Overclock.net › Forums › Industry News › Technology and Science News › [XT] Einstein's action at a distance: 10,000 times faster than light
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

[XT] Einstein's action at a distance: 10,000 times faster than light - Page 14

post #131 of 174
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wattser93 View Post

I truly hope you don't believe that it's the job of scientists to simply math for the general public to understand.

How do you explain calculus to a child in elementary school? You can't. The child must progress through math until they reach a point where Calculus can be understood.

If you want to learn Calculus, you must first understand the lower level math that it's comprised of. If you want to learn quantum physics, you must learn the math to support it.

If you want to complain about not understanding the concepts, you only have yourself to blame because you're the one that is ill prepared for the curricula.

See.. Here I was trying NOT to say this for 5 responses in this thread... lol.

Harsh but that is reality. Not everyone can grasp why these concepts work, because not everyone can get comfortable enough with high end calculus.
Nightrider
(17 items)
 
Commodore 64
(10 items)
 
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
3930k x79 gd45 PLUS GTX Titan Crucial Ballistix Sport VLP  
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveCooling
HyperX 3k Intel 320 Seagate Barracuda Swifttech H220 
CoolingCoolingOSOS
Swifttech 220QP Corsair SP120 Windows 8.1 Pro Windows 10 Pro 
OSOSMonitorMonitor
Windows 7 Home Ubuntu 15.4 QNIX 2710 Catleap 2B 
Keyboard
Ducky - Cherry MX Red 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
3570k DZ77GA - 70K GTX670-DC2-4GD5  MV-3V4G3D/US 
Hard DriveCoolingOSOS
HyperX 3k CM 212 + Win 7 64 ubuntu 
PowerCase
Seventeam 850w modular CS-NT-ZERO-2  
  hide details  
Reply
Nightrider
(17 items)
 
Commodore 64
(10 items)
 
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
3930k x79 gd45 PLUS GTX Titan Crucial Ballistix Sport VLP  
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveCooling
HyperX 3k Intel 320 Seagate Barracuda Swifttech H220 
CoolingCoolingOSOS
Swifttech 220QP Corsair SP120 Windows 8.1 Pro Windows 10 Pro 
OSOSMonitorMonitor
Windows 7 Home Ubuntu 15.4 QNIX 2710 Catleap 2B 
Keyboard
Ducky - Cherry MX Red 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
3570k DZ77GA - 70K GTX670-DC2-4GD5  MV-3V4G3D/US 
Hard DriveCoolingOSOS
HyperX 3k CM 212 + Win 7 64 ubuntu 
PowerCase
Seventeam 850w modular CS-NT-ZERO-2  
  hide details  
Reply
post #132 of 174
Quote:
Originally Posted by Avonosac View Post

See.. Here I was trying NOT to say this for 5 responses in this thread... lol.

Harsh but that is reality. Not everyone can grasp why these concepts work, because not everyone can get comfortable enough with high end calculus.

I was getting a bit angry while typing that post, and it may have come across harsh.

You can't say "I want the answer, but don't want to learn how to get it" and expect sympathetic responses.
 
Alienware 14
(9 items)
 
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7 4700mq Alienware Nvidia GTX765m 8GB 1600MHz 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
Samsung 840 500GB DVD Windows 8 14" 1080P IPS 
Power
150W 
  hide details  
Reply
 
Alienware 14
(9 items)
 
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7 4700mq Alienware Nvidia GTX765m 8GB 1600MHz 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
Samsung 840 500GB DVD Windows 8 14" 1080P IPS 
Power
150W 
  hide details  
Reply
post #133 of 174
I love the 'please explain in layman's terms the most complex science we have to date', heck I don't pretend to understand it, but the amazing thing about the scientific method is peer review... So people who are specialists in the field can try to disprove it or otherwise publish it. I think people who are skeptics of science need to understand the peer review process, and unless your a complete conspiracy theorist you would have to agree that its a pretty good process.
post #134 of 174
Peer review may ultimately be a good process, but that doesn't mean it can't get sidetracked into being a fantasy world popularity contest either (a bunch of people competing for money so they can keep promoting their own opinion).
post #135 of 174
Quote:
Originally Posted by blkdoutgsxr View Post

