Majer and T. Sauer show
that Einstein's 1923 unified field theory was nothing more than the
result Hilbert achieved in 1915.
Shubee
1. http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf
2. http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/physics/pdf/0405/0405110v1.pdf
.
|
|
|
| User: "Shubee" |
|
| Title: Re: Explaining what isn't physics |
20 May 2007 11:25:27 AM |
|
|
On May 20, 7:20 am, "T Wake" <usenet.es...@gishpuppy.com> wrote:
"Shubee" <e.shu...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1179670435.193289.210670@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
On May 20, 6:17 am, "Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvandemoor...@ThankS-NO-
SperM.hotmail.com> wrote:
Hilbert was a brilliant mathematician, and/but everythng he said
about physics, was right off the mark.
Physics is exactly what David Hilbert said it was.
Says who?
The two references
cited [1][2], especially the second, prove that Hilbert was far ahead
of Einstein in his time. Actually, the second reference proves what a
dullard Einstein was. In reference [2], U. Majer and T. Sauer show
that Einstein's 1923 unified field theory was nothing more than the
result Hilbert achieved in 1915.
Shubee
1.http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf
2.http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/physics/pdf/0405/0405110v1.pdf
If you don't acknowledge the brilliance of Hilbert's scientific
accomplishments or respect his philosophy of physics, then we can
discuss the popular meaning of physics.
As a practical matter, of course there are many gradations to the
meaning of physics. But what is the primary meaning of the word? I see
nothing helpful in not defining the ultimate goal of physics, which is
axiomatization. It's remarkable to me that virtually everyone these
days is claiming to have tremendous insight into physics, including
authors not competent enough to do middle school math. Yes, physics
often means quantifiable or qualitative predictions and patient
observation and collection of data. But I view opposition to Hilbert's
philosophy of physics as an unfounded criticism of axiomatization, a
protest against mathematics and a loud cry in favor of occult
science.
I don't mind acknowledging the existence of occult science. There are
many levels to physics.
To make the many gradations of physics apparent, let's classify the
four most visibly distinguished categories. I see the practitioners of
what is commonly called "physics" as usually operating on one of four
distinct levels. Transitioning from one level to another may happen
often, except for those in the ground state. These four levels, from
the ground state up, are the levels of the occult, the theatrical, the
physical, and the mathematical. Mystics loathe the precision of
mathematics and prefer that all of modern physics be built on
senseless sounding ambiguities. They thrive on half-baked suppositions
and unverified and unsubstantiated claims. On the next level up are
those who enjoy communicating the excitement of modern physics through
unenlightening language with just enough plausibility to make it sound
respectable. Theatrics and hype are their main teaching tools because
of their decision to communicate through riddles and paradoxes and the
heroes of physics. Next, the more sensible physicists are engaged in
doing practical, experimental work. The highest-ranking physicists are
mathematicians. Mathematicians prefer to build on the indisputably
clear foundations of simple toy universes.
Do you see the ascending scale? It progresses from the supernatural to
the sensational, to the mundane to mathematics. Mainstream society can
see this and would probably agree that this scale is going from what's
the most fun to the most unpleasant.
Shubee
.
|
|
|
| User: "T Wake" |
|
| Title: Re: Explaining what isn't physics |
20 May 2007 12:02:12 PM |
|
|
"Shubee" <e.shubee@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1179678325.262903.234120@w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
On May 20, 7:20 am, "T Wake" <usenet.es...@gishpuppy.com> wrote:
"Shubee" <e.shu...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1179670435.193289.210670@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
On May 20, 6:17 am, "Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvandemoor...@ThankS-NO-
SperM.hotmail.com> wrote:
Hilbert was a brilliant mathematician, and/but everythng he said
about physics, was right off the mark.
Physics is exactly what David Hilbert said it was.
Says who?
The two references
cited [1][2], especially the second, prove that Hilbert was far ahead
of Einstein in his time. Actually, the second reference proves what a
dullard Einstein was. In reference [2], U. Majer and T. Sauer show
that Einstein's 1923 unified field theory was nothing more than the
result Hilbert achieved in 1915.
Shubee
1.http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf
2.http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/physics/pdf/0405/0405110v1.pdf
If you don't acknowledge the brilliance of Hilbert's scientific
accomplishments or respect his philosophy of physics, then we can
discuss the popular meaning of physics.
You are missing the point. You are using an appeal to authority fallacy to
support using an appeal to authority fallacy.
The issue is not about his scientific acomplishments at all. You can not
counter the claim that Hilbert was off the mark by saying "physics is
exactly what Hilbert said it was."
As a practical matter, of course there are many gradations to the
meaning of physics. But what is the primary meaning of the word? I see
nothing helpful in not defining the ultimate goal of physics, which is
axiomatization.
Says you.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Shubee" |
|
| Title: Re: Explaining what isn't physics |
20 May 2007 01:00:04 PM |
|
|
On May 20, 10:02 am, "T Wake" <usenet.es...@gishpuppy.com> wrote:
You are missing the point. You are using an appeal to authority fallacy to
support using an appeal to authority fallacy.
No. I said very distinctly that I'm willing to temporarily forgo the
brilliance of defining physics according to Hilbert's philosophy and
accept conventional terminology for the sake of argument.
The issue is not about his scientific acomplishments at all. You can not
counter the claim that Hilbert was off the mark by saying "physics is
exactly what Hilbert said it was."
That wasn't my argument. My argument is that Einstein science is
worshiped yet Einstein's 1923 unified field theory was nothing more
than the result Hilbert achieved in 1915. So how can Hilbert be wrong
in everything he said about physics?
As a practical matter, of course there are many gradations to the
meaning of physics. But what is the primary meaning of the word? I see
nothing helpful in not defining the ultimate goal of physics, which is
axiomatization.
Says you.
Consider the effect of prominent physicists prostituting themselves on
public television, discussing time travel as if they have the
intelligence of making the physics work. In my 4-tiered view of
physics, isn't this a perfect example of occult science?
See the Nova transcript: PBS Airdate: October 12, 1999.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/transcripts/2612time.html
Shubee
.
|
|
|
| User: "T Wake" |
|
| Title: Re: Explaining what isn't physics |
20 May 2007 06:15:56 PM |
|
|
"Shubee" <e.shubee@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1179684004.200642.41650@r3g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
On May 20, 10:02 am, "T Wake" <usenet.es...@gishpuppy.com> wrote:
You are missing the point. You are using an appeal to authority fallacy
to
support using an appeal to authority fallacy.
No. I said very distinctly that I'm willing to temporarily forgo the
brilliance of defining physics according to Hilbert's philosophy and
accept conventional terminology for the sake of argument.
Nicely snipped. The bit I was talking about read:
"Physics is exactly what David Hilbert said it was."
That was the authority fallacy.
The issue is not about his scientific acomplishments at all. You can not
counter the claim that Hilbert was off the mark by saying "physics is
exactly what Hilbert said it was."
That wasn't my argument. My argument is that Einstein science is
worshiped
Then your argument is flawed. Millions of people have tried to falsifiy it
and still do. Is that "worship" in your book?
yet Einstein's 1923 unified field theory was nothing more
than the result Hilbert achieved in 1915. So how can Hilbert be wrong
in everything he said about physics?
Again, if you snipped the context less, you may understand more of what was
said.
As a practical matter, of course there are many gradations to the
meaning of physics. But what is the primary meaning of the word? I see
nothing helpful in not defining the ultimate goal of physics, which is
axiomatization.
Says you.
Consider the effect of prominent physicists prostituting themselves on
public television, discussing time travel as if they have the
intelligence of making the physics work. In my 4-tiered view of
physics, isn't this a perfect example of occult science?
See the Nova transcript: PBS Airdate: October 12, 1999.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/transcripts/2612time.html
So what? What does that have to do with your claim that the ultimate goal of
physics is axiomatization?
You made a claim that X was true. I pointed out it was simply *your*
assertion and you reply saying that your cat eats tuna.
Does that seem logical to you?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "boson boss" |
|
| Title: Re: Explaining what isn't physics |
20 May 2007 01:03:14 PM |
|
|
If you don't acknowledge the brilliance of Hilbert's scientific
accomplishments or respect his philosophy of physics, then we can
discuss the popular meaning of physics.
As a practical matter, of course there are many gradations to the
meaning of physics. But what is the primary meaning of the word? I see
nothing helpful in not defining the ultimate goal of physics, which is
axiomatization. It's remarkable to me that virtually everyone these
days is claiming to have tremendous insight into physics, including
authors not competent enough to do middle school math. Yes, physics
often means quantifiable or qualitative predictions and patient
observation and collection of data. But I view opposition to Hilbert's
philosophy of physics as an unfounded criticism of axiomatization, a
protest against mathematics and a loud cry in favor of occult
science.
I don't mind acknowledging the existence of occult science. There are
many levels to physics.
To make the many gradations of physics apparent, let's classify the
four most visibly distinguished categories. I see the practitioners of
what is commonly called "physics" as usually operating on one of four
distinct levels. Transitioning from one level to another may happen
often, except for those in the ground state. These four levels, from
the ground state up, are the levels of the occult, the theatrical, the
physical, and the mathematical. Mystics loathe the precision of
mathematics and prefer that all of modern physics be built on
senseless sounding ambiguities. They thrive on half-baked suppositions
and unverified and unsubstantiated claims. On the next level up are
those who enjoy communicating the excitement of modern physics through
unenlightening language with just enough plausibility to make it sound
respectable. Theatrics and hype are their main teaching tools because
of their decision to communicate through riddles and paradoxes and the
heroes of physics. Next, the more sensible physicists are engaged in
doing practical, experimental work. The highest-ranking physicists are
mathematicians. Mathematicians prefer to build on the indisputably
clear foundations of simple toy universes.
Do you see the ascending scale? It progresses from the supernatural to
the sensational, to the mundane to mathematics. Mainstream society can
see this and would probably agree that this scale is going from what's
the most fun to the most unpleasant.
Shubee
You don't know how to do it. You rise and fall down, you there on that
list, thats your perception. Here's a swedish army fork to get in
touch:
http://www.symmetrymag.org/cms/?pid=1000462
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Eric Gisse" |
|
| Title: Re: Explaining what isn't physics |
20 May 2007 03:09:54 PM |
|
|
On May 20, 9:25 am, Shubee <e.shu...@yahoo.com> wrote:
[...]
Stop it. You aren't a scientist, stop pretending you are.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dirk Van de moortel" |
|
| Title: Re: Explaining what isn't physics |
20 May 2007 09:17:58 AM |
|
|
"Shubee" <e.shubee@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1179670435.193289.210670@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
On May 20, 6:17 am, "Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvandemoor...@ThankS-NO-
SperM.hotmail.com> wrote:
Hilbert was a brilliant mathematician, and/but everythng he said
about physics, was right off the mark.
Physics is exactly what David Hilbert said it was. The two references
cited [1][2], especially the second, prove that Hilbert was far ahead
of Einstein in his time. Actually, the second reference proves what a
dullard Einstein was. In reference [2], U. Majer and T. Sauer show
that Einstein's 1923 unified field theory was nothing more than the
result Hilbert achieved in 1915.
A little quote by Hilbert as quoted by John Archibald Wheeler:
| "Many not close to his work think of Einstein as a man who
| could only make headway by dint of pages of complicated
| mathematics. The truth is the direct opposite. As the great
| mathematician of the time, David Hilbert, put it,
| | 'Every schoolboy in the streets of Goettingen
| | understands more about four-dimensinal geometry
| | than Einstein. Yet... Einstein did the work and
| | not the mathematicians.'
| The amateur grasped the simple central point that had eluded
| the expert"
[From Taylor and Wheeler - EBH]
Dirk Vdm
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Igor" |
|
| Title: Re: Explaining what isn't physics |
20 May 2007 01:16:43 PM |
|
|
On May 20, 10:13 am, Shubee <e.shu...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On May 20, 6:17 am, "Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvandemoor...@ThankS-NO-
SperM.hotmail.com> wrote:
Hilbert was a brilliant mathematician, and/but everythng he said
about physics, was right off the mark.
Physics is exactly what David Hilbert said it was. The two references
cited [1][2], especially the second, prove that Hilbert was far ahead
of Einstein in his time. Actually, the second reference proves what a
dullard Einstein was. In reference [2], U. Majer and T. Sauer show
that Einstein's 1923 unified field theory was nothing more than the
result Hilbert achieved in 1915.
Shubee
1.http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf
2.http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/physics/pdf/0405/0405110v1.pdf
It doesn't really matter, since both unified field theories ended up
being worthless anyway.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Y.Porat" |
|
| Title: Re: Explaining what isn't physics |
21 May 2007 02:31:22 AM |
|
|
On May 20, 9:16 pm, Igor <thoov...@excite.com> wrote:
On May 20, 10:13 am, Shubee <e.shu...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On May 20, 6:17 am, "Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvandemoor...@ThankS-NO-
SperM.hotmail.com> wrote:
Hilbert was a brilliant mathematician, and/but everythng he said
about physics, was right off the mark.
Physics is exactly what David Hilbert said it was. The two references
cited [1][2], especially the second, prove that Hilbert was far ahead
of Einstein in his time. Actually, the second reference proves what a
dullard Einstein was. In reference [2], U. Majer and T. Sauer show
that Einstein's 1923 unified field theory was nothing more than the
result Hilbert achieved in 1915.
Shubee
1.http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf
2.http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/physics/pdf/0405/0405110v1.pdf
It doesn't really matter, since both unified field theories ended up
being worthless anyway.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
---------------
Bravo donkey parrot !!
you make some advance
in understanding the difference between
mathematics and physics !!
Y.Porat
-------------------
.
|
|
|
| User: "Igor" |
|
| Title: Re: Explaining what isn't physics |
21 May 2007 12:24:46 PM |
|
|
On May 21, 3:31 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote:
On May 20, 9:16 pm, Igor <thoov...@excite.com> wrote:
On May 20, 10:13 am, Shubee <e.shu...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On May 20, 6:17 am, "Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvandemoor...@ThankS-NO-
SperM.hotmail.com> wrote:
Hilbert was a brilliant mathematician, and/but everythng he said
about physics, was right off the mark.
Physics is exactly what David Hilbert said it was. The two references
cited [1][2], especially the second, prove that Hilbert was far ahead
of Einstein in his time. Actually, the second reference proves what a
dullard Einstein was. In reference [2], U. Majer and T. Sauer show
that Einstein's 1923 unified field theory was nothing more than the
result Hilbert achieved in 1915.
Shubee
1.http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf
2.http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/physics/pdf/0405/0405110v1.pdf
It doesn't really matter, since both unified field theories ended up
being worthless anyway.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
---------------
Bravo donkey parrot !!
you make some advance
in understanding the difference between
mathematics and physics !!
Y.Porat
And it's really too bad that you didn't know what the hell I was
actually talking about.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Igor" |
|
| Title: Re: Explaining what isn't physics |
20 May 2007 01:07:19 PM |
|
|
On May 20, 8:46 am, Shubee <e.shu...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On May 20, 1:31 am, wrote:
In article <1179649634.397952.240...@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>, scientist <scientis...@gmail.com> writes:>Are there any academics on this list? How do you explain to humanities
majors taking an introductory level course that books such as Evan
Harris Walker's The Physics of Consciousness: The Quantum Mind and the
Meaning of Life are not credible physics, even if the author is a
physicist, without alienating your students?
You explain to them the scientific method and the matter of empirical
confirmation. And that any opinion by a physicist, no matter how
famous, which is not currently backed by experimental evidence, is
just this, an opinion.
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
m...@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
I believe that you have a very outdated view of physics that David
Hilbert would not approve. Hilbert accepted all mathematically
conceivable universes as physics [1][2].
Shubee
1.http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf
2.http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/physics/pdf/0405/0405110v1.pdf
That's probably because Hilbert wasn't a physicist either.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Shubee" |
|
| Title: Re: Explaining what isn't physics |
20 May 2007 03:22:29 PM |
|
|
On May 20, 11:07 am, Igor <thoov...@excite.com> wrote:
On May 20, 8:46 am, Shubee <e.shu...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On May 20, 1:31 am, wrote:
In article <1179649634.397952.240...@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>, scientist <scientis...@gmail.com> writes:>Are there any academics on this list? How do you explain to humanities
majors taking an introductory level course that books such as Evan
Harris Walker's The Physics of Consciousness: The Quantum Mind and the
Meaning of Life are not credible physics, even if the author is a
physicist, without alienating your students?
You explain to them the scientific method and the matter of empirical
confirmation. And that any opinion by a physicist, no matter how
famous, which is not currently backed by experimental evidence, is
just this, an opinion.
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
m...@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
I believe that you have a very outdated view of physics that David
Hilbert would not approve. Hilbert accepted all mathematically
conceivable universes as physics [1][2].
Shubee
1.http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf
2.http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/physics/pdf/0405/0405110v1.pdf
That's probably because Hilbert wasn't a physicist either.
I agree with David Hilbert. "Physics is too difficult for physicists."
Do you even know of any physicists that have read and understand
Hilbert's philosophy of physics? If physicists don't like it, where is
their informed rebuttal?
1. http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf
2. http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/physics/pdf/0405/0405110v1.pdf
Shubee
.
|
|
|
| User: "T Wake" |
|
| Title: Re: Explaining what isn't physics |
20 May 2007 06:17:56 PM |
|
|
"Shubee" <e.shubee@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1179692549.143312.147190@y2g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
On May 20, 11:07 am, Igor <thoov...@excite.com> wrote:
On May 20, 8:46 am, Shubee <e.shu...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On May 20, 1:31 am, wrote:
In article <1179649634.397952.240...@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>,
scientist <scientis...@gmail.com> writes:>Are there any academics on
this list? How do you explain to humanities
majors taking an introductory level course that books such as Evan
Harris Walker's The Physics of Consciousness: The Quantum Mind and
the
Meaning of Life are not credible physics, even if the author is a
physicist, without alienating your students?
You explain to them the scientific method and the matter of empirical
confirmation. And that any opinion by a physicist, no matter how
famous, which is not currently backed by experimental evidence, is
just this, an opinion.
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
m...@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the
same"
I believe that you have a very outdated view of physics that David
Hilbert would not approve. Hilbert accepted all mathematically
conceivable universes as physics [1][2].
Shubee
1.http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf
2.http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/physics/pdf/0405/0405110v1.pdf
That's probably because Hilbert wasn't a physicist either.
I agree with David Hilbert.
We [tinw] have noticed.
"Physics is too difficult for physicists."
Yeah, funny isnt it.
Do you even know of any physicists that have read and understand
Hilbert's philosophy of physics? If physicists don't like it, where is
their informed rebuttal?
Why should Physicists rebut it? Should people produce an informed rebuttal
of everything you demand?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: Explaining what isn't physics |
20 May 2007 11:22:09 PM |
|
|
Shubee wrote:
On May 20, 1:31 am, wrote:
In article <1179649634.397952.240...@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>, scientist <scientis...@gmail.com> writes:>Are there any academics on this list? How do you explain to humanities
majors taking an introductory level course that books such as Evan
Harris Walker's The Physics of Consciousness: The Quantum Mind and the
Meaning of Life are not credible physics, even if the author is a
physicist, without alienating your students?
You explain to them the scientific method and the matter of empirical
confirmation. And that any opinion by a physicist, no matter how
famous, which is not currently backed by experimental evidence, is
just this, an opinion.
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
m...@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
I believe that you have a very outdated view of physics that David
Hilbert would not approve. Hilbert accepted all mathematically
conceivable universes as physics [1][2].
Eugene, you've got to be kidding!
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "BioFreak" |
|
| Title: Re: Explaining what isn't physics |
20 May 2007 05:20:25 PM |
|
|
On 20 May 2007 01:27:14 -0700, scientist wrote:
Are there any academics on this list? How do you explain to humanities
majors taking an introductory level course that books such as Evan
Harris Walker's The Physics of Consciousness: The Quantum Mind and the
Meaning of Life are not credible physics, even if the author is a
physicist, without alienating your students?
Are you sure the author meant to discuss physics.
Science doesn't have to be physics. There are
scientific ways of investigating "consciousness" or
"mind", or "meaning of life." I haven't looked at the
book of course (not in this universe) but you have to
first be fully aware what scientific methods are, then
see if the author is applying them to his subject or
not.
In other words, do your own part before imparting
something silly on your students.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Eric Gisse" |
|
| Title: Re: Explaining what isn't physics |
20 May 2007 03:59:36 AM |
|
|
On May 20, 1:27 am, scientist <scientis...@gmail.com> wrote:
Are there any academics on this list? How do you explain to humanities
majors taking an introductory level course that books such as Evan
Harris Walker's The Physics of Consciousness: The Quantum Mind and the
Meaning of Life are not credible physics, even if the author is a
physicist, without alienating your students?
If it isn't testable, it isn't physics. Religion, metaphysics, and
philosophy qualify.
.
|
|
|
| User: "=?UTF-8?Q?Jeff=E2=80=A6Relf?=" |
|
| Title: Black holes aren't true physics, according to Gisse. |
20 May 2007 04:12:52 AM |
|
|
In my opinion, Mr. Scientist, Eric_Gisse is a lame spammer.
Gisse wrote: " If it isn't testable, it isn't physics. ".
Q. How does one measure the infinite gravitational energy
at the event horizon of ideal black hole ?
A. You can't. never.
So black holes aren't true physics, according to Gisse.
.
|
|
|
| User: "T Wake" |
|
| Title: Re: Black holes aren't true physics, according to Gisse. |
20 May 2007 07:46:12 AM |
|
|
"Jeff.Relf" <Jeff_Relf@Yahoo.COM> wrote in message
news:Jeff_Relf_2007_May_20_5_@Cotse.NET...
In my opinion, Mr. Scientist, Eric_Gisse is a lame spammer.
As Relf is massively clueless about all science topics, his opinion does not
count.
Gisse wrote: " If it isn't testable, it isn't physics. ".
Q. How does one measure the infinite gravitational energy
at the event horizon of ideal black hole ?
A. You can't. never.
Your lack of understanding is not the issue here.
If you break down your nonsense you see you are asking Eric how he would
measure something you have invented.
Amazing.
So black holes aren't true physics, according to Gisse.
Ditto.
.
|
|
|
| User: "=?UTF-8?Q?Jeff=E2=80=A6Relf?=" |
|
| Title: If a true event horizon is not testable, how is it physics ? |
20 May 2007 12:53:27 PM |
|
|
How much energy does it take to escape a true event horizon, T_Wake ?
and what makes you think it's finite ?
what makes you think its " gravitational energy " isn't infinite ?
And how is that " testable " ? ( using Gisse's word )
If you could stop being a pure troll for one second ( hardy har har ),
I'd then ask you:
" If a true event horizon is not testable, how is it physics ? ".
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Eric Gisse" |
|
| Title: Re: Black holes aren't true physics, according to Gisse. |
20 May 2007 06:40:56 AM |
|
|
On May 20, 2:12 am, Jeff...Relf <Jeff_R...@Yahoo.COM> wrote:
In my opinion, Mr. Scientist, Eric_Gisse is a lame spammer.
Gisse wrote: " If it isn't testable, it isn't physics. ".
Q. How does one measure the infinite gravitational energy
at the event horizon of ideal black hole ?
A. You can't. never.
The amount of gravitational energy is finite, dumbass.
So black holes aren't true physics, according to Gisse.
You are an idiot.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
New Member at ae911truth confirms obvious about controlled demolition of the Twin Towers and WTC7 - stupid Goy just can't think for themselves - they rely on the television to tell them what is and what isn't. lol. Stupid goy. I agree with the Zionis
What measurement first proved that time isn't absolute ?
What If time isn't linear?
The only thing Subjective is what isn't the Truth
Re: Can someone tell me what all this means???? - Smart1234
WHAT'S NEW Robert L. Park Friday, 5 Sep 03 Washington, DC
APS - What's New by Bob Park - Friday, October 31, 2003
What's New -- Friday, February 20, 2004
| Re: What If
What if the higgs don't exist....
what would be a good substitution for wind in a laboratory
1999 eclipse pendulum experiments- what happened?
WHAT'S NEW Robert L. Park Friday, 31 Dec 04 Washington, DC
WHAT'S NEW Robert L. Park Friday, 1 Apr 05 Washington, DC
8192 DIMENTIONS * 8 = IS WHAT ANOTHER TIME TRAP!
|
|
|
