Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
ShadeZeRO

The 10th Dimension

Recommended Posts

It reminds me of the situation in Physics a few years ago where the alchemists within the field had postulated a plethora of different particles (the area has been cleaned up a lot since then). Or these boobs that get on TV and try to tell us what the universe was like a nanosecond after the big bang (still theory), a millisecond after the big bang ... heck, they don't even know where their kids are at 10 o'clock at night ...

 

'The proof of the pudding is in the eating'. Within a few years of the discovery of the electron, the discovery was put to practical use. Until you see these theories result in practical application, just chuckle ... or ROFL ...

 

call me crazy but i understand the whole 10th dimension explanation video thingie better than the quote above rofl

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I suppose the idea of DNA being the genetic material was "ROFL" too for the... what was it... ONE HUNDRED YEARS BEFORE IT WAS PUT TO USE? Okay okay, it was more like 50 but still...

 

That attitude is pretty sad Spinny... pretty damn sad.

 

I suppose the thought that the fact that the electron was discovered about 70 years AFTER the first electric motor was made really helps your blanket argument out.

 

I also suppose that the discovery of thermodynamics in the 1800's was instrumental in the first recorded steam device, the aeolipile, that was invented by Hero of Alexandria in the 1st century AD(wiki).

 

I also suppose we should laugh at everything Spinny, my boy, because we never really know when something will be useful or not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest thespin

Funny stuff, Thraxz.

 

You are reversing what I said about theory and practical application. You are saying that there are applications where more fundamental explanations of how they work are discovered later. I am saying when these more fundamental discoveries are made, they DIRECTLY RESULT in new applications based DIRECTLY on this knowledege in a relarively short time - else I am suggesting the theory is suspect - ESPECIALLY when they make outrageous claims like the string theorists do.

 

For instance this new 'theory of everything' is supposed to be the fundamental explanation for all physical phenomenon. And as for the guys that get on TV and describe what the universe was like a nanosecond after the Big Bang, well ....

 

I would have to exclude biological processes from my rant since this field of study develops in its own unique way.

 

But in my own field, Physics, I am so tired of bull crap and sheer speculation passed off as hard science by charlatans and media darlings ... I confess it makes me very cynical ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I have found that it is more fun explaining string theory to random people (you start with one person and wind up having a group of people surrounding you with a vacant smile on their faces) than arguing the fine points of it because, as with any theory, you can poke holes through it.

 

I often use the idea of flight along side this, where it was mathmaticaly proven but no one belived it until it was actualy done.

 

@thespin, What do you mean by "practical application"? the use of the theory in an application or the direct use of the theory (shifting through dementions and folding time)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You are reversing what I said about theory and practical application. You are saying that there are applications where more fundamental explanations of how they work are discovered later. I am saying when these more fundamental discoveries are made, they DIRECTLY RESULT in new applications based DIRECTLY on this knowledege in a relarively short time - else I am suggesting the theory is suspect - ESPECIALLY when they make outrageous claims like the string theorists do.

 

For instance this new 'theory of everything' is supposed to be the fundamental explanation for all physical phenomenon. And as for the guys that get on TV and describe what the universe was like a nanosecond after the Big Bang, well ....

 

They aren't that terribly outrageous... I don't see you screaming about the same thing with quantum physics that allowed us to push further back than classical ever let us (IE: unifying electric and magnetic forces into electromagnetism). Though I agree until they come up with some evidence of strings it's pretty much wishful thinking. I mean, they are working with what they have at the moment and trying to observe a graviton leave this universe since that's the force that supposedly isn't bound to THIS universe. To go so far as to call them charlatans is out of line and is the same as calling Watson an idiot for not believing that the tetranucleotide model wasn't right and that we should look in new directions. They just had yet to prove it, just like the 'stringers'. It'd also be the same as calling the scientific method of deriving a formula to describe the results and then testing them for correctness(IE all of early astronomy... all of Newton's laws) worthless.

