Physics is Wrong

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
81

I don’t want to quote both posts so…of course arithmetic rules are within the system. Arithmetic might have uses or be comparable to empirical things but in the end its constructed. Your taking sets of real objects to show that arithmetic works in real world interactions doesn’t prove it valid empirically, it was always valid it just has concrete applications.

No I see no value of anything other than personal religious beliefs which I think hold value only insomuch as they help people with their fear of death. I’d say religion on anything other than a purely personal level is more a destructive than creative force. I think the leaders of it work to better their own lives on earth while counseling their flock to wait for something better to come after this mortal life. These beliefs of course by your definition of knowledge hold equal truth value to your religious claims.

And I find it extremely tiresome when people don’t walk the talk.

82

[quote]groo wrote:
All of the continents were once connected in one huge continent know as Pangaea.[/quote]

Probably, maybe.

83

[quote]groo wrote:
Three kinds of rocks make up most of the Earth?s crust: igneous, sedimentary, and metamorphic.[/quote]

What kind of rocks make up the rest of the crust?

84

[quote]groo wrote:
I don’t want to quote both posts so…of course arithmetic rules are within the system. Arithmetic might have uses or be comparable to empirical things but in the end its constructed. Your taking sets of real objects to show that arithmetic works in real world interactions doesn’t prove it valid empirically, it was always valid it just has concrete applications.

No I see no value of anything other than personal religious beliefs which I think hold value only insomuch as they help people with their fear of death. I’d say religion on anything other than a purely personal level is more a destructive than creative force. I think the leaders of it work to better their own lives on earth while counseling their flock to wait for something better to come after this mortal life. These beliefs of course by your definition of knowledge hold equal truth value to your religious claims.

And I find it extremely tiresome when people don’t walk the talk. [/quote]

In other words arithmetic is only true if you accept the system without logical justification. I can disprove it by not agreeing on the rules. That is knowledge to you? It’s kind of fleeting.

Personal religious beliefs can do far more than quell the fear of death.

And you need to re-read most history. You don’t seem to have a firm grasp of it. Religion, weather you like it or not has done tons of good things. But that wasn’t my proposition anyway. I referred to the beliefs of religion, not the organization of it.

85

[quote]groo wrote:

And I find it extremely tiresome when people don’t walk the talk. [/quote]

Me to, including many worshipers of both god and science.

86

This whole science vs. religion thing is getting old, and no-one here ever seems to come to an agreement.

If every scientific claim about the universe ended up being wrong and disproved, it does absolutely NOTHING to prove anything in religion as being true. All it does is disprove a scientific theory. There are tons of theories, and it is very common for science to come up with one, then find new evidence and refute the previous one, and make a new one.

Please stop with the “well if science isn’t true than religion must be” crap…

87

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
The title is provoking on purpose. But it’s true. If this is verified, all of general relativity is wrong. It means the religion of physics didn’t actually know anything about the universe.[/quote]

I wouldn’t say GR is all wrong, certainly some part(s) will be wrong and will certainly affect a lot of theories about the universe. But GR does work and the mathmatics behind it has been able to tell us things accurately about the universe we couldn’t formally observe.

But to be fair physicists already knew GR was incomplete. It reduced mathematically to 1/0 which is an impossibility. That’s what gave birth to the string theory and it’s various reworkings. Now, the idea that speed of light isn’t an absolute threshold is going to probably cause a lot of reworkings of all theories.
But speed of light even if not an absolute threshold, is still a constant and that is still useful.
What I am interest in is what it will do to temporal concepts. If SOL (speed of light) is time = 0, then anything faster should technically go back in time. Now, that means SOL is not time = 0, or particles can go back in time…There is the WOW factor for me…

88

[quote]Makavali wrote:
“In fact, the researchers themselves are not ready to proclaim a discovery and are asking other physicists to independently try to verify their findings.”[/quote]

This is always the case, but the researchers at the lab swung the doors open for scrutiny and the published the reports publicly, so that indicates a level of confidence that the did discover something significant.

89

The software need a patch.
Maybe a major one.
But it doesn’t mean it doesn’t work.

90

[quote]siouxperman wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]siouxperman wrote:

It seems like you have an issue with the fact that there is MORE to be known in pretty much every area. It’s not all or nothing.[/quote]

All science is physics. Physics is all or nothing. It isn’t a question of adding more, it is a process of constantly deleting and replacing.

And as of now, general relativity is deleted and there isn’t even a replacement. So now there is no theory of planetary motion.

