Science > Physics > Re: A Viable Alternative to Einstein's Special Relativity Theory
| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Sam Wormley" |
| Date: |
20 Aug 2003 11:03:18 AM |
| Object: |
Re: A Viable Alternative to Einstein's Special Relativity Theory |
Eugene fails to point out that SR has never been falsified
by observation or experiment, and remains valid in its domain.
SP has become one of the most fruitful tools in physics and
has been incorporated into a broad range of technologies.
Why should anyone care about your alternative? Is is mathematically
equivalent? Does it make any new predictions? Has there ever been
an experimental test of your alternative? Do you understand SR?
.
|
|
| User: "Perfectly Innocent" |
|
| Title: Re: A Viable Alternative to Einstein's Special Relativity Theory |
20 Aug 2003 06:00:55 PM |
|
|
Sam Wormley <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message news:<3F439BBC.9AF44D2B@mchsi.com>...
Eugene fails to point out that SR has never been falsified
by observation or experiment, and remains valid in its domain.
That conclusion may be inferred. My opening post does say, "The
similarities to Einstein's SR are pretty much all-around experimental
indistinguishability."
Why should anyone care about your alternative?
Several answers present themselves. First: Recognizing that
alternative formulations exist clearly implies that a greater
understanding of the theory has been achieved. Second: Some persons
may appreciate the greater clarity.
Is it mathematically equivalent?
I have enumerated the profound differences.
Does it make any new predictions?
It puts previous ill-formed predications on a firm mathematical
foundation.
Has there ever been an experimental test of your alternative?
Is no weight to be given to formulations that penetrate the very
essence of the subject, separate light from chaff and reveal the
profoundly religious bias and prejudice of religious relativists?
Do you understand SR?
Who do you think discovered the Shubertian clock?
http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/
Eugene Shubert
.
|
|
|
| User: "davidoff404" |
|
| Title: Re: A Viable Alternative to Einstein's Special Relativity Theory |
20 Aug 2003 06:31:55 PM |
|
|
Perfectly Innocent <perfectlyInnocent@as-if.com> wrote in message
news:c45b45b3.0308201500.4c977912@posting.google.com...
Why should anyone care about your alternative?
Several answers present themselves. First: Recognizing that
alternative formulations exist clearly implies that a greater
understanding of the theory has been achieved.
Not necessarily. While I was an undergraduate I produced a reformulation of
the laws of classical mechanics using a graded Z^2 algebra, in effect
producing a supersymmetric theory of classical mechanics. Nice mathematical
trick, but I wouldn't claim that it gives any deeper understanding of
classical mechanics. Same deal with your claims.
davidoff
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: A Viable Alternative to Einstein's Special Relativity Theory |
20 Aug 2003 06:22:48 PM |
|
|
Perfectly Innocent wrote:
Sam Wormley <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message news:<3F439BBC.9AF44D2B@mchsi.com>...
Eugene fails to point out that SR has never been falsified
by observation or experiment, and remains valid in its domain.
That conclusion may be inferred. My opening post does say, "The
similarities to Einstein's SR are pretty much all-around experimental
indistinguishability."
Why should anyone care about your alternative?
Several answers present themselves. First: Recognizing that
alternative formulations exist clearly implies that a greater
understanding of the theory has been achieved. Second: Some persons
may appreciate the greater clarity.
Is it mathematically equivalent?
I have enumerated the profound differences.
If they are not mathematically equivalent, then they make
different predictions! I suspect you don't really understand
SR. An alternative theory must encompass the predictions of
SR. You have to demonstrate that the two formulations give the
same result, otherwise your formulation is nothing more than
a cartload of dung.
Does it make any new predictions?
It puts previous ill-formed predications on a firm mathematical
foundation.
Has there ever been an experimental test of your alternative?
Is no weight to be given to formulations that penetrate the very
essence of the subject, separate light from chaff and reveal the
profoundly religious bias and prejudice of religious relativists?
We are talking physics here--the only thing that counts is
empirical data. SR survives because empirical data agrees with
its prediction. No prejudice. No religion. Empirical data.
Has there ever been an experimental test of your alternative?
That's a yes or no.
Do you understand SR?
Who do you think discovered the Shubertian clock?
http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/
Eugene Shubert
.
|
|
|
| User: "Perfectly Innocent" |
|
| Title: Re: A Viable Alternative to Einstein's Special Relativity Theory |
22 Aug 2003 10:44:09 PM |
|
|
"Mark Palenik" <markpalenik@wideopenwest.com> wrote:
I don't know where you've been for the past 80 years or so, but it that
time, tons of experimental data has been gathered, from measurements of
time dilations, to the curvature of light in a gravitational field (due
to effects described by GR, which neccessitates SR to work), to particle
collisions where the resulting mass is equal to the relativistic mass.
Hundreds upon hundreds of experiments have been done testing every
aspect of SR.
I realize that to you my claims sound miraculous and that my answers
seem incomprehensibly mysterious (like hocus-pocus), but try to
question your programming and understand what I'm saying. SR boasts
that "there is no absolute time order," "no absolute frame of
reference," and that "motion faster than light results in some
observer interpreting the motion as time-travel into the past."
Where's the experimental evidence for that? I'm saying that I have
a model of spacetime where all these SR statements are false and
that everything pragmatic and observable in SR is true.
As I've said,
Where there is empirical data, my theory is the same as SR.
