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 17:49
On Jun 8, 4:33 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 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.

This is certainly true, and a lot of mediocre physicists do work
solely on other people's bandwagons. The exceptional ones, which tend
to be the Nobel Prize winners, strongly go in the other direction,
tending to buck conventional wisdom. There are oodles of examples of
this:
Pauli, Dirac, Bohr, Heisenberg, Schrodinger: quantum mechanics
Feynman: summation over all possible histories
Dyson: renormalization
Witten, Greene: compact dimensions

>
> ==== 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: PD on 8 Jun 2010 18:03
On Jun 8, 4:14 pm, "Me, ...again!" <arthu...(a)mv.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 8 Jun 2010, PD wrote:

>
> > 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.

Usually in physics, there is some care taken not to claim discovery
until there is sufficient signal to noise ratio. This doesn't prevent
occasional false positives (and false negatives!). This is where
independent corroboration becomes an important aspect of the
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'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 completely agree with this. But the theories you are trawling about
are not reliant on "early [experimental] papers", though those may be
the ones referred to in the popularizations you've read so far.

>
>
>
> >>>> 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.

Which of the categories above do you believe these weaknesses belong
to?

>
> 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.

We've talked about this before. Light belongs to a *different*
category of physical entity. It is a boondoggle to ask for proof that
it belongs squarely and exclusively in the "particle" category or the
"wave" category in any experiment. Those categories are FALSE
categories that only approximately classify things from our normal
experience. In fact, all things are NEITHER purely particle nor purely
wave, though in a given set-up, particle-like behavior may dominate or
wave-like behavior may dominate. In the photoelectric effect, for
example, the particle-like behavior dominates over the wave-like
behavior, but this should not be taken as any kind of proof that light
is in fact a particle.

"Particle" and "wave" are HUMAN abstractions that turn out not to
match ANYTHING in nature perfectly well.

>
>
>
> >>   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'".

And to this I'd respond by pointing out how unscientific such a
statement is.
First of all, no evidence provides ANY proof of a theory. Theories are
not proven.
Secondly, selecting evidence that supports a model and rejecting other
evidence that counters the model is scientific bad form.
Third, evidence that supports two models A and B does not favor A over
B, nor does having another model A suggest that model B is wrong. In
such cases, you seek out those places where A and B make *different*
predictions and test those.
Fourth, post-dictive matching of a model to observations is not
adequate experimental support of a theory. A theory must provide a
testable PREDICTION of something that WILL happen under specified
circumstances, not something that MIGHT or MIGHT NOT happen.

You should know all this.

> 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.

Right. And I point to the above for a handy guide on what it means to
do something scientifically.

>
> 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."

You bet. Nice discussion.

From: Inertial on 9 Jun 2010 01:20
"Tom Potter" <xprivatnews(a)mailinator.com> wrote in message
news:4c0f2065$1(a)news.x-privat.org...
>
> "blackhead" <larryharson(a)softhome.net> wrote in message
> news:5ec49219-1d94-4119-adb8-c7f9d2b10acb(a)d8g2000yqf.googlegroups.com...
>> On 6 June, 17:33, "Androcles" <Headmas...(a)Hogwarts.physics_z> wrote:
>>> "Martin Brown" <|||newspam...(a)nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>>>
>>> news:TPOOn.139774$0M5.58866(a)newsfe07.iad...
>>> | On 04/06/2010 20:59, Me, ...again! wrote:
>>> | >
>>> | >
>>> | > On Fri, 4 Jun 2010, Martin Brown wrote:
>>> | >
>>> | >> On 04/06/2010 03:24, Me, ...again! wrote:
>>> | >>>
>>> | >>>
>>> |
>>> | >> There is a real beauty in saying that the laws of physics are the
>>> same
>>> | >> for all observers in an inertial reference frame.
>>> | >
>>> | > I know. But, I read another book (cover to cover): "The End of
>>> Physics:
>>> | > The myth of a unified theory" by David Lindley (a physics
>>> professor),
>>> in
>>> | > which it came up often that today's physicists were more concerned
>>> with
>>> | > "beautiful theories" than theories that explained reality. And, I
>>> | > thought that was a good point.
>>> |
>>> | OTOH beautiful theories that fit all the observations and have
>>> survived
>>> | all the experimental tests so far are now on very solid foundations.
>>>
>>> Yep, Newtonian Mechanics works perfectly, it has survived all the
>>> experimental tests so far are and is now on very solid foundations.
>>> Pity that relativity failed the MMX test, the Sagnac test, the nova
>>> test, the cepheid test, the rocket test, all of which NM passed with
>>> flying colours.
>>> Pity you didn't pass the bigotry test, Brown.
>>
>> The Kaufman experiments showed that the mass of an electron depends
>> upon its velocity, which isn't a part of Newtonian mechanics.
>>
>> Interestingly, they initially seemed to show that Abraham's expression
>> for the mass of an electron with velocity was correct, Einsten/
>> Lorentz's incorrect. It wasn't until later when the experiment was
>> reanalyzed that the result was shown not be be accurate enough to
>> distinguish between the two theories.
>>
>> Larry
>
> It is interesting to see that Larry
> does not know that mass does not vary with velocity.

