View Full Version : Orthodoxy's Opposition to Theories of Superluminality
Perfectly Innocent
Jul25-04, 08:16 AM
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>\n\n\n\nAccording to Dr. John G. Cramer, Professor of Physics, University of\nWashington, Seattle, the most accurate measurements to date for the\nmass of an e-neutrino are too fantastic to believe. (What is actually\nbeing measured is e-neutrino mass-squared).\n\n"Of the six most recent experimental determinations of neutrino\nmass, all have given negative values of the mass-squared...\n\n"The measured mass-squared values are negative to an accuracy of\nseveral standard deviations in the most recent of these experiments.\n\n"These experimenters have been strangely quiet about mass-squared\nmeasurements with negative values. If the results had been positive\nby the same amount, the literature would be filled with claims that\na non-zero value for the neutrino mass had been established. But a\nnegative mass-squared is not something that can be easily\npublicized." http://www.npl.washington.edu/AV/altvw54.html\n\nIt\'s perfectly understandable why the experimental verification of\n"imaginary mass" for the e-neutrino particle is too embarrassing for\nthe mainstream to take seriously. They know what it means. Why is it\nthat I never hear physicists explaining the obvious implications? Is\nthere a cultural taboo in the mainstream against contemplating the\npossibility that the electron neutrino is a tachyon and in freely\ndiscussing what are the most respectable physical assumptions to avoid\ncausality paradoxes in the light of available data? Is orthodoxy\nopposed to superluminality--the anticipated, upcoming, theoretical\nphysics of motion for objects traveling faster than light?\n\nWhy doesn\'t the mainstream just honestly admit what the *reasonable*\nimplications of superluminality would be?\n\nhttp://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/simultaneity.htm\n\nEugene Shubert\nhttp://www.everythingimportant.org\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>According to Dr. John G. Cramer, Professor of Physics, University of
Washington, Seattle, the most accurate measurements to date for the
mass of an e-neutrino are too fantastic to believe. (What is actually
being measured is e-neutrino mass-squared).
"Of the six most recent experimental determinations of neutrino
mass, all have given negative values of the mass-squared...
"The measured mass-squared values are negative to an accuracy of
several standard deviations in the most recent of these experiments.
"These experimenters have been strangely quiet about mass-squared
measurements with negative values. If the results had been positive
by the same amount, the literature would be filled with claims that
a non-zero value for the neutrino mass had been established. But a
negative mass-squared is not something that can be easily
publicized." http://www.npl.washington.edu/AV/altvw54.html
It's perfectly understandable why the experimental verification of
"imaginary mass" for the e-neutrino particle is too embarrassing for
the mainstream to take seriously. They know what it means. Why is it
that I never hear physicists explaining the obvious implications? Is
there a cultural taboo in the mainstream against contemplating the
possibility that the electron neutrino is a tachyon and in freely
discussing what are the most respectable physical assumptions to avoid
causality paradoxes in the light of available data? Is orthodoxy
opposed to superluminality--the anticipated, upcoming, theoretical
physics of motion for objects traveling faster than light?
Why doesn't the mainstream just honestly admit what the *reasonable*
implications of superluminality would be?
http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/simultaneity.htm
Eugene Shubert
http://www.everythingimportant.org
Norm Dresner
Jul25-04, 09:59 AM
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>\n"Perfectly Innocent" <perfectlyInnocent@as-if.com> wrote in message\nnews:c45b45b3.0407240944.22690a20@posting .google.com...\n>\n> According to Dr. John G. Cramer, Professor of Physics, University of\n> Washington, Seattle, the most accurate measurements to date for the\n> mass of an e-neutrino are too fantastic to believe. (What is actually\n> being measured is e-neutrino mass-squared).\n>\n> "Of the six most recent experimental determinations of neutrino\n> mass, all have given negative values of the mass-squared...\n>\n> "The measured mass-squared values are negative to an accuracy of\n> several standard deviations in the most recent of these experiments.\n>\n[SNIP]\n>\n> Why doesn\'t the mainstream just honestly admit what the *reasonable*\n> implications of superluminality would be?\n>\n\nLet\'s stand back a moment and ask an Ockham\'s Razor question, Which is a\nsimpler explanation"\n\n1. superliminality -- which is contrary to a large body of mainstream\nphysics\n2. experimental error (or misinterpretation)\n\nI\'d vote for the latter.\n\nNorm\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>"Perfectly Innocent" <perfectlyInnocent@as-if.com> wrote in message
news:c45b45b3.0407240944.22690a20@posting.google.c om...
>
> According to Dr. John G. Cramer, Professor of Physics, University of
> Washington, Seattle, the most accurate measurements to date for the
> mass of an e-neutrino are too fantastic to believe. (What is actually
> being measured is e-neutrino mass-squared).
>
> "Of the six most recent experimental determinations of neutrino
> mass, all have given negative values of the mass-squared...
>
> "The measured mass-squared values are negative to an accuracy of
> several standard deviations in the most recent of these experiments.
>
[SNIP]
>
> Why doesn't the mainstream just honestly admit what the *reasonable*
> implications of superluminality would be?
>
Let's stand back a moment and ask an Ockham's Razor question, Which is a
simpler explanation"
1. superliminality -- which is contrary to a large body of mainstream
physics
2. experimental error (or misinterpretation)
I'd vote for the latter.
Norm
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>\n\n\n"Norm Dresner" <ndrez@att.net> wrote in message news:<4SPMc.322760\\$Gx4.221858@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>...\n> "Perfectly Innocent" <perfectlyInnocent@as-if.com> wrote in message\n> news:c45b45b3.0407240944.22690a20@posting.google.c om...\n> >\n> > According to Dr. John G. Cramer, Professor of Physics, University of\n> > Washington, Seattle, the most accurate measurements to date for the\n> > mass of an e-neutrino are too fantastic to believe. (What is actually\n> > being measured is e-neutrino mass-squared).\n> >\n> > "Of the six most recent experimental determinations of neutrino\n> > mass, all have given negative values of the mass-squared...\n> >\n> > "The measured mass-squared values are negative to an accuracy of\n> > several standard deviations in the most recent of these experiments.\n> >\n> [SNIP]\n> >\n> > Why doesn\'t the mainstream just honestly admit what the *reasonable*\n> > implications of superluminality would be?\n> >\n>\n> Let\'s stand back a moment and ask an Ockham\'s Razor question, Which is a\n> simpler explanation"\n>\n> 1. superliminality -- which is contrary to a large body of mainstream\n> physics\n> 2. experimental error (or misinterpretation)\n>\n> I\'d vote for the latter.\n>\n> Norm\n\n\nSix independent errors, all in the same direction, all several\nstandard deviations away from zero and (apparently) no contervailing\nerrors. Which boggles the mind more?\n\n1. Tachyonic neutrinos\n2. Random conspiracy to mess up experiments.\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>"Norm Dresner" <ndrez@att.net> wrote in message news:<4SPMc.322760$Gx4.221858@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>...
> "Perfectly Innocent" <perfectlyInnocent@as-if.com> wrote in message
> news:c45b45b3.0407240944.22690a20@posting.google.c om...
> >
> > According to Dr. John G. Cramer, Professor of Physics, University of
> > Washington, Seattle, the most accurate measurements to date for the
> > mass of an e-neutrino are too fantastic to believe. (What is actually
> > being measured is e-neutrino mass-squared).
> >
> > "Of the six most recent experimental determinations of neutrino
> > mass, all have given negative values of the mass-squared...
> >
> > "The measured mass-squared values are negative to an accuracy of
> > several standard deviations in the most recent of these experiments.
> >
> [SNIP]
> >
> > Why doesn't the mainstream just honestly admit what the *reasonable*
> > implications of superluminality would be?
> >
>
> Let's stand back a moment and ask an Ockham's Razor question, Which is a
> simpler explanation"
>
> 1. superliminality -- which is contrary to a large body of mainstream
> physics
> 2. experimental error (or misinterpretation)
>
> I'd vote for the latter.
>
> Norm
Six independent errors, all in the same direction, all several
standard deviations away from zero and (apparently) no contervailing
errors. Which boggles the mind more?
1. Tachyonic neutrinos
2. Random conspiracy to mess up experiments.
Perfectly Innocent
Jul26-04, 10:32 AM
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>\n\n\n\n"Norm Dresner" <ndrez@att.net> wrote in message news:<4SPMc.322760\\$Gx4.221858@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>...\n> "Perfectly Innocent" <perfectlyInnocent@as-if.com> wrote in message\n> news:c45b45b3.0407240944.22690a20@posting.google.c om...\n> > Why doesn\'t the mainstream just honestly admit what the *reasonable*\n> > implications of superluminality would be?\n>\n> Let\'s stand back a moment and ask an Ockham\'s Razor question, Which is a\n> simpler explanation:\n>\n> 1. superluminality \n>\n> 2. experimental error [**]\n\n> I\'d vote for the latter.\n\nNorm,\n\nI believe that your question is incredibly easy to answer. But let\'s\nnot be so hasty and count votes right now; let\'s have a debate first.\nAnd then we can discuss how you\'ve slanted the dispute [**].\n\nIf we are to settle this by Occam\'s Razor, then I believe that\nsuperluminality wins over experimental error. It\'s unreasonable for\npragmatic physicists to depreciate the empirical results of so many\nexperiments.\n\n"In all the experimental attempts to determine the mass of\nthe neutrino in tritium beta decay, the experiments all give\na negative value for the mass squared of the neutrino, which\nindirectly indicates a superluminal speed for the neutrino.\nThere have been about ten such experiments so far, using more\nthan one type of experimental technique. A conventional physics\nexplanation would have to explain why these very different\nexperimental methods all give the same answer." -Robert Clark,\nsci.physics.relativity, 1998/01/14.\n\n"Curiously, when taken at the face value, all results point to\na negative mass squared, particularly the oldest experiment."\nhttp://cupp.oulu.fi/neutrino/nd-mass.html\nhttp://groups.google.com/groups?&selm=b376tc\\$9bc\\$1@glue.ucr.edu\n\nWe all recognize expressions of faith. Respectable beliefs have their\nreasons. And I agree that a simplistic sensory interpretation for a\ncurrent observation can be overturned by future experiments and\ntheories. But Occam\'s Razor applies to the here and now, not the\nfuture, and always favors (for the present moment) the most\n"simplistic sensory interpretation."\n\n> which is contrary to a large body of mainstream physics\n\nIt\'s widely believed that superluminality is contrary to a large body\nof mainstream physics. The popular view is wrong. The truth is that\narguments against superluminality hang on a very weak thread. Everyone\nagrees that there\'s nothing geometrical about Minkowski space that\nsingles out a preferred frame of reference. But it\'s also an\nuncontested fact that there are plenty of realistic pseudo-Riemannian\nspacetimes that do have a preferred frame of reference. These do not\ncontradict superluminality.\n\nhttp://www.everythingimportant.org/viewtopic.php?t=79\nhttp://cornell.mirror.aps.org/abstract/PRD/v8/i6/p1662_1\nhttp://arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/0101/0101014.pdf\nhttp://qcd.th.u-psud.fr/page_perso/Uzan/fileps/art_2002_ullp_ejp23.pdf\nhttp://www.everythingimportant.org/viewtopic.php?t=605\nhttp://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/simultaneity.htm\n\n> [**] (or misinterpretation)\n\nThe misinterpretation is in how you\'ve placed your emphases.\nSuperluminality is being misrepresented.\n\nEugene Shubert\nhttp://www.everythingimportant.org\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>"Norm Dresner" <ndrez@att.net> wrote in message news:<4SPMc.322760$Gx4.221858@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>...
> "Perfectly Innocent" <perfectlyInnocent@as-if.com> wrote in message
> news:c45b45b3.0407240944.22690a20@posting.google.c om...
> > Why doesn't the mainstream just honestly admit what the *reasonable*
> > implications of superluminality would be?
>
> Let's stand back a moment and ask an Ockham's Razor question, Which is a
> simpler explanation:
>
> 1. superluminality
>
> 2. experimental error [**]
> I'd vote for the latter.
Norm,
I believe that your question is incredibly easy to answer. But let's
not be so hasty and count votes right now; let's have a debate first.
And then we can discuss how you've slanted the dispute [**].
If we are to settle this by Occam's Razor, then I believe that
superluminality wins over experimental error. It's unreasonable for
pragmatic physicists to depreciate the empirical results of so many
experiments.
"In all the experimental attempts to determine the mass of
the neutrino in tritium \beta decay, the experiments all give
a negative value for the mass squared of the neutrino, which
indirectly indicates a superluminal speed for the neutrino.
There have been about ten such experiments so far, using more
than one type of experimental technique. A conventional physics
explanation would have to explain why these very different
experimental methods all give the same answer." -Robert Clark,
sci.physics.relativity, 1998/01/14.
"Curiously, when taken at the face value, all results point to
a negative mass squared, particularly the oldest experiment."
http://cupp.oulu.fi/neutrino/nd-mass.html
http://groups.google.com/groups?&selm=b376tc$9bc$1@glue.ucr.edu
We all recognize expressions of faith. Respectable beliefs have their
reasons. And I agree that a simplistic sensory interpretation for a
current observation can be overturned by future experiments and
theories. But Occam's Razor applies to the here and now, not the
future, and always favors (for the present moment) the most
"simplistic sensory interpretation."
> which is contrary to a large body of mainstream physics
It's widely believed that superluminality is contrary to a large body
of mainstream physics. The popular view is wrong. The truth is that
arguments against superluminality hang on a very weak thread. Everyone
agrees that there's nothing geometrical about Minkowski space that
singles out a preferred frame of reference. But it's also an
uncontested fact that there are plenty of realistic pseudo-Riemannian
spacetimes that do have a preferred frame of reference. These do not
contradict superluminality.
http://www.everythingimportant.org/viewtopic.php?t=79
http://cornell.mirror.aps.org/abstract/PRD/v8/i6/p1662_1
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/0101/0101014.pdf
http://qcd.th.u-psud.fr/page_perso/Uzan/fileps/art_2002_ullp_ejp23.pdf
http://www.everythingimportant.org/viewtopic.php?t=605
http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/simultaneity.htm
> [**] (or misinterpretation)
The misinterpretation is in how you've placed your emphases.
Superluminality is being misrepresented.
Eugene Shubert
http://www.everythingimportant.org
Creighton Hogg
Jul26-04, 12:21 PM
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>\nOn 26 Jul 2004, Perfectly Innocent wrote:\n>\n> "Norm Dresner" <ndrez@att.net> wrote in message news:<4SPMc.322760\\$Gx4.221858@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>...\n> > "Perfectly Innocent" <perfectlyInnocent@as-if.com> wrote in message\n> > news:c45b45b3.0407240944.22690a20@posting.google.c om...\n> > > Why doesn\'t the mainstream just honestly admit what the *reasonable*\n> > > implications of superluminality would be?\n> >\n> > Let\'s stand back a moment and ask an Ockham\'s Razor question, Which is a\n> > simpler explanation:\n> >\n> > 1. superluminality \n> >\n> > 2. experimental error [**]\n>\n> > I\'d vote for the latter.\n>\n> Norm,\n>\n> I believe that your question is incredibly easy to answer. But let\'s\n> not be so hasty and count votes right now; let\'s have a debate first.\n> And then we can discuss how you\'ve slanted the dispute [**].\n\n\nhttp://www.arxiv.org/abs/hep-ex/0306057\nhttp://www.arxiv.org/abs/hep-ex/0306010\nhttp://www.arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0312065\nhttp://www.arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0308123\n\nIn recent papers and experiments there is no mention of megative mass\nsquared for the neutrino. 1998 was a long time ago with respect to\nneutrino physics. Alot has changed.\n\n[Moderator\'s note: Quted text trimmed by moderator. Please quote reasonably. -usc]\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>On 26 Jul 2004, Perfectly Innocent wrote:
>
> "Norm Dresner" <ndrez@att.net> wrote in message news:<4SPMc.322760$Gx4.221858@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>...
> > "Perfectly Innocent" <perfectlyInnocent@as-if.com> wrote in message
> > news:c45b45b3.0407240944.22690a20@posting.google.c om...
> > > Why doesn't the mainstream just honestly admit what the *reasonable*
> > > implications of superluminality would be?
> >
> > Let's stand back a moment and ask an Ockham's Razor question, Which is a
> > simpler explanation:
> >
> > 1. superluminality
> >
> > 2. experimental error [**]
>
> > I'd vote for the latter.
>
> Norm,
>
> I believe that your question is incredibly easy to answer. But let's
> not be so hasty and count votes right now; let's have a debate first.
> And then we can discuss how you've slanted the dispute [**].
http://www.arxiv.org/abs/http://www.arxiv.org/abs/hep-ex/0306057
http://www.arxiv.org/abs/http://www.arxiv.org/abs/hep-ex/0306010
http://www.arxiv.org/abs/http://www.arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0312065
http://www.arxiv.org/abs/http://www.arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0308123
In recent papers and experiments there is no mention of megative mass
squared for the neutrino. 1998 was a long time ago with respect to
neutrino physics. Alot has changed.
[Moderator's note: Quted text trimmed by moderator. Please quote reasonably. -usc]
Franz Heymann
Jul27-04, 12:50 PM
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>\n\n\n\n"Perfectly Innocent" <perfectlyInnocent@as-if.com> wrote in message\nnews:c45b45b3.0407240944.22690a20@posting .google.com...\n>\n>\n>\n>\n> According to Dr. John G. Cramer, Professor of Physics, University of\n> Washington, Seattle, the most accurate measurements to date for the\n> mass of an e-neutrino are too fantastic to believe. (What is\nactually\n> being measured is e-neutrino mass-squared).\n\nI presuime you do not realise that the paper of Cramer to which you\nrefer is grossly out of date.\nI also presume you do not realise that that paper was not peer\nreviewed.\nI also presume that you have not read the paper, otherwise you would\nhave been aware of the fact that it quotes no data and gives no\nreferences.\nIn other words, it was a failed effort by one who banged a drum before\nthe music reached the appropriate place.\n\n[snip]\n\nFranz\n\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>"Perfectly Innocent" <perfectlyInnocent@as-if.com> wrote in message
news:c45b45b3.0407240944.22690a20@posting.google.c om...
>
>
>
>
> According to Dr. John G. Cramer, Professor of Physics, University of
> Washington, Seattle, the most accurate measurements to date for the
> mass of an e-neutrino are too fantastic to believe. (What is
actually
> being measured is e-neutrino mass-squared).
I presuime you do not realise that the paper of Cramer to which you
refer is grossly out of date.
I also presume you do not realise that that paper was not peer
reviewed.
I also presume that you have not read the paper, otherwise you would
have been aware of the fact that it quotes no data and gives no
references.
In other words, it was a failed effort by one who banged a drum before
the music reached the appropriate place.
[snip]
Franz
greywolf42
Jul27-04, 12:50 PM
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>\n\nNorm Dresner <ndrez@att.net> wrote in message\nnews:4SPMc.322760\\$Gx4.221858@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...\n>\n> "Perfectly Innocent" <perfectlyInnocent@as-if.com> wrote in message\n> news:c45b45b3.0407240944.22690a20@posting.google.c om...\n> >\n> > According to Dr. John G. Cramer, Professor of Physics, University of\n> > Washington, Seattle, the most accurate measurements to date for the\n> > mass of an e-neutrino are too fantastic to believe. (What is actually\n> > being measured is e-neutrino mass-squared).\n> >\n> > "Of the six most recent experimental determinations of neutrino\n> > mass, all have given negative values of the mass-squared...\n> >\n> > "The measured mass-squared values are negative to an accuracy of\n> > several standard deviations in the most recent of these experiments.\n> >\n> [SNIP]\n> >\n> > Why doesn\'t the mainstream just honestly admit what the *reasonable*\n> > implications of superluminality would be?\n> >\n>\n> Let\'s stand back a moment and ask an Ockham\'s Razor question, Which is a\n> simpler explanation"\n>\n> 1. superliminality -- which is contrary to a large body of mainstream\n> physics\n> 2. experimental error (or misinterpretation)\n>\n> I\'d vote for the latter.\n\nYou may note that your item number 1 is purely theoretical (even if it *is*\n"mainstream"). Item number 2 is experimental. According to the scientific\nmethod, experiment trumps theory.\n\n--\ngreywolf42\nubi dubium ibi libertas\n{remove planet for return e-mail}\n\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>Norm Dresner <ndrez@att.net> wrote in message
news:4SPMc.322760$Gx4.221858@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>
> "Perfectly Innocent" <perfectlyInnocent@as-if.com> wrote in message
> news:c45b45b3.0407240944.22690a20@posting.google.c om...
> >
> > According to Dr. John G. Cramer, Professor of Physics, University of
> > Washington, Seattle, the most accurate measurements to date for the
> > mass of an e-neutrino are too fantastic to believe. (What is actually
> > being measured is e-neutrino mass-squared).
> >
> > "Of the six most recent experimental determinations of neutrino
> > mass, all have given negative values of the mass-squared...
> >
> > "The measured mass-squared values are negative to an accuracy of
> > several standard deviations in the most recent of these experiments.
> >
> [SNIP]
> >
> > Why doesn't the mainstream just honestly admit what the *reasonable*
> > implications of superluminality would be?
> >
>
> Let's stand back a moment and ask an Ockham's Razor question, Which is a
> simpler explanation"
>
> 1. superliminality -- which is contrary to a large body of mainstream
> physics
> 2. experimental error (or misinterpretation)
>
> I'd vote for the latter.
You may note that your item number 1 is purely theoretical (even if it *is*
"mainstream"). Item number 2 is experimental. According to the scientific
method, experiment trumps theory.
--
greywolf42
ubi dubium ibi libertas
{remove planet for return e-mail}
Mark Palenik
Jul28-04, 03:58 AM
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>\n\n\n"greywolf42" <mingstb@marssim-ss.com> wrote in message\nnews:10gb3icit9n487e@corp.supernews.com.. .\n> <snip>\n>\n> You may note that your item number 1 is purely theoretical (even if it\n*is*\n> "mainstream"). Item number 2 is experimental. According to the\nscientific\n> method, experiment trumps theory.\n>\n\nI take it you haven\'t read any of the messages here explaining that that\ninformation is out of dat, inaccurate, and was speculative at best, at the\ntime.\n\nAm I the only one who thinks that whatever "orthodoxy\'s opposition to\ntheories of superluminality" is, somebody would have realized the sheer\nusefullness of particles that can travel faster than the speed of light and\nwhich carry measureable properties like spin? I think the thought of\ngetting rich would probably outweigh any "dogmatic opposition".\n\nBesides, weren\'t physicists, at least at some point, actually looking for\ntachyons? Why would they even have a word for particles with a complex mass\nif physicists hadn\'t thought of it and wanted to find it? Physicists don\'t\nusually make up words for things they are dogmatically opposed to. I mean,\nfor example, there\'s no word for particles that transmit magical power. The\nidea that there\'s some kind of coverup going on seems rather ridiculous,\nsince accepted theories are refuted all the time, with no cover up (like the\nrecent thing with Stephen Hawking and information in black holes).\n\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>"greywolf42" <mingstb@marssim-ss.com> wrote in message
news:10gb3icit9n487e@corp.supernews.com...
> <snip>
>
> You may note that your item number 1 is purely theoretical (even if it
*is*
> "mainstream"). Item number 2 is experimental. According to the
scientific
> method, experiment trumps theory.
>
I take it you haven't read any of the messages here explaining that that
information is out of dat, inaccurate, and was speculative at best, at the
time.
Am I the only one who thinks that whatever "orthodoxy's opposition to
theories of superluminality" is, somebody would have realized the sheer
usefullness of particles that can travel faster than the speed of light and
which carry measureable properties like spin? I think the thought of
getting rich would probably outweigh any "dogmatic opposition".
Besides, weren't physicists, at least at some point, actually looking for
tachyons? Why would they even have a word for particles with a complex mass
if physicists hadn't thought of it and wanted to find it? Physicists don't
usually make up words for things they are dogmatically opposed to. I mean,
for example, there's no word for particles that transmit magical power. The
idea that there's some kind of coverup going on seems rather ridiculous,
since accepted theories are refuted all the time, with no cover up (like the
recent thing with Stephen Hawking and information in black holes).
greywolf42
Jul28-04, 01:02 PM
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>\n\nMark Palenik <markpalenik@wideopenwest.com> wrote in message\nnews:RPmdndm8wcvinJrcRVn-tw@wideopenwest.com...\n>\n> "greywolf42" <mingstb@marssim-ss.com> wrote in message\n> news:10gb3icit9n487e@corp.supernews.com...\n> > <snip>\n> >\n> > You may note that your item number 1 is purely theoretical (even if it\n> > *is* "mainstream"). Item number 2 is experimental. According to the\n> > scientific method, experiment trumps theory.\n>\n> I take it you haven\'t read any of the messages here explaining that that\n> information is out of dat, inaccurate, and was speculative at best, at the\n> time.\n\nSure I\'d read the other posts. However, they are irrelevant to the claims\nand reasoning provided (which was snipped) by the prior poster (Norm\nDresner). Norm posted a claim that Ockham\'s Razor would have us discard\nexperimental results if it contradicted accepted theory. And solely because\nit was \'simpler\' to accept conventional theory. Norm did not provide any\nother reasoning. My post responded solely to the reasoning provided by\nNorm -- which was clearly unscientific.\n\n\nQuite simply, the fact that one points out an error of logic in an argument\nplaced against a given theory or experiment does not translate into a claim\nof validity of the theory or experiment.\n\n\nAs to your current claims:\n\n1) Experimental data is never \'out of date.\' It does not have a shelf-life.\nThis is merely a fallacy that \'new\' interpretations or experiments must\nalways be better than old ones.\n\n2) The data may be imprecise (not inaccurate), in light of newer and more\nprecise experiments. Inaccuracy can arise only from systematic experimental\nerrors or flaws in the theoretical reduction. The posts that I saw falsely\nconcluded that because \'newer\' experiments gave different answers, that the\n\'older\' data had to be inaccurate. This is also a fallacy. (One must\nidentify the specific systematic or calculational errors of one or the other\nexperiment to determine which is \'inaccurate.\')\n\n3) Experimental data is never speculative.\n\n> Am I the only one who thinks that whatever "orthodoxy\'s opposition to\n> theories of superluminality" is, somebody would have realized the sheer\n> usefullness of particles that can travel faster than the speed of light\n> and which carry measureable properties like spin? I think the thought\n> of getting rich would probably outweigh any "dogmatic opposition".\n\nTheoreticians don\'t get rich. Except by rising in the power structure.\nJust like Cardinal Bellarmine refused to look through Galileo\'s telescope --\nbecause he \'knew\' that Galileo\'s observations must be wrong.\n\n> Besides, weren\'t physicists, at least at some point, actually looking for\n> tachyons? Why would they even have a word for particles with a complex\n> mass if physicists hadn\'t thought of it and wanted to find it?\n\nThat is a sociological question. And irrelevant to the experimental support\nof a concept.\n\n> Physicists don\'t\n> usually make up words for things they are dogmatically opposed to.\n\nPhysicists make up words that they are opposed to all the time. Here are a\nfew that were made up by the opposition:\nTired Light\nBig Bang\nDark Matter\nAether Drag\n\n> I mean,\n> for example, there\'s no word for particles that transmit magical power.\n\nSure there is. They\'re called "virtual" particles. ;)\n\nSeriously, modern physicists always come up with names for particles to\ntransmit forces. A \'magical\' force would required a name for the particles.\nJust like we require names for the particles transmitting each of the four\n(or five) forces of nature -- even though some of these particles are not\nobservable.\n\n> The\n> idea that there\'s some kind of coverup going on seems rather ridiculous,\n> since accepted theories are refuted all the time, with no cover up (like\n> the recent thing with Stephen Hawking and information in black holes).\n\nAh, but it is only those theories that are not mainstream that are\nconsidered refuted. Dr. Hawking\'s views -- though commonly embraced --\nnever reached the point of paradigm. And only Dr. Hawking was allowed to\nquestion Dr. Hawking\'s views. They have been questioned many times before\nby others -- and the others have been ignored.\n\n--\ngreywolf42\nubi dubium ibi libertas\n{remove planet for return e-mail}\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>Mark Palenik <markpalenik@wideopenwest.com> wrote in message
news:RPmdndm8wcvinJrcRVn-tw@wideopenwest.com...
>
> "greywolf42" <mingstb@marssim-ss.com> wrote in message
> news:10gb3icit9n487e@corp.supernews.com...
> > <snip>
> >
> > You may note that your item number 1 is purely theoretical (even if it
> > *is* "mainstream"). Item number 2 is experimental. According to the
> > scientific method, experiment trumps theory.
>
> I take it you haven't read any of the messages here explaining that that
> information is out of dat, inaccurate, and was speculative at best, at the
> time.
Sure I'd read the other posts. However, they are irrelevant to the claims
and reasoning provided (which was snipped) by the prior poster (Norm
Dresner). Norm posted a claim that Ockham's Razor would have us discard
experimental results if it contradicted accepted theory. And solely because
it was 'simpler' to accept conventional theory. Norm did not provide any
other reasoning. My post responded solely to the reasoning provided by
Norm -- which was clearly unscientific.
Quite simply, the fact that one points out an error of logic in an argument
placed against a given theory or experiment does not translate into a claim
of validity of the theory or experiment.
As to your current claims:
1) Experimental data is never 'out of date.' It does not have a shelf-life.
This is merely a fallacy that 'new' interpretations or experiments must
always be better than old ones.
2) The data may be imprecise (not inaccurate), in light of newer and more
precise experiments. Inaccuracy can arise only from systematic experimental
errors or flaws in the theoretical reduction. The posts that I saw falsely
concluded that because 'newer' experiments gave different answers, that the
'older' data had to be inaccurate. This is also a fallacy. (One must
identify the specific systematic or calculational errors of one or the other
experiment to determine which is 'inaccurate.')
3) Experimental data is never speculative.
> Am I the only one who thinks that whatever "orthodoxy's opposition to
> theories of superluminality" is, somebody would have realized the sheer
> usefullness of particles that can travel faster than the speed of light
> and which carry measureable properties like spin? I think the thought
> of getting rich would probably outweigh any "dogmatic opposition".
Theoreticians don't get rich. Except by rising in the power structure.
Just like Cardinal Bellarmine refused to look through Galileo's telescope --
because he 'knew' that Galileo's observations must be wrong.
> Besides, weren't physicists, at least at some point, actually looking for
> tachyons? Why would they even have a word for particles with a complex
> mass if physicists hadn't thought of it and wanted to find it?
That is a sociological question. And irrelevant to the experimental support
of a concept.
> Physicists don't
> usually make up words for things they are dogmatically opposed to.
Physicists make up words that they are opposed to all the time. Here are a
few that were made up by the opposition:
Tired Light
Big Bang
Dark Matter
Aether Drag
> I mean,
> for example, there's no word for particles that transmit magical power.
Sure there is. They're called "virtual" particles. ;)
Seriously, modern physicists always come up with names for particles to
transmit forces. A 'magical' force would required a name for the particles.
Just like we require names for the particles transmitting each of the four
(or five) forces of nature -- even though some of these particles are not
observable.
> The
> idea that there's some kind of coverup going on seems rather ridiculous,
> since accepted theories are refuted all the time, with no cover up (like
> the recent thing with Stephen Hawking and information in black holes).
Ah, but it is only those theories that are not mainstream that are
considered refuted. Dr. Hawking's views -- though commonly embraced --
never reached the point of paradigm. And only Dr. Hawking was allowed to
question Dr. Hawking's views. They have been questioned many times before
by others -- and the others have been ignored.
--
greywolf42
ubi dubium ibi libertas
{remove planet for return e-mail}
Norm Dresner
Jul29-04, 04:59 AM
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>\n"greywolf42" <mingstb@marssim-ss.com> wrote in message\nnews:10gfqb8k9raqm5d@corp.supernews.com.. .\n> Mark Palenik <markpalenik@wideopenwest.com> wrote in message\n> news:RPmdndm8wcvinJrcRVn-tw@wideopenwest.com...\n> > "greywolf42" <mingstb@marssim-ss.com> wrote in message\n> > news:10gb3icit9n487e@corp.supernews.com...\n> > > <snip>\n> > > You may note that your item number 1 is purely theoretical (even if it\n> > > *is* "mainstream"). Item number 2 is experimental. According to the\n> > > scientific method, experiment trumps theory.\n> >\n> > I take it you haven\'t read any of the messages here explaining that that\n> > information is out of dat, inaccurate, and was speculative at best, at\nthe\n> > time.\n>\n> Sure I\'d read the other posts. However, they are irrelevant to the claims\n> and reasoning provided (which was snipped) by the prior poster (Norm\n> Dresner). Norm posted a claim that Ockham\'s Razor would have us discard\n> experimental results if it contradicted accepted theory. And solely\nbecause\n> it was \'simpler\' to accept conventional theory. Norm did not provide any\n> other reasoning. My post responded solely to the reasoning provided by\n> Norm -- which was clearly unscientific.\n>\nI would have you [as I do] intensely question unreproducable experimental\n"data". After all, "data" is neither "information" nor "evidence" but\nsimply data. It\'s only when it\'s validated and properly interpreted that it\nbecomes believable. I was not questioning the "data" per se, though I\nhaven\'t seen it, but rather that it unequivocally supported the existence of\nsuperluminal particles. Also see below for my comments on the meaning\nattached to data. As far as my not providing any other reasoning, I was\nspeaking as a non-expert expressing belief -- actually more like trust -- in\nthe claimed results. Mathematics is solely governed by proof [based on a\npossibly implicit set of hypotheses] but a vast amount of modern physics is\nbased solely on faith -- faith in the Copenhagen Intrerpretation or the\nBohem Paradigm or ... for example. Faith and belief are relevant for\nphysics paractitioners even those who come to the party without data.\n>\n> As to your current claims:\n>\n> 1) Experimental data is never \'out of date.\' It does not have a\nshelf-life.\n> This is merely a fallacy that \'new\' interpretations or experiments must\n> always be better than old ones.\n\nExperimental data taken with instruments that have been surpassed by new\nones should be questioned, if not discarded, because of the greater accuracy\nof the newer devices. In this sense, then, the data *can* age. No one that\nI know questions the data in the original Michaelson-Morley experiment(s)\nbut newer data have provided more restrictive limits on the ether. Galileo\n[IIRC] measured the speed of light. Surely you\'re not claiming that just\nbecause he had data that I have to take it as authoritative.\n>\n> 3) Experimental data is never speculative.\n>\n> > Am I the only one who thinks that whatever "orthodoxy\'s opposition to\n> > theories of superluminality" is, somebody would have realized the sheer\n> > usefullness of particles that can travel faster than the speed of light\n> > and which carry measureable properties like spin? I think the thought\n> > of getting rich would probably outweigh any "dogmatic opposition".\n\nMeter readings are never speculative [unless you\'re using my right eye, but\nthat\'s another matter entirely]. Neither are particle tracks or\nscintillaton counter events. But the meaning of any of these pieces of data\ncan be entirely speculative -- just look at the whole cold fusion brouhaha\nfrom a few years ago. AFAIR very few people argued with the readings -- the\nraw data -- but objected strenuously to the intrepretation of them as\nsupporting the occurrance of heterodox events.\n>\n>\n> Ah, but it is only those theories that are not mainstream that are\n> considered refuted. Dr. Hawking\'s views -- though commonly embraced --\n> never reached the point of paradigm. And only Dr. Hawking was allowed to\n> question Dr. Hawking\'s views. They have been questioned many times before\n> by others -- and the others have been ignored.\nNot everyone ignored the questioners. Perhaps Dr Hawking did but I suppose\nthat\'s his perogative.\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>"greywolf42" <mingstb@marssim-ss.com> wrote in message
news:10gfqb8k9raqm5d@corp.supernews.com...
> Mark Palenik <markpalenik@wideopenwest.com> wrote in message
> news:RPmdndm8wcvinJrcRVn-tw@wideopenwest.com...
> > "greywolf42" <mingstb@marssim-ss.com> wrote in message
> > news:10gb3icit9n487e@corp.supernews.com...
> > > <snip>
> > > You may note that your item number 1 is purely theoretical (even if it
> > > *is* "mainstream"). Item number 2 is experimental. According to the
> > > scientific method, experiment trumps theory.
> >
> > I take it you haven't read any of the messages here explaining that that
> > information is out of dat, inaccurate, and was speculative at best, at
the
> > time.
>
> Sure I'd read the other posts. However, they are irrelevant to the claims
> and reasoning provided (which was snipped) by the prior poster (Norm
> Dresner). Norm posted a claim that Ockham's Razor would have us discard
> experimental results if it contradicted accepted theory. And solely
because
> it was 'simpler' to accept conventional theory. Norm did not provide any
> other reasoning. My post responded solely to the reasoning provided by
> Norm -- which was clearly unscientific.
