24 ns, is it that big of a deal?

  • 74 Replies
  • 3322 Views
Re: 24 ns, is it that big of a deal?
« Reply #60 on: March 06, 2021, 08:58:43 AM »
Thanks for link jack, it will be useful. If mainstream haven't adressed that what are they waiting? And not only that, there are thousands of unadressed papers/findings
« Last Edit: March 06, 2021, 09:02:15 AM by Code-Beta1234 »

*

boydster

  • Assistant to the Regional Manager
  • Planar Moderator
  • 16035
  • FREEDOIS IS ᗡIИIRG!
Re: 24 ns, is it that big of a deal?
« Reply #61 on: March 06, 2021, 05:19:10 PM »
When people say things that don't merit a response, it's not a sign of weakness to leave it unaddressed. I think that is something you need to know, based on the posts you continue to make Code Beta. A bad argument being left unaddressed is not necessarily a sign that the counterargument was weak. It's impossible to answer every single crackpot all the time.

Re: 24 ns, is it that big of a deal?
« Reply #62 on: March 08, 2021, 02:51:56 AM »
Quote
  It's impossible to answer every single crackpot all the time

Yes, and it is a problem. How do you know that they are wrong?

*

JJA

  • 4899
  • Math is math!
Re: 24 ns, is it that big of a deal?
« Reply #63 on: March 08, 2021, 04:50:25 AM »
Quote
  It's impossible to answer every single crackpot all the time

Yes, and it is a problem. How do you know that they are wrong?

I have a theory that dragons live under my bed that can only be detected by a billion dollar particle beam detector.

Should the scientific community take me seriously and launch a billion dollar investigation to prove me wrong, or just ignore me?

Am I wrong?  How do you know?

*

boydster

  • Assistant to the Regional Manager
  • Planar Moderator
  • 16035
  • FREEDOIS IS ᗡIИIRG!
Re: 24 ns, is it that big of a deal?
« Reply #64 on: March 08, 2021, 05:20:30 AM »
Quote
  It's impossible to answer every single crackpot all the time

Yes, and it is a problem. How do you know that they are wrong?
To quote Christopher Hitchens: That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.

And to quote Carl Sagan: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Re: 24 ns, is it that big of a deal?
« Reply #65 on: March 08, 2021, 01:33:40 PM »
Quote
  It's impossible to answer every single crackpot all the time

Yes, and it is a problem. How do you know that they are wrong?
To quote Christopher Hitchens: That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.

And to quote Carl Sagan: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Imagine if they said that to Einstein back in 1910's




I know they weren't around back then but you get the point

*

Stash

  • 7618
Re: 24 ns, is it that big of a deal?
« Reply #66 on: March 08, 2021, 01:40:40 PM »
Quote
  It's impossible to answer every single crackpot all the time

Yes, and it is a problem. How do you know that they are wrong?
To quote Christopher Hitchens: That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.

And to quote Carl Sagan: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Imagine if they said that to Einstein back in 1910's

I know they weren't around back then but you get the point

"They" Kinda did. GR and SR were not necessarily received with open arms back then. There's a lot written about that.

*

boydster

  • Assistant to the Regional Manager
  • Planar Moderator
  • 16035
  • FREEDOIS IS ᗡIИIRG!
Re: 24 ns, is it that big of a deal?
« Reply #67 on: March 08, 2021, 01:56:41 PM »
Quote
  It's impossible to answer every single crackpot all the time

Yes, and it is a problem. How do you know that they are wrong?
To quote Christopher Hitchens: That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.

And to quote Carl Sagan: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Imagine if they said that to Einstein back in 1910's

I know they weren't around back then but you get the point

"They" Kinda did. GR and SR were not necessarily received with open arms back then. There's a lot written about that.
Exactly this! It was only as the evidence piled up supporting GR that it was really accepted. And QM was also looked at through a VERY skeptical lens, even as evidence was quickly growing that supported it, because of how weird and non-intuitive it is. And that's a good thing. And perfectly in keeping with both of the quotes that I shared earlier.

Re: 24 ns, is it that big of a deal?
« Reply #68 on: March 08, 2021, 02:05:55 PM »
Quote
  It's impossible to answer every single crackpot all the time
Yes, and it is a problem. How do you know that they are wrong?
You don't, the problem is that you cannot investigate every wild claim.
And in some cases, it isn't even possible to test those claims at which point there is literally no way to know if they are right or wrong.
In other cases it is merely impossible for one of the options, i.e. some experiments could show they are likely right, but no way to show they are wrong; or some could show they are wrong, with none being able to show they are right.

For example, what if someone said magnetism is explained by magic pixies, where pixies reside in the poles of magnets and fly out and try to pull things they like into the magnet and push things they don't like away from it.
This is pretty much impossible to test.

So instead of trying to entertain everything and getting nothing done, you prioritise.

Imagine if they said that to Einstein back in 1910's
The distinction was the Einstein could show a fundamental problem, a contradiction in the current understanding that needed something to resolve it.
In the then current understanding, if an object B travels at some velocity v relative to a stationary observer A, and throws an object C at a velocity of u relative to them, then relative to the observer A, the object C will be travelling at a velocity of v+u.
In addition, the speed of light in a vacuum is c, regardless of observer.

