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

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #375866

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

Show all headers | View raw

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

Back to sci.physics.relativity | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

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

csiph-web