>
I would have you [as I do] intensely question unreproducable experimental
"data". After all, "data" is neither "information" nor "evidence" but
simply data. It's only when it's validated and properly interpreted that it
becomes believable. I was not questioning the "data" per se, though I
haven't seen it, but rather that it unequivocally supported the existence of
superluminal particles. Also see below for my comments on the meaning
attached to data. As far as my not providing any other reasoning, I was
speaking as a non-expert expressing belief -- actually more like trust -- in
the claimed results. Mathematics is solely governed by proof [based on a
possibly implicit set of hypotheses] but a vast amount of modern physics is
based solely on faith -- faith in the Copenhagen Intrerpretation or the
Bohem Paradigm or ... for example. Faith and belief are relevant for
physics paractitioners even those who come to the party without data.
>
> As to your current claims:
>
> 1) Experimental data is never 'out of date.' It does not have a
shelf-life.
> This is merely a fallacy that 'new' interpretations or experiments must
> always be better than old ones.
Experimental data taken with instruments that have been surpassed by new
ones should be questioned, if not discarded, because of the greater accuracy
of the newer devices. In this sense, then, the data *can* age. No one that
I know questions the data in the original Michaelson-Morley experiment(s)
but newer data have provided more restrictive limits on the ether. Galileo
[IIRC] measured the speed of light. Surely you're not claiming that just
because he had data that I have to take it as authoritative.
>
> 3) Experimental data is never speculative.
>
> > Am I the only one who thinks that whatever "orthodoxy's opposition to
> > theories of superluminality" is, somebody would have realized the sheer
> > usefullness of particles that can travel faster than the speed of light
> > and which carry measureable properties like spin? I think the thought
> > of getting rich would probably outweigh any "dogmatic opposition".
Meter readings are never speculative [unless you're using my right eye, but
that's another matter entirely]. Neither are particle tracks or
scintillaton counter events. But the meaning of any of these pieces of data
can be entirely speculative -- just look at the whole cold fusion brouhaha
from a few years ago. AFAIR very few people argued with the readings -- the
raw data -- but objected strenuously to the intrepretation of them as
supporting the occurrance of heterodox events.
>
>
> Ah, but it is only those theories that are not mainstream that are
> considered refuted. Dr. Hawking's views -- though commonly embraced --
> never reached the point of paradigm. And only Dr. Hawking was allowed to
> question Dr. Hawking's views. They have been questioned many times before
> by others -- and the others have been ignored.
Not everyone ignored the questioners. Perhaps Dr Hawking did but I suppose
that's his perogative.
Daniel Elander
Jul29-04, 04:59 AM
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>\n\n\n\n> Is orthodoxy\n> opposed to superluminality--the anticipated, upcoming, theoretical\n> physics of motion for objects traveling faster than light?\n\nSo tell me why neutrinos from supernova explosions arrive after the light does.\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>Is orthodoxy
> opposed to superluminality--the anticipated, upcoming, theoretical
> physics of motion for objects traveling faster than light?
So tell me why neutrinos from supernova explosions arrive after the light does.
Esa A E Peuha
Jul29-04, 04:59 AM
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>\n\n"greywolf42" <mingstb@marssim-ss.com> writes:\n\n> Sure I\'d read the other posts. However, they are irrelevant to the claims\n> and reasoning provided (which was snipped) by the prior poster (Norm\n> Dresner). Norm posted a claim that Ockham\'s Razor would have us discard\n> experimental results if it contradicted accepted theory. And solely because\n> it was \'simpler\' to accept conventional theory. Norm did not provide any\n> other reasoning. My post responded solely to the reasoning provided by\n> Norm -- which was clearly unscientific.\n\nOn the contrary, it was scientific. When some experiment appears to\ncontradict an established theory (especially if it has such overwhelming\nexperimental verification as special relativity), the first thing to do\nis to scrutinize the experiment; only if you can\'t refute the experiment,\nyou start to look for faults in the theory. That is how science works.\n\n> 1) Experimental data is never \'out of date.\' It does not have a shelf-life.\n> This is merely a fallacy that \'new\' interpretations or experiments must\n> always be better than old ones.\n\n_Raw_ experimental data (what is actually recorded by instruments) is\nnever out of date. However, raw data in itself is useless without a\ntheory about what the data means, and that theory can be outdated.\n\n> 2) The data may be imprecise (not inaccurate), in light of newer and more\n> precise experiments. Inaccuracy can arise only from systematic experimental\n> errors or flaws in the theoretical reduction.\n\nAnd, since there will always be theoretical reduction, there will always\nbe the possibility of inaccuracy.\n\n> 3) Experimental data is never speculative.\n\nRaw data is never speculative. Reduced data is always speculative to\nsome extent.\n\n--\nEsa Peuha\nstudent of mathematics at the University of Helsinki\nhttp://www.helsinki.fi/~peuha/\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>"greywolf42" <mingstb@marssim-ss.com> writes:
> Sure I'd read the other posts. However, they are irrelevant to the claims
> and reasoning provided (which was snipped) by the prior poster (Norm
> Dresner). Norm posted a claim that Ockham's Razor would have us discard
> experimental results if it contradicted accepted theory. And solely because
> it was 'simpler' to accept conventional theory. Norm did not provide any
> other reasoning. My post responded solely to the reasoning provided by
> Norm -- which was clearly unscientific.
On the contrary, it was scientific. When some experiment appears to
contradict an established theory (especially if it has such overwhelming
experimental verification as special relativity), the first thing to do
is to scrutinize the experiment; only if you can't refute the experiment,
you start to look for faults in the theory. That is how science works.
> 1) Experimental data is never 'out of date.' It does not have a shelf-life.
> This is merely a fallacy that 'new' interpretations or experiments must
> always be better than old ones.
_Raw_ experimental data (what is actually recorded by instruments) is
never out of date. However, raw data in itself is useless without a
theory about what the data means, and that theory can be outdated.
> 2) The data may be imprecise (not inaccurate), in light of newer and more
> precise experiments. Inaccuracy can arise only from systematic experimental
> errors or flaws in the theoretical reduction.
And, since there will always be theoretical reduction, there will always
be the possibility of inaccuracy.
> 3) Experimental data is never speculative.
Raw data is never speculative. Reduced data is always speculative to
some extent.
--
Esa Peuha
student of mathematics at the University of Helsinki
http://www.helsinki.fi/~peuha/
Mark Palenik
Jul30-04, 03:21 AM
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>\n"greywolf42" <mingstb@marssim-ss.com> wrote in message\nnews:10gfqb8k9raqm5d@corp.supernews.com.. .\n>\n>\n> Mark Palenik <markpalenik@wideopenwest.com> wrote in message\n> news:RPmdndm8wcvinJrcRVn-tw@wideopenwest.com...\n> >\n> > "greywolf42" <mingstb@marssim-ss.com> wrote in message\n> > news:10gb3icit9n487e@corp.supernews.com...\n> > > <snip>\n> > >\n> > > You may note that your item number 1 is purely theoretical (even if it\n> > > *is* "mainstream"). Item number 2 is experimental. According to the\n> > > scientific method, experiment trumps theory.\n> >\n> > I take it you haven\'t read any of the messages here explaining that that\n> > information is out of dat, inaccurate, and was speculative at best, at\nthe\n> > time.\n>\n> Sure I\'d read the other posts. However, they are irrelevant to the claims\n> and reasoning provided (which was snipped) by the prior poster (Norm\n> Dresner). Norm posted a claim that Ockham\'s Razor would have us discard\n> experimental results if it contradicted accepted theory. And solely\nbecause\n> it was \'simpler\' to accept conventional theory. Norm did not provide any\n> other reasoning. My post responded solely to the reasoning provided by\n> Norm -- which was clearly unscientific.\n\nSo the fact that other posts stated newer experiments do not show a negative\nmass for the neutrino is irellevant? Why do you believe old interpretations\nof old data and reject the new data?\n\nBesides there\'s a lot of data that supports relativity\'s stance that nothing\ncan travel faster than the speed of light, and that doing so would violate\ncausality. So we have:\n\n1. A large chunk of data that says nothing can travel faster than the speed\nof light\n2. A small chunk of data that says something is moving faster than the\nspeed of light\n3. A small chunk of data newer that says that same thing actually isn\'t\nmoving faster than the speed of light.\n\nFor some reason, you choose to single out number two and say that it must be\naccurrate.\n\n>\n>\n> Quite simply, the fact that one points out an error of logic in an\nargument\n> placed against a given theory or experiment does not translate into a\nclaim\n> of validity of the theory or experiment.\n\nWhat about the points that pointed out the validity of newer experiments?\nWhy are they less valid than the few that have come up with negative values\nof m^2?\n\n>\n>\n> As to your current claims:\n>\n> 1) Experimental data is never \'out of date.\' It does not have a\nshelf-life.\n> This is merely a fallacy that \'new\' interpretations or experiments must\n> always be better than old ones.\n\nIt is if better equipment or methods are invented that can perform a better\njob of detection, or if the theory behind the experiment is shown to be\nflawed, and the data actually has nothing to do with what the experiment was\nsupposed to measure.\n\n>\n> 2) The data may be imprecise (not inaccurate), in light of newer and more\n> precise experiments. Inaccuracy can arise only from systematic\nexperimental\n> errors or flaws in the theoretical reduction. The posts that I saw\nfalsely\n> concluded that because \'newer\' experiments gave different answers, that\nthe\n> \'older\' data had to be inaccurate. This is also a fallacy. (One must\n> identify the specific systematic or calculational errors of one or the\nother\n> experiment to determine which is \'inaccurate.\')\n\nAnd you conclude that because a few experiments show a negative value for\nm^2 that it must be the case.\n\n>\n> 3) Experimental data is never speculative.\n>\n> > Am I the only one who thinks that whatever "orthodoxy\'s opposition to\n> > theories of superluminality" is, somebody would have realized the sheer\n> > usefullness of particles that can travel faster than the speed of light\n> > and which carry measureable properties like spin? I think the thought\n> > of getting rich would probably outweigh any "dogmatic opposition".\n>\n> Theoreticians don\'t get rich. Except by rising in the power structure.\n> Just like Cardinal Bellarmine refused to look through Galileo\'s\ntelescope --\n> because he \'knew\' that Galileo\'s observations must be wrong.\n\nIt\'s not exactly unheard of for scientists to found companies, or become\nCEOs and make a lot of money. And I was referring to the experimentalists\nwho suppossedly discovered the fact that neutrinos are superluminal. Don\'t\nyou think if the experiments had been continually verified, it would have\nbeen worth it for them to continue research into building some sort of\nsuperluminal transmitter?\n\n>\n> > Besides, weren\'t physicists, at least at some point, actually looking\nfor\n> > tachyons? Why would they even have a word for particles with a complex\n> > mass if physicists hadn\'t thought of it and wanted to find it?\n>\n> That is a sociological question. And irrelevant to the experimental\nsupport\n> of a concept.\n\nMy point is, physicists were searching for tachyons, yet you claim this is\nsomething that no physicist would ever admit the existence of. What were\nthey going to do, find the tachyons and then never tell anyone?\n\n>\n> > Physicists don\'t\n> > usually make up words for things they are dogmatically opposed to.\n>\n> Physicists make up words that they are opposed to all the time. Here are\na\n> few that were made up by the opposition:\n> Tired Light\n> Big Bang\n> Dark Matter\n> Aether Drag\n>\n> > I mean,\n> > for example, there\'s no word for particles that transmit magical power.\n>\n> Sure there is. They\'re called "virtual" particles. ;)\n\nheh, I\'ve read some of your previous posts on electromagnetism, and I don\'t\nwant to get *that* conversation started again, so I won\'t comment.\n\n>\n> Seriously, modern physicists always come up with names for particles to\n> transmit forces. A \'magical\' force would required a name for the\nparticles.\n> Just like we require names for the particles transmitting each of the four\n> (or five) forces of nature -- even though some of these particles are not\n> observable.\n>\n> > The\n> > idea that there\'s some kind of coverup going on seems rather ridiculous,\n> > since accepted theories are refuted all the time, with no cover up (like\n> > the recent thing with Stephen Hawking and information in black holes).\n>\n> Ah, but it is only those theories that are not mainstream that are\n> considered refuted. Dr. Hawking\'s views -- though commonly embraced --\n> never reached the point of paradigm. And only Dr. Hawking was allowed to\n> question Dr. Hawking\'s views. They have been questioned many times before\n> by others -- and the others have been ignored.\n\nHow about aether theory, classical mechanics, locality, and every other\ntheory in history that we no longer believe in? Accepted theories are\nusually accepted because there\'s such a large body of evidence supporting\nthem, which is why they are very hard to refute, and doing so every time an\nexperiment is done that might possibly contradict them would be a terrible\nmistake.\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>"greywolf42" <mingstb@marssim-ss.com> wrote in message
news:10gfqb8k9raqm5d@corp.supernews.com...
>
>
> Mark Palenik <markpalenik@wideopenwest.com> wrote in message
> news:RPmdndm8wcvinJrcRVn-tw@wideopenwest.com...
> >
> > "greywolf42" <mingstb@marssim-ss.com> wrote in message
> > news:10gb3icit9n487e@corp.supernews.com...
> > > <snip>
> > >
> > > You may note that your item number 1 is purely theoretical (even if it
> > > *is* "mainstream"). Item number 2 is experimental. According to the
> > > scientific method, experiment trumps theory.
> >
> > I take it you haven't read any of the messages here explaining that that
> > information is out of dat, inaccurate, and was speculative at best, at
the
> > time.
>
> Sure I'd read the other posts. However, they are irrelevant to the claims
> and reasoning provided (which was snipped) by the prior poster (Norm
> Dresner). Norm posted a claim that Ockham's Razor would have us discard
> experimental results if it contradicted accepted theory. And solely
because
> it was 'simpler' to accept conventional theory. Norm did not provide any
> other reasoning. My post responded solely to the reasoning provided by
> Norm -- which was clearly unscientific.
So the fact that other posts stated newer experiments do not show a negative
mass for the neutrino is irellevant? Why do you believe old interpretations
of old data and reject the new data?
Besides there's a lot of data that supports relativity's stance that nothing
can travel faster than the speed of light, and that doing so would violate
causality. So we have:
1. A large chunk of data that says nothing can travel faster than the speed
of light
2. A small chunk of data that says something is moving faster than the
speed of light
3. A small chunk of data newer that says that same thing actually isn't
moving faster than the speed of light.
For some reason, you choose to single out number two and say that it must be
accurrate.
>
>
> Quite simply, the fact that one points out an error of logic in an
argument
> placed against a given theory or experiment does not translate into a
claim
> of validity of the theory or experiment.
What about the points that pointed out the validity of newer experiments?
Why are they less valid than the few that have come up with negative values
of m^2?
>
>
> As to your current claims:
>
> 1) Experimental data is never 'out of date.' It does not have a
shelf-life.
> This is merely a fallacy that 'new' interpretations or experiments must
> always be better than old ones.
It is if better equipment or methods are invented that can perform a better
job of detection, or if the theory behind the experiment is shown to be
flawed, and the data actually has nothing to do with what the experiment was
supposed to measure.
>
> 2) The data may be imprecise (not inaccurate), in light of newer and more
> precise experiments. Inaccuracy can arise only from systematic
experimental
> errors or flaws in the theoretical reduction. The posts that I saw
falsely
> concluded that because 'newer' experiments gave different answers, that
the
> 'older' data had to be inaccurate. This is also a fallacy. (One must
> identify the specific systematic or calculational errors of one or the
other
> experiment to determine which is 'inaccurate.')
And you conclude that because a few experiments show a negative value for
m^2 that it must be the case.
>
> 3) Experimental data is never speculative.
>
> > Am I the only one who thinks that whatever "orthodoxy's opposition to
> > theories of superluminality" is, somebody would have realized the sheer
> > usefullness of particles that can travel faster than the speed of light
> > and which carry measureable properties like spin? I think the thought
> > of getting rich would probably outweigh any "dogmatic opposition".
>
> Theoreticians don't get rich. Except by rising in the power structure.
> Just like Cardinal Bellarmine refused to look through Galileo's
telescope --
> because he 'knew' that Galileo's observations must be wrong.
It's not exactly unheard of for scientists to found companies, or become
CEOs and make a lot of money. And I was referring to the experimentalists
who suppossedly discovered the fact that neutrinos are superluminal. Don't
you think if the experiments had been continually verified, it would have
been worth it for them to continue research into building some sort of
superluminal transmitter?
>
> > Besides, weren't physicists, at least at some point, actually looking
for
> > tachyons? Why would they even have a word for particles with a complex
> > mass if physicists hadn't thought of it and wanted to find it?
>
> That is a sociological question. And irrelevant to the experimental
support
> of a concept.
My point is, physicists were searching for tachyons, yet you claim this is
something that no physicist would ever admit the existence of. What were
they going to do, find the tachyons and then never tell anyone?
>
> > Physicists don't
> > usually make up words for things they are dogmatically opposed to.
>
> Physicists make up words that they are opposed to all the time. Here are
a
> few that were made up by the opposition:
> Tired Light
> Big Bang
> Dark Matter
> Aether Drag
>
> > I mean,
> > for example, there's no word for particles that transmit magical power.
>
> Sure there is. They're called "virtual" particles. ;)
heh, I've read some of your previous posts on electromagnetism, and I don't
want to get *that* conversation started again, so I won't comment.
>
> Seriously, modern physicists always come up with names for particles to
> transmit forces. A 'magical' force would required a name for the
particles.
> Just like we require names for the particles transmitting each of the four
> (or five) forces of nature -- even though some of these particles are not
> observable.
>
> > The
> > idea that there's some kind of coverup going on seems rather ridiculous,
> > since accepted theories are refuted all the time, with no cover up (like
> > the recent thing with Stephen Hawking and information in black holes).
>
> Ah, but it is only those theories that are not mainstream that are
> considered refuted. Dr. Hawking's views -- though commonly embraced --
> never reached the point of paradigm. And only Dr. Hawking was allowed to
> question Dr. Hawking's views. They have been questioned many times before
> by others -- and the others have been ignored.
How about aether theory, classical mechanics, locality, and every other
theory in history that we no longer believe in? Accepted theories are
usually accepted because there's such a large body of evidence supporting
them, which is why they are very hard to refute, and doing so every time an
experiment is done that might possibly contradict them would be a terrible
mistake.
greywolf42
Jul30-04, 03:21 AM
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>\nEsa A E Peuha <esa.peuha@helsinki.fi> wrote in message\nnews:86pn01jdu4e.fsf@sirppi.helsinki.fi.. .\n>\n>\n> "greywolf42" <mingstb@marssim-ss.com> writes:\n>\n> > Sure I\'d read the other posts. However, they are irrelevant to the\n> > claims and reasoning provided (which was snipped) by the prior poster\n> > (Norm Dresner). Norm posted a claim that Ockham\'s Razor would\n> > have us discard experimental results if it contradicted accepted theory.\n> > And solely because it was \'simpler\' to accept conventional theory.\n> > Norm did not provide any other reasoning. My post responded solely\n> > to the reasoning provided by Norm -- which was clearly unscientific.\n>\n> On the contrary, it was scientific. When some experiment appears to\n> contradict an established theory (...), the first thing to do\n> is to scrutinize the experiment; only if you can\'t refute the experiment,\n> you start to look for faults in the theory. That is how science works.\n\nYou are describing a personal bias -- not science. What you are not telling\nus, is that you will *not* scrutinize an experiment if it conforms to your\npersonal prejudices. All experiments must be scrutinized and repeated. Not\njust those that appear to contradict the current dominant paradigm.\n\nNow, we all have our personal biases. And we all have our own personal\npoints at which we read only the title of an experiment. And points where\nwe read the abstract. And points where we sigh and read the whole durn\nexperimental paper.\n\nBut you don\'t simply read an experiment looking for the first simplistic\nnotion that you can come up with to discard an experiment, simply because it\ndoesn\'t seem to support your view.\n\n> > 1) Experimental data is never \'out of date.\' It does not have a\n> > shelf-life. This is merely a fallacy that \'new\' interpretations or\n> > experiments must always be better than old ones.\n>\n> _Raw_ experimental data (what is actually recorded by instruments) is\n> never out of date. However, raw data in itself is useless without a\n> theory about what the data means,\n\nThis is a common fallacy. However, experimental data does not depend upon\nany one theory. Anyone can interpret experimental data on the basis of\ntheir own, personal theory. However, the experiment that generated the data\nremains valid.\n\n> and that theory can be outdated.\n\nSometimes, one can contradict a theory with observations (within the current\nexperiment or other experiments). But this does not \'outdate\' the theory --\nand it certainly doesn\'t \'outdate\' the experiment.\n\n> > 2) The data may be imprecise (not inaccurate), in light of newer and\n> > more precise experiments. Inaccuracy can arise only from systematic\n> > experimental errors or flaws in the theoretical reduction.\n>\n> And, since there will always be theoretical reduction, there will always\n> be the possibility of inaccuracy.\n\nTrue, the possibility of innaccuracy always exists. However, data cannot be\nconsidered \'inaccurate\' simply because a later experiment claims a different\nresult. Which was my point.\n\n> > 3) Experimental data is never speculative.\n>\n> Raw data is never speculative.\n\n> Reduced data is always speculative to some extent.\n\n"Reduced data" is not experimental data. It is processed by a theory.\nHence, it is no longer \'data\' ... but theoretical conclusion.\n\nFor example, the original hubble relationship was an average of observed\nredshift versus observed distance of galaxies. The plot of the redshift vs.\ndistance of each galaxy was data. And I can even accept that the straight\nline through those points (though very rough) could be considered data.\n\nBut when theorists convert the redshift to an apparent velocity, and call\nthis the \'Hubble constant\' ... then the line is no longer data at all. But\nsimply theory.\n\n--\ngreywolf42\nubi dubium ibi libertas\n{remove planet for return e-mail}\n\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>Esa A E Peuha <esa.peuha@helsinki.fi> wrote in message
news:86pn01jdu4e.fsf@sirppi.helsinki.fi...
>
>
> "greywolf42" <mingstb@marssim-ss.com> writes:
>
> > Sure I'd read the other posts. However, they are irrelevant to the
> > claims and reasoning provided (which was snipped) by the prior poster
> > (Norm Dresner). Norm posted a claim that Ockham's Razor would
> > have us discard experimental results if it contradicted accepted theory.
> > And solely because it was 'simpler' to accept conventional theory.
> > Norm did not provide any other reasoning. My post responded solely
> > to the reasoning provided by Norm -- which was clearly unscientific.
>
> On the contrary, it was scientific. When some experiment appears to
> contradict an established theory (...), the first thing to do
> is to scrutinize the experiment; only if you can't refute the experiment,
> you start to look for faults in the theory. That is how science works.
You are describing a personal bias -- not science. What you are not telling
us, is that you will *not* scrutinize an experiment if it conforms to your
personal prejudices. All experiments must be scrutinized and repeated. Not
just those that appear to contradict the current dominant paradigm.
Now, we all have our personal biases. And we all have our own personal
points at which we read only the title of an experiment. And points where
we read the abstract. And points where we sigh and read the whole durn
experimental paper.
But you don't simply read an experiment looking for the first simplistic
notion that you can come up with to discard an experiment, simply because it
doesn't seem to support your view.
> > 1) Experimental data is never 'out of date.' It does not have a
> > shelf-life. This is merely a fallacy that 'new' interpretations or
> > experiments must always be better than old ones.
>
> _Raw_ experimental data (what is actually recorded by instruments) is
> never out of date. However, raw data in itself is useless without a
> theory about what the data means,
This is a common fallacy. However, experimental data does not depend upon
any one theory. Anyone can interpret experimental data on the basis of
their own, personal theory. However, the experiment that generated the data
remains valid.
> and that theory can be outdated.
Sometimes, one can contradict a theory with observations (within the current
experiment or other experiments). But this does not 'outdate' the theory --
and it certainly doesn't 'outdate' the experiment.
> > 2) The data may be imprecise (not inaccurate), in light of newer and
> > more precise experiments. Inaccuracy can arise only from systematic
> > experimental errors or flaws in the theoretical reduction.
>
> And, since there will always be theoretical reduction, there will always
> be the possibility of inaccuracy.
True, the possibility of innaccuracy always exists. However, data cannot be
considered 'inaccurate' simply because a later experiment claims a different
result. Which was my point.
> > 3) Experimental data is never speculative.
>
> Raw data is never speculative.
> Reduced data is always speculative to some extent.
"Reduced data" is not experimental data. It is processed by a theory.
Hence, it is no longer 'data' ... but theoretical conclusion.
For example, the original hubble relationship was an average of observed
redshift versus observed distance of galaxies. The plot of the redshift vs.
distance of each galaxy was data. And I can even accept that the straight
line through those points (though very rough) could be considered data.
But when theorists convert the redshift to an apparent velocity, and call
this the 'Hubble constant' ... then the line is no longer data at all. But
simply theory.
--
greywolf42
ubi dubium ibi libertas
{remove planet for return e-mail}
greywolf42
Jul30-04, 03:21 AM
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>\nNorm Dresner <ndrez@att.net> wrote in message\nnews:LVVNc.145648\\$OB3.66667@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...\n>\n> "greywolf42" <mingstb@marssim-ss.com> wrote in message\n> news:10gfqb8k9raqm5d@corp.supernews.com...\n> > Mark Palenik <markpalenik@wideopenwest.com> wrote in message\n> > news:RPmdndm8wcvinJrcRVn-tw@wideopenwest.com...\n> > > "greywolf42" <mingstb@marssim-ss.com> wrote in message\n> > > news:10gb3icit9n487e@corp.supernews.com...\n\n> <snip>\n\n> > > > You may note that your item number 1 is purely theoretical (even if\n> > > > it *is* "mainstream"). Item number 2 is experimental. According\n> > > > to the scientific method, experiment trumps theory.\n> > >\n> > > I take it you haven\'t read any of the messages here explaining that\n> > > that information is out of dat, inaccurate, and was speculative at\n> > > best, at the time.\n> >\n> > Sure I\'d read the other posts. However, they are irrelevant to the\n> > claims and reasoning provided (which was snipped) by the prior poster\n> > (Norm Dresner). Norm posted a claim that Ockham\'s Razor would\n> > have us discard experimental results if it contradicted accepted theory.\n> > And solely because it was \'simpler\' to accept conventional theory.\n> > Norm did not provide any other reasoning. My post responded solely\n> > to the reasoning provided by Norm -- which was clearly unscientific.\n> >\n> I would have you [as I do] intensely question unreproducable experimental\n> "data".\n\nNorm, you didn\'t mention anything about \'unreproduceable\' data in your\noriginal post. You simply claimed that data was to be considered bad, if it\ncontradicted accepted theory.\n\nNow, if the data truly is unreproduceable, then the experiment can be\nignored. But this has *nothing* to do with the fact that it contradicts\naccepted theory! If experimental data that supports an accepted theory is\nunreproduceable, then the experiment should also be ignored. Even though it\nsupports accepted theory. But you\'ll find that in \'modern\' science,\nexperiments that support accepted theory are rarely repeated.\n\nWhich makes your diversion into unreproduceable evidence, simply irrelevant\nto the issue.\n\n> After all, "data" is neither "information" nor "evidence" but\n> simply data.\n\nOn the contrary, data most certainly *is* both information and evidence.\n\n> It\'s only when it\'s validated and properly interpreted that it\n> becomes believable.\n\nExcuse me, but that explicitly contradicts the scientific method. It is\nalways experiment that is primary. Theory is secondary.\n\n> I was not questioning the "data" per se, though I haven\'t seen it,\n> but rather that it unequivocally supported the existence of\n> superluminal particles.\n\nIf you haven\'t seen the experiment or data, then you have nothing to say\nabout it at all.\n\n> Also see below for my comments on the meaning\n> attached to data. As far as my not providing any other reasoning, I was\n> speaking as a non-expert expressing belief -- actually more like trust --\n> in the claimed results.\n\nWell, trust is OK, but it is a personal thing. And it is not part of the\nscientific method. Let me give you a more detailed description from Morris\nCohen (quote taken from Carl Sagan\'s "The Demon Haunted World / Science as a\nCandle in the Dark", p251):\n\n"To be sure, the vast majority of people who are untrained can accept the\nresults of science only on authority. But there is obviously an important\ndifference between an establishment that is open and invites every one to\ncome, study its methods, and suggest inprovement, and one that regards the\nquestioning of its credentials as due to wickedness of heart, such as\n[Cardinal] Newman attributes to those who questioned the infallibility of\nthe Bible. . . Rational science treats its credit notes as always redeemable\non demand, whicle non-rational authoritarianism regards the demand for the\nredemption of its paper as a disloyal lack of faith."\n\n\n> Mathematics is solely governed by proof [based on a\n> possibly implicit set of hypotheses] but a vast amount of modern physics\n> is based solely on faith -- faith in the Copenhagen Intrerpretation or the\n> Bohem Paradigm or ... for example. Faith and belief are relevant for\n> physics paractitioners even those who come to the party without data.\n\nI believe that you confuse the scientific method with those that call\nthemselves \'scientists.\' Science is not simply \'what scientists do\'. (And\nscientists are those who \'do science.\')\n\nFaith and belief are not "allowed" in the scientific method. Now each\nindividual human that attempts to practice the scientific method quickly\nfinds that one does not have time to check every detail of every experiment.\nSo the individual must make personal choices as to where to invest one\'s\ntime and energy.\n\nHowever, such a choice does not mean that the next person may not look for\n(and possibly find) something that contradicts the dominant paradigm. The\ncorrect response (in the scientific method) is *not* to immediately dismiss\nthe experiment and/or the qualifications or abilities of the reporter. But\nto repeat the experiment.\n\n> > As to your current claims:\n> >\n> > 1) Experimental data is never \'out of date.\' It does not have a\n> > shelf-life. This is merely a fallacy that \'new\' interpretations or\n> > experiments must always be better than old ones.\n>\n> Experimental data taken with instruments that have been surpassed by new\n> ones should be questioned, if not discarded, because of the greater\n> accuracy of the newer devices. In this sense, then, the data *can* age.\n\nAre you fully aware of the vast difference between \'accuracy\' and\n\'precision?\' Look up the Hubble telescope primary mirror fiasco. Which is\na classic demonstration about the difference between accuracy and precision.\nThe mirror was extremely precise.... and grossly inaccurate.\n\nA theoretical claim for an increase in *precision* will NEVER call into\nquestion the *accuracy* of any prior data. If data taken by the \'new\'\napparatus is outside the bounds of the old apparatus, it indicates that one\nor the other apparatus is likely inaccurate. But it cannot tell us *which*\none is more accurate.\n\n> No one that\n> I know questions the data in the original Michaelson-Morley experiment(s)\n\nAccording to your view, that would be odd. Because the MMX experiment was\n\'superseded\' by the experiments of Miller. Whose 1920\'s apparatus was\nsignificantly more precise than Michelson\'s 1887 device. And Miller claimed\nto have detected the aether motions without doubt.\n\nWhy do you think that \'no one\' would question the old data, when the \'new\'\ndata is more precise. (Completely the opposite of your expectation?)\n\n> but newer data have provided more restrictive limits on the ether.\n\nTo which specific data or experiments are you referring? Or are you simply\nrepeating a conclusion that somebody else made? (Your trust issue.)\n\n> Galileo [IIRC] measured the speed of light.\n\nActually, Galileo did not do this. Romer measured it by using the moons of\nJupiter. It was first measured in the lab by Fizeau.\n\n> Surely you\'re not claiming that just\n> because he had data that I have to take it as authoritative.\n\nOf course not, my position is the exact opposite. You cannot rely upon\nauthority at all in the scientific method. Relying upon authority is called\nthe \'appeal to authority\' fallacy. You cannot claim (for example) that\neither Romer\'s value or Fizeau\'s value is incorrect -- simply because newer\nexperiments exist.\n\n> > 3) Experimental data is never speculative.\n> >\n> > > Am I the only one who thinks that whatever "orthodoxy\'s opposition to\n> > > theories of superluminality" is, somebody would have realized the\n> > > sheer usefullness of particles that can travel faster than the speed\n> > > of light and which carry measureable properties like spin? I think\nthe\n> > > thought of getting rich would probably outweigh any\n> > > "dogmatic opposition".\n>\n> Meter readings are never speculative [unless you\'re using my right eye,\n> but that\'s another matter entirely]. Neither are particle tracks or\n> scintillaton counter events. But the meaning of any of these pieces of\n> data can be entirely speculative\n\nIt seems by \'meaning\' you mean the development of a theory (cause and\neffect) to explain the measurements. And indeed we often see \'ad hoc\'\n(speculative) premises that are brought out to explain the effects. But\nthese \'explanations\' are quite shaky -- and can be replaced in the blink of\nan eye. And this replacement does not affect the experimental observations\nin the slightest.\n\n> -- just look at the whole cold fusion brouhaha\n> from a few years ago. AFAIR very few people argued with the readings --\n> the raw data -- but objected strenuously to the intrepretation of them as\n> supporting the occurrance of heterodox events.\n\nActually, the mainstream did then -- and still now does -- dispute the very\nexistence of the \'excess\' heat measured in the \'cold fusion\' cells. Indeed\nsome mainstream \'scientists\' deliberately falsified experimental data to\nprotect the dominant paradigm in this subject: "Such falsification of\nevidence happened in 1989, when MIT\'s plasma fusion lab doctored the data\nfrom its cold fusion experiment to obtain the desired \'null\' result that was\ninstrumental in convincing a DOE panel that cold fusion was a fraud. Eugene\nF. Mallove, who was the Chief Science Writer at the MIT News Office at the\ntime ..., played a part in exposing MIT\'s fraudulent science and resigned in\nprotest over it in 1991." See "Ten Years that Shook Physics"\n\nNow why do you suppose that scientists would claim that the existence of raw\ndata -- that cannot be explained by the standard paradigms -- does not\nsupport the occurence of \'heterodox\' events? Does this not indicate at\nleast a lack of objectivity to you?\n\n> > Ah, but it is only those theories that are not mainstream that are\n> > considered refuted. Dr. Hawking\'s views -- though commonly embraced --\n> > never reached the point of paradigm. And only Dr. Hawking was allowed\n> > to question Dr. Hawking\'s views. They have been questioned many times\n> > before by others -- and the others have been ignored.\n\n> Not everyone ignored the questioners. Perhaps Dr Hawking did but I\n> suppose that\'s his perogative.\n\nMy point is that the questioners were ignored by the mainstream. Simply\nbecause an authority (Dr. Hawking) proffered the view.\n\n--\ngreywolf42\nubi dubium ibi libertas\n{remove planet for return e-mail}\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>Norm Dresner <ndrez@att.net> wrote in message
news:LVVNc.145648$OB3.66667@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>
> "greywolf42" <mingstb@marssim-ss.com> wrote in message
> news:10gfqb8k9raqm5d@corp.supernews.com...
> > Mark Palenik <markpalenik@wideopenwest.com> wrote in message
> > news:RPmdndm8wcvinJrcRVn-tw@wideopenwest.com...
> > > "greywolf42" <mingstb@marssim-ss.com> wrote in message
> > > news:10gb3icit9n487e@corp.supernews.com...
> <snip>
> > > > You may note that your item number 1 is purely theoretical (even if
> > > > it *is* "mainstream"). Item number 2 is experimental. According
> > > > to the scientific method, experiment trumps theory.
> > >
> > > I take it you haven't read any of the messages here explaining that
> > > that information is out of dat, inaccurate, and was speculative at
> > > best, at the time.
> >
> > Sure I'd read the other posts. However, they are irrelevant to the
> > claims and reasoning provided (which was snipped) by the prior poster
> > (Norm Dresner). Norm posted a claim that Ockham's Razor would
> > have us discard experimental results if it contradicted accepted theory.
> > And solely because it was 'simpler' to accept conventional theory.
> > Norm did not provide any other reasoning. My post responded solely
> > to the reasoning provided by Norm -- which was clearly unscientific.
> >
> I would have you [as I do] intensely question unreproducable experimental
> "data".
Norm, you didn't mention anything about 'unreproduceable' data in your
original post. You simply claimed that data was to be considered bad, if it
contradicted accepted theory.
Now, if the data truly is unreproduceable, then the experiment can be
ignored. But this has *nothing* to do with the fact that it contradicts
accepted theory! If experimental data that supports an accepted theory is
unreproduceable, then the experiment should also be ignored. Even though it
supports accepted theory. But you'll find that in 'modern' science,
experiments that support accepted theory are rarely repeated.
Which makes your diversion into unreproduceable evidence, simply irrelevant
to the issue.
> After all, "data" is neither "information" nor "evidence" but
> simply data.
On the contrary, data most certainly *is* both information and evidence.
> It's only when it's validated and properly interpreted that it
> becomes believable.
Excuse me, but that explicitly contradicts the scientific method. It is
always experiment that is primary. Theory is secondary.
> I was not questioning the "data" per se, though I haven't seen it,
> but rather that it unequivocally supported the existence of
> superluminal particles.
If you haven't seen the experiment or data, then you have nothing to say
about it at all.
> Also see below for my comments on the meaning
> attached to data. As far as my not providing any other reasoning, I was
> speaking as a non-expert expressing belief -- actually more like trust --
> in the claimed results.
