Scientists and Engineers

[Karls48]

The time is slowly getting ripe to remove billions of dollars funding from theoretical science and spend that money more wisely. It seems that main focus of current cosmology and theoretical physic is on proving why something is not possible instead figuring ways how to make it possible. Well give those funds to engineers, set them tasks – like faster then light communication and see what they can come up in 20 or so years.
The analogy between renaissance sparked by invention and the adoption of printing press and today’s internet revolution is striking..
Twenty or so years ago very few people would go to the trouble and expenses to get scientific papers or subscribe to the scientific journals. They generally accept what extracts or conclusion of general press or TV presented to them. Recognised Scientific elite had almost free hand to formulate any kind of theory with guarantee that authorities and general public would accept it. Any dissident opinions were simply not published in prestigious journals and therefore largely ignored. It again raises analogy with dominance of church dogma up to sixteen century.
With spread of Internet and ability to access any documents on your finger tips more and more people started to question established scientific worldview. People are able to read latest news about the experiments and discoveries and inevitably find gaps in the logic of current theories. The answers to such questioning that were sufficient in 15 and again in 19 century – Book 2 chapter 7 Saint so and so said – does not work now any more same as it stoped working in 17 century
PS
Mathematics is a talent endowed on some part of the population. It is not different from any other talents – artistic, musical, and poetic or simply being good salesman. Being above the average in one endeavour usually means being below average in other.
Mathematics is grossly overrated field of science. There is applied mathematics that is equal to any other scientific discipline. The theoretical maths – being elegant or compared to poetry. I was led to believe that elegance belong to the world of fashions. As engineer I believe that “elegant” means something that works and can be produced with minimal costs. As for poetry of mathematics – look in to metaphysics. It is just about same far off distance from reality but easier to understand.
Just one example of maths failure to find reason.
Lets say you night is cloudy and to get right focus you point your telescope on illuminated window few kilometres away. You can see the argument between male and female cumulating in the man sticking the woman. Over the course of number of nights the scene repeats over and over. The maths can describe it very accurately and the outcome (man hitting woman will be accurate). But no amount of equations can find out what and why actually happen. What about if that couple was rehearsing for the play. There is few more possible explanations that I will not go into.

[Robh]

Who decides what we spend our wealth on?
We spend billions on sport and the olympic games. We spend billions on entertainment and the cinema. We spend billions on gambling. We spend billions on wars. Sum total, probably in the trillions.
Yet, we don't seem to be able to eliminate poverty, disease and crimes against humanity.
The amount spent on theoretical studies is insignificant to that spent by wealthier populations in their quest to entertain themselves and defend their lot. Applied scientific studies are often directed to improving technology and productivity and require more funding due to experimental costs. Engineering innovations depend on mathematics and science. The end motive for studies may be intellectual recognition/satisfaction for the researcher but for the funder will most likely be immediate or long term monetary gain or power.
The lines between theoretical and practical mathematics or physics have tended to blur as purely theoretical studies more often find practical application. Complex numbers eventually found application in applied physics e.g. electronics. The concept of a laser was predicted theoretically but took many years to physically produce.
Our concepts about the real world are either deduced from or confirmed by observation. Because we do not fully understand our world, scientists hypothesize and then make theoretical predictions. They must then wait until an observation or designed experiment tells them it is either true or false. Who is to say what mathematician or scientist has a monopoly on the truth? Any particular line of research may lead to some previously unknown but now revolutionary theory e.g. Einstein's SR and GR.
In the end, theory is sorted by its truth and application. Those areas of research which add to the total picture will gain funding and support, those areas which do not reflect the real world will fade away to oblivion. Where money is wasted, complaints will be made. This is an evolving process, the result of man's quest to both understand and profit from the Universe he lives in.

Regards, Rob.

[Jarvamundo]

People elect leaders, these leaders are then lobbied by institutions, then decisions are made.

It can explain the all eggs-in-one basket mentality that we can often see, and what i think Carl might be alluding to here.

What happened to climate change? wow that disappeared quickly... did we ever hear a public balanced debate from the skeptics? shhh "shouldn't we atleast try something either way?"

hang on, thats not a scientific opinion... that's an argument that appeals to fear.


I'd be leaning towards experimentation of empirical physics being the dependance, not mathematical theoretics.

Tesla, Faraday.... all played with wood n wire, not invisible ink or dark crayon... mathematics came after this experimentation... yes engineering can be developed on the mathematics after this... i guess there is a mix there, as you mention rob...

