"AllYou!" wrote in message ...
"Patrick Reany" wrote in message
[snip]
The concept of time is still there because the concept of ordering
events is still there. For some reason you have a hard time
differentiating between providing an operational deinition of a
variable and "removing the variable." Your concept of time is no less
abstract than conventional physics time. All physical variables are
intrinsically abstract anyway.

I don't have a concept of time. You keep insisting that I do because your psyche is too
inextricably linked to the belief that it must exist.

Metaphsyical existence is irrelevant in the first place. Physics is
the description of the evolution of physical systems (i.e., the
behavior of them) through time. That's where the need for time comes
from. No, I do not insist that time be in physics because I believe
that "time really exists." I couldn't care less if time "really
exists."

I'm not providing an operational
definition of time,

Then you have withdrawn the use of the rotation of the earth as a
motion that orders events? That motion is part of an operational
definition of some measurement, whatever name you want it to go by.

I'm asserting as fastidiously as I can that motion is used as that by
which we order events and that we just won't recognize that fact.

No. You cannot claim to have removed the concept of time yet maintain
that you provide a theory that allows one to order events. The
ordering of events is conceptually what is meant by *time* in the
first place in physics, at least instrumentally speaking!

We have reach a definite impasse in our discussion. Good luck with
your discussions with others!

Patrick

"Patrick Reany" wrote in message
om...
"greywolf42" wrote in message
...
"Patrick Reany" wrote in message
om...
"greywolf42" wrote in message
...
"Patrick Reany" wrote in message
[snip]
{snip higher levels}

A "theory that works" is a theory that has good agreement
between
its empirical predictions and it empirical tests.

That is not the definition of a theory in the scientific method.

{"invisible" snip by Patrick replaced, due to later false claims made by
Patrick}
=====================
Please provide for us the "definition of a theory in the
scientific
method."

Done ages ago, and accepted by you. Do you want me to give you the
link, again?

Absolutely not! All I want is for you to present right below this your
definition of the scientific method. No more links, please.
=====================

You offered the following from "Betrayers of Truth (Fraud and Deceit
in the Halls of Science, William Broad & Nicholas Wade, 1982", pg 16
et seq, for your description of a theory:

Actually, no. That quote from Broad and Wade was made in response to your
demand for a reference to support the statement: "If an experiment is
'dependent upon' a theory, then -- by definition -- it cannot be science."
It is not *my* description of a scientific theory (which was given earlier
in my post).

A theory in science has a much more solemn meaning
than in everyday language. A theory makes sense of
and explains a vast body of scientific knowledge,
including both laws and the facts dependent on the
laws. The theory is of course supported by the facts
and laws it explains, but at the same time it often
contains elements for which there no immediate proof.

I disagree strongly with this charterization.

I'm not surprised. But -- as usual -- you provided not on iota of support
for your position.

A theory is, in or out
of science, an explanation in the form of a deductive system.

But we are discussing the scientific method. Hence, whatever you want to
discuss about non-science words is irrelevant.

Theories
can work or not work (i.e., be supported by the facts or not). A
theory doesn't become a theory only after it's been validated by the
facts.

True, but totally irrelevant and a non-sequiteur. As *I* made no claim or
implication that a theory had to be "supported by fact" to be a scientific
theory.

Too bad. I don't feel like going through that again.

Then don't bring it up. Even someone of your limited capabilities can
cut and paste your previously posted writings. If you're that lazy,
don't even bother to post at all. But if you volunteer to champion a
cause, do it right. Don't do it half-assed. Give to it the full
measure of effort which it deserves.

I did, back then. However, your tired and brainless repetitions of demands
that I must 'define the scientific method' don't require more effort on my
part. If *you* are too lazy to click on a link to an agreement we jointly
reached years ago, that's your problem.

I didn't
find a definition of the scientific method in them from you, anyway.

You didn't look in the thread, did you?

The scientific method according to greywolf42 is as follows:

http://www.google.com/groups?selm=pW...ntp1.onem ain.
com

You referred to a post you made three years ago as though it was
posted yesterday?

I never mentioned 'yesterday.' I specifically stated "made ages ago". You
"invisibly" snipped my statement, above. Apparently so you could
misrepresent my position. But I've raised it many times in the ensuing
years. Every time you repeat your absurd, empty demand for a new
definition.