Well, trust is OK, but it is a personal thing. And it is not part of the
scientific method. Let me give you a more detailed description from Morris
Cohen (quote taken from Carl Sagan's "The Demon Haunted World / Science as a
Candle in the Dark", p251):
"To be sure, the vast majority of people who are untrained can accept the
results of science only on authority. But there is obviously an important
difference between an establishment that is open and invites every one to
come, study its methods, and suggest inprovement, and one that regards the
questioning of its credentials as due to wickedness of heart, such as
[Cardinal] Newman attributes to those who questioned the infallibility of
the Bible. . . Rational science treats its credit notes as always redeemable
on demand, whicle non-rational authoritarianism regards the demand for the
redemption of its paper as a disloyal lack of faith."
> Mathematics is solely governed by proof [based on a
> possibly implicit set of hypotheses] but a vast amount of modern physics
> is based solely on faith -- faith in the Copenhagen Intrerpretation or the
> Bohem Paradigm or ... for example. Faith and belief are relevant for
> physics paractitioners even those who come to the party without data.
I believe that you confuse the scientific method with those that call
themselves 'scientists.' Science is not simply 'what scientists do'. (And
scientists are those who 'do science.')
Faith and belief are not "allowed" in the scientific method. Now each
individual human that attempts to practice the scientific method quickly
finds that one does not have time to check every detail of every experiment.
So the individual must make personal choices as to where to invest one's
time and energy.
However, such a choice does not mean that the next person may not look for
(and possibly find) something that contradicts the dominant paradigm. The
correct response (in the scientific method) is *not* to immediately dismiss
the experiment and/or the qualifications or abilities of the reporter. But
to repeat the experiment.
> > As to your current claims:
> >
> > 1) Experimental data is never 'out of date.' It does not have a
> > shelf-life. This is merely a fallacy that 'new' interpretations or
> > experiments must always be better than old ones.
>
> Experimental data taken with instruments that have been surpassed by new
> ones should be questioned, if not discarded, because of the greater
> accuracy of the newer devices. In this sense, then, the data *can* age.
Are you fully aware of the vast difference between 'accuracy' and
'precision?' Look up the Hubble telescope primary mirror fiasco. Which is
a classic demonstration about the difference between accuracy and precision.
The mirror was extremely precise.... and grossly inaccurate.
A theoretical claim for an increase in *precision* will NEVER call into
question the *accuracy* of any prior data. If data taken by the 'new'
apparatus is outside the bounds of the old apparatus, it indicates that one
or the other apparatus is likely inaccurate. But it cannot tell us *which*
one is more accurate.
> No one that
> I know questions the data in the original Michaelson-Morley experiment(s)
According to your view, that would be odd. Because the MMX experiment was
'superseded' by the experiments of Miller. Whose 1920's apparatus was
significantly more precise than Michelson's 1887 device. And Miller claimed
to have detected the aether motions without doubt.
Why do you think that 'no one' would question the old data, when the 'new'
data is more precise. (Completely the opposite of your expectation?)
> but newer data have provided more restrictive limits on the ether.
To which specific data or experiments are you referring? Or are you simply
repeating a conclusion that somebody else made? (Your trust issue.)
> Galileo [IIRC] measured the speed of light.
Actually, Galileo did not do this. Romer measured it by using the moons of
Jupiter. It was first measured in the lab by Fizeau.
> Surely you're not claiming that just
> because he had data that I have to take it as authoritative.
Of course not, my position is the exact opposite. You cannot rely upon
authority at all in the scientific method. Relying upon authority is called
the 'appeal to authority' fallacy. You cannot claim (for example) that
either Romer's value or Fizeau's value is incorrect -- simply because newer
experiments exist.
> > 3) Experimental data is never speculative.
> >
> > > Am I the only one who thinks that whatever "orthodoxy's opposition to
> > > theories of superluminality" is, somebody would have realized the
> > > sheer usefullness of particles that can travel faster than the speed
> > > of light and which carry measureable properties like spin? I think
the
> > > thought of getting rich would probably outweigh any
> > > "dogmatic opposition".
>
> Meter readings are never speculative [unless you're using my right eye,
> but that's another matter entirely]. Neither are particle tracks or
> scintillaton counter events. But the meaning of any of these pieces of
> data can be entirely speculative
It seems by 'meaning' you mean the development of a theory (cause and
effect) to explain the measurements. And indeed we often see 'ad hoc'
(speculative) premises that are brought out to explain the effects. But
these 'explanations' are quite shaky -- and can be replaced in the blink of
an eye. And this replacement does not affect the experimental observations
in the slightest.
> -- just look at the whole cold fusion brouhaha
> from a few years ago. AFAIR very few people argued with the readings --
> the raw data -- but objected strenuously to the intrepretation of them as
> supporting the occurrance of heterodox events.
Actually, the mainstream did then -- and still now does -- dispute the very
existence of the 'excess' heat measured in the 'cold fusion' cells. Indeed
some mainstream 'scientists' deliberately falsified experimental data to
protect the dominant paradigm in this subject: "Such falsification of
evidence happened in 1989, when MIT's plasma fusion lab doctored the data
from its cold fusion experiment to obtain the desired 'null' result that was
instrumental in convincing a DOE panel that cold fusion was a fraud. Eugene
F. Mallove, who was the Chief Science Writer at the MIT News Office at the
time ..., played a part in exposing MIT's fraudulent science and resigned in
protest over it in 1991." See "Ten Years that Shook Physics"
Now why do you suppose that scientists would claim that the existence of raw
data -- that cannot be explained by the standard paradigms -- does not
support the occurence of 'heterodox' events? Does this not indicate at
least a lack of objectivity to you?
> > Ah, but it is only those theories that are not mainstream that are
> > considered refuted. Dr. Hawking's views -- though commonly embraced --
> > never reached the point of paradigm. And only Dr. Hawking was allowed
> > to question Dr. Hawking's views. They have been questioned many times
> > before by others -- and the others have been ignored.
> Not everyone ignored the questioners. Perhaps Dr Hawking did but I
> suppose that's his perogative.
My point is that the questioners were ignored by the mainstream. Simply
because an authority (Dr. Hawking) proffered the view.
--
greywolf42
ubi dubium ibi libertas
{remove planet for return e-mail}
Esa A E Peuha
Jul30-04, 07:42 AM
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>\n"greywolf42" <mingstb@marssim-ss.com> writes:\n\n> Esa A E Peuha <esa.peuha@helsinki.fi> wrote in message\n> news:86pn01jdu4e.fsf@sirppi.helsinki.fi...\n\n> > On the contrary, it was scientific. When some experiment appears to\n> > contradict an established theory (...), the first thing to do\n> > is to scrutinize the experiment; only if you can\'t refute the experiment,\n> > you start to look for faults in the theory. That is how science works.\n>\n> You are describing a personal bias -- not science.\n\nIn that case nobody at all is doing (or has ever done) science. :-)\n\n> What you are not telling\n> us, is that you will *not* scrutinize an experiment if it conforms to your\n> personal prejudices.\n\nThat\'s not completely true, but mostly I (and just about every other\nhuman there is) am not paranoid enough to think that there must be\nsomething wrong if reality seems to match my expectations.\n\n> All experiments must be scrutinized and repeated. Not\n> just those that appear to contradict the current dominant paradigm.\n\nIn principle, yes. In practice, when an experiment is repeated for the\nmillionth time and its results match those of the 999999 other times, no\none will bother to check it very thoroughly.\n\n> But you don\'t simply read an experiment looking for the first simplistic\n> notion that you can come up with to discard an experiment, simply because it\n> doesn\'t seem to support your view.\n\nWhere did you get that idea from? That\'s certainly not what I meant.\n\n> > _Raw_ experimental data (what is actually recorded by instruments) is\n> > never out of date. However, raw data in itself is useless without a\n> > theory about what the data means,\n>\n> This is a common fallacy. However, experimental data does not depend upon\n> any one theory.\n\nThat\'s where you are wrong. Experimental data doesn\'t have any meaning\nat all unless you have a theory that says that the data has some kind of\ncorrelation with data that can be obtained from repeating the experiment\n(otherwise there would be no point in doing the experiment).\n\n> Anyone can interpret experimental data on the basis of\n> their own, personal theory.\n\nInterpreting the data is quite another matter.\n\n> However, the experiment that generated the data\n> remains valid.\n\nNo it doesn\'t, if you invalidate the theory that says it has a meaning.\n\n> Sometimes, one can contradict a theory with observations (within the current\n> experiment or other experiments). But this does not \'outdate\' the theory --\n> and it certainly doesn\'t \'outdate\' the experiment.\n\nAre you saying that experiments can\'t prove a theory wrong?\n\n> True, the possibility of innaccuracy always exists. However, data cannot be\n> considered \'inaccurate\' simply because a later experiment claims a different\n> result. Which was my point.\n\nIf you measure lengths of solid objects using a theory that says the\nlengths are constant, and later discover that the theory was wrong\nbecause temperature affects the lengths, do you really think that the\nmeasurements (which may be averages of measurements in various\ntemperatures) are in no way inaccurate?\n\n> > Reduced data is always speculative to some extent.\n>\n> "Reduced data" is not experimental data. It is processed by a theory.\n> Hence, it is no longer \'data\' ... but theoretical conclusion.\n\nReduced data is the only data that can have any meaning, because you\nneed the theoretical conclusion to give it meaning.\n\n> For example, the original hubble relationship was an average of observed\n> redshift versus observed distance of galaxies. The plot of the redshift vs.\n> distance of each galaxy was data. And I can even accept that the straight\n> line through those points (though very rough) could be considered data.\n\nThe observed redshifts are almost raw data (the measuring theory says\njust that the redshift of each galaxy is constant), but the "observed"\ndistances are actually calculated distances, because what is actually\nobserved has no direct connection to distance; the theory that says that\nwe can measure distances of galaxies by indirect methods is far from\ntrivial (and has actually been changed quite a number of times). By\nyour standards, we don\'t have any _data_ about distances of galaxies; we\ndon\'t even have data about distances of any but the very nearest stars.\n\n> But when theorists convert the redshift to an apparent velocity, and call\n> this the \'Hubble constant\' ... then the line is no longer data at all. But\n> simply theory.\n\nIt can hardly have any additional theoriticalness compared to the\ndistances.\n\n--\nEsa Peuha\nstudent of mathematics at the University of Helsinki\nhttp://www.helsinki.fi/~peuha/\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>"greywolf42" <mingstb@marssim-ss.com> writes:
> Esa A E Peuha <esa.peuha@helsinki.fi> wrote in message
> news:86pn01jdu4e.fsf@sirppi.helsinki.fi...
> > On the contrary, it was scientific. When some experiment appears to
> > contradict an established theory (...), the first thing to do
> > is to scrutinize the experiment; only if you can't refute the experiment,
> > you start to look for faults in the theory. That is how science works.
>
> You are describing a personal bias -- not science.
In that case nobody at all is doing (or has ever done) science. :-)
> What you are not telling
> us, is that you will *not* scrutinize an experiment if it conforms to your
> personal prejudices.
That's not completely true, but mostly I (and just about every other
human there is) am not paranoid enough to think that there must be
something wrong if reality seems to match my expectations.
> All experiments must be scrutinized and repeated. Not
> just those that appear to contradict the current dominant paradigm.
In principle, yes. In practice, when an experiment is repeated for the
millionth time and its results match those of the 999999 other times, no
one will bother to check it very thoroughly.
> But you don't simply read an experiment looking for the first simplistic
> notion that you can come up with to discard an experiment, simply because it
> doesn't seem to support your view.
Where did you get that idea from? That's certainly not what I meant.
> > _Raw_ experimental data (what is actually recorded by instruments) is
> > never out of date. However, raw data in itself is useless without a
> > theory about what the data means,
>
> This is a common fallacy. However, experimental data does not depend upon
> any one theory.
That's where you are wrong. Experimental data doesn't have any meaning
at all unless you have a theory that says that the data has some kind of
correlation with data that can be obtained from repeating the experiment
(otherwise there would be no point in doing the experiment).
> Anyone can interpret experimental data on the basis of
> their own, personal theory.
Interpreting the data is quite another matter.
> However, the experiment that generated the data
> remains valid.
No it doesn't, if you invalidate the theory that says it has a meaning.
> Sometimes, one can contradict a theory with observations (within the current
> experiment or other experiments). But this does not 'outdate' the theory --
> and it certainly doesn't 'outdate' the experiment.
Are you saying that experiments can't prove a theory wrong?
> True, the possibility of innaccuracy always exists. However, data cannot be
> considered 'inaccurate' simply because a later experiment claims a different
> result. Which was my point.
If you measure lengths of solid objects using a theory that says the
lengths are constant, and later discover that the theory was wrong
because temperature affects the lengths, do you really think that the
measurements (which may be averages of measurements in various
temperatures) are in no way inaccurate?
> > Reduced data is always speculative to some extent.
>
> "Reduced data" is not experimental data. It is processed by a theory.
> Hence, it is no longer 'data' ... but theoretical conclusion.
Reduced data is the only data that can have any meaning, because you
need the theoretical conclusion to give it meaning.
> For example, the original hubble relationship was an average of observed
> redshift versus observed distance of galaxies. The plot of the redshift vs.
> distance of each galaxy was data. And I can even accept that the straight
> line through those points (though very rough) could be considered data.
The observed redshifts are almost raw data (the measuring theory says
just that the redshift of each galaxy is constant), but the "observed"
distances are actually calculated distances, because what is actually
observed has no direct connection to distance; the theory that says that
we can measure distances of galaxies by indirect methods is far from
trivial (and has actually been changed quite a number of times). By
your standards, we don't have any _data_ about distances of galaxies; we
don't even have data about distances of any but the very nearest stars.
> But when theorists convert the redshift to an apparent velocity, and call
> this the 'Hubble constant' ... then the line is no longer data at all. But
> simply theory.
It can hardly have any additional theoriticalness compared to the
distances.
--
Esa Peuha
student of mathematics at the University of Helsinki
http://www.helsinki.fi/~peuha/
Perfectly Innocent
Jul30-04, 10:35 AM
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>\ndaniel@elit.net (Daniel Elander) wrote in message news:<37d84b42.0407281407.1fa13104@posting.google. com>...\n>\n> So tell me why neutrinos from supernova explosions arrive after the light does.\n\nI\'ve read that neutrinos from Supernova 1987A were observed to arrive\n18 hours before the photons.\nhttp://www.npl.washington.edu/AV/altvw54.html\nThe same link mentions the difficulty in detecting low energy solar\nneutrinos. If neutrinos are tachyonic, then the slowest moving\ntachyons have the greatest energy. That could explain why detectable\nneutrinos are only noticed at speeds comparatively equal to the speed\nof light.\n\nEugene Shubert\nhttp://www.everythingimportant.org\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>daniel@elit.net (Daniel Elander) wrote in message news:<37d84b42.0407281407.1fa13104@posting.google.com>...
>
> So tell me why neutrinos from supernova explosions arrive after the light does.
I've read that neutrinos from Supernova 1987A were observed to arrive
18 hours before the photons.
http://www.npl.washington.edu/AV/altvw54.html
The same link mentions the difficulty in detecting low energy solar
neutrinos. If neutrinos are tachyonic, then the slowest moving
tachyons have the greatest energy. That could explain why detectable
neutrinos are only noticed at speeds comparatively equal to the speed
of light.
Eugene Shubert
http://www.everythingimportant.org
Perfectly Innocent
Jul30-04, 11:43 AM
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>\n\n"Mark Palenik" <markpalenik@wideopenwest.com> wrote in message news:<DP-dnQI6dfI5EpTcRVn-pA@wideopenwest.com>...\n> Besides there\'s a lot of data that supports relativity\'s stance that nothing\n> can travel faster than the speed of light, and that doing so would violate\n> causality.\n\nWhat is the experimental evidence for the nonexistence of tachyons?\nThe evidence for absence is not the absence of evidence.\n\nCausality violations occur from gedanken experiments requiring\nsuperluminality and the equivalence of all inertial frames of\nreference. It\'s an uncontested fact that there are plenty of realistic\npseudo-Riemannian spacetimes that have a preferred frame of reference.\nThese do not contradict superluminality.\n\nhttp://www.everythingimportant.org/viewtopic.php?t=79\nhttp://cornell.mirror.aps.org/abstract/PRD/v8/i6/p1662_1\nhttp://arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/0101/0101014.pdf\nhttp://qcd.th.u-psud.fr/page_perso/Uzan/fileps/art_2002_ullp_ejp23.pdf\nhttp://www.everythingimportant.org/viewtopic.php?t=605\nhttp://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/simultaneity.htm\n\nRobert Clark is correct:\n\nAmong researchers in the foundations of relativity it is well\nknown that superluminal signaling or communication does not\nreally require causality violations. What it does require is\na preferred frame.\n\nThis is well known among researchers in the foundations of\nrelativity but does not seem to have filtered down among\nphysicists in general.\n\nOne of the few times I\'ve seen a mainstream physicist comment\nthat superluminal signaling would require a preferred frame and\nnot travel back in time or causality violations was from CERN\nphysicist Alexander Kusenko in discussing a theory that the\nexplanation of the "solar neutrino deficit" was due to a\nsuperluminal speed of neutrino:\n\nOne objection is that if tachyons exist, they could be used\nfor faster-than-light communication, causing curious reversals\nof cause and effect. Rembielinski says this can be avoided, but\nonly by abandoning the "relativity principle", which requires\nthat the laws of physics look the same to all observers moving\nat a constant speed relative to each other.\n"Dumping the relativity principle means accepting that one frame\nin the Universe is special," says Alexander Kusenko of CERN, the\nEuropean particle physics laboratory in Geneva. "It\'s aesthetically\ndispleasing and it makes physics messy." He suspects that the\ntritium experiments indicate an imaginary mass for the neutrino\nonly because of experimental uncertainties.\nSpeed freaks, New Scientist, 16 August, 1997\n\nhttp://groups.google.com/groups?&selm=8rgpab\\$4b6\\$1@nnrp1.deja.com\n\nAesthetic pleasure is too subjective to be a respectable proof against\nsuperluminality. I like superluminality.\n\nEugene Shubert\nhttp://www.everythingimportant.org\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>"Mark Palenik" <markpalenik@wideopenwest.com> wrote in message news:<DP-dnQI6dfI5EpTcRVn-pA@wideopenwest.com>...
> Besides there's a lot of data that supports relativity's stance that nothing
> can travel faster than the speed of light, and that doing so would violate
> causality.
What is the experimental evidence for the nonexistence of tachyons?
The evidence for absence is not the absence of evidence.
Causality violations occur from gedanken experiments requiring
superluminality and the equivalence of all inertial frames of
reference. It's an uncontested fact that there are plenty of realistic
pseudo-Riemannian spacetimes that have a preferred frame of reference.
These do not contradict superluminality.
http://www.everythingimportant.org/viewtopic.php?t=79
http://cornell.mirror.aps.org/abstract/PRD/v8/i6/p1662_1
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/0101/0101014.pdf
http://qcd.th.u-psud.fr/page_perso/Uzan/fileps/art_2002_ullp_ejp23.pdf
http://www.everythingimportant.org/viewtopic.php?t=605
http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/simultaneity.htm
Robert Clark is correct:
Among researchers in the foundations of relativity it is well
known that superluminal signaling or communication does not
really require causality violations. What it does require is
a preferred frame.
This is well known among researchers in the foundations of
relativity but does not seem to have filtered down among
physicists in general.
One of the few times I've seen a mainstream physicist comment
that superluminal signaling would require a preferred frame and
not travel back in time or causality violations was from CERN
physicist Alexander Kusenko in discussing a theory that the
explanation of the "solar neutrino deficit" was due to a
superluminal speed of neutrino:
One objection is that if tachyons exist, they could be used
for faster-than-light communication, causing curious reversals
of cause and effect. Rembielinski says this can be avoided, but
only by abandoning the "relativity principle", which requires
that the laws of physics look the same to all observers moving
at a constant speed relative to each other.
"Dumping the relativity principle means accepting that one frame
in the Universe is special," says Alexander Kusenko of CERN, the
European particle physics laboratory in Geneva. "It's aesthetically
displeasing and it makes physics messy." He suspects that the
tritium experiments indicate an imaginary mass for the neutrino
only because of experimental uncertainties.
Speed freaks, New Scientist, 16 August, 1997
http://groups.google.com/groups?&selm=8rgpab$4b6$1@nnrp1.deja.com
Aesthetic pleasure is too subjective to be a respectable proof against
superluminality. I like superluminality.
Eugene Shubert
http://www.everythingimportant.org
greywolf42
Jul31-04, 09:09 AM
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>\nMark Palenik <markpalenik@wideopenwest.com> wrote in message\nnews:DP-dnQI6dfI5EpTcRVn-pA@wideopenwest.com...\n>\n> "greywolf42" <mingstb@marssim-ss.com> wrote in message\n> news:10gfqb8k9raqm5d@corp.supernews.com...\n> >\n> > Mark Palenik <markpalenik@wideopenwest.com> wrote in message\n> > news:RPmdndm8wcvinJrcRVn-tw@wideopenwest.com...\n> > >\n> > > "greywolf42" <mingstb@marssim-ss.com> wrote in message\n> > > news:10gb3icit9n487e@corp.supernews.com...\n\n> > > > <snip>\n> > > >\n> > > > You may note that your item number 1 is purely theoretical (even if\n> > > > it *is* "mainstream"). Item number 2 is experimental. According to\n> > > > the scientific method, experiment trumps theory.\n> > >\n> > > I take it you haven\'t read any of the messages here explaining that\n> > > that information is out of dat, inaccurate, and was speculative at\n> > > best, at the time.\n> >\n> > Sure I\'d read the other posts. However, they are irrelevant to the\n> > claims and reasoning provided (which was snipped) by the prior poster\n> > (Norm Dresner). Norm posted a claim that Ockham\'s Razor would have\n> > us discard experimental results if it contradicted accepted theory. And\n> > solely because it was \'simpler\' to accept conventional theory. Norm did\n> > not provide any other reasoning. My post responded solely to the\n> > reasoning provided by Norm -- which was clearly unscientific.\n>\n> So the fact that other posts stated newer experiments do not show a\n> negative mass for the neutrino is irellevant?\n\nOf course. Because we are not discussing any specific experiment.\n\n> Why do you believe old interpretations\n> of old data and reject the new data?\n\nI neither accept the old and reject the new (because it is new), nor accept\nthe new and reject the old (because it is old). Both approaches are\nfallacies. The only reason to reject any experimental data is due to\nnonrepeatablility or identification of an explicit cause for physical\nsystematic error.\n\n> Besides there\'s a lot of data that supports relativity\'s stance that\n> nothing can travel faster than the speed of light, and that doing so\n> would violate causality.\n\nWe aren\'t discussing any one theory. I was discussing Norm\'s general\nguidelines for discarding experimental data that contradicts any accepted\ntheory.\n\nYou now seem to be championing another fallacy. Namely that newer\nexperiments are always \'better\' than older experiments. This fallacy was\nalready proffered by Esa. So you may wish to read my responses to Esa.\n\n> So we have:\n>\n> 1. A large chunk of data that says nothing can travel faster than the\n> speed of light\n\nThat is theory, not data. Data can only say that a given signal appears to\ntravel at a given speed.\n\nMuch data exists that may be interpreted to contradict your claim (Cerenkov\nradiation, electron tunneling speeds, orbital dynamics, etc.)\n\n> 2. A small chunk of data that says something is moving faster than the\n> speed of light\n> 3. A small chunk of data newer that says that same thing actually isn\'t\n> moving faster than the speed of light.\n>\n> For some reason, you choose to single out number two and say that it must\n> be accurrate.\n\nThere is no need for you to fabricate such strawmen.\n\nI simply have noted that one cannot select #2 over #3, simply because #3 is\nnewer (or vice versa). Your item #1 is yet another fallacy, all on it\'s\nown. (Because one accepted theory says it can\'t exist, it\'s true.)\n\n> > Quite simply, the fact that one points out an error of logic in an\n> > argument placed against a given theory or experiment does not\n> > translate into a claim of validity of the theory or experiment.\n>\n> What about the points that pointed out the validity of newer experiments?\n\nTo what points are you referring?\n\n> Why are they less valid than the few that have come up with negative\n> values of m^2?\n\nApparently you think they are better. Now, can you identify why this is so,\nwithout simply resorting to Esa\'s fallacy?\n\n> > As to your current claims:\n> >\n> > 1) Experimental data is never \'out of date.\' It does not have a\n> > shelf-life. This is merely a fallacy that \'new\' interpretations or\n> > experiments must always be better than old ones.\n>\n> It is if better equipment or methods are invented that can perform a\n> better job of detection,\n\nWell, yes, *IF* better equipment exists one can improve the precision. But\nthis has nothing to do with age of the experiment, or the validity of prior\ndata. (I addressed this claim the last time around in #2, below).\n\n> or if the theory behind the experiment is shown to be flawed,\n\nExperiments exist on their own. They are measurements of the physical\nworld. They stand apart from theory.\n\n> and the data actually has nothing to do with what the experiment\n> was supposed to measure.\n\nThis does not obviate the experimental results. All it would show is the\nerrors of prior theorists.\n\n> > 2) The data may be imprecise (not inaccurate), in light of newer and\n> > more precise experiments. Inaccuracy can arise only from systematic\n> > experimental errors or flaws in the theoretical reduction. The posts\n> > that I saw falsely concluded that because \'newer\' experiments gave\n> > different answers, that the \'older\' data had to be inaccurate. This is\n> > also a fallacy. (One must identify the specific systematic or\n> > calculational errors of one or the other\n> > experiment to determine which is \'inaccurate.\')\n>\n> And you conclude that because a few experiments show a negative value for\n> m^2 that it must be the case.\n\nNot in the least. Why do you fabricate this false claim, instead of\naddressing the issue at hand?\n\n> > 3) Experimental data is never speculative.\n> >\n> > > Am I the only one who thinks that whatever "orthodoxy\'s opposition to\n> > > theories of superluminality" is, somebody would have realized the\n> > > sheer usefullness of particles that can travel faster than the speed\n> > > of light and which carry measureable properties like spin? I think\nthe\n> > > thought of getting rich would probably outweigh any\n> > > "dogmatic opposition".\n> >\n> > Theoreticians don\'t get rich. Except by rising in the power structure.\n> > Just like Cardinal Bellarmine refused to look through Galileo\'s\n> > telescope -- because he \'knew\' that Galileo\'s observations must be\n> > wrong.\n>\n> It\'s not exactly unheard of for scientists to found companies, or become\n> CEOs and make a lot of money.\n\nIt\'s also rare (I don\'t know of a single example). Most innovative\nscientists die poor ... or a least far from rich.\n\nPerhaps you could give an example or two of such people, who turn their\nfundamental physical breakthrough into a CEO-ship and wealth.\n\n> And I was referring to the experimentalists\n> who suppossedly discovered the fact that neutrinos are superluminal.\n\nSo was I.\n\n> Don\'t\n> you think if the experiments had been continually verified, it would have\n> been worth it for them to continue research into building some sort of\n> superluminal transmitter?\n\nEver hear what happened to \'cold fusion\'? Newman\'s motor? One cannot buck\northodoxy and make money.\n\n> > > Besides, weren\'t physicists, at least at some point, actually looking\n> > > for tachyons? Why would they even have a word for particles with a\n> > > complex mass if physicists hadn\'t thought of it and wanted to find it?\n> >\n> > That is a sociological question. And irrelevant to the experimental\n> > support of a concept.\n>\n> My point is, physicists were searching for tachyons, yet you claim this is\n> something that no physicist would ever admit the existence of.\n\nThere is no need for you to fabricate such strawmen. I made no such claim.\n\n> What were\n> they going to do, find the tachyons and then never tell anyone?\n\nWho -- specifically -- are \'they?\'\n\n> > > Physicists don\'t\n> > > usually make up words for things they are dogmatically opposed to.\n> >\n> > Physicists make up words that they are opposed to all the time. Here\n> > are a few that were made up by the opposition:\n> > Tired Light\n> > Big Bang\n> > Dark Matter\n> > Aether Drag\n> >\n> > > I mean, for example, there\'s no word for particles that transmit\n> > > magical power.\n> >\n> > Sure there is. They\'re called "virtual" particles. ;)\n>\n> heh, I\'ve read some of your previous posts on electromagnetism, and I\n> don\'t want to get *that* conversation started again, so I won\'t comment.\n\nFair enough, but you started it, with the introduction of \'magic\' as a\ndebating device. I see you avoided the substantive disproofs of your\nposition (above and below).\n\n> > Seriously, modern physicists always come up with names for particles to\n> > transmit forces. A \'magical\' force would required a name for the\n> > particles. Just like we require names for the particles transmitting\n> > each of the four (or five) forces of nature -- even though some of\n> > these particles are not observable.\n> >\n> > > The\n> > > idea that there\'s some kind of coverup going on seems rather\n> > > ridiculous, since accepted theories are refuted all the time, with\n> > > no cover up (like the recent thing with Stephen Hawking and\n> > > information in black holes).\n> >\n> > Ah, but it is only those theories that are not mainstream that are\n> > considered refuted. Dr. Hawking\'s views -- though commonly embraced --\n> > never reached the point of paradigm. And only Dr. Hawking was allowed\n> > to question Dr. Hawking\'s views. They have been questioned many times\n> > before by others -- and the others have been ignored.\n>\n> How about aether theory, classical mechanics, locality, and every other\n> theory in history that we no longer believe in?\n\nWhat do you mean \'we\', white man? {Old Tonto-Lone Ranger joke.}\n\n\'Belief\' is not a part of the scientific method. It is a hallmark of\nreligion.\n\n> Accepted theories are\n> usually accepted because there\'s such a large body of evidence supporting\n> them,\n\nI believe the standard reference on the subject of paradigms (accepted\ntheories) is "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions", by Kuhn. And if you\nread Kuhn, you will find that \'large body of evidence\' is rarely the reason\nfor a paradigm shift. Theories are \'accepted\' by the mass of academia for\nsocial and political reasons. Not for scientific ones.\n\nIndeed, I\'d be surprised if you could name even three fundamental "accepted\ntheories" that were accepted as a result of a large body of evidence. For\nexample, the following ones were not: SR, GR, Copenhagen QM.\n\n> which is why they are very hard to refute,\n\nAny truly scientific theory is quite easy to refute. A single experiment is\nall that it takes. If it takes more, then the \'theory\' is not science, but\nis merely dogma. (Of course, it may happen that a theory is never refuted.)\n\n> and doing so every time an\n> experiment is done that might possibly contradict them would be a terrible\n> mistake.\n\nAn even bigger mistake would be to ignore an experiment that contradicts a\ntheory -- just because it contradicts the theory. Which was the original\npoint of Norm\'s post.\n\n--\ngreywolf42\nubi dubium ibi libertas\n{remove planet for return e-mail}\n\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>Mark Palenik <markpalenik@wideopenwest.com> wrote in message
news:DP-dnQI6dfI5EpTcRVn-pA@wideopenwest.com...
>
> "greywolf42" <mingstb@marssim-ss.com> wrote in message
> news:10gfqb8k9raqm5d@corp.supernews.com...
> >
> > Mark Palenik <markpalenik@wideopenwest.com> wrote in message
> > news:RPmdndm8wcvinJrcRVn-tw@wideopenwest.com...
> > >
> > > "greywolf42" <mingstb@marssim-ss.com> wrote in message
> > > news:10gb3icit9n487e@corp.supernews.com...
> > > > <snip>
> > > >
> > > > You may note that your item number 1 is purely theoretical (even if
> > > > it *is* "mainstream"). Item number 2 is experimental. According to
> > > > the scientific method, experiment trumps theory.
> > >
> > > I take it you haven't read any of the messages here explaining that
> > > that information is out of dat, inaccurate, and was speculative at
> > > best, at the time.
> >
> > Sure I'd read the other posts. However, they are irrelevant to the
> > claims and reasoning provided (which was snipped) by the prior poster
> > (Norm Dresner). Norm posted a claim that Ockham's Razor would have
> > us discard experimental results if it contradicted accepted theory. And
> > solely because it was 'simpler' to accept conventional theory. Norm did
> > not provide any other reasoning. My post responded solely to the
> > reasoning provided by Norm -- which was clearly unscientific.
>
> So the fact that other posts stated newer experiments do not show a
> negative mass for the neutrino is irellevant?
Of course. Because we are not discussing any specific experiment.
> Why do you believe old interpretations
> of old data and reject the new data?
I neither accept the old and reject the new (because it is new), nor accept
the new and reject the old (because it is old). Both approaches are
fallacies. The only reason to reject any experimental data is due to
nonrepeatablility or identification of an explicit cause for physical
systematic error.
> Besides there's a lot of data that supports relativity's stance that
> nothing can travel faster than the speed of light, and that doing so
> would violate causality.
We aren't discussing any one theory. I was discussing Norm's general
guidelines for discarding experimental data that contradicts any accepted
theory.
You now seem to be championing another fallacy. Namely that newer
experiments are always 'better' than older experiments. This fallacy was
already proffered by Esa. So you may wish to read my responses to Esa.
> So we have:
>
> 1. A large chunk of data that says nothing can travel faster than the
> speed of light
That is theory, not data. Data can only say that a given signal appears to
travel at a given speed.
Much data exists that may be interpreted to contradict your claim (Cerenkov
radiation, electron tunneling speeds, orbital dynamics, etc.)
> 2. A small chunk of data that says something is moving faster than the
> speed of light
> 3. A small chunk of data newer that says that same thing actually isn't
> moving faster than the speed of light.
>
> For some reason, you choose to single out number two and say that it must
> be accurrate.
There is no need for you to fabricate such strawmen.
I simply have noted that one cannot select #2 over #3, simply because #3 is
newer (or vice versa). Your item #1 is yet another fallacy, all on it's
own. (Because one accepted theory says it can't exist, it's true.)
> > Quite simply, the fact that one points out an error of logic in an
> > argument placed against a given theory or experiment does not
> > translate into a claim of validity of the theory or experiment.
>
> What about the points that pointed out the validity of newer experiments?
To what points are you referring?
> Why are they less valid than the few that have come up with negative
> values of m^2?
Apparently you think they are better. Now, can you identify why this is so,
without simply resorting to Esa's fallacy?
> > As to your current claims:
> >
> > 1) Experimental data is never 'out of date.' It does not have a
> > shelf-life. This is merely a fallacy that 'new' interpretations or
> > experiments must always be better than old ones.
>
> It is if better equipment or methods are invented that can perform a
> better job of detection,
Well, yes, *IF* better equipment exists one can improve the precision. But
this has nothing to do with age of the experiment, or the validity of prior
data. (I addressed this claim the last time around in #2, below).
> or if the theory behind the experiment is shown to be flawed,
Experiments exist on their own. They are measurements of the physical
world. They stand apart from theory.
> and the data actually has nothing to do with what the experiment
> was supposed to measure.
This does not obviate the experimental results. All it would show is the
errors of prior theorists.
> > 2) The data may be imprecise (not inaccurate), in light of newer and
> > more precise experiments. Inaccuracy can arise only from systematic
> > experimental errors or flaws in the theoretical reduction. The posts
> > that I saw falsely concluded that because 'newer' experiments gave
> > different answers, that the 'older' data had to be inaccurate. This is
> > also a fallacy. (One must identify the specific systematic or
> > calculational errors of one or the other
> > experiment to determine which is 'inaccurate.')
>
> And you conclude that because a few experiments show a negative value for
> m^2 that it must be the case.
Not in the least. Why do you fabricate this false claim, instead of
addressing the issue at hand?
> > 3) Experimental data is never speculative.
> >
> > > Am I the only one who thinks that whatever "orthodoxy's opposition to
> > > theories of superluminality" is, somebody would have realized the
> > > sheer usefullness of particles that can travel faster than the speed
> > > of light and which carry measureable properties like spin? I think
the
> > > thought of getting rich would probably outweigh any
> > > "dogmatic opposition".
> >
> > Theoreticians don't get rich. Except by rising in the power structure.
> > Just like Cardinal Bellarmine refused to look through Galileo's
> > telescope -- because he 'knew' that Galileo's observations must be
> > wrong.
>
> It's not exactly unheard of for scientists to found companies, or become
> CEOs and make a lot of money.
It's also rare (I don't know of a single example). Most innovative
scientists die poor ... or a least far from rich.
Perhaps you could give an example or two of such people, who turn their
fundamental physical breakthrough into a CEO-ship and wealth.
> And I was referring to the experimentalists
> who suppossedly discovered the fact that neutrinos are superluminal.
So was I.
> Don't
> you think if the experiments had been continually verified, it would have
> been worth it for them to continue research into building some sort of
> superluminal transmitter?
Ever hear what happened to 'cold fusion'? Newman's motor? One cannot buck
orthodoxy and make money.
> > > Besides, weren't physicists, at least at some point, actually looking
> > > for tachyons? Why would they even have a word for particles with a
> > > complex mass if physicists hadn't thought of it and wanted to find it?
> >
> > That is a sociological question. And irrelevant to the experimental
> > support of a concept.
>
> My point is, physicists were searching for tachyons, yet you claim this is
> something that no physicist would ever admit the existence of.
