Scientific American and Science censorship...
Benj
American, Physics Forums, has taken over "moderation" of
Sci.physics.research. Or should I say taken over censorship of it.
Censorship for the "control" of science has been a major function of
the popular science press like Scientific American for a very long
time as has been "peer review" and censorship of scientific journals
been a major "control" pathway in science. For example holowarmer
shills like "Sam Wormely" greatly depend upon the popular science
press to provide myriad "cites" that support their current
promotions.
Of course, just as "democracy" depends upon the electorate being
informed and the major media has been performing a "control" function
on information, similar "controls" exist in science. While the talking
heads on TV's "60 Minutes" have developed their self-styled
"reputation" for "trust" and "integrity", it takes but one program
dedicated to "gun control" to prove how purposely biased and
untrustworthy they all are.
But one EXPECTS lies and "points of view" such as "my party is always
right and yours is always wrong" in politics. The problem is when such
censorship and propaganda invade science.
sci.physics.research being a prime example of such subversion of real
science. What happens is that science turns into religion. Evolution
is "fact". AGW is "beyond question". UFOs observations are suitable
only for ridicule. Nothing exists in science beyond "official"
positions and advancements are allowed ONLY after they have been
approved and granted blessings by the famous great men in positions of
science "leadership" and authority.
The bottom line is the clever destruction of any "real" science with
science "journalism" leading the way. Especially hideous is the way in
which censorship occurs in secret behind the scenes. There are never
any opposing views because opposing views are stripped out BEFORE
anything appears. The public never learns that that there even WAS an
opposing viewpoint.
Hence if Scientific American tells the science layman that CO2 causes
"climate change" or that letting blood removes your "bad humours", the
public has no choice but to believe it. Even the EXISTENCE of other
points of view are censored out of existence. How wonderful it is that
we in "science" can still count on this herd of "leaders" to make sure
that doctors never wash their hands when operating or examining
patients. Ain't science great?
But what do I know? I'm just a crackpot! I need to go read a freshman
textbook!
(We'll cover censorship in the textbook industry next)
Benj
Don
Benji, keep in mind there is "science" and what is popularly known as
"junk science". The public doesn't know the difference, which is
essentially that real "science" makes testable predictions, while
"junk science" consists only of conjecture.
Don
Androcles
"Don" <don.d...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:f012bce8-5168-4cfe...@b35g2000yqi.googlegroups.com...
Don
===============================================
Let's fill the atmosphere up with CO2 and test the prophecy that it
makes the whole world warmer. It doesn't seem to have done much
for Mars...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Mars
Annual mean temperatures at the surface are currently less than 210 K (-63
蚓; -82 蚌), 95% CO2.
I'd call that cold enough to freeze the balls off a brass monkey.
PD
> I'm sure you all know that the censored forum supported by Scientific
> American, Physics Forums, has taken over "moderation" of
> Sci.physics.research. Or should I say taken over censorship of it.
>
Moderation is not censorship, though anyone on the wrong end of the
stick could equivocate.
If it is your belief that ALL ideas should have a venue to be aired,
then you have it. It is called a blog, and you can publish yourself on
the web in a completely unconstrained, unmoderated, unfiltered way.
There is, however, a market of subscribers who DESIRE to have content
moderated before being delivered to them. The covenant between the
publisher or venue-moderator and his market, then, is that the
publisher will in fact exercise certain standards of moderation before
making the content available to his subscribers. Remember that this is
what this market DESIRES. A successful venue will be one who seems to
apply moderation at the level most appealing to his market.
Now, what it is you seem to be ranting about is that you want access
to the market of subscribers who specifically want to exclude content
that you would offer. This you cannot have, and there is no reason to
whine about it.
Darwin123
> "Don" <don.duc...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> ===============================================
> Let's fill the atmosphere up with CO2 and test the prophecy that it
> makes the whole world warmer. It doesn't seem to have done much
> for Mars...
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Mars
> Annual mean temperatures at the surface are currently less than 210 K (-63
> °C; -82 °F), 95% CO2.
> I'd call that cold enough to freeze the balls off a brass monkey.
The atmosphere of Mars is not as dense as the atmosphere of the
earth.
Compare the partial pressure of CO2 on earth with the partial
pressure of carbon dioxide on Mars. If the partial pressure of CO2 is
far less on earth than on Mars, then you may have a point. I doubt it,
however.
You did take chemistry, so you do know what "partial pressure"
means. Right?
Androcles
"Darwin123" <drose...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:bb309ab8-31c1-4f82...@q22g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
On Jul 15, 4:24 pm, "Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics_z> wrote:
> "Don" <don.duc...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
Don
> ===============================================
> Let's fill the atmosphere up with CO2 and test the prophecy that it
> makes the whole world warmer. It doesn't seem to have done much
> for Mars...
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Mars
> Annual mean temperatures at the surface are currently less than 210 K (-63
> 蚓; -82 蚌), 95% CO2.
> I'd call that cold enough to freeze the balls off a brass monkey.
The atmosphere of Mars is not as dense as the atmosphere of the
earth.
========================================
Really? Oh well, let's experiment to test your prophecy and reduce
the Earth's atmosphere to the same as that of Mars and see if that
makes the globe warmer with 95% carbon dioxide. After all, keep
in mind there is "science" and what is popularly known as
"junk science". The public doesn't know the difference, which is
essentially that real "science" makes testable predictions, while
"junk science" consists only of conjecture.
<snip of your ignorant shit, you snipping bastard.>
Darwin123
> "Darwin123" <drosen0...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > I'd call that cold enough to freeze the balls off a brass monkey.
>
> The atmosphere of Mars is not as dense as the atmosphere of the
> earth.
> ========================================
> Really? Oh well, let's experiment to test your prophecy and reduce
> the Earth's atmosphere to the same as that of Mars and see if that
> makes the globe warmer with 95% carbon dioxide.
the calculation for you.
The average air pressure at the surface of Mars is 6
millibars, compared to 1013 millibars on Earth. The average percentage
of carbon dioxide on Mars is 95%, compared to 0.036% on earth.
From this, the partial pressures are easy to calculate. The
partial pressure of carbon dioxide on Mars is 5.7 millibars. The
partial pressure of carbon dioxide on earth is 36 millibars. So the
greenhouse effect, if there is one, is a factor 6.3 greater on earth
than on Mars.
Of course, I haven’t made up for the fact that the solar flux is
twice as great on Earth as it is on Mars.
That is why Mars is colder.
PD
>
> - Show quoted text -
Not to mention the fact that there is much more water vapor in the
Earth's atmosphere than there is in the Martian atmosphere. This is
important because the absorption and re-radiation mechanism of the
greenhouse effect involves the interaction of several different
contributors (the top two of which on Earth are water vapor and carbon
dioxide).
Moreover, since the concentration affects both the absorption rate of
light reflected from the surface, and the re-radiation rate to other
absorbers, its effect on heating goes like the concentration squared.
Finally, the Earth has oceans which continue to feed the greenhouse
effect AT NIGHT, because of all the energy absorbed during the day.
Thus a high CO2 atmosphere on Mars is not expected to be a case study
of greenhouse heating because
- the partial pressure of CO2 is so low
- the absence of water vapor to absorb (and further re-radiate) the
light radiated from CO2
- the lower incident power from the sun
- the absence of oceans which would store energy for fueling
greenhouse heating at night.
Androcles
================================================
You are obviously a clairvoyant spin doctor who can foretell the
future. I was advocating experiment as Donald fuckin' Duck suggested,
not your prophecies.
PD
The chemistry of partial pressures is pretty old and well established.
It is so because it is thoroughly experimentally tested. That's what
makes scientific models so useful -- you can make predictions you have
some confidence in -- without having to test every single instance.
This is what engineers rely on. They believe, for example, that
Newton's laws work pretty darned well and so they design stuff based
on them, and they're ok signing off on the design, without having to
actually build it to see if Newton's laws still work before they sign
off.
PD
Darwin123
> > > makes the whole world warmer. It doesn't seem to have done much
> > > for Mars...
> > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Mars
> > > Annual mean temperatures at the surface are currently less than 210 K
> > > (-63
> > > °C; -82 °F), 95%CO2.
> > > I'd call that cold enough to freeze the balls off a brass monkey.
>
> > The atmosphere of Mars is not as dense as the atmosphere of the
> > earth.
> > ========================================
> > Really? Oh well, let's experiment to test your prophecy and reduce
> > the Earth's atmosphere to the same as that of Mars and see if that
> > makes the globe warmer with 95% carbon dioxide.
>
> You were obviously not a chemical engineer. Therefore, I will do
> the calculation for you.
> ================================================
> You are obviously a clairvoyant spin doctor who can foretell the
> future. I was advocating experiment as Donald fuckin' Duck suggested,
> not your prophecies.
You didn't cartch my mistake. I ooped, but not too badly. I That is
0.036 percent. So it is 3.6 millibars of carbon dioxide on earth, but
still 5.7 millibars of carbon dioxide on mars. So the greenhouse
effect from carbon dioxide is 1.6 times greater on Mars than on
earth.
However, the amount of solar flux is still twice as much on earth
as it is on Mars. So earth should still be warmer.
Androcles
> > > I'd call that cold enough to freeze the balls off a brass monkey.
>
> > The atmosphere of Mars is not as dense as the atmosphere of the
> > earth.
> > ========================================
> > Really? Oh well, let's experiment to test your prophecy and reduce
> > the Earth's atmosphere to the same as that of Mars and see if that
> > makes the globe warmer with 95% carbon dioxide.
>
> You were obviously not a chemical engineer. Therefore, I will do
> the calculation for you.
> ================================================
> You are obviously a clairvoyant spin doctor who can foretell the
> future. I was advocating experiment as Donald fuckin' Duck suggested,
> not your prophecies.
You didn't cartch my mistake.
===============================================
Whry wourld Ir borther tor cartch yrour mirstrake? I have no proof
of your prophecies and neither do you.
I ooped, but not too badly.
================================================
You ooped extremely badly, you forgot to provide empirical data.
According to your theory temperature is a function of CO2 density.
I am trying to provoke you into a hysterical fit.
I think that make me a troll, technically. However, I am also
presenting relevant facts. So I am not bullshitting you. I am not
lying. I am trolling.-- drosen
Reference:
c3c7693a-2c95-4df0...@v37g2000vbv.googlegroups.com
spudnik
THE vacuum, or massless "corpuscles of light." I mean,
"quantum foam" and Zero Pt, Energy ain't Pascal's fault; is they?
> The chemistry of partial pressures is pretty old and well established.
> It is so because it is thoroughly experimentally tested.
--the Queen of the sciences!
http://wlym.com
--les ducs d'oil!
http://tarpley.net
eric gisse
> I'm sure you all know that the censored forum supported by Scientific
> American, Physics Forums, has taken over "moderation" of
> Sci.physics.research. Or should I say taken over censorship of it.
You say that as if it were a bad thing.
>
> Censorship for the "control" of science has been a major function of
> the popular science press like Scientific American for a very long
> time as has been "peer review" and censorship of scientific journals
> been a major "control" pathway in science. For example holowarmer
> shills like "Sam Wormely" greatly depend upon the popular science
> press to provide myriad "cites" that support their current
> promotions.
Again, you say "peer review" and "control of science" as if it were a bad
thing. If you don't like editorial control, feel free to post your screed on
blogspot, here, or the other various open access journals.
I'm sure the corresponding decrease in quality is entirely coincidental.
[snip rest, tired of the sarcastic quotes on every other word]
Thomas Heger
> The bottom line is the clever destruction of any "real" science with
> science "journalism" leading the way. Especially hideous is the way in
> which censorship occurs in secret behind the scenes. There are never
> any opposing views because opposing views are stripped out BEFORE
> anything appears. The public never learns that that there even WAS an
> opposing viewpoint.
>
For me it looks like the 'bad guys' overdone it. One day soon nobody
takes a piece of bread from them.
TH
Vince Morgan
"PD" <thedrap...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:66e09bb5-b6c9-4699...@w30g2000yqw.googlegroups.com...
> > > I'd call that cold enough to freeze the balls off a brass monkey.
>
> > The atmosphere of Mars is not as dense as the atmosphere of the
> > earth.
> > ========================================
> > Really? Oh well, let's experiment to test your prophecy and reduce
> > the Earth's atmosphere to the same as that of Mars and see if that
> > makes the globe warmer with 95% carbon dioxide.
>
> You were obviously not a chemical engineer. Therefore, I will do
> the calculation for you.
> ================================================
> You are obviously a clairvoyant spin doctor who can foretell the
> future. I was advocating experiment as Donald fuckin' Duck suggested,
> not your prophecies.
>The chemistry of partial pressures is pretty old and well established.
>It is so because it is thoroughly experimentally tested. That's what
>makes scientific models so useful -- you can make predictions you have
>some confidence in -- without having to test every single instance.
>This is what engineers rely on. They believe, for example, that
>Newton's laws work pretty darned well and so they design stuff based
>on them, and they're ok signing off on the design, without having to
>actually build it to see if Newton's laws still work before they sign
>off.
And a blind roach living in a cave can be convinced that there exists
nothing other than the roaches, and the universal cave. Any number of
experiments may be devised to prove it. If a roach of sufficient esteem
were to state it as fact, well, then who would dare suggest further
investigation is required? If a sceptical roach were to mention that he
occasioanaly feels a breeze he would then be required to prove what a breese
is first, and of course then the breeze would have to be replicated on
demand! The fact that he could not do this is then offered as proof that
there is no such thing as a breeze in the whole universe/cave, and that he
is clearly fraudelent in his claims about said breeze.
Anyone else thereon who noticed a breeze quickly remembers the humiliation
of the first skeptical roach who would now be skuttling ahead of Benj's
broom at Burger King, if such a place were to exist in caveland.
Knowing that everything you were taught works doesn't prove in the least
that what you were not taught cannot! This seems to be rather difficult to
understand, apparently.
The fact is there are anomolies and the establishment has a track record of
lambasting, or worse, anyone who will not forget that they do exist.
I beleive that Richard Feynman once said "The exception tests the rule."and
so, when we have anomolies we, we, ohhh, that's right, we ignore them as
measurement errors and lambast the researcher. There is only one reality
and that's the universal cave, but some just don't get it.
Regards,
Vince
Vince Morgan
And there lies a bit of a dilemna.
If what one can learn has to first be rigorously filtered through those who
have learned via the very same process, it's a rather closed loop don't you
think?
Although the current system has obvious advantages, it most certainly has
obvious flaws as well, and that's the real issue I think.
You can talk about the positives all day, but it's the otherwise that's in
question here I beleive. Do you think it's reasonable for the police to
investigate police corruption? The police usualy insist it is, and surely
they would know a bit about investigations etc etc etc and so on and so
forth. The fox now guards the hen house I'm afraid.
Who gaurds the guard while the gaurd guards you?
Regards,
Vince
harald
> I'm sure you all know that the censored forum supported by Scientific
> American, Physics Forums, has taken over "moderation" of
> Sci.physics.research. Or should I say taken over censorship of it.
Huh? No I wasn't informed at all - where did you get that info form?
Harald
PD
wrote:
> "PD" <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote in message
Not really. Because what is taught to physicists in training is not so
much *content* as it is *how to investigate*. This makes the key
difference.
