Understanding electromagnetism

[colubridae]

And don’t forget the best he will ever do is find evidence to support his ‘stuff’. it will never be proved.=

if you are a scientist you should know better than to make such a statement.

Now that is interesting.

Why is that? What have I said that is wrong?

[lpetrich]

Some good stuff there, Brain-man. Your take on the situation is more or less correct. I give coherent descriptions which make sense and are backed up with sound logic and references to the likes of Einstein and Maxwell along with scientific evidence.

In your estimation, maybe, but not in the estimation of various others here.

Furthermore, literary interpretation is not a very good way to do scientific research.

But my detractors are unable to show where the errors are, and instead they bluster and retreat behind mathematics and abuse.

Farsight, you keep on dismissing mathematics. Why?

They are dismissive for no good reason, and this is reflected in the difficulty that professional physicists have in getting a novel or challenging paper into a journal.

Journal editors are orthodox oxen, right?

Also, just because an idea is "novel" and "challenging" does not mean that it is right. I think that a lot of professional scientists think that they have better things to do than wade through a lot of theorizing that is riddled with errors.

[lpetrich]

People in biosciences working with physics reconstituted in the complexity of organic material need intuitive models which attempt to integrate all aspects and leave no stone unturned.

What do they supposedly want? Nice mental pictures for nonexperts? That does not justify pushing theories that do not account for known physics.

[colubridae]

And don’t forget the best he will ever do is find evidence to support his ‘stuff’. it will never be proved.=

if you are a scientist you should know better than to make such a statement.

Now that is interesting.

Why is that? What have I said that is wrong?

No answer brainman? ok

I made that statement because it is true. It is basic science! it is the cornerstone of the scientific principle!.
It's science 101.

As a scientist it is second nature. It is instinctive! you cannot ever prove anything with science. All you can ever do is find supporting evidence or disprove. Period.
for all your bluster about neuroscience you still don't understand.

You are so busted...
This is the kind of support farsight gets.
If he is a genuine scientist he will now be cringing with embarrassment.

God bless you guys. You make his threads so funny.

[Brain Man]

And don’t forget the best he will ever do is find evidence to support his ‘stuff’. it will never be proved.=

if you are a scientist you should know better than to make such a statement.

Now that is interesting.

Why is that? What have I said that is wrong?

No answer brainman? ok

I made that statement because it is true. It is basic science! it is the cornerstone of the scientific principle!.
It's science 101.

As a scientist it is second nature. It is instinctive! you cannot ever prove anything with science. All you can ever do is find supporting evidence or disprove. Period.
for all your bluster about neuroscience you still don't understand.

You are so busted...
This is the kind of support farsight gets.
If he is a genuine scientist he will now be cringing with embarrassment.

God bless you guys. You make his threads so funny.

Dont know why you are rolling over, when its you thats caused confusion. i.e. We are all aware and well trained since we begin in science Karl poppers position on proof never being complete, so that statement would not be expected in such an obvious context. You fail to mention that there are considered levels of proof at which a hypothesis is granted the status of becoming a theory.

Rather given the context of this debate it would appear that you are trying to say something entirely different, i.e. Nobody will take him seriously enough to assist him to prove or he is so amateur he will never be able to produce any attempt at proof at all.

What is amazing is that you are so completely convinced i do not work in science, have any training or status because i like the general gist of farsights work. Yet you never concede we have a problem in science, no matter how much information you are given.

Ive stated my position, the reason for it. Realizing from information coming from many higher levels in science saying we have a problem...i.e. Lack of creative integration across a fragmented tower of babel basically. So to remedy this i am now very open to theorists that would normally be rejected and are playing in the sidelines, and lack qualifications. Not so open i believe anything they say, but at a less close minded level than yourself obviously.

[Brain Man]

I see nitpicking semantics..over the terms evidence and proof is your strategy this time to try and discredit.

