ReinyDays
Gold Member
You apparently don’t realize who said what I quoted.
It wasn’t Karl. It was Groucho. You know. The Marx Brother.
Did you miss the Horse Feathers reference? ...
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
You apparently don’t realize who said what I quoted.
It wasn’t Karl. It was Groucho. You know. The Marx Brother.
Did you miss the Horse Feathers reference? ...
He pointed out that we often know beyond any reasonable doubt what will happen even if our knowledge of the why or how is not as solid. Science advanced much faster after breaking away from philosophy in the 17th century. Technological innovation is the ultimate purpose of science. Individual scientific advancements may not have immediate technological implications, except they usually do eventually have an impact on technology or at least lead to other scientific advancements that do.Was that in response to anyone actually asking, "Professor Feynman, why should we be careful about asking why questions?" or was he just dissembling to dazzle those believing critical thinking to be a sin? Style over substance? If it was such "an awesome explanation" why can't you (or I) remember any of it?
Besides, There's No Reason to Believe It Has to Equal the Amount of MatterStill working on finding out where all the anti-matter is ... I'll need a few more days ...
The matter-antimatter asymmetry problem
home.cern
A Useless Regime Despises UtilityHe pointed out that we often know beyond any reasonable doubt what will happen even if our knowledge of the why or how is not as solid. Science advanced much faster after breaking away from philosophy in the 17th century. Technological innovation is the ultimate purpose of science. Individual scientific advancements may not have immediate technological implications, except they usually do eventually have an impact on technology or at least lead to other scientific advancements that do.
1. If it works, it works. If it don't, it don't.
2. Don't ask why, only ask how.
3. Don't waste time on pseudoproblems that you won't solve.
I respectfully disagree.He pointed out that we often know beyond any reasonable doubt what will happen even if our knowledge of the why or how is not as solid. Science advanced much faster after breaking away from philosophy in the 17th century. Technological innovation is the ultimate purpose of science. Individual scientific advancements may not have immediate technological implications, except they usually do eventually have an impact on technology or at least lead to other scientific advancements that do.
1. If it works, it works. If it don't, it don't.
2. Don't ask why, only ask how.
3. Don't waste time on pseudoproblems that you won't solve.
One highly plausible theory.Besides, There's No Reason to Believe It Has to Equal the Amount of Matter
Distant galaxies go faster than the speed of light, because they represent to original matter that created this universe from another universe. That matter entered at the square of the speed of light. So, if anti-matter is looked for as an answer of what is drawing those galaxies, it isn't.
Scenario: In a Star Wars movie you see the Dark Side's TIE fighters attacking some allied spacecraft.. You hear pew, pew, , pew, pew, pew! Then witness the craft explode accompanied by a ka-BOOM!1. If it works, it works. If it don't, it don't.
2. Don't ask why, only ask how.
3. Don't waste time on pseudoproblems that you won't solve.
Then why don'tthe Philosophers show the Scientists how it's done? Scientists are better at solving problems, philosophers are better at talking about how other people should solve problems. Also, a scientist would be more likely to understand that the ship would not explode like that in outer space than a liberal arts style critical thinker would.Scenario: In a Star Wars movie you see the Dark Side's TIE fighters attacking some allied spacecraft.. You hear pew, pew, , pew, pew, pew! Then witness the craft explode accompanied by a ka-BOOM!
Now despite knowing damn well there's no air out there in space to compress or rarify, these sound effects strike you as pleasingly fitting and intuitive. You never even consider how or why, it all seems so obvious.
1. It works, but it doesn't.
2. One really should ask both why and how.
3. Again, Feynman should never have pretended to even know what magnetism was, let alone how to explain it. He was simply stroking his ego in an entertaining manner for kicks and giggles. Style over substance. Same as Trump carnival barking to his many willing dupes.
Teehee hee! You're Fort Fun Indiana, aren't you?
