# [ Long ] A Philosophy of Science v. Pseudo-Science

Page 11 of 11 [ 169 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 7, 8, 9, 10, 11

Spiderpig
Veteran

Joined: 14 Apr 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,893

29 Mar 2015, 6:51 pm

Oldavid wrote:
Assuming the velocity of light to be constant... either E or M.

Oldavid wrote:
Righto. Even for a photon assumed to have no mass you will get E=0*C^2... no mass and no energy, according to the equation. No physical existence and not capable of any physical effect.

Again, what do you mean by mass? If you’re calling the relativistic mass of the particle m, then, sure enough, the equation E = m c² yields its energy. A vanishing relativistic mass implies a vanishing energy, and vice-versa. But photons do have non-zero relativistic masses.

If your m is rest mass, then the equation E = m c² only determines the energy E of a particle relative to a reference frame according to which the particle is at rest—the only case in which rest mass coïncides with relativistic mass. But there’s no reference frame relative to which a photon is at rest. Photons are always travelling at the speed of light relative to any reference frame, so the equation E = m c² doesn’t apply to them when m stands for rest mass.

Oldavid wrote:
C, being the velocity of light (velocity, by definition, being a function of distance and time) both E and M will have a component of distance/time. If E and M are to have any value at all they must have a time/distance component even if it is a portion of C or the equation is meaningless.

I don’t know what you mean by that, either.

Oldavid wrote:
General Relativity compounds the problem by asserting that space/time can be bent or shrunk into nothing so that there is no distance and no time.

As I said, E=MC^2 seems to work in some instances and situations... e.g. cathode ray tube, chemical and nuclear reactions... but in the supposed annihilation of particles of matter with anti-matter there are wide discrepancies between predicted results and measured results.

What are those?

Oldavid wrote:
Spiderpig wrote:
In fact, some simple thermodynamic systems can have negative absolute temperatures; however, that doesn’t mean “colder than absolute zero”, but “hotter than infinite temperature”. They can never be in thermal equilibrium with ordinary systems and will always lose heat to them till their temperature reaches a positive value, going through infinity in the process and never passing through zero.

Brilliant! That's the Kleinest Klein Bottle or Mobiest Mobius Ring I've ever heard of! I'd like to see the experiment that can test that one!

Negative absolute temperature

_________________
The red lake has been forgotten. A dust devil stuns you long enough to shroud forever those last shards of wisdom. The breeze rocking this forlorn wasteland whispers in your ears, “Não resta mais que uma sombra”.

Booyakasha
Veteran

Joined: 6 Oct 2009
Gender: Female
Posts: 13,898

30 Mar 2015, 11:48 am

aghogday wrote:
OH GOD, thanks for clarifying that THIS is a necro-thread, and the list up there is a current one now.

I would say it is too long, and I did not read it but nah, nothing is too long for me, WHEN IT COMES TO READING..

Some illustrations or HUMOR OR EVEN SARCASM to break the monotony of words would be extra nice though, for those folks WHO do NOT nearly have the focus and OR reading speed of I.

Just a suggestion..

I write the way I do...

for good reason.

IT MIGHT MAKE some folks uncomfortable but I never get TL;DR's, anymore.

I suck folks in until

THE END..

WITH A CREATIVE STYLE OF WRITING IN JUST MAKING THAT HAPPEN..

Hard to scroll past, huh..

FOR good reason TOO..

Honestly, THE ABOVE, reads just like a legal document.
And not everyone provides legal counsel, in real life, to read stuff like that, like me, and some others here.

And yes, when I work for the government, I write just that like that IN TECHNICAL SPEAK, in writing technical documents for the GPO (Government Printing Office) in my many hats worn, during a quarter of a century in FEDERAL GOVERNMENT RED TAPE WORKING AND WRITING LAND.

Creative land is much more fun that dead word land.

AND ON TOP of that people actually read IT, other than me.

At LEAST, approximately 1.1 MILLION Hits, in the LAST 2 YEARS, on my google PLUS page for blog posts, suggests that per science talk..

With evidence of course, FNORD, If you need to see the 'SCIENTIFIC PROOF' OF WHAT I AM SAYING here too..

And TO BE CLEAR this is In Karma of your dismissive response to other dude, in the other thread, with a much shorter list of what YOU DESCRIBED AS TL;DR.

Patience friend, patience, AND FOCUS; the words of CHAMPIONS, AND THE so-called scientific method has little to NOTHING TO DO WITH THAT.

