Prev: 3D shapes of the Prime Number Sums - 3D_solids.JPG (0/1)
Next: Quantum Gravity 395.3: 2-Time Memory Generalization of Riccati Differential Equations
From: Bill Miller on 28 May 2010 14:15

"PD" <thedraperfamily(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
news:e2ece128-fc21-4d08-ad0a-f6c05c76eee2(a)m4g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...
On May 28, 9:32 am, "Bill Miller" <kt...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
<snip>

Hmmm. Mendelian genetics has been around since 1863. The work was
completely ignored for 50 years, and it didn't have any impact on
everyday life for a hundred years.

Newton's universal law of gravity has been around since 1687. The
first notable new prediction it made was the discovery of Neptune in
1846. The first practical implication of it was the launching of
artificial satellites in the 1950s.

Yes. And it took 412,834 years for Og's discovery of fire to lead to the
Creme Brulee.

There are a number of reasons why Mendel's work lay unused for such a long
time. He was a monk, and "everybody knows" that nonks did not do real
research. More importantly, I believe, was that this research did not solve
any practical problems *at that time.* Growing world class peas was of
little use if there was no way to get them to a mass market, and --
besides -- most people in that world lived on farms, grew their own food,
had no practical way to use more food (transportation issues) and in a
conservative agrarian society, "better" food was looked on with suspicion.

All the above changed when distribution methodology changed, populations
moved to cities, mortality rates tumbled and we needed more and better food.

The same general answer is applicable to Newton's Gravity law. The situation
was exacerbated by the fact that pretty much nobody knew about his
discovery, and hardly anybody (then) understood enough mathematics to use
it. And there was little practical application until man had telescopes and
timepieces that were accurate enough to spot planetary anomalies. Ditto for
rocketry dynamics. If you don't have rockets, you don't need to calculate
where they go.

In contrast, today we have near instant access to information. We have a
demonstrable *need* for improvements to -- among many other issues -- energy
soucing. We have millions of technivcally trained engineers, technicians,
mechanics, assemblers, etc. that stand ready to implement the results of
*proper* research into the physical nature of our world.

And Einstein's wish to know what an electron is is still not answered.

You seem to believe that the metric for the value of science is how
fast it can generate consumer devices.

Please do not mis-quote. I said nothing about consumer goods. You clearly
understood this when you referred to Mendel and Newton. While an ultimate
outfall of their work has been consumer goods, the initial applications had
little to do with consures.

There is a difference between R & D, and there is a good reason for
both.

Agreed.

Research is done without necessarily keeping an eye on practical
development.

I understand this. But if there comes a point when the outcomes of this
research are mostly nonsense. We reached that point quite a long time ago.

Development is taking the result of research and
developing it into practical applications.

I understand that you value D and not R, and you would rather see all
investment removed from R and moved to D. I think most people who are
active in either side of R&D would disagree with you.

Again, you misquoted. Then, having falsely stated my position, you proceeded
to demolish it in spectacular fashion. Usually I see this tactic used by
politicians.

Countrary to what you said that I said, I would prefer to see the enormous
sums in dollars and manpower that are being spent on silliness be directed
instead to research into rational explanations for how the world works.

All the best,

Bill Miller


>
<snip>


From: PD on 28 May 2010 14:38
On May 28, 1:15 pm, "Bill Miller" <kt...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
> "PD" <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:e2ece128-fc21-4d08-ad0a-f6c05c76eee2(a)m4g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...
> On May 28, 9:32 am, "Bill Miller" <kt...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
> <snip>
>
> Hmmm. Mendelian genetics has been around since 1863. The work was
> completely ignored for 50 years, and it didn't have any impact on
> everyday life for a hundred years.
>
> Newton's universal law of gravity has been around since 1687. The
> first notable new prediction it made was the discovery of Neptune in
> 1846. The first practical implication of it was the launching of
> artificial satellites in the 1950s.
>
> Yes. And it took  412,834 years for Og's discovery of  fire to lead to the
> Creme Brulee.
>
> There are a number of reasons why Mendel's work lay unused for such a long
> time. He was a monk, and "everybody knows" that nonks did not do real
> research. More importantly, I believe, was that this research did not solve
> any practical problems *at that time.* Growing world class peas was of
> little use if there was no way to get them to a mass market, and --  
> besides -- most people in that world lived on farms, grew their own food,
> had no practical way to use more food (transportation issues) and in a
> conservative agrarian society, "better" food was looked on with suspicion..
>
> All the above changed when distribution methodology changed, populations
> moved to cities, mortality rates tumbled and we needed more and better food.
>
> The same general answer is applicable to Newton's Gravity law. The situation
> was exacerbated by the fact that pretty much nobody knew about his
> discovery, and hardly anybody (then) understood enough mathematics to use
> it. And there was little practical application until man had telescopes and
> timepieces that were accurate enough to spot planetary anomalies. Ditto for
> rocketry dynamics. If you don't have rockets, you don't need to calculate
> where they go.

