Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Cut The Bullshit In Physics


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
326 replies to this topic

#1 VictorMedvil

VictorMedvil

    The Human Shadow

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1281 posts

Posted 11 April 2019 - 03:31 AM

Alright this is a social experiment along with a honest quest for the truth, in my cut the bullshit thread we are going to all discuss what changes to physics you think are necessary and why, What do you think needs improvement in physics and what subjects do you think need to be fixed?



#2 VictorMedvil

VictorMedvil

    The Human Shadow

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1281 posts

Posted 11 April 2019 - 03:34 AM

I will start I think all the forces of nature should be unified into a single framework, I think that physics is frameworks that do not display all the exacting details of every aspect of physics need to be thrown out and redone. There should not be a discrepancy between Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity nor any of the other interactions it should be unified into a single equation or framework. In my opinion that is just bad Physics Grammar if both supposedly correct frameworks are supposed to both be functional why is there a difference in the solutions? How can two correct frameworks show different results for the location of an electron, it is bullshit that needs to be fixed. I think it means we don't know as much as we tend to think we know about the universe there are no anomalies in the universe how can there be anomalies in the frameworks for it, our frameworks and models are fundamentally flawed as depressing as that seems, there should be no anomalies in physics.


Edited by VictorMedvil, 11 April 2019 - 03:43 AM.

  • MikeBrace likes this

#3 Moronium

Moronium

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2894 posts

Posted 11 April 2019 - 04:48 AM

 I think it means we don't know as much as we tend to think we know about the universe there are no anomalies in the universe how can there be anomalies in the frameworks for it, our frameworks and models are fundamentally flawed as depressing as that seems, there should be no anomalies in physics.

 

 

Agreed, Vic, but good luck with the "theory of everything."  Einstein worked on that for decades with no success, and many other brilliant physicist have also put great energy into the attempt.

 

Physicists tend to throw around vague concepts and speculative fantasy as though they are talking about fact.  They sound more like medieval scholastic philosophers than scientists.  It's just unverifiable and ultimately meaningless bullshit that "sounds good," to them.

 

Physics has drifted away from empirical content in favor of abstract mathematics which can prove nothing.

 

Personally, I blame a lot of it on the tendency to take mathematical fictions as "fact."  Concepts such as "spacetime" strike me as empirically suspect, to put it mildly.  You end up with "physicists" (mathematicians, really) thinking "all" solutions lie in things like speculative, unverifiable M theory in 11 dimensions.  It's bogus, I tells ya.

 

I mean, like, saying that "time curving" explains gravity is supposed to be saying something physically meaningful?

 

I don't think so!  Homey don't play dat.


Edited by Moronium, 11 April 2019 - 06:05 AM.

  • MikeBrace likes this

#4 Dubbelosix

Dubbelosix

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2922 posts

Posted 14 April 2019 - 08:29 PM

The Last Taboo’s

 

  1. A theory should be simple and no more simpler
  2. A theory should be testable in order to falsify it
  3. A theory cannot be disproven (Popper philosophy) since you can only add or take evidence to support it or invalidate it.
  4. Science is not about debunking
  5. Just because your theory is supported in mass, doesn’t make it right.
  6. Untestable theories cannot be preserved unless willing to give up the scientific method
  7. Singularities do not exist, but only as computational methods in the most abstract sense.
  8. Physicists still tend to talk about particles as points: Not only does this involve unwanted singularities, recent research on electron shows a charge distribution and largely spherical (ie. Not point like at all)
  9. Gravitons need to be abandoned - early scientists made a mistake by quantizing gravity from Einstein’s field equations. Not only did the ‘’divergence’’ problems arise from this, it rallied many scientists to take it as proof it cannot be quantized. In general pseudo forces cannot be quantized in classical physics.
  10. Scientists are still trying to unify the other forces into gravity when gravity could very well be thermally entropic in nature.
  11. Dark matter became such a fascination, logical explanations seem to have been evaded.
  12. Scientists tend not to talk about the issue of a super-inelligence in the universe and yet rarely talk about over 120 fine-tuned parameters that if any had been different we would not exist. The statistics for this to be accident immensely outweighs the number of particles in the observable universe.
  13. That it is taken as absolute fact that light cannot escape a black hole. It would solve the information paradox including a series of heated debates among physicists. This model is achieved by the only aether Einstein entertained... the gravitational aether acting like a refractive index.


