If your donator status is incorrect, please contact Michael at operations@freedomainradio.com with the relevant information.

Freedomain Radio Amazon Affiliate Links: United States - Canada - United Kingdom

Welcome to Freedomain Radio Message Board

If you're interested in joining the philosophical discussion, click "sign in" or "create account" on the right of the page. If you're creating a new account, please be sure to include an explanation as to why you're interested in joining the message board community. This verification requirement is included to cut down on possible spam accounts.

steljarkos

Has science become unscientific?

58 posts in this topic
57 minutes ago, ofd said:

First you come up with a theory, then you look for experiments that validate it.

You have it back-the-front. It is SGR theory that needs to provide the evidence to validate it.

In law, there are two principle standards of evidence. For criminal law, generally (I assume this holds in most western nations), there is the beyond all reasonable doubt standard. And in civil law, there is the balance of probabilities standard. SGR devotees are behaving as if their theory meets the beyond all reasonable doubt standard. It does not. Indeed, with recent developments in the debunking of this paradigm, I am of the belief that it no longer meets even the balance of probabilities standard.

On some fronts, particularly as regards to experimental evidence, QM does meet the beyond all reasonable doubt standard. These are exciting times for QM, but we need to dispense with this ball-and-chain that is SGR, if QM is to make significant further progress. I am so tired of SGR devotees interjecting with their weakly substantiated "but nothing can go faster than light" dogma, as if it's a fact.

The more that SGR devotees behave like self-flagellating worshippers at Mecca, the more that SGR looks like a religion, completely unimpeded by the inconveniences of the scientific method. Religion should have no part to play in the practice of the scientific method.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, steljarkos said:

In order to be able to debunk Einstein, you need to respect and understand where he was coming from.

1.)  Where was he coming from?

2.) No. In order to rebut Einstein one has to rebut the facts he found about reality.

 

regards

Andi

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Goldenages said:

Where was he coming from?

It's well documented everywhere and online. The onus is on any individual that is interested, to find out for themselves. We should not be expected to do anyone's thinking for them, nor waste time trying to convert True Believers from their Creationism.

16 minutes ago, Goldenages said:

No. In order to rebut Einstein one has to rebut the facts he found about reality.

Are you even paying attention? For some time, I originally bought into the one bit of evidence that might have met the beyond all reasonable doubt standard of criminal law. But as it turns out, the GPS relativity corrections turns out to be an urban legend... a big, fat nothing-burger. As for the rest, the balance of probabilities evidence is also looking lame, especially in the context of Binswanger and Horton and Fake News Culture.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, steljarkos said:

Are you even paying attention?

Yes, but not to obscure conspiration theories.

 

regards

Andi

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Goldenages said:

Yes, but not to obscure conspiration theories.

I've seen this tactic before, used by the Fake News Network. They dismiss ideas that they disagree with as conspiracy theories. You keep proving my point for me :)

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

You have it back-the-front. It is SGR theory that needs to provide the evidence to validate it.

And that has been done.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/2/2017 at 1:20 AM, steljarkos said:
On 7/1/2017 at 5:01 PM, Goldenages said:

Lets assume we create an entangled pair of particles,  I keep one and you take the second.  Now you start measuring the state of yours, and the state of mine is correlated instantaneuosly.

But: The correlation is stochastic.  To find out the exact correlation we have to meet again and compare our results, and with that hindsight we are able to find out whats happened. 

References to random information, or stochastic correlation, seem generally to be poorly thought through. Think of radio waves and their carrier frequency, to finish up as sound coming out of your radio's loudspeaker. If your "random information" can be made to follow a pattern, then you might still be able to transmit information. Perhaps there is scope for converting random information into some kind of carrier base over which information might be transmitted, much like a radio carrier frequency being used to broadcast sound.

