Search   Memberlist   Usergroups
 Page 2 of 4 [54 Posts] View previous topic :: View next topic Goto page:  Previous  1, 2, 3, 4 Next
Author Message
Sorcerer1
science forum Guru

Joined: 09 Jun 2006
Posts: 410

Posted: Tue Jul 11, 2006 8:22 pm    Post subject: Re: EINSTEIN'S SIN

<surrealistic-dream@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1152636469.735679.220670@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
| Sorcerer wrote:
| > <surrealistic-dream@hotmail.com> wrote in message
| > news:1152540364.268874.30770@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
| > |
| > | Pentcho Valev wrote:
| > | > The experiment of Michelson-Morley should have led to two competing
| > | > interpretations:
| > | >
| > | > 1. As far as the speed of light is concerned, Newton's particle
model
| > | > of light is correct. The speed of light is variable, c'=c+v, where c
is
| > | > the speed of photons relative to the light source and v is the
relative
| > | > speed of the light source and the observer. This interpretation is
| > | > simple, even trivial: no miracles (time dilation, length contraction
| > | > etc.) can be introduced.
| > | >
| > | > 2. The speed of light is constant, c'=c, independent of v, the
relative
| > | > speed of the light source and the observer. In this case miracles
(time
| > | > dilation, length contraction etc.) are obligatory - without them the
| > | > falsehood of the principle of constancy of the speed of light would
be
| > | > obvious.
| > | >
| > | > The first interpretation is true, the second wrong, and yet the
second
| > | > was adopted.
| > |
| > | How can any theoretical interpretation be proved true of false?
| >
| > Standard methods of proof, of course.
|
| Provide a real example of how to falsify a theoretical interpretation
| relative to some other theoretical interpretation, which is what Valev
| claimed is possible.
|
| In other words, assume that there are two theories, A and B, that have
| the same physical content (make the same experimental predictions), but
| are different interpretations of the underlying physical causality and
| ontology. Assuming that both A and B work, show that A is the "true"
| interpretation, and B is the "false" interpretation.

What you ask for is embedded here.
http://physics.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics7/Notes_www/node10.html
The classic example is the Ptolemaic geocentric theory versus the Copernican
heliocentric theory. Both make accurate predictions of eclipses and
juxtaposition
of planets. You'll not "prove" Ptolemy wrong, but you'll spend a lifetime on
the mathematics to be accurate. After all, a "theory" is a mathematical
model
of a system and one can use either. The simpler is the better. "Proof" in
this
case is "preference", as opposed to rigorous mathematical proof.
Thus OJ Simpson was not convicted of murder (proof beyond reasonable doubt
in criminal court) but was made to pay (proof by a preponderance of the
evidence
in civil court). One jury was not convinced he killed, the other was.
Mathematicians are rigorous and chastise themselves if they cannot prove
their theorems, and the judges are other mathematicians. It is a game to
them
with rigid rules that must be adhered to. In theoretical physics the rules
are
more relaxed. Thus Einstein "convinced" many but did not prove to the
satisfaction of a mathematician, he wasn't one. He lacked the rigour and
was satisfied with himself, having used mathematical jargon.
Pentcho raises MMX as a case in point. Here it is:
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Smart/MMXwind.gif
That's what you have. Work it out. The supposed aether is blowing by.
Why doesn't it affect the light which is "waving" in the aether?
The simple answer is that light is not waving in the aether.
Einstein's theory fails by Ockham's razor. Now you could show
that if a real air wind blew by, it would show up a shift. Trouble
is a wind worth 500 tornadoes would be needed, so a different method
has to be found. That was done in 1913 by Sagnac.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Sagnac/Sagnac.htm
Sagnac is used today as a gyroscope. It is useful. After 100 years
nobody has found a use for Einstein, except to bullshit and say
"I'm so clever, I understand Einstein. Hire me and pay me a lot of money."
Now the world is getting tired of it, so only governments hire these people,
and even they have cancelled the Supercollider, the research is getting
nowhere.

|
| BTW, should both A and B not work, I don't know what could be said
| about their interpretations.

If neither work they are both quickly rejected. That's simple.

Look carefully at this. A clock has to have two second hands and
the time between them has to be averaged to make Einstein's "theory"
work, and then the train and the camel must never reunite to compare
clocks.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Rocket/Rocket.htm

|
| > It is often easy to prove a conjecture
| > false, the commonest is the counterexample. In many cases it is
unnecessary,
| > the burden of proof is upon the claimant. If you say the sky is blue, I
| > would
| > have the burden of disproving it if I disagreed. If you say the sky is
| > green,
| > you have the burden.
|
| In science, arguments like this are not settled by individuals making
| eyeball inspections. They are settled by technicians using instruments
| that measure frequencies of light (not quite objective, but
| intersubjective).

Ok, then, prove the sky is green. <shrug> I'm still calling it blue, no
matter
what you say (and take that filter off the spectrometer). What you've just
said
is exactly what Pentcho is complaining about. You want to be highly paid,
use expensive equipment and all to prove the sky wasn't green after all.
I'm not kidding either. Gravity probes are out there, looking for gravity
waves
because some idiot thinks there might be some.
That's not science. Science is observation, investigation and explanation.
IN THAT ORDER. What you call "science" has it backwards. You are looking
for black holes and gravity waves because someone theorized they exist.
You may as well theorize the sky should be green then ask for funding to
find out why it isn't. The government doesn't care, it only taxpayers money.
Write a paper nobody will read except some bored student to add to
his PH.D. thesis and show he added to the sum of human "knowledge."

|
| >Neither one of us can prove the colour of the sky to a
| > blind person.
|
| Scientific fact is whatever the majority of experts in a given field of
| study says it is. There is no other way.

Nonsense. Discoveries are made by individuals, whether the world
agrees or not. By your reckoning, Galileo should have been hung,
drawn and quartered for heresy because all the experts disagreed
with his findings. The "experts" refuse to look at the work of genius,
they are invariably jealous, a very human emotion.

|
| >
| >
| > | Interpretations are subjective.
| >
| > So is colour. That doesn't imply that one cannot prove the sky is blue,
| > the exception being as I stated. One assumes when discussing proof
| > that the prover and provee have all their faculties. The proof is
simple,
| > but it does require the provee to take an active part in the proof and
| > actually
| > look up. If he fails to do that you cannot prove the sky is blue to him,
but
| > that
| > is then willful ignorance and obstinacy on the part of the provee who
| > refuses
| > to accept proof. There are none so blind as those that will not see.
| >
| > For example, Tom Roberts has openly stated that
| > "This is PHYSICS, not math or logic, and "proof" is completely
irrelevant."
| > That is obstinacy and willful ignorance. It is impossible to prove
anything
| > to Tom Roberts, but it cuts ways. Tom Roberts cannot now prove anything
| > to anybody. He may as well go home and forget about it, because he would
| > only be contradicting himself in anything he said forthwith. He's shot
| > himself
| > in the foot.
| > "Tom Roberts" <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
| > news:P4Hqg.60105\$Lm5.3167@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com.
| > The Google record is there. He's now wounded forever by his careless
| > statement.
| >
| > There is a huge difference between "It is" and "I believe it, therefore
it
| > is", and that
| > difference is what science is alll about. Subjectivity must be
eliminated
| > and replaced
| > by objectivity. Alas, it is human to be subjective and people are easily
| > swayed
| > by clever politicians.
| >
| > Sticks bend when we put them in water. Proof: We can see they do.
| > Light bends at a water/air interface. Sticks do not bend, that is
absurd.
| > What do we do, trust our logic or trust our eyes?
|
| Given a certain set of observations, it the relevant theory we give out
| personal credence to that we use to interpret the physical data.
| Theories "explain" what's going on. It is both their strength and
| weakness. In physics, we can never know if an explanation is true.

That was true before Einstein and Maxwell. Not any more. People go
looking for what is not there, athough it is good thing Michelson looked
and found the aether wasn't there or we'd still have that crap today
and no ring laser gyroscopes.

|
| > I for one will never trust a single word Roberts may say. I never did,
but
| > now I have complete proof of his stupidity. Once I was as sceptic, now
| > I'm a provee. Roberts has convinced me of his stupidity. Proven it,
even.
| > Moreover, Roberts is the kind of guy that will not renounce his
utterances,
| > say "Oops, sorry, I was drunk when I wrote that!" He'll carry on,
because
| > it is his nature to be an arrogant, self-righteous bastard and a fool.
|
| This subthread is not about Tom Roberts. It's about Valev claiming that
| a theoretical interpretation can be claimed to be true or false.

