Re: HOCUS POCUS


mluttgens@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
PD wrote:
mluttgens@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
PD wrote:
mluttgens@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
PD wrote:
mluttgens@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
PD wrote:
mluttgens@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
PD wrote:

There are three facts that remain

- The correct formula for combining velocities (independent of what
assumptions are made to *derive* that formula) has been completely
verified in particle experiments. Call it an empirically confirmed
formula, if you like, and forget about deriving it from any
assumptions. It's nevertheless a confirmed relation.

Exact references, please.

I've done this for you before Marcel, almost a year ago. Your memory is
short. That, or you learn nothing. That, or you didn't read what I
pointed you to. I pointed to the comparison of rapidity distributions
in proton-proton collisions at fixed target and collider experiments.


Yes, I remember, but I didn't find any experiment whose data allowed
to confirm your claim.

I gave you references to the papers at the time. I don't know why you
wouldn't have been able to "find any experiment".

Any experiment that confirmed your claim.

The references I gave confirm this claim.





[...]

Proton-proton collisions and electron-electron collisions (for example)
are routinely done in both collider and fixed-target environments. The
physics of these collisions is simple enough (at least for some
measurable distributions) that comparison of the nature of the
collisions in both environments is tantamount to measuring the same
process in two very different frames of reference. The relative speed
of the colliding particles is measured in both cases as a normal part
of beamline monitoring operations. The fact that the distributions are
identical if and only if the relative speeds in the two reference
frames are related exactly by the relativistic prescription, is
compelling evidence that the relativistic prescription is correct.

Exactly related, thus no error bars ?

Don't be ridiculous. A measurement always involves error bars. You
should never use the presence of experimental error bars as an argument
that the evidence is not compelling enough. The measurement should be
sufficiently precise that it can clearly distinguish between a tested
model and a competing model. That is true in this case.


"Exactly" was a bit exaggerated. Anyhow, a statistical analysis is
needed to claim that such distinction exists. Where is it ?

In the papers. This is part and parcel of an experimental paper. Hint:
You may need to read some of the references to get a complete picture.


Among those many papers, at least one of them should be unambiguously
pertinent. Which one?

The two primary papers I gave you are unambiguously pertinent. You want
to be spoon fed. I don't have a spoon that will fit your mouth.

According to Google, there are about 52,200 papers about rapidity
distributions
in proton-proton collisions, so I would be grateful if you gave the
exact references
of those two primary papers. As you seem to be the only person claiming
that
the relativistic addition formula is validated by experiments, I am
convinced that
a lot of people would also be grateful to get those references.

As I told you Marcel, I did the work and gave you explicit references
nearly a year ago. You can surely do some Google work to at least find
out where I did that, especially since you say you remember it. I'm not
about to make things lapdog-easy for you, Marcel. I wouldn't do it for
a serious physicis student, either, because knowing how to dig this
stuff up is as basic a skill as using a timing light is to a car
mechanic.

About one year ago, you claimed that papers about rapidity
verified length contraction. Now, they allegedly verify the
relativistic
addition of velocities.

Yes, indeed. Both are confirmed in the same pair of experiments.

You are acting like a snake oil seller !
The snake oil is of course SR.

Well, once again, if experiment says the oil works, it works. You can
call it snake oil all you want, but it works.


Now, you have three choices at this point:
a) You can say you don't want to work that hard at figuring this stuff
out, in which I'd invite you to steer clear of the business entirely
because there are plenty who are willing and eager to do that.
b) You can say that you don't know how to look stuff up, and you need
more basic training in how to do library research and how to find out
what work has been done on a topic that you're unfamiliar with. In this
case, I can recommend some options for getting that training other than
dawdling in newsgroups.
c) You can say that you are willing to work hard at figuring this stuff
out, and that you do know how to do library research, and then you go
do it.

I will not repeat the "job" I did last year, as nowhere did I find a
confirmation
of your claims.

Really? Then apparently you don't know how to read scientific papers.
In that case, I recommend option (b). Would you like some suggestions?







Did the experimenters expressly claimed that their observed
distributions
are explained by the relativistic addition of velocities?

No, they did not. This has to be inferred from the background
information supplied in the references. If you're hoping that physics
articles are explicitly laid out to answer the specific question you
ask (as though the article is written in response to your question),
then your expectations about reading scientific articles probably needs
to be adjusted.