There is no need for you to fabricate such strawmen. I made no such claim.
> What were
> they going to do, find the tachyons and then never tell anyone?
Who -- specifically -- are 'they?'
> > > Physicists don't
> > > usually make up words for things they are dogmatically opposed to.
> >
> > Physicists make up words that they are opposed to all the time. Here
> > are a few that were made up by the opposition:
> > Tired Light
> > Big Bang
> > Dark Matter
> > Aether Drag
> >
> > > I mean, for example, there's no word for particles that transmit
> > > magical power.
> >
> > Sure there is. They're called "virtual" particles. ;)
>
> heh, I've read some of your previous posts on electromagnetism, and I
> don't want to get *that* conversation started again, so I won't comment.
Fair enough, but you started it, with the introduction of 'magic' as a
debating device. I see you avoided the substantive disproofs of your
position (above and below).
> > Seriously, modern physicists always come up with names for particles to
> > transmit forces. A 'magical' force would required a name for the
> > particles. Just like we require names for the particles transmitting
> > each of the four (or five) forces of nature -- even though some of
> > these particles are not observable.
> >
> > > The
> > > idea that there's some kind of coverup going on seems rather
> > > ridiculous, since accepted theories are refuted all the time, with
> > > no cover up (like the recent thing with Stephen Hawking and
> > > information in black holes).
> >
> > Ah, but it is only those theories that are not mainstream that are
> > considered refuted. Dr. Hawking's views -- though commonly embraced --
> > never reached the point of paradigm. And only Dr. Hawking was allowed
> > to question Dr. Hawking's views. They have been questioned many times
> > before by others -- and the others have been ignored.
>
> How about aether theory, classical mechanics, locality, and every other
> theory in history that we no longer believe in?
What do you mean 'we', white man? {Old Tonto-Lone Ranger joke.}
'Belief' is not a part of the scientific method. It is a hallmark of
religion.
> Accepted theories are
> usually accepted because there's such a large body of evidence supporting
> them,
I believe the standard reference on the subject of paradigms (accepted
theories) is "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions", by Kuhn. And if you
read Kuhn, you will find that 'large body of evidence' is rarely the reason
for a paradigm shift. Theories are 'accepted' by the mass of academia for
social and political reasons. Not for scientific ones.
Indeed, I'd be surprised if you could name even three fundamental "accepted
theories" that were accepted as a result of a large body of evidence. For
example, the following ones were not: SR, GR, Copenhagen QM.
> which is why they are very hard to refute,
Any truly scientific theory is quite easy to refute. A single experiment is
all that it takes. If it takes more, then the 'theory' is not science, but
is merely dogma. (Of course, it may happen that a theory is never refuted.)
> and doing so every time an
> experiment is done that might possibly contradict them would be a terrible
> mistake.
An even bigger mistake would be to ignore an experiment that contradicts a
theory -- just because it contradicts the theory. Which was the original
point of Norm's post.
--
greywolf42
ubi dubium ibi libertas
{remove planet for return e-mail}
greywolf42
Jul31-04, 09:15 AM
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>\nEsa A E Peuha <esa.peuha@helsinki.fi> wrote in message\nnews:86p4qnpolq8.fsf@sirppi.helsinki.fi.. .\n>\n> "greywolf42" <mingstb@marssim-ss.com> writes:\n>\n> > Esa A E Peuha <esa.peuha@helsinki.fi> wrote in message\n> > news:86pn01jdu4e.fsf@sirppi.helsinki.fi...\n>\n> > > On the contrary, it was scientific. When some experiment appears to\n> > > contradict an established theory (...), the first thing to do\n> > > is to scrutinize the experiment; only if you can\'t refute the\n> > > experiment, you start to look for faults in the theory. That is how\n> > > science works.\n> >\n> > You are describing a personal bias -- not science.\n>\n> In that case nobody at all is doing (or has ever done) science. :-)\n\nOn the contrary, the scientific method (though moribund today) continues.\n\n> > What you are not telling\n> > us, is that you will *not* scrutinize an experiment if it conforms to\n> > your personal prejudices.\n>\n> That\'s not completely true,\n\nBut it *is* true, for the most part. (Say 99% of the time.) Otherwise you\nwould not have provided such a clear description of the fallacy.\n\n> but mostly I (and just about every other\n> human there is) am not paranoid enough to think that there must be\n> something wrong if reality seems to match my expectations.\n\nThe scientific method was developed specifically to avoid being entrapped by\nhumans\' expectations.\n\n> > All experiments must be scrutinized and repeated. Not\n> > just those that appear to contradict the current dominant paradigm.\n>\n> In principle, yes. In practice, when an experiment is repeated for the\n> millionth time and its results match those of the 999999 other times, no\n> one will bother to check it very thoroughly.\n\nA true, but unreal, claim.\n\nQuite simply, you have now devolved into the fallacy of imagined events.\nYou start with the assumption that accepted theories must have had many\nexperiments to support them -- or they wouldn\'t have been accepted. (This\nis quite common, and is a result of what many textbooks -- falsely -- tell\nus.) Then you confabulate a large number of experiments to have existed.\nThen you tell yourself that you need not perform any more experiments,\n*BECAUSE* the theory is well accepted.\n\n> > But you don\'t simply read an experiment looking for the first simplistic\n> > notion that you can come up with to discard an experiment, simply\n> > because it doesn\'t seem to support your view.\n>\n> Where did you get that idea from? That\'s certainly not what I meant.\n\nSorry. I was going on the basis of the actions of other newsgroup\nindividuals (who share your attitude towards experiments that contradict\naccepted theory).\n\nSo, how do *you* examine an experimental paper if you first determine that\nthe results contradict an \'accepted theory\'?\n\n> > > _Raw_ experimental data (what is actually recorded by instruments) is\n> > > never out of date. However, raw data in itself is useless without a\n> > > theory about what the data means,\n> >\n> > This is a common fallacy. However, experimental data does not depend\n> > upon any one theory.\n>\n> That\'s where you are wrong. Experimental data doesn\'t have any meaning\n> at all unless you have a theory that says that the data has some kind of\n> correlation with data that can be obtained from repeating the experiment\n> (otherwise there would be no point in doing the experiment).\n\nI see that we have a large gap in understanding of both the scientific\nmethod and the purposes of doing experiments. To use a Kuhnian word, you\nhave mistaken \'post-paradigm\' experimentation with the scientific method.\nOnce a paradigm (an accepted theory) has taken hold, most experiments are\ndeveloped with the paradigm as a given assumption. And any efforts are\ndirected solely at refining the precision of prior efforts. However, the\nscientific method covers vastly more territory.\n\nData does not have any "meaning" .... other than it is a measurement of the\nreal universe. It is not tied to any one human theory.\n\nAnd many experiments are done simply to see what happens. Before any\ntheory/paradigm ever exists. For example, Faraday undertook many\nexperiments on electricity and magnetism. He came up with "Faraday\'s Law."\nAlmost every equation that has somebody\'s name attached to it is a contrary\nexample to your claim.\n\n> > Anyone can interpret experimental data on the basis of\n> > their own, personal theory.\n>\n> Interpreting the data is quite another matter.\n\nThat\'s what I said.\n\n> > However, the experiment that generated the data\n> > remains valid.\n>\n> No it doesn\'t, if you invalidate the theory that says it has a meaning.\n\nThe data remains. Data *IS* meaning -- it is a measurement of the real\nuniverse. Even if your initial explanation failed.\n\n> > Sometimes, one can contradict a theory with observations (within the\n> > current experiment or other experiments). But this does not \'outdate\'\n> > the theory -- and it certainly doesn\'t \'outdate\' the experiment.\n>\n> Are you saying that experiments can\'t prove a theory wrong?\n\nNo, I\'m saying that experiments are the touchstone of the scientific method.\nExperiments do not depend upon theory at all.\n\nTheories do not get \'outdated\'. They get contradicted by experiment. Dates\nhave nothing to do with it.\n\n> > True, the possibility of innaccuracy always exists. However, data\n> > cannot be considered \'inaccurate\' simply because a later\n> > experiment claims a different result. Which was my point.\n>\n> If you measure lengths of solid objects using a theory that says the\n> lengths are constant, and later discover that the theory was wrong\n> because temperature affects the lengths,\n\nYou have just assumed your conclusion -- then submerged it a level.\n\n> do you really think that the\n> measurements (which may be averages of measurements in various\n> temperatures) are in no way inaccurate?\n\n*IF* one experiment contains a fundamental, systematic error, due to an\nidentified, physical reason, *THEN* the results of that experiment may be\nconsidered inaccurate. However, the inaccurate experiment may well be the\nnewer experiment.\n\nAgain, the newer experiment can never be assumed to be more accurate, simply\nbecause it is newer.\n\n> > > Reduced data is always speculative to some extent.\n> >\n> > "Reduced data" is not experimental data. It is processed by a theory.\n> > Hence, it is no longer \'data\' ... but theoretical conclusion.\n>\n> Reduced data is the only data that can have any meaning, because you\n> need the theoretical conclusion to give it meaning.\n\nExperimental results can exist just fine without a theory to \'explain\' them.\nThis is one of the ways that the scientific method is used to advance our\nknowledge. Recall "Hypothesis non fingo." Newton certainly got a lot of\nuse out of his gravitational relationship, even though he never had a theory\nto explain it.\n\nAnd Kepler\'s data certainly helped him in his efforts. Even though Kepler\nhad no explanation, either.\n\n> > For example, the original hubble relationship was an average of observed\n> > redshift versus observed distance of galaxies. The plot of the redshift\n> > vs. distance of each galaxy was data. And I can even accept that the\n> > straight line through those points (though very rough) could be\n> > considered data.\n>\n> The observed redshifts are almost raw data (the measuring theory says\n> just that the redshift of each galaxy is constant),\n\nThat is a historical untruth. Hubble\'s measurements never assumed any such\n\'measuring theory\' constant.\n\n> but the "observed"\n> distances are actually calculated distances, because what is actually\n> observed has no direct connection to distance;\n\nYou don\'t think that apparent versus abolute luminosity has any direct\nconnection to distance?\n\n> the theory that says that\n> we can measure distances of galaxies by indirect methods is far from\n> trivial (and has actually been changed quite a number of times).\n\nTo what theory are you referring? Hubble didn\'t \'change theories\' in his\n1929 paper. Which is what I was discussing.\n\n> By\n> your standards, we don\'t have any _data_ about distances of galaxies; we\n> don\'t even have data about distances of any but the very nearest stars.\n\nThere is a difference in kind at the convert-redshift-to-speed point (see\nbelow). All other \'theories\' are related explicitly to quantifying the data\n(distance).\n\n> > But when theorists convert the redshift to an apparent velocity, and\n> > call this the \'Hubble constant\' ... then the line is no longer data at\n> > all. But simply theory.\n>\n> It can hardly have any additional theoriticalness compared to the\n> distances.\n\nThere is a substantial difference. The explicit theoretical assumption that\n*ALL* redshifts are due to recessional velocity (or cosmic expansion). This\nis a purely theoretical assumption, having no use whatsoever in the\ndetermination of distances -- or the data used in the Hubble relationship.\n\n--\ngreywolf42\nubi dubium ibi libertas\n{remove planet for return e-mail}\n\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>Esa A E Peuha <esa.peuha@helsinki.fi> wrote in message
news:86p4qnpolq8.fsf@sirppi.helsinki.fi...
>
> "greywolf42" <mingstb@marssim-ss.com> writes:
>
> > Esa A E Peuha <esa.peuha@helsinki.fi> wrote in message
> > news:86pn01jdu4e.fsf@sirppi.helsinki.fi...
>
> > > On the contrary, it was scientific. When some experiment appears to
> > > contradict an established theory (...), the first thing to do
> > > is to scrutinize the experiment; only if you can't refute the
> > > experiment, you start to look for faults in the theory. That is how
> > > science works.
> >
> > You are describing a personal bias -- not science.
>
> In that case nobody at all is doing (or has ever done) science. :-)
On the contrary, the scientific method (though moribund today) continues.
> > What you are not telling
> > us, is that you will *not* scrutinize an experiment if it conforms to
> > your personal prejudices.
>
> That's not completely true,
But it *is* true, for the most part. (Say 99% of the time.) Otherwise you
would not have provided such a clear description of the fallacy.
> but mostly I (and just about every other
> human there is) am not paranoid enough to think that there must be
> something wrong if reality seems to match my expectations.
The scientific method was developed specifically to avoid being entrapped by
humans' expectations.
> > All experiments must be scrutinized and repeated. Not
> > just those that appear to contradict the current dominant paradigm.
>
> In principle, yes. In practice, when an experiment is repeated for the
> millionth time and its results match those of the 999999 other times, no
> one will bother to check it very thoroughly.
A true, but unreal, claim.
Quite simply, you have now devolved into the fallacy of imagined events.
You start with the assumption that accepted theories must have had many
experiments to support them -- or they wouldn't have been accepted. (This
is quite common, and is a result of what many textbooks -- falsely -- tell
us.) Then you confabulate a large number of experiments to have existed.
Then you tell yourself that you need not perform any more experiments,
*BECAUSE* the theory is well accepted.
> > But you don't simply read an experiment looking for the first simplistic
> > notion that you can come up with to discard an experiment, simply
> > because it doesn't seem to support your view.
>
> Where did you get that idea from? That's certainly not what I meant.
Sorry. I was going on the basis of the actions of other newsgroup
individuals (who share your attitude towards experiments that contradict
accepted theory).
So, how do *you* examine an experimental paper if you first determine that
the results contradict an 'accepted theory'?
> > > _Raw_ experimental data (what is actually recorded by instruments) is
> > > never out of date. However, raw data in itself is useless without a
> > > theory about what the data means,
> >
> > This is a common fallacy. However, experimental data does not depend
> > upon any one theory.
>
> That's where you are wrong. Experimental data doesn't have any meaning
> at all unless you have a theory that says that the data has some kind of
> correlation with data that can be obtained from repeating the experiment
> (otherwise there would be no point in doing the experiment).
I see that we have a large gap in understanding of both the scientific
method and the purposes of doing experiments. To use a Kuhnian word, you
have mistaken 'post-paradigm' experimentation with the scientific method.
Once a paradigm (an accepted theory) has taken hold, most experiments are
developed with the paradigm as a given assumption. And any efforts are
directed solely at refining the precision of prior efforts. However, the
scientific method covers vastly more territory.
Data does not have any "meaning" .... other than it is a measurement of the
real universe. It is not tied to any one human theory.
And many experiments are done simply to see what happens. Before any
theory/paradigm ever exists. For example, Faraday undertook many
experiments on electricity and magnetism. He came up with "Faraday's Law."
Almost every equation that has somebody's name attached to it is a contrary
example to your claim.
> > Anyone can interpret experimental data on the basis of
> > their own, personal theory.
>
> Interpreting the data is quite another matter.
That's what I said.
> > However, the experiment that generated the data
> > remains valid.
>
> No it doesn't, if you invalidate the theory that says it has a meaning.
The data remains. Data *IS* meaning -- it is a measurement of the real
universe. Even if your initial explanation failed.
> > Sometimes, one can contradict a theory with observations (within the
> > current experiment or other experiments). But this does not 'outdate'
> > the theory -- and it certainly doesn't 'outdate' the experiment.
>
> Are you saying that experiments can't prove a theory wrong?
No, I'm saying that experiments are the touchstone of the scientific method.
Experiments do not depend upon theory at all.
Theories do not get 'outdated'. They get contradicted by experiment. Dates
have nothing to do with it.
> > True, the possibility of innaccuracy always exists. However, data
> > cannot be considered 'inaccurate' simply because a later
> > experiment claims a different result. Which was my point.
>
> If you measure lengths of solid objects using a theory that says the
> lengths are constant, and later discover that the theory was wrong
> because temperature affects the lengths,
You have just assumed your conclusion -- then submerged it a level.
> do you really think that the
> measurements (which may be averages of measurements in various
> temperatures) are in no way inaccurate?
*IF* one experiment contains a fundamental, systematic error, due to an
identified, physical reason, *THEN* the results of that experiment may be
considered inaccurate. However, the inaccurate experiment may well be the
newer experiment.
Again, the newer experiment can never be assumed to be more accurate, simply
because it is newer.
> > > Reduced data is always speculative to some extent.
> >
> > "Reduced data" is not experimental data. It is processed by a theory.
> > Hence, it is no longer 'data' ... but theoretical conclusion.
>
> Reduced data is the only data that can have any meaning, because you
> need the theoretical conclusion to give it meaning.
Experimental results can exist just fine without a theory to 'explain' them.
This is one of the ways that the scientific method is used to advance our
knowledge. Recall "Hypothesis non fingo." Newton certainly got a lot of
use out of his gravitational relationship, even though he never had a theory
to explain it.
And Kepler's data certainly helped him in his efforts. Even though Kepler
had no explanation, either.
> > For example, the original hubble relationship was an average of observed
> > redshift versus observed distance of galaxies. The plot of the redshift
> > vs. distance of each galaxy was data. And I can even accept that the
> > straight line through those points (though very rough) could be
> > considered data.
>
> The observed redshifts are almost raw data (the measuring theory says
> just that the redshift of each galaxy is constant),
That is a historical untruth. Hubble's measurements never assumed any such
'measuring theory' constant.
> but the "observed"
> distances are actually calculated distances, because what is actually
> observed has no direct connection to distance;
You don't think that apparent versus abolute luminosity has any direct
connection to distance?
> the theory that says that
> we can measure distances of galaxies by indirect methods is far from
> trivial (and has actually been changed quite a number of times).
To what theory are you referring? Hubble didn't 'change theories' in his
1929 paper. Which is what I was discussing.
> By
> your standards, we don't have any _data_ about distances of galaxies; we
> don't even have data about distances of any but the very nearest stars.
There is a difference in kind at the convert-redshift-to-speed point (see
below). All other 'theories' are related explicitly to quantifying the data
(distance).
> > But when theorists convert the redshift to an apparent velocity, and
> > call this the 'Hubble constant' ... then the line is no longer data at
> > all. But simply theory.
>
> It can hardly have any additional theoriticalness compared to the
> distances.
There is a substantial difference. The explicit theoretical assumption that
*ALL* redshifts are due to recessional velocity (or cosmic expansion). This
is a purely theoretical assumption, having no use whatsoever in the
determination of distances -- or the data used in the Hubble relationship.
--
greywolf42
ubi dubium ibi libertas
{remove planet for return e-mail}
Franz Heymann
Jul31-04, 09:15 AM
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>\n"Perfectly Innocent" <perfectlyInnocent@as-if.com> wrote in message\nnews:c45b45b3.0407300629.38cfe412@posting .google.com...\n>\n> daniel@elit.net (Daniel Elander) wrote in message\nnews:<37d84b42.0407281407.1fa13104@postin g.google.com>...\n> >\n> > So tell me why neutrinos from supernova explosions arrive after\nthe light does.\n>\n> I\'ve read that neutrinos from Supernova 1987A were observed to\narrive\n> 18 hours before the photons.\n> http://www.npl.washington.edu/AV/altvw54.html\n\nThat same reference gives a plausible reason why the neutrinos arrived\nbefore the photons. It is connected with stellar dynamics and not\nwith any possible superluminary behaviour.\n\n[snip]\n\nFranz\n\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>"Perfectly Innocent" <perfectlyInnocent@as-if.com> wrote in message
news:c45b45b3.0407300629.38cfe412@posting.google.c om...
>
> daniel@elit.net (Daniel Elander) wrote in message
news:<37d84b42.0407281407.1fa13104@posting.google.com>...
> >
> > So tell me why neutrinos from supernova explosions arrive after
the light does.
>
> I've read that neutrinos from Supernova 1987A were observed to
arrive
> 18 hours before the photons.
> http://www.npl.washington.edu/AV/altvw54.html
That same reference gives a plausible reason why the neutrinos arrived
before the photons. It is connected with stellar dynamics and not
with any possible superluminary behaviour.
[snip]
Franz
Norm Dresner
Jul31-04, 09:15 AM
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>\n"greywolf42" <mingstb@marssim-ss.com> wrote in message\nnews:10gikksccs06n19@corp.supernews.com.. .\n>\n> Norm Dresner <ndrez@att.net> wrote in message\n> news:LVVNc.145648\\$OB3.66667@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...\n> >\n> > "greywolf42" <mingstb@marssim-ss.com> wrote in message\n> > news:10gfqb8k9raqm5d@corp.supernews.com...\n> > > Mark Palenik <markpalenik@wideopenwest.com> wrote in message\n> > > news:RPmdndm8wcvinJrcRVn-tw@wideopenwest.com...\n> > > > "greywolf42" <mingstb@marssim-ss.com> wrote in message\n> > > > news:10gb3icit9n487e@corp.supernews.com...\n>\n> > <snip>\n>\n> > > > > You may note that your item number 1 is purely theoretical (even\nif\n> > > > > it *is* "mainstream"). Item number 2 is experimental. According\n> > > > > to the scientific method, experiment trumps theory.\n> > > >\n> > > > I take it you haven\'t read any of the messages here explaining that\n> > > > that information is out of dat, inaccurate, and was speculative at\n> > > > best, at the time.\n> > >\n> > > Sure I\'d read the other posts. However, they are irrelevant to the\n> > > claims and reasoning provided (which was snipped) by the prior poster\n> > > (Norm Dresner). Norm posted a claim that Ockham\'s Razor would\n> > > have us discard experimental results if it contradicted accepted\ntheory.\n> > > And solely because it was \'simpler\' to accept conventional theory.\n> > > Norm did not provide any other reasoning. My post responded solely\n> > > to the reasoning provided by Norm -- which was clearly unscientific.\n> > >\n> > I would have you [as I do] intensely question unreproducable\nexperimental\n> > "data".\n>\n> Norm, you didn\'t mention anything about \'unreproduceable\' data in your\n> original post. You simply claimed that data was to be considered bad, if\nit\n> contradicted accepted theory.\n>\n\nNO.\n\n1, I didn\'t claim that the data was bad, but simply that because it\ncontradicted a large body of existing physics that it had to be viewed with\nextreme skepticism\n\n2. If you\'re main argument against my comment was that I didn\'t explain all\nof the background knowledge that went into the formation of my view, I plead\nguilty to extreme brevity.\n\n> Faith and belief are not "allowed" in the scientific method. Now each\n> individual human that attempts to practice the scientific method quickly\n> finds that one does not have time to check every detail of every\nexperiment.\n> So the individual must make personal choices as to where to invest one\'s\n> time and energy.\n>\n> However, such a choice does not mean that the next person may not look for\n> (and possibly find) something that contradicts the dominant paradigm. The\n> correct response (in the scientific method) is *not* to immediately\ndismiss\n> the experiment and/or the qualifications or abilities of the reporter.\nBut\n> to repeat the experiment.\n\n1. Since Popper, most scientists accept that scientific theories can never\nbe proven, only falsified, the only reason left to support such theories is\nfaith in the results that tend to validate them.\n2. Others have posted information about attempts to reproduce the results so\nI won\'t dwell on them but just comment that if these attempts had produced\ndata that even came close to validating the previous results then\nsuperliminality would be close to, if not already, the accepted paradigm.\nIt\'s not and there has to be a reason for it. The reason is the lack of\nexperimental data to support belief in it in the face of a vast body of\nexperimental data that has never detected a superluminal event/particle. In\nrefusing to accept the interpretation of the data you referenced as proving\nthat tachyons had been detected I was simply basing my belief on the lack of\nany acceptance by a much larger and more critical body of scientists than I\nin that field, much as I do for theories pertaining to DNA and genetics.\n3. We all have -- both as humans and as scientists -- beliefs that can\'t be\n"proven". The notion of a "dominant paradigm" requires that there be\n"belief" in something.\n\nNorm\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>"greywolf42" <mingstb@marssim-ss.com> wrote in message
news:10gikksccs06n19@corp.supernews.com...
>
> Norm Dresner <ndrez@att.net> wrote in message
> news:LVVNc.145648$OB3.66667@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> >
> > "greywolf42" <mingstb@marssim-ss.com> wrote in message
> > news:10gfqb8k9raqm5d@corp.supernews.com...
> > > Mark Palenik <markpalenik@wideopenwest.com> wrote in message
> > > news:RPmdndm8wcvinJrcRVn-tw@wideopenwest.com...
> > > > "greywolf42" <mingstb@marssim-ss.com> wrote in message
> > > > news:10gb3icit9n487e@corp.supernews.com...
>
> > <snip>
>
> > > > > You may note that your item number 1 is purely theoretical (even
if
> > > > > it *is* "mainstream"). Item number 2 is experimental. According
> > > > > to the scientific method, experiment trumps theory.
> > > >
> > > > I take it you haven't read any of the messages here explaining that
> > > > that information is out of dat, inaccurate, and was speculative at
> > > > best, at the time.
> > >
> > > Sure I'd read the other posts. However, they are irrelevant to the
> > > claims and reasoning provided (which was snipped) by the prior poster
> > > (Norm Dresner). Norm posted a claim that Ockham's Razor would
> > > have us discard experimental results if it contradicted accepted
theory.
> > > And solely because it was 'simpler' to accept conventional theory.
> > > Norm did not provide any other reasoning. My post responded solely
> > > to the reasoning provided by Norm -- which was clearly unscientific.
> > >
> > I would have you [as I do] intensely question unreproducable
experimental
> > "data".
>
> Norm, you didn't mention anything about 'unreproduceable' data in your
> original post. You simply claimed that data was to be considered bad, if
it
> contradicted accepted theory.
>
NO.
1, I didn't claim that the data was bad, but simply that because it
contradicted a large body of existing physics that it had to be viewed with
extreme skepticism
2. If you're main argument against my comment was that I didn't explain all
of the background knowledge that went into the formation of my view, I plead
guilty to extreme brevity.
> Faith and belief are not "allowed" in the scientific method. Now each
> individual human that attempts to practice the scientific method quickly
> finds that one does not have time to check every detail of every
experiment.
> So the individual must make personal choices as to where to invest one's
> time and energy.
>
> However, such a choice does not mean that the next person may not look for
> (and possibly find) something that contradicts the dominant paradigm. The
> correct response (in the scientific method) is *not* to immediately
dismiss
> the experiment and/or the qualifications or abilities of the reporter.
But
> to repeat the experiment.
1. Since Popper, most scientists accept that scientific theories can never
be proven, only falsified, the only reason left to support such theories is
faith in the results that tend to validate them.
2. Others have posted information about attempts to reproduce the results so
I won't dwell on them but just comment that if these attempts had produced
data that even came close to validating the previous results then
superliminality would be close to, if not already, the accepted paradigm.
It's not and there has to be a reason for it. The reason is the lack of
experimental data to support belief in it in the face of a vast body of
experimental data that has never detected a superluminal event/particle. In
refusing to accept the interpretation of the data you referenced as proving
that tachyons had been detected I was simply basing my belief on the lack of
any acceptance by a much larger and more critical body of scientists than I
in that field, much as I do for theories pertaining to DNA and genetics.
3. We all have -- both as humans and as scientists -- beliefs that can't be
"proven". The notion of a "dominant paradigm" requires that there be
"belief" in something.
Norm
Esa A E Peuha
Aug4-04, 01:22 AM
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>greywolf42 <mingstb@marssim-ss.com> writes:\n\n> Esa A E Peuha <esa.peuha@helsinki.fi> wrote in message\n> news:86p4qnpolq8.fsf@sirppi.helsinki.fi...\n> >\n> > "greywolf42" <mingstb@marssim-ss.com> writes:\n> >\n> > > Esa A E Peuha <esa.peuha@helsinki.fi> wrote in message\n> > > news:86pn01jdu4e.fsf@sirppi.helsinki.fi...\n> >\n> > > > On the contrary, it was scientific. When some experiment appears to\n> > > > contradict an established theory (...), the first thing to do\n> > > > is to scrutinize the experiment; only if you can\'t refute the\n> > > > experiment, you start to look for faults in the theory. That is how\n> > > > science works.\n> > >\n> > > You are describing a personal bias -- not science.\n> >\n> > In that case nobody at all is doing (or has ever done) science. :-)\n>\n> On the contrary, the scientific method (though moribund today) continues.\n\nYes, but you can\'t really claim that personal biases don\'t affect\nscience; most scientists have personal biases about science, and many\ngood scientists are good precisely because of these biases.\n\n> The scientific method was developed specifically to avoid being entrapped by\n> humans\' expectations.\n\nNevertheless, human expectations have had (and probably will had) great\nimpact on the development of science.\n\n> Quite simply, you have now devolved into the fallacy of imagined events.\n> You start with the assumption that accepted theories must have had many\n> experiments to support them -- or they wouldn\'t have been accepted.\n\nI don\'t assume that, I know it (not for all accepted theories, but for\nmany).\n\n> Then you tell yourself that you need not perform any more experiments,\n> *BECAUSE* the theory is well accepted.\n\nWhere did you draw this conclusion? That\'s not what I meant.\n\n> So, how do *you* examine an experimental paper if you first determine that\n> the results contradict an \'accepted theory\'?\n\nWell, if reading the paper doesn\'t reveal anything immediately wrong\nwith the experiment, I would probably ask other people what they think.\n\n> > That\'s where you are wrong. Experimental data doesn\'t have any meaning\n> > at all unless you have a theory that says that the data has some kind of\n> > correlation with data that can be obtained from repeating the experiment\n> > (otherwise there would be no point in doing the experiment).\n>\n> I see that we have a large gap in understanding of both the scientific\n> method and the purposes of doing experiments. To use a Kuhnian word, you\n> have mistaken \'post-paradigm\' experimentation with the scientific method.\n> Once a paradigm (an accepted theory) has taken hold, most experiments are\n> developed with the paradigm as a given assumption. And any efforts are\n> directed solely at refining the precision of prior efforts. However, the\n> scientific method covers vastly more territory.\n\nWhat are you talking about? I most certainly will need to know that the\nmeasuring instrument is not just a random number generator, and to know\nthat I need a theory that says that the instrument actually measures\nsomething and sufficient number of experiments to confirm it. That is\nall mean in the above text.\n\n> Data does not have any "meaning" .... other than it is a measurement of the\n> real universe. It is not tied to any one human theory.\n\nA measurement in itself is dependent of the measuring instrument, and\ntherefore not very useful until it is converted to something that is\nindependent of the instrument.\n\n> And many experiments are done simply to see what happens. Before any\n> theory/paradigm ever exists. For example, Faraday undertook many\n> experiments on electricity and magnetism. He came up with "Faraday\'s Law."\n> Almost every equation that has somebody\'s name attached to it is a contrary\n> example to your claim.\n\nWhat are you talking about? What claim I have made that this is\nsupposed to contradict?\n\n> > > However, the experiment that generated the data\n> > > remains valid.\n> >\n> > No it doesn\'t, if you invalidate the theory that says it has a meaning.\n>\n> The data remains. Data *IS* meaning -- it is a measurement of the real\n> universe. Even if your initial explanation failed.\n\nSuppose that you have a rod that you think is exactly one meter long\n(your theory of the measuring instrument), and that you measure\nsomething else with it. If you find that some other object is 6.137\ntimes as long as the rod (which is data), then you conclude that it is\n6.137 meters long (which is meaning). If you then find out that the rod\nis in fact 1.19 meters long (your theory was wrong), do you still think\nthat the other object is 6.137 meters long?\n\n> > > Sometimes, one can contradict a theory with observations (within the\n> > > current experiment or other experiments). But this does not \'outdate\'\n> > > the theory -- and it certainly doesn\'t \'outdate\' the experiment.\n> >\n> > Are you saying that experiments can\'t prove a theory wrong?\n>\n> No, I\'m saying that experiments are the touchstone of the scientific method.\n> Experiments do not depend upon theory at all.\n\nExperiments do depend on theory about the measuring instruments.\n\n> Again, the newer experiment can never be assumed to be more accurate, simply\n> because it is newer.\n\nAnd I have not done so.\n\n> > > > Reduced data is always speculative to some extent.\n> > >\n> > > "Reduced data" is not experimental data. It is processed by a theory.\n> > > Hence, it is no longer \'data\' ... but theoretical conclusion.\n> >\n> > Reduced data is the only data that can have any meaning, because you\n> > need the theoretical conclusion to give it meaning.\n>\n> Experimental results can exist just fine without a theory to \'explain\' them.\n\nNot without a theory about the instruments.\n\n> This is one of the ways that the scientific method is used to advance our\n> knowledge. Recall "Hypothesis non fingo." Newton certainly got a lot of\n> use out of his gravitational relationship, even though he never had a theory\n> to explain it.\n\nWhy do you think Newton\'s theory of gravitation is not a theory?\n\n> > > For example, the original hubble relationship was an average of observed\n> > > redshift versus observed distance of galaxies. The plot of the redshift\n> > > vs. distance of each galaxy was data. And I can even accept that the\n> > > straight line through those points (though very rough) could be\n> > > considered data.\n> >\n> > The observed redshifts are almost raw data (the measuring theory says\n> > just that the redshift of each galaxy is constant),\n>\n> That is a historical untruth. Hubble\'s measurements never assumed any such\n> \'measuring theory\' constant.\n\nReally? Would he have measured them if they had taken random new values\nat every repetition?\n\n> > but the "observed"\n> > distances are actually calculated distances, because what is actually\n> > observed has no direct connection to distance;\n>\n> You don\'t think that apparent versus abolute luminosity has any direct\n> connection to distance?\n\nI do, but the absolute luminosities are _calculated_, not measured.\n\n> > the theory that says that\n> > we can measure distances of galaxies by indirect methods is far from\n> > trivial (and has actually been changed quite a number of times).\n>\n> To what theory are you referring? Hubble didn\'t \'change theories\' in his\n> 1929 paper. Which is what I was discussing.\n\nIn 1952, galactic distances doubled overnight when it was discovered\nthat there were two types of cepheids; there have been other (much less\nradical) refinements.\n\n> > By\n> > your standards, we don\'t have any _data_ about distances of galaxies; we\n> > don\'t even have data about distances of any but the very nearest stars.\n>\n> There is a difference in kind at the convert-redshift-to-speed point (see\n> below). All other \'theories\' are related explicitly to quantifying the data\n> (distance).\n\nI fail to see the fundamental difference.\n\n> > > But when theorists convert the redshift to an apparent velocity, and\n> > > call this the \'Hubble constant\' ... then the line is no longer data at\n> > > all. But simply theory.\n> >\n> > It can hardly have any additional theoriticalness compared to the\n> > distances.\n>\n> There is a substantial difference. The explicit theoretical assumption that\n> *ALL* redshifts are due to recessional velocity (or cosmic expansion). This\n> is a purely theoretical assumption, having no use whatsoever in the\n> determination of distances -- or the data used in the Hubble relationship.\n\nSo the fact that redshifts and distances have a strong measured\ncorrelation means nothing to you, does it?\n\n--\nEsa Peuha\nstudent of mathematics at the University of Helsinki\nhttp://www.helsinki.fi/~peuha/\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>greywolf42 <mingstb@marssim-ss.com> writes:
> Esa A E Peuha <esa.peuha@helsinki.fi> wrote in message
> news:86p4qnpolq8.fsf@sirppi.helsinki.fi...
> >
> > "greywolf42" <mingstb@marssim-ss.com> writes:
> >
> > > Esa A E Peuha <esa.peuha@helsinki.fi> wrote in message
> > > news:86pn01jdu4e.fsf@sirppi.helsinki.fi...
> >
> > > > On the contrary, it was scientific. When some experiment appears to
> > > > contradict an established theory (...), the first thing to do
> > > > is to scrutinize the experiment; only if you can't refute the
> > > > experiment, you start to look for faults in the theory. That is how
> > > > science works.
> > >
> > > You are describing a personal bias -- not science.
> >
> > In that case nobody at all is doing (or has ever done) science. :-)
>
> On the contrary, the scientific method (though moribund today) continues.
Yes, but you can't really claim that personal biases don't affect
science; most scientists have personal biases about science, and many
good scientists are good precisely because of these biases.
> The scientific method was developed specifically to avoid being entrapped by
> humans' expectations.
Nevertheless, human expectations have had (and probably will had) great
impact on the development of science.
> Quite simply, you have now devolved into the fallacy of imagined events.
> You start with the assumption that accepted theories must have had many
> experiments to support them -- or they wouldn't have been accepted.
I don't assume that, I know it (not for all accepted theories, but for
many).
> Then you tell yourself that you need not perform any more experiments,
> *BECAUSE* the theory is well accepted.
Where did you draw this conclusion? That's not what I meant.
> So, how do *you* examine an experimental paper if you first determine that
> the results contradict an 'accepted theory'?
Well, if reading the paper doesn't reveal anything immediately wrong
with the experiment, I would probably ask other people what they think.
> > That's where you are wrong. Experimental data doesn't have any meaning
> > at all unless you have a theory that says that the data has some kind of
> > correlation with data that can be obtained from repeating the experiment
> > (otherwise there would be no point in doing the experiment).
>
> I see that we have a large gap in understanding of both the scientific
> method and the purposes of doing experiments. To use a Kuhnian word, you
> have mistaken 'post-paradigm' experimentation with the scientific method.