#5 Moronium

Moronium

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2894 posts

Posted 14 April 2019 - 08:37 PM

Untestable theories cannot be preserved unless willing to give up the scientific method.

 

 

And therein lies the defect of the many pseudo-scientific speculations of modern physics.  "Many worlds" interpretation of QM, multipicity of "universes," dark matter, string theory (in 11 "dimensions"), and the like (which abound).

 

Such "untestable" theories have been "preserved" for many decades.  Often these theories are presented as virtual fact.  So much for the "scientific method," eh?


Edited by Moronium, 14 April 2019 - 09:19 PM.

  • Dubbelosix likes this

#6 Moronium

Moronium

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2894 posts

Posted 14 April 2019 - 09:54 PM

What is Dark Matter? Even the Best Theories Are Crumbling  By Korey Haynes | September 21, 2018 5:00 pm

 

Dark matter research is unsettling. Scientists were unnerved when they first noticed that galaxies don’t rotate by the same physics as a spinning plate. The stars at a galaxy’s edge rotate faster than expected. And their motion can only be explained by a lot of invisible matter that we can’t see.

 

That was exciting more than unsettling when the field was new and ideas were plentiful and had yet to be proven wrong. Researchers consolidated the possibilities into two main camps, complete with clever acronyms: MACHOs (Massive Compact Halo Objects) and WIMPs (Weakly Interacting Massive Particles)....

 

MACHOs are the less exotic possibility...And yet there’s just not enough of them to make the galaxy-rotation math work. The same problem pops up if we imagine a universe littered with black holes. We would need to see these light-bending gravitational lenses everywhere and we don’t, even when we look very hard.

 

So the astrophysics community mostly moved on to WIMPs. Rather than big objects, maybe the universe is full of little things we can’t see.  But we’ve been looking for them for a while. We’ve built incredibly sensitive, bizarre instruments to look for them. These include vats of liquid xenon stored miles underground, and telescopes looking for dark matter particles decaying into things we can see and measure, like gamma rays. It includes the Large Hadron Collider, one of the most expensive science experiments ever built. And we haven’t found them. We haven’t found the WIMPs themselves, and we haven’t found convincing evidence that they exist.

 

 

For decades, a few rogue scientists have stood hopefully at the edge of respectability, offering their theory called Modified Newtonian Dynamics, or MOND. Essentially, it says that physics doesn’t work as we know it at the largest scales. It says we’ve been drawing the wrong conclusions, and dark matter isn’t required to explain the universe. No one has managed to develop a theory of MOND that adequately explains the universe around us, but it occasionally gains converts simply because the competing theory of dark matter has a glaring flaw: we can’t find it.

 

 

 

http://blogs.discove...s/#.XLP9hzBKjX5

 

And yet, after all these decades, any physicist who doesn't "believe in" dark matter is still considered to be a "rogue," know what I'm sayin?


Edited by Moronium, 14 April 2019 - 09:58 PM.

  • Dubbelosix likes this

#7 Dubbelosix

Dubbelosix

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2922 posts

Posted 15 April 2019 - 04:57 AM

Closed minds.... dark matter

 

Open skies... eliminating the latter.



#8 MikeBrace

MikeBrace

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 35 posts

Posted 15 April 2019 - 01:26 PM

Physicists tend to throw around vague concepts and speculative fantasy as though they are talking about fact. 

 

Moronium hit the nail on the head: “Physicists tend to throw around vague concepts and speculative fantasy as though they are talking about fact.” His rant about Dark Matter is perfectly indicative of this thread.

