Hi,

Hello and welcome to RatSkep! :smile: Why don't you introduce yourself here? ;)

Moderators: DarthHelmet86, campermon

Hi,

#1  Postby Corkey » Apr 04, 2017 3:50 pm

From looking around, I think I've found the right forum. I've been a skeptic of modern physics since I opened my first physic book 30 years ago and learned a thumb rule I was taught back in 1958, I'm 76 how, was called the Ideal Gas Equation. I look forward to sharing my questions and thoughts about it and a "few" other subjects. :cheers:
Corkey
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: William Taylor
Posts: 18
Age: 76
Male

Country: U.S.
United States (us)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Hi,

#2  Postby scott1328 » Apr 04, 2017 10:46 pm

:wave:

What does "skeptic of modern physics" mean?
User avatar
scott1328
 
Name: Some call me... Tim
Posts: 7217
Male

United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Hi,

#3  Postby Dark energy » Apr 04, 2017 10:51 pm

welcome and i hope you enjoy the forum.

:cheers:
And whoever turns away from My remembrance - indeed, he will have a depressed life, and We will gather him on the Day of Resurrection blind."
Dark energy
 
Name: dark energy
Posts: 332

Country: USA
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Hi,

#4  Postby Ironclad » Apr 05, 2017 12:53 am

Skeptic of modern physics.. oh
"If there was no such thing as science, you'd be right " - Sean Lock

"God ....an inventive destroyer" - Broks

Image
User avatar
Ironclad
RS Donator
 
Name: Nudge-Nudge
Posts: 20926
Age: 14
Male

Country: Wink-Wink
Bahrain (bh)
Print view this post

Re: Hi,

#5  Postby Alan B » Apr 06, 2017 9:34 am

'Modern' physics? What's that?
I have NO BELIEF in the existence of a God or gods. I do not have to offer evidence nor do I have to determine absence of evidence because I do not ASSERT that a God does or does not or gods do or do not exist.
User avatar
Alan B
 
Posts: 8480
Age: 80
Male

Country: UK (Birmingham)
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Hi,

#6  Postby newolder » Apr 06, 2017 9:37 am

Oh, hai, Corkey,

wiki definition:
Modern physics is the post-Newtonian conception of physics. It implies that classical descriptions of phenomena are lacking, and that an accurate, "modern", description of nature requires theories to incorporate elements of quantum mechanics or Einsteinian relativity, or both.

Pictorially (the 'most modern' physics is at lower right, LHC, black holes &c):
Image
Geometric forgetting gives me loops. - Nima A-H
User avatar
newolder
 
Name: Albert Ross
Posts: 3657
Age: 6
Male

Country: Feudal Estate number 9
Print view this post

Re: Hi,

#7  Postby Blackadder » Apr 06, 2017 10:19 am

Corkey wrote:From looking around, I think I've found the right forum. I've been a skeptic of modern physics since I opened my first physic book 30 years ago and learned a thumb rule I was taught back in 1958, I'm 76 how, was called the Ideal Gas Equation. I look forward to sharing my questions and thoughts about it and a "few" other subjects. :cheers:


So you opened your first physic (sic) book 30 years ago? And found a rule that you learned 60 years ago? Where did you learn the rule from 60 years ago if not a physics text book?
That credulity should be gross in proportion to the ignorance of the mind that it enslaves, is in strict consistency with the principle of human nature. - Percy Bysshe Shelley
User avatar
Blackadder
RS Donator
 
Posts: 3252
Male

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Hi,

#8  Postby Alan B » Apr 06, 2017 11:15 am

As far as I'm concerned, physics is physics is physics. There is no so-called 'modern' or, shall we say, 'ancient' physics.

It's all physics.
I have NO BELIEF in the existence of a God or gods. I do not have to offer evidence nor do I have to determine absence of evidence because I do not ASSERT that a God does or does not or gods do or do not exist.
User avatar
Alan B
 
Posts: 8480
Age: 80
Male

Country: UK (Birmingham)
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Hi,

#9  Postby newolder » Apr 06, 2017 11:30 am

The difference is between classical and modern physics. The terms are used to separate models of a quantum, relativistic, or both nature from those that do not take these ideas into account (e.g. Newtonian mechanics). Try a search on "modern physics textbook" to see how many titles fall under the category.

There's even a book called "Modern Classical Physics" by Kip Thorne + 1. That's bound to irk some. :tehe:
Geometric forgetting gives me loops. - Nima A-H
User avatar
newolder
 
Name: Albert Ross
Posts: 3657
Age: 6
Male

Country: Feudal Estate number 9
Print view this post

Re: Hi,

#10  Postby Alan B » Apr 06, 2017 11:50 am

This is like getting worked-up over Organic and Inorganic chemistry - it is still chemistry.
I have NO BELIEF in the existence of a God or gods. I do not have to offer evidence nor do I have to determine absence of evidence because I do not ASSERT that a God does or does not or gods do or do not exist.
User avatar
Alan B
 
Posts: 8480
Age: 80
Male

Country: UK (Birmingham)
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Hi,

#11  Postby newolder » Apr 06, 2017 11:53 am

Not really, the difference between a classical theory and a quantum theory, for example, is that nature turned out to be quantum mechanical, not classical. See, for example, the Ultraviolet Catastrophe in black body radiation.

Further, there is no classical counterpart to account for Bell's inequalities.

Also, Newtonian mechanics can be used to account for 1/2 the deflection of distant starlight due to the presence of the Sun but it needed full-blown General Relativity theory to get the full deflection, as observed.

And onwards - there would be no spectroscopy without the absorption and emission lines of quantum theory.
Geometric forgetting gives me loops. - Nima A-H
User avatar
newolder
 
Name: Albert Ross
Posts: 3657
Age: 6
Male

Country: Feudal Estate number 9
Print view this post

Re: Hi,

#12  Postby TopCat » Apr 06, 2017 1:04 pm

Alan B wrote:This is like getting worked-up over Organic and Inorganic chemistry - it is still chemistry.

What? What???

That's just crazy talk. Organic chemistry is a thing of beauty, with pattern and logic. Inorganic chemistry is random facts and post-hoc explanations. Fuck off with your d and f orbitals :snooty:

And don't even get me started on physical chemistry. I still have occasional nightmares over the stat mech papers.

:drunk:
TopCat
 
Posts: 495
Age: 54
Male

Country: England
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Hi,

#13  Postby Alan B » Apr 06, 2017 4:49 pm

Inorganic chemistry for me. :snooty:

When I started organic chemistry things got difficult so I change over to electronics... :lol:
I have NO BELIEF in the existence of a God or gods. I do not have to offer evidence nor do I have to determine absence of evidence because I do not ASSERT that a God does or does not or gods do or do not exist.
User avatar
Alan B
 
Posts: 8480
Age: 80
Male

Country: UK (Birmingham)
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post


Return to Welcome New Members

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest