NYT - 7/13/10 - "Gravity Does Not Exist", but pseudoscience rules
in [Physics]
|
From: Thomas Heger on 15 Jul 2010 20:26 Dono. schrieb: > On Jul 13, 8:49 pm, Surfer <n...(a)spam.net> wrote: >> On Tue, 13 Jul 2010 11:30:44 -0700 (PDT), "Dono." <sa...(a)comcast.net> >> wrote: >> >> >> >>> On Jul 13, 11:26 am, Surfer <n...(a)spam.net> wrote: >>>> On Tue, 13 Jul 2010 11:01:41 -0700 (PDT), "Dono." <sa...(a)comcast.net> >>>> wrote: >>>>> On Jul 13, 10:55 am, Surfer <n...(a)spam.net> wrote: >>>>>> Combining NASA/JPL One-Way Optical-Fiber Light-Speed Data with >>>>>> Spacecraft Earth-Flyby Doppler-Shift Data to Characterise 3-Space Flowhttp://arxiv.org/abs/0906.5404 >>>>> You always try to sneak in a crackpot paper by the Cahill crank >>>>> together with legitimate papers. This is a new tactic, Peter. >>>> Dono, two other authors have also found preferred frame explanations >>>> for the spacecraft earth flyby anomalies: >>>> Non-Prefered Reference Frames and Anomalous Earth Flybys >>>> Walter Petryhttp://arxiv.org/abs/0909.5150 >>> The guy can't even write English. He cites marinov , cahill, slava >>> turyshev, all of the crackpots.Not worth reading his tripe. Try again, >>> peter. I think, after a quick look at this paper, it is a very good one and well made. As the authors seem to be germans, this could be an excuse to have some kind of linguistic problems. But that shouldn't be an issue, since the paper is about physics and not about literature. TH
From: Robert L. Oldershaw on 15 Jul 2010 23:03 On Jul 15, 6:34 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > Yes, that's true. And if foaminess at that scale is detected, then > this test will not favor the holographic principle over competing > models. However, it will certainly lend support to the holographic > principle (as well as the others) and make it clear that any > prejudgment about the holographic principle being fantasy is > unwarranted. ------------------------------------------------ (1) Sigh! Look at the pretzel logic you are using. If foaminess were detected, one could not infer unambiguous support for the holographic principle, and one certainly could not use such a detection to decide whether that specific holographic hypothesis is a pipe-dream or something useful. Proof: the foaminess could be due to an entirely different cause [like the Subquantum Scale phenomena that I have predicted at the 10^-30 cm scale] and have nothing to do with holographic fantasies. How would you know unless the holographic principle made a DEFINITIVE PREDICTION [prior, quantitative, feasible, non-adjustable, + unique to the theory], like Discrete Scale Relativity did. (2) The pseudoprediction of foaminess in the range of, say, 10^-14 to 10^-16 m [to give you plenty of fudge room] appears to have been FALSIFIED EMPIRICALLY. You seem not to acknowledge this in your post. But then again, postmodern pseudoscientists never let nature or empirical evidence get in the way of their stringy and axionic fantasies. ------------------------------------------- > Not really. There are a class of models that include the holographic > principle. For explication purposes, let's say there are three and > label them M1, M2, and M3. What you would know if you saw the > fuzziness predicted by M3 at 1E-16m is that M1 and M2 are ruled out, > but that M3 is (one of the) favored. ----------------------------------------- Right! Here we go with the multiple models, which can propagate unabashedly to give different parameter values or even completely different types of results. Witness string theory that now involves 10^500 versions, give-or-take! A theory that predicts everything is effectively a theory that predicts NOTHING! Proof: it excludes virtually nothing. The Substandard Model has used these same cheap tricks repeatedly over the past few decades: multiple predictions, adjusting the "model" to fit the data, inventing "confinement" when quarks were a no-show, postulating "the one true" magnetic monopole forever hidden in the early universe, etc., etc., ... . NEVER A CLEAN UP-OR-DOWN DEFINITIVE PREDICTION. Just oozing, smelly fudge. -------------------------------------------------- > So let's back up a minute. On what grounds do you say > again that the holographic principle is idle fantasy and > unscientific? It seemed to me you were saying so because > it was scientifically UNTESTABLE. Now you are saying you > believe it was TESTED and RULED OUT (which was an > error on your part, ------------------------------- Definitely, let's run that by again. I say the holographic fantasy has NEVER made a definitive testable prediction. I do not consider your attempt at defining a prediction valid. It seems that your prediction is something like: 'foaminess somewhere between ? and 10^-18 m'. That is NOT A VALID PREDICTION. When Einstein predicted the results of the eclipse experiment he said the deflection would be quantitatively proportional to the relevant geometry, he quantified the whole prediction definitively, and he said if the definitive prediction was wrong then GR would be dead in the water. NOTICE THE FRIGGIN DIFFERENCE! On the other hand, you seenm to be able to read the paper by Maccione et al, which makes you fairly unique among lurkers at these newsgroups. I have underestimated your understanding of these issues, as you have mine. So you don't talk down to me and I won't talk down to you. Deal? 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. RLO www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw
From: Y.Porat on 16 Jul 2010 00:22 On Jul 13, 6:56 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On 7/13/10 11:43 AM, Robert L. Oldershaw wrote: > > > > > Sigh, > > > If you wanted proof that theoretical physics has left the world of > > reason and wandered into the swamp of untestable postmodern > > pseudoscience, braying like a crude drunk, just read Dennis Overbye's > > piece in the Science Times section of today's NYT [7/13/10]. > > The jury hasn't even been seated yet! > > > > > A Scientist Takes On Gravity > > by DENNIS OVERBYE > > Published: July 12, 2010 > > http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/13/science/13gravity.html > > > "It?s hard to imagine a more fundamental and ubiquitous aspect of life > > on the Earth than gravity, from the moment you first took a step and > > fell on your diapered bottom to the slow terminal sagging of flesh and > > dreams". > > > "But what if it?s all an illusion, a sort of cosmic frill, or a side > > effect of something else going on at deeper levels of reality"? > > > "So says Erik Verlinde, 48, a respected string theorist and professor of > > physics at the University of Amsterdam, whose contention that gravity is > > indeed an illusion has caused a continuing ruckus among physicists, or > > at least among those who profess to understand it. Reversing the logic > > of 300 years of science, he argued in a recent paper, titled ?On the > > Origin of Gravity and the Laws of Newton,? that gravity is a consequence > > of the venerable laws of thermodynamics, which describe the behavior of > > heat and gases". > > > General Relativity has been considered one of mankind's finest > > achievements. But our heroic string theorists, unrestrained by the > > principles of science, would blithely throw it out the window into the > > trashbin. > > Like Newton's classical mechanics, I doubt that general relativity > would ever be relegated to the trash bin. > > > > > In place of GR, the much-deluded Verlinde offers hand-waving about > > poorly defined and unmeasurable abstractions: information, entropy and > > holographic screens. His speculations cannot make a single definitive > > prediction [and the same has been true for string theory in general > > over the last 30 years] whereby the speculations could be considered > > scientific. > > Suggest readers read Overbye's article at > http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/13/science/13gravity.html > > > > > Does the community of theoretical physicists protest? Not much. > > Perhaps the majority see a long-term feeding trough in this untestable > > pseudoscience stuff? > > > What has happened to science? > > Science still requires empirical testing. If an idea can't be tested, > it isn't science, but philosophy. -------------- i claimes ans shwed long ago that GR is a religion not science and whaile i say religion imeand THE UGLY SIDE OF RELIGION,,!! ie something that became a** living income** for too many people !! not muchdifference than 500 years a go with its great fight between sun orbiting earth and its priests tha tmake their jobs on it (abstractly )... and the few fighters that risked their life of fighting 'that it is earth orbiting sun!!' today there is no stakes in the maket place but the modern shape of it !!! 2 one must understand that if a theory failes to explain and deal reasonable even a single phenomenon IT IS (AT THE GOOD CASE- A CRIPPLED THEORY ))) GR is useless in microcosm!! and ther fore at the good case --- a crippled theory !! and at the bad case-- a nonsense physics !!! (with a lot of ,sort of a magic show, of - for children) the worst part of it is BY PREVENTING REAL ADVANCE IN PHYSICS !!! (by posing the illusion that it is sort of a final say ) ATB Y.Porat ----------------------------
From: PD on 16 Jul 2010 10:25 On Jul 15, 10:03 pm, "Robert L. Oldershaw" <rlolders...(a)amherst.edu> wrote: > On Jul 15, 6:34 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > Yes, that's true. And if foaminess at that scale is detected, then > > this test will not favor the holographic principle over competing > > models. However, it will certainly lend support to the holographic > > principle (as well as the others) and make it clear that any > > prejudgment about the holographic principle being fantasy is > > unwarranted. > > ------------------------------------------------ > > (1) Sigh! Look at the pretzel logic you are using. If foaminess were > detected, one could not infer unambiguous support for the holographic > principle, and one certainly could not use such a detection to decide > whether that specific holographic hypothesis is a pipe-dream or > something useful. Theories are NEVER unambiguously shown to be correct. A good example of this is Newtonian gravity, which for hundreds of years was completely supported by experimental measurements, and yet it obviously was not selected as being THE TRUE MODEL by experimental validation. The very same rule of GMm/r^2 could well come from a *completely different* understanding of gravity -- and in the end this is exactly what has come about. And we have absolutely no assurance that we have come to the end of that chain. So what? For that matter, you can argue quite convincingly that Newton's laws of motion are derivatives from the principle of least action. It's quite easy to show the connection. > Proof: the foaminess could be due to an entirely > different cause [like the Subquantum Scale phenomena that I have > predicted at the 10^-30 cm scale] and have nothing to do with > holographic fantasies. How would you know unless the holographic > principle made a DEFINITIVE PREDICTION [prior, quantitative, feasible, > non-adjustable, + unique to the theory], like Discrete Scale > Relativity did. You STILL don't know. All you know is that your experimental results support the model. You have NO idea that the model is not just an artifact that is the result of a deeper and more fundamental model. > > (2) The pseudoprediction of foaminess in the range of, say, 10^-14 to > 10^-16 m [to give you plenty of fudge room] appears to have been > FALSIFIED EMPIRICALLY. No, it is not. That is not what the paper cited said. Moreover, the holographic principle does not make a prediction of foaminess at the 10^-14 m scale. Please read what I wrote. > You seem not to acknowledge this in your post. > But then again, postmodern pseudoscientists never let nature or > empirical evidence get in the way of their stringy and axionic > fantasies. > > -------------------------------------------> Not really. There are a class of models that include the holographic > > principle. For explication purposes, let's say there are three and > > label them M1, M2, and M3. What you would know if you saw the > > fuzziness predicted by M3 at 1E-16m is that M1 and M2 are ruled out, > > but that M3 is (one of the) favored. > > ----------------------------------------- > > Right! Here we go with the multiple models, which can propagate > unabashedly to give different parameter values or even completely > different types of results. Which has been true for just about any theory so far. This is how models get narrowed down among several related possibilities. > Witness string theory that now involves > 10^500 versions, give-or-take! A theory that predicts everything is > effectively a theory that predicts NOTHING! Proof: it excludes > virtually nothing. > > The Substandard Model has used these same cheap tricks repeatedly over > the past few decades: multiple predictions, adjusting the "model" to > fit the data, inventing "confinement" when quarks were a no-show, > postulating "the one true" magnetic monopole forever hidden in the > early universe, etc., etc., ... . NEVER A CLEAN UP-OR-DOWN DEFINITIVE > PREDICTION. Just oozing, smelly fudge. > > --------------------------------------------------> So let's back up a minute. On what grounds do you say > > again that the holographic principle is idle fantasy and > > unscientific? It seemed to me you were saying so because > > it was scientifically UNTESTABLE. Now you are saying you > > believe it was TESTED and RULED OUT (which was an > > error on your part, > > ------------------------------- > > Definitely, let's run that by again. > > I say the holographic fantasy has NEVER made a definitive testable > prediction. Yes, it has. One particular model with the holographic principle as part of it has made a prediction of detectable blurring at the scale 10^-16 m, as I told you. There are OTHER models also invoking the holographic principle that includes other features not related to the holographic principle that would have a prediction of detectable blurring at 10^-19 m, and others that would predict detectable blurring at 10^-3 m (which have been obviously ruled out). This is no different than ANY OTHER model. In biology, for example, Mendelian genetics makes a definite prediction about the fraction of phenotype expression in offspring -- which almost never is right, because there are other factors like incomplete dominance or multiple alleles. Does this mean that Mendelian genetics makes no firm predictions or that it has been ruled out? In physics, for example, using mg as the only force acting on a projectile makes a definite prediction about where the projectile will land -- which almost never is right, because there are other factors like the Coriolis effect and air friction. Does this mean that projectile motion by Newtonian mechanics makes no firm predictions or that it has been ruled out? > > I do not consider your attempt at defining a prediction valid. It > seems that your prediction is something like: 'foaminess somewhere > between ? and 10^-18 m'. That is NOT A VALID PREDICTION. When > Einstein predicted the results of the eclipse experiment he said the > deflection would be quantitatively proportional to the relevant > geometry, he quantified the whole prediction definitively, and he said > if the definitive prediction was wrong then GR would be dead in the > water. NOTICE THE FRIGGIN DIFFERENCE! > > On the other hand, you seenm to be able to read the paper by Maccione > et al, which makes you fairly unique among lurkers at these > newsgroups. I have underestimated your understanding of these issues, > as you have mine. So you don't talk down to me and I won't talk down > to you. Deal? I'm not trying to talk down to you. I'm asking you to REMEMBER how science works. > > 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. > > RLOwww.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw
From: Robert L. Oldershaw on 16 Jul 2010 13:20
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. ------------------------------------------------------------- > > > 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. I want a definitive empirical test that tells us whether the entire holographic approach is a Platonic pipe-dream or something useful. If you cannot come up with that kind of empirical test then the whole holographic approach is pre-scientific speculation, and nothing more. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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. RLO www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw |