Notices
Results 1 to 40 of 40

Thread: Director of Research and Development

  1. #1 Director of Research and Development 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    21
    I


    Last edited by gvanhoesen; September 19th, 2014 at 08:58 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    10
    Wow you really seem to be an knowleged and interesting person I hope you get the answers for your questions and maybe help a few get their own answers


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by gvanhoesen View Post
    My science has lead me to question conventional wisdom.
    Welcome to the forum.

    My understanding is that conventional wisdom says we should always question conventional wisdom. Most, perhaps almost all, advances in science have arisen through questioning conventional wisdom. To my mind the entire scientific method is based upon the systematic questioning of conventional wisdom. But I sense you may mean something else.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    21
    h
    Last edited by gvanhoesen; September 19th, 2014 at 09:03 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    21
    J
    Last edited by gvanhoesen; September 19th, 2014 at 08:59 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    I think we would have a profound difference of opinion there, which could generate interesting discussion. If I understand you correctly you are equating science with the findings of science. If so, that is incorrect. Science is the methodology. The findings are ephemeral, subject to change on the basis of new observations and evidence. The core methodology has remained largely unchanged for a few centuries.

    Perhaps if you cite an example or two of "where our science has gotten in the way of better understanding", your position will become clearer.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    21
    J
    Last edited by gvanhoesen; September 19th, 2014 at 08:59 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    21
    I
    Last edited by gvanhoesen; September 19th, 2014 at 08:59 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by gvanhoesen View Post
    Relativity has a problem in that the two theories that revolutionized the 20th century, Quantum Mechanics and Relativity both helped or started by Albert Einstein, Do not make sense when they are looked at together. This had puzzled me sense I was old enough to understand logic. Science has embraced and excepted that both are exactly correct and most articles in the field have to match one or the other to be published by any reputable publication. The problem is that both have very great predictive powers and yet the logic of the situation tells us that one or the other or both are incomplete or incorrect as they should match it logic real. This is a logical imperative that science ignores. We scorn people for questioning either theory.
    On the contrary, arguably the greatest effort of the last century in physics has been focused on resolving these contradictions. Science and scientists fully accept that both theories cannot be exactly correct. I am puzzled as to how you could reach such a conclusion. It is the reverse of the truth.

    This takes us to the Big Bang. When we accepted this theory it was because Albert Einstein called it the most beautiful explanation of creation that he had ever heard.
    No. The theory is accepted because it provides the best explanation for the evidence. It is trite to suggest that generations of physicists would accept a theory just because Einstein said it was so.

    This leads me to a quote of Albert Einstein, "Blind respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth", and yet we so blindly follow these theories that we ignore the problems and have trouble getting past them.
    I find it difficult not to characterise this statement as anything other than "silly". These theories have been tested and probed and amended and confirmed and validated by hundreds, if not thousands of scientists. If any of these scientists could have disproven the theories the world would lie at their feet.

    The Big bang was just one model that can come from AE's Relativity
    In what way are you arguing that it emerged from relativity theory? From general, or special relativity?

    Also if it were to have happened there would be a void in the center of the universe where it came from and the universe could not look like it does.
    Why should there be a void at the centre? You do realise we are at the centre, as is every other point in the universe?

    Our science is always under fire from theories that do not make sense and we fight to keep it real but we also fight to keep the unreal and unrealistic theories we "like" and this sacrifices the logical scientific method for personal interests
    You have failed to make the case for this being true.

    Evidently logic has no place in science.
    Or in your argument.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    21
    u
    Last edited by gvanhoesen; September 19th, 2014 at 09:03 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    ▼▼ dn ʎɐʍ sıɥʇ ▼▼ RedPanda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,737
    Quote Originally Posted by gvanhoesen View Post
    The theory of the big bang is of course accepted by most and that is my point. If you can give my compeling reasons why it should be I would definitely listen.
    One compelling reason to accept the BBT is that it is based on GR.
    SayBigWords.com/say/3FC

    "And, behold, I come quickly;" Revelation 22:12

    "Religions are like sausages. When you know how they are made, you no longer want them."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    21
    J
    Last edited by gvanhoesen; September 19th, 2014 at 09:03 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    21
    R
    Last edited by gvanhoesen; September 19th, 2014 at 09:03 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    ▼▼ dn ʎɐʍ sıɥʇ ▼▼ RedPanda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,737
    Quote Originally Posted by gvanhoesen View Post
    My point is that we blindly accept it based on GR.
    Well, GR accurately describes reality.
    If you are saying that people blindly accept reality, then I would probably agree.