Where there is no empirical data, my theory differs with SR.
What is preventing you from dealing objectively with my remarkable
assertions?
http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/
http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/simultaneity.htm
Eugene Shubert
.
|
|
|
| User: "Perfectly Innocent" |
|
| Title: Re: A Viable Alternative to Einstein's Special Relativity Theory |
26 Aug 2003 10:43:39 AM |
|
|
1. Sam Wormley <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message news:<3F4947D1.C0F62EA7@mchsi.com>...
2. Sam Wormley <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message news:<3F44B91C.F59DFE8D@mchsi.com>...
3. Sam Wormley <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message news:<3F4B013C.EFE5ECB6@mchsi.com>...
4. Sam Wormley <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message news:<3F477C70.A3D8695E@mchsi.com>...
5. Sam Wormley <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message news:<3F477A2D.C2302646@mchsi.com>...
6. Sam Wormley <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message news:<3F4A0CBC.93ECB20D@mchsi.com>...
When Einstein published his field equations for general relativity,
I don't know if he was hounded by trolls asking him to prove his
intelligence and use his equations to compute time dilation for an
unspecified motion in 3 dimensions. But if he were hounded, then
I'm sure that Einstein had every right to ignore the trolls.
http://www.everythingimportant.org/viewtopic.php?t=605
Eugene Shubert
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: A Viable Alternative to Einstein's Special Relativity Theory |
26 Aug 2003 10:59:13 AM |
|
|
Perfectly Innocent wrote:
1. Sam Wormley <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message news:<3F4947D1.C0F62EA7@mchsi.com>...
2. Sam Wormley <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message news:<3F44B91C.F59DFE8D@mchsi.com>...
3. Sam Wormley <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message news:<3F4B013C.EFE5ECB6@mchsi.com>...
4. Sam Wormley <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message news:<3F477C70.A3D8695E@mchsi.com>...
5. Sam Wormley <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message news:<3F477A2D.C2302646@mchsi.com>...
6. Sam Wormley <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message news:<3F4A0CBC.93ECB20D@mchsi.com>...
When Einstein published his field equations for general relativity,
I don't know if he was hounded by trolls asking him to prove his
intelligence and use his equations to compute time dilation for an
unspecified motion in 3 dimensions. But if he were hounded, then
I'm sure that Einstein had every right to ignore the trolls.
Unlike Einstein's SR, Eugene, your "alternative" looks like smoke
and dung. Show us your derivation, using both your "alternative" and
SR, for time dilation for say a GPS satellite with observed velocity
of 3.9 km/s. Let's see the calculation (not just the answer, but the
calculation)!
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Perfectly Innocent" |
|
| Title: Re: A Viable Alternative to Einstein's Special Relativity Theory |
01 Sep 2003 10:58:41 PM |
|
|
(Perfectly Innocent) wrote in message news:<c45b45b3.0308221944.41cd1d6a@posting.google.com>...
"Mark Palenik" <markpalenik@wideopenwest.com> wrote:
I don't know where you've been for the past 80 years or so, but it that
time, tons of experimental data has been gathered, from measurements of
time dilations, to the curvature of light in a gravitational field (due
to effects described by GR, which neccessitates SR to work), to particle
collisions where the resulting mass is equal to the relativistic mass.
Hundreds upon hundreds of experiments have been done testing every
aspect of SR.
I realize that to you my claims sound miraculous and that my answers
seem incomprehensibly mysterious (like hocus-pocus), but try to
question your programming and understand what I'm saying. SR boasts
that "there is no absolute time order," "no absolute frame of
reference," and that "motion faster than light results in some
observer interpreting the motion as time-travel into the past."
Where's the experimental evidence for that?
The evidence of absence is not the absence of evidence.
http://www.everythingimportant.org/viewtopic.php?t=605
I'm saying that I have a model of spacetime where all these
SR statements are false and that everything pragmatic and
observable in SR is true.
As I've said,
Where there is empirical data, my theory is the same as SR.
Where there is no empirical data, my theory differs with SR.
What is preventing you from dealing objectively with my remarkable
assertions?
http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/
http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/simultaneity.htm
Eugene Shubert
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: A Viable Alternative to Einstein's Special Relativity Theory |
01 Sep 2003 11:09:03 PM |
|
|
Perfectly Innocent wrote:
The evidence of absence is not the absence of evidence.
I presume you meant...
"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence!"
Show us your derivation using both your "alternative" and SR for time
dilation for say a GPS satellite with observed velocity of 3.9 km/s.
Unless your "alternative" is smoke and dung, it should almost trivially
predict the time dilation... lets see the calculation (not just the
answer, but the calculation)!
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: A Viable Alternative to Einstein's Special Relativity Theory |
22 Aug 2003 11:11:39 PM |
|
|
Perfectly Innocent wrote:
I realize that to you my claims sound miraculous and that my answers
seem incomprehensibly mysterious (like hocus-pocus), but try to
question your programming and understand what I'm saying. SR boasts
that "there is no absolute time order," "no absolute frame of
reference," and that "motion faster than light results in some
observer interpreting the motion as time-travel into the past."
Where's the experimental evidence for that? I'm saying that I have
a model of spacetime where all these SR statements are false and
that everything pragmatic and observable in SR is true.
As I've said,
Where there is empirical data, my theory is the same as SR.
Where there is no empirical data, my theory differs with SR.