I support that.Positivism
It's not an either or. Philosophy is a science. Professional philosophers are scientists whether they know it or not. My personal experiences with Philosophy courses sucked. My early courses in Physics as well. That means nothing. So I had some shitty teachers? So has everyone. I'm sure I ended up taking on too much too soon. I'm still just trying to make sense of it all, mostly to sleep better and keep moving forward. I hope I help some people see things more clearly now and then. I have no other agenda.Then why don'tthe Philosophers show the Scientists how it's done?
Besides, There's No Reason to Believe It Has to Equal the Amount of Matter
LOL. Sure, if one suspends disbelief and buys QM / Standard Model physics completely. But then one must also believe space has properties and light energy transport ("photons") require no Aether medium.. both presumptions being plain nuts.Yes, there is ... when we go to create mass in the lab, we always always always create two particles at a time ... one of matter and one of anti-matter ... every time ...
Pair production - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
LOL. Sure, if one suspends disbelief and buys QM / Standard Model physics completely. But then one must also believe space has properties and light energy transport ("photons") require no Aether medium.. both presumptions being plain nuts.
The problem is presuming everything to be particulate, e.g. "a photon," or wavelike for that matter, or anything between. Planck better resolved the character of light energy radiation mathematically, just as Einstein better resolved mass / energy equivalence. Light energy absorption is a different animal, inviting yet another round of atomistic guessing.Do you have a counter-example to QM? ... or better, what is your alternate theory that explains absorption spectra? ...
What particle do we know of, and can experimentally demonstrate, that isn't in the Standard Model ... I'm not saying this is "THE TRUTH", just saying it perfectly predict our universe with the exception of gravity ...
Yeah, that's a GREAT BIG GIANT EXCEPTION ... hoot-and-nanny ... when we start ignoring gravity, we're in deep deep trouble ...
However, if you claim the universe is smooth, you'll have this problem to deal with:
Ultraviolet catastrophe - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
The Philosophers and Physicists of This Decadent Era Are Escapist Children Addicted to Mind-CandyThen why don't the Philosophers show the Scientists how it's done? Scientists are better at solving problems; philosophers are better at talking about how other people should solve problems.
The problem is presuming everything to be particulate, e.g. "a photon," or wavelike for that matter, or anything between. Planck better resolved the character of light energy radiation mathematically, just as Einstein better resolved mass / energy equivalence. Light energy absorption is a different animal, inviting yet another round of atomistic guessing.
The "alternate theory that explains" it all is the same one they thought they could just replace. The same one all took for granted until Einstein had a brain fart (for a short while), deciding the Aether superfluous. The same Aether that easily explains all, including gravity. None fully understood what they already had, even Tesla who was otherwise beyond where we are now.
That said, we've never communicated on the same wavelength. No reason to believe we ever will.
That's another theory I don't subscribe to because it's "unnecessary complicated" as what's-his-name-put -it. I'll stick with Occam and K.I.S.S. until demonstrated wrong."We're Not Like Those Weirdos. We're a Different Kind of Weirdo."
Everything carries a fourth (spatial) dimension with it and surrounding it, including empty space, which is a substance. The only reason the Quantumists didn't consider an underlying dimension was that it had been proposed decades before and had degenerated into superstitions about ghosts, etc.
The problem is presuming everything to be particulate, e.g. "a photon," or wavelike for that matter, or anything between. Planck better resolved the character of light energy radiation mathematically, just as Einstein better resolved mass / energy equivalence. Light energy absorption is a different animal, inviting yet another round of atomistic guessing.
The "alternate theory that explains" it all is the same one they thought they could just replace. The same one all took for granted until Einstein had a brain fart (for a short while), deciding the Aether superfluous. The same Aether that easily explains all, including gravity. None fully understood what they already had, even Tesla who was otherwise beyond where we are now.
That said, we've never communicated on the same wavelength. No reason to believe we ever will.