|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 4451 days) Posts: 415 From: Australia Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: What is the creation science theory of the origin of light? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Nuggin Member (Idle past 2521 days) Posts: 2965 From: Los Angeles, CA USA Joined: |
The post you were replying to in its title contained the question what were those dimensions in aid of. Further it expressed my reasons for doubting the extra dimensions were in aid of anything at all really. And my point is that your vocabulary and reasoning demonstrate a lack of understanding. First of all, why must a dimension be in "aid of" anything? Second, expressing your reasons in doubting something doesn't really matter one way or another unless you have sufficient understanding of the topic. I know next to nothing about automechanics. I can express all the doubts I want about whether or not this hoosiewhatsit is needed to make the car go.
So tell me then what is it exactly that you know so well and I am so ignorant of. This is a topic that requires many years of advancement mathematics and theoretical physics. Much of what people "know" is best expressed as equations. Have you done the years of schooling necessary to read such equations? To write them? To know if something is in error? You're to be provided with 8 years of college level courses through the medium of a chat board. On a forum where you've been a member for 3 months.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Capt Stormfield Member Posts: 429 From: Vancouver Island Joined:
|
The dimensions I observe...while those verbs used... I think this might be the problem. Extra dimensions and so on are in aid of predictions made by mathematics. They are irrelevant to the imagery of 3 dimensions, and they cannot be explained using the language of verbs. The reason that these ideas "do not combine to make any sense" to you is that you are combining crude metaphors for the concepts in question. You are confusing a set of very rough maps with the territories they unsuccessfully try to represent. Mark Twain covers this sort of error very well in Tom Sawyer Abroad, where he has Tom and Huck arguing whether the balloon in which they are riding is over Illinois or Indiana based on the color of the ground not matching the color of the states as found in their school atlas. Our brains simply cannot make sense of this field using mental imagery that was evolved from our ancestors' very limited ability to observe the universe. Capt. Edited by Capt Stormfield, : typo
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Alfred Maddenstein Member (Idle past 3996 days) Posts: 565 Joined: |
Well, yes I understand that the extra dimensions are in aid of predictions following from the equations made by the mathemagicians or rather in aid of preventing two sets of equations that are making an apparent sense separately from resulting in apparent nonsense when used together. Yet you must keep in mind that those equations are in their turn in aid of explaining the phenomenon of gravity the effects of which might have been as apparent to those ancestors whose minds your assume to be so much inferior to the brains of the advanced mathemagicians.
Do you leave out the possibility that the same reconciliation of the two sets of equations might be achieved by some other, more simple and elegant means without invoking any redundant entities?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 313 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Do you leave out the possibility that the same reconciliation of the two sets of equations might be achieved by some other, more simple and elegant means without invoking any redundant entities? If they're necessary to explain the phenomena they're not redundant. But if you think you can do better, feel free to try. While you're at it, it's always bothered me that Newtonian mechanics involves all this pesky calculus. Can you come up with some "more simple and elegant" method involving counting on my fingers? Clearly the fact that the math is difficult is a weakness of the theory.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Capt Stormfield Member Posts: 429 From: Vancouver Island Joined: |
Do you leave out the possibility that the same reconciliation of the two sets of equations might be achieved by some other, more simple and elegant means without invoking any redundant entities? Of course not. It simply remains for you to do the work of formulating such means. Until that happy day, your inability to fit reality into a metaphor with which you are comfortable remains an issue of semantics, not of physics or mathematics. Capt.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Alfred Maddenstein Member (Idle past 3996 days) Posts: 565 Joined: |
There are two distinct possibilities here. The first possibility is that I am an ignorant fool and after eight years of pouring over the equations like you suggest, I should discover what those putative dimensions are in aid of exactly and how any strings can possibly vibrate while not being attached to anything, how anything possessing zero height can possess any width or length and so on. Study for eight years, understand at last and be ashamed of my previous ignorance is the programme.
The second possibility is that it is you who are fooling me, yourself and everybody else here and all those putative extra entities and invisible dimensions in aid of is to enable you to feel important and condescending while juggling around fantastic concepts possible on paper only. Which is it, I wonder?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
DrJones* Member Posts: 2290 From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 6.9 |
Which is it, I wonder?
