Rick common sense is what most people need but when you talk about theorilogical physics well it is a bit more complicated than what you are talking about. I think at that point it is more faith orreintated than anything. Since I don't know much about physics I will say that my comment might be out of line but that goes to as far as I understand. I could be wrong.
On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 11:34 AM, socratus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Comment by Rick. > > Well you know there are some serious problems with the standard > model. > > And well high energy particle physics has been the big budget > backbone of physics, and yet the type of physics they engage in, > is not the type of physics you see in the every day world. > It just doesn't apply to anything other than supercolliders. > > Giant electro-magnets essentially. It is the physics of giant > electro- > magnets and so it knows nothing about mass, and everything about > what happens in a giant electro-magnet. > > Now the problem arises when you take what you have done in a giant > electro-magnet and try to say that this is how the universe works. > No, > this is how a giant electro-magnet works. > > And so then you see people spend hundreds and hundreds of billions of > dollars trying to make a fusion reactor, based on information from a > giant electro-magnet. And all attempts have failed. Not only that, > but > the recommendations made have been, look, first go back and learn how > things work, because clearly you have not got a clue what you are > doing, or how atoms work at all, so before you spend another hundred > billion dollars on yet another project which shows zero results, > perhaps you had better learn some real physics. > > And that true, because you see you can do experiment after experiment > and get absolutely nowhere, if your theory is wrong in the first > place. You will just look for results that match your hypothesis, and > you will make erroneous conclusions, and you will make further > erroneous assumptions, and none of it will be accurate, and none of > it will lead to any useful predictions. > > You know its clear to me, that either the people at the LHC do not > know much about atoms, or they are merely playing Devil's Advocate, > because they are claiming that they will be sending mass or matter > around the collider at almost the speed of light, and special > relativity says that to say that you can do that means you know > nothing much about physics at all. > > So then when they send em waves around there they call those > particles, and when they send em waves around there they can just > make > up whatever they want and they just say well energy is the same as > mass. > But E=mc2 is not about em waves it is F=ma > See how it is just renamed? Isn't a cute trick to rename old formulas > and everyone will think you are amazing? > Like Newton renamed F=ma to w=mg same thing again. > So energy equals mass times the speed of light but it is not electro- > magnetic energy, it is force. Kinetic energy. > Much of physics is about renaming things in a confusing manner in > order to make yourself famous. > To answer your question about what is the intellect, there is a > technical answer such as that your capacity depends on your computers > capacity and your software (your brain and your capacity to reason), > but there is another answer and that is that intellect is uncommon, > common sense. > > Rick. > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Epistemology" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
