NYT - 7/13/10 - "Gravity Does Not Exist", but pseudoscience rules
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: NYT - 7/13/10 - "Gravity Does Not Exist", but pseudosciencerules
Next: The inertial frame concept in 1905 Relativity
From: PD on 16 Jul 2010 13:33 On Jul 16, 12:20 pm, "Robert L. Oldershaw" <rlolders...(a)amherst.edu> wrote: > On Jul 16, 10:25 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > I'm not trying to talk down to you. I'm asking you to REMEMBER how > > science works. > > --------------------------------------------------- > > Sigh, let's skip the lessons on the history and philosophy of science, > which I know inside and out. Perhaps it is YOU and your postmodern > colleagues who have forgotten how science is supposed to work. > > Also note that I do not have to worry about jobs or grants or > compromising, so I can stand above the many ways that postmodern > scientists consciously and subconsciously game the system. Actually, I don't either, but that's really beside the point. > > ------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > > > Here is my final pitch. I do not rule out or ridicule speculation, as > > > long as it is not over-hyped. But until a speculation can come up with > > > Einstein's standard of a definitive prediction, then I regard it as > > > prescientific speculation, and no more. > > > > Can the holographic principle lead to a DEFINITIVE prediction that is > > > specific, potentially falsifiable, and most importantly, totally non- > > > fudgeable, leading to a YES/NO verdict that every honest scientist > > > will acknowledge? > > > > And no, I do not believe in absolutes or perfection. I live in the > > > real world, not the Platonic one. So I am not asking for absolutes or > > > prefection or "10 impossible things before breakfast". Just the > > > standard that Einstein set with his work on Special Relativity, > > > General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics. > > ------------------------------------------------------------- > > So far you have said 'one model predicts this, and one model predicts > that ,and another predicts,...' That does not cut it in my book. To > me, that is just the SOS. That's your choice. Scientists will continue to hone done prospective models in this book. > > I want a definitive empirical test that tells us whether the entire > holographic approach is a Platonic pipe-dream or something useful. Then I'm afraid you're going to be out of luck. > > If you cannot come up with that kind of empirical test then the whole > holographic approach is pre-scientific speculation, and nothing more. I disagree. Just because you don't get the definitive test on a principle that is shared by a class of models in the way that YOU want, does not make that principle or any of the models that make use of it unscientific. As I've pointed out to you, what you have proclaimed to be your demand has NEVER been satisfied by physical theories. > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > For the benefit of any intelligent lurkers out there, I conclude with > some thoughts of those who have pulled back the veil of nature a bit > and have foreseen what the new paradigm for the 21st century looks > like. > > While topology has succeeded fairly well in mastering continuity, we > do not yet understand the inner meaning of the restriction to > differentiable manifolds. Perhaps one day physics will be able to > discard it. Hermann Weyl, 1963, Philosophy of Mathematics and > Natural Science > ------------------------------------------------- > > Never in the annals of science and engineering has there been a > phenomenon so ubiquitous, a paradigm so universal, or a discipline so > multidisciplinary as that of chaos. Yet chaos represents only the tip > of an awesome iceberg, for beneath it lies a much finer structure of > immense complexity, a geometric labyrinth of endless convolutions, and > a surreal landscape of enchanting beauty. The bedrock which anchors > these local and global bifurcation terrains is the omnipresent > nonlinearity that was once wantonly linearized by the engineers and > applied scientists of yore, thereby forfeiting their only chance to > grapple with reality. Leon O. Chua, 1991, Int. J. Bifurcation and > Chaos, > Vol. 1, No. 1, 1-2, 1991. > ------------------------------------------ > > It's a nonlinear, nondifferentiable, fractal world. > Approximations are useful and necessary, but they must be recognized > as such. > > RLOwww.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: Robert L. Oldershaw on 16 Jul 2010 19:41 On Jul 16, 1:33 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > RLO: I want a definitive empirical test that tells us whether the entire > > holographic approach is a Platonic pipe-dream or something useful. > > PD: Then I'm afraid you're going to be out of luck. Then you are admitting that the holographic program is still in a pre- scientific state, which is exactly my point. So don't throw out GR, or anything else, just yet. I am merely asking that the time-honored scientific method, as practiced by those who developed it from 1600 into the first half of the 20th century, be followed. Actually, in the case of postmodern theoretical physicists, that it be reinstated I am not asking for impossible or unrealistic things. Just the same standard that Einstein set with his work on Special Relativity, General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics. And the same standards insisted upon by all the founders of, and major contributors to, pre- postmodern science, i.e., back when science was science. In the last few decades, things have fallen apart badly in theoretical physics [witness the string theory fiasco, Boltzmann Brain fantasies, holographic fanatsies, mythical particles fantasies, ...] because the Definitive Predictions/Empirical Testing criterion that kept science honest has been short-circuited by overly ambitious postmodern pseudoscientists who seem to care more for their personal status than for scientific knowledge. It is time to pull the plug on the pseudoscientists and their pseudoscience. You will be able to identify them by the fact that they cannot make Definitive Predictions, and anyone with a reasonable amount of knowledge and skepticism can see that their pseudopredictions never put their theories or their next grant at risk because they are not definitive scientific predictions. RLO www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw
From: mpc755 on 16 Jul 2010 22:50
On Jul 16, 7:41 pm, "Robert L. Oldershaw" <rlolders...(a)amherst.edu> wrote: > On Jul 16, 1:33 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > RLO: I want a definitive empirical test that tells us whether the entire > > > holographic approach is a Platonic pipe-dream or something useful. > > > PD: Then I'm afraid you're going to be out of luck. > > Then you are admitting that the holographic program is still in a pre- > scientific state, which is exactly my point. So don't throw out GR, or > anything else, just yet. > > I am merely asking that the time-honored scientific method, as > practiced by those who developed it from 1600 into the first half of > the 20th century, be followed. Actually, in the case of postmodern > theoretical physicists, that it be reinstated > > I am not asking for impossible or unrealistic things. Just the same > standard that Einstein set with his work on Special Relativity, > General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics. And the same standards > insisted upon by all the founders of, and major contributors to, pre- > postmodern science, i.e., back when science was science. > > In the last few decades, things have fallen apart badly in theoretical > physics [witness the string theory fiasco, Boltzmann Brain fantasies, > holographic fanatsies, mythical particles fantasies, ...] because the > Definitive Predictions/Empirical Testing criterion that kept science > honest has been short-circuited by overly ambitious postmodern > pseudoscientists who seem to care more for their personal status than > for scientific knowledge. > > It is time to pull the plug on the pseudoscientists and their > pseudoscience. You will be able to identify them by the fact that they > cannot make Definitive Predictions, and anyone with a reasonable > amount of knowledge and skepticism can see that their > pseudopredictions never put their theories or their next grant at risk > because they are not definitive scientific predictions. > > RLOwww.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw In terms of pseudoscientists, I think the opposite is more explanatory of the state of physics today. Something as simple as gravity (i.e. the pressure exerted by dark matter displaced by matter) can not be explained by present day 'physicists'. What physically occurs in a double slit experiment (i.e. the moving particle has an associated dark matter displacement wave) can not be explained unless 'they' decide to no longer ascribe to conservation of momentum and require the future to determine the past.. What occurs physically in nature when mass supposedly converts to energy (i.e. the physical effects of matter converting to dark matter is energy) where either mass is not conserved or they ascribe to the ridiculous notion mass is energy and energy is mass. The current state of 'physics' is ridiculous absurd nonsense. If 'physicists' want to continue on this path then they should be able to at least step up and admit what they choose to believe has nothing to do with the physics of nature. |