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: PD on 20 Jul 2010 10:34
On Jul 19, 8:38 pm, "Vince Morgan" <vin...(a)TAKEOUToptusnet.com.au>
wrote:
> "PD" <thedraperfam...(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.

Completely agree.

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

From: Tim BandTech.com on 20 Jul 2010 11:13
On Jul 16, 10:08 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jul 16, 4:12 am, "Vince Morgan" <vin...(a)TAKEOUToptusnet.com.au>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > "PD" <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >news:46d238f1-d6bb-413b-9335-e91792b2d4f6(a)w12g2000yqj.googlegroups.com...
> > On Jul 15, 2:00 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.
>
> > >Moderation is not censorship, though anyone on the wrong end of the
> > >stick could equivocate.
>
> > >If it is your belief that ALL ideas should have a venue to be aired,
> > >then you have it. It is called a blog, and you can publish yourself on
> > >the web in a completely unconstrained, unmoderated, unfiltered way.
>
> > >There is, however, a market of subscribers who DESIRE to have content
> > >moderated before being delivered to them. The covenant between the
> > >publisher or venue-moderator and his market, then, is that the
> > >publisher will in fact exercise certain standards of moderation before
> > >making the content available to his subscribers. Remember that this is
> > >what this market DESIRES. A successful venue will be one who seems to
> > >apply moderation at the level most appealing to his market.
>
> > >Now, what it is you seem to be ranting about is that you want access
> > >to the market of subscribers who specifically want to exclude content
> > >that you would offer. This you cannot have, and there is no reason to
> > >whine about it.
>
> > And there lies a bit of a dilemna.
> > If what one can learn has to first be rigorously filtered through those who
> > have learned via the very same process, it's a rather closed loop don't you
> > think?
>
> Not really. Because what is taught to physicists in training is not so
> much *content* as it is *how to investigate*. This makes the key
> difference.
>
> > Although the current system has obvious advantages, it most certainly has
> > obvious flaws as well, and that's the real issue I think.
> > You can talk about the positives all day, but it's the otherwise that's in
> > question here I beleive. Do you think it's reasonable for the police to
> > investigate police corruption? The police usualy insist it is, and surely
> > they would know a bit about investigations etc etc etc and so on and so
> > forth. The fox now guards the hen house I'm afraid.
> > Who gaurds the guard while the gaurd guards you?
>
> You've missed my point. The OP feels strongly, apparently, that
> everyone should be made aware of things he feels are important,
> whether those things are important to everyone or not. He is not
> satisfied with having a place where he can speak his mind freely (like
> a blog), and where those who are *interested* can find him. He wants
> access to the audience that is not so interested in what he has to
> say.

I am happy to falsify this falsification of Benj's post. Benj's post
is strong, and as I reread I see no claim that 'he wants access to the
audience'. This message is posted on sci.physics, which is an
unmoderated group. Here we all have the freedom to offer corrections,
and the attitude of the PDs of the world, and many of the PhDs of the
world cloaked as they are can be openly resented. Further, the
resentment can be validated, and the closed world view is better
expressed as curricular.

I offer this new word 'curricular' to the discussion because I do
believe that it is important. When the filtration process (censorship)
rejects conflicted information then it is forming a refined
curriculum, and this digestion is as unique as are the guts of various
mammals; one capable of digesting wood; another capable of digesting
meat. These are schools of thought, and they are in competition
somehow. The politics of validation are not at all science. They are
strictly human, and science is merely a human belief system, or
rather, in light of curriculum, science is a family of human belief
systems.

I do see that the structure cannot be unitarily decomposed, and that
the generation that grow up on a wikimedia form will be followed by
more careful groups that will expose their curricular structures more
carefully. The question of what is fundamental is the problem that we
face, and even an old dictionary does suffer the self referential
problem. Our language is already inherently conflicted, so it is
little wonder that we feel such tensions as between Benj and PD and
me. One goes with his nose up in the air, and the other goes with his
nose down to the ground. One monkey seeks fruit in the leaves of the
tree. Another monkey sits at the base of the tree and meditates, then
digs for the roots under the ground. Each can live and foster their
own digestive tracts, and what they become will be consequential. I
believe the next breakthrough is down in the roots.

The curricular concern is old but still applies. My own steerage
includes casting the problems as open, and exposing the heavy mimicry
involved in the human propagation of knowledge. These concerns
validate an awareness on constructive freedom, and without fostering
constructive freedom the progression is badly squelched.