Anyway, your reply is then, and I quote:

The scientific method is comprised of observation,
theorizing, validation and verification. The steps
in the scientific method can occur in any order, for
any reason.

That *is* a small part of my reply, yes.

Even adding in all the rest of your charcterization of the scientific
method, I am not satisfied with it.

You were satisfied before. That's why I repeatedly post your prior
agreement. You are welcome to identify changes in your point of view. As
I've noted several times (followed by dead silence by you).

The biggest problem I have with it
is that you have not told us what the purpose of the scientifc method
is.

You didn't ask what the "purpose" was. You asked what it was. (Though I
gave you the purpose in the post, anyway.)

The purpose of the scientific method is no more merely to engage in a
set of "steps" than is the purpose of dancing merely to engage in a
set of dance steps. The steps are merely a means to an end in science.

Every method is a method of producing some intended output. What is
the intended output of the scientific method?

Knowledge of the physical universe.

And my evaluation of your counter-claim that science is whatever
scientists do:

http://www.google.com/groups?selm=pm...ntp1.onem ain.
com

I never claimed that "science is what scientists do."

Read the link. You provide a series of characterizations of what
"scientists" do as the definition of science.

And I have no
idea what it's supposed to be a "counter-claim" to.

To my definition of the scientific method. Which you agreed was "... a good
job of stating the
naive scientific method."

I figure that you think that virtually no science gets done any more
in physics,

Very little -- assuming you mean within academia.

because all science has become is a dogma to rationalize
"weird" modern physics (a specific interpretation of yours on the
viewpoint of Feyerabend),

That's not my reason, however.

which you seem to despise (modern physics,
that is).

I don't despise physics, just the academic priests who block knowledge.

And that real science hasn't been done in physics in a 100
years.

? Why repeat the first sentence with the last sentence?

Am I right or wrong, at least in principle?

There are at least three separate claims made in your paragraph. Which do
you want answered?

If so, in what way do you think that modern physics doesn't follow the
scientific method?

Clearly explained in the link. Again, you fail to discriminate between
science, and what "scientists" do.

--
greywolf42
ubi dubium ibi libertas
{remove planet for e-mail}

"xxein" wrote in message
om...
"greywolf42" wrote in message
...
"Patrick Reany" wrote in message
om...

{snip higher levels}

All I want is for you to present right below this your
definition of the scientific method. No more links, please.

Too bad. I don't feel like going through that again.

I didn't
find a definition of the scientific method in them from you, anyway.

You didn't look in the thread, did you?

The scientific method according to greywolf42 is as follows:

http://www.google.com/groups?selm=pW...ntp1.onem ain.
com

And my evaluation of your counter-claim that science is whatever
scientists do:

http://www.google.com/groups?selm=pm...ntp1.onem ain.
com

xxein: It would seem that a scientific method should be as
belief-sensitive as a theory provides.

Why? Theories are contained within the scientific method... not the other
way around.

Thus circular to itself.

Yes, your statement is circular. But it has nothing to do with the
scientific method.

The method has been out-moded by the diversity of (otherwise) equally
valid theories that do not necessarily share older methods.

??? Scientific theories are fully contained within the scientific
method ... which covers all such theories (by definition).

I presume what you meant to say was that there are many other ways of
claiming knowledge that lie outside the scientific method. But you
inappropriately called them "theories". The term 'theory' is one from the
scientific method. If your statement or "rationale" is not within the
scientific method, then it is not a theory.

--
greywolf42
ubi dubium ibi libertas
{remove planet for e-mail}

"greywolf42" wrote in message ...
"Patrick Reany" wrote in message
om...
[snip]

You offered the following from "Betrayers of Truth (Fraud and Deceit
in the Halls of Science, William Broad & Nicholas Wade, 1982", pg 16
et seq, for your description of a theory:

Actually, no. That quote from Broad and Wade was made in response to your
demand for a reference to support the statement: "If an experiment is
'dependent upon' a theory, then -- by definition -- it cannot be science."
It is not *my* description of a scientific theory (which was given earlier
in my post).

Every experiment is dependent on theory. Successful theories are
required to give humans an expectation of how measuring instruments
behave under experimnetal conditions.

[snip]

A theory is, in or out
of science, an explanation in the form of a deductive system.

But we are discussing the scientific method. Hence, whatever you want to
discuss about non-science words is irrelevant.

I gave you a definition of theory which I claimed is correct for
science, so its application in a broader context does no harm.
However, since you failed to respend to THAT part of it, I will repeat
it for you now:

A theory is an explanation in the form of a deductive system.