And you've been answered, with examples. Einstein's crap is false.
Androcles.
yt56erd
science forum Guru

Joined: 13 May 2005
Posts: 313

Posted: Wed Jul 12, 2006 9:15 am    Post subject: Re: EINSTEIN'S SIN

Sorcerer wrote:
 Quote: And you've been answered, with examples. Einstein's crap is false. Androcles.

kook.
surrealistic-dream@hotmai
science forum Guru

Joined: 15 Sep 2005
Posts: 409

Posted: Wed Jul 12, 2006 5:23 pm    Post subject: Re: EINSTEIN'S SIN

Sorcerer wrote:
 Quote: surrealistic-dream@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:1152636469.735679.220670@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com... | Sorcerer wrote: | > wrote in message | > news:1152540364.268874.30770@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com... | > | | > | Pentcho Valev wrote: | > | > The experiment of Michelson-Morley should have led to two competing | > | > interpretations: | > | | > | > 1. As far as the speed of light is concerned, Newton's particle model | > | > of light is correct. The speed of light is variable, c'=c+v, where c is | > | > the speed of photons relative to the light source and v is the relative | > | > speed of the light source and the observer. This interpretation is | > | > simple, even trivial: no miracles (time dilation, length contraction | > | > etc.) can be introduced. | > | | > | > 2. The speed of light is constant, c'=c, independent of v, the relative | > | > speed of the light source and the observer. In this case miracles (time | > | > dilation, length contraction etc.) are obligatory - without them the | > | > falsehood of the principle of constancy of the speed of light would be | > | > obvious. | > | | > | > The first interpretation is true, the second wrong, and yet the second | > | > was adopted. | > | | > | How can any theoretical interpretation be proved true of false? | | > Standard methods of proof, of course. | | Provide a real example of how to falsify a theoretical interpretation | relative to some other theoretical interpretation, which is what Valev | claimed is possible. | | In other words, assume that there are two theories, A and B, that have | the same physical content (make the same experimental predictions), but | are different interpretations of the underlying physical causality and | ontology. Assuming that both A and B work, show that A is the "true" | interpretation, and B is the "false" interpretation. What you ask for is embedded here. http://physics.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics7/Notes_www/node10.html The classic example is the Ptolemaic geocentric theory versus the Copernican heliocentric theory. Both make accurate predictions of eclipses and juxtaposition of planets. You'll not "prove" Ptolemy wrong, but you'll spend a lifetime on the mathematics to be accurate. After all, a "theory" is a mathematical model of a system and one can use either. The simpler is the better. "Proof" in this case is "preference", as opposed to rigorous mathematical proof. Thus OJ Simpson was not convicted of murder (proof beyond reasonable doubt in criminal court) but was made to pay (proof by a preponderance of the evidence in civil court). One jury was not convinced he killed, the other was. Mathematicians are rigorous and chastise themselves if they cannot prove their theorems, and the judges are other mathematicians. It is a game to them with rigid rules that must be adhered to. In theoretical physics the rules are more relaxed. Thus Einstein "convinced" many but did not prove to the satisfaction of a mathematician, he wasn't one. He lacked the rigour and was satisfied with himself, having used mathematical jargon. Pentcho raises MMX as a case in point. Here it is: http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Smart/MMXwind.gif That's what you have. Work it out. The supposed aether is blowing by. Why doesn't it affect the light which is "waving" in the aether? The simple answer is that light is not waving in the aether. Einstein's theory fails by Ockham's razor. Now you could show that if a real air wind blew by, it would show up a shift. Trouble is a wind worth 500 tornadoes would be needed, so a different method has to be found. That was done in 1913 by Sagnac. http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Sagnac/Sagnac.htm Sagnac is used today as a gyroscope. It is useful. After 100 years nobody has found a use for Einstein, except to bullshit and say "I'm so clever, I understand Einstein. Hire me and pay me a lot of money." Now the world is getting tired of it, so only governments hire these people, and even they have cancelled the Supercollider, the research is getting nowhere.

Your reply makes me think that you disagree with Valev's claim .

 Quote: | BTW, should both A and B not work, I don't know what could be said | about their interpretations. If neither work they are both quickly rejected. That's simple. Look carefully at this. A clock has to have two second hands and the time between them has to be averaged to make Einstein's "theory" work, and then the train and the camel must never reunite to compare clocks. http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Rocket/Rocket.htm | | > It is often easy to prove a conjecture | > false, the commonest is the counterexample. In many cases it is unnecessary, | > the burden of proof is upon the claimant. If you say the sky is blue, I | > would | > have the burden of disproving it if I disagreed. If you say the sky is | > green, | > you have the burden. | | In science, arguments like this are not settled by individuals making | eyeball inspections. They are settled by technicians using instruments | that measure frequencies of light (not quite objective, but | intersubjective). Ok, then, prove the sky is green. I'm still calling it blue, no matter what you say (and take that filter off the spectrometer). What you've just said is exactly what Pentcho is complaining about.

In science one makes a proof (or determination) of a measurable
condition (state) by actually making the measurement. The proof is
'good enough for science', but not intended to be metaphysical proof.
Thus a measurement of the frequencies of light from a certain portion
of the sky at a given time can be regarded as proof, to within
experimental and human error. It rests to the operatoinal instructions
on how to perform a measurement of the color of the sky to determine
which, if any, filters should be employed. These things require
operational definitions. The result is only as good as the operational
procedures given and the operator's fidelity to follow them.

 Quote: You want to be highly paid, use expensive equipment and all to prove the sky wasn't green after all. I'm not kidding either. Gravity probes are out there, looking for gravity waves because some idiot thinks there might be some. That's not science. Science is observation, investigation and explanation. IN THAT ORDER. What you call "science" has it backwards.

Incorrect. It's the theory that tell us what we observe. Without a
theory to lead us into some idea of what might be worth the effort to
setup an experiment, we wouldn't bother. The theory is used as
justification for bothering to make a particular experiment. How else
would one decide such things? Are we to just invent a million new kinds
of measuring devices per year and distribute them all over the
reachable universe and wait for something to register? No one would
bother to invent expensive machines to detect neutrinos if one did not
already believe in the theory of conservation of mometum-energy. It's
the theories one believes at any given time which are the basis for
making predictions and rationalizing spending time and money to test
those predictions.

 Quote: | | Scientific fact is whatever the majority of experts in a given field of | study says it is. There is no other way. Nonsense. Discoveries are made by individuals, whether the world agrees or not.

You're confusing 'fact' and 'discovery'. For example, say a biologist
stumbles upon a new kind of animal in the field. He sees it, observes
it for days, and then tries to capture it, but it gets away. He goes
back to his university and tells others what he saw. But to them it's
just an anecdote proving nothing. Until good physical evidence can be
obtained for the study by experts in the same field of biology, what is
true to the discoverer is only hearsay to the rest of science, and
certainly not yet scientific fact.

 Quote: By your reckoning, Galileo should have been hung, drawn and quartered for heresy because all the experts disagreed with his findings. The "experts" refuse to look at the work of genius, they are invariably jealous, a very human emotion.

I didn't say that the system is perfect or that it never goes wrong. I
said that science is its own arbiter of scientific facts. That is
partly why there is a scientific method. The establishment of verified
facts is one aspect to the scientific method. A fact in science is a
statement held true by scientific convention.
..
 Quote: | > What do we do, trust our logic or trust our eyes? | | Given a certain set of observations, it the relevant theory we give out | personal credence to that we use to interpret the physical data. | Theories "explain" what's going on. It is both their strength and | weakness. In physics, we can never know if an explanation is true. That was true before Einstein and Maxwell. Not any more. People go looking for what is not there, athough it is good thing Michelson looked and found the aether wasn't there or we'd still have that crap today and no ring laser gyroscopes.

Your reply seems sarcastic, so it doesn't really seem to answer the
question.
Sorcerer1
science forum Guru

