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 22 Jul 2010 18:19
On Jul 22, 5:03 pm, franklinhu <frankli...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
> 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 how far into their shells they have withdrawn to completely ignore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.

Not necessarily. You must be presuming that if Bohr couldn't do it,
then nobody could do it, until you.
This is where it is important to catch up on the work that has been
done in, oh, the last 80 years.

There are lots of problems that Newton couldn't solve either, light
being one of them. This does not mean that if you pick up where Newton
failed, and get somewhere that he didn't, then what you've done is of
interest. What it means is that you've chosen to work on an old and
already solved problem, which is an amusing hobby but not particularly
of scientific contributory value.

One of the arts of being a scientist is judging which problems are
still interesting, and working on those.

Choosing an old problem that gave somebody some trouble decades ago,
is not a wise choice.

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

From: Androcles on 22 Jul 2010 18:22

"franklinhu" <franklinhu(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3b14b22f-d7b8-4db5-9e15-f705563cd226(a)l14g2000yql.googlegroups.com...
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 "M�ller�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.
========================================
You are quite refreshing in your attitude, why are you are wasting your
time on a stupid bigot like Draper?





From: maxwell on 23 Jul 2010 11:25
On Jul 17, 10:48 am, Benj <bjac...(a)iwaynet.net> wrote:
> On Jul 17, 5:32 am, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Actually Don, you need to keep in mind that there are THREE things:
> > > Science, "Junk Science" and politics.
>
> > > The problem is that these three areas have become blurred...probably
> > > on purpose.
>
> > You have no training in the sciences so how do you expect to tell the three
> > apart?
>
> And the way you know what my "training" in the sciences is would be?
> I have noticed that you have taken the position that censorship in
> science is good thing and gives an increase in the "quality" of the
> work. I take a different view.
>
> There have been some suggestions so far that seem imply that we need
> to agree on some definitions. For example a blog has been suggested as
> a substitute for a forum.
>
> Blog: A blog would be a website dedicated to some proposition.
> Generally speaking, I'd say it fails to meet our purpose because
> information flow is primarily unidirectional.  In other words there is
> little discussion. A forum on the other hand has the purpose (like
> this one) for contributors to freely exchange thoughts and ideas.
>
> Forum. A Forum either moderated or unmoderated has the purpose of
> discussion of a topic rather than a simple presentation of a single
> viewpoint (blog). The idea (which I believe to be true) is that when a
> large variety of opinions are expressed - even some that are totally
> in error - and an unrestricted discussion is permitted, there is a
> significant chance that some kind of "synergy" will result where the
> whole is greater than the sum of the opinions. In other words obvious
> errors will be rejected and other ideas will be examined and
> discussed  in an effort to find "truth".  While a final "truth" may or
> may not be reached in any given case, I do believe that the value of
> forums is that through discussion your thinking gets changed. And that
> is essentially what progress is: A change in thinking. A scientist
> once remarked to me that often you can make great progress just by
> discussing your problem with the janitor (who hasn't a clue what you
> are doing!)  It's not that he gives you the answers (he can't) but
> it's that the discussion breaks you out of the thinking patterns in
> which you are stuck.
>
> Unmoderated Forum.  An unmoderated forum is the ultimate expression of
> free speech. Rules are typically only suggestions. The forum is
> designated to emphasize a given topic, but that can't be enforced.
> Hence the problem with such discussions is that any given member can
> fill the forum with any kind of garbage and irrelevant trash. It might
> be the person has mental illness and thinks that internet posting will
> "cure" them. It might be someone insisting one moving the discussion
> to totally off-topic irrelevant subjects or it might be persons with a
> political agenda PURPOSELY disrupting the discussion to insure that
> any change in thought processes will not occur. All these things have
> been seen repeatedly on USENET. These things are the are the online
> equivalent of a group of people beating large drums at a Chamber of
> Commerce meeting.
>
> Moderated Group. To try to solve the disruption problem people have
> formed moderated forums. They put someone in charge of filtering out
> all the "noise". This moderator uses some sort of judgment to
> eliminate posts deemed "unproductive".  But there is a problem here.
> One has to do with human nature. Psychological experiments (the guard-
> prisoner experiments) have shown that there is a GREAT human tendency
> to abuse power when granted authority. This means that our moderator
> can begin to not just filter noise and disruption but can also filter
> discussion according to their beliefs as well. In other words
> moderation turns into censorship. And of course it gets worse.
> Politicians gravitate toward power and authority the way bears
> gravitate to honey. Hence the worst possible case is when the same
> persons with a political agenda who were disrupting the unmoderated
> forum with noise, take over moderation of a moderated forum and then
> use that authority to skillfully manipulate the discussions away from
> positions and topics they deem opposed to their causes.  Again the
> effect of mixing politics and science is to prevent any real
> discussion that can change thinking. The danger of the moderated forum
> is that it gives the false IMPRESSION to outsiders that a real
> discussion is actually taking place (who would be the persons the
> politics are trying to influence). But in the case of censorship, a
> true scientific discussion is clearly NOT taking place. Even it the
> discussions are "true" meaning factual, the censorship limiting the
> discussion keeps them from being open-minded. As someone noted here
> already, science advances by the EXCEPTIONS. Hence when censorship
> filters all exceptions, it filters all real science!
>
> Which leads to the ultimate question of THIS discussion: What is the
> difference between censorship and moderation?
>
> I suggest that one need look no further than what science is (open-
> mindedness, truth, experiment as final judge) to make such a decision.
> On the other hand false arguments (ad hominem attacks, appeal to
> authority, proof by assertion, etc.) are not truth and should be
> "moderated". But restricting all discussions only to those "facts"
> found in a freshman textbook, is not open-minded.  How should one
> judge a discussion (or paper) on UFOs?  Since they are not found in
> freshman physics texts do they not exist? Should some kind of
> established official dogma be the standard for judging truth?  I think
> you can see the problem with this given the attraction of politics to
> power. If one can simply gain control of "official doctrine" then one
> easily gains control of science to further your political agenda.
> Examples abound.
>
> Does this not make sense?

Excellent summary, Benj. Thanks for bringing this up & conducting the
discussion in such a civilized manner. You are correct: the original
19C science journals originally published every submission (they were
desperate for content) but then scurrilous abuse arose & had to be
rejected. Censorship only arose with the development of a consensus
in science - men who had spent many years learning the orthodoxy felt
threatened by new views that eliminate all that study. It's still
happening today, only more so, as so much public money is being
directed by the "in crowd".
From: maxwell on 23 Jul 2010 11:32
On Jul 22, 3:03 pm, franklinhu <frankli...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
> 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.

I enjoy reworking old problems & agree that this could be a
significant step forward. I would appreciate a link to where I could
checkout your work further.
From: eric gisse on 23 Jul 2010 15:15
maxwell wrote:
[...]

> Excellent summary, Benj. Thanks for bringing this up & conducting the
> discussion in such a civilized manner. You are correct: the original
> 19C science journals originally published every submission (they were
> desperate for content) but then scurrilous abuse arose & had to be
> rejected. Censorship only arose with the development of a consensus
> in science - men who had spent many years learning the orthodoxy felt
> threatened by new views that eliminate all that study. It's still
> happening today, only more so, as so much public money is being
> directed by the "in crowd".

Let me guess, you also have no training in the sciences?

First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
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