In case you are not aware, not everybody in science constantly selects their language so precisely while acutally doing it., Maybe you spend too much time reading the final product served up in the press.

i.e. When studies are constructed the language "how do we prove this" is used more routinely than "where do we find evidence" Because when you discuss how do we prove something a broad range of strategies are thrown into the pool as a plural term, where as evidence is used more routinely as a term when talking about singular aspects of the study or discussing the final outcomes.

Really this just goes to show you obviously do not have any experience at all in carrying out any kind of study.

[Twiglet]

Brainman,

How exactly does theorising time is a property of space rather than an independent dimension help you model how perception works?

[colubridae]

And don’t forget the best he will ever do is find evidence to support his ‘stuff’. it will never be proved.=

if you are a scientist you should know better than to make such a statement.

Now that is interesting.

Why is that? What have I said that is wrong?

No answer brainman? ok

I made that statement because it is true. It is basic science! it is the cornerstone of the scientific principle!.
It's science 101.

As a scientist it is second nature. It is instinctive! you cannot ever prove anything with science. All you can ever do is find supporting evidence or disprove. Period.
for all your bluster about neuroscience you still don't understand.

You are so busted...
This is the kind of support farsight gets.
If he is a genuine scientist he will now be cringing with embarrassment.

God bless you guys. You make his threads so funny.

Dont know why you are rolling over, when its you thats caused confusion. i.e. We are all aware and well trained since we begin in science Karl poppers position on proof never being complete, so that statement would not be expected in such an obvious context. You fail to mention that there are considered levels of proof at which a hypothesis is granted the status of becoming a theory.

Rather given the context of this debate it would appear that you are trying to say something entirely different, i.e. Nobody will take him seriously enough to assist him to prove or he is so amateur he will never be able to produce any attempt at proof at all.

What is amazing is that you are so completely convinced i do not work in science, have any training or status because i like the general gist of farsights work. Yet you never concede we have a problem in science, no matter how much information you are given.

Ive stated my position, the reason for it. Realizing from information coming from many higher levels in science saying we have a problem...i.e. Lack of creative integration across a fragmented tower of babel basically. So to remedy this i am now very open to theorists that would normally be rejected and are playing in the sidelines, and lack qualifications. Not so open i believe anything they say, but at a less close minded level than yourself obviously.

Bollocks! squirm all you want. you still are still on record as saying the dumbest thing imaginable for a real scientist...

But once again, a nice wiki condensate.

Busted.

[Farsight]

Well said Brain Man.

Some good stuff there, Brain-man. Your take on the situation is more or less correct. I give coherent descriptions which make sense and are backed up with sound logic and references to the likes of Einstein and Maxwell along with scientific evidence.

In your estimation, maybe, but not in the estimation of various others here.

Only because they dismiss Einstein and Maxwell along with scientific evidence. Maxwell said what he said about vortexes and displacement current and the screw-mechanism. The electron is created via pair production, it has only one field, relative motion changes the way you feel this field, and the Einstein-de Haas effect does demonstrate that spin angular momentum is classical. The evidence is overwhelming, and "various others" here can't offer counter evidence or a counter argument. All they can offer is denial.

Furthermore, literary interpretation is not a very good way to do scientific research.

No but examining the evidence is, along with understanding what you're dealing with.

Farsight, you keep on dismissing mathematics. Why?

I don't dismiss mathematics. It's vital tool for physics. But you get somebody like ChildInAZoo who puts mathematics on a pedestal above scientific evidence, and uses it as smokescreen to try to obscure the scientific evidence that he cannot deal with.

Journal editors are orthodox oxen, right?

No, I didn't say that. They're just human. They're people like you who are so convinced that they're right that they are unreceptive to something that says they aren't.

Also, just because an idea is "novel" and "challenging" does not mean that it is right.

No, it doesn't.

I think that a lot of professional scientists think that they have better things to do than wade through a lot of theorizing that is riddled with errors.

Agreed. But the fact remains that a lot of professional scientists can't get their papers into a journal.

Now let's get back to electromagnetism.

[colubridae]

I would like to go on record as stating that should farsight obtain his nobel prize I will be the first to warmly congratulate him on his success.

I will also point out that should this happen I will modestly claim some reward for supporting him wholeheartedly, along with several other colleagues and dare I say it friends.

Until such time of course his ‘stuff’ is bollocks.

Ps farsight the plural of vortex is vortices.

[ChildInAZoo]

I don't dismiss mathematics. It's vital tool for physics. But you get somebody like ChildInAZoo who puts mathematics on a pedestal above scientific evidence, and uses it as smokescreen to try to obscure the scientific evidence that he cannot deal with.

More insults? I have tried to help you, and you have refused to answer my direct questions and instead insulted me? I fear that you are insulting mathematics and those who understand it because you cannot deal with the evidence. Please prove otherwise by answering the simply questions about your predictions.

[Brain Man]

Bollocks! squirm all you want. you still are still on record as saying the dumbest thing imaginable for a real scientist...

But once again, a nice wiki condensate.

Busted.

You obviously dont live in the real world of science. Ill tell u what happens here. Most people working in this field are practical. They want their work to convince. For all intents and purposes the idea is to prove your point. U can say what u like about Karl popper, but that is a dream which is paid lip service to at conference presentations, press, books and articles. Scientists set out to prove their theories by the null hypothesis in the stats section, but usually its by any other means possible. In an actual study, the pressure is high, stats keep getting sent back, errors and flaws found in methods. Deadlines accelerate as a result, you rush trying to rescue what you can.

Do you think in this kind of pressure people make statments like "how do we find converging lines of evidence to disprove the null hypothesis" ? No they use fast language such "does this prove that" or plainly "how can we prove that". Get somebody else on here that have been involved in pure dog work. Ask them about this, as you are obviously too paranoid to believe not just this but just about anything i am telling you,

and all because i like farsights work. Just shows how far gone from everyday working reality you are. We need stuff that works, if his ideas work, they can be used. Simple as that. If his concepts fit, fine, lets use them.. we will try them out, then see bout the details later.

[Twiglet]

You obviously dont live in the real world of science. Ill tell u what happens here. Most people working in this field are practical. They want their work to convince. For all intents and purposes the idea is to prove your point.

Scientists devise experiments to test their theories. That's part of the process. Of course people hope that new ideas will provide better more accurate predictions that older ones.

U can say what u like about Karl popper, but that is a dream which is paid lip service to at conference presentations, press, books and articles. Scientists set out to prove their theories by the null hypothesis in the stats section, but usually its by any other means possible. In an actual study, the pressure is high, stats keep getting sent back, errors and flaws found in methods. Deadlines accelerate as a result, you rush trying to rescue what you can.

Poppers philosophical musings about whether science describes "truth" were not even mentioned in my studies, and they don't impinge on lab work at all. People do experiments, measure results, and adjust theories accordingly. Big deal. Most scientists aren't concerned with absolute truth and many can't even be bothered with philosophical arguments which trail behind the science anyway. Philosophy rode hundreds of years of determinism. Now it's riding behind uncertainty. If science changes back to deterministic models, a new philosophy of science will follow.

Do you think in this kind of pressure people make statments like "how do we find converging lines of evidence to disprove the null hypothesis" ? No they use fast language such "does this prove that" or plainly "how can we prove that". Get somebody else on here that have been involved in pure dog work. Ask them about this, as you are obviously too paranoid to believe not just this but just about anything i am telling you,

Such as what? Sitting down with a computer looking for different types of collision at a particle accelerator? Data collection is critical to validating theories. It's also critical in a host of real-world situations like product development. So what's your point here? That scientists do the legwork as well as conceptualising new ideas. Whats that quote about genius ...99% persperation 1% inspiration....

and all because i like farsights work. Just shows how far gone from everyday working reality you are. We need stuff that works, if his ideas work, they can be used. Simple as that. If his concepts fit, fine, lets use them.. we will try them out, then see bout the details later.

