Any Maverick Mathematicians out there?

Polymath257 said:

Bohm gave an interpretation of classical quantum mechanics that makes *exactly* the same predictions of observations as the standard theory while *also* being much more complicated to actually use. In many ways, it is similar to the 'pilot wave' point of view.

As such, it is *philosophically* interesting, but doesn't carry much *scientific* interest. It is considered to be *observationally* equivalent and harder to actually use for no real benefit.

Even more, when more advanced aspects are brought in, Bohm's outline ails miserably to deal with, for example, spin and the Pauli exclusion principle (which is the basis for stability of matter).

So, Bohm's ideas are usually discussed more by philosophers than physicists because there is little use for it in the *science*.

Click to expand...

Is Science what the Scientists say or what comes out ultimately from the different components/steps of the Scientific Method, please?

Regards

paarsurrey said:

Is Science what the Scientists say or what comes out ultimately from the different components/steps of the Scientific Method, please?

Regards

Click to expand...

Science is an ongoing process whereby scientists use the scientific method to understand regularities in the world. The goal is to get an overall understanding that can predict all future observations with as much accuracy as the observations allow.

So, science at any one point in time is what the scientists say, but that can change over time as we obtain more data and insight. The basic method of science, however, stays consistent.

paarsurrey said:

Is Science what the Scientists say or what comes out ultimately from the different components/steps of the Scientific Method, please?

Click to expand...

IMO one cannot take *science* in general to count for all scientific brances. The *Earthbound* branches is science at it´s best, where real tests can be done and real results can be made as real knowledge.

When it comes to astrophysics and cosmology, *science* is *the other way around*.

Here it is the theory, that everything in the observable Universe have to follow pure theories, calculations and equations, and when contradicted, there is something wrong with the Universe and then they just add invented matters and energies everywhere.

They can´t test anything but their ideas, and such ideas are there lots of. As their *scientific* process goes along, they keep on interpret all observations in hindsigt biases - and then they believe their theories to be confirmed, where in fact they only confirms their very ideas - whether it fit or not to the cosmic reality.

In this very uncertain sence:

paarsurrey said:

Is Science what the Scientists say

Click to expand...

The only exception from this, is the science of space craft and satellite launching, and this *science* is made on a not understood *Newtonian law of celestial motion*.

So, even here, *science is what scientists say* when it comes to understand the natural laws.

Polymath257 said:

So, science at any one point in time is what the scientists say, but that can change over time as we obtain more data and insight. The basic method of science, however, stays consistent.

Click to expand...

According to the *Maverick* OP here, you´re out of topic.

You have to differ between the scientific branches and not just think of it in general as in *the high flying fantasies*.

Polymath257 said:

Science is an ongoing process whereby scientists use the scientific method to understand regularities in the world. The goal is to get an overall understanding that can predict all future observations with as much accuracy as the observations allow.

So, science at any one point in time is what the scientists say, but that can change over time as we obtain more data and insight. The basic method of science, however, stays consistent.

Click to expand...

How would one reflect on the following, please?:

"31,000 scientists reject global warming and say "no convincing evidence" that humans can or will cause global warming? "

Is it, therefore, "Science", please?

Regards

Native said:

IMO one cannot take *science* in general to count for all scientific brances. The *Earthbound* branches is science at it´s best, where real tests can be done and real results can be made as real knowledge.

When it comes to astrophysics and cosmology, *science* is *the other way around*.

Here it is the theory, that everything in the observable Universe have to follow pure theories, calculations and equations, and when contradicted, there is something wrong with the Universe and then they just add invented matters and energies everywhere.

They can´t test anything but their ideas, and such ideas are there lots of. As their *scientific* process goes along, they keep on interpret all observations in hindsigt biases - and then they believe their theories to be confirmed, where in fact they only confirms their very ideas - whether it fit or not to the cosmic reality.

In this very uncertain sence:

The only exception from this, is the science of space craft and satellite launching, and this *science* is made on a not understood *Newtonian law of celestial motion*.

So, even here, *science is what scientists say* when it comes to understand the natural laws.

Click to expand...

Does one mean that (real) science is where real tests can be done and real results can be made as real knowledge, please? And that can be done only on " earth", please? Right , please?

Regards

paarsurrey said:

How would one reflect on the following, please?:

"31,000 scientists reject global warming and say "no convincing evidence" that humans can or will cause global warming? "

Is it, therefore, "Science", please?

Regards

Click to expand...

1. When was that said? The evidence gets better over time. The knowledge from 20 years ago was less than it is today.

2. Were these *climate* scientists? You know, the ones qualified to say something?

3. What do the main scientific organizations say? They are usually better at giving the consensus than new reports (or political documents).

Polymath257 said:

1. When was that said? The evidence gets better over time. The knowledge from 20 years ago was less than it is today.
2. Were these *climate* scientists? You know, the ones qualified to say something?
3. What do the main scientific organizations say? They are usually better at giving the consensus than new reports (or political documents).

Click to expand...

Does one mean that "science is not what the scientists say" instead "science is what the scientific organization say", please?

Regards

Polymath257 said:

1. When was that said? The evidence gets better over time. The knowledge from 20 years ago was less than it is today.

2. Were these *climate* scientists? You know, the ones qualified to say something?

3. What do the main scientific organizations say? They are usually better at giving the consensus than new reports (or political documents).

Click to expand...

"To participate in the petition one only needs to mark a check box to show that one has a Ph.D., M.S., or B.S. degree, and then fill in the fields. Unfortunately, that means that anyone can sign the petition, whether they have a degree or not."

31,000 scientists say "no convincing evidence". — OSS Foundation

We Never Know said:

"To participate in the petition one only needs to mark a check box to show that one has a Ph.D., M.S., or B.S. degree, and then fill in the fields. Unfortunately, that means that anyone can sign the petition, whether they have a degree or not."

31,000 scientists say "no convincing evidence". — OSS Foundation

Click to expand...

Does one mean that for scientists a degree of Ph.D., M.S., or B.S. is a must irrespective what they are saying on a issue if they have verified it by the mills of the scientific method, please?

Regards

paarsurrey said:

Does one mean that (real) science is where real tests can be done and real results can be made as real knowledge, please? And that can be done only on " earth", please? Right , please?
Regards

Click to expand...

No not quite so. Launching spacecrafts and satellites follows the scientific methods very precisely, but all the rest in cosmos cannot be tested strict scientifically.

All the rest works by *The Assumptive Method* and interpretations made on telecopic measurements which provides some informations, but even most of these are assumptive interpreted in a *Hindsight Bias Method Way*.

We Never Know said:

"To participate in the petition one only needs to mark a check box to show that one has a Ph.D., M.S., or B.S. degree, and then fill in the fields. Unfortunately, that means that anyone can sign the petition, whether they have a degree or not."

Click to expand...

According to the *Maverick* OP in this thread, I guess some scientists are working inside the square box here too without thinking of climate - and some other scientists jumps out of the box and do scientific investigations on the climate department.

Guess yourself who does what.

paarsurrey said:

Does one mean that for scientists a degree of Ph.D., M.S., or B.S. is a must irrespective what they are saying on a issue if they have verified it by the mills of the scientific method, please?

Regards

Click to expand...

You have to have a PhD in the topic. Next if out of 1000 such scientists, 995 say one thing and 5 say another.... then science is what that 995 are saying.

Subject: *Probabilities, Uncertainties and Contra Predictions*.

More on David Bohm meeting other scientists.

Sabine Hossenfelder presents this video:
"David Bohm's Pilot Wave Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics".


“In this video I explain how Bohmian mechanics, also known as the Pilot Wave Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics works, and what is good and bad about it. I also tell you a little about the history of the subject because I think it is helpful to understand the situation in which the subject is today”.
------------------
My comments:

Waves or particles and when?
Theoretical astrophysicists and cosmologists becomes quite *dis-entangled in their minds* when dealing with these wave-particle entangling matters.

The video contents is all about the discussion of whether and when *it´s a particle* or a *wave* or both. And once again, scientists cannot agree to find a consensus in these matters because they´re having huge troubles with looking at the same problem from both sides at the same time. They are simply disconnected in their brains.

Personally I find it especially interesting how established scientists reacts on new ideas as here in the video:

07:04 Etablished physicists reactions against Bohm: >not kindly>foolish>basically wrong>juvenile deviationism>a physical fairy tale for children>not very helpful<.

Such silly childish approaches is why cosmological development slowly went to bed for about 100 years ago, despite new knowledge of fundamental forces. The Electromagnetism, was already discovered back in 1820 by the Danish scientist Hans Christian Ørsted.

This discovery was also applied to cosmic theories, but was meet by the older 350 yearcemented Newtonian ideas which was embedded as *doctrines of the one and only truth* in all textsbooks.

The *Smashing Smitherine Method*.
The rigid and selective Newtonian cosmology is in general: Particles = mass = energy, working on two bodies and it´s *all particles*, as it is in CERN too.



In order to find out of *the large everything in the Universe*, scientists in CERN are smashing *everything to smaller and smaller smitherines*.

A smashing method which only ends up with finding nothing else but a *foggy substance* which contains lots and lots of the similar energy, that CERN uses to make their experiments: The *Infinite Primordal Field of Electromagnetism*. The field, which was named as *The Cosmic Ocean* by our ancient ancestors in cultures all over the Earth.

Conclusion:
The unifying Electro Magnetic Field Force, builds up everything by binding particles together to Planets and sorting gases out into Stars and Galaxies all over in cosmos.

E-M works in all *metallic and gaseous atoms* as complemental force on each other.

sayak83 said:

You have to have a PhD in the topic. Next if out of 1000 such scientists, 995 say one thing and 5 say another.... then science is what that 995 are saying.

Click to expand...

Except from in the astrophysical and cosmological science where thousands and thousands of PhD´s all can be wrong at the same time because *things are not yet understood*.

Native said:

Except from in the astrophysical and cosmological science where thousands and thousands of PhD´s all can be wrong at the same time because *things are not yet understood*.

Click to expand...

That's your opinion. You are welcome to it.

sayak83 said:

That's your opinion. You are welcome to it.

Click to expand...

As the facual author of this OP, logically I am. And I replyed accordingly to the *Maverick* OP too.

sayak83 said:

You have to have a PhD in the topic. Next if out of 1000 such scientists, 995 say one thing and 5 say another.... then science is what that 995 are saying.

Click to expand...

Does one mean that science is like politics where majority of votes are essential not what is truth, please?
Regards

Native said:

No not quite so. Launching spacecrafts and satellites follows the scientific methods very precisely, but all the rest in cosmos cannot be tested strict scientifically.

All the rest works by *The Assumptive Method* and interpretations made on telecopic measurements which provides some informations, but even most of these are assumptive interpreted in a *Hindsight Bias Method Way*.

Click to expand...

Does one mean that Scientific Method has a valid space for and is inclusive of these *The Assumptive Method* and the *Hindsight Bias Method Way*, please?

Regards

paarsurrey said:

Does one mean that Scientific Method has a valid space for and is inclusive of these *The Assumptive Method* and the *Hindsight Bias Method Way*, please?

Click to expand...

Well, yes IF and WHEN the method is based on REAL observations, which are confirmed IN ALL astrophysical and cosmological brances, and also are explained dynamically and confirmed by *ALL Fundamental Forces*.