The Sick State of Todays Science

[Niflmir]

That's full of mistakes, why don't you just say you don't know and get it over with.
Your angular velocity comes from where? Assumptions all I see are assumptions.:lol:

"It is not nearly as entrenched as the author would have the reader believe. The author simply wants to believe this so that they can argue that they are being persecuted. Read up on Buchert averaging for real scientific dissident views. There are dissidents in the academy, they receive funding and publish their papers. The difference between this author and the real dissidents is that the real dissidents understand how science works, and so we listen to them."

Real dictionary dissidents get fired not funded what you have there is a loyal opposition, that author and his buddies have pretty good tickets Niflimr. It's like they say that science is full of abused words, Dissidents throw wrenchs and molotov cocktails, they are not employed by the academy. The list of bonified dissident victims of the establishment in long and glorious, lots of them died by fire defending thier positions.

The angular velocity comes from the rotational invariance of the above equations.

Look up Buchert averaging Darkbeaver, the academy is full of dissidents. You simply don't know what you are talking about.

 

[ironsides]

How about we stop allowing our kids from sliding thru college with degrees in things like social science, communication, environmental science in lieu of (instead of Biology, Earth Science, Chemistry, Physics so called real sciences etc.), May as well add pretty much any BA degree to my negative list. I am not forgetting probably the most important in the coming years, Medical (every field you can think of) They also should take courses like every kind of Math and Science a high school teaches. I also cannot for get Geography, History as well as English and a secondary language. Basically what I am saying is we paid a lot of money for very little results to society for our children's tuition. Lets face it, we let a generation or two just slide along.

 

[petros]

Hmmmm

 

[darkbeaver]

The angular velocity comes from the rotational invariance of the above equations.

Look up Buchert averaging Darkbeaver, the academy is full of dissidents. You simply don't know what you are talking about.

I will look it up even if you don't look up dissident. I may not know what I am talking about but that does not prove that you do.

Here's a nice little picture.

 

[petros]

Lmao

 

[darkbeaver]

Is that Thomas Buchert?

 

[CanadianLove]

How about we stop allowing our kids from sliding thru college with degrees in things like social science, communication, environmental science in lieu of (instead of Biology, Earth Science, Chemistry, Physics so called real sciences etc.), May as well add pretty much any BA degree to my negative list. I am not forgetting probably the most important in the coming years, Medical (every field you can think of) They also should take courses like every kind of Math and Science a high school teaches. I also cannot for get Geography, History as well as English and a secondary language. Basically what I am saying is we paid a lot of money for very little results to society for our children's tuition. Lets face it, we let a generation or two just slide along.

How about we start new schools that teach grades 13-15. Then they can go to University.

 

[Dexter Sinister]

Here's a nice little picture.

Put some numbers on that. Implicitly you're arguing that there's no such thing as mass, it's all electrical. Okay, so what's the dipole moment (and I'm betting you don't even know what that means) of those distorted atoms, what's the strength of the electric field, and how is it that gravity is observed to be only attractive, when it's common knowledge that electrical forces are both attractive and repulsive and far more powerful than gravity?

 

[petros]

how is it that gravity is observed to be only attractive, when it's common knowledge that electrical forces are both attractive and repulsive and far more powerful than gravity?

BINGO!!!! It will always form a circuit. Without being circular there is no energy flow. Similarly we always see DNA portayed as just a strand. If the strand were part of the whole picture it would form a torus just like magnetism does. Maybe someday when the universe is flat you'll be able to "line up atoms" and create gravity.

Donut anyone?

 

[petros]

Quote: how is it that gravity is observed to be only attractive, when it's common knowledge that electrical forces are both attractive and repulsive and far more powerful than gravity?

BINGO!!!! It will always form a circuit. Without being circular there is no energy flow. Similarly we always see DNA portayed as just a strand. If the strand were part of the whole picture it would form a torus just like magnetism does. Maybe someday when the universe is flat you'll be able to "line up atoms" and create gravity.

Donut anyone?

​

If you "fall through space" you'll always wind up where you started because space IS a torus.​

 

[Niflmir]

I will look it up even if you don't look up dissident. I may not know what I am talking about but that does not prove that you do.

Here's a nice little picture.

Why would I look up dissident? If you need more examples than academics who don't believe the lambda-cdm picture, there are plenty who challenge quantum mechanics or don't believe in black holes. Yes, it was Thomas Buchert.

