Prev: Quantum Gravity 398.0: USA Proves Flexagons Related to Probable Causation/Influence (PI)
Next: The Necessity of an experiment (classical electrodynamics) that should have been done 100 years ago
From: Me, ...again! on 7 Jun 2010 19:30


On Mon, 7 Jun 2010, PD wrote:

> On Jun 7, 12:12 pm, "Me, ...again!" <arthu...(a)mv.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, 7 Jun 2010, PD wrote:
>>> On Jun 4, 6:30 pm, "Me, ...again!" <arthu...(a)mv.com> wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 4 Jun 2010, PD wrote:
>>>>> On Jun 3, 6:53 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On Jun 3, 6:28 am, "Me, ...again!" <arthu...(a)mv.com> wrote:
>>

>> that the _best_ of the people ALSO have troubles with competing theories,
>> lines of thinking, and favorite enemies.
>>
>> You can go by "mainstream, conventional wisdom" but that does not mean
>> truth. But, all you can say is that "this is the mainstream, conventional
>> wisdom" and beyond that you can only complain that the opposition is, as
>> you say, cranks and nuts. If I go to them, they will say they are the OK
>> guys and you are the crank/nut.
>
> I disagree. There is a consistency to cranks and nuts, and that is
> their inability to show how their model is supported by the wealth of
> experimental data available,

You have two problems: i) real cranks and nuts, who you cannot have any
kind of communication with, and ii) people with different ideologies and
their ideology causes them to fail to communicate. I have seen perfectly
reasonable people in #2 who come from different portfolios of assumptions,
methodology, and interpretations...and they will go nowhere.

And, in my own fields can talk about many examples.

and moreover how their model makes
> unique, testable predictions that would distinguish theirs from the
> prevailing model. There are people with alternate theories that are
> not nuts and cranks, and they DO publish, and they DO exhibit some
> ability on this score.

My only answer to this is Lindley's book. Read it and get back to me.

> It is not so much WHAT they say, as it is whether they use a
> scientific approach to their investigation.

I've just seen, in my life, tons of arguments about this.

>>
>> Now, if I actually get into this stuff and study it to my satisfaction,
>> here is how its going to work: I will be looking at semantics,
>> perceptions, constructs, evidence of circular reasoning, and word usage.
>
> I don't think this is what you should do at all.

On the contrary, I have to ask what do people mean when they use the words
"space" and "time" and then there were all those theories that "Sue" made
reference to. How many kinds of spaces are there?

I think you should
> look at the experimental data to see whether it supports the claims or
> not. This requires work, but it is the only viable criterion for
> determining whether a model makes any sense or not. If a "model"
> doesn't make any claims of signals that could be sussed from
> experimental data, then it isn't even viable to begin with.

I'm going to defer commenting on this part. But, what you've left out
falls under the category of artifacts.

>>
>> I'm fine with the observation that some experiments come up with numbers
>> that match theories. I am still left with the problem that some parts of
>> these theories are concoctions (i.e. the "myth of string theory" [see the
>> Lindley book])
>
> I agree that "string theory" is not a theory. It is more of a work in
> progress with hopes of one day becoming nailed down enough to become a
> theory. There are a bunch of theorists hard at work trying to make a
> decent theory out of it. This is a careful-terminology issue more than
> anything else.

In other words, semantics.

>> and the relativity-cosmology non-intuitive perception of
>> this universe and its non intuitive notion of expanding at the spee of
>> light, gazillions of lightyear sizes, and ...OK...what is all of that
>> inside of? Big Bang? Oh, what was before the Big Bang? Oh, the previous
>> big bang that did the big shrink?
>
> This, now, is a wholly separate thing,

Oh no its not.

which is your trying to make a
> mental image of something in a fashion that is much like other, more
> familiar mental images, and discovering failure -- as evidenced by the
> fact that your attempt has huge holes.

I think the holes are in the theories.

This simply points to the
> problem that your mental image does not accurately represent what is
> said in the theory, and here the solution is to learn a little more
> carefully and systematically what the theory actually says.

