Discuss Science, Alternative Science and Suppressed Research.
31 Jul 2014, 20:58
When I did physics it included optics, electronics, statics and kinematics, quite a few other things. I think electronics and computing devices are held to be an application of physics. So....
01 Aug 2014, 13:15
How is a computer and Moore's Law 'sheer propaganda'? What you are saying is an epistemological and phenomenonological absurdity -- you are saying today's computers and hard drives etc don't exist. Or mobile phones or indeed copper wire telephones. Or plastics and a range of other new materials and alloys etc.
Or else you are in the bunfight about what's engineering and what's physics, which is a bit of a turf war thing amongst the cognoscenti.
Or else you are referring to 'the new physics' like it's 'the new English teaching method' or 'the new maths teaching method' that is not very good etc. i.e. that relativity is unproven as a single branch of physics -- which goes back to the early 1900s in fact when Einstein was publishing.
At the same time we had quantum theory being published, which seems to be pretty factual according to all the evidence, e.g. NMR and fluorescent tubes wouldn't work if quantum physics was wrong.
Similarly more research is being done into sub atomic particles, wave-matter duality, etc. Then there is the discovery or explanatory tool of 'dark matter' in space to be worked out in much more detail. Studies of the age of the universe. Carbon dating methods. All these things come under the banner of physics rather than any other discipline. They're not chemistry or biology etc.
And the last option is you're trolling a bit and maybe not a genuine poster.
You would have a better time of things if you started a topic called "Nothing useful has come out of 'neo-classical economics'" because you could mount some convincing evidence of that -- also an area where I happen to have some expertise...
01 Aug 2014, 15:51
What does the name 'Enrisdynsamough' mean? it doesn't match anything on the web and is not a full anagram of anything either.
I studied both physics and engineering at university. To some extent physics is technology and technology is physics. I think we need a definition of 'physics' and 'modern physics' to work from if you're going to critique it, as we're not clear what you're attempting to critique. There are also many branches including the study of radioactivity and so on that has lead to things like CAT, NMR, MRI and so on. This is generally all under the rubric of physics. Then the invention of vacuum tube transistors followed by silicon transistors, and communication media like wire and fibre optic etc etc. Physics has a lot to do with the properties of materials. It crosses over into engineering and technology a lot, but engineers all study physics as part of their courses.
Certainly there's a lot of rubbishy pop science journalism articles out there talking about medical breakthroughs and science breakthroughs that 'one day will lead to X' whether it's a cure for cancer or faster than light travel, usually on the strength of a very minor discovery. These stories are usually beat ups and wishful thinking to excite the public's imagination and build up something of the discourse of the wonders of science or medical research, so I would agree with you in part there.
Oh, the invention of nuclear weapons and nuclear power would also come under physics research, while I think of it. Even power generation and the study of electromagnetics was originally physics, kind of overtaken by electrical engineering in practice. A lot of what engineers and technologists and technicians do originated in what would be called physics research. Then there is astrophysics, etc etc. Clearly we need a definition of physics here, but to be honest I can't be assed even screen scraping one from anywhere....
04 Aug 2014, 19:44
NASA Scientists Claim "Impossible" Space Travel Engine Could Actually Workhttp://www.iflscience.com/technology/na ... ually-work
altho something of a perpetual motion machine or summat, who knows what this thing can do? the real application is not a space travel engine but pushing satellites around in space using solar power rather than using traditional consumable rocket fuels, clearly. once again, the media spin headline is more sensational than the reality.
06 Aug 2014, 14:21
Your writing style, grammar, spelling, evidence-based argumentation, listening skills, and exposition of ideas are nothing short of amazing, Enrisdynsamough. I would really like to continue this discussion in exactly this vein with you for, I don't know, ad infinitum, but unfortunately more pressing tasks draw me away.
13 Aug 2014, 08:56
Take as much time as you need. : )
16 Aug 2014, 21:33
There is an interesting theory that Einstein was some kind of plagiarist -- how did a guy working as a clerk in a patent office come up with or synthesise the theories of general and special relativity where full time brilliant theoreticians with their well equipped physics labs couldn't, and so on. Einstein simply took Maxwell's equations and simplified them by setting the speed of light constant at c, whereupon some terms cancelled out and he was left with e=mc2. His paper has few or no references to others' work although it clearly draws from it. Some corollaries to that is that theory of distending time and space and mass to 0 or infinity depending upon speed relative to c and gravity curving light etc are unproven, and that an early attempt to measure light bending around the sun due to its gravity was quite fraudulent in its data gathering, and therefore nothing has been proved. I find it interesting that Einstein just 'gave' a refrigerator design to a struggling friend that he had supposedly devised, which used ammonia as a refrigerant, although you wouldn't do it now due to its toxicity. I find it a little odd and unlikely that he was across all these areas by himself with no training -- thermodynamics, refrigerants, and special relativity -- I wonder whether the fridge idea was borrowed from something he'd seen in the patent office. There are certainly engineering geniuses around who know a lot about a lot of things -- based on learning from all the discoveries that have gone before -- but was Einstein one of them?
17 Aug 2014, 05:59
There seems to be a strange mixture of logic and illogic in your posts and thinking. I think you'll find that a nuclear weapon, just like other ordnance, can be set off anywhere at any time, based on the simple physics of the device, just as nuclear power stations will work anywhere. (They usually situate them near water supplies, however, which is often also a seismic fault line. Go figure.)
I have fitted a fluoride filter at home lately and take in 10l containers of that water to work. I would be consuming a very small fraction of the 1 ppm that's put in the water supply. However, natural water supplies also often have dissolved fluoride, up to 8ppm in some parts of China, which causes noticeable SF and lowered IQ.
'Modern physics', however you define modernity -- e.g. starting in the last 150 years or so -- includes foundational research and discovery in electromagnetism which has given us power generation and electric lights (of all kinds), wifi, computers, all other circuits, etc etc. My university physics course included a grounding in statics and kinematics, optics, nuclear physics, relativity, electronics and electrical theory, and astronomy or astrophysics. This is essentially what physics is. The technology applications are in power, thermodynamics, civil engineering, marine engineering, all ICT -- computing, electronics and wired and wireless telecommunications, etc. Without Maxwell's investigations into electromagnetics, the advances of the 20th century would not have been possible.
Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group.
phpBB Mobile / SEO by Artodia.