Viewing 15 posts - 31 through 45 (of 70 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #5081
    dash
    Participant

    Brian H wrote: Look up the list of formal Logical Fallacies, sometime. You seem to be able to use almost all of them in close sequence.

    I see. So you make a glaring, incorrect assumption, then when someone calls you on it you don’t respond, and instead you merely engage in an ad-hominem attack?

    #5090
    Brian H
    Participant

    dash wrote:

    Look up the list of formal Logical Fallacies, sometime. You seem to be able to use almost all of them in close sequence.

    I see. So you make a glaring, incorrect assumption, then when someone calls you on it you don’t respond, and instead you merely engage in an ad-hominem attack?
    It was hardly me began the ad hominem stuff! And what “assumption” would that be, pliz? That mass-energy isn’t free? Oops! 😆

    #5094
    dash
    Participant

    Brian H wrote: It was hardly me began the ad hominem stuff! And what “assumption” would that be, pliz? That mass-energy isn’t free? Oops! 😆

    All right. Let’s try again.

    Brian H wrote: On the other side of the scale, credulous acceptance of obviously unbalanced theories is surely a sign of some kind of unfulfilled need for special Divine Revelation ….

    Now correct me if I’m wrong.

    1) I am interested in the possibility that a spinning mass can exert an unexpected gravitational field
    2) You assert that energy is always conserved, you can’t get something for free
    3) I assert that without a convincing Theory of Everything, one cannot be sure conservation of energy is always valid
    4) You assert that giving lip service to (1) above is surely a sign of some kind of unfulfilled need for special Divine Revelation
    5) After which I ask for clarification, specifically that by questioning conventional wisdom, must I then be lumped in with the religious crowd?
    6) You respond with ad hominem attack

    Let me cut to the chase. You, and many people on these forums, seem to delight in criticizing the faith based anti-science group. Yet you are blind to that exact same faith based belief in science itself.

    You see the fallacy of religion. Yet you presume that that is the only danger you faced! Science itself is not immune to corruption. Why behave as if it is? Why blindly follow the assertions of so-called experts? Why ridicule anyone who doesn’t blindly follow the assertions of so-called experts?

    I do not expect a rational response to this, by the way. And I’m rapidly tiring of interacting with you.

    #5098
    Brian H
    Participant

    dash wrote:

    It was hardly me began the ad hominem stuff! And what “assumption” would that be, pliz? That mass-energy isn’t free? Oops! 😆

    All right. Let’s try again.

    Brian H wrote: On the other side of the scale, credulous acceptance of obviously unbalanced theories is surely a sign of some kind of unfulfilled need for special Divine Revelation ….

    Now correct me if I’m wrong.

    1) I am interested in the possibility that a spinning mass can exert an unexpected gravitational field
    2) You assert that energy is always conserved, you can’t get something for free
    3) I assert that without a convincing Theory of Everything, one cannot be sure conservation of energy is always valid
    4) You assert that giving lip service to (1) above is surely a sign of some kind of unfulfilled need for special Divine Revelation
    5) After which I ask for clarification, specifically that by questioning conventional wisdom, must I then be lumped in with the religious crowd?
    6) You respond with ad hominem attack

    Let me cut to the chase. You, and many people on these forums, seem to delight in criticizing the faith based anti-science group. Yet you are blind to that exact same faith based belief in science itself.

    You see the fallacy of religion. Yet you presume that that is the only danger you faced! Science itself is not immune to corruption. Why behave as if it is? Why blindly follow the assertions of so-called experts? Why ridicule anyone who doesn’t blindly follow the assertions of so-called experts?

    I do not expect a rational response to this, by the way. And I’m rapidly tiring of interacting with you.

