@DanielSank Nothing worse than trying to pry pricing information out of vendors without signing on for an unending torrent of spam for shit you don't care about, have never cared about, and will never, ever need.
@theDoctor unless you have something more substantial to say I'm going to put you on ignore so I can listen to the interesting conversation in the room
@dmclee: I am not suggesting I've solved anything -- I'm suggesting that science hasn't solved what it THINKS it has solved. IOW, everyone is a nutcase.
It's just noise that distracts from real work. If you want to be taken seriously it is incumbent on you to talk the language and show that you actually understand what you're talking about.
@DanielSank: There is a need, because I hear students yap all day long about how science says this as if they're hearing from some divine oracle spouting truth.
@theDoctor I find noise interesting. I'd like to understand the links between the diffusion equation, stochastic differential equations, the Lengevin equation, and path Integrals.
@dmclee: finding an accurate model of the universe IS real work. Science has made a very detached society -- a reflection of just how impartial and "objective" it is -- as if people were machines. Science currently medicates most major human emotions so patients can feel more comfortable, yet the problems get worse in the street.
@theDoctor What you're doing is navel-gazing. And it will remain so until you start to confront the astounding pile of data that existing science has already organized.
Sorry, I couldn't resist. It is my professional opinion, that half of the subatomic particles belong to a different singularity and should not be grouped together. That singularity is the source of all ANTI-particle elements.
@theDoctor It's not justa lot of numbers, it's a self-consistent framework that pulls together tens of thousands of independent measurements and explains them all in one package. That's what so many armchair philosophers don't even begin to have a clue about.
You haven't a clue how deep and broad the agreement is because you aren't even able to understand the questions when they are framed in terms of math as they must be.
The point, shoudl be obvious: present scientists are getting too self-absorbed and it leads to a type of inbreeding that is both dangerous and annoying...
The bit where science spins off technology is where it gets checked by people without a stake in the process itself. Every hipster with an ipod is vetting the solid-state physics that goes into designing the chips even though they wouldn't know a phonon from a phonograph.
I'm a doctor, I'm going to try to give you a referene. But everyone carries variegated tissue at the injection site -- a sign of low-level auto-immune reaction. Other injections leave no trace at all.
It is causing a massive problem. It's just that the methods for measureing the problem are part of the disease: needles.
I'm actually kind of irritated that your username involves the word "doctor". Did you earn that title? And if not, given your attitude about science, why assume it?
There is a person in my life with a chronic condition. One that had a 100% percent fatality rate in a couple of weeks in the early years of the twentieth century.
@yuggib This operator topology stuff is horribly confusing. On page 111 in Yosida, he seems to say that the topology of simple convergence on $L(X,Y)$ is called the strong topology. Then he says that gives the weak* dual when applied to $L(X,\Bbb R)$. He says that the topology of bounded convergence gives the uniform topology on $L(X,Y)$, but then calls $X'$ with the uniform topology the strong dual. What gives? The strong dual doesn't have the strong topology?
I have put forth numerous problems to doctors that they admit they have not much idea of the cause or the cure, yet they "practice" it on people daily, medicating the human condition into deeper pathologies.
You think they are stupid. You are not able to rebut them, you resort to insult.
Myself, I had to go to immense personal turmoil to understand things that no doctor or scientist can answer. The problem is that everyone has already been "converted". They don't want to listen anymore.
No, I wasn't referring to a subset of doctors, I was referring to the whole philosophy of Western Medicine as held by the AMA.
@theDoctor I resorted to calling your ideas stupid because that's what I think. There's not enough substance to what you're saying to actually have a constructive discourse.
People put enormous faith in doctors because they seem to perform the miracuous, yet there is a limit to how much faith you should put into it, just like most anything else.
There is plenty of substance. I've made several controversial claims that are provable (or falsifyable if you prefer).
@ACuriousMind It's as if a lot of phenomenon in reality can be approximated by computable processes. Wish one day we cna found out why they work. I suspect there might be some underlying 'symmetry' involved in the natural phenomenon that we are not certain yet
@DanielSank: i gave assertions, not ideas, first of all, secondly, they are not poorly formed. We simply don't have a way on this forum to resolve them. Don't degrade yourself by overgeneralization.
@theDoctor false. The only claims you made were about the site of polio vaccine injection and about widespread problems caused by lingering effects following the injection, neither of which you backed up.
The problems with widespread nedle-vaccinations, as far as I can see, are a slow, but continual degradation of human society. It's the frog that dies from a slow boil phenomenon --it happens gradually that everyone adapts as they go. Massacres from high school students? No big deal.
right, we got off track. Medicine just happens to be the most glaring (when you know how to look).
So, the relativistic model has been highly regarded for 100 years, yet has it gotten us anything but PhDs?
I think it's high regard is actually a social science phenomenon: people don't understand it.
So they attribute more to it than actually is meritorious.
There are serious, looming problems on the horizon that relativity cannot solve, but reaching out to kids and community members with science could help solve.
Medicine is the most serious problem though, and I would love to go into detail about it, but don't wish to do so if everyone wants to talk about particle physics.
@ocelo7: Sorry if you felt too overwhelmed. LOL
You know I've witness a serious issue when discussing things amongst the science-of-the-century devotees -- they tend to leave in anger (or something like anger) when they get to a point they cannot give a reasonable and quick objection. It's a type of social science problem. I'm not complaining.
Do they correct for relativity, to do positioning?
Speaking of chaos: How can they possibly launch umpteen satellites with 3 degrees of freedom with a precision that avoids the n-body problem and butterly effect?
What is their reference frame to know the velocity on 3-separate axiis?
Roughly speaking, yes. I find it fascinating that you're comfortable speaking the failures of relativity yet you seem to know nothing about it's practical success.
\it's not that i know nothing, btw. You went to another extreme. I just didn't ever verify for myself that relativistic corrections were being done to give precision.
Good. Now consider that just maybe you actually know so little about the stuff you're commenting on that you'll find yourself conceding more and more if you actually pay attention :-)
I don't want to suggest that they should fail. I'm not being a doomsayer. I think GPS could lead to some very useful applications. It's just that right now, they seem to be used to keep cities abyssmally poorly engineered.
The equations of relativity are published, as are the equations for how satellites orbit (Newton published them, and if you want me accuracy you use relativity).
@theDoctor I'm sure they are. It's all just applied Newtonian mechanics and relativity anyway so you can work it out yourself.
I find it suspicious that they call working with superconductance "quantum mechanics" as if anything that can't be explained by the general einstein-newtonian model is lumped into the bin called something exceedingly vague "quantum mechanics". Hey it's got a Q in it!
I'm talking about how people willl dodge difficult questions, by lobbing it into a vague, poorly understood term and then walking away as if they've explained somthing. Psychiatry does it all the time.
I suppose the various religious studies are neither arts nor science (natural or social) but I might be wrong since philosophy is considered a precursor of natural science (and it is sometimes classified in arts in some institutes), and religion is just a subset of it
I think the more likely answer are things like business management and other non economics non finance commerce subjects, things like career training, leadership programs and so on. O and don't forget administration things, as well survival skills and sports
Really? But there are many ways to communicate information. I expect that you're writing in a style that the orthodoxy has approved of, which is to say (for relevance to my point) in a fashion that does not make you look sloppy or a crackpot.l
