Even physicists are 'afraid' of mathematics

November 11, 2016

Physicists avoid highly mathematical work despite being trained in advanced mathematics, new research suggests.

The study, published in the New Journal of Physics, shows that pay less attention to theories that are crammed with mathematical details. This suggests there are real and widespread barriers to communicating mathematical work, and that this is not because of poor training in , or because there is a about doing well in mathematics.

Dr Tim Fawcett and Dr Andrew Higginson, from the University of Exeter, found, using statistical analysis of the number of citations to 2000 articles in a leading physics journal, that articles are less likely to be referenced by other physicists if they have lots of on each page.

Dr Higginson said: "We have already showed that biologists are put off by equations but we were surprised by these findings, as physicists are generally skilled in mathematics.

"This is an important issue because it shows there could be a disconnection between mathematical theory and experimental work. This presents a potentially enormous barrier to all kinds of scientific progress."

The research findings suggest improving the training of science graduates won't help, because physics students already receive extensive maths training before they graduate. Instead, the researchers think the solution lies in clearer communication of highly technical work, such as taking the time to describe what the equations mean.

Dr Fawcett said: "Physicists need to think more carefully about how they present the mathematical details of their work, to explain the theory in a way that their colleagues can quickly understand. It takes time to scrutinise the details of a technical article—even for the most distinguished physics professors—so with many competing demands on their time scientists may be choosing to skip over articles that take too much effort to digest."

"Ideally, the impact of scientific work should be determined by its scientific value, rather than by the presentational style," said Dr Higginson.

"Unfortunately, it seems valuable papers may be ignored if they are not made accessible. As we have said before: all scientists who care about the dialogue between theory and experiment should take this issue seriously, rather than claiming it does not exist."

Explore further: Scientists struggle with mathematical details

More information: Comment on 'Are physicists afraid of mathematics? by Andrew D. Higginson and Tim W. Fawcett is published in New Journal of Physics. DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.58792

Related Stories

Scientists struggle with mathematical details

June 25, 2012

(Phys.org) -- Scientists would like to believe that the popularity of new theories depends entirely on their scientific value, in terms of novelty, importance and technical correctness. But the Bristol study, published in ...

Criteria for funding and promotion lead to bad science

November 10, 2016

Scientists are trained to carefully assess theories by designing good experiments and building on existing knowledge. But there is growing concern that too many research findings may in fact be false. New research publishing ...

Long standing mathematical physics puzzle solved

November 22, 2005

A University of Queensland research team led by senior mathematics lecturer Dr Yao-Zhong Zhang has successfully solved a major long-standing problem in mathematical physics.

Recommended for you

Studying the quantum vacuum: Traffic jam in empty space

January 18, 2017

An important step towards a completely new experimental access to quantum physics has been made at University of Konstanz. The team of scientists headed by Professor Alfred Leitenstorfer has now shown how to manipulate the ...

Flexible ferroelectrics bring two material worlds together

January 17, 2017

Until recently, "flexible ferroelectrics" could have been thought of as the same type of oxymoronic phrase. However, thanks to a new discovery by the U.S. Department of Energy's (DOE) Argonne National Laboratory in collaboration ...

78 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

dirk_bruere
4.5 / 5 (2) Nov 11, 2016
Reading through maths trying to either find out what the author is trying to say, or just checking it, is a total PITA.
Reg Mundy
3 / 5 (2) Nov 11, 2016
Yup, as you get older you do not immediately recognise what used to be familiar formulae and equations, have to constantly go back and refresh, rather than plowing on and comprehending. Great consumer of time.
indio007
1 / 5 (1) Nov 11, 2016
Who the hell is going to go and actual check if the math is not only correct but appropriately applied.
winthrom
5 / 5 (3) Nov 11, 2016
Math logic and methods do not produce conversational reading. Add the fact the many and varied math fields that are used to model physical phenomena such that often one needs to learn a new math system to read a submission. A theorist may simply paint themselves into an obscure math corner regardless of the merits of the work. Perhaps papers with non-mainline math should provide appendices showing step by step derivations (with math commentary showing background sources for the less initiated and/or less intense reader). Even mainline math can be daunting when there is insufficient commentary to guide a reader over the math as it progresses.
ab3a
5 / 5 (2) Nov 11, 2016
The goal is to communicate, not to be excessively obtuse. That said, if this was actually a problem, then explain the widespread appeal of string theory.
axemaster
5 / 5 (8) Nov 11, 2016
articles are less likely to be referenced by other physicists if they have lots of mathematical equations on each page


This is not because physicists are afraid of math - this is because papers containing massive amounts of equations tend to be written really poorly.

Good writers explain in CLEAR LANGUAGE what they are trying to prove/demonstrate, and THEN break out the equations to do it. Clear introductions and conclusions are essential to a good paper. Nobody wants to spend an hour wading through equations only to realize that it was actually irrelevant to what they wanted to know.

