Scientific theories and reality:

[Trippy]

Leopold:

i haven't misrepresented ANYTHING.
the quotes i posted CAME DIRECTLY from the issue.
it's as simple as that.
like i said, you either believe what was published, or you don't.

This is half the problem with trying to discuss anything with you. Look at what Aqueous ID actually said:

My comments to you have nothing to do with Lewin or Gould...

Try responding to what people are actually saying to you rather than reacting to what you think they're saying to you.

 

[leopold]

you either believe what was printed or you don't.
you can't have it both ways trippy.

 

[forrest noble]

Forrest noble: you are talking in circles. I already said and you agreed, that the language of physics is math. Physics theories are written in the language of math and QM is as good as they come. That a particular theory is "just math" seems to be the rallying cry of a lot crackpots around here.

There is no disagreement that the math of physics is the most important part of its application. But formulations can be derived with great effort based upon a history of observations without any justification or understanding why the resultant formulations should be valid, and possibly no guess as to what circumstances they may not be valid. Verbal logic is what "theory" is all about. Theory can explain every aspect of reality with accuracy and understanding so that the human mind could understand everything about everything, in principle, without math. The problem is that no quantitative predictions can be made without mathematics or statistics of some kind, and this exactness and precision is a requirement for the application of most theories.

Beyond that, your idea of contracting objects only superficially matches a small set of observations (you multiply redshift curves by 1/1)and requires a mountain of corresponding assumptions you never explore (how is chemistry affected by electrons orbiting closer to atoms?). It does not meet the definition of a theory.

Russ, I do not understand what you are stating or questioning in the above quote

 

[Trippy]

you either believe what was printed or you don't.
you can't have it both ways trippy.

It's not about belief, it's about understanding and context, both of which you have failed at.

 

[leopold]

It's not about belief, it's about understanding and context, both of which you have failed at.

what is so hard about understanding the conclusion?
except the fact it doesn't fit with the so called "mainstream".
what's so hard about understanding what dr. ayala said, except maybe it doesn't fit either.

there is nothing to indicate dr. ayala even contacted the source but yet he contacts authors of personal websites.
yeah, uh huh.
go for it.

 

[Aqueous Id]

i haven't misrepresented ANYTHING.
the quotes i posted CAME DIRECTLY from the issue.
it's as simple as that.
like i said, you either believe what was published, or you don't.

As I have said at least 6 times now, your error is that you are claiming that Gould is not covered in the curriculum. It is, therefore your arguments are moot and these remarks are false and irrelevant. Speak to the issue: Gould is in the curriculum.

 

[leopold]

As I have said at least 6 times now, your error is that you are claiming that Gould is not covered in the curriculum. It is, therefore your arguments are moot and these remarks are false and irrelevant. Speak to the issue: Gould is in the curriculum.

ok, now what?
this doesn't resolve what was printed in the article.

 

[Aqueous Id]

ok, now what?
this doesn't resolve what was printed in the article.

The trick is to resolve your misconception of what is in the curriculum (the mainstream). Once you accept that science teaches Gould's theory, what's left for you to complain about?

 

[forrest noble]

i love how " comprehensive explanation " is in bold.
please explain why you chose to high light this part.
just because one individual has a problem understanding , makes this a non theory ?

Explanations are verbal, mathematics and statistics are calculated statements without explanatory power.

"Explanation" defined: A statement of reason or justification given for an action or belief.

It was emboldened to show that a theory cannot exist by definition without statements of explanation.

then " supported by a vast body of evidence " is high lighted again, please explain why you chose to high light this part. it appears it's not acknowledge of the " vast evidence " of how correct quantum physics is. maybe actually learning and understanding quantum physics and what is produced from QM will help ?
it appears the lack of comprehension of what is read is the problem here, as the continuous incorrect(as obvious as it can be) post shows that's the problem.....

I deleted the emboldened emphasis of "supported by a vast body of evidence" because I though the emphasis might be misunderstood as to my meaning of it. My meaning was that Quantum Mechanics has no vast body of evidence to justify the derivation of its equations and the application of the statistics that it uses. The body of evidence was the history of observations used to derive its equations, but was not a justification for the resultant formulations or why they should be valid.

 

[krash661]

The body of evidence was used to derive the equations, but was not a justification for the resultant formulations or why they should be valid.

again...
the justifications and validations are,
what is produced from QM
simple.
math is a language, it's very explanatory powered

agian,
maybe actually learning and understanding quantum physics and what is produced from QM will help ?
it appears the lack of comprehension of what is read is the problem here,
as the continuous incorrect (as obvious as it can be) post shows that's the problem

it also appears that it is not realized how this post (#131 and 149) contradicts it's self.

just because one individual has a problem understanding , makes this a non theory ?

