Scientific American and Science censorship... [Physics]

Prev: Definitely Demolition - Proven FACT, 9/11 could not possibly have been other than an inside job.
Next: [Guardian] 'Climategate' debate: less meltdown, more well-mannered argument

From: franklinhu on 19 Jul 2010 15:36

> > Why? I can only guess it is becuase this is a shooting gallery, and if
> > you can't take a shot, you don't. I painted a huge target, but no one
> > is willing to shoot at it. The only other reason is that if what I say
> > is correct, it completely blows away the foundations of the quantum
> > mechanical atomic model which has been saying it is impossible to make
> > such formulas for years and makes all the "real" scientists look like
> > fools for not having discovered it themselves long ago - it show just
> > how far into their shells they have withdrawn to completely ignore
> > obvious results. To say anything would be to admit defeat.
>
> Sorry, but this is self-serving crapola. It's a cheap "dare-ya"
> tactic. It's a foolish taunt, "If you don't rise to my challenge, then
> it's because you're quaking in your boots." Has it ever occurred to
> you that what you propose just isn't of much interest?
>
>

Are you saying that the ability to calculate the spectra for ions
which are not hydrogen-like is not interesting? Considering that I
find no references for how to do this, and considering that atomic
spectra is a very important part of quantum mechanics, I can't see how
this wouldn't be of interest.

fhuspectra

From: PD on 19 Jul 2010 15:59

On Jul 19, 2:36 pm, franklinhu <frankli...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > Why? I can only guess it is becuase this is a shooting gallery, and if
> > > you can't take a shot, you don't. I painted a huge target, but no one
> > > is willing to shoot at it. The only other reason is that if what I say
> > > is correct, it completely blows away the foundations of the quantum
> > > mechanical atomic model which has been saying it is impossible to make
> > > such formulas for years and makes all the "real" scientists look like
> > > fools for not having discovered it themselves long ago - it show just
> > > how far into their shells they have withdrawn to completely ignore
> > > obvious results. To say anything would be to admit defeat.
>
> > Sorry, but this is self-serving crapola. It's a cheap "dare-ya"
> > tactic. It's a foolish taunt, "If you don't rise to my challenge, then
> > it's because you're quaking in your boots." Has it ever occurred to
> > you that what you propose just isn't of much interest?
>
> Are you saying that the ability to calculate the spectra for ions
> which are not hydrogen-like is not interesting? Considering that I
> find no references for how to do this, and considering that atomic
> spectra is a very important part of quantum mechanics, I can't see how
> this wouldn't be of interest.

It is of interest. As I said, you bear the burden to find the research
on the emission spectra for non-hydrogen-like ions. The field of
atomic physics has been around for a long time.

You may want to look up "Hartree-Fock" or "MøllerPlesset perturbation
theory" or "LCAO method".

Alternatively, you can go to scholar.google.com and try entering
things like "theoretical emission spectra [x]" where [x] might be the
name of an element, or "halides" or "halogens" or "alkali earth" or
"lanthanides" or "metals", and start to dive in. You will see several
thousand articles.

Alternatively, you could go to the library and look up the Journal for
Computational Chemistry, and just browse through the articles there.

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

From: PD on 19 Jul 2010 16:32

On Jul 16, 3:55 am, "Vince Morgan" <vin...(a)TAKEOUToptusnet.com.au>
wrote:
> "PD" <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:66e09bb5-b6c9-4699-827c-e8553bf51425(a)w30g2000yqw.googlegroups.com...
> On Jul 15, 5:09 pm, "Androcles" <Headmas...(a)Hogwarts.physics_z> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Darwin123" <drosen0...(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> >news:f315ae91-4b21-4441-bcd5-010458742b05(a)y4g2000yqy.googlegroups.com...
> > On Jul 15, 5:25 pm, "Androcles" <Headmas...(a)Hogwarts.physics_z> wrote:
>
> > > "Darwin123" <drosen0...(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> > >news:bb309ab8-31c1-4f82-b731-248e91980ffe(a)q22g2000yqm.googlegroups.com....
> > > On Jul 15, 4:24 pm, "Androcles" <Headmas...(a)Hogwarts.physics_z> wrote:>
> > > "Don" <don.duc...(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> > > On Jul 15, 3:04 pm, Benj <bjac...(a)iwaynet.net> wrote:
>
> > > > I'm sure you all know that the censored forum supported by Scientific
> > > > American, Physics Forums, has taken over "moderation" of
> > > > Sci.physics.research. Or should I say taken over censorship of it.
>
> > > > Censorship for the "control" of science has been a major function of
> > > > the popular science press like Scientific American for a very long
> > > > time as has been "peer review" and censorship of scientific journals
> > > > been a major "control" pathway in science. For example holowarmer
> > > > shills like "Sam Wormely" greatly depend upon the popular science
> > > > press to provide myriad "cites" that support their current
> > > > promotions.
>
> > > > Of course, just as "democracy" depends upon the electorate being
> > > > informed and the major media has been performing a "control" function
> > > > on information, similar "controls" exist in science. While the talking
> > > > heads on TV's "60 Minutes" have developed their self-styled
> > > > "reputation" for "trust" and "integrity", it takes but one program
> > > > dedicated to "gun control" to prove how purposely biased and
> > > > untrustworthy they all are.
>
> > > > But one EXPECTS lies and "points of view" such as "my party is always
> > > > right and yours is always wrong" in politics. The problem is when such
> > > > censorship and propaganda invade science.
>
> > > > sci.physics.research being a prime example of such subversion of real
> > > > science. What happens is that science turns into religion. Evolution
> > > > is "fact". AGW is "beyond question". UFOs observations are suitable
> > > > only for ridicule. Nothing exists in science beyond "official"
> > > > positions and advancements are allowed ONLY after they have been
> > > > approved and granted blessings by the famous great men in positions of
> > > > science "leadership" and authority.
>
> > > > The bottom line is the clever destruction of any "real" science with
> > > > science "journalism" leading the way. Especially hideous is the way in
> > > > which censorship occurs in secret behind the scenes. There are never
> > > > any opposing views because opposing views are stripped out BEFORE
> > > > anything appears. The public never learns that that there even WAS an
> > > > opposing viewpoint.
>
> > > > Hence if Scientific American tells the science layman that CO2 causes
> > > > "climate change" or that letting blood removes your "bad humours", the
> > > > public has no choice but to believe it. Even the EXISTENCE of other
> > > > points of view are censored out of existence. How wonderful it is that
> > > > we in "science" can still count on this herd of "leaders" to make sure
> > > > that doctors never wash their hands when operating or examining
> > > > patients. Ain't science great?
>
> > > > But what do I know? I'm just a crackpot! I need to go read a freshman
> > > > textbook!
> > > > (We'll cover censorship in the textbook industry next)
>
> > > Benji, keep in mind there is "science" and what is popularly known as
> > > "junk science". The public doesn't know the difference, which is
> > > essentially that real "science" makes testable predictions, while
> > > "junk science" consists only of conjecture.
>
> > > Don> ===============================================
> > > > Let's fill the atmosphere up with CO2 and test the prophecy that it
> > > > makes the whole world warmer. It doesn't seem to have done much
> > > > for Mars...
> > > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Mars
> > > > Annual mean temperatures at the surface are currently less than 210 K
> > > > (-63
> > > > °C; -82 °F), 95% CO2.
> > > > I'd call that cold enough to freeze the balls off a brass monkey.
>
> > > The atmosphere of Mars is not as dense as the atmosphere of the
> > > earth.
> > > ========================================
> > > Really? Oh well, let's experiment to test your prophecy and reduce
> > > the Earth's atmosphere to the same as that of Mars and see if that
> > > makes the globe warmer with 95% carbon dioxide.
>
> > You were obviously not a chemical engineer. Therefore, I will do
> > the calculation for you.
> > ================================================
> > You are obviously a clairvoyant spin doctor who can foretell the
> > future. I was advocating experiment as Donald fuckin' Duck suggested,
> > not your prophecies.
> >The chemistry of partial pressures is pretty old and well established.
> >It is so because it is thoroughly experimentally tested. That's what
> >makes scientific models so useful -- you can make predictions you have
> >some confidence in -- without having to test every single instance.
> >This is what engineers rely on. They believe, for example, that
> >Newton's laws work pretty darned well and so they design stuff based
> >on them, and they're ok signing off on the design, without having to
> >actually build it to see if Newton's laws still work before they sign
> >off.
>
> And a blind roach living in a cave can be convinced that there exists
> nothing other than the roaches, and the universal cave. Any number of
> experiments may be devised to prove it. If a roach of sufficient esteem
> were to state it as fact, well, then who would dare suggest further
> investigation is required? If a sceptical roach were to mention that he
> occasioanaly feels a breeze he would then be required to prove what a breese
> is first, and of course then the breeze would have to be replicated on
> demand! The fact that he could not do this is then offered as proof that
> there is no such thing as a breeze in the whole universe/cave, and that he
> is clearly fraudelent in his claims about said breeze.
> Anyone else thereon who noticed a breeze quickly remembers the humiliation
> of the first skeptical roach who would now be skuttling ahead of Benj's
> broom at Burger King, if such a place were to exist in caveland.
> Knowing that everything you were taught works doesn't prove in the least
> that what you were not taught cannot! This seems to be rather difficult to
> understand, apparently.
> The fact is there are anomolies and the establishment has a track record of
> lambasting, or worse, anyone who will not forget that they do exist.
> I beleive that Richard Feynman once said "The exception tests the rule."and
> so, when we have anomolies we, we, ohhh, that's right, we ignore them as
> measurement errors and lambast the researcher. There is only one reality
> and that's the universal cave, but some just don't get it.
> Regards,
> Vince

But science operates in the realm of the reproducible.
It may well be that there is some one-off anomaly that signals a
deviation from a rule.
But such things fall outside the scope of science and into the domain
of miracles, which by definition are irreproducible anomalies.
What science deals with are explanations that operate by means of
rules, where the rules apply under certain circumstances, and the rule
is verified by setting up or finding those circumstances and seeing if
the rule does rigorously hold. If it cannot be subjected to that test,
then science has no way to deal with it, and it therefore falls
outside scientific investigation.
That doesn't say that it isn't TRUE. It may well be true, but its
truth cannot be established by scientific methods.

I think it's important to recognize that just because something is
material doesn't mean that all of its behaviors are subject to
scientific investigation. Perceived beauty in an art museum involves
material things but is not a subject for scientific investigation.

From: Vince Morgan on 19 Jul 2010 19:51

From: Vince Morgan on 19 Jul 2010 21:38

"PD" <thedraperfamily(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
news:eacd5202-c45b-4c98-8fef-f6d09665bc67(a)q35g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
On Jul 16, 3:55 am, "Vince Morgan" <vin...(a)TAKEOUToptusnet.com.au>
wrote:
> "PD" <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:66e09bb5-b6c9-4699-827c-e8553bf51425(a)w30g2000yqw.googlegroups.com...
> On Jul 15, 5:09 pm, "Androcles" <Headmas...(a)Hogwarts.physics_z> wrote:

> And a blind roach living in a cave can be convinced that there exists
> nothing other than the roaches, and the universal cave. Any number of
> experiments may be devised to prove it. If a roach of sufficient esteem
> were to state it as fact, well, then who would dare suggest further
> investigation is required? If a sceptical roach were to mention that he
> occasioanaly feels a breeze he would then be required to prove what a
breese
> is first, and of course then the breeze would have to be replicated on
> demand! The fact that he could not do this is then offered as proof that
> there is no such thing as a breeze in the whole universe/cave, and that he
> is clearly fraudelent in his claims about said breeze.
> Anyone else thereon who noticed a breeze quickly remembers the humiliation
> of the first skeptical roach who would now be skuttling ahead of Benj's
> broom at Burger King, if such a place were to exist in caveland.
> Knowing that everything you were taught works doesn't prove in the least
> that what you were not taught cannot! This seems to be rather difficult to
> understand, apparently.
> The fact is there are anomolies and the establishment has a track record
of
> lambasting, or worse, anyone who will not forget that they do exist.
> I beleive that Richard Feynman once said "The exception tests the
rule."and
> so, when we have anomolies we, we, ohhh, that's right, we ignore them as
> measurement errors and lambast the researcher. There is only one reality
> and that's the universal cave, but some just don't get it.
> Regards,
> Vince
[quote]
But science operates in the realm of the reproducible.
It may well be that there is some one-off anomaly that signals a
deviation from a rule.
But such things fall outside the scope of science and into the domain
of miracles, which by definition are irreproducible anomalies.
What science deals with are explanations that operate by means of
rules, where the rules apply under certain circumstances, and the rule
is verified by setting up or finding those circumstances and seeing if
the rule does rigorously hold. If it cannot be subjected to that test,
then science has no way to deal with it, and it therefore falls
outside scientific investigation.
That doesn't say that it isn't TRUE. It may well be true, but its
truth cannot be established by scientific methods.

I think it's important to recognize that just because something is
material doesn't mean that all of its behaviors are subject to
scientific investigation. Perceived beauty in an art museum involves
material things but is not a subject for scientific investigation.
[/quote]

I must appologise. My ficticious roach example was clearly not an example
of a reliable anomoly as my last reply might suggest.
What it was realy meant to point out is that any number of experiments may
be devised, that of and by themselves, seem to prove something. However, if
there is even one repeatable exception then the rule needs qualification or
further investigation. Again "The exception tests the rule", not the other
way around. If one were to investigate why Caltec had to pay damages to one
Joseph Pap in the seventies due to an error by one R Feynman one discovers
that even the most respected and revered scientists don't actualy know it
all. But this takes a lot more effort to investigate than simply putting
your faith in higher authority, and what they produce for consumption. If
they tell you all is fine in the kitchen who are we to ask what is causing
all the smoke?
Usualy conservation of momentum, as an example, is simply plugged in knowing
that it absolutely must apply in all cases. However, there are actual
cases, reliable repeatable cases that is, where it does break down. If you
plug it in arbitrarily and things just don't add up it can be virtualy
impossible for one who 'beleives' to uncover the actual problem.
The point is, there are very real anomolies where certain 'rules' break
down. And I'll go as far as to say that the fact that they are kept in the
dark as much as humanly possible is certainly not for the advancement of
science. You see, it's not that I don't understand science as such, it's
that I simply don't have enough faith in the high priests of science to
allow myself to ignore some things that defy their firmly entrenched
positions.
Regards,
Vince