Quote Originally Posted by christopher leigh View Post
Thank you for the presentation I enjoyed it. Unfortunately you haven't moved the debate on since last time. As Einstein fully understood if the reasoning is 'nonsense,' then so is the theory. It's also interesting to note that Einstein's scientific ideas only changed with his philosophical ones.

Now I can understand your resentment towards me. After all there you are with a PHD being told by a mere taxi driver that you wasted 4 years of your life on an idea that you should have known was nonsense from the beginning. In that respect I'll tell you a story:

A man comes across an elderly savage digging in the wilderness with his bare hands. He's been digging that way since he was young. The man pulls a spade out of 'absolutely nothing' and proceeds to demonstrate to the savage how much quicker digging is with such a tool. After this he passes the spade to the savage expecting a look of joy and excitement. Instead the savage beats him to death with it.
I am pleased that you enjoyed the presentation. However, even though I broke it down so simply, you still fail to grasp the point I am making, and indeed the meaning of the quote you first presented (out of context, I may add). I am not sure if you just fail to comprehend the reasoning or if you are being deliberately obtuse, but I shall again try again in the hope that will finally seen the point.
I fear that you do not understand how scientific theories are developed. Generally, it starts either with a problem that arises from a physical observation and attempts to describe the observation in terms of the Physics. All theories are simplifications of the true picture (because we are often unable to perceive the 'true' picture), and are based on a number of assumptions.
Take for example, differential calculus. This is an example that we are able to comprehend naturally - e.g. our brain is able to watch the path of a cricket ball and move our hands to catch it. There are many different things going on in this example and lots of variables - friction (air resistance), spin of the ball, gravity, the trajectory of the ball etc... Now, we can describe the path of the ball using differential calculus extremely well by assuming no friction, that the ball does not spin etc. Alternatively we can describe a much more detailed theory which does not make these assumptions and includes friction, spin and so on. Neither theory is wrong, just one is more detailed than the other and more completely describes the actual physical motion of the ball into the hand.
Here, then is the crux of the discussion between Heisenberg and Einstein - it is over the fundamentals of how a particular theory is developed and what assumptions are made in deriving the theory. This does not mean the theory is "nonsense." The theory to which Heisenberg refers to is Special Relativity which, like General Relativity and Quantum Theory, is well supported by experimental evidence from around the world.
I also wouldn't say that Einstein's scientific ideas changed with his philosophical ones either. He never retracted any of his major theories that relied observational evidence alone, such as those in thermodynamics (e.g. description of Brownian motion). I would argue, although it is only my point of view, because I did not know Einstein or speak to him personally (and neither did you), that it is more likely that his Philosophical views changed as he started to look at new areas of Science and thus new problems require new ideas.

On you second point. I hold no resentment towards you at all. I am simply debating with you on the points you have raised and am responding to the comments you have made. This began, if you recall, because you said that "Nobody knows what gravity consists of, but everyone is aware of its consequences" I responded to you explaining what current thinking in the world of physics believes gravity to be. You then replied by rubbishing the field of theoretical physics with no evidence to support your arguments.
I have no problem with you having your own point of view and being sceptical towards science - this is fine. But, you are not willing to accept that someone else may have a valid point of view, even when presented with evidence that supports the opposing point of view. I have not asked you to change you opinion and this is your prerogative , however through the debate and when presented with the evidence to the contrary, I would hope accept that there is some merit in the argument that is presented against your point of view.
This is what I find most overwhelming about the whole Climate Change debate that politicians are involved in. I do not understand why there is now a debate at all. The vast majority of the world's scientists are in agreement that the global temperature is increasing, and this is leading to human-involved climate change. It is interesting to note that (at least in my experience) that the most vocal opponents to these theories are those whom stand to lose most money if we are forced to change the way we behave (e.g. oil companies!).
You may have also noticed that I have not posted on this thread regarding the original question. I have my own opinion on this, but since I am a relative newcomer to running and I am, at best, an average runner, I am quite aware that this opinion only has limited weight and is probably of limited use since I only run about 35mpw. I can see some merits in your comments, but I feel that those who have decided to oppose you on this matter also have quite valid points. I have also ready some of your comments on other threads, and feel that the criticism often levelled at you - that you do not back up your comments and assertions with evidence, is a reasonable one to be made.
I am quite happy to remain open-minded on this and other matters and will always try to keep my assessment of the facts objective, and of course would encourage everyone else to be the same.