| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"" |
| Date: |
13 Mar 2005 04:33:48 PM |
| Object: |
Bad science, math, and prime counting |
The last refuge of those wishing to deny what I can show with simple
counts of composites is that position that it is not relevant to
physics.
So, yes, I can show mathematicians lying about counting prime numbers,
so what?
Well, let's talk about string theory.
It is a mathematician's dream, a theory with no predictive power, no
way to test with experiments found so far (if there are someone please
reply to correct me) and supposedly it's mathematically beautiful.
So? Why in the hell is it being discussed seriously if it has no
predictive power? What good is a freaking physics theory that can't be
used to do good experimental physics?
Or let's talk about astronomy.
Halton Arp is a noted physicist and astronomer who can prove that
various claims made by major figures in the astronomical community
about the distances that various stellar objects are away from us are
wrong.
He has quite solid evidence, but the people who argue with him, just
rationalize it, talk it away basically, and there isn't quite enough
evidence that everyone can see what they're doing, so he gets labeled a
distinguished nutcase, and has to go off to Germany to keep
researching.
Mathematicians have corrupted the scientific community already.
People supposedly scientists talk about the beauty of theories with no
predictive power that is testable, or they talk down evidence to hold
on to crap theories proven wrong.
I know that mathematicians are capable of believing things that they
like, against the evidence, and I think I kind of know why.
Mathematics is a difficult discipline. A person can get their
doctorate, work very hard, and discover, squat. Eventually, it can
seem nice to just kind of make things up. And if you have a lot of
people like you in your discipline, who similarly have squat, you can
work together and get a good system going.
In fields where experiments take that away, the mathematicians who are
in those fields are probably on the level, as they have to be.
You can't as easily just make up mathematical "proof" if an experiment
will just show it wrong. Though people have a remarkable ability for
delusion, so at times they may even challenge experiments.
What I can show you with my prime counting work is a very easy to
understand area that most of you know is supposedly important to
mathematicians, as supposedly they're really into prime numbers, and
show you them lying.
That lying supports my thesis that mathematics is a hard discipline
where people learn to lie about having results in an environment with
few checks and balances.
Some of these people go out in to the physics and astronomical
communities, and there they lie as well, and put up theories that are
not checkable, or deny evidence killing pet theories, like with Halton
Arp.
To the extent that mathematicians dominate a field, that field gets
corrupted, if they are not forced to produce checkable work, checkable
more than by their committee system of checking math papers.
At this time, I wouldn't be surprised if in string theory there are
mathematical sections which are just bunk. And I mean totally crap
when it comes to mathematical validity, as it's that bad.
If you have an area that is not checkable by experiment where you're
relying on people who have checked a mathematical "proof" and that's
all you've got, then there is a very real chance that it's totally
crap.
So then, ultimately, you have bad science being done, where
mathematicians can corrupt everyone else into their little world of
make believe, where what you want to believe is what's supposedly true.
And I can show you naysayers that they DO lie, for real, with prime
counting.
It's just one of my major math results.
Now I may just have an undergraduate degree in physics, but it seems to
me that I may have learned more in that four years about what physics
is really about than most of you have yet to learn.
FACTS matter. PROOF is important, where direct proof, experimental
proof, is most important of all.
I don't freaking care how many people say some damn theory is beautiful
or mathematically wonderful or whatever the hell they say, if the damn
thing isn't testable.
And when even distinguished physicists like Halton Arp can be so easily
dragged through the mud, and even driven out of this country to be able
to do research, then there's no need to talk of the US losing its
edge--it's lost it.
Wake up! If I can show lying with counting prime numbers then you have
to recognize that there may be a deeper pattern of lying that people
have been willfully ignoring.
You know like with that story of the naked Emperor. Think of me as
like that little boy.
James Harris
.
|
|
| User: "Morituri-|-Max" |
|
| Title: Re: Bad science, math, and prime counting |
13 Mar 2005 06:10:27 PM |
|
|
<jstevh@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1110753228.553394.186470@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
The last refuge of those wishing to deny what I can show with simple
counts of composites is that position that it is not relevant to
physics.
