Path: csiph.com!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail From: Thomas Heger Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity Subject: Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2016 23:13:56 +0200 Lines: 49 Message-ID: References: <8936340a-6544-481a-ae07-9cbf0a9f98dc@googlegroups.com> <-YGdnaev0KNCPzvKnZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <9K-dndvUF8Qu6jXKnZ2dnUU7_81j4p2d@giganews.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: individual.net /VSofgqZBt0EvnHeRX3WqgQzRUn0H4IZSA1XmLklg6fH2nWQY2 Cancel-Lock: sha1:MAgMA+0MuwiZlKt69eaWxbzmDXg= User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:8.0) Gecko/20111105 Thunderbird/8.0 In-Reply-To: Xref: csiph.com sci.physics.relativity:390137 Am 09.08.2016 14:12, schrieb Odd Bodkin: > I think you make the mistake of thinking that all contributions are > valuable. This is not so in science. It may be true in politics or art, > where every perspective adds something. But in science, some > contributions are positive, some have no value, and some have negative > value. > > It's been pointed out that, by inventing your own meaning for terms used > in physics, you are at best using a private language and at worst simply > making mistakes. This is not how to make a positive contribution. > The equivalent to money in science is truth. So it is of interest in natural sciences (like e.g. physics) to find things out, that are in a way more true that previous believes. Such findings are not necessarily helpful (or 'valuable'), since some sorts of truth might be harmful for the personal interests of the researcher. This does not make harmful findings less scientifically correct. Only they could eventually have unwanted effects in realms, that are not natural science. Especially different to nature is the realm called 'economics', which circles around money (in the more common forms) and about the own interests and about how these could be maintained. So truth in physics is not necessarily valuable. This is actually inevitable, since nature does not pay in cash. Only people do that and people regard valuable, what promotes their own interests. This would make wrong assumptions scientifically useless. But incorrect assumptions have no negative value in science, since there ain't nothing like 'negative truth'. If an assumption is wrong, it just does not add (correct) understanding in physics. So the lowest possible value of an assumption is zero, which would mean: there is no grain of truth in it. But usually even wrong assumptions contain a few grains of value. TH