Re: PHOTON MASS -- A FACT. MASSLESS PARTICLES -- NOT FACT.


tomgee wrote:
PD wrote:
tomgee wrote:
PD wrote:
tomgee wrote:

Your "model" is nothing of the sort. It makes no empirical predictions.

I've told you before, that's what the Stooges claim, but it's
not true. Neither is it true that nothing is a model if it contains
no "empirical predictions", whatever you mean by that.

OK, so let's see here. You don't know what he means by empirical
predictions ("whatever you mean by that") but you are confident your
model makes them. This is sort of like someone pointing out to that
your PWC is missing a coupling capacitor and you saying, "Don't be
silly, it's not missing a coupling capacitor, whatever that is."

Name two empirical predictions you model makes.

How can I when I don't know what he means by that?

Precisely. You can't. That's why it's foolish, Tom, for you to say that
your model is not lacking them, if you don't know what they are.

It would be if there was such a thing as that oxymoron. It is
impossible for such a thing to exist, yet you insist it does. I'm
still waiting for your definition of it, but not with bated breath.

Ah, so you don't know what it is, but you know your model is not
lacking them, and moreover you know it is an oxymoron. So your model
contains oxymorons.


As the
ex-Chief Stooge, why don't you tell us how you definition
varies from the ones in your favorite source and mine:
"Empirical 1. based on observation and experiment: based
on or characterized by observation and experiment rather
than theory 2. medicine based on practical medical
experience: based on practical experience in the medical
treatment of real cases rather than on applied theory or
scientific proof
3. philosophy derived solely from experience: derived as
knowledge from experience, particularly from sensory
observation, rather than from the application of logic"
Microsoft® Encarta® Reference Library 2005. © 1993-2004
Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved).

Be sure to include explanations of how math is an "empirical
prediction" and how that term is not an oxymoron.

TomGee, suppose I have enough data about you and can model your
behavior enough to say, "TomGee will get a prescription filled for an
antidepressant at the drugstore nearest his recliner, between two and
four p.m. either next Tuesday, Wednesday, or Friday," even though
you've never done that before. That would be an empirical prediction,
because it makes a quantitative (when) prediction about yet unmeasured
data.

No, that would be no. 3: philosophy derived solely from experience:
derived as knowledge from experience, particularly from sensory
observation, rather than from the application of logic.

"even though you've never done that before." What experience? What
observation?

It cannot be
no. 1, since that requires experiment. Thus your oxymoron is not
physics. Just as I thought, you're making up physics again!

And if you do not get that prescription filled when my model for
you says you would, then that model is toast. If you do get that
prescription filled when my model says you will, then the model has
measurable experimental support.

You really believe that, don't you? You say that constitutes
"measurable experimental support", but what happened to
your oxymoron, "empirical prediction"? Or are you defining
that to be "measurable experimental support"? If so, how
can "support" of any kind be an "empirical prediction"?

On the other hand, if I have a model
that says, "TomGee may get a prescription filled for an antidepressant
or maybe not, and if he does and he gets it filled on Tuesday, then my
model is consistent with that, but if he gets it filled on Thursday
instead, then my model is consistent with that as well," then what you
see is a crappy model without empirical predictions. On the other hand,
if I say, "TomGee will not understand the difference between these two
examples," that is not an empirically predictive model either. It is
simply a statement of a regularly observed phenomenon.

This
could be your chance to win your title back. Your supporters
are counting on you - don't let them down! (You know how
easily they can turn on you, right?)

No, math is easy, because it is rote memorization, like
learning the multiplication tables. Math is a step-by-step
process, and as such, it requires little brainwork com-
pared to reasonble thinking. It is harder for those who
can't memorize as well as others, so they don't do well in
schools where memory skills are rewarded over original
thinking.

You confuse arithmetic with mathematics, TomGee. Ever complete a
mathematical proof? Ever? Even in the 9th grade?

