Re: Orthodoxy's Opposition to Theories of Superluminality
From: Mark Palenik (markpalenik_at_wideopenwest.com)
Date: 07/30/04
- Next message: pdkgpznxenvlya_at_mailinator.com: "Knots, strings, and quantum theory"
- Previous message: Tom Trotter: "Re: Quantum entanglement and information transfer"
- In reply to: greywolf42: "Re: Orthodoxy's Opposition to Theories of Superluminality"
- Next in thread: Perfectly Innocent: "Re: Orthodoxy's Opposition to Theories of Superluminality"
- Reply: Perfectly Innocent: "Re: Orthodoxy's Opposition to Theories of Superluminality"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: 30 Jul 2004 04:21:26 -0400
"greywolf42" <mingstb@marssim-ss.com> wrote in message
news:10gfqb8k9raqm5d@corp.supernews.com...
>
>
> Mark Palenik <markpalenik@wideopenwest.com> wrote in message
> news:RPmdndm8wcvinJrcRVn-tw@wideopenwest.com...
> >
> > "greywolf42" <mingstb@marssim-ss.com> wrote in message
> > news:10gb3icit9n487e@corp.supernews.com...
> > > <snip>
> > >
> > > You may note that your item number 1 is purely theoretical (even if it
> > > *is* "mainstream"). Item number 2 is experimental. According to the
> > > scientific method, experiment trumps theory.
> >
> > I take it you haven't read any of the messages here explaining that that
> > information is out of dat, inaccurate, and was speculative at best, at
the
> > time.
>
> Sure I'd read the other posts. However, they are irrelevant to the claims
> and reasoning provided (which was snipped) by the prior poster (Norm
> Dresner). Norm posted a claim that Ockham's Razor would have us discard
> experimental results if it contradicted accepted theory. And solely
because
> it was 'simpler' to accept conventional theory. Norm did not provide any
> other reasoning. My post responded solely to the reasoning provided by
> Norm -- which was clearly unscientific.
So the fact that other posts stated newer experiments do not show a negative
mass for the neutrino is irellevant? Why do you believe old interpretations
of old data and reject the new data?
Besides there's a lot of data that supports relativity's stance that nothing
can travel faster than the speed of light, and that doing so would violate
causality. So we have:
1. A large chunk of data that says nothing can travel faster than the speed
of light
2. A small chunk of data that says something is moving faster than the
speed of light
3. A small chunk of data newer that says that same thing actually isn't
moving faster than the speed of light.
For some reason, you choose to single out number two and say that it must be
accurrate.
>
>
> Quite simply, the fact that one points out an error of logic in an
argument
> placed against a given theory or experiment does not translate into a
claim
> of validity of the theory or experiment.
What about the points that pointed out the validity of newer experiments?
Why are they less valid than the few that have come up with negative values
of m^2?
>
>
> As to your current claims:
>
> 1) Experimental data is never 'out of date.' It does not have a
shelf-life.
> This is merely a fallacy that 'new' interpretations or experiments must
> always be better than old ones.
It is if better equipment or methods are invented that can perform a better
job of detection, or if the theory behind the experiment is shown to be
flawed, and the data actually has nothing to do with what the experiment was
supposed to measure.
>
> 2) The data may be imprecise (not inaccurate), in light of newer and more
> precise experiments. Inaccuracy can arise only from systematic
experimental
> errors or flaws in the theoretical reduction. The posts that I saw
falsely
> concluded that because 'newer' experiments gave different answers, that
the
> 'older' data had to be inaccurate. This is also a fallacy. (One must
> identify the specific systematic or calculational errors of one or the
other
> experiment to determine which is 'inaccurate.')
And you conclude that because a few experiments show a negative value for
m^2 that it must be the case.
>
> 3) Experimental data is never speculative.
>
> > Am I the only one who thinks that whatever "orthodoxy's opposition to
> > theories of superluminality" is, somebody would have realized the sheer
> > usefullness of particles that can travel faster than the speed of light
> > and which carry measureable properties like spin? I think the thought
> > of getting rich would probably outweigh any "dogmatic opposition".
>
> Theoreticians don't get rich. Except by rising in the power structure.
> Just like Cardinal Bellarmine refused to look through Galileo's
telescope --
> because he 'knew' that Galileo's observations must be wrong.
It's not exactly unheard of for scientists to found companies, or become
CEOs and make a lot of money. And I was referring to the experimentalists
who suppossedly discovered the fact that neutrinos are superluminal. Don't
you think if the experiments had been continually verified, it would have
been worth it for them to continue research into building some sort of
superluminal transmitter?
>
> > Besides, weren't physicists, at least at some point, actually looking
for
> > tachyons? Why would they even have a word for particles with a complex
> > mass if physicists hadn't thought of it and wanted to find it?
>
> That is a sociological question. And irrelevant to the experimental
support
> of a concept.
My point is, physicists were searching for tachyons, yet you claim this is
something that no physicist would ever admit the existence of. What were
they going to do, find the tachyons and then never tell anyone?
>
> > Physicists don't
> > usually make up words for things they are dogmatically opposed to.
>
> Physicists make up words that they are opposed to all the time. Here are
a
> few that were made up by the opposition:
> Tired Light
> Big Bang
> Dark Matter
> Aether Drag
>
> > I mean,
> > for example, there's no word for particles that transmit magical power.
>
> Sure there is. They're called "virtual" particles. ;)
heh, I've read some of your previous posts on electromagnetism, and I don't
want to get *that* conversation started again, so I won't comment.
>
> Seriously, modern physicists always come up with names for particles to
> transmit forces. A 'magical' force would required a name for the
particles.
> Just like we require names for the particles transmitting each of the four
> (or five) forces of nature -- even though some of these particles are not
> observable.
>
> > The
> > idea that there's some kind of coverup going on seems rather ridiculous,
> > since accepted theories are refuted all the time, with no cover up (like
> > the recent thing with Stephen Hawking and information in black holes).
>
> Ah, but it is only those theories that are not mainstream that are
> considered refuted. Dr. Hawking's views -- though commonly embraced --
> never reached the point of paradigm. And only Dr. Hawking was allowed to
> question Dr. Hawking's views. They have been questioned many times before
> by others -- and the others have been ignored.
How about aether theory, classical mechanics, locality, and every other
theory in history that we no longer believe in? Accepted theories are
usually accepted because there's such a large body of evidence supporting
them, which is why they are very hard to refute, and doing so every time an
experiment is done that might possibly contradict them would be a terrible
mistake.
- Next message: pdkgpznxenvlya_at_mailinator.com: "Knots, strings, and quantum theory"
- Previous message: Tom Trotter: "Re: Quantum entanglement and information transfer"
- In reply to: greywolf42: "Re: Orthodoxy's Opposition to Theories of Superluminality"
- Next in thread: Perfectly Innocent: "Re: Orthodoxy's Opposition to Theories of Superluminality"
- Reply: Perfectly Innocent: "Re: Orthodoxy's Opposition to Theories of Superluminality"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
|