Joined: 09 Jun 2006
Posts: 410

 Posted: Wed Jul 12, 2006 11:47 pm    Post subject: Re: EINSTEIN'S SIN wrote in message news:1152725008.002112.247640@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... | | Sorcerer wrote: | > wrote in message | > news:1152636469.735679.220670@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com... | > | Sorcerer wrote: | > | > wrote in message | > | > news:1152540364.268874.30770@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com... | > | > | | > | > | Pentcho Valev wrote: | > | > | > The experiment of Michelson-Morley should have led to two competing | > | > | > interpretations: | > | > | > | > | > | > 1. As far as the speed of light is concerned, Newton's particle | > model | > | > | > of light is correct. The speed of light is variable, c'=c+v, where c | > is | > | > | > the speed of photons relative to the light source and v is the | > relative | > | > | > speed of the light source and the observer. This interpretation is | > | > | > simple, even trivial: no miracles (time dilation, length contraction | > | > | > etc.) can be introduced. | > | > | > | > | > | > 2. The speed of light is constant, c'=c, independent of v, the | > relative | > | > | > speed of the light source and the observer. In this case miracles | > (time | > | > | > dilation, length contraction etc.) are obligatory - without them the | > | > | > falsehood of the principle of constancy of the speed of light would | > be | > | > | > obvious. | > | > | > | > | > | > The first interpretation is true, the second wrong, and yet the | > second | > | > | > was adopted. | > | > | | > | > | How can any theoretical interpretation be proved true of false? | > | > | > | > Standard methods of proof, of course. | > | | > | Provide a real example of how to falsify a theoretical interpretation | > | relative to some other theoretical interpretation, which is what Valev | > | claimed is possible. | > | | > | In other words, assume that there are two theories, A and B, that have | > | the same physical content (make the same experimental predictions), but | > | are different interpretations of the underlying physical causality and | > | ontology. Assuming that both A and B work, show that A is the "true" | > | interpretation, and B is the "false" interpretation. | > | > What you ask for is embedded here. | > http://physics.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics7/Notes_www/node10.html | > The classic example is the Ptolemaic geocentric theory versus the Copernican | > heliocentric theory. Both make accurate predictions of eclipses and | > juxtaposition | > of planets. You'll not "prove" Ptolemy wrong, but you'll spend a lifetime on | > the mathematics to be accurate. After all, a "theory" is a mathematical | > model | > of a system and one can use either. The simpler is the better. "Proof" in | > this | > case is "preference", as opposed to rigorous mathematical proof. | > Thus OJ Simpson was not convicted of murder (proof beyond reasonable doubt | > in criminal court) but was made to pay (proof by a preponderance of the | > evidence | > in civil court). One jury was not convinced he killed, the other was. | > Mathematicians are rigorous and chastise themselves if they cannot prove | > their theorems, and the judges are other mathematicians. It is a game to | > them | > with rigid rules that must be adhered to. In theoretical physics the rules | > are | > more relaxed. Thus Einstein "convinced" many but did not prove to the | > satisfaction of a mathematician, he wasn't one. He lacked the rigour and | > was satisfied with himself, having used mathematical jargon. | > Pentcho raises MMX as a case in point. Here it is: | > http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Smart/MMXwind.gif | > That's what you have. Work it out. The supposed aether is blowing by. | > Why doesn't it affect the light which is "waving" in the aether? | > The simple answer is that light is not waving in the aether. | > Einstein's theory fails by Ockham's razor. Now you could show | > that if a real air wind blew by, it would show up a shift. Trouble | > is a wind worth 500 tornadoes would be needed, so a different method | > has to be found. That was done in 1913 by Sagnac. | > http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Sagnac/Sagnac.htm | > Sagnac is used today as a gyroscope. It is useful. After 100 years | > nobody has found a use for Einstein, except to bullshit and say | > "I'm so clever, I understand Einstein. Hire me and pay me a lot of money." | > Now the world is getting tired of it, so only governments hire these people, | > and even they have cancelled the Supercollider, the research is getting | > nowhere. | | Your reply makes me think that you disagree with Valev's claim . I have two competing theories. In one of them, theory A, 2+2 = 4. In theory B, 1.99 + 2.01 = 4. Which theory is the better? To an 11-year-old, the former is the better. To a sensible adult, there is nothing to choose. BUT.... when it is discovered that in theory A, 2*2= 3.95, whereas in theory B, 1.99 * 2.01 = 3.9999 , theory A must be rejected. In other words although theory A fitted perfectly for the data given and the operation of addition, it did not do so for the operation of multiplication, whereas theory B fitted in both cases. In Einstein's theory, there is no force of gravity. The planets move along curves in space because space is curved. They follow "straight" lines in curved space, whereas in Newton's theory a mysterious force has to be added, the planet curves in straight space, and Newton's first law says "Every body perseveres in its state of rest, or of uniform motion in a right line, unless it is compelled to change that state by forces impressed thereon." This force Newton called "action at a distance" and it troubled him. Everyday concepts of force require direct contact between the pusher/puller and the pushee/pullee. You can pull up a pail of water from a well with a rope, or a horse can pull a cart through the shafts, but there must be contact between the objects, animals and the rope. It looks as if Einstein's theory is the better. No force needed, the planets move as Einstein says and as Newton says, yet the theories compete. William of Ockham steps in, says the simpler theory is the better. I've now said Ockham's Razor both agrees and disagrees with Einstein. Do you agree with the following? 1) Persuasion is not proof. 2) Proof is absolute. 3) What is not said may be more important than what is. If so, define "important". If not, don't, it's not important, my views seem to disagree with Valev's claim. | > | BTW, should both A and B not work, I don't know what could be said | > | about their interpretations. | > | > If neither work they are both quickly rejected. That's simple. | > | > Look carefully at this. A clock has to have two second hands and | > the time between them has to be averaged to make Einstein's "theory" | > work, and then the train and the camel must never reunite to compare | > clocks. | > http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Rocket/Rocket.htm | > | > | | > | > It is often easy to prove a conjecture | > | > false, the commonest is the counterexample. In many cases it is | > unnecessary, | > | > the burden of proof is upon the claimant. If you say the sky is blue, I | > | > would | > | > have the burden of disproving it if I disagreed. If you say the sky is | > | > green, | > | > you have the burden. | > | | > | In science, arguments like this are not settled by individuals making | > | eyeball inspections. They are settled by technicians using instruments | > | that measure frequencies of light (not quite objective, but | > | intersubjective). | > | > | > Ok, then, prove the sky is green. I'm still calling it blue, no | > matter | > what you say (and take that filter off the spectrometer). What you've just | > said | > is exactly what Pentcho is complaining about. | | In science one makes a proof (or determination) of a measurable | condition (state) by actually making the measurement. The proof is | 'good enough for science', but not intended to be metaphysical proof. Ok. Show me the experiment where Einstein measured lightning at both ends of a train simultaneously and I'll call that science. | Thus a measurement of the frequencies of light from a certain portion | of the sky at a given time can be regarded as proof, to within | experimental and human error. Ok, show me the counter that measures frequency of light and I'll call that science too. | It rests to the operatoinal instructions | on how to perform a measurement of the color of the sky to determine | which, if any, filters should be employed. Filter? What filter? You've implied you were going to use an instrument that measures frequency. | These things require | operational definitions. It helps if you know what it is you are trying to measure. What filter do you apply to a counter? Frequency is a count of some number of oscillations compared to some other oscillator, by my theory. For example, NIST defines the second as 9 192 631 770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the cesium 133 atom. So 356.25 days is 290 097 396 344 952 000 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the cesium 133 atom, and a ratio between counts of oscillations. What is your theory of frequency? | The result is only as good as the operational | procedures given and the operator's fidelity to follow them. Yes, that's all very well, but prove the sky is green, please (or not, as the case may be.) | | >You want to be highly paid, | > use expensive equipment and all to prove the sky wasn't green after all. | > I'm not kidding either. Gravity probes are out there, looking for gravity | > waves | > because some idiot thinks there might be some. | > That's not science. Science is observation, investigation and explanation. | > IN THAT ORDER. What you call "science" has it backwards. | | Incorrect. It is NOT incorrect, it is correct. You said so above, in your own words. " In science one makes a proof (or determination) of a measurable condition (state) by actually making the measurement. " I call that "investigation". | It's the theory that tell us what we observe. I have a theory that the wingspan of a bright green flying elephant is less than a seagull's, yet I know how to fly. http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Genesis/BGFE.JPG Observe a bright green flying elephant and measure it's wingspan for me please, Mr Scientist. Use all the instruments at your disposal, although a tape measure should suffice. Please provide a photograph of yourself in the act of measurement. When you've completed that task, I also wish for you to measure it's mass. I already know the mass and wingspan of seagulls, that's an observation and measurement I've already done. | Without a | theory to lead us into some idea of what might be worth the effort to | setup an experiment, we wouldn't bother. I've given you a theory. Please measure the wingspan of the BGFE. I want to provide the explanation of how they can fly with small wings because I'm a theoretical physicist. | The theory is used as | justification for bothering to make a particular experiment. How else | would one decide such things? The results of my explanation will be of tremendous importance to the aviation industry, just as experiments on seagulls was. We'll be able to fly more people further in larger planes. You'll be part of history, remembered as the man that measured BGFE wingspans just as Michelson and Morley measure the speed of light in aether. Is there some problem with investigating aether? | Are we to just invent a million new kinds | of measuring devices per year and distribute them all over the | reachable universe and wait for something to register? Yes, of course. Remember we are talking about science here, not technology and marketing. I said : "Science is observation, investigation and explanation." You said: "Incorrect." Who am I to say you are wrong? Go ahead, invent a million new kinds of measuring devices per year and distribute them all over the reachable universe and wait for something to register, you know what science is far better than me. Find me a BGFE please, I want to be a scientist like you and it would seem you have a workable approach. Theory first, then carry out a measurable condition (state) by actually making the measurement. | No one would | bother to invent expensive machines to detect neutrinos if one did not | already believe in the theory of conservation of mometum-energy. That's right. Detect a BGFE for me please, I believe in the theory of flight but I want to test it. There is the safety aspect as well, no BGFE has ever crashed. When we've developed a better theory of flight, you and I, we'll save millions of dollars, let alone countless lives. Let's get government involved too, they've got plenty of money to fund our research. Imagine, Androcles and surrealistic-dream, Nobel laureates. | It's | the theories one believes at any given time which are the basis for | making predictions and rationalizing spending time and money to test | those predictions. Of course. And everyone believes in the theory of flight, but some are nervous because crashes happen. I can fully rationalize spending time and other people's money on the investigation of the wingspan of BGFEs. | > | Scientific fact is whatever the majority of experts in a given field of | > | study says it is. There is no other way. | > | > Nonsense. Discoveries are made by individuals, whether the world | > agrees or not. | | You're confusing 'fact' and 'discovery'. For example, say a biologist | stumbles upon a new kind of animal in the field. He sees it, observes | it for days, and then tries to capture it, but it gets away. No, no, no... he must first theorize the animal before he can observe it. "Observing " means "seeing", and you are confusing a few days observation with "investigation". I said "Observation, investigation, explanation, in that ORDER." You said "Incorrect". "It's the theory that tell us what we observe." The biologist cannot observe (see) the animal unless he theorizes it first. | He goes | back to his university and tells others what he saw. Ah... now the OTHER biologists have a theory to work with. Now they can measure the wingspan of the animal. But you haven't explained how the first biologist manages to observe (see) the BGFE without a pre-existing theory. | But to them it's | just an anecdote proving nothing. Is that what you think of my idea? Just an anecdote? After all the justification I've put into it? This is going to save lives! It's a THEORY! Perhaps you haven't heard of the power to weight ratio. The more weight you give to a theory, the greater the power you hold. Double the weight is eight times the power. We are going to rule the Earth with this, I have my ruler ready. I'm going to rule a line from the North Pole to the South Pole right through London and call it a "meridian", you can draw one around the middle and call it an "equator". I don't have enough power yet... let's double the weight of the theory. Then when you've bought into my theory, I'm going to usurp your power and have you incarcerated in a lunatic asylum (a good one, I'll be kind). | Until good physical evidence can be | obtained for the study by experts in the same field of biology, what is | true to the discoverer is only hearsay to the rest of science, and | certainly not yet scientific fact. Fact? We are not discussing fact, we are discussing theory. Pentcho said what should have been done. That's his theory and I believe it is right. You believe in surrealistic dreams, don't you? | | > By your reckoning, Galileo should have been hung, | > drawn and quartered for heresy because all the experts disagreed | > with his findings. The "experts" refuse to look at the work of genius, | > they are invariably jealous, a very human emotion. | | I didn't say that the system is perfect or that it never goes wrong. Oh, ok. That's how the biologist saw the animal. The system went wrong. It's good that the system goes wrong occasionally or we'd all be normal, i.e. totally insane. | I | said that science is its own arbiter of scientific facts. Yes, ok. I said that science was observation, investigation and explanation, I didn't say I was insane or even attempt to prove it. Let's agree to differ, shall we, since our philosophical approaches do not match? | That is | partly why there is a scientific method. Actually, it wasn't me that said what I did, it was Robeson. You reminded me when you said "method". Frank L Robeson wrote in "Physics", 1943, Macmillan & Co, New York, "The method of science consists in observation, investigation and explanation of the phenomena, or occurrences, in nature. When the materials and circumstances essential to the occurrence have been found and set in order so that the phenomenon can be reproduced at will, and the whole transaction has been described accurately, we then say we have the law of that phenomenon. A physical law, or principle, is a statement by which we can predict the effect of a given cause. The first postulate of science affirms that the same cause always produces the same effect. Science is based so completely on this belief that when causes which seem to be the same produce different results, the causes are re-examined. And invariably it has been found they were not the same." That happens to agree with Pentcho's statement. It does not agree with you. I've theorized my animal, I want you to observe it in accordance with your theory that it is theory that tells us what to observe and your definition of science, which is arbiter of it's own facts . My definition is incorrect. | The establishment of verified | facts is one aspect to the scientific method. A fact in science is a | statement held true by scientific convention. Conventions are like committees. A camel is a horse designed by a committee. I have a picture of a camel moving at 0.6c. http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Rocket/Rocket.htm Can you verify the sky is green, please? | > | > What do we do, trust our logic or trust our eyes? | > | | > | Given a certain set of observations, it the relevant theory we give out | > | personal credence to that we use to interpret the physical data. | > | Theories "explain" what's going on. It is both their strength and | > | weakness. In physics, we can never know if an explanation is true. | > | > That was true before Einstein and Maxwell. Not any more. People go | > looking for what is not there, although it is good thing Michelson looked | > and found the aether wasn't there or we'd still have that crap today | > and no ring laser gyroscopes. | | Your reply seems sarcastic, so it doesn't really seem to answer the | question. I'm VERY sarcastic. It's my nature to be. Ghost in the Machine is also sarcastic, yet we have opposing points of view. It has been said by some that sarcasm is the lowest form of wit, but I find Ghost to be witty. I actually enjoy his sarcasm, it sharpens mine. I'm also a cynic, http://www.i-cynic.com/ and I can fucking swear with the worst of the cunts. "I am free, no matter what rules surround me. If I find them tolerable, I tolerate them; if I find them too obnoxious, I break them. I am free because I know that I alone am morally responsible for everything I do. " -- Robert A. Heinlein Words are only words, but some have greater impact than others and produce emotional reactions. A scientist/logician doesn't react emotionally and I can sort the wheat from the chaff very simply by such a technique. Once the conversation reduces to flames it's over. I shall gauge your reaction to what I've said and decide accordingly. What was the question that I didn't really seem to answer? Androcles
Sorcerer1
science forum Guru

Joined: 09 Jun 2006
Posts: 410

 Posted: Wed Jul 12, 2006 11:57 pm    Post subject: Re: EINSTEIN'S SIN wrote in message news:1152725008.002112.247640@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... | | Sorcerer wrote: | > wrote in message | > news:1152636469.735679.220670@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com... | > | Sorcerer wrote: | > | > wrote in message | > | > news:1152540364.268874.30770@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com... | > | > | | > | > | Pentcho Valev wrote: | > | > | > The experiment of Michelson-Morley should have led to two competing | > | > | > interpretations: | > | > | > | > | > | > 1. As far as the speed of light is concerned, Newton's particle | > model | > | > | > of light is correct. The speed of light is variable, c'=c+v, where c | > is | > | > | > the speed of photons relative to the light source and v is the | > relative | > | > | > speed of the light source and the observer. This interpretation is | > | > | > simple, even trivial: no miracles (time dilation, length contraction | > | > | > etc.) can be introduced. | > | > | > | > | > | > 2. The speed of light is constant, c'=c, independent of v, the | > relative | > | > | > speed of the light source and the observer. In this case miracles | > (time | > | > | > dilation, length contraction etc.) are obligatory - without them the | > | > | > falsehood of the principle of constancy of the speed of light would | > be | > | > | > obvious. | > | > | > | > | > | > The first interpretation is true, the second wrong, and yet the | > second | > | > | > was adopted. | > | > | | > | > | How can any theoretical interpretation be proved true of false? | > | > | > | > Standard methods of proof, of course. | > | | > | Provide a real example of how to falsify a theoretical interpretation | > | relative to some other theoretical interpretation, which is what Valev | > | claimed is possible. | > | | > | In other words, assume that there are two theories, A and B, that have | > | the same physical content (make the same experimental predictions), but | > | are different interpretations of the underlying physical causality and | > | ontology. Assuming that both A and B work, show that A is the "true" | > | interpretation, and B is the "false" interpretation. | > | > What you ask for is embedded here. | > http://physics.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics7/Notes_www/node10.html | > The classic example is the Ptolemaic geocentric theory versus the Copernican | > heliocentric theory. Both make accurate predictions of eclipses and | > juxtaposition | > of planets. You'll not "prove" Ptolemy wrong, but you'll spend a lifetime on | > the mathematics to be accurate. After all, a "theory" is a mathematical | > model | > of a system and one can use either. The simpler is the better. "Proof" in | > this | > case is "preference", as opposed to rigorous mathematical proof. | > Thus OJ Simpson was not convicted of murder (proof beyond reasonable doubt | > in criminal court) but was made to pay (proof by a preponderance of the | > evidence | > in civil court). One jury was not convinced he killed, the other was. | > Mathematicians are rigorous and chastise themselves if they cannot prove | > their theorems, and the judges are other mathematicians. It is a game to | > them | > with rigid rules that must be adhered to. In theoretical physics the rules | > are | > more relaxed. Thus Einstein "convinced" many but did not prove to the | > satisfaction of a mathematician, he wasn't one. He lacked the rigour and | > was satisfied with himself, having used mathematical jargon. | > Pentcho raises MMX as a case in point. Here it is: | > http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Smart/MMXwind.gif | > That's what you have. Work it out. The supposed aether is blowing by. | > Why doesn't it affect the light which is "waving" in the aether? | > The simple answer is that light is not waving in the aether. | > Einstein's theory fails by Ockham's razor. Now you could show | > that if a real air wind blew by, it would show up a shift. Trouble | > is a wind worth 500 tornadoes would be needed, so a different method | > has to be found. That was done in 1913 by Sagnac. | > http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Sagnac/Sagnac.htm | > Sagnac is used today as a gyroscope. It is useful. After 100 years | > nobody has found a use for Einstein, except to bullshit and say | > "I'm so clever, I understand Einstein. Hire me and pay me a lot of money." | > Now the world is getting tired of it, so only governments hire these people, | > and even they have cancelled the Supercollider, the research is getting | > nowhere. | | Your reply makes me think that you disagree with Valev's claim . I have two competing theories. In one of them, theory A, 2+2 = 4. In theory B, 1.99 + 2.01 = 4. Which theory is the better? To an 11-year-old, the former is the better. To a sensible adult, there is nothing to choose. BUT.... when it is discovered that in theory A, 2*2= 3.95, whereas in theory B, 1.99 * 2.01 = 3.9999 , theory A must be rejected. In other words although theory A fitted perfectly for the data given and the operation of addition, it did not do so for the operation of multiplication, whereas theory B fitted in both cases. In Einstein's theory, there is no force of gravity. The planets move along curves in space because space is curved. They follow "straight" lines in curved space, whereas in Newton's theory a mysterious force has to be added, the planet curves in straight space, and Newton's first law says "Every body perseveres in its state of rest, or of uniform motion in a right line, unless it is compelled to change that state by forces impressed thereon." This force Newton called "action at a distance" and it troubled him. Everyday concepts of force require direct contact between the pusher/puller and the pushee/pullee. You can pull up a pail of water from a well with a rope, or a horse can pull a cart through the shafts, but there must be contact between the objects, animals and the rope. It looks as if Einstein's theory is the better. No force needed, the planets move as Einstein says and as Newton says, yet the theories compete. William of Ockham steps in, says the simpler theory is the better. I've now said Ockham's Razor both agrees and disagrees with Einstein. Do you agree with the following? 1) Persuasion is not proof. 2) Proof is absolute. 3) What is not said may be more important than what is. If so, define "important". If not, don't, it's not important, my views seem to disagree with Valev's claim. | > | BTW, should both A and B not work, I don't know what could be said | > | about their interpretations. | > | > If neither work they are both quickly rejected. That's simple. | > | > Look carefully at this. A clock has to have two second hands and | > the time between them has to be averaged to make Einstein's "theory" | > work, and then the train and the camel must never reunite to compare | > clocks. | > http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Rocket/Rocket.htm | > | > | | > | > It is often easy to prove a conjecture | > | > false, the commonest is the counterexample. In many cases it is | > unnecessary, | > | > the burden of proof is upon the claimant. If you say the sky is blue, I | > | > would | > | > have the burden of disproving it if I disagreed. If you say the sky is | > | > green, | > | > you have the burden. | > | | > | In science, arguments like this are not settled by individuals making | > | eyeball inspections. They are settled by technicians using instruments | > | that measure frequencies of light (not quite objective, but | > | intersubjective). | > | > | > Ok, then, prove the sky is green. I'm still calling it blue, no | > matter | > what you say (and take that filter off the spectrometer). What you've just | > said | > is exactly what Pentcho is complaining about. | | In science one makes a proof (or determination) of a measurable | condition (state) by actually making the measurement. The proof is | 'good enough for science', but not intended to be metaphysical proof. Ok. Show me the experiment where Einstein measured lightning at both ends of a train simultaneously and I'll call that science. | Thus a measurement of the frequencies of light from a certain portion | of the sky at a given time can be regarded as proof, to within | experimental and human error. Ok, show me the counter that measures frequency of light and I'll call that science too. | It rests to the operatoinal instructions | on how to perform a measurement of the color of the sky to determine | which, if any, filters should be employed. Filter? What filter? You've implied you were going to use an instrument that measures frequency. | These things require | operational definitions. It helps if you know what it is you are trying to measure. What filter do you apply to a counter? Frequency is a count of some number of oscillations compared to some other oscillator, by my theory. For example, NIST defines the second as 9 192 631 770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the cesium 133 atom. So 356.25 days is 290 097 396 344 952 000 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the cesium 133 atom, and a ratio between counts of oscillations. What is your theory of frequency? | The result is only as good as the operational | procedures given and the operator's fidelity to follow them. Yes, that's all very well, but prove the sky is green, please (or not, as the case may be.) | | >You want to be highly paid, | > use expensive equipment and all to prove the sky wasn't green after all. | > I'm not kidding either. Gravity probes are out there, looking for gravity | > waves | > because some idiot thinks there might be some. | > That's not science. Science is observation, investigation and explanation. | > IN THAT ORDER. What you call "science" has it backwards. | | Incorrect. It is NOT incorrect, it is correct. You said so above, in your own words. " In science one makes a proof (or determination) of a measurable condition (state) by actually making the measurement. " I