THE "CHATBOX"

A place to relax and socialize - to muse, think aloud and suggest
simonshack
Administrator
Posts: 6796
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy
Contact:

Re: THE "CHATBOX"

Unread post by simonshack » Fri Mar 04, 2016 12:46 am

ICfreely wrote:Simon,
Seeing as you've ignored responding to my valid complaints against your bulldog, I really have nothing else to add to this forum.
Sad to see you go, bro.

I ain't got any bulldog though.

Have thoroughly enjoyed your visit to 'my house'.

Ciao, IC - see ya over there.

ps: you'll always be welcome back - as I never bear any grudges with folks who have shared good stuff with me - as you certainly have.

Critical Mass
Member
Posts: 544
Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2014 10:33 pm

Re: The MOON HOAX

Unread post by Critical Mass » Fri Mar 04, 2016 10:36 am

ICfreely wrote:I personally don't care if you believe me or not. I realize it's 'hear say.' Is CF a court of law?
No... but I suppose if one considers a neutral reader/researcher as similar to a member of a jury then some of the conventions may apply.
I suggest that you, as a moderator, do a better job of applying the same standards to painterman's posts. For instance, why did you leave his meaningless post in the Einstein thread for so long? Why did I have to 'bitch' so much before you finally removed it? Oh I forgot you were tired & Simon was busy.
I will take your suggestion to heart (seriously).

I don't know what you want me to do, in a practical sense, about the past though... go back in time?

I thought the take home lesson from all that was "just use the admin suggestion box" and "a bit of patience"... there never was a need for you to "bitch".

I've been looking for it for quite some time. The problem is the 'glorious' Islamic Republic of Iran has been erasing Iran's history from day one. Maybe I should have not posted it. After all, who the fuck am I?

Or maybe someone will eventually read my post & dig up a copy or microfiche they have in their attic. I'm seriously at a loss for words.
Well that's one possible negative about the (boring, watching paint dry) way of doing things to a Cluesforum standard. If we only post research that we can back up with evidence then what happens when that evidence has already been lost or destroyed? I can well imagine we need some kind of thread for "interesting things that I've seen or heard but cannot really back up... at the moment"*.

Obviously one would have to make sure that people don't just start using such a thread for plonking in things about "all Asians have no souls" or what not but it might be a good idea. I'll discuss it with Simon.

Even so we still have the chatbox &, indeed, the whole of "The living room" which is open for all kinds of discussions & speculations.


As for your leaving "Simon's house"... the door is always open.




* I think I'll need to work on the name.

CluedIn
Member
Posts: 292
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2015 12:15 pm

Re: THE "CHATBOX"

Unread post by CluedIn » Fri Mar 04, 2016 3:37 pm

OpticalIllusion wrote:This just happened near my hometown. Satanist kills girlfriend then himself. The reason I am pointing this story is because of the perpetrators Facebook account. It would make a perfect psyop for tptb to spin anyway they want. What are your thoughts on these pictures and story?
I wonder if I could throw together a false psyop involving this story using this persons real life profile and crime story to have people believe it. I could even include a manifesto. :blink: This would be good example for a study to show how easily fooled the general public is.

Social media indoctrinates kids into believing that 24 hour monitoring by "someone" is and will be a natural part of their life forever. Your post, OpticalIllusion, points out how they use social media to convict in the court of thought police and the court of public opinion.

One district starts, and the others fall in line - monitoring kids social media accounts to head off problems. I wonder, would demanding to see a kid's diary, if there was no lock on it, fair game too?

http://eagnews.org/school-monitors-stud ... -problems/

Convicting kids for crimes based on social media posts (only).

http://www.idahostatesman.com/news/loca ... 21677.html

I did not read one comment that addressed this ludicrous statement in the article:

Mark Heleker said the fire moved fast but fire-fighters did accompany them back into the house briefly to grab a few items, including some photo albums. Then, all they could do was watch it burn.

The fire dept. allowed people to walk into a burning house to gather possessions - and then they came out and watched it burn? The fire was so bad they couldn't extinguish it, but obviously controlled enough that the firemen felt it safe enough for the family to wander through and collect belongings?

And then the admission is made:

“It is the most helpless feeling,” Mark Heleker said. “It’s like something you see in a movie that you don’t think will ever happen to you.”

