Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #375727 > unrolled thread

If old physics is all wrong who is prepared to go on with new now?

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity

Contents

  If old physics is all wrong who is prepared to go on with new now? jamesl51165@gmail.com - 2016-02-06 15:55 -0800
    Re: If old physics is all wrong who is prepared to go on with new now? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2016-02-06 16:15 -0800
      Re: If old physics is all wrong who is prepared to go on with new now? jamesl51165@gmail.com - 2016-02-06 16:33 -0800
        Re: If old physics is all wrong who is prepared to go on with new now? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2016-02-06 22:43 -0800
      Re: If old physics is all wrong who is prepared to go on with new now? erkdemon@gmail.com - 2016-02-07 19:53 -0800
        Re: If old physics is all wrong who is prepared to go on with new now? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2016-02-07 21:57 -0800
        Re: If old physics is all wrong who is prepared to go on with new now? oriel36 <kelleher.gerald@gmail.com> - 2016-02-08 03:14 -0800
          Re: If old physics is all wrong who is prepared to go on with new now? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2016-02-08 22:50 -0800
            Re: If old physics is all wrong who is prepared to go on with new now? oriel36 <kelleher.gerald@gmail.com> - 2016-02-08 23:41 -0800
              Re: If old physics is all wrong who is prepared to go on with new now? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2016-02-09 00:28 -0800
                Re: If old physics is all wrong who is prepared to go on with new now? oriel36 <kelleher.gerald@gmail.com> - 2016-02-09 01:11 -0800
      Re: If old physics is all wrong who is prepared to go on with new now? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-08 08:59 -0600
        Re: If old physics is all wrong who is prepared to go on with new now? erkdemon@gmail.com - 2016-02-08 17:21 -0800
          Re: If old physics is all wrong who is prepared to go on with new now? xxein1@att.net - 2016-02-11 15:06 -0800
            Re: If old physics is all wrong who is prepared to go on with new now? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2016-02-11 20:02 -0800
              Re: If old physics is all wrong who is prepared to go on with new now? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2016-02-12 20:10 -0800
                Re: If old physics is all wrong who is prepared to go on with new now? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2016-02-13 23:55 -0800
                  Re: If old physics is all wrong who is prepared to go on with new now? jamesl51165@gmail.com - 2016-02-14 12:33 -0800
            Re: If old physics is all wrong who is prepared to go on with new now? brightontoyandmodelmuseum@gmail.com - 2016-02-15 16:42 -0800
            Re: If old physics is all wrong who is prepared to go on with new now? Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-02-15 22:21 -0600
        Re: If old physics is all wrong who is prepared to go on with new now? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-02-09 02:40 +0100
          Re: If old physics is all wrong who is prepared to go on with new now? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-09 09:57 -0600
            Re: If old physics is all wrong who is prepared to go on with new now? oriel36 <kelleher.gerald@gmail.com> - 2016-02-09 08:44 -0800
              Re: If old physics is all wrong who is prepared to go on with new now? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-09 11:27 -0600
                Re: If old physics is all wrong who is prepared to go on with new now? oriel36 <kelleher.gerald@gmail.com> - 2016-02-09 09:50 -0800
                  Re: If old physics is all wrong who is prepared to go on with new now? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-09 12:03 -0600
                    Re: If old physics is all wrong who is prepared to go on with new now? oriel36 <kelleher.gerald@gmail.com> - 2016-02-09 11:11 -0800
                      Re: If old physics is all wrong who is prepared to go on with new now? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-09 13:33 -0600
                        Re: If old physics is all wrong who is prepared to go on with new now? oriel36 <kelleher.gerald@gmail.com> - 2016-02-09 11:49 -0800
                          Re: If old physics is all wrong who is prepared to go on with new now? Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-02-09 20:55 +0100
                          Re: If old physics is all wrong who is prepared to go on with new now? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-09 14:46 -0600
                            Re: If old physics is all wrong who is prepared to go on with new now? oriel36 <kelleher.gerald@gmail.com> - 2016-02-09 13:51 -0800
                              Re: If old physics is all wrong who is prepared to go on with new now? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-09 17:03 -0600
                                Re: If old physics is all wrong who is prepared to go on with new now? pnalsing@gmail.com - 2016-02-09 20:19 -0800
                                  Re: If old physics is all wrong who is prepared to go on with new now? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2016-02-09 21:42 -0800
                                    Re: If old physics is all wrong who is prepared to go on with new now? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2016-02-09 22:17 -0800
                                  Re: If old physics is all wrong who is prepared to go on with new now? oriel36 <kelleher.gerald@gmail.com> - 2016-02-09 22:28 -0800
                                    Re: If old physics is all wrong who is prepared to go on with new now? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2016-02-09 22:39 -0800
                                    Re: If old physics is all wrong who is prepared to go on with new now? pnalsing@gmail.com - 2016-02-10 09:36 -0800
                                      Re: If old physics is all wrong who is prepared to go on with new now? oriel36 <kelleher.gerald@gmail.com> - 2016-02-10 09:59 -0800
                                        Re: If old physics is all wrong who is prepared to go on with new now? pnalsing@gmail.com - 2016-02-10 10:29 -0800
                                          Re: If old physics is all wrong who is prepared to go on with new now? oriel36 <kelleher.gerald@gmail.com> - 2016-02-10 10:44 -0800
                                  Re: If old physics is all wrong who is prepared to go on with new now? oriel36 <kelleher.gerald@gmail.com> - 2016-02-09 22:52 -0800
                                Re: If old physics is all wrong who is prepared to go on with new now? oriel36 <kelleher.gerald@gmail.com> - 2016-02-09 22:39 -0800
                          Re: If old physics is all wrong who is prepared to go on with new now? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-09 14:53 -0600
                            Re: If old physics is all wrong who is prepared to go on with new now? oriel36 <kelleher.gerald@gmail.com> - 2016-02-09 14:06 -0800
                              Re: If old physics is all wrong who is prepared to go on with new now? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-10 11:05 -0600
                                Re: If old physics is all wrong who is prepared to go on with new now? oriel36 <kelleher.gerald@gmail.com> - 2016-02-10 09:25 -0800
                                  Re: If old physics is all wrong who is prepared to go on with new now? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2016-02-10 20:11 -0800
                                    Re: If old physics is all wrong who is prepared to go on with new now? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2016-02-10 21:05 -0800
                                    Re: If old physics is all wrong who is prepared to go on with new now? oriel36 <kelleher.gerald@gmail.com> - 2016-02-11 01:20 -0800
                            Re: If old physics is all wrong who is prepared to go on with new now? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-02-20 23:22 +0100
                              Re: If old physics is all wrong who is prepared to go on with new now? jamesl51165@gmail.com - 2016-02-20 14:42 -0800
                                Re: If old physics is all wrong who is prepared to go on with new now? brightontoyandmodelmuseum@gmail.com - 2016-02-26 15:26 -0800
                                Re: If old physics is all wrong who is prepared to go on with new now? erkdemon@gmail.com - 2016-02-26 15:32 -0800
                                  Re: If old physics is all wrong who is prepared to go on with new now? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2016-02-26 19:29 -0800
                                    Re: If old physics is all wrong who is prepared to go on with new now? Eric Baird <erkdemon@gmail.com> - 2016-02-27 21:14 -0800
                                      Re: If old physics is all wrong who is prepared to go on with new now? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2016-02-27 21:51 -0800
                  Re: If old physics is all wrong who is prepared to go on with new now? Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-02-09 19:04 +0100
                    Re: If old physics is all wrong who is prepared to go on with new now? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-09 10:30 -0800
                      Re: If old physics is all wrong who is prepared to go on with new now? Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-02-09 19:31 +0100
                        Re: If old physics is all wrong who is prepared to go on with new now? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-09 10:38 -0800
                          Re: If old physics is all wrong who is prepared to go on with new now? Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-02-09 20:57 +0100