> Once a paradigm (an accepted theory) has taken hold, most experiments are
> developed with the paradigm as a given assumption. And any efforts are
> directed solely at refining the precision of prior efforts. However, the
> scientific method covers vastly more territory.
What are you talking about? I most certainly will need to know that the
measuring instrument is not just a random number generator, and to know
that I need a theory that says that the instrument actually measures
something and sufficient number of experiments to confirm it. That is
all mean in the above text.
> Data does not have any "meaning" .... other than it is a measurement of the
> real universe. It is not tied to any one human theory.
A measurement in itself is dependent of the measuring instrument, and
therefore not very useful until it is converted to something that is
independent of the instrument.
> And many experiments are done simply to see what happens. Before any
> theory/paradigm ever exists. For example, Faraday undertook many
> experiments on electricity and magnetism. He came up with "Faraday's Law."
> Almost every equation that has somebody's name attached to it is a contrary
> example to your claim.
What are you talking about? What claim I have made that this is
supposed to contradict?
> > > However, the experiment that generated the data
> > > remains valid.
> >
> > No it doesn't, if you invalidate the theory that says it has a meaning.
>
> The data remains. Data *IS* meaning -- it is a measurement of the real
> universe. Even if your initial explanation failed.
Suppose that you have a rod that you think is exactly one meter long
(your theory of the measuring instrument), and that you measure
something else with it. If you find that some other object is 6.137
times as long as the rod (which is data), then you conclude that it is
6.137 meters long (which is meaning). If you then find out that the rod
is in fact 1.19 meters long (your theory was wrong), do you still think
that the other object is 6.137 meters long?
> > > Sometimes, one can contradict a theory with observations (within the
> > > current experiment or other experiments). But this does not 'outdate'
> > > the theory -- and it certainly doesn't 'outdate' the experiment.
> >
> > Are you saying that experiments can't prove a theory wrong?
>
> No, I'm saying that experiments are the touchstone of the scientific method.
> Experiments do not depend upon theory at all.
Experiments do depend on theory about the measuring instruments.
> Again, the newer experiment can never be assumed to be more accurate, simply
> because it is newer.
And I have not done so.
> > > > Reduced data is always speculative to some extent.
> > >
> > > "Reduced data" is not experimental data. It is processed by a theory.
> > > Hence, it is no longer 'data' ... but theoretical conclusion.
> >
> > Reduced data is the only data that can have any meaning, because you
> > need the theoretical conclusion to give it meaning.
>
> Experimental results can exist just fine without a theory to 'explain' them.
Not without a theory about the instruments.
> This is one of the ways that the scientific method is used to advance our
> knowledge. Recall "Hypothesis non fingo." Newton certainly got a lot of
> use out of his gravitational relationship, even though he never had a theory
> to explain it.
Why do you think Newton's theory of gravitation is not a theory?
> > > For example, the original hubble relationship was an average of observed
> > > redshift versus observed distance of galaxies. The plot of the redshift
> > > vs. distance of each galaxy was data. And I can even accept that the
> > > straight line through those points (though very rough) could be
> > > considered data.
> >
> > The observed redshifts are almost raw data (the measuring theory says
> > just that the redshift of each galaxy is constant),
>
> That is a historical untruth. Hubble's measurements never assumed any such
> 'measuring theory' constant.
Really? Would he have measured them if they had taken random new values
at every repetition?
> > but the "observed"
> > distances are actually calculated distances, because what is actually
> > observed has no direct connection to distance;
>
> You don't think that apparent versus abolute luminosity has any direct
> connection to distance?
I do, but the absolute luminosities are _calculated_, not measured.
> > the theory that says that
> > we can measure distances of galaxies by indirect methods is far from
> > trivial (and has actually been changed quite a number of times).
>
> To what theory are you referring? Hubble didn't 'change theories' in his
> 1929 paper. Which is what I was discussing.
In 1952, galactic distances doubled overnight when it was discovered
that there were two types of cepheids; there have been other (much less
radical) refinements.
> > By
> > your standards, we don't have any _data_ about distances of galaxies; we
> > don't even have data about distances of any but the very nearest stars.
>
> There is a difference in kind at the convert-redshift-to-speed point (see
> below). All other 'theories' are related explicitly to quantifying the data
> (distance).
I fail to see the fundamental difference.
> > > But when theorists convert the redshift to an apparent velocity, and
> > > call this the 'Hubble constant' ... then the line is no longer data at
> > > all. But simply theory.
> >
> > It can hardly have any additional theoriticalness compared to the
> > distances.
>
> There is a substantial difference. The explicit theoretical assumption that
> *ALL* redshifts are due to recessional velocity (or cosmic expansion). This
> is a purely theoretical assumption, having no use whatsoever in the
> determination of distances -- or the data used in the Hubble relationship.
So the fact that redshifts and distances have a strong measured
correlation means nothing to you, does it?
--
Esa Peuha
student of mathematics at the University of Helsinki
http://www.helsinki.fi/~peuha/
greywolf42
Aug5-04, 03:24 AM
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>"Esa A E Peuha" <esa.peuha@helsinki.fi> wrote in message\nnews:86ppt68v442.fsf@sirppi.helsinki.fi.. .\n> greywolf42 <mingstb@marssim-ss.com> writes:\n>\n> > Esa A E Peuha <esa.peuha@helsinki.fi> wrote in message\n> > news:86p4qnpolq8.fsf@sirppi.helsinki.fi...\n\n{sni p higher levels}\n\n> > > In that case nobody at all is doing (or has ever done) science. :-)\n> >\n> > On the contrary, the scientific method (though moribund today)\n> > continues.\n>\n> Yes, but you can\'t really claim that personal biases don\'t affect\n> science; most scientists have personal biases about science, and many\n> good scientists are good precisely because of these biases.\n\nI consider your statement self-evidently false. By definition, a biased\n\'scientist\' cannot be a good scientist.\n\n> > The scientific method was developed specifically to avoid being\n> > entrapped by humans\' expectations.\n>\n> Nevertheless, human expectations have had (and probably will had) great\n> impact on the development of science.\n\nWithout a doubt. But this is a socilogical problem.\n\n> > Quite simply, you have now devolved into the fallacy of imagined events.\n> > You start with the assumption that accepted theories must have had many\n> > experiments to support them -- or they wouldn\'t have been accepted.\n>\n> I don\'t assume that, I know it (not for all accepted theories, but for\n> many).\n\nBut it appears that you \'know\' it only because you accepted what somebody\nelse told you.\n\n> > Then you tell yourself that you need not perform any more experiments,\n> > *BECAUSE* the theory is well accepted.\n>\n> Where did you draw this conclusion? That\'s not what I meant.\n\nMy apologies. Please explain what you *did* mean.\n\n> > So, how do *you* examine an experimental paper if you first determine\n> > that the results contradict an \'accepted theory\'?\n>\n> Well, if reading the paper doesn\'t reveal anything immediately wrong\n> with the experiment, I would probably ask other people what they think.\n\nThat is not the scientific method. That is polling to find the popular\nview.\n\n> > > That\'s where you are wrong. Experimental data doesn\'t have any\n> > > meaning at all unless you have a theory that says that the data has\n> > > some kind of correlation with data that can be obtained from\n> > > repeating the experiment (otherwise there would be no point in\n> > > doing the experiment).\n> >\n> > I see that we have a large gap in understanding of both the scientific\n> > method and the purposes of doing experiments. To use a Kuhnian word,\n> > you have mistaken \'post-paradigm\' experimentation with the scientific\n> > method. Once a paradigm (an accepted theory) has taken hold, most\n> > experiments are developed with the paradigm as a given assumption.\n> > And any efforts are directed solely at refining the precision of prior\n> > efforts. However, the scientific method covers vastly more territory.\n>\n> What are you talking about? I most certainly will need to know that the\n> measuring instrument is not just a random number generator, and to know\n> that I need a theory that says that the instrument actually measures\n> something and sufficient number of experiments to confirm it. That is\n> all mean in the above text.\n\nI rest my case.\n\n> > Data does not have any "meaning" .... other than it is a measurement of\n> > the real universe. It is not tied to any one human theory.\n>\n> A measurement in itself is dependent of the measuring instrument, and\n> therefore not very useful until it is converted to something that is\n> independent of the instrument.\n\nThe scientific method is not about \'usefulness.\' It is about knowledge of\nthe universe.\n\n> > And many experiments are done simply to see what happens. Before any\n> > theory/paradigm ever exists. For example, Faraday undertook many\n> > experiments on electricity and magnetism. He came up with "Faraday\'s\n> > Law." Almost every equation that has somebody\'s name attached to it\n> > is a contrary example to your claim.\n>\n> What are you talking about? What claim I have made that this is\n> supposed to contradict?\n\nYour claim was that a theory must exist before an experiment can be\nundertaken. That data has no \'meaning\' without a theory to first give it\nlife.\n\n{snip higher levels}\n\n> > > No it doesn\'t, if you invalidate the theory that says it has a\n> > > meaning.\n> >\n> > The data remains. Data *IS* meaning -- it is a measurement of the real\n> > universe. Even if your initial explanation failed.\n>\n> Suppose that you have a rod that you think is exactly one meter long\n> (your theory of the measuring instrument), and that you measure\n> something else with it. If you find that some other object is 6.137\n> times as long as the rod (which is data), then you conclude that it is\n> 6.137 meters long (which is meaning). If you then find out that the rod\n> is in fact 1.19 meters long (your theory was wrong), do you still think\n> that the other object is 6.137 meters long?\n\nYou continue to confuse measurement with reality, and physics with mere\nmath. Which is quite common in these \'modern\' days. Quite simply, there is\na major difference between length and units of length.\n\nI arbitrarily select a unit of length that I choose to call a \'meter.\' It\ndoesn\'t matter what reason I think up to come up with this standard. But I\nthen declare that \'this here\' rod in my hand is the *standard* meter. If I\nthen measure another object\'s length (using the rod) and find that it is\n6.137 times the length of the rod, then I can say the object is 6.137\n\'meters\' long. That is, it is 6.137 times the length of the *standard meter\nstick*.\n\nNow, there is no way that my definition can be \'wrong.\' If I then find a\nnew rod -- which I\'ll call a \'mugwump\' -- I can compare the \'mugwump\' rod to\nthe \'meter\' rod. And I find that the mugwump is 1.19 times the length of\nthe \'meter.\' Now, if I measure the prior object with my \'mugwump\' standard,\nI find that it is 5.157 \'mugwumps\' in length.\n\nNow if I was fool enough to call the new (mugwump) standard a \'meter\', then\nI\'d merely be sowing confusion. The length of the object has not changed at\nall. The length of the meter standard has not changed at all, either. I\'ve\njust created a new standard, and continued to use the old name.\n\n{snip higher levels}\n\n> > > Are you saying that experiments can\'t prove a theory wrong?\n> >\n> > No, I\'m saying that experiments are the touchstone of the scientific\n> > method. Experiments do not depend upon theory at all.\n>\n> Experiments do depend on theory about the measuring instruments.\n\nMerely repeating your false claim does not advance your argument.\n\n> > Again, the newer experiment can never be assumed to be more accurate,\n> > simply because it is newer.\n>\n> And I have not done so.\n\nYou supported Norm\'s original claim to this effect. And that was what I was\noriginally adressing.\n\n{snip higher levels}\n\n> > > Reduced data is the only data that can have any meaning, because you\n> > > need the theoretical conclusion to give it meaning.\n> >\n> > Experimental results can exist just fine without a theory to \'explain\'\n> > them.\n>\n> Not without a theory about the instruments.\n\nMerely repeating your false claim does not advance your argument.\n\n> > This is one of the ways that the scientific method is used to advance\n> > our knowledge. Recall "Hypothesis non fingo." Newton certainly\n> > got a lot of use out of his gravitational relationship, even though he\n> > never had a theory to explain it.\n>\n> Why do you think Newton\'s theory of gravitation is not a theory?\n\n1) Because he said it wasn\'t. (Hypothesis non fingo.)\n2) Because it is an empirical relationship. (Which is not a theory.)\n\n> > > > For example, the original hubble relationship was an average of\n> > > > observed redshift versus observed distance of galaxies. The\n> > > > plot of the redshift vs. distance of each galaxy was data.\n> > > > And I can even accept that the straight line through those\n> > > > points (though very rough) could be considered data.\n> > >\n> > > The observed redshifts are almost raw data (the measuring theory says\n> > > just that the redshift of each galaxy is constant),\n> >\n> > That is a historical untruth. Hubble\'s measurements never assumed any\n> > such \'measuring theory\' constant.\n>\n> Really? Would he have measured them if they had taken random new values\n> at every repetition?\n\n??? Hubble simply reported what he found. He used no \'measuring constant.\'\n\n> > > but the "observed"\n> > > distances are actually calculated distances, because what is actually\n> > > observed has no direct connection to distance;\n> >\n> > You don\'t think that apparent versus abolute luminosity has any direct\n> > connection to distance?\n>\n> I do, but the absolute luminosities are _calculated_, not measured.\n\nBut luminosity versus absolute luminosity *does* have a connection to\ndistance. Which disproves your prior claim.\n\n> > > the theory that says that\n> > > we can measure distances of galaxies by indirect methods is far from\n> > > trivial (and has actually been changed quite a number of times).\n> >\n> > To what theory are you referring? Hubble didn\'t \'change theories\' in\n> > his 1929 paper. Which is what I was discussing.\n>\n> In 1952, galactic distances doubled overnight when it was discovered\n> that there were two types of cepheids; there have been other (much less\n> radical) refinements.\n\nROTFLMAO!!!!\n\nThe galaxies did not suddenly leap out a factor of two! Our expectation of\ntheir distance was changed. You continue to confuse measurement with\nreality.\n\n> > > By\n> > > your standards, we don\'t have any _data_ about distances of galaxies;\n> > > we don\'t even have data about distances of any but the very nearest\n> > > stars.\n> >\n> > There is a difference in kind at the convert-redshift-to-speed point\n> > (see below). All other \'theories\' are related explicitly to quantifying\n> > the data (distance).\n>\n> I fail to see the fundamental difference.\n\nI agree. Try focusing on the exchange at the beginning of this post. The\ndifference between a measurement (number) and reality.\n\n> > > > But when theorists convert the redshift to an apparent velocity, and\n> > > > call this the \'Hubble constant\' ... then the line is no longer data\n> > > > at all. But simply theory.\n> > >\n> > > It can hardly have any additional theoriticalness compared to the\n> > > distances.\n> >\n> > There is a substantial difference. The explicit theoretical assumption\n> > that *ALL* redshifts are due to recessional velocity (or cosmic\n> > expansion). This is a purely theoretical assumption, having no use\n> > whatsoever in the determination of distances -- or the data used\n> > in the Hubble relationship.\n>\n> So the fact that redshifts and distances have a strong measured\n> correlation means nothing to you, does it?\n\nRedshift-distance means a lot to me, because it is (at least somewhat)\nobservational. But I see no observational correlation at all between\n*velocity* and distance. Which is the way the "Hubble constant" is usually\ngiven by the cosmologists.\n\n--\ngreywolf42\nubi dubium ibi libertas\n{remove planet for e-mail}\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>"Esa A E Peuha" <esa.peuha@helsinki.fi> wrote in message
news:86ppt68v442.fsf@sirppi.helsinki.fi...
> greywolf42 <mingstb@marssim-ss.com> writes:
>
> > Esa A E Peuha <esa.peuha@helsinki.fi> wrote in message
> > news:86p4qnpolq8.fsf@sirppi.helsinki.fi...
{snip higher levels}
> > > In that case nobody at all is doing (or has ever done) science. :-)
> >
> > On the contrary, the scientific method (though moribund today)
> > continues.
>
> Yes, but you can't really claim that personal biases don't affect
> science; most scientists have personal biases about science, and many
> good scientists are good precisely because of these biases.
I consider your statement self-evidently false. By definition, a biased
'scientist' cannot be a good scientist.
> > The scientific method was developed specifically to avoid being
> > entrapped by humans' expectations.
>
> Nevertheless, human expectations have had (and probably will had) great
> impact on the development of science.
Without a doubt. But this is a socilogical problem.
> > Quite simply, you have now devolved into the fallacy of imagined events.
> > You start with the assumption that accepted theories must have had many
> > experiments to support them -- or they wouldn't have been accepted.
>
> I don't assume that, I know it (not for all accepted theories, but for
> many).
But it appears that you 'know' it only because you accepted what somebody
else told you.
> > Then you tell yourself that you need not perform any more experiments,
> > *BECAUSE* the theory is well accepted.
>
> Where did you draw this conclusion? That's not what I meant.
My apologies. Please explain what you *did* mean.
> > So, how do *you* examine an experimental paper if you first determine
> > that the results contradict an 'accepted theory'?
>
> Well, if reading the paper doesn't reveal anything immediately wrong
> with the experiment, I would probably ask other people what they think.
That is not the scientific method. That is polling to find the popular
view.
> > > That's where you are wrong. Experimental data doesn't have any
> > > meaning at all unless you have a theory that says that the data has
> > > some kind of correlation with data that can be obtained from
> > > repeating the experiment (otherwise there would be no point in
> > > doing the experiment).
> >
> > I see that we have a large gap in understanding of both the scientific
> > method and the purposes of doing experiments. To use a Kuhnian word,
> > you have mistaken 'post-paradigm' experimentation with the scientific
> > method. Once a paradigm (an accepted theory) has taken hold, most
> > experiments are developed with the paradigm as a given assumption.
> > And any efforts are directed solely at refining the precision of prior
> > efforts. However, the scientific method covers vastly more territory.
>
> What are you talking about? I most certainly will need to know that the
> measuring instrument is not just a random number generator, and to know
> that I need a theory that says that the instrument actually measures
> something and sufficient number of experiments to confirm it. That is
> all mean in the above text.
I rest my case.
> > Data does not have any "meaning" .... other than it is a measurement of
> > the real universe. It is not tied to any one human theory.
>
> A measurement in itself is dependent of the measuring instrument, and
> therefore not very useful until it is converted to something that is
> independent of the instrument.
The scientific method is not about 'usefulness.' It is about knowledge of
the universe.
> > And many experiments are done simply to see what happens. Before any
> > theory/paradigm ever exists. For example, Faraday undertook many
> > experiments on electricity and magnetism. He came up with "Faraday's
> > Law." Almost every equation that has somebody's name attached to it
> > is a contrary example to your claim.
>
> What are you talking about? What claim I have made that this is
> supposed to contradict?
Your claim was that a theory must exist before an experiment can be
undertaken. That data has no 'meaning' without a theory to first give it
life.
{snip higher levels}
> > > No it doesn't, if you invalidate the theory that says it has a
> > > meaning.
> >
> > The data remains. Data *IS* meaning -- it is a measurement of the real
> > universe. Even if your initial explanation failed.
>
> Suppose that you have a rod that you think is exactly one meter long
> (your theory of the measuring instrument), and that you measure
> something else with it. If you find that some other object is 6.137
> times as long as the rod (which is data), then you conclude that it is
> 6.137 meters long (which is meaning). If you then find out that the rod
> is in fact 1.19 meters long (your theory was wrong), do you still think
> that the other object is 6.137 meters long?
You continue to confuse measurement with reality, and physics with mere
math. Which is quite common in these 'modern' days. Quite simply, there is
a major difference between length and units of length.
I arbitrarily select a unit of length that I choose to call a 'meter.' It
doesn't matter what reason I think up to come up with this standard. But I
then declare that 'this here' rod in my hand is the *standard* meter. If I
then measure another object's length (using the rod) and find that it is
6.137 times the length of the rod, then I can say the object is 6.137
'meters' long. That is, it is 6.137 times the length of the *standard meter
stick*.
Now, there is no way that my definition can be 'wrong.' If I then find a
new rod -- which I'll call a 'mugwump' -- I can compare the 'mugwump' rod to
the 'meter' rod. And I find that the mugwump is 1.19 times the length of
the 'meter.' Now, if I measure the prior object with my 'mugwump' standard,
I find that it is 5.157 'mugwumps' in length.
Now if I was fool enough to call the new (mugwump) standard a 'meter', then
I'd merely be sowing confusion. The length of the object has not changed at
all. The length of the meter standard has not changed at all, either. I've
just created a new standard, and continued to use the old name.
{snip higher levels}
> > > Are you saying that experiments can't prove a theory wrong?
> >
> > No, I'm saying that experiments are the touchstone of the scientific
> > method. Experiments do not depend upon theory at all.
>
> Experiments do depend on theory about the measuring instruments.
Merely repeating your false claim does not advance your argument.
> > Again, the newer experiment can never be assumed to be more accurate,
> > simply because it is newer.
>
> And I have not done so.
You supported Norm's original claim to this effect. And that was what I was
originally adressing.
{snip higher levels}
> > > Reduced data is the only data that can have any meaning, because you
> > > need the theoretical conclusion to give it meaning.
> >
> > Experimental results can exist just fine without a theory to 'explain'
> > them.
>
> Not without a theory about the instruments.
Merely repeating your false claim does not advance your argument.
> > This is one of the ways that the scientific method is used to advance
> > our knowledge. Recall "Hypothesis non fingo." Newton certainly
> > got a lot of use out of his gravitational relationship, even though he
> > never had a theory to explain it.
>
> Why do you think Newton's theory of gravitation is not a theory?
1) Because he said it wasn't. (Hypothesis non fingo.)
2) Because it is an empirical relationship. (Which is not a theory.)
> > > > For example, the original hubble relationship was an average of
> > > > observed redshift versus observed distance of galaxies. The
> > > > plot of the redshift vs. distance of each galaxy was data.
> > > > And I can even accept that the straight line through those
> > > > points (though very rough) could be considered data.
> > >
> > > The observed redshifts are almost raw data (the measuring theory says
> > > just that the redshift of each galaxy is constant),
> >
> > That is a historical untruth. Hubble's measurements never assumed any
> > such 'measuring theory' constant.
>
> Really? Would he have measured them if they had taken random new values
> at every repetition?
??? Hubble simply reported what he found. He used no 'measuring constant.'
> > > but the "observed"
> > > distances are actually calculated distances, because what is actually
> > > observed has no direct connection to distance;
> >
> > You don't think that apparent versus abolute luminosity has any direct
> > connection to distance?
>
> I do, but the absolute luminosities are _calculated_, not measured.
But luminosity versus absolute luminosity *does* have a connection to
distance. Which disproves your prior claim.
> > > the theory that says that
> > > we can measure distances of galaxies by indirect methods is far from
> > > trivial (and has actually been changed quite a number of times).
> >
> > To what theory are you referring? Hubble didn't 'change theories' in
> > his 1929 paper. Which is what I was discussing.
>
> In 1952, galactic distances doubled overnight when it was discovered
> that there were two types of cepheids; there have been other (much less
> radical) refinements.
ROTFLMAO!!!!
The galaxies did not suddenly leap out a factor of two! Our expectation of
their distance was changed. You continue to confuse measurement with
reality.
> > > By
> > > your standards, we don't have any _data_ about distances of galaxies;
> > > we don't even have data about distances of any but the very nearest
> > > stars.
> >
> > There is a difference in kind at the convert-redshift-to-speed point
> > (see below). All other 'theories' are related explicitly to quantifying
> > the data (distance).
>
> I fail to see the fundamental difference.
I agree. Try focusing on the exchange at the beginning of this post. The
difference between a measurement (number) and reality.
> > > > But when theorists convert the redshift to an apparent velocity, and
> > > > call this the 'Hubble constant' ... then the line is no longer data
> > > > at all. But simply theory.
> > >
> > > It can hardly have any additional theoriticalness compared to the
> > > distances.
> >
> > There is a substantial difference. The explicit theoretical assumption
> > that *ALL* redshifts are due to recessional velocity (or cosmic
> > expansion). This is a purely theoretical assumption, having no use
> > whatsoever in the determination of distances -- or the data used
> > in the Hubble relationship.
>
> So the fact that redshifts and distances have a strong measured
> correlation means nothing to you, does it?
Redshift-distance means a lot to me, because it is (at least somewhat)
observational. But I see no observational correlation at all between
*velocity* and distance. Which is the way the "Hubble constant" is usually
given by the cosmologists.
--
greywolf42
ubi dubium ibi libertas
{remove planet for e-mail}
Phillip Helbig---remove CLOTHES to reply
Aug6-04, 03:03 AM
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>In article <10h2ee3jimo5jbc@corp.supernews.com>, "greywolf42"\n<mingstb@marssim-ss.com> writes:\n\n> Redshift-distance means a lot to me, because it is (at least somewhat)\n> observational. But I see no observational correlation at all between\n> *velocity* and distance. Which is the way the "Hubble constant" is usually\n> given by the cosmologists.\n\nThis is a red herring.\n\nWhen modern cosmologists use velocity, it is simply cz, nothing else.\nJust divide by c to get the redshift. I agree that this is confusing,\nbut it is just something which historically developed and was somewhat\nmore practical when redshifts were small (most people can more easily\nvisualise numbers which are greater than 1 as opposed to those which are\nless than 1).\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>In article <10h2ee3jimo5jbc@corp.supernews.com>, "greywolf42"
<mingstb@marssim-ss.com> writes:
> Redshift-distance means a lot to me, because it is (at least somewhat)
> observational. But I see no observational correlation at all between
> *velocity* and distance. Which is the way the "Hubble constant" is usually
> given by the cosmologists.
This is a red herring.
When modern cosmologists use velocity, it is simply cz, nothing else.
Just divide by c to get the redshift. I agree that this is confusing,
but it is just something which historically developed and was somewhat
more practical when redshifts were small (most people can more easily
visualise numbers which are greater than 1 as opposed to those which are
less than 1).
Esa A E Peuha
Aug6-04, 03:03 AM
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>"greywolf42" <mingstb@marssim-ss.com> writes:\n\n> "Esa A E Peuha" <esa.peuha@helsinki.fi> wrote in message\n> news:86ppt68v442.fsf@sirppi.helsinki.fi...\n\n> > Yes, but you can\'t really claim that personal biases don\'t affect\n> > science; most scientists have personal biases about science, and many\n> > good scientists are good precisely because of these biases.\n>\n> I consider your statement self-evidently false. By definition, a biased\n> \'scientist\' cannot be a good scientist.\n\nSo Albert Einstein was, by definition, not a good scientist? After all,\nhe was strongly biased against theories that conflicted with special\nrelativity (which was ultimately the reason why he developed general\nrelativity; the difficulties he encountered would probably have made him\ngive up if he hadn\'t thought it absolutely necessary to have a generally\ncovariant theory of gravitation).\n\n> > > Quite simply, you have now devolved into the fallacy of imagined events.\n> > > You start with the assumption that accepted theories must have had many\n> > > experiments to support them -- or they wouldn\'t have been accepted.\n> >\n> > I don\'t assume that, I know it (not for all accepted theories, but for\n> > many).\n>\n> But it appears that you \'know\' it only because you accepted what somebody\n> else told you.\n\nMostly, yes, but what alternative do I have? I don\'t have time to read\nall actual reports of all actual experiments (which could just be\ninvented nonsense in any case), and I most certainly won\'t either live\nlong enough or have the necessary resources to repeat every experiment\never made.\n\n> > > Then you tell yourself that you need not perform any more experiments,\n> > > *BECAUSE* the theory is well accepted.\n> >\n> > Where did you draw this conclusion? That\'s not what I meant.\n>\n> My apologies. Please explain what you *did* mean.\n\nI mean that, for example, experimental high energy physicists see every\nday hundreds (if not thousands) of particle collisions that test the\ntheories relevant to such collisions; it would be extreme waste of\nresources to examine every single one of these collisions with minute\ndetail, so they are screened so that only those that may show something\npreviously unseen are given careful attention.\n\n> > > So, how do *you* examine an experimental paper if you first determine\n> > > that the results contradict an \'accepted theory\'?\n> >\n> > Well, if reading the paper doesn\'t reveal anything immediately wrong\n> > with the experiment, I would probably ask other people what they think.\n>\n> That is not the scientific method. That is polling to find the popular\n> view.\n\nNo, that\'s making people aware of the possible contradiction (which is\nwhy results are published in the first place). This has twofold\npurpose: if the experiment has a problem, many people are more likely to\ndetect it than one, and if not, repeating the experiment will be easier\nif I can get other people to agree that it\'s worth repeating.\n\n> > > Data does not have any "meaning" .... other than it is a measurement of\n> > > the real universe. It is not tied to any one human theory.\n> >\n> > A measurement in itself is dependent of the measuring instrument, and\n> > therefore not very useful until it is converted to something that is\n> > independent of the instrument.\n>\n> The scientific method is not about \'usefulness.\' It is about knowledge of\n> the universe.\n\nBut all knowledge is not equally useful in understanding the universe.\nKnowing what you ate for breakfast doesn\'t help you understand the\nuniverse, even though it is knowledge about (a small part of) the\nuniverse.\n\n> > > And many experiments are done simply to see what happens. Before any\n> > > theory/paradigm ever exists. For example, Faraday undertook many\n> > > experiments on electricity and magnetism. He came up with "Faraday\'s\n> > > Law." Almost every equation that has somebody\'s name attached to it\n> > > is a contrary example to your claim.\n> >\n> > What are you talking about? What claim I have made that this is\n> > supposed to contradict?\n>\n> Your claim was that a theory must exist before an experiment can be\n> undertaken. That data has no \'meaning\' without a theory to first give it\n> life.\n\nAlmost, but not quite. When Faraday started to experiment, he obviously\nknew he could experiment, but he didn\'t know what he could _measure_, or\neven if he could measure anything at all (that other people hadn\'t\nmeasured before). He had to discover experimentally what can be\nmeasured in electromagnetism (in other words, a theory of measurement)\nalong with a theory of what he measured.\n\n> You continue to confuse measurement with reality, and physics with mere\n> math. Which is quite common in these \'modern\' days.\n\nIf it really is confusion, how can it be so common?\n\n> Quite simply, there is\n> a major difference between length and units of length.\n\nI agree with that. I just don\'t think that the difference is quite the\nsame difference that you think it is.\n\n> Now if I was fool enough to call the new (mugwump) standard a \'meter\', then\n> I\'d merely be sowing confusion. The length of the object has not changed at\n> all. The length of the meter standard has not changed at all, either. I\'ve\n> just created a new standard, and continued to use the old name.\n\nYes, but by your definition of data, you won\'t have any _data_ (that is,\ndirect measurement) of the length in the new standard unless you\nactually measure the object again with the new standard.\n\n> > > This is one of the ways that the scientific method is used to advance\n> > > our knowledge. Recall "Hypothesis non fingo." Newton certainly\n> > > got a lot of use out of his gravitational relationship, even though he\n> > > never had a theory to explain it.\n> >\n> > Why do you think Newton\'s theory of gravitation is not a theory?\n>\n> 1) Because he said it wasn\'t. (Hypothesis non fingo.)\n\nBut many people after Newton have said it _is_ a theory, and used is as\na theory.\n\n> 2) Because it is an empirical relationship. (Which is not a theory.)\n\nWhy couldn\'t a theory say that an empirical law holds always (even when\nthere\'s no empirical evidence)?\n\n> > > > > For example, the original hubble relationship was an average of\n> > > > > observed redshift versus observed distance of galaxies. The\n> > > > > plot of the redshift vs. distance of each galaxy was data.\n> > > > > And I can even accept that the straight line through those\n> > > > > points (though very rough) could be considered data.\n> > > >\n> > > > The observed redshifts are almost raw data (the measuring theory says\n> > > > just that the redshift of each galaxy is constant),\n> > >\n> > > That is a historical untruth. Hubble\'s measurements never assumed any\n> > > such \'measuring theory\' constant.\n> >\n> > Really? Would he have measured them if they had taken random new values\n> > at every repetition?\n>\n> ??? Hubble simply reported what he found. He used no \'measuring constant.\'\n\nHubble reported that he found that the redshifts of galaxies stay\nconstant (as closely as he could determine).\n\n> > > > but the "observed"\n> > > > distances are actually calculated distances, because what is actually\n> > > > observed has no direct connection to distance;\n> > >\n> > > You don\'t think that apparent versus abolute luminosity has any direct\n> > > connection to distance?\n> >\n> > I do, but the absolute luminosities are _calculated_, not measured.\n>\n> But luminosity versus absolute luminosity *does* have a connection to\n> distance. Which disproves your prior claim.\n\nHow? Neither distance nor absolute luminosity can be measured directly,\nnor are they directly connected to anything that _can_ be measured\ndirectly.\n\n> > > > the theory that says that\n> > > > we can measure distances of galaxies by indirect methods is far from\n> > > > trivial (and has actually been changed quite a number of times).\n> > >\n> > > To what theory are you referring? Hubble didn\'t \'change theories\' in\n> > > his 1929 paper. Which is what I was discussing.\n> >\n> > In 1952, galactic distances doubled overnight when it was discovered\n> > that there were two types of cepheids; there have been other (much less\n> > radical) refinements.\n>\n> ROTFLMAO!!!!\n>\n> The galaxies did not suddenly leap out a factor of two! Our expectation of\n> their distance was changed. You continue to confuse measurement with\n> reality.\n\nNo, I think it is you who are confused: you seem to think we can somehow\n_know_ the real physical distances.\n\n> > > > By\n> > > > your standards, we don\'t have any _data_ about distances of galaxies;\n> > > > we don\'t even have data about distances of any but the very nearest\n> > > > stars.\n> > >\n> > > There is a difference in kind at the convert-redshift-to-speed point\n> > > (see below). All other \'theories\' are related explicitly to quantifying\n> > > the data (distance).\n> >\n> > I fail to see the fundamental difference.\n>\n> I agree. Try focusing on the exchange at the beginning of this post. The\n> difference between a measurement (number) and reality.\n\nI don\'t see the connection here.\n\n> > > > > But when theorists convert the redshift to an apparent velocity, and\n> > > > > call this the \'Hubble constant\' ... then the line is no longer data\n> > > > > at all. But simply theory.\n> > > >\n> > > > It can hardly have any additional theoriticalness compared to the\n> > > > distances.\n> > >\n> > > There is a substantial difference. The explicit theoretical assumption\n> > > that *ALL* redshifts are due to recessional velocity (or cosmic\n> > > expansion). This is a purely theoretical assumption, having no use\n> > > whatsoever in the determination of distances -- or the data used\n> > > in the Hubble relationship.\n> >\n> > So the fact that redshifts and distances have a strong measured\n> > correlation means nothing to you, does it?\n>\n> Redshift-distance means a lot to me, because it is (at least somewhat)\n> observational. But I see no observational correlation at all between\n> *velocity* and distance. Which is the way the "Hubble constant" is usually\n> given by the cosmologists.\n\nWhat does it matter how the redshift-distance relation is explained, as\nlong as it matches observations?\n\n--\nEsa Peuha\nstudent of mathematics at the University of Helsinki\nhttp://www.helsinki.fi/~peuha/\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>"greywolf42" <mingstb@marssim-ss.com> writes:
> "Esa A E Peuha" <esa.peuha@helsinki.fi> wrote in message
> news:86ppt68v442.fsf@sirppi.helsinki.fi...
> > Yes, but you can't really claim that personal biases don't affect
> > science; most scientists have personal biases about science, and many
> > good scientists are good precisely because of these biases.
>
> I consider your statement self-evidently false. By definition, a biased
> 'scientist' cannot be a good scientist.
So Albert Einstein was, by definition, not a good scientist? After all,
he was strongly biased against theories that conflicted with special
relativity (which was ultimately the reason why he developed general
relativity; the difficulties he encountered would probably have made him
give up if he hadn't thought it absolutely necessary to have a generally
covariant theory of gravitation).
> > > Quite simply, you have now devolved into the fallacy of imagined events.
> > > You start with the assumption that accepted theories must have had many
> > > experiments to support them -- or they wouldn't have been accepted.
> >
> > I don't assume that, I know it (not for all accepted theories, but for
> > many).
>
> But it appears that you 'know' it only because you accepted what somebody
> else told you.
Mostly, yes, but what alternative do I have? I don't have time to read
all actual reports of all actual experiments (which could just be
invented nonsense in any case), and I most certainly won't either live
long enough or have the necessary resources to repeat every experiment
ever made.
> > > Then you tell yourself that you need not perform any more experiments,
> > > *BECAUSE* the theory is well accepted.
> >
> > Where did you draw this conclusion? That's not what I meant.
>
> My apologies. Please explain what you *did* mean.
I mean that, for example, experimental high energy physicists see every
day hundreds (if not thousands) of particle collisions that test the
theories relevant to such collisions; it would be extreme waste of
resources to examine every single one of these collisions with minute
detail, so they are screened so that only those that may show something
previously unseen are given careful attention.
> > > So, how do *you* examine an experimental paper if you first determine
> > > that the results contradict an 'accepted theory'?
> >
> > Well, if reading the paper doesn't reveal anything immediately wrong
> > with the experiment, I would probably ask other people what they think.
>
> That is not the scientific method. That is polling to find the popular
> view.