AND FULLER HUMAN Physical intelligence

DRIVING JUST THAT ALONG WITH EMOTIONAL REGULATION AND SENSORY INTEGRATION,

AND INNATE INSTINCTUAL, INTUITIVE IMAGINATION IN CREATING HUMAN CONDITION LIFE, AS IS, HAS EVERYTHING TO DO, WITH JUST THAT..

adhogday, it would be very much appreciated if you would stick to the subject and not link to your blog, especially since it has nothing to do with the subject that is being discussed here, so it has been removed.

Self promotion is against the rules, likewise posting for the sake of posting.

aghogday
Veteran

Joined: 25 Nov 2010
Age: 60
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,300

30 Mar 2015, 1:22 pm

Booyakasha wrote:
aghogday wrote:
OH GOD, thanks for clarifying that THIS is a necro-thread, and the list up there is a current one now.

I would say it is too long, and I did not read it but nah, nothing is too long for me, WHEN IT COMES TO READING..

Some illustrations or HUMOR OR EVEN SARCASM to break the monotony of words would be extra nice though, for those folks WHO do NOT nearly have the focus and OR reading speed of I.

Just a suggestion..

I write the way I do...

for good reason.

IT MIGHT MAKE some folks uncomfortable but I never get TL;DR's, anymore.

I suck folks in until

THE END..

WITH A CREATIVE STYLE OF WRITING IN JUST MAKING THAT HAPPEN..

Hard to scroll past, huh..

FOR good reason TOO..

Honestly, THE ABOVE, reads just like a legal document.
And not everyone provides legal counsel, in real life, to read stuff like that, like me, and some others here.

And yes, when I work for the government, I write just that like that IN TECHNICAL SPEAK, in writing technical documents for the GPO (Government Printing Office) in my many hats worn, during a quarter of a century in FEDERAL GOVERNMENT RED TAPE WORKING AND WRITING LAND.

Creative land is much more fun that dead word land.

AND ON TOP of that people actually read IT, other than me.

At LEAST, approximately 1.1 MILLION Hits, in the LAST 2 YEARS, on my google PLUS page for blog posts, suggests that per science talk..

With evidence of course, FNORD, If you need to see the 'SCIENTIFIC PROOF' OF WHAT I AM SAYING here too..

And TO BE CLEAR this is In Karma of your dismissive response to other dude, in the other thread, with a much shorter list of what YOU DESCRIBED AS TL;DR.

Patience friend, patience, AND FOCUS; the words of CHAMPIONS, AND THE so-called scientific method has little to NOTHING TO DO WITH THAT.

AND FULLER HUMAN Physical intelligence

DRIVING JUST THAT ALONG WITH EMOTIONAL REGULATION AND SENSORY INTEGRATION,

AND INNATE INSTINCTUAL, INTUITIVE IMAGINATION IN CREATING HUMAN CONDITION LIFE, AS IS, HAS EVERYTHING TO DO, WITH JUST THAT..

adhogday, it would be very much appreciated if you would stick to the subject and not link to your blog, especially since it has nothing to do with the subject that is being discussed here, so it has been removed.

Self promotion is against the rules, likewise posting for the sake of posting.

Truthfully, neither of those are my intention, but I will happily comply with whatever your authority and or discernment requests.

_________________
KATiE MiA FredericK!iI

Gravatar is one of the coolest things ever!! !

http://en.gravatar.com/katiemiafrederick

Booyakasha
Veteran

Joined: 6 Oct 2009
Gender: Female
Posts: 13,898

30 Mar 2015, 1:38 pm

aghogday wrote:
Booyakasha wrote:
aghogday wrote:
OH GOD, thanks for clarifying that THIS is a necro-thread, and the list up there is a current one now.

I would say it is too long, and I did not read it but nah, nothing is too long for me, WHEN IT COMES TO READING..

Some illustrations or HUMOR OR EVEN SARCASM to break the monotony of words would be extra nice though, for those folks WHO do NOT nearly have the focus and OR reading speed of I.

Just a suggestion..

I write the way I do...

for good reason.

IT MIGHT MAKE some folks uncomfortable but I never get TL;DR's, anymore.

I suck folks in until

THE END..

WITH A CREATIVE STYLE OF WRITING IN JUST MAKING THAT HAPPEN..

Hard to scroll past, huh..

FOR good reason TOO..

Honestly, THE ABOVE, reads just like a legal document.
And not everyone provides legal counsel, in real life, to read stuff like that, like me, and some others here.

And yes, when I work for the government, I write just that like that IN TECHNICAL SPEAK, in writing technical documents for the GPO (Government Printing Office) in my many hats worn, during a quarter of a century in FEDERAL GOVERNMENT RED TAPE WORKING AND WRITING LAND.