A key combination of the two above points here ((1) eggs in 1 basket, (2) research based on abstract theoretical math, not engineering) is the current state of funding for fusion research, or gravity wave research. (Tokamak, LIGO, Grav B, and now $4B LISA)

simply fruitless

I understand your points carl, i think we should somehow look to setup a framework to guarantee funding into alternatives... how this won't be perverted by consensus special interest groups is a tricky one... Why not put of your spend 10% into alternatives? http://www.cosmologystatement.org/

I also agree with including engineers more so in the design of experiments. The doors are gradually opening here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wOI-X215A8Y).


These are often silenced by the consensus special interest institutions, who already have secured the largest lobbying voice from past funding... kind of an insulating cycle there.

End of the day, I suspect some revolutionary ideas will generally come from outside the consensus shell (as would be naturally expected if science in increasingly consensus driven) , these developments will be privately funded, fortunately these underground style communities can and are now connecting and share between themselves, especially via the internet... good on em...

and good on you for having a rant, it's your money

Best,

[KenGee]

oh dear why has it become "fashionable" to have a go at scientist? My father was a tradesman he always said that engineers were a waste of space. The only time any of "their" inventions worked was when a tradesmen fixed it. why waste all that money on engineers when tradesman do the real work?

[Jarvamundo]

He's not having a go at scientists, he's making the distinction between abstract theoretical mathematicians who call themselves scientists and the empirical physics of the scientific revolutions of 15th and 19th centuries.

Why spend on these types?

because he (http://davidszondy.com/future/tesla/tesla%2002.jpg) created this (http://www.learner.org/jnorth/images/graphics/s/songbird_migration_lights01.jpg)

Faradays law is our economy

The rigor involved in developing a modern electrical engineer should not be underestimated. Certainly not a waste. The keys you are privileged to tap and all the equipment in your thumbnail come from these talented men and women.

[paulF]

Interesting but confusing subject :) . An engineer applies his scientific knowledge to solve practical problems from my experience and seldomly relies on theories developed by Theoretical Mathematicians or Physicists. Karl's argument is valid and not valid at the same time.For example, we know we need to travel 2 million light years to travel to Andromeda and we know the mathematical/physical science behind that(or we think we do ...) but we can't physically make that happen yet as in creating a machine that travels at the speed of light prooving that we lack the technology to do it which takes us back to Engineering so maybe this is were we need to be spending our money(The problem might even be that we are spending money on the wrong science...).But on the other hand, if engineers don't have enough knowledge(that comes from theoretical science) to use, we won't be going anywhere anytime soon.

Hope the above makes sense. In my mind, it's like we are all working on one HUGE project and one team (theoretical science) and another team (Engineering) work together on the same task and contribute to each other's task equally :)

[Karls48]

Faison – my back side. I don’t give fig for what’s fashionable. I’m old fart, retired now and I have been working with scientists for good part of my working life. Including PHD ex NASA, PHD ex Tandy corporation and assortment of others. By the way I have to some degree agree with your father assessment of engineers. I was lucky that I never put out design the needed tradesman to fix it. Not because I’m so good or clever. I believe it thorough testing of the prototypes. So after I did tortured my design with all the abuse I could thing of I gave it to the most stupid person in the company to test it. If it did not fail then there was one more – most important test. I gave the prototype to my wife to use it. It did usually fail writhing short time. Well – back to the drawing board ( computer now days)
But I’m off the topics. When I was younger I held unshakable believe in the correctness of the science. My introduction to the workings of the Universe began with scientific arguments that the Universe is a infinitive and hydrogen atom popping up randomly in the space. Although Hubble determinate that some of so called Nebulas are in fact Galaxies sometimes in late twenties of last century such a discovery did not reached me until sixties because the books was reading called galaxies – nebulas. That is my point about Internet revolution in my first post. It is obvious that theoretical conclusions of the scientists will be exposed to the greater scrutiny then ever before. Especially if their conclusions contain gaps in the logics or are incompatible with the findings of another field of science.
Finally – I do not know what you do for living . You may be self-employed and then there in no issue. But before I retired from the work place there was ever increasing pressure on all employees to increase productivity and efficiency. I was working 65 to 70 hours a week. Everyone was stretched to the limit. Not that the company gained any benefits from it. But it was a “ fashion” something worked out by Economists and Political scientist. If such a model is good enough for the general population it should also be good enough for the scientific community. Show the results or look for other job. Who in the hell is going continue to finance people who after life time of the research are going to tell us how hot was the Universe when it was size of mandarin (if it ever was of that size).

[mswhin63]

It is funny you should say this, I too thought the same thing as I was always tasked to repair engineers designs so they could make the modifacation.

I realise now their task was important but so was mine.

The same could be said all round from the scientist to the engineer. They are all needed in one way or another only the balance and the recognision of effort are not shown.

This could also lead to the thought of the importance of all parties. Remembering that Newton, Einstein and many others are mostly theorist and it is their theory that have led us to the develpment of technolgies that we enjoy today.

Politicians on the other hand need to cater for all people and despite there sometimes useless decisions they need to cater for all people (Artist to Scientist) and 4 years into the future.:lol:

[Jarvamundo]

cmon... thats a misinterpretation of the history... Einstien and mostly theorists... led to development of todays technology? what? your kidding right?

Faraday, Volt, Ampere were all experimentalists not theorists.... physicists 1800's

Maxwell came along after to describe the above progress EM in his 4-5 equations 1860s

Tesla was playing with wireless radio control electric submarines when Einstien was like 11.
Radio, Power Gen, Elec, all done via experimental physics.

Our economy runs off Faraday and Tesla....
http://www.neuronet.pitt.edu/~bogdan/tesla/chicago.htm

Learn ya elec history boy! The record is clear with regard to the base of elec technology.

Experimentalists first --> work then described by mathematicians.

This ofcourse does not discount the valuable progress by Einstein (quant, photo-elec, thermo) and Newton, which lead to tech... just alerting that alot of the technology we depend today on already existed... a big distortion to say it mainly came from theorists.

[taxman]

Really? Wow...

So the 'argument' in this thread is because you do not understand the value of theory to practice, we should all abandon theory?!?

Maybe we should go back to having shamen make the full moon come back. No one understood the lunar cycle then and they managed to 'make' it return each month.

:screwy::screwy::screwy:

[bojan]

I do not think the transistor effect was found by experimentalists..
Same goes for laser.
Nuclear energy is also on the list (E=mc2 and so on).
All of those are extremely important for today's technology and industry.

As far as Tesla is concerned, he was also a theorist (however he did not produce many papers by today's standards, his work was mostly documented in a form of patents, which was a general practice at those times, dictated by Edison and others. But, for example, multiphase AC could not be envisaged without solid theoretical understanding of the subject - which is why Edison didn't get it, ever) .

However, practical work and research was very important... but not to that extent as suggested.

[Waxing_Gibbous]

Theory is the foundation of application. My wife's a 'theoretical' mathematician, and she has no problem with coming up with practical applications of the Math she studies.
Without a solid theoretical knowledge of whatever scientific or mechanical discipline you are attempting to master, you're just an assembly line worker.
I agree we fritter far too much money away on useless pseudo-disciplines like String Theory, Cultural & Gender Studies, Scociology etc etc.
But we risk throwing the baby out with the bathwater if we cut funding to ALL areas of theoretical study.

[Jarvamundo]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julius_Edgar_Lilienfeld

Crooks tubes --> vacuum tubes Tesla, Eddington had their own --> Lillienfield electrolyte capacitors --> Field Effect

Field emission existed before it was explained by Quantum Tunneling no?

To suggest it was a giant leap by a smart man with a biro is a bit rich.

Since when has mother nature given a stuff about man's mathematics?

Ofcourse Tesla wrote papers to describe what he had experimented with. He was not a desk jockey developing the maths of AC circuits with a graph paper and a pad... then to telegraph it to a manufacturer.

He built it himself, he wound his own coils, he was an experimenter.

Documenting his experiments, in patents, is just the record of his empirical science. Did he have ideas of where to take his research, well ofcourse... was he a mathamatical theorist? No! he hated them!



Teslas empirical physics is FAR FAR different from string theory, multiverses, dark energy, dark matter, gravity waves which are abstract mathematical thought experiments...

[avandonk]

Could I please put some perspective to this nonsensical argument.

Experiment is meaningless without careful measurement.

Understanding results is meaningless without mathematics.

Only an engineer would think otherwise as it is not in his look up tables supplied by scientists and mathematicians.

Bert

[Jarvamundo]

I think your missing the authors point of theoretical mathematics dominating science (particularly astro) and what you mention "mathamatics describing empirical science".