[snip]


Anyway, your reply is then, and I quote:

The scientific method is comprised of observation,
theorizing, validation and verification. The steps
in the scientific method can occur in any order, for
any reason.

That *is* a small part of my reply, yes.

Finally something you'll own up to.


The biggest problem I have with it
is that you have not told us what the purpose of the scientifc method
is.

You didn't ask what the "purpose" was. You asked what it was. (Though I
gave you the purpose in the post, anyway.)

The purpose of the scientific method is no more merely to engage in a
set of "steps" than is the purpose of dancing merely to engage in a
set of dance steps. The steps are merely a means to an end in science.

Every method is a method of producing some intended output. What is
the intended output of the scientific method?

Knowledge of the physical universe.

Please briefly characterize scientific knowledge of the physical
universe, covering all the main categories, such as convention, fact,
law, theory, etc.

Patrick

(Patrick Reany) wrote in message . com...

If so, in what way do you think that modern physics doesn't follow the
scientific method?

Patrick

The best thing that happened to the investigation of natural phenomena
was relativity insofar as it highlights the errors of 3 centuries ago
rather than achieving anything in its own right.


You have probably spent a lifetime preaching that Newton is wrong,he
is indeed but not for the same reasons aetherists and relativists
believe !.Relativity itself represents a loss of patience with
Newtonian ambiguities by constructing the total conceptual
ambiguity.The really funny thing is that all are agreeing to give
relativity a clarity is does'nt deserve by discussing it within
Newtonian terminology and it seems this is Albert's only attribute
insofar as he managed to become puppetmaster for Newton and his
followers simultaneously.

All the job security in the world is not worth continuing with
concepts which should have been jettisoned when the solar system's
galactic orbital motion was discovered in the 1920's and the effects
of that motion on heliocentric planetary motion as Keplerian motion.

You REALLY want to see what's wrong with Newton -

"And since these stars are liable to no sensible parallax from
the annual motion of the earth, they can have no force, because of
their immense distance, to produce any sensible effect in our system.
Not to mention that the fixed stars, every where promiscuously
dispersed in the heavens, by their contrary actions destroy their
mutual actions, by Prop. LXX, Book I."

The remarkable thing is that Newton set up a heliocentric/geocentric
orbital equivalency and isolated all motion to the solar system
thereby shutting out the possibility of incorporating the effects of a
greater motion such as the solar system's galactic orbital motion on
heliocentric planetary orbital motion.

Even more incredible !,without exception all are arguing against
relativistic homocentricity instead of proposing or at least
attempting to introduce the already 80 year old discovery of a greater
axis of rotation.It is like watching people argue over the merits and
differences between cartoon characters from a different era when the
substantive issues are left unattended or ignored.

Oriel36 wrote:


The best thing that happened to the investigation of natural phenomena
was relativity insofar as it highlights the errors of 3 centuries ago
rather than achieving anything in its own right.

GPS. GPS. GPS.



You have probably spent a lifetime preaching that Newton is wrong,he
is indeed but not for the same reasons aetherists and relativists
believe !.Relativity itself represents a loss of patience with
Newtonian ambiguities by constructing the total conceptual
ambiguity.The really funny thing is that all are agreeing to give
relativity a clarity is does'nt deserve by discussing it within
Newtonian terminology and it seems this is Albert's only attribute
insofar as he managed to become puppetmaster for Newton and his
followers simultaneously.

Yooo - Hooooo!!! Neither of the relativity theories have every been
falsified experimentally. Special relativity is in integral part of
quantum field theory which is the best physical theory ever formulated
and has lead to the development of technology you take for granted.
Without quantum field theory you would not have a computer on which to
type your nonsense.

Bob Kolker

"Patrick Reany" wrote in message
m...
"greywolf42" wrote in message
...
"Patrick Reany" wrote in message
om...

[snip]

Kudos to Patrick for marking a snip.

You offered the following from "Betrayers of Truth (Fraud and Deceit
in the Halls of Science, William Broad & Nicholas Wade, 1982", pg 16
et seq, for your description of a theory:

Actually, no. That quote from Broad and Wade was made in response to
your demand for a reference to support the statement: "If an experiment
is 'dependent upon' a theory, then -- by definition -- it cannot be
science." It is not *my* description of a scientific theory (which was
given earlier in my post).