ICfreely
Member
Posts: 981
Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2015 5:41 pm

Re: THE "CHATBOX"

Unread post by ICfreely » Fri Mar 04, 2016 6:16 pm

Critical Mass wrote:I will take your suggestion to heart (seriously).
Seriously? :lol: :lol: :lol:
Critical Mass wrote:I don't know what you want me to do, in a practical sense, about the past though... go back in time?
Great Scott! Instead of playing grammar narc with our new contributor, fubarfuthar, you can perhaps scrutinize what in the hell paintscam is getting at with his nonsensical posts (i.e. his turds in the 'Space and the Middle East' thread). He know Jack Schitt about the topic but mindlessly drones on about...what exactly I don't know! Or how about addressing all of my 'bitching' complaints about him all over the forum. His job is to muddy the water and none of you (excepting one) seem to get it. He poopooed Gopi's very interesting thread before I could respond. He did the same thing with Apache's thread. NOW he's doing it in fubarfuthar's thread!

Wowzers! :o :blink: :huh: :wacko:
Critical Mass wrote:I thought the take home lesson from all that was "just use the admin suggestion box" and "a bit of patience"... there never was a need for you to "bitch".
I did... to no avail! Do I need to post it on Goodyear blimps & fly them over London & Rome to get my point across?
Critical Mass wrote:As for your leaving "Simon's house"... the door is always open.
I suggest you leave that door open for a while to get the shit smell out. That's what happens when you don't house train little bitch bulldogs like paintscam.
simonshack wrote:Sad to see you go, bro.
Oh Simon turn that fr :( wn upside d :) wn.
simonshack wrote:I ain't got any bulldog though.
You'll eventually come to realize what a Pisa Schitt he is. Time is on my side. Yes it is! B)



They got so much to say, but I'm just laughin' at cha
You niggas just don't know, but I ain't mad at cha



P.S.

Paintscam,

Enjoy your 30 Shekel bonus, bitch! You've 'earned' it. :D

Apache
Member
Posts: 168
Joined: Thu Oct 22, 2015 11:02 am

Re: THE "CHATBOX"

Unread post by Apache » Sat Mar 05, 2016 8:30 am

ICfreely wrote:His job is to muddy the water and none of you (excepting one) seem to get it. He poopooed Gopi's very interesting thread before I could respond. He did the same thing with Apache's thread. NOW he's doing it in fubarfuthar's thread!
Sorry IC, which thread of mine are you talking about that he poopooed? Should I poo-poo his poo-poo? (Sorry I can't help but think of Blackadder when anyone uses this phrase lmao).
General Melchett: Is this true, Blackadder? Did Captain Darling pooh-pooh you?

Captain Blackadder: Well, perhaps a little.

General Melchett: Well, then, damn it all! What more evidence do you need? The pooh-poohing alone is a court martial offense!

Captain Blackadder: I can assure you, sir, that the pooh-poohing was purely circumstantial.

General Melchett: Well, I hope so, Blackadder. You know, if there's one thing I've learnt from being in the Army, it's never ignore a pooh-pooh. I knew a Major, who got pooh-poohed, made the mistake of ignoring the pooh-pooh. He pooh-poohed it! Fatal error! 'Cos it turned out all along that the soldier who pooh-poohed him had been pooh-poohing a lot of other officers who pooh-poohed their pooh-poohs. In the end, we had to disband the regiment. Morale totally destroyed... by pooh-pooh!
:P

Critical Mass
Member
Posts: 544
Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2014 10:33 pm

Re: THE "CHATBOX"

Unread post by Critical Mass » Sat Mar 05, 2016 10:06 am

ICfreely wrote:Great Scott! Instead of playing grammar narc with our new contributor, fubarfuthar, you can perhaps scrutinize what in the hell paintscam is getting at with his nonsensical posts (i.e. his turds in the 'Space and the Middle East' thread).
I smiled at "Great Scott!".

In regards to Painterman's post in said thread I, barely, managed to understand it (or at least I think I did... I will agree with you that his posts tend to be vague & somewhat irritating).


However I didn't really understand your own reply...

"microscopically scrutinized"

Even IF that were true... isn't that a kind of a good thing? Surely you'd want your posts to be read & "scrutinized"?

As for your posts in the admin suggestion box, other than the posts I sent there, I see little of any relevance.

Heck you've got some Prince lyrics in one "suggestion".

Surface
Member
Posts: 20
Joined: Sat Feb 20, 2016 6:03 pm

Re: THE "CHATBOX"

Unread post by Surface » Mon Mar 07, 2016 6:33 am

Wow, it seems that have been fought a mighty war here in this thread. Maybe not exactly a war but something like a quarrel.
The human element is quite obviously at work, and liberal use of obscene language by one particular user too.
I suspect that I am still too young and immature to understand the importance of both of these. This is what grownups do and I will just get back to my room and keep doing my homework.
Human element. hmmmm. think think think...