Page 2 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4  Next page →

#375811

Odd Bodkin wrote:

> there is no argument needed to justify new physics, other than to point
> to its improved consistency with experimental evidence.

I do not think that consistency can be improved; something is either 
consistent or not consistent (it is inconsistent); /tertium non datur/.
I think you were looking for another word(ing).


PointedEars
-- 
Q: Who's on the case when the electricity goes out?  
A: Sherlock Ohms.

(from: WolframAlpha)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#375842

On 2/8/2016 7:40 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> Odd Bodkin wrote:
>
>> there is no argument needed to justify new physics, other than to point
>> to its improved consistency with experimental evidence.
>
> I do not think that consistency can be improved; something is either
> consistent or not consistent (it is inconsistent); /tertium non datur/.
> I think you were looking for another word(ing).

Experimental evidence is a *set* of data, usually compiled from a 
variety of corroborated experiments testing assertions under different 
circumstances.

So a theory can be considered an improvement over a previous theory if
a) Among the extant experimental evidence, there is a greater match 
between the theory and those results; or
b) The scope of applicability of the theory is broader so that the reach 
of experimental evidence (the *set*) can be broadened in its comparison 
with the theory.

>
>
> PointedEars
>


-- 
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#375845

On Tuesday, February 9, 2016 at 3:57:15 PM UTC, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 2/8/2016 7:40 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> > Odd Bodkin wrote:
> >
> >> there is no argument needed to justify new physics, other than to point
> >> to its improved consistency with experimental evidence.
> >
> > I do not think that consistency can be improved; something is either
> > consistent or not consistent (it is inconsistent); /tertium non datur/.
> > I think you were looking for another word(ing).
> 
> Experimental evidence is a *set* of data, usually compiled from a 
> variety of corroborated experiments testing assertions under different 
> circumstances.
> 
> So a theory can be considered an improvement over a previous theory if
> a) Among the extant experimental evidence, there is a greater match 
> between the theory and those results; or
> b) The scope of applicability of the theory is broader so that the reach 
> of experimental evidence (the *set*) can be broadened in its comparison 
> with the theory.
> 

Permit me to paraphrase what you just said.

Any improvement in theory has to make the current generation of peer reviewers look good just as they had to impress the previous generation of peer reviewers, after all, behind all the voodoo and take-my-word-for-it spiel are good salaries and celebrity reputations for being smart above the petty minds of the normal citizen.

If in doubt chant axial precession, angular momentum or some other buzzword to scare of the unwitting and above all spout about evidence, law of some other legal jargon to support an authoritative mind.

Personally I like Edgar Allan Poe's comments in another era -

"Than the persons" -- the letter goes on to say -- "than the persons thus suddenly elevated by the Hog-ian philosophy into a station for which they were unfitted -- thus transferred from the sculleries into the parlors of Science -- from its pantries into its pulpits -- than these individuals a more intolerant -- a more intolerable set of bigots and tyrants never existed on the face of the earth. Their creed, their text and their sermon were, alike, the one word 'fact' -- but, for the most part, even of this one word, they knew not even the meaning. On those who ventured to disturb their facts with the view of putting them in order and to use, the disciples of Hog had no mercy whatever. All attempts at generalization were met at once by the words 'theoretical,' 'theory,' 'theorist' -- all thought, to be brief, was very properly resented as a personal affront to themselves. Cultivating the natural sciences to the exclusion of Metaphysics, the Mathematics, and Logic, many of these Bacon-engendered philosophers -- one-idead, one-sided and lame of a leg -- were more wretchedly helpless -- more miserably ignorant, in view of all the comprehensible objects of knowledge, than the veriest unlettered hind who proves that he knows something at least, in admitting that he knows absolutely nothing." Poe ,Eureka

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#375848

On 2/9/2016 10:44 AM, oriel36 wrote:
> On Tuesday, February 9, 2016 at 3:57:15 PM UTC, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> On 2/8/2016 7:40 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>>> Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>
>>>> there is no argument needed to justify new physics, other than to point
>>>> to its improved consistency with experimental evidence.
>>>
>>> I do not think that consistency can be improved; something is either
>>> consistent or not consistent (it is inconsistent); /tertium non datur/.
>>> I think you were looking for another word(ing).
>>
>> Experimental evidence is a *set* of data, usually compiled from a
>> variety of corroborated experiments testing assertions under different
>> circumstances.
>>
>> So a theory can be considered an improvement over a previous theory if
>> a) Among the extant experimental evidence, there is a greater match
>> between the theory and those results; or
>> b) The scope of applicability of the theory is broader so that the reach
>> of experimental evidence (the *set*) can be broadened in its comparison
>> with the theory.
>>
>
> Permit me to paraphrase what you just said.
>
> Any improvement in theory has to make the current generation of peer reviewers
> look good just as they had to impress the previous generation of peer reviewers,
> after all, behind all the voodoo and take-my-word-for-it spiel are good salaries
> and celebrity reputations for being smart above the petty minds of the normal citizen.
>
> If in doubt chant axial precession, angular momentum or some other buzzword to scare
> of the unwitting and above all spout about evidence, law of some other legal jargon
> to support an authoritative mind.

