<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?
<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.com...
>
> 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
DickT
Jul26-04, 04:41 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\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.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>\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$Gx4.221858@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>...
> "Perfectly Innocent" <perfectlyInnocent@as-if.com> wrote in message
> news:c45b45b3.0407240944.22690a20@posting.google.com...
> >
> > According to Dr. John G. Cramer, Professor of Physics, University of
> > Washington, Seattle, the most accurate measurements to date for the
> > mass of an e-neutrino are too fantastic to believe. (What is actually
> > being measured is e-neutrino mass-squared).
> >
> > "Of the six most recent experimental determinations of neutrino
> > mass, all have given negative values of the mass-squared...
> >
> > "The measured mass-squared values are negative to an accuracy of
> > several standard deviations in the most recent of these experiments.
> >
> [SNIP]
> >
> > Why doesn't the mainstream just honestly admit what the *reasonable*
> > implications of superluminality would be?
> >
>
> Let's stand back a moment and ask an Ockham's Razor question, Which is a
> simpler explanation"
>
> 1. superliminality -- which is contrary to a large body of mainstream
> physics
> 2. experimental error (or misinterpretation)
>
> I'd vote for the latter.
>
> Norm
Six independent errors, all in the same direction, all several
standard deviations away from zero and (apparently) no contervailing
errors. Which boggles the mind more?
1. Tachyonic neutrinos
2. Random conspiracy to mess up experiments.
Perfectly Innocent
Jul26-04, 11:32 AM
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no,location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>\n\n\n\n"Norm Dresner" <ndrez@att.net> wrote in message news:<4SPMc.322760\\$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.com...\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.com...
> > 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$1@glue.ucr.edu
We all recognize expressions of faith. Respectable beliefs have their
reasons. And I agree that a simplistic sensory interpretation for a
current observation can be overturned by future experiments and
theories. But Occam's Razor applies to the here and now, not the
future, and always favors (for the present moment) the most
"simplistic sensory interpretation."
> which is contrary to a large body of mainstream physics
It's widely believed that superluminality is contrary to a large body
of mainstream physics. The popular view is wrong. The truth is that
arguments against superluminality hang on a very weak thread. Everyone
agrees that there's nothing geometrical about Minkowski space that
singles out a preferred frame of reference. But it's also an
uncontested fact that there are plenty of realistic pseudo-Riemannian
spacetimes that do have a preferred frame of reference. These do not
contradict superluminality.
The misinterpretation is in how you've placed your emphases.
Superluminality is being misrepresented.
Eugene Shubert
http://www.everythingimportant.org
Creighton Hogg
Jul26-04, 01:21 PM
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no,location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>\nOn 26 Jul 2004, Perfectly Innocent wrote:\n>\n> "Norm Dresner" <ndrez@att.net> wrote in message news:<4SPMc.322760\\$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.com...\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.com...
> > > 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 [**].
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, 01:50 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.com...
>
>
>
>
> 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, 01:50 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.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>\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.com...
> >
> > 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, 04:58 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, 02:02 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, 05:59 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, 05:59 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, 05:59 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, 04:21 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, 04:21 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, 04:21 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, 08:42 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 appa