It depends on what mass calculation you use.

> This misconception is one of the many
> the public has been brainwashed to accept
> because the Mass Media made Einstein their "Poster Boy"
> to epitomize Jewish intelligence,

hehehe.. 'Mass' media :):)

> no doubt because the Jewish culture,
> was vastly inferior to the cultures of
> Egypt, Persia, Greece, Rome, China, India,
> and later Europe.
>
> Some of the ways that time, money and minds have been wasted
> because of the Mass media promotion of Einstein include
> 1. The use of rubber rulers and clocks to map objects and events.

Doesn't happen in SR. It does in LET

> 2. The promotion of energy, rather than action, as quanta.
> 3. The side tracking of the "Least action principle."
> 4. The search for time travel, worm holes, gravitons,

If things are predicted by non-refuted theories, then it is snesible to look
for them in order to see if the theory can be refuted. That is how science
works

> and things beyond Man's capacity to ever experience
> in time and space,
> like the beginning and end of time,

So trying to understand how our universe cam into existence or will go out
of existence (of those events happened) is not worthwhile?

> and the mind of God.

What god? That is not a scientific endeavour.

> 5. Morphing data from observations with many Newton and Maxwell Laws
> in order top fit the data to General Relativity.

No need to.

> It is interesting to see that Einstein did not comprehend
> that the so called aether was NOT a physical thing,

He most likely comprehended thigns far better than you

> but was simply the RIGID orthogonal axis
> used to objects and events on.

Then it doesn't physically exit and has no effect on reality.

> A mind is a terrible thing to waste.

What happened to yours?


From: spudnik on 9 Jun 2010 01:26
there is an annoying dood/ette around here,
who reposts teh same experiment with fullerenes,
several times per day per item -- and I *still* do
like any version of Young's two-pinhole/100y.a.Newton
total destruction of the corpuscular "theory" --
it was not a theory, when mister Hypothisis Non Fingo
gave it.

"particle/wave duality" is not even a false dichotomy;
it is akin to Pascal's two-column proofs
in projective geometry: one does not read both,
at the very same time.

so, whereinat does a "photon" impart a "momentum,"
electromagnetically, to an atom?

> "Particle" and "wave" are HUMAN abstractions that turn out not

thus&so:
I have only seen you paste Wikipops into these fora;
eh?... as for [macro-guy], he does know how
to use that macro, where he never bothers
to analyze any specifics of some experiment with fullerenes
(I mean, if I were citing it, that's what I'd do, because
it would be interesting ... yes, and it really would be, but
he hasn't bothered to cite who or what the study is,
so that we could do his homework for him, again .-)

thusNso:
the voluntary cap&trade is tens of millions of $ US -- I mean,
In Fed/FEMA/Consumer's Digest Notes We Trust --
per year in hedgies (since '03), although the Urinal refers
to Waxman's bill as "cap&tax," and it is exactly teh same
-- as far as I know & what little Waxman told me --
as his '91 cap&trade, which the Urinal will (occaisionally)
say was as good or better than machine-slicing bread.

> Chicago trillion dollar "Cap and Trade" exchange. They aren't real
> science classes at all but "science appreciation" classes held for art

thusNso:
I take it back, reserving judgement
til I don't googol it, but the matter
of taking the fix on a vehicle with radar,
begs the question, Just how does the device go-
about detecting it?... well,
a simple interference of the reflecting waves,
with the referent of the outgoing waves,
could essentially be dopplerian; eh?

thusNso:
re Klein's 3rd volume
of _Geometry from an Advanced Standpoint_,
try _The Icosahedron_.

--Stop BP's and Waxman's aritrageur rip-off,
facetiouslt a.k.a. cap&tax in WSUrinal community;
institute a tiny carbon tax, instead!
http://wlym.com
From: Koobee Wublee on 9 Jun 2010 03:37
On Jun 8, 5:37 am, "n...(a)bid.nes" wrote:
> On Jun 6, 9:40 pm, Koobee Wublee wrote:

> > > > 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:

Physics with math is philosophy. In physics, there is the valid and
the invalid; in philosophy, there is no right and no wrong. <shrug>

> > > 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?

So, am I correct? Gold absorbs all wavelengths of life except
yellow. There is why it appears to be yellow. <shrug>
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41
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