- Tim

>
> > Regards,
> > Vince

From: Benj on 22 Jul 2010 04:19
On Jul 20, 11:13 am, "Tim BandTech.com" <tttppp...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:

> Our language is already inherently conflicted, so it is
> little wonder that we feel such tensions as between Benj and PD and
> me. One goes with his nose up in the air, and the other goes with his
> nose down to the ground. One monkey seeks fruit in the leaves of the
> tree. Another monkey sits at the base of the tree and meditates, then
> digs for the roots under the ground. Each can live and foster their
> own digestive tracts, and what they become will be consequential. I
> believe the next breakthrough is down in the roots.

I'm not sure which monkey I'm supposed to be, but it is clear that the
fruit in the trees is far more obvious than the roots under the
earth. Hence, it's clear that once the obvious has been discovered
and cataloged, further discovery involves a bit of digging deeper.
Those with a vested interest in "fruit" will obviously try to minimize
all discussions of "soil".

> The curricular concern is old but still applies. My own steerage
> includes casting the problems as open, and exposing the heavy mimicry
> involved in the human propagation of knowledge. These concerns
> validate an awareness on constructive freedom, and without fostering
> constructive freedom the progression is badly squelched.

SAT words to the contrary not withstanding, that is an excellent
summary of the problem.
From: Androcles on 22 Jul 2010 05:51

"Benj" <bjacoby(a)iwaynet.net> wrote in message
news:8f8b511b-8e08-4277-acd3-ca317192c71a(a)t2g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...
On Jul 20, 11:13 am, "Tim BandTech.com" <tttppp...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:

> Our language is already inherently conflicted, so it is
> little wonder that we feel such tensions as between Benj and PD and
> me. One goes with his nose up in the air, and the other goes with his
> nose down to the ground. One monkey seeks fruit in the leaves of the
> tree. Another monkey sits at the base of the tree and meditates, then
> digs for the roots under the ground. Each can live and foster their
> own digestive tracts, and what they become will be consequential. I
> believe the next breakthrough is down in the roots.

I'm not sure which monkey I'm supposed to be, but it is clear that the
fruit in the trees is far more obvious than the roots under the
earth. Hence, it's clear that once the obvious has been discovered
and cataloged, further discovery involves a bit of digging deeper.
Those with a vested interest in "fruit" will obviously try to minimize
all discussions of "soil".

> The curricular concern is old but still applies. My own steerage
> includes casting the problems as open, and exposing the heavy mimicry
> involved in the human propagation of knowledge. These concerns
> validate an awareness on constructive freedom, and without fostering
> constructive freedom the progression is badly squelched.

SAT words to the contrary not withstanding, that is an excellent
summary of the problem.

====================================


"the heavy mimicry involved in the human propagation of knowledge" = "monkey
see, monkey do".

The next breakthrough is to allow the fruit to overripen until the sugars
break down to a liquid form, which, when ingested, fosters constructive
freedom of thought. Phuckwit Duck's root beer is nowhere near as effective.


From: franklinhu on 22 Jul 2010 18:03
On Jul 19, 12:59 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> 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 "Møller–Plesset 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 -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Thank you for those references. After looking at them, I think it is
even more remarkable that I have been able to calculate the spectra of
He, Li, Be without using any approximation methods like Hartree-Fock,
or iterative methods or hamiltonians, or MO theory, or really
anything. It seems that the main problem was that everyone was trying
to calculate the spectra based on the model that the electrons are
found outside the nucleus and therefore present a multi-body problem.
If one just simply ignores that model and simply plots the data on a
graph as I have done, the energy pattern becomes immediately visible
and all the lines can be calculated as a simple scaling of the orginal
Rydberg formula.

But getting back to the subject of this post, this brings up another
interesting aspect of science which is that even if you are allowed to
publish something contrary to common knowledge, what happens is that
result is completely ignored. I think that is what has happened in
this case on the discovery of how to solve the spectra of Helium.

Bohr worked very hard to solve Helium and he couldn't do it. So, if I
am able to do it, that should be a pretty big deal if I could do
something that not even Bohr himself could do. But the response is
complete silence. I have sent my findings to 3 other scientists by
email and nothing so far. You, too ignore this finding, which based on
my additional research couldn't possibly be "uninteresting".

I recently read where someone else showed that some object like was
significantly red-shifted in front of a slow moving opaque galaxy,
thus showing that the red-shift could not be due to the object
receeding. That person also lamented that his paper waited, and waited
and waited to be published with no comments.

So this is another way science can keep its "mono-theory" culture, by
simply ignoring and denying anything which goes against established
dogma.
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19
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