Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics > #593215
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | sci.physics |
| Subject | Re: The New Gravity Theory |
| Date | 2016-08-15 08:43 -0500 |
| Organization | Aioe.org NNTP Server |
| Message-ID | <nosgul$6ic$1@gioia.aioe.org> (permalink) |
| References | (1 earlier) <f973cb34-4e31-4de2-bb00-18f408008dbc@googlegroups.com> <noid63$9r8$1@gioia.aioe.org> <6u2rqbhlkj7h9id0vhkjanj5ado9eqqdqa@4ax.com> <nokqgv$1pmc$1@gioia.aioe.org> <u7v1rbtg0ef013gibq8bqrqbn62n5q1gcr@4ax.com> |
On 8/14/2016 7:07 PM, Michael J. Strickland wrote:
> On Fri, 12 Aug 2016 10:38:10 -0500, Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 8/12/2016 3:59 AM, Michael J. Strickland wrote:
>>> On Thu, 11 Aug 2016 12:38:12 -0500, Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> ...
>>>
>>>> In science, anyway, experiment trumps all human expectations of how the universe
>>>> should work.
>>>
>>> While I like your description of QCD, I must admit I'm getting tired
>>> of that old "experiments trump expectations" and logic which are based
>>> on the multitude of experiments consistent with expectations which
>>> came before and not just arbitrary whims that strike the theorist's
>>> fancy.
>>>
>>> The problem with experiments is that they are usually designed to test
>>> a hypothesis and there is a bias toward or away from confirming that
>>> hypothesis. The methods and apparatus may easily introduce known and
>>> unknown effects which are not properly accounted for and which would
>>> counter or distort any conclusions derived from the data.
>>
>> I would contest this. I disagree that there is "usually" a bias toward
>> or away from confirming a hypothesis. A well designed experiment
>> provides valuable information regardless of outcome.
>
> I said "usually designed to test a hypothesis" and maybe I should have
> said "often" which is the old non-committal "more than one" unlike
> "usually" which is taken to mean "more than half" - lol.
>
> I don't mean to sound too cynical but many experiments are designed to
> test or re-test a theory (which I define as an old and accepted
> hypothesis with a following - lol) and these definitely have a human
> bias at least toward the opinion of the experimenters. I agree some
> experiments are objectively investigative and employ a "Hey lets do
> this and see what happens" motive/mentality.
This isn't what I meant. I don't believe that an experiment has to be
open-ended exploration ("let's just look for anything new out here") to
be unbiased. Yes, many experiments are built to test a given hypothesis,
but if done correctly, you wouldn't be able to tell whether the
experimenters favored the hypothesis or disfavored it. Indeed, the whole
point is to reserve judgement on the validity of a hypothesis until
nature has spoken via experiment.
> These may be the most
> useful in terms of advancing science however, if they demonstrate
> something inconsistent with currently accepted theory, there is an
> incentive for the observer/reporter to suppress them since
> contradicting current theory is risky in terms of reputation and
> involves a lot of work responding to rebuttals and clarifying. Most
> theories have a large following which will argue their opinion
> regardless of evidence to the contrary and it can get too taxing to
> respond to each and every one of them.
Here I think it depends on the form of the "rebuttal". If the rebuttal
is on the basis that the hypothesis seems "weird" or "inelegant" or
"against intuition" or "complicated", then I don't believe that's one
that scientists will even muster much effort to counterargue. Secondly,
I really don't think physicists are risk-averse, though they will check
their work carefully before putting any result forward. As an example,
look at the results of the OPERA experiment, which briefly claimed
superluminal speeds of neutrinos until a problem was discovered. If they
had been cowed by risk to reputation, that (incorrect) result would
never have seen the light of day. Bottom line, the only form of rebuttal
that means anything is experimental data.
>
> I could cite the example of cold fusion. I'm "on the fence" as to
> whether I believe it is viable. The "cold fusion" principle has been
> demonstrated decades ago with a high negatively charged electrode
> embedded in a positive plasma. Some fusion occurs but as I see it, the
> positive fusion products will likely build up on the electrode and
> reduce its negative charge (like a saturated dielectric reduces the
> resultant E-field) to poison the fusion. I can think of a few
> "engineering solutions" for this minor problem (e.g. cycling the
> voltage to "slough off fusion products, placing a screen grid between
> the plasma and negative electrode with a disposable sheathing that
> runs on a track through the fusion chamber, etc...). For the reported
> "cold fusion", even in chemical reactions, atoms may encounter high
> enough electric fields in the vicinity of electrons to "fuse" their
> nuclei in this manner. Picture an atom with its electron cloud lagging
> it impacting the electron cloud of a target atom (the way atoms bond).
> The electrons in the shell of the target atom could easily (in some
> cases) shear the impacting atom's electrons clean away. The impacting
> nucleus is then accelerated into the target nucleus as it encounters
> the target nucleus's electron shell/cloud where it "sticks" to the
> negative part of the target nucleus (fuses).