    Quote Originally Posted by gvanhoesen View Post
    The problems with the theory are profound and no one is saying that it is wrong or even exploring its flaws.
    It gets tested every day.
    The problem you need to overcome is the fact it passes every test.
    SayBigWords.com/say/3FC

    "And, behold, I come quickly;" Revelation 22:12

    "Religions are like sausages. When you know how they are made, you no longer want them."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    21
    R
    Last edited by gvanhoesen; September 19th, 2014 at 09:03 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Forum Professor jrmonroe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    1,444
    Gvanhoesen, where is your lab's website?
    Grief is the price we pay for love. (CM Parkes) Our postillion has been struck by lightning. (Unknown) War is always the choice of the chosen who will not have to fight. (Bono) The years tell much what the days never knew. (RW Emerson) Reality is not always probable, or likely. (JL Borges)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    21
    j
    Last edited by gvanhoesen; September 19th, 2014 at 09:04 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    21
    R
    Last edited by gvanhoesen; September 19th, 2014 at 09:00 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,659
    Quote Originally Posted by gvanhoesen View Post
    As things go faster and faster Relativity gets less and less accurate.
    Evidence required.

    and if you ask a rocket scientist what ones they use the most it would still be Newton.
    Ever wondered why?
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    ▼▼ dn ʎɐʍ sıɥʇ ▼▼ RedPanda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,737
    Quote Originally Posted by gvanhoesen View Post
    My point is not that it is an accurate way to calculate things nut that does not make it accurate in other ways.
    In which other ways is it inaccurate?

    Quote Originally Posted by gvanhoesen View Post
    It gets tested every day is not a test of the ability of a theory to be correct at its limits.
    Which tests at GR's limits have been performed where GR failed?

    Quote Originally Posted by gvanhoesen View Post
    As things go faster and faster Relativity gets less and less accurate.
    To paraphrase Dywyddyr: Citation required.

    Quote Originally Posted by gvanhoesen View Post
    This means that the theories limits are reached by everything from a flash light to microwaves.
    And how has GR failed in those instances?

    Quote Originally Posted by gvanhoesen View Post
    The problem with GR is that it is very difficult to manipulate.
    What do you mean by manipulate?

    Quote Originally Posted by gvanhoesen View Post
    What I am trying to point out is that we are pushing this theory to its limits and it is time to upgrade to the next version.
    What (where?) is GR's limit?

    Quote Originally Posted by gvanhoesen View Post
    Our understanding is below the limits of the theory but our knowledge is about to bust through the limits.
    So, no-one actually knows where the limit is - but you still claim that we are near it?
    SayBigWords.com/say/3FC

    "And, behold, I come quickly;" Revelation 22:12

    "Religions are like sausages. When you know how they are made, you no longer want them."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    21
    I
    Last edited by gvanhoesen; September 19th, 2014 at 08:57 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    21
    C
    Last edited by gvanhoesen; September 19th, 2014 at 09:01 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    ▼▼ dn ʎɐʍ sıɥʇ ▼▼ RedPanda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,737
    Quote Originally Posted by gvanhoesen View Post
    calculate anything using GR inside a black hole?
    Which question is that an answer to?

    I posted 7 questions - you replied with one answer.
    I assume you were unable to answer the other 6.
    SayBigWords.com/say/3FC

    "And, behold, I come quickly;" Revelation 22:12

    "Religions are like sausages. When you know how they are made, you no longer want them."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    21
    l
    Last edited by gvanhoesen; September 19th, 2014 at 09:01 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    21
    B
    Last edited by gvanhoesen; September 19th, 2014 at 09:01 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,659
    Quote Originally Posted by gvanhoesen View Post
    There is a shear friction force that interplays with the mass that is traveling faster than light.
    Evidence required.

    All things have limits Fibonacci's sequence can run forever bigger
    Uh what?
    All things have limits but the Fibonacci sequence doesn't?

    However we will never see a snail the size of Jupitor as the sequence would have us thing that this could be possible.
    No it wouldn't.
    It doesn't even suggest that's possible.

    PS, learn to spell.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    ▼▼ dn ʎɐʍ sıɥʇ ▼▼ RedPanda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,737
    Quote Originally Posted by gvanhoesen View Post
    But if you are not interested in exchanging ideas and only in arguing over who is right I will not post any more.
    If you are not interested in either explaining your ideas or providing support for your ideas, then you are not much better than the people that stand at roadsides shouting their thoughts at the passing traffic.