My my PD, you must want your title back really badly. Let's
see now, arithmetic is basic math, containing all the operators
of mathematics.

Really? List all the operators of mathematics.

Unsupported assertion on your part noted.


Tell us, PD, how in your exalted mathematics
you use other operators not used in arithmetic that makes it
distinct from arithmetic?

As I said, TomGee, ever done a mathematical proof? Ever? Even in the
9th grade?

I didn't think so.



And your little question above puts you back into the running
because it shows your argument has to do with who knows
more math than you, even though I long ago conceded that
I know little math.

Which is precisely why you're in NO position to say what math is.]

Now, that almost wins your crown back! Are you under the false
impression that one cannot say what math is unless they know
more than a little of it?

Why yes, Tom, I do think that. Do you think you can describe what
molecular biology is unless you know more than a little of it?

How much more? Give us the level at
which you believe someone is qualified to say what math is.

Your
"little" knowledge of math may include only the basics and rote
memorization, but you then make the mistake of thinking that all
mathematics is like the tiny little bit you know.

But that is the mistake you're making here and now in
assuming I think like that.

I don't have to. You said it yourself.


This is akin to you
saying, "Since I live next door to a Jack-in-the-Box burger joint,
everyone in the world lives next door to a Jack-in-the-Box burger
joint."

No, that is another error on your part. You assume I
think the same way you do, and so you project your
own inadequacies onto me. My complaint is not that
math is wrong or false, as you suggest above, but it is
against those Stooges who believe it is representative
of reality, as you do. I've told you that several time
already - wonder why you keep forgetting it?

To you, that was a mistake on my part
that allows you to argue that since you know more math than
I do, you know more about everything than I do. I think any
real debater knows I said that as a bait to see if you were
vain enough to add that to your armory for when you have no
good answers. You've used that so often I've lost count of
how many times you have had no good answers.

It helped you win the title Chief Stooge the first tme, and you
are thinking it can't hurt your chances now. You're right about
that, it can't hurt.
>
Math allows physical theories to make predictions.

That's just what you have been taught, but predictions were
being made long before math was invented.

Good, then name two.

Distraction attempt noted.

Nonsense. I'm simply asking for support of an assertion that YOU made.
As you say, *everyone* provides support for their assertions.

Distraction attempt noted.

Evasion noted.


As I have told you but you apparently do not agree with, the history
science is that of innocent children exposing the nakedness of the
inhabitants of the highest ivory towers. Scientific progress comes
more often from those who buck the current trends of conformist
science than from those who support conformity.

Really? Name two.

Distraction attempt noted.

Nonsense. I'm simply asking for support of an assertion that YOU made.
As you say, *everyone* provides support for their assertions.

Distraction attempt noted.

Evasion noted.


Those who kept
the dream alive are the heros of mankind, not the ones who tried
to stifle the human mind with their conformist nonsense.


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: PHOTON MASS -- A FACT. MASSLESS PARTICLES -- NOT FACT.
    ... Name two empirical predictions you model makes. ... Be sure to include explanations of how math is an "empirical ... TomGee, suppose I have enough data about you and can model your ... I'm simply asking for support of an assertion that YOU made. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: PHOTON MASS -- A FACT. MASSLESS PARTICLES -- NOT FACT.
    ... I've told you before, that's what the Stooges claim, but it's ... Name two empirical predictions you model makes. ... Be sure to include explanations of how math is an "empirical ... "measurable experimental support", but what happened to ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: PHOTON MASS -- A FACT. MASSLESS PARTICLES -- NOT FACT.
    ... Name two empirical predictions you model makes. ... No, math is easy, because it is rote memorization, like ... TomGee. ... science than from those who support conformity. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: What Does SR stand For?
    ... RLG wrote: ... assumption is a two-faced math. ... supports LET's reality as well. ... there is absolutely zero support ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Math Theories and Physical Theories.
    ... the supposed ether. ... math of SR requires any person to support 4-D. ... separate SR beliefs from LET beliefs, ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)