It's also definitely a fact that worse writers tend to cram more math into their papers, perhaps as a way to compensate? Regardless, it's a real drag reading such papers.
hawkingsbrother
Nov 11, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Code_Warrior
5 / 5 (2) Nov 11, 2016
Some people can see equations and see a concept. For those people, the equations speak to them as if it's part of their native language. Other people see equations and wish to solve them or verify their validity. For those people, the equations don't necessarily speak to them in their native language and their attempt to solve or verify their validity is akin to an attempt to translate the equation into a language that they understand. In the process, they get stuck in the minutia of their mathematical manipulations and are likely to miss out on the concept. In other words, they are unable to see the mathematical forest because of all the mathematical trees. I would put myself in the latter category. Great thinkers come from the former category. The giants are able to see the concepts and explain them so that even a simpleton like me can understand.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (3) Nov 11, 2016
Hi all. :)

Einstein once bemoaned:
Since the mathematicians have invaded my theory, I don't understand it myself anymore!


It is obvious maths was used (abused) to naively contrive 'support/assumptions/interpretations/arguments/explanations' etc which were obviously nonsense, but "passed by peer reviewers" precisely because they all bought into the maths nonsense which left reality behind!

Einstein saw early on that "mathematical physicists/theorists" took cosmological theory into unphysical/unreal 'fantasy landscapes'; which are only recently being dispelled by newer REAL, LOGICAL mainstream discovery/review irrespective of 'maths' which had bamboozled/misled peers/reviewers into 'passing' BAD SCIENCE into 'orthodoxy/standard model' for so long.

As professor Steinhardt is now pointing out also...

https://blogs.sci...nceive/#
http://vms.fnal.g...=1944338

Rethink it all. :)
ecliptic
not rated yet Nov 11, 2016
"It takes time to scrutinise the details of a technical article—even for the most distinguished physics professors—so with many competing demands on their time scientists may be choosing to skip over articles that take too much effort to digest." Well duh. The only way I would go through the equations in a math heavy article is if the topic was of high interest to me and could not be understood without doing so.

qquax
5 / 5 (1) Nov 11, 2016
Adopting David Hestenes Geometric Algebra as a more unified mathematical language would also help. Physicists need to learn how to mold their mathematical tools for better accessibility and efficiency.
Reg Mundy
1 / 5 (1) Nov 12, 2016
Work for 2-3 hours in your spare time and get paid $1000 on your bank account every week... Get more information on following site

C'mon moderators, get a grip! Otherwise, this site will be flooded by advertisers.
thingumbobesquire
5 / 5 (2) Nov 12, 2016
Hi all. :)

Einstein once bemoaned:
Since the mathematicians have invaded my theory, I don't understand it myself anymore!


Einstein's work owes a tremendous debt to Bernhard Riemann's revolutionary geometrical concepts. However Riemann cautioned that any application to physics must be strictly based in provable experimental evidence. See the final paragraphs in his remarkable habilitation thesis. whttp://www.cs.jhu...nn54.pdf
Reg Mundy
1 / 5 (2) Nov 12, 2016
According to Riemann, the hypotheses of geometry do not apply to the very small, and therefore by definition also to the very large. I have long questioned the application of mathematical formulae to reality, for example the existence of escape velocity (do parallel lines ever meet?).
Bigbangcon
1 / 5 (3) Nov 12, 2016
Modern Official Physics is bankrupt!

1. "The Magic of Mathematics" does not correspond to objective reality:
https://www.amazo...40418254

2. Physics has no understanding of the Infinite!
http://www.ptep-o...9-04.PDF

3. Einsteinian Physics has no role for "Matter" and "Motion":
https://www.amazo...4041884X
RNP
5 / 5 (7) Nov 12, 2016
@Reg Mundy
According to Riemann, the hypotheses of geometry do not apply to the very small,...

Please give a reference, I think you may have misunderstood something.

....and therefore by definition also to the very large.

How on earth do you justify this outrageous claim?

I have long questioned the application of mathematical formulae to reality, for example the existence of escape velocity (do parallel lines ever meet?).

This is because it seems you have long refused to actually learn some physics.

Reg Mundy
1 / 5 (3) Nov 12, 2016
@RNP
@Reg Mundy
According to Riemann, the hypotheses of geometry do not apply to the very small,...

Please give a reference, I think you may have misunderstood something.

....and therefore by definition also to the very large.

How on earth do you justify this outrageous claim?

I have long questioned the application of mathematical formulae to reality, for example the existence of escape velocity (do parallel lines ever meet?).

This is because it seems you have long refused to actually learn some physics.


What's wrong with the one thingumbobesquire gave above?
Size is relative.
My first degree was physics from a world-class university, as you would know if you have read any of my books on the subject, so I did actually "learn some physics". Why don't you?
RNP
5 / 5 (7) Nov 12, 2016
@Reg Mundy
What's wrong with the one thingumbobesquire gave above?
Size is relative.
My first degree was physics from a world-class university, as you would know if you have read any of my books on the subject, so I did actually "learn some physics". Why don't you?


In the reference linked by thingumbobesquire Reimann discusses "the question of the validity of the hypotheses of geometry in the infinitely small". He does not give an opinion on the answer. So, I ask again. Do you have a reference to support your claim?

What is "Size is relative" supposed to mean?

If you are so well read in physics, justify your claims in clear scientific terms.

baudrunner
1 / 5 (4) Nov 12, 2016
They put the quote around the wrong word in the above title. That should read, "Even 'physicists' are afraid of mathematics".
hawkingsbrother
Nov 12, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Protoplasmix
5 / 5 (4) Nov 12, 2016
Einstein once bemoaned

RealityCheck four-thousand-three-hundred and ninety-thrice bemoaned.