ICfreely
Member
Posts: 981
Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2015 5:41 pm

Re: THE "CHATBOX"

Unread post by ICfreely » Mon Mar 07, 2016 7:33 am

Critical Mass wrote:I smiled at "Great Scott!".
:)
Critical Mass wrote:In regards to Painterman's post in said thread I, barely, managed to understand it (or at least I think I did... I will agree with you that his posts tend to be vague & somewhat irritating).
There you have it.
Critical Mass wrote:However I didn't really understand your own reply...

"microscopically scrutinized"
Fair enough, CM. I'll concede that using the term "microscopically scrutinized" was melodramatic on my part.
Critical Mass wrote:Even IF that were true... isn't that a kind of a good thing? Surely you'd want your posts to be read & "scrutinized"?
Absolutely! It's not just 'a kind of a good thing' but a great thing.
ICfreely wrote:No one needs to worry about offending my delicate sensibilities. Truth be told, I’m more comfortable being questioned/critiqued than complimented. That’s what the scientific process is supposed to be all about.
http://www.cluesforum.info/viewtopic.ph ... 5#p2394066
My point was that he keeps getting away with posting meaningless shit.
Critical Mass wrote:As for your posts in the admin suggestion box, other than the posts I sent there, I see little of any relevance.

Heck you've got some Prince lyrics in one "suggestion".
Ok.
Apache wrote:Sorry IC, which thread of mine are you talking about that he poopooed? Should I poo-poo his poo-poo?
I was talking about your 'On the Viability of Conspiratorial Beliefs' thread, Apache.
Yeah, that's the guy who infamously coined the term "cognitive infiltration" in regards to neutralizing investigations into fakery and conspiracy - though the concept itself has been part of public relations for a century.

Readers of Cluesforum won't be surprised that Cass Sunstein advocates the unlikely partnership of "cognitive infiltration" and junk science (e.g. lunar missions, climate change, vaccination), given the recent "cognitive infiltration" attacks on this forum using Flat Earth and other in-your-face enormities of junk science.

It's obvious that junk science is currently trendy in "cognitive infiltration" psyops. Evidently the strategy is to discredit and misdirect investigation into established junk science (lunar missions, climate change, vaccination, etc.) through the "cognitive infiltration" of lots of new junk science.

They're surely not done yet either. The more socially relevant junk science Cluesforum threatens to expose, the more the "cognitive infiltrators" will try to bury us under an avalanche of junk science they'll invent for our consumption and push through smarmy "either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists / knuckle-draggers / unhappy consumers / conventional thinkers / etc." marketing.

So let's get ready to use more critical thinking to discriminate between topics worth our time investigating versus deliberate nonsense thrown in our path to discredit and misdirect the forum.

http://www.cluesforum.info/viewtopic.ph ... a#p2399141
WTF is he rambling on about?

Who the hell is he to decide for the rest of us what is or isn't "established junk science"? Seriously!

Was vaccination an "established junk science" here on CF before I joined?

Was climate change an "established junk science" here on CF before I joined?

Has he contributed anything to the 'lunar missions, climate change, vaccination, etc.' topics/threads himself?

He irritates the poo-poo out of me with his constant "let us..." horseshit.

The liar that he is, he claims he doesn't read my posts but always follows up on them with his meaningless crap (i.e. his recent chess post). He does it indirectly, of course, because that's the kind of coward he is. Seeing as moderators were unwilling to hold him accountable I took it upon myself to 'regulate.' But it was interpreted as 'bitching' on my behalf. So be it.

IMO, he is the useless cognitive infiltrator. Simon and others disagree. I can respect that. I have nothing but respect and admiration for CF's "OG's" & have no desire to continue to aggravate/annoy them by constantly 'bitching' about his, frankly, idiotic posts (i.e. his latest FE DBA post). Therefore, I've decided that it's better for me to step aside at this point.
simonshack wrote:Have thoroughly enjoyed your visit to 'my house'.
As have I. No hard feelings, bro.
Last edited by ICfreely on Mon Mar 07, 2016 8:54 am, edited 1 time in total.

