Experts doubt Einstein..... but Einstein Dingleberries still worship him
in [Physics]
|
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 8 Jun 2010 17:14 On Tue, 8 Jun 2010, PD wrote: > 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. Ok, if you have nothing to say beyond what you just said, then it doesn't matter. >> >>> 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). Hey "Sue"... do you have anything to say about all of the above? > 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. OK, then we don't need to talk about that anymore, either. >> >> 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. For one, the signal to noise ratio can be too low for the experimental evidence to be useful. 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've been a practicing scientist for most of my life, with papers in peer-reviewed journals. One paper I authored was about an artifact I discovered which rendered useless the original line of thinking, but I could talk about the artifact. Quite a lot of early papers in most fields have a whole range of errors, ommissions, mistakes, and bad hypotheses. This is why the study of the history of science is valuable. >> >> >>>> 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. ...or be the basis for a lot of trouble. >> >>>> 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. There are weaknesses in the "wave-particle" duality. And, IIRC, no one has yet been able to design _one_ experiment to prove light is a wave or a particle, in that _one_ experiment. >> >> 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. Good, fine. >> >> 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. Fine, good. >> >> 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. But, I've seen and read all kinds of commentary from religious thinking which basically says: "Look all around you to see all the proof you need for 'X'". Pardon my "needling" of you, but I'm also aware that the Shroud of Turin, for example, has been examined by two teams of scientists (both of whom did rely on "experimental consultation") who came up with two completely different conclusions and these teams of scientists did use experiments and measurements to derive their conclusions. I know I'm -- maybe -- being a little "difficult" with you, but I'm trying to get across the idea that some of these nice intellectual problems are not always as easy to work on and get "the truth" as "scientific methodology" would have us accept. And, I will appologize for not being as knowledgeable as I wish I were to come up with specifics on E/R instead of just presenting a list of books by guys who do not have opinions that fit into the E/R mainstream. But, let me thank you, again, for taking some of you time for our "comparing of notes."
From: Me, ...again! on 8 Jun 2010 17:33 On Tue, 8 Jun 2010, PD wrote: > 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. ...and leading to a "bandwagon effect"; and people love to get on bandwagons. ==== no change to below...included for reference and context===== >> >> 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: Me, ...again! on 8 Jun 2010 17:36 On Tue, 8 Jun 2010, PD wrote: > 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. Here are (I think) two examples: first, the value of pi is 3.1416, and second, if I said "The sun came up yesterday", I would expect that there wouldn't be any significant dissent. /////////////////////////////// >> >> 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 17:44 On Jun 8, 4:36 pm, "Me, ...again!" <arthu...(a)mv.com> wrote: > On Tue, 8 Jun 2010, PD wrote: > > 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. > > Here are (I think) two examples: first, the value of pi is 3.1416, and > second, if I said "The sun came up yesterday", I would expect that there > wouldn't be any significant dissent. First of all, those are not theories in the sense that there is a model of the behavior of nature that makes predictions of measurable behavior under specified sets of circumstances. The value of pi is a constant that sometimes appears in such theories, such as the theory surrounding electrodynamics. The *observation* that the sun came up yesterday can certainly be used as experimental support or falsification of a theory that would have made predictions about that behavior occurring yesterday. Can you try a little better? Since you have a doctorate in a major field of science, I would think that you would be able to distinguish a theory from an observational fact or a numerical constant. > > /////////////////////////////// > > > > >> 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: Sue... on 8 Jun 2010 17:45
On Jun 8, 5:14 pm, "Me, ...again!" <arthu...(a)mv.com> wrote: > On Tue, 8 Jun 2010, PD wrote: > > 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. > > Ok, if you have nothing to say beyond what you just said, then it doesn't > matter. > > > > > > >>> 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). > > Hey "Sue"... do you have anything to say about all of the above? Hmm... Well I suppose if you can't argue with the content then you try to discredit the person that offered it. Do they still shoot messengers in these parts or just piano players? Really, you are asking the wrong person. I was in the science club, not the debating team. But what little I know of the art, it is an effective tactic. Judges probably award points for that sort of thing but I suspect they also subtract points for gross grammatical errors like pronoun use. Where judging presentation can't be avoided scientists tend to ignore tactics and rely instead on a few rules of thumb similar to this: <<Pseudoscience displays an indifference to facts. Instead of bothering to consult reference works or investigating directly, its advocates simply spout bogus "facts" where needed. These fictions are often central to the pseudoscientist's argument and conclusions. Moreover, pseudoscientists rarely revise. The first edition of a pseudoscience book is almost always the last, even though the book remains in print for decades or even centuries. Even books with obvious mistakes, errors, and misprints on every page may be reprinted as is, over and over. Compare this to science textbooks that see a new edition every few years because of the rapid accumulation of new facts and insights.>> http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/pseudo.html ;-) Sue... [...] |