There is some truth in this, but I think much less so in modern science than in other fields. Although some scientists are certainly by nature more imaginative and iconoclastic than others, no scientist gets anywhere without respect for the evidence; that is to say, the minimal requirement for any new theory is that it must explain all known phenomena both qualitatively and quantitatively at least as well as the old theory. This is, in general (and certainly in modern physics) an extremely tight constraint on the imagination. Modern science does not proceed by one type of scientist going on a flight of unconstrained fancy, then a another type of scientist pointing out that the flight of fancy is not consistent with what we already know. The former person is not a scientist. True scientific genius (general relativity, for example) lies in a deep understanding the constraints of the current evidence, and having insight into where the imagination is free to explore.
A force is a force, of course. Of course! And no one can unite every force, of course. That is of course unless the forces are united by the genius Mister Mantraphilter.[URL=“Straight Dope Message Board - Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.”]
A serious suggestion to the OP: You can’t tell that all the current structure of modern physics is wrong, unless you first understand that structure. Can you do any calculations at all in quantum mechanics, or relativity? If not, then how can you hope to find the flaws in those calculations? If you’re really serious about this, then you need to learn physics, and a lot of it. I’m not just talking high school courses, here: I mean college courses, the ones designed for majors, and for graduate students. And along the way, of course, you’ll also need a lot of math, in order to make sense of those physics courses.
Interesting, but I wouldn’t apply it to scientists, either. I’ve often heard that Willy Brandt and Helmut Schmidt (two politicans) were a good duo was because Brandt was the visionary and Schmidt the practical thinker who knew how to apply the ideas and make them work. Without visions, politics doesn’t get far enough for new ideas.
Most often I see it however in new businesses (because of the small size, and because I saw the dot com boom from the sidelines): having good ideas, or being good at coding, is not enough to make a good Company. You Need a second Partner who is good with numbers or practical applications.
Even big companies have floundered when a falling-out between These Partners occurred, often because of resentment by A that B valued his part less than his own (the Creatives looking down on the accountants happens just as often as accountants looking down on Creatives).
Starting a Business just as an accountant won’t get you far, starting it only as a creative will make you Crash.
(bolding mine)
"I should have stayed awake in school.
The End."
Yeah, but how does this all explain “The Force”? Huh???
Trying to parse the OP, but the best I can determine this a about 1) Physics United, the new professional soccer team out of MIT; or 2) a typo of “Psychics Untied”. Either way it makes perfect sense.
Physics is math, not essays. Show your equations.
I like how thse same principle explained here can be broadly applied to a lot of things even outside of science.
Ah come on, don’t be lazy. You can take fragments and explain them thoroughly to Show you understand physics properly.
are…
according to the wave theory, which works like this…
following the laws expressed thusly …
See, there is real physics in there! Just add half a page of your own, and it makes sense! (Instant physics…)
Or for English lit, you rewrite as Story of four Forces who can be combined for a superhero, but write it better than an 80s saturday morning Cartoon!
He posted here six minutes after his last post there!
Why is it always a he who claims to overthrow all of physics with a diagram?
Nobody would think to overthrow English by diagramming a sentence in a new way.
I read his posts over there, which leads me to believe that no matter what we say here, if we don’t bask in his glory he will start all over again elsewhere.
Apparently, he claims he knows more than the “so-called-physicists”.
Act humbled, everybody. We have a super-genius in our midst.
These “diagrams” wouldn’t be in the form of lick-on tattoos, would they?
Thanks for the link, looks like a great forum, just registered
Third time, by my count, that we’ve had a newcomer here with a ‘space is a fluid, gravity is pressure’ type theory, that is very heavy on the verbosity, and very light on the math/evidence/falsifiability
A brief review of the o.p.:
The hypothesis has some delightfully unfounded speculation and many densely constructed paragraphs of repetitious gobbledygook but the grammar is too coherent, there is a lack of non-sequitur analogues referencing cetaceans or koalas, and there is no introduction of cromulent neologisms or bigoted screeds about the broken education system, ‘coloreds’ diluting the gene pool though miscengenation, or or uppity feminists and the Woman’s Lib movement. Gene Ray gives this only two out of a possible five Time Cubes.
Stranger
You should cook up a really weird theory for your first post.