I deleted the emboldened emphasis of "supported by a vast body of evidence" because I though the emphasis might be misunderstood as to my meaning of it.

so the problem is you are talking in code instead of using the actual meaning of these words ?

 

[Aqueous Id]

formulations can be derived with great effort based upon a history of observations without any justification or understanding why the resultant formulations should be valid and possibly no guess as to what circumstances they may not be valid.

That ignores/discounts scholarship, which is just plain stupid. It certainly leaves you at the bottom of the heap you are disparaging.

Verbal logic is what "theory" is all about.

Valid logic underpins all valid science. How illogical of you to disparage it.

Theory can explain every aspect of reality with accuracy and understanding so that the human mind could understand everything about everything, in principle, without math.

Name one theory that does that.

The problem is that no quantitative predictions can be made without mathematics or statistics of some kind,

So math is used to create problems rather than to solve them?

and this exactness and precision is a requirement for the application of most theories.

Explain how this applies to Darwin, Mendel, Newton, Maxwell, Carnot, Balmer or Lorentz (just to pick a few at random)

 

[leopold]

The trick is to resolve your misconception of what is in the curriculum (the mainstream). Once you accept that science teaches Gould's theory, what's left for you to complain about?

the ayala quote for one thing.
after reviewing your link, i'm more confident than ever that he did indeed say what was printed.
think about that aqueous and tell me you don't have a problem with this issue.

 

[Aqueous Id]

the ayala quote for one thing.
after reviewing your link, i'm more confident than ever that he did indeed say what was printed.
think about that aqueous and tell me you don't have a problem with this issue.

The link teaches Gould's theory of punctuated equilibrium to students of evolution. What controversy remains? If students get this in their curriculum, then it proves that the mainstream embraces Gould's theory. Therefore you no longer have any reason to say that you reject evolution based on your belief that the mainstream rejected Gould, since you now see that your premise was incorrect.

 

[paddoboy]

you either believe what was printed or you don't.
you can't have it both ways trippy.

Besides the personal PM's you sent me, I have recently reviewed some older Evolution threads going back 12 months and more...
The logical assumptions from your general postings going back over the last couple of years is certainly that you have Creationists tendencies and sympathies.
Nothing wrong with that per se, but when that obvious agenda, effects one's ability to observe the logical data that shows that Evolution is as factual as one would want it to be, and forces you to ignore the larger overall aspect of life and Evolution, then you need to do a serious rethink.
As I have pointed out to you previously, even the Catholic church recognise that fact, and you retort back in obvious anger, "who gives a flying f%#@ what the Catholic church does" [or words conveying that effect] again show your sympathetic tendencies towards some form of Creationism.

It would be far more honest to just be up front and come out from the closet so to speak.

 

[Russ_Watters]

There is no disagreement that the math of physics is the most important part of its application....

You are hedging. You are trying to begrudgingly acknowledge QM's success while still claiming it isn't relevant/important ("application" vs "theory"). Again: the math is the theory.

But formulations can be derived with great effort based upon a history of observations without any justification or understanding why the resultant formulations should be valid, and possibly no guess as to what circumstances they may not be valid.

The justification comes from the later experimental confirmation, which then also establish the domain of applicability. Newton's theory of gravity worked that way.

Verbal logic is what "theory" is all about. Theory can explain every aspect of reality with accuracy and understanding so that the human mind could understand everything about everything, in principle, without math.

No. You cannot have a theory in physics without math. The best you can hope for is math simple enough to say in words (force equals mass times acceleration), but that's just a verbalization of the math. The math is the theory.

And even your idea -- ludicrous as it is -- works that way.

The problem is that no quantitative predictions can be made without mathematics or statistics of some kind, and this exactness and precision is a requirement for the application of most theories.

Application and construction of the theory. Right: that's why a theory in physics must be made of math.

Russ, I do not understand what you are stating or questioning in the above quote

Your explanation of cosmological redshift is that matter is shrinking due to electrons getting closer to their nuclei, right? You haven't made any attempt to explore the implications of that idea on how atoms and molecules function, right?

My meaning was that Quantum Mechanics has no vast body of evidence to justify the derivation of its equations and the application of the statistics that it uses. The body of evidence was the history of observations used to derive its equations, but was not a justification for the resultant formulations or why they should be valid.

The justification - the reason why it should be valid as formulated - is that the math has produced successful predictions. Your idea, on the other hand, makes no predictions. It is therefore not a theory.