Creative land is much more fun that dead word land.

AND ON TOP of that people actually read IT, other than me.

At LEAST, approximately 1.1 MILLION Hits, in the LAST 2 YEARS, on my google PLUS page for blog posts, suggests that per science talk..

With evidence of course, FNORD, If you need to see the 'SCIENTIFIC PROOF' OF WHAT I AM SAYING here too..

And TO BE CLEAR this is In Karma of your dismissive response to other dude, in the other thread, with a much shorter list of what YOU DESCRIBED AS TL;DR.

Patience friend, patience, AND FOCUS; the words of CHAMPIONS, AND THE so-called scientific method has little to NOTHING TO DO WITH THAT.

AND FULLER HUMAN Physical intelligence

DRIVING JUST THAT ALONG WITH EMOTIONAL REGULATION AND SENSORY INTEGRATION,

AND INNATE INSTINCTUAL, INTUITIVE IMAGINATION IN CREATING HUMAN CONDITION LIFE, AS IS, HAS EVERYTHING TO DO, WITH JUST THAT..

adhogday, it would be very much appreciated if you would stick to the subject and not link to your blog, especially since it has nothing to do with the subject that is being discussed here, so it has been removed.

Self promotion is against the rules, likewise posting for the sake of posting.

Truthfully, neither of those are my intention, but I will happily comply with whatever your authority and or discernment requests.

Thank you, especially since some have been complaining that you too frequently like to derail threads with posts intelligible only to you.

aghogday
Veteran

Joined: 25 Nov 2010
Age: 60
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,300

30 Mar 2015, 1:56 pm

Booyakasha wrote:
aghogday wrote:
Booyakasha wrote:
aghogday wrote:
OH GOD, thanks for clarifying that THIS is a necro-thread, and the list up there is a current one now.

I would say it is too long, and I did not read it but nah, nothing is too long for me, WHEN IT COMES TO READING..

Some illustrations or HUMOR OR EVEN SARCASM to break the monotony of words would be extra nice though, for those folks WHO do NOT nearly have the focus and OR reading speed of I.

Just a suggestion..

I write the way I do...

for good reason.

IT MIGHT MAKE some folks uncomfortable but I never get TL;DR's, anymore.

I suck folks in until

THE END..

WITH A CREATIVE STYLE OF WRITING IN JUST MAKING THAT HAPPEN..

Hard to scroll past, huh..

FOR good reason TOO..

Honestly, THE ABOVE, reads just like a legal document.
And not everyone provides legal counsel, in real life, to read stuff like that, like me, and some others here.

And yes, when I work for the government, I write just that like that IN TECHNICAL SPEAK, in writing technical documents for the GPO (Government Printing Office) in my many hats worn, during a quarter of a century in FEDERAL GOVERNMENT RED TAPE WORKING AND WRITING LAND.

Creative land is much more fun that dead word land.

AND ON TOP of that people actually read IT, other than me.

At LEAST, approximately 1.1 MILLION Hits, in the LAST 2 YEARS, on my google PLUS page for blog posts, suggests that per science talk..

With evidence of course, FNORD, If you need to see the 'SCIENTIFIC PROOF' OF WHAT I AM SAYING here too..

And TO BE CLEAR this is In Karma of your dismissive response to other dude, in the other thread, with a much shorter list of what YOU DESCRIBED AS TL;DR.

Patience friend, patience, AND FOCUS; the words of CHAMPIONS, AND THE so-called scientific method has little to NOTHING TO DO WITH THAT.

AND FULLER HUMAN Physical intelligence

DRIVING JUST THAT ALONG WITH EMOTIONAL REGULATION AND SENSORY INTEGRATION,

AND INNATE INSTINCTUAL, INTUITIVE IMAGINATION IN CREATING HUMAN CONDITION LIFE, AS IS, HAS EVERYTHING TO DO, WITH JUST THAT..

adhogday, it would be very much appreciated if you would stick to the subject and not link to your blog, especially since it has nothing to do with the subject that is being discussed here, so it has been removed.

Self promotion is against the rules, likewise posting for the sake of posting.

Truthfully, neither of those are my intention, but I will happily comply with whatever your authority and or discernment requests.

Thank you, especially since some have been complaining that you too frequently like to derail threads with posts intelligible only to you.

Okay. No problem.

