 |
|
| Science Forum Index » Physics Forum » Why are there so many unsolved problems in physics?... |
|
Page 2 of 5 Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Next |
|
| Author |
Message |
| jmfbahciv... |
 Posted: Thu Feb 04, 2010 9:06 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Urion wrote:
[quote]Here is a list of unsolved problems in modern physics from wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unsolved_problems_in_physics
Why are so many problems? Don't you think there is something seriously
wrong with our understanding of physics and the universe or are we
just overcomplicating things?
[/quote]
Now think about the problems that haven't been identified yet.
/BAH |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Ste... |
| Posted: Thu Feb 04, 2010 10:40 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On 4 Feb, 12:20, "Cwatters"
<colin.wattersNOS... at (no spam) TurnersOakNOSPAM.plus.com> wrote:
[quote]
Peer reviewed scientific papers are hidden away on subscription sites
where as the cranks publish openly.
[/quote]
And whose fault is that exactly? Scientists can't expect to act as
gatekeepers to knowledge, and then complain that too few people
understand their work.
[quote]It would be interesting to know who the general public trusts most these
days? Scientists or politicians?
[/quote]
I dare say neither. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Uncle Al... |
| Posted: Thu Feb 04, 2010 10:44 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Urion wrote:
[quote]
Here is a list of unsolved problems in modern physics from wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unsolved_problems_in_physics
Why are so many problems? Don't you think there is something seriously
wrong with our understanding of physics and the universe or are we
just overcomplicating things?
[/quote]
To criticize is to volunteer - propose empirically valid solutions.
Physics is rich with difficult questions because it is a viable
science. Jews have a direct line to god - the "chosen people" -
complete with a substantial pile of god-dictated text and hundreds of
thousands of pages of non-indexed commentaries. They hoo-ha celebrate
direct god-driven miraculous deliverance from Egypt.
Roughly 1938 through 1944 some six million Jews were exterminated by
German political agenda. The vast majority of those slaughtered were
ultra-religious Jews who went to their deaths singing the Shma. The
curiosity is not whether god was otherwise preoccupied doing his hair
or something. The curiosity is how the Holocaust never made it into
the religion. It's doublethink, the cherished ability to hold two
utterly conflicting ideas in your head without contradiction.
Armenians were the first declared Christian nation. They were
uniformly, unwaveringly fanatic about it from that day forward. Turks
cleansed the world of at least one million Armenians - and
mechanistically heinously so. This was a test of faith not an
empirical contradiction of belief.
Europe scythed the New World, exterminating at least 30 million
indigens. The US vigorously reduced its Indian population. Where
were their gods? Africa is a bleeding ulcer. Where are its gods?
Hindus have 36 crores of gods - 360 million deities. How is India
doing?
Physics has a large pile of difficult questions because physics is
not fraudulent. However... defective theory like quantized
gravitation and Standard Model supersymmetry deny their subservience
to empirical testing. This evidences physics' transition from science
to "christ is coming back - just you wait."
We will see if the future addresses questions or elevates them to holy
writ (the anthropomorphic universe).
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz4.htm |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| glird... |
| Posted: Thu Feb 04, 2010 10:57 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Feb 3, 9:06 pm, Urion <blackman_... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:
[quote]Here is a list of unsolved problems in modern physics from wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unsolved_problems_in_physics
Why are so many problems? Don't you think there is something seriously wrong with our understanding of physics and the universe or are we just overcomplicating things?
[/quote]
The trouble is either
A: that the phuies don't understand the physical realities treated by
their own equations, thus neither do most people;
or
B: that the phuies DO understand those things but make believe that
they don't.
Why B?
Because "Where ignorance is bliss til folly to be wise".
??
"Bliss" means "LOTS of DOLLARS", paid by the people to the not-so-
phuies for their endlessly ongoing "pure research".
glird |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Paul Stowe... |
| Posted: Thu Feb 04, 2010 11:49 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Feb 3, 6:06 pm, Urion <blackman_... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:
[quote]Here is a list of unsolved problems in modern physics from wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unsolved_problems_in_physics
Why are so many problems? Don't you think there is something seriously
wrong with our understanding of physics and the universe or are we
just overcomplicating things?
[/quote]
Short answer, yes there is something seriously wrong with our current
approach and models. Not so much in the narrow model domains, but in
understanding the overall integrated interplay and system. It's like
the tale of the three blind men groping and trying to describe an
Elephant. GR & SR don't describe nature they describe certain
behavioral characteristics 'of' nature with no attempt to understand
what brings that behavior about. Likewise, QM, QED, QCD do the same.
It is my opinion that the current crop of physicists are too arrogant
and set in their convictions that they 'know' and have the proper
answers (like the Big Bang Hypothesis) to be even willing to rethink
fundamental premises. And, that is precisely what will be required to
begin to answer most of those questions. For example, the Pioneer
Effect is correctly and precisely predicted by a well known
alternative model of gravity.
Good luck in getting any cogent answer here.
Regards,
Paul Stowe |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Ace0f_5pades... |
| Posted: Thu Feb 04, 2010 12:15 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Feb 5, 1:20 am, "Cwatters"
<colin.wattersNOS... at (no spam) TurnersOakNOSPAM.plus.com> wrote:
[quote]It would be interesting to know who the general public trusts most these
days? Scientists or politicians?
[/quote]
Thats an interesting & serious question that at one time would never
have been asked. The recent data fixing disclosures didn't help the
cause much.
but on the whole, the doctors I know are fantastic advocates of their
chosen fields.
[quote]
If science has a bad image with Koe public is it any wonder politicians have
no incentive to fund it? Are there any votes in science?
[/quote]
vote -- Science 1 -- poiticians 0
actually, I'd be surprised if you got 1 vote for politicians
(especially politician from the USA (thats right--the general
perception; there are politicians, and then there are politicians)),
and go as far as to accuse any1 that voted in their favour as being
1. lol. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Paul Stowe... |
| Posted: Thu Feb 04, 2010 2:23 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Feb 4, 3:14 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]On 2/4/10 3:49 PM, Paul Stowe wrote:
On Feb 3, 6:06 pm, Urion<blackman_... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:
Here is a list of unsolved problems in modern physics from wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unsolved_problems_in_physics
Why are so many problems? Don't you think there is something seriously
wrong with our understanding of physics and the universe or are we
just overcomplicating things?
Short answer, yes there is something seriously wrong with our current
approach and models. Not so much in the narrow model domains, but in
understanding the overall integrated interplay and system. It's like
the tale of the three blind men groping and trying to describe an
Elephant. GR& SR don't describe nature they describe certain
behavioral characteristics 'of' nature with no attempt to understand
what brings that behavior about. Likewise, QM, QED, QCD do the same.
It is my opinion that the current crop of physicists are too arrogant
and set in their convictions that they 'know' and have the proper
answers (like the Big Bang Hypothesis) to be even willing to rethink
fundamental premises. And, that is precisely what will be required to
begin to answer most of those questions. For example, the Pioneer
Effect is correctly and precisely predicted by a well known
alternative model of gravity.
Good luck in getting any cogent answer here.
Regards,
Paul Stowe
Imagine what it was like 200 years ago.
[/quote]
One does not have to imagine, read Whittaker's work... While
knowledge was certainly less, and human nature was the same, making a
living as a scientist was all but unknown. Thus the pursuit of
science was, circa 1810, more of a gentleman's endeavor, not trying to
get funding and paychecks. It was a different time, with different
decorum and behavior. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Mike Jr... |
| Posted: Thu Feb 04, 2010 2:36 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Feb 4, 10:44 am, Uncle Al <Uncle... at (no spam) hate.spam.net> wrote:
[snip]
I have always (well since my college days) been curious how the
universe managed to start in such a low entropy state. I have read
that the universe started in a tiny box, just one part in
10**(10**123) of the entire phase-space volume. How did that happen?
I agree that if science can't make contact with experiment then it is
not science at all but rather philosophy, fiction. or religion.
--Mike Jr. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Andrew Usher... |
| Posted: Thu Feb 04, 2010 2:58 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Feb 4, 2:57 pm, glird <gl... at (no spam) aol.com> wrote:
<snip>
I'd really like to know why reasonable questions always seem to become
dominated by the cranks.
Also why they seem to have no trouble getting replies, while I do ...
Andrew Usher |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Ste... |
| Posted: Thu Feb 04, 2010 4:23 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On 5 Feb, 00:58, Andrew Usher <k_over_hb... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:
[quote]On Feb 4, 2:57 pm, glird <gl... at (no spam) aol.com> wrote:
snip
I'd really like to know why reasonable questions always seem to become
dominated by the cranks.
Also why they seem to have no trouble getting replies, while I do ...
[/quote]
Perhaps you're too reasonable? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Uncle Al... |
| Posted: Thu Feb 04, 2010 5:00 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
john wrote:
[quote]
On Feb 4, 9:44 am, Uncle Al <Uncle... at (no spam) hate.spam.net> wrote:
Urion wrote:
Here is a list of unsolved problems in modern physics from wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unsolved_problems_in_physics
Why are so many problems? Don't you think there is something seriously
wrong with our understanding of physics and the universe or are we
just overcomplicating things?
To criticize is to volunteer - propose empirically valid solutions.
The proton is a standing wave of energy
that perfectly resonates with the
frequency of space, absorbing energy from it
thus creating gravity
[/quote]
idiot
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz4.htm |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Sam Wormley... |
| Posted: Thu Feb 04, 2010 6:14 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On 2/4/10 3:49 PM, Paul Stowe wrote:
[quote]On Feb 3, 6:06 pm, Urion<blackman_... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:
Here is a list of unsolved problems in modern physics from wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unsolved_problems_in_physics
Why are so many problems? Don't you think there is something seriously
wrong with our understanding of physics and the universe or are we
just overcomplicating things?