For example, people always tout the triumph of science when the sun replaced the Earth as the center of the universe. The real truth is that a sun centered universe is just as wrong as an Earth centered one. All of science and every one of it’s theories is the same. They are all equally wrong. All fundamentally imperfect and flawed.

You still haven’t shown me a single thing science knows.[/quote]

You need to separate theoretical physics and applied physics. There have been murmurings for some time that changes to Einstein’s equations may be needed because in the extremes of physics (the theoretical areas) they can break down. Applied physics, however rarely operates at these extremes. Finding that something has surpassed the speed of light doesn’t mean that we have been designing bridges and pipelines and all other manner of engineering feats incorrectly. I’m not saying that the results can’t be true (you have already made up your mind, however) but that it doesn’t change much of what goes on in the applied physics side of things. And if it is true than it certainly is hugely significant, but i still don’t get your gleeful trumpeting of the fall of science.[/quote]

I would argue that Newtonian physics and not relativity drive construction. But yes, relativity calculations have accurately described many facets of the universe. But this find will be a huge implication on theoretical physics…With out SOL as an absolute threshold a lot of new possibilities. The impact will be mostly in theoretical physics not practical physics.

91

[quote]colt44 wrote:
and no-one here ever seems to come to an agreement.

[/quote]

The most profound observation I’ve ever read in PWI. Ever. Truth.

92

[quote]colt44 wrote:
This whole science vs. religion thing is getting old, and no-one here ever seems to come to an agreement.

If every scientific claim about the universe ended up being wrong and disproved, it does absolutely NOTHING to prove anything in religion as being true. All it does is disprove a scientific theory. There are tons of theories, and it is very common for science to come up with one, then find new evidence and refute the previous one, and make a new one.

Please stop with the “well if science isn’t true than religion must be” crap…[/quote]

Please quote me somewhere that claim was made or shut up.

93

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]colt44 wrote:
This whole science vs. religion thing is getting old, and no-one here ever seems to come to an agreement.

If every scientific claim about the universe ended up being wrong and disproved, it does absolutely NOTHING to prove anything in religion as being true. All it does is disprove a scientific theory. There are tons of theories, and it is very common for science to come up with one, then find new evidence and refute the previous one, and make a new one.

Please stop with the “well if science isn’t true than religion must be” crap…[/quote]

Please quote me somewhere that claim was made or shut up.[/quote]

read your posts…and you will see

94

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]siouxperman wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]siouxperman wrote:

It seems like you have an issue with the fact that there is MORE to be known in pretty much every area. It’s not all or nothing.[/quote]

All science is physics. Physics is all or nothing. It isn’t a question of adding more, it is a process of constantly deleting and replacing.

And as of now, general relativity is deleted and there isn’t even a replacement. So now there is no theory of planetary motion.

For example, people always tout the triumph of science when the sun replaced the Earth as the center of the universe. The real truth is that a sun centered universe is just as wrong as an Earth centered one. All of science and every one of it’s theories is the same. They are all equally wrong. All fundamentally imperfect and flawed.

You still haven’t shown me a single thing science knows.[/quote]

You need to separate theoretical physics and applied physics. There have been murmurings for some time that changes to Einstein’s equations may be needed because in the extremes of physics (the theoretical areas) they can break down. Applied physics, however rarely operates at these extremes. Finding that something has surpassed the speed of light doesn’t mean that we have been designing bridges and pipelines and all other manner of engineering feats incorrectly. I’m not saying that the results can’t be true (you have already made up your mind, however) but that it doesn’t change much of what goes on in the applied physics side of things. And if it is true than it certainly is hugely significant, but i still don’t get your gleeful trumpeting of the fall of science.[/quote]

I would argue that Newtonian physics and not relativity drive construction. But yes, relativity calculations have accurately described many facets of the universe. But this find will be a huge implication on theoretical physics…With out SOL as an absolute threshold a lot of new possibilities. The impact will be mostly in theoretical physics not practical physics. [/quote]

No, not accurately. Just MORE accurately. There is a difference.

95

[quote]kamui wrote:
The software need a patch.
Maybe a major one.
But it doesn’t mean it doesn’t work.

[/quote]

Define “doesn’t work”?

If you are attempting to predict something and it is off by some amount, how big can that error be before you deem the calculation incorrect?

