4 ms·

No, of course not. My opinion is based on many other papers and understanding of a very different model.

by poelzi 10y ago

GFK_of_xmaspast 10y ago
Then why did you bring it up?
- poelzi 10y ago
  because the only thing that can save us is better physical understanding. Think about it: we have 2, 3 major problems. We need massive amounts of clean energy, something with 95% availability and not with batteries. If someone brings up a really good reflow battery, I might change my opinion on this. Anyways, we need energy to clean up the mess. Second problem would be a technology to evacuate and I mean a life supporting planet, not mars. Every colony on mars will die when earth collapses. The technological level required to survive in a purely hostile environment is enormous. Image the production line to create something like a oxygen generator from scratch. Me may even need to build a sun shield to artificially reduce the sun impact on arctic and other critical zones. You can't build a sun shield with chemical propulsion, you have the sunwind as constant acceleration which you have counter. Don't get me wrong, we have social problems as well, starting from money to distribution of power. But those can't be solved if the earth is in ruins. There are solutions to all of those problems, at least the physical ones. I stumbled upon another physical model over a year ago and the philosopher in me said, that the basic assumptions sound very logical and sound. I want to understand this model and spent quite some time trying to understand the model from the ground up. I checked references and tried to interpret newer findings under the perspective the new model provides. For me it sounded reasonable but I frequently asked physicists, my old profs, popular ones, ones with other "crazy" ideas, ... The feedback is very, very sparse. The arguments are very often not even remotely logical sound and I found in my attempts to openly talk about that model 2 types of 'scientists'. The ones that openly try to understand new ideas from the ground up and those that are so convinced of their model, that they consciously or subconsciously (confirmation bias) ignore counterfactual measurements and logical reasoning. I stopped talking with later ones as they are a wast of time. If your model fails to explain one experimental observed phenomena, it may be wonderful to predict certain effects, but you can never use it to argument against something, because it can't be the real implementation. I go with the author of the theory that the whole strangeness of our standard model resulted from 2 assumptions that are not even well grounded. The late Einstein was right as in so many things.

No, of course not. My opinion is based on many other papers and understanding of a very different model.

by poelzi 10y ago

No, of course not. My opinion is based on many other papers and understanding of a very different model.

GFK_of_xmaspast 10y ago

Then why did you bring it up?

poelzi 10y ago
because the only thing that can save us is better physical understanding. Think about it: we have 2, 3 major problems. We need massive amounts of clean energy, something with 95% availability and not with batteries. If someone brings up a really good reflow battery, I might change my opinion on this. Anyways, we need energy to clean up the mess. Second problem would be a technology to evacuate and I mean a life supporting planet, not mars. Every colony on mars will die when earth collapses. The technological level required to survive in a purely hostile environment is enormous. Image the production line to create something like a oxygen generator from scratch. Me may even need to build a sun shield to artificially reduce the sun impact on arctic and other critical zones. You can't build a sun shield with chemical propulsion, you have the sunwind as constant acceleration which you have counter. Don't get me wrong, we have social problems as well, starting from money to distribution of power. But those can't be solved if the earth is in ruins. There are solutions to all of those problems, at least the physical ones. I stumbled upon another physical model over a year ago and the philosopher in me said, that the basic assumptions sound very logical and sound. I want to understand this model and spent quite some time trying to understand the model from the ground up. I checked references and tried to interpret newer findings under the perspective the new model provides. For me it sounded reasonable but I frequently asked physicists, my old profs, popular ones, ones with other "crazy" ideas, ... The feedback is very, very sparse. The arguments are very often not even remotely logical sound and I found in my attempts to openly talk about that model 2 types of 'scientists'. The ones that openly try to understand new ideas from the ground up and those that are so convinced of their model, that they consciously or subconsciously (confirmation bias) ignore counterfactual measurements and logical reasoning. I stopped talking with later ones as they are a wast of time. If your model fails to explain one experimental observed phenomena, it may be wonderful to predict certain effects, but you can never use it to argument against something, because it can't be the real implementation. I go with the author of the theory that the whole strangeness of our standard model resulted from 2 assumptions that are not even well grounded. The late Einstein was right as in so many things.