The Periodic Table of Irrational Nonsense.

[Carvajal]

I love this!

http://crispian-jago.blogspot.com/20...-nonsense.html

Kind regards

Carvajal

[steenkh]

Me too. On closer inspection, quite a bit of thought has been put into this table.

[The Valiant Paladin]

That's simply brilliant!

[person1]

Interesting comment.

Wow! so many people with no imagination or open-mindedness...
It must be very cosy there in your pitiful little circa 1680AD Newtonian mechanistic universe mentality? You're not very keen to admit that modern quantum physics theories specifically open up the possibility for all of these phenomena to exist are you...

[GordonHide]

Wow! so many people with no imagination or open-mindedness...
It must be very cosy there in your pitiful little circa 1680AD Newtonian mechanistic universe mentality? You're not very keen to admit that modern quantum physics theories specifically open up the possibility for all of these phenomena to exist are you...

Exactly whose comment was that? And in any case, if you want to expand my "Newtonian mechanistic universe" all you need do is provide evidence.

[Rune Nyrup]

Originally Posted by GordonHide

Exactly whose comment was that? And in any case, if you want to expand my "Newtonian mechanistic universe" all you need do is provide evidence.

Well, this has already been done by physicists. Newtonian mechanics is a false theory.

What the commenter alludes to is the new-age tendency to think that woo-woo hides in the gaps of our knowledge of quantum mechanics.

[Martin]

Lots of more here: Periodic table of everything.html

[Flower]

Originally Posted by Rune Nyrup

Well, this has already been done by physicists. Newtonian mechanics is a false theory.

I honestly don't agree on that one. Newtonian Mechanics is an OK model, as long as you deal with most normal macroscopic phenomena at moderate velocities. (Where quantum effects are negligible)
It will give you perfectly usable results as long as you are in that regime. Go to the "extremes", and yes, you will need to supplement with quantum mechanics to describe the world.

[Rune Nyrup]

Originally Posted by Flower

I honestly don't agree on that one. Newtonian Mechanics is an OK model, as long as you deal with most normal macroscopic phenomena at moderate velocities. (Where quantum effects are negligible)
It will give you perfectly usable results as long as you are in that regime. Go to the "extremes", and yes, you will need to supplement with quantum mechanics to describe the world.

It depends on what reading you give the claim that a theory is true.

If you're an instrumentalist with regards to science, that is if you think that science doesn't tell us about the world as such but simply helps us predict things and do stuff, then you are right: With regards to medium-size, slow objects, Newtonian mechanics is a brilliant model (much more useful than quantum mechanics and general relativity!) and allows us to do all kinds of stuff.

I meant that Newtonian mechanics is false in a realist sense: It doesn't describe the way the world works. In this sense it is indeed a very useful approximation in some situations - a useful fiction - but not a true theory.

Of course general relativity probably isn't the final word either. But since it can explain all the same things as Newtonian mechanics (although in a more complicated way) as well as a host of phenomena that Newtonian mechanics cannot explain, most scientists tend to regard general relativity as more 'true' or 'correct' than Newtonian mechanics.

(it more difficult to judge what to say about quantum mechanics, since our understanding of the theory is still very meager)