I don't think I said anything like that. You were talking about politics 
and personalities. I was talking about data and experimental evidence. 
The essence of the the scientific method, as it's explained in the stuff 
I've read, is that nature is impartial and is unconcerned with politics 
and personalities. Therefore, the way to determine whether a theory is a 
good one is to consult with nature. Nature reveals its answers by 
providing behaviors that can be measured, and therefore experimental 
evidence is an OBJECTIVE standards against which theories can be judged. 
Experimental evidence stands on its own, and resists changes in politics 
and personalities.

Now, if you're going to say that experimental evidence is just as 
contaminated by politics and personalities as anything in science, then 
I would say this just means that you don't believe in the validity of 
the scientific method. If that's the case, then what you want is not 
really science, is it?

>
> Personally I like Edgar Allan Poe's comments in another era -
>
> "Than the persons" -- the letter goes on to say -- "than the persons thus suddenly elevated
> by the Hog-ian philosophy into a station for which they were unfitted -- thus transferred
> from the sculleries into the parlors of Science -- from its pantries into its pulpits --
> than these individuals a more intolerant -- a more intolerable set of bigots and tyrants
> never existed on the face of the earth. Their creed, their text and their sermon were, alike,
> the one word 'fact' -- but, for the most part, even of this one word, they knew not even
> the meaning. On those who ventured to disturb their facts with the view of putting them in
> order and to use, the disciples of Hog had no mercy whatever. All attempts at generalization
> were met at once by the words 'theoretical,' 'theory,' 'theorist' -- all thought, to be
> brief, was very properly resented as a personal affront to themselves. Cultivating the
> natural sciences to the exclusion of Metaphysics, the Mathematics, and Logic, many of
> these Bacon-engendered philosophers -- one-idead, one-sided and lame of a leg -- were more
> wretchedly helpless -- more miserably ignorant, in view of all the comprehensible objects
> of knowledge, than the veriest unlettered hind who proves that he knows something at least,
> in admitting that he knows absolutely nothing." Poe ,Eureka
>



-- 
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#375853

On Tuesday, February 9, 2016 at 5:27:10 PM UTC, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 2/9/2016 10:44 AM, oriel36 wrote:
> > On Tuesday, February 9, 2016 at 3:57:15 PM UTC, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> >> On 2/8/2016 7:40 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> >>> Odd Bodkin wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> there is no argument needed to justify new physics, other than to point
> >>>> to its improved consistency with experimental evidence.
> >>>
> >>> I do not think that consistency can be improved; something is either
> >>> consistent or not consistent (it is inconsistent); /tertium non datur/.
> >>> I think you were looking for another word(ing).
> >>
> >> Experimental evidence is a *set* of data, usually compiled from a
> >> variety of corroborated experiments testing assertions under different
> >> circumstances.
> >>
> >> So a theory can be considered an improvement over a previous theory if
> >> a) Among the extant experimental evidence, there is a greater match
> >> between the theory and those results; or
> >> b) The scope of applicability of the theory is broader so that the reach
> >> of experimental evidence (the *set*) can be broadened in its comparison
> >> with the theory.
> >>
> >
> > Permit me to paraphrase what you just said.
> >
> > Any improvement in theory has to make the current generation of peer reviewers
> > look good just as they had to impress the previous generation of peer reviewers,
> > after all, behind all the voodoo and take-my-word-for-it spiel are good salaries
> > and celebrity reputations for being smart above the petty minds of the normal citizen.
> >
> > If in doubt chant axial precession, angular momentum or some other buzzword to scare
> > of the unwitting and above all spout about evidence, law of some other legal jargon
> > to support an authoritative mind.
> 
> I don't think I said anything like that. You were talking about politics 
> and personalities. I was talking about data and experimental evidence. 
> The essence of the the scientific method.

The essence of the scientific method indeed !, that essence is therefore very much like manure.

The scientific method came in under the radar of so-called rule III otherwise called the universal theory of gravitation where experimental sciences at a human scale could be directly applied to planetary dynamics .

"Rule III. The qualities of bodies, which admit neither [intensification] nor remission of degrees, and which are found to belong to all bodies within the reach of our experiments, are to be esteemed the universal qualities of all bodies whatsoever." Newton 

This is why you have so many theorists running around trying to murder the English language where the fall of an apple (experiments) turns into the fall of the Earth around the Sun (universal qualities). People should be falling around laughing.

Basically a high end academic welfare scam with many,many drones willing to go along with 'genius by association' reward made out of stock phrases like laws,evidence,proof and other legal jargon.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#375854

On 2/9/2016 11:50 AM, oriel36 wrote:
> On Tuesday, February 9, 2016 at 5:27:10 PM UTC, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> On 2/9/2016 10:44 AM, oriel36 wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, February 9, 2016 at 3:57:15 PM UTC, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>> On 2/8/2016 7:40 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>>>>> Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> there is no argument needed to justify new physics, other than to point
>>>>>> to its improved consistency with experimental evidence.
>>>>>
>>>>> I do not think that consistency can be improved; something is either
>>>>> consistent or not consistent (it is inconsistent); /tertium non datur/.
>>>>> I think you were looking for another word(ing).
>>>>
>>>> Experimental evidence is a *set* of data, usually compiled from a
>>>> variety of corroborated experiments testing assertions under different
>>>> circumstances.
>>>>
>>>> So a theory can be considered an improvement over a previous theory if
>>>> a) Among the extant experimental evidence, there is a greater match
>>>> between the theory and those results; or
>>>> b) The scope of applicability of the theory is broader so that the reach
>>>> of experimental evidence (the *set*) can be broadened in its comparison
>>>> with the theory.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Permit me to paraphrase what you just said.
>>>
>>> Any improvement in theory has to make the current generation of peer reviewers
>>> look good just as they had to impress the previous generation of peer reviewers,
>>> after all, behind all the voodoo and take-my-word-for-it spiel are good salaries
>>> and celebrity reputations for being smart above the petty minds of the normal citizen.
>>>
>>> If in doubt chant axial precession, angular momentum or some other buzzword to scare
>>> of the unwitting and above all spout about evidence, law of some other legal jargon
>>> to support an authoritative mind.
>>
>> I don't think I said anything like that. You were talking about politics
>> and personalities. I was talking about data and experimental evidence.
>> The essence of the the scientific method.
>
> The essence of the scientific method indeed !, that essence is therefore very much like manure.

Well, there you go. By your own admission, you have no faith in the 
scientific method and consider it to be a wholly unsuitable and 
unreliable approach to the investigation of nature. So be it. The next 
question would be why you then show any interest in contributing to a 
newsgroup devoted to fans of science?

As for your reference to Newton, I think it's worth noting that by the 
time Newton was engaged, the scientific method had been formulated and 
advocated by people like Ibn Al-Haytham and Grosseteste in the 11th and 
12th centuries AD, followed by Galileo, Descartes, Bacon, Gilbert, 
Harvey, Copernicus and Kepler in the 16th century, several generations 
before Newton.

>
> The scientific method came in under the radar of so-called rule III otherwise called the
> universal theory of gravitation where experimental sciences at a human scale could be directly
> applied to planetary dynamics .
>
> "Rule III. The qualities of bodies, which admit neither [intensification] nor remission of
> degrees, and which are found to belong to all bodies within the reach of our experiments, are
> to be esteemed the universal qualities of all bodies whatsoever." Newton
>
> This is why you have so many theorists running around trying to murder the English language
> where the fall of an apple (experiments) turns into the fall of the Earth around the Sun (universal
> qualities). People should be falling around laughing.
>
> Basically a high end academic welfare scam with many,many drones willing to go along with 'genius
> by association' reward made out of stock phrases like laws,evidence,proof and other legal jargon.
>



-- 
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#375863

On Tuesday, February 9, 2016 at 6:03:11 PM UTC, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 2/9/2016 11:50 AM, oriel36 wrote:
> > On Tuesday, February 9, 2016 at 5:27:10 PM UTC, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> >> On 2/9/2016 10:44 AM, oriel36 wrote:
> >>> On Tuesday, February 9, 2016 at 3:57:15 PM UTC, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> >>>> On 2/8/2016 7:40 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> >>>>> Odd Bodkin wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> there is no argument needed to justify new physics, other than to point
> >>>>>> to its improved consistency with experimental evidence.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I do not think that consistency can be improved; something is either
> >>>>> consistent or not consistent (it is inconsistent); /tertium non datur/.
> >>>>> I think you were looking for another word(ing).
> >>>>
> >>>> Experimental evidence is a *set* of data, usually compiled from a
> >>>> variety of corroborated experiments testing assertions under different
> >>>> circumstances.
> >>>>
> >>>> So a theory can be considered an improvement over a previous theory if
> >>>> a) Among the extant experimental evidence, there is a greater match
> >>>> between the theory and those results; or
> >>>> b) The scope of applicability of the theory is broader so that the reach
> >>>> of experimental evidence (the *set*) can be broadened in its comparison
> >>>> with the theory.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> Permit me to paraphrase what you just said.
> >>>
> >>> Any improvement in theory has to make the current generation of peer reviewers
> >>> look good just as they had to impress the previous generation of peer reviewers,
> >>> after all, behind all the voodoo and take-my-word-for-it spiel are good salaries
> >>> and celebrity reputations for being smart above the petty minds of the normal citizen.
> >>>
> >>> If in doubt chant axial precession, angular momentum or some other buzzword to scare
> >>> of the unwitting and above all spout about evidence, law of some other legal jargon
> >>> to support an authoritative mind.
> >>
> >> I don't think I said anything like that. You were talking about politics
> >> and personalities. I was talking about data and experimental evidence.
> >> The essence of the the scientific method.
> >
> > The essence of the scientific method indeed !, that essence is therefore very much like manure.
> 
> Well, there you go. By your own admission, you have no faith in the 
> scientific method and consider it to be a wholly unsuitable and 
> unreliable approach to the investigation of nature. So be it. The next 
> question would be why you then show any interest in contributing to a 
> newsgroup devoted to fans of science?
> 

The 'scientific method' isn't a method, it is a conviction that there is no difference between analogies (experiments) and planetary dynamics (universal qualities), read it again in case you missed it the first time around -

"Rule III. The qualities of bodies, which admit neither [intensification] nor remission of degrees, and which are found to belong to all bodies within the reach of our experiments, are to be esteemed the universal qualities of all bodies whatsoever." Newton 

Want to turn the Earth into a common greenhouse or a greenhouse into the planet Earth then thank Newton's overreaching conviction that one converts into the other. All the guys in the early 20th century did was try to ape Newton's voodoo while assuming he had no particular perspective when he wrote about his absolute/relative time,space and motion.

For me it is not the absence of intelligence but rather the presence of cowardice and pretense that defines this era otherwise is is merely a high end welfare scheme for academics and their take-my-word-for-it scam they dump on the wider population.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#375866

On 2/9/2016 1:11 PM, oriel36 wrote:
> On Tuesday, February 9, 2016 at 6:03:11 PM UTC, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> On 2/9/2016 11:50 AM, oriel36 wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, February 9, 2016 at 5:27:10 PM UTC, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>> On 2/9/2016 10:44 AM, oriel36 wrote:
>>>>> On Tuesday, February 9, 2016 at 3:57:15 PM UTC, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/8/2016 7:40 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>>>>>>> Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> there is no argument needed to justify new physics, other than to point
>>>>>>>> to its improved consistency with experimental evidence.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I do not think that consistency can be improved; something is either
>>>>>>> consistent or not consistent (it is inconsistent); /tertium non datur/.
>>>>>>> I think you were looking for another word(ing).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Experimental evidence is a *set* of data, usually compiled from a
>>>>>> variety of corroborated experiments testing assertions under different
>>>>>> circumstances.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So a theory can be considered an improvement over a previous theory if
>>>>>> a) Among the extant experimental evidence, there is a greater match
>>>>>> between the theory and those results; or
>>>>>> b) The scope of applicability of the theory is broader so that the reach
>>>>>> of experimental evidence (the *set*) can be broadened in its comparison
>>>>>> with the theory.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Permit me to paraphrase what you just said.
>>>>>
>>>>> Any improvement in theory has to make the current generation of peer reviewers
>>>>> look good just as they had to impress the previous generation of peer reviewers,
>>>>> after all, behind all the voodoo and take-my-word-for-it spiel are good salaries
>>>>> and celebrity reputations for being smart above the petty minds of the normal citizen.
>>>>>
>>>>> If in doubt chant axial precession, angular momentum or some other buzzword to scare
>>>>> of the unwitting and above all spout about evidence, law of some other legal jargon
>>>>> to support an authoritative mind.
>>>>
>>>> I don't think I said anything like that. You were talking about politics
>>>> and personalities. I was talking about data and experimental evidence.
>>>> The essence of the the scientific method.
>>>
>>> The essence of the scientific method indeed !, that essence is therefore very much like manure.
>>
>> Well, there you go. By your own admission, you have no faith in the
>> scientific method and consider it to be a wholly unsuitable and
>> unreliable approach to the investigation of nature. So be it. The next
>> question would be why you then show any interest in contributing to a
>> newsgroup devoted to fans of science?
>>
>
> The 'scientific method' isn't a method,

Well, OK then, you don't like science, which is DEFINED as the activity 
that uses the scientific method. Again, I'll ask why you are posting to 
a newsgroup devoted to fans of science.

> it is a conviction that there is no difference between
> analogies (experiments) and planetary dynamics (universal qualities), read it again in case you
> missed it the first time around -

I don't know why I would read a reference to something written by Newton 
when the scientific method is not due to Newton but to predecessors 
several generations ahead of him.

>
> "Rule III. The qualities of bodies, which admit neither [intensification] nor remission of degrees,
> and which are found to belong to all bodies within the reach of our experiments, are to be esteemed
> the universal qualities of all bodies whatsoever." Newton
>
> Want to turn the Earth into a common greenhouse or a greenhouse into the planet Earth then thank
> Newton's overreaching conviction that one converts into the other. All the guys in the early 20th
> century did was try to ape Newton's voodoo while assuming he had no particular perspective when he
> wrote about his absolute/relative time,space and motion.
>
> For me it is not the absence of intelligence but rather the presence of cowardice and pretense that
> defines this era otherwise is is merely a high end welfare scheme for academics and their
> take-my-word-for-it scam they dump on the wider population.

First of all, when you say "this era", I assume you are meaning 
everything since the early 17th century, when the scientific method was 
developed, advocated, and adopted.

Secondly, when you talk about a "take-my-word-for-it scam" dumped on 
"the wider population", I'll just mention that I'm a member of that 
wider population, and I do not feel compelled to take-their-word-for-it, 
precisely because there are so many good books on physics that one can 
actually study and learn the subject without anything more than effort. 
Now, for those that do not want to spend the effort, I really don't have 
any sympathy.

-- 
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#375869

On Tuesday, February 9, 2016 at 7:33:39 PM UTC, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 2/9/2016 1:11 PM, oriel36 wrote:

> >
> > The 'scientific method' isn't a method,
> 
> Well, OK then, you don't like science, which is DEFINED as the activity 
> that uses the scientific method. Again, I'll ask why you are posting to 
> a newsgroup devoted to fans of science.
>

Case in point, here is the Equation of Time described  in terms of absolute/relative time -

"Absolute time, in astronomy, is distinguished from relative, by the equation of time. For the natural days are truly unequal, though they are commonly considered as equal and used for a measure of time; astronomers correct this inequality for their more accurate deducing of the celestial motions...The necessity of which equation, for determining the times of a phænomenon, is evinced as well from the experiments of the pendulum clock, as by eclipses of the satellites of Jupiter." Principia 

So you are devoted to science and therefore  should have no problem with this timekeeping facility which smooths out the variations in the natural length of the noon cycle to a 24 hour average. I will help you along with the work Sir Isaac is referring to -

http://adcs.home.xs4all.nl/Huygens/06/kort-E.html


I left the forum a few decades ago when I found the participants were out of their depth, not with Newton but rather with antecedent astronomical insights and timekeeping methods which he distorted so badly.

 Run along now little empiricist and join the others who are full of meaningless stock phrases.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#375870

On Tuesday, February 9, 2016 at 7:33:39 PM UTC, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 2/9/2016 1:11 PM, oriel36 wrote:

> >
> > The 'scientific method' isn't a method,
>
> Well, OK then, you don't like science, which is DEFINED as the activity
> that uses the scientific method. Again, I'll ask why you are posting to
> a newsgroup devoted to fans of science.

And shark is DEFINED as a 4 legs grass eating animal.
I've written this definition myself, so I'm sure.
And whoever doesn't believe that shark is as I defined it,
is  STUPID!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#375876

On 2/9/2016 1:49 PM, oriel36 wrote:
>   Run along now little empiricist and join the others who are full of meaningless stock phrases.

Which "meaningless stock phrases" have got you complaining about "murder 
of the English language" and "take-my-word-for-it scams"?
Be specific about a couple of stock phrases that you think are 
incomprehensible.

-- 
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#375882

On Tuesday, February 9, 2016 at 8:46:12 PM UTC, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 2/9/2016 1:49 PM, oriel36 wrote:
> >   Run along now little empiricist and join the others who are full of meaningless stock phrases.
> 
> Which "meaningless stock phrases" have got you complaining about "murder 
> of the English language" and "take-my-word-for-it scams"?
> Be specific about a couple of stock phrases that you think are 
> incomprehensible.
> 
> -- 
> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

I came away from this forum knowing that no one person was better or worse than the next and looks like that hasn't changed in over two decades so you can draw some comfort from that.

It is as though the Equation of Time never existed even though it is obvious that Sir Isaac is projecting that timekeeping facility as absolute/relative time but then again this is only a tiny portion of the forensics which constitutes what effectively is an academic welfare scam supported by those who know no better, perhaps you included.

"Absolute time, in astronomy, is distinguished from relative, by the equation of time. For the natural days are truly unequal, though they are commonly considered as equal and used for a measure of time; astronomers correct this inequality for their more accurate deducing of the celestial motions...The necessity of which equation, for determining the times of a phænomenon, is evinced as well from the experiments of the pendulum clock, as by eclipses of the satellites of Jupiter." Principia 

You are all out of your depth and being slippery when technically required is not something I would waste my time on . 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#375890

On 2/9/2016 3:51 PM, oriel36 wrote:
> On Tuesday, February 9, 2016 at 8:46:12 PM UTC, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> On 2/9/2016 1:49 PM, oriel36 wrote:
>>>    Run along now little empiricist and join the others who are full of meaningless stock phrases.
>>
>> Which "meaningless stock phrases" have got you complaining about "murder
>> of the English language" and "take-my-word-for-it scams"?
>> Be specific about a couple of stock phrases that you think are
>> incomprehensible.
>>
>> --
>> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>
> I came away from this forum knowing that no one person was better or worse than the next and looks
> like that hasn't changed in over two decades so you can draw some comfort from that.

It's interesting that you make a comment about "stock phrases" and 
"murder of the English language" and "take-my-word-for-it scams" and yet 
you cannot even cite an example of what you're talking about.

>
> It is as though the Equation of Time never existed even though it is obvious that Sir Isaac is
> projecting that timekeeping facility as absolute/relative time but then again this is only a tiny
> portion of the forensics which constitutes what effectively is an academic welfare scam supported
> by those who know no better, perhaps you included.
>
> "Absolute time, in astronomy, is distinguished from relative, by the equation of time. For the
> natural days are truly unequal, though they are commonly considered as equal and used for a measure
> of time; astronomers correct this inequality for their more accurate deducing of the celestial
> motions...The necessity of which equation, for determining the times of a phænomenon, is evinced
> as well from the experiments of the pendulum clock, as by eclipses of the satellites of Jupiter."
> Principia
>
> You are all out of your depth and being slippery when technically required is not something I would
> waste my time on .