No, that's making people aware of the possible contradiction (which is
why results are published in the first place). This has twofold
purpose: if the experiment has a problem, many people are more likely to
detect it than one, and if not, repeating the experiment will be easier
if I can get other people to agree that it's worth repeating.
> > > Data does not have any "meaning" .... other than it is a measurement of
> > > the real universe. It is not tied to any one human theory.
> >
> > A measurement in itself is dependent of the measuring instrument, and
> > therefore not very useful until it is converted to something that is
> > independent of the instrument.
>
> The scientific method is not about 'usefulness.' It is about knowledge of
> the universe.
But all knowledge is not equally useful in understanding the universe.
Knowing what you ate for breakfast doesn't help you understand the
universe, even though it is knowledge about (a small part of) the
universe.
> > > And many experiments are done simply to see what happens. Before any
> > > theory/paradigm ever exists. For example, Faraday undertook many
> > > experiments on electricity and magnetism. He came up with "Faraday's
> > > Law." Almost every equation that has somebody's name attached to it
> > > is a contrary example to your claim.
> >
> > What are you talking about? What claim I have made that this is
> > supposed to contradict?
>
> Your claim was that a theory must exist before an experiment can be
> undertaken. That data has no 'meaning' without a theory to first give it
> life.
Almost, but not quite. When Faraday started to experiment, he obviously
knew he could experiment, but he didn't know what he could _measure_, or
even if he could measure anything at all (that other people hadn't
measured before). He had to discover experimentally what can be
measured in electromagnetism (in other words, a theory of measurement)
along with a theory of what he measured.
> You continue to confuse measurement with reality, and physics with mere
> math. Which is quite common in these 'modern' days.
If it really is confusion, how can it be so common?
> Quite simply, there is
> a major difference between length and units of length.
I agree with that. I just don't think that the difference is quite the
same difference that you think it is.
> Now if I was fool enough to call the new (mugwump) standard a 'meter', then
> I'd merely be sowing confusion. The length of the object has not changed at
> all. The length of the meter standard has not changed at all, either. I've
> just created a new standard, and continued to use the old name.
Yes, but by your definition of data, you won't have any _data_ (that is,
direct measurement) of the length in the new standard unless you
actually measure the object again with the new standard.
> > > This is one of the ways that the scientific method is used to advance
> > > our knowledge. Recall "Hypothesis non fingo." Newton certainly
> > > got a lot of use out of his gravitational relationship, even though he
> > > never had a theory to explain it.
> >
> > Why do you think Newton's theory of gravitation is not a theory?
>
> 1) Because he said it wasn't. (Hypothesis non fingo.)
But many people after Newton have said it _is_ a theory, and used is as
a theory.
> 2) Because it is an empirical relationship. (Which is not a theory.)
Why couldn't a theory say that an empirical law holds always (even when
there's no empirical evidence)?
> > > > > For example, the original hubble relationship was an average of
> > > > > observed redshift versus observed distance of galaxies. The
> > > > > plot of the redshift vs. distance of each galaxy was data.
> > > > > And I can even accept that the straight line through those
> > > > > points (though very rough) could be considered data.
> > > >
> > > > The observed redshifts are almost raw data (the measuring theory says
> > > > just that the redshift of each galaxy is constant),
> > >
> > > That is a historical untruth. Hubble's measurements never assumed any
> > > such 'measuring theory' constant.
> >
> > Really? Would he have measured them if they had taken random new values
> > at every repetition?
>
> ??? Hubble simply reported what he found. He used no 'measuring constant.'
Hubble reported that he found that the redshifts of galaxies stay
constant (as closely as he could determine).
> > > > but the "observed"
> > > > distances are actually calculated distances, because what is actually
> > > > observed has no direct connection to distance;
> > >
> > > You don't think that apparent versus abolute luminosity has any direct
> > > connection to distance?
> >
> > I do, but the absolute luminosities are _calculated_, not measured.
>
> But luminosity versus absolute luminosity *does* have a connection to
> distance. Which disproves your prior claim.
How? Neither distance nor absolute luminosity can be measured directly,
nor are they directly connected to anything that _can_ be measured
directly.
> > > > the theory that says that
> > > > we can measure distances of galaxies by indirect methods is far from
> > > > trivial (and has actually been changed quite a number of times).
> > >
> > > To what theory are you referring? Hubble didn't 'change theories' in
> > > his 1929 paper. Which is what I was discussing.
> >
> > In 1952, galactic distances doubled overnight when it was discovered
> > that there were two types of cepheids; there have been other (much less
> > radical) refinements.
>
> ROTFLMAO!!!!
>
> The galaxies did not suddenly leap out a factor of two! Our expectation of
> their distance was changed. You continue to confuse measurement with
> reality.
No, I think it is you who are confused: you seem to think we can somehow
_know_ the real physical distances.
> > > > By
> > > > your standards, we don't have any _data_ about distances of galaxies;
> > > > we don't even have data about distances of any but the very nearest
> > > > stars.
> > >
> > > There is a difference in kind at the convert-redshift-to-speed point
> > > (see below). All other 'theories' are related explicitly to quantifying
> > > the data (distance).
> >
> > I fail to see the fundamental difference.
>
> I agree. Try focusing on the exchange at the beginning of this post. The
> difference between a measurement (number) and reality.
I don't see the connection here.
> > > > > But when theorists convert the redshift to an apparent velocity, and
> > > > > call this the 'Hubble constant' ... then the line is no longer data
> > > > > at all. But simply theory.
> > > >
> > > > It can hardly have any additional theoriticalness compared to the
> > > > distances.
> > >
> > > There is a substantial difference. The explicit theoretical assumption
> > > that *ALL* redshifts are due to recessional velocity (or cosmic
> > > expansion). This is a purely theoretical assumption, having no use
> > > whatsoever in the determination of distances -- or the data used
> > > in the Hubble relationship.
> >
> > So the fact that redshifts and distances have a strong measured
> > correlation means nothing to you, does it?
>
> Redshift-distance means a lot to me, because it is (at least somewhat)
> observational. But I see no observational correlation at all between
> *velocity* and distance. Which is the way the "Hubble constant" is usually
> given by the cosmologists.
What does it matter how the redshift-distance relation is explained, as
long as it matches observations?
--
Esa Peuha
student of mathematics at the University of Helsinki
http://www.helsinki.fi/~peuha/
Ralph E. Frost
Aug6-04, 03:06 AM
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>"greywolf42" <mingstb@marssim-ss.com> wrote in message\nnews:10h2ee3jimo5jbc@corp.supernews.com.. .\n> "Esa A E Peuha" <esa.peuha@helsinki.fi> wrote in message\n> news:86ppt68v442.fsf@sirppi.helsinki.fi...\n> > greywolf42 <mingstb@marssim-ss.com> writes:\n> >\n> > > Esa A E Peuha <esa.peuha@helsinki.fi> wrote in message\n> > > news:86p4qnpolq8.fsf@sirppi.helsinki.fi...\n>\n> {snip higher levels}\n\nditto x 2...\n\n> > > The scientific method was developed specifically to avoid being\n> > > entrapped by humans\' expectations.\n> >\n> > Nevertheless, human expectations have had (and probably will had) great\n> > impact on the development of science.\n>\n> Without a doubt. But this is a socilogical problem.\n\nNo. Understanding human expectations and influences of expectations is an\nactual scientific problem. Folks in Arizonia would call that moving\n"toward a science of consciousness".\n\nPardon the gauchely awkward crude analogy, but your statement here is\nsomewhat akin to what a dysfunctional parent might utter as he and/or she\nagrees with the learned physician to go ahead and medicate their offspring\nfor his behavior. Or, in ancient (and more modern communities) where a\nscapegoat is selected and sent out fom the safety of the group, carrying the\nills of the group.\n\nAgain, understanding expectations and influences of expectations is an\nactual scientific problem. It does little good to try to dismiss this\nimportant scientific challenge.\n\nDoes it?\n\n--\nBest regards,\nRalph Frost\n\n"The essential nature of external reality, Comenius thought,\ncould be conveyed by education to the simplest intelligence\nif all knowledge could be reduced to a basic principle."\n\n- notions ascribed to John Amos Comenius (1592-1670), circa 1640\n[Dobbs, Betty Jo Teeter, THE FOUNDATIONS OF NEWTON\'S ALCHEMY, Cambridge\nUniversity Press, Cambridge 1975 p. 60]\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>"greywolf42" <mingstb@marssim-ss.com> wrote in message
news:10h2ee3jimo5jbc@corp.supernews.com...
> "Esa A E Peuha" <esa.peuha@helsinki.fi> wrote in message
> news:86ppt68v442.fsf@sirppi.helsinki.fi...
> > greywolf42 <mingstb@marssim-ss.com> writes:
> >
> > > Esa A E Peuha <esa.peuha@helsinki.fi> wrote in message
> > > news:86p4qnpolq8.fsf@sirppi.helsinki.fi...
>
> {snip higher levels}
ditto x 2...
> > > The scientific method was developed specifically to avoid being
> > > entrapped by humans' expectations.
> >
> > Nevertheless, human expectations have had (and probably will had) great
> > impact on the development of science.
>
> Without a doubt. But this is a socilogical problem.
No. Understanding human expectations and influences of expectations is an
actual scientific problem. Folks in Arizonia would call that moving
"toward a science of consciousness".
Pardon the gauchely awkward crude analogy, but your statement here is
somewhat akin to what a dysfunctional parent might utter as he and/or she
agrees with the learned physician to go ahead and medicate their offspring
for his behavior. Or, in ancient (and more modern communities) where a
scapegoat is selected and sent out fom the safety of the group, carrying the
ills of the group.
Again, understanding expectations and influences of expectations is an
actual scientific problem. It does little good to try to dismiss this
important scientific challenge.
Does it?
--
Best regards,
Ralph Frost
"The essential nature of external reality, Comenius thought,
could be conveyed by education to the simplest intelligence
if all knowledge could be reduced to a basic principle."
- notions ascribed to John Amos Comenius (1592-1670), circa 1640
[Dobbs, Betty Jo Teeter, THE FOUNDATIONS OF NEWTON'S ALCHEMY, Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge 1975 p. 60]
Nick Maclaren
Aug7-04, 05:03 PM
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>In article <86pwu0dq11q.fsf@sirppi.helsinki.fi>,\nEsa A E Peuha <esa.peuha@helsinki.fi> wrote:\n>"greywolf42" <mingstb@marssim-ss.com> writes:\n>\n>> I consider your statement self-evidently false. By definition, a biased\n>> \'scientist\' cannot be a good scientist.\n>\n>So Albert Einstein was, by definition, not a good scientist? After all,\n>he was strongly biased against theories that conflicted with special\n>relativity (which was ultimately the reason why he developed general\n>relativity; the difficulties he encountered would probably have made him\n>give up if he hadn\'t thought it absolutely necessary to have a generally\n>covariant theory of gravitation).\n\nIn that respect, he wasn\'t the best of scientists - there is a mass of\nhistorical data showing THAT. Despite the attempts of some people to\ncanonize him, he was human, and one of his failings was a tendency to\nscientific prejudice.\n\nTake a look at his reaction to quantum mechanics, for example. He\nderived a great deal of it very early, but it was his aesthetic dislike\nfor unpredictability and similar characteristics that meant he is not\nwidely regarded as one of the founders of that theory.\n\nWell, do you REALLY expect perfection? He was impressive enough,\nwarts and all.\n\n\nRegards,\nNick Maclaren.\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>In article <86pwu0dq11q.fsf@sirppi.helsinki.fi>,
Esa A E Peuha <esa.peuha@helsinki.fi> wrote:
>"greywolf42" <mingstb@marssim-ss.com> writes:
>
>> I consider your statement self-evidently false. By definition, a biased
>> 'scientist' cannot be a good scientist.
>
>So Albert Einstein was, by definition, not a good scientist? After all,
>he was strongly biased against theories that conflicted with special
>relativity (which was ultimately the reason why he developed general
>relativity; the difficulties he encountered would probably have made him
>give up if he hadn't thought it absolutely necessary to have a generally
>covariant theory of gravitation).
In that respect, he wasn't the best of scientists - there is a mass of
historical data showing THAT. Despite the attempts of some people to
canonize him, he was human, and one of his failings was a tendency to
scientific prejudice.
Take a look at his reaction to quantum mechanics, for example. He
derived a great deal of it very early, but it was his aesthetic dislike
for unpredictability and similar characteristics that meant he is not
widely regarded as one of the founders of that theory.
Well, do you REALLY expect perfection? He was impressive enough,
warts and all.
Regards,
Nick Maclaren.
greywolf42
Aug7-04, 05:08 PM
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>"Ralph E. Frost" <ralph@REMOVErefrost.com> wrote in message\nnews:10h5rinkl77te2c@corp.supernews.com.. .\n> "greywolf42" <mingstb@marssim-ss.com> wrote in message\n> news:10h2ee3jimo5jbc@corp.supernews.com...\n> > "Esa A E Peuha" <esa.peuha@helsinki.fi> wrote in message\n> > news:86ppt68v442.fsf@sirppi.helsinki.fi...\n> > > greywolf42 <mingstb@marssim-ss.com> writes:\n> > >\n> > > > Esa A E Peuha <esa.peuha@helsinki.fi> wrote in message\n> > > > news:86p4qnpolq8.fsf@sirppi.helsinki.fi...\n> >\n> > {snip higher levels}\n>\n> ditto x 2...\n>\n> > > > The scientific method was developed specifically to avoid being\n> > > > entrapped by humans\' expectations.\n> > >\n> > > Nevertheless, human expectations have had (and probably will had)\n> > > great impact on the development of science.\n> >\n> > Without a doubt. But this is a socilogical problem.\n>\n> No. Understanding human expectations and influences of expectations is an\n> actual scientific problem.\n\nNot in the physical scientific method.\n\n> Folks in Arizonia would call that moving\n> "toward a science of consciousness".\n>\n> Pardon the gauchely awkward crude analogy, but your statement here is\n> somewhat akin to what a dysfunctional parent might utter as he and/or\n> she agrees with the learned physician to go ahead and medicate their\n> offspring for his behavior. Or, in ancient (and more modern\n> communities) where a scapegoat is selected and sent out fom the safety\n> of the group, carrying the ills of the group.\n\nA lovely, extended simile. But totally irrelevant.\n\n> Again, understanding expectations and influences of expectations is an\n> actual scientific problem. It does little good to try to dismiss this\n> important scientific challenge.\n>\n> Does it?\n\nI wouldn\'t know. As I\'m not dismissing sociological studies. I\'m simply\nuninterested in them.\n\n--\ngreywolf42\nubi dubium ibi libertas\n{remove planet for e-mail}\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>"Ralph E. Frost" <ralph@REMOVErefrost.com> wrote in message
news:10h5rinkl77te2c@corp.supernews.com...
> "greywolf42" <mingstb@marssim-ss.com> wrote in message
> news:10h2ee3jimo5jbc@corp.supernews.com...
> > "Esa A E Peuha" <esa.peuha@helsinki.fi> wrote in message
> > news:86ppt68v442.fsf@sirppi.helsinki.fi...
> > > greywolf42 <mingstb@marssim-ss.com> writes:
> > >
> > > > Esa A E Peuha <esa.peuha@helsinki.fi> wrote in message
> > > > news:86p4qnpolq8.fsf@sirppi.helsinki.fi...
> >
> > {snip higher levels}
>
> ditto x 2...
>
> > > > The scientific method was developed specifically to avoid being
> > > > entrapped by humans' expectations.
> > >
> > > Nevertheless, human expectations have had (and probably will had)
> > > great impact on the development of science.
> >
> > Without a doubt. But this is a socilogical problem.
>
> No. Understanding human expectations and influences of expectations is an
> actual scientific problem.
Not in the physical scientific method.
> Folks in Arizonia would call that moving
> "toward a science of consciousness".
>
> Pardon the gauchely awkward crude analogy, but your statement here is
> somewhat akin to what a dysfunctional parent might utter as he and/or
> she agrees with the learned physician to go ahead and medicate their
> offspring for his behavior. Or, in ancient (and more modern
> communities) where a scapegoat is selected and sent out fom the safety
> of the group, carrying the ills of the group.
A lovely, extended simile. But totally irrelevant.
> Again, understanding expectations and influences of expectations is an
> actual scientific problem. It does little good to try to dismiss this
> important scientific challenge.
>
> Does it?
I wouldn't know. As I'm not dismissing sociological studies. I'm simply
uninterested in them.
--
greywolf42
ubi dubium ibi libertas
{remove planet for e-mail}
greywolf42
Aug7-04, 05:08 PM
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>"Esa A E Peuha" <esa.peuha@helsinki.fi> wrote in message\nnews:86pwu0dq11q.fsf@sirppi.helsinki.fi.. .\n> "greywolf42" <mingstb@marssim-ss.com> writes:\n>\n> > "Esa A E Peuha" <esa.peuha@helsinki.fi> wrote in message\n> > news:86ppt68v442.fsf@sirppi.helsinki.fi...\n\nThes e exchanges are going nowhere. So this will be my final post to Esa in\nthis thread. Esa is welcome to the final word.\n\n> > > Yes, but you can\'t really claim that personal biases don\'t affect\n> > > science; most scientists have personal biases about science, and many\n> > > good scientists are good precisely because of these biases.\n> >\n> > I consider your statement self-evidently false. By definition, a biased\n> > \'scientist\' cannot be a good scientist.\n>\n> So Albert Einstein was, by definition, not a good scientist?\n\nIf you think he was biased, you might think so. ;)\n\n> After all,\n> he was strongly biased against theories that conflicted with special\n> relativity (which was ultimately the reason why he developed general\n> relativity; the difficulties he encountered would probably have made him\n> give up if he hadn\'t thought it absolutely necessary to have a generally\n> covariant theory of gravitation).\n\nYou are welcome to whatever opinion you hold. I am addressing general\nconditions, not trying to categorize specific authorities -- dead or alive.\n\n> > > > Quite simply, you have now devolved into the fallacy of imagined\n> > > > events. You start with the assumption that accepted theories\n> > > > must have had many experiments to support them -- or they\n> > > > wouldn\'t have been accepted.\n> > >\n> > > I don\'t assume that, I know it (not for all accepted theories, but for\n> > > many).\n> >\n> > But it appears that you \'know\' it only because you accepted what\n> > somebody else told you.\n>\n> Mostly, yes, but what alternative do I have?\n\nThe alternative that you have is the scientific method. That\'s the purpose\nof the scientific method.\n\n> I don\'t have time to read\n> all actual reports of all actual experiments (which could just be\n> invented nonsense in any case), and I most certainly won\'t either live\n> long enough or have the necessary resources to repeat every experiment\n> ever made.\n\nTime-management is an issue that all humans have to deal with. However, the\nfact that you cannot personally reproduce all of human knowledge does not\nrequire you to conclude that you must accept the words of authority on\nfaith.\n\n> > > > Then you tell yourself that you need not perform any more\n> > > > experiments, *BECAUSE* the theory is well accepted.\n> > >\n> > > Where did you draw this conclusion? That\'s not what I meant.\n> >\n> > My apologies. Please explain what you *did* mean.\n>\n> I mean that, for example, experimental high energy physicists see every\n> day hundreds (if not thousands) of particle collisions that test the\n> theories relevant to such collisions;\n\nThat is what many authorities will tell you -- but it is not true. Particle\nphysicists *assume* the theories that they claim to be testing. For\nexample, they often calculate their "background" -- instead of measuring it.\n\n> it would be extreme waste of\n> resources to examine every single one of these collisions with minute\n> detail, so they are screened so that only those that may show something\n> previously unseen are given careful attention.\n\nAgain, you devolve into the fallacy that because you cannot do detailed work\non every data event, that you cannot ever do detailed work on one event.\n\n> > > > So, how do *you* examine an experimental paper if you first\n> > > > determine that the results contradict an \'accepted theory\'?\n> > >\n> > > Well, if reading the paper doesn\'t reveal anything immediately wrong\n> > > with the experiment, I would probably ask other people what they\n> > > think.\n> >\n> > That is not the scientific method. That is polling to find the popular\n> > view.\n>\n> No, that\'s making people aware of the possible contradiction (which is\n> why results are published in the first place). This has twofold\n> purpose: if the experiment has a problem, many people are more likely to\n> detect it than one, and if not, repeating the experiment will be easier\n> if I can get other people to agree that it\'s worth repeating.\n\nBut *you* should have know whether the experiment was worth repeating --\nwithout discussing it with authorities. That is, if you wish to follow the\nscientific method.\n\n> > > > Data does not have any "meaning" .... other than it is a measurement\n> > > > of the real universe. It is not tied to any one human theory.\n> > >\n> > > A measurement in itself is dependent of the measuring instrument, and\n> > > therefore not very useful until it is converted to something that is\n> > > independent of the instrument.\n> >\n> > The scientific method is not about \'usefulness.\' It is about knowledge\n> > of the universe.\n>\n> But all knowledge is not equally useful in understanding the universe.\n\nTrue, but irrelevant. Because all experimental knowledge is part of\nunderstanding the universe.\n\n> Knowing what you ate for breakfast doesn\'t help you understand the\n> universe, even though it is knowledge about (a small part of) the\n> universe.\n\nTotal strawman. What you had for breakfast is not experimental data.\n\n> > > > And many experiments are done simply to see what happens. Before\n> > > > any theory/paradigm ever exists. For example, Faraday undertook\n> > > > many experiments on electricity and magnetism. He came up with\n> > > > "Faraday\'s Law." Almost every equation that has somebody\'s\n> > > > name attached to it is a contrary example to your claim.\n> > >\n> > > What are you talking about? What claim I have made that this is\n> > > supposed to contradict?\n> >\n> > Your claim was that a theory must exist before an experiment can be\n> > undertaken. That data has no \'meaning\' without a theory to first give\n> > it life.\n>\n> Almost, but not quite. When Faraday started to experiment, he obviously\n> knew he could experiment, but he didn\'t know what he could _measure_, or\n> even if he could measure anything at all (that other people hadn\'t\n> measured before). He had to discover experimentally what can be\n> measured in electromagnetism (in other words, a theory of measurement)\n> along with a theory of what he measured.\n\nThanks for proving my point.\n\n{substantive \'invisible\' snip was performed here, by Esa}\n{replaced here because of otherwise false claim made by Esa, farther below}\n\n= = = = =\n> > > Suppose that you have a rod that you think is exactly one meter long\n> > > (your theory of the measuring instrument), and that you measure\n> > > something else with it. If you find that some other object is 6.137\n> > > times as long as the rod (which is data), then you conclude that it is\n> > > 6.137 meters long (which is meaning). If you then find out that the\n> > > rod is in fact 1.19 meters long (your theory was wrong), do you still\n> > > think that the other object is 6.137 meters long?\n= = = = =\n\n> > You continue to confuse measurement with reality, and physics with mere\n> > math. Which is quite common in these \'modern\' days.\n>\n> If it really is confusion, how can it be so common?\n\nBecause the confusion is taught by those in authority positions.\n\n> > Quite simply, there is\n> > a major difference between length and units of length.\n>\n> I agree with that. I just don\'t think that the difference is quite the\n> same difference that you think it is.\n\nCould you be a bit more specific? I don\'t see any such distinction in past\nor current posts.\n\n{substantive \'invisible\' snip was performed here, by Esa}\n{replaced here because of otherwise false claim made by Esa, below}\n\n= = = = =\n> > I arbitrarily select a unit of length that I choose to call a \'meter.\'\n> > It doesn\'t matter what reason I think up to come up with this\n> > standard. But I then declare that \'this here\' rod in my hand is\n> > the *standard* meter. If I then measure another object\'s length\n> > (using the rod) and find that it is 6.137 times the length of the\n> > rod, then I can say the object is 6.137 \'meters\' long. That is,\n> > it is 6.137 times the length of the *standard meter stick*.\n> >\n> > Now, there is no way that my definition can be \'wrong.\' If I then find\n> > a new rod -- which I\'ll call a \'mugwump\' -- I can compare the\n> > \'mugwump\' rod to the \'meter\' rod. And I find that the mugwump is\n> > 1.19 times the length of the \'meter.\' Now, if I measure the prior\n> > object with my \'mugwump\' standard, I find that it is 5.157\n> > \'mugwumps\' in length.\n= = = = =\n\n> > Now if I was fool enough to call the new (mugwump) standard a \'meter\',\n> > then I\'d merely be sowing confusion. The length of the object has not\n> > changed at all. The length of the meter standard has not changed at\n> > all, either. I\'ve just created a new standard, and continued to use the\n> > old name.\n>\n> Yes, but by your definition of data, you won\'t have any _data_ (that is,\n> direct measurement) of the length in the new standard unless you\n> actually measure the object again with the new standard.\n\nI already did remeasure with the new standard. Hence the data exists.\nYour \'creative\', invisible snipping is unprofessional.\n\nAnd if you are going to snip material, at least read it well enough to avoid\nmaking obvious, false statements about what was contained in the material\nthat you eliminated. Unless this was the intent of the snip. ;)\n\n> > > > This is one of the ways that the scientific method is used to\n> > > > advance our knowledge. Recall "Hypothesis non fingo."\n> > > > Newton certainly got a lot of use out of his gravitational\n> > > > relationship, even though he never had a theory to explain it.\n> > >\n> > > Why do you think Newton\'s theory of gravitation is not a theory?\n> >\n> > 1) Because he said it wasn\'t. (Hypothesis non fingo.)\n>\n> But many people after Newton have said it _is_ a theory, and used is as\n> a theory.\n\nSo? A rose by any other name is still not the same as a caterpillar.\n\n> > 2) Because it is an empirical relationship. (Which is not a theory.)\n>\n> Why couldn\'t a theory say that an empirical law holds always (even when\n> there\'s no empirical evidence)?\n\nBecuase a scientific theory requires a physical cause. There is nothing\nwrong with an empirical relationship. But simply saying that one assumes\nthat it always holds is not a theory. It is simply a religious,\nunscientific attachment.\n\n{snip higher levels}\n\n> > > > Hubble\'s measurements never assumed\n> > > > any such \'measuring theory\' constant.\n> > >\n> > > Really? Would he have measured them if they had taken random new\n> > > values at every repetition?\n> >\n> > ??? Hubble simply reported what he found. He used no \'measuring\n> > constant.\'\n>\n> Hubble reported that he found that the redshifts of galaxies stay\n> constant (as closely as he could determine).\n\nHubble made no such claim. At least it doesn\'t exist in his 1929 paper.\nHubble merely reported what he observed at that one observational period (a\nmatter of some days to catch the Cepheids). He made no theoretical claim\nabout other epochs. Even if he had, it wouldn\'t have been observation or\ndata.\n\n> > > > > but the "observed"\n> > > > > distances are actually calculated distances, because what is\n> > > > > actually observed has no direct connection to distance;\n> > > >\n> > > > You don\'t think that apparent versus abolute luminosity has any\n> > > > direct connection to distance?\n> > >\n> > > I do, but the absolute luminosities are _calculated_, not measured.\n> >\n> > But luminosity versus absolute luminosity *does* have a connection to\n> > distance. Which disproves your prior claim.\n>\n> How? Neither distance nor absolute luminosity can be measured directly,\n> nor are they directly connected to anything that _can_ be measured\n> directly.\n\nYour claim was that there was no connection between observed luminosity and\ndistance.\n\n{snip higher levels}\n\n> > > In 1952, galactic distances doubled overnight when it was discovered\n> > > that there were two types of cepheids; there have been other (much\n> > > less radical) refinements.\n> >\n> > The galaxies did not suddenly leap out a factor of two! Our expectation\n> > of their distance was changed. You continue to confuse measurement\n> > with reality.\n>\n> No, I think it is you who are confused: you seem to think we can somehow\n> _know_ the real physical distances.\n\nOur "accepted" estimates of galactic distances may have doubled, in 1952.\nBut the actual distances (as always) remain unchanged by our knowledge.\n\n{snip higher levels}\n\n> > > > There is a difference in kind at the convert-redshift-to-speed point\n> > > > (see below). All other \'theories\' are related explicitly to\n> > > > quantifying the data (distance).\n> > >\n> > > I fail to see the fundamental difference.\n> >\n> > I agree. Try focusing on the exchange at the beginning of this post.\n> > The difference between a measurement (number) and reality.\n>\n> I don\'t see the connection here.\n\nThat\'s why you should reread it.\n\n{snip higher levels}\n\n> > > > There is a substantial difference. The explicit theoretical\n> > > > assumption that *ALL* redshifts are due to recessional\n> > > > velocity (or cosmic expansion). This is a purely theoretical\n> > > > assumption, having no use whatsoever in the determination\n> > > > of distances -- or the data used in the Hubble relationship.\n> > >\n> > > So the fact that redshifts and distances have a strong measured\n> > > correlation means nothing to you, does it?\n> >\n> > Redshift-distance means a lot to me, because it is (at least somewhat)\n> > observational. But I see no observational correlation at all between\n> > *velocity* and distance. Which is the way the "Hubble constant" is\n> > usually given by the cosmologists.\n>\n> What does it matter how the redshift-distance relation is explained, as\n> long as it matches observations?\n\nBecause we are trying to understand the real universe.\n\nFor the same reason that Kepler\'s explanation of the visible motion of the\nplanets is preferable to the Ptolemaic explanation. Both "work" (in fact\nthe Ptolemaic system can be made as precise as desired). But one is a far\nbetter description of reality.\n\n--\ngreywolf42\nubi dubium ibi libertas\n{remove planet for e-mail}\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>"Esa A E Peuha" <esa.peuha@helsinki.fi> wrote in message
news:86pwu0dq11q.fsf@sirppi.helsinki.fi...
> "greywolf42" <mingstb@marssim-ss.com> writes:
>
> > "Esa A E Peuha" <esa.peuha@helsinki.fi> wrote in message
> > news:86ppt68v442.fsf@sirppi.helsinki.fi...
These exchanges are going nowhere. So this will be my final post to Esa in
this thread. Esa is welcome to the final word.
> > > Yes, but you can't really claim that personal biases don't affect
> > > science; most scientists have personal biases about science, and many
> > > good scientists are good precisely because of these biases.
> >
> > I consider your statement self-evidently false. By definition, a biased
> > 'scientist' cannot be a good scientist.
>
> So Albert Einstein was, by definition, not a good scientist?
If you think he was biased, you might think so. ;)
> After all,
> he was strongly biased against theories that conflicted with special
> relativity (which was ultimately the reason why he developed general
> relativity; the difficulties he encountered would probably have made him
> give up if he hadn't thought it absolutely necessary to have a generally
> covariant theory of gravitation).
You are welcome to whatever opinion you hold. I am addressing general
conditions, not trying to categorize specific authorities -- dead or alive.
> > > > Quite simply, you have now devolved into the fallacy of imagined
> > > > events. You start with the assumption that accepted theories
> > > > must have had many experiments to support them -- or they
> > > > wouldn't have been accepted.
> > >
> > > I don't assume that, I know it (not for all accepted theories, but for
> > > many).
> >
> > But it appears that you 'know' it only because you accepted what
> > somebody else told you.
>
> Mostly, yes, but what alternative do I have?
The alternative that you have is the scientific method. That's the purpose
of the scientific method.
> I don't have time to read
> all actual reports of all actual experiments (which could just be
> invented nonsense in any case), and I most certainly won't either live
> long enough or have the necessary resources to repeat every experiment
> ever made.
Time-management is an issue that all humans have to deal with. However, the
fact that you cannot personally reproduce all of human knowledge does not
require you to conclude that you must accept the words of authority on
faith.
> > > > Then you tell yourself that you need not perform any more
> > > > experiments, *BECAUSE* the theory is well accepted.
> > >
> > > Where did you draw this conclusion? That's not what I meant.
> >
> > My apologies. Please explain what you *did* mean.
>
> I mean that, for example, experimental high energy physicists see every
> day hundreds (if not thousands) of particle collisions that test the
> theories relevant to such collisions;
That is what many authorities will tell you -- but it is not true. Particle
physicists *assume* the theories that they claim to be testing. For
example, they often calculate their "background" -- instead of measuring it.
> it would be extreme waste of
> resources to examine every single one of these collisions with minute
> detail, so they are screened so that only those that may show something
> previously unseen are given careful attention.
Again, you devolve into the fallacy that because you cannot do detailed work
on every data event, that you cannot ever do detailed work on one event.
> > > > So, how do *you* examine an experimental paper if you first
> > > > determine that the results contradict an 'accepted theory'?
> > >
> > > Well, if reading the paper doesn't reveal anything immediately wrong
> > > with the experiment, I would probably ask other people what they
> > > think.
> >
> > That is not the scientific method. That is polling to find the popular
> > view.
>
> No, that's making people aware of the possible contradiction (which is
> why results are published in the first place). This has twofold
> purpose: if the experiment has a problem, many people are more likely to
> detect it than one, and if not, repeating the experiment will be easier
> if I can get other people to agree that it's worth repeating.
But *you* should have know whether the experiment was worth repeating --
without discussing it with authorities. That is, if you wish to follow the
scientific method.
> > > > Data does not have any "meaning" .... other than it is a measurement
> > > > of the real universe. It is not tied to any one human theory.
> > >
> > > A measurement in itself is dependent of the measuring instrument, and
> > > therefore not very useful until it is converted to something that is
> > > independent of the instrument.
> >
> > The scientific method is not about 'usefulness.' It is about knowledge
> > of the universe.
>
> But all knowledge is not equally useful in understanding the universe.
True, but irrelevant. Because all experimental knowledge is part of
understanding the universe.
> Knowing what you ate for breakfast doesn't help you understand the
> universe, even though it is knowledge about (a small part of) the
> universe.
Total strawman. What you had for breakfast is not experimental data.
> > > > And many experiments are done simply to see what happens. Before
> > > > any theory/paradigm ever exists. For example, Faraday undertook
> > > > many experiments on electricity and magnetism. He came up with
> > > > "Faraday's Law." Almost every equation that has somebody's
> > > > name attached to it is a contrary example to your claim.
> > >
> > > What are you talking about? What claim I have made that this is
> > > supposed to contradict?
> >
> > Your claim was that a theory must exist before an experiment can be
> > undertaken. That data has no 'meaning' without a theory to first give
> > it life.
>
> Almost, but not quite. When Faraday started to experiment, he obviously
> knew he could experiment, but he didn't know what he could _measure_, or
> even if he could measure anything at all (that other people hadn't
> measured before). He had to discover experimentally what can be
> measured in electromagnetism (in other words, a theory of measurement)
> along with a theory of what he measured.
Thanks for proving my point.
{substantive 'invisible' snip was performed here, by Esa}
{replaced here because of otherwise false claim made by Esa, farther below}
= = = = =[/itex]
> > > Suppose that you have a rod that you think is exactly one meter long
> > > (your theory of the measuring instrument), and that you measure
> > > something else with it. If you find that some other object is 6.137
> > > times as long as the rod (which is data), then you conclude that it is
> > > 6.137 meters long (which is meaning). If you then find out that the
> > > rod is in fact 1.19 meters long (your theory was wrong), do you still
> > > think that the other object is 6.137 meters long?
= = = = =
> > You continue to confuse measurement with reality, and physics with mere
> > math. Which is quite common in these 'modern' days.
>
> If it really is confusion, how can it be so common?
Because the confusion is taught by those in authority positions.
> > Quite simply, there is
> > a major difference between length and units of length.
>
> I agree with that. I just don't think that the difference is quite the
> same difference that you think it is.
Could you be a bit more specific? I don't see any such distinction in past
or current posts.
{substantive 'invisible' snip was performed here, by Esa}
{replaced here because of otherwise false claim made by Esa, below}
= = = = =
> > I arbitrarily select a unit of length that I choose to call a 'meter.'
> > It doesn't matter what reason I think up to come up with this
> > standard. But I then declare that 'this here' rod in my hand is
> > the *standard* meter. If I then measure another object's length
> > (using the rod) and find that it is 6.137 times the length of the
> > rod, then I can say the object is 6.137 'meters' long. That is,
> > it is 6.137 times the length of the *standard meter stick*.
> >
> > Now, there is no way that my definition can be 'wrong.' If I then find
> > a new rod -- which I'll call a 'mugwump' -- I can compare the
> > 'mugwump' rod to the 'meter' rod. And I find that the mugwump is
> > 1.19 times the length of the 'meter.' Now, if I measure the prior
> > object with my 'mugwump' standard, I find that it is 5.157
> > 'mugwumps' in length.
= = = = =
> > Now if I was fool enough to call the new (mugwump) standard a 'meter',
> > then I'd merely be sowing confusion. The length of the object has not
> > changed at all. The length of the meter standard has not changed at
> > all, either. I've just created a new standard, and continued to use the
> > old name.
>
> Yes, but by your definition of data, you won't have any _data_ (that is,
> direct measurement) of the length in the new standard unless you
> actually measure the object again with the new standard.
I already did remeasure with the new standard. Hence the data exists.
Your 'creative', invisible snipping is unprofessional.
And if you are going to snip material, at least read it well enough to avoid
making obvious, false statements about what was contained in the material
that you eliminated. Unless this was the intent of the snip. ;)
> > > > This is one of the ways that the scientific method is used to
> > > > advance our knowledge. Recall "Hypothesis non fingo."