    Quote Originally Posted by gvanhoesen View Post
    But if you are not interested in exchanging ideas and only in arguing over who is right I will not post any more.
    I can see why you avoid anyone that insists on statements being correct.
    SayBigWords.com/say/3FC

    "And, behold, I come quickly;" Revelation 22:12

    "Religions are like sausages. When you know how they are made, you no longer want them."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by gvanhoesen View Post
    But if you are not interested in exchanging ideas and only in arguing over who is right I will not post any more.
    I think there is a healthy exchange of ideas in progress.

    You are explaining your ideas. Other members are saying "That doesn't look right; it doesn't agree with observation; can you justify that statement; etc."

    Implicitly they are saying, our ideas broadly align with the general consensus in science today, because these ideas provide the best current observations of phenomena. So, there is a limited amount to discuss from that perspective. You have different ideas. Those are what are being discussed.

    I find it difficult to believe that you would be so naive as to come onto a forum, pronounce that you thought modern science was screwed up, and not be challenged on that assertion. Yet your quoted post suggests that is exactly what you expected. Am I mistaken?


    Please realise, no one here is being hostile to you, but towards your idea. If you respond factually and objectively to the criticisms and questions we can have a grand old time.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    ▼▼ dn ʎɐʍ sıɥʇ ▼▼ RedPanda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,737
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    Please realise, no one here is being hostile to you, but towards your idea.
    I should admit that I was being slightly 'hostile' (possibly too strong a term) to him, but only after he announced he wasn't willing to address any objections to his claims.
    Previous to that, I was asking perfectly civil questions, only addressing his claims.
    SayBigWords.com/say/3FC

    "And, behold, I come quickly;" Revelation 22:12

    "Religions are like sausages. When you know how they are made, you no longer want them."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    21
    R
    Last edited by gvanhoesen; September 19th, 2014 at 09:01 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    21
    I
    Last edited by gvanhoesen; September 19th, 2014 at 09:01 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    ▼▼ dn ʎɐʍ sıɥʇ ▼▼ RedPanda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,737
    Quote Originally Posted by gvanhoesen View Post
    When your questions become real and not just a fight I will answer them.
    They were real questions. (You can tell that by them actually existing.)
    Just because you can't answer them, doesn't make them not "real".

    Quote Originally Posted by gvanhoesen View Post
    There is nothing wrong with my answers that I gave and they are logic based.
    But they weren't answers to my questions.

    Quote Originally Posted by gvanhoesen View Post
    I do not have time to waste I want intellectual responses that have logic associated with them.
    Well - as long as they don't disagree with you, eh?

    Quote Originally Posted by gvanhoesen View Post
    Rant to someone else please.
    Have you finished your rant?


    Well, at least your reply is consistent with your disinterest in being correct.
    SayBigWords.com/say/3FC

    "And, behold, I come quickly;" Revelation 22:12

    "Religions are like sausages. When you know how they are made, you no longer want them."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by gvanhoesen View Post
    If you see know flaws in the theories then you should not respond.
    I read this seven times in disbelief.

    Here is how I translate it:

    I think some of the current scientific theories have flaws in them. (Implicitly major flaws).
    I should like to discuss that.
    However, I only want to discuss that with people who agree with me that these theories are flawed.
    I certainly don't want to hear from anyone who through questioning, or demonstration could show I was mistaken.

    If you do not mean that, then I apologise for the misinterpretation and am delighted, for it means you will welcome discussion of why some members dispute the flaws you say are there. If you do mean that, then you are correct: this is not the place for you. Nor is any science forum.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    1,774
    Quote Originally Posted by gvanhoesen View Post
    RedPanda,
    It gets tested every day is not a test of the ability of a theory to be correct at its limits. All theories have limits and this is no exception. As things go faster and faster Relativity gets less and less accurate. This means that the theories limits are reached by everything from a flash light to microwaves. Yes it helps us predict the path of a space ship at a fraction of the speed of light, yet so does Newton's equations and if you ask a rocket scientist what ones they use the most it would still be Newton. The problem with GR is that it is very difficult to manipulate. The limits of any theory point out the need for a more accurate predictive model as we push our science and technology to its limits.

    What I am trying to point out is that we are pushing this theory to its limits and it is time to upgrade to the next version. Our understanding is below the limits of the theory but our knowledge is about to bust through the limits.
    Based on the stuff you post, I would be very worried to have you as a Director of Research and Development.
    Basically this thread reduces to "I do not understand either relativity or quantum mechanics, therefore I decree both of them to be wrong".
    I will not be spending any more time in this thread, there are too many mainstream science deniers polluting this forum but I will point out two things to you:

    1. QM is the single most tested theory. No test to date has falsified it.
    2. Relativity (SR+GR) is the second most tested theory. No test to date.....

    I will also report this thread to be moved into Trash or Pseudoscience. As soon as I close this post.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    21
    T
    Last edited by gvanhoesen; September 19th, 2014 at 09:02 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Yes, I read the statements and so did others. The conflict between the two theories is recognised.

    It is mentioned in most, if not all popular books and documentaries on the subject.

    Efforts to resolve the contradiction lie at heart at much of the research going on today.

    What I, and other members, are disagreeing with is your claim that this fundamental contradiction is not recognised. That is simply wrong. The evidence says it is wrong. We have told you it is wrong. Yet you continue to assert that the world of science is ignoring this.

    You have erected a strawman. Your position is indefensible. You have three main options:

    A) Admit your error
    B) Provide evidence to support your assertion
    C) Run away

    I hope you opt for A) or B).
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #37  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    21
    I
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #38  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    21
    John,
    The run away is going to happen. Although I do not stick my head in the sand too much I do not have time to waste. You say that these issues with the theories are addressed but they are only a foot note to the I am right and you are wrong attitude that persists in science. In my undergraduate work I was told several time that I was wrong by Professors and went away with the feeling that I was stupid. This stopped me from pushing ideas that I knew logically had foundation. This all changed when I started doing R and D and observed things that were not said to happen. Also I had one time more than 15 years ago that I had proposed a problem in Astrophysics regarding the need for a black hole at the center of the galaxy and my Physics professor told me that I had no idea what I was talking about and no more than an 18 months later after he told me I have no idea what I was talking about the news came out that there must be a black hole at the center of most galaxies. I lost a lot of respect but also gained the understanding that I can not make you see the changes you have to see them for your self. This being said I will publish when the time is right but until then I do not have time to argue semantics.
    John I am sorry to run but this is not what I would call fun.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #39  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Science, like much human interaction, is a mix of confrontation and cooperation. The scientific method has produce astounding results by using confrontation. But the confrontation that works is the confrontation of observation and evidence, of hypothesis and experiment.

    The confrontation you have engaged in here is that you have made assertions that confront the current view of science. The onus is on you, in this situation, to provide evidence to support those assertions. You choose not to do so.

    You are the one who came here and said science was "wrong". Yet you become disgruntled when some of us say "no it isn't". If I make a challenge to an individual or a concept, I make certain I come armed with a citations, theories and arguments that support my position. I do not simply repeat my assertion and complain about how I am being treated. But you are free to do that if you wish.

    I continue to hope that you will change your mind. (And I'm not sure why you expected it to be fun. I thought it was meant to be educational. Any fun is a nice by-product.)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #40  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    21
    John,
    You are correct. I have had my head in the wrong place. There is time for constructive conversations on the issue. I will not argue with the predictive powers of relativity or QM. They are both great theories. Lets start over from the beginning.
    I am a person that loves the history of things and sense I was very young one of my hero's has been Albert Einstein, not bat man or super man but real people that seem to have flaws. I also started in my college live with about 100 hours towards an Electrical Engineering degree. I did not get it and I regret that all the time. I do have a masters degree in Environmental design and an undergraduate degree with highest honors in Business Administration. My first love was Physics but I disliked the math and thought that it clouded reality. I still think that today. Now I have to say that the math is needed but if we look back at history every time someone thinks that the math is in the way they come up with a new way to look at things or a new math system. A great example of this was Newton realizing that his thoughts on Gravity would be easier to work with if we had a better math "Infinitesimal calculus" was the answer to his work.

    As I worked in the management of people and things for almost 20 years trying to climb a corporate ladder I continued my readings and writings in history and Physics. This lead me to realize I was teaching my children that they should do what makes money and not what they love to do and I started looking for ways to live what I was trying to tell my children. This about 15 years ago lead me to my masters work in environmental energy systems design and to start my own business in green building.
    I have built off the grid homes, homes that are 75% more energy efficient than the standard home cost $80.00 per square foot to build, and stand up to the winds of an F-5 tornado. All this after discovering that there were no real green building degrees at the time. That is why I have the design degree that I have.
    About 10 years ago I discovered ester chemistry and realized the potential behind the specific esters I was working with and started to move towards the science side of business again.

    I have shown chemists what I am doing and had them laugh at me. This was hard to take but I realized a few things in the process. One if people think you are nuts... you are done. There is no way to convince them that you were anything but that. This also means that anyone they know thinks the same.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Similar Threads

  1. You Are The Director Of A Show
    By lorbo in forum Science-Fiction and Non-Fiction
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: March 11th, 2014, 08:06 PM
Tags for this Thread

View Tag Cloud

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •