Richard P. Feynman articulated the foundation of scientific integrity
in [Physics]
|
Prev: The AI Librarian was AI Programation was re Programation Atomsand the Void
Next: Easy as pi was Re: To Mars for fun was Re: Beam me slider was Re:TheAI Librarian was AI Programation
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.
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 dont 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 > dont 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 - |