> > > > Newton certainly got a lot of use out of his gravitational
> > > > relationship, even though he never had a theory to explain it.
> > >
> > > Why do you think Newton's theory of gravitation is not a theory?
> >
> > 1) Because he said it wasn't. (Hypothesis non fingo.)
>
> But many people after Newton have said it _is_ a theory, and used is as
> a theory.
So? A rose by any other name is still not the same as a caterpillar.
> > 2) Because it is an empirical relationship. (Which is not a theory.)
>
> Why couldn't a theory say that an empirical law holds always (even when
> there's no empirical evidence)?
Becuase a scientific theory requires a physical cause. There is nothing
wrong with an empirical relationship. But simply saying that one assumes
that it always holds is not a theory. It is simply a religious,
unscientific attachment.
{snip higher levels}
> > > > Hubble's measurements never assumed
> > > > any such 'measuring theory' constant.
> > >
> > > Really? Would he have measured them if they had taken random new
> > > values at every repetition?
> >
> > ??? Hubble simply reported what he found. He used no 'measuring
> > constant.'
>
> Hubble reported that he found that the redshifts of galaxies stay
> constant (as closely as he could determine).
Hubble made no such claim. At least it doesn't exist in his 1929 paper.
Hubble merely reported what he observed at that one observational period (a
matter of some days to catch the Cepheids). He made no theoretical claim
about other epochs. Even if he had, it wouldn't have been observation or
data.
> > > > > but the "observed"
> > > > > distances are actually calculated distances, because what is
> > > > > actually observed has no direct connection to distance;
> > > >
> > > > You don't think that apparent versus abolute luminosity has any
> > > > direct connection to distance?
> > >
> > > I do, but the absolute luminosities are [itex]_calculated_, not measured.
> >
> > But luminosity versus absolute luminosity *does* have a connection to
> > distance. Which disproves your prior claim.
>
> How? Neither distance nor absolute luminosity can be measured directly,
> nor are they directly connected to anything that _can_ be measured
> directly.
Your claim was that there was no connection between observed luminosity and
distance.
{snip higher levels}
> > > In 1952, galactic distances doubled overnight when it was discovered
> > > that there were two types of cepheids; there have been other (much
> > > less radical) refinements.
> >
> > The galaxies did not suddenly leap out a factor of two! Our expectation
> > of their distance was changed. You continue to confuse measurement
> > with reality.
>
> No, I think it is you who are confused: you seem to think we can somehow
> _know_ the real physical distances.
Our "accepted" estimates of galactic distances may have doubled, in 1952.
But the actual distances (as always) remain unchanged by our knowledge.
{snip higher levels}
> > > > There is a difference in kind at the convert-redshift-to-speed point
> > > > (see below). All other 'theories' are related explicitly to
> > > > quantifying the data (distance).
> > >
> > > I fail to see the fundamental difference.
> >
> > I agree. Try focusing on the exchange at the beginning of this post.
> > The difference between a measurement (number) and reality.
>
> I don't see the connection here.
That's why you should reread it.
{snip higher levels}
> > > > There is a substantial difference. The explicit theoretical
> > > > assumption that *ALL* redshifts are due to recessional
> > > > velocity (or cosmic expansion). This is a purely theoretical
> > > > assumption, having no use whatsoever in the determination
> > > > of distances -- or the data used in the Hubble relationship.
> > >
> > > So the fact that redshifts and distances have a strong measured
> > > correlation means nothing to you, does it?
> >
> > Redshift-distance means a lot to me, because it is (at least somewhat)
> > observational. But I see no observational correlation at all between
> > *velocity* and distance. Which is the way the "Hubble constant" is
> > usually given by the cosmologists.
>
> What does it matter how the redshift-distance relation is explained, as
> long as it matches observations?
Because we are trying to understand the real universe.
For the same reason that Kepler's explanation of the visible motion of the
planets is preferable to the Ptolemaic explanation. Both "work" (in fact
the Ptolemaic system can be made as precise as desired). But one is a far
better description of reality.
--
greywolf42
ubi dubium ibi libertas
{remove planet for e-mail}
greywolf42
Aug7-04, 05:08 PM
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>"Phillip Helbig---remove CLOTHES to reply" <helbig@astro.multiCLOTHESvax.de>\nwrote in message news:cesr63\\$6id\\$1@online.de...\n> In article <10h2ee3jimo5jbc@corp.supernews.com>, "greywolf42"\n> <mingstb@marssim-ss.com> writes:\n>\n> > Redshift-distance means a lot to me, because it is (at least somewhat)\n> > observational. But I see no observational correlation at all between\n> > *velocity* and distance. Which is the way the "Hubble constant" is\n> > usually given by the cosmologists.\n>\n> This is a red herring.\n>\n> When modern cosmologists use velocity, it is simply cz, nothing else.\n\nI wasn\'t addressing cosmologists\' use of -- or notation for -- velocity. I\nwas pointing out that redshift is observed, while velocity is not. This the\nmixing of \'z\' (which is redshift) into the concept of velocity is\nfundamentally unsound.\n\nThere is an observational correlation between redshift and distance. There\nis no observational correlaction between velocity and distance. Even though\nthat is the standard cosmologists\' way of referring to the hubble term.\n\n> Just divide by c to get the redshift.\n\nYes, that is the modern cosmologists\' theory. However, it is not an\nobservation. Which was my point.\n\n> I agree that this is confusing,\n\nIt is not confusing at all. It\'s simply irrelvant to the issue under\ndiscussion.\n\n> but it is just something which historically developed and was somewhat\n> more practical when redshifts were small (most people can more easily\n> visualise numbers which are greater than 1 as opposed to those which are\n> less than 1).\n\nA trivial and useless quibble.\n\n--\ngreywolf42\nubi dubium ibi libertas\n{remove planet for e-mail}\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>"Phillip Helbig---remove CLOTHES to reply" <helbig@astro.multiCLOTHESvax.de>
wrote in message news:cesr63$6id$1@online.de...
> In article <10h2ee3jimo5jbc@corp.supernews.com>, "greywolf42"
> <mingstb@marssim-ss.com> writes:
>
> > Redshift-distance means a lot to me, because it is (at least somewhat)
> > observational. But I see no observational correlation at all between
> > *velocity* and distance. Which is the way the "Hubble constant" is
> > usually given by the cosmologists.
>
> This is a red herring.
>
> When modern cosmologists use velocity, it is simply cz, nothing else.
I wasn't addressing cosmologists' use of -- or notation for -- velocity. I
was pointing out that redshift is observed, while velocity is not. This the
mixing of 'z' (which is redshift) into the concept of velocity is
fundamentally unsound.
There is an observational correlation between redshift and distance. There
is no observational correlaction between velocity and distance. Even though
that is the standard cosmologists' way of referring to the hubble term.
> Just divide by c to get the redshift.
Yes, that is the modern cosmologists' theory. However, it is not an
observation. Which was my point.
> I agree that this is confusing,
It is not confusing at all. It's simply irrelvant to the issue under
discussion.
> but it is just something which historically developed and was somewhat
> more practical when redshifts were small (most people can more easily
> visualise numbers which are greater than 1 as opposed to those which are
> less than 1).
A trivial and useless quibble.
--
greywolf42
ubi dubium ibi libertas
{remove planet for e-mail}
Phillip Helbig---remove CLOTHES to reply
Aug12-04, 08:30 AM
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>\n\nIn article <10ha5644m2n8qec@corp.supernews.com>, "greywolf42"\n<mingstb@marssim-ss.com> writes:\n\n> I wasn\'t addressing cosmologists\' use of -- or notation for -- velocity. I\n> was pointing out that redshift is observed, while velocity is not. This the\n> mixing of \'z\' (which is redshift) into the concept of velocity is\n> fundamentally unsound.\n>\n> There is an observational correlation between redshift and distance.\n\nOf course, the distance is not measured directly, but inferred. One\nCAN, assuming some theory, infer the velocity (not that anyone does this\nin practice---folks who report velocity just report cz for historical\nreasons).\n\n> There\n> is no observational correlaction between velocity and distance. Even though\n> that is the standard cosmologists\' way of referring to the hubble term.\n\nIt really doesn\'t matter what you call it as long as what you do is\nconsistent.\n\nAssuming that the universe is homogeneous and isotropic on large scales,\nthen velocity MUST be proportional to distance. This is the\nvelocity-distance law, and holds for all distances. These velocities\nand distances are not directly observable, though (which, unless one is\nan extreme positivist, doesn\'t mean that they don\'t exist). There is a\ncorrelation between distance (inferred) and redshift which is linear at\nlow redshift. However, one cannot combine the two. Harrison wrote a\ngreat paper on this which I\'m sure I\'ve cited in similar discussions\nbefore.\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>In article <10ha5644m2n8qec@corp.supernews.com>, "greywolf42"
<mingstb@marssim-ss.com> writes:
> I wasn't addressing cosmologists' use of -- or notation for -- velocity. I
> was pointing out that redshift is observed, while velocity is not. This the
> mixing of 'z' (which is redshift) into the concept of velocity is
> fundamentally unsound.
>
> There is an observational correlation between redshift and distance.
Of course, the distance is not measured directly, but inferred. One
CAN, assuming some theory, infer the velocity (not that anyone does this
in practice---folks who report velocity just report cz for historical
reasons).
> There
> is no observational correlaction between velocity and distance. Even though
> that is the standard cosmologists' way of referring to the hubble term.
It really doesn't matter what you call it as long as what you do is
consistent.
Assuming that the universe is homogeneous and isotropic on large scales,
then velocity MUST be proportional to distance. This is the
velocity-distance law, and holds for all distances. These velocities
and distances are not directly observable, though (which, unless one is
an extreme positivist, doesn't mean that they don't exist). There is a
correlation between distance (inferred) and redshift which is linear at
low redshift. However, one cannot combine the two. Harrison wrote a
great paper on this which I'm sure I've cited in similar discussions
before.
Daniel Elander
Aug12-04, 08:30 AM
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>\n\n\n\n> I\'ve read that neutrinos from Supernova 1987A were observed to arrive\n> 18 hours before the photons.\n\nFunny. In a course on theoretical particle physics, we were once given\nas an exercise to use the data on how much later the neutrinos arrived\nand derive an upper limit to the mass of neutrinos. Does anyone else\nhave any details?\n\nDaniel\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>I've read that neutrinos from Supernova 1987A were observed to arrive
> 18 hours before the photons.
Funny. In a course on theoretical particle physics, we were once given
as an exercise to use the data on how much later the neutrinos arrived
and derive an upper limit to the mass of neutrinos. Does anyone else
have any details?
Daniel
greywolf42
Aug12-04, 08:31 AM
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>\n\nNorm Dresner <ndrez@att.net> wrote in message\nnews:410ba98e\\$1@news.sentex.net...\n>\n > "greywolf42" <mingstb@marssim-ss.com> wrote in message\n> news:10gikksccs06n19@corp.supernews.com...\n> >\n> > Norm Dresner <ndrez@att.net> wrote in message\n> > news:LVVNc.145648\\$OB3.66667@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...\n> > >\n> > > "greywolf42" <mingstb@marssim-ss.com> wrote in message\n> > > news:10gfqb8k9raqm5d@corp.supernews.com...\n\n<sni p higher levels>\n\n> > > > Norm posted a claim that Ockham\'s Razor would\n> > > > have us discard experimental results if it contradicted accepted\n> > > > theory. And solely because it was \'simpler\' to accept conventional\n> > > > theory. Norm did not provide any other reasoning. My post\n> > > > responded solely to the reasoning provided by Norm --\n> > > > which was clearly unscientific.\n> > > >\n> > > I would have you [as I do] intensely question unreproducable\n> > > experimental "data".\n> >\n> > Norm, you didn\'t mention anything about \'unreproduceable\' data in your\n> > original post. You simply claimed that data was to be considered bad,\n> > if it contradicted accepted theory.\n>\n> NO.\n>\n> 1, I didn\'t claim that the data was bad, but simply that because it\n> contradicted a large body of existing physics that it had to be viewed\n> with extreme skepticism\n\nThat\'s what I said. You\'d treat it as bad -- sight unseen.\n\n> 2. If you\'re main argument against my comment was that I didn\'t explain\n> all of the background knowledge that went into the formation of my\n> view, I plead guilty to extreme brevity.\n\nYour statment was quite clear. Here it is again:\n\n"Let\'s stand back a moment and ask an Ockham\'s Razor question, Which is a\nsimpler explanation? 1. superliminality -- which is contrary to a large\nbody of mainstream physics. 2. experimental error (or misinterpretation).\nI\'d vote for the latter."\n\nThere is no \'background\' available for the above. Either it is a correct\nview, or it is not. I addressed what you stated. Now you wish to claim\nthat you didn\'t really mean this. Which is OK, as my original argument was\nwith your stated position. Which you now disclaim.\n\n> > Faith and belief are not "allowed" in the scientific method. Now each\n> > individual human that attempts to practice the scientific method quickly\n> > finds that one does not have time to check every detail of every\n> > experiment. So the individual must make personal choices as to where\n> > to invest one\'s time and energy.\n> >\n> > However, such a choice does not mean that the next person may not look\n> > for (and possibly find) something that contradicts the dominant\n> > paradigm. The correct response (in the scientific method) is *not* to\n> > immediately dismiss the experiment and/or the qualifications or\nabilities\n> > of the reporter. But to repeat the experiment.\n>\n> 1. Since Popper, most scientists accept that scientific theories can never\n> be proven, only falsified, the only reason left to support such theories\n> is faith in the results that tend to validate them.\n\nHowever, what individual humans do is irrevelent to the scientific method.\nSo is Popper (who merely addressed the sociology of humans -- not the\nscientific method).\n\n> 2. Others have posted information about attempts to reproduce the results\n> so I won\'t dwell on them but just comment that if these attempts had\n> produced data that even came close to validating the previous results then\n> superliminality would be close to, if not already, the accepted paradigm.\n> It\'s not and there has to be a reason for it.\n\nKuhn could tell you the reason.\n\n> The reason is the lack of\n> experimental data to support belief in it in the face of a vast body of\n> experimental data that has never detected a superluminal event/particle.\n\nThe above sentence is hyperbole, unsupported, and explicitly incorrect.\nElectrons and UV photons are regularly detected at 1.7 c, when tunneling.\nCerenkov radiation is produced when charged particles move superluminally.\n\n> In refusing to accept the interpretation of the data you referenced as\n> proving that tachyons had been detected\n\nExcuse me, but I made no reference to data on tachyons. And I certainly made\nno claims whatsoever about \'proof\' of detection of tachyons. Why do you\nmake up these baseless claims?\n\n> I was simply basing my belief on the lack of\n> any acceptance by a much larger and more critical body of scientists than\n> I in that field, much as I do for theories pertaining to DNA and genetics.\n\nHey, you are welcome to \'trust\' authority all you like -- as a human.\nHowever, such a position has no validity in the scientific method.\n\nAnd I thought you weren\'t going to "dwell on these issues." ;)\n\n> 3. We all have -- both as humans and as scientists -- beliefs that can\'t\n> be "proven". The notion of a "dominant paradigm" requires that there\n> be "belief" in something.\n\nHumans can have beliefs. There are no beliefs in the scientific method.\n\nI think we are done here. I see no benefit in further roiling the waters.\n\n--\ngreywolf42\nubi dubium ibi libertas\n{remove planet for return e-mail}\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>Norm Dresner <ndrez@att.net> wrote in message
news:410ba98e$1@news.sentex.net...
>
> "greywolf42" <mingstb@marssim-ss.com> wrote in message
> news:10gikksccs06n19@corp.supernews.com...
> >
> > Norm Dresner <ndrez@att.net> wrote in message
> > news:LVVNc.145648$OB3.66667@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> > >
> > > "greywolf42" <mingstb@marssim-ss.com> wrote in message
> > > news:10gfqb8k9raqm5d@corp.supernews.com...
<snip higher levels>
> > > > Norm posted a claim that Ockham's Razor would
> > > > have us discard experimental results if it contradicted accepted
> > > > theory. And solely because it was 'simpler' to accept conventional
> > > > theory. Norm did not provide any other reasoning. My post
> > > > responded solely to the reasoning provided by Norm --
> > > > which was clearly unscientific.
> > > >
> > > I would have you [as I do] intensely question unreproducable
> > > experimental "data".
> >
> > Norm, you didn't mention anything about 'unreproduceable' data in your
> > original post. You simply claimed that data was to be considered bad,
> > if it contradicted accepted theory.
>
> NO.
>
> 1, I didn't claim that the data was bad, but simply that because it
> contradicted a large body of existing physics that it had to be viewed
> with extreme skepticism
That's what I said. You'd treat it as bad -- sight unseen.
> 2. If you're main argument against my comment was that I didn't explain
> all of the background knowledge that went into the formation of my
> view, I plead guilty to extreme brevity.
Your statment was quite clear. Here it is again:
"Let's stand back a moment and ask an Ockham's Razor question, Which is a
simpler explanation? 1. superliminality -- which is contrary to a large
body of mainstream physics. 2. experimental error (or misinterpretation).
I'd vote for the latter."
There is no 'background' available for the above. Either it is a correct
view, or it is not. I addressed what you stated. Now you wish to claim
that you didn't really mean this. Which is OK, as my original argument was
with your stated position. Which you now disclaim.
> > Faith and belief are not "allowed" in the scientific method. Now each
> > individual human that attempts to practice the scientific method quickly
> > finds that one does not have time to check every detail of every
> > experiment. So the individual must make personal choices as to where
> > to invest one's time and energy.
> >
> > However, such a choice does not mean that the next person may not look
> > for (and possibly find) something that contradicts the dominant
> > paradigm. The correct response (in the scientific method) is *not* to
> > immediately dismiss the experiment and/or the qualifications or
abilities
> > of the reporter. But to repeat the experiment.
>
> 1. Since Popper, most scientists accept that scientific theories can never
> be proven, only falsified, the only reason left to support such theories
> is faith in the results that tend to validate them.
However, what individual humans do is irrevelent to the scientific method.
So is Popper (who merely addressed the sociology of humans -- not the
scientific method).
> 2. Others have posted information about attempts to reproduce the results
> so I won't dwell on them but just comment that if these attempts had
> produced data that even came close to validating the previous results then
> superliminality would be close to, if not already, the accepted paradigm.
> It's not and there has to be a reason for it.
Kuhn could tell you the reason.
> The reason is the lack of
> experimental data to support belief in it in the face of a vast body of
> experimental data that has never detected a superluminal event/particle.
The above sentence is hyperbole, unsupported, and explicitly incorrect.
Electrons and UV photons are regularly detected at 1.7 c, when tunneling.
Cerenkov radiation is produced when charged particles move superluminally.
> In refusing to accept the interpretation of the data you referenced as
> proving that tachyons had been detected
Excuse me, but I made no reference to data on tachyons. And I certainly made
no claims whatsoever about 'proof' of detection of tachyons. Why do you
make up these baseless claims?
> I was simply basing my belief on the lack of
> any acceptance by a much larger and more critical body of scientists than
> I in that field, much as I do for theories pertaining to DNA and genetics.
Hey, you are welcome to 'trust' authority all you like -- as a human.
However, such a position has no validity in the scientific method.
And I thought you weren't going to "dwell on these issues." ;)
> 3. We all have -- both as humans and as scientists -- beliefs that can't
> be "proven". The notion of a "dominant paradigm" requires that there
> be "belief" in something.
Humans can have beliefs. There are no beliefs in the scientific method.
I think we are done here. I see no benefit in further roiling the waters.
--
greywolf42
ubi dubium ibi libertas
{remove planet for return e-mail}
Mark Palenik
Aug12-04, 08:31 AM
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>\n\n"Perfectly Innocent" <perfectlyInnocent@as-if.com> wrote in message\nnews:c45b45b3.0407300629.38cfe412@posting .google.com...\n>\n> daniel@elit.net (Daniel Elander) wrote in message\nnews:<37d84b42.0407281407.1fa13104@postin g.google.com>...\n> >\n> > So tell me why neutrinos from supernova explosions arrive after the\nlight does.\n>\n> I\'ve read that neutrinos from Supernova 1987A were observed to arrive\n> 18 hours before the photons.\n> http://www.npl.washington.edu/AV/altvw54.html\n> The same link mentions the difficulty in detecting low energy solar\n> neutrinos. If neutrinos are tachyonic, then the slowest moving\n> tachyons have the greatest energy. That could explain why detectable\n> neutrinos are only noticed at speeds comparatively equal to the speed\n> of light.\n>\n\nYes, this is the same reference that was posted before. But it even admits\nthat the results of the experiments measuring negative m^2 were shaky at\nbest. It also says that stellar dynamics could account for the neutrinos\narriving at earth before photons, rather than a negative value for m^2.\n\nAlso, see http://cupp.oulu.fi/neutrino/nd-mass.html - the experiments were\nsuppossed to increase in accuraccy over time, and notice how, over time, the\nvalues became less "negative", and the most recent and suppossedly most\naccurate experiments have produced positive values.\n\nAnd read the experimental setup. It seems like it would be very easy to get\ninaccurrate results.\n\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>"Perfectly Innocent" <perfectlyInnocent@as-if.com> wrote in message
news:c45b45b3.0407300629.38cfe412@posting.google.c om...
>
> daniel@elit.net (Daniel Elander) wrote in message
news:<37d84b42.0407281407.1fa13104@posting.google.com>...
> >
> > So tell me why neutrinos from supernova explosions arrive after the
light does.
>
> I've read that neutrinos from Supernova 1987A were observed to arrive
> 18 hours before the photons.
> http://www.npl.washington.edu/AV/altvw54.html
> The same link mentions the difficulty in detecting low energy solar
> neutrinos. If neutrinos are tachyonic, then the slowest moving
> tachyons have the greatest energy. That could explain why detectable
> neutrinos are only noticed at speeds comparatively equal to the speed
> of light.
>
Yes, this is the same reference that was posted before. But it even admits
that the results of the experiments measuring negative m^2 were shaky at
best. It also says that stellar dynamics could account for the neutrinos
arriving at earth before photons, rather than a negative value for m^2.
Also, see http://cupp.oulu.fi/neutrino/nd-mass.html - the experiments were
suppossed to increase in accuraccy over time, and notice how, over time, the
values became less "negative", and the most recent and suppossedly most
accurate experiments have produced positive values.
And read the experimental setup. It seems like it would be very easy to get
inaccurrate results.
Mark Palenik
Aug12-04, 08:31 AM
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>\n\n"Perfectly Innocent" <perfectlyInnocent@as-if.com> wrote in message\nnews:c45b45b3.0407300803.57f7033f@posting .google.com...\n>\n>\n> "Mark Palenik" <markpalenik@wideopenwest.com> wrote in message\nnews:<DP-dnQI6dfI5EpTcRVn-pA@wideopenwest.com>...\n> > Besides there\'s a lot of data that supports relativity\'s stance that\nnothing\n> > can travel faster than the speed of light, and that doing so would\nviolate\n> > causality.\n>\n> What is the experimental evidence for the nonexistence of tachyons?\n> The evidence for absence is not the absence of evidence.\n\nThat\'s rather irrellevent to the discussion, since we\'re talking about\nwhether or not neutrinos are tachyons, and there\'s experimental evidence\nthat they\'re not. So whether or not tachyons do exist, there\'s not really\nany reason to believe that they are neutrinos.\n\nAnd while the above statement you made is rather cute, and a bit cliche,\nit\'s not always true. When you\'ve been looking for something for a long\ntime, and yet you still don\'t find it, that is evidence that it\'s not there.\nIf absence of evidence didn\'t count for anything, I could never be certain\nthat there aren\'t monsters hiding under my bed.\n\n>\n> Causality violations occur from gedanken experiments requiring\n> superluminality and the equivalence of all inertial frames of\n> reference. It\'s an uncontested fact that there are plenty of realistic\n> pseudo-Riemannian spacetimes that have a preferred frame of reference.\n\nAnd yet there is no evidence that any of these spaces describe the actual\nspace in our universe.\n\n> These do not contradict superluminality.\n\nOr do you mean causality.\n\n>\n><snip>\n>\n> Aesthetic pleasure is too subjective to be a respectable proof against\n> superluminality. I like superluminality.\n\nSo, aesthetically, it appeals to you. Don\'t pretend that your views are\nreally based on anything more than that.\n\nHowever, aesthetics do count for something, sometimes, and a lot of physics\nwould never have been discovered if people hadn\'t been searching for\naesthetically pleasing solutions. Kepler, for example, was a bit of a nut\nwho was obsessed with harmony in planetary motion - but what he came up with\nended up being a much better (and more aesthetically pleasing) explanation\nthan epicycles.\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>"Perfectly Innocent" <perfectlyInnocent@as-if.com> wrote in message
news:c45b45b3.0407300803.57f7033f@posting.google.c om...
>
>
> "Mark Palenik" <markpalenik@wideopenwest.com> wrote in message
news:<DP-dnQI6dfI5EpTcRVn-pA@wideopenwest.com>...
> > Besides there's a lot of data that supports relativity's stance that
nothing
> > can travel faster than the speed of light, and that doing so would
violate
> > causality.
>
> What is the experimental evidence for the nonexistence of tachyons?
> The evidence for absence is not the absence of evidence.
That's rather irrellevent to the discussion, since we're talking about
whether or not neutrinos are tachyons, and there's experimental evidence
that they're not. So whether or not tachyons do exist, there's not really
any reason to believe that they are neutrinos.
And while the above statement you made is rather cute, and a bit cliche,
it's not always true. When you've been looking for something for a long
time, and yet you still don't find it, that is evidence that it's not there.
If absence of evidence didn't count for anything, I could never be certain
that there aren't monsters hiding under my bed.
>
> Causality violations occur from gedanken experiments requiring
> superluminality and the equivalence of all inertial frames of
> reference. It's an uncontested fact that there are plenty of realistic
> pseudo-Riemannian spacetimes that have a preferred frame of reference.
And yet there is no evidence that any of these spaces describe the actual
space in our universe.
> These do not contradict superluminality.
Or do you mean causality.
>
><snip>
>
> Aesthetic pleasure is too subjective to be a respectable proof against
> superluminality. I like superluminality.
So, aesthetically, it appeals to you. Don't pretend that your views are
really based on anything more than that.
However, aesthetics do count for something, sometimes, and a lot of physics
would never have been discovered if people hadn't been searching for
aesthetically pleasing solutions. Kepler, for example, was a bit of a nut
who was obsessed with harmony in planetary motion - but what he came up with
ended up being a much better (and more aesthetically pleasing) explanation
than epicycles.
Norm Dresner
Aug12-04, 08:31 AM
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>\n\n"greywolf42" <mingstb@marssim-ss.com> wrote in message\nnews:10gikksccs06n19@corp.supernews.com.. .\n>\n> Norm Dresner <ndrez@att.net> wrote in message\n> news:LVVNc.145648\\$OB3.66667@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...\n> >\n> > "greywolf42" <mingstb@marssim-ss.com> wrote in message\n> > news:10gfqb8k9raqm5d@corp.supernews.com...\n> > > Mark Palenik <markpalenik@wideopenwest.com> wrote in message\n> > > news:RPmdndm8wcvinJrcRVn-tw@wideopenwest.com...\n> > > > "greywolf42" <mingstb@marssim-ss.com> wrote in message\n> > > > news:10gb3icit9n487e@corp.supernews.com...\n>\n> > <snip>\n>\n> > > > > You may note that your item number 1 is purely theoretical (even\nif\n> > > > > it *is* "mainstream"). Item number 2 is experimental. According\n> > > > > to the scientific method, experiment trumps theory.\n> > > >\n> > > > I take it you haven\'t read any of the messages here explaining that\n> > > > that information is out of dat, inaccurate, and was speculative at\n> > > > best, at the time.\n> > >\n> > > Sure I\'d read the other posts. However, they are irrelevant to the\n> > > claims and reasoning provided (which was snipped) by the prior poster\n> > > (Norm Dresner). Norm posted a claim that Ockham\'s Razor would\n> > > have us discard experimental results if it contradicted accepted\ntheory.\n> > > And solely because it was \'simpler\' to accept conventional theory.\n> > > Norm did not provide any other reasoning. My post responded solely\n> > > to the reasoning provided by Norm -- which was clearly unscientific.\n> > >\n> > I would have you [as I do] intensely question unreproducable\nexperimental\n> > "data".\n>\n> Norm, you didn\'t mention anything about \'unreproduceable\' data in your\n> original post. You simply claimed that data was to be considered bad, if\nit\n> contradicted accepted theory.\n>\n\nNO.\n\n1, I didn\'t claim that the data was bad, but simply that because it\ncontradicted a large body of existing physics that it had to be viewed with\nextreme skepticism\n\n2. If you\'re main argument against my comment was that I didn\'t explain all\nof the background knowledge that went into the formation of my view, I plead\nguilty to extreme brevity.\n\n> Faith and belief are not "allowed" in the scientific method. Now each\n> individual human that attempts to practice the scientific method quickly\n> finds that one does not have time to check every detail of every\nexperiment.\n> So the individual must make personal choices as to where to invest one\'s\n> time and energy.\n>\n> However, such a choice does not mean that the next person may not look for\n> (and possibly find) something that contradicts the dominant paradigm. The\n> correct response (in the scientific method) is *not* to immediately\ndismiss\n> the experiment and/or the qualifications or abilities of the reporter.\nBut\n> to repeat the experiment.\n\n1. Since Popper, most scientists accept that scientific theories can never\nbe proven, only falsified, the only reason left to support such theories is\nfaith in the results that tend to validate them.\n2. Others have posted information about attempts to reproduce the results so\nI won\'t dwell on them but just comment that if these attempts had produced\ndata that even came close to validating the previous results then\nsuperliminality would be close to, if not already, the accepted paradigm.\nIt\'s not and there has to be a reason for it. The reason is the lack of\nexperimental data to support belief in it in the face of a vast body of\nexperimental data that has never detected a superluminal event/particle. In\nrefusing to accept the interpretation of the data you referenced as proving\nthat tachyons had been detected I was simply basing my belief on the lack of\nany acceptance by a much larger and more critical body of scientists than I\nin that field, much as I do for theories pertaining to DNA and genetics.\n3. We all have -- both as humans and as scientists -- beliefs that can\'t be\n"proven". The notion of a "dominant paradigm" requires that there be\n"belief" in something.\n\nNorm\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>"greywolf42" <mingstb@marssim-ss.com> wrote in message
news:10gikksccs06n19@corp.supernews.com...
>
> Norm Dresner <ndrez@att.net> wrote in message
> news:LVVNc.145648$OB3.66667@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> >
> > "greywolf42" <mingstb@marssim-ss.com> wrote in message
> > news:10gfqb8k9raqm5d@corp.supernews.com...
> > > Mark Palenik <markpalenik@wideopenwest.com> wrote in message
> > > news:RPmdndm8wcvinJrcRVn-tw@wideopenwest.com...
> > > > "greywolf42" <mingstb@marssim-ss.com> wrote in message
> > > > news:10gb3icit9n487e@corp.supernews.com...
>
> > <snip>
>
> > > > > You may note that your item number 1 is purely theoretical (even
if
> > > > > it *is* "mainstream"). Item number 2 is experimental. According
> > > > > to the scientific method, experiment trumps theory.
> > > >
> > > > I take it you haven't read any of the messages here explaining that
> > > > that information is out of dat, inaccurate, and was speculative at
> > > > best, at the time.
> > >
> > > Sure I'd read the other posts. However, they are irrelevant to the
> > > claims and reasoning provided (which was snipped) by the prior poster
> > > (Norm Dresner). Norm posted a claim that Ockham's Razor would
> > > have us discard experimental results if it contradicted accepted
theory.
> > > And solely because it was 'simpler' to accept conventional theory.
> > > Norm did not provide any other reasoning. My post responded solely
> > > to the reasoning provided by Norm -- which was clearly unscientific.
> > >
> > I would have you [as I do] intensely question unreproducable
experimental
> > "data".
>
> Norm, you didn't mention anything about 'unreproduceable' data in your
> original post. You simply claimed that data was to be considered bad, if
it
> contradicted accepted theory.
>
NO.
1, I didn't claim that the data was bad, but simply that because it
contradicted a large body of existing physics that it had to be viewed with
extreme skepticism
2. If you're main argument against my comment was that I didn't explain all
of the background knowledge that went into the formation of my view, I plead
guilty to extreme brevity.
> Faith and belief are not "allowed" in the scientific method. Now each
> individual human that attempts to practice the scientific method quickly
> finds that one does not have time to check every detail of every
experiment.
> So the individual must make personal choices as to where to invest one's
> time and energy.
>
> However, such a choice does not mean that the next person may not look for
> (and possibly find) something that contradicts the dominant paradigm. The
> correct response (in the scientific method) is *not* to immediately
dismiss
> the experiment and/or the qualifications or abilities of the reporter.
But
> to repeat the experiment.
1. Since Popper, most scientists accept that scientific theories can never
be proven, only falsified, the only reason left to support such theories is
faith in the results that tend to validate them.
2. Others have posted information about attempts to reproduce the results so
I won't dwell on them but just comment that if these attempts had produced
data that even came close to validating the previous results then
superliminality would be close to, if not already, the accepted paradigm.
It's not and there has to be a reason for it. The reason is the lack of
experimental data to support belief in it in the face of a vast body of
experimental data that has never detected a superluminal event/particle. In
refusing to accept the interpretation of the data you referenced as proving
that tachyons had been detected I was simply basing my belief on the lack of
any acceptance by a much larger and more critical body of scientists than I
in that field, much as I do for theories pertaining to DNA and genetics.
3. We all have -- both as humans and as scientists -- beliefs that can't be
"proven". The notion of a "dominant paradigm" requires that there be
"belief" in something.
Norm
greywolf42
Aug13-04, 05:41 AM
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>\n\n"Daniel Elander" <daniel@elit.net> wrote in message\nnews:37d84b42.0408010234.1698fe54@posting .google.com...\n>\n> > I\'ve read that neutrinos from Supernova 1987A were observed to arrive\n> > 18 hours before the photons.\n>\n> Funny. In a course on theoretical particle physics, we were once given\n> as an exercise to use the data on how much later the neutrinos arrived\n> and derive an upper limit to the mass of neutrinos. Does anyone else\n> have any details?\n\nSounds like a made-up exercise, with unreal simplifications. The pulse\nreceive at Kamiokande was received several hours before the supernova light\nwas noticed by an astronomer in the Andes, who was taking a break.\n\nEven in simulations, the neutrinos get out of the supernova ahead of the\nlight pulse.\n\n--\ngreywolf42\nubi dubium ibi libertas\n{remove planet for e-mail}\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>"Daniel Elander" <daniel@elit.net> wrote in message
news:37d84b42.0408010234.1698fe54@posting.google.c om...
>
> > I've read that neutrinos from Supernova 1987A were observed to arrive
> > 18 hours before the photons.
>
> Funny. In a course on theoretical particle physics, we were once given
> as an exercise to use the data on how much later the neutrinos arrived
> and derive an upper limit to the mass of neutrinos. Does anyone else
> have any details?
Sounds like a made-up exercise, with unreal simplifications. The pulse
receive at Kamiokande was received several hours before the supernova light
was noticed by an astronomer in the Andes, who was taking a break.
Even in simulations, the neutrinos get out of the supernova ahead of the
light pulse.
--
greywolf42
ubi dubium ibi libertas
{remove planet for e-mail}
greywolf42
Aug13-04, 05:41 AM
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>\n\n"Norm Dresner" <ndrez@att.net> wrote in message\nnews:n0COc.156775\\$OB3.66755@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...\n>\n> "greywolf42" <mingstb@marssim-ss.com> wrote in message\n> news:10gikksccs06n19@corp.supernews.com...\n> >\n\nThis appears to be a repost of a post to which I\'ve already replied. See\nthe response at:\nhttp://www.google.com/groups?selm=10gnufnf7pvcq96%40corp.supernews.com\n \n{snip duplicate message}\n\n--\ngreywolf42\nubi dubium ibi libertas\n{remove planet for e-mail}\n\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>"Norm Dresner" <ndrez@att.net> wrote in message
news:n0COc.156775$OB3.66755@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>
> "greywolf42" <mingstb@marssim-ss.com> wrote in message
> news:10gikksccs06n19@corp.supernews.com...
