Re: Surprise! Dr. John Bell Liked the Ether!

From: Bilge (dubious_at_radioactivex.lebesque-al.net)
Date: 07/09/04 

Date: Fri, 09 Jul 2004 22:31:42 -0000

 Paul Stowe:
>On Wed, 07 Jul 2004 14:50:13 -0000, (Bilge):
>wrote:

> No, read what was written. Quote,
>
> "Many brilliant & thoughtful people have come to the same
> inexcapable conclusion, namely the universe must consist
> of a physical medium. ..."
>
> Then I give two examples in print. There's more if you want but the point
> was NOT an appeal to authority, but to provide direct evidence of THAT
> specific claim!
 
  I'm simply doing the same thing you do, paul. Seems to me that I've
made that comment before.

>>
>> You've already demonstrated that you haven't the slightest idea what
>> ``quantum'' means. ...
>
> Oh, I know what quantum means as revised.

  Oh? What do you think it means? Act in accordance with what you
expect everyone else to do and show explicitly that you do know what
something means, so that I don't have to speculate based upon your
tendency to answer questions as if you don't know what it means.

>I also know what quantum meant when the the original idea was founded.
 
>http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/features/dictionary/
>DictionaryResults.aspx?refid=1861697554
 
  OK, then let's simplify this. If you want to use ``quantum'' to mean
what encarta dumbs it down to for mass consumption, then go ahead. Should
I allso assume that you know what the term meabs as you've stated above
and that you are deliberately trying to use semantics rather than physics
to identify what you claim as a quantum theory? I really shouldn't have
to dumb down a concept to the extent that it's meaningless. When you
identify something as a ``quantum theory'', either it's a quantum theory
as quantum theory is described in texbooks on quantum theory, or it is
something else. I see deliberate misrepresentation as indicative of
trying to establish credibility based on misrepresentation. You hate
modern physics anyway, so why do you care to identify with it?

>> big ones. Classical theories can be about little particles, too. In fact,
>> classical mechanics is often about little particles. Have you done
>> anything but call me an *** when I've mentioned this before - like
>> post something indicating you realize it has something to do with the
>> physical implications in changing a poisson bracket to a commutator?
>
> Don't want to be called an ***, fine, its simple, don't act like
> one!

  I'm not objecting. I'm just stating a fact. The alternative is
to be deliberately stupid and accept non-sense and handwaving as
a substitute for the details I requested. I'm merely pointing
out your hypocrisy. When I say something, I'm an ***. When
someone else says the same thing, you jump at the chance to
try and turn it into a big deal as if you hadn't heard it before
from an ***.

> Show that you remember what someone has told you, even IF you
> don't agree with it. As to quantum, in its simplest definition it
> means discrete (analogous to digital) verses continuous (analog).
> Granular verses smooth, etc...
 
  OK. In that case, everything is quantum mechanics. It just used
to be called classical mechanics for some reason you haven't made
very clear, since classical mechanics never employed the idea of
a continuum beyond that of an approximation either.

>> Uh, right.... Did you acually _read_ any of that book besides verifying
>> a quote? My guess is, no. If you had, you'd have noticed the word
>> `ether' itself only appears possibly as many as 10 times in 526 pages
>> and the comparisons made between condensed matter and the vacuum are
>> phrased using qualifiers like `conceptually simmilar' and `simulate',
>> not `conceptually identical' or `replicate'.
>
> What do you think it should be 'identical to' and 'replicate'?
 
  What do I think what should be ``identical to'' and ``replicate''?
Make some attempt to be more specific than ``it''.

>> If you had spent less time calling me an *** without reading what
>> the *** to whom you are responding with that bit of news wrote,
>
> So now are you calling Harry an *** too? It was his post I was
> responding to, or would that be Fredi? who presented the actual
> reference?
 
  Do you have a lot of difficulty with english, or do you just respond
to the sentences in a paragraph individually to avoid the context?

>> you could have taken my advice and tried to learn something about the
>> standard model a long time ago. Og course, I realize that I'm merely a
>> puppet of the physics establisment and couldn't possibly tell you
>> to look something up ...
>
> Be specific, WHAT references have you given? Go back in Google and
> point some out!

  Well, here is one to which you responded. Note that I said precisely
what is being raved about now that someone has done some quote mining.
Perhaps you can tell me how what I said below differs in som substantive
way from your newly discovered stone tablets. The message-id of your
response is: <53fsnvst8a8cc0iisasfkatjcj2l68dpj5@4ax.com>

>Bilge wrote:
>'It's not hard to invent a solid state theory. Just go study the standard
>model, change the semantics and figure out how to deal with some
>additional problems added by your absolute frame. Most any high energy,
>nuclear or solid state physicist recognizes the fact that the standard
>model and condensed matter have a lot in common, which makes the standard
>model as it stands a lot better as an "ether" theory than any other ether
>theory in existence, despite the additional problems that would be
>introduced by taking the condensed matter analogy literally.'

 In that response, toward the end, bill hobba refers to symmetries and
noether's theorem, which are fundamental to all of what you now find
the the next best thing to sliced bread and to which you reply:
``Abstraction is a very poor substitute for understanding...''.

 So, in your opinion, paul, is the ``new found wisdom'' in this pdf
book any different than what you've ignored when I've posted it?
Is symmetry all of a sudden, no longer abstract? Did you ever
bother to look up the standard model and try to understand it
so that you could do precisely what I suggested?