Short answer, yes there is something seriously wrong with our current
approach and models. Not so much in the narrow model domains, but in
understanding the overall integrated interplay and system. It's like
the tale of the three blind men groping and trying to describe an
Elephant. GR& SR don't describe nature they describe certain
behavioral characteristics 'of' nature with no attempt to understand
what brings that behavior about. Likewise, QM, QED, QCD do the same.
It is my opinion that the current crop of physicists are too arrogant
and set in their convictions that they 'know' and have the proper
answers (like the Big Bang Hypothesis) to be even willing to rethink
fundamental premises. And, that is precisely what will be required to
begin to answer most of those questions. For example, the Pioneer
Effect is correctly and precisely predicted by a well known
alternative model of gravity.
Good luck in getting any cogent answer here.
Regards,
Paul Stowe
[/quote]
Imagine what it was like 200 years ago. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Paul Stowe... |
| Posted: Thu Feb 04, 2010 6:43 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Feb 4, 4:58 pm, Andrew Usher <k_over_hb... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:
[quote]On Feb 4, 2:57 pm, glird <gl... at (no spam) aol.com> wrote:
snip
I'd really like to know why reasonable questions always seem to become
dominated by the cranks.
Also why they seem to have no trouble getting replies, while I do ...
Andrew Usher
[/quote]
Well, one has to wonder what type of responses you were expecting?
This seems like a classical trolling for arguments post since, by
definition, science has no answers to question. Did you seriously
think anyone OTHER than your so-called cranks would respond to your
question???. By definition, your post was ideally designed to draw
cranks like moths to a flame. Likewise, most others will ignore it
since there are no definitive answer(s).
As Spock would say, Fascinating... |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Owen Jacobson... |
| Posted: Fri Feb 05, 2010 12:09 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On 2010-02-04 19:58:15 -0500, Andrew Usher <k_over_hbarc at (no spam) yahoo.com> said:
[quote]On Feb 4, 2:57 pm, glird <gl... at (no spam) aol.com> wrote:
snip
I'd really like to know why reasonable questions always seem to become
dominated by the cranks.
[/quote]
Should I take it that your posts "The metric system sucks" and "Baryon
number of Black Holes" are attempts to investigate this phenomenon, via
crank-like posts? :)
-o |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| eric gisse... |
| Posted: Fri Feb 05, 2010 12:44 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Paul Stowe wrote:
[quote]On Feb 3, 6:06 pm, Urion <blackman_... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:
Here is a list of unsolved problems in modern physics from wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unsolved_problems_in_physics
Why are so many problems? Don't you think there is something seriously
wrong with our understanding of physics and the universe or are we
just overcomplicating things?
Short answer, yes there is something seriously wrong with our current
approach and models. Not so much in the narrow model domains, but in
understanding the overall integrated interplay and system. It's like
the tale of the three blind men groping and trying to describe an
Elephant. GR & SR don't describe nature they describe certain
behavioral characteristics 'of' nature with no attempt to understand
what brings that behavior about. Likewise, QM, QED, QCD do the same.
[/quote]
General relativity and quantum theory exactly - to all available precision -
describe their respective domains of applicability. You can scream all you
want about how the map is not the territory, and the people who actually
know this stuff will mutter "duh" and move on to actually figuring stuff
out.
[quote]It is my opinion that the current crop of physicists are too arrogant
and set in their convictions that they 'know' and have the proper
answers (like the Big Bang Hypothesis) to be even willing to rethink
fundamental premises.
[/quote]
While you are the model of zen-like contemplation who always considers
opinions that aren't his own? Both descriptions are completely wrong.
Physicists routinely test their hypotheses, otherwise it wouldn't be
science.
Let's focus on the big bang theory, since you rail on it constantly.
Have you read the papers that discuss how the CMBR is shown to be of higher
temperature at higher redshifts in a manner that exactly corresponds with
orthodox theory?
Have you read the papers that describe how the expansion hypothesis has been
directly tested by observing the falloff in luminosity as a function of
redshift?
Have you read any papers on the subject recently? At all? Or are you content
in your opinion as well as your own arrogance?
Let's see if you can name one aspect of the big bang theory that has not
been tested.
[quote]And, that is precisely what will be required to
begin to answer most of those questions. For example, the Pioneer
Effect is correctly and precisely predicted by a well known
alternative model of gravity.
[/quote]
Ah, and which 'alternative model of gravity' would that be?
And would the effect be the one of Anderson et.al., or the one that survives
1/3 smaller with approximate thermal modeling for a portion of the trip done
by Turyshev, et.al. ?
If any of this is news to you, perhaps you aren't nearly as interested in
learning about the world we live in as you wish us to believe.
[quote]
Good luck in getting any cogent answer here.
[/quote]
Probably because this is a USENET newsgroup that has no requirement for its'
participants to be educated in the subjects they wish to rant and scream
about.
Case in point - have you formally studied physics?
[quote]
Regards,
Paul Stowe[/quote] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Sun Mar 14, 2010 10:21 am
|
|