Farsights ideas are mostly that time is a property of motion. His use of existing science to explain those ideas is about as credible as Intelligent Design. It's riddled with fundamental mistakes and misunderstanding of basic theory. That was apparant when he was unable to explain why c constitutes an absolute limit in special relativity. Never mind whether SR is right, farsight doesn't understand it even at a very basic level. Nor does he understand that magnestism is a relativistic effect of electron motion, or how Maxwells equations account that... he isn't even at an undergraduate level.

What he does do is conflate whether science is true with his own cut-and-paste of bits of science.

Now if you are fooled by that Brainman, I have my doubts about your involvement in the scientific community at any level. Then again, maybe if your job has been scripting programs, understanding transistors and logic gates or learning languages, then why would you know the first thing about relativity?

If farsight presented his ideas as just that: ideas, without appealing to credible science as if it supports those ideas when it blatantly doesn't - he would get a warmer reception. If you like the ideas, great, but if you want to call them scientific, that's another matter entirely.

[Farsight]

Farsights ideas are mostly that time is a property of motion. His use of existing science to explain those ideas is about as credible as Intelligent Design. It's riddled with fundamental mistakes and misunderstanding of basic theory.

But you can't point out what these "fundamental mistakes" are, or the "misunderstandings". Nor can you counter the scientific evidence. So who's on the side of Intelligent Design? Not me Twiglet. You.

That was apparant when he was unable to explain why c constitutes an absolute limit in special relativity. Never mind whether SR is right, farsight doesn't understand it even at a very basic level. Nor does he understand that magnestism is a relativistic effect of electron motion, or how Maxwells equations account that... he isn't even at an undergraduate level.

Baloney. And I can at least spell. The speed of light constitutes an absolute limit because we're essentially made of light. Pair production and annihilation along with low-energy proton-antiproton annihilation to neutral pions thence gamma photons is the evidence, along with electron spin angular momentum, magnetic dipole moment, the Einstein-de Haas effect. And I say in the OP that relative motion through an electromagnetic field results in what we call a magnetic field. You've got nothing to counter this, just dishonesty and denial.

What he does do is conflate whether science is true with his own cut-and-paste of bits of science. Now if you are fooled by that Brainman, I have my doubts about your involvement in the scientific community at any level. Then again, maybe if your job has been scripting programs, understanding transistors and logic gates or learning languages, then why would you know the first thing about relativity?

LOL. Talk about intellectual arrogance cloaking an intellectual vacuum.

If farsight presented his ideas as just that: ideas, without appealing to credible science as if it supports those ideas when it blatantly doesn't - he would get a warmer reception. If you like the ideas, great, but if you want to call them scientific, that's another matter entirely.

You've got nothing, Twiglet, nothing but bile.

[Farsight]

You obviously dont live in the real world of science. Ill tell u what happens here. Most people working in this field are practical. They want their work to convince. For all intents and purposes the idea is to prove your point. U can say what u like about Karl popper, but that is a dream which is paid lip service to at conference presentations, press, books and articles. Scientists set out to prove their theories by the null hypothesis in the stats section, but usually its by any other means possible. In an actual study, the pressure is high, stats keep getting sent back, errors and flaws found in methods. Deadlines accelerate as a result, you rush trying to rescue what you can.

Do you think in this kind of pressure people make statments like "how do we find converging lines of evidence to disprove the null hypothesis" ? No they use fast language such "does this prove that" or plainly "how can we prove that". Get somebody else on here that have been involved in pure dog work. Ask them about this, as you are obviously too paranoid to believe not just this but just about anything i am telling you,

and all because i like farsights work. Just shows how far gone from everyday working reality you are. We need stuff that works, if his ideas work, they can be used. Simple as that. If his concepts fit, fine, lets use them.. we will try them out, then see bout the details later.

Thanks Brain Man. But I'm afraid you're wasting your time talking to colubridae. He suffers from a rock-solid conviction that he's right, regardless of any scientific evidence. It's a common trait, and something of a human condition. It's called "The Psychology of Belief". Religious people suffer from it, along with ideologues. But sadly scientists are not immune. I'll post it up for a bit of fun.