Re: Verification of theories


PD wrote:
> chip wrote:
> > Bilge wrote:
> > > Pentcho Valev, idiot from plant pinhead:
> > >
> > > >According to one of the most pernicious myths adopted in postscientism,
> > > >theories can only be verified through experiments.
> > >
> > > Well gee. Since physical theories are supposed to be theories
> > > about nature, don't you think that checking with nature would
> > > be a rather obvious requirement? Or, are you planning to come
> > > up with your own theory and send lots of letters through your
> > > attorneys threating nature to conform or be sued for failing to
> > > meet some implied warranty?
> >
> > what if the nature cheat us by means
> > of observations, the man still have a
> > point
>
> No, he doesn't. Nature is not malicious. Nature's behavior is what it
> is, whether we've discovered it or not. If we have a misunderstanding
> about how it works, then eventually we will find an instance where that
> understanding fails. That's what experimentation is all about.

you are totally absoultely ubdeiable inconsisten
and wrong here

what you call for nature is somthin only in your mind,
you brain cells and ramifications, done in such a
maner to safe space

thats whay tha logic

so nature doesnt exists, or only exists as chemical
reactions and small electric impulses in your brain,
nothin else

>
> >
> > if the theory fails making 10 predictions
> > but succes repeatly 2 specific predictions,
> > then the theory is good enuff, huh?
> >
>
> Not at all, and that's the point. Relativity has *never* made a
> prediction that is counter to experimental results.

wrong again, relativity is only a buch of neuron connections
and / or ramifications in your brain ( to save space) thats
whay your logic, which easily can be wrong, but giving
you the feeling that is okay

but is not

actually youll never know from inside

you need to move outside

>
> > >
> > >
> > > >Being faithful to
> > > >the mythology, sycophants neither understand nor care about the logic
> > > >used by the initiated in the transition from axioms to final results.
> > > >They even don't care about the relevancy of experiments. Sycophants can
> > > >only sing dithyrambs containing stanzas of the sort:
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > >The frequency shift he gave in defiance
> > > >was neatly confirmed under the tower.
> > > >Oh Einstein, oh Albert, oh giant of science,
> > > >oh creature divine with an infinite power.
> > > >
> > > >The problem is that, in the postscientific era, the initiated are
> > > >logical jugglers able to derive anything from anything. For instance,
> > > >the frequency shift factor, 1+phi/c^2, is a corollary of the
> > > >equivalence principle and Newton's c+v principle (the speed of light
> > > >does depend on the speed of source or observer - see
> > > >http://www.wbabin.net/valev/valev3.htm }. The Juggler did obtain the
> > > >factor for himself in this way but to sycophants he offered the absurd
> > > >derivation in Appendix 3 in his "Relativity" (see
> > > >http://www.wbabin.net/valev/valev6.htm ).
> > > >
> > > >Experimental verification can only make sense if a prior LOGICAL
> > > >verification has comprehensively answered the question "What follows
> > > >from what?".
> > > >
>
> And that's not true. A theory can be an "effective theory", slightly
> off the mark in its underpinnings, but actually quite good in its
> predictive power.

predictive means "What follows from what?".

> The question then becomes, when a better and more
> fundamental theory appears, why was the effective theory so good?
> Often, this question yields additional insights to the more fundamental
> theory, chiefly in how it corresponds in some limit or special
> circumstances to the effective theory. Consider Regge pole theory in
> high energy physics, or solitons in scattering theory.
>
> PD

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: What is BaT, exactly?
    ... Henri Wilson wrote: "It is also pure coincidence that a half metre vertical steel rod extends by the ... You know very well that GR's predictions for the behaviour of clocks in GPS orbit are proven correct within small margins. ... " It is indeed an idiotic idea that Einstein - or any other physicist - could formulate postulates of how nature behaves without first observing how nature ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Religious scientists
    ... that which has* a nature. ... Measurability implies that things are ... We want the predictions, ... I disagree as a universal claim about science. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Verification of theories
    ... >>>According to one of the most pernicious myths adopted in postscientism, ... >> about nature, don't you think that checking with nature would ... > but succes repeatly 2 specific predictions, ... why was the effective theory so good? ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Aether Displacement II
    ... double slit experiments. ... to what is really occurring in nature in my physical explanation of ... the 'delayed-choice' experiment. ... don't bother with any quantitative predictions at all. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Creationist Theory
    ... > testable, potentially falsifiable, and it must make predictions ... > cosmology and nature. ... create things so complex that natural processes could not produce them. ... complexity (evolution: proof of creation!). ...
    (talk.origins)