So, yes, I can show mathematicians lying about counting prime numbers,
so what?
Sounds like James Harris is back.
<snip lots of whining>
James Harris
Yep...
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jim Spriggs" |
|
| Title: Re: Bad science, math, and prime counting |
13 Mar 2005 07:02:56 PM |
|
|
wrote:
... What good is a freaking physics theory that can't be
used to do good experimental physics?
I thought that you had a degree in physics?
Quantum theory and General Relativity are not compatible with one
another. String theory, it is hoped, will be a theory of quantum
gravity.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jim Spriggs" |
|
| Title: Re: Bad science, math, and prime counting |
13 Mar 2005 07:29:52 PM |
|
|
wrote:
... What good is a freaking physics theory that can't be
used to do good experimental physics?
Suppose a theory, let's call it Q, makes lots of predictions, which
we'll call Q' and that those predictions are shown, to a very high
degree of accuracy, to be correct.
Suppose another theory, let's call it G, makes lots of predictions,
which we'll call G' and that those predictions are shown, to a very high
degree of accuracy, to be correct.
In view of the accuracy of Q' and of G' both theories are deemed to be
"good" in some sense.
Suppose that Q and G are incompatible with one another so that they
cannot both be true. Suppose that another theory, let's call it S,
makes lots of predictions that are a superset of (Q' union G') suppose,
further, that S is internally consistent, then S will be deemed "good"
in the same sense.
There is no need for S to pass tests that Q and G have not passed though
it will be jolly nice if it does.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Bad science, math, and prime counting |
13 Mar 2005 07:46:07 PM |
|
|
Q= Jim Spriggs
G= Mrs Spriggs
S= Spriggs' children
Q and S are happiest when S conforms and so is the neighborhood.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Bad science, math, and prime counting |
13 Mar 2005 07:48:40 PM |
|
|
Sorry--Q and G are happiest when S......
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jim Spriggs" |
|
| Title: Re: Bad science, math, and prime counting |
13 Mar 2005 07:06:42 PM |
|
|
wrote:
Well, let's talk about string theory.
It is a mathematician's dream, a theory with no predictive power, no
way to test with experiments found so far (if there are someone please
reply to correct me)
Read this http://superstringtheory.com/experm/exper4.html.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: Bad science, math, and prime counting |
13 Mar 2005 06:19:38 PM |
|
|
wrote:
The last refuge of those wishing to deny what I can show with simple
counts of composites is that position that it is not relevant to
physics.
Thanks for registering at crank dot net Harris
http://www.crank.net/harris.html
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Larry Lard" |
|
| Title: Re: Bad science, math, and prime counting |
14 Mar 2005 04:22:07 AM |
|
|
wrote:
The last refuge of those wishing to deny what I can show with simple
counts of composites is that position that it is not relevant to
physics.
Strawman, unless you can show where anyone has actually used this 'last
refuge'. Oh wait, you're incapable of using Google's search facility.
--
Larry Lard
Replies to group please
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lady Chatterly" |
|
| Title: Re: Bad science, math, and prime counting |
14 Mar 2005 06:06:59 AM |
|
|
In article <1110795727.741533.206470@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>
Larry Lard <larrylard@hotmail.com> wrote:
Strawman, unless you can show where anyone has actually used this 'last
refuge'. Oh wait, you're incapable of using Google's search facility.
They do not know that is the word lie in the world is less than 7 tons
of hair care product nor do I have no idea what you are saying that
the internet.
--
Lady Chatterly
"It's Mark Twain and you're replying to a bot." -- Reverend Mosnar©
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jos=E9_Carlos_Santos?=" |
|
| Title: Re: Bad science, math, and prime counting |
13 Mar 2005 04:56:43 PM |
|
|
wrote:
You know like with that story of the naked Emperor. Think of me as
like that little boy.