As for your picture. The masses inside of an atom have been measured to extremely high precision, they are amongst the most precise measurements ever done and they are not zero. Calling them approximately zero is simply working in the classical limit. You cannot really distort a subatomic particle since it has no shape and is described by a quantum field. The dipoles line up, why? They should line up to neutralize the charge separation, thus minimizing the force. Further, dipole-dipole interactions have a strength proportional to 1/r^3 which is off by a power of r to Newtonian gravity.

You have the wrong power of r to mimic gravity. Plus the dipole moments would need to magically line up with one another to prevent neutralization, contrary to their natural tendencies.

 

[petros]

The only thing you'll get from lined up dipoles is a tighter atomic bonding of the particles and a purer substance.

 

[darkbeaver]

Put some numbers on that. Implicitly you're arguing that there's no such thing as mass, it's all electrical. Okay, so what's the dipole moment (and I'm betting you don't even know what that means) of those distorted atoms, what's the strength of the electric field, and how is it that gravity is observed to be only attractive, when it's common knowledge that electrical forces are both attractive and repulsive and far more powerful than gravity?

I'm convinced that mass and electricity are the same thing Dexter.If you've ever had an electrical shock you get to thinking like that.

So I'm a barely cognizant illiterate mongrel idiot, WTF does that do for your position? If it were found to be true it only paints you as a dispatcher of crippled small furry harmless little big eyed animals with broken legs. Will you get certificates and letters for it? I hardly think it would afford any positive movement in science.

Gravity is observed to be only attractive for the simple reason that attractive force was the only observable aspect of the phenomenom observable to Newton.

 

[Tyr]

The one thing I do know, is that Scientists generally could care less what people think of their theories. They rarely do "science" for financial gain.

 

[darkbeaver]

Why would I look up dissident? If you need more examples than academics who don't believe the lambda-cdm picture, there are plenty who challenge quantum mechanics or don't believe in black holes. Yes, it was Thomas Buchert.

As for your picture. The masses inside of an atom have been measured to extremely high precision, they are amongst the most precise measurements ever done and they are not zero. Calling them approximately zero is simply working in the classical limit. You cannot really distort a subatomic particle since it has no shape and is described by a quantum field. The dipoles line up, why? They should line up to neutralize the charge separation, thus minimizing the force. Further, dipole-dipole interactions have a strength proportional to 1/r^3 which is off by a power of r to Newtonian gravity.

You have the wrong power of r to mimic gravity. Plus the dipole moments would need to magically line up with one another to prevent neutralization, contrary to their natural tendencies.

That's very interesting, thankyou for your time. Of course it begs the question what does the shapeless mass of a subatomic particle look like? When I googled Buchert averaging last evening I got this paper first in the list.

Testing backreaction effects with observations Julien Larena, Jean-Michel Alimi, Thomas Buchert, Martin Kunz and Pier-Stefano Corasaniti Abstract | Full text | References | Citations arXiv:0808.1161 (August 2008)Buchert - Author Index All archive(s)

 

[darkbeaver]

The only thing you'll get from lined up dipoles is a tighter atomic bonding of the particles and a purer substance.

That's interesting.

 

[darkbeaver]

High-altitude signatures of ionospheric density depletions caused by field-aligned currents T. Karlsson, N. Brenning, O. Marghitu, G. Marklund and S. Buchert Abstract | Full text | References | Citations arXiv:0704.1610 (April 2007)

No I'm sorry this was the little paper I read this morning.

 

[L Gilbert]

The one thing I do know, is that Scientists generally could care less what people think of their theories. They rarely do "science" for financial gain.

lol The motivations for having a job in science are the same for any other job. Love, money, prestige, to combat ignorance, etc.

 

[Tyr]

lol The motivations for having a job in science are the same for any other job. Love, money, prestige, to combat ignorance, etc.

Uh. No. Accountants and Scientists definitely do not have to same "goal" concept in their jobs

Love, money, prestige, to combat ignorance, - that basically covers "everything" hence is not a delimiter

The analogy would be to call a "beavertail" - pastry (one of the other threads)

 

[Tonington]

lol The motivations for having a job in science are the same for any other job. Love, money, prestige, to combat ignorance, etc.

And loving your job. Lots of people go into a research career because they like what they do. It would be a pretty crappy job to do if you didn't like it. It's not like a elementary teacher who gets the 2 month summer vacation...