Who is your favorite Physicist?

@fresco,

fresco wrote:

I am flattered to be crowned 'King of the Subjective' even though I reject the simplistic subjective-objective dichotomy!
I must have said dozens of time that 'observer' and 'observed' are co-extensive, and that all reported 'observation' involves 'verbalization' by means of socially acquired shared human language.

Of course you reject the "dichotomy," solipsist. For you there are no objects, only subjects.

0 Replies

@layman,

Dear readers here, now the focus is again on frame of reference.

Do you not notice, dear readers here, that the posters here are into endless exchange over no chance of arriving at a resolution on their impasse, whatever the impasse is about, which I like to request them to work together as to come to concurrence on what is their impasse all about.

Now, dear posters here, you are into endless impasses because the way I see you guys, that is what you like, each one talking endlessly and feeling himself so smart and so smug, but over nothing of which you have any kind of certainty at all.

I was thinking that earlier I have provided a process for Layman and Max to get concurred on, in regard to a boat moving and the shore at a standstill, but neither Max nor Layman bothered to factor my proposed process for reconciling their impasse.

Dear readers, see next post from me which is a re-presentation of my proposed procedure for reconciling the impasse between Layman and Maxcondana.

0 Replies

Okay, dear readers here, see my earlier proposed procedure to work as to reconcile by and between two posters on their impasse.

Quote:

• Post: # 6,475,519 • Mon 31 Jul, 2017 11:17 pm

Dear readers and Max and Layman, I am not a physicist, but I see myself to be into truths, facts, logic, and the best thoughts of mankind from since the dawn of man’s conscious intelligence.

Honestly, I have not read the whole thread of “Who is your favorite physicist?”

Still at this point in time, I like to propose some steps to us all, in order that what appears to me to be an impasse in the exchange between Max and Layman can be resolved.

This is the situation between Layman and Max at this point in time:
Quote:
From Layman:

To understand what any "point" is, you must first understand what the question is.

The question is, assuming that you go up to top deck (or look out a window) and realize that there is relative motion between the ship and the shore, is there any way to confidently say which is moving, and which is "at rest?"

Galileo's answer to that is "yes," there is.

Quote:
From Max:

Your understanding of what Galileo's was trying to say is incorrect. Galileo was correct (in this point, Galileo wasn't perfect of course).

Here are my proposed steps for Max and Layman to resolve their impasse:

1. Keep Galileo out of their discussion, because the man is dead and no amount of arguing from his writing will ever get to whatever is his correct position on the matter at hand.

2. Concur on what is the matter at hand between Layman and Max.*

3. Take into account the fact that everyone here has traveled in a boat and has seen the shore from his location in the boat, which boat is moving on the sea surface.

4. Now, what is the experience of everyone who lives on land and also having had the experience of being on board in a boat which is sailing on the surface of a sea.

5. Answer the question, “What do you observe the land to be into, moving or not moving, as you are on board the boat sailing on the surface of the sea?

6. Is the land moving or not?
________________________

There, everyone, my own conclusion in regard to how to resolve the impasse between Max and Layman is that: we and they two must always bring in our experiences of life as observing and intelligently reasoning animate entities.

* The question is, assuming that you go up to top deck (or look out a window) and realize that there is relative motion between the ship and the shore, is there any way to confidently say which is moving, and which is "at rest?"

Further affiant sayeth naught, except hehehehehehehe.

0 Replies

@fresco,

You're changing the rules of your system all the time. So your system is not elegant. Beside, nobody agrees to it. So by your own criteria, your system ought to be rejected.

1 Reply

@layman,

Nope, just explaining what it means.

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Olivier5 wrote:

Nope, just explaining what it means.

Heh, just like you have "explained" SR, which you don't even begin to understand, eh? Your attempts to "explain" what you read might carry some weight if you could display the ability to think and comprehend what you read.

1 Reply

Dear readers here, have you not noticed that there is endless mention of frame of reference, but there is no concurred on what is the frame of reference agreed upon by all the much ado about nothing posters here?

And precisely they love it that way, so that they can continue on and on and on, feeling themselves to be so smart and so smug with their unprofitable - except for their vanity, endless name dropping plus technical terms dropping.

Now, I ask you dear readers here, what is the frame of reference that should be concurred on by them all endless babblers here?

Here, from my thinking on truths, facts, logic, and the best thoughts of mankind from since the dawn of man's conscious intelligence, and of course talking from my very own personal experiences in life - instead of babbling on and on and on endlessly with name dropping and technical terms dropping, here is my proposed frame of reference that should be concurred on by everyone endless babblers here.

See next post from me.

0 Replies

@Olivier5,

Okay that's fine. Stick with the moron. He'll play games with you til kingdom come.

2 Replies

Okay, dear readers here, let us go forward to talk about the frame of reference that talkers here should concur on, but useless to tell them because they love vanity instead of wisdom.