Pardon me, but that sounds like Hocus-pocus. Please post
sample calculations using both theories for time dilation
for say a GPS satellite with observed velocity of 3.9 km/s.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Perfectly Innocent" |
|
| Title: Re: A Viable Alternative to Einstein's Special Relativity Theory |
23 Aug 2003 11:21:06 AM |
|
|
How do relativists attain such intense brainwashing so as to be
completely unable to grasp non-standard clock synchronizations on
spacetime? The point of this thread is "A Viable Alternative to
Einstein's Special Relativity Theory."
http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/simultaneity.htm
Eugene Shubert
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bilge" |
|
| Title: Re: A Viable Alternative to Einstein's Special Relativity Theory |
24 Aug 2003 05:35:45 PM |
|
|
Perfectly Innocent:
How do relativists attain such intense brainwashing so as to be
By using experimental evidence and reasoning as detergent.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Palenik" |
|
| Title: Re: A Viable Alternative to Einstein's Special Relativity Theory |
25 Aug 2003 11:46:31 PM |
|
|
"Bilge" <dubious@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net> wrote in message
news:slrnbkigbt.5c.dubious@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net...
Perfectly Innocent:
How do relativists attain such intense brainwashing so as to be
By using experimental evidence and reasoning as detergent.
Well, I think that pretty much sums up just about all of physics.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: A Viable Alternative to Einstein's Special Relativity Theory |
24 Aug 2003 06:18:57 PM |
|
|
Perfectly Innocent wrote:
How do relativists attain such intense brainwashing so as to be
completely unable to grasp non-standard clock synchronizations on
spacetime? The point of this thread is "A Viable Alternative to
Einstein's Special Relativity Theory."
Eugene--You are really stooopid not to learn physics. Really stooopid.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Perfectly Innocent" |
|
| Title: Re: A Viable Alternative to Einstein's Special Relativity Theory |
25 Aug 2003 12:08:59 AM |
|
|
Sam Wormley <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message news:<3F4947D1.C0F62EA7@mchsi.com>...
Perfectly Innocent wrote:
How do relativists attain such intense brainwashing so as to be
completely unable to grasp non-standard clock synchronizations on
spacetime? The point of this thread is "A Viable Alternative to
Einstein's Special Relativity Theory."
Eugene--You are really stooopid not to learn physics. Really stooopid.
If you know the answer to the physics questions I'm asking and if my
derivation is wrong, why don't you enlighten me and derive the answer
correctly?
http://www.everythingimportant.org/viewtopic.php?p=1949#1949
Eugene Shubert
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: A Viable Alternative to Einstein's Special Relativity Theory |
25 Aug 2003 08:18:58 AM |
|
|
Perfectly Innocent wrote:
If you know the answer to the physics questions I'm asking and if my
derivation is wrong, why don't you enlighten me and derive the answer
correctly?
Show us your derivation using both your "alternative" and SR for time
dilation for say a GPS satellite with observed velocity of 3.9 km/s.
Unless your "alternative" is smoke and dung, it should almost trivially
predict the time dilation... lets see the calculation (not just the
answer, but the calculation)!
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: A Viable Alternative to Einstein's Special Relativity Theory |
23 Aug 2003 08:02:50 PM |
|
|
Perfectly Innocent wrote:
How do relativists attain such intense brainwashing so as to be
completely unable to grasp non-standard clock synchronizations on
spacetime? The point of this thread is "A Viable Alternative to
Einstein's Special Relativity Theory."
http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/simultaneity.htm
Eugene Shubert
It's called education... which you appear to be lacking.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Perfectly Innocent" |
|
| Title: Re: A Viable Alternative to Einstein's Special Relativity Theory |
23 Aug 2003 08:04:44 AM |
|
|
My exchange with David Thomas (vaelynphi@aol.comUspamo):
Where there is no empirical data, there is no physics.
Does that mean that relativists should stop hyping all the popular
nonsense about SR that has no direct experimental confirmation?
Statements like, "there is no absolute time order," "there is no
absolute frame of reference," "no object can move faster than light"
and "everything is relative."
No, because there is tons of empirical data in that case.
OK. You believe that the absence of an absolute time order has been
verified empirically. Where's the empirical data? Please cite the
experiment(s) and the scientific publication(s). This should be easy.
Who is the physicist that built the first, non-existence detector and
that successfully detected the non-existence of something empirically?
Eugene Shubert
http://www.everythingimportant.org
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: A Viable Alternative to Einstein's Special Relativity Theory |
23 Aug 2003 09:29:09 AM |
|
|
Perfectly Innocent wrote:
My exchange with David Thomas (vaelynphi@aol.comUspamo):
Where there is no empirical data, there is no physics.
Does that mean that relativists should stop hyping all the popular
nonsense about SR that has no direct experimental confirmation?
Statements like, "there is no absolute time order," "there is no
absolute frame of reference," "no object can move faster than light"
and "everything is relative."
No, because there is tons of empirical data in that case.
OK. You believe that the absence of an absolute time order has been
verified empirically. Where's the empirical data? Please cite the
experiment(s) and the scientific publication(s). This should be easy.
Who is the physicist that built the first, non-existence detector and
that successfully detected the non-existence of something empirically?
Eugene Shubert
http://www.everythingimportant.org
Pardon me, but that sounds like Hocus-pocus. Please post
sample calculations using both theories for time dilation
for say a GPS satellite with observed velocity of 3.9 km/s.
Don't tell me we've go another crank that can't do a simple
calculation to show the validity of his crank theory!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tom Potter" |
|
| Title: Re: A Viable Alternative to Einstein's Special Relativity Theory |
23 Aug 2003 10:41:12 AM |
|
|
"Sam Wormley" <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:3F477A2D.C2302646@mchsi.com...
Perfectly Innocent wrote:
My exchange with David Thomas (vaelynphi@aol.comUspamo):
Where there is no empirical data, there is no physics.
Does that mean that relativists should stop hyping all the popular
nonsense about SR that has no direct experimental confirmation?
Statements like, "there is no absolute time order," "there is no
absolute frame of reference," "no object can move faster than light"
and "everything is relative."
No, because there is tons of empirical data in that case.
OK. You believe that the absence of an absolute time order has been
verified empirically. Where's the empirical data? Please cite the
experiment(s) and the scientific publication(s). This should be easy.
Who is the physicist that built the first, non-existence detector and
that successfully detected the non-existence of something empirically?
Eugene Shubert
http://www.everythingimportant.org
Pardon me, but that sounds like Hocus-pocus. Please post
sample calculations using both theories for time dilation
for say a GPS satellite with observed velocity of 3.9 km/s.
Don't tell me we've go another crank that can't do a simple
calculation to show the validity of his crank theory!
Here's a better idea, Sam "Wild Goose" Wormley.
Rather than post useless URLs and
send folks on wild goose chases,
and demand that they spin their wheels
making calculations, why don't you prove that
the man's position is wrong?
Here is why the onus is on you.
I hope you can comprehend this concept.
Note that the key point is that you MUST
"make an observation or do a physical experiment that would show the
assertion to be false."
Specifications and solutions to equations don't fill the bill.
=============
Falsifiability is an essential concept in the philosophy of science. To
convey the concept roughly, we can say that for an assertion to be
falsifiable, in principle it must be possible to make an observation or do a
physical experiment that would show the assertion to be false. For example,
the assertion "All crows are black" could be falsified by observing one red
crow. The school of thought that emphasises the importance of falsifiability
as a philosophical principle is sometimes known as Falsificationism.
This idea was first developed by Karl Popper in the 1930s. Many have taken
this principle to an extreme to cast doubt on the scientific validity of
many disciplines (such as macroevolution and Cosmology).
=======
--
Tom Potter http://tompotter.us
.
|
|
|
| User: "Patrick Reany" |
|
| Title: Re: A Viable Alternative to Einstein's Special Relativity Theory |
23 Aug 2003 07:55:23 PM |
|
|
"Tom Potter" <tdp@hotsheet.com> wrote in message news:<bi81n0$6c74t$1@ID-188019.news.uni-berlin.de>...
"Sam Wormley" <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:3F477A2D.C2302646@mchsi.com...
Perfectly Innocent wrote:
My exchange with David Thomas (vaelynphi@aol.comUspamo):
Where there is no empirical data, there is no physics.
Does that mean that relativists should stop hyping all the popular
nonsense about SR that has no direct experimental confirmation?
Statements like, "there is no absolute time order," "there is no
absolute frame of reference," "no object can move faster than light"
and "everything is relative."
No, because there is tons of empirical data in that case.
OK. You believe that the absence of an absolute time order has been
verified empirically. Where's the empirical data? Please cite the
experiment(s) and the scientific publication(s). This should be easy.
Who is the physicist that built the first, non-existence detector and
that successfully detected the non-existence of something empirically?
Eugene Shubert
http://www.everythingimportant.org
Pardon me, but that sounds like Hocus-pocus. Please post
sample calculations using both theories for time dilation
for say a GPS satellite with observed velocity of 3.9 km/s.
Don't tell me we've go another crank that can't do a simple
calculation to show the validity of his crank theory!
Here's a better idea, Sam "Wild Goose" Wormley.
Rather than post useless URLs and
send folks on wild goose chases,
and demand that they spin their wheels
making calculations, why don't you prove that
the man's position is wrong?
Here is why the onus is on you.
I hope you can comprehend this concept.
Note that the key point is that you MUST
"make an observation or do a physical experiment that would show the
assertion to be false."
Specifications and solutions to equations don't fill the bill.
=============
Falsifiability is an essential concept in the philosophy of science. To
convey the concept roughly, we can say that for an assertion to be
falsifiable, in principle it must be possible to make an observation or do a
physical experiment that would show the assertion to be false. For example,
the assertion "All crows are black" could be falsified by observing one red
crow. The school of thought that emphasises the importance of falsifiability
as a philosophical principle is sometimes known as Falsificationism.
This idea was first developed by Karl Popper in the 1930s. Many have taken
this principle to an extreme to cast doubt on the scientific validity of
many disciplines (such as macroevolution and Cosmology).
=======
The Logic of Scientific Discovery, Karl Popper, 1959.
Although it's true that falsifiability is necessary for a theory to be
scientific, it's not necessary to ever throw out a theory on the basis
of a single negative experimental result. But if not just one, how
many?
Patrick
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tom Potter" |
|
| Title: Re: A Viable Alternative to Einstein's Special Relativity Theory |
23 Aug 2003 11:45:23 PM |
|
|
(Patrick Reany) wrote in message news:<844a1b64.0308231655.4d1dcc85@posting.google.com>...