>> and expect look it up and read it rather than know instinctually that
>> the whole thing is croc of lies and unphysical mumbo-jumbo, but in
>> this case, you'll find quite a bit of the erstwhile unphysical croc
>> of lies in the text being fawned over.
>
> Does it get your goat Bilge? The idea that superfluid vortex lattice
> is being worked out??? It sure seems that way.
 
  How exactly could a post in which you try to inform me of something
I told you long ago, ``get my goat''? The joke is on you and everyone
else heralding this newly mined information. I find it rather remarkable
that all of a sudden a an abstraction like SU(4)_C x SU(2)_L x SU(2)_R
found in that book takes on physical meaning when a similar abstraction,
the SU(3) x SU(2)_L x U(1)_Y of the standard model was just meaningless
mathematics. Especially, since the former is merely speculation for
an extenstion to the standard model for which no experimental evidence
exists. Yes, believe it or not, the SU(2)_R really means something
physical and isn't merely there for appearance. Care to guess what that
might be and how one would verify it experimentally? If not, then it
would appear, contrary to your self-righteous claims of objectivity,
that who says something is more important than what he says.

>> Apparently, you and the rest of the ether constituency thought I
>> had no idea what I was talking about when I mentioned things like
>> phase transitions in conjuction with the standard model. Why exactly
>> didn't you tell me that you were proposing the same ideas and pretend
>> as if it was of no interest until just now? Is it my breath?
>
> Metaphorically speaking, yes. You're simply dismissive and condescending
> of those that propose anything you philosophically don't like.

  That isn't the case. I'm dissmisive and condescending when someone
insists I can't employ simple physics to dismiss something. Don't tell me
that I can't use simple physics to point out why what you propose won't
work and I won't respond under the assumption you don't understand basic
physics. I assume that anyone who is going to argue about something have a
level of sophistication above halliday and resnick. If you can't at least
get something to level of an advanced physics undergraduate, I don't think
I'm obligated to take it seriously. If I tell you that something doesn't
conserve angular momentum because [H, L] != 0 and you think that
``abstraction'' doesn't prevent you from showing that your hamiltonian
conserves angular momentum and proceed to try and show that it does, then
I have no choice but to conclude you are cluless. Everything you could
possibly calculate is already in that ``abstraction'', except for the
algebraic errors obtained by calculating something that doesn't need to be
calculated. In that case, I'm going to be dismissive and condescending if
you keep telling me that's a philosophical issue, since it isn't, any
more than 1+1 != 17, is a philosophical issue. If you want to relegate
everything other than simple arithmetic to philosophical issues, then
you'll just have to call my arguments philosophical.

> Fredi had no such problem understanding the basic ideas that I proposed.

  Oh. I'm sorry. I thought perhaps you had more than some basic idea
to propose. I sort of expect what you would propose as serious physics
to meet the minimum standard I would find acceptable for anything else.
It's not that I don't understand what you propose. I do understand it
and am not particularly interested in having you tell me the obvious
rather than get to the point. When someone thinks I need some simple
arithmetic spelled out, it usually means I'm going to have to explain
anything I might point out as an objection and argue about well-known
physics if I ever expect to have a point addressed. It just isn't worth
the effort to convince someone he hasn't thought of everything when
he's determined to believe that the problem lies with some simple
arithmetic as if the average physicist has difficulty with that.

> He certainly does not agree with all of'em but that's fair.
>Misrepresenting the presented ideas person position isn't!
 
  I can't parse that.

> By any objective measure I am neither uneducated or dim-witted, and if you
> others choose to attempt to treat me (and others) as such, in a rude
> and dismissive manner, don't be surprised if we don't take it on the
> chin forever.I for one have choosen to treat others in the same manner
> as the treatment being received. Thus, clean up you act and I'll be glad
> to do the same. In fact, ecstatic!

  That isn't true, paul. When I ask you to support something and provide
details, you get pissed off. Whether that is because you fail to understand
the questions and why you didn't answer them, I can't say, but you don't
want to know, either. You seem to think physicists spent all of their
time in school going to parties or something other than studying physics.
At least that what your responses indicate when you assume the difference
in the questions in which physicists are interested and what you are
proposing lies with some philosophical difference rather than the level
you think is adequate to address something. The fact is, that you just
don't seem to grasp the level at which physicists are trying to answer
questions about physics. It's not a matter of philosophy. The issue
is that you don't even acknowledge the possibility that physics could
explain nature at the level it already does. If you did, it wouldn't
be impossible to explain the questions to you.

  If you want to keep calling me an ***, go right ahead. I can explain
anything I post to whatever detail is necessary to someone who is
intereseted in understanding it and doesn't resort to calling some new
mathematical symbol, a meaningless abstraction, to try and justify
dismissing it. By contrast, you are unwilling to post even the most basic
assumptions from which you claim results follow. I expect a hell of a lot
less from you than you seem to expect from any physicist. At least I'm
willing to start from the assumptions and try and derive the results. You
won't even attempt to follow a complete derivations from the assumptions
to the results. I imagine you'd really be put out if I expected you
to live up to what you demand and aren't planning to even consider.

> That means, have the decency to at least represent the person's opinions
> and ideas correctly, even IF you personally don't agree with them.
 
 Present something less vague and it will be easier to cut through
the bull***. Personally, I think your strategy is to be as vague
as possible in order to make those accusations and avoid ever getting
to the point. I don't need someone to show me how to write an expansion
for \exp(-kx) and other trivial mathematics. I'd prefer being given the
assumptions from which the expression was allegedly obtained and doing
the rest myself.

Quantcast