Every experiment is dependent on theory.

Patrick, this silly claim of yours is still wrong, no matter how often you
repeat it. Go back and see the simple disproof of this claim, at the links
you have once again snipped. Perhaps you should actually read them.

http://www.google.com/groups?selm=pm...ntp1.onem ain.
com
=========================
Give an
example of a SINGLE experiment that in no way is dependent
on any theory. Are you going to dodge this request a second time?

This is your first request. There was no request to dodge.

And the answer is: Galileo's inclined planes with rolling balls.
Rutherford's alpha particle/gold-foil experiment. Tossing a ball in the
air. Placing a radioactive source in front of a geiger counter.
Edison's development of light bulb filaments. Running a rat through
a maze. Etc, etc.

I don't see whatever you're trying to show with these.

I was responding to your demand. I was trying to show how silly the
statement that "all experiments are model dependent" was. You demanded
examples. See? It was silly.
=========================

Successful theories are
required to give humans an expectation of how measuring instruments
behave under experimnetal conditions.

Horsefeathers. If humans can't figure out how instruments behave, they
shouldn't be doing experiments.

http://www.google.com/groups?selm=pm...ntp1.onem ain.
com
==========================
In short, only "modern" standard theory particle physicists, GRists, and
cosmologist use "model-dependent" experiments. That is, where the
"background data" is calculated per a given theory, instead of measured.
And where that determines or affects the "observation" that are reported.
==========================


[snip]

A theory is, in or out
of science, an explanation in the form of a deductive system.

But we are discussing the scientific method. Hence, whatever you want
to discuss about non-science words is irrelevant.

I gave you a definition of theory which I claimed is correct for
science, so its application in a broader context does no harm.

No, since you claimed that a 'theory' existed outside of the
scientific method, then you weren't discussing a scientific theory.

However, since you failed to respend to THAT part of it, I will repeat
it for you now:

A theory is an explanation in the form of a deductive system.

And you are still wrong. A theory is much more than a simple explanation
.... deductive system or not. Among other requirements, a scientific theory
requires a cause-and-effect relationship.

[snip]

Anyway, your reply is then, and I quote:

The scientific method is comprised of observation,
theorizing, validation and verification. The steps
in the scientific method can occur in any order, for
any reason.

That *is* a small part of my reply, yes.

Finally something you'll own up to.

??? I was simply pointing out that you weren't addressing my response, but
only a single 'sound bite,' out of context.

The biggest problem I have with it
is that you have not told us what the purpose of the scientifc method
is.

You didn't ask what the "purpose" was. You asked what it was. (Though
I gave you the purpose in the post, anyway.)

The purpose of the scientific method is no more merely to engage in a
set of "steps" than is the purpose of dancing merely to engage in a
set of dance steps. The steps are merely a means to an end in science.

Every method is a method of producing some intended output. What is
the intended output of the scientific method?

Knowledge of the physical universe.

Please briefly characterize scientific knowledge of the physical
universe, covering all the main categories, such as convention, fact,
law, theory, etc.

Conventions, "facts", and laws have no meaning in the scientific method,
Patrick. These terms are mere social preferences. See the scientific
method. Again:
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=pW...ntp1.onem ain.
com

--
greywolf42
ubi dubium ibi libertas
{remove planet for e-mail}

"robert j. kolker" wrote in message
...

Yooo - Hooooo!!! Neither of the relativity theories have every been
falsified experimentally.

A bald-faced lie. SR was first falsified by Kaufmann's experiments. Then
by the Sagnac experiments. So far, we haven't experimentally tested SR's
second postulate at all.

GR was first falsified by the solar eclipse data (though Eddington massaged
the data until he could report confirmation). GR is currently falsified by
long-period eclipsing binaries.

Special relativity is in integral part of quantum field theory

It is not integral. One could replace SR with an aether theory such as LET
without changing QFT's application to experiments at all.

which is the best physical theory ever formulated

On what basis? That Priests like you like to make this unfounded claim?

and has lead to the development of technology you take for granted.

Pure wishful thinking. QM has not lead to any of the fundamental
technology.

Without quantum field theory you would not have a computer on which to
type your nonsense.

Pure B.S. The development of transistors and computers did not depend upon
QM at all. And even if they had, this would say nothing whatsoever about SR
versus other theories.

Relativists just love to claim support for their Religion on the basis of
other theories.