    Since conservation of energy, especially on a “local” scale (look it up), is strongly supported and nowhere disproved by available evidence, the burden of proof is completely on the side of anyone conjuring gravity out of the void. “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.” Extra-loud complaints about others not having sufficiently “open minds” jest don’t cut the mustard. Please cease to rely on them.
    But, you are allowed to ask me if I give a rat’s what you’re getting tired of! :cheese:

    #5107
    dash
    Participant

    Brian H wrote: Since conservation of energy, especially on a “local” scale (look it up), is strongly supported and nowhere disproved by available evidence, the burden of proof is completely on the side of anyone conjuring gravity out of the void. “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.” Extra-loud complaints about others not having sufficiently “open minds” jest don’t cut the mustard. Please cease to rely on them.
    But, you are allowed to ask me if I give a rat’s what you’re getting tired of! :cheese:

    Sigh.

    You have a misplaced faith in what science is all about. Let me state a truth that you evidently are unaware of.

    Conservation of energy is not a law. It is an observation. It is conceivable that no experiment that has been widely publicized has ever demonstrated a violation of the principle of conservation of energy.

    Even if that is the case, that is not proof that energy conservation is a fundamental property of this universe.

    Indeed, science can never prove its theories are true. Theories can only be proven false or inaccurate. Theories are only true until something comes along to disprove them. There is never any guarantee that a commonly accepted physical theory will not one day be disproved.

    I’m surprised someone as educated as you appear to be doesn’t know this fundamental limitation of science itself. Can you honestly believe that all conceivable arrangements of matter have been tried, with the intent of finding a violation of conservation of energy?

    You behave as if it is an unquestionable law that energy must be conserved in all situations. Therefore you will automatically dismiss any conceivable physical theory that does not exhibit this principle. Your only saving grace is that you are exactly like the bulk of the mainstream scientific community. Perhaps you perceive yourself safely buried in the herd.

    You used the term “Arrogant ignorance,” before. How ironic, really. You yourself are the embodiment of that principle.

    I’m done talking to you. Respond or not as you wish.

    #5109
    Phil’s Dad
    Participant

    dash wrote: Theories are only true until something comes along to disprove them.

    So all you need to do is come along with a repeatable test that shows the conservation thing to be wrong.

    Until then…

    #5117
    Brian H
    Participant

    Phil’s Dad wrote:

    Theories are only true until something comes along to disprove them.

    So all you need to do is come along with a repeatable test that shows the conservation thing to be wrong.

    Until then…
    Exactly. I’m a Popper-ian as far as Philosophy of Science goes: there are no proven ‘laws’, only hypotheses and theories which have withstood intensive and competent attempts to disprove them. In fact, no hypothesis actually qualifies as science unless it comes with plausible tests which might falsify it. This is known as “Falsifiablility”; string theory apparently lacks it, e.g., so is not considered more than a mathematical exercise by many in the field. Atmospheric Greenhouse Warming Theory resists suggesting or conducting such tests tooth and nail, and is hence actually anti-scientific. Etc.

    Real physicists LOVE life-or-death testing. Most hope, e.g., the LHC runs disprove the Standard Model, because that will be so much more interesting and informative.

    #5125
    dash
    Participant

    Phil’s Dad wrote: So all you need to do is come along with a repeatable test that shows the conservation thing to be wrong.

    Until then…

    I’m sorry, I’m not understanding you. “Until then…” what exactly are you saying, may I ask? Can you complete that sentence please?

    #5127
    Phil’s Dad
    Participant

    dash wrote:

    So all you need to do is come along with a repeatable test that shows the conservation thing to be wrong.

    Until then…

    I’m sorry, I’m not understanding you. “Until then…” what exactly are you saying, may I ask? Can you complete that sentence please?

    Until then it is exactly as you said “Theories are only true until something comes along to disprove them.” Nothing has and so it remains “true”. Your words David.

    #5128
    dash
    Participant

    Phil’s Dad wrote: Until then it is exacltly as you said “Theories are only true until something comes along to disprove them.” Nothing has and so it remains “true”. Your words David.

    I see. Now as a bit of useful feedback, in the future you might want to state exactly what you mean, because the “Until then…” was very ambiguous, and what first came to mind was nothing whatsoever like what you intended to convey.

