Re: GPS 'GR Correction' Myth.

Henri Wilson wrote: 
On Thu, 13 Oct 2005 22:19:42 GMT, "Androcles" <Androcles@ MyPlace.org> wrote:


"John Kennaugh" <JKNG@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:4oxa$7JXKrTDFwac@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
| Androcles wrote:
| >


| I was talking completely generally not about any specific
observation -
| note the "(say)". Henri is saying the data is wrong when he means that
| the interpretation put on the data is wrong. Data is just data,
subject
| to measurement error perhaps, but it cannot be wrong in the sense
Henri
| means.

Yes, and that makes Wilson wrong.  I totally agree, empirical data
is just data and cannot be "wrong".


You haven't answer my question that I asked Paul.
"If you hear train whistle of 5000 kz, how fast is the train approaching you?"

The units 'kz' are unfamiliar to me. If you mean Hz then I would say the answer is 'bloody fast' - 5000 Hz is only one octave below my hearing cut-off. :o)

According to you, Andersen and even John, the '5000hz' is data.

Quite so. It is what your frequency meter reads. Data is what you measure. Data is the information you gather.

I say it is the illusion.

No. If my frequency meter reads 500Hz it is because the frequency reaching it really is 500Hz. If I use differential microphones I can say which direction it is coming from. I can analyse its frequency components and compare it with a data base and conclude it is probably a train whistle and not a flute. I can measure its amplitude and its duration. I can measure the wind direction and speed. I can measure the air temperature. All of this is data.


The frequency the train driver hears is the REAL data.

The Frequency the train driver hears/measures is also data. It is no more real than the data I measured.


Individual stellar observations are no more useful than the '5000 hz' sound. 

I did not say that the data I gathered would be useful.

How do you calculate the speed of the train from that? 

You can't. I never claimed you could

Without the real data,
you cannot.

Now you are talking about interpreting the data. If I had the train drivers data as well as my own I might be able to make some deductions i.e. interpret the data, likewise if he had my data as well as his he could make some deductions. He cannot deduce what speed he is travelling at by listening to his whistle any more than I can.

Similarly, you cannot deduce anything much from a stellar illusion

What you measure/photograph is perfectly valid data. Provided what is published is an accurate reflection of the raw data and hasn't been selected in some way it is valid data. It might be perfectly valid and still tell you zilch.

I do not believe that you are accusing someone of tampering with the data or selecting the data according to their particular prejudice. Your statement that the 'data is wrong' is giving the word 'data' a meaning of your own which is not recognised by anyone else. The basic name of the game is communications and you cannot discuss something unless you agree a common language for discussion. Language is not a precise tool and in any scientific discussion it may be necessary to define what you mean by certain terms, but using a word in a sense not recognised by anyone else is not a good start.

...or even a
set of related illusions supposedly providing data for different properties of
the same star.

More data is always better than less data but it still might tell you zilch. The question which you are trying to address is 'what is it which is producing that data'. Your explanation and someone else's might be entirely different. If the data has a very complex structure then an explanation which explains that complex structure is more likely to be correct than one which only gives an approximate explanation but even that is not conclusive.
--
John Kennaugh
to email convert the number from hex to decimal
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: The Case for a Designer
    ... the real question is how the evidence should be interpreted. ... will seek to apply a different interpretation. ... Are you saying that so long as chance is available as the explanation ... Scientists like to think they are the *only* people prepared to accept ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: To John Harshman -- re Isochrons
    ... interpretation of data. ... Consider the nature of an "explanation." ... that these interpretations are arrived at by scientists of all ... When looked at without preconceived ideas, the pattern of phylogenetic ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Generic thanks
    ... >> interpretation does make sense. ... :Otherwise Hagen can name proofs for the existence of the Minoans ... > instance the LOGICAL EXPLANATION, AFTER DECIPHERMENT, of the crowding ... corrections on side B in B I in the same way, if you like Faucounau ...
    (sci.lang)
  • Re: Sagnac Fully Supports the BaTh.
    ... you dream up another equally stupid explanation. ... the 'wavecrests' ... and reaches steady state, ... There is no "Henri Wilson" on the alumni lists of ANU. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Sagnac Fully Supports the BaTh.
    ... you dream up another equally stupid explanation. ... Do you remember your explanation that the Sagnac effect ... and reaches steady state, Quacker Wilson? ... There is no "Henri Wilson" on the alumni lists of ANU. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)