call that "investigation". | It's the theory that tell us what we observe. I have a theory that the wingspan of a bright green flying elephant is less than a seagull's, yet I know how to fly. http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Genesis/BGFE.JPG Observe a bright green flying elephant and measure it's wingspan for me please, Mr Scientist. Use all the instruments at your disposal, although a tape measure should suffice. Please provide a photograph of yourself in the act of measurement. When you've completed that task, I also wish for you to measure it's mass. I already know the mass and wingspan of seagulls, that's an observation and measurement I've already done. | Without a | theory to lead us into some idea of what might be worth the effort to | setup an experiment, we wouldn't bother. I've given you a theory. Please measure the wingspan of the BGFE. I want to provide the explanation of how they can fly with small wings because I'm a theoretical physicist. | The theory is used as | justification for bothering to make a particular experiment. How else | would one decide such things? The results of my explanation will be of tremendous importance to the aviation industry, just as experiments on seagulls was. We'll be able to fly more people further in larger planes. You'll be part of history, remembered as the man that measured BGFE wingspans just as Michelson and Morley measure the speed of light in aether. Is there some problem with investigating aether? | Are we to just invent a million new kinds | of measuring devices per year and distribute them all over the | reachable universe and wait for something to register? Yes, of course. Remember we are talking about science here, not technology and marketing. I said : "Science is observation, investigation and explanation." You said: "Incorrect." Who am I to say you are wrong? Go ahead, invent a million new kinds of measuring devices per year and distribute them all over the reachable universe and wait for something to register, you know what science is far better than me. Find me a BGFE please, I want to be a scientist like you and it would seem you have a workable approach. Theory first, then carry out a measurable condition (state) by actually making the measurement. | No one would | bother to invent expensive machines to detect neutrinos if one did not | already believe in the theory of conservation of mometum-energy. That's right. Detect a BGFE for me please, I believe in the theory of flight but I want to test it. There is the safety aspect as well, no BGFE has ever crashed. When we've developed a better theory of flight, you and I, we'll save millions of dollars, let alone countless lives. Let's get government involved too, they've got plenty of money to fund our research. Imagine, Androcles and surrealistic-dream, Nobel laureates. | It's | the theories one believes at any given time which are the basis for | making predictions and rationalizing spending time and money to test | those predictions. Of course. And everyone believes in the theory of flight, but some are nervous because crashes happen. I can fully rationalize spending time and other people's money on the investigation of the wingspan of BGFEs. | > | Scientific fact is whatever the majority of experts in a given field of | > | study says it is. There is no other way. | > | > Nonsense. Discoveries are made by individuals, whether the world | > agrees or not. | | You're confusing 'fact' and 'discovery'. For example, say a biologist | stumbles upon a new kind of animal in the field. He sees it, observes | it for days, and then tries to capture it, but it gets away. No, no, no... he must first theorize the animal before he can observe it. "Observing " means "seeing", and you are confusing a few days observation with "investigation". I said "Observation, investigation, explanation, in that ORDER." You said "Incorrect". "It's the theory that tell us what we observe." The biologist cannot observe (see) the animal unless he theorizes it first. | He goes | back to his university and tells others what he saw. Ah... now the OTHER biologists have a theory to work with. Now they can measure the wingspan of the animal. But you haven't explained how the first biologist manages to observe (see) the BGFE without a pre-existing theory. | But to them it's | just an anecdote proving nothing. Is that what you think of my idea? Just an anecdote? After all the justification I've put into it? This is going to save lives! It's a THEORY! Perhaps you haven't heard of the power to weight ratio. The more weight you give to a theory, the greater the power you hold. Double the weight is eight times the power. We are going to rule the Earth with this, I have my ruler ready. I'm going to rule a line from the North Pole to the South Pole right through London and call it a "meridian", you can draw one around the middle and call it an "equator". I don't have enough power yet... let's double the weight of the theory. Then when you've bought into my theory, I'm going to usurp your power and have you incarcerated in a lunatic asylum (a good one, I'll be kind). | Until good physical evidence can be | obtained for the study by experts in the same field of biology, what is | true to the discoverer is only hearsay to the rest of science, and | certainly not yet scientific fact. Fact? We are not discussing fact, we are discussing theory. Pentcho said what should have been done. That's his theory and I believe it is right. You believe in surrealistic dreams, don't you? | | > By your reckoning, Galileo should have been hung, | > drawn and quartered for heresy because all the experts disagreed | > with his findings. The "experts" refuse to look at the work of genius, | > they are invariably jealous, a very human emotion. | | I didn't say that the system is perfect or that it never goes wrong. Oh, ok. That's how the biologist saw the animal. The system went wrong. It's good that the system goes wrong occasionally or we'd all be normal, i.e. totally insane. | I | said that science is its own arbiter of scientific facts. Yes, ok. I said that science was observation, investigation and explanation, I didn't say I was insane or even attempt to prove it. Let's agree to differ, shall we, since our philosophical approaches do not match? | That is | partly why there is a scientific method. Actually, it wasn't me that said what I did, it was Robeson. You reminded me when you said "method". Frank L Robeson wrote in "Physics", 1943, Macmillan & Co, New York, "The method of science consists in observation, investigation and explanation of the phenomena, or occurrences, in nature. When the materials and circumstances essential to the occurrence have been found and set in order so that the phenomenon can be reproduced at will, and the whole transaction has been described accurately, we then say we have the law of that phenomenon. A physical law, or principle, is a statement by which we can predict the effect of a given cause. The first postulate of science affirms that the same cause always produces the same effect. Science is based so completely on this belief that when causes which seem to be the same produce different results, the causes are re-examined. And invariably it has been found they were not the same." That happens to agree with Pentcho's statement. It does not agree with you. I've theorized my animal, I want you to observe it in accordance with your theory that it is theory that tells us what to observe and your definition of science, which is arbiter of it's own facts . My definition is incorrect. | The establishment of verified | facts is one aspect to the scientific method. A fact in science is a | statement held true by scientific convention. Conventions are like committees. A camel is a horse designed by a committee. I have a picture of a camel moving at 0.6c. http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Rocket/Rocket.htm Can you verify the sky is green, please? | > | > What do we do, trust our logic or trust our eyes? | > | | > | Given a certain set of observations, it the relevant theory we give out | > | personal credence to that we use to interpret the physical data. | > | Theories "explain" what's going on. It is both their strength and | > | weakness. In physics, we can never know if an explanation is true. | > | > That was true before Einstein and Maxwell. Not any more. People go | > looking for what is not there, although it is good thing Michelson looked | > and found the aether wasn't there or we'd still have that crap today | > and no ring laser gyroscopes. | | Your reply seems sarcastic, so it doesn't really seem to answer the | question. I'm VERY sarcastic. It's my nature to be. Ghost in the Machine is also sarcastic, yet we have opposing points of view. It has been said by some that sarcasm is the lowest form of wit, but I find Ghost to be witty. I actually enjoy his sarcasm, it sharpens mine. I'm also a cynic, http://www.i-cynic.com/ and I can fucking swear with the worst of the cunts. "I am free, no matter what rules surround me. If I find them tolerable, I tolerate them; if I find them too obnoxious, I break them. I am free because I know that I alone am morally responsible for everything I do. " -- Robert A. Heinlein Words are only words, but some have greater impact than others and produce emotional reactions. A scientist/logician doesn't react emotionally and I can sort the wheat from the chaff very simply by such a technique. Once the conversation reduces to flames it's over. Phuckwit Duck doesn't react, but he's brain dead. Spookfood does. He's like you, confused about science. Both are relativists, but Spookfood can think, so he may be worth debating with and I can drop the nasty stuff. Phuckwit Duck isn't worth the trouble, neither are Blind Poe, Dork Van de merde. I shall gauge your reaction to what I've said and decide about you accordingly, although my gut reaction is that you have some sense and may be worth educating. When one teaches, two learn. We shall see. What was the question that I didn't really seem to answer? Androcles
surrealistic-dream@hotmai
science forum Guru