"Tom Potter" <tdp@hotsheet.com> wrote in message news:<bi81n0$6c74t$1@ID-188019.news.uni-berlin.de>...
"Sam Wormley" <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:3F477A2D.C2302646@mchsi.com...
Perfectly Innocent wrote:
My exchange with David Thomas (vaelynphi@aol.comUspamo):
Where there is no empirical data, there is no physics.
Does that mean that relativists should stop hyping all the popular
nonsense about SR that has no direct experimental confirmation?
Statements like, "there is no absolute time order," "there is no
absolute frame of reference," "no object can move faster than light"
and "everything is relative."
No, because there is tons of empirical data in that case.
OK. You believe that the absence of an absolute time order has been
verified empirically. Where's the empirical data? Please cite the
experiment(s) and the scientific publication(s). This should be easy.
Who is the physicist that built the first, non-existence detector and
that successfully detected the non-existence of something empirically?
Eugene Shubert
http://www.everythingimportant.org
Pardon me, but that sounds like Hocus-pocus. Please post
sample calculations using both theories for time dilation
for say a GPS satellite with observed velocity of 3.9 km/s.
Don't tell me we've go another crank that can't do a simple
calculation to show the validity of his crank theory!
Here's a better idea, Sam "Wild Goose" Wormley.
Rather than post useless URLs and
send folks on wild goose chases,
and demand that they spin their wheels
making calculations, why don't you prove that
the man's position is wrong?
Here is why the onus is on you.
I hope you can comprehend this concept.
Note that the key point is that you MUST
"make an observation or do a physical experiment that would show the
assertion to be false."
Specifications and solutions to equations don't fill the bill.
=============
Falsifiability is an essential concept in the philosophy of science. To
convey the concept roughly, we can say that for an assertion to be
falsifiable, in principle it must be possible to make an observation or do a
physical experiment that would show the assertion to be false. For example,
the assertion "All crows are black" could be falsified by observing one red
crow. The school of thought that emphasises the importance of falsifiability
as a philosophical principle is sometimes known as Falsificationism.
This idea was first developed by Karl Popper in the 1930s. Many have taken
this principle to an extreme to cast doubt on the scientific validity of
many disciplines (such as macroevolution and Cosmology).
=======
The Logic of Scientific Discovery, Karl Popper, 1959.
Although it's true that falsifiability is necessary for a theory to be
scientific, it's not necessary to ever throw out a theory on the basis
of a single negative experimental result. But if not just one, how
many?
All information eventually boils down to a binary situation.
Nothing can be proven absolutely right or absolutely wrong.
When one tries to pin a cause on an effect,
using plain language, maths or a computer algorithm,
the proof of the pudding is in the correlation.
All correlations involve a limited number of samples,
taken over a limit range in time and space,
and who knows what the correlations will be over
an infinite time and space (Global reality).
This, of course, leads to what is known as
the "gamblers fallacy" where a person thinks the
dice are hot.
Ultimately raelity boils down to mass and momentum.
The more massive an object is,
and the more momentum it has,
the greater its' affect on the "reality" of the
lesser objects.
It's like the "Golden Rule".
"The guy with the most gold makes the rules."
Only it's mass that rules,
not a particular kind of mass.
--
Tom Potter http://tompotte.us
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bill Hobba" |
|
| Title: Re: A Viable Alternative to Einstein's Special Relativity Theory |
26 Aug 2003 12:04:26 AM |
|
|
Tom Potter wrote:
This, of course, leads to what is known as
the "gamblers fallacy" where a person thinks the
dice are hot.
Interesting point Tom. Actually what your talking about is known as the
reverse Martingale system. That is when your on a winning streak stick to
it; when you start loosing scale back. Successful gamblers (in games where
the odds are not biased against you like in dice but in things like horse
betting) use the reverse Martingale; but unsuccessful ones us a perverse
version called the Martingale system where they increase their bets as they
start loosing to make up the money they lost. This is a recipe to the poor
house. Study after study has shown in thinks like picking horse race
winners or making stock market picks that they run in streaks like a form of
momentum and you will increase you winnings if you 'invest' more when the
momentum is running with you. In stocks this is due to well knowen
statistical paterns such as revestion to the mean. Probably the same in
horse racing.
Actually even in a chance game like dice if you adopt a reverse Martingale
approach you will loose less because you will scale back when you start to
loose and as you notice you looses increases in the long run (as they must
when the odds are stacked against you) you will eventually stop. Whereas
with the Martingale you will keep trying to get your money back so you will
go broke. Research has shown this is one cause of gambling addition. A
person had a big win once and instead of scaling back when they start
loosing they keep doing it more.
BTW that is something I learnt in my financial planning course.
Thanks
Bill
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bilge" |
|
| Title: Re: A Viable Alternative to Einstein's Special Relativity Theory |
26 Aug 2003 01:52:07 PM |
|
|
Tom "Crack" Potter:
"Bill Hobba" <bhobba@iprimus.com.au> wrote in message
news:<3f4ae984_1@news.iprimus.com.au>...
Actually even in a chance game like dice if you adopt a reverse Martingale
approach you will loose less because you will scale back when you start to
loose and as you notice you looses increases in the long run (as they must
when the odds are stacked against you) you will eventually stop. Whereas
with the Martingale you will keep trying to get your money back so you will
go broke. Research has shown this is one cause of gambling addition. A
person had a big win once and instead of scaling back when they start
loosing they keep doing it more.