 

Therein lies the fundamental reasons why there is still so much bullshit in physics: the ‘facts’.

 

But besides just pointing out the obvious as Moronium has so aptly done (“Such "untestable" theories have been "preserved" for many decades.  Often these theories are presented as virtual fact.) I can tell you why these ‘facts’ still exist today and how they became virtual facts. Eventually, I will bring the discussion around to your first big comment, one that I have spent a lifetime answering:

“…I think all the forces of nature should be unified into a single framework”

 

But first, the ‘Why’.

 

After more than 40 years of making a living as an Aerospace engineer (and devout Physics fanatic) I have come to realize that many of the facts, theories and even EQUATIONS that we use today to describe the physical characteristics of our universe are built around an ‘informal fallacy’.

 

A fallacy is a defect in an argument, but an informal fallacy is a defect found in the content of the argument.

 

An example of a fallacy would be: All water on earth freezes at 0°C. The defect is “All”. Only pure H2O freezes at 0°C, any mixture of water other than pure water (like the ocean’s salt water mix) will have a different freezing temperature. Even pure water can be maintained at a temperature below 0°C and not freeze; it will freeze at a different temperature depending on the water’s state of agitation (i.e. super cooling water). You would ‘commit’ an informal fallacy if you based your experiments, equations and findings on the fact that the freezing point of all water is 0°C.

 

For over 200+ years scientists and academia alike have based many of our most cherished facts, equations and theories on experiments and other equations that have an ‘informal fallacy’ hidden deep within. In mathematics we can often look back and find out where somebody, somewhere along the line has divided by 0, but nobody caught it until someone else eliminates all of the variables and solves the equation. Finding the informal fallacy in physics is easy: Just find the most sacred cow in the herd, point it out and then answer all of the questions, theories and problems without it. However, getting academia, scientists and physicists to accept your scape goat is a different story.

 

Which, VictorMedvil, brings me to your original question: “What do you think needs improvement in physics and what subjects do you think need to be fixed?” and your first ‘improvement’: “…I think all the forces of nature should be unified into a single framework

 

I’ll start this discussion off pointing out the single, largest informal fallacy being perpetrated in physics today, and why nobody [of fame or noteworthiness] has unified the forces of nature into a single framework. I pulled it off; I have put together a bullet proof unifying theory…and to do this the only informal fallacy I had to toss out was that Gravity is a fundamental force in the universe.

 

It is not. It is a resultant force.

 

I know I’m not the first one to make this argument, and I won’t be the last. But I took this argument a few steps further and made it explain so many other observations we have yet to solve.

Let that notion sink in for a minute. And, if I have in fact pointed out a fundamental flaw in our arguments and equations [for how the physics of the universe can be explained], and you accept my statement as fact, can you explain all of the observable, concrete physical interactions of matter without gravity? I have.

 

Questions? Comments?



#9 Moronium

Moronium

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2894 posts

Posted 15 April 2019 - 01:55 PM

Questions? Comments?

 

1. I agree with virtually everything you said there, Mike.

 

2.  For now, I'm not addressing your assertion that gravity is a resultant force, not a fundamental force.

 

3.  One slight correction:  I think you have misconstrued the difference between formal and informal logical fallacies.  You appear to be addressing the soundness of a premise rather than a defect in form.  A logical argument can be perfectly correct, formally, but still be false.  For example:

 

1. All pigs are green

2.  This animal is a pig

3. Therefore, this animal is green.

 

Formally, this logic here is impeccable. If the premises are true, then the conclusion must be true.  However, the first premise is obviously false.  That does not make the logic invalid.  The "logic" is valid.  But the argument is still false, because at least one of the premises is false (unsound).  It logical terminology, the argument is "unsound," but not invalid.

