Prev: Quantum Gravity 357.91: Croatia Shows That Probability of Vacuum Energy Density is More Important than its Vacuum Expectation Value (VEV) of the Hamiltonian Density, in line with Probable Causation/Influence (PI)
Next: Hubble Views Saturn's Northern/Southern Lights
From: PD on 27 Feb 2010 10:54
On Feb 26, 6:54 pm, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
> On 26 Feb, 17:34, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Feb 25, 9:05 pm, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > I also doubt one exists at the moment, but I see that as a problem.
> > > It's utterly irreconcilable, within any conceptual framework that I
> > > know of, to have situations where, for example, a large ladder can end
> > > up in a smaller barn according to an observer stationary in the barn,
> > > but not according to an observer riding the ladder.
>
> > Why? And here we can systematically trace back to the assumptions you
> > are making and then question them. In this case, you have a firm
> > belief that length is definable in such a way that it is intrinsic to
> > the object and frame-independent, and that physical "fitting" is a
> > function of the *intrinsic* lengths of two objects (or an object and a
> > container).
>
> My only contention is that it is *not realistic* to say that from the
> barn frame frame the ladder contracts and fits inside, while saying
> that from the ladder frame it is the barn that contracts and the doors
> actually never shut simultaneously. It is simply not realistic.

I don't know what basis you have for judging whether something is
"realistic". I'm guessing that it means that it is consistent with
your intuition, and that your intuition tells you that something
cannot fit in one frame and not fit in another, or that two events are
simultaneous in one frame and not simultaneous in another. If this is
accurate, then I would ask on what basis you trust your intuition. Or,
even more aptly, why do you trust your intuition so much that you rule
out other possibilities as real if they conflict with your intuition?

> If
> such a thing appears to happen, then it is obviously an artefact of
> subjective observation.

I disagree. In science, if there is a conflict between experimental
observation and intuition, then it is *intuition* that becomes
suspect, not the experimental result, especially if the latter is
confirmed independently and by complementary means. This is basic in
science. The principle at work is this:
1. Nature behaves a certain way consistently, because the rules of
nature are consistent.
2. There is a way to make a measurement and account for biases so that
what you are measuring is in fact the "real" behavior exhibited by
nature.
3. The way to tell if you've succeeded in (2) is to make the
measurement by complementary means, and by independent investigators.
If both measurements have had the biases properly corrected, then the
two results will agree. This confidence increases when additional
measurements are made.
4. Once it is established that the experimental result is the
underlying behavior truly exhibited by nature, and that the
measurements all consistently measure that behavior, then there is no
arguing with nature. If what nature exhibits is contrary to our
expectations, then it is our expectations that are amiss, not nature.

>
> > > > Your disbelief of SR stems from the fact that you don't understand it.
>
> > > My disbelief, really, stems from the blatant lack of conceptual
> > > understanding of the theory. I mean, as I repeatedly point out, I
> > > don't know a single equation of relativity, and yet I can root out the
> > > conceptual contradictions immediately when people here have a crack at
> > > making meaningful qualitative statements in SR. The classic example,
> > > of course, was Paul's contention that "what is simultaneous in one
> > > frame can never be simultaneous in another", which of course isn't
> > > true according to SR.
>
> > I'm sorry? It is very much true in SR that two spatially separated
> > events that are simultaneous in one frame are not simultaneous in
> > another frame moving relative to the first.
>
> But I contradicted that when I pointed out that two observers can be
> moving relative to each other, and yet undoubtedly events can be
> simultaneous for both.

Not spatially separated ones, no.

> I seem to remember you conceded that point when
> I gave you a situation where it was true.

