Re: New improved facts part 3v031


"PD" <pdraper@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1113135958.475377.270720@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> Dr *** wrote:
> > "PD" <pdraper@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> > news:1113071164.994329.121370@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >
> > Dr *** wrote:
> > > Of accelerate, deceleration, motion and energy.
> > >
> > > ************** Simplified *************
> >
> > Wow, this IS improved. The density of errors has gone WAY up. Too
> high,
> > in fact, for me to start tackling it.
> > PD
> >
> > I thought you might be pleased :-) I have more just wait.
> > It is a pity that you were unable to provide any proof of any of my
> errors
> > so far I suppose in the end you will start to claim that I have not
> taken
> > any note of your illogical assertion and you will be correct for the
> first
> > time :-).
> >
> > Dr ***
>
> Ah, see, and here is where you make a common error about physics. You
> assume that your role is to propose something and that the critic's
> responsibility is to prove you wrong. Unfortunately, this is not how
> science works. The critic might take it upon himself/herself to point
> out places where you are likely wrong, but the burden of proof is on
> nature itself. Your responsibility here is to suggest the experimental
> test that would quantitatively and qualitatively distinguish your
> theory's predictions from the current model's predictions. The comments
> we make are as a courtesy, but we have no onus to "defend" the current
> model from newcomers with a different idea.

Well said. You know a lot of problems would be cleared up if posters simply
would acquaint themselves with the Feynman Lectures before posting. He
examines these issues in the early chapters of the first volume and should
be compulsory reading for everyone interested in physics or science for that
matter. BTW got Penrose's new book. Am going through Zwiebach's book on
string theory at the moment. Will keep the group updated on what I tank
once I start on it.

Thanks
Bill

>
> PD
>


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Marriage is under fire!!
    ... > Now, that would be way cool - I don't have the math, physics, ... dude you don't have the background to understand why science is ... > And the process is simplicity itself - Spirit inspires, ... Spirit has responsibility to give unconditional ...
    (sci.electronics.basics)
  • Re: Non-homogenous theories of space and time
    ... >>the fact that science (physics in particular) must not be ... > experiments that falisify my claims and I am able to make predictions ... Blackbody radiation? ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: What is the science for SR and LET?
    ... What is the science for SR and LET? ... predictions that LET doesn't touch. ... measurements, but LET gives us more information than ... the correct physics that goes with the correct math. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Explaining Time Dilation
    ... >> science. ... > Did you not read all my predictions which are at variance with the ... >> So you disagree with the standard definition of time used in physics. ... >> questions in philosophy. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Non-homogenous theories of space and time
    ... > the fact that science (physics in particular) must not be ... experiments that falisify my claims and I am able to make predictions ... > as little billiard balls cannot accept particle physics, ... Good science is falsifiable. ...
    (sci.physics)
Loading