Right away I tell you, Oh ye patient readers of these babblers, the frame of reference in all our discourse is man himself.

I mean th scope of our human experiences of reality, i.e., the default status of things in the totality of existence which is for us mankind, our domain of experiences, by which domain we will get hurt and even killed when we do not pay attention to it continuously, and we will continue to live and thrive well, thus to exist happy in objective reality outside and independent of the most silly ideas in our mind.

Now, you know about the frame of reference that is the quantum mechanics domain, which is the most microscopic world of subatomic particles, and don't forget to factor in also subatomic waves - which our scientists normally will not give attention to, because things will get so very unwieldy if they do.

Then on the opposite end, the super super macroscopic world of Einstein's relativity, which deals with so very massive objects as distant grand grand grand galaxies.

Now, I ask you, will you get hurt or even worse killed and thus no longer exist, if you do not know about these worlds of quantum mechanics and Einstein's relativity, do not know and thus do not observe the laws prevailing in them worlds?

Think about that!

I tell you, NO!

What is the frame of reference in which you live, and breathe, and move, and in sum, have your life i.e. existence?

It is what I call the androscopic domain of our human existence or life.

Anything that is of this domain and you don't give continuous and complete attention to it, you will get hurt or even killed, and when you give attention to it continuously and completely, you will live long and happy.

So, what are the shall I say paraphernalia of this androscopic world which should be taken into most serious account, as we want to live long and happy, instead of miserably in total discomfort and pain and death?

It is in the realm of our experiences and our inference from these experiences, like for example, the experience that we have from traveling in a boat sailing on the surface of the sea, and observing that certainly, the boat is moving and we are moving with the boat, we on the deck of the boat, whereas the shore is at a standstill.

When you do not observe that fact and adhere to that fact, then you will never navigate so precisely as to return to where you set off, i.e. return home.

Think about that, and cease and desist from all forms and manners of babbling on and on and on over name dropping and technical terms dropping.

0 Replies

@layman,

layman wrote:

Dartmouth wrote:
If you're in space, how do you know if something is coming at you...or you're moving towards that something?

http://www.dartmouth.edu/~kevinhainline/relativity.html

Of course the website immediately gives the answer, but you reject it.

So what's your answer to that question, eh, Ollie? If you don't know who's moving, and at what speed, then you have no idea whose clock is slowing down, and SR can make no predictions at all.

Is only one moving? Or both? How fast? Are they converging on each other at identical speeds so that they will "meet in the middle?" SR attempts to make all kinds of (irrelevant) arguments designed to convince you that you "can never know who's moving."

So you can just never know anything about motion, really? Who's moving in the scenario given, Ollie, and how do you know?

1 Reply

@layman,

layman wrote:

Olivier5 wrote:

Actually, I have already checked your thread and verified that you got it completely wrong in your understanding of Morin. As expected.

Admit it, ******* LIAR. You lied through your rotting teeth when you claimed that you had "checked my thread," didn't you, ******* LIAR.

Let's get back to the important issue here, eh, ******* LIAR? Now you say:

Quote:

So that's the real quote, as opposed to your fake one I mentionned above? You finally moved your rear end and found it, uh?

No mention of these guys being forced to think of themselves as stationary. You invented that part, as I explained. You like to invent your own alternative version of reality.

Why would act "surprised" to see the "real quote," which is identical to what was cited in the other thread, when you had previously claimed that "Actually, I have already checked your thread and verified that you got it completely wrong"?

Hmmm, ******* LIAR?

Fess the **** up, ******* LIAR. You lied through your rotting teeth when you claimed that you had "checked my thread," didn't you, ******* LIAR?

Of course you also lied when you said I fabricated the quote--which is also completely inconsistent with your claim to have seen it, ******* LIAR.

Will you ever be honest, Ollie?

You seem to be under the stupid impression that, as long as you never admit to being wrong, you can never be exposed for being the fool thst you are. Likewise, you seem to think that as long as you refuse to admit that your ******* LIES are total, deliberate falsehoods, the truth can never emerge.

Fraid not, ******* LIAR.

1 Reply

@layman,

Dear layman and everyone reading here, and also our colleagues like one Maxcondana who has a good education in physics, and others with good knowledge of physics, and how to apply all these amazing learnings in particular of relativity physics, and also of course with quantum mechanics, to their talking in web forums.

First, just a question I ask myself, namely, scientists who are conversant with quantum mechanics, are they also conversant with Einstein's relativity: for the first is into the realm of the smallest bits components of matter, namely, subatomic particles, and the second, namely, relativity theorizing, is into massive lumps of matter, like distant suns and galaxies in space...

My question is how is it that the quantum mechanics enthusiasts talk about galaxies like they are subatomic particles, when they are not; on the other hand the scientists, astronomers and astrophysicists, who deal with stars and galaxies, they are not to my limited reading on astronomy and astrophysics (so correct me for my ignorance), they are not into talking about stars and galaxies, as though these massive entities of matter are what, like subatomic particles...?