Joined: 15 Sep 2005
Posts: 409

Posted: Thu Jul 13, 2006 3:49 pm    Post subject: Re: EINSTEIN'S SIN

Sorcerer wrote:
 Quote: surrealistic-dream@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:1152725008.002112.247640@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... | | Sorcerer wrote: | | Your reply makes me think that you disagree with Valev's claim . I have two competing theories. In one of them, theory A, 2+2 = 4.

That's not a theory. It's just a statement.

 Quote: In theory B, 1.99 + 2.01 = 4.

That's not a theory either. It's just a statement.

 Quote: Which theory is the better?

They're not theories in the first place.

 Quote: In Einstein's theory, there is no force of gravity. The planets move along curves in space because space is curved. They follow "straight" lines in curved space, whereas in Newton's theory a mysterious force has to be added, the planet curves in straight space, and Newton's first law says "Every body perseveres in its state of rest, or of uniform motion in a right line, unless it is compelled to change that state by forces impressed thereon."

Galileo's Principle of Inertia needs modification in GR:

Every body perseveres in its state of rest, or of geodetic motion,
unless it is compelled to change that state by forces impressed
thereon.

 Quote: It looks as if Einstein's theory is the better. No force needed, the planets move as Einstein says and as Newton says, yet the theories compete.

It's the theory that defines what are the forces and what are not the
forces. Force is a theory-laden concept. Einstein could have defined
gravity as a "force," but he was wise not to, because an accelerometer
attached to a free-falling body will not register an acceleration and
thus not register a Newtonian external force acting on the free-falling
body. What's up with that? Newton's theory has always had this
contradiction within it.

 Quote: William of Ockham steps in, says the simpler theory is the better.

All other things being equal, that is (according to Ockham), which they
are not between Newton's theory of gravity and Einstein's theory of
gravity. They are not equivalent theories at all in terms of
predictions.

 Quote: Ok. Show me the experiment where Einstein measured lightning at both ends of a train simultaneously and I'll call that science.

How many experiments did Lorentz make himself? Does it matter?

 Quote: | The result is only as good as the operational | procedures given and the operator's fidelity to follow them. Yes, that's all very well, but prove the sky is green, please (or not, as the case may be.)

Common experience leads me to believe that the sky is almost never a
single color.

 Quote: | > That's not science. Science is observation, investigation and explanation. | > IN THAT ORDER. What you call "science" has it backwards. | | Incorrect. It is NOT incorrect, it is correct. You said so above, in your own words. " In science one makes a proof (or determination) of a measurable condition (state) by actually making the measurement. " I call that "investigation".

It is difficult to see how one could have no theory at all in mind
prior to making an observation, even if it's a theory that is about to
be falsified by some observation. I mostly took issue with your
insistence that the true scientific method mandates that theories are
born from observation, but potential observations through new
experiments are NOT inspired by theories. Every observation made will
be interpreted by some theory to make sense out of it. Observations are
theory-laden. And if you don't have an existing theory to make sense
out of new data, how do you even begin to analyze the data itself for
accuracy? One reason you need a prior theory before interpreting new
data is to use it to decide if the data collected is accurate or in
error.

 Quote: | Are we to just invent a million new kinds | of measuring devices per year and distribute them all over the | reachable universe and wait for something to register? Yes, of course. Remember we are talking about science here, not technology and marketing.

Hans Geiger invented his Geiger counter after having a theory of
radioactive decay of atoms.

 Quote: I said : "Science is observation, investigation and explanation." You said: "Incorrect." Who am I to say you are wrong? Go ahead, invent a million new kinds of measuring devices per year and distribute them all over the reachable universe and wait for something to register, you know what science is far better than me.

It doesn't work that way. Geiger needed his belief in radioactivity to
bother to invent his Geiger counter. People do not invent random
measuring instruments. Instead, measuring instruments are invented to
detect something or some phenomena which some theory claims ought to
"exist" and be detectible by the measuring instrument.

 Quote: | No one would | bother to invent expensive machines to detect neutrinos if one did not | already believe in the theory of conservation of mometum-energy. That's right.

Then what's the purpose of continuing this argument.

 Quote: | It's | the theories one believes at any given time which are the basis for | making predictions and rationalizing spending time and money to test | those predictions. Of course. And everyone believes in the theory of flight, but some are nervous because crashes happen. I can fully rationalize spending time and other people's money on the investigation of the wingspan of BGFEs.

Then do so.

 Quote: Frank L Robeson wrote in "Physics", 1943, Macmillan & Co, New York, "The method of science consists in observation, investigation and explanation of the phenomena, or occurrences, in nature. When the materials and circumstances essential to the occurrence have been found and set in order so that the phenomenon can be reproduced at will, and the whole transaction has been described accurately, we then say we have the law of that phenomenon. A physical law, or principle, is a statement by which we can predict the effect of a given cause. The first postulate of science affirms that the same cause always produces the same effect. Science is based so completely on this belief that when causes which seem to be the same produce different results, the causes are re-examined. And invariably it has been found they were not the same." That happens to agree with Pentcho's statement. It does not agree with you.

I don't see how Robeson's naive and simplistic claims above have
anything to do with two different theories having the same physical
content (what Valev argued to compare their interpretations).
Scientific theories are not solely concerned with classical cause and
effect.

Science is primarily concerned with the invention of theories that
work. Theories that work contain laws that work. Theories that work
need not have anything to do with truth.

Science has a scope beyond that described by Robeson. For example,
consider radioactive decay of atoms (we know that it's atoms that
decays only on the basis of modern atomic theory, by the way). In fact,
we cannot determine the phenomenon of radioactive decay of an atom to
reproduced the decay at will at the level of the atom and the whole
transaction being described accurately, as Robeson demanded. Yet, we
can say something about the phenomena: we can say that the law of the
phenomenon is statistical in nature, not causal. QM is a noncausal
theory of radioactive decay of an atom.

 Quote: | The establishment of verified | facts is one aspect to the scientific method. A fact in science is a | statement held true by scientific convention. Conventions are like committees.

Exactly! The committee of the experts on a given field of study, such
as the physicists expert in high-energy physics or biologists experts
in primatology.

 Quote: "I am free, no matter what rules surround me. If I find them tolerable, I tolerate them; if I find them too obnoxious, I break them. I am free because I know that I alone am morally responsible for everything I do. " -- Robert A. Heinlein

But science cannot be done by an individual alone, by the very way it's
constituted and for very specific epistemological reasons. Science is
designed to be a group activity. Verification cannot be accomplished by
the same person who made the orignal experiment.
Sorcerer1
science forum Guru

