The greatest success story in physics

[IBDaMann]

It's actually pretty simple in basic concept.

Cypress is about to circumvent the scientific method to somehow declare chemistry "falsified".

You and I, at the most fundamental level, are made up of three things: up quarks, down quarks, and electrons.

Chemistry says otherwise. We have Cypress' word against standard chemistry. Hmmmm.

Three of the four known fundamental forces are mediated by the bosons

Cypress' artwork does not specify any such "mediation." I wonder if he will begin explaining how dilithium crystals regulate warp drive.

the photon carries the electromagnetic force

Cypress claims that forces are "carried." This is not supported by his artwork.

the gluon binds the atomic nucleus together, the W and Z bosons carry the weak force, e g. nuclear radiation.

... and the impulse engines microfold subspace. Cypress' artwork does not express any of this.

Gravity is outside the standard model

Horrors! Is Cypress implying the unimaginable? ... the insoportable? ... that we might have to turn to physics and chemistry for our science models? There should be a law prohibiting chemistry and physics from being preached in the artwork classroom.

... at least until we can discover a quantum theory of gravity.

Cypress thinks science models are somehow "discovered," as if a science prospector suddenly finds a nugget of science in his pan. Science models, being falsifiable and having survived the scrutiny of the scientific method, are deliberately created, not accidentally discovered.

A quantum theory of gravity exists, having been authored and championed by Joseph Weber. The theory has had prominent, and very vocal, critics/detractors but has nonetheless never been falsified. I sat in on a lecture by Joseph Weber on gravitational waves and Relativity. Weber's theory is based on Einstein's/Relativity's prediction of gravity waves, however Weber's theory extends the science by quantizing gravitation waves into "gravity particles," or "gravitons". The difficulty faced by scientists who wish to scrutinize Weber's theory under the scientific method meet with great difficulty in finding a way to observe and to accurately and precisely measure such gravitons as defined in Weber's theory. Joseph Weber used precisely machined steel drums to measure gravitons in the form of deformation/stretching of the drums, which is still just a proxy measure, and one that is prone to high degrees of error, even with very precise instrumentation.

That's basically all that picture represents.

None of what Cypress describes above is depicted or expressed in the artwork he presented. The Christian Bible might be a wonderfull text, but it won't be used to develop technology. Similarly, Cypress' artwork might appear "neat" but it won't be helping anyone develop any technology.

 

[IBDaMann]

The Standard Model explains three of the four fundamental forces that govern the universe

Everyone can see that you cannot explain anything you are gibbering. It's abusrd for you to throw some artwork into your post and expect everyone to somehow accept it as an "explanation" for whatever gibberish you wish to claim. It's entirely pathetic for you to throw artwork into your post and claim that it represents the greatest intellectual achievement of mankind.

Why aren't you providing any of the "explanations" that you claim are somehow being expressed by your artwork?

 

[IBDaMann]

Not quite. A theory is an explanatory argument.

A theory is an assertion. A science theory/model is a falsifiable assertion. Assertions are neither explanations nor arguments.

A prosecutor will present his theory/theorem (assertion) to the jury. At that point it becomes incumbent upon him to form a valid argument that results in the theory/assertion being concluded, otherwise his theory/assertion is rejected and the accused is presumed innocent. The prosecutor is responsible for explaining all aspects of the argument to the jury's satisfaction in order to transform the valid argument into a sound argument, for the jury to accept concluding the assertion/theory as being correct.

A scientist will present his falsifiable theory/theorem (assertion) to the public. At that point it becomes incumbent upon the public to show that it is false, and all are empowered to do so if they can. The scientific method, a systematic battery of tests, is applied in an attempt to show the assertion false. After internal and external consistency is tested, an hypothesis is cherry-picked (devised, hand-crafted) that seemingly has the best chance at showing the assertion to be false. If the assertion is not falsified, the theory/assertion remains as science.

The theory itself doesn't necessarily predict, but it always explains (it explains some observed phenomena).

I hate to splash you with cold water, but Newton's law F=mA accurately predicts that a mass of 10kg will accelerate at 10 meters/second^2 in the direction of an applied force of 10 Newtons, as a direct effect of that specific cause. The prediction never explains why this will happen, just that you should bet your money on it, and that you should rest assured developing your technology based on the belief that this will always be the result.

You will never, ever, ever, know why this happens ... only that it will, each and every time. Explanations, and questions of "why" are not in the purview of science; however, if you know any Christians or other religious people, they are better suited to address such questions and to offer such explanations.

I realize that it is common for people to use wording to the effect of science "explaining why things are." Unfortunately, science is just a collection of models, which are assertions, and can neither argue nor explain. They predict nature through mathematically/formally-expressed relationships/constraints.

It must be transcribed into or created in a closed functional system such as mathematics or logic to gain the power of prediction.

Whereas I don't prefer your wording, I totally agree with your point. The purpose of science is to predict the effect of a cause, i.e. cause-->effect, and that requires the model to be unambiguous, i.e. expressed mathematically or otherwise formally in some manner. Technically, science is currently being expressed in SysML and displayed in parametric diagrams in efforts to develop technology, as one example (although it's still math at its base).

His picture of his Speak and Spell (as noted by T. A. Gardner) doesn't explain anything. It doesn't predict anything because it's not transcribed into either mathematics or logic. He simply believes his picture is somehow 'science'. He also figures that his buzzwords he lifted off the internet are somehow 'science' as well.

This is just another face of the warmizombie tactic of lifting bogus charts and graphics off the internet and presenting them as trump cards to win some sort of religious argument. "Hey, didn't you see the chart I posted? That debate is over!" "Hey, didn't you see the artwork I posted? All other achievements of humanity have been discarded in shame!"

