When you look at the night sky, and knowing where to look you set up your instrument and take a look, and there it is. Could it be that in the act of looking you initiate a wave from your end so the photon has a path?
Ernie.
Er yes it could but stay out there a little longer and you realize you probably dont count all that much.
Think of how many paths you are opening up and how much photon traffic you are dealing with...mmm interesting..
Alex nothing you wrote offended me … no need to apologise .. I deleted my own post because I wanted to express the same points in a different way.
I've chosen some more considered words on the same topic, and an example of what I was on about, in Steven's 'Anti Science thread (see my post #47).
Cheers
Thank goodness :
I never want to offend anyone let alone you Craig.
This math material that I am covering has given me an insite as to how frustrating for good people like yourself and others here to have someone hint that math is somehow corruptable.
Clearly this is not the case and strangley I have always believed such although various positions I take must appear that I have no regard for it at all. But the simple reality my formal math and science training ended at high school so I feel very privledged to read the discussions here. I do worry that I must annoy folk however the perceptions I must generate I deserve what I get I suppose.
Er I seem to becoming obsessive with my maths even this early.
alex
This math material that I am covering has given me an insite as to how frustrating for good people like yourself and others here to have someone hint that math is somehow corruptable.
Clearly this is not the case and strangley I have always believed such although various positions I take must appear that I have no regard for it at all. But the simple reality my formal math and science training ended at high school so I feel very privledged to read the discussions here. I do worry that I must annoy folk however the perceptions I must generate I deserve what I get I suppose
Alex;
I guess anything is corruptible .. but I think you'll find that the major predominant issue around the traps thesedays, is not so much that the internal workings of mathematics lacks integrity, but the application of mathematical models to the physical world is open to interpretation.
Its a very interesting area, and mainstream scientists skim over much background theory when they use that phrase … err .. what is it ? .. errr .. oh yes … "consider".
I find this phrase just about always starts a mathematical chain of rigourous analysis. So much is hidden in that little phrase .. "consider the following", eh ?? ..
I find this phrase just about always starts a mathematical chain of rigourous analysis. So much is hidden in that little phrase .. "consider the following", eh ?? ..
I remember.
A wonderful man I loved his shows.
I ask the question often .... he inspired me when I was still in high school expecting at that point a caree in science.
I would like to think I express concerns about application of math rather than its integrity... I suuppose you can make numbers lie but if your are honest with inputs they tell the truth...in the simplest of applications numbers suggest at least highly probably outcome...if your shop has to sell 1000 items a day you kid yourself if passing traffic is 30 people on their way to the homeless shelter... but surprisingly folk open business because they came up with a neat name and somehow with magic as their only hope profits will flow..not even overheads will be met... the folk who would pick a number out of the air when valuing real estate got me .. you have evidence to point to a reasonable price expection but expection was never related to the science of predicting market range expectation.
Alex;
I guess anything is corruptible .. but I think you'll find that the major predominant issue around the traps thesedays, is not so much that the internal workings of mathematics lacks integrity, but the application of mathematical models to the physical world is open to interpretation.
Its a very interesting area, and mainstream scientists skim over much background theory when they use that phrase … err .. what is it ? .. errr .. oh yes … "consider".
I find this phrase just about always starts a mathematical chain of rigourous analysis. So much is hidden in that little phrase .. "consider the following", eh ?? ..
Cheers
I am too casual. I know the maths will always support any of my ideas so I never fear it...Craiig I dont need endless calculations to know I am always right and that helps... as I said my level is high school in fact it is not that these days I cant remember much at all ...I went to explain a chemistry reaction...caustic soda on alluminium..I could not remember what castic soda was...and I think that says it all really...first the body then the mind...enthropy at work in its most comon form.
alex
On the subject of physical appearances I had a professor in Applied Maths who was a pupil of Paul Dirac (see attachment) the Nobel prize winner in Physics and the man who predicted the existence of antimatter.
Not only did Dirac pass his knowledge but also the hairstyle.
We thought his hairstyle was an example of symmetry breaking.
On the subject of physical appearances I had a professor in Applied Maths who was a pupil of Paul Dirac (see attachment) the Nobel prize winner in Physics and the man who predicted the existence of antimatter.
Not only did Dirac pass his knowledge but also the hairstyle.
We thought his hairstyle was an example of symmetry breaking.
Regards
Steven
Your new Avatar !!
I think we've hit on Science Forum theme ! At last ! Something we all share in common !!
.
.
... as I said my level is high school in fact it is not that these days I cant remember much at all ...I went to explain a chemistry reaction...caustic soda on alluminium..I could not remember what castic soda was...and I think that says it all really...first the body then the mind...enthropy at work in its most comon form.