> Although the current system has obvious advantages, it most certainly has
> obvious flaws as well, and that's the real issue I think.
> You can talk about the positives all day, but it's the otherwise that's in
> question here I beleive. Do you think it's reasonable for the police to
> investigate police corruption? The police usualy insist it is, and surely
> they would know a bit about investigations etc etc etc and so on and so
> forth. The fox now guards the hen house I'm afraid.
> Who gaurds the guard while the gaurd guards you?
You've missed my point. The OP feels strongly, apparently, that
everyone should be made aware of things he feels are important,
whether those things are important to everyone or not. He is not
satisfied with having a place where he can speak his mind freely (like
a blog), and where those who are *interested* can find him. He wants
access to the audience that is not so interested in what he has to
say.
> Regards,
> Vince
Marvin the Martian
> On Jul 15, 2:00 pm, Benj <bjac...@iwaynet.net> wrote:
>> I'm sure you all know that the censored forum supported by Scientific
>> American, Physics Forums, has taken over "moderation" of
>> Sci.physics.research. Or should I say taken over censorship of it.
>>
>>
> Moderation is not censorship, though anyone on the wrong end of the
> stick could equivocate.
True enough, moderation is not censorship. But your logic is flawed;
censorship can be imposed by "moderators".
Actually, the leftist who can resist being a dictator when handed a
little power is rare.
Interesting that you support such abuse and shutting down of dialog.
And yes, the staff of "Scientific American" abandoned science for left
wing politics decades ago. It's a worthless rag now.
PD
> On Thu, 15 Jul 2010 13:51:19 -0700, PD wrote:
> > On Jul 15, 2:00 pm, Benj <bjac...@iwaynet.net> wrote:
> >> I'm sure you all know that the censored forum supported by Scientific
> >> American, Physics Forums, has taken over "moderation" of
> >> Sci.physics.research. Or should I say taken over censorship of it.
>
> > Moderation is not censorship, though anyone on the wrong end of the
> > stick could equivocate.
>
> True enough, moderation is not censorship. But your logic is flawed;
> censorship can be imposed by "moderators".
Moderation is imposed by moderators. Whether that is perceived as
censorship is in the hands of the beholder.
>
> Actually, the leftist who can resist being a dictator when handed a
> little power is rare.
That may be so, but keep in mind that a lot of societies DELIBERATELY
choose someone to exercise that kind of control over certain aspects
of their lives.
Such is the case with subscribers to moderated forums. They are
choosing them BECAUSE they are moderated. They are not choosing them
because they are the only things available and they have to suffer
with the fact that they are moderated.
I will reiterate that there are AMPLE opportunities to publish
information in a completely unmoderated fashion, and in such a way
that they can be easily discovered. There is no ADDITIONAL need to
break the moderation in a moderated forum, so that unmoderated
information is displayed to that audience. To do so would make that
forum undesirable to the audience that subscribed to it.
There are unmoderated forums and moderated forums, with subscribers to
each. It does absolutely no good to desire the abolition of moderated
forums.
franklinhu
> On Jul 16, 10:44 am, Marvin the Martian <mar...@ontomars.org> wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 15 Jul 2010 13:51:19 -0700, PD wrote:
> > > On Jul 15, 2:00 pm, Benj <bjac...@iwaynet.net> wrote:
> > >> I'm sure you all know that the censored forum supported by Scientific
> > >> American, Physics Forums, has taken over "moderation" of
> > >> Sci.physics.research. Or should I say taken over censorship of it.
>
> > > Moderation is not censorship, though anyone on the wrong end of the
> > > stick could equivocate.
>
> > True enough, moderation is not censorship. But your logic is flawed;
> > censorship can be imposed by "moderators".
>
> Moderation is imposed by moderators. Whether that is perceived as
> censorship is in the hands of the beholder.
>
Censorship is too broad a term. The real question is 'what is the job
of the moderator in these forums?' I would think that the moderator
should filter out personal insults and irrelevant topics and other
such non-science junk. I think what the OP complains about is that
even if someone posts a perfectly well researched and thought out
topic that meets EVERY standard of scientific inquiry, that if it
disagrees at all with the current scientific thought, that it will be
disallowed in the forum. Anything which deviates from the status quo
is being considered 'junk', when it should not be. I don't believe it
is the job of the moderator to decide that something that someone
submits must be wrong and therefore doesn't allow them to be
published. They should only look at whether the arguments are
presented in a sensible manner and may be of interest to someone else
interested in the same topic - nothing more. So, if I try to publish
something about "electrostatic gravity" as long as I back it up with
some logic, this should be allowed. However, I think in most cases, it
is not allowed since we all know that gravity isn't electrostatic in
nature - right? So no one is allowed to read about how gravity could
possibly be electrostatic. This is what the OP is complaining about,
not just some random censorship. There ought to be moderation
standards which strictly forbid the moderation of the types of ideas
that may be posted - a freedom of speech right. But that never happens
With regards with sci.physics.research, that forum is lucky to get 1
post a day. How uninteresting is that? How useless is that - there
isn't any real discussion going on and I doubt anyone spends much time
on that forum for that reason. Not open and not interesting. If
sci.physics.research wanted to be interesting, they'd just moderate
out the non-science junk so that posters would know that all ideas are
allowed. But here in the wild west of sci.physics, there are lots of
posts and lots of people like yourself who are willing to fling
yourself into long conversations on just about anything.
But of course, the problem here is that nobody is here to collaborate
on ideas here either. It merely serves as a shooting gallery where the
"real" scientists take shots at the crackpots. Case in point, I just
wrote a lengthy article describing how to calculate the atomic line
spectra and intensity using only Rydberg formulas. This is feat which
has apparently never been done before. I'd think it would be a pretty
big deal, but in the shooting gallery of sci.physics, nobody has taken
a shot at it with zero substantial responses.
Why? I can only guess it is becuase this is a shooting gallery, and if
you can't take a shot, you don't. I painted a huge target, but no one
is willing to shoot at it. The only other reason is that if what I say
is correct, it completely blows away the foundations of the quantum
mechanical atomic model which has been saying it is impossible to make
such formulas for years and makes all the "real" scientists look like
fools for not having discovered it themselves long ago - it show just
how far into their shells they have withdrawn to completely ignore
obvious results. To say anything would be to admit defeat.
Now, it would be great, if forums were only moderated for rude
behavior and legibility and the forums were there to help collaborate
on new ideas rather than just shoot them down for fun. But, we have
human nature to contend with and I'll take what I can get - long live
sci.physics!
>
>
> > Actually, the leftist who can resist being a dictator when handed a
> > little power is rare.
>
> That may be so, but keep in mind that a lot of societies DELIBERATELY
> choose someone to exercise that kind of control over certain aspects
> of their lives.
>
> Such is the case with subscribers to moderated forums. They are
> choosing them BECAUSE they are moderated. They are not choosing them
> because they are the only things available and they have to suffer
> with the fact that they are moderated.
>
> I will reiterate that there are AMPLE opportunities to publish
> information in a completely unmoderated fashion, and in such a way
> that they can be easily discovered. There is no ADDITIONAL need to
> break the moderation in a moderated forum, so that unmoderated
> information is displayed to that audience. To do so would make that
> forum undesirable to the audience that subscribed to it.
>
> There are unmoderated forums and moderated forums, with subscribers to
> each. It does absolutely no good to desire the abolition of moderated
> forums.
>
>
>
>
>
> > Interesting that you support such abuse and shutting down of dialog.
>
> > And yes, the staff of "Scientific American" abandoned science for left
> > wing politics decades ago. It's a worthless rag now.- Hide quoted text -
Benj
> Benji, keep in mind there is "science" and what is popularly known as
> "junk science". The public doesn't know the difference, which is
> essentially that real "science" makes testable predictions, while
> "junk science" consists only of conjecture.
>
> Don
Actually Don, you need to keep in mind that there are THREE things:
Science, "Junk Science" and politics.
The problem is that these three areas have become blurred...probably
on purpose.
Science and politics are polar opposites. The main features of science
are supposed to be open mindedness, truth, and experiment (reality) as
the true test of being right or wrong. Lies, force, dogma and
censorship are as natural to politics as a bear taking a dump in the
woods.
Thus, when one blurs the borders, there occurs what is usually called
propaganda. That means that one is using the (prior) reputation of
science to further a political goal. Such activities became quite
common after WWII. However, that does not mean it never happened
before (remember the Galileo incident?)
So one point I'm making here is that if scientists (or anyone with a
strong interest in science for that matter) allow a political
infestation into their activities, the outcome is surely going to be a
loss of open-mindedness, disregard for truth, and experimental outcome
based upon reality being replaced by dogma. And of course it's worse
than that, given the natural functions of politics. Force and
intimidation starts to be used to maintain dogma. Censorship is
employed to insure that views counter to the views one wishes to have
expressed for political reasons are never heard. Even the QUESTIONS
are stripped from discussions in secret so even participants in a
discussion, let alone the audience, are never aware that the given
questions were ever raised. If they are never raised then they
obviously cannot be intelligently discussed.
Yes, the gulf oil blowout (sorry, the media term "spill" is too much
"spin" for me) is a disaster. And there are a lot of politics involved
in it. All this is natural. But what is much less natural and
troubling is when that kind of politics starts appearing in Phys. Rev.
and the leadership of long lists of scientific organizations. I'm sure
this is not surprising if one uses the old-time rule: Follow the
money. Even the tenure system is failing as tenured faculty find they
are getting the axe for discussing scientific topics from the "wrong"
political viewpoint.
I find all this a very serious and important problem. From the
discussion here so far, I can see that there are many who have been
trained to turn a blind eye toward these things and deny they exist.
Of course the further question of what do DO about it is why a large
discussion is needed! And I find the discussion here so far amazingly
thoughtful! It's a good start!
eric gisse
> On Jul 15, 4:10 pm, Don <don.duc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Benji, keep in mind there is "science" and what is popularly known as
>> "junk science". The public doesn't know the difference, which is
>> essentially that real "science" makes testable predictions, while
>> "junk science" consists only of conjecture.
>>
>> Don
>
> Actually Don, you need to keep in mind that there are THREE things:
> Science, "Junk Science" and politics.
>
> The problem is that these three areas have become blurred...probably
> on purpose.
You have no training in the sciences so how do you expect to tell the three
apart?
Benj
> > Actually Don, you need to keep in mind that there are THREE things:
> > Science, "Junk Science" and politics.
>
> > The problem is that these three areas have become blurred...probably
> > on purpose.
>
> You have no training in the sciences so how do you expect to tell the three
> apart?
And the way you know what my "training" in the sciences is would be?
I have noticed that you have taken the position that censorship in
science is good thing and gives an increase in the "quality" of the
work. I take a different view.
There have been some suggestions so far that seem imply that we need
to agree on some definitions. For example a blog has been suggested as
a substitute for a forum.
Blog: A blog would be a website dedicated to some proposition.
Generally speaking, I'd say it fails to meet our purpose because
information flow is primarily unidirectional. In other words there is
little discussion. A forum on the other hand has the purpose (like
this one) for contributors to freely exchange thoughts and ideas.
Forum. A Forum either moderated or unmoderated has the purpose of
discussion of a topic rather than a simple presentation of a single
viewpoint (blog). The idea (which I believe to be true) is that when a
large variety of opinions are expressed - even some that are totally
in error - and an unrestricted discussion is permitted, there is a
significant chance that some kind of "synergy" will result where the
whole is greater than the sum of the opinions. In other words obvious
errors will be rejected and other ideas will be examined and
discussed in an effort to find "truth". While a final "truth" may or
may not be reached in any given case, I do believe that the value of
forums is that through discussion your thinking gets changed. And that
is essentially what progress is: A change in thinking. A scientist
once remarked to me that often you can make great progress just by
discussing your problem with the janitor (who hasn't a clue what you
are doing!) It's not that he gives you the answers (he can't) but
it's that the discussion breaks you out of the thinking patterns in
which you are stuck.
Unmoderated Forum. An unmoderated forum is the ultimate expression of
free speech. Rules are typically only suggestions. The forum is
designated to emphasize a given topic, but that can't be enforced.
Hence the problem with such discussions is that any given member can
fill the forum with any kind of garbage and irrelevant trash. It might
be the person has mental illness and thinks that internet posting will
"cure" them. It might be someone insisting one moving the discussion
to totally off-topic irrelevant subjects or it might be persons with a
political agenda PURPOSELY disrupting the discussion to insure that
any change in thought processes will not occur. All these things have
been seen repeatedly on USENET. These things are the are the online
equivalent of a group of people beating large drums at a Chamber of
Commerce meeting.
Moderated Group. To try to solve the disruption problem people have
formed moderated forums. They put someone in charge of filtering out
all the "noise". This moderator uses some sort of judgment to
eliminate posts deemed "unproductive". But there is a problem here.
One has to do with human nature. Psychological experiments (the guard-
prisoner experiments) have shown that there is a GREAT human tendency
to abuse power when granted authority. This means that our moderator
can begin to not just filter noise and disruption but can also filter
discussion according to their beliefs as well. In other words
moderation turns into censorship. And of course it gets worse.
Politicians gravitate toward power and authority the way bears
gravitate to honey. Hence the worst possible case is when the same
persons with a political agenda who were disrupting the unmoderated
forum with noise, take over moderation of a moderated forum and then
use that authority to skillfully manipulate the discussions away from
positions and topics they deem opposed to their causes. Again the
effect of mixing politics and science is to prevent any real
discussion that can change thinking. The danger of the moderated forum
is that it gives the false IMPRESSION to outsiders that a real
discussion is actually taking place (who would be the persons the
politics are trying to influence). But in the case of censorship, a
true scientific discussion is clearly NOT taking place. Even it the
discussions are "true" meaning factual, the censorship limiting the
discussion keeps them from being open-minded. As someone noted here
already, science advances by the EXCEPTIONS. Hence when censorship
filters all exceptions, it filters all real science!
Which leads to the ultimate question of THIS discussion: What is the
difference between censorship and moderation?
I suggest that one need look no further than what science is (open-
mindedness, truth, experiment as final judge) to make such a decision.
On the other hand false arguments (ad hominem attacks, appeal to
authority, proof by assertion, etc.) are not truth and should be
"moderated". But restricting all discussions only to those "facts"
found in a freshman textbook, is not open-minded. How should one
judge a discussion (or paper) on UFOs? Since they are not found in
freshman physics texts do they not exist? Should some kind of
established official dogma be the standard for judging truth? I think
you can see the problem with this given the attraction of politics to
power. If one can simply gain control of "official doctrine" then one
easily gains control of science to further your political agenda.
Examples abound.
Does this not make sense?
Androcles
"Benj" <bja...@iwaynet.net> wrote in message
news:81bf8752-4a45-4b74...@x21g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
================================
Not to Gisse, he's troll, all troll and nothing but a dropout.
eric gisse
> On Jul 17, 5:32 am, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> > Actually Don, you need to keep in mind that there are THREE things:
>> > Science, "Junk Science" and politics.
>>
>> > The problem is that these three areas have become blurred...probably
>> > on purpose.
>>
>> You have no training in the sciences so how do you expect to tell the
>> three apart?
>
> And the way you know what my "training" in the sciences is would be?
The same way you know a person isn't a doctor.
