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

Groups > sci.physics > #616662 > unrolled thread

Re: LIGO Conspirators: Wave or Money Catchers?

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: LIGO Conspirators: Wave or Money Catchers? edprochak@gmail.com - 2017-02-02 10:07 -0800
    Re: LIGO Conspirators: Wave or Money Catchers? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-02 12:20 -0600
      Re: LIGO Conspirators: Wave or Money Catchers? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-02-03 05:59 -0800
        Re: LIGO Conspirators: Wave or Money Catchers? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-03 08:20 -0600
          Re: LIGO Conspirators: Wave or Money Catchers? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-02-03 06:57 -0800
            Re: LIGO Conspirators: Wave or Money Catchers? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-03 08:59 -0600
              Re: LIGO Conspirators: Wave or Money Catchers? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-02-03 07:11 -0800
                Re: LIGO Conspirators: Wave or Money Catchers? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-03 09:37 -0600
                  Re: LIGO Conspirators: Wave or Money Catchers? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-02-03 07:40 -0800
                    Re: LIGO Conspirators: Wave or Money Catchers? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-03 09:44 -0600
                      Re: LIGO Conspirators: Wave or Money Catchers? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-03 10:04 -0600
                      Re: LIGO Conspirators: Wave or Money Catchers? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-02-07 09:15 -0800
                        Re: LIGO Conspirators: Wave or Money Catchers? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-07 11:22 -0600

#616662 — Re: LIGO Conspirators: Wave or Money Catchers?

On Thursday, February 2, 2017 at 7:43:08 AM UTC-5, Pentcho Valev wrote:
> "Physics: The wave catchers [...] In an age of strongman politicians
> and outright despotism, this impassioned call for a "beacon of values"
> is more important than ever. "We desperately need science to rescue
> democracy from greed," Collins writes. "We need that even more than
> we need gravitational wave astronomy."  http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v542/n7639/full/542028a.html
> 
> LIGO conspirators are greedier and more dishonest than politicians. 

Not surprising you take a quote out of context and come to precisely the
wrong conclusion. The Despotism referenced is that from outside science.
It is a call to let scientists conduct their work without media exploiting
rumors prior to completing the research and publishing the results.

Dear readers,
please read the entire article referenced. The article talks about
the pressure of the media to get answers before the LIGO team had
completed their analysis.

The article is short and IMHO worth the few minutes to read it.
  ed

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#616666

On 2/2/2017 12:07 PM, edprochak@gmail.com wrote:
> On Thursday, February 2, 2017 at 7:43:08 AM UTC-5, Pentcho Valev wrote:
>> "Physics: The wave catchers [...] In an age of strongman politicians
>> and outright despotism, this impassioned call for a "beacon of values"
>> is more important than ever. "We desperately need science to rescue
>> democracy from greed," Collins writes. "We need that even more than
>> we need gravitational wave astronomy."  http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v542/n7639/full/542028a.html
>>
>> LIGO conspirators are greedier and more dishonest than politicians.
>
> Not surprising you take a quote out of context and come to precisely the
> wrong conclusion. The Despotism referenced is that from outside science.
> It is a call to let scientists conduct their work without media exploiting
> rumors prior to completing the research and publishing the results.
>
> Dear readers,
> please read the entire article referenced. The article talks about
> the pressure of the media to get answers before the LIGO team had
> completed their analysis.
>
> The article is short and IMHO worth the few minutes to read it.
>   ed
>

Pentcho comes from a country where accurate reporting takes a backseat 
to propaganda. Ever since he was a boy, propaganda has been a way of 
life. To him, distorting a reference for the sake of promoting a 
particular propagandist stance is not only justified but the better 
thing to do.


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

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

#616778

Odd
So you believe in gravitational waves?
How- in your mind- do they work?

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

#616785

On 2/3/2017 7:59 AM, john wrote:
> Odd
> So you believe in gravitational waves?
> How- in your mind- do they work?
>

I'm not sure I follow what you mean by "work". If you mean "What are the 
moving parts inside them and where do they go?" then that's the wrong 
question.

How do you think sound waves work?