I love the 'please explain in layman's terms the most complex science we have to date', heck I don't pretend to understand it, but the amazing thing about the scientific method is peer review... So people who are specialists in the field can try to disprove it or otherwise publish it. I think people who are skeptics of science need to understand the peer review process, and unless your a complete conspiracy theorist you would have to agree that its a pretty good process.

It is not just the peer review that makes science great, it is the same fundamentals of proving* one building block at a time from math that makes it great. Each step is taken from the shoulders of those who aspired to know why before you. It is kind of poetic, when you really get down to it. Even if peoples pride might get in the way, science can admit it was wrong, because the whole process is the attempt to find out why *insert phenomena here* happens.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ILoveHighDPI View Post

Peer review may ultimately be a good process, but that doesn't mean it can't get sidetracked into being a fantasy world popularity contest either (a bunch of people competing for money so they can keep promoting their own opinion).

Yea, it is an idealist role, but you hope eventually stuff wins out. Einstein did, and they HATED that telegraph operator like no other. He is a great example too, since he spent his life post relativity and A-Bomb trying to prove Quantum Mechanics was crap. That is exactly why science is so awesome. He hit the nail on the proverbial head with relativity, but missed with QM but that didn't disprove his advancements for science.

*I say proving because it is in regards to math, obviously you don't prove anything with the scientific method.
Nightrider
(17 items)
 
Commodore 64
(10 items)
 
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
3930k x79 gd45 PLUS GTX Titan Crucial Ballistix Sport VLP  
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveCooling
HyperX 3k Intel 320 Seagate Barracuda Swifttech H220 
CoolingCoolingOSOS
Swifttech 220QP Corsair SP120 Windows 8.1 Pro Windows 10 Pro 
OSOSMonitorMonitor
Windows 7 Home Ubuntu 15.4 QNIX 2710 Catleap 2B 
Keyboard
Ducky - Cherry MX Red 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
3570k DZ77GA - 70K GTX670-DC2-4GD5  MV-3V4G3D/US 
Hard DriveCoolingOSOS
HyperX 3k CM 212 + Win 7 64 ubuntu 
PowerCase
Seventeam 850w modular CS-NT-ZERO-2  
  hide details  
Reply
Nightrider
(17 items)
 
Commodore 64
(10 items)
 
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
3930k x79 gd45 PLUS GTX Titan Crucial Ballistix Sport VLP  
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveCooling
HyperX 3k Intel 320 Seagate Barracuda Swifttech H220 
CoolingCoolingOSOS
Swifttech 220QP Corsair SP120 Windows 8.1 Pro Windows 10 Pro 
OSOSMonitorMonitor
Windows 7 Home Ubuntu 15.4 QNIX 2710 Catleap 2B 
Keyboard
Ducky - Cherry MX Red 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
3570k DZ77GA - 70K GTX670-DC2-4GD5  MV-3V4G3D/US 
Hard DriveCoolingOSOS
HyperX 3k CM 212 + Win 7 64 ubuntu 
PowerCase
Seventeam 850w modular CS-NT-ZERO-2  
  hide details  
Reply
post #136 of 174
Quote:
Originally Posted by ILoveHighDPI View Post

Peer review may ultimately be a good process, but that doesn't mean it can't get sidetracked into being a fantasy world popularity contest either (a bunch of people competing for money so they can keep promoting their own opinion).

Fantasy World popularity contest? Do you know how rich and popular someone would stand to get if they were able to disprove the theories put forth by these other popular scientists? Science does not have an opinion, they have support based on reality/tests. Not to mention the process in anonymous.
post #137 of 174
Quote:
Originally Posted by blkdoutgsxr View Post

Fantasy World popularity contest? Do you know how rich and popular someone would stand to get if they were able to disprove the theories put forth by these other popular scientists? Science does not have an opinion, they have support based on reality/tests. Not to mention the process in anonymous.

That is a little naive...

I hate to use this as an example, but look at Armageddon where the crappy scientist who works for the president gets all the say, and science often goes where the money will follow. Yea you hope that can't happen, but there has definitely been people with new worthwhile theories which might have been accurate that were completely squashed by the inertia of the status quo.
Nightrider
(17 items)
 
Commodore 64
(10 items)
 
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
3930k x79 gd45 PLUS GTX Titan Crucial Ballistix Sport VLP  
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveCooling
HyperX 3k Intel 320 Seagate Barracuda Swifttech H220 
CoolingCoolingOSOS
Swifttech 220QP Corsair SP120 Windows 8.1 Pro Windows 10 Pro 
OSOSMonitorMonitor
Windows 7 Home Ubuntu 15.4 QNIX 2710 Catleap 2B 
Keyboard
Ducky - Cherry MX Red 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
3570k DZ77GA - 70K GTX670-DC2-4GD5  MV-3V4G3D/US 
Hard DriveCoolingOSOS
HyperX 3k CM 212 + Win 7 64 ubuntu 
PowerCase
Seventeam 850w modular CS-NT-ZERO-2  
  hide details  
Reply
Nightrider
(17 items)
 
Commodore 64
(10 items)
 
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
3930k x79 gd45 PLUS GTX Titan Crucial Ballistix Sport VLP  
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveCooling
HyperX 3k Intel 320 Seagate Barracuda Swifttech H220 
CoolingCoolingOSOS
Swifttech 220QP Corsair SP120 Windows 8.1 Pro Windows 10 Pro 
OSOSMonitorMonitor
Windows 7 Home Ubuntu 15.4 QNIX 2710 Catleap 2B 
Keyboard
Ducky - Cherry MX Red 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
3570k DZ77GA - 70K GTX670-DC2-4GD5  MV-3V4G3D/US 
Hard DriveCoolingOSOS
HyperX 3k CM 212 + Win 7 64 ubuntu 
PowerCase
Seventeam 850w modular CS-NT-ZERO-2  
  hide details  
Reply
post #138 of 174
Quote:
Originally Posted by Avonosac View Post

That is a little naive...

I hate to use this as an example, but look at Armageddon where the crappy scientist who works for the president gets all the say, and science often goes where the money will follow. Yea you hope that can't happen, but there has definitely been people with new worthwhile theories which might have been accurate that were completely squashed by the inertia of the status quo.

Funding is another topic completely and yes I agree, If you are popular then it is much easier for you to get funding to further your research. That has nothing to say of the peer review process though, your comment before makes it appear that not supported hypothesis' are getting through the process based on popularity of the scientist who put the hypothesis in motion. Which if you have support for that claim I would like to see it, and would reconsider. The fact is it does not depend on who you are, if what you do is found to be true then it is accepted until proven to be false. Proven to be false hypothesis' are not just slipping though because of a contest of popularity. Peer review works, and it works darn well.

It is also possible that I just misinterpreted what you were saying, if that is the case then I apologize.
post #139 of 174
Quote:
Originally Posted by Avonosac View Post

It is not just the peer review that makes science great, it is the same fundamentals of proving* one building block at a time from math that makes it great. Each step is taken from the shoulders of those who aspired to know why before you. It is kind of poetic, when you really get down to it. Even if peoples pride might get in the way, science can admit it was wrong, because the whole process is the attempt to find out why *insert phenomena here* happens.
Yea, it is an idealist role, but you hope eventually stuff wins out. Einstein did, and they HATED that telegraph operator like no other. He is a great example too, since he spent his life post relativity and A-Bomb trying to prove Quantum Mechanics was crap. That is exactly why science is so awesome. He hit the nail on the proverbial head with relativity, but missed with QM but that didn't disprove his advancements for science.