Some of your own links explicitly say that theories in physics are formulated with math - you just choose to ignore them:

The logical positivists thought of scientific theories as statements in a formal language. Mathematics is an example of a formal language. The logical positivists envisaged a similar scientific language. In addition to scientific theories, the language also included observation sentences ("the sun rises in the east"), definitions, and mathematical statements. The phenomena explained by the theories, if they could not be directly observed by the senses (for example, atoms and radio waves), were treated as theoretical concepts. In this view, theories function as axioms: predicted observations are derived from the theories much like theorems are derived in Euclidean geometry. However, the predictions are then tested against reality to verify the theories, and the "axioms" can be revised as a direct result.

Since math is a language, your attempt to separate math from theory by claiming theories must be linguistic is a null claim.

Galileo said the same:

A scientific theory can also be thought of as a book that captures the fundamental information about the world, a book that must be researched, written, and shared. In 1623, Galileo Galilei wrote:

Philosophy [i.e. physics] is written in this grand book — I mean the universe — which stands continually open to our gaze, but it cannot be understood unless one first learns to comprehend the language and interpret the characters in which it is written. It is written in the language of mathematics, and its characters are triangles, circles, and other geometrical figures, without which it is humanly impossible to understand a single word of it; without these, one is wandering around in a dark labyrinth.

 

[paddoboy]

why would the source admit they are wrong after being embarrassed for being wrong then causing an uproar from it ?

again,
but the misquote contradicts other independent sources that attended the same conference

the bottom line is,
WHAT EVER YOU NEED TO TELL YOURSELF.
(shakes head)

you can "justify" this any way you like.
just turn around, and walk away.

Oh the Irony of it all!
I certainly smell hypocrisy in the air.

 

[forrest noble]

again...
the justifications and validations are,
what is produced from QM
simple.
math is a language, it's very explanatory powered

Maybe some say that math is a language but I go by scientific dictionaries which define language as:

"the method of human communication, either spoken or written, consisting of the use of words in a structured and conventional way."

...maybe actually learning and understanding quantum physics and what is produced from QM will help ?
it appears the lack of comprehension of what is read is the problem here,
as the continuous incorrect (as obvious as it can be) post shows that's the problem
it also appears that it is not realized how this post (#131 and 149) contradicts it's self.

just because one individual has a problem understanding , makes this a non theory ?

No, but if no one understands it then it probably is not a theory. But primarily it does not meet the definition of a theory.
Here are quotes from Richard Feynman:

"If you think you understand Quantum Mechanics, you don't understand Quantum Mechanics"

"Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts"

http://ontheshouldersofscience.blogspot.com/2013/01/if-you-think-you-understand-quantum.html

 

[brucep]

(my quote deleted from your posting of it, to save space)

(bold added)

My next paper is now in editing. I expect to publish it in about a couple months or so. I have had many offers of publication. I haven't decided as yet which journal since I continue looking for the ones that provide the most peer-reviewed responses and citations after the paper is published. Of course this is subjective since such responses also depend upon the paper content and proposal. This next paper will be less technical so I'm hoping for more responses, especially questions.

I haven't decided exactly on the title yet but the preliminary title and introduction is below:

Title: "Explaining many possible problems with the standard Big Bang Concordance model while proposing an alternative cosmology to replace it. "

Beginning introduction/ Abstract: "This paper presents a summary of many observations and quotes therein, that seem to contradict standard Big Bang cosmology. It provides a general summary of these possible problems, and at the same time presents a summary of a very different alternative cosmology to overcome these problems, allegedly without creating new problems.

So you're going to continue writing down irrelevant bullshit? Not surprising based on what you've shown us.

 

[krash661]

Maybe some say that math is a language but I go by scientific dictionaries which define language as:

"the method of human communication, either spoken or written, consisting of the use of words in a structured and conventional way."



No, but if no one understands it then it probably is not a theory. But primarily it does not meet the definition of a theory.
Here are quotes from Richard Feynman:

"If you think you understand Quantum Mechanics, you don't understand Quantum Mechanics"

"Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts"

http://ontheshouldersofscience.blogspot.com/2013/01/if-you-think-you-understand-quantum.html

once again, it has been made clear ,
there is a lack of comprehension here.

then there's also another lack of comprehension with the quotes,
then taken out of their correct context .
as this is obviously shown.

it has now been resorted to cheap shenanigans that are not even amusing.
but what was amusing was the meaningless, insignificant to anything link.

feynman also said,
the first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool.
which is exactly and clearly what is occurring here.

 

[leopold]

What controversy remains?

in my opinion you are being willfully blind and are skirting the issue.
you don't want the truth aqueous.
i seriously doubt if you are in any way interested in maintaining the integrity of science.