See the difference?
Phys1
5 / 5 (5) Nov 13, 2016
I'm pretty sure, nobody of physicists actually understand their equations,

An untenable claim. How can you know that? Massively parallel telepathy ? A few glasses of wine? Pot?
which is for example why we have so many interpretations of quantum mechanics

Only the ensemble interpretation is correct. The others infer more than we can know and lead to paradoxes. Define "understanding QM" by "having an interpretation that does not lead to paradoxes" and you will find quite a few physicists who fulfil the criterion.
why the relativity is still considered as an explanation of gravity field instead of its description.

Who claims this?
The physicists dismissed the concept of material vacuum,

It is untenable.
so that they're forced to think about it only in abstract equations.

No alternative.
The general lack of imaginative visualization is quite apparent at all areas of physics.

All areas of physics? Another untenable claim.
Phys1
5 / 5 (2) Nov 13, 2016
It is usually not very rewarding to check long mathematical proofs. Even if they are wrong writing a comment is more a duty then rewarding. Correcting others is not very popular in science as well as on phys.org :) .
A solution in many cases would be to formulate proofs in computer algebraic form, so that human error is excluded.
hawkingsbrother
Nov 13, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
hawkingsbrother
Nov 13, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Phys1
5 / 5 (5) Nov 13, 2016
How can you know that? Massively parallel telepathy ? A few glasses of wine?
Because nobody actually uses these illustrative models.

Unclear.
For example Maxwell equations describe behavior of elastic jelly,

Nope, there is no mechanical vacuum model underlying these equations, and not for lack of trying.
The Schrodinger equation describes the behavior of elastic strings, the density of which is proportional to intensity of its deform.

Nope. It describes point particles.
luke_w_bradley
not rated yet Nov 13, 2016
Some people can see equations and see a concept. ....


This was a really great post, especially at the end. I am reminded of the quote "If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough." That's certainly true when you look at people like Feynman.

I actually think CS has a lot to offer here that hasn't been offered. There isn't a standard computer language yet that really can express all math. If there were, wouldn't that make things simple: rather than pouring through all the math, readers could get just as much as they wanted by running queries on the math, and building visualizations from it.
RealityCheck
1.7 / 5 (3) Nov 13, 2016
Hi Proto. :)

Why the cheap shot? You prefer to deny Einstein's jocular/gentle rebuke/caution to mathematician-physicists?

Maybe his message would have been heeded better if he too had also:
four-thousand-three-hundred and ninety-thrice bemoaned.


And we would all have been spared much pseudoscience disguised as mathematical-physics 'science'. But apparently you and all the other cheap shot merchants seem only interested in personal/cheap-shot 'games' than advancing real science.

The message that I have been sending all these years has paid off; finally getting the attention of the REAL thinkers/scientists among mainstream physics/cosmology theorists.

Eg, please read/view the following interview/video:

https://blogs.sci...nceive/#

http://vms.fnal.g...=1944338

Add that to all the other recent mainstreamer discoveries/reviews confiming me correct. :)
Uncle Ira
4.2 / 5 (10) Nov 13, 2016
The message that I have been sending all these years has paid off; finally getting the attention of the REAL thinkers/scientists among mainstream physics/cosmology theorists.


Your message has been getting the attention since day one Cher. The REAL thinkers/scientists/among/mainstream/physics/cosmology/theorists are ridiculing/mocking/having/the/fun with you just like they always have. Nothing change with that Cher non.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (4) Nov 13, 2016
Hi Ira. :)
The message that I have been sending all these years has paid off; finally getting the attention of the REAL thinkers/scientists among mainstream physics/cosmology theorists.
Your message has been getting the attention since day one Cher. The REAL thinkers/scientists/among/mainstream/physics/cosmology/theorists are ridiculing/mocking/having/the/fun with you just like they always have.
Really, Ira? In Prof PAUL STEINHADRDT's video/interview linked above, he effectively lambasting some of his fellow 'professional' mathematical-theorists.

And since what he had to say about "Inflation" etc (ie, that it was effectively pseudoscience and lacking supporting evidence in reality all along), then he effectively agrees with what I have been pointing out for years.

Yet you, Ira (still-bot-voting-ignoramus), 'concludes' that serious/imainstreamers are STILL laughing at me/what I have been saying....despite I/my points aligning with Prof Steinhardt's comments! :)
hawkingsbrother
Nov 13, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
RNP
5 / 5 (2) Nov 14, 2016
@RealityCheck
Thank you very much for posting the http://vms.fnal.g...=1944338 link.
EVERYONE interested in cosmology should watch it.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (4) Nov 14, 2016
such as taking the time to describe what the equations mean

Very important. At the conference I visited a month ago there were a couple of talks where people plastered their slides with formulas. That's completely useless as no one can read (let alone understand) a bunch of formulas within the space of a minute or two without in depth explanation of how it was derived.

There's a general feeling that you have to present the result rather than the path. Maybe this is for fear of seeming overly simplistic if you present all the 'baby steps' along the way? I know I certainly had the feeling on occasion where I didn't know what basics to explain to an audience and what basics I could skip over because they were well established with them.