 

[Hawkeye10]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1771955997948477755

 

[Hawkeye10]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1765784134402871533

One of the wildest videos I’ve EVER seen on the state of modern physics.

@TOEwithCurt
has…as an *outsider*…tried to digest an enormous amount of material, previously only discussed by experts. This video is something like an index of topics to an encyclopedia that doesn’t exist.

Experts will complain about errors and pronunciation. Lay people will complain that it doesn’t actually explain the myriad topics discussed. Ignore that.

Someone finally made a video about the actual state of modern physics. And the effect is similar to sitting in a modern seminar: total bewilderment amidst a feeling like nothing is happening while being wildly overstimulated.

Post-modern physics after 1984 IS an intellectual Tower of Babel with little connection to any physical world we know. And this video reflects what a self taught outsider sees while visiting it. It is totally accurate in reflecting that.

In short, even the experts feel like you will while watching as a lay person. I know some of this stuff, but most of it is barely understandable to me or most colleagues.

I found many needles in this sprawling haystack as well as errors. But the hay is actually the most important part of this video. Why? Because nothing in nature looks like this. And this chaos is what made real physics grind to a halt.

@TOEwithCurt
is holding up the mirror. This is what we look like after 40 years of String Theory Stewardship whether we like it or not. This is what we produced as a field while our picture of the world stayed frozen for 50 years.

It’s just shocking to actually see it.

 

[goat]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1771955997948477755

The pentagon has no interest in string theory either because it doesn't show a better way to kill people.

 

[Hawkeye10]

The pentagon has no interest in string theory either because it doesn't show a better way to kill people.

Eric is not the only one who says that the field of physics has been wrecked with incompetence and rent seeking, which makes the existence of this thread talking up these elites interesting.

It feels like narrative warring, trying to convince us against all evidence that we should continue to believe and follow the elites.

 

[Hawkeye10]

It seems like the decline of physics is caused by the same thing as the decline of the entire West....greed and the desire to believe in fantasy rather than reality.

 

[goat]

Eric is not the only one who says that the field of physics has been wrecked with incompetence and rent seeking, which makes the existence of this thread talking up these elites interesting.

It feels like narrative warring, trying to convince us against all evidence that we should continue to believe and follow the elites.

The standard model has been an important part of physics for more than 50 years, or right before physics was taken over by a handful of elitists.

The Theory of Geometric Unity is an attempt by Eric Weinstein to produce a unified field theory by recovering the different, seemingly incompatible geometries of fundamental physics from a general structure with minimal assumptions.

 

[Hawkeye10]

The standard model has been an important part of physics for more than 50 years, or right before physics was taken over by a handful of elitists.

The Theory of Geometric Unity is an attempt by Eric Weinstein to produce a unified field theory by recovering the different, seemingly incompatible geometries of fundamental physics from a general structure with minimal assumptions.

I dont know enough to know, but I am stuck by how similar the stories I now hear about the collapse of physics are to the stories I was hearing 40 years ago about the collapse of philosophy.

 

[goat]

I dont know enough to know, but I am stuck by how similar the stories I now hear about the collapse of physics are to the stories I was hearing 40 years ago about the collapse of philosophy.

Physicists have been stealing parts of Eric Weinstein's Geometric Unity for close to 25 years. All Weinstein asks for is to be credited for his work, but the thieves refused, so he decided to write it down for all to see.

 

[Hawkeye10]

Physicists have been stealing parts of Eric Weinstein's Geometric Unity for close to 25 years. All Weinstein asks for is to be credited for his work, but the thieves refused, so he decided to write it down for all to see.

WOW...I knew nothing about that....even though both of the Weinstein brothers are on my grapevine.

 

[Cypress]

Everyone can see I'm a scientifically illiterate troll!

science doesn't explain anything about nature!

^^^ This was so fucking funny I'm going to add it to your litany of scientifically illiterate statements

"Quantum mechanics is the field of physics that explains how extremely small objects simultaneously have the characteristics of both particles and waves." (Scientific American magazine)

Darwin's theory of evolution is not science

​

hint: energy and matter are not interchangeable

​

Wave-Particle duality is classical physics.

​

There is no such thing as an accelerating reference frame!!

​

science doesn't explain anything about nature!

​

 

[BidenPresident]

I don't want to thread drift too much on Cypress, but physics is going back to the future with geometry.

Did any of you Trump supporters graduate from high school?

 

[Cypress]

The standard model has been an important part of physics for more than 50 years

Thank you.

The loud mouthed poseur IBDumbass never heard of it until I brought it up, and he was completely befuddled by a Department of Energy graphic that summarized the fundamental fermion particles, the force carriers, and Higgs field of the Standard Model.

His sock puppet Into the Night has been roaming around this thread claiming there is no such thing as the standard model.



I concur that after a flurry of activity in the 60s and 70s, progress on the Standard Model slowed to a crawl, but maybe that's because it's an almost complete theory of physical reality outside of gravity.

 

[IBDaMann]

Did any of you Trump supporters graduate from high school?

Are you worried about being the only one left behind?

 

[BidenPresident]

Are you worried about being the only one left behind?

go fuck yourself asshole

 

[IBDaMann]

The standard model has been an important part of physics for more than 50 years,

What do you mean by "the standard model"? Are you asserting the same thing that Cypress is? If you are, then please name one way in which humanity has somehow benefitted from this particular unverified and unfalsifiable speculation.

The Theory of Geometric Unity is an attempt by Eric Weinstein to produce a unified field theory

It's not a theory if it's an attempt at a theory.

 

[IBDaMann]

go fuck yourself asshole

Go fuck a wood chipper, shit-for-brains.

 

[BidenPresident]

Go fuck a wood chipper, shit-for-brains.

go fuck yourself asshole