Prev: Could Dark Matter be the Dirac Sea?
Next: dood, why did BP use the phrase "fossilized fuel TM" with a cartoon dinosaur-into-a-drop-of-oil?
From: Sam Wormley on 27 Jun 2010 10:37
On 6/27/10 1:57 AM, Koobee Wublee wrote:
> Experimental results are not good enough. As anyone possessing any
> amount of intellectual reasoning should know that interpretations to
> the experimental results also play a crucial role in deciding whether
> a theory is supported by that particular experimentation or not.

Koobee, give us an example--a real measurement.


From: PD on 28 Jun 2010 11:01
On Jun 27, 1:57 am, Koobee Wublee <koobee.wub...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> Experimental results are not good enough.  As anyone possessing any
> amount of intellectual reasoning should know that interpretations to
> the experimental results also play a crucial role in deciding whether
> a theory is supported by that particular experimentation or not.

Don't be an idiot, KW.
Experimental testing is absolutely straightforward.
A theory will make a prediction about quantity X measured under
circumstances C to have value V +/- delV.
The experiment will measure quantity X measured under circumstances C
to have value V' +/- delV'.
If V +/- delV agrees with V' +/- delV', then there is unambiguous
support for the tested theory from that experiment.
If the two disagree, then there is unambiguous support for the tested
theory from that experiment.

Any "interpretation" beyond that finding is superfluous and
unscientific.

>
> In the SR' case, there are two completely sets of mathematical models
> come in the scene.  Larmor's transform (LaT) explains so, but the
> Lorentz transform (LoT) only does so in a very special case.  While
> LaT does not satisfy the principle of relativity, LoT does seem so.
> On top of that, LaT is a more general case.

If there are two theories that give identical predictions for quantity
X measured under circumstances C to have value V +/- delV, then you
probe the theories more to find the other circumstances C' where they
make DIFFERENT predictions about quantity Y, and then you test that.

Once again, there is no "interpretation" needed or desired.

You've got zero idea how to run an experimental test. Zero.

>
> You cannot worship LoT while using LaT as applications to explain all
> your observations.  This is called fraud, stupid, and mysticism.
> <shrug>
>
> So, be a man or a true scientist and stop hiding under these silly
> excuses that throw out these very fucked up interpretations to certain
> experiments as the proof of divinity.  Gee!
>
> Again, theory must agree with a proper interpretation to pertinent
> experimental results to justify a validity badge.  Both SR and GR
> require shady, unsound, and stupid mis-application of math to achieve
> what is accepted so.  <shrug>
>
> Allow the ever so humble Koobee Wublee to de-mystify you.  <Amen>

From: Koobee Wublee on 28 Jun 2010 13:57
On Jun 28, 8:01 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jun 27, 1:57 am, Koobee Wublee wrote:

> > Experimental results are not good enough. As anyone possessing any
> > amount of intellectual reasoning should know that interpretations to
> > the experimental results also play a crucial role in deciding whether
> > a theory is supported by that particular experimentation or not.
>
> Don't be an idiot, KW.

You don’t have to worry about that. <shrug>

> Experimental testing is absolutely straightforward.

Any experiment has to be succumbed to interpretations of the resulting
data. <shrug>

> A theory will make a prediction about quantity X measured under
> circumstances C to have value V +/- delV.
> The experiment will measure quantity X measured under circumstances C
> to have value V' +/- delV'.
> If V +/- delV agrees with V' +/- delV', then there is unambiguous
> support for the tested theory from that experiment.
> If the two disagree, then there is unambiguous support for the tested
> theory from that experiment.

Some interpretations of the experimental data are relatively straight
forward and require less rigorous efforts, but most of the more
interesting ones are not. <shrug>

> Any "interpretation" beyond that finding is superfluous and
> unscientific.

So, according to you, interpreting data of Gravity Probe B which takes
up to several years is indeed nonsense. <shrug>

> > In the SR' case, there are two completely sets of mathematical models
> > come in the scene. Larmor's transform (LaT) explains so, but the
> > Lorentz transform (LoT) only does so in a very special case. While
> > LaT does not satisfy the principle of relativity, LoT does seem so.
> > On top of that, LaT is a more general case.
>
> If there are two theories that give identical predictions for quantity
> X measured under circumstances C to have value V +/- delV, then you
> probe the theories more to find the other circumstances C' where they
> make DIFFERENT predictions about quantity Y, and then you test that.

LaT can be the frame work of a theory, but the LoT cannot be for the
reasons I have explained many times over. The LoT is absolutely
nonsense. <shrug>

> Once again, there is no "interpretation" needed or desired.

Once again, you are wrong. <shrug>

> You've got zero idea how to run an experimental test. Zero.

You need to stop to take it out on yours truly when your grandkids
don’t come to visit any more. <shrug>

> > You cannot worship LoT while using LaT as applications to explain all
> > your observations. This is called fraud, stupid, and mysticism.
> > <shrug>
>
> > So, be a man or a true scientist and stop hiding under these silly
> > excuses that throw out these very fucked up interpretations to certain
> > experiments as the proof of divinity. Gee!
>
> > Again, theory must agree with a proper interpretation to pertinent
> > experimental results to justify a validity badge. Both SR and GR
> > require shady, unsound, and stupid mis-application of math to achieve
> > what is accepted so. <shrug>
>
> > Allow the ever so humble Koobee Wublee to de-mystify you. <Amen>


From: Koobee Wublee on 28 Jun 2010 13:58
On Jun 27, 7:37 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On 6/27/10 1:57 AM, Koobee Wublee wrote:

> > Experimental results are not good enough.  As anyone possessing any
> > amount of intellectual reasoning should know that interpretations to
> > the experimental results also play a crucial role in deciding whether
> > a theory is supported by that particular experimentation or not.
>
>    Koobee, give us an example--a real measurement.

The MMX. <shrug>

Read my last few posts. They are still unchallenged by Einstein
Dingleberries. <shrug>
From: Sam Wormley on 28 Jun 2010 14:12
On 6/28/10 12:58 PM, Koobee Wublee wrote:
> On Jun 27, 7:37 am, Sam Wormley<sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 6/27/10 1:57 AM, Koobee Wublee wrote:
>
>>> Experimental results are not good enough. As anyone possessing any
>>> amount of intellectual reasoning should know that interpretations to
>>> the experimental results also play a crucial role in deciding whether
>>> a theory is supported by that particular experimentation or not.
>>
>> Koobee, give us an example--a real measurement.
>
> The MMX.<shrug>
>

No wonder you shrug--you don't even understand that the null result
of the Michelson�Morley experiment is in perfect agreement with
relativity theory! In fact, the Michelson�Morley experiment results
are generally considered to be the first strong evidence against the
theory of a luminiferous aether.

The constancy of the speed of light was postulated by Albert Einstein
in 1905, motivated by Maxwell's theory of electromagnetism and the
lack of evidence for the luminiferous ether but not, contrary to
widespread belief, the null result of the Michelson�Morley
experiment. However the null result of the Michelson�Morley
experiment helped the notion of the constancy of the speed of light
gain widespread and rapid acceptance.

Too bad you shrugged out of ignorance, koobee.

First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3
Prev: Could Dark Matter be the Dirac Sea?
Next: dood, why did BP use the phrase "fossilized fuel TM" with a cartoon dinosaur-into-a-drop-of-oil?