But in the end science is always baby steps. It is NEVER 'sweeping grand new theory'. Not even Relativity or Quantum Mechanics were that. If you go to the original papers they are a series of baby steps)
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (5) Nov 14, 2016
This is not because physicists are afraid of math - this is because papers containing massive amounts of equations tend to be written really poorly.

True. Skill in a field does not automatically come along with skill in writing/presenting results. The latter isn't a prerequisite for being a scientist and isn't taught during university years.
(actually, I just found out that the university I attended is just now starting to offer courses in proper writing of papers) . And there's always the conflict between being concise and understandable (which some authors don't solve well).

"If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough."

But even Feynman admitted that there are things he can't explain more clearly, because we understand by analogy. But he was investigating stuff that all our analogies are based _on_ .
https://www.youtu...r930Sn_8
(Check the last few seconds of the video for the quote if you're in a rush)
Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (4) Nov 14, 2016
@regTROLL
My first degree was physics from a world-class university
1- RULE 37

2- argument from authority without evidence does not validate a claim
so I did actually "learn some physics"
one of the first things i learned in physics is that when you make a claim to argue a point in science then it should be followed by links and references to validate your point with evidence

to date, the only links/references you use are self-reference to a book that is not peer reviewed, valid, scientific nor does it contain evidence

since when is "because i said so" a valid scientific argument?

.

.

@bouncedcheckTROLL
then he effectively agrees with what I have been pointing out for years
if you can't provide very specific comments with evidence, links and proof, then you're lying

links or STFU and stop your "RealityCheck four-thousand-three-hundred and ninety-thrice bemoaned" whining
baudrunner
1 / 5 (3) Nov 14, 2016
The problem with math: "look what I just found (produces ten pages of equations and mathematical drivel). Does this mean...?"

The problem with math is that it can prove the impossible. Then, of course, there is fitting the math to meet the criteria of a paradigm with possibly erroneous conclusions derived therefrom.

No wonder they're scared. They might be wrong.
Vidyaguy
5 / 5 (1) Nov 14, 2016
A really stupid misunderstanding of both physics and mathematics. Physicists have very often anticipated mathematics in inventing particular convenient tools (zb the Dirac delta function) that were later "clarified" formally by mathematicians. The proper point is that physicists often take leaps of conception that are not formalized because they recognize connections from disparate fields and are willing to assume the existence of a connection on a trial basis, and - so long as the overall result provides the ability to predict from a well-specified set of initial conditions - the formalization doesn't really matter. Intellectual creation invariably begins with an internalized model of reality: if it works, one leaves the formalization for later, after the data have provided confidence.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (3) Nov 14, 2016
Hi CS. :)
then he effectively agrees with what I have been pointing out for years
if you can't provide very specific comments with evidence, links and proof, then you're lying
It's all over at least three forums for years. Not my fault you missed it all. Blame all the mod-troll deletions/sabotage/bans; and bot-voting trolls skewing metrics so 'filter system' didn't present my posts to readers.

Anyhow, ask IMP-9 et al; they were aware of some of my latest posts re distance-ladder, Expansion/Inflation etc flaws. Just because you missed/ignored/deny it all, it doesn't mean it 'never happened' or that I'm "lying". :)

So, CS, did you hear/understand that 'message' Prof. Paul Steinhardt's video sent to his fellow professional physicists re "Inflation" and 'evidence' methodologies which are flawed yet allowed to infest the science? I linked to that video for you, as proof that everything I was pointing out to IMP-9 et al was correct.

Stop denying; start listening. :)
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (3) Nov 14, 2016
Hi RNP. :)
@RealityCheck
Thank you very much for posting the http://vms.fnal.g...=1944338 link.
EVERYONE interested in cosmology should watch it.
You're welcome, mate. And you are right, everyone interested in cosmology should 'get' that message once and for all. A pity a certain poster still prefers to kill the messenger rather than heed and understand the message, however unpalatable it may be to some who have been emotionally and egotistically 'invested' in a certain orthodoxy/dogma which has been based on patently flawed 'science' in the past being 'passed by peer review' into the literature and subsequent 'work' and 'papers' etc. Anyhow, better late than never. Brave and intelligent that Prof Steinhardt. Kudos to him and his like in mainstream professional science circles. It restores one's trust in science method 'as practiced' by (the more objective) cosmology theorists. Good luck, RNP! :)
Captain Stumpy
3.7 / 5 (3) Nov 14, 2016
@bouncedcheckTROLL
It's all over at least three forums for years
well then it should be easy enough for you to validate your claim

this aint kindergarten and you have a history of making sh*t up (AKA- Lies)

it's not like don't have the ability to prove that one - and if a MOD requests it, i will gladly link the multiple threads from BICEP on PO alone

they can count the almost 6 THOUSAND posts since then with no evidence at all whatsoever

.

.

your claim, you validate it

links or STFU and stop your "RealityCheck four-thousand-three-hundred and ninety-thrice bemoaned" whining
RNP
5 / 5 (2) Nov 15, 2016
@RealityCheck
Hi RNP. :)
@RealityCheck
Thank you very much for posting the http://vms.fnal.g...=1944338 link.
EVERYONE interested in cosmology should watch it.

...you are right, everyone interested in cosmology should 'get' that message once and for all. A pity a certain poster still prefers to kill the messenger rather than heed and understand the message, however unpalatable it may be to some who have been emotionally and egotistically 'invested' in a certain orthodoxy/dogma which has been based on patently flawed 'science' in the past being 'passed by peer review' into the literature and subsequent 'work' and 'papers' etc. Anyhow, better late than never. Brave and intelligent that Prof Steinhardt. Kudos to him and his like in mainstream professional science circles. It restores one's trust in science method 'as practiced' by (the more objective) cosmology theorists. Good luck, RNP! :)

Then you go and ruin it by spouting this nonsense!
RealityCheck
2 / 5 (4) Nov 15, 2016
Hi RNP. :)
Thank you very much for posting the http://vms.fnal.g...=1944338 link.
EVERYONE interested in cosmology should watch it.
..certain poster still prefers to kill the messenger rather than heed and understand the message, ...emotionally and egotistically 'invested' in orthodoxy/dogma....flawed....yet passed by peer review...
Then you go and ruin it by spouting this nonsense!
Is my encouraging/applauding objective/proper application/practice of Scientific Method a "nonsense" to you?

How do you feel re "nonsense" of "Inflation" being 'passed by peer review'; infecting the literature/assumptions etc for so long, as pointed out by Pof. Steinhardt in above video?

And why do you not address the SCIENCE point made by the Prof; which coincides with the points I have been making all along re "inflation" etc all along?

Why instead post nonsense yourself that encourages CS's nonsense?

Can you/CS et al stop killing the messenger now? :)

Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (4) Nov 15, 2016
@bouncedcheckTROLL
CS's
1- it is not "nonsense" to require you to validate your claim with evidence - it is a part of the scientific method

IOW - since you have no evidence to substantiate your claim it is proven to be a false claim and that your statements are simply spreading misinformation and lies

2- it is also not "nonsense" to support and defend the scientific method

when you say content is "wrong" you give a specific lie (4 fatal flaws, 4 other flaws) and yet you can't produce this information from already published work that isn't protected by copyright and is freely accessible

therefore it is demonstrated (yet again) that you're repeated lies are simply attention seeking devices for self-gratification and or fodder for your delusions & neurosis ( http://www.yourli...artid=65 )

.

your claim, you validate it

links or STFU
:-)
RNP
5 / 5 (4) Nov 16, 2016
@RealityCheck
And why do you not address the SCIENCE point made by the Prof; which coincides with the points I have been making all along re "inflation" etc all along?


Please provide a link to somewhere that you make some of the scientific points the Prof. made in the video. (Again, PLEASE, in future, support your claims with evidence)
Alexander_IK
1 / 5 (1) Nov 17, 2016
I suppose the main problem is that many theoretical works have low connection with nature. Research subject for physics is natural phenomena and mathematics should play the role of language and not of the subject itself. Many physicists understand this despite on zombification by theoretical speculators. The nature is beautiful and contains truly theory itself. Professional scientists are able to see this and reflect some aspects in their works. But majority of physicist, when write their papers, thinks firstly about reputation and other bonuses. So, one can see writing of many essentially sophistical papers.
RealityCheck
2 / 5 (4) Nov 21, 2016
Hi RNP. :)

Been there, done that, was evaded/ignored/denied/insulted and trolled to death and finally buried in troll crap. No more time to waste on such futile link search games anymore, as there is too much posted over the years now. Those who chose to miss it all and to keep wasting others' time by asking for links etc every time they are faced with having to evade/deny etc else admit their errors have only themselves to blame for it. Sorry for you now, because you'll just have to wait until I publish it all compete, mate. :)

Oh, speaking of evading/ignoring/denying, I understand you viewed/understood Prof Steinhardt's video re "Inflation" being pseudoscience allowed to contaminate the logics/physics of standard cosmology observations/interpretations etc for too long.

Do you also agree that BB hypothesis/claims/interpretations/models dependent on illogical/unphysical ad-hoc "Inflation" 'fix' should be discarded; and ALTERNATIVES RE-considered PROPERLY?

Cheers, RNP. :)
RNP
5 / 5 (2) Nov 22, 2016
@RealityCheck
So you can not provide ANY evidence to support your claim. I thought not.
Your excuse that you have no time to waste on providing just a single link is patently untrue, given that you can find the time to write these long posts.

Even if inflation proves not to be true it is NOT pseudoscience because it clearly states its assumptions and justifies its claims with evidence, thus ALLOWING it to be falsified (unlike many pseudoscientific claims made by some here). The fact that Prof Steinhardt used to be an inflation advocate, but has altered his view in light of the evidence which he articulates in the video demonstrates this.
Ryan1981
not rated yet Nov 22, 2016
"such as taking the time to describe what the equations mean."

This guy deserves a nobel prize, the number of times I spend hours figuring out what all characters in the equation stand for.

Also I feel many writers underestimate the power of starting at the basics. I can understand the writer is probably highly sufficient in whatever he is publishing but not everyone is solving e.g. non linear partial differential equations on a daily basis. Don't be afraid to start simple and build on that, you'd be surprised how many extra ideas you can get if you can reach a larger public.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (3) Nov 22, 2016
Hi RNP. :)

Can't stay long again, so briefly..
So you can not provide ANY evidence to support your claim. I thought not.
Your excuse that you have no time to waste on providing just a single link...
Too late, mate; blame trolls/deniers gangs who 'buried' it all. Not playing anymore. You'll have to wait for the complete publication. :)

Even if inflation proves not to be true it is NOT pseudoscience because it clearly states its assumptions and justifies its claims with evidence, thus ALLOWING it to be falsified (unlike many pseudoscientific claims made by some here). The fact that Prof Steinhardt used to be an inflation advocate, but has altered his view in light of the evidence...
There's no "even" about it, mate; "Inflation" was pseudoscience when it was proposed, and all along; because the SAME evidence/arguments against it were ALWAYS there!...but were DENIED by BIASED herd-mentality mainstreamers (like you?) DESPERATE to 'save' Big Bang pseudoscience. :)
RNP
5 / 5 (2) Nov 22, 2016
@RealityCheck
Really! Just more unsupported claims and blatant obfuscation? I also note that your confusion between science and pseudoscience is highly informative.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (3) Nov 22, 2016
Hi RNP.:)
Really! Just more unsupported claims and blatant obfuscation? I also note that your confusion between science and pseudoscience...
What else would you call it when the same arguments/evidence against "Inflation" was there all along, yet was ignored due to biased and flawed 'work' and claims of 'supporting evidence' by those who wanted desperately to save Big Bang model?

It was pseudoscience.

Like Bicep2 'exercise'.

Flawed, biased 'work', 'claims' etc.

Mate, the Big Bang fantasy has finally been tackled by brave mainstreamers who came to their senses and actually OBJECTIVELY looked at the flawed/biased 'science' and claims that were 'passed by peer review' into the cosmology literature as if it was science instead of pseudoscience fantasies which objective observers (like me) saw all along how flawed and biased fantasy/pseudoscience gobbledegook it was.

Now Prof Paul Steinhardt has OBJECTIVELY agreed.

Now you TOO can stop evading/denying, RNP. :)
Reg Mundy
not rated yet Nov 22, 2016
Can I just point out that "inflation theory" is not the same as "expansion theory".
Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (4) Nov 23, 2016
@not in reality fodera-head the blatantly lying POS TROLL
Like Bicep2 'exercise'
you officially only have 20 more posts before you cross the 6,000 post mark without evidence

meaning you've wasted:
5,980 posts making a claim that has absolutely no evidence re: BICEP
that is more than 5,980,000 characters you wasted and you still haven't posted a single shred of evidence for your claims

over 5 million characters
5 million times that your keyboard could have linked the 4 fatal flaws & 4 other flaws that apparently only you can see

statistically speaking, that is far too great a supporting argument that you're posting either:
1- pseudoscience
2- delusional bullsh*t

there have been papers written up on the BICEP problem, and you still can't produce even just the 4 "fatal" flaws

you're not a scientist - a scientist would present evidence for a claim like that

you're a trolling idiot!

reported
gkam
1 / 5 (4) Nov 23, 2016
"@not in reality fodera-head the blatantly lying POS TROLL"

"STFU"
--------------------------------

Does this belong in a public site devoted to science?
Captain Stumpy
3.7 / 5 (3) Nov 23, 2016
@STOLEN VALOR LIAR-kam
Does this belong in a public site devoted to science?
does your repeated lies, claims that are easily disproved with a cursory search, or your braggadocio sans evidence belong on a science site?

you stop your chronic lies - i'll stop proving your a liar

PS - should you or sam decided to litigate as you, personally, threatened ...

it's called a label
it's why you're called STOLEN VALOR LIAR-kam
It's proven - not subjective opinion
5,980,000 characters wasted with absolutely no evidence at all whatsoever
just like your own personal violation of the UCMJ and AF Regs/AFI's
and your lies
proven - with evidence: that you both provided yourselves

per your request...
gkam
1 / 5 (4) Nov 23, 2016
"your braggadocio sans evidence belong on a science site?"
------------------------

Ain't my braggadocio, Toots, the term "Perfect Airman" on my performance reports came from the Avionics Officer at Edwards AFB. You saw it yourself.

BTW, where are yours? You are the only war vet I know who cannot provide proof of service. The others who cannot provide it are phonies.
Uncle Ira
3 / 5 (4) Nov 23, 2016
Ain't my braggadocio, Toots, the term "Perfect Airman" on my performance reports came from the Avionics Officer at Edwards AFB. You saw it yourself.


That is a good theory Cher, except for just one thing. We also saw for our self that you were not perfect enough to be trusted to work on the dog-poo-sensors when you were working on that top secret stuffs for McNamara. Too bad you showed us that one, eh?
Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (4) Nov 23, 2016
@STOLEN VALOR LIAR-kam
You are the only war vet I know who cannot provide proof of service
repeating a lie doesn't make it more true
here is a redacted copy: http://s1027.phot...p;page=1

PW=VALIDATE

unredacted copy will be provided to you (again), along with the e-mail headers and details when i receive the Disclosure from your lawyers, per your threat

so again, you're proven to be a chronic liar and a self-admitted phony

per your own request...

.

Too bad you showed us that one, eh?
@IRA
$100 says he still doesn't know WTF you're talking about, even when the other guy forwarded the details
LMFAO

that was hilarious !
gkam
1 / 5 (4) Nov 23, 2016
It is humorous to read how others, the stay-at-home "patriots", think the military works.
RealityCheck
1.8 / 5 (5) Nov 23, 2016
Hi, RNP, this was my reply:
Hi RNP. :)

What else would you call it when the same arguments/evidence against "Inflation" was there all along, yet was ignored due to biased and flawed 'work' and claims of 'supporting evidence' by those who wanted desperately to save Big Bang model?

It was pseudoscience.

Like Bicep2 'exercise'.

Flawed, biased 'work', 'claims' etc.

Mate, the Big Bang fantasy has finally been tackled by brave mainstreamers who came to their senses and actually OBJECTIVELY looked at the flawed/biased 'science' and claims that were 'passed by peer review' into the cosmology literature as if it was science instead of pseudoscience fantasies which objective observers (like me) saw all along how flawed and biased fantasy/pseudoscience gobbledegook it was.

Now Prof Paul Steinhardt has OBJECTIVELY agreed.

Now you TOO can stop evading/denying, RNP. :)
The point is: Prof Paul Steinhardt has just sent an OBJECTIVE wake-up-call to his colleagues. Q.E.D. :)
Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (4) Nov 23, 2016
@STOLEN VALOR LIAR-kam
It is humorous to read how others
no, what is humorous is when very stupid obviously brain-dead pot-heads like you are presented with evidence and can't see it... you know, like the links above that proved you're a liar and illiterate? (or at least completely incapable of reading - ya could be blind, but i can't determine that until i can see ya face-to-face in court as you promised in your threat to litigate)

nice to see you learned absolutely nothing in the military - at least those times are changin' and the folk gettin' out aren't as stupid as you, being required to be literate before signing on the dotted line and all...

ever get your DD214 changed?
no?

i wonder why the USAF won't alter your forms?
maybe because you didn't earn your combat V?
ROTFLMFAO

per your request...
Captain Stumpy
3.7 / 5 (3) Nov 23, 2016
@not in reality fodera-head the blatantly lying POS TROLL
The point is
the point is: in 15 posts, you will have hit 6000 posts since your BICEP2 claim without being able to produce even 1 fatal flaw, let alone the 4 fatal flaws you said you saw, along with the 4 "other" flaws on top of that

that is 5985 posts with a potential character count of 5,985,000!

in that time, any respectable scientist would have been able to present the evidence for, at the minimum, the 4 fatal flaws

i can state that even the eu crowd would have presented an argument by that time, even though it would likely have been nonsense pseudoscience like the replies to Thompson regarding the electric sun

so the point really is:
you can't produce any evidence or quote anything from the published BICEP material that justifies your delusional argument of even 4 fatal flaws, let alone any other flaws

that means you're a chronic liar posting pseudoscience and religion
no other explanation fits
gkam
1 / 5 (4) Nov 23, 2016
"very stupid obviously brain-dead pot-heads like you"

"@not in reality fodera-head the blatantly lying POS TROLL"
----------------------------------------

Yes, I am sure the problem is with all of the rest of us.

Our emotions are obviously out of control.
Captain Stumpy
3.7 / 5 (3) Nov 23, 2016
@STOLEN VALOR LIAR-kam
Our emotions are obviously out of control
all you had to do was tell us you were "special needs" and we would have understood..

it still doesn't excuse your chronic lies, the need to glorify your past with stolen valor, or your insistence on claims that you can't prove with evidence...

which makes responding to you tiresome

perhaps i should just quote you, link the previous arguments where i prove you lied, etc, and then report your posts?

per your requests...
gkam
1 / 5 (4) Nov 24, 2016
The topic is mathematics. Would you please outgrow your need to punish those who got the better of you?
RealityCheck
Nov 24, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
RealityCheck
2 / 5 (4) Nov 24, 2016
Hi CS. :)

Can you address the science points made, instead of posting your now predictable evasive and personal, insulting rants please. Thanks. :)
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.7 / 5 (3) Nov 25, 2016
Toots, the term "Perfect Airman" on my performance reports came from the Avionics Officer at Edwards AFB
Yeah butt-kissing psychopaths can often be mistaken for people with real talent.

"Usually psychopaths put on the nicest act, and you look like the harpy and bitch, and so everyone takes their side, it is a horror story, a psychopath can be very charming, and manipulative and manipulate the smartest of people."

-Never lasts for long though does it george? I/you offer in evidence the 15-20 jobs youve lost over the course of your failed career. And that long consulting stretch at the end where you sat by the phone and waited for -what?- 10 years?
RealityCheck
2 / 5 (4) Nov 25, 2016
Hi Forum. :)

Read this:
[from gkam]...Toots, the term "Perfect Airman" on my performance reports came from the Avionics Officer at Edwards AFB
[from Ghost]...Yeah butt-kissing psychopaths can often be mistaken for people with real talent.
It seems beyond Ghost's conception that some rare individuals actually ARE talented/original problem-solvers, much in demand; called on for/by many diverse projects/employers over many decades; so Ghost's first 'problem' seems to be a very limited experience/exposure to REAL WORLD problem-solving situations/talents; a pity.

[from Ghost]... "a psychopath...manipulate the smartest of people."
Describes perfectly Ghost/his agenda/tactics of trolling, stalking, insulting, lying and misrepresenting gkam and gkam's real world/work experience. Unfortunately for Ghost, "the smartest of people" reading Ghost's obvious/malicious attempt at manipulation aren't falling for it.

Get a real/honest/talented life of your own, Ghost. :)
gkam
1 / 5 (4) Nov 25, 2016
Somebody must think verbal vandalism equals the manipulation of others, rather than the exposition of flawed and malicious character; A loser acting out in frustration.
Captain Stumpy
3.7 / 5 (3) Nov 25, 2016
Can you address the science points made, instead of posting your now predictable evasive and personal, insulting rants please. Thanks
@not in reality fodera-head the blatantly lying POS TROLL
I made the exact same appeal to you, albeit worded differently, 5993 posts ago regarding your 4 fatal flaws and i have yet to receive any evidence, references, science, points or content

reported for pseudoscience :-)

.

Hi Forum :-)
please make a note that currently, more than 5,993,000 characters have been wasted for the sake of intentional baiting, trolling and to evade/distract from the fact that there has been zero content in the post or to the claims of 4 fatal flaws

surely, in all that time and in all those posts, it wouldnt have killed sam to actually link the content from the published data that was fatally flawed

RealityCheck
2.3 / 5 (6) Nov 25, 2016
Hi CS. :)

A truly fairminded, objective person would have ALSO mentioned your OWN endless stream of juvenile, insulting, prejudicial, subjective, science-ignorant posts which do nothing but prove your own irrelevance and hypocrisy.

Have you tabulated your own post stats yet, CS?

It far outstrips anyone else's for waste of time, bandwidth, malice, irrelevance etc; not to mention for bot-voting regardless of whether your 'target' was correct on the science/logics or not.

You disgrace yourself, your ancestors, your progeny, CS; not to mention being an embarrassment to all atheists, scientists, fairminded individuals.

When will you stop your noise; and learn to discuss science points rather than personal crap, CS?

Speaking of science: Have you any original/relevant points to offer the discussion here? If so, then go to it and leave out the juvenile crap, ok?

Cheers. :)

PS: Did you view/understand Prof Steinghardt's lecture which lambasted "Inflation" etc? Yes/No? :)
Captain Stumpy
3.7 / 5 (3) Nov 26, 2016
Hi delusional narcissistic Dunning-Kruger ranting pseudoscience posting fodera-head the blatantly lying POS TROLL :)

you just crossed 6000 posts with absolutely no content

It far outstrips anyone else's (except maybe zeph or gkam) for waste of time, bandwidth, malice, irrelevance etc; not to mention for pseudoscience stupidity regardless of whether your 'lucky guess' was correct on the science/logics or not

When will you stop your noise; and learn to discuss science points rather than personal crap, TROLL?

You disgrace yourself, your ancestors, your progeny, not to mention being an embarrassment to all atheists, scientists, fairminded individuals.

Speaking of science: where are those 4 fatal flaws and 4 other flaws of the BICEP you keep mentioning all over PO - like you did to RNP above

no evidence = pseudoscience
you're a liar and it is proven with your own words and google

FOAD :-)

If so, then go to it and leave out the juvenile crap, ok?
gkam
1 / 5 (4) Nov 26, 2016
" leave out the juvenile crap, ok?"
--------------------------------

Such as "delusional narcissistic Dunning-Kruger ranting pseudoscience posting fodera-head the blatantly lying POS TROLL"??

Oh, . . .
Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (4) Nov 26, 2016
@STOLEN VALOR LIAR-kam
Such as
labels aren't the same thing - they warn other people off
examples of juvenile crap instead of actual content
The Pope speaks Portuguese

Get rich from "Trickle-Down"?

Find them "WMD!" yet?

Paid for them old Bush/Blair wars of Mass Killing and Corporate Profit?

When conservatives lie, they are real zingers. How many died in the last Bush Wars?
since when did any of that have anything to do with science or science content?
it doesn't
however, you like to repeat it in various threads .. why?

why do you feel a need to claim stolen valor and a "combat V" when you can't actually prove it with evidence?

why do you need to claim being an engineer? you already said you weren't proving you're a liar

why do you need to claim your MS when you can't prove the requisite Baccalaureate that all real MS applicants must have?

per your own request to clean up the site...

feel free to argue - i'm just gonna report it / ignore it
RealityCheck
2 / 5 (4) Nov 26, 2016
Hi CS. :)

Still can't help yourself? Your ego and malice must really go thick and deep in your nature for you to keep making personal/insulting noise while ignoring the science discussion going on around you here at PO.

CS, please stop your personal/insulting/irrelevant noise posts and just stick to on-topic science/logics issues being discussed on its merits not on your likes/dislikes and malicious prejudices which go against all proper scientific method principles and practice.

You are being an embarrassment to all us objective/polite atheist scientist humans. Please cease and desist your anti-science and anti-humanity ego-tripping personal irrelevant noise posts, mate. :)
TheGhostofOtto1923
4 / 5 (4) Nov 27, 2016
Has anyone noticed the convergence of the supercilious morally superior attitudes of gkam and rc? I'm sure there is a word for this sort of baiting. They are both master baiters. Probably takes 3 to make a circle though.
gkam
1 / 5 (4) Nov 27, 2016
I think it is because teachers have the limited imagination to teach the process, and not fully explaining the ideas behind it. Using visualizations, it becomes clearer.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.