One of the most popular vindications of a wrong concept in zombie
science is: "It works." So the second law of thermodynamics has been
working for 150 years, the principle of constancy of the speed of light
has been working for 100 years etc. But when does a wrong concept stop
working? This by no means depends on knowledge about its wrongness.
Einstein clearly stated in Chapter 22 in his "Relativity" that the
speed of light is variable, not constant, and this has been confirmed
countless times since then:

http://www.ekkehard-friebe.de/wallace.htm

Yet the principle of constancy of the speed of light still works,
zombies celebrate it etc. Also, there is nothing more obscure than the
second law of thermodynamics and the initiated do know that:

http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/archive/00000313/

Yet the law still works (although zombies do not celebrate it so
fiercely).

So when does a wrong concept stop working? The answer is: as soon as
the initiated manage to replace it with another wrong concept bringing
at least the same amount of money, prestige etc. Although the concept
of caloric had been seriously challanged for more than 50 years, Kelvin
wrote in 1848:

"In the present state of science no operation is known by which heat
can be absorbed, without either elevating the temperature of matter, or
becoming latent and producing some alteration in the physical condition
of the body into which it is absorbed; and the conversion of heat (or
caloric) into mechanical effect is probably impossible, certainly
undiscovered. In actual engines for obtaining mechanical effect through
the agency of heat, we must consequently look for the source of power,
not in any absorption and conversion, but merely in the transition of
heat."

The reason was that Kelvin was extracting a lot of profit from Carnot's
conclusion "All heat engines working between the same two temperatures
have the same maximal efficiency" which was based on the concept of
caloric. Two years later, in 1850, Kelvin's accomplice Clausius
"derived" Carnot's conclusion from "Heat flows spontaneously from hot
to cold" and Kelvin immediately abandoned the concept of caloric. At
that very moment the concept stopped working.

Pentcho Valev

"Pentcho Valev" wrote in message oups.com...
One of the most popular vindications of a wrong concept in zombie
science is: "It works." So the second law of thermodynamics has been
working for 150 years, the principle of constancy of the speed of light
has been working for 100 years etc. But when does a wrong concept stop
working?

As soon as someone does a repeatable experiment for
which it does not work.

This by no means depends on knowledge about its wrongness.
Einstein clearly stated in Chapter 22 in his "Relativity" that the
speed of light is variable, not constant, and this has been confirmed
countless times since then:

Poncho Valev does not want to know the differences between
- speed and velocity,
- inertial and non-inertial,
- local and global,
- implication and equivalence

The question is, was Pentcho Valev born a malicious idiot, or
did he have an accident somewhere down the line?

Dirk Vdm

In article , "Dirk Van de moortel" writes:

"Pentcho Valev" wrote in message oups.com...
One of the most popular vindications of a wrong concept in zombie
science is: "It works." So the second law of thermodynamics has been
working for 150 years, the principle of constancy of the speed of light
has been working for 100 years etc. But when does a wrong concept stop
working?

As soon as someone does a repeatable experiment for
which it does not work.

This by no means depends on knowledge about its wrongness.
Einstein clearly stated in Chapter 22 in his "Relativity" that the
speed of light is variable, not constant, and this has been confirmed
countless times since then:

Poncho Valev does not want to know the differences between
- speed and velocity,
- inertial and non-inertial,
- local and global,
- implication and equivalence

The question is, was Pentcho Valev born a malicious idiot, or
did he have an accident somewhere down the line?

This may be relevant to the question of whether he should be allowed
to breed. Other than this, I see little interest in the topic.

Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
| chances are he is doing just the same"

Aw, let him breed, for Crissakes. Just throws some useful randomness
into the brew, avoiding moribundness. In fact,.....

"Fantastic insight into the true nature of Reality is isomorphic to
insanity."

Law # 1.

In sci.physics, Pentcho Valev

wrote
on 31 Oct 2005 01:57:28 -0800
.com:
One of the most popular vindications of a wrong concept in zombie
science is: "It works." So the second law of thermodynamics has been
working for 150 years, the principle of constancy of the speed of light
has been working for 100 years etc. But when does a wrong concept stop
working? This by no means depends on knowledge about its wrongness.
Einstein clearly stated in Chapter 22 in his "Relativity" that the
speed of light is variable, not constant, and this has been confirmed
countless times since then:

http://www.ekkehard-friebe.de/wallace.htm

Yet the principle of constancy of the speed of light still works,
zombies celebrate it etc. Also, there is nothing more obscure than the
second law of thermodynamics and the initiated do know that:

http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/archive/00000313/

Yet the law still works (although zombies do not celebrate it so
fiercely).

So when does a wrong concept stop working? The answer is: as soon as
the initiated manage to replace it with another wrong concept bringing
at least the same amount of money, prestige etc. Although the concept
of caloric had been seriously challanged for more than 50 years, Kelvin
wrote in 1848:

"In the present state of science no operation is known by which heat
can be absorbed, without either elevating the temperature of matter, or
becoming latent and producing some alteration in the physical condition
of the body into which it is absorbed; and the conversion of heat (or
caloric) into mechanical effect is probably impossible, certainly
undiscovered. In actual engines for obtaining mechanical effect through
the agency of heat, we must consequently look for the source of power,
not in any absorption and conversion, but merely in the transition of
heat."

The reason was that Kelvin was extracting a lot of profit from Carnot's
conclusion "All heat engines working between the same two temperatures
have the same maximal efficiency" which was based on the concept of
caloric. Two years later, in 1850, Kelvin's accomplice Clausius
"derived" Carnot's conclusion from "Heat flows spontaneously from hot
to cold" and Kelvin immediately abandoned the concept of caloric. At
that very moment the concept stopped working.

Pentcho Valev


Well, OK, fair enough. The questions are obvious, though:

[1] What is the *right* concept?
[2] How much is the error between the right concept, and the
currently-held one?

For example, if one treats SR as the "right" concept, then analyzing
the results of a traffic accident at 30 m/s (67 mph) of a car with
a tree will result in an error of approximately 5 * 10^-15.

The Newton-calculated result of a plane going 300 m/s
(670 mph) into a mountain (or a building!) will be in
error by about 5 * 10^-13.

The result of a rocket failing to make orbit and crashing
into the Earth at 3,000 m/s will be in error by about
5 * 10^-11.

The result of a meteor hitting the Earth at 30 km/s will
be in error by about 5 * 10^-9.

The result of a muon hitting the Earth at about .999c will
be in error by about 23x.

It's clear that Newton isn't "right", but the error is small for
those areas of physics where Newton was used, prior to the
introduction of SR.

--
#191,
It's still legal to go .sigless.

You think stalking me in other NGs is gonna get rid of me in this one, think
again, **** for brains. I've pretty much ignored your anger, bitterness, and
general small mindedness for nearly a year now, but I post just a couple of
messages here lately and you come and stalk me not only here, but in other NGs?

What's the point of that, Van Moortel? Did I strike a nerve way back then? Was
outing you as the bitter, lowly, immoral, pathetic old man all that hurtful?

Does my mere presence remind you of the fact that you have no life and no claim
to fame and that you've accomplished nothing in your pathetic life? Is that why
you've posted here for so long and devoted yourself to McCarthy-like tactics to
silence those who challenge you? Is it because this is all you have, and to
have it challenged in any way would destroy the only reason you have for
continuing to waste fresh air?

Well, think again, asshole. Whatever your motive in going after me for
absolutely no reason could possibly have been, it backfired. I'm not going
anywhere, dick head. Deal with it. I'm going to re-devote myself to exposing
you for the empty shell of a person you really are.

Pentcho Valev wrote:

One of the most popular vindications of a wrong concept in zombie
science is: "It works."

It is not only the most popular vindication. It is the ONLY vindication.
The soundness of a physical theory is judged from the correctness of its
predictions. Nothing else matters.

Bob Kolker

The Ghost In The Machine wrote:


It's clear that Newton isn't "right", but the error is small for
those areas of physics where Newton was used, prior to the
introduction of SR.

And it still is. In the regime of small velocities, classical mechanics
is still an excellent hueristic.

Bob Kolker

"Pentcho Valev" wrote in message
oups.com...
One of the most popular vindications of a wrong concept in zombie
science is: "It works." So the second law of thermodynamics has been
working for 150 years, the principle of constancy of the speed of light
has been working for 100 years etc. But when does a wrong concept stop
working? This by no means depends on knowledge about its wrongness.
Einstein clearly stated in Chapter 22 in his "Relativity" that the
speed of light is variable, not constant, and this has been confirmed
countless times since then:

http://www.ekkehard-friebe.de/wallace.htm

Thanks for reminding me of that link that made me read the amusing (and
instructive) paper of Langmuir on pathological science.
Anyway, in the lab the "constant speed of light" works fine.

Yet the principle of constancy of the speed of light still works,
zombies celebrate it etc. Also, there is nothing more obscure than the
second law of thermodynamics and the initiated do know that:

http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/archive/00000313/

Yet the law still works (although zombies do not celebrate it so
fiercely).

That's a tricky one, especially in face of "Maxwell's demon".

But I wonder if you write this now, or if you wrote it at all.
Anyway, that doc doesn't seem to be working at the moment...

Harald

So when does a wrong concept stop working? The answer is: as soon as
the initiated manage to replace it with another wrong concept bringing
at least the same amount of money, prestige etc. Although the concept
of caloric had been seriously challanged for more than 50 years, Kelvin
wrote in 1848:

"In the present state of science no operation is known by which heat
can be absorbed, without either elevating the temperature of matter, or
becoming latent and producing some alteration in the physical condition
of the body into which it is absorbed; and the conversion of heat (or
caloric) into mechanical effect is probably impossible, certainly
undiscovered. In actual engines for obtaining mechanical effect through
the agency of heat, we must consequently look for the source of power,
not in any absorption and conversion, but merely in the transition of
heat."

The reason was that Kelvin was extracting a lot of profit from Carnot's
conclusion "All heat engines working between the same two temperatures
have the same maximal efficiency" which was based on the concept of
caloric. Two years later, in 1850, Kelvin's accomplice Clausius
"derived" Carnot's conclusion from "Heat flows spontaneously from hot
to cold" and Kelvin immediately abandoned the concept of caloric. At
that very moment the concept stopped working.

Pentcho Valev

"The Ghost In The Machine" wrote in message ...
| It's clear that Newton isn't "right", but the error is small for
| those areas of physics where Newton was used, prior to the
| introduction of SR.


It's clear you are a phuckwit and a liar.
Androcles.