As the experimenters seemingly didn't mention your alleged relation
with the "relativistic prescription", I presume that you did the
analytical job
yourself.

Actually, I didn't need to do that because I had already read and was
familiar with most of the papers referenced in the articles I referred
to you, or I was separately familiar with their results through contact
with the experimenters. Moreover, I'm familiar with the definition and
properties of rapidity. And so when I see rapidity distributions that
are identical at the same root-s, then I know what that means. People
that aren't as familiar with the field have to do a bit more background
reading to catch up, but it's not a huge issue.

Iow, your experience of the subject matter justifies your personal
conclusion.
Scientifically, "seing" something is not enough. As you are so sure,
why
don't you publish a paper, that would bring you some fame?

I have my share of published papers, thanks, and I'm not in need of
fame, thanks. And yes, indeed, my experience of the experimental
evidence informs my personal conclusion. A personal conclusion that is
not based on experimental evidence, on the other hand, but is based on
intuition and incredulity, does not carry a whole lot of weight.

And you think that your experience of the experimental evidence alone
does carry much weight ?


In science, Marcel, experimental evidence carries enormous weight. It
trumps intuition, it trumps common sense, it trumps what looks to be
really good ideas. If it ain't confirmed by experimental evidence, then
it ain't worth squat.

Now, you may be of the opinion that for every bit of experimental
evidence that supports one idea, then there is other experimental
evidence that supports a completely different idea. This is tantamount
to rejecting the value of experimental evidence in science. If this is
what you think, then you either do not know what role experiment plays
in science, or you shouldn't be trying to do science, or both.

Shaky or alledged experimental evidences demonstrate nothing.

Shaky? And on what basis do you say the evidence is shaky?
You are beginning to sound like Henri Wilson who says that any
experiment that provides support for SR obviously has something wrong
with it, without even looking at it.

As I said, if you're the kind of person that rejects the value of
experimental evidence, or decides whether experimental evidence is
shaky based on whether it agrees with your expectations, then you've
got no business attempting to do science.

PD


Marcel Luttgens


PD



Marcel Luttgens




If this is the case, perhaps could you show us how you
reached your conclusion. Otherwise, the readers could remain skeptical.

It's not my task to make you less skeptical. It's not my job to educate
you in a newsgroup. I am giving you enough information so that you can
correct your misconception and lack of familiarity with experimental
results on your own without too much difficulty. Now, do some homework.

Those are rather arrogant words, revealing a strong personality.

I don't care what you think about my personality, Marcel. Physics
doesn't have to be nice. You *are* expected to do some homework if you
want to do some physics.



Don't forget that the burden of the proof lies with the "claimant", not
with the reader.

This newsgroup is not the courtroom where such issues are decided. You
are owed no burden of proof here. The information you've been afforded
here in response to your error is a luxury. Anyone can *choose* to not
learn something if they're really not interested in learning it, and
that in no way places the burden on anyone to teach them anyway.

In a sense, it *is*a courtroom, where paranoia is condemned.

Nonsense. Popularity contests and impassioned debates about what
*should* be so have no place in physics. Bucking the status quo for the
sake of doing just that serves no useful role in physics. This ain't no
coffee shop, this ain't no steenking philosophy club.


Marcel Luttgens


PD


Marcel Luttgens

Where can their articles be found ? (Exact references, please).

Given previously, Marcel. Do your own homework now.


Marcel Luttgens

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: HOCUS POCUS
    ... I've done this for you before Marcel, ... I gave you references to the papers at the time. ... And you think that your experience of the experimental evidence alone ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: HOCUS POCUS
    ... I've done this for you before Marcel, ... I gave you references to the papers at the time. ... And you think that your experience of the experimental evidence alone ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: HOCUS POCUS
    ... I gave you references to the papers at the time. ... And you think that your experience of the experimental evidence alone ... Marcel Luttgens ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: HOCUS POCUS
    ... I gave you references to the papers at the time. ... The experimental evidence is where I indicated. ... Marcel Luttgens ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Looking for arXiv endorsement
    ... and I'm sure all the tens of hundreds of papers about string ... theory are bursting at the seems with experimental evidence of testable ...
    (sci.physics)