I have a sure fire system
for beating the horses (Seriously).
Using a nine-iron doesn't count.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tom Potter" |
|
| Title: Re: A Viable Alternative to Einstein's Special Relativity Theory |
28 Aug 2003 03:03:30 AM |
|
|
"Bilge" <dubious@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net> wrote in message
news:slrnbknc0m.5uv.dubious@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net...
Tom "Crack" Potter:
"Bill Hobba" <bhobba@iprimus.com.au> wrote in message
news:<3f4ae984_1@news.iprimus.com.au>...
Actually even in a chance game like dice if you adopt a reverse
Martingale
approach you will loose less because you will scale back when you
start to
loose and as you notice you looses increases in the long run (as they
must
when the odds are stacked against you) you will eventually stop.
Whereas
with the Martingale you will keep trying to get your money back so you
will
go broke. Research has shown this is one cause of gambling addition.
A
person had a big win once and instead of scaling back when they start
loosing they keep doing it more.
I have a sure fire system
for beating the horses (Seriously).
Using a nine-iron doesn't count.
Okay, since you insist, I'll tell you.
1. Divide the total amount bet in the "win pool"
by the total amount bet in the "place pool".
(Typically about four times more money is bet in the win pool.)
2. Divide the total amount bet in the "win pool"
by the amount bet on each horse in the "win pool".
(The amount of money bet on a horse in the win pool
is the best indication of which horse is likely to win.)
3. Divide the total amount bet in the "place pool"
by the amount bet on each horse in the place pool.
4. Divide the win pool numbers by the place pool numbers.
Note that if all horses were treated equally in both pools,
the ratios would all equal the total win/pool ratio,
which is typically about four to one.)
The higher the number, the better the quality of the bet.
The lower the number, the lower the quality of the bet.
5. Place your bet on the highest ratio,
as the numbers change very fast just before the windows close.
(The big money doesn't get bet until the last moment.)
Considering the tracks takes a big chunk out of the
amount bet in each pool, you must wait for a good ratio,
maybe 25% above the total win/place pool ratio,
in order to make a profit.
The first time I went to the track,
I got real lucky!
I found a dime and didn't have to walk home.
--
Tom Potter http://tompotter.us
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jeff Krimmel" |
|
| Title: Re: A Viable Alternative to Einstein's Special Relativity Theory |
26 Aug 2003 12:32:38 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 26 Aug 2003 15:04:26 +1000, Bill Hobba wrote:
Tom Potter wrote:
This, of course, leads to what is known as the "gamblers fallacy" where
a person thinks the dice are hot.
Interesting point Tom. Actually what your talking about is known as the
reverse Martingale system. That is when your on a winning streak stick to
it; when you start loosing scale back. Successful gamblers (in games
where the odds are not biased against you like in dice but in things like
horse betting) use the reverse Martingale; but unsuccessful ones us a
perverse version called the Martingale system where they increase their
bets as they start loosing to make up the money they lost. This is a
recipe to the poor house. Study after study has shown in thinks like
picking horse race winners or making stock market picks that they run in
streaks like a form of momentum and you will increase you winnings if you
'invest' more when the momentum is running with you. In stocks this is
due to well knowen statistical paterns such as revestion to the mean.
Probably the same in horse racing.
Actually even in a chance game like dice if you adopt a reverse Martingale
approach you will loose less because you will scale back when you start to
loose and as you notice you looses increases in the long run (as they must
when the odds are stacked against you) you will eventually stop. Whereas
with the Martingale you will keep trying to get your money back so you
will go broke. Research has shown this is one cause of gambling addition.
A person had a big win once and instead of scaling back when they start
loosing they keep doing it more.
BTW that is something I learnt in my financial planning course.
I'm assuming as in how not to secure your financial future. :)
Jeff
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tom Potter" |
|
| Title: Re: A Viable Alternative to Einstein's Special Relativity Theory |
28 Aug 2003 02:25:27 AM |
|
|
"Bill Hobba" <bhobba@iprimus.com.au> wrote in message
news:3f4c0acb_1@news.iprimus.com.au...
Jeff Krimmel wrote:
I'm assuming as in how not to secure your financial future. :)
That part is easy. Keep a certain percentage of your pay aside and invest
in index funds like Vanguard or Dimensional. Study after study have shown
you can't consistantly beat the index. However you can change your index
and use modern portfolio theory like Dimensional does. They have funds
that
track segments known to outperform the market like value companies (low
p/e), smaller companies etc. Where the reverse Martingale comes in is if
you want to trade shares. But that is a whole other story and we are
really
getting way off topic.
The stock market is a big con job.
Few investments are secure over a reasonable period of time.
If the company is a good cash cow, the insiders buy and keep the stock,
and if it is a dog, they milk the company, hype the stock,
and the company eventually goes bust,
and the banks get the real assets,
and the stockholders get the shaft.
The only way I found to beat the market,
was to buy convertible bonds
when the arbitrage conditions were right,
but with the proliferation of computers,
I doubt that this tactic would work now.
The stock price vs. the convertible bond price
is a non-linear function, and if you buy at
the right point on the curve, you are protected
on the downside, and get an amplification on the upside.
(In other words, if the stock goes up x%
the bond goes up more.)
The best way to make money is to instigate conflict and war,
or if you don't have the stomach for that,
to buy and hold good, income, real estate.
