Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: John Larkin on 26 Oct 2006 14:39 On Thu, 26 Oct 2006 17:00:12 GMT, Jonathan Kirwan <jkirwan(a)easystreet.com> wrote: >On Thu, 26 Oct 2006 08:43:17 -0700, John Larkin ><jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > >>On Thu, 26 Oct 2006 08:13:35 GMT, Jonathan Kirwan >><jkirwan(a)easystreet.com> wrote: >> >>>>Sure, it's like a higher-order polynomial being a better fit than a >>>>simpler one. Newton's equations lack some small high-order terms. >>>>Einstein's are better. >>> >>>No, the comparison of Newtonian and Einsteinian theories of gravity is >>>not at all like that. To say that Einstein's GR theory is "like a >>>higher-order polynomial being a better fit than a simpler one" of >>>Newton's is appalling. You could not possibly be further away from >>>describing their relationship. >> >>Why appalling? If you used the GR expression for the gravitational >>attraction of two point masses as a function of distance, and applied >>it to small masses at large distances (like, say, all our planets but >>Mercury) some terms would be so small as to be OK to ignore, and you'd >>wind up with Newton's equation. That's exactly the same effect as >>dropping high-order terms in a polynomial curve fit. > >It's appalling because comparing these two theories as being like >higher order terms in a polynomial is so wrong to do. That you cannot >see this tells me a lot about you. I wasn't comparing the theories, I was comparing the force predicted by the theories. Newton didn't actually have a theory of gravitation, of *why* bodies attract, he just did a regression on nature and expressed the math he saw. The only test of an equation expressing gravitational force is whether it produces quantitatively correct results, as verified by experiment. An equation stating Newton's law of gravitation is clearly an approximation to a version that includes relativistic effects, with the solutions indistinguishable in many common cases and quite different in more extreme cases, just the way truncated polynomials work. What a grouch. John
From: Jonathan Kirwan on 26 Oct 2006 14:43 On Thu, 26 Oct 2006 11:39:25 -0700, John Larkin <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >On Thu, 26 Oct 2006 17:00:12 GMT, Jonathan Kirwan ><jkirwan(a)easystreet.com> wrote: > >>On Thu, 26 Oct 2006 08:43:17 -0700, John Larkin >><jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >> >>>On Thu, 26 Oct 2006 08:13:35 GMT, Jonathan Kirwan >>><jkirwan(a)easystreet.com> wrote: >>> >>>>>Sure, it's like a higher-order polynomial being a better fit than a >>>>>simpler one. Newton's equations lack some small high-order terms. >>>>>Einstein's are better. >>>> >>>>No, the comparison of Newtonian and Einsteinian theories of gravity is >>>>not at all like that. To say that Einstein's GR theory is "like a >>>>higher-order polynomial being a better fit than a simpler one" of >>>>Newton's is appalling. You could not possibly be further away from >>>>describing their relationship. >>> >>>Why appalling? If you used the GR expression for the gravitational >>>attraction of two point masses as a function of distance, and applied >>>it to small masses at large distances (like, say, all our planets but >>>Mercury) some terms would be so small as to be OK to ignore, and you'd >>>wind up with Newton's equation. That's exactly the same effect as >>>dropping high-order terms in a polynomial curve fit. >> >>It's appalling because comparing these two theories as being like >>higher order terms in a polynomial is so wrong to do. That you cannot >>see this tells me a lot about you. > >I wasn't comparing the theories, I was comparing the force predicted >by the theories. Newton didn't actually have a theory of gravitation, >of *why* bodies attract, he just did a regression on nature and >expressed the math he saw. > >The only test of an equation expressing gravitational force is whether >it produces quantitatively correct results, as verified by experiment. >An equation stating Newton's law of gravitation is clearly an >approximation to a version that includes relativistic effects, with >the solutions indistinguishable in many common cases and quite >different in more extreme cases, just the way truncated polynomials >work. > >What a grouch. Too bad you think that is all it is. Jon
From: T Wake on 26 Oct 2006 14:44 <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:ehqa97$8qk_008(a)s783.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > In article <iLOdnYf2fLhzz6LYRVnyuw(a)pipex.net>, > "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >> >><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >>news:ehndut$8qk_001(a)s885.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >>> In article <5bmdnTiQpMD62KPYnZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d(a)pipex.net>, >>> "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >>>> >>>><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >>>>news:ehl0hs$8qk_001(a)s772.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >>>>> In article <xeidnaGqVPjT7abYnZ2dnUVZ8s-dnZ2d(a)pipex.net>, >>>>> "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >>>>>>news:ehfm39$8qk_006(a)s799.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >>>>>>> >>>>>>> No, it is not valid within this context. You do know that >>>>>>> the Creed starts out with "I believe...". >>>>>> >>>>>>It is still valid. I honestly believe in Newtonian Gravity being the >>>>>>best >>>>>>description of gravity in the domain in which it applies. >>>>> >>>>> I don't believe it. I demonstrated it when I did my labs. >>>> >>>>You still believe it is the _best_ description of gravity. Tomorrow some >>>>one >>>>may overhaul Newtonian gravity and explain that it is actually incorrect >>>>because of [insert reason here]. This is not prohibited by anything in >>>>the >>>>scientific method. >>> >>> No. No matter how the concept is refined, the lab method worked. >>> I can then use that method to predict similar setups. That's >>> how science works. >> >>I know how science works. >> >>We [tinw] believe that Newtonian gravity is the best description of what >>happens. Your lab experiment is limited by your equipment and your >>understanding of what you are observing. >> >>A new theory which matches the previous predictions and makes new >>(sucessfully) testable ones will overhaul the old one. Until that happens >>we >>[tinw] believe that the current theory is the *best*. >> >>That is how science works. > > I know. What you seem to omit is that the old method will still > continue to work within the range of the old measurements. > > I get real annoyed when people say that Newtonian physics doesnt' > work. It does work with crude measurements of certain things. > I know what the scientists mean; but it's a bad form to use > because the cranks and the newbies do not know what they mean. You must have misread my post. Can you read over it again and see where I said Newtonian gravity doesn't work, I don't think I said it and I hope I didn't imply it. I am talking about the possibility that a future theory of gravity _may_ overhaul the Newtonian mechanics for low mass objects and slow speeds. There is nothing in the scientific method which precludes a future generation discovering a better experimental test and finding a flaw in the Newtonian theory because of something we have no knowledge of at this time. It remains the case, that until such a time, scientists _believe_ Newtonian theory is the best theory for describing gravity in the circumstances in which it is used. It is not possible to know that this is the only theory. The same applies to GR. It is scientist's belief that GR is the best theory for describing gravity on a cosmic scale. Belief is a word. Giving it mystical meaning is pandering to religious extremists.
From: T Wake on 26 Oct 2006 14:45 "John Larkin" <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message news:qkvvj2l9ja8sfam5mtb2srvb6qpc6m34ea(a)4ax.com... > On Thu, 26 Oct 2006 00:13:01 +0100, "T Wake" > <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: > >> >>"John Larkin" <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in >>message >>news:crnvj2pn12lbhdqj7j88rs3bq4ub38b0qn(a)4ax.com... >>> On Wed, 25 Oct 06 16:23:50 GMT, lparker(a)emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) >>> wrote: >>> >>>>In article <j9vuj25679i7d4bp38km98lii0acq1ajai(a)4ax.com>, >>>> John Larkin <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >>>>>On Tue, 24 Oct 2006 17:55:01 +0100, "T Wake" >>>>><usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>It is still valid. I honestly believe in Newtonian Gravity being the >>>>>>>>best >>>>>>>>description of gravity in the domain in which it applies. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I don't believe it. I demonstrated it when I did my labs. >>>>>> >>>>>>You still believe it is the _best_ description of gravity. Tomorrow >>>>>>some >>>>>>one >>>>> >>>>>Einstein >>>>> >>>>>>may overhaul Newtonian gravity and explain that it is actually >>>>>>incorrect >>>>>>because of [insert reason here]. >>>>> >>>>>General relativity, as demonstrated in the orbit of Mercury. >>>>> >>>> >>>>But even that cannot be entirely correct, as it is incompatible with >>>>quantum >>>>mechanics. >>> >>> But it certainly makes Newton's formulation not-the-best. >> >>Newtonian gravity is perfect at what it tries to describe. >> > > Cool, it's perfect when it's perfect; otherwise, it's not. > > Got it. Yep :-) That pretty much sums it up.
From: Jonathan Kirwan on 26 Oct 2006 14:46
On Thu, 26 Oct 2006 19:45:15 +0100, "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >> Cool, it's perfect when it's perfect; otherwise, it's not. >> >> Got it. > >Yep :-) That pretty much sums it up. Hehe. That sums up anything and everything and nothing, too. Jon |