The answer should be easy for you to determine, just show where the math is wrong. Include your work. It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds soon I discovered that this rock thing was true Jerry Lee Lewis was the devil Jesus was an architect previous to his career as a prophet All of a sudden i found myself in love with the world And so there was only one thing I could do Was ding a ding dang my dang along ling long - Jesus Built my Hotrod Ministry Live every week like it's Shark Week! - Tracey Jordan Just a monkey in a long line of kings. - Matthew Good If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist! - Get Your War On *not an actual doctor
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 313 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
There are two distinct possibilities here. The first possibility is that I am an ignorant fool and after eight years of pouring over the equations like you suggest, I should discover what those putative dimensions are in aid of exactly and how any strings can possibly vibrate while not being attached to anything, how anything possessing zero height can possess any width or length and so on. Study for eight years, understand at last and be ashamed of my previous ignorance is the programme. The second possibility is that it is you who are fooling me, yourself and everybody else here and all those putative extra entities and invisible dimensions in aid of is to enable you to feel important and condescending while juggling around fantastic concepts possible on paper only. Which is it, I wonder? Here's a clue: out of those who have studied advanced physics, exactly zero have come to the conclusion that its purpose is to enable Nuggin to feel important and condescending.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Alfred Maddenstein Member (Idle past 3996 days) Posts: 565 Joined: |
Is it though a question of the maths being right or wrong? If first I claim that that a leprechaun hides on average seven pots of gold an hour in Ireland and only five in all other places and then claim that I know respective leprechaun populations of several European states, I can easily calculate how many pots of it is hidden by leprechauns in each of those states. I can derive the ratio of Irish leprechaun gold to that outside of the Green Isle and host of other leprechaun gold related vectors and variables suggesting to you that the only thing unknown to me is the precise locations of the gold hidden and that I need some money to do more research into leprechauns' habits and that it is a very good investment you should make and that it is promising to make both of us very rich given how good and precise my maths is so far. What would you be contesting in the case you'd disagree with my conclusions and would not want to invest your money in my project- my maths or something else?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
DrJones* Member Posts: 2290 From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 6.9 |
Is it though a question of the maths being right or wrong?
Yes, seeing as you're disagreeing with the math. Simply show where the math is in error, include your work. It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds soon I discovered that this rock thing was true Jerry Lee Lewis was the devil Jesus was an architect previous to his career as a prophet All of a sudden i found myself in love with the world And so there was only one thing I could do Was ding a ding dang my dang along ling long - Jesus Built my Hotrod Ministry Live every week like it's Shark Week! - Tracey Jordan Just a monkey in a long line of kings. - Matthew Good If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist! - Get Your War On *not an actual doctor
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3672 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined:
|
The first possibility is that I am an ignorant fool and after eight years of pouring over the equations like you suggest, I should discover what those putative dimensions are in aid of exactly and how any strings can possibly vibrate while not being attached to anything, how anything possessing zero height can possess any width or length and so on. It seems that your entire approach to science is "Can I understand this? If so, it is probably correct; if not, it is almost certainly wrong." I have to say that this combination of utter arrogance and total ineptitude is endemic amongst the cranks and armchair pontificators that spring up on the internet. I am sorry to say but you have wasted your eight years of "study". Within a matter of days, you could have read the first few chapters of Superstrings by Green, Schwarz, and Witten (Cambridge University Press), and would know exactly why we have these extra dimensions in String Theory - but somehow I get the feeling that these eight years of "study" have studeously avoided anything that can be considered close to actual academic work. Don't get me wrong - there are many who have little time for String Theory and its descendents, many for whom I have the deepest respect. But they come to their conclusions based upon a foundation of knowledge and expertise, where-as you come to your "conclusions" based upon ignorance and incomprehension. There is, as I'm sure you will agree, a fundemental difference...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Alfred Maddenstein Member (Idle past 3996 days) Posts: 565 Joined: |
I am sorry, Crankdriver, but I read all those you presume I did not but should.
Also you just presume I don't understand what those people who devised the idea intended and would love it to be in aid of. That I do very well. If it does serve none of the intended purposes is another matter. Vast difference. I just wanted to hear his explanation in his own words or your explanation in your own words. You concentrate on the road ahead too much and miss all the side irony, driver. Anyway, instead of own attempts to explain all I get is the usual appeals to the authority of academic experts. By the way, eight years are purely hypothetical and were based on Nuggin's estimation of the number of years it takes to grasp.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: |
To re iterate Dr A: show us the maths (or math, if you are American).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Alfred Maddenstein Member (Idle past 3996 days) Posts: 565 Joined: |
No, you are wrong again. The maths is all lovely and ingenious. I fully agree with the maths. It's the concepts that are self-contradictory, self-defeating and physically impossible.
Maths is about quantities and their ratios. The ideas behind the maths are about properties and their relations. Vast difference. Before measuring and counting, the measured and counted has to be properly defined. If the definitions are poor, the result of best calculations presents nothing but quantities of absent qualities and ratios of impossible relations.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3672 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined:
|
I'm sorry, Alfred, but your own writing reveals exactly how much understanding you possess, and all the bluster and bravdo in the world cannot disguise its vacuity. Directing you to a published textbook is not exactly an appeal to authority, and your thinking that it is simply reveals more of your crank mindset. And I do not appeal to others' authority: having worked with two of the three authors, I have enough of my own
Anyone wanting to know why String Theory requires extra dimensions would do well to check out this old post of mine Message 99. Lots of good stuff in the preceding messages as well...
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024