> >
This appears to be a repost of a post to which I've already replied. See
the response at:
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=10gnufnf7pvcq96%40corp.supernews.com
{snip duplicate message}
--
greywolf42
ubi dubium ibi libertas
{remove planet for e-mail}
greywolf42
Aug13-04, 05:41 AM
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>\n\n"Phillip Helbig---remove CLOTHES to reply" <helbig@astro.multiCLOTHESvax.de>\nwrote in message news:cf3k91\\$m6l\\$1@online.de...\n>\n> In article <10ha5644m2n8qec@corp.supernews.com>, "greywolf42"\n> <mingstb@marssim-ss.com> writes:\n>\n> > I wasn\'t addressing cosmologists\' use of -- or notation for -- velocity.\n> > I was pointing out that redshift is observed, while velocity is not.\n> > This the mixing of \'z\' (which is redshift) into the concept of velocity\n> > is fundamentally unsound.\n> >\n> > There is an observational correlation between redshift and distance.\n>\n> Of course, the distance is not measured directly, but inferred.\n\nYes. However this point was already made, and shown to be irrelevant.\n\n> One\n> CAN, assuming some theory, infer the velocity (not that anyone does this\n> in practice---folks who report velocity just report cz for historical\n> reasons).\n\nOn the contrary, the historical observations are (measured) redshift vs.\n(inferred) distance.\n\n> > There\n> > is no observational correlaction between velocity and distance. Even\n> > though that is the standard cosmologists\' way of referring to the hubble\n> > term.\n>\n> It really doesn\'t matter what you call it as long as what you do is\n> consistent.\n\nConsistency would be nice, but the primary goal is knowledge of the real\nuniverse.\n\n> Assuming that the universe is homogeneous and isotropic on large scales,\n\nBut this assumption has nothing to do with the discussion of the Hubble\nrelation. And it may have nothing to do with the real universe.\n\n> then velocity MUST be proportional to distance.\n\nYou are adding an additional assumption of the big bang. A steady state\nuniverse (that is both homogenous and isotropic on large scales) will have\nno relation of velocity and distance.\n\n> This is the velocity-distance law,\n\nObservation is redshift. Not velocity.\n\n> and holds for all distances.\n\nThat is an assumption. (The core assumption of the BB.)\n\n> These velocities\n> and distances are not directly observable, though (which, unless one is\n> an extreme positivist, doesn\'t mean that they don\'t exist).\n\nBut redshift *is* directly observable. The \'velocity\' is merely a\ntheoretical addition of the BB theory.\n\n> There is a\n> correlation between distance (inferred) and redshift which is linear at\n> low redshift.\n\nIt may appear linear (it\'s pretty noisy). But that doesn\'t mean the\ncorrelation is not merely the early part of an exponential curve (or\nsomething else).\n\n> However, one cannot combine the two.\n\nEither the correlation either exists, or it doesn\'t. If the correlation\nexists, then redshift may be \'combined\' with (inferred) distance. In fact,\nthat is the original Hubble relationship.\n\n> Harrison wrote a\n> great paper on this which I\'m sure I\'ve cited in similar discussions\n> before.\n\nThis may be true, but it is irrelevant here. If you\'d care to put forward\nspecific arguments from that paper -- if they address my specific points --\nfeel free to post a quote, or a link.\n\nI presume the paper you actually mean is "The redshift-distance and\nvelocity-distance laws", Astrophysical Journal, Part 1, vol. 403, no. 1, p.\n28-31. If so, the paper says nothing about observations. It is a\ntheoretical paper.\n\n\nYou seem to have always been highly nonspecific with Harrison. You\'ve never\nactually provided any substance from that book or that article. A typical\nquote is simply of this nature: "As always, the best reference for this is\nthe corresponding chapter in Edward Harrison\'s COSMOLOGY: THE SCIENCE OF\nTHE UNIVERSE. (He also wrote an entire book on Olbers\'s paradox, but I\nhaven\'t read it.)"\n\nI wonder how Harrison\'s book compares to Jaki\'s. Or where Harrison began.\nSince there are so many false descriptions of "Olber\'s paradox" out there.\n\nhttp://www.google.com/groups?selm=vfsbqpr60h1p45%40corp.supernews.com\n\ nThe issue of cosmologists and "Olber\'s paradox" is serendipitously germaine\nto this discussion about theory and \'alterations\' of history.\n\n"The lackadaisical, if not prejudiced approach to specific historical\nmaterial on the part of so many cosmologists and astronomers also\nillustrates a fundamental symptom of scientific thinking that only recently\nhas received serious attention and analysis. In choosing their problems\nscientists usually pay attention to such questions that fit into the\nconceptual context and world picture prevailing at a particular phase of\nscientific development.* As a result, very pertinent and grave problems\nconcerning that particular world picture may be taken lightly or simply\noverlooked, cogent and obvious as they are. ..."\n\n*{Kuhn\'s paradigms.}\n\n"The failure of the chief representatives of relativistic cosmology to see\nits relevance to the paradox is also a case of a similar intellectual\nconditioning. The monistic and positivist spirit in which modern physics\nhas been largely cultivated could hardly generate receptivity for a problem\nfor which the only basic solution consits in the acceptance of the idea of a\nfinite universe. ..."\n\n"... Whether the performance of science as regards its awareness of its own\nmyths will improve as time goes on will largely depend on whether the\nhistorical perspective and conciousness of the scientific discourse will\ndeepen to a considerable degree. ..."\n\n--\ngreywolf42\nubi dubium ibi libertas\n{remove planet for e-mail}\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>"Phillip Helbig---remove CLOTHES to reply" <helbig@astro.multiCLOTHESvax.de>
wrote in message news:cf3k91$m6l$1@online.de...
>
> In article <10ha5644m2n8qec@corp.supernews.com>, "greywolf42"
> <mingstb@marssim-ss.com> writes:
>
> > I wasn't addressing cosmologists' use of -- or notation for -- velocity.
> > I was pointing out that redshift is observed, while velocity is not.
> > This the mixing of 'z' (which is redshift) into the concept of velocity
> > is fundamentally unsound.
> >
> > There is an observational correlation between redshift and distance.
>
> Of course, the distance is not measured directly, but inferred.
Yes. However this point was already made, and shown to be irrelevant.
> One
> CAN, assuming some theory, infer the velocity (not that anyone does this
> in practice---folks who report velocity just report cz for historical
> reasons).
On the contrary, the historical observations are (measured) redshift vs.
(inferred) distance.
> > There
> > is no observational correlaction between velocity and distance. Even
> > though that is the standard cosmologists' way of referring to the hubble
> > term.
>
> It really doesn't matter what you call it as long as what you do is
> consistent.
Consistency would be nice, but the primary goal is knowledge of the real
universe.
> Assuming that the universe is homogeneous and isotropic on large scales,
But this assumption has nothing to do with the discussion of the Hubble
relation. And it may have nothing to do with the real universe.
> then velocity MUST be proportional to distance.
You are adding an additional assumption of the big bang. A steady state
universe (that is both homogenous and isotropic on large scales) will have
no relation of velocity and distance.
> This is the velocity-distance law,
Observation is redshift. Not velocity.
> and holds for all distances.
That is an assumption. (The core assumption of the BB.)
> These velocities
> and distances are not directly observable, though (which, unless one is
> an extreme positivist, doesn't mean that they don't exist).
But redshift *is* directly observable. The 'velocity' is merely a
theoretical addition of the BB theory.
> There is a
> correlation between distance (inferred) and redshift which is linear at
> low redshift.
It may appear linear (it's pretty noisy). But that doesn't mean the
correlation is not merely the early part of an exponential curve (or
something else).
> However, one cannot combine the two.
Either the correlation either exists, or it doesn't. If the correlation
exists, then redshift may be 'combined' with (inferred) distance. In fact,
that is the original Hubble relationship.
> Harrison wrote a
> great paper on this which I'm sure I've cited in similar discussions
> before.
This may be true, but it is irrelevant here. If you'd care to put forward
specific arguments from that paper -- if they address my specific points --
feel free to post a quote, or a link.
I presume the paper you actually mean is "The redshift-distance and
velocity-distance laws", Astrophysical Journal, Part 1, vol. 403, no. 1, p.
28-31. If so, the paper says nothing about observations. It is a
theoretical paper.
You seem to have always been highly nonspecific with Harrison. You've never
actually provided any substance from that book or that article. A typical
quote is simply of this nature: "As always, the best reference for this is
the corresponding chapter in Edward Harrison's COSMOLOGY: THE SCIENCE OF
THE UNIVERSE. (He also wrote an entire book on Olbers's paradox, but I
haven't read it.)"
I wonder how Harrison's book compares to Jaki's. Or where Harrison began.
Since there are so many false descriptions of "Olber's paradox" out there.
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=vfsbqpr60h1p45%40corp.supernews.com
The issue of cosmologists and "Olber's paradox" is serendipitously germaine
to this discussion about theory and 'alterations' of history.
"The lackadaisical, if not prejudiced approach to specific historical
material on the part of so many cosmologists and astronomers also
illustrates a fundamental symptom of scientific thinking that only recently
has received serious attention and analysis. In choosing their problems
scientists usually pay attention to such questions that fit into the
conceptual context and world picture prevailing at a particular phase of
scientific development.* As a result, very pertinent and grave problems
concerning that particular world picture may be taken lightly or simply
overlooked, cogent and obvious as they are. ..."
*{Kuhn's paradigms.}
"The failure of the chief representatives of relativistic cosmology to see
its relevance to the paradox is also a case of a similar intellectual
conditioning. The monistic and positivist spirit in which modern physics
has been largely cultivated could hardly generate receptivity for a problem
for which the only basic solution consits in the acceptance of the idea of a
finite universe. ..."
"... Whether the performance of science as regards its awareness of its own
myths will improve as time goes on will largely depend on whether the
historical perspective and conciousness of the scientific discourse will
deepen to a considerable degree. ..."
--
greywolf42
ubi dubium ibi libertas
{remove planet for e-mail}
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>\n\ngreywolf42 <mingstb@marssim-ss.com> wrote in message news:<410ba96d\\$1@news.sentex.net>...\n> Esa A E Peuha <esa.peuha@helsinki.fi> wrote in message\n> news:86p4qnpolq8.fsf@sirppi.helsinki.fi...\n> >\n> > "greywolf42" <mingstb@marssim-ss.com> writes:\n> >\n> > > Esa A E Peuha <esa.peuha@helsinki.fi> wrote in message\n> > > news:86pn01jdu4e.fsf@sirppi.helsinki.fi...\n>\n> > > > On the contrary, it was scientific. When some experiment appears to\n> > > > contradict an established theory (...), the first thing to do\n> > > > is to scrutinize the experiment; only if you can\'t refute the\n> > > > experiment, you start to look for faults in the theory. That is how\n> > > > science works.\n> > >\n> > > You are describing a personal bias -- not science.\n> >\n> > In that case nobody at all is doing (or has ever done) science. :-)\n>\n> On the contrary, the scientific method (though moribund today) continues.\n>\n> > > What you are not telling\n> > > us, is that you will *not* scrutinize an experiment if it conforms to\n> > > your personal prejudices.\n> >\n> > That\'s not completely true,\n>\n> But it *is* true, for the most part. (Say 99% of the time.) Otherwise you\n> would not have provided such a clear description of the fallacy.\n>\n> > but mostly I (and just about every other\n> > human there is) am not paranoid enough to think that there must be\n> > something wrong if reality seems to match my expectations.\n>\n> The scientific method was developed specifically to avoid being entrapped by\n> humans\' expectations.\n>\n\n<snip>\n\n> > > > _Raw_ experimental data (what is actually recorded by instruments) is\n> > > > never out of date. However, raw data in itself is useless without a\n> > > > theory about what the data means,\n> > >\n> > > This is a common fallacy. However, experimental data does not depend\n> > > upon any one theory.\n> >\n> > That\'s where you are wrong. Experimental data doesn\'t have any meaning\n> > at all unless you have a theory that says that the data has some kind of\n> > correlation with data that can be obtained from repeating the experiment\n> > (otherwise there would be no point in doing the experiment).\n>\n> I see that we have a large gap in understanding of both the scientific\n> method and the purposes of doing experiments. To use a Kuhnian word, you\n> have mistaken \'post-paradigm\' experimentation with the scientific method.\n> Once a paradigm (an accepted theory) has taken hold, most experiments are\n> developed with the paradigm as a given assumption. And any efforts are\n> directed solely at refining the precision of prior efforts. However, the\n> scientific method covers vastly more territory.\n>\n> Data does not have any "meaning" .... other than it is a measurement of the\n> real universe. It is not tied to any one human theory.\n>\n> And many experiments are done simply to see what happens. Before any\n> theory/paradigm ever exists. For example, Faraday undertook many\n> experiments on electricity and magnetism. He came up with "Faraday\'s Law."\n> Almost every equation that has somebody\'s name attached to it is a contrary\n> example to your claim.\n\nYou seem to be taking Kuhn\'s points in the opposite way than I have\nread it (a bit ironic, given Kuhn\'s topic). Kuhn writes about\nparadigm *shifts*, but I don\'t think he would accept the absence of\nany paradigm. He mentions that no one has been able to come up with a\nparadigm-neutral observation language. To use his example, one can\nlook at the movement of the needle of an ammeter and not see a\nmeasurement of current if you\'re not familiar with the paradigm of\nelectron currents. Similarly, you can\'t "measure" a red shift unless\nyou are familiar with the paradigm that translates two cute pictures\nof rainbow colors into an anomaly. Paraphrasing Kuhn (I can\'t find\nthe exact quote right now), to make a measurement, the world has to\nalready be subdivided in some way.\n\nIn fact, I think Kuhn proposes that newer accepted paradigms aren\'t\nnecessarily closer to any neutral paradigm of reality, just that the\nnewer paradigm is preferred by the community (usually for its\npotential to serve the community\'s purposes, only one of which is\n_progress_ in the community\'s ability to solve puzzles). Paradigms\noften lose some explanatory power, but are adopted because they solve\na vexing anomaly. For example, pre-Newton, gravitation was\n"explained" in terms of "essences". Newton\'s new theory turned\ngravitation into a tautology (it just is). However, the new theory\nsolved other important problems, so people accepted to stop asking\n"Yeah, but, what *IS* this \'gravity\' that you\'ve just made up out of\nthin air?" Then we just move on and start saying things like "we\'re\nmeasuring gravity" when we\'re looking at a falling rock.\n\nPeople choose the paradigm which solves the problems they think are\nmore important, and those judgements of "importance" are based on\nsociological values. Later, the community teaches its new members to\nsee the paradigm as representing "reality" and ridicule the previous\nparadigm as NOT being the way things are. That despite not being able\nto prove that the current paradigm will never come to a crisis which\nwill redefine all previous measurements in ways that are possibly\ncontradictory to the definitions in the existing paradigm. The new\nparadigm will not make the ammeter needle move to a new position\n(unless things really get superluminous), but it may make the\nscientist say that he wasn\'t measuring electron currents at all, but\nsomething else.\n\nThe only leeway I see that Kuhn leaves for a traditional "scientific\nmethod" (one that is not based on a community\'s values), is a\nprobabilistic one. He turns Popper\'s "falsifiability" into another\nprobabilistic approach by saying that "if any and every failure to fit\nwere ground for theory rejection, all theories ought to be rejected at\nall times. On the other hand, if only severe failure to fit justifies\ntheory rejection, then the Popperians will require some criterion of\n\'improbability\' or of \'degree of falsification\'." Probabilistic\napproaches are based on counterfactuals, which are troublesome because\nyou either have to depend on imagination, or on knowing in advance all\npossible outcomes (whatever "possible" means).\n\nSo, we can say that our sensations are what they are, and we can\ninsist on that fact being undeniable, but we have trouble finding any\nimmovable point on which to ground those sensations as *objective*\nmeasurements.\n\n\n\n> > > Anyone can interpret experimental data on the basis of\n> > > their own, personal theory.\n> >\n> > Interpreting the data is quite another matter.\n>\n> That\'s what I said.\n>\n> > > However, the experiment that generated the data\n> > > remains valid.\n> >\n> > No it doesn\'t, if you invalidate the theory that says it has a meaning.\n>\n> The data remains. Data *IS* meaning -- it is a measurement of the real\n> universe. Even if your initial explanation failed.\n\n> <snip>\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>greywolf42 <mingstb@marssim-ss.com> wrote in message news:<410ba96d$1@news.sentex.net>...
> Esa A E Peuha <esa.peuha@helsinki.fi> wrote in message
> news:86p4qnpolq8.fsf@sirppi.helsinki.fi...
> >
> > "greywolf42" <mingstb@marssim-ss.com> writes:
> >
> > > Esa A E Peuha <esa.peuha@helsinki.fi> wrote in message
> > > news:86pn01jdu4e.fsf@sirppi.helsinki.fi...
>
> > > > On the contrary, it was scientific. When some experiment appears to
> > > > contradict an established theory (...), the first thing to do
> > > > is to scrutinize the experiment; only if you can't refute the
> > > > experiment, you start to look for faults in the theory. That is how
> > > > science works.
> > >
> > > You are describing a personal bias -- not science.
> >
> > In that case nobody at all is doing (or has ever done) science. :-)
>
> On the contrary, the scientific method (though moribund today) continues.
>
> > > What you are not telling
> > > us, is that you will *not* scrutinize an experiment if it conforms to
> > > your personal prejudices.
> >
> > That's not completely true,
>
> But it *is* true, for the most part. (Say 99% of the time.) Otherwise you
> would not have provided such a clear description of the fallacy.
>
> > but mostly I (and just about every other
> > human there is) am not paranoid enough to think that there must be
> > something wrong if reality seems to match my expectations.
>
> The scientific method was developed specifically to avoid being entrapped by
> humans' expectations.
>
<snip>
> > > > _Raw_ experimental data (what is actually recorded by instruments) is
> > > > never out of date. However, raw data in itself is useless without a
> > > > theory about what the data means,
> > >
> > > This is a common fallacy. However, experimental data does not depend
> > > upon any one theory.
> >
> > That's where you are wrong. Experimental data doesn't have any meaning
> > at all unless you have a theory that says that the data has some kind of
> > correlation with data that can be obtained from repeating the experiment
> > (otherwise there would be no point in doing the experiment).
>
> I see that we have a large gap in understanding of both the scientific
> method and the purposes of doing experiments. To use a Kuhnian word, you
> have mistaken 'post-paradigm' experimentation with the scientific method.
> Once a paradigm (an accepted theory) has taken hold, most experiments are
> developed with the paradigm as a given assumption. And any efforts are
> directed solely at refining the precision of prior efforts. However, the
> scientific method covers vastly more territory.
>
> Data does not have any "meaning" .... other than it is a measurement of the
> real universe. It is not tied to any one human theory.
>
> And many experiments are done simply to see what happens. Before any
> theory/paradigm ever exists. For example, Faraday undertook many
> experiments on electricity and magnetism. He came up with "Faraday's Law."
> Almost every equation that has somebody's name attached to it is a contrary
> example to your claim.
You seem to be taking Kuhn's points in the opposite way than I have
read it (a bit ironic, given Kuhn's topic). Kuhn writes about
paradigm *shifts*, but I don't think he would accept the absence of
any paradigm. He mentions that no one has been able to come up with a
paradigm-neutral observation language. To use his example, one can
look at the movement of the needle of an ammeter and not see a
measurement of current if you're not familiar with the paradigm of
electron currents. Similarly, you can't "measure" a red shift unless
you are familiar with the paradigm that translates two cute pictures
of rainbow colors into an anomaly. Paraphrasing Kuhn (I can't find
the exact quote right now), to make a measurement, the world has to
already be subdivided in some way.
In fact, I think Kuhn proposes that newer accepted paradigms aren't
necessarily closer to any neutral paradigm of reality, just that the
newer paradigm is preferred by the community (usually for its
potential to serve the community's purposes, only one of which is
_progress_ in the community's ability to solve puzzles). Paradigms
often lose some explanatory power, but are adopted because they solve
a vexing anomaly. For example, pre-Newton, gravitation was
"explained" in terms of "essences". Newton's new theory turned
gravitation into a tautology (it just is). However, the new theory
solved other important problems, so people accepted to stop asking
"Yeah, but, what *IS* this 'gravity' that you've just made up out of
thin air?" Then we just move on and start saying things like "we're
measuring gravity" when we're looking at a falling rock.
People choose the paradigm which solves the problems they think are
more important, and those judgements of "importance" are based on
sociological values. Later, the community teaches its new members to
see the paradigm as representing "reality" and ridicule the previous
paradigm as NOT being the way things are. That despite not being able
to prove that the current paradigm will never come to a crisis which
will redefine all previous measurements in ways that are possibly
contradictory to the definitions in the existing paradigm. The new
paradigm will not make the ammeter needle move to a new position
(unless things really get superluminous), but it may make the
scientist say that he wasn't measuring electron currents at all, but
something else.
The only leeway I see that Kuhn leaves for a traditional "scientific
method" (one that is not based on a community's values), is a
probabilistic one. He turns Popper's "falsifiability" into another
probabilistic approach by saying that "if any and every failure to fit
were ground for theory rejection, all theories ought to be rejected at
all times. On the other hand, if only severe failure to fit justifies
theory rejection, then the Popperians will require some criterion of
'improbability' or of 'degree of falsification'." Probabilistic
approaches are based on counterfactuals, which are troublesome because
you either have to depend on imagination, or on knowing in advance all
possible outcomes (whatever "possible" means).
So, we can say that our sensations are what they are, and we can
insist on that fact being undeniable, but we have trouble finding any
immovable point on which to ground those sensations as *objective*
measurements.
> > > Anyone can interpret experimental data on the basis of
> > > their own, personal theory.
> >
> > Interpreting the data is quite another matter.
>
> That's what I said.
>
> > > However, the experiment that generated the data
> > > remains valid.
> >
> > No it doesn't, if you invalidate the theory that says it has a meaning.
>
> The data remains. Data *IS* meaning -- it is a measurement of the real
> universe. Even if your initial explanation failed.
> <snip>
greywolf42
Aug16-04, 12:56 PM
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>\n\n"cat" <cat.c@netzero.com> wrote in message\nnews:d371b963.0408130957.706e4d4@posting. google.com...\n>\n> greywolf42 <mingstb@marssim-ss.com> wrote in message\nnews:<410ba96d\\$1@news.sentex.net>...\n> > Esa A E Peuha <esa.peuha@helsinki.fi> wrote in message\n> > news:86p4qnpolq8.fsf@sirppi.helsinki.fi...\n\n{sni p higher levels}\n\n> > > Experimental data doesn\'t have any meaning\n> > > at all unless you have a theory that says that the data has some kind\n> > > of correlation with data that can be obtained from repeating the\n> > > experiment (otherwise there would be no point in doing the\n> > > experiment).\n> >\n> > I see that we have a large gap in understanding of both the scientific\n> > method and the purposes of doing experiments. To use a Kuhnian word,\n> > you have mistaken \'post-paradigm\' experimentation with the scientific\n> > method. Once a paradigm (an accepted theory) has taken hold, most\n> > experiments are developed with the paradigm as a given assumption.\n> > And any efforts are directed solely at refining the precision of prior\n> > efforts. However, the scientific method covers vastly more territory.\n> >\n> > Data does not have any "meaning" .... other than it is a measurement of\n> > the real universe. It is not tied to any one human theory.\n> >\n> > And many experiments are done simply to see what happens. Before any\n> > theory/paradigm ever exists. For example, Faraday undertook many\n> > experiments on electricity and magnetism. He came up with "Faraday\'s\n> > Law." Almost every equation that has somebody\'s name attached to it is\n> > a contrary example to your claim.\n>\n> You seem to be taking Kuhn\'s points in the opposite way than I have\n> read it (a bit ironic, given Kuhn\'s topic). Kuhn writes about\n> paradigm *shifts*, but I don\'t think he would accept the absence of\n> any paradigm.\n\nI used Kuhn\'s word \'paradigm\' because it is well known. However, I find\nKuhn\'s actual work ("The Structure of Scientific Revolutions") to be both\nsophomoric and fundamentally incorrect. Kuhn began with the basic confusion\nbetween science and the social organization of scientists. Hence, I feel\nthat most of his \'classic work\' is worthless.\n\nThis does not address the prior poster\'s claim that experiments cannot be\nperformed until after a theory has been proposed. And that the results of\nexperiments really do change as the theories that describe them change.\n\n> He mentions that no one has been able to come up with a\n> paradigm-neutral observation language. To use his example, one can\n> look at the movement of the needle of an ammeter and not see a\n> measurement of current if you\'re not familiar with the paradigm of\n> electron currents. Similarly, you can\'t "measure" a red shift unless\n> you are familiar with the paradigm that translates two cute pictures\n> of rainbow colors into an anomaly. Paraphrasing Kuhn (I can\'t find\n> the exact quote right now), to make a measurement, the world has to\n> already be subdivided in some way.\n\nWell, I think you\'re stretching Kuhn\'s point -- and I don\'t think Kuhn would\nagree with your paraphrase. But let\'s deal with the substance of your\nclaim....\n\nFirst, the redshift is in no manner an \'anomaly.\' For an anomaly -- by\ndefinition -- is an observation that is contrary to a theoretical\nprediction. So the measurement had to have successfully been made *before*\nit was recognized as an anomaly. And the redshift *distance* relation is not\ncontrary to any theory that I know.\n\nNow, the observations are that certain absorbtion bands exist in certain\nregular patterns in the light from stars. These patterns are sometimes\nshifted in wavelength position, though the patterns remain. We find a\ncontinuum of \'shifts\' in the pattern, but none are found with wavelengths\nshorter than a specific amount. We also note that the shortest-wavelength\npattern matches the emission patterns from specific elemental (and ionic)\ngases on Earth. We therefore can categorize the observed shifts as \'red\nshifts.\'\n\nBut such a categorization is still remains a pre-paradigm situation. For no\n*cause* for the shift has yet been provided. Nor has a relationship between\nthe kind of star or distance to a star been attempted. And when we dicuss a\npremise (a cause for the \'redshift\') it still does not reach the status of a\nparadigm, until it becomes a social norm among the controlling groups of\nacademia.\n\nWhen we attempt to correlate redshift with stellar distance, we obtain yet\nanother observation. Even though our distance estimates are (sometimes)\nbased on a theory. The "observation" of the redshifts remains unaffected by\nthe theory/ies used to determine the distances to the stars.\n\n> In fact, I think Kuhn proposes that newer accepted paradigms aren\'t\n> necessarily closer to any neutral paradigm of reality,\n\nI think that \'neutral paradigm of reality\' is a meaningless phrase.\nParadigms are merely socially accepted models. Neither neutrality nor\nreality have any necessary relation to a paradigm.\n\n> just that the\n> newer paradigm is preferred by the community (usually for its\n> potential to serve the community\'s purposes, only one of which is\n> _progress_ in the community\'s ability to solve puzzles).\n\nCorrect by definition. The current paradigm is always preferred by the\nmajority -- because if it wasn\'t preferred by the majority, then it would\nnot be the current paradigm.\n\n> Paradigms\n> often lose some explanatory power, but are adopted because they solve\n> a vexing anomaly. For example, pre-Newton, gravitation was\n> "explained" in terms of "essences".\n\nHowever, pre-Newton was essentially pre-scientific method.\n\n> Newton\'s new theory turned gravitation into a tautology (it just is).\n\nNewton never had a theory of gravitation -- according to Newton.\n("Hypothesis non fingo.") And neither was his empirical gravitational\nequation a theory, according to the scientific method. And Newton certainly\nnever claimed it as a tautology or law. He explicitly claimed that there\nwas a physical cause, that he did not know.\n\n> However, the new theory\n> solved other important problems, so people accepted to stop asking\n> "Yeah, but, what *IS* this \'gravity\' that you\'ve just made up out of\n> thin air?"\n\nTo which \'people\' are you referring? I certainly don\'t accept that view.\n\nOn the sci.physics.* newsgroups, you will find an \'index\' that immediately\nlabels anyone that asks the above question as a \'crank.\' Is this the claim\nto which you are referring?\n\n> Then we just move on and start saying things like "we\'re\n> measuring gravity" when we\'re looking at a falling rock.\n\nNow you have devolved into the Kantian reformulation of metaphysics. But\nthis is not the scientific method.\n\n> People choose the paradigm which solves the problems they think are\n> more important, and those judgements of "importance" are based on\n> sociological values.\n\nOf course. But this has no effect on the scientific method. Only on\npersonal or political allocations of resources.\n\n> Later, the community teaches its new members to\n> see the paradigm as representing "reality" and ridicule the previous\n> paradigm as NOT being the way things are. That despite not being able\n> to prove that the current paradigm will never come to a crisis which\n> will redefine all previous measurements in ways that are possibly\n> contradictory to the definitions in the existing paradigm. The new\n> paradigm will not make the ammeter needle move to a new position\n> (unless things really get superluminous), but it may make the\n> scientist say that he wasn\'t measuring electron currents at all, but\n> something else.\n\nI don\'t dispute the fact that humans are sometimes dishonest (or merely\ndevious).\n\n> The only leeway I see that Kuhn leaves for a traditional "scientific\n> method" (one that is not based on a community\'s values), is a\n> probabilistic one. He turns Popper\'s "falsifiability" into another\n> probabilistic approach by saying that "if any and every failure to fit\n> were ground for theory rejection, all theories ought to be rejected at\n> all times. On the other hand, if only severe failure to fit justifies\n> theory rejection, then the Popperians will require some criterion of\n> \'improbability\' or of \'degree of falsification\'." Probabilistic\n> approaches are based on counterfactuals, which are troublesome because\n> you either have to depend on imagination, or on knowing in advance all\n> possible outcomes (whatever "possible" means).\n\nWell, Popper is another commentator on social norms, not on the scientific\nmethod itself. Quite frankly, the dilemma you see for Kuhn and Popper is\nbased on the notion that societal prejudices are in any way related to the\nscientific method.\n\n> So, we can say that our sensations are what they are, and we can\n> insist on that fact being undeniable, but we have trouble finding any\n> immovable point on which to ground those sensations as *objective*\n> measurements.\n\nThis is the Kantian/Positivist fallacy. The scientific method has no\ntrouble at all identifying objective measurements.\n\n> > <snip>\n\n--\ngreywolf42\nubi dubium ibi libertas\n{remove planet for e-mail}\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>"cat" <cat.c@netzero.com> wrote in message
news:d371b963.0408130957.706e4d4@posting.google.co m...
>
> greywolf42 <mingstb@marssim-ss.com> wrote in message
news:<410ba96d$1@news.sentex.net>...
> > Esa A E Peuha <esa.peuha@helsinki.fi> wrote in message
> > news:86p4qnpolq8.fsf@sirppi.helsinki.fi...
{snip higher levels}
> > > Experimental data doesn't have any meaning
> > > at all unless you have a theory that says that the data has some kind
> > > of correlation with data that can be obtained from repeating the
> > > experiment (otherwise there would be no point in doing the
> > > experiment).
> >
> > I see that we have a large gap in understanding of both the scientific
> > method and the purposes of doing experiments. To use a Kuhnian word,
> > you have mistaken 'post-paradigm' experimentation with the scientific
> > method. Once a paradigm (an accepted theory) has taken hold, most
> > experiments are developed with the paradigm as a given assumption.
> > And any efforts are directed solely at refining the precision of prior
> > efforts. However, the scientific method covers vastly more territory.
> >
> > Data does not have any "meaning" .... other than it is a measurement of
> > the real universe. It is not tied to any one human theory.
> >
> > And many experiments are done simply to see what happens. Before any
> > theory/paradigm ever exists. For example, Faraday undertook many
> > experiments on electricity and magnetism. He came up with "Faraday's
> > Law." Almost every equation that has somebody's name attached to it is
> > a contrary example to your claim.
>
> You seem to be taking Kuhn's points in the opposite way than I have
> read it (a bit ironic, given Kuhn's topic). Kuhn writes about
> paradigm *shifts*, but I don't think he would accept the absence of
> any paradigm.
I used Kuhn's word 'paradigm' because it is well known. However, I find
Kuhn's actual work ("The Structure of Scientific Revolutions") to be both
sophomoric and fundamentally incorrect. Kuhn began with the basic confusion
between science and the social organization of scientists. Hence, I feel
that most of his 'classic work' is worthless.
This does not address the prior poster's claim that experiments cannot be
performed until after a theory has been proposed. And that the results of
experiments really do change as the theories that describe them change.
> He mentions that no one has been able to come up with a
> paradigm-neutral observation language. To use his example, one can
> look at the movement of the needle of an ammeter and not see a
> measurement of current if you're not familiar with the paradigm of
> electron currents. Similarly, you can't "measure" a red shift unless
> you are familiar with the paradigm that translates two cute pictures
> of rainbow colors into an anomaly. Paraphrasing Kuhn (I can't find
> the exact quote right now), to make a measurement, the world has to
> already be subdivided in some way.
Well, I think you're stretching Kuhn's point -- and I don't think Kuhn would
agree with your paraphrase. But let's deal with the substance of your
claim....
First, the redshift is in no manner an 'anomaly.' For an anomaly -- by
definition -- is an observation that is contrary to a theoretical
prediction. So the measurement had to have successfully been made *before*
it was recognized as an anomaly. And the redshift *distance* relation is not
contrary to any theory that I know.
Now, the observations are that certain absorbtion bands exist in certain
regular patterns in the light from stars. These patterns are sometimes
shifted in wavelength position, though the patterns remain. We find a
continuum of 'shifts' in the pattern, but none are found with wavelengths
shorter than a specific amount. We also note that the shortest-wavelength
pattern matches the emission patterns from specific elemental (and ionic)
gases on Earth. We therefore can categorize the observed shifts as 'red
shifts.'
But such a categorization is still remains a pre-paradigm situation. For no
*cause* for the shift has yet been provided. Nor has a relationship between
the kind of star or distance to a star been attempted. And when we dicuss a
premise (a cause for the 'redshift') it still does not reach the status of a
paradigm, until it becomes a social norm among the controlling groups of
academia.
When we attempt to correlate redshift with stellar distance, we obtain yet
another observation. Even though our distance estimates are (sometimes)
based on a theory. The "observation" of the redshifts remains unaffected by
the theory/ies used to determine the distances to the stars.
> In fact, I think Kuhn proposes that newer accepted paradigms aren't
> necessarily closer to any neutral paradigm of reality,
I think that 'neutral paradigm of reality' is a meaningless phrase.
Paradigms are merely socially accepted models. Neither neutrality nor
reality have any necessary relation to a paradigm.
> just that the
> newer paradigm is preferred by the community (usually for its
> potential to serve the community's purposes, only one of which is
> _progress_ in the community's ability to solve puzzles).
Correct by definition. The current paradigm is always preferred by the
majority -- because if it wasn't preferred by the majority, then it would
not be the current paradigm.
> Paradigms
> often lose some explanatory power, but are adopted because they solve
> a vexing anomaly. For example, pre-Newton, gravitation was
> "explained" in terms of "essences".
However, pre-Newton was essentially pre-scientific method.
> Newton's new theory turned gravitation into a tautology (it just is).
Newton never had a theory of gravitation -- according to Newton.
("Hypothesis non fingo.") And neither was his empirical gravitational
equation a theory, according to the scientific method. And Newton certainly
never claimed it as a tautology or law. He explicitly claimed that there
was a physical cause, that he did not know.
> However, the new theory
> solved other important problems, so people accepted to stop asking
> "Yeah, but, what *IS* this 'gravity' that you've just made up out of
> thin air?"
To which 'people' are you referring? I certainly don't accept that view.
On the sci.physics.* newsgroups, you will find an 'index' that immediately
labels anyone that asks the above question as a 'crank.' Is this the claim
to which you are referring?
> Then we just move on and start saying things like "we're
> measuring gravity" when we're looking at a falling rock.
Now you have devolved into the Kantian reformulation of metaphysics. But
this is not the scientific method.
> People choose the paradigm which solves the problems they think are
> more important, and those judgements of "importance" are based on
> sociological values.
Of course. But this has no effect on the scientific method. Only on
personal or political allocations of resources.
> Later, the community teaches its new members to
> see the paradigm as representing "reality" and ridicule the previous
> paradigm as NOT being the way things are. That despite not being able
> to prove that the current paradigm will never come to a crisis which
> will redefine all previous measurements in ways that are possibly
> contradictory to the definitions in the existing paradigm. The new
> paradigm will not make the ammeter needle move to a new position
> (unless things really get superluminous), but it may make the
> scientist say that he wasn't measuring electron currents at all, but
> something else.
I don't dispute the fact that humans are sometimes dishonest (or merely
devious).
> The only leeway I see that Kuhn leaves for a traditional "scientific
> method" (one that is not based on a community's values), is a
> probabilistic one. He turns Popper's "falsifiability" into another
> probabilistic approach by saying that "if any and every failure to fit
> were ground for theory rejection, all theories ought to be rejected at
> all times. On the other hand, if only severe failure to fit justifies
> theory rejection, then the Popperians will require some criterion of
> 'improbability' or of 'degree of falsification'." Probabilistic
> approaches are based on counterfactuals, which are troublesome because
> you either have to depend on imagination, or on knowing in advance all
> possible outcomes (whatever "possible" means).
Well, Popper is another commentator on social norms, not on the scientific
method itself. Quite frankly, the dilemma you see for Kuhn and Popper is
based on the notion that societal prejudices are in any way related to the
scientific method.
> So, we can say that our sensations are what they are, and we can
> insist on that fact being undeniable, but we have trouble finding any
> immovable point on which to ground those sensations as *objective*
> measurements.
This is the Kantian/Positivist fallacy. The scientific method has no
trouble at all identifying objective measurements.
> > <snip>
--
greywolf42
ubi dubium ibi libertas
{remove planet for e-mail}
vBulletin® v3.8.7, Copyright ©2000-2012, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.