lesliedellow
Member
- Sep 20, 2010
- 9,654
- 2,582
- Faith
- Calvinist
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- UK-Liberal-Democrats
You seem to use "acceptable" as a synonym for "useful".
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
I rather doubt the word 'universally'. It is most acceptable and reliable - as much modern electronic equipment attest - but is reasonably ignored in terms of astronomical observations and measurements.
By the same token, General Relativity is both acceptable and reliable in the macrocosm, but not so valuable in the microcosm. So General Relativity is not 'universally' accepted in the same manner.
Correct.
I am looking eagerly to the time when the reconciliation is accomplished.
Humpf. So it would seem. I base this on the observation that a scientist, theoretician, engineer or technician who finds something 'acceptable' also 'uses' it.You seem to use "acceptable" as a synonym for "useful".
Humpf. So it would seem. I base this on the observation that a scientist, theoretician, engineer or technician who finds something 'acceptable' also 'uses' it.
Or maybe not. Both QM and GR are not useful or useable in certain conditions.
Now I'm somewhat confused. But I'm used to it.
Fair enough.A theoretical physicist would have no problen accepting that QM and Relativity are applicable to the world of double decker buses and electric fires, but he would be highly unlikely to regard them as useful in that situation, because it would be using a sledge hammer to crack open an egg shell.
It is not wrong. Quantum Mechanics is universally applicable, but since vectors in infinite dimensional Hilbert Space are not something encountered in every high school cirriculum, Newtonian mechanicsis used wherever possible, because it is simpler and more convenient.
That is arrant nonsense. It is not exactly a secret that General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics are incompatible. They cannot both be right, and they are almost certainly both wrong. Like Newtonian Mechanics before them, they are approximations to the truth.
'It is not wrong. Quantum Mechanics is universally applicable, but since vectors in infinite dimensional Hilbert Space are not something encountered in every high school cirriculum, Newtonian mechanicsis used wherever possible, because it is simpler and more convenient.'
That has to be a joke. 'wherever possible' are the operative words? Understanding the atomic and subatomic world is not possible via the classical mechanistic paradigm. Period.
When I said QM is the most (successfuly) tested theory ever, and that modern industry relies on to a vey large extent, I was not making it up. You only seem capable of linear, mechanistic thinking, which is fine for building Meccano or Lego models but not for understanding the quantum world. For goodness sake wise up by reading the synthesis - no you can't countenance anything non-linear and mechanistic. We'll have to leave it at that.
Even if it is the case that consciousness cannot be accounted for in terms of energy and matter, that still does not excuse the nonsense which gets talked about quantum mechanics. Newtonian mechanics gets used for the very good reason that is an excellent approximation to quantum mechanics in the everyday world, and the mathematics is a whole lot simpler.
You've said more than once that use of the Newtonian mechanistic in preference to QM was just a matter of convenience, and besides, QM would be an inappropriate subject in school-books !I cann [post recall anybody saying otherwise.
What you do not seem to be aware of, is that the more deeply physicsts have penetrated matter, the higher the wall of paradoxes they face has become. And why would that not be so, since it appears to have reached the mysterious interface between matter and the Spirit of God, its Creator.
I've read more than once the question raised : 'Have we come to the end of physics' - which might go someway towards explaining why those atheists who have so risibly postured as the hard-headed, super-rational paragons of scientific thought, now want us to believe in 'many worlds' and a multiworld, etc - all pure conjecture to 'prevent God's foot in the door', as atheist, evolutionary biologist and genetecist, Richard Lewontin so ingenuously admitted should, be their (atheist scientists)' top priority, even over reason and logic.
You've said more than once that use of the Newtonian mechanistic in preference to QM was just a matter of convenience, and besides, QM would be an inappropriate subject in school-books !
and QM is not used to get people to the Moon.
'Without quantum mechanics there would be no transistor, and hence no personal computer; no laser,..'
Shows what you know. Or, rather, don't.'
Implications of Quantum Mechanics
That's rather childish; I think we all know what he meant.'Without quantum mechanics there would be no transistor, and hence no personal computer; no laser,..'
Shows what you know. Or, rather, don't.'
Implications of Quantum Mechanics
Crap. Nowhere did I say that QM wasn't applicable at the atomic scale, except in your febrile imagination. In fact, I have been insisting that it is applicable at all scales. It just isn't useful at all of them.
That's rather childish; I think we all know what he meant.
What is this, a trick question? I should think that if I were driving my car at the speed of light, I and the car would be annihilated
You would need to get your tires retreaded quick every few miles! Then you'd need force field to prevent disintegration via atmospheric friction or drive in a vacuum. Special lubricant for the pistons and other parts lest they immediately crumble from the unusual stress.
Or just simply assume its just a hypothetical and dispense with all the troublesome amenities.
According to, some of the people other people think are smart, light is only constant in a vacuum. Moving through different mediums can slow it down. I remember a paper where the speed of light was slowed down to, like, 5 miles per hour? Which raises all kinds of questions because allegedly the speed of light was the result of Maxwell's Field Equations precluding a static light wave. So Einstein's relativity came into play making the speed of light uncatchable (due to time dilation) because if you could catch up to it, you could look over at it and that would constitute a relative static light wave, which can't exist. Presto chango, relativity. So my question was, when they slowed light to a walking speed, how did you not introduce a relatively static light wave?
But then, what is a vacuum? I read that a true vacuum doesn't exist (at least, not naturally) and so that should mean, what? Light isn't naturally constant? There's no such a thing in nature as a constant speed of light. To make matters worse, I remember a paper just a year or so ago in which even in a vacuum light doesn't appear to be constant. Something about twisting a planar wave into a wave front.
In the end, I'm confident nobody knows anything. It's just a bunch of imaginary conjecture.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?