 

Math and logic are the same in that sense.   They are indifferent to content.  They can't tell you what's "true."  You have to figure that out for yourself.  You can perform the most complex mathematical manipulations perfectly and the answer will be "correct."  Mathematically, that is.  It can be wrong as hell from an empirical standpoint.

 

That's one reason I said above that math is overly relied on and trusted in theoretical physics these days. Many seem to think that math IS physics.  They no longer seem to care much about physical "soundness."  The just want to know if the "math works out."


Edited by Moronium, 15 April 2019 - 01:59 PM.


#10 Moronium

Moronium

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2894 posts

Posted 15 April 2019 - 02:37 PM

Gravity is a fundamental force in the universe.

 

It is not. It is a resultant force.

 

I'm not sure what you're getting at here, but I think I would understand the fundamentals of your argument.

 

In another thread, [here:  http://www.sciencefo...oncept-of-mass/ ] I have been arguing, for example, that "mass" (inertia) might be better understood as an independent "force" as opposed to a mere "property of matter" which resists acceleration.

 

In that view, mass would merely be a part of the net (resultant) force involved in the moon's orbit around the earth for example.  So would gravity, as you seem to be saying.


Edited by Moronium, 15 April 2019 - 03:02 PM.


#11 Moronium

Moronium

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2894 posts

Posted 15 April 2019 - 02:43 PM

In that view, mass would merely be a part of the net (resultant) force involved in the moon's orbit around the earth for example.

 

 

Because it's closely related to the role of math in physics, which I've been bringing up in this thread, I'll cut and paste a post I made in that thread here, too:

 

Posted Yesterday, 12:00 PM

 

The way I see it, the equation F=MA is just another example of how abstract "mathematical" symbols can easily become completely divorced from the essential concepts underlying them, which get forgotten.

 

People look at the "F" and often start looking at it as a "single," self-sufficient representation of something.  They can forget that the "F" is not a simple, uncomplicated thing. because it looks so simple. It's just a simple "F," that's all, and it's so easy to manipulate mathematically that way.  It can easily be seen, mathematically, that M is "simply" F/A, and that A is "simply" F/M.

 

To remind people of this, the equation should really be written as NET F=MA

 

Looked at from a different perspective, F=MA is just circular in character and is just a self-proving tautology.

 

http://www.sciencefo...of-mass/page-10


Edited by Moronium, 15 April 2019 - 02:50 PM.


#12 MikeBrace

MikeBrace

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 35 posts

Posted 15 April 2019 - 07:48 PM

Moronium, all what you said is valid, however the description of the differences between a fallacy and an informal fallacy are not mine; I merely refer to a definition of them from a university's website that illustrate the point I was trying to make: Almost everything you've learned is physics is wrong. The formulas are accurate, as are many of the fundamental laws and equations that we mathematically use to describe the physics and dynamics of the universe. It's just that (as the moderator of this thread pointed out) there are many bullshit answers for the most important and fundamental physic and application-of-force problems that we have been asking since the dawn of time.

 

You're reference to the fundamental equation F=MA is just such an example.

 

I was taught in school that the universe was created in the Big Bang, and that since gravity (back then) was the strongest force in the universe, that gravity would eventually begin to draw the universe back into one big blob of matter (the Black Hole) where even Strong and Weak Nuclear powers would pale in comparison. We could then use F=MA to figure out when the Big Bang was, and when all the matter of the universe would condense back into that one big Black Hole. Since M was constant (4.8% of the universe), and there was a big positive F when the Big Bang occurred (+F), and now the only F left to affect our [M] velocity is Gravity (a negative F), all we had to do was measure our deceleration rate to find A. Then we would definitively know when the Big Bang happened and when it was going to start all over again. All this to prove The Big Bang Theory, one that we still consider valid.

 

We all know what happened: When they trained the Hubble telescope across the universe to measure our deceleration rate, -F ... well, a funny thing happened on the way to the Forum...we discovered that the universe is accelerating away from itself. If F=MA, and M is constant, then F must be positive (+) because A is positive (+). This was a HUGE surprise, completely unexpected and totally unanticipated because it didn't fit our models. So, in order to make it fit, we asked ourselves "what's the only force that could be causing this acceleration?" Must be Gravity! Since gravity is created by [as a by-product of] Matter we need more Matter in our physics model to create these gravitational forces. But since we can't see this Matter, it must be Dark Matter!

 

But then F=MA also told us that no amount of matter (Dark or otherwise) could produce the +F needed to override the -F of gravity for such a positive +A in the other direction, so they changed their minds and started calling it Dark Energy. It was an easy leap of logic if you adhered to the accepted laws of physics. But, since this new theory about this +A, and this mysterious +F, needed to fit our theories we invented Quantum Mechanics, Quarks, God Particles, Space-time curvature, and a whole host of other mythical and hypothetical forces and particles to keep gravity in the equations and answer where the F+ came from. And, as a by-product we could also use them to conveniently explained what causes gravity.

 

When I was just a young lad I remember them teaching us that electrons orbited around protons (like planets orbited the sun), gravity was so powerful that it could condense mass to the point where force of gravity (created by this Black Hole) was so strong that not even Light could escape, and that eventually the whole universe would become one giant Black Hole. Well...we know where that fallacy is headed.

 

And, at first we thought it was gravity that held the atomic nuclei together, but that fallacy was quickly negated (although not entirely under the theory of what causes Black Holes). Heck, we even created Quarks to explain Strong Nuclear Force(s); they are now the hypothetical binding-blocks of a solid blob of positively charged particles (Protons), held in super-close (virtually touching) proximity of each other, and needed to keep them from repelling (exploding away) each other. But when these Protons do split up, they created Weak Nuclear Force(s) and then these mythical Quarks magically disappeared.

 

So now we still have several mythical, fundamental forces (fallacies) to explain our one big informal fallacy: the fundamental force of gravity.

 

(The only other fundamental force left is Electromagnetism (electricity). Since we know what causes that, and we can create it our selves, I'm going to agree with that law of physics and state that it exists (more on that later). We could even use that fundamental force to explain Weak Nuclear: the measurable electro-mechanical force of repulsion between like-charged particle [in close proximity to each] other when rapidly released to increase the distance between themselves. But this is a discussion for further down the road)

 

So all we have left know is just two unproven, unexplained forces left: Strong Nuclear and Gravity and Strong Nuclear [by it's very definition] cannot be observed. It, like Gravity, can only be quantified.

 

Now, the only thing left is to use the remaining proven, no-nonsense laws of physics to explain the measurable, physical resultant [attractive] force [that we call] Gravity. So, instead of asking what causes this fundamental force, I only had to develop a model of how we can mimic its properties using the other resultant forces we have seen, described and measured; much the same way I can mimic the results of Weak Nuclear using static electricity and the force of electro-mechanical repulsion.

 

THAT theory became the basis for my Theory of Everything (TOE); the unifying theory of physics.

 

And it's all not only common sense, but none of it is hypothetical and it's replicated & proven every time we look around.

 

Questions? Comments? Afterwards there's more to come...



#13 LaurieAG

LaurieAG

    Explaining

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1491 posts

Posted 15 April 2019 - 09:47 PM

 "Many worlds" interpretation of QM, multipicity of "universes," dark matter, string theory (in 11 "dimensions"), and the like (which abound).

Multiverses are a cop out and not science.

 

If you have a multiverse containing an infinite number of universes all containing a different stopped clock you will always have at least 1 solution. If you have a multiverse of multiverses for every variable you will always have a minimum of 1 correct solution.