To tell you the truth, I think of you as the Emperor himself. :-)
Best regards,
Jose Carlos Santos
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Al" |
|
| Title: Re: Bad science, math, and prime counting |
13 Mar 2005 05:14:19 PM |
|
|
wrote:
[snip crap]
James Harris
Your ignorance, incompetence, and psychosis are not of interest to the
world at large. Quite the contrary. You are not even an interesting
laughingstock.
Hey stooopid loud troll James "Always in error, never in doubt!"
Harris, put up or shut up. James Harris, King of the Primes! Where
are your sceptor and crown, delusional James Harris, your regal
clothes? Is a $20,000 prize no questions asked too small to justify
your submission of two little prime numbers? Or are you a psychotic
impotent gelding?
Hey stoopid loud troll James "Prime *****" Harris, a better man than
you has factored RSA-576. Pookie pookie.
http://www.rsasecurity.com/rsalabs/challenges/factoring/faq.html
http://www.rsasecurity.com/rsalabs/challenges/factoring/numbers.html
http://www.crank.net/harris.html
It's not every braying jackass who earns a whole page at crank.net
<http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=3c65f87.0212222034.d5959fd%40posting.google.com>
<http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=3c65f87.0212251249.4b69d7c5%40posting.google.com>
<http://groups.google.com/groups?&q=author%3Ajames+author%3Aharris+%22i+was+wrong>
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
.
|
|
|
| User: "Karl Pech" |
|
| Title: Re: Bad science, math, and prime counting |
14 Mar 2005 03:26:15 AM |
|
|
"Uncle Al" <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:4234C94B.CD6D920D@hate.spam.net...
a better man than you has factored RSA-576.
^^^^^^^^^^^^
As a mathematician he is brilliant but as a person .... :((
[P.S. I'm one of the poor guys who had to go to his Analysis II
lectures .... . Well, what should I say: According to him
"everything is trivial". |(( ]
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Bad science, math, and prime counting |
13 Mar 2005 05:37:28 PM |
|
|
Jim--are you 10 years old? Did I waste my advice on your last post?
Darn boy!
Tut
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "David C. Ullrich" |
|
| Title: Re: Bad science, math, and prime counting |
14 Mar 2005 06:19:46 AM |
|
|
On 13 Mar 2005 14:33:48 -0800, wrote:
The last refuge of those wishing to deny what I can show with simple
counts of composites is that position that it is not relevant to
physics.
Huh? Actually huh^2 :
(i) Huh? What does the relevance to physics, or the lack thereof,
have to do with the question of whether there's anything significantly
new in your algorithm? This "last refuge" is something that nobody's
ever considered taking refuge in, because it's just silly.
(ii) Huh? How could an algorithm for counting primes possibly be of
any relevance to physics?
************************
David C. Ullrich
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Amadeus Train-Owwell Zirconium" |
|
| Title: Re: Bad science, math, and prime counting |
18 Mar 2005 06:18:39 PM |
|
|
yo, Emperor Jimi;
can you give an example of what Arp corelated,
viz-a-vu the redshifts of certain objects?
he died, a year or two ago.
--Chairman George and Strep Throat, back in print!
http://larouchepub.com
http://tarpley.net/bush12.htm
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
Re: Newsgroup survey: Relevance, prime counting, math society
Re: Newsgroup survey: Relevance, prime counting, math society
Re: Newsgroup survey: Relevance, prime counting, math society
Re: Newsgroup survey: Relevance, prime counting, math society
Re: Newsgroup survey: Relevance, prime counting, math society
Re: Newsgroup survey: Relevance, prime counting, math society
Re: Math argument, reasonable doubt
Re: math answers on a daily rise percentage Re: 100 free SBC; VonNeumannGametheory how to play StockMarket
| The "pure math" lie,
For auction: Used physics & math textbooks
Explanation with math, error in math world
Re: Skolem's Paradox and why is math the way it is?
Math Calculator
Re: when Natural Numbers = Infinite Integers then Math INduction is not
why does physics math apply so well in finance and biology?
|
|
|