Apache
Member
Posts: 168
Joined: Thu Oct 22, 2015 11:02 am

Re: THE "CHATBOX"

Unread post by Apache » Mon Mar 07, 2016 8:49 am

ICfreely wrote:I was talking about your 'On the Viability of Conspiratorial Beliefs' thread, Apache.
Ah yes. Thanks IC.
ICfreely wrote:He irritates the poo-poo out of me with his constant "let us..." horseshit.
Which is why I posted the Blackadder quote. To inject a bit of humour into this. :)
ICfreely wrote:Therefore, I've decided that it's better for me to step aside at this point.
I don't think it's worth stepping away from the whole forum IC. Please don't forget that what is written here isn't only for members; there are people who read this forum every day who aren't members yet. I lurked for years on this forum and I was part of the invisible readership. Giving up because one member irritates you or you don't agree with the "management" allowing that member to continue here isn't serving the invisible readership of CF. I assure you that they are there. Isn't what you write about for them? Without your invisible readers then yes you might as well pack up and go home, but I don't think that's the case here.

ICfreely
Member
Posts: 981
Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2015 5:41 pm

Re: THE "CHATBOX"

Unread post by ICfreely » Mon Mar 07, 2016 9:26 am

Apache wrote:Please don't forget that what is written here isn't only for members; there are people who read this forum every day who aren't members yet. I lurked for years on this forum and I was part of the invisible readership.
That's why I joined in the first place, Apache! I too was an avid CF reader for many years before I joined.
Apache wrote:Giving up because one member irritates you or you don't agree with the "management" allowing that member to continue here isn't serving the invisible readership of CF.
I agree to disagree with the "management." I really don't think Simon, CM or anyone else here is affording him any special privileges per se. I guess we all interpret his post differently (thanks largely to his intentionally vague style of communication).

He's an energy vamp, to me! He has been from day one. I'm not giving up the fight so to speak. I was 'educating' people (on a personal face-to-face level) on the dangers of allopathic medicine long before CF was established & I will continue to do so. I'm tired of wasting my precious time and energy pointing out paintball's garbage (which is almost always directed at me in a round about manner) and having to defend myself for it. That, for sure, doesn't serve CF's readership.
Apache wrote:Without your invisible readers then yes you might as well pack up and go home, but I don't think that's the case here.
Duly noted. I've contributed my fair share & am glad to see others build upon my work. I'm not packing up and going home. Just taking a 'sabbatical' if you will. Things have a way of self-correcting. To recap; I am a) tired of his cowardly indirect digs, b) tired of pointing it out to no avail and c) tired of having to defend my stance.

It's a catch-22 situation for me. If I fight back he comes off as a 'victim' of my 'hostile attacks' and I come off as a self-centered egomaniac. If I don't fight back then I stand guilty (of being a 'cognitive infiltrator') as charged (by him). Silly situation all around. But thank you just the same for your words of encouragement, Apache!

Having said that, I don't want to waste another post discussing him. Over it!

ICfreely
Member
Posts: 981
Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2015 5:41 pm

Re: THE "CHATBOX"

Unread post by ICfreely » Fri Mar 11, 2016 2:24 am

Typical BBC/Islamic Republic hit piece…

Decadence and Downfall: The Shah of Iran's Ultimate Party - BBC Documentary

full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s36jSegtVfY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s36jSegtVfY

catalyst

1 : a substance that enables a chemical reaction to proceed at a usually faster rate or under different conditions (as at a lower temperature) than otherwise possible

2 : an agent that provokes or speeds significant change or action

Surface
Member
Posts: 20
Joined: Sat Feb 20, 2016 6:03 pm

Re: THE "CHATBOX"

Unread post by Surface » Fri Mar 11, 2016 4:59 am

Mr ICfreely
I am not sure who your post in the other thread was directed at. Maybe a post that was deleted? I didn't post any comment directed at you, only a reply to fubarthark's video.
In the same comment you asked me some personal questions. Thank you for your interest in finding out personal details about me, it flatters me a lot, but I mentioned specifically in my intro post that "I see the world not people inhabiting it." Therefore I am here reading posts, analyzing the content, trying to form a coherent theory so I wouldn't need to waste the rest of my life playing with symbols which someone came up with. I don't care if the posts are written by an Iranian or Israeli or Eskimo. I don't belong to anything or anywhere and never did. I also have zero interest in unnecessary human elements.
You can provide clues as to fake science? Fine I will go sleepless researching them. You know how the world really works? Fine I will consider even the most outlandish ideas.
Beyond this, if all failed after due time and effort investment, I will go back playing with symbols as I was doing before. At least I did my best to avoid this fate. Where does in any of this "personal human relationships" come into play? Exactly, nowhere.

ICfreely
Member
Posts: 981
Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2015 5:41 pm

Re: THE "CHATBOX"

Unread post by ICfreely » Fri Mar 11, 2016 5:15 am

Surface wrote:"I see the world not people inhabiting it."


I see!
I also have zero interest in unnecessary human elements.
You don’t say! :blink:
You can provide clues as to fake science?
Haven’t I been? Will (can) you?
Where does in any of this "personal human relationships" come into play? Exactly, nowhere.
Apparently not.

Painterman
Member
Posts: 95
Joined: Wed Sep 16, 2015 12:02 pm

Re: Space and the middle east

Unread post by Painterman » Fri Mar 11, 2016 10:14 pm

Surface, before you go, I wonder if we might have your opinion, if you have one, on Maxwell's equations (in their common form due to Heaviside). I've often thought them an example of what physics should be - in their empirical soundness, their elegant simplicity which anyone can grasp with a bit of study, and the vast practical uses to which they've been put in improving civilization (as opposed to the ongoing junk-science revolution - in and out of academia - which has the opposite intent). These four equations are the theoretical basis of the characteristic inventions that made the modern world of, say, 1930 possible: motor transport, household electrification, refrigeration, wireless communication, cinema, phonographs, etc.

However, I of course remain willing to listen to criticism of Maxwell from the rare legitimately thoughtful person (as opposed to mere destructive agitator) with an opinion on such matters. So, if you've discovered something untoward here, say on please.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell's_equations

Surface
Member
Posts: 20
Joined: Sat Feb 20, 2016 6:03 pm

Re: Space and the middle east

Unread post by Surface » Sat Mar 12, 2016 1:40 am

I think this post must be moved to chatbox. I dont't know how this should be done though.
Painterman wrote:Surface, before you go, I wonder if we might have your opinion, if you have one, on Maxwell's equations (in their common form due to Heaviside). I've often thought them an example of what physics should be - in their empirical soundness, their elegant simplicity which anyone can grasp with a bit of study, and the vast practical uses to which they've been put in improving civilization (as opposed to the ongoing junk-science revolution - in and out of academia - which has the opposite intent). These four equations are the theoretical basis of the characteristic inventions that made the modern world of, say, 1930 possible: motor transport, household electrification, refrigeration, wireless communication, cinema, phonographs, etc.

However, I of course remain willing to listen to criticism of Maxwell from the rare legitimately thoughtful person (as opposed to mere destructive agitator) with an opinion on such matters. So, if you've discovered something untoward here, say on please.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell's_equations
Ah, very relevant point and should I say a classic. Actually, speaking off the top of my head, Maxwell while known for his classic equations, has also some other not so simple contributions to science. One is , in my current state of mind, the rather weird introduction of transcendental functions into probability, and if you read between the lines, mixing of real numbers, essentially a "continuous number system" with discrete mathematics! This equation used in probabilistic approaches in chemistry is hailed as the genius of the man. Hmmmm I am feeling uncomfortable already. But I am talking off the top of my head and from what I remember from my own direct studies at the time when there was no Wikipedia. So much for the character of the man and his contributions, one of which I now see as a deliberate attempt to force "transcendental functions" into probability and statistics, an essentially discrete field of mathematics concerned only with "integers". Now that I am thinking about this point, it looks to me like something done as a matter of principle rather than based on necessity!

I cannot remember when but some years ago I read an article claiming that Maxwell equations are the ultimate explanation we need in modern physics. At that time I dismissed this idea as too simplistic, and still hoped, based on the apparent "rate" at which our "science" was progressing, that soon some dramatic result will be published that will effectively explain all the obvious anomalies we meet in our explanations of the "infinitesimal world" as opposed to our "human scale" world, and also be able to merge all these with "cosmic scale" too. So obviously I didn't look into that claim at that time, now I am curious about it.

