Re: Leibniz vs Newton

On Dec 5, 3:31 pm, "Eric Gisse" <jowr...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
MobyDikc wrote:
Eric Gisse wrote:
MobyDikc wrote:
Eric Gisse wrote:
MobyDikc wrote:

[snip]

I've suggested, by citing the wikipedia, that physics is based on the
scientific method, and the scientific method includes a conjectural
stage in hypothesis creation.

For the last 3 years you have been in the "I have an idea" stage. When
are you going to actually put that idea in a quantifiable form?

First, we would need sufficient knowledge of the brain to recreate the
neuronal wiring and instruments required to make a mathematical model
of an observer.

Then we'd need the computing power to do it.

You have no idea what an observer means in physics, do you?


I have an idea of what it should mean.



[snip whining about string theory]

Anything that talks about string theory gets ignored. Why don't we talk
about you, Mike?


Since you are persistant. Sure.


In your previous postings from early 2003 you explained you haven't
seen physics since highschool. Where you attempt to talk about
contemporary physics you often make mistakes and are confused by simple
concepts.

True. That's why I come here. To find the shortcomings in my knowledge.

You've been adament about being unhelpful.

And adament about talking about me as a person.

Might I suggest that you try to get to know a few people in real life.
Maybe a girl. Then you might not be so frustrated and desperate for
human interaction here. Then maybe ideas can take center stage. Just an
idea.



In your latest postings, you evidently still do not understand calculus
along with highschool physics. You apparently have knowledge of
computer programming at some level, which you seem to believe grants
you the ability to do physics given your treatment of pseudocode as the
same as physics.

Just because you're unfamiliar with the code doesn't mean it was psuedo
code.

My examples are compilable and do execute.

However, I've retired and don't do programming anymore.


You struggle with concepts taught in introductory physics courses yet
you think you can reinvent physics using philosophy and catchphrases?


It may seem unlikely to you, but its not impossible.

Perhaps physics has reached a point where the next new ideas are going
to be such a departure from what you have, that a fresh, outside view
is what stimulates the next craze.


You talk about mass-energy, yet you have no idea where the term comes
from or the theoretical justification for it. You talk about dark
matter, yet you are completely ignorant of the research behind it.


I'm sick of this process repeating every few months. Learn some physics
or shut the *** up, kook.

No you're not. If you were, you wouldn't engage me.

Why don't you either stick to physics, or go find a girl?

.

Quantcast