Along with what the words mean.

Along the
> way, you will find that nature does not look at all like what you
> thought it looks like. What you thought it looks like only works as a
> local approximation.

I can tell you that all the sub-human animals on this planet, with their
little brains, have gotten along fine for many millions of years longer
than humans and modern culture all with only their little brains.

That is my hypothesis which suggests that what they thought nature looks
like is all they really need.

>>
>> I think either I'll never "understand" that, or ....physics has a long
>> way to go and in the direction its going, its getting worse than better.
>
> You just haven't exposed yourself to the right materials.

They even say that sentence when you question almost any religion, too.

From: Inertial on 7 Jun 2010 19:38
"Koobee Wublee" <koobee.wublee(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
news:ae3b4882-a80c-4396-9d55-d4c3ca2e475b(a)q12g2000yqj.googlegroups.com...
> On Jun 7, 12:27 am, "Peter Webb" wrote:
>> "Koobee Wublee" <koobee.wub...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> > Hmmm... The discussion cannot go forward until you have answered the
>> > question.
>>
>> > ** Do you accept there are an infinite transforms that explain the
>> > null results of the MMX?

There is no transform required as the whole experiment takes place in a
single frame of reference.

There is no length contraction or length shrinking or time dilation or
clocks slowing required in that frame .. unless you think light is not
isotropic in the lab frame (in which case you have to explain why you think
it isn't and why you also get a null result)

You would only need to do a transform if you want to explain how that
experiment from some frame other than the lab frame, and what transforms
would 'work' would depend on your assumptions.

Really. .what transform you use depends on the theory that is being used to
analyze the result. Some theories cannot predict/explain it, some can.
That ones that can't get rejected.

Ballistic theory, SR, LET, or simple aether theory (with the aether dragged
with the lab) all explain a null MMx.

Why is this so hard for you people to understand ??


From: Me, ...again! on 7 Jun 2010 19:38


On Mon, 7 Jun 2010, paparios(a)gmail.com wrote:

> On 7 jun, 13:16, "Me, ...again!" <arthu...(a)mv.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, 7 Jun 2010, PD wrote:
>>> On Jun 4, 6:30 pm, "Me, ...again!" <arthu...(a)mv.com> wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 4 Jun 2010, PD wrote:
>>
>> Sorry I deleted the following on my prior reply because it looked like you
>> didn't comment. I'm saving the whole file, separately. I think your
>> criticisms and responses need cross examination by the people you are
>> criticising...or...I need to examine the whole picture myself.
>>
>> ///////////////////////////////////////
>>
>
> Well that would be a very difficult task, since many of the people
> mentioned there are already dead!!

Well, maybe one can see if there are any biographies.

> Regarding the author...well, his description on Wikipedia sys:
> "Bethell is a member of the Group for the Scientific Reappraisal of
> the HIV-AIDS Hypothesis, which denies that HIV causes AIDS.

Well, that's not good.

His The
> Politically Incorrect Guide to Science promotes skepticism of the
> existence of man-made global warming,

That is still controversial. And, while I think the human race will have
to deal with global warming in the next few decades, it will also have to
do something about the growing human contribution (particularly in asia).

AIDS denialism, and skepticism
> of evolution (which Bethell denies is "real science"),

I like the evolution story much much better than Genesis, but there is
also a movement out there to expand on fundamentalism and creationism and
I do not see enough scientists coping with this.

promoting
> intelligent design instead." This is enough for me to run like hell
> away from him.

I think, on the contrary, you should be organizing, or helping to organize
some kind of 'explanation of evolution' town meetings, or whatever. The
creationists are fanatics and if they are not persuadable that their
position is bad, then its going to be young guys like yourself that are
going to wind up in a theocracy/dictatorship, not me. I'm retired and not
going to be in this life for many more years. E/R is nowhere near the
problems that the fanatics are pushing. E/R is academic.
Hitler/Nazis/AlQueda/etc are/were out there killing and disrupting.


> Miguel Rios
>
>
From: paparios on 7 Jun 2010 21:39
On 7 jun, 19:38, "Me, ...again!" <arthu...(a)mv.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 7 Jun 2010, papar...(a)gmail.com wrote:
> > On 7 jun, 13:16, "Me, ...again!" <arthu...(a)mv.com> wrote:
> >> On Mon, 7 Jun 2010, PD wrote:
> >>> On Jun 4, 6:30 pm, "Me, ...again!" <arthu...(a)mv.com> wrote:
> >>>> On Fri, 4 Jun 2010, PD wrote:
>
> >> Sorry I deleted the following on my prior reply because it looked like you
> >> didn't comment. I'm saving the whole file, separately. I think your
> >> criticisms and responses need cross examination by the people you are
> >> criticising...or...I need to examine the whole picture myself.
>
> >> ///////////////////////////////////////
>
> > Well that would be a very difficult task, since many of the people
> > mentioned there are already dead!!
>
> Well, maybe one can see if there are any biographies.

Are you serious? I have already mentioned to you the not so clean
biography of Van Flandern and the not so clean biography of Bethell.
Besides it is you who brought these guys as experts in relativity,
which they are not!!

>
> > Regarding the author...well, his description on Wikipedia sys:
> > "Bethell is a member of the Group for the Scientific Reappraisal of
> > the HIV-AIDS Hypothesis, which denies that HIV causes AIDS.
>
> Well, that's not good.
>
>   His The
>
> > Politically Incorrect Guide to Science promotes skepticism of the
> > existence of man-made global warming,
>
> That is still controversial. And, while I think the human race will have
> to deal with global warming in the next few decades, it will also have to
> do something about the growing human contribution (particularly in asia).
>
>   AIDS denialism, and skepticism
>
> > of evolution  (which Bethell denies is "real science"),
>
> I like the evolution story much much better than Genesis, but there is
> also a movement out there to expand on fundamentalism and creationism and
> I do not see enough scientists coping with this.
>
>   promoting
>
> > intelligent design instead." This is enough for me to run like hell
> > away from him.
>
> I think, on the contrary, you should be organizing, or helping to organize
> some kind of 'explanation of evolution' town meetings, or whatever. The
> creationists are fanatics and if they are not persuadable that their
> position is bad, then its going to be young guys like yourself that are
> going to wind up in a theocracy/dictatorship, not me. I'm retired and not
> going to be in this life for many more years. E/R is nowhere near the
> problems that the fanatics are pushing. E/R is academic.
> Hitler/Nazis/AlQueda/etc are/were out there killing and disrupting.
>
>

Why in the world do you think I, or others here, would be interested
in doing what you suggest? At the very least it would a good thing to
do for yourself, if that subject is of interest for you. Me?.... not
thanks!

If you want to learn what relativity says and how it is being tested
day after day, you can check the FAQ page or made a Google Scholar
search on the subject and you will see that none of these authors does
serious research on relativity subjects

Miguel Rios-

From: nuny on 8 Jun 2010 08:37
On Jun 6, 9:40 pm, Koobee Wublee <koobee.wub...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jun 6, 7:34 pm, alien8er <alien8...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jun 6, 1:15 pm, Koobee Wublee wrote:

(brevity snips here and there)

> Run away, you little crank.

Um, no, you big poopy-head.

> > > The following equation can never be derived from SR...
> ...  Do you understand what I am saying or not?  If you don't,
> we have nothing to discuss.  <shrug>

Screw abstract math, yours *and* the "standard". I prefer the
concrete to the abstract. Specifically:

> >   Tell us why gold is yellow.
>
> It is yellow because it reflects only the yellow wavelength of light?

No. Read the paper again, but don't start at the beginning. Start
with the paragraph wrapped around the medal. Ignore the graphic and
read the text. Here's what's measured:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Image-Metal-reflectance.png

Can you explain that Classically?


Mark L. Fergerson
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38
Prev: Quantum Gravity 398.0: USA Proves Flexagons Related to Probable Causation/Influence (PI)
Next: The Necessity of an experiment (classical electrodynamics) that should have been done 100 years ago