But I could be wrong, what is your education in science? Did you go to
university and study a natural science?
> I have noticed that you have taken the position that censorship in
> science is good thing and gives an increase in the "quality" of the
> work. I take a different view.
Is it "censorship" when a newspaper doesn't allow every letter to the editor
to be published?
As it has been explained, people specifically seek out publication venues
that have editorial control. You might think it is censorship, and that's
your right. You can quite easily publish in an open access journal, or on
your own personal home page. But even then do not be surprised if your
manuscript written in crayon is rejected.
>
> There have been some suggestions so far that seem imply that we need
> to agree on some definitions. For example a blog has been suggested as
> a substitute for a forum.
By who, a moron?
A forum is a message board. A blog is one person's home page with a system
for commenting on his stuff.
>
> Blog: A blog would be a website dedicated to some proposition.
That's not a blog.
[...]
> Which leads to the ultimate question of THIS discussion: What is the
> difference between censorship and moderation?
Censorship is imposed upon people, moderation is requested by people.
You'll note that participation in sci.physics.research is 100% voluntary,
while participation in the Chinese firewalling and web filtering is not.
>
> I suggest that one need look no further than what science is (open-
> mindedness, truth, experiment as final judge) to make such a decision.
> On the other hand false arguments (ad hominem attacks, appeal to
> authority, proof by assertion, etc.) are not truth and should be
> "moderated".
People who act stupid will be called out as such. The only difference is how
subtle the process is. Technical literature can be snarky if you know what
you are looking at.
> But restricting all discussions only to those "facts"
> found in a freshman textbook, is not open-minded.
Nor is that what is actually done.
> How should one
> judge a discussion (or paper) on UFOs?
By its' merits. The same as everything else.
> Since they are not found in
> freshman physics texts do they not exist?
Is that as far as you've delved in to physics? A freshman textbook on the
subject?
> Should some kind of
> established official dogma be the standard for judging truth? I think
> you can see the problem with this given the attraction of politics to
> power. If one can simply gain control of "official doctrine" then one
> easily gains control of science to further your political agenda.
> Examples abound.
>
> Does this not make sense?
What makes sense is that you clearly don't have a firm grasp on how science
is actually done in the 21st century.
Vince Morgan
"eric gisse" <jowr.pi...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:i1t725$q6f$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
> Benj wrote:
>
> What makes sense is that you clearly don't have a firm grasp on how
science
> is actually done in the 21st century.
I think the IPCC has given many a much clearer view of how science CAN, and
is being done in the 21 century. And not only that it CAN be done by hand
waving, lack of method, lack of transparency, stacking the peer review
process etc etc. , but it is also teaching us all that if you have a large
enough political body behind you, you can not only completely disregard any
geniuine critisism by your peers, but that of anyone else for that matter.
The IPCC is now absolute PROOF that science doesn't have to be 'scientific'
in the 21 century. If you can get enough peers to claim that they agree, or
just make up some numbers to suggest they do, then today you can claim your
theory and or research is largely infallible. If the tree ring data doesn't
fit the measured temps, then make a hocky stick out of it and see if it will
fly anyway. And when you get caught out you appeal to the political
authority to fix it whilest you take a leasurely vacation. Later returning
with the caim that you have been completely exonerated. Exonerated by whom?
The political authority of course. This is NOT science and a child can see
that. But then again, the emporers non existent new cloths were only so
clearly visible to the much more sophisticated grown ups weren't they.
Certain areas of science today (by far the majority) have taken on a very
different philosophy to the scientific method. One that we should all be
very concerned about I think. Science by concensus. You know the way it
goes. "Everyone agrees with me, so you are certainly wrong." If you ask
for that list of 'everyone', they then rapidly and rancidly apply add
hominem attacks.
What has recently taken place at the University of East Anglia and the IPCC
puts any argument that science is today still scientific completely to rest
It's not even a matter of whether their conclusions are right or wrong, it's
how they are doing it that should be of very very great concerne. The fact
that so few aren't in the least concerned is even more worrying. If I
couldn't, or refused, to supply the source-code and data for a computer
application I were to write for any company that had any kind of security
policy they would be absolute fools to accept it. Paying tens of thousands
for a untrustworthy computer application is one thing, but a multi million
dollar international taxation scheme based on same principals is something
else again. Whilest such things are going ahead largely unchallenged by
supposed scientists and researchers only a fool would put his trust in
science today. Fortunately for some there are a great many of them
apparently.
Regards,
Vince
Vince Morgan
"eric gisse" <jowr.pi...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:i1t725$q6f$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
> Benj wrote:
>
> What makes sense is that you clearly don't have a firm grasp on how
science
> is actually done in the 21st century.
I think the IPCC has given many a much clearer view of how science CAN, and
Androcles
"Vince Morgan" <vin...@TAKEOUToptusnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:4c4265ef$0$7966$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
"etc etc. ," -> etc. etc.,
"geniuine" -> genuine
"critisism" -> criticism
"21 century" -> 21st century
"hocky" -> hockey
"leasurely" - > leisurely
"emporers non existent new cloths" -> emperor's non-existent new clothes
"grown ups weren't they." -> grown-ups, weren't they?
"very very great concerne" -> great concern
"same principals" -> same principles
"Whilest" -> Whilst
I cannot fault the gist of your missive but you need an editor, my friend.
Szczepan Bialek
"franklinhu" <frank...@yahoo.com> wrote
news:af75e346-82d1-4bd3...@k1g2000prl.googlegroups.com...
>
> So, if I try to publish
something about "electrostatic gravity" as long as I back it up with
some logic, this should be allowed. However, I think in most cases, it
is not allowed since we all know that gravity isn't electrostatic in
nature - right?
No. We know from Aepinus that gravity and electrostatic are the same.
We now know that Moon dust levitate. We know that the Earth has the exces of
electrons and for thie reason the gravity constant measured by Cavendish is
too low.
>So no one is allowed to read about how gravity could
possibly be electrostatic.
Aepinus is in Britannica. Everybody can read.
>Now, it would be great, if forums were only moderated for rude
behavior and legibility and the forums were there to help collaborate
on new ideas rather than just shoot them down for fun. But, we have
human nature to contend with and I'll take what I can get - long live
sci.physics!
Sci.physics.electrostatic - is it a wrong idea?
XXI century needs the new electrostatics.
S*
PD
I think your ideas on moderation are what YOU want them to be. I also
believe that your notions of what "satisfies EVERY standard of
scientific inquiry" need some refinement. In the customary practice of
science, the investigator bears the burden, for example, of looking up
all existing experimental data that are relevant to the claims of a
proposed model. The investigator also bears the burden of looking up
any theoretical work of previous investigators that may have bearing
on the proposed model. There is more to scientific inquiry than
coherence of logic or orderliness of presentation.
For example, you obviously have not looked at previous work that
investigated an electrostatic basis for gravity. So you don't have a
grip on what problems those theories ran into and what your version
must also address. That burden lies on YOU, not on others to reveal to
you.
>
> With regards with sci.physics.research, that forum is lucky to get 1
> post a day. How uninteresting is that? How useless is that - there
> isn't any real discussion going on and I doubt anyone spends much time
> on that forum for that reason. Not open and not interesting. If
> sci.physics.research wanted to be interesting, they'd just moderate
> out the non-science junk so that posters would know that all ideas are
> allowed. But here in the wild west of sci.physics, there are lots of
> posts and lots of people like yourself who are willing to fling
> yourself into long conversations on just about anything.
Well, here you see you have an expectation of a group that may be
different than those who are active in the group. To a lot of serious
investigators, they would rather see one quality post a day than a
free-form discussion of several responses a day of lesser quality. You
find it uninteresting. So stop using that forum.
>
> But of course, the problem here is that nobody is here to collaborate
> on ideas here either. It merely serves as a shooting gallery where the
> "real" scientists take shots at the crackpots. Case in point, I just
> wrote a lengthy article describing how to calculate the atomic line
> spectra and intensity using only Rydberg formulas. This is feat which
> has apparently never been done before. I'd think it would be a pretty
> big deal, but in the shooting gallery of sci.physics, nobody has taken
> a shot at it with zero substantial responses.
And here I would comment that I do not believe any of the science
groups serve well or are INTENDED to serve as a forum of scientific
collaboration in the usual sense. That's simply not what it's for. If
you were hoping that sci.physics is a place where you can work with
other scientists and collaborate to produce a publishable work, then
I'm afraid you've come to the wrong place.
>
> Why? I can only guess it is becuase this is a shooting gallery, and if
> you can't take a shot, you don't. I painted a huge target, but no one
> is willing to shoot at it. The only other reason is that if what I say
> is correct, it completely blows away the foundations of the quantum
> mechanical atomic model which has been saying it is impossible to make
> such formulas for years and makes all the "real" scientists look like
> fools for not having discovered it themselves long ago - it show just
> how far into their shells they have withdrawn to completely ignore
> obvious results. To say anything would be to admit defeat.
Sorry, but this is self-serving crapola. It's a cheap "dare-ya"
tactic. It's a foolish taunt, "If you don't rise to my challenge, then
it's because you're quaking in your boots." Has it ever occurred to
you that what you propose just isn't of much interest?
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
franklinhu
> > you can't take a shot, you don't. I painted a huge target, but no one
> > is willing to shoot at it. The only other reason is that if what I say
> > is correct, it completely blows away the foundations of the quantum
> > mechanical atomic model which has been saying it is impossible to make
> > such formulas for years and makes all the "real" scientists look like
> > fools for not having discovered it themselves long ago - it show just
> > how far into their shells they have withdrawn to completely ignore
> > obvious results. To say anything would be to admit defeat.
>
> Sorry, but this is self-serving crapola. It's a cheap "dare-ya"
> tactic. It's a foolish taunt, "If you don't rise to my challenge, then
> it's because you're quaking in your boots." Has it ever occurred to
> you that what you propose just isn't of much interest?
>
>
Are you saying that the ability to calculate the spectra for ions
which are not hydrogen-like is not interesting? Considering that I
find no references for how to do this, and considering that atomic
spectra is a very important part of quantum mechanics, I can't see how
this wouldn't be of interest.
fhuspectra
PD
It is of interest. As I said, you bear the burden to find the research
on the emission spectra for non-hydrogen-like ions. The field of
atomic physics has been around for a long time.
You may want to look up "Hartree-Fock" or "Møller–Plesset perturbation
theory" or "LCAO method".
Alternatively, you can go to scholar.google.com and try entering
things like "theoretical emission spectra [x]" where [x] might be the
name of an element, or "halides" or "halogens" or "alkali earth" or
"lanthanides" or "metals", and start to dive in. You will see several
thousand articles.
Alternatively, you could go to the library and look up the Journal for
Computational Chemistry, and just browse through the articles there.
>
> fhuspectra- Hide quoted text -
PD
wrote:
> "PD" <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote in message
But science operates in the realm of the reproducible.
It may well be that there is some one-off anomaly that signals a
deviation from a rule.
But such things fall outside the scope of science and into the domain
of miracles, which by definition are irreproducible anomalies.
What science deals with are explanations that operate by means of
rules, where the rules apply under certain circumstances, and the rule
is verified by setting up or finding those circumstances and seeing if
the rule does rigorously hold. If it cannot be subjected to that test,
then science has no way to deal with it, and it therefore falls
outside scientific investigation.
That doesn't say that it isn't TRUE. It may well be true, but its
truth cannot be established by scientific methods.
I think it's important to recognize that just because something is
material doesn't mean that all of its behaviors are subject to
scientific investigation. Perceived beauty in an art museum involves
material things but is not a subject for scientific investigation.
Vince Morgan
On Jul 16, 3:55 am, "Vince Morgan" <vin...@TAKEOUToptusnet.com.au>
wrote:
> "PD" <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:66e09bb5-b6c9-4699...@w30g2000yqw.googlegroups.com...
> On Jul 15, 5:09 pm, "Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics_z> wrote:
> But science operates in the realm of the reproducible.
> It may well be that there is some one-off anomaly that signals a
> deviation from a rule.
> But such things fall outside the scope of science and into the domain
> of miracles, which by definition are irreproducible anomalies.
I guess you don't understand what I'm saying. I'm not talking about
irreproducable miraculous oddities. I'm talking about anomolies that can be
reproduced on demad, any time any day, anywhere..
Take K-electron capture in helium for example.
A proton absorbs a K shell electron, ejects an xray and momentarily becomes
a neutron. A moment later the electron, an xray, then a gamma photon are
ejected. The measured energy of the ejected photon is not the 3.7 angstroms
it would be in a solid, it's about 2.4 angstroms. The remaining energy is
to be found in the recoiling helim nuclues. The energy released being
vastly greater than that required to initiate the capture in the first
place, and it's infinately repeatable. It has nothing whatsoever to do with
'photelectrics' as some try to insist. This certainly challenges
conservation of momentum in a very serious way.
Then there is the work of the Graneau Bros showing more energy released via
a spark in plain water, and gasses, than the energy required to produce the
spark. All measurement error? Easy to say from an armchair.
There are many many more and they cannot all be put down to measurement
error.
I have no interest in magjic, but a lot of interest in easily reproducable
anomolies like the above.
> What science deals with are explanations that operate by means of
> rules, where the rules apply under certain circumstances, and the rule
> is verified by setting up or finding those circumstances and seeing if
> the rule does rigorously hold. If it cannot be subjected to that test,
> then science has no way to deal with it, and it therefore falls
> outside scientific investigation.
> That doesn't say that it isn't TRUE. It may well be true, but its
> truth cannot be established by scientific methods.
Yes, the above is both true and replicable by scientific methods. And not
under some obscure occasional circumstance.
Regards,
Vince
Vince Morgan
[quote]
But science operates in the realm of the reproducible.
It may well be that there is some one-off anomaly that signals a
deviation from a rule.
But such things fall outside the scope of science and into the domain
of miracles, which by definition are irreproducible anomalies.
What science deals with are explanations that operate by means of
rules, where the rules apply under certain circumstances, and the rule
is verified by setting up or finding those circumstances and seeing if
the rule does rigorously hold. If it cannot be subjected to that test,
then science has no way to deal with it, and it therefore falls
outside scientific investigation.
That doesn't say that it isn't TRUE. It may well be true, but its
truth cannot be established by scientific methods.
I think it's important to recognize that just because something is
material doesn't mean that all of its behaviors are subject to
scientific investigation. Perceived beauty in an art museum involves
material things but is not a subject for scientific investigation.
[/quote]
I must appologise. My ficticious roach example was clearly not an example
of a reliable anomoly as my last reply might suggest.
What it was realy meant to point out is that any number of experiments may
be devised, that of and by themselves, seem to prove something. However, if
there is even one repeatable exception then the rule needs qualification or
further investigation. Again "The exception tests the rule", not the other
way around. If one were to investigate why Caltec had to pay damages to one
Joseph Pap in the seventies due to an error by one R Feynman one discovers
that even the most respected and revered scientists don't actualy know it
all. But this takes a lot more effort to investigate than simply putting
your faith in higher authority, and what they produce for consumption. If
they tell you all is fine in the kitchen who are we to ask what is causing
all the smoke?
Usualy conservation of momentum, as an example, is simply plugged in knowing
that it absolutely must apply in all cases. However, there are actual
cases, reliable repeatable cases that is, where it does break down. If you
plug it in arbitrarily and things just don't add up it can be virtualy
impossible for one who 'beleives' to uncover the actual problem.
The point is, there are very real anomolies where certain 'rules' break
down. And I'll go as far as to say that the fact that they are kept in the
dark as much as humanly possible is certainly not for the advancement of
science. You see, it's not that I don't understand science as such, it's
that I simply don't have enough faith in the high priests of science to
allow myself to ignore some things that defy their firmly entrenched
positions.
Regards,
Vince
Androcles
==========================================
Of course, nobody sane would write "breese", "fraudelent", "occasioanaly"
"anomolies" or "beleive" except a fraudulent troll.
Vince Morgan
"Androcles" <Headm...@Hogwarts.physics_z> wrote in message
news:Rv71o.191599$NM4.59145@hurricane...
Androcles
to me, especially when you are that someone else. However, it is quite
easy to detect something I've written versus something you've written
by the quantity of spelling errors you make. Have you considered getting
a spelling checker? They are free, you know. Or you should.
Vince Morgan
"Androcles" <Headm...@Hogwarts.physics_z> wrote in message
However, it is quite
> easy to detect something I've written versus something you've written
> by the quantity of spelling errors you make. Have you considered getting
> a spelling checker? They are free, you know. Or you should.
>
haven't installed one yet. I guess it is a little disrespectful and I will
correct the situation forthwith.
Regards,
Vince
Androcles
Yes, you did. Inappropriate snipping is the most common form of
misattribution.
If you are going to delete someone's words and replace them with your own
you should delete their name also.
===================quote=======================
"PD" <thedrap...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:eacd5202-c45b-4c98...@q35g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
On Jul 16, 3:55 am, "Vince Morgan" <vin...@TAKEOUToptusnet.com.au>
wrote:
> "PD" <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:66e09bb5-b6c9-4699...@w30g2000yqw.googlegroups.com...
> On Jul 15, 5:09 pm, "Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics_z> wrote:
> And a blind roach living in a cave can be convinced that there exists
===================unquote======================
Whatever it is about caves and blind Phuckwit Ducks that fascinates you,
I didn't write anything on the subject. I should warn you that Phuckwit
Duck is a self-declared troll, incapable of reasoned argument.
quote/
I have to admit that I am demoralized at the moment.
I had hoped that we could fight ignorance with a proactive rather
than a reactive approach, but this is clearly the improper forum for
that. A quick survey of the length of threads initiated by or drifting
to nonsense compared to the length of threads based on sound
thinking reveals the true interest in the proposal.
While it would be a useful project to contribute to the FAQ, the
intent was to educate in the context of discussion, a virtual
"classroom" if you will. There's no point in contributing to a
reference that none of the "students" will read or attempt to learn
from. The intention was to focus on *exactly* what is wrong in
someone's thinking (which varies from person to person), set it
straight, and then make progress from there.
I had high hopes -- really -- that perhaps one misguided soul would
read something sensible and say, "Oh... Really?...Oh. I see I was
confused. OK, I get it now. Now what about...?" My head knew better,
my heart does not.
[sitting in the duck blind, waiting with a shotgun for a duck to
appear]
PD
/unquote
"I've lost interest. Foam and blather and waste all the time you want.
You're not getting anywhere." -- Phuckwit Duck
(Meaning "I lost that argument, those grapes are sour".)
Ref: d23006a4-4a88-4efb...@c34g2000yqn.googlegroups.com
"You are not entitled to be educated. Someone who insists on
being willfully ignorant does not deserve to be dissuaded.
Nobody owes you anything. Nobody *should* do anything for
you. It's your choice to learn or not to learn."-- Phuckwit Duck
Ref: 571b8ace-cca8-4392...@o28g2000yqh.googlegroups.com
PD
Completely agree.
> If one were to investigate why Caltec had to pay damages to one
> Joseph Pap in the seventies due to an error by one R Feynman one discovers
> that even the most respected and revered scientists don't actualy know it
> all. But this takes a lot more effort to investigate than simply putting
> your faith in higher authority, and what they produce for consumption. If
> they tell you all is fine in the kitchen who are we to ask what is causing
> all the smoke?
> Usualy conservation of momentum, as an example, is simply plugged in knowing
> that it absolutely must apply in all cases. However, there are actual
> cases, reliable repeatable cases that is, where it does break down. If you
> plug it in arbitrarily and things just don't add up it can be virtualy
> impossible for one who 'beleives' to uncover the actual problem.
> The point is, there are very real anomolies where certain 'rules' break
> down. And I'll go as far as to say that the fact that they are kept in the
> dark as much as humanly possible is certainly not for the advancement of
> science. You see, it's not that I don't understand science as such, it's
> that I simply don't have enough faith in the high priests of science to
> allow myself to ignore some things that defy their firmly entrenched
> positions.
> Regards,
> Vince- Hide quoted text -
Tim BandTech.com
I am happy to falsify this falsification of Benj's post. Benj's post
is strong, and as I reread I see no claim that 'he wants access to the
audience'. This message is posted on sci.physics, which is an
unmoderated group. Here we all have the freedom to offer corrections,
and the attitude of the PDs of the world, and many of the PhDs of the
world cloaked as they are can be openly resented. Further, the
resentment can be validated, and the closed world view is better
expressed as curricular.
I offer this new word 'curricular' to the discussion because I do
believe that it is important. When the filtration process (censorship)
rejects conflicted information then it is forming a refined
curriculum, and this digestion is as unique as are the guts of various
mammals; one capable of digesting wood; another capable of digesting
meat. These are schools of thought, and they are in competition
somehow. The politics of validation are not at all science. They are
strictly human, and science is merely a human belief system, or
rather, in light of curriculum, science is a family of human belief
systems.
I do see that the structure cannot be unitarily decomposed, and that
the generation that grow up on a wikimedia form will be followed by
more careful groups that will expose their curricular structures more
carefully. The question of what is fundamental is the problem that we
face, and even an old dictionary does suffer the self referential
problem. Our language is already inherently conflicted, so it is
little wonder that we feel such tensions as between Benj and PD and
me. One goes with his nose up in the air, and the other goes with his
nose down to the ground. One monkey seeks fruit in the leaves of the
tree. Another monkey sits at the base of the tree and meditates, then
digs for the roots under the ground. Each can live and foster their
own digestive tracts, and what they become will be consequential. I
believe the next breakthrough is down in the roots.
The curricular concern is old but still applies. My own steerage
includes casting the problems as open, and exposing the heavy mimicry
involved in the human propagation of knowledge. These concerns
validate an awareness on constructive freedom, and without fostering
constructive freedom the progression is badly squelched.
- Tim
>
> > Regards,
> > Vince
Benj
> Our language is already inherently conflicted, so it is
> little wonder that we feel such tensions as between Benj and PD and
> me. One goes with his nose up in the air, and the other goes with his
> nose down to the ground. One monkey seeks fruit in the leaves of the
> tree. Another monkey sits at the base of the tree and meditates, then
> digs for the roots under the ground. Each can live and foster their
> own digestive tracts, and what they become will be consequential. I
> believe the next breakthrough is down in the roots.
I'm not sure which monkey I'm supposed to be, but it is clear that the
fruit in the trees is far more obvious than the roots under the
earth. Hence, it's clear that once the obvious has been discovered
and cataloged, further discovery involves a bit of digging deeper.
Those with a vested interest in "fruit" will obviously try to minimize
all discussions of "soil".
> The curricular concern is old but still applies. My own steerage
> includes casting the problems as open, and exposing the heavy mimicry
> involved in the human propagation of knowledge. These concerns
> validate an awareness on constructive freedom, and without fostering
> constructive freedom the progression is badly squelched.
SAT words to the contrary not withstanding, that is an excellent
summary of the problem.
Androcles
====================================
"the heavy mimicry involved in the human propagation of knowledge" = "monkey
see, monkey do".
The next breakthrough is to allow the fruit to overripen until the sugars
break down to a liquid form, which, when ingested, fosters constructive
freedom of thought. Phuckwit Duck's root beer is nowhere near as effective.
franklinhu
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Thank you for those references. After looking at them, I think it is
even more remarkable that I have been able to calculate the spectra of
He, Li, Be without using any approximation methods like Hartree-Fock,
or iterative methods or hamiltonians, or MO theory, or really
anything. It seems that the main problem was that everyone was trying
to calculate the spectra based on the model that the electrons are
found outside the nucleus and therefore present a multi-body problem.
If one just simply ignores that model and simply plots the data on a
graph as I have done, the energy pattern becomes immediately visible
and all the lines can be calculated as a simple scaling of the orginal
Rydberg formula.
But getting back to the subject of this post, this brings up another
interesting aspect of science which is that even if you are allowed to
publish something contrary to common knowledge, what happens is that
result is completely ignored. I think that is what has happened in
this case on the discovery of how to solve the spectra of Helium.
Bohr worked very hard to solve Helium and he couldn't do it. So, if I
am able to do it, that should be a pretty big deal if I could do
something that not even Bohr himself could do. But the response is
complete silence. I have sent my findings to 3 other scientists by
email and nothing so far. You, too ignore this finding, which based on
my additional research couldn't possibly be "uninteresting".
I recently read where someone else showed that some object like was
significantly red-shifted in front of a slow moving opaque galaxy,
thus showing that the red-shift could not be due to the object
receeding. That person also lamented that his paper waited, and waited
and waited to be published with no comments.
So this is another way science can keep its "mono-theory" culture, by
simply ignoring and denying anything which goes against established
dogma.
PD
Not necessarily. You must be presuming that if Bohr couldn't do it,
then nobody could do it, until you.
This is where it is important to catch up on the work that has been
done in, oh, the last 80 years.
There are lots of problems that Newton couldn't solve either, light
being one of them. This does not mean that if you pick up where Newton
failed, and get somewhere that he didn't, then what you've done is of
interest. What it means is that you've chosen to work on an old and
already solved problem, which is an amusing hobby but not particularly
of scientific contributory value.
One of the arts of being a scientist is judging which problems are
still interesting, and working on those.
Choosing an old problem that gave somebody some trouble decades ago,
is not a wise choice.
> But the response is
> complete silence. I have sent my findings to 3 other scientists by
> email and nothing so far. You, too ignore this finding, which based on
> my additional research couldn't possibly be "uninteresting".
>
> I recently read where someone else showed that some object like was
> significantly red-shifted in front of a slow moving opaque galaxy,
> thus showing that the red-shift could not be due to the object
> receeding. That person also lamented that his paper waited, and waited
> and waited to be published with no comments.
>
> So this is another way science can keep its "mono-theory" culture, by
> simply ignoring and denying anything which goes against established
> dogma.- Hide quoted text -
Androcles
"franklinhu" <frank...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3b14b22f-d7b8-4db5...@l14g2000yql.googlegroups.com...
========================================
You are quite refreshing in your attitude, why are you are wasting your
time on a stupid bigot like Draper?
maxwell
Excellent summary, Benj. Thanks for bringing this up & conducting the
discussion in such a civilized manner. You are correct: the original
19C science journals originally published every submission (they were
desperate for content) but then scurrilous abuse arose & had to be
rejected. Censorship only arose with the development of a consensus
in science - men who had spent many years learning the orthodoxy felt
threatened by new views that eliminate all that study. It's still
happening today, only more so, as so much public money is being
directed by the "in crowd".
maxwell
I enjoy reworking old problems & agree that this could be a
significant step forward. I would appreciate a link to where I could
checkout your work further.
Benj
> > Bohr worked very hard to solve Helium and he couldn't do it. So, if I
> > am able to do it, that should be a pretty big deal if I could do
> > something that not even Bohr himself could do. But the response is
> > complete silence. I have sent my findings to 3 other scientists by
> > email and nothing so far. You, too ignore this finding, which based on
> > my additional research couldn't possibly be "uninteresting".
>
> > I recently read where someone else showed that some object like was
> > significantly red-shifted in front of a slow moving opaque galaxy,
> > thus showing that the red-shift could not be due to the object
> > receeding. That person also lamented that his paper waited, and waited
> > and waited to be published with no comments.
>
> > So this is another way science can keep its "mono-theory" culture, by
> > simply ignoring and denying anything which goes against established
> > dogma.
Absolutely correct. I have long been a critic of QM based on these
facts. QM is widely touted as one of the great "success" stories of
physics based upon the calculation of hydrogen spectra using the
theory. But it's found that helium is a nightmare and anything else
virtually impossible! Some "success". But those in positions of media
and authority in science present a unified front. The "Big Bang" is
Fact. The Red shift being due to "expansion" is FACT. In the quantum
world that it is "impossible" to know something exactly is FACT.
There is no life in the universe except on Earth (we will allow some
primitive bacteria could exist, but certainly not any beings "smarter"
than us!). Evolution is FACT. Not "theory", mind you, but FACT! All
you need is open Scientific American or tune into PBS to get a good
dose of "science dogma". And if you look for scientific papers that
take a different view, well there are none in major journals. That
sure proves the dogma is beyond error, does it not? Sure, there are
some papers in minor obscure journals, who would have a problem
dismissing those? Hey, you don't even have to read them to know they
are crap! Just look at the journal they are in! QED.
Never mind that this approach is totally anti-science. Never mind it
turns science into a religion. Never mind that this censorship finds a
deep basis in political issues. (AGW is FACT.) As I've pointed out
here many times in the past, there is a wide difference between theory
and fact. When you say something is "impossible" that is the
mathematical equivalent of saying "I'm an idiot". To say something is
"impossible" is to say that YOU know all possible alternative ways of
doing said thing and that no alternative path to success exists.
Obviously such God-like powers ARE possessed by the likes of SA and
PBS as evidenced by their statements!
And these are but a tiny few of the subjects "spun" and censored by
"official" science. And that is always the result where politics gets
involved. Politics means power, and power means the subject is
SERIOUS!
> I enjoy reworking old problems & agree that this could be a
> significant step forward. I would appreciate a link to where I could
> checkout your work further.
I also would love to see a link to this work as this has long been a
question that I have held. I'd really enjoy finding my questions
answered. (But of course, actually getting such a thing published
ain't gonna happen.)
franklinhu
>
> - Show quoted text -
I have posted the complete article on sci.physics:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/ab78cb14189ffaee
This hasn't received any relevant comments yet, and I would appreciate
any constructive advice you could give on this. This is part of the
work I am doing on my theory of everything which describes a new cubic
atomic model which can be found at:
http://franklinhu.com/theory.html
After chasing down the references that PD gave, I think I can say with
authority, that in the time since Bohr attempted the problem, no one
has presented a simple solution based on the Rydberg formula - no one.
Every solution presented requires complex multi-body calculations to
produce an approximate result.
I am currently chasing down what the other observed lines in He I
represent, as my calcuations only represent 1/3 of the observed lines.
So far, it appears that there may be 2 other series representing the
He I data. I will see if those could be fit into a Rydberg formula as
well.
Too bad scientists are too busy suppressing new ideas huh? No wonder
why little real progress has been made in the past 100 years since
Einstein. Scientists should be happy to see something new, instead
they instinctively suppress and ignore it. So much for innovation.
eric gisse
[...]
> Excellent summary, Benj. Thanks for bringing this up & conducting the
> discussion in such a civilized manner. You are correct: the original
> 19C science journals originally published every submission (they were
> desperate for content) but then scurrilous abuse arose & had to be
> rejected. Censorship only arose with the development of a consensus
> in science - men who had spent many years learning the orthodoxy felt
> threatened by new views that eliminate all that study. It's still
> happening today, only more so, as so much public money is being
> directed by the "in crowd".
Let me guess, you also have no training in the sciences?
eric gisse
> On Jul 23, 11:32 am, maxwell <s...@shaw.ca> wrote:
>
>> > Bohr worked very hard to solve Helium and he couldn't do it. So, if I
>> > am able to do it, that should be a pretty big deal if I could do
>> > something that not even Bohr himself could do. But the response is
>> > complete silence. I have sent my findings to 3 other scientists by
>> > email and nothing so far. You, too ignore this finding, which based on
>> > my additional research couldn't possibly be "uninteresting".
>>
>> > I recently read where someone else showed that some object like was
>> > significantly red-shifted in front of a slow moving opaque galaxy,
>> > thus showing that the red-shift could not be due to the object
>> > receeding. That person also lamented that his paper waited, and waited
>> > and waited to be published with no comments.
>>
>> > So this is another way science can keep its "mono-theory" culture, by
>> > simply ignoring and denying anything which goes against established
>> > dogma.
>
Now that you are posting in this thread again, will you now tell us what
your training in the sciences is?
I said that you had none, but that made you upset so I asked you what your
training was. Then you stopped posting in the thread.
> Absolutely correct. I have long been a critic of QM based on these
> facts. QM is widely touted as one of the great "success" stories of
> physics based upon the calculation of hydrogen spectra using the
> theory. But it's found that helium is a nightmare and anything else
> virtually impossible!
Helium is perfectly tractable using approximations, as is everything else.
> Some "success". But those in positions of media
> and authority in science present a unified front.
Since you would view any uncertainty as weakness, I'm not sure what would
make you happy.
> The "Big Bang" is
> Fact.
Do you have evidence that says otherwise?
> The Red shift being due to "expansion" is FACT.
Do you have evidence that says otherwise?
> In the quantum
> world that it is "impossible" to know something exactly is FACT.
Really, what makes you say that? Observational facts are recorded all the
time in the quantum world.
> There is no life in the universe except on Earth (we will allow some
> primitive bacteria could exist, but certainly not any beings "smarter"
> than us!).
Do you have evidence that says otherwise?
> Evolution is FACT. Not "theory", mind you, but FACT!
Ah, one of those people.
[snip rest of the rant about how much Benj hates science]
spudnik
the doppler-interpretation of redshift is just an assumption.
what about the medium of space --
do you believe in a perfect vacuum?
thus:
does that make it a "grey body?..." that's so interesting, because
also drag & power from wind is to the 4th power of velocity,
which is why it is so hard to make efficient windtrubines --
just ask the Netherlanders. (NB, I haven't derived either
of these laws on paper, so.)
I also had heard that all of our sensors on Moon had
been turned off, for no particular reason, with no way
to turn them back on, again (including seismometers,
whcih was how it cam "up" at school).
> One correction was to take into account the fact that, as the temperature
> is not uniform and the Stefan law is in T^4 you cannot compute the
> outgoing radiation using the average temperature.
thus:
also, note that Hubbard's "peak oil" acolyte, Deffries (sp.?)
at Royal Ducth Shell -- a half-British co. -- wrote his book
about it with a resolution of the peak for the very next year
after publication (2003 or 4, as I recall .-)
his later book, _Beyond Oil_ (a-hem, or "Petroleum") is also
a great expose' of the industry's assumptions & methods.
of course, the most mythical one has to do
with mere fossilization, and dinosaurs,
based upon the stratigraphy of hollow rocks;
he does not really address that, but I do;
"Surely you're joking, mister Hubbard!"
--les ducs d'oil!
http://tarpley.net
Androcles
On Jul 23, 11:32 am, maxwell <s...@shaw.ca> wrote:
> > Bohr worked very hard to solve Helium and he couldn't do it. So, if I
> > am able to do it, that should be a pretty big deal if I could do
> > something that not even Bohr himself could do. But the response is
> > complete silence. I have sent my findings to 3 other scientists by
> > email and nothing so far. You, too ignore this finding, which based on
> > my additional research couldn't possibly be "uninteresting".
>
> > I recently read where someone else showed that some object like was
> > significantly red-shifted in front of a slow moving opaque galaxy,
> > thus showing that the red-shift could not be due to the object
> > receeding. That person also lamented that his paper waited, and waited
> > and waited to be published with no comments.
>
> > So this is another way science can keep its "mono-theory" culture, by
> > simply ignoring and denying anything which goes against established
> > dogma.
Absolutely correct. I have long been a critic of QM based on these
facts. QM is widely touted as one of the great "success" stories of
physics based upon the calculation of hydrogen spectra using the
theory. But it's found that helium is a nightmare and anything else
virtually impossible! Some "success". But those in positions of media
and authority in science present a unified front. The "Big Bang" is
Fact.
===============================================
They don't like the alternative, a universe that always was and had no
beginning.
"In the beginning god created" is a FACT for all you religious freaks.
===============================================
The Red shift being due to "expansion" is FACT.
===============================================
They don't like the alternative, a variable speed of light.
===============================================
In the quantum
world that it is "impossible" to know something exactly is FACT.
===============================================
That one is a fact. You cannot tell me the value pi exactly using digits.
===============================================
There is no life in the universe except on Earth (we will allow some
primitive bacteria could exist, but certainly not any beings "smarter"
than us!). Evolution is FACT. Not "theory", mind you, but FACT!
===============================================
Gawd created the world in 6 days. Not "theory", mind you, but FACT!
===============================================
All
you need is open Scientific American or tune into PBS to get a good
dose of "science dogma".
===============================================
All you need is open your bible or tune into "Songs of Praise" to get a
good dose of "religion dogma".
===============================================
And if you look for scientific papers that
take a different view, well there are none in major journals. That
sure proves the dogma is beyond error, does it not? Sure, there are
some papers in minor obscure journals, who would have a problem
dismissing those? Hey, you don't even have to read them to know they
are crap! Just look at the journal they are in! QED.
===============================================
And if you look for religious papers that
take a different view, well there are none in major journals. That
sure proves the dogma is beyond error, does it not? Sure, there are
some papers in minor obscure journals, who would have a problem
dismissing those? Hey, you don't even have to read them to know they
are crap! Just look at the bible they are in! QED.
===============================================
Never mind that this approach is totally anti-science. Never mind it
turns science into a religion. Never mind that this censorship finds a
deep basis in political issues. (AGW is FACT.)
===============================================
Never mind that this approach is totally anti-religion. Never mind it
turns religion into a science. Never mind that this censorship finds a
deep basis in political issues. (AGW is FACT.)
As I've pointed out
here many times in the past, there is a wide difference between theory
and fact. When you say something is "impossible" that is the
mathematical equivalent of saying "I'm an idiot".
===============================================
It is impossible to express pi exactly in digits. You are an idiot.
===============================================
To say something is
"impossible" is to say that YOU know all possible alternative ways of
doing said thing and that no alternative path to success exists.
Obviously such God-like powers ARE possessed by the likes of SA and
PBS as evidenced by their statements!
==================================================
To say something is"possible" is to say that YOU know at least ONE
way of doing said thing, so now express pi exactly as a string of digits.
Obviously such God-like powers ARE possessed by the likes of Binge
Jocaby as evidenced by his statements!
===============================================
And these are but a tiny few of the subjects "spun" and censored by
"official" science. And that is always the result where politics gets
involved. Politics means power, and power means the subject is
SERIOUS!
> I enjoy reworking old problems & agree that this could be a
> significant step forward. I would appreciate a link to where I could
> checkout your work further.
I also would love to see a link to this work as this has long been a
question that I have held. I'd really enjoy finding my questions
answered. (But of course, actually getting such a thing published
ain't gonna happen.)
==============================================
He can publish it on the internet, nobody is stopping him. I've
published my work at http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/
Androcles
I have posted the complete article on sci.physics:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/ab78cb14189ffaee
This hasn't received any relevant comments yet, and I would appreciate
any constructive advice you could give on this. This is part of the
work I am doing on my theory of everything which describes a new cubic
atomic model which can be found at:
http://franklinhu.com/theory.html
=============================
Uh oh... Stick to facts, not aether. I'm not wading through
your crank theory to get to a nugget of truth embedded in it.
franklinhu
> You are quite refreshing in your attitude, why are you are wasting your
>
Well, because PD isn't stupid - he is obviously established in the
field and has a wealth of knowledge that I will never be able to
attain as an amateur science investigator. The internet is a wonderful
thing to do research - it allows me to comb through of what is
avaliable in an instant. This was impossible prior to the creation of
search engines. However, not everything is on the internet. So I rely
on posters like PD who do have the scentific background to act as the
ultimate human search engine.
So if I ask PD if anyone has extended the Rydberg formula to explain
the rest of the Helium, Li, Be and he comes back with nothing, then
this really probably has never been done. He provided references which
I searched to confirm that while books and books have been created on
the subject, none of them used the approach that I created. What is
apparent in the historical record is that after trying fruitlessly for
years to solve helium, they gave up until quantum mechanics came along
and provided a way to approximate a solution.
PD has often given me important leads and takes the time to completely
and competently explain the issues at hand. I have complained in this
post that nobody is collaborative on the usenet, but even negative
comments (as long as they are based on facts and not insults) help me
probe the weaknesses of what I am proposing. Most of the time, I find
these "weaknesses" once investigated help support rather than detract
from what I am researching. Also, it wouldn't be any fun if people
didn't throw stones at my theories, how boring and unproductive that
would be. So, good work PD, thanks for sticking with us crazies.
Now, you (Androcles) on the other hand won't wade through my TOE
because it starts off defining the aether. Here is yet another example
of how anything not conforming to the 'mono-theory' established dogma
gets ignored (getting back to the topic of this thread). Even us
crackpot cranks have our own form of "censorship". I think we would
all do well to not rule things out before even considering them. My
little web site can be probably be read in its entirety in half an
hour and the main page in less than 5, so I don't think there's that
much to "wade" through. Like other scientists, you just stick your
head in the sand, cover your ears and say "I can't hear you" when you
see anything not conforming to your dogma.
http://franklinhu.com/theory.html
Read it, understand it, then get back to me.
eric gisse
[...]
> So if I ask PD if anyone has extended the Rydberg formula to explain
> the rest of the Helium, Li, Be and he comes back with nothing, then
> this really probably has never been done.
Nor can it, even in principle. The Rydberg formula describes Hydrogen only,
and not even the fine & hyperfine structure.
[...]
> http://franklinhu.com/theory.html
>
> Read it, understand it, then get back to me.
People who don't know what they are talking about have no business
theorycrafting.
Androcles
|> ========================================
| > You are quite refreshing in your attitude, why are you are wasting your
| > time on a stupid bigot like Draper?- Hide quoted text -
| >
|
| Well, because PD isn't stupid - he is obviously established in the
| field and has a wealth of knowledge that I will never be able to
| attain as an amateur science investigator.
Bwahahahaha! Phuckwit Duck has "knowledge" the same way
the Pope knows Xtianity. Like you he can say the right words and
then never follow them.
But getting back to the subject of this post, this brings up another
interesting aspect of science which is that even if you are allowed to
publish something contrary to common knowledge, what happens is that
result is completely ignored by Phuckwit Duck.
| The internet is a wonderful
| thing to do research - it allows me to comb through of what is
| avaliable in an instant. This was impossible prior to the creation of
| search engines. However, not everything is on the internet. So I rely
| on posters like PD who do have the scentific background to act as the
| ultimate human search engine.
But getting back to the subject of this post, this brings up another
interesting aspect of science which is that even if you are allowed to
publish something contrary to common knowledge, what happens is that
result is completely ignored by arseholes like Phuckwit Duck.
So this is another way science can keep its "mono-theory" culture, by
simply ignoring and denying anything which goes against established
dogma.
|
| So if I ask PD if anyone has extended the Rydberg formula to explain
| the rest of the Helium, Li, Be and he comes back with nothing, then
| this really probably has never been done.
So this is another way science can keep its "mono-theory" culture, by
simply ignoring and denying anything which goes against established
dogma.
| He provided references which
| I searched to confirm that while books and books have been created on
| the subject, none of them used the approach that I created. What is
| apparent in the historical record is that after trying fruitlessly for
| years to solve helium, they gave up until quantum mechanics came along
| and provided a way to approximate a solution.
Let's see now... helium got its name from Helios, the sun, where it was
first discovered from its spectrum. And you think Rydberg didn't
know anything about the spectrum of helium because Phuckwit Duck
didn't tell you that.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helium
| PD has often given me important leads and takes the time to completely
| and competently explain the issues at hand. I have complained in this
| post that nobody is collaborative on the usenet, but even negative
| comments (as long as they are based on facts and not insults) help me
| probe the weaknesses of what I am proposing. Most of the time, I find
| these "weaknesses" once investigated help support rather than detract
| from what I am researching. Also, it wouldn't be any fun if people
| didn't throw stones at my theories, how boring and unproductive that
| would be. So, good work PD, thanks for sticking with us crazies.
Oh, you want stones thrown at your theories.
|
| Now, you (Androcles) on the other hand won't wade through my TOE
| because it starts off defining the aether. Here is yet another example
| of how anything not conforming to the 'mono-theory' established dogma
| gets ignored (getting back to the topic of this thread).
That's your dogmatic mono-theory.
| Even us
| crackpot cranks have our own form of "censorship". I think we would
| all do well to not rule things out before even considering them. My
| little web site can be probably be read in its entirety in half an
| hour and the main page in less than 5, so I don't think there's that
| much to "wade" through. Like other scientists, you just stick your
| head in the sand, cover your ears and say "I can't hear you" when you
| see anything not conforming to your dogma.
|
| http://franklinhu.com/theory.html
|
| Read it, understand it, then get back to me.
Have you looked in a mirror lately? I asked you for facts, not your dogma.
Like other crackpots, you stick your head up your arse and can only see
your own shit.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rydberg_formula
Szczepan Bialek
"Androcles" <Headm...@Hogwarts.physics_z> wrote
news:bHn2o.215853$U%7.166237@hurricane...
>
> "franklinhu" <frank...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:bfe4db5d-b2f6-4794...@d8g2000yqf.googlegroups.com...
> I have posted the complete article on sci.physics:
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/ab78cb14189ffaee
>
> This hasn't received any relevant comments yet, and I would appreciate
> any constructive advice you could give on this. This is part of the
> work I am doing on my theory of everything which describes a new cubic
> atomic model which can be found at:
>
> http://franklinhu.com/theory.html
> =============================
> Uh oh... Stick to facts, not aether.
Aether is the fact. Todays name is ISM: :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstellar_medium
It was Ludwig Lorenz who said that in the space is enough matter to
propagate the electric waves.
The sublimation is known for years. The space is not an emptiness.
>I'm not wading through
> your crank theory to get to a nugget of truth embedded in it.
I will try.