--
greywolf42
ubi dubium ibi libertas
{remove planet for e-mail}

"greywolf42" wrote in message ...
"xxein" wrote in message
om...
"greywolf42" wrote in message
...
"Patrick Reany" wrote in message
om...

{snip higher levels}


xxein: It would seem that a scientific method should be as
belief-sensitive as a theory provides.

Why? Theories are contained within the scientific method... not the other
way around.

Thus circular to itself.

Yes, your statement is circular. But it has nothing to do with the
scientific method.

The method has been out-moded by the diversity of (otherwise) equally
valid theories that do not necessarily share older methods.

??? Scientific theories are fully contained within the scientific
method ... which covers all such theories (by definition).

I presume what you meant to say was that there are many other ways of
claiming knowledge that lie outside the scientific method. But you
inappropriately called them "theories". The term 'theory' is one from the
scientific method. If your statement or "rationale" is not within the
scientific method, then it is not a theory.

xxein: I can agree that the scientific method puts its definition and
order to such words, but it did not originate or copywrite them.
Hijacked is more like it.

Nevertheless, the scientific method is probably the best-guess
solution to best-guessing.

"Patrick Reany" wrote in message
om...
"AllYou!" wrote in message
...
"Patrick Reany" wrote in message
[snip]
The concept of time is still there because the concept of ordering
events is still there. For some reason you have a hard time
differentiating between providing an operational deinition of a
variable and "removing the variable." Your concept of time is no less
abstract than conventional physics time. All physical variables are
intrinsically abstract anyway.

I don't have a concept of time. You keep insisting that I do because your psyche is
too
inextricably linked to the belief that it must exist.

Metaphsyical existence is irrelevant in the first place. Physics is
the description of the evolution of physical systems (i.e., the
behavior of them) through time. That's where the need for time comes
from. No, I do not insist that time be in physics because I believe
that "time really exists." I couldn't care less if time "really
exists."

That's just more obfuscation for the point that you're wrong in characterizing my position
as having a concept of time at all. My concept of time, if there is one, is that the
notion of time as no place in science. As such, to keep insisting that I'm advocating
some reform to the notion of time is incorrect. As to the more substantive part of the
argument, you've made my case for me. To wit: "The concept of time is still there
because the concept of ordering events is still there."

A concept is an invention of man. Ordering events is something which man needs to do and
not a part of the physical realm. Not only that, but it's a poor and misleading concept
because ordering events is doable with this added layer of complexity.

I'm not providing an operational
definition of time,

Then you have withdrawn the use of the rotation of the earth as a
motion that orders events? That motion is part of an operational
definition of some measurement, whatever name you want it to go by.

Please try to avoid using current definitions of that which is under discussion to bolster
your argument about what we're discussing. This makes discussion pointless. I've
withdrawn no such thing. If you go back through all of our posts, you will see that my
argument is that the motion of the Earth, as with all other motion, is as fundamental as
any distance. As such, that motion is just as valid to be used as the standard by which
all other motions can be measured as is my foot could be the standard of distance for
measuring all other distances. However, your psyche is so tied to the notion of time
being a component of motion that you cannot even discuss the validity of this notion
without falling back upon it as the basis of your argument that it is. This is the height
of circularity.

I'm asserting as fastidiously as I can that motion is used as that by
which we order events and that we just won't recognize that fact.

No. You cannot claim to have removed the concept of time yet maintain
that you provide a theory that allows one to order events.

Why not? I most certainly can as long as I rid myself of the failed notion that time is a
component of motion. I maintain that motion is fundamental and has no components.
Moreover, I've posted here to you and others many time the the ordering of events does not
reuire time. In fact, I gave a pretty detailed narrative that all we do when we use time
is to pick a standard motion in the universe (e.g., the rotation of the Earth using the
Sun as a marker) as a reference by which the position of all other particles in the
universe are referenced. IOW, we use that steady motion as an ruler, and index, in the
margin of the scroll of history. We record the position of all other particles in the
universe which are of interest to us and chart their position relative to the position of
the Earth so that we're able to know what the position of each particle was relative to
all others at any given point in their paths. This is the process we current use to order
all the events of history. We use motion to do so but we complicate matters by claiming
the validity of some abstract notion we call time.

The
ordering of events is conceptually what is meant by *time* in the
first place in physics, at least instrumentally speaking!

We have reach a definite impasse in our discussion. Good luck with
your discussions with others!

OK.