You get good depreciation on real estate,
and it takes care of the devaluation of your dollars by inflation,
which is always with us, and you can expense lots of
personal expenses, like auto, dinners, paint, cleaning supplies,
home improvements, etc.
Speaking of winning at the track,
I was real lucky the first time I went to the track.
I found a dime, and didn't have to walk home.
--
Tom Potter http://tompotter.us
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tom Potter" |
|
| Title: Re: A Viable Alternative to Einstein's Special Relativity Theory |
29 Aug 2003 12:03:58 AM |
|
|
"hanson" <hanson@quick.net> wrote in message news:<SYo3b.7967$3E.164@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net>...
"Tom Potter" <tdp@hotsheet.com> wrote in message
news:bikah2$a573i$1@ID-188019.news.uni-berlin.de...
The best way to make money is to instigate conflict and war,
Tom Potter
AHAHAHA........ahahahaha.....
How come you suddenly advocate this so ferociously
after having condemned it for years with a religious passion?
Or are you expressing late sorrow that your Bolsheviks beat you to it?
They laugh in their mansions in Beverly Hills and at the Riviera while
you are embittered and stranded in your hovel in China on SocSec.
Awe.....bad scene for you, Tom. I am sorry to hear that.
But, you are always good for a chuckle, Tom.
ahahahaha.........ahahahanson
Harry Hyena Hanson makes a good point!
Maybe I'm jealous of the Bolsheviks
because they beat me to the idea of
making trillions of dollars by instigating
conflict and war.
Right now, they have a monopoly on the market,
and it would take me (Or anyone) hundreds of years to
catch up with their expertise in this area.
As they, like Microsoft,
are using their monopoly to prevent fair competition,
I say now is the time to pass laws to break up
the organization, and open the instigation
of conflict, violence, and war,
to folks of all races, religions and nationalities.
--
Tom Potter http://tompotter.us
.
|
|
|
| User: "hanson" |
|
| Title: Re: A Viable Alternative to Einstein's Special Relativity Theory |
30 Aug 2003 09:35:15 PM |
|
|
"Tom Potter" <tdp@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:f76e0bb3.0308282103.54c791f6@posting.google.com...
"hanson" <hanson@quick.net> wrote in message
"Tom Potter" <tdp@hotsheet.com> wrote in message
The best way to make money is to instigate conflict and war,
Tom Potter
How come you suddenly advocate this so ferociously
after having condemned it for years with a religious passion?
Or are you expressing late sorrow that your Bolsheviks beat you to it?
They laugh in their mansions in Beverly Hills and at the Riviera while
you are embittered and stranded in your hovel in China on SocSec.
Awe.....bad scene for you, Tom. I am sorry to hear that.
But, you are always good for a chuckle, Tom.
ahahahaha.........ahahahanson
Harry Hyena Hanson makes a good point!
Maybe I'm jealous of the Bolsheviks
because they beat me to the idea of
making trillions of dollars by instigating
conflict and war. -- Tom.
It is inconsequential to me what kind of points you give me, Tom.
What is important is that you finally admit and confess that
you adore Bolsheviks. Tom, Bolsheviks are your role model,
"as can be seen" in your jealous comment where you laud
their tactics by promoting their MO with:
"The best way to make money is to instigate conflict and war"
............Tom, this is a monumental confession by you, .....big time.
This begs the obvious question, you now pushing 70:
Were you, back then in the fifties, a card carrying member of
the communist party?
As they [the Bolsheviks], like Microsoft,
are using their monopoly to prevent fair competition,
I say now is the time to pass laws to break up
the organization, and open the instigation
of conflict, violence, and war,
to folks of all races, religions and nationalities.
Tom Potter
Tom, why are you so jealous of and against anybody and anything
that is/was more successful with their live(s) then you are?
You attack the Bolsheviks of the left and Bill Gates on the right!
You denigrate major movers of science, like Newton and Kepler
and Einstein, etc. as augers, well augurs.
You make terrorist threats against the President of the United States.
Sheesh, Tom, the free speech amendment is great..........but it
is maladjusted unhappy little malcontents, fucks like you, who will
eventually usher in Big Brother........ for real!!
hanson
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tom Potter" |
|
| Title: Re: A Viable Alternative to Einstein's Special Relativity Theory |
31 Aug 2003 06:24:12 AM |
|
|
"hanson" <hanson@quick.net> wrote in message news:<D9d4b.2661$tw6.303@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net>...
"Tom Potter" <tdp@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:f76e0bb3.0308282103.54c791f6@posting.google.com...
"hanson" <hanson@quick.net> wrote in message
"Tom Potter" <tdp@hotsheet.com> wrote in message
The best way to make money is to instigate conflict and war,
Tom Potter
How come you suddenly advocate this so ferociously
after having condemned it for years with a religious passion?
Or are you expressing late sorrow that your Bolsheviks beat you to it?
They laugh in their mansions in Beverly Hills and at the Riviera while
you are embittered and stranded in your hovel in China on SocSec.
Awe.....bad scene for you, Tom. I am sorry to hear that.
But, you are always good for a chuckle, Tom.
ahahahaha.........ahahahanson
Harry Hyena Hanson makes a good point!
Maybe I'm jealous of the Bolsheviks
because they beat me to the idea of
making trillions of dollars by instigating
conflict and war. -- Tom.
It is inconsequential to me what kind of points you give me, Tom.