-- 
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#375905

On Tuesday, February 9, 2016 at 3:03:39 PM UTC-8, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 2/9/2016 3:51 PM, oriel36 wrote:
> > On Tuesday, February 9, 2016 at 8:46:12 PM UTC, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> >> On 2/9/2016 1:49 PM, oriel36 wrote:
> >>>    Run along now little empiricist and join the others who are full of meaningless stock phrases.
> >>
> >> Which "meaningless stock phrases" have got you complaining about "murder
> >> of the English language" and "take-my-word-for-it scams"?
> >> Be specific about a couple of stock phrases that you think are
> >> incomprehensible.
> >>
> >> --
> >> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> >
> > I came away from this forum knowing that no one person was better or worse than the next and looks
> > like that hasn't changed in over two decades so you can draw some comfort from that.

Odd, you probably don't know much about Oriel36, but over on sci.astro.amateur he is well known as someone who is either a troll, unbelievably stupid, or mentally ill.

Oriel36 (Gerald Kelleher) is incapable of answering simple questions, especially those that only require a YES or a NO answer. To do so would eventually lead to the unraveling of his wispy and tenuous theories, which the rest of us already know are 100% inaccurate.

Oriel36 is all alone with his theories, he has not found a single professional who agrees with him. Because of this, he reasons that he must be superior to literally all of the great scientific minds of both the past and the present.

Even in the face of STRONG CONTRADICTORY EVIDENCE to his theories, Oriel36 will only regurgitate endless quotes of dead astronomers, which he doesn't actually understand or interpret correctly, as evidence for them.

Oriel36 is no astronomer, just as he is no climatologist, no anthropologist, no mathematician, or no geologist, but this does not stop him from spouting non-stop drivel, day after day.

Many have tried to explain basic celestial mechanics to Oriel36 in simple, easy-to-understand terms, but he either doesn't read these posts or doesn't have the capacity to understand them. Instead, he responds to such posts by essentially starting all over again, from the top, with the same old worn-out arguments that my teen-aged grandchildren can blow out of the water with one swat. I have to give him credit, he carries on undeterred, and unconvinced that there is ever any possibility that that he is even slightly in error.

Unlike the majority of us, Oriel36 has never learned anything here in these forums, and only in rare cases does he agree with anyone at all. It seems to me that whenever an interesting thread is started, it is soon disrupted by you-know-who's venomous desultory philippics, and the whole thing is hijacked for good.

Arguing with Oriel36 is like hitting your head against the wall in that it feels pretty good when you finally stop doing it. Disagreeing with Oriel36 is quite fruitless, he is not at all receptive to friendly instruction, and often counters by calling you names, and that is too bad, because there are (and were) a lot of really smart people here who have a lot to offer the rest of us, and jerks like Oriel36 drive them away. Maybe he requires everyone's attention all of the time.

Oriel36 wouldn't last 2 minutes on any moderated forum, and in that I find immense satisfaction.

\Paul A

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#375909

On Tuesday, February 9, 2016 at 8:19:06 PM UTC-8, pnal...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, February 9, 2016 at 3:03:39 PM UTC-8, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> > On 2/9/2016 3:51 PM, oriel36 wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, February 9, 2016 at 8:46:12 PM UTC, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> > >> On 2/9/2016 1:49 PM, oriel36 wrote:
> > >>>    Run along now little empiricist and join the others who are full of meaningless stock phrases.
> > >>
> > >> Which "meaningless stock phrases" have got you complaining about "murder
> > >> of the English language" and "take-my-word-for-it scams"?
> > >> Be specific about a couple of stock phrases that you think are
> > >> incomprehensible.
> > >>
> > >> --
> > >> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> > >
> > > I came away from this forum knowing that no one person was better or worse than the next and looks
> > > like that hasn't changed in over two decades so you can draw some comfort from that.
> 
> Odd, you probably don't know much about Oriel36, but over on sci.astro.amateur he is well known as someone who is either a troll, unbelievably stupid, or mentally ill.
> 
> Oriel36 (Gerald Kelleher) is incapable of answering simple questions, especially those that only require a YES or a NO answer. To do so would eventually lead to the unraveling of his wispy and tenuous theories, which the rest of us already know are 100% inaccurate.
> 
> Oriel36 is all alone with his theories, he has not found a single professional who agrees with him. Because of this, he reasons that he must be superior to literally all of the great scientific minds of both the past and the present.
> 
> Even in the face of STRONG CONTRADICTORY EVIDENCE to his theories, Oriel36 will only regurgitate endless quotes of dead astronomers, which he doesn't actually understand or interpret correctly, as evidence for them.
> 
> Oriel36 is no astronomer, just as he is no climatologist, no anthropologist, no mathematician, or no geologist, but this does not stop him from spouting non-stop drivel, day after day.
> 
> Many have tried to explain basic celestial mechanics to Oriel36 in simple, easy-to-understand terms, but he either doesn't read these posts or doesn't have the capacity to understand them. Instead, he responds to such posts by essentially starting all over again, from the top, with the same old worn-out arguments that my teen-aged grandchildren can blow out of the water with one swat. I have to give him credit, he carries on undeterred, and unconvinced that there is ever any possibility that that he is even slightly in error.
> 
> Unlike the majority of us, Oriel36 has never learned anything here in these forums, and only in rare cases does he agree with anyone at all. It seems to me that whenever an interesting thread is started, it is soon disrupted by you-know-who's venomous desultory philippics, and the whole thing is hijacked for good.
> 
> Arguing with Oriel36 is like hitting your head against the wall in that it feels pretty good when you finally stop doing it. Disagreeing with Oriel36 is quite fruitless, he is not at all receptive to friendly instruction, and often counters by calling you names, and that is too bad, because there are (and were) a lot of really smart people here who have a lot to offer the rest of us, and jerks like Oriel36 drive them away. Maybe he requires everyone's attention all of the time.
> 
> Oriel36 wouldn't last 2 minutes on any moderated forum, and in that I find immense satisfaction.
> 
> \Paul A

That's an opinion.  

(I'm looking for physics opinions.)

What about "If old physics is all wrong 
who is prepared to go on with new now?"

Paul, you have a reasonably fit modern 
enough idea about pretty regular physics - 
what do you see as grounds and direction 
for fruitful research and expected results.  