I agree with your point of maths being essential to describe physics. This is the rightful place.

theoretical mathematics is the beef

[bojan]

OK, OK I give up :P
You are the cleverest guy in the universe, it seems :thumbsup:

[Jarvamundo]

Hah! only an opinion jawin with ya Bojan... ;)

[taxman]

???

Why? Because you don't like/understand it?

Besides, theoretical maths (by this I am assuming you mean pure maths) funding is, well, non-existent. Never mind that uses for so-called "theoretical" maths are found every day. For example, non-euclidian topography is pretty much the basis for electronic cryptography.

Just because there are people that like and are good at something you don't see an immediate use for is no reason to condemn it.

This is a very narrow-minded argument for a science-based forum...

[bmitchell82]

Im a studying civil engineer. and my point of view is that mathematics is important in my field, although i value mathematical resolving of forces and the physics behind it all, most engineers are not mathematicians but the understanding of theory to make calculated and educated estimates. And sometimes look far into the future.

Unfortunately i see all too often in the engineering students i work with that they have a solid understanding of the theoretical but a imagination of a carrot and that is a fundamental downfall to what it is that a engineer does.

We make things work when others say it cannot happen, and a good engineer will understand the value of talking to "tradies" and not just being up there own A55 thinking that they know everything (that is generally what happens when a academic engineer gets involved).

The general idea of engineers is that they must be super excellent at maths and truth be told I myself am no academic but as my uncle and grandfather before me have a ability to make things work even if no knowledge is known and everybody say's it cannot be done!

I despise most engineers as the general attitude amongst them i find repulsive and close minded. My thought about this is "You cant have a chicken without the egg nor can you have a egg without a chicken"

[Jarvamundo]

Good point re cryptography... allow my distinction

Particular beef is theoretical-mathematical-physics



LIGO fail
CDMS fail
Gravity Probe B fail
Pioneer Probe speed anomaly fail
Quasar time dilation fail

Next up to fail:
LISA ($4 Billion)

Stop funding to maths? No ofcourse not. Stop funding to gravitational antennas and dark matter probes? well at some point we may have to... how much is enough (see list above)?

My argument, allow funding to alternatives, before blowing more...

Surely dismissing alternatives is the "very narrow-minded argument for a science-based forum..."

[taxman]

Again, why? Theoretical postulation in any field hurts no one and costs nothing.



But these are all experiments to test understanding of the details of theory. Often they go wrong because an insufficient heatshield or the wrong type of alloy is used - it is pretty rare that the outcome of an experiment will result in the utter refutation of an accepted theory.

The therory costs nothing, and besides, while it is true that the failures cost a lot, the successes pay for the failures and then some.



What possible alternatives could there be to the scientific method? Prayer?



Not if we're talking about some magical way of scientific advance that doesn't involve testing theories it isn't, mate :lol::lol::lol:

[Miaplacidus]

I agree with Brendan, mainly because all you other engies write with such spiflicated spelling that us mere humanists can't decipher what you're saying. (Too much non-euclidean topography, perhaps?)

A thread dedicated to "What are the biggest wastes of money in science, engineering and mathematics?" would be so much more fun.

Must go. My shout.

[taxman]

:lol::lol::lol::thumbsup:

[Robh]

Let me tell a hypothetical story or two ...
The President of the USA tells NASA they have 100 billion dollars in funding to get man to Mars and back.
Overjoyed, NASA get their best scientists and engineers to build a nuclear engine which will power the space craft. In the process, there are immense problems to overcome and many engineers develop radiation poisoning. Several different working models are tested before they can get one to work effectively. The technology is cutting-edge but goes over-budget by 20 billion dollars. However, all scientists and engineers are proud of their achievement, which has also expanded their knowledge of nuclear containment. On the way to Mars, the nuclear engine overheats and destroys the craft and all its occupants.

Somewhere back on Earth, a few theoretical physicists have formulated a theory that predicts the existence of gravitons and anti-gravitons. Now, this could be just another of those fantastic theories, except that they have devised a test which can be used to prove their existence. The test works. Eventually someone theorizes how anti-gravitons can be produced and harnessed to move a spaceship. It is several decades before the technology is developed to produce such an engine but eventually man uses it to safely travel about his Universe. Oddly enough, it turns out the cost of building an anti-graviton engine is only a few billion dollars.

Don't underestimate the power of theoretical work in science!

Regards, Rob.