What is important is that you finally admit and confess that
you adore Bolsheviks. Tom, Bolsheviks are your role model,
"as can be seen" in your jealous comment where you laud
their tactics by promoting their MO with:
"The best way to make money is to instigate conflict and war"
...........Tom, this is a monumental confession by you, .....big time.
This begs the obvious question, you now pushing 70:
Were you, back then in the fifties, a card carrying member of
the communist party?
As they [the Bolsheviks], like Microsoft,
are using their monopoly to prevent fair competition,
I say now is the time to pass laws to break up
the organization, and open the instigation
of conflict, violence, and war,
to folks of all races, religions and nationalities.
Tom Potter
Tom, why are you so jealous of and against anybody and anything
that is/was more successful with their live(s) then you are?
You attack the Bolsheviks of the left and Bill Gates on the right!
You denigrate major movers of science, like Newton and Kepler
and Einstein, etc. as augers, well augurs.
You make terrorist threats against the President of the United States.
Sheesh, Tom, the free speech amendment is great..........but it
is maladjusted unhappy little malcontents, fucks like you, who will
eventually usher in Big Brother........ for real!!
hanson
As can be seen, Harry Hyena hanson
is incapable of recognizing sarcasm,
even though he has been stalking me for months,
and hanging on my every word.
As can be seen from reading my thousands of posts,
I admire the folks who succeed in free and open markets,
and provide benefits to the masses. I love guys like
Bill Gates, Henry Ford, Dave Packard, Bill Hewlett,
Sears, Roebuck, Carnegie, and all the folks nig and small,
who contribute and suceed in the process.
What I hate, are the people who instigate conflict, violence,
and war, for power and riches.
And as can be seen from my posts,
I am against big brother, and assert that
what gives the Big Brothers power are
the instigators of conflict and war.
As can be seen, they buy and intimidate politicians
and when they get a few key politicians in their pockets,
like Bush, FDR, Blair, and many others at various
places in time and space, they use the influence they have
to get "Big Brother", the "Maximum Leader" to implement
their agenda, and as their agenda involves raping the masses
of a significant portion of the gross product of the world,
naturally, a lot of good folks are *****,
and the serious conflict befins.
As I have posted
"The major weakness of a democracy,
is that immoral, profiteering, manipulators
can effectively buy the government at a low price,
by finding politicians like Bush, Blair, Clinton, etc.
and giving them the financial and media support
they need to rise above the pack.
As Philip, Alexander the Great's father said,
"There are no city walls so strong,
that they cannot be breached,
if you can get a donkey load of gold up to the wall."
The same is true with a democracy such as America has,
and immoral manipulators steal gold from the masses,
and use the gold to buy more politicians."
The best way to prevent governments from being
corrupted by the war-for-profit-instigators,
is to select the peoples representative by random lot,
and to sell the seats in the Senate to the highest bidder,
and to let the Senate present candidates to the Representatives
for their final selection.
This would make the government TRULY DEMOCRATIC,
and would keep the war-for-profit-instigators
from buying up and intimidating politicians,
as they would never know who was going to be in power,
and they would not have time to get control of enough
politicians to unduly affect the government.
As can be seen, from the list of Congressmen
who aggressively pressured Peru to release
Lori Berenson, a terrorist, who was caught in the act of
instigating conflict and war in Peru,
the war-for-profit-instigators own many
American politicians. If anyone wants to know
who they are, all they have to is do a search on
"Lori Berenson" and see who has been aiding this
American terrorist.
In other words, many American Congressmen and citizens
actively support terrorism, and the war-for-profit-instigators.
--
Tom Potter
.
|
|
|
| User: "hanson" |
|
| Title: Re: A Viable Alternative to Einstein's Special Relativity Theory |
31 Aug 2003 02:01:29 PM |
|
|
"Tom Potter" <tdp@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:f76e0bb3.0308310324.3987adb5@posting.google.com...
As can be seen, Harry Hyena hanson
is incapable of recognizing sarcasm,
even though he has been stalking me for months,
and hanging on my every word.
Tom Potter
Sarcasm? This doesn't look like sarcasm to me, Tom.
..many American Congressmen actively support terrorism.
Tom Potter
and neither does this:
Here is the EXACT reposting of your very own words again from
16 Jun 2003 in news:bcjlsh$k02n1$2@ID-188019.news.dfncis.de... wherein
"Tom Potter" utters terrorist threats against the President of the United
States, & calls and recruits for the violent overthrow of the government.
888888888888 - in Potter's own words - 888888888888
[Tom Potter:]
Hopefully, "hanson" will join with me,..........
.... and begin to slaughter the instigators of conflict and war.
.... most Americans will turn against the Bush's....
.... and join in the blood fest. In fact,.....
.... Bush and his friends, associates, and family and property
.... will be pissed on and destroyed, like Saddam's statues.
....Tom Potter
8888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888
Or the one from 01 July 2003 wherein you upped the ante and boasted
in news:bdtnhe$10mf66$1@ID-188019.news.dfncis.de... loudly:
[Tom Potter]
"Frankly, I'd like to see ..... the American government to investigate
and try to make a case against me...., Tom Potter." ......
Or the one of 03-July-03, when & wherein you began to wet your panties
in news:be2s07$lhoc$1@ID-188019.news.dfncis.de... with you stuttering:
The bottom line is, that the world will "little note nor
long remember" what I, Tom Potter, say and write.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