    Now I’d like to ask another question of you.

    Have you been reading this thread, and have you been following the discussion all the way, or did, perhaps, you just tune in for the last little bit?

    Because maybe if you had been reading the whole thread, you might have seen this little bit:

    dash wrote: Seems like it would be trivial to test this. Have a very accurate scale with a weight on it underneath a spinning object, see if the scale changes as the spinning object goes faster and faster.

    AFTER which, we see this:

    Brian H wrote: TAANSTAAFS = There Ain’t No Such Thing As A Free Spin. Or gravity.

    The assertion being that the theory by Jin He being discussed is automatically false, out of the gate, because it would violate conservation of energy.

    Maybe you can see the problem? That this is not, in fact science, or the scientific method?

    I present an experiment that would test the validity of the theory. And the theory is dismissed because, by definition, the theory, if true, would negate conservation of energy. So therefore there is no need of performing the experiment. And moreover, because I’m even considering the theory, I must have some kind of unfulfilled need for special Divine Revelation…

    Strange, Phil’s Dad, that you would chime in on this discussion. And on which side you chose to support.

    Maybe it’s not so strange. Perhaps this is all part of the same underlying reason why Focus Fusion itself has so much trouble getting funded. Perhaps it could be called The Herd Mentality.

    #5131
    Brian H
    Participant

    dash wrote:

    Until then it is exacltly as you said “Theories are only true until something comes along to disprove them.” Nothing has and so it remains “true”. Your words David.

    I see. Now as a bit of useful feedback, in the future you might want to state exactly what you mean, because the “Until then…” was very ambiguous, and what first came to mind was nothing whatsoever like what you intended to convey.

    Now I’d like to ask another question of you.

    Have you been reading this thread, and have you been following the discussion all the way, or did, perhaps, you just tune in for the last little bit?

    Because maybe if you had been reading the whole thread, you might have seen this little bit:

    dash wrote: Seems like it would be trivial to test this. Have a very accurate scale with a weight on it underneath a spinning object, see if the scale changes as the spinning object goes faster and faster.

    AFTER which, we see this:

    Brian H wrote: TAANSTAAFS = There Ain’t No Such Thing As A Free Spin. Or gravity.

    The assertion being that the theory by Jin He being discussed is automatically false, out of the gate, because it would violate conservation of energy.

    Maybe you can see the problem? That this is not, in fact science, or the scientific method?

    I present an experiment that would test the validity of the theory. And the theory is dismissed because, by definition, the theory, if true, would negate conservation of energy. So therefore there is no need of performing the experiment. And moreover, because I’m even considering the theory, I must have some kind of unfulfilled need for special Divine Revelation…

    Strange, Phil’s Dad, that you would chime in on this discussion. And on which side you chose to support.

    Maybe it’s not so strange. Perhaps this is all part of the same underlying reason why Focus Fusion itself has so much trouble getting funded. Perhaps it could be called The Herd Mentality.
    Tsk, tsk. More ad hom. stuff. Addictive, is it?
    The test is seriously inadequate, unless you assume that, all unnoticed to users and science for centuries, gyroscopes change weight as they spin. And the attraction of two small weights (which is truly miniscule and hard to measure) seems kind of irrelevant to the most obvious test: does a spinning gyroscope get lighter and (if fast enough) float away? Gyros have been spun up to the point that the disks can’t hold together. If any tried to lift off or doubled in weight (e.g) before disintegrating, I rather think it would have been noticed.
    The term “rotational gravity” exists, but applies to the apparent force felt on the inside of a rotating ring. Centriputal, centrifugal, etc. Doesn’t radiate or have any effect outside the ring, except for “frame dragging”, measurable only for large bodies AFAIK.

    #5156
    Phil’s Dad
    Participant

    Thank you, David, for the advice. I know you are only trying to be helpful in pointing out that some people need things explained more clearly than others. I shall take on board what you say and try to stick to very simple language when replying to your posts in future. I can not though claim to know how your mind works or what it was you thought I meant.

    dash wrote:

    I see. Now as a bit of useful feedback, in the future you might want to state exactly what you mean, because the “Until then…” was very ambiguous, and what first came to mind was nothing whatsoever like what you intended to convey.

    Now I’d like to ask another question of you.

    I shall attempt now to answer, clearly and concisely, your subsequent question.

    Yes I did read the entire thread. I did of course see your spinning weight idea but as far as I can discover the phenomenon you hypothesize has never been observed. Have you carried out this experiment? Did it support your hypothesis?

    You see, David, the scientific method requires that experiments are carried out, not just talked about. Your solution might be elegant, feasible, affordable, repeatable and tick all the other boxes for good science. Until someone actual does it we are no further forward.

    That is not for one minute to suggest that you should not continue to come up with the ideas. But until the experiment is carried out you have not disproved the established theory and ought not to base further statements on the assumption that you have.

    Which returns us to my original postings. “So all you need to do is come along with a repeatable test that shows the conservation thing to be wrong.” I accept of course that it may not be you personally but someone needs to actually do it for the original convention to be dismissed.

    Finally; I am not sure there are sides to be taken. This is a discussion forum not a battle ground.

    OT – David, at some stage I would love to discuss MI with you (although maybe it would be stretching the generosity of a Focus Fusion forum to do it here) Before turning to politics I was Head of IT for a couple of multi-nationals. We did a bit of work on Neural Networks and NLI back in the late eighties. Things will have moved on since then and it would be good to catch up.

    #5161
    dash
    Participant

    Phil’s Dad wrote: Yes I did read the entire thread. I did of course see your spinning weight idea but as far as I can discover the phenomenon you hypothesize has never been observed. Have you carried out this experiment? Did it support your hypothesis?

    I’m getting the feeling you haven’t actually read this whole thread. And certainly you didn’t read the pdf file referenced very early on.

    This isn’t my idea. I have nothing whatsoever to do with this concept of a modified gravity other than I read the pdf file and thought about it a bit. The concept of putting a spinning mass on an airplane to reduce fuel costs was from the original article. I even quoted that piece from the original article. I then just suggested if it worked one could make a spacecraft using the same concept.

    Incidentally, your condescending tone is highly offensive. It is also a bit ludicrous, seeing as you are sticking your nose in the middle of a discussion without full knowledge about who said what and when. Now it’s clear your ego is fully in control, rather than admit making a blunder, you dig yourself in deeper. Exactly, amazingly enough, like this other fellow Brian H.

    Underneath the obvious holy concept of The Scientific Method is something far more fundamental. I’ve tried to bring it up. It is the realm of what can possibly be known. What can be proved. What is knowledge itself. Some have said this is boring, in a discussion I had with texasbrat. People on this forum appear blind to this fundamental area. The greeks explored it. Philosophy deals with it. It is the true foundation of all knowledge. The scientific method is built on top of it, yet most people here seem wholly ignorant of it.

    When I try to point out fundamental limitations in knowledge, I am repeatedly insulted. People jump in in the middle of discussions without understanding the subject matter, and make asses of themselves. You’re just the latest one.

    Truth is not subject to majority opinion. Yet people here behave as if it is. People ridicule whatever conflicts with the majority consensus. Exactly as they did back in Galileo’s time.

    There is a book called “Blink”. I think some concepts in that book apply here. Here’s my theory. People have worked hard to get their college degree. They have worked so very hard to understand complicated math concepts, complicated physical principles. They’ve finished, gotten their degree. They’re hot stuff, now! Top of the world. They know everything.

    Then a person like me comes along and ruins it. I say, “Wait a minute, you know a whole lot of that stuff you learned and were told is gospel, it’s not actually truth. It’s incomplete. Or it’s blatant corruption for political or economic reasons.” I don’t say it in such terms. I merely question conventional wisdom as regards understanding of physics. And as the book “Blink” indicates. people instantly perceive this as destructive to their entire concept of reality, the entire basis for their self confidence.