[Jarvamundo]

I agree with you that "it is pretty rare that the outcome of an experiment will result in the utter refutation of an accepted theory."

how many more gravity antennas will be build ;)

The theories cost nothing... those experiments i've listed, all have been formulated on mathematical-physics, and all have been money pits.

[marki]

Ahhh yes theories can be as cheap as a can of baked beans but so can the experiment to test it. Why just last week I postulated that consumtion of baked beans along with some very careful sphincter control would be a major advancement in pedagogical stratergy to control naughty children. Just sneak up on them and let nature do its stuff...no need to yell and it brings them to their knees :P.

Although I am sure this post will be deleated may I suggest anyone who is trully affected by this pointless thread be banished to the naughty chair in my classroom....I need to practice my new theory so I can gain some empirical data as to its effectiveness:thumbsup:.

Mark

[multiweb]

:lol: Adding some more wind to the thread Mark?

[marki]

You bet Marc;):thumbsup:

[TrevorW]

If a bear farts in the bush and there is no one there to smell or hear it did he fart

just imagine if we could somehow capture all that gas my wife always reckons I could heat our house in winter

[Steffen]

I'm sure she meant that as a compliment :lol:

Cheers
Steffen

[bmitchell82]

... bugger the bear in the bush.... im a bear under the doona..! my patner always tells me of the bears activity during the night! she wish's that it wasn't "captured" ahhahaha:thumbsup:

[JD2439975]

This is from a purely theoretical POV that should really be tested by you engineering types...

Might I suggest adding cabbage to your beans, energy output should double but sphincter control may be severely compromised. :lol:

Note: Any "accidents" involving asphixiation or naked flames are purely the fault of the engineer silly enough to put theory into practice.

[tonybarry]

I work with engineers and scientists and tradesman.

The scientist is involved with "truth" and so he/she elucidates the principle on which the machine is built.

The engineer applies the principle and designs the machine to put the principle into practice.

The tradesman actually cuts the steel, winds the coils etc and tunes the design so it works.

Who is better? Many scientists I work with have great ideas. They lie awake at night dreaming up better theories.

The engineers get out the Finite Element Analysis software and design the beastie. Oodles of maths, calculations, some funky methods of easily getting an answer from a mess of data ... they devise a way.

The tradies go home at 4pm, and generally have scant time for anyone who can't change a tap washer. Yet their work, the polish and the fit, makes the device do its thing.

The "invention and discovery" ecosystem needs all parts to function. We lean on each other. Respect for each other ought to be part of the mix. But I find that often it's not.

Why are many tradies contemptuous of engineers who can CAD a part but cannot cast it?

Why are many engineers skeptical of scientists whose theories appear as mathematical symbols on paper but which provide the way for their designs to actually work?

Why are many scientists dismissive of the tradies as "self-guiding tools" and the engineers as "pragmatists without appreciation of the universe"?

Regards,
Tony Barry

[Wavytone]

One size doesn't fit all.

I've known some excellent tradesmen and pretty useless ones. Ditto engineers and scientists. The CAD lot are draftsmen - not what I would regard as design engineers.

[CosmicKid]

Sorry for the bit of a grave dig but I thought this post was excellent and required some further discussion.

One thing I am always quick to point out is that individuals such as Nikola Tesla were not scientists, not tradesmen nor were they engineers, they were inventors.

As inventors they were theorists, engineers and tradesmen all in one package who developed their theories, tested the science and then engineered practical uses for the science they pioneered on their own.

Academic society today is about keeping those things separated and providing the theorists with a sense of arrogance that comes with a PHD and the title of 'expert' which makes them naturally hateful of engineers who tear their perfect theories to pieces to make them work in practical fashion, and neither the engineers nor the theorists feel themselves humble enough to bother involving themselves at the level of lowly tradesmen.

It is extremely rare that I have seen an engineer and a theorist interact in a positive manner without petty squabbling occurring and detracting from the purpose of their collaboration. How can one expect these individuals to advance scientific understanding if they can't even work peacefully together?

As long as there is a divide between these critical elements of discovery and advancement our progress is going to be severely hampered.

Those who have embraced all of the elements have achieved scientific advancement at levels that mystify other equally brilliant but less robust men.

From my perspective the problem with academic and scientific societies today is that mathematical theorizing, engineering and related trades-craft are viewed as being separate entities.

Though specifically in regards to the domination of theoretical mathematics the fact that many theorists today ignore physical concepts entirely and base their theories on mathematics alone is an issue for me.

