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: PD on 8 Jun 2010 10:06
On Jun 7, 6:30 pm, "Me, ...again!" <arthu...(a)mv.com> wrote:
> 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.

I *have* read it, a couple of times. If there's a reference in it
you'd like me to look up, I'm happy to discuss it.

>
> > 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?

First of all, "Sue" is rather famous here for having a pile of
favorite links which he can quote from but understands nothing within.
There are three primary results from this: a) "Sue" will steadfastly
insist that the author means exactly the opposite of what was actually
said; b) "Sue" will fling URLs in a random free-association exercise,
as though the URL is relevant, when it is in fact nothing of the sort,
"Sue" being quite famous around here as the master of non sequitur; c)
"Sue" will find a particular representation of a model (such as the
imaginary coordinate representation of 4D spacetime), and take that to
be not only the best representation of the model but the ONLY
representation of a model, otherwise it wouldn't be available on the
net for him to mine (or so he imagines).

Secondly, I'm not sure what you mean when you ask "what do 'people'
mean when they use the words 'space' and 'time'." If you mean "people"
on this newsgroup, I think you'll find a number of confused souls who
will think those words mean something completely and radically
different than what physicists think those terms mean. So if you're
looking for a consistent terminology use here on the newsgroup as a
starting point for your clarification, then I'm afraid you've just
wandered into the wrong place.

>
>   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 have no idea what you mean here. Experimental evidence is
experimental evidence. If you believe that experimental evidence is
too tainted by "artifacts" for it to be used to discriminate between
models, then I'm afraid you just don't buy into the scientific method.

>
>
> >> 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.

Yes. But you can see where cavalier semantics can cause one to have
misapprehensions.

>
> >> 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.

Holes are exposed in theories by any of three methods:
- Showing that there is an *internal* inconsistency in the statements
made by the theory; that is, one statement of the theory is A and
another statement of the same theory is not-A.
- Showing that there is no predictive power in the theory; that it
cannot be used to make a testable prediction.
- Showing that the theory does make a testable prediction that is
directly counter to observed, confirmed measurements.

I don't know which of these three categories of holes you think are
exhibited in the current 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.

Yes, indeed.

>
>   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.

Yes, this is true. Because they do not need the information about how
the universe works in a general sense for the sake of survival and
success of their progeny. For that purpose, relying on approximations
and overgeneralization of particular rules of behavior is a sound
strategy, especially since the approximations may be quick, expedient,
and generally trustworthy in the applications relevant to survival.

>
> 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.

The difference is that religion does not rely on experimental
consultation with nature to test those ideas.

From: Peter Webb on 8 Jun 2010 10:08


>
>> > Is the Lorentz transform is unique among them
>> > because it satisfies the principle of relativity?
>>

If you accept Maxwell's equations to be correct, then the answer is yes,
because Maxwell's equations transform using Lorentz and so by equivalence
everything else you can measure must transform in the same way.







From: Peter Webb on 8 Jun 2010 10:39
> The mutual time dilation that manifests the twin's paradox has never
> been observed. All observations have indicated an absolute
> simultaneity. All observations have challenged SR and GR. I have
> addressed all that in the past. <shrug>
>

God knows *exactly* what you mean by the term "mutual time dilation" -
cranks love inventing new terminology, almost as much as they like
misappropriating old terminology.

If you mean that the effects of the twin's paradox has not been observed,
that is a complete nonsense. It has been directly tested on a macro scale by
flying clocks in airplanes. Time dilation itself is observed every day in
particle accelerators.

If you think SR is wrong, you first have to show some experimental evidence
in conflict with SR.

Of course, you can't.

So I guess you are probably wrong, huh?


From: PD on 8 Jun 2010 11:14
On Jun 8, 9:32 am, "Peter Webb" <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au>
wrote:
> > Since the controversy -- as I've demonstrated with two dozen books written
> > in the last ten years--is ongoing, the only generous conclusion I can make
> > is that science has failed to resolve the controversy decades after E/R
> > came out.

I concur with the below. One can also do an Amazon book search about
the agent of AIDS or about evolution -- by your metric those are still
highly controversial topics.

There are lots of books about relativity because of the *romance* of
that theory, compared to say acid-base chemistry. Because of the large
number of popularizations, one would expect a large number of fringe
books just even assuming a constant fringe fraction. Compound this
with the romantic appeal of relativity, which attracts an even higher
quotient of wannabe's, amateur visionaries, and fringe faculty, and
it's not surprising that there is a good number of books on the
subject.

>
> No, an Amazon book search does not say anything about the state of science.
> Google non-fiction books about "angels" or "Atlantis" or "9/11" and see what
> truth emerges.
>
> A disbelief in SR can very fairly be compared to a belief in a flat earth..
> There are particle accelerators all over the world operating for 50+ years
> that have accelerated particles to near light speed and measure these
> affects on a huge scale every single day, and indeed would not operate
> without SR being compensated for in the design, there is huge, compelling
> and independent evidence from many other forms of experiment, astronomical
> observation, satellite measurements, cosmic ray showers, blah blah blah ....
>
> That is why there is and can be no doubt as to the fact that the equations
> of SR *exactly* model the Universe as we see it, and nobody physicist
> seriously disbelieves it is true.

From: PD on 8 Jun 2010 11:17
On Jun 8, 9:32 am, "Peter Webb" <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au>
wrote:
> > Since the controversy -- as I've demonstrated with two dozen books written
> > in the last ten years--is ongoing, the only generous conclusion I can make
> > is that science has failed to resolve the controversy decades after E/R
> > came out.

I'm also curious about your apparent belief that if a theory were
really accepted scientifically, then there wouldn't be any dissenting
opinions.

>
> No, an Amazon book search does not say anything about the state of science.
> Google non-fiction books about "angels" or "Atlantis" or "9/11" and see what
> truth emerges.
>
> A disbelief in SR can very fairly be compared to a belief in a flat earth..
> There are particle accelerators all over the world operating for 50+ years
> that have accelerated particles to near light speed and measure these
> affects on a huge scale every single day, and indeed would not operate
> without SR being compensated for in the design, there is huge, compelling
> and independent evidence from many other forms of experiment, astronomical
> observation, satellite measurements, cosmic ray showers, blah blah blah ....
>
> That is why there is and can be no doubt as to the fact that the equations
> of SR *exactly* model the Universe as we see it, and nobody physicist
> seriously disbelieves it is true.

First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39
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