Originally posted by ofikn
Quote:
This is false. SOME PEOPLE DO CARE WHAT CAUSES GRAVITY, including Newton who tried long and hard to find it, and failed, as proven by his private papers which were studied by his biographers, particularly Richard Westfall.
RESPONSE:
That it true, he did look for it for a while, but then the light bulb went on and he said the EMPIRICAL result is good enough! Newton sat on his writings for you know how many years and refused to publish, as he could not find the why. Thank g_d that you know who caught him by the neck on his you know which birthday and said, "hey buddy either you publish or what's his name in Switz will" (since I am so ignorant on Newton I will let you fill in the missing bits).
QUOTE:
Your interpretation of science seems to be MATHS. You want to impose the view of Einstein until 1920 that "God is a mathematician".
RESPONSE:
No, it is _you_ who claim over and over again check the math, check my 16 points and so on and so on. Remember just as the drawing of an atom is a model to help students understand, and the flow of current as a drawing in a textbook is a MODEL, it is important to separate the PHYSICS from the MODEL. That is why so many people do not understand quantum physics, they can't get past the difference between the two. Math is only part of the system, there are physical conditions that have to relate to the system as well.
QUOTE:
This makes you think of science as a religion prejudiced in favour of a mathematical solution with no understandable interpretation. Your prejudice is then used to attempt to discredit other people. That such prejudice is manifested in teachers is diabolical, think of what prejudice has done throughout history.
RESPONSE:
Here again the paranoid response, When Whiley published his work on Fermat's theorem people said hokum, but they read the book, and asked for new proofs to different parts of it, and only after Whiley responded with the proofs was his proof accepted. The difference between his response and yours is gigantic. Yes I am prejudiced as to what I present. My religion of science is get it out there, let people present as much critism as they want, and refine the theory according to the responses. Only somebody who puts out a complete "dogma" which cannot be changed, is in my mind not science. I have printed out your article and most of my 12th graders are able to point out the epistimological mistakes. Perhaps in a later posting I will explain them to you. Again, if you fight about MODELS, then any MODEL, explains everything, so just find out in what physical systems the given equations work, and try to find under which conditions they WOULD NOT work (that is the fun part) and then try to modify them to explain.
Again I do not discredit work that is properly presented, as in the Milgrom article, even though in my gut I cannot believe that that is the way that the world works.
When I first read Guth's paper on Inflation I was amazed at convinced, basically because that there _were_ holes in the theory. A good scientist presents the FAULTS of his theory together with its good parts.
QUOTE:
However, you are interpretated to your weird view. I just hope that your students take your arrogant unproven assertions and ignorance of Newton with a large pinch of salt!
RESPONSE
I think you mean WORLD view and not WEIRD view. (and i think you mean entitled not interpreted) What held back science before G. and N. was the attempt to find a Primus Mobilus. I am so glad that you know all of my ignorance about Newton from one posting! How grand you must be that you can tell what I know and don't know!
As to "arrogant unproven assertions" I could think of other examples...
The trick here is that there is no such thing as "Proof" in physics, thus all of my statements are of course unproven. I take your statement as a compliment! Physics is the science of the unknown, once it becomes known, it becomes an engineering problem. The goal of physics is to come up with experiments or observations that can differentiate between two world systems. If two systems can not be differentiated by any known experiment, then they are both equally valid until then. It doesn't matter if gravity if push/pull/or imaginary. Until you can provide (as you try to do with the supernovae data) a compelling experiment or observational prediction then you will not be published.
I notice that, as with many people, you have chosen to argue with points on a personal level. I thought that I was very generous and would like to see your work published, as you may have some interesting results! What I am trying to convey to you is that you present them in a way that will make you unpopular. Read the Milgrom article, read the Multiverse article, or read any article in any refereed publication, (especially the clasics, such as Eugene Parker's 1966 article on solar corpuscular radiation, or Van-Allen's 1948 article on ...) Even Gallelio in the Simplico dialogues presents a demonstration but leaves the conclusion to the reader. As long as you refuse to play by the rules of the game, you will be stuck in an alternative Universe, and even if what you say is true, it will be ignored. Would it kill you to write a paper according to the contemporary standards? WHY were two of the three papers published in 1905 by Einstein adopted almost immediatly by those in the know? People do care about revolutionary theories, when they are presented in a standard form.
Please keep working on your theory, and keep posting here, I am interested to see where it is going from here. (finally remember the Lamb shift, and how that teeny tiny splitting changed history!)
Ofek
(P.S. you still haven't answered the rest of my questions, or solved the model vs reality debate, some words that Newton searched doesn't solve the problem)
