Post by Tom RobertsPost by PainiusThe physics community cannot seem to come up with
any sound quantum gravity theory, nor can they get
up off their dead asses long enough to come up with
an improvement on the uncertainty principle.
Hmmm. I have no idea what an "improvement" on the uncertainty principle
would look like. Certainly the uncertainty principle itself is on solid
ground, as a rigorous relationship of Fourier transforms/integrals.
Oh, the UP is on solid ground, all right. It's just a
lazy scientists' tool used to explain away anything
that can't yet be understood. Hmm? Well, how
about the usage in cosmology where it is the UP
that accounts for a "disturbance in the continuum"
that eventually led to the Big Bang? Then there's
also how the UP calls for a continuous manufacture
of particle pairs to comprise quantum foam. This
lazy list is fast becoming endless.
So a good first improvement might be for science
to, as i said above, get off its dead ass and find the
actual true and real answers to questions rather
than to lazily fall back upon the UP every five milli-
seconds.
And a good second improvement would be to rid
science once and for all of such an unscientific
"principle". There is nothing more unscientific
than a natural principle that is rooted in uncertainty.
What happened to the good ol' days when those who
worked in science weren't ever even remotely happy
until they were pretty much "certain" about any given
reality?
If certainty seems impossible, then it's time to get
back to the ol' drawing board, as it were. It's never
time to fabricate and facilitate a so-called natural
principle that is nothing more than a lazy person's
impromptu abomination to science!
Post by Tom RobertsQuantum gravity is HARD. But you don't seem to understand what that
means....
So Tom, is it your sincere desire to help me learn that
holds you back?
Post by Tom RobertsPost by PainiusAnd
cosmology with their godlike BB bulloney fares not
much better. Is it any wonder that scientists have not
found anything to reconcile relativity and quantum
theory?
It's easy to thumb your nose. Actually CONTRIBUTING to physics is very
much more difficult.
There is a valid place for both, isn't there? While i love
science very much, i'm not a scientist. I don't have the
detailed mind for it. And it's my love for science that
drives me to thumb my nose on some issues. For example,
i consider it unconscionable that physics possesses two
great and useful theories such as relativity and quantum
theory, and after many many years and even now here in
the 21st century, physicists seems no closer to reconciling
the two ideas than they were over sixty years ago.
Why do YOU think that is, Tom?
Post by Tom RobertsPost by PainiusBecause the physics community thinks that so-called
"ether theories" are both uninteresting and useless,
it is paradigmly strapped with both uninteresting and
useless irreconcilable cul-de-sacs. And such will be
the case for many years to come. Just because of the
very thoughts you advocate here.
So you have a channel to some God that told you "ether is it"?
Nope, but since the present dead ends are getting science
nowhere, i think that Einstein's non-material aether ought
to be pursued.
Post by Tom RobertsPost by PainiusIf you're right, you're right, but whether or not you
are correct, there's no room for arrogance in science.
Such as your unsupported innuendos and insults above.
Nice try, Tom. Let me see if i've got this right... i see
you arrogantly putting somebody down as if they were
less than shit. I call you on it, then you try to turn it
around and make me look like the bad guy. No surprise,
i suppose. It's unlikely that you can see through yourself
as well as i'm certain everybody else does.
Post by Tom RobertsPost by PainiusNot a single ether theory even hints at how it might
apply to quantum mechanics, and yet particle phys.
jump easily onto an uncertainty principle bandwagon!
Not a "bandwagon", but a mathematical derivation. I'm not claiming that
all of QM and QFT is rigorous (:-), but the uncertainty principle itself
is quite solid, given its antecedents. You seem to be focusing one one
quite limited aspect of quantum mechanics, without any concept of the
whole picture. That's unlikely to be useful....
Tom Roberts
Many years ago, science developed several applications
for electricity, lighting for houses, toasters, stoves and
ovens, etc., without actually having any clue about how
or why electricity worked. Scientists worked long and
hard to figure out that thing called electricity. And now,
we all can know pretty much all we want to know about
this pretty awesome phenomenon, thanks to science.
Quantum mechanics is pretty much in a basic state now.
There are many things we use right now that we owe to
quantum theory. But instead of particle physicists
busting butt to understand and explain the details about
it, one of the first things they come up with is a "natural
principle" that allows for enough uncertainty so as to
cloud nearly every issue. Rather than working long and
hard to figure out how to get the real and true picture,
now all they have to do is blame the UP and go play golf.
Sorry, Tom, but that sucks even more than gravity does!
Lose the UP and kick some theoretical ass!
THAT'S what science's benefactors are paying for. Not
nebulous uncertainty-principle applications. Real science.
happy days and...
starry starry nights!
--
Indelibly yours,
Paine
P.S. Thank YOU for reading!
P.P.S. (shh) Some secret sites...
http://painellsworth.net
http://savethechildren.org
http://eBook-eDen.secretsgolden.com