We can describe a thing or effect or position but we don’t really know what an electron is. Whether it is a frameworks creating a pressure point in schism that gives the impression of an electron or that an electron is a thing..... these things are totally unknown.
Framing reality is hard. The only fact we know of that actually exists .....is that this is an impossible feat.
As for photons, well, there we go. Same scenario. Even Einstein directly admitted that he could have got the sign wrong on his famous equation.
The thing that does not know what it is talks of a thing that it cannot define whilst posited in a reality/information matrix it cannot explain or define. Ultimately we (whatever that is) don’t gots a handle on jack.... just a few bits of commonality that are minimally predictable (in gross context) and applicable to the matrix and it’s so-called denizens.
Arguing about it is, well,.....
all the great minds, including Einstein spoke of these sort of things.
that bible thumping your way into around or out of anything (explicit factualization) is quite
the fool's game.
I'd wager many hundreds of thousands of people have directly and personally witnessed wire Directionality.
When it comes to proofing, this data is not trivial. But it will bring the Quixotally inclined -to it ---like a spinning windmill.
|
anyone here a scientist? Raise your hand if you are a scientist.
BTW, an engineer is explicitly NOT a scientist.
The two receive fundamentally different educations, right from the get go and throughout their training.
A scientist is trained in theory.
The engineer is trained in LAWS.
Both bits are the same, except a scientist is wired to question the theory, where the engineer is taught that these concepts are scientific law and inviolate.
The scientist is the only one of the two that is correctly trained.
The engineer is literally ~purposely~ mistrained so they won’t try to engineer a solution that is based on guesses. They are specifically taught not to think that way. Trained to ’engineer solutions’, NOT to deal with unknowns....Specifically to not deal with unknowns. I hope that is clear. You should never build a giant bridge, skyscraper, or rocket.. based on guesses and theory. Please and thank you. However, this mentality can and does bite scientific exploration on the ass. Repeatedly. The engineer tends to not understand that they are mistrained, as it rarely creates issue in their lives and they (some of them) can generally bully their way past the seeming roadblocks.
This is why some choose the endeavor of engineering over that of science theory and exploration. A mental mindset orientation thing. Just like all areas of chosen endeavor.
If you think I’m tying to be mean or confuse the issue, please go and ask the head of your local physics department at your local university. Please. You’ll get the same answer all the way up through Harvard, MIT, Max Plank institute, all of them will tell you that there are no laws and there is only theory...and that everything, everything under the sun... is subject to change and modification, if observation and then attempts at correlation/proofing... provide the path. But, importantly, that an inability to prove via extant methodologies... does NOT provide for falsification of the observation, just that no path to yay or nay --yet exists. THAT is science.
Only engineers and technicians get taught the scientific law bit. Nobody else.
So when we get this issue of "not being possible", or "not being real"or "it has to be a bunch of bunk and no one here uses science", you can bet your bottom dollar it is coming from an engineer or a technician, or someone who has no real scientific training at all.
|
You are right Geoff, it is a oversimplification, and not 100% true. It is a generalization, at best, but it’s aura hangs over the whole engineer vs scientist scenario.
It certainly started the way I speak of, back in Bavaria, in the 1760’s.
But if you give them room for a few to slip through, 100% will take the cheat.
the Germans found a way to get more boots on the ground, when it comes to competence in the sciences, the kind that can build and make.
Not everyone could be a exploring Renaissance man. so they came up with "the law, don’t question it" technique of training, and then they could get good ’makers’ out there, by a factor of 10-50x vs that of the exploring theoretician.
The trick was to do things, make things... with all the science they had discovered. This was a way of achieving that.
Builders, qualified and capable builders and getting it done in a scholastic environment in a reasonable amount of time with a reasonable rate of success..required a revamp of the real scientific method.
The birth of scientific law was and is synonymous with the birth of the societal slot of ’engineer’. Both really came into being in ~1760’s in Bavaria. The rest of the western world witnessed the success of this technique... and copied it.
And the quandary of this forum, were observation is ruled scientifically violating(by some) and therefore invalid, was born from that gestation/change/split in Bavaria.
|
Geoff, it’s one of those things where if you did not exist, the universe would have to invent you. One or the other or both. Thanks for putting up with all the crap.
|
No coffee in me, at least not right now. I'm thanking you for putting up with all the crap that people throw at you, and thanking you for responding to their posturing in matters scientific.
|
There are patents from major corporations (10-50-100B $ corporations) in this area of molecular research and engineering, regarding alloys and elements.
You deniers should really do your research.
One considered corp, has a annual cash flow of $76 billion, and has representation in 193 countries and has about..what...maybe..100 million functional examples of this sort of engineered thing out there in the world? Probably more, actually.
Who and what it is, I’m not going to tell you.
No hints for the ever watchful competition.
|
Most people here, especially the ones who seem angry and bothered--and get steamed up enough to comment... are seeming to analyze what Geoff is doing with 18th and 19th century Newtonian physics.
Start looking with not just selected bits of old and now discarded incomplete physics...but modern physics - the entire swath of published and peer reviewed 21st century physics.
Which will take some digging and some disposal of what are apparently strongly held bits of very incomplete data.