Well, first of all, I don't think of any fusion happening inside a
plasma as being "cold fusion". Cold fusion is by definition below
temperatures sufficient to support a plasma.
But secondly, the main thing to consider about cold fusion is not
whether there is a plausible idea about how or whether it happens. The
main thing is that immediately after the results announced by Pons and
Fleischmann, and I mean within three days, there were twelve -- count
'em, twelve -- independent teams that spun up teams and equipment to try
to corroborate the results. And none of them -- count 'em, none -- were
able to corroborate the results. This speaks again to using data -- not
ideas, not boldness, not models -- to determine whether cold fusion is
real or not.
>
>
>> Now it is true that if there are multiple hypotheses, and experiment can
>> be designed so that it gives a clearer answer (yea or nay) about one of
>> those hypotheses than for the other hypotheses.
>>
>> One of the core skills of an experimental team is to *thoroughly*
>> understand sources of error and misleading background, and it this is
>> where most of the work is in setting the uncertainty value in the quoted
>> result.
>
>
> Agreed. But they are not always "perfect" at noticing (imagining) the
> varied sources of error/distortion/bias, prioritizing the effects of
> them, and correctly accounting for them.
Maybe not perfect (see OPERA), but the quality of an experiment is
measured by how well they have done this at least to the degree that
other unaccounted-for effects are known to be inconsequential to the result.
>
>>> There is also a bias toward discovering and reporting new phenomena
>>> whether they exist of not in order to gain attention and funding. Once
>>> a new phenomenon is accepted by the scientific community, all later
>>> theories must be reconciled with it in order to be accepted even
>>> though its not very likely that all our accepted theories are correct.
>>>
>>> Therefore I don't consider experiments to be as sacrosanct as many
>>> people. The data may be misinterpreted and the conclusions may neglect
>>> other processes and effects.
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------
>>> Michael J. Strickland Reston, VA
>>> ---------------------------------------------------
>>>
> ---------------------------------------------------
> Michael J. Strickland Reston, VA
> ---------------------------------------------------
>
--
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Back to sci.physics | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
The New Gravity Theory Michael J. Strickland <michael06582@comcast.net> - 2016-08-10 22:14 -0400
Re: The New Gravity Theory benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-08-10 22:36 -0400
Re: Re: The New Gravity Theory Michael J. Strickland <michael06582@comcast.net> - 2016-08-11 05:34 -0400
Re: The New Gravity Theory Alan Folmsbee <omnilobe@gmail.com> - 2016-08-10 20:30 -0700
Re: Re: The New Gravity Theory Michael J. Strickland <michael06582@comcast.net> - 2016-08-11 05:29 -0400
Re: The New Gravity Theory bartekltg <bartekltg@gmail.com> - 2016-08-11 13:16 +0200
Re: The New Gravity Theory john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-08-11 06:41 -0700
Re: The New Gravity Theory bartekltg <bartekltg@gmail.com> - 2016-08-11 16:29 +0200
Re: The New Gravity Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-11 09:35 -0500
Re: The New Gravity Theory john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-08-11 08:11 -0700
Re: The New Gravity Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-11 10:49 -0500
Re: The New Gravity Theory john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-08-11 09:14 -0700
Re: The New Gravity Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-11 11:28 -0500
Re: The New Gravity Theory moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-08-11 17:48 +0000
Re: The New Gravity Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-11 13:21 -0500
Re: The New Gravity Theory benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-08-11 18:20 -0400
Re: The New Gravity Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-11 17:35 -0500
Re: The New Gravity Theory benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-08-11 22:30 -0400
Re: The New Gravity Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-12 07:27 -0500
Re: The New Gravity Theory john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-08-11 11:24 -0700
Re: The New Gravity Theory moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-08-12 15:36 +0000
"theory of **** noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-08-12 12:38 -0700
"theory of **** john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-08-12 16:22 -0700
"theory of **** john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-08-12 19:33 -0700
Re: "theory of **** moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-08-13 03:11 +0000
Re: "theory of **** john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-08-13 08:06 -0700
Re: "theory of **** Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-13 11:40 -0500
Re: "theory of **** moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-08-13 17:23 +0000
"theory of ideal gasses & beyond them noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-08-13 10:30 -0700
Re: The New Gravity Theory margaretporat@gmail.com - 2016-08-15 01:58 -0700
Re: The New Gravity Theory benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-08-11 17:59 -0400
Re: The New Gravity Theory john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-08-11 16:18 -0700
Re: The New Gravity Theory bartekltg <bartekltg@gmail.com> - 2016-08-12 14:45 +0200
Re: The New Gravity Theory LIGO Fraud Investigator <mapou001@gmail.com> - 2016-08-11 10:10 -0700
Re: The New Gravity Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-11 12:38 -0500
Re: The New Gravity Theory LIGO Fraud Investigator <mapou001@gmail.com> - 2016-08-11 11:05 -0700
Re: The New Gravity Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-11 13:30 -0500
Re: The New Gravity Theory john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-08-11 11:47 -0700
Re: The New Gravity Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-11 14:19 -0500
Re: The New Gravity Theory john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-08-11 13:21 -0700
Re: The New Gravity Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-11 15:47 -0500
Re: The New Gravity Theory xxein1@att.net - 2016-08-11 13:55 -0700
Re: The New Gravity Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-11 16:32 -0500
Re: The New Gravity Theory moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-08-12 15:50 +0000
Re: The New Gravity Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-12 10:59 -0500
Re: The New Gravity Theory benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-08-11 18:31 -0400
Re: The New Gravity Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-11 17:39 -0500
Re: The New Gravity Theory noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-08-11 13:43 -0700
Re: The New Gravity Theory LIGO Fraud Investigator <mapou001@gmail.com> - 2016-08-11 15:40 -0700
Re: The New Gravity Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-11 17:45 -0500
Re: The New Gravity Theory LIGO Fraud Investigator <mapou001@gmail.com> - 2016-08-11 16:37 -0700
Re: The New Gravity Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-11 19:10 -0500
Re: The New Gravity Theory LIGO Fraud Investigator <mapou001@gmail.com> - 2016-08-11 17:31 -0700
Re: The New Gravity Theory poraty350@gmail.com - 2016-08-12 02:54 -0700
Re: The New Gravity Theory Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-08-14 10:35 +0200
Re: The New Gravity Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-15 08:17 -0500
Re: The New Gravity Theory Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-08-15 21:19 +0200
Re: The New Gravity Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-16 13:26 -0500
Re: The New Gravity Theory moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-08-16 19:17 +0000
Re: The New Gravity Theory Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2016-08-16 12:44 -0700
Re: The New Gravity Theory noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-08-16 14:54 -0700
Re: The New Gravity Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-18 13:52 -0500
zero thus defined noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-08-19 11:08 -0700
Re: The New Gravity Theory poraty350@gmail.com - 2016-08-19 23:07 -0700
Re: The New Gravity Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-20 10:14 -0500
Re: The New Gravity Theory benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-08-20 20:59 -0400
Re: The New Gravity Theory poraty350@gmail.com - 2016-08-20 23:00 -0700
Re: The New Gravity Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-21 18:12 -0500
Re: The New Gravity Theory poraty350@gmail.com - 2016-08-21 23:31 -0700
it's a military-marhcing theme noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-08-15 15:43 -0700
Re: it's a military-marhcing theme LIGO Fraud Investigator <mapou001@gmail.com> - 2016-08-15 16:28 -0700
Re: Re: The New Gravity Theory Michael J. Strickland <michael06582@comcast.net> - 2016-08-12 04:59 -0400
Re: The New Gravity Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-12 10:38 -0500
Re: The New Gravity Theory poraty350@gmail.com - 2016-08-12 23:35 -0700
Re: Re: The New Gravity Theory Michael J. Strickland <michael06582@comcast.net> - 2016-08-14 20:07 -0400
Re: The New Gravity Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-15 08:43 -0500
Re: The New Gravity Theory poraty350@gmail.com - 2016-08-12 02:49 -0700
Re: The New Gravity Theory poraty350@gmail.com - 2016-08-12 02:39 -0700
Re: Re: The New Gravity Theory Michael J. Strickland <michael06582@comcast.net> - 2016-08-12 06:41 -0400
Re: Re: The New Gravity Theory poraty350@gmail.com - 2016-08-12 08:49 -0700
Re: The New Gravity Theory poraty350@gmail.com - 2016-08-12 04:28 -0700
Re: The New Gravity Theory poraty350@gmail.com - 2016-08-12 23:34 -0700
skwaresville noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-08-13 10:35 -0700
skwaresville john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-08-13 15:03 -0700
Re: skwaresville moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-08-14 00:50 +0000
Re: skwaresville poraty350@gmail.com - 2016-08-14 00:04 -0700
Re: The New Gravity Theory xxein1@att.net - 2016-08-13 18:30 -0700
Re: The New Gravity Theory benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-08-13 21:50 -0400
Re: The New Gravity Theory xxein1@att.net - 2016-08-14 10:29 -0700
Re: Re: The New Gravity Theory Michael J. Strickland <michael06582@comcast.net> - 2016-08-14 20:11 -0400
Re: Re: The New Gravity Theory xxein1@att.net - 2016-08-14 17:46 -0700
Re: Re: The New Gravity Theory poraty350@gmail.com - 2016-08-14 23:54 -0700
Re: Re: The New Gravity Theory xxein1@att.net - 2016-08-15 05:52 -0700
csiph-web