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

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

#616791

Odd
"I'm not sure I follow what you mean by "work". If you mean "What are the "

Yah
I knew you didn't have a clue

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

#616792

On 2/3/2017 8:57 AM, john wrote:
> Odd
> "I'm not sure I follow what you mean by "work". If you mean "What are the "
>
> Yah
> I knew you didn't have a clue
>

Oh, I do, John, but I would like you do share in the discussion, rather 
than you just sitting at my knee asking for a story.

First thing to do, you see, is to get a feel for what you think is going 
on with ORDINARY waves. That way, we can sort out the various 
misconceptions you have about that, and then we can move on to thinks 
like optical waves and gravitational waves.

So John.... share. What do you think is going on with sound waves?

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

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

#616793

Odd
No, you do not get to turn it around.
YOU justify your faith in grav waves.

How do they work?

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

#616797

On 2/3/2017 9:11 AM, john wrote:
> Odd
> No, you do not get to turn it around.
> YOU justify your faith in grav waves.
>
> How do they work?
>

Alright. Gravitational waves work the way ALL waves work.
There are physical laws that pertain to a physical system that take a 
particular mathematical form called a wave equation. What we know about 
physical systems that have this feature is that the solutions of the 
equation exhibit themselves as behaviors of the system. That is, since a 
traveling wave is a solution of the wave equation, then traveling waves 
appear physically in the system.

This is the connection between physics and mathematics and why 
mathematics provides insight to how physical systems will behave.

Please notice that this does not mean that mathematics is driving the 
explanation of how it works. What is driving the explanation of how it 
works are the laws of physics. But it's the FORM of the laws of physics 
that determines whether waves happen or not.

I fully expect you to tell me that this does not meet your expectations. 
I expect you to claim that an explanation of how something works means 
taking it apart and showing all the parts inside and how they move and 
intermesh. But John, this just is not true. That's not how physics 
explains how things work, whether you like it or not.

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

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

#616800

Odd
"traveling wave is a solution of the wave equation, then traveling waves 
appear physically in the system. "
And what is the "physical " form that they
take? Describe the "system".

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

#616802

On 2/3/2017 9:40 AM, john wrote:
> Odd
> "traveling wave is a solution of the wave equation, then traveling waves
> appear physically in the system. "
> And what is the "physical " form that they
> take? Describe the "system".
>

I never used the phrase "physical form". Please pay attention and reread 
what I said.

What governs how the system behaves is NOT the physical form of the 
system, but the physical LAWS that govern the system and the 
MATHEMATICAL form of those laws.

Please repeat this to yourself: What governs the behavior of a physical 
system is NOT the physical form of the system.

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

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

#616805

On 2/3/2017 9:44 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 2/3/2017 9:40 AM, john wrote:
>> Odd
>> "traveling wave is a solution of the wave equation, then traveling waves
>> appear physically in the system. "
>> And what is the "physical " form that they
>> take? Describe the "system".
>>
>
> I never used the phrase "physical form". Please pay attention and reread
> what I said.
>
> What governs how the system behaves is NOT the physical form of the
> system, but the physical LAWS that govern the system and the
> MATHEMATICAL form of those laws.
>
> Please repeat this to yourself: What governs the behavior of a physical
> system is NOT the physical form of the system.
>

I'm now waiting for you to say, "This violates everything that I believe 
in about science or about explanations about how things work. You're 
lost. You have no idea."

The problem, John, is that what you believe in is simply wrong. I know 
it's tough to let go of. Getting cranky and storming off about it isn't 
good for you. Part of learning is letting go of preconceptions.

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

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

#617388

Odd
"

Please repeat this to yourself: What governs the behavior of a physical 
system is NOT the physical form of the system. 
"

So.
Propellers?
Kites?
Skis?
Dicks?

You're stupid, Odd

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

#617390

On 2/7/2017 11:15 AM, john wrote:
> Odd
> "
>
> Please repeat this to yourself: What governs the behavior of a physical
> system is NOT the physical form of the system.
> "
>
> So.
> Propellers?
> Kites?
> Skis?
> Dicks?

I'm still telling you that what governs the behavior of a physical 
system is NOT the physical form of the system.

You can feel free to take any of one of these examples and we can 
illustrate that.

>
> You're stupid, Odd
>


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

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web