_________________
KATiE MiA FredericK!iI

Gravatar is one of the coolest things ever!! !

http://en.gravatar.com/katiemiafrederick

aghogday
Veteran

Joined: 25 Nov 2010
Age: 60
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,300

30 Mar 2015, 4:42 pm

And one final note.. before i say goodbye.. the intelligible issue.. is a just a 'little' ironic.. considering where we are..

But never the less.. i have been spending way too much time here lately.. and am i going to go on a little self-imposed break..

When i come back.. i'll try my very bestest.. to stick to Queen's English prose.. to keep everyone comfortable.....as well as.. it's hard enough.. to be intelligible.. after a life long issue with Autism.. that reciprocal social communication difficulty.. in the first place......

But anyway.. best wishes .. for now..

_________________
KATiE MiA FredericK!iI

Gravatar is one of the coolest things ever!! !

http://en.gravatar.com/katiemiafrederick

Oldavid
Veteran

Joined: 15 May 2010
Age: 68
Gender: Male
Posts: 704
Location: Western Australia

01 Apr 2015, 8:53 am

aghogday wrote:
And one final note.. before i say goodbye.. the intelligible issue.. is a just a 'little' ironic.. considering where we are..

But never the less.. i have been spending way too much time here lately.. and am i going to go on a little self-imposed break..

When i come back.. i'll try my very bestest.. to stick to Queen's English prose.. to keep everyone comfortable.....as well as.. it's hard enough.. to be intelligible.. after a life long issue with Autism.. that reciprocal social communication difficulty.. in the first place......

But anyway.. best wishes .. for now..
Just take it (emotionally) easy, Hogsy. You're not the only one around here in the spectrum. I'll be glad to see you back speaking the organised, intelligible language that I know you can. I never trusted therapists.

spoirier
Hummingbird

Joined: 9 Dec 2017
Gender: Male
Posts: 18
Location: Europe

09 Dec 2017, 2:57 pm

I have some experience of reviewing "theories" of pseudo-physicists and other kinds of mistaken beliefs, including one who was mistaken as the genius of the century by the French science popularization magazines at that time (Nottale).
From there I wrote a description of how I see the working of pseudo-science. The main idea is that doing science right requires a deep understanding of the involved topics and a lot of care at every step of arguments to check their correctness.
Also one of the causes of pseudo-science I see, is the poor quality of the teaching of science at university, which entertains the illusion that modern science would be crap as it is deed the way it looks like in teaching. There is such a big discrepancy between the very deep existing verifications of a number of scientific theories, and the incoherence of its presentations by professors who have the head elsewhere than the question of how to clean up the existing body of knowledge to show it in the right light.
I can't post the link here because I am a new user. As I said in the other thread, since many years I know the solution to many problems of how the internet works, including to solve the spam problem but I could not get anyone to help because people prefer let the world in the s**t than to bother understanding a new idea which takes a thinking effort while they don't need to learn it to pass any exam !

kokopelli
Veteran

Joined: 27 Nov 2017
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,311
Location: amid the sunlight and the dust and the wind

09 Dec 2017, 3:54 pm

spoirier wrote:
I have some experience of reviewing "theories" of pseudo-physicists and other kinds of mistaken beliefs, including one who was mistaken as the genius of the century by the French science popularization magazines at that time (Nottale).
From there I wrote a description of how I see the working of pseudo-science. The main idea is that doing science right requires a deep understanding of the involved topics and a lot of care at every step of arguments to check their correctness.
Also one of the causes of pseudo-science I see, is the poor quality of the teaching of science at university, which entertains the illusion that modern science would be crap as it is deed the way it looks like in teaching. There is such a big discrepancy between the very deep existing verifications of a number of scientific theories, and the incoherence of its presentations by professors who have the head elsewhere than the question of how to clean up the existing body of knowledge to show it in the right light.
I can't post the link here because I am a new user. As I said in the other thread, since many years I know the solution to many problems of how the internet works, including to solve the spam problem but I could not get anyone to help because people prefer let the world in the s**t than to bother understanding a new idea which takes a thinking effort while they don't need to learn it to pass any exam !

The big problem with "solving" the spam problem is that most solutions would require an immense change to the entire e-mail system for it to work. Such a change isn't going to happen. For anything to work with e-mail, it will have to be something that can be optionally adopted at one's own convenience or not adopted if one doesn't wish to adopt it.

I've been an anti-spammer for more than 20 years (enough of one to make Spamford Wallace's netscum list of anti-spammers he particularly hated) and would enjoy hearing your ideas on the subject.

I'll start a topic on the Computers, Math, Science, And Technology board titled "What do we do about spam?". Please come to there and post your ideas.