Joined: 09 Jun 2006
Posts: 410

 Posted: Thu Jul 13, 2006 4:34 pm    Post subject: Re: EINSTEIN'S SIN wrote in message news:1152805783.031103.80940@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com... | Sorcerer wrote: | > wrote in message | > news:1152725008.002112.247640@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... | > | | > | Sorcerer wrote: | You snipped. Why? | > | | > | Your reply makes me think that you disagree with Valev's claim . | > | > I have two competing theories. In one of them, theory A, 2+2 = 4. | | That's not a theory. It's just a statement. Grrr.... Learn to read, I am very precise in what I say. I have two competing theories. In one of them, theory A, 2+2 = 4. I did not say that was a theory, I said 2+2 = 4 *IN* one of the theories. Theory A is a theory. Do we understand yet? I'll stop there and allow you to reconsider, I don't see why I should explain everything I say to someone that cannot read, so quit wasting my time. Respond to yesterday's post AFTER you've read it. And don't snip, Google has plenty of bytes available. Androcles. | | > In theory B, 1.99 + 2.01 = 4. | | That's not a theory either. It's just a statement. Incorrect. LOL! What's difference | | > Which theory is the better? | | They're not theories in the first place. | | > In Einstein's theory, there is no force of gravity. The planets move | > along curves in space because space is curved. They follow "straight" lines | > in curved space, whereas in Newton's theory a mysterious force has to be | > added, the planet curves in straight space, and Newton's first law says | > "Every body perseveres in its state of rest, or of uniform motion in a right | > line, unless it is compelled to change that state by forces impressed | > thereon." | | Galileo's Principle of Inertia needs modification in GR: | | Every body perseveres in its state of rest, or of geodetic motion, | unless it is compelled to change that state by forces impressed | thereon. | | | > | > It looks as if Einstein's theory is the better. No force needed, the planets | > move as Einstein says and as Newton says, yet the theories compete. | | It's the theory that defines what are the forces and what are not the | forces. Force is a theory-laden concept. Einstein could have defined | gravity as a "force," but he was wise not to, because an accelerometer | attached to a free-falling body will not register an acceleration and | thus not register a Newtonian external force acting on the free-falling | body. What's up with that? Newton's theory has always had this | contradiction within it. | | > William of Ockham steps in, says the simpler theory is the better. | | All other things being equal, that is (according to Ockham), which they | are not between Newton's theory of gravity and Einstein's theory of | gravity. They are not equivalent theories at all in terms of | predictions. | | > Ok. Show me the experiment where Einstein measured lightning at | > both ends of a train simultaneously and I'll call that science. | | How many experiments did Lorentz make himself? Does it matter? | | > | The result is only as good as the operational | > | procedures given and the operator's fidelity to follow them. | > | > Yes, that's all very well, but prove the sky is green, please (or not, as | > the case may be.) | | Common experience leads me to believe that the sky is almost never a | single color. | | | > | > That's not science. Science is observation, investigation and | > explanation. | > | > IN THAT ORDER. What you call "science" has it backwards. | > | | > | Incorrect. | > | > It is NOT incorrect, it is correct. You said so above, in your own words. | > | > " In science one makes a proof (or determination) of a measurable | > condition (state) by actually making the measurement. " | > I call that "investigation". | | It is difficult to see how one could have no theory at all in mind | prior to making an observation, even if it's a theory that is about to | be falsified by some observation. I mostly took issue with your | insistence that the true scientific method mandates that theories are | born from observation, but potential observations through new | experiments are NOT inspired by theories. Every observation made will | be interpreted by some theory to make sense out of it. Observations are | theory-laden. And if you don't have an existing theory to make sense | out of new data, how do you even begin to analyze the data itself for | accuracy? One reason you need a prior theory before interpreting new | data is to use it to decide if the data collected is accurate or in | error. | | > | Are we to just invent a million new kinds | > | of measuring devices per year and distribute them all over the | > | reachable universe and wait for something to register? | > | > Yes, of course. Remember we are talking about science here, not | > technology and marketing. | | Hans Geiger invented his Geiger counter after having a theory of | radioactive decay of atoms. | | > | > I said : "Science is observation, investigation and explanation." | > You said: "Incorrect." | > Who am I to say you are wrong? Go ahead, invent a million new kinds | > of measuring devices per year and distribute them all over the | > reachable universe and wait for something to register, you know what | > science is far better than me. | | It doesn't work that way. Geiger needed his belief in radioactivity to | bother to invent his Geiger counter. People do not invent random | measuring instruments. Instead, measuring instruments are invented to | detect something or some phenomena which some theory claims ought to | "exist" and be detectible by the measuring instrument. | | > | No one would | > | bother to invent expensive machines to detect neutrinos if one did not | > | already believe in the theory of conservation of mometum-energy. | > | > That's right. | | Then what's the purpose of continuing this argument. | | > | It's | > | the theories one believes at any given time which are the basis for | > | making predictions and rationalizing spending time and money to test | > | those predictions. | > | > | > Of course. And everyone believes in the theory of flight, but some are | > nervous | > because crashes happen. I can fully rationalize spending time and other | > people's | > money on the investigation of the wingspan of BGFEs. | | Then do so. | | > Frank L Robeson wrote in "Physics", 1943, Macmillan & Co, New York, | > "The method of science consists in observation, investigation and | > explanation of the phenomena, or occurrences, in nature. When the materials | > and circumstances essential to the occurrence have been found and set in | > order so that the phenomenon can be reproduced at will, and the whole | > transaction has been described accurately, we then say we have the law of | > that phenomenon. | > A physical law, or principle, is a statement by which we can predict the | > effect of a given cause. | > The first postulate of science affirms that the same cause always produces | > the same effect. Science is based so completely on this belief that when | > causes which seem to be the same produce different results, the causes are | > re-examined. And invariably it has been found they were not the same." | > | > That happens to agree with Pentcho's statement. | > It does not agree with you. | | I don't see how Robeson's naive and simplistic claims above have | anything to do with two different theories having the same physical | content (what Valev argued to compare their interpretations). | Scientific theories are not solely concerned with classical cause and | effect. | | Science is primarily concerned with the invention of theories that | work. Theories that work contain laws that work. Theories that work | need not have anything to do with truth. | | Science has a scope beyond that described by Robeson. For example, | consider radioactive decay of atoms (we know that it's atoms that | decays only on the basis of modern atomic theory, by the way). In fact, | we cannot determine the phenomenon of radioactive decay of an atom to | reproduced the decay at will at the level of the atom and the whole | transaction being described accurately, as Robeson demanded. Yet, we | can say something about the phenomena: we can say that the law of the | phenomenon is statistical in nature, not causal. QM is a noncausal | theory of radioactive decay of an atom. | | > | The establishment of verified | > | facts is one aspect to the scientific method. A fact in science is a | > | statement held true by scientific convention. | > | > Conventions are like committees. | | Exactly! The committee of the experts on a given field of study, such | as the physicists expert in high-energy physics or biologists experts | in primatology. | | > "I am free, no matter what rules surround me. If I find them tolerable, I | > tolerate them; if I find them too obnoxious, I break them. I am free because | > I know that I alone am morally responsible for everything I do. " -- Robert | > A. Heinlein | | But science cannot be done by an individual alone, by the very way it's | constituted and for very specific epistemological reasons. Science is | designed to be a group activity. Verification cannot be accomplished by | the same person who made the orignal experiment. |
Dirk Van de moortel
science forum Guru

Joined: 01 May 2005
Posts: 3019

Posted: Thu Jul 13, 2006 5:02 pm    Post subject: Re: EINSTEIN'S SIN

"Sorcerer" <Headmaster@hogwarts.physics_a> wrote in message news:TCutg.91250\$7Z6.19676@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
 Quote: surrealistic-dream@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:1152805783.031103.80940@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com... | Sorcerer wrote: | > wrote in message | > news:1152725008.002112.247640@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... | > | | > | Sorcerer wrote: | You snipped. Why? | > | | > | Your reply makes me think that you disagree with Valev's claim . | | > I have two competing theories. In one of them, theory A, 2+2 = 4. | | That's not a theory. It's just a statement. Grrr.... Learn to read, I am very precise in what I say. I have two competing theories. In one of them, theory A, 2+2 = 4. I did not say that was a theory, I said 2+2 = 4 *IN* one of the theories. Theory A is a theory. Do we understand yet? I'll stop there and allow you to reconsider, I don't see why I should explain everything I say to someone that cannot read, so quit wasting my time. Respond to yesterday's post AFTER you've read it. And don't snip, Google has plenty of bytes available.

It's a complete mystery how anyone would ever bother
to have a conversation with a piece of excrement like you:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Der_alte_Hexenmeister&diff=prev&oldid=63518780

Dirk Vdm

 Quote: Androcles.
Andrew Poelstra
science forum beginner

Joined: 20 May 2006
Posts: 13

Posted: Thu Jul 13, 2006 5:45 pm    Post subject: Re: EINSTEIN'S SIN

On 2006-07-13, Sorcerer <Headmaster@hogwarts.physics_a> wrote:
 Quote: surrealistic-dream@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:1152805783.031103.80940@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com... | Sorcerer wrote: | > wrote in message | > news:1152725008.002112.247640@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... | > | Your reply makes me think that you disagree with Valev's claim . | > I have two competing theories. In one of them, theory A, 2+2 = 4. | | That's not a theory. It's just a statement. Grrr.... Learn to read, I am very precise in what I say. I have two competing theories. In one of them, theory A, 2+2 = 4. I did not say that was a theory, I said 2+2 = 4 *IN* one of the theories. Theory A is a theory. Do we understand yet? I'll stop there and allow you to reconsider, I don't see why I should explain everything I say to someone that cannot read, so quit wasting my time. Respond to yesterday's post AFTER you've read it. And don't snip, Google has plenty of bytes available.

Who said anything about Google? You understand what Usenet is, right?
Because if not, you shouldn't be posting.

<220 lines of blanks and quotes snipped>

--
Andrew Poelstra <http://www.wpsoftware.net/projects/>
To email me, use "apoelstra" at the above domain.
"You people hate mathematics." -- James Harris
PD
science forum Guru

Joined: 03 May 2005
Posts: 4363

Posted: Thu Jul 13, 2006 5:47 pm    Post subject: Re: EINSTEIN'S SIN

Sorcerer wrote:
 Quote: I'll stop there and allow you to reconsider, I don't see why I should explain everything I say to someone that cannot read, so quit wasting my time. Respond to yesterday's post AFTER you've read it. And don't snip, Google has plenty of bytes available.