S*
Androcles
"Szczepan Bialek" <sz.b...@wp.pl> wrote in message
news:4c4aa5b6$0$19162$6578...@news.neostrada.pl...
|
| "Androcles" <Headm...@Hogwarts.physics_z> wrote
| news:bHn2o.215853$U%7.166237@hurricane...
| >
| > "franklinhu" <frank...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
| > news:bfe4db5d-b2f6-4794...@d8g2000yqf.googlegroups.com...
| > I have posted the complete article on sci.physics:
| >
| > http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/ab78cb14189ffaee
| >
| > This hasn't received any relevant comments yet, and I would appreciate
| > any constructive advice you could give on this. This is part of the
| > work I am doing on my theory of everything which describes a new cubic
| > atomic model which can be found at:
| >
| > http://franklinhu.com/theory.html
| > =============================
| > Uh oh... Stick to facts, not aether.
|
| Aether is the fact.
In fact, actually, you are the insane, and that is actually a fact.
PD
> > ========================================
> > You are quite refreshing in your attitude, why are you are wasting your
> > time on a stupid bigot like Draper?- Hide quoted text -
>
> Well, because PD isn't stupid - he is obviously established in the
> field and has a wealth of knowledge that I will never be able to
> attain as an amateur science investigator. The internet is a wonderful
> thing to do research - it allows me to comb through of what is
> avaliable in an instant. This was impossible prior to the creation of
> search engines. However, not everything is on the internet. So I rely
> on posters like PD who do have the scentific background to act as the
> ultimate human search engine.
I believe this is a grievous mistake. You do yourself a gross
disservice by telling yourself you could not possibly do research
properly just because you're an amateur. The resources are just as
available to you as they are to a professional. The ONLY difference is
a decision to invest effort, and that is up to you.
You'll also find, if you try it, that using physicists as "search
engines" is slow, tedious, scattershot, and not nearly as efficient as
doing this research on your own. However, if you just don't WANT to do
it, that's another matter.
>
> So if I ask PD if anyone has extended the Rydberg formula to explain
> the rest of the Helium, Li, Be and he comes back with nothing, then
> this really probably has never been done.
Don't delude yourself. I'm not an on-demand-info-pusher, and if I
decline to give you information, it doesn't necessarily mean that the
information is not there.
Secondly, you should know that the Rydberg formula is the *result of*
a theory. Thus, when you say you've extended the Rydberg formula, you
should probably indicate how you've extended the theory that produced
the Rydberg formula. As far as I can tell, you've not done that at
all.
> He provided references which
> I searched to confirm that while books and books have been created on
> the subject, none of them used the approach that I created.
And how did you search these books?
> What is
> apparent in the historical record is that after trying fruitlessly for
> years to solve helium, they gave up until quantum mechanics came along
> and provided a way to approximate a solution.
>
> PD has often given me important leads and takes the time to completely
> and competently explain the issues at hand.
On the contrary, I do not explain completely at all. I only give you
snippets. If you wanted to get a more complete explanation, you'd have
to read something.
Szczepan Bialek
Uzytkownik "Androcles" <Headm...@Hogwarts.physics_z> napisal w wiadomosci
news:tFz2o.204694$9c1.4451@hurricane...
>
> "Szczepan Bialek" <sz.b...@wp.pl> wrote in message
> news:4c4aa5b6$0$19162$6578...@news.neostrada.pl...
> | > Uh oh... Stick to facts, not aether.
> |
> | Aether is the fact.
>
> In fact, actually, you are the insane, and that is actually a fact.
You have this: http://www.aip.org/history/gap/PDF/michelson.pdf
In the last sentence before supplement Michelson wrote that Stokes is right.
Now you know that the Sun is hot and produces the plasma. The Sun and plasma
rotate (one revolution per 25 days).
It is a whirl. The Sun, planets, plasma and everything rotate together.
Stokes predicted it in 1845. Null in MMX is obvious. But in 1925 Michelson
detected the Earth rotation. So the exact result of MMX is 0.5 km/s.
You do not know it?
S*
Szczepan Bialek
"franklinhu" <frank...@yahoo.com> wrote
news:bfe4db5d-b2f6-4794...@d8g2000yqf.googlegroups.com...
>
> This is part of the
work I am doing on my theory of everything which describes a new cubic
atomic model which can be found at:
http://franklinhu.com/theory.html
You wrote: "4. What fills space?
Since electrons and positrons are attracted to one another, they immediately
form pairs in space. In fact, all of space is completely filled with these
electron/positron pairs and this forms the medium through which the waves
generated by the resonant frequency of the positrons and electrons is
transmitted. This forms what has been classically described as the aether
made up of particles."
Now we know what fils space. Ions, electrons and dust. See ISM.
>Too bad scientists are too busy suppressing new ideas huh? No wonder
why little real progress has been made in the past 100 years since
Einstein.
Not all is published.
>Scientists should be happy to see something new, instead
they instinctively suppress and ignore it. So much for innovation.
Scientists works on plasma (ions, electrons and charged dust). Do the same.
S*
spudnik
the first footnote shows the problem with Newton's "theory"
of emmission.
> You have this:http://www.aip.org/history/gap/PDF/michelson.pdf
> Null in MMX is obvious. But in 1925 Michelson
> detected the Earth rotation. So the exact result of MMX is 0.5 km/s.
thus:
sorry, Gauss said, the Queen of them, which has
been supposed to imply that there was a King,
to be physical economy -- at least as important
as numbertheory (big chunk of _Cranks_).
thus:
I like Dudley's books, not particularly _Cranks_, but he misses the
boat
in the second paragraph, because he emphasizes mere arithmetic *and*
the subjects that are not quite *mathematica*, or *quadrivium*, and
this is the self-same problem of all primary or "elementary" ed. in
math,
a sort of glorification of Euclid's encyclopedia, addended to the
trivium (or,
the three Rs .-) http://www.ams.org/notices/201005/rtx100500608p.pdf
thus: maybe, if they stopped listening to alt.deism,
they'd start funding you, instead; either way,
definitely a New Age soundtrack a.k.a. Muzak TM.
> "Listening"?... http://en.wookiepoopya.org/wiki/Synesthesia
thus: Hawking's got a new set of fairy tales?... well,
he's a part of the Trinity on STreKtheNGeneratioN, so,
He can do that!
thus: Liebniz's *vis viva* is half of mvv;
compare to Galileo's linear ideal, but
don't try to disprove his relativity,
til you've gotten off of the boat!
--les ducs d'oil!
http://wlym.com
--BP's next bailout of Wall St. and "the City"
(of London, gated community & financial district), or
the last, if nothing is left of the USA.
http://tarpley.net/online-books/against-oligarchy/
http://tarpley.net/online-books/george-bush-the-unauthorized-biography/
http://tarpley.net/world-crisis-radio/
Androcles
posited without necessity").--William of Ockham.
You do not know it?
and sufficient to explain their appearances. -- Sir Isaac Newton
You do not know it?
is no point in presuming its existence.
You and Stokes are outgunned by Newton.
Sagnac is not null. You are deranged.
Androcles
|
| "franklinhu" <frank...@yahoo.com> wrote
| news:bfe4db5d-b2f6-4794...@d8g2000yqf.googlegroups.com...
| >
| > This is part of the
| work I am doing on my theory of everything which describes a new cubic
| atomic model which can be found at:
|
| http://franklinhu.com/theory.html
|
| You wrote: "4. What fills space?
| Since electrons and positrons are attracted to one another, they
immediately
| form pairs in space. In fact, all of space is completely filled with these
| electron/positron pairs
In fact, actually, people that begin a sentence with "In fact" or "Actually"
do so to convince themselves an hope to convince others, but in fact,
actually, whatever follows will usually be total bullshit, and that is
actually a fact, in fact.
You two are both bullshitting bastards. Birds of a feather flock together,
but are still birdbrains.
franklinhu
> Secondly, you should know that the Rydberg formula is the *result of*
> a theory. Thus, when you say you've extended the Rydberg formula, you
> should probably indicate how you've extended the theory that produced
> the Rydberg formula. As far as I can tell, you've not done that at
> all.
>
spectra for hydrogen-like ions. See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rydberg_formula
Look under:
"Rydberg formula for any hydrogen-like element"
That isn't my extension. All I am claiming is that the rest of the
spectra for non-hydrgen-like ions can be described as a simple scaling
of the Rydberg formula. I did not in anyway "calculate" what the form
of the formulas should be, I just plotted the data and did a curve
fitting exercise to show that you could create a Rydberg formula that
reproduces the He spectra to within a percent of the observed values.
Now Eric says that the Rydberg formula only applies to hydrogen or
hydrogen-like ions, but what I have shown is that it is wrong - just
look at how closely I have been able to reproduce the spectra for He,
Li, & Be using nothing but a simple scaling of the Rydberg formula.
The spectra for the other ions of an atom follow exactly the same
staircase spectral energy pattern which is very predictable (Have you
even bothered looking at those graphs????). Eric says that this is
impossible even in principle, and it would be if you blindly believed
his principles based upon the orbital model of the atom. But since the
spectral data can find a fit using only the Rydberg formula, then I'd
say these "principles" need to come under review since I just did
something which is "in principle" impossible.
But once again getting back to the topic of this post, you and others
simply won't look at it, you won't even get past the 1st sentence - at
least look at the graphs I references in my original post. I wouldn't
mind if you looked at it and then threw stones, you're not even
looking. This is worse than censorship or moderation where you blanket
ignore anything which does not match your existing dogma. So really,
it matters little if Scientific American censors all scientifc
innovation, no one would want to read about it anyways. No wonder
science makes so little progress.
So once again, I beg of you to actually read what I have proposed. If
you spent this much time reading to the bottom of this post, it is the
least you could do:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/ab78cb14189ffaee
Otherwise, you too are guilty of putting a blind unscientifc dogmatic
eye on all possible scientific innovations.
franklinhu
> Have you looked in a mirror lately? I asked you for facts, not your dogma.
> Like other crackpots, you stick your head up your arse and can only see
> your own shit.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rydberg_formula
> Read it, understand it, then get back to me.
Of course, I read it, understood and now extended to apply to all
ions, not just the hydrogen like ones.
As for asking for facts, I don't remember you asking for any. I say
"bring it on" ask me anything. But your're going to have to at least
understand what I have written - at least read the post about
calculating spectra, this has nothing to do with the aether or any
other controversial subject, it is merely a data fitting exercise.
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/ab78cb14189ffaee
eric gisse
>>
>> Secondly, you should know that the Rydberg formula is the *result of*
>> a theory. Thus, when you say you've extended the Rydberg formula, you
>> should probably indicate how you've extended the theory that produced
>> the Rydberg formula. As far as I can tell, you've not done that at
>> all.
>>
> The extension I referred to is the common one used to calculate the
> spectra for hydrogen-like ions. See:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rydberg_formula
>
> Look under:
> "Rydberg formula for any hydrogen-like element"
>
> That isn't my extension. All I am claiming is that the rest of the
> spectra for non-hydrgen-like ions can be described as a simple scaling
> of the Rydberg formula.
You are empirically wrong.
[snip all]
Androcles
>
> Have you looked in a mirror lately? I asked you for facts, not your dogma.
> Like other crackpots, you stick your head up your arse and can only see
> your own shit.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rydberg_formula
> Read it, understand it, then get back to me.
Of course, I read it, understood and now extended to apply to all
ions, not just the hydrogen like ones.
============================================
And where did it say aether was needed?
As for asking for facts, I don't remember you asking for any.
=============================================
That's because you are stupid snipping shit or you'd have it still
written right in front of you.
"Uh oh... Stick to facts, not aether. I'm not wading through
your crank theory to get to a nugget of truth embedded in it."
See where it says "Stick to facts", cretin?
Dumbfucks like you have no memory and because you have your
head up your own arse you snip anything you don't want to remember.
Fuck off, you are worthless.
Szczepan Bialek
"Androcles" <Headm...@Hogwarts.physics_z> wrote
news:NAH2o.328027$m87.95458@hurricane...
>
> "Szczepan Bialek" <sz.b...@wp.pl> wrote in message
> news:4c4b1c1c$0$2603$6578...@news.neostrada.pl...
> |
We do not need "Aether is the pure upper air that the gods breathe, as
opposed to the normal air (???, aer) mortals breathe".
But we can analyse the rare plasma and dust in the space.
Can they rotate with the Sun?
S*
Androcles
That's right, we are not gods so we don't need any aether. And since there
is no aether to breathe there are no gods either.
You do not know it?
You are insane.
Szczepan Bialek
"spudnik" <Spac...@hotmail.com> wrote
news:b05dd010-768d-44dd...@q12g2000yqj.googlegroups.com...
> haven't got to the "last sentence before the supplement," but
> the first footnote shows the problem with Newton's "theory"
> of emmission.
>
>> You have this:http://www.aip.org/history/gap/PDF/michelson.pdf
>> Null in MMX is obvious. But in 1925 Michelson
>> detected the Earth rotation. So the exact result of MMX is 0.5 km/s.
>
> thus:
> sorry, Gauss said, the Queen of them, which has
> been supposed to imply that there was a King,
> to be physical economy -- at least as important
> as numbertheory (big chunk of _Cranks_).
>
> thus:
> I like Dudley's books, not particularly _Cranks_, but he misses the
> boat
> in the second paragraph, because he emphasizes mere arithmetic *and*
> the subjects that are not quite *mathematica*, or *quadrivium*, and
> this is the self-same problem of all primary or "elementary" ed. in
> math,
> a sort of glorification of Euclid's encyclopedia, addended to the
> trivium (or,
> the three Rs .-) http://www.ams.org/notices/201005/rtx100500608p.pdf
Math has many tools. one of them are the analitical methods. They are
completly useless in each job. But they should be presented to students.
>
> thus: maybe, if they stopped listening to alt.deism,
> they'd start funding you, instead; either way,
> definitely a New Age soundtrack a.k.a. Muzak TM.
>> "Listening"?... http://en.wookiepoopya.org/wiki/Synesthesia
>
> thus: Hawking's got a new set of fairy tales?... well,
> he's a part of the Trinity on STreKtheNGeneratioN, so,
> He can do that!
>
> thus: Liebniz's *vis viva* is half of mvv;
> compare to Galileo's linear ideal, but
> don't try to disprove his relativity,
> til you've gotten off of the boat!
>
> --les ducs d'oil!
> http://wlym.com
>
> --BP's next bailout of Wall St. and "the City"
> (of London, gated community & financial district), or
> the last, if nothing is left of the USA.
> http://tarpley.net/online-books/against-oligarchy/
> http://tarpley.net/online-books/george-bush-the-unauthorized-biography/
> http://tarpley.net/world-crisis-radio/
But what is your opinion on the evidences collected by A.G. Kelly:
http://www.worldnpa.org/pdf/ebooks/Kelly%20-%20New%20Theory%20of%20the%20Behavior%20of%20Light.pdf
All todays measurements are in agreement with the Stokes aether where the
plasma rotate locally with the Sun.
S*
rabbit killer
conservatism and progressivism. By conservative I mean adherence to
established truth. By progressivism I mean pushing against established
truth to get some progress in our collective notion of Truth. Well you
can't have too much of either and it seems that the moderation of a
forum is a conservative element, where conservatism dominates you cut
out a lot of the crap and wingnut stuff, but where progressivism and
tolerance dominates you get exciting and novel ideas.
If you have a truth to tell then air it in a less moderated forum and if
it is valid, it will percolate to the top. Trust in the process
Szczepan Bialek
"Androcles" <Headm...@Hogwarts.physics_z> wrote
news:M4T2o.195332$wi5.58019@hurricane...
>
> "Szczepan Bialek" <sz.b...@wp.pl> wrote in message
> news:4c4bfbbe$0$19184$6578...@news.neostrada.pl...
> |
>> | > |
Not only me. A.G. Kelly also:
http://www.worldnpa.org/pdf/ebooks/Kelly%20-%20New%20Theory%20of%20the%20Behavior%20of%20Light.pdf
S*
Robert Higgins
> > ========================================
> > You are quite refreshing in your attitude, why are you are wasting your
> > time on a stupid bigot like Draper?- Hide quoted text -
>
> Well, because PD isn't stupid - he is obviously established in the
> field and has a wealth of knowledge that I will never be able to
> attain as an amateur science investigator. The internet is a wonderful
> thing to do research - it allows me to comb through of what is
> avaliable in an instant. This was impossible prior to the creation of
> search engines.
Yes, it was. There used to be these wonderful places called
"libraries".
> However, not everything is on the internet. So I rely
> on posters like PD who do have the scentific background to act as the
> ultimate human search engine.
>
> So if I ask PD if anyone has extended the Rydberg formula to explain
> the rest of the Helium, Li, Be and he comes back with nothing, then
> this really probably has never been done.
Or, he just can't be bothered to do your work for you.
> He provided references which
> I searched to confirm that while books and books have been created on
> the subject, none of them used the approach that I created.
For reasons that are glaringly obvious for anyone with a minimal high
school education.
> What is
> apparent in the historical record is that after trying fruitlessly for
> years to solve helium, they gave up until quantum mechanics came along
> and provided a way to approximate a solution.
It is also "apparent" that you have minimal understanding and
experience in science.
>
> PD has often given me important leads and takes the time to completely
> and competently explain the issues at hand.
Which proves that PD is a nice guy, but it hasn't helped you that
much, since you are incapable of learning.
> I have complained in this
> post that nobody is collaborative on the usenet,
Why should it be? Why should other people do YOUR work for you?
> but even negative
> comments (as long as they are based on facts and not insults) help me
> probe the weaknesses of what I am proposing.
No point - there are no "weaknesses" in your proposals, just as it
would be silly to call the babbling of an infant a "weakness".
> Most of the time, I find
> these "weaknesses" once investigated help support rather than detract
> from what I am researching.
When you are right, you're right, and when you are wrong, you're still
right. Interesting logic there....
> Also, it wouldn't be any fun if people
> didn't throw stones at my theories, how boring and unproductive that
> would be.
It wouldn;t be any fun, either, if people didn't throw stones at YOU.
> So, good work PD, thanks for sticking with us crazies.
>
> Now, you (Androcles) on the other hand won't wade through my TOE
> because it starts off defining the aether. Here is yet another example
> of how anything not conforming to the 'mono-theory' established dogma
> gets ignored (getting back to the topic of this thread). Even us
> crackpot cranks have our own form of "censorship". I think we would
> all do well to not rule things out before even considering them. My
> little web site can be probably be read in its entirety in half an
> hour and the main page in less than 5, so I don't think there's that
> much to "wade" through. Like other scientists, you just stick your
> head in the sand, cover your ears and say "I can't hear you" when you
> see anything not conforming to your dogma.
>
> http://franklinhu.com/theory.html
>
> Read it, understand it, then get back to me.
Your Rydberg formula for spectroscopy is quite funny - I have to give
you credit. First off - if you send something laughably inept to a
real scientist, they will ignore it, and block you on their email.
You can not even make a proper chart on Excel. Anyone who claims to be
a scientist that (1) keeps the grey background, and (2) keeps the
horizontal grid lines, on Excel has never seen a real graph in his
life. Take a look at a Figure in any physics or chemistry journal some
time.
Second - one of the first "tricks" that any scientist learns is the
wonderful world of logs. By plotting logs on one axis, ANY
relationship looks more linear. Some relationships, like the energy of
activation for a reaction, actually DO depend on a logarithmic
relationship. For more "success", when in doubt, plot the log as a
function of the log - damn near anything will look linear, and you'll
get an apparently "better" fit.
That is why your "theory" involves log plotting the energy of
transitions. BTW, you haven't learned how to even LABEL a chart
properly. The axes have neither labels nor units.
Androcles
|
| "Androcles" <Headm...@Hogwarts.physics_z> wrote
| news:M4T2o.195332$wi5.58019@hurricane...
| >
| > news:4c4bfbbe$0$19184$6578...@news.neostrada.pl...
| > |
| >> | > |
|
http://www.worldnpa.org/pdf/ebooks/Kelly%20-%20New%20Theory%20of%20the%20Behavior%20of%20Light.pdf
| S*
Ok, you and A.G. Kelly are both insane, but A. G. Kelly isn't here to answer
to his crackpottery so he's irrelevant. Clearly he doesn't
understand Sagnac or Coriolis and neither do you.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Sagnac/Sagnac.htm
Vince Morgan
gravitational field" yet, but it's certainly very interesting. I did read
the later paper where he did rotate the solenoid and that was very
informative as well.
Regards,
Vince
Androcles
"Vince Morgan" <vin...@TAKEOUToptusnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:4c4ccee4$0$25356$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...| news:4c4c7619$0$17085$6578...@news.neostrada.pl...
earth's
| gravitational field" yet, but it's certainly very interesting. I did read
| the later paper where he did rotate the solenoid and that was very
| informative as well.
| Regards,
| Vince
|
diagram is really like this:
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Sagnac/Sagnac.gif
To claim one ray arrives before the other is abject nonsense.
A meets B before B meets A is lunacy.
One ray travels faster than the other but travels a greater distance:
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Sagnac/Sagnac1.GIF
franklinhu
wrote:
>
> - Show quoted text -
The purpose of the chart was not to show off my Excel charting
abilities, that you choose to spend so much time on that rather than
what was plotted or understanding what that plot meant, does not in
any way detract from what I was showing which was that the energy
wavelengths show a remarkable pattern. It also shows how closely my
formulas match the experimental results.
Now comment on that instead of my charting skills. The chart clearly
shows that the spectra follow a very specific and predictable pattern
based only on the N1, N2 energy shell level. It isn't a complex 3 body
problem at all. It shows up well on a log plot, just because there is
such a wide range of data. That is the only way to make it fit, but
the pattern would also show up on a linear plot as well, you'd just
need a bigger Y axes and it would be more difficult to see the
pattern. You do see the staircase energy pattern which has never been
recognized before by modern science, don't you? This staircase pattern
does not come from charting on a log scale.
These posts do remind me of the unfortunate nature of "unmoderated"
forums, which is, when people cannot refute what you see, it degrades
into petty insults. I only point this out to show you that those who
are "losing" the argument are the ones who are slinging insults (in
this case my use of excel charts) - an utterly irrelevant point here.
However, I do thank you for actually bothering to look at the chart
and providing your comments which I have responded to. That is doing
more than most would.
franklinhu
>
> - Show quoted text -
You still haven't looked at my article, haven't you???
By emprirically, you mean supported by experiment and evidence - yes?
Well, I took the empirical evidence as found in the NIST spectral
database and matched it against formulas based on the Rydberg formulas
and found matches that fit within 1 percent of the observed values for
Helium. How could you say this is not well empirically supported?
Unless you can point out a problem with my analysis, I'm afraid the
weight of the evidence is in my favor. All I have done and all I need
to do is to show that I can fit the observed spectral lines with the
results generated a scaling of the Rydberg formula.
Unless you can find a flaw in the series of formulas I provided, I all
I have to do is show that they produce the observed wavelengths -
which they do to be emprically supported.
There isn't any magic at all. If anyone simply plots the wavelengths
for He II based on the transitions found in the NIST database and then
does the same for He I, it is obvious to see that the He I ion (which
is thought to be a multi-body problem) follows the He II staircase
pattern exactly. Remarkably, there isn't any big difference between
the 2 at all - as if there was no difference between the hydrogen-like
and non hydrogen like ions, other than a simple setup up in wavelength
and some minor scaling based on the N2 value. Look at the chart:
http://franklinhu.com/spectrahe.jpg
The pink line is He II, the yellow just above it is He I - see the
pattern? The He I values can be calculated using only Rydberg based
formulas based only upon N1, N2 starting/ending energy shell level
numbers. This is an empircal fact. If the spectra for He I was truly a
multi-body problem, then the shape of the spectra couldn't possibly
mirror the He II spectra. But this is what is NOT empirically
supported by the data.
Androcles
You do see the staircase energy pattern which has never been
recognized before by modern science, don't you?
==============================================
Bwahahahahahaha! I was going to let it go, but when you come out with such
outlandishly stupid statements I have to speak up.
Do you have any clue what these people were doing, Hu?
Pfund, Paschen, Balmer, Lyman, Brackett.
Here's a hint:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_spectral_series
You don't see the staircase energy pattern which has always been recognized
by modern science for a century, you idiot?
The great aetherialist franklinhu's astounding discovery:
The Rydberg constant of helium (R_He) is related to the
Rydberg constant for hydrogen (R_H). Amazing!
Listen up, cretin!
frequency = (1/n_1^2 - 1/n_2^2) * (constant)
The constant is called the Rydberg constant.
Constants are used to express numbers in the arbitrarily chosen units of
meters, seconds and kilograms. A different constant would be needed if
the frequency was RPM instead of hertz.
There is a different constant for each element.
The important part of Rydberg's work is 1/n_1^2 - 1/n_2^2.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rydberg%E2%80%93Ritz_combination_principle
The spectral lines of hydrogen had been analyzed and found to have a
mathematical relationship in the Balmer series. This was later extended to a
general formula called the Rydberg formula. This could only be applied to
hydrogen-like atoms. In 1908 Ritz derived a relationship that could be
applied to all atoms. This principle, the Rydberg-Ritz combination
principle, is used today in identifying the transition lines of atoms.
Nobody minds you learning, Hu, but don't tell us "never been recognized
before by modern science", dumbfuck.
eric gisse
> On Jul 25, 12:32 am, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> franklinhu wrote:
>>
>> >> Secondly, you should know that the Rydberg formula is the *result of*
>> >> a theory. Thus, when you say you've extended the Rydberg formula, you
>> >> should probably indicate how you've extended the theory that produced
>> >> the Rydberg formula. As far as I can tell, you've not done that at
>> >> all.
>>
>> > The extension I referred to is the common one used to calculate the
>> > spectra for hydrogen-like ions. See:
>>
>> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rydberg_formula
>>
>> > Look under:
>> > "Rydberg formula for any hydrogen-like element"
>>
>> > That isn't my extension. All I am claiming is that the rest of the
>> > spectra for non-hydrgen-like ions can be described as a simple scaling
>> > of the Rydberg formula.
>>
>> You are empirically wrong.
>>
>> [snip all]- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> You still haven't looked at my article, haven't you???
After several years of doing so, I've realized that there is absolutely no
point in reading the publications or homepage postings of the clueless.
>
> By emprirically, you mean supported by experiment and evidence - yes?
>
> Well, I took the empirical evidence as found in the NIST spectral
> database and matched it against formulas based on the Rydberg formulas
> and found matches that fit within 1 percent of the observed values for
> Helium. How could you say this is not well empirically supported?
> Unless you can point out a problem with my analysis, I'm afraid the
> weight of the evidence is in my favor. All I have done and all I need
> to do is to show that I can fit the observed spectral lines with the
> results generated a scaling of the Rydberg formula.
*rolls eyes*
More amateur hour "but I get within 1%!!!!" idiocy. Nobody cares. Being 1%
wrong in spectroscopy means your model is completely wrong and not worth
considering.
>
> Unless you can find a flaw in the series of formulas I provided, I all
> I have to do is show that they produce the observed wavelengths -
> which they do to be emprically supported.
>
> There isn't any magic at all. If anyone simply plots the wavelengths
> for He II based on the transitions found in the NIST database and then
He++ has no electrons _FOR_ a transition. Don't be retarded.
> does the same for He I, it is obvious to see that the He I ion (which
> is thought to be a multi-body problem) follows the He II staircase
> pattern exactly.
He+ is a Hydrogen-like system. It isn't thought to be 'multi-body' by anyone
except the clueless and ignorant.
> Remarkably, there isn't any big difference between
> the 2 at all - as if there was no difference between the hydrogen-like
> and non hydrogen like ions, other than a simple setup up in wavelength
> and some minor scaling based on the N2 value. Look at the chart:
>
> http://franklinhu.com/spectrahe.jpg
You don't even bother to label your axes. Gazing vacantly into space is a
more effective use of my time than deciphering your crap.
>
> The pink line is He II, the yellow just above it is He I - see the
> pattern? The He I values can be calculated using only Rydberg based
> formulas based only upon N1, N2 starting/ending energy shell level
> numbers. This is an empircal fact. If the spectra for He I was truly a
> multi-body problem, then the shape of the spectra couldn't possibly
> mirror the He II spectra. But this is what is NOT empirically
> supported by the data.
You are clueless. Explaining why you are wrong is a waste of time and will
accomplish nothing given your _VERY_ long history of not knowing what the
fuck you are talking about.
Szczepan Bialek
"Androcles" <Headm...@Hogwarts.physics_z> wrote
news:IB03o.22833$FM1.4781@hurricane...
>
> "Szczepan Bialek" <sz.b...@wp.pl> wrote in message
> news:4c4c7702$0$17103$6578...@news.neostrada.pl...
> |
> | > |
> as
> | > | opposed to the normal air (???, aer) mortals breathe".
> | >
> | > That's right, we are not gods so we don't need any aether. And since
> there
> | > is no aether to breathe there are no gods either.
> | > You do not know it?
> | > You are insane.
> |
> | Not only me. A.G. Kelly also:
> |
> http://www.worldnpa.org/pdf/ebooks/Kelly%20-%20New%20Theory%20of%20the%20Behavior%20of%20Light.pdf
> | S*
>
> Ok, you and A.G. Kelly are both insane, but A. G. Kelly isn't here to
> answer
> to his crackpottery so he's irrelevant. Clearly he doesn't
> understand Sagnac or Coriolis and neither do you.
> http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Sagnac/Sagnac.htm
You did a lot to disprove the results of Michelson and Sagnac.
But now are the another evidences collected by Kelly.
The question is what is the role of the rare plasma produced by the Sun and
rotated with it..
Is it a medium for the electric waves?
S*
Androcles
|
| "Androcles" <Headm...@Hogwarts.physics_z> wrote
| news:IB03o.22833$FM1.4781@hurricane...
| >
| > "Szczepan Bialek" <sz.b...@wp.pl> wrote in message
| > news:4c4c7702$0$17103$6578...@news.neostrada.pl...
| > |
| > | > |
| > | > | We do not need "Aether is the pure upper air that the gods
breathe,
| > as
| > | > | opposed to the normal air (???, aer) mortals breathe".
| > | >
| > | > That's right, we are not gods so we don't need any aether. And since
| > there
| > | > is no aether to breathe there are no gods either.
| > | > You do not know it?
| > | > You are insane.
| > |
| > | Not only me. A.G. Kelly also:
| > |
| >
http://www.worldnpa.org/pdf/ebooks/Kelly%20-%20New%20Theory%20of%20the%20Behavior%20of%20Light.pdf
| > | S*
| >
| > Ok, you and A.G. Kelly are both insane, but A. G. Kelly isn't here to
| > answer
| > to his crackpottery so he's irrelevant. Clearly he doesn't
| > understand Sagnac or Coriolis and neither do you.
| > http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Sagnac/Sagnac.htm
|
| You did a lot to disprove the results of Michelson and Sagnac.