 Once you disturb or measure the state of and entangled particle, the entanglement collapses.   It lets you read the state of the paired particle at a particular instant. And the an entangled pair is only formed as the result of a reaction at the quantum scale, the particles themselves are still moved at some finite speed.  Thus it is still impossible is to transmit information faster than the speed of light. (Given the formal definition of information as used in the Original Post to analyze the informational content of DNA.)  I also don't think about it as and instantaneous correlation, so much as smearing a single quantum squiggle over a distance. We don't actually know weather there is a limit to how far apart entangle particles can travel while remaining entangles.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎7‎/‎8‎/‎2017 at 6:55 AM, WorBlux said:

Once you disturb or measure the state of and entangled particle, the entanglement collapses.

Yup, I agree... as per my previous post on 2 July:

  • "... there are the practicalities relating to the collapse of the wave function, because once said photon is observed, it ceases to be entangled."

While we agree on this much, I do have cause to ponder whether we might be selling ourselves short by prematurely accepting the no-communication absolutes. There is still much that is not known. Indeed, much revolves around our understanding of "empty space" and how we define it, and other physicists have conjectured along these lines.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎7‎/‎4‎/‎2017 at 1:36 PM, ofd said:

And that has been done.

Ok, so you are happy with the complete absence of a criminal law standard of "beyond reasonable doubt" evidence. And you are willing to rely on the civil law standard of "balance of probabilities", with the lame evidence that has thus far been relied on. Good for you. You are entitled to your beliefs, but good science drawing on the scientific method requires more rigorous standards than that.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Ok, so you are happy with the complete absence of a criminal law standard of "beyond reasonable doubt" evidence. And you are willing to rely on the civil law standard of "balance of probabilities", with the lame evidence that has thus far been relied on. Good for you. You are entitled to your beliefs, but good science drawing on the scientific method requires more rigorous standards than that.

Strawman, poisoning the well and many other fallacies. I am still waiting for you to present us a reproducable experiment that refutes Einstein's theory.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As a reminder, the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard is a unanimous CONSENSUS judgement of 12 "reasonable and prudent persons" evaluating the carefully curated evidence of a court. It's not the same as a scientific judgement.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, shirgall said:

the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard is a unanimous CONSENSUS judgement of 12 "reasonable and prudent persons" evaluating the carefully curated evidence of a court. It's not the same as a scientific judgement.

In what ways are scientific judgements different to legal ones? I'm talking about practicalities here... how funding impacts on incentives and motivations. Both types of judgements are affected by cultural forces and cultural values, despite their respective assumptions that their decisions are objective and impartial.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, ofd said:

I am still waiting for you to present us a reproducable experiment that refutes Einstein's theory.

Ok, here it is again, lest you missed it the first time that I posted it: http://www.nacgeo.com/nacsite/press/1march2016.asp Now if, for whatever reason, this evidence still does not do it for you, then the onus is on you to spell out where it is wrong. You wanted the evidence, and I provided it. So the ball's in your court... where does this analysis break down?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, ofd said:

Strawman, poisoning the well and many other fallacies.

Now while I wait for you to provide a response to the evidence I've provided, let us take a closer look where the other aspects of your argument break down:

  1. Your alleging that I am relying on a strawman/poisoning-the-well fallacy is itself a strawman... unless you can be more specific. So if you are going to proceed down this line of argument, then you should provide some specifics... Poisoning-the-well fallacy requires the introduction of a fallacy. What is it that you have identified as said fallacy? Or the strawman, for that matter? Specifics please.
  2. Now as I've already pointed out before, it is pointless to refute a controversial conjecture that has not been proven to proper standards... the absence of proof should be sufficient. Just as I am unable to prove that the Flying Spaghetti Monster does not exist, the onus is on the believer in the FSMonster to provide the proof that He does exist. Furthermore, it IS good science to question weak evidence, in order to argue that a conjecture has not been substantiated to proper standards... exactly as I have done. Or do you believe that experimental evidence should be accepted unconditionally just because it was a credentialed dude/dudette in a labcoat who got their paper published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal? And no, relying on reputation (but every scientist yadda yadda) is another kind of strawman fallacy... groupthink consensus should not count as evidence.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, steljarkos said:

In what ways are scientific judgements different to legal ones? I'm talking about practicalities here... how funding impacts on incentives and motivations. Both types of judgements are affected by cultural forces and cultural values, despite their respective assumptions that their decisions are objective and impartial.

The methodology of science requires conclusions contrary to credible (well-documented, with a trained eye for sources of error) evidence to be discarded. Peer review is used to discard a claim, not to support it. Consensus is not part of the equation. Anyone can participate.

If there is instead persuasion, collusion, or coercion, it becomes politics, not science.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, shirgall said:

it becomes politics, not science.

Funding, incentives and support necessarily has business and politics intrude on science. Your idealization of science methodologies does not reflect the reality.

And the fact that science entertains feminist theory, for example, and takes its nonsense seriously (Richard Dawkins has described himself as a feminist on more than one occasion... and Steven Pinker is feminist-friendly) really should be raising eyebrows. Not to mention Big Bang theory, etc. Just as we judge people by the company they keep, so too, we should be judging organizations by the affiliations that they keep... and the nonsense that they entertain. And this is the core of this further dimension that I want to bring into the science debate. Our science culture is far from pure science... there's a lot of politics muddying the water. Fake News Culture infects Fake Science Academia, it's the same animal.

And we need look no further than the ongoing climate change controversy as the most recent example of how political agendas impact on how science is conducted. Which camp's science do you trust? Cigarette smoking is another controversy that had me wondering what the scientists/lawyers of their respective sides were smoking. And what about how drugs are regulated? Planned Parenthood controversy? Etc.

Edited by steljarkos
Climate change controversy - great example of questionable science
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/3/2017 at 3:59 PM, Goldenages said:

But I cannot see any reason why a government should be interested in a cover up concerning the speed of light or relativistic effects.  You just can´t get taxes out of this

quantum entanglement provides that which almost every (technology centric) government is deadly afraid of ...

instant, secure, global communications at the personal level they would have zero control over, and it is getting closer and closer.

https://www.technologyreview.com/s/608252/first-object-teleported-from-earth-to-orbit/?set=608245

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

instant, secure, global communications at the personal level they would have zero control over, and it is getting closer and closer.

Where does the article say that it is instantenuous? Quantum communication is secure, because eavesdropping breaks it down but you have to transmit the information using electromagnetic waves.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/11/2017 at 3:55 AM, ofd said:

Where does the article say that it is instantenuous? Quantum communication is secure, because eavesdropping breaks it down but you have to transmit the information using electromagnetic waves.

Well that is the entire point of the entangled particles; there is ZERO interaction in "our" space...no electromagnetic waves... hence the aspect of "spooky interaction at a distance". You do NOT have two particles that "send info back and forth", you have basically have two mirror representations of a single particle.  So when you measure one, you have defined the other with 100% certainty! 

To help understand this, I hunted around for a simple video that explains this; try looking at this which may help as it ends with a simple validation of the "spooky" interaction, but, at this time we do not understand how to take advantage of this to send information.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZuvK-od647c

I think this is an area of science that can fundamentally change what we know about the universe. Keep in mind, consensus is NOT science. That Einstein and others "agreed" that this quantum conundrum could not be true did not change the fact that it actually was true!! That somebody (or a group of folks)  today thinks "well you cannot send information by entanglement because it violates <insert current understanding>" still needs to reconcile with this phenomenon in its entirety... this spooky entanglement does exist and scientists are still trying to figure out what that means. If it turns out to be an interaction that happens "outside" our space-time, well, guess what??? that means it is not violating any of "our" space-time rules, nice isn't it ;-)

We are all just "waves" in space-time.(lets hope some scientist does not come up with a quantum wave nullifier "just to see what would happen"...)