No one can do that for you, you have to do that for yourselves.
When I make such a post, I’m smacking a very insular hornet’s nest, but well.... think of it as a human kindness, not as some sort of crazy and misguided new age hippy trip. As that, a human kindness.. is actually the truth of the matter.
Some of you guys are lost in the past of the record of physics. By about one full century of data. Never mind what is happening right at the cutting edge of published works.
I’ve not the patience nor the time to teach or show that to the given derisive ’others’, and we know what comes next.
The demand for proof.... from those who will never look... nor read.... nor understand ----what is in the given published and peer reviewed cutting edge works. People in the physics dark ages, looking for dark ages proof, that fits their dark ages projections in physics.
I could bring mind and door opening proofs and scientific works, peer reviewed published works that make a total mockery of these 19th century positions.
But that would only invite more ridicule from what is, let face it ....a small component -a very small contingent- of the group who are reading this, and can actually post.
As they are not looking to find anything new, they are not looking to understand anything new, nor come to any new mental vistas. They are, as far as the written words they use are saying (overt words and their psychological undercurrent) ..they are looking for a strong re-entrenchment of their position in woefully incomplete 19th century Newtonian physics..and an utter rejection of anything which threatens that world view and the associated mental comfort zones.
No number of words or data (written by others, on forums) -delivered by others-, can fight or alter those positions. Part of what the human condition is, for some. They have to go out and find and explore it for themselves, and won’t. They bar the door --and fight it. Fight it, to the mental death, if need be.
As can be plainly seen, right here. How can one accept, look at, or try and understand... something they are actively doing their darnedest to kill and/or stick a mental sword through?
Thus, I bring no data, and I only correctly and properly say:
You go out and find it yourself, you go out and search for it yourself, and explore the data yourself. And if you are lucky, you will get past your own current restrictions and see the ever expanding world of human cognition and understanding of the universe. Instead of this violent and projected mental turtling we see here now.
These proofs, are actually fully gone over and reviewed by the US government branch called ’the us academy of sciences’ and these works, considered to be true and accurate, with an error potential of less than three billion to one, are certified as 100% real by the said branch of the government, who went over the scientific works with a fine toothed comb and a microscope. It took years. And the tests and data they certified as real? That took some +35 years to produce. Many hundreds of scientists involved, checking each other’s works, constantly.
In reality...the ’cutting edge’ of knowledge and data in this world...has passed by some of the more derisive here. The entire world is screaming about this point, science and knowledge at the cutting edge -is moving far too fast for the average person to grasp, and is well true...even for the highly educated. Ad it's not linear, this increase in connectivity and thus scientific and human knowledge works. Cern is a fart in a windstorm compared to the whole package.
Have fun in your now limited comforts.
|
These proofs, are actually fully gone over and reviewed by the US government branch called ’the us academy of sciences’ and these works, considered to be true and accurate, with an error potential of less than three billion to one, are certified as 100% real by the said branch of the government Fake news ~~~~~~~~~~ Thank you for helping prove my point. Beyond a minimal level of attempts which have to be carefully phrased so that one does not get a heartfelt knife in the back, there's almost nothing one can do to help those who refuse to look or don't have the wherewithal to look. |
Eg, while you were sleeping, just yesterday....the fundamentals of organic computers-blurring the line, big time: https://phys.org/news/2017-10-heavy-metal-thunder-protein-electricity.htmland: https://phys.org/news/2017-10-quantum-materials-star-trek-technology.htmland... quantum spooky action at a distance (quantum fluid).... as planetary and solar cores: https://phys.org/news/2017-10-electron-behaviour-extreme-conditions.htmlRelatively, this is just in the past week - alone! In that week there is ---much, much much more. It is moving so fast right now that even a child born today in the best environment possible, which is created by outdated people...might be woefully outdated by the time they are 10 years old. It’s an overt statement, on my part - but difficult to truly disprove. And to remain inflammatory as, after all.. this is an audio forum...those physics news links, specifically the ’electron behaviour’ one will ~flat out tell you~ (in matter of fact terms) that what is going on in the liquid metal cables is beyond everything you know in physics. Whoops. So no, it’s not business as usual and snake oil. Not scientifically possible to be 'hooey'. It's a totally different animal than wire. Big time. |
Teo, you say very stupid things. Everybody does, or should know, quantum
electrodynamics is the governing theory on how electronics work. At
least Geoff makes me laugh.
Right. https://phys.org/news/2017-11-fluidic-transistor-ushers-age-liquid.html
Teaming up with Michael Dickey at North Carolina State University, they recently discovered that liquid metal electronics are not only useful for stretchable circuit wiring but can also be used to make electrical switches.
These fluidic transistors work by opening and closing the connection
between two liquid metal droplets. When a voltage drop is applied in one
direction, the droplets move towards each other and coalesce to form a
metallic bridge for conducting electricity. When voltage is applied in a
different direction, the droplets spontaneously break apart and turn
the switch to open. By quickly alternating between an open and closed
and open switch state with only a small amount of voltage, the
researchers were able to mimic the properties of a conventional
transistor.
Any questions? |