If you are trying to study and understand the physical world then ignoring the physical world and starting with mathematical concepts is not a good idea; if you don't start in reality you aren't likely to end with anything close to reality.

Mathematics is meant to be used first to describe and then to expand on a physical concept. Hence the repeated mention by actual inventors like Tesla throughout the recent past that mathematics should be the slave to science and not the master.

We have failed to yield those warnings and today the more science "progresses" in regards to cosmology and astrophysics the more disconnected from reality we become.

Just look at the number of mathematical constructs today that are accepted as fact despite having no evidential bases in reality. In fact many of them are theorized to be unable to be observed by human kind, which is extremely convenient. Dark Matter, Dark Energy, Neutron Stars, Type IA Super-Nova, Black Holes, magnetic reconnection/monopolar magnetic fields... and the list goes on.

All of these constructs are the result of mathematical abstraction derived from other things we have witnessed which based on the existing expanding universe/Big Bang paradigm we attribute to being the effects of these mathematical constructs. We can't observe any of these things directly at this time(or ever) but we can see the effects they have on their surrounds so we know they are there...

The fact these things can be explained more completely and easily with theories that are derived from paradigm's other than BB theory is ignored as it doesn't fall within the paradigm that has been taught to you and thus it isn't real science. These alternative theories can attribute direct evidence with their theories rather than just indirect evidence and mathematical constructs but apparently basing a theory on evidence has become a foreign concept to modern "science" so much so that it's not considered science at all.

Believe it or not most credible alternative theories have lots of mathematics to support them as well, the reason people like myself tend to give them more credibility than conventional/mainstream theories is that those alternative theories are typically based on observational evidence first with the mathematical formulas derived to support the evidence - mainstream far too often has their theories based entirely on mathematics and the evidence is simply interpreted mathematically in a way that fits in ad-hoc fashion.

For me evidence(reality) comes first and mathematics comes second.

Note: This is an opinion piece so I'm not providing any sources, though alternative theories on those constructs I mentioned(black holes, dark matter, etc.) can be linked if requested but most if not all here would probably dismiss them simply by their sources.

Unfortunately not many mainstream sites will host these theories and the few "fringe" sites that do are viewed poorly and given no credibility, which is a rather convenient way to silence dissent - you only have credibility if the mainstream gives it to you, but they won't give it you unless you cloud the whole thing up in a political manner to prevent any respectable scientists from having their toes stepped on and in the process most of the theory is "lost" and the bits and pieces that remain are easy to attack.

If you don't want to or can't manage to do that then you are a quack, plain and simple.

I can understand why the truly "out there" ideas would not be a good idea to be given serious attention in the public domain to prevent people from being "influenced" by them but there are many alternative theories that have a credible basis and should be open to discussion in the scientific realms.

Surely intelligent scientists aren't going to be easily "influenced" by something they read or discuss a few times. NASA has remained reluctant to publicly give any credibility to the idea of non-neutral electricity in space yet they have created a 'Space Weather' division to study electrically charged particles in space and just a while back invited one of the chief proponents of The Electric Universe Theory to talk at one of their facilities.

If they can trust their people not to be unduly "influenced" by such discussions why can't such discussions be freely partaken in on scientific forums?

Growing up in a devoutly religious society with a rebellious nature free and open discussion is what I was led to believe was the hallmark of the scientific community, but all I've discovered in the mainstream community is more religion with mathematics as the supreme deity.

In my experience the only thing free and open discussion is welcomed with is proverbial pitchforks and wave after wave of ad-hom attacks and character assassinations.


I'm sorry for getting into a rant but there's been a lot of discussion on these matters across many threads that I've seen here and I decided to just add all of my thoughts on the matters into a single post here rather than spreading bits and pieces all over.

Plus it's easier for anyone who wants to disagree with me on it to have it all in one place. ;)

[Karls48]

Hi CosmicKid, in some ways you have expressed much better the problems that some of us are having with today’s Cosmology and theoretical physics then I did when I started this thread.

[Zaps]

"It seems that main focus of current cosmology and theoretical physic is on proving why something is not possible..."

Well, I hate to be the one to break it to you, but that's almost called "science". Where you went wrong with that sentence was when you claimed scientists attempt to prove things. Scientists don't and can't. Detectives and mathematicians seek proof, not scientists.

Zaps - Retired professional scientist and engineer.

[renormalised]

I'm afraid you'll find that these are very real, and quite observable features of nature.

[Jarvamundo]

:thumbsup: