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: PD on 28 Jun 2010 14:51
On Jun 28, 12:57 pm, Koobee Wublee <koobee.wub...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> 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>

No, it really is as simple as I've described it above. Now, it does
take a while to get enough data to extract the value V' and it takes a
lot of data analysis to determine what delV' is. But that isn't
"interpretation". As I said, you don't have the foggiest idea what it
means to do a scientific experiement and to extract a measured value
from it.

>
> > 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>

See the above, KW.
You obviously don't know what the folks working on Gravity Probe B are
doing with their time.

>
> > > 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>

Sorry, but that just ain't so, KW. Your "reasons" for saying no theory
can be constructed from the Lorentz transforms are just misinformed.

>
> > 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>

Don't have any grandkids, KW. Although feel free to tell me I do, but
I just don't REALIZE that I do, you arrogant dipwad.

>
>
>
> > > 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>- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

First  |  Prev  | 
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?