So now what happens if the object C is a photon of light?
Then we have v + c = c, which is impossible.
The basic math of Newtonian relativity says that speed of the photon should be faster than the speed of light, by whatever velocity B is travelling at.
Conversely, observations show that the speed of light must be c.

You could attempt to explain away these observations with the aether model, but then the speed of light is only constant relative to the aether, which still doesn't match reality.

So an alternative is needed.

SR is this alternative.

As for GR, a standing problem was why the gravitational mass was the inertial mass.
i.e. why, unlike the other forces, gravity used mass instead of some gravitational charge or the like.
Why unlike other forces, an object in a gravitational field will accelerate the same, regardless of what its mass is.

GR with curved space time can explain that.
The other thing it explained was the precession of mercury which did not match that expected for F=GMm/r^2.

And even with all that, there was still a lot of skepticism.

Even Einstein himself disliked a fundamental aspect of quantum mechanics which he helped establish, the apparent randomness of nature.

*

JJA

  • 4899
  • Math is math!
Re: 24 ns, is it that big of a deal?
« Reply #69 on: March 09, 2021, 07:55:06 AM »
Quote
  It's impossible to answer every single crackpot all the time

Yes, and it is a problem. How do you know that they are wrong?
To quote Christopher Hitchens: That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.

And to quote Carl Sagan: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Imagine if they said that to Einstein back in 1910's

As other said, they did say just that.  And his extraordinary claims were met with extraordinary evidence backing it up.

Re: 24 ns, is it that big of a deal?
« Reply #70 on: March 09, 2021, 09:28:00 AM »
Quote
  It's impossible to answer every single crackpot all the time

Yes, and it is a problem. How do you know that they are wrong?
To quote Christopher Hitchens: That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.

And to quote Carl Sagan: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Imagine if they said that to Einstein back in 1910's
And his extraordinary claims were met with extraordinary evidence backing it up.

Not until first observations were made

*

boydster

  • Assistant to the Regional Manager
  • Planar Moderator
  • 16035
  • FREEDOIS IS ᗡIИIRG!
Re: 24 ns, is it that big of a deal?
« Reply #71 on: March 09, 2021, 09:43:11 AM »
Quote
  It's impossible to answer every single crackpot all the time

Yes, and it is a problem. How do you know that they are wrong?
To quote Christopher Hitchens: That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.

And to quote Carl Sagan: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Imagine if they said that to Einstein back in 1910's
And his extraordinary claims were met with extraordinary evidence backing it up.

Not until first observations were made
Did you forget to read the rest of the several replies that already addressed the fact that SR and GR were not widely accepted until there was a pretty overwhelming amount of supporting evidence?

Re: 24 ns, is it that big of a deal?
« Reply #72 on: March 09, 2021, 09:48:14 AM »

Quote
  It's impossible to answer every single crackpot all the time

Yes, and it is a problem. How do you know that they are wrong?
To quote Christopher Hitchens: That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.

And to quote Carl Sagan: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Imagine if they said that to Einstein back in 1910's
And his extraordinary claims were met with extraordinary evidence backing it up.

Not until first observations were made
Did you forget to read the rest of the several replies that already addressed the fact that SR and GR were not widely accepted until there was a pretty overwhelming amount of supporting evidence?
I was talking about the 1910's. I just said that there wasn't "extraordinary" evidence in 1910's

But you are right about it not bieng accepted early
« Last Edit: March 09, 2021, 09:50:32 AM by Code-Beta1234 »

*

Stash

  • 7618
Re: 24 ns, is it that big of a deal?
« Reply #73 on: March 09, 2021, 09:55:30 AM »
Quote
  It's impossible to answer every single crackpot all the time

Yes, and it is a problem. How do you know that they are wrong?
To quote Christopher Hitchens: That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.

And to quote Carl Sagan: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Imagine if they said that to Einstein back in 1910's
And his extraordinary claims were met with extraordinary evidence backing it up.

Not until first observations were made
Did you forget to read the rest of the several replies that already addressed the fact that SR and GR were not widely accepted until there was a pretty overwhelming amount of supporting evidence?
I was talking about the 1910's. I just said that there wasn't "extraordinary" evidence in 1910's

Well that's just it. Einstein was initially met with extraordinary pushback because there wasn't extraordinary evidence available. Over time, through a tremendous amount of scrutiny and technological advancements that allowed for the actual testing, the winds began to shift.

And lots of people are still trying to upset the Einstein apple cart, as they should. I mean can you imagine the holy grail of being the guy/gal/team that kicks Relativity to the curb and comes up with a better paradigm? That's Nobel worthy shit and beyond.

*

boydster

  • Assistant to the Regional Manager
  • Planar Moderator
  • 16035
  • FREEDOIS IS ᗡIИIRG!
Re: 24 ns, is it that big of a deal?
« Reply #74 on: March 09, 2021, 09:57:24 AM »
Excellent. So I think we've arrived at a point now where it's safe to say, radical changes to the models people consider close to fundamental in physics are not simply changed on a whim, which is why when people have radically different "crackpot" ideas that seem to go against the very foundation of how we understand the universe to work, those ideas aren't immediately given the same credence as the theories and models and ideas that came before them and have stood up to the test of time. If those crackpot ideas start to amass evidence though, and they end up being better at explaining how something works than other competing theories, they become mainstream instead of crackpot. And that makes sense. That's the way it should work.