From: PD on 27 Feb 2010 10:58
On Feb 26, 6:59 pm, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
> On 26 Feb, 17:46, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Feb 25, 9:42 pm, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On 25 Feb, 17:15, mpalenik <markpale...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Feb 24, 10:22 pm, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > I'm afraid I don't accept that this captures the certainty that many
> > > > > people have in various scientific theories. I've just responded to
> > > > > Mark who said that a theory with a 95% confidence should be accepted
> > > > > universally by all
>
> > > > I said I'm done with this conversation, but I'm not going to let you
> > > > misquote me, you pathetic idiot.
>
> > > > I said "it should be accepted by all as HAVING A 95% CHANCE OF BEING
> > > > TRUE".  I did not say it should be accepted as being true.  I said it
> > > > should be accepted that THERE IS A 95% CHANCE THAT IT IS TRUE BY
> > > > EVERYONE.  THERE IS A DIFFERENCE.  I REPEAT, I DID NOT SAY IT SHOULD
> > > > BE ACCEPTED AS TRUE--IT SHOULD ONLY BE ACCEPTED THAT THERE IS A 95%
> > > > CHANCE THAT IT IS TRUE.
>
> > > > If you are so mentally degenerate that you can't understand the
> > > > difference, then it makes me wonder how you can make it through your
> > > > every day life, you moronic imbicile.
>
> > > > Once again, I will not discuss anything with you, but I sure as hell
> > > > am going to call you on it if you make retarded inferences about
> > > > things that I've said and then try to pass that off as my viewpoint..
>
> > > Calm down. I see that perhaps I did explicitly misquote you, although
> > > I'm not sure the inferences were so wrong.
>
> > > If people accept that a particular theory has a 95% confidence, then
> > > what are you saying they should do as a result? Do you think they
> > > should devote just 95% of their time to that theory? 100% of their
> > > time? Some other percentage?
>
> > > And aside from what you think they should do, what do you think they
> > > *actually* do?
>
> > There's a variety of things one can do (and are done).
> > 1) Explore other candidates, though at a level that is commensurate
> > with risk-benefit analysis of the effort involved.
> > 2) Continue to do other tests of this model vs other models to see
> > where the 5% might lead (to either opening it up to 40% or closing it
> > to 98%, say)
> > 3) Let the community by itself determine organically which volunteers
> > from the community will plumb the 5% doubt.
> > 4) Design a bunch of devices that are based on a 95% assurance that
> > the principles of that model are correct, again weighing risk vs
> > benefit on the chance this is a mistake.
>
> That's fair enough in abstract. But the question is still who pursues
> which avenue, and what subjective perception they have of the
> likelihood of a particular theory being correct.

Yes, and that is done by self-selection. In the community of
scientists, the presumption is that open questions will be addressed
by someone eventually. And there is reward in the community for that
adventurism. The assessment of the risk vs benefit of the adventurism
is made individually.

>
> After all, it's alight for scientists to pay lip service to doubt when
> questioned strenuously. But what of their day-to-day conduct?

Their day-to-day conduct is displayed in their output. That is,
published papers, conference presentations, correspondence, and so on.
The diversity of effort is much broader than what you believe, I fear.

> And what
> are their views of scientists who explore other avenues than
> themselves?

Usually, "go for it". Why?

From: PD on 27 Feb 2010 11:10
On Feb 26, 7:15 pm, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
> On 26 Feb, 18:14, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Feb 25, 10:47 pm, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > You have then questioned why you should adopt the scientific metric
> > for "working". And the answer is, you don't have to. It's just that
> > when you decline, you're no longer doing science.
>
> But this lends credibility to my assertion in the first place, which
> is that science is a religion.

No more than the practice of law, medicine, music, architecture, or
plumbing, as we've discussed.
You've said those are different because the stakes are somehow higher
with science. I also disputed that.
Science works on what the scientific method is good for producing.
Architecture does the same thing.

Just because there is an agreed-upon methodology by the collective
that practices in the discipline does not warrant that discipline
being called a religion, at least as I understand the meaning of
"religion".

>
> > > Indeed, you have utterly failed to point out any contradiction yet,
> > > all you have done is constrain the behaviour of gravity tighter than
> > > what is otherwise possible in the conceptual understanding that I
> > > have, and as such amounts to "added detail" and leads to further
> > > accuracy, rather than requiring a fundamental conceptual overhaul.
>
> > I *have* pointed out the contradiction. Gravity that falls off
> > linearly with distance is incompatible with elliptical orbits. What is
> > true is that I have not demonstrated this enough to you that your are
> > convinced that it is a contradiction. That is different. That is a
> > *teaching* task. I don't know that I owe it to you to *convince* you
> > of anything, though I may be inclined to point to a fact or two that
> > might spur YOUR OWN investigation into why that statement is true.
>
> I'm afraid I don't accept this Paul. It's not a contradiction, because
> my model didn't make any firm statement in the first place as to the
> quantity of fall-off.

Hedging your bets? There is a difference between saying, "My model
says there is a fall-off but isn't certain what the fall-off is" and,
"My model is perfectly consistent with a linear fall-off". The former
statement is correct but renders the model useless because it provides
practically no information other than what could be painted on a comic-
strip panel. The latter statement makes a stronger claim but leads
immediately to a contradiction.

Your choice, then. Either a statement that is so vague that is useless
but unfalsifiable, or a statement that is testable and wrong.

> The claim it made was that gravity does fall off
> with distance, and you have not contradicted this - in fact, you have
> spectacularly supported this claim.
>
> > And the cosmos is made of earth, air, fire, and water, which certainly
> > seems to be true, but is hardly useful. Even though it may make
> > perfect and plain sense to somebody as a mental picture of the cosmos.
>
> It may have been useful at the time, as a basic analysis and a
> springboard for further investigation. The fact that it is not useful
> in retrospect is a function of the degree to which science has
> advanced since then.
>
> > > > And that's a case of constraining the observation to ONE experiment..
> > > > The two models of the nature of the coin would have other
> > > > implications, OTHER THAN just continuing the coin-toss experiment,
> > > > that would lead to a clearer experimental distinction. The coin-toss
> > > > experiment is experiment E1 that does not clearly distinguish between
> > > > models B and C. So? Now you have to find the place where they make
> > > > clearly distinguishable predictions, and design an experiment E2 that
> > > > will make that discrimination.
>
> > > Sometimes that's just not possible. Particularly if the only way the
> > > coin can be tested is by tossing.
>
> > I'm sorry, but it's the object of science to FIND the other ways to
> > test a claim.
>
> But you've got to accept that sometimes there may be no other
> realistic way of testing.

WHY?

> There's no point just saying "well science
> must find a way", because in some cases either theory or material
> circumstances may simply rule out any other kind of test.

No so far.

>
> > That is how the progress is made. I simply refuse to
> > submit to your hypothetical situation where you say, "How does science
> > discern between two theories when the only information it has
> > available doesn't discern between the two theories?" It DOESN'T. It
> > goes and finds the information that DOES discern the two.
>
> As above.
>
>
>
> > > > > One example is the lip-service paid to doubt and uncertainty, whereas
> > > > > I can give you Mark who holds that a theory with 95% confidence should
> > > > > not just be accepted by most people, but all people.
>
> > > > I don't hold the same conviction about this that he does. People
> > > > CHOOSE what they believe and they CHOOSE the methods by which they
> > > > become convinced of what they should believe. If you CHOOSE NOT to
> > > > adopt the scientific method, that's your prerogative, but it just
> > > > marks what you DO choose to do instead as something other than
> > > > science. Poetry perhaps.
>
> > > There are many interesting answers in asking what causes a choice. But
> > > besides that, I think your definition of the scientific method is
> > > completely wrong. As Kuhn puts it (I was just flicking through the
> > > book again), the scientific method has only "pedagogic utility" and
> > > "abstract plausibility".
>
> > And now you presume that Kuhn's position is either authoritative, or
> > that scientists would endorse it.
>
> No, I'm simply having to draw on authority to rebut your just-so
> statements about the views of physicists collectively, which indeed is
> the very argument you invoke again, by implicitly saying "ah, well
> physicists reject Kuhn's view of science...".

And here we arrive at an impasse, wherein I say that science is what
the practitioners of science say it is, and you say that science is
what an outside sociologist of scientists says it is. At this point, I
see no point in belaboring it. It is a difference in choice of
authority, and that is a personal decision just as much as CHOOSING to
believe in the value of the scientific method is.

Now that we've concluded that portion of the discussion, I'm wondering
whether you are interested in learning anything about what *science*
says about nature, and in particular how *science* can explain the
relativistic aspects of nature, as investigated by science?

After all, you came here asking questions about how any of that could
make any sense. And it was plain that you came to this group to ask
*scientists* that question when you could not find a satisfying answer
in the poorly selected materials you had availed yourself of. I see no
value in you asking *scientists* for an explanation, when you offer
the preamble that, fundamentally, you don't trust what scientists
would have to say on the matter.

PD

From: bert on 27 Feb 2010 11:50
On Feb 13, 1:32 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On 2/13/10 11:23 AM, bert wrote:
>
>
>
> > Photons if ever slowed begs this question What energy brings them back
> > to c?
>
>    Photons ONLY exist propagating at c, Herb!

Right you are Sam They never change speed or bounce. TreBert
From: mpc755 on 27 Feb 2010 21:56
On Feb 25, 2:21 am, "Peter Webb"
<webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
> "mpc755" <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:4374851f-73ff-4aac-8425-f36bc496fb4a(a)g23g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...
> On Feb 24, 3:48 am, "Peter Webb"
>
>
>
> <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
> > > > > How do you work out your speed "relative to the ether"? What makes
> > > > > you
> > > > > think
> > > > > it exists at all?
>
> > > > What you can determine is your state, or approximate state, with
> > > > respect to the aether.
>
> > > > _________________________________
> > > > How, exactly? How can you work out your speed relative to the ether?
>
> > > The speed of one reference frame with respect to the aether can be
> > > determined relative to another reference frame.
>
> > > ______________________
> > > How?
>
> > > Atomic clocks 'tick' based on the aether pressure in which it exists.
> > > An objects momentum determines the aether pressure on and through the
> > > object. The greater the momentum the greater the associated aether
> > > pressure.
>
> > > The speed of a GPS satellite with respect to the aether causes it to
> > > displace more aether and for that aether to exert more pressure on the
> > > clock in the GPS satellite than the aether pressure associated with a
> > > clock at rest with respect to the Earth. This causes the GPS satellite
> > > clock to "result in a delay of about 7 s/day".
>
> > > ________________________________
> > > GPS satellites cannot be used to measure ether speed. Time dilation for
> > > GPS
> > > satellites is exactly as predicted by Relativity, which does not include
> > > a
> > > component for ether speed. So if that is your test of ether theory, it
> > > failed.
>
> > Time is a concept. There is no such thing as spacetime. The rate at
> > which atomic clocks tick is based on the aether pressure in which they
> > exist. Thinking time actually changes is incorrect.
>
> > If you dropped a clock with a paddle off of a boat and the deeper it
> > was dropped into the ocean the slower it 'ticked', as determined by a
> > clock on the boat, would you say time has changed or would you say the
> > increase in hydrostatic pressure is causing the clock to 'tick'
> > slower?
>
> > > Can you describe a single experiment which you believe would show a
> > > different result from SR if your theory was correct?
>
> > ______________________________
> > Short answer, no, you cannot name a single experiment where your theory is
> > different to SR. You therefore believe that an 80 foot ladder can fit
> > inside
> > a 40 foot barn, and the twins "paradox". Welcome to reality.
>
> If the ladder is less at rest with respect to the aether and the barn
> is more at rest with respect to the aether, the ladder, if it is
> traveling at close to 'c' with respect to the aether and length
> contraction is physical, will fit in the barn. If the barn is less at
> rest with respect to the aether and the ladder is more at rest with
> respect to the aether, the ladder, if the barn is traveling at close
> to 'c' with respect to the aether and length contraction is physical,
> will not fit in the barn.
>
> Motion is not relative between frames of reference. Motion is with
> respect to the aether.
>
> If the spaceship is moving fast enough, the twin and the atomic clock
> on the spaceship, will exist under more aether pressure than the twin
> on the Earth. The atomic clock on the spaceship will 'tick' slower. It
> is unknown if the additional aether pressure on the twin will cause
> the twin to age less, or more. The rate at which atomic clocks 'tick'
> has nothing to do with time. Even though the atomic clock on the
> spaceship 'ticks' slower than a similar clock on the Earth and even
> though there is additional aether pressure on the twin in the
> spaceship, it is not known if the twin on the spaceship will age less,
> and even if the twin on the spaceship ages less, it is not because
> time has changed. Time does not change. Time is a concept.
>
> ____________________________
> So you make no predictions at all that are different to SR.
>
> What a waste of time.

AD describes what physically occurs in nature. An atomic clock 'ticks'
based upon the aether pressure in which it exists.

The one property the aether requires is pressure.

The aether is displaced by matter. The aether is not at rest when
displaced and exerts pressure towards the matter. The pressure
associated with the aether displaced by massive objects is gravity.
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133
Prev: Quantum Gravity 357.91: Croatia Shows That Probability of Vacuum Energy Density is More Important than its Vacuum Expectation Value (VEV) of the Hamiltonian Density, in line with Probable Causation/Influence (PI)
Next: Hubble Views Saturn's Northern/Southern Lights