*I say proving because it is in regards to math, obviously you don't prove anything with the scientific method.
Einstein hated a bunch of anomalies that came out of some equations.... so he made a fudge factor. This factor turns out to be the cosmological constant. Did Einstein also hate the "spooky action at a distance"?


The power of science is that it cannot only explain things.... it can be used to predict things!
Quote:
Originally Posted by blkdoutgsxr View Post

Fantasy World popularity contest? Do you know how rich and popular someone would stand to get if they were able to disprove the theories put forth by these other popular scientists? Science does not have an opinion, they have support based on reality/tests. Not to mention the process in anonymous.
Actually, this does happen. Scientists are humans that means there are biases and self-interests involved.

However, over time and with enough data... a better answer develops.
Once again...
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7 920 [4.28GHz, HT] Asus P6T + Broadcom NetXtreme II VisionTek HD5850 [900/1200] + Galaxy GT240 2x4GB G.Skill Ripjaw X [1632 MHz] 
Hard DriveOSMonitorKeyboard
Intel X25-M 160GB + 3xRAID0 500GB 7200.12 Window 7 Pro 64 Acer H243H + Samsung 226BW XARMOR-U9BL  
PowerCaseMouseMouse Pad
Antec Truepower New 750W Li Lian PC-V2100 [10x120mm fans] Logitech G9 X-Trac Pro 
  hide details  
Reply
Once again...
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7 920 [4.28GHz, HT] Asus P6T + Broadcom NetXtreme II VisionTek HD5850 [900/1200] + Galaxy GT240 2x4GB G.Skill Ripjaw X [1632 MHz] 
Hard DriveOSMonitorKeyboard
Intel X25-M 160GB + 3xRAID0 500GB 7200.12 Window 7 Pro 64 Acer H243H + Samsung 226BW XARMOR-U9BL  
PowerCaseMouseMouse Pad
Antec Truepower New 750W Li Lian PC-V2100 [10x120mm fans] Logitech G9 X-Trac Pro 
  hide details  
Reply
post #140 of 174
Quote:
Originally Posted by DuckieHo View Post

Einstein hated a bunch of anomalies that came out of some equations.... so he made a fudge factor. This factor turns out to be the cosmological constant. Did Einstein also hate the "spooky action at a distance"?

Actually, this does happen. Scientists are humans that means there are biases and self-interests involved.

However, over time and with enough data... a better answer develops.

I'm curious as to why you think that an anonymous peer review is subject to bias and self-interest... I'm not arguing against you but that's a hefty claim. So if what I'm understanding your saying is that a journal will have people (reviewers who specialize in the field) who will reject a hypothesis and somehow be able to explain how they rejected it even though it turns out to be true? Or vice-versa just accept something from an unknown source (because it is anonymous and that is KEY in peer review) because of self-interest? Lets take for instance the recent neutrino going faster then the speed of light experiment, that was a hypothesis, it was a world changing claim, and got so vigorously tested by the scientific community to demonstrate if it was supported or not. This is not just some check the box if you accept process. These people dedicate their lives to science and the discovery of it, its people that don't understand the rigorous process that put doubt in the scientific method when really its pretty amazing what it accomplishes. I think its so rare that a hypothesis gets accepted when it is known to be false that its not worth even mentioning, and I say this because I know of zero times that it has occurred and has not immediately been shut down. But as I stated previously, if you can provide examples for your extraordinary claims I am willing to take those into account.

Edit: This is not to say that the findings of science are never wrong, but I think they are never known to be wrong and still accepted and vice-versa. The scientific community changes with new findings all of the time because of new data.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Technology and Science News
Overclock.net › Forums › Industry News › Technology and Science News › [XT] Einstein's action at a distance: 10,000 times faster than light