Re: What happened to Paul Miller?

From: Paul Miller (aksuited_at_yahoo.com)
Date: 10/23/04 

Date: 23 Oct 2004 04:55:02 -0700

> It's nice to be friends with yourself. ;)

sorry?
 
> > > Paul claimed that he was " ... not a physicist, nor a mathematician, nor
> > > do I claim any understanding of relativity." The only problem is that
> > > Paul was somewhat unwilling to commit himself to any substantive
> > > negotiations in that challenge.
> >
> > Well, I would suggest that you specify the conditions of your
> > experiment that would predict the largest deviations from SR.
>
> That wasn't the agreement.

As far as I know, we don't have an agreement yet. I thought we were
trying to work towards one. Like I said, that may take time.
 
> > In terms
> > of accuracy, as I'm offering 100-1 I would need accuracy at least one
> > order of magnitude larger, i.e. p<< 0.001 where p is prob. of getting
> > a wrongly falsifying result. I know I promised to get back to you with
> > more detail, but I really will.
>
> Sure, you will. ;)
>
> I presume a repeatable measurement of a value of the variation outside the
> current 'best' value will be sufficient? That's all I'm asking for. Give
> me a specific value of 'c' and a range of values around that main value.
> Within that range you (and SR) will be declared the winner (and you will
> receive $1,000 US from me). Outside of which, I will be declared the winner
> (and receive $100,000 US from you). This is a trivial excercise for you and
> your "pal."
>
> I will then design an experiment (and you and your "pal" will approve) such
> that the experimental precision will be tight enough to meet your
> "challenge."

As I understand it, we are trying to distinguish between two possible
worlds, one in which SR is correct, and one in which it is wrong. The
best way to distinguish between them is to find the conditions under
which they look as different as possible from each other. Setting the
range of acceptable values of c depends on many factors, such as: the
value of c that you would predict that differs from SR, the nature of
experimental noise etc. Without investigating these issues, it's not
'a trivial exercise' for us. I did say in advance that it would take
some time to sort this out, did't I? Given that I'm risking a
considerable amount of money, is it unreasonable for me to ask for
some discussion about these issues? Why don't you try telling me your
thoughts on this, rather than always trying to pick a fight?

> > In the meantime, please show me some
> > reason to think that you have the resources to actually carry this
> > experiment out.
>
> What a pathetic attempt at evasion. If I had no resources, you would not
> have to risk any money. And how can I provide you with an estimate of the
> resources required, when you won't provide even the minimum to design the
> experiment? (Aside from the fact a few locals agreed to assist with
> equipment scrounging and purchase.)

What I'm talking about here is our time, not money. If this experiment
can't actually be done for real, then we're wasting our time. How
about you telling me about a couple of designs that could be done? At
least that would give me a start.

 
> > > "Paul Miller" did briefly resurface on September 10th:
> > >
> http://www.google.com/groups?selm=4602c429.0409101048.5892c2ad%40posting.goo
> > > gle.com
> > >
> > > However, this post certainly does not sound like it is written by
> > > someone who " ... is not a physicist, nor a mathematician, nor
> > > ... claim(s) any understanding of relativity."
> > > ===========================
> > > "All you are saying here is that you could build an adaptive controller
> > > to make the corrections without having any knowledge of GR. So what?
> > > The claim 'GPS wouldn't work without GR' means no more than 'the
> > > controller would land up learning exactly the same corrections as
> > > those predicted by GR'. This puts GR in the same category as any other
> > > well-supported and well-accepted theory. You could train a neural
> > > network to model the predictions of any theory, past or future, so you
> > > 'empirical' statement applies to all theories. It tells us nothing
> > > about the status of those theories."
> > > ===========================
> >
> > Sorry, but wrong again.
>
> Wrong that you posted something? You claimed that you did not have "any
> understanding of relativity." Yet you posted an authoritative post on GR
> and the support for physics theories in general. That appears to contradict
> your prior claims.

Wrong about these rather odd 'conspiracy theory'-like comments. As I
said from the start, I'm not a physicist, but my friend is. My
background is cognitive science, which is a branch of psychology, so
it's typically taught without any maths. I know nothing about GR, and
there's nothing in that post to suggest otherwise. My comments in that
post come from a basic understanding of the philosophy of science,
which is a common element in a cog.sci. degree. I'm not sure why I'm
now having to convince you that I'm telling the truth about this.
Firstly, I'm not sure if I care - if you want to think I'm a physicist
with an invisible friend, that's fine by me. Secondly, I don't
understand the relevance of this to the bet.

> If you were "real", you would simply provide what you agreed to before.
> After all, you want your money, right? Try again when you can simply live up
> to your newsgroup claims. Like with a pass/fail criterion.

Setting a pass/fail criterion depends on lots of factors, such as
experimental noise. That's one reason why I was asking whether you
have the resources to do this - it would be good to see how accurate
your measurements are able to be. Not on paper, but for real. Setting
up experiments like this isn't that straightforward - maybe we should
try to work together to define the criterion, rather than assuming
that I'm lying about everything. I would suggest that would involve
you talking to me about a few possible designs, then we can think
about what predictions SR would make, and what you would predict. Then
we can think about what kind of accuracy we can expect. We might even
have to collect some data before we set the criteria. This is how real
world experiments are done, at least in my experience. If you go back
to my original, first post, I did say that it was *your* job to
completely specify the experiment, in detail. The idea was that I
would take that experimental design - including criteria for
falsification - and talk to my pal about that. Now I can see that it's
going to take a bit more effort on our part, which is going to make
demands on our time. That's not a problem, as long as your willing to
work with us a bit. If you would rather assume that I'm lying about
all of that for some inexpicable reason, then walk away from the
challenge.

Paul

Relevant Pages

  • Re: What happened to Paul Miller?
    ... > As far as I know, we don't have an agreement yet. ... >> have to risk any money. ... when you won't provide even the minimum to design the ... > try to work together to define the criterion, ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: What happened to Paul Miller?
    ... > As far as I know, we don't have an agreement yet. ... >> have to risk any money. ... when you won't provide even the minimum to design the ... > try to work together to define the criterion, ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Brute Force Examination of a PLD
    ... When my friend and I discussed this "directed back in to the Array " ... that no one could be sure how many flip-flops were wired to go back in to ... As far as I can tell from a design standpoint there are so many flip-flops ... a mystery to me as I'm not a Math major. ...
    (comp.arch.fpga)
  • Re: How to motivate use of OO?
    ... | runs an Internet site with education-related information. ... was a pattern in my design problems. ... and thus people here tought me the basics of design patterns. ... your friend didn't complain about design. ...
    (comp.object)
  • Re: Word of mouth
    ... You know that picnic table I made based on your design? ... with that much time and materials ... uninitiated consumer will actually expect to pay for a handcrafted piece. ... during yourself, and the friend you built it for, a favor. ...
    (rec.woodworking)
Quantcast