Which goes to the question of why Mendel should be lauded for working
on genetics, or Newton lauded for working on gravitation, when there
were much more pressing issues of the day. You'll recall, for example,
that Newton worked on gravity while many of his compatriots were dying
of the plague. And yet he is not condemned for failing to apply his
intellect to the reigning problem of the day.

>
> In contrast, today we have near instant access to information. We have a
> demonstrable *need* for improvements to -- among many other issues -- energy
> soucing. We have millions of technivcally trained engineers, technicians,
> mechanics, assemblers, etc. that stand ready to implement the results of
> *proper* research into the physical nature of our world.

And again, I will remark that it is clear that you want mental
investment devoted principally to issues that you think are pressing
right now -- that is, in areas where there is demand for development.
And it is clear that you do not see the value in research that is not
directed to solving these problems -- precisely the kind of basic
research WITHOUT an eye to application that I was talking about.

>
> And Einstein's wish to know what an electron is is still not answered.
>
> You seem to believe that the metric for the value of science is how
> fast it can generate consumer devices.
>
> Please do not mis-quote. I said nothing about consumer goods.

Well, let's see -- you said, and I quote:
"2. Quantum computing dates back to the 1970s and with a huge effort,
the
number of useful products is zero.
3. Quantum entanglement has been around since about 1935; the number
of
useful products is zero. Let's see, that is 75 years.
4. The Many Worlds concept has been around for about 40 years. The
number of
useful products is zero.
5. The string theory concept has been around for about 40 years. The
number
of useful products is zero."

Perhaps you and I need to get clear on what you mean by "useful
products".

> You clearly
> understood this when you referred to Mendel and Newton. While an ultimate
> outfall of their work has been consumer goods, the initial applications had
> little to do with consures.
>
> There is a difference between R & D, and there is a good reason for
> both.
>
> Agreed.
>
> Research is done without necessarily keeping an eye on practical
> development.
>
> I understand this. But if there comes a point when the outcomes of this
> research are mostly nonsense. We reached that point quite a long time ago..
>
>  Development is taking the result of research and
> developing it into practical applications.
>
> I understand that you value D and not R, and you would rather see all
> investment removed from R and moved to D. I think most people who are
> active in either side of R&D would disagree with you.
>
> Again, you misquoted. Then, having falsely stated my position, you proceeded
> to demolish it in spectacular fashion. Usually I see this tactic used by
> politicians.
>
> Countrary to what you said that I said, I would prefer to see the enormous
> sums in dollars and manpower that are being spent on silliness be directed
> instead to research into rational explanations for how the world works.

OK, so here we have another opportunity for clarification. You are
stating that the outcome of recent science has been what you call
"silliness".
Science has a certain methodology for determining what is silly and
what is not, and this clearly doesn't match your metrics, so we need
to find out the metric you are using. For what we'll call "science's
product" understand that what I'm referring to is where you think
enormous sums of money and effort have been spent on silliness.
Some possibilities:
- Science's product is not of any practical value or contemporary
usefulness, at least relative to the pressing needs of today.
- Science's product is not understood by you, and therefore it cannot
be right.
- Science's product is not believed by you, because it flies in the
face of what you think is possible in nature, on the basis of your
experience and common sense, and therefore it cannot be right.
- Science's product has not been proven in experimental test, and
therefore it is all just idle speculation.

Which of the above represents your position?

>
> All the best,
>
> Bill Miller
>
>
>
> <snip>

From: Timo Nieminen on 28 May 2010 15:51
On May 29, 12:32 am, "Bill Miller" <kt...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
> An associate of mine made the following comments regarding the current state
> of physics:
>
> "1. Quantum gravity has been an active area of study for about 60 years.
> That 60 years and a buck will get you a cup of coffee.
>
> 2. Quantum computing dates back to the 1970s and with a huge effort, the
> number of useful products is zero.
>
> 3. Quantum entanglement has been around since about 1935; the number of
> useful products is zero. Let's see, that is 75 years.
>
> 4. The Many Worlds concept has been around for about 40 years. The number of
> useful products is zero.
>
> 5. The string theory concept has been around for about 40 years. The number
> of useful products is zero."
>
> There are other examples, but this should be sufficient to show that physics
> has been mostly spinning its wheels for a half-century.

This might not be true for 2 and 3. It's true that it hasn't gone
usefully commercial, but quantum computers have been built.
Application-oriented proof-of-principle tests have been done for both
quantum computing and entanglement in communication. The funding in
these fields is there because the funders smell real results.

But these are certainly not sufficient examples to show that physics
has been mostly spinning its wheels for a half-century. Example 4
isn't even science, and it can be argued that 5 isn't physics, so this
list says very little about physics. The biggest part of physics is
solid-state/condensed matter/materials physics, with a very strong
experimental part, with plenty of useful products, commercial
products, useful results, etc. Optics and photonics (the laser just
turned 50!) and biophysics as they are now are have grown or re-grown
almost entirely within that last half-century of supposedly spinning
wheels.


From: J. Clarke on 28 May 2010 16:24
On 5/28/2010 3:51 PM, Timo Nieminen wrote:
> On May 29, 12:32 am, "Bill Miller"<kt...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
>> An associate of mine made the following comments regarding the current state
>> of physics:
>>
>> "1. Quantum gravity has been an active area of study for about 60 years.
>> That 60 years and a buck will get you a cup of coffee.
>>
>> 2. Quantum computing dates back to the 1970s and with a huge effort, the
>> number of useful products is zero.
>>
>> 3. Quantum entanglement has been around since about 1935; the number of
>> useful products is zero. Let's see, that is 75 years.
>>
>> 4. The Many Worlds concept has been around for about 40 years. The number of
>> useful products is zero.
>>
>> 5. The string theory concept has been around for about 40 years. The number
>> of useful products is zero."
>>
>> There are other examples, but this should be sufficient to show that physics
>> has been mostly spinning its wheels for a half-century.
>
> This might not be true for 2 and 3. It's true that it hasn't gone
> usefully commercial, but quantum computers have been built.
> Application-oriented proof-of-principle tests have been done for both
> quantum computing and entanglement in communication. The funding in
> these fields is there because the funders smell real results.
>
> But these are certainly not sufficient examples to show that physics
> has been mostly spinning its wheels for a half-century. Example 4
> isn't even science, and it can be argued that 5 isn't physics, so this
> list says very little about physics. The biggest part of physics is
> solid-state/condensed matter/materials physics, with a very strong
> experimental part, with plenty of useful products, commercial
> products, useful results, etc. Optics and photonics (the laser just
> turned 50!) and biophysics as they are now are have grown or re-grown
> almost entirely within that last half-century of supposedly spinning
> wheels.

Nearly 100 years elapsed between the Navier-Stokes Equations and the
Wright Flyer, and nearly 200 before there was enough computing power
available to solve them for complex flowfields, so I guess that science
"spun its wheels" for most of that time.

Everything doesn't have immediate, instantaneous practical application,
and the stuff that brings about the major changes generally takes a long
time to assimilate.
From: Benj on 29 May 2010 13:29
On May 28, 10:32 am, "Bill Miller" <kt...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:

> There's an old saying regarding problem solving: "If you find yourself in a
> hole, the first thing you should do is stop digging."
>
> Perhaps it might be useful to go back to the point where things came unstuck
> and re-examine the problem. Is it possible that the double slit experiment
> that led us into wave-particle duality, entanglement, a moon that doesn't
> exist until we look at it, and infinities that we must "normalize away"
> *might* have some sensible alternative explanations?
>
> Or should we just keep digging?
>
> Bill (un-official crackpot) Miller

Come on Bill. You keep promoting crackpot theories like the moon
exists even if you don't look at it it and your status may soon change
from un-official to "official" crackpot! The true test of any physics
theory is not how many applications it has. Hey, that's engineering!
The true test is where those in positions of respect and authority
tell you it's true. If they tell you the moon isn't there if you
aren't looking at it, then simply put, it not being there is the
sensible explanation! Nothing more to say.





First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6
Prev: 3D shapes of the Prime Number Sums - 3D_solids.JPG (0/1)
Next: Quantum Gravity 395.3: 2-Time Memory Generalization of Riccati Differential Equations