Mind your manners, Androcles. The guidelines for the group you are
posting to recommend judicious snipping. The reasons are manifold:
a) The storage capacity of a server farm is not relevant to those who
have limited bandwidth connections. In such cases, a policy of not
snipping is discriminatory, as it impedes the access of those with
lower speed connections.
b) Not everyone uses Google as their news server. Again, a policy of
forcing someone to use a particular news service that happens to have
capacity is discriminatory
c) It is polite to get to the point and not drag the reader through
mounds and mounds of historical information that is no longer relevant
to the point being made at the time.

Your feelings about this carry no weight. You may choose not to snip.
You may not choose for others whether to snip.

PD
T Wake
science forum Guru

Joined: 08 May 2005
Posts: 1978

Posted: Thu Jul 13, 2006 6:07 pm    Post subject: Re: EINSTEIN'S SIN

"Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvandemoortel@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote
in message news:I0vtg.535190\$bn7.12748973@phobos.telenet-ops.be...
 Quote: "Sorcerer" wrote in message news:TCutg.91250\$7Z6.19676@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk... I'll stop there and allow you to reconsider, I don't see why I should explain everything I say to someone that cannot read, so quit wasting my time. Respond to yesterday's post AFTER you've read it. And don't snip, Google has plenty of bytes available. It's a complete mystery how anyone would ever bother to have a conversation with a piece of excrement like you: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Der_alte_Hexenmeister&diff=prev&oldid=63518780

Androcles/Hexenmeister/whatever is certainly a low order cretin. The whining
and ranting on his userTalk page is pretty funny really.

This one is classic: (posted after being told off for vandalising)

"That's ok, User: Connolley (Admin). You go ahead and do whatever you wish.
Your threat of excommunication has no effect upon me, history has adequate
precedent of tyranny, censorship and blatant bullying. Unlike Galileo, I do
not fear you or the Pope, Pontius Pilate, Herod, Ceaser, Hitler, Saddam
Hussein or any of your ilk.
You did not have the common courtesy of responding to my communique,
reproduced below, and that adequately states my opinion of you. Schaefer is
yet another bully and enemy of science. If it is the policy of wackypedia to
ignore the voice of the heretic "even if he can prove" the LIES, then I want
no part of wackypedia's religion.

Freedom of the press goes to those that own one, but you cannot own the
internet. Excommunicate me from your clique as you will, I shall never be
excommunicate from my fellow man. With this missive, I excommunicate you."

This one followed being told his ideas were minority at best "I don't care
for your opinion, Schaefer, it is prejudiced. You are a bigot and a liar.
That is a personal attack, have me blocked (or not bother, I block myself).
I will not be silenced, there are better media than wackypedia and its
inconsistencies. You and you clique are a joke, you'll never be a
journalist, scientist or mathematician as long as you have a hole in your
arse. I refuse to play your silly rules games with you any more. Signature
refused."

Seriously, we [tinw] are all agreed that the likes of [Hammond] are just
insane, but Androcles takes it to a new level.
Dirk Van de moortel
science forum Guru

Joined: 01 May 2005
Posts: 3019

Posted: Thu Jul 13, 2006 6:22 pm    Post subject: Re: EINSTEIN'S SIN

"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1152812878.123340.145770@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
 Quote: Sorcerer wrote: I'll stop there and allow you to reconsider, I don't see why I should explain everything I say to someone that cannot read, so quit wasting my time. Respond to yesterday's post AFTER you've read it. And don't snip, Google has plenty of bytes available. Mind your manners, Androcles. The guidelines for the group you are posting to recommend judicious snipping. The reasons are manifold: a) The storage capacity of a server farm is not relevant to those who have limited bandwidth connections. In such cases, a policy of not snipping is discriminatory, as it impedes the access of those with lower speed connections. b) Not everyone uses Google as their news server. Again, a policy of forcing someone to use a particular news service that happens to have capacity is discriminatory c) It is polite to get to the point and not drag the reader through mounds and mounds of historical information that is no longer relevant to the point being made at the time. Your feelings about this carry no weight. You may choose not to snip. You may not choose for others whether to snip.

But autistics choose anything for anyone :-)

Dirk Vdm
Sorcerer1
science forum Guru

Joined: 09 Jun 2006
Posts: 410

 Posted: Thu Jul 13, 2006 7:18 pm    Post subject: Re: EINSTEIN'S SIN "Andrew Poelstra" wrote in message news:slrnebd1ks.7lm.apoelstra@wpsoftware.net... | On 2006-07-13, Sorcerer wrote: | > | > wrote in message | > news:1152805783.031103.80940@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com... | >| Sorcerer wrote: | >| > wrote in message | >| > news:1152725008.002112.247640@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... | >| > | Your reply makes me think that you disagree with Valev's claim . | >| > I have two competing theories. In one of them, theory A, 2+2 = 4. | >| | >| That's not a theory. It's just a statement. | > | > Grrr.... Learn to read, I am very precise in what I say. | > I have two competing theories. In one of them, theory A, 2+2 = 4. | > I did not say that was a theory, I said 2+2 = 4 *IN* one of the theories. | > | > Theory A is a theory. Do we understand yet? | > | > I'll stop there and allow you to reconsider, I don't see why I should | > explain everything I say to someone that cannot read, so quit wasting | > my time. Respond to yesterday's post AFTER you've read it. | > And don't snip, Google has plenty of bytes available. | > | | Who said anything about Google? You understand what Usenet is, right? | Because if not, you shouldn't be posting. | | <220 lines of blanks and quotes snipped> No physics content to discuss. Not worth bothering with, *plonk* Androcles.
Sorcerer1
science forum Guru

Joined: 09 Jun 2006
Posts: 410

 Posted: Thu Jul 13, 2006 7:18 pm    Post subject: Re: EINSTEIN'S SIN "PD" wrote in message news:1152812878.123340.145770@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com... | | Sorcerer wrote: | > I'll stop there and allow you to reconsider, I don't see why I should | > explain everything I say to someone that cannot read, so quit wasting | > my time. Respond to yesterday's post AFTER you've read it. | > And don't snip, Google has plenty of bytes available. | > | | Mind your manners, Androcles. f*** off, cunt. Go talk to Hammond, he's more your mentality. Androcles.
Phineas T Puddleduck
science forum Guru

Joined: 01 Jun 2006
Posts: 759

Posted: Thu Jul 13, 2006 8:53 pm    Post subject: Re: EINSTEIN'S SIN

In article <8MadnTxYqPtVFivZRVnysw@pipex.net>, T Wake
<Usenet.es7AT@gishpuppy.com> wrote:

 Quote: Seriously, we [tinw] are all agreed that the likes of [Hammond] are just insane, but Androcles takes it to a new level.

I plonked him ages ago. There's idiots, then there's bigoted idiots,
then there's Androcles - on a level of stupidity unparalled.

--
Relf's Law? -+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
"Bullshit repeated to the limit of infinity asymptotically approaches
the odour of roses."
Corollary -+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
³It approaches the asymptote faster, the more pseduos¹ you throw in
your formulas.²
-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
³Gravity is one of the four fundamental interactions. The classical
theory of gravity - Einstein's general relativity - is the subject
of this book.² : Hartle/ Gravity pg 1
-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Jaffa cakes. Sweet delicious orange jaffa goodness, and an abject lesson
why parroting information from the web will not teach you cosmology.
-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Google

 Display posts from previous: All Posts1 Day7 Days2 Weeks1 Month3 Months6 Months1 Year Oldest FirstNewest First
 Page 2 of 4 [54 Posts] Goto page:  Previous  1, 2, 3, 4 Next View previous topic :: View next topic
 The time now is Tue Dec 30, 2014 1:44 pm | All times are GMT
 Jump to: Select a forum-------------------Forum index|___Science and Technology    |___Math    |   |___Research    |   |___num-analysis    |   |___Symbolic    |   |___Combinatorics    |   |___Probability    |   |   |___Prediction    |   |       |   |___Undergraduate    |   |___Recreational    |       |___Physics    |   |___Research    |   |___New Theories    |   |___Acoustics    |   |___Electromagnetics    |   |___Strings    |   |___Particle    |   |___Fusion    |   |___Relativity    |       |___Chem    |   |___Analytical    |   |___Electrochem    |   |   |___Battery    |   |       |   |___Coatings    |       |___Engineering        |___Control        |___Mechanics        |___Chemical

 Topic Author Forum Replies Last Post Similar Topics For the Einstein worshipers and skeptics 3ality Relativity 3 Tue Oct 02, 2007 11:23 pm WHO KILLED PHYSICS: CLAUSIUS OR EINSTEIN? Pentcho Valev Relativity 7 Thu Jul 20, 2006 8:24 am Einstein interpretation of gravitational redshift is misl... mluttgens@wanadoo.fr Relativity 64 Thu Jul 13, 2006 12:46 pm SI EINSTEIN AVAIT CHOISI C'=C+V Pentcho Valev Relativity 5 Wed Jul 12, 2006 6:07 am Caltech and Princeton University Press Release Tenth Volu... baalke@earthlink.net Relativity 1 Mon Jul 10, 2006 3:25 pm

Copyright © 2004-2005 DeniX Solutions SRL
Other DeniX Solutions sites: Electronics forum |  Medicine forum |  Unix/Linux blog |  Unix/Linux documentation |  Unix/Linux forums  |  send newsletters

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
 [ Time: 0.1228s ][ Queries: 16 (0.0399s) ][ GZIP on - Debug on ]