Prev: Faust in Copenhagen " A struggle for the soul of physics", by Gino Segre
Next: Relativity Example
From: Sam Wormley on 12 Jul 2010 14:31
On 7/11/10 11:14 PM, Robert L. Oldershaw wrote:
> On Jul 11, 3:38 pm, eric gisse<jowr.pi.nos...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>> Robert L. Oldershaw wrote:
>>
>> [...]
>>
>> I guess you don't read sci.physics or any of the other groups you wildly
>> crosspost to, so I ask here again: Where is the DSR prediction of the
>> Hydrogen emission spectrum?
> ---------------------------------
>
> You idiot, you cannot "predict" something that is already known.
>
> You are a non-scientific poser.

You are wrong, Oldershaw. Any new theory of gravity, for
example, must correctly predict the perihelion precession
of planets in the solar system and elsewhere.


From: Sam Wormley on 12 Jul 2010 14:37
On 7/12/10 12:25 PM, Robert L. Oldershaw wrote:
> On Jul 12, 2:41 am, eric gisse<jowr.pi.nos...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> You idiot, you cannot "predict" something that is already known.
>>
>> Why yes Robert, you can. Were you not taught the scientific method in grade
>> school?
>>
>> A theory makes testable predictions based upon given inputs. As an example,
>> for a given eccentricity and some other measurable parameters, general
>> relativity predicts a given perihelion advance of a semi-Keplerian orbit.
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Again you demonstrate your naivete when it comes to science!
>
> General Relativity predicted the advance in the perihelion of Mercury.
>
> Note the PAST tense of the above statement.
>


You are wrong, Oldershaw. Any new theory of gravity, for
example, must correctly predict the perihelion precession
of planets in the solar system and elsewhere.

Furthermore, GTR must still correctly predict the perihelion
precession of planets in the solar system and elsewhere. Often
predictions are test to high and higher precision as technology
advances.

New physics often comes about when accuracy increases to find
a discrepancy between prediction and observation.


From: John Park on 12 Jul 2010 15:03
"Robert L. Oldershaw" (rloldershaw(a)amherst.edu) writes:
> On Jul 11, 3:38=A0pm, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>> Robert L. Oldershaw wrote:
>>
>> [...]
>>
>> I guess you don't read sci.physics or any of the other groups you wildly
>> crosspost to, so I ask here again: Where is the DSR prediction of the
>> Hydrogen emission spectrum?
> ---------------------------------
>
> You idiot, you cannot "predict" something that is already known.
>
> You are a non-scientific poser.

Dear, dear. Someone more cynical than I am might imagine you were playing
semantic games to avoid the issue. Can you retrodict, derive or otherwise
calculate, using your theory, the hydrogen emission spectrum?

--John Park
From: Tom Roberts on 12 Jul 2010 20:45
Robert L. Oldershaw wrote:
> On Jul 11, 3:38 pm, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>> so I ask here again: Where is the DSR prediction of the
>> Hydrogen emission spectrum?
>
> You idiot, you cannot "predict" something that is already known.

No. The problem is that you don't know the technical vocabulary of science. A
theory can predict the result of a measurement, independent of the order of
prediction and measurement. Science is not history, and you used the word in the
HISTORICAL sense, not the scientific sense. This newsgroup is about science, not
history.

A theory is timeless, once discovered. That is, the set of theorems
and the meanings of the symbols in them have no historical limitations.


Tom Roberts
From: eric gisse on 12 Jul 2010 13:17
Robert L. Oldershaw wrote:

> On Jul 12, 2:41 am, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Right now I'm quite happy with my general policy of spending my commute
>> times reading publications in addition to the time I spend at a library.
>> If/when I find something I can extend or improve in a meaningful way,
>> I'll try to get something published. But it isn't a personal priority for
>> me.
> --------------------------------
>
> Idle boasting of a dilettante.

Since you probably don't read much in the way of technical literature, I
guess you would see a simple statement like that as 'boasting'.
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5
Prev: Faust in Copenhagen " A struggle for the soul of physics", by Gino Segre
Next: Relativity Example