Re: KE = ½ mv^2 is disproved in a new falling object impact test.

On Oct 6, 3:11 pm, strich.9...@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
On Oct 3, 8:28 am, PD <TheDraperFam...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Reason won't suffice if it doesn't match experiment.

Bzzzzt.

Experiment ---> Result ---> Interpretation1 <> Logic  [Interpretation1
must be wrong]
                                        Interpretation2 = Logic
[Interpretation2 must be correct]

Your error PD, is you jump to the easiest interpretation, biased by
your own beliefs, and cling to it.

Nope. There is no room for interpretation in an experiment.
Here is how theory and experiment work together. When there are two
candidate theories, the place is found where they disagree on a
prediction of what will be seen in certain circumstances. The places
where they agree on what will be seen but have different
interpretations are wholly uninteresting and scientifically useless.
The sole place of interest is where they make *different* predictions
about what will be observed under certain circumstances. Then those
circumstances are either found in nature, or they are created in
experiment. Then the experimental results are unambiguous -- the
result will agree with theory A and disagree with theory B, or agree
with theory B and disagree with theory A. There is no interpretation
whatsoever involved in that outcome.


For example, Ptolemy observed the sun going around the earth.  His
interpretation was the geocentric theory.  This did not go with logic
according to Copernicus.

It had nothing to do with "logic". At the time of Copernicus,
Ptolemy's theory was *much* more intuitive than Copernicus'. The
validation had *nothing* to do with logic or intuition. It had to do
with the fact that the Copernican model could produce *predictions* of
yet-unobserved phenomena, where Ptolemy's could not -- and in fact,
Ptolemy's had to post-dict every observation.

 Ptolemy was wrong.  Copernicus
interpretation was the heliocentric model.  This went along with
logic.  Copernicus was right.

It's plain that you have no idea how science works and how it is we
know what we know. It would be in your best interest to do some basic
reading about how science works before you make any more fool comments
about how to "interpret" experiment.

PD

.

Relevant Pages

  • =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Re=3A_KE_=3D_=BD_mv=5E2_is_disproved_in_a_new_falling_objec?= =?ISO-8859&
    ... There is no room for interpretation in an experiment. ... The sole place of interest is where they make *different* predictions ... result will agree with theory A and disagree with theory B, ... At the time of Copernicus, ...
    (sci.physics)
  • =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Re=3A_KE_=3D_=BD_mv=5E2_is_disproved_in_a_new_falling_objec?= =?ISO-8859&
    ... Your error PD, is you jump to the easiest interpretation, biased by ... your own beliefs, and cling to it. ... according to Copernicus. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: OT: Bush did it! :^)
    ... it's not a question of those who disagree with my interpretation. ... >>>doesn't apply to Larry, me or anybody else that disagrees with you. ... >Who has written this in this newsgroup? ...
    (rec.arts.dance)
  • Re: Kind of NOT integer constant
    ... I maintain that the standard ... disagree with my interpretation of the quoted words. ... to distinguish opinions from facts. ...
    (comp.lang.fortran)
  • Re: true random number generator
    ... In fact, Bohm's formulation of>> QM makes all the same predictions, is a perfect fit the experiemtnal data,>> and does NOT claim that any such thing as "true" randomness exists. ... >> without any experimental support inasmuch as every experiment that is used>> to bolster that interpretation also supports Bohm's deterministic ... > The following hypothesis is presented for discussion:> A "true" random process is one in which future states cannot be> predicted by any physical or computational means beyond purely> statistical expectations. ...
    (sci.crypt)
Loading