  • Dubbelosix likes this

#14 exchemist

exchemist

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2668 posts

Posted 16 April 2019 - 03:10 AM

 

[snip]

We all know what happened: When they trained the Hubble telescope across the universe to measure our deceleration rate, -F ... well, a funny thing happened on the way to the Forum...we discovered that the universe is accelerating away from itself. If F=MA, and M is constant, then F must be positive (+) because A is positive (+). This was a HUGE surprise, completely unexpected and totally unanticipated because it didn't fit our models. So, in order to make it fit, we asked ourselves "what's the only force that could be causing this acceleration?" Must be Gravity! Since gravity is created by [as a by-product of] Matter we need more Matter in our physics model to create these gravitational forces. But since we can't see this Matter, it must be Dark Matter!

[snip]

 

Questions? Comments? Afterwards there's more to come...

This is not why the dark matter hypothesis arose. It is to do with the discrepancy between the mass of galaxies as estimated by counting theirs stars and that due to their observed gravitation. Also similar discrepancies in gravitational lensing effects.  More here:  https://en.wikipedia...ki/Dark_matter 

 

Dark matter is a way of accounting for gravity being stronger than expected, rather than for any form of mechanism opposing it. 


Edited by exchemist, 16 April 2019 - 03:19 AM.


#15 Moronium

Moronium

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2894 posts

Posted 16 April 2019 - 03:45 AM

Dark matter is a way of accounting for gravity being stronger than expected, rather than for any form of mechanism opposing it. 

 

He probably meant to say dark energy instead of dark matter, I figure.

 

He also said:

 

But then F=MA also told us that no amount of matter (Dark or otherwise) could produce the +F needed to override the -F of gravity for such a positive +A in the other direction, so they changed their minds and started calling it Dark Energy

 

I don't agree with the claim that they started calling dark matter dark energy.  They are two different, co-existing, conceptions.  But Mike does at least recognize the difference, and I don't think he is trying to say what you have imputed to him, Chem.


Edited by Moronium, 16 April 2019 - 07:41 AM.


#16 Moronium

Moronium

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2894 posts

Posted 16 April 2019 - 04:40 AM

Multiverses are a cop out and not science.

 

If you have a multiverse containing an infinite number of universes all containing a different stopped clock you will always have at least 1 solution. If you have a multiverse of multiverses for every variable you will always have a minimum of 1 correct solution.

 

 

Right, AG, and that's exactly why they come up with such a ridiculous proposition to begin with--there will always be an inevitable solution that way.

 

Same motivation for inventing the concepts of dark matter and dark energy, really.  GR seems to have "gone wrong" somewhere. But it CAN'T be wrong, because we believe in it.  It's reminiscent of the ad hoc "epicycles" invented by Ptolemic astronomers to "save the appearances" and their theory at the same time.


Edited by Moronium, 16 April 2019 - 04:44 AM.


#17 Moronium

Moronium

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2894 posts

Posted 16 April 2019 - 06:26 AM

Moronium, all what you said is valid, however the description of the differences between a fallacy and an informal fallacy are not mine; I merely refer to a definition of them from a university's website that illustrate the point I was trying to make: 

 

 

Sure, that's what I figured.  That's why I suggested that you "misconstrued" the distinction between formal and informal fallacies.  I didn't think that you just "made it up."  Ultimately, the distinction is not really that important.  Logical fallacy is fallacy, however you categorize it.

 

The more important thing to recognize, I think, is that "logical validity," in and of itself, says nothing about "truth."  Same with math, which is really just a form of "applied logic," the way I see it.

 

Too many people seem to think that if their logic (or math) cannot legitimately be challenged, then they have proved the "facts."

 

For most people, the hardest to identify, analyze, and critique is their own tacit assumptions (premises).  Those are generally just left alone and deemed to somehow be "irrefutable."

 

Anything that seems incompatible with their a priori assumptions is immediately rejected as necessarily "false."  Their sense of "truth"  doesn't come from the "facts," it comes from their preconceptions, which then dictate what "facts" can even be "possible."

 

It brings to mind Hegel's statement that "If the facts contradict my theory, well, then, so much the worse for the facts."


Edited by Moronium, 16 April 2019 - 06:58 AM.