Absolutely NOT, you LYING bastard. Why would I challenge a result,
you moron? Michelson and Sagnac did a lot to disprove your stupid
aether. So much so that they completely succeeded, you Polack cretin.
You and A.G. Kelly are both insane.
Szczepan Bialek
"Androcles" <Headm...@Hogwarts.physics_z> wrote
news:ZHb3o.51052$Ae5.12774@hurricane...
>
> "Szczepan Bialek" <sz.b...@wp.pl> wrote in message
> news:4c4d3b73$0$17089$6578...@news.neostrada.pl...
> |
> |
>
> Absolutely NOT, you LYING bastard. Why would I challenge a result,
> you moron? Michelson and Sagnac did a lot to disprove your stupid
> aether.
Michelson and Sagnac were the most devoters of aether.
You repeat the texstbooks version.
In the original paper (in your possesion) Michelson wrote that the Stokes
aether is correct and the stupid Lorentz aether is wrong.
>So much so that they completely succeeded, you Polack cretin.
Yes. They disproved the motionless Lorentz aether. But they proved the
Stokes aether whirl.
> You and A.G. Kelly are both insane.
You probably do not know that in XIX century were the two concepts of
eather. The Stokes rotating planetary disc and the Lorentz motionless.
The experiments proved the Stokes.
So no stupid Lorentz aether but plasma which rotate with the Sun.
S*
Szczepan Białek
"Vince Morgan" <vin...@TAKEOUToptusnet.com.au> wrote
news:4c4ccee4$0$25356$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...> news:4c4c7619$0$17085$6578...@news.neostrada.pl...
>>
>>
>> But what is your opinion on the evidences collected by A.G. Kelly:
>>
> http://www.worldnpa.org/pdf/ebooks/Kelly%20-%20New%20Theory%20of%20the%20Behavior%20of%20Light.pdf
>>
>> All todays measurements are in agreement with the Stokes aether where the
>> plasma rotate locally with the Sun.
>>
> earth's
> gravitational field" yet,
Me too. But the collection is universal.
The same evidences means quite oppsite for Andro than for Kelly.
Who is right?
>but it's certainly very interesting. I did read
> the later paper where he did rotate the solenoid and that was very
> informative as well.
Is it avilable on line?
S*
Androcles
|
| "Androcles" <Headm...@Hogwarts.physics_z> wrote
| news:ZHb3o.51052$Ae5.12774@hurricane...
| >
| > "Szczepan Bialek" <sz.b...@wp.pl> wrote in message
| > news:4c4d3b73$0$17089$6578...@news.neostrada.pl...
| > |
| > |
| > | You did a lot to disprove the results of Michelson and Sagnac.
| >
| > Absolutely NOT, you LYING bastard. Why would I challenge a result,
| > you moron? Michelson and Sagnac did a lot to disprove your stupid
| > aether.
|
| Michelson and Sagnac were the most devoters of aether.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7T0d7o8X2-E
|
| You repeat the texstbooks version.
Absolutely NOT, you LIAR. I rely on empirical data alone.
YOU repeat the texstbooks version.
|
| In the original paper (in your possesion) Michelson wrote that the Stokes
| aether is correct and the stupid Lorentz aether is wrong.
http://www.aip.org/history/gap/PDF/michelson.pdf
Show where, liar.
| >So much so that they completely succeeded, you Polack cretin.
|
| Yes. They disproved the motionless Lorentz aether. But they proved the
| Stokes aether whirl.
http://www.aip.org/history/gap/PDF/michelson.pdf
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7T0d7o8X2-E
Show where, liar.
|
| > You and A.G. Kelly are both insane.
|
| You probably do not know that in XIX century were the two concepts of
| eather. The Stokes rotating planetary disc and the Lorentz motionless.
| The experiments proved the Stokes.
http://www.aip.org/history/gap/PDF/michelson.pdf
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7T0d7o8X2-E
Show where, liar.
|
| So no stupid Lorentz aether but plasma which rotate with the Sun.
| S*
http://www.aip.org/history/gap/PDF/michelson.pdf
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7T0d7o8X2-E
Show where, liar.
Androcles
|
| "Androcles" <Headm...@Hogwarts.physics_z> wrote
| news:ZHb3o.51052$Ae5.12774@hurricane...
| >
| > "Szczepan Bialek" <sz.b...@wp.pl> wrote in message
| > news:4c4d3b73$0$17089$6578...@news.neostrada.pl...
| > |
| > |
| > | You did a lot to disprove the results of Michelson and Sagnac.
| >
| > Absolutely NOT, you LYING bastard. Why would I challenge a result,
| > you moron? Michelson and Sagnac did a lot to disprove your stupid
| > aether.
|
| Michelson and Sagnac were the most devoters of aether.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7T0d7o8X2-E
|
| You repeat the texstbooks version.
Absolutely NOT, you LIAR. I rely on empirical data alone.
YOU repeat the texstbooks version.
|
| In the original paper (in your possesion) Michelson wrote that the Stokes
| aether is correct and the stupid Lorentz aether is wrong.
http://www.aip.org/history/gap/PDF/michelson.pdf
Show where, liar.
| >So much so that they completely succeeded, you Polack cretin.
|
| Yes. They disproved the motionless Lorentz aether. But they proved the
| Stokes aether whirl.
http://www.aip.org/history/gap/PDF/michelson.pdf
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7T0d7o8X2-E
Show where, liar.
|
| > You and A.G. Kelly are both insane.
|
| You probably do not know that in XIX century were the two concepts of
| eather. The Stokes rotating planetary disc and the Lorentz motionless.
| The experiments proved the Stokes.
http://www.aip.org/history/gap/PDF/michelson.pdf
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7T0d7o8X2-E
Show where, liar.
|
| So no stupid Lorentz aether but plasma which rotate with the Sun.
| S*
http://www.aip.org/history/gap/PDF/michelson.pdf
Androcles
"Szczepan Bia3ek" <sz.b...@wp.pl> wrote in message
news:4c4d5227$0$17082$6578...@news.neostrada.pl...
|
| "Vince Morgan" <vin...@TAKEOUToptusnet.com.au> wrote
| news:4c4ccee4$0$25356$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
| >
| > "Szczepan Bialek" <sz.b...@wp.pl> wrote in message
| > news:4c4c7619$0$17085$6578...@news.neostrada.pl...
| >>
| >>
| >> But what is your opinion on the evidences collected by A.G. Kelly:
| >>
| >
http://www.worldnpa.org/pdf/ebooks/Kelly%20-%20New%20Theory%20of%20the%20Behavior%20of%20Light.pdf
| >>
| >> All todays measurements are in agreement with the Stokes aether where
the
| >> plasma rotate locally with the Sun.
| >>
| > Interesting paper Szczepan. I don't quite get "light moves with the
| > earth's
| > gravitational field" yet,
|
| Me too. But the collection is universal.
| The same evidences means quite oppsite for Andro than for Kelly.
| Who is right?
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/geoopt/optpic/brokpen.jpg
Kelly: The pencil bends when you put it water.
Androcles: The light is refracted.
The same evidence means quite opposite for Androcles than for Kelly.
Who is right?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7T0d7o8X2-E part 2.
Kelly: The light is affected by gravity.
Androcles:
Don't know.
(1) maybe the apparatus is bent by gravity. Attach weights to bend it more.
(2) maybe the air is denser in the lower part of the apparatus, refracting
the light. Perform in vacuum.
Maybe gravity affects light. Where are the Moon and Sun (tides) when the
shifts are at maximum
and minimum?
Androcles
"Szczepan Bia3ek" <sz.b...@wp.pl> wrote in message
news:4c4d5227$0$17082$6578...@news.neostrada.pl...
|
| "Vince Morgan" <vin...@TAKEOUToptusnet.com.au> wrote
| news:4c4ccee4$0$25356$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
| >
| > "Szczepan Bialek" <sz.b...@wp.pl> wrote in message
| > news:4c4c7619$0$17085$6578...@news.neostrada.pl...
| >>
| >>
| >> But what is your opinion on the evidences collected by A.G. Kelly:
| >>
| >
http://www.worldnpa.org/pdf/ebooks/Kelly%20-%20New%20Theory%20of%20the%20Behavior%20of%20Light.pdf
| >>
| >> All todays measurements are in agreement with the Stokes aether where
the
| >> plasma rotate locally with the Sun.
| >>
| > Interesting paper Szczepan. I don't quite get "light moves with the
| > earth's
| > gravitational field" yet,
|
| Me too. But the collection is universal.
| The same evidences means quite oppsite for Andro than for Kelly.
| Who is right?
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/geoopt/optpic/brokpen.jpg
Kelly: The pencil bends when you put it water.
Androcles: The light is refracted.
The same evidence means quite opposite for Androcles than for Kelly.
Who is right?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7T0d7o8X2-E part 2.
Szczepan Bialek
"Androcles" <Headm...@Hogwarts.physics_z> napisal w wiadomosci
news:YWf3o.297633$Yb4.261158@hurricane...
>
> "Szczepan Bialek" <sz.b...@wp.pl> wrote in message
> news:4c4d4f4f$0$17090$6578...@news.neostrada.pl...
> |
> |
> Stokes
> | aether is correct and the stupid Lorentz aether is wrong.
>
> http://www.aip.org/history/gap/PDF/michelson.pdf
>
> Show where, liar.
Page 34, the paragraf before supplement.
>
> | >So much so that they completely succeeded, you Polack cretin.
> |
> | Yes. They disproved the motionless Lorentz aether. But they proved the
> | Stokes aether whirl.
>
> http://www.aip.org/history/gap/PDF/michelson.pdf
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7T0d7o8X2-E
>
> Show where, liar.
See above.
>
> |
> | > You and A.G. Kelly are both insane.
> |
> | You probably do not know that in XIX century were the two concepts of
> | eather. The Stokes rotating planetary disc and the Lorentz motionless.
> | The experiments proved the Stokes.
>
> http://www.aip.org/history/gap/PDF/michelson.pdf
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7T0d7o8X2-E
>
> Show where, liar.
Stokes is the champion of aether. You should see the oryginal Stokes papers
(awailable on line).
His jelly like model is in agreement with the todays plasma.
|
> | So no stupid Lorentz aether but plasma which rotate with the Sun.
> | S*
>
> http://www.aip.org/history/gap/PDF/michelson.pdf
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7T0d7o8X2-E
>
> Show where, liar.
Jelly can creep but not flow. For this reason the jelly do not rotate with
the Earth. The rotation with the Sun is very stabile. The ring laser
gyroscopies are very accurate.
Before Michelson-Gale experiment many scientists were sure that aether
rotate with the Earth. But such theories becomes erroneous.
But Stokes is O.K.
S*
Szczepan Białek
Użytkownik "Szczepan Bialek" <sz.b...@wp.pl> napisał w wiadomości
news:4c4dc4a6$0$19183$6578...@news.neostrada.pl...
>
>
> Page 34, the paragraf before supplement.
Should be page 341
S*
>>
PD
> > Secondly, you should know that the Rydberg formula is the *result of*
> > a theory. Thus, when you say you've extended the Rydberg formula, you
> > should probably indicate how you've extended the theory that produced
> > the Rydberg formula. As far as I can tell, you've not done that at
> > all.
>
> The extension I referred to is the common one used to calculate the
> spectra for hydrogen-like ions. See:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rydberg_formula
>
> Look under:
> "Rydberg formula for any hydrogen-like element"
>
> That isn't my extension. All I am claiming is that the rest of the
> spectra for non-hydrgen-like ions can be described as a simple scaling
> of the formulas should be, I just plotted the data and did a curve
> fitting exercise to show that you could create a Rydberg formula that
> reproduces the He spectra to within a percent of the observed values.
I've looked at your stuff. Congratulations, you earned a pair of
eyeballs.
It is still not interesting.
At the very basic level, all you are doing is an empirical fit. There
is no underlying theory.
ANY empirical fit with a sufficient number of free parameters can be
made to fit an arbitrary number of data points.
In this case, you have a relatively low number of data points, because
you've selected only those cases that make the fit look good. That
borders on scientific fraud.
If you want to know why the *ratio* of spectral lines is about the
same for He and H, then a simple quantum mechanics text will explain
to you why.
The sad part about this is that you think you've discovered something
that somebody else doesn't know how to do, just because they don't do
the empirical fit the way you do. The problem is that the quantum
mechanical method explains WHY the Rydberg formula is the way it is,
and doesn't HAVE to do any empirical fitting to get 1% results.
>
> Now Eric says that the Rydberg formula only applies to hydrogen or
> hydrogen-like ions, but what I have shown is that it is wrong - just
> look at how closely I have been able to reproduce the spectra for He,
> Li, & Be using nothing but a simple scaling of the Rydberg formula.
> The spectra for the other ions of an atom follow exactly the same
> staircase spectral energy pattern which is very predictable (Have you
> even bothered looking at those graphs????). Eric says that this is
> impossible even in principle, and it would be if you blindly believed
> his principles based upon the orbital model of the atom. But since the
> spectral data can find a fit using only the Rydberg formula, then I'd
> say these "principles" need to come under review since I just did
> something which is "in principle" impossible.
>
> But once again getting back to the topic of this post, you and others
> simply won't look at it, you won't even get past the 1st sentence - at
> least look at the graphs I references in my original post. I wouldn't
> mind if you looked at it and then threw stones, you're not even
> looking. This is worse than censorship or moderation where you blanket
> ignore anything which does not match your existing dogma. So really,
> it matters little if Scientific American censors all scientifc
> innovation, no one would want to read about it anyways. No wonder
> science makes so little progress.
>
> So once again, I beg of you to actually read what I have proposed. If
> you spent this much time reading to the bottom of this post, it is the
> least you could do:
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/ab78cb14189ffaee
>
> Otherwise, you too are guilty of putting a blind unscientifc dogmatic
> eye on all possible scientific innovations.
Androcles
"Szczepan Bia3ek" <sz.b...@wp.pl> wrote in message
news:4c4dc765$0$2599$6578...@news.neostrada.pl...
|
| U?ytkownik "Szczepan Bialek" <sz.b...@wp.pl> napisa3 w wiadomo6ci
| news:4c4dc4a6$0$19183$6578...@news.neostrada.pl...
| >
| >
| > Page 34, the paragraf before supplement.
|
| Should be page 341
| S*
| >>
That is about aberration.
It says " and his (Lorentz's) own theory ALSO fails."
The "also" is about Stokes' theory failing.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/also
1 : likewise
2 : in addition : besides, too
Nowhere did Michelson say Stokes' aether was correct, you are a fucking
LYING pile of ignorant worthless shit.
You can't convince anyone with LIES, you stupid bastard.
All you've done is proven you have no credibility and anything you say from
this day forward is not to be believed.
You are raving mad, totally insane, a complete lunatic.
You need to read the first line on the page before page 334, right after the
paper's title. Then fuck off.