You see, the enthusiasts of quantum mechanics are into very very very nth times very small space that is occupied by say one subatomic particle, while the astronomers and astrophysicists are into space that is very very very nth times very grand, measured in term of light years, that is occupied by suns and galaxies.

That is my question or my contemplation of the material universe, and my impression is that the experts of quantum mechanics seem to be with more swollen heads, than the astronomers and astrophysicists.

See next post from me.

0 Replies

Dear readers here and colleague posters here, what do you think about my idea on how to guide spacecrafts cruising in space, like for example with NASA sending exploration rovers to Mars, read as follows:

The scientists-engineers at NASA will just guide their spacecrafts in such a way, that these spacecrafts are always keeping to an in effect straight line of sight between earth and Mars.

How do these scientists-engineers-operators of the rovers heading to Mars guide the crafts, as to in effect keep them to a straight line of sight between earth and Mars?

From my experiences with strolling in a big city, I just keep in sight the tallest building of that city, and not stray away as to no longer keeping my sighting of the tip of that tallest building.

There, that will get me back to the tallest building, wherever I stroll to in that big city.

So, the scientists-engineers at NASA have just to have constructed the rovers, so that they can keep the crafts in effect along a straight line of sight between earth and Mars, and heading toward Mars.

The same also with guiding them back to earth, by turning them around to cruise in effect along the straight line of sight between earth and Mars, but now moving toward earth.

Do they have to factor in the math of relativity and the math of quantum mechanics?

I don't think so.

All they have to do is design their spacecrafts so that these ships will follow the control of the scientists-engineers-operators of the space ships.

Do they have to factor in relativity math and quantum mechanics math, in designing and constructing these space ships going to Mars?

I don't think so.

Simple math is enough for them to design and fabricate the technological equipment in the space ships, so that these ships will be controlled by them, to keep on the line of sight between earth and Mars.

Anyway, I am going to do some good reading on how the scientists-engineers designed and constructed the crafts going to Mars and now orbiting Mars.

Dear colleagues here who are better informed, I am most receptive to learn from you, okay?

0 Replies

@fresco,

Lay is fun to play with, for a while.

0 Replies

@layman,

No argument, no effort to understand... You're just barking at me now.

The truth remains that you misunderstood Morin and misquoted him.

Now gime me a nice woof woof! :-)

0 Replies

@layman,

You are the liar here, since you misquoted Morin, and when I proved it, you kept denying your lies... Wipe this foam off your mouth and accept your defeat.

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Your a ******* LIAR, Ollie.

You know it, and I know.

Probably nobody else does, because nobody else pays any attention, and that's what you're counting on because all you care about is appearance.

You're so dishonest, in every way, maybe especially intellectually dishonest. You're worthless to even try to talk to, because you're just a fraud with no desire to discuss anything honestly.

I've never put anyone on ignore before, but I don't EVER want to hear another word out of your filthy ******* lying mouth.

Good-bye, loser.

La Rochefoucauld wrote:

“Weak people cannot be sincere.”

2 Replies

@fresco,

Look it takes no genius to get that by mixing blue with yellow will give you some mix of green...rather the point is to understand what is implied here with "subject" vs object ... if it doesn't have free will the distinction you are doing is meaningless, and the meat of the topic, the so called co-extensiveness, as simple as a two system interactive phenomena...speaking of elegance from an Occam's razor pov, you view is over complicated and has baggage included on the very wording of what "subjects" imply.

1 Reply

@layman,

layman wrote:

Your a ******* LIAR, Ollie.

I've never put anyone on ignore before, but I don't EVER want to hear another word out of your filthy ******* lying mouth.

Good-bye, loser.

You have a mental illness.

0 Replies

@Fil Albuquerque,

The thread is about 'favorite physicists'. My answer (before the infantile SR twaddle started) was Niels Bohr partly because he understood the inextricable relationship between 'observer' and 'observed' (which is encapsulated in the Copenhagen Convention), and partly because he understood the now accepted view that 'language' socially constructs what we call 'reality' rather than represents it. Both of these aspects of Bohr are general to post modernist neopragmatism which deconstructs most dichotomous thinking, like subject-object (see Heidegger for example) or realism-antirealism (see Nietzsche for example).

So there is a plethora of interlinked ideas forming the backcloth to my position, none of which is antithetical to the remarkably successful application of mathematical models to epistemological progress. However, what is always up for grabs is the ontological status of mathematically constructed entities since that status is always enmeshed in a paradigmatic context which is subject to change.

Now if you think this view is 'overcomplicated', I suggest you are looking at from the pov of 'naive realism' and 'truth seeking' rather than thinking about what actually goes on in what we call 'science'. I have no requirement for 'absolute truths' or 'observer independent facts'. As long as the human goals of 'prediction and control' are being met, that is all we can expect from'science'.

1 Reply

Who is your favorite Physicist?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know