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another interpretation is, that this new born, entangled particles do have a lack of information about how to behave. They simply do not "know" the physical laws of the universe until they get in contact with other particles who already behave according to the laws of classical physics. In an experiment we call this the measurement, but of course even without any measurement every new particle gets in contact with other particles very quickly (unless we shield them carefully).  So there is no conscious observer necessary, any interaction with the already existing world will do.

If we remove the factor time, i.e a property unknown to new particles, their behaviour suddenly makes perfect sense. If there is no time, there is no distance, and it makes no sense to talk about "instantaneous" or "faster than something".  Those qualities simply are not appropriate.

 

regards

Andi

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

you have basically have two mirror representations of a single particle.  So when you measure one, you have defined the other with 100% certainty! 

Actually, you have two particles that put together would make up one article. You have a combination of two numbers that can form the sum 10, but unless you check which is the case, you don't know. That's analogous to qunantum entanglement.

The important thing to remember is that no information is transmitted. To transmit information, you have to use electromagnetic waves or other means of communications to modulate said information. That's why the communication process happens in two stages as far as I am aware. First, you use entanglement to make sure that there is no interference or eavesdropping and secondly, you transmit the information.

 

Quote

That somebody (or a group of folks)  today thinks "well you cannot send information by entanglement because it violates <insert current understanding>" still needs to reconcile with this phenomenon in its entirety.

Sure, that's a possibility. But unless that is proven to be the case there is no rational motive to change the current understanding.

Edited by ofd
Edited for clarity
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If one understands the Minkowski Diagramm than it´s obvious that the speed limit of c ist not only about speed.

Quote from Wiki:

Quote

These considerations show that the speed of light as a limit is a consequence of the properties of spacetime, and not of the properties of objects such as technologically imperfect space ships. The prohibition of faster-than-light motion actually has nothing in particular to do with electromagnetic waves or light, but depends on the structure of spacetime.

 

Of course one can assume that every single scientist since 1905, who dealt with Einstein´s relativistic theory and its experiments, is part of a big cover up and only Mr. Xinhang Shen is correct. Every single physicist working for CERN, member of the brotherhood of liars, carefully choking the power in the accelerator. However this is what I call a conspiration theory.

 

As for spaceships to "boldly go where no man has gone before" have a look at the Alcubierre drive.

As I mentioned earlier, spacetime itself can (and does) expand faster than light.

 

rergards

Andi

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok folks, skeptics and true-believers alike, here's the deal with special relativity (general relativity is a very different matter, so let's not go there for the moment). I won't say it's the final word, but it is compelling. I posted the following question to physicists involved in high-energy physics, such as the Large Hadron Collider, and I received good answers, with evidence, in the affirmative:

  • Several online sources suggest that the Large Hadron Collider has managed to accelerate protons to 0.999999991 of light speed c. Are collisions between particles travelling at near-light speed (0.999999991c), in the Large Hadron Collider, consistent with E=mc^2/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2 ) (the special relativity equation)? Tables available online suggest a Lorentz factor of 7450 for this speed, implying that the kinetic energy of two protons slamming together in the LHC will yield something of the order of 7450 (x 2) times the energy-of-collision than would be expected if SR did not hold true. This is a huge increase that would be easily detected. Is this estimated increase in the energy of collision, in fact, what is observed in actual experiments in the LHC?

My background is in engineering, so this emphasis on the energy-balance is the kind of smack-in-the-face evidence that I was looking for.

Conclusion: The evidence supporting SR is solid. It meets the beyond all reasonable doubt standard of criminal law. Having established this much, I will be particularly interested in what the following article has to say, when it gets published in September. I mean, how can one argue with the obvious, verifiable energy implications of a large Lorentz factor?

http://www.nacgeo.com/nacsite/press/1march2016.asp

As for general relativity, stay skeptical.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now