That is to say, why is a new 10 billion 
dollar linear accelerator better than 
10000 full scholarships to promising 
physics researchers?

Looking to preserve their budgets?  
Departments could find entire new 
sponsors if they could find a new 
avenue of fruitful research (with 
applications).  

So, uh, where's the money?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#375913

On Tuesday, February 9, 2016 at 9:42:19 PM UTC-8, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> On Tuesday, February 9, 2016 at 8:19:06 PM UTC-8, pnal...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Tuesday, February 9, 2016 at 3:03:39 PM UTC-8, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> > > On 2/9/2016 3:51 PM, oriel36 wrote:
> > > > On Tuesday, February 9, 2016 at 8:46:12 PM UTC, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> > > >> On 2/9/2016 1:49 PM, oriel36 wrote:
> > > >>>    Run along now little empiricist and join the others who are full of meaningless stock phrases.
> > > >>
> > > >> Which "meaningless stock phrases" have got you complaining about "murder
> > > >> of the English language" and "take-my-word-for-it scams"?
> > > >> Be specific about a couple of stock phrases that you think are
> > > >> incomprehensible.
> > > >>
> > > >> --
> > > >> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> > > >
> > > > I came away from this forum knowing that no one person was better or worse than the next and looks
> > > > like that hasn't changed in over two decades so you can draw some comfort from that.
> > 
> > Odd, you probably don't know much about Oriel36, but over on sci.astro.amateur he is well known as someone who is either a troll, unbelievably stupid, or mentally ill.
> > 
> > Oriel36 (Gerald Kelleher) is incapable of answering simple questions, especially those that only require a YES or a NO answer. To do so would eventually lead to the unraveling of his wispy and tenuous theories, which the rest of us already know are 100% inaccurate.
> > 
> > Oriel36 is all alone with his theories, he has not found a single professional who agrees with him. Because of this, he reasons that he must be superior to literally all of the great scientific minds of both the past and the present.
> > 
> > Even in the face of STRONG CONTRADICTORY EVIDENCE to his theories, Oriel36 will only regurgitate endless quotes of dead astronomers, which he doesn't actually understand or interpret correctly, as evidence for them.
> > 
> > Oriel36 is no astronomer, just as he is no climatologist, no anthropologist, no mathematician, or no geologist, but this does not stop him from spouting non-stop drivel, day after day.
> > 
> > Many have tried to explain basic celestial mechanics to Oriel36 in simple, easy-to-understand terms, but he either doesn't read these posts or doesn't have the capacity to understand them. Instead, he responds to such posts by essentially starting all over again, from the top, with the same old worn-out arguments that my teen-aged grandchildren can blow out of the water with one swat. I have to give him credit, he carries on undeterred, and unconvinced that there is ever any possibility that that he is even slightly in error.
> > 
> > Unlike the majority of us, Oriel36 has never learned anything here in these forums, and only in rare cases does he agree with anyone at all. It seems to me that whenever an interesting thread is started, it is soon disrupted by you-know-who's venomous desultory philippics, and the whole thing is hijacked for good.
> > 
> > Arguing with Oriel36 is like hitting your head against the wall in that it feels pretty good when you finally stop doing it. Disagreeing with Oriel36 is quite fruitless, he is not at all receptive to friendly instruction, and often counters by calling you names, and that is too bad, because there are (and were) a lot of really smart people here who have a lot to offer the rest of us, and jerks like Oriel36 drive them away. Maybe he requires everyone's attention all of the time.
> > 
> > Oriel36 wouldn't last 2 minutes on any moderated forum, and in that I find immense satisfaction.
> > 
> > \Paul A
> 
> That's an opinion.  
> 
> (I'm looking for physics opinions.)
> 
> What about "If old physics is all wrong 
> who is prepared to go on with new now?"
> 
> Paul, you have a reasonably fit modern 
> enough idea about pretty regular physics - 
> what do you see as grounds and direction 
> for fruitful research and expected results.  
> 
> That is to say, why is a new 10 billion 
> dollar linear accelerator better than 
> 10000 full scholarships to promising 
> physics researchers?
> 
> Looking to preserve their budgets?  
> Departments could find entire new 
> sponsors if they could find a new 
> avenue of fruitful research (with 
> applications).  
> 
> So, uh, where's the money?

(Of course, material science and 
industrial science provides the 
engines of drivers of growth in 
the modern economy, here it's 
"where's the money in fundamental 
physics".)

This goes for other fields with 
all the "gains" made from ready 
availability of the embarrassment 
of riches of inexpensive computing 
resources and high-frequency 
electronics, with much experimental 
and simulatory support (subject to 
the failures of experiment design 
at 5G speed and Internet scale), 
science is a very elite thing then 
made of simple fundamentals as are 
clear and organized in their setting 
as the establishment of dogma for 
both the support of all phases of 
academy and industry and also the 
forward-thinking view as will enable 
the reasonable use of these ideas 
without a Beowulf cluster of neural 
nets that are a feedback loop.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#375917

On Wednesday, February 10, 2016 at 4:19:06 AM UTC, pnal...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, February 9, 2016 at 3:03:39 PM UTC-8, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> > On 2/9/2016 3:51 PM, oriel36 wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, February 9, 2016 at 8:46:12 PM UTC, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> > >> On 2/9/2016 1:49 PM, oriel36 wrote:
> > >>>    Run along now little empiricist and join the others who are full of meaningless stock phrases.
> > >>
> > >> Which "meaningless stock phrases" have got you complaining about "murder
> > >> of the English language" and "take-my-word-for-it scams"?
> > >> Be specific about a couple of stock phrases that you think are
> > >> incomprehensible.
> > >>
> > >> --
> > >> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> > >
> > > I came away from this forum knowing that no one person was better or worse than the next and looks
> > > like that hasn't changed in over two decades so you can draw some comfort from that.
> 
> Odd, you probably don't know much about Oriel36, but over on sci.astro.amateur he is well known as someone who is either a troll, unbelievably stupid, or mentally ill.
> 
> Oriel36 (Gerald Kelleher) is incapable of answering simple questions, especially those that only require a YES or a NO answer. To do so would eventually lead to the unraveling of his wispy and tenuous theories, which the rest of us already know are 100% inaccurate.
> 
> Oriel36 is all alone with his theories, he has not found a single professional who agrees with him. Because of this, he reasons that he must be superior to literally all of the great scientific minds of both the past and the present.
> 
> Even in the face of STRONG CONTRADICTORY EVIDENCE to his theories, Oriel36 will only regurgitate endless quotes of dead astronomers, which he doesn't actually understand or interpret correctly, as evidence for them.
> 
> Oriel36 is no astronomer, just as he is no climatologist, no anthropologist, no mathematician, or no geologist, but this does not stop him from spouting non-stop drivel, day after day.
> 