96

“doesn’t work” = critical error. You click the *.exe. It doesn’t start.
AS a result, you can’t work. At all. And you need to intall another software.

your prediction is off by some amount = a bug.
Need a fix.
You can still work. No need to ragequit.

97

[quote]colt44 wrote:
This whole science vs. religion thing is getting old, and no-one here ever seems to come to an agreement.

If every scientific claim about the universe ended up being wrong and disproved, it does absolutely NOTHING to prove anything in religion as being true. All it does is disprove a scientific theory. There are tons of theories, and it is very common for science to come up with one, then find new evidence and refute the previous one, and make a new one.

Please stop with the “well if science isn’t true than religion must be” crap…[/quote]

Well I agree that theories about the universe being wrong, doesn’t suddenly make Genesis chap. 1-2 an archaeological fact. After all they were theories in the first place. The problem isn’t religion and the problem isn’t science. The problem is that people have tried to use religion to represent and be science, and people have used science as evidence against religion.

The truth of the matter is they are two different disciplines and speak to different things. That doesn’t mean they do not intersect at times, they most certainly do, but more of a complement rather than a contrary thing. What they are not it’s enemies or opposites.

I spoke to this in the “Occidental and Oriental Philosophies” thread, but I think it’s applicable here as much as there in terms of understand the core basis for each.

I said this:
"It’s such a misunderstanding of the topic. Philosophy is the father of all disciplines. Including religion. Everything, math, science, language everything essentially started as a philosophical question. What these disciplines do is answer a philosophical question and run with the answer. Math is just numerical philosophy. Science is empirical philosophy, literature is sound philosophy (we agree that certain sounds and symbols on a page mean a particular thing and then we are able to string these symbols together to make a greater meaning of collective symboilism. It in the case of spoken word, we basically grunt meaningfully. We just agree that certain grunts mean certain things and hence we are able to communicate). Religion, takes the philosophical position that God exists, that he has a will and a ‘personality’ and is personable and can be communicated with, and runs with that. It’s a discipline based on a philosophical position just like everything else. "

Bottom line, at their core, science and religion start with different philosophical propositions.

98

[quote]SteelyD wrote:

[quote]groo wrote:
Three kinds of rocks make up most of the Earth?s crust: igneous, sedimentary, and metamorphic.[/quote]

What kind of rocks make up the rest of the crust?[/quote]

Hard ones.

99

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]siouxperman wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]siouxperman wrote:

It seems like you have an issue with the fact that there is MORE to be known in pretty much every area. It’s not all or nothing.[/quote]

All science is physics. Physics is all or nothing. It isn’t a question of adding more, it is a process of constantly deleting and replacing.

And as of now, general relativity is deleted and there isn’t even a replacement. So now there is no theory of planetary motion.

For example, people always tout the triumph of science when the sun replaced the Earth as the center of the universe. The real truth is that a sun centered universe is just as wrong as an Earth centered one. All of science and every one of it’s theories is the same. They are all equally wrong. All fundamentally imperfect and flawed.

You still haven’t shown me a single thing science knows.[/quote]

You need to separate theoretical physics and applied physics. There have been murmurings for some time that changes to Einstein’s equations may be needed because in the extremes of physics (the theoretical areas) they can break down. Applied physics, however rarely operates at these extremes. Finding that something has surpassed the speed of light doesn’t mean that we have been designing bridges and pipelines and all other manner of engineering feats incorrectly. I’m not saying that the results can’t be true (you have already made up your mind, however) but that it doesn’t change much of what goes on in the applied physics side of things. And if it is true than it certainly is hugely significant, but i still don’t get your gleeful trumpeting of the fall of science.[/quote]

I would argue that Newtonian physics and not relativity drive construction. But yes, relativity calculations have accurately described many facets of the universe. But this find will be a huge implication on theoretical physics…With out SOL as an absolute threshold a lot of new possibilities. The impact will be mostly in theoretical physics not practical physics. [/quote]

No, not accurately. Just MORE accurately. There is a difference.[/quote]

True, but in truth physicists have nailed somethings dead on using relativity. But ing the extremes the GR has failed them, so they have always known it’s incomplete. And yes, this finding would render parts of it wrong, but not everything.

100

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]colt44 wrote:
and no-one here ever seems to come to an agreement.

[/quote]

The most profound observation I’ve ever read in PWI. Ever. Truth. [/quote]
I have come to agreements with people here before. Maybe yall are just hardheaded. I know what’s coming next…“That’s rich coming from you…”
But the fact is, I have had agreements with people here before.