But before I go and have a look, I should point out that really, ironically, things are not so simple so that a set of equations can explain everything, and somehow everyone is missing that! There are quite a lot of "alternative" explanations in existence that attempt to complement the newtonian mechanics. Just to name one, Lagrange - Euler mechanics. I think it is called Lagrangian mechanics. The point is that these alternative mechanics, actually relativity is one among them, these are playing with equations. Really it is not hard when you get the hang of it. You essentially knock together equations to make them compatible with the "observed" phenomenon. Fair enough. The problem is that the observed phenomena, is reported by the likes of NASA! Then we have a problem. How can we test theories then?
The other problem is that digging further into these "advanced" topics, you will find a lot of "assumptions". As soon as something weird is observed the method of choice is "modeling", creating empirical models of the phenomenon, creating "systems of differential equations", which is the standard approach, then getting a computer to apply finite elements method "FEM" to these and get awesome 3d graphs out of it! Here the idea is that some stuff is just probabilistic and simply "too complex" to explain simply! Not only that, but in fact they are fully understood as probabilistic or chaotic, or "unexplainable". An example off the top of my head. Fluid dynamics, neat systems of differential equations. But how can you explain the chaotic dynamics? Don't worry there is a guy who understands it and wrote a 2000 page absolutely incomprehensible book. He is Chinese and unlike me has two PhD so I am intimidated and won't even expect to understand it!

Another trick, seen in the heavily "formula-based" approaches. They pick something out of pure mathematics, bring it into science, watch it grow! Why is this tricky? Because it is impossible to be both a scientist and a mathematician, specifically master of that particular mathematical branch! You simply have to rely on the introduced mathematical entity as perfectly valid. Why perfectly valid? Because we assume mathematics has a life of its own. We are not aware of the completely artificial nature of a large body of pure mathematics. Have you ever heard of those games where someone asks you to choose a number in your head and then add it with itself etc and then he can tell you the original number by knowing the end result? Yeah it works like that. They use a circular idea that relies on itself. This is the source of perfection of pure mathematics! They start with an idea, an assumption. Move backwards, making it incredibly complicated. Move forward and add it to itself, again move back make it complex. After a while they have created a web of impressively perfect yet absolutely useless knowledge! But what tricked me was the thought that such a degree of "complexity" must surely be signs of ultimate importance and relevance of our pure mathematics! That was a big mistake! These things are completely artificial, by no means have a life of their own. There is a philosophical debate about whether mathematics is actually a life of its own, is it real, is it part of the universe? Ha! What mathematics? The artificial one or the real one? It is easy to drop a stone in a well, but it takes much effort to take it out again.
So with this in mind, I suggest that we just don't assume that our universe must necessarily be expressed in systems of differential equations, or using vector calculus, or any known and discovered mathematics. One example. College physics explain the fact that two current carrying conductors exert force on each other. Why? College students will answer, because both are creating "fields" and these fields interact, attracting or repelling the conductors! Perfect. As soon as you pick up "advanced modern physics" you will see this: "sorry kids we have been kind of lying to you. Forget about the field, the real reason the conductors are moving is that errr the electrons in one conductor know that the other electrons are moving and so they try to move also perpendicular to the normal direction, so relativity remain valid!" The book admits that this giving "consciousness" to electrons is a bit weird, but that is how it is! In one experiment, observing one phenomenon immediately changes the other! Observing the other one changes the first! See the pattern? Giving ESP to the physical world, electrons, and physical phenomena. These are examples from official textbook physics, not Internet articles!

Well, to recap. Our problems almost certainly will not be solved with just one set of equations. Sorry. Neither with a whole bunch of them. There is simply too many problems to explain, both real and maybe hoaxes. Our mathematics is not to be blindly trusted, sometimes it is based on circular assumptions! Systems of differential equations, while used extensively in structural engineering, while being "simple", and while beautifully explaining some phenomena, like newtonian mechanics, are ultimately just that, systems of differential equations, and the real world, the infinitesimal world, does not seem to be explainable with them at all!
I will check recent views regarding Maxwell 's equations, but really I have zero hope for these even without looking into them again. Engineering works with pure trial and error. Electric motors work regardless. The explanations we read in a standard "Electromagnetic theory" book, which is a very tough subject I should admit, are simplifications. They are just models, like what I mentioned about attractions and repelling of current carrying conductors. That is how electric motors work and the relativistic explanation about this is nonsense. Engineering doesn't wait for theoretical physics. It is trial and error based.

What really bothers me is that no one is seriously looking into these issues. Is it that because for some reason we can never hope to understand or even explain the world fully? Do we live in a purely empirical world at our human macroscopic scale, and on infinitesimal scale the picture changes so much, that it becomes incomprehensible? That explains why engineering systems can be explained so simply, but physics is still stuck. Hmmmm that also explains why theoretical physicists are happily playing with equations.
Anyway I think I typed a lot. Will post a comment if I found anything recently interesting about those Maxwell equations.
I will post in chatterbox. I hope you will see that.
Cheers

Post Reply