Re: Math & physics.


"Benj" <bjacoby@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:ae3e2596-cf8b-41a4-9277-ca0272628b24@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Jul 7, 8:36 pm, "Steve Bell" <sb...@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

They quite egotistically,
to me, make a weird jump that "if we can't see it, it ain't so," that simply because *we* can only make observatory equipment that
produces diffraction patterns, then the "truth" of the external world is "indefinite particles," your "nerf balls." This is very
poor logic, to me, and a complete misunderstanding of machine error.

Of course it's actually far worse than you say. Not only do they say
"if we can't see it, it ain't so" but they extend that to "If I don't
bother to look at it (even though I could see it if I looked) then it
simply doesn't exist until I do!" And in fact it's worse than that!
They even go so far as to say things are "unknowable". Which is
essentially identical with saying that something is "impossible" which
as I like to point out here is totally equivalent to saying, "I'm a
moron!"

Fact is QM is a science of ignorance. It's like studying the flipping
of coins. You know that there are forces and spins and various
physical parameters that determine any particular spin. But a
measurement and calculation of those details is like too much work. So
we find an easier way. We start doing statistics of coin flips. And
sure, we don't get every particular coin flip correct, but hey, ON
AVERAGE we know and can show what is likely to happen. Aren't we so
clever? And then to cover up our laziness, we'll propose the dogma
that the details of coin-flipping forces are "unknowable" by anyone!
There! We are now scientific geniuses and nobody dare deny it!

This is the sad state of "modern" physics.

I agree. You are, perhaps, the only other person I have seen on this list that claims QM is wrong. That is an awfully brave (most
would say just flat out incorrect) statement. The current belief is that QED is the most accurate theory humans have devised so far,
because it has supposedly "predicted" experimental results with great accuracy and precision. I put "predicted" in quotes, because
if you examine how these supposed predictions are made, they simply can't be compared to experimental data in an unbiased manner.
The QM physicists take a bizarre approach to the scientific method, to me. Their predictions are most decidedly not independent of
the experimental data they are trying to predict. This, to me, is a complete breakdown of the scientific method.

Steve Bell


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Scientific Errors
    ... And if the pressure of a ... A science forum is no place to preach such ... the scientific method nor have you chosen to inform PTP of your ... As you have no formal training in Physics it explains why ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Are you an idealist? (was: Einsteins logic)
    ... > I KNOW that the LET current rest frame is the original rest frame. ... theory of relativity. ... > better than modern physics has. ... But you are correct, the scientific method requires ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: The Relativistic Myth.
    ... I think that Hitler may have hit on ... > Relativistic Particle Physics can only be known in terms ... not one single experiment exists that falsifies relativity. ... which has abandoned the scientific method in favor of the belief in magic to ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Scientific Errors
    ... your excuse for a USENET client has completely garbled the message ... As you have no formal training in Physics it explains why your ... the scientific method and be able to produce a theory which met the required ... You have an idea, but you dont ...
    (sci.physics)
Loading