Look at you, the boy who can't manage to correlate the Sun appearing each day followed by the stars due to a rotation of the planet . I see you have found your level so I leave you to it.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#375919

On Tuesday, February 9, 2016 at 10:28:47 PM UTC-8, oriel36 wrote:
> On Wednesday, February 10, 2016 at 4:19:06 AM UTC, pnal...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Tuesday, February 9, 2016 at 3:03:39 PM UTC-8, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> > > On 2/9/2016 3:51 PM, oriel36 wrote:
> > > > On Tuesday, February 9, 2016 at 8:46:12 PM UTC, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> > > >> On 2/9/2016 1:49 PM, oriel36 wrote:
> > > >>>    Run along now little empiricist and join the others who are full of meaningless stock phrases.
> > > >>
> > > >> Which "meaningless stock phrases" have got you complaining about "murder
> > > >> of the English language" and "take-my-word-for-it scams"?
> > > >> Be specific about a couple of stock phrases that you think are
> > > >> incomprehensible.
> > > >>
> > > >> --
> > > >> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> > > >
> > > > I came away from this forum knowing that no one person was better or worse than the next and looks
> > > > like that hasn't changed in over two decades so you can draw some comfort from that.
> > 
> > Odd, you probably don't know much about Oriel36, but over on sci.astro.amateur he is well known as someone who is either a troll, unbelievably stupid, or mentally ill.
> > 
> > Oriel36 (Gerald Kelleher) is incapable of answering simple questions, especially those that only require a YES or a NO answer. To do so would eventually lead to the unraveling of his wispy and tenuous theories, which the rest of us already know are 100% inaccurate.
> > 
> > Oriel36 is all alone with his theories, he has not found a single professional who agrees with him. Because of this, he reasons that he must be superior to literally all of the great scientific minds of both the past and the present.
> > 
> > Even in the face of STRONG CONTRADICTORY EVIDENCE to his theories, Oriel36 will only regurgitate endless quotes of dead astronomers, which he doesn't actually understand or interpret correctly, as evidence for them.
> > 
> > Oriel36 is no astronomer, just as he is no climatologist, no anthropologist, no mathematician, or no geologist, but this does not stop him from spouting non-stop drivel, day after day.
> > 
> 
> 
> Look at you, the boy who can't manage to correlate the Sun appearing each day followed by the stars due to a rotation of the planet . I see you have found your level so I leave you to it.

That's not useful - 
where's the money.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#375974

On Tuesday, February 9, 2016 at 10:28:47 PM UTC-8, oriel36 wrote:
> On Wednesday, February 10, 2016 at 4:19:06 AM UTC, pnal...@gmail.com wrote

> > Odd, you probably don't know much about Oriel36, but over on sci.astro.amateur he is well known as someone who is either a troll, unbelievably stupid, or mentally ill.
> > 
> > Oriel36 (Gerald Kelleher) is incapable of answering simple questions, especially those that only require a YES or a NO answer. To do so would eventually lead to the unraveling of his wispy and tenuous theories, which the rest of us already know are 100% inaccurate.
> > 
> > Oriel36 is all alone with his theories, he has not found a single professional who agrees with him. Because of this, he reasons that he must be superior to literally all of the great scientific minds of both the past and the present.
> > 
> > Even in the face of STRONG CONTRADICTORY EVIDENCE to his theories, Oriel36 will only regurgitate endless quotes of dead astronomers, which he doesn't actually understand or interpret correctly, as evidence for them.
> > 
> > Oriel36 is no astronomer, just as he is no climatologist, no anthropologist, no mathematician, or no geologist, but this does not stop him from spouting non-stop drivel, day after day.
 
> Look at you, the boy who can't manage to correlate the Sun appearing each day followed by the stars due to a rotation of the planet . I see you have found your level so I leave you to it.

Gerald, I remind you yet again that you are lying...

https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups=#!topic/sci.astro.amateur/qRAB45cWbG0

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#375980

On Wednesday, February 10, 2016 at 5:36:45 PM UTC, pnal...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, February 9, 2016 at 10:28:47 PM UTC-8, oriel36 wrote:
> > On Wednesday, February 10, 2016 at 4:19:06 AM UTC, pnal...@gmail.com wrote
> 
> > > Odd, you probably don't know much about Oriel36, but over on sci.astro.amateur he is well known as someone who is either a troll, unbelievably stupid, or mentally ill.
> > > 
> > > Oriel36 (Gerald Kelleher) is incapable of answering simple questions, especially those that only require a YES or a NO answer. To do so would eventually lead to the unraveling of his wispy and tenuous theories, which the rest of us already know are 100% inaccurate.
> > > 
> > > Oriel36 is all alone with his theories, he has not found a single professional who agrees with him. Because of this, he reasons that he must be superior to literally all of the great scientific minds of both the past and the present.
> > > 
> > > Even in the face of STRONG CONTRADICTORY EVIDENCE to his theories, Oriel36 will only regurgitate endless quotes of dead astronomers, which he doesn't actually understand or interpret correctly, as evidence for them.
> > > 
> > > Oriel36 is no astronomer, just as he is no climatologist, no anthropologist, no mathematician, or no geologist, but this does not stop him from spouting non-stop drivel, day after day.
>  
> > Look at you, the boy who can't manage to correlate the Sun appearing each day followed by the stars due to a rotation of the planet . I see you have found your level so I leave you to it.
> 
> Gerald, I remind you yet again that you are lying...
> 
> https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups=#!topic/sci.astro.amateur/qRAB45cWbG0

Okay, the next question is how many times does the planet turn for 4 complete circuits of the Sun ?. An expert in time,space and motion answers 1461 times or 365 1/4 rotations per circuit.

Poor fools spent the last century believing they were discussing time but were really caught up in timekeeping and coming to the dumbest conclusion using stellar circumpolar motion, two sticks and a watch came to believe there is one more rotation than there are in an orbital circuit -

"During one orbit around the Sun, Earth rotates about its own axis 366.26 times" Earth,article

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth

How a bunch of cultists managed to convince themselves they were 'experts' in astronomy is an incredible story and not least the sheer unrepentant ,mindless behavior where not even the most basic experience of one rotation each 24 hour day with all its effects survives as a fact.

Tell the rest about the 'solar vs sidereal' fiction before they ever deal with the Equation of Time as Newton expressed it,albeit in a silly way. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity

csiph-web