 

I realize that today's science is now more or less driven by collecting info and then letting the results direct the theory (so, in essence, your theory is evidenced before you're even making it) but there was a time when that was considered dumb and unscientific... it even lingered up through the human genome project before finally broken and put aside in the face of that things like computers and automated equipment made info easier to gather than to formulate hypothesis/theory. Lets not fall into the same mistake the Old Guard did.

 

And... I brought up your little comment about and set backwards to show the ridiculousness of what you were saying.

 

 

I would have to exclude biological processes from my rant since this field of study develops in its own unique way.

 

But in my own field, Physics, I am so tired of bull crap and sheer speculation passed off as hard science by charlatans and media darlings ... I confess it makes me very cynical ...

 

Actually, the biological field is probably CLOSER to what you saying than anything else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest thespin
I don't see you screaming about the same thing with quantum physics that allowed us to push further back than classical ever let us (IE: unifying electric and magnetic forces into electromagnetism)
Actually, electric and magnetic forces were unified by Maxwell's classical equations.

 

.... To go so far as to call them charlatans is out of line ... They just had yet to prove it, just like the 'stringers'. It'd also be the same as calling the scientific method of deriving a formula to describe the results and then testing them for correctness(IE all of early astronomy... all of Newton's laws) worthless.)
Any scientist that goes outside the scientific community and presents very nascent theories to the general public who are unschooled in discerning the status of such theories deserves the pejorative ...

 

I realize that today's science is now more or less driven by collecting info and then letting the results direct the theory (so, in essence, your theory is evidenced before you're even making it) but there was a time when that was considered dumb and unscientific... it even lingered up through the human genome project before finally broken and put aside in the face of that things like computers and automated equipment made info easier to gather than to formulate hypothesis/theory. Lets not fall into the same mistake the Old Guard did..
The scientific method is as old as science itself though it has been refined over time. And it is still the accepted method of scientific investigation today (I am not sure what you are asserting above).

 

And... I brought up your little comment about and set backwards to show the ridiculousness of what you were saying.
Well, your method in this case fails ...

 

Actually, the biological field is probably CLOSER to what you saying than anything else.
:) I see that your method is to be a contrarian ... and so fails ... though the theory called evolution is full of wishful thinking not facts or logical conclusions ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ummm, I suppose that was worded a bit vaguely/poorly and you misunderstood... because that's what I just said. The weak and electromagnetic forces have been further unified with quantum theory. Quantum theorists also were ridiculed for threatening existing ideas, even by very bright minds... Einstein among them.

 

I really like the sudden shift to what I call 'High English' to support a failing position. (Similar to so many positions before, some of which I've already described.)

 

Another thing you're trying to attack about it when it's only a misunderstanding. I suppose I should clarify by saying that it probably should have read "methodology" rather than just "method". You should also note that I did not capitalize it since I wasn't talking about the Scientific Method.

 

When did we start talking about Evolution? I won't discuss that at all online people are too fiery about it.

 

However, my method totally debunked yours.

 

You claimed that the electron immediately yielded results after it's discovery. Wrong, it was actually discovered 50 years AFTER it was in use. I then went a step further as to show two other major cases where the discovery didn't lend itself immediately to results as you so claimed: One was in use a few THOUSAND years before its 'discovery' (thermodynamics/some classical physics) and the other waiting 50+ years before becoming 'useful.'

 

 

Actually, electric and magnetic forces were unified by Maxwell's classical equations.

 

Any scientist that goes outside the scientific community and presents very nascent theories to the general public who are unschooled in discerning the status of such theories deserves the pejorative ...

 

The scientific method is as old as science itself though it has been refined over time. And it is still the accepted method of scientific investigation today (I am not sure what you are asserting above).

 

Well, your method in this case fails ...

 

:) I see that your method is to be a contrarian ... and so fails ... though the theory called evolution is full of wishful thinking not facts or logical conclusions ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest RohypnoL

Kay, nevermind. I just watched the video again and I totally understand it now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...