    This education in physics / math required hard work to acquire. It was difficult to get. But does that automatically make it valuable? Digging gold out of the ground is hard work. In the end you get something of certain value. But most people graduating from college, all they’ve managed to do is chew someone else’s gum for 4 years and not spit it out. What real pride can there be in this? What real creative work have these people done? What manner of advancing human knowledge have they done yet? Yet they act as if they’ve already performed miracles.

    They use offensive terms like, “Arrogant ignorance.” Such a disgusting term. And so, so offensive when the speaker himself is so blatantly arrogantly ignorant.

    I’m disgusted with the people on these forums. It used to be a nice place. Now it’s too offensive for me to want to spend time here.

    You can all have fun in your echo chamber. I came here because I loved the book The Big Bang Never Happened. I had hoped to interact with Lerner. Well, he’s a busy fellow. Not much luck there. Some people here are civil, seem to have some real insights and wisdom. But the snotty little bastards ruined it for me, one too many offensively ignorant replies. I’m gone.

    #5193
    Phil’s Dad
    Participant

    Mr Dash, you are a difficult guy to have a conversation with. You call me offensive and then call me an ass. I am pretty sure I have never called you (or anyone else) a rude name. Never mind. Water of a duck’s back. I do not take it personally.

    What you are referring to in your last e-mail is cognitive dissonance. I encounter it in politics all the time.

    Of course we can take every “truth” back to Descartes’s “Discourse on the Method” but then frankly we might as well accept that knowledge itself is impossible. Far more useful to base our lives on reasonably evident “truth” until someone proves it to be otherwise.

    I wish you well.

    #5196
    Rezwan
    Participant

    Do you think he’s really gone or is he bluffing?

    Hmm. We might need some more robust moderation around these forums. I’m pretty laissez-faire

    So:

    When I try to point out fundamental limitations in knowledge, I am repeatedly insulted.

    And

    They know everything. Then a person like me comes along and ruins it. I say, “Wait a minute, you know a whole lot of that stuff you learned and were told is gospel, it’s not actually truth. It’s incomplete. Or it’s blatant corruption for political or economic reasons.” I don’t say it in such terms. I merely question conventional wisdom as regards understanding of physics. And as the book “Blink” indicates. people instantly perceive this as destructive to their entire concept of reality, the entire basis for their self confidence.

    I don’t think that’s the issue. People know they don’t know. They just think you don’t know even less. But this is also a matter of style, or focal distance. E.g., most people just want practical, rough approximations of knowledge that work in an engineering or consumer sense. Going into the ultimate unreality or limitation of knowledge feels more like an intellectual exercise. A bit exhausting, only worth it if you like that sort of thing.

    Anyway, he’s gone. Hopefully he will find superior people to resonate with.

    Meanwhile folks, let’s keep it clean, or I may change my laissez-faire ways.

    This makes me grow nostalgic for John Astin, in the Brothers O’Toole:

    Michael O’Toole: I have, in my time, visited three political conventions, four sessions of congress, and two homes for the criminally insane. I have known army generals, steam doctors, vegetarians, prohibitionists, and a female suffragette. But never, even in an Orangeman’s Day parade, have I seen such pure and stainless brainlessness as I now behold in you. The Almighty, in His infinite wisdom and mercy, has given the worm enough sense to turn with, and the barnacle can grasp whatever happens to be standing by. But you are equipped with a mental capacity smaller than you were born with. Here we are, benighted in the middle of a nowhere named Molly-Be-Damn – a dreary little rookery, Timothy, a squalid sty, a festering pustule on the face of the western slope. Bless the town and bless the people! Look at them – the rabble of this cantankerous community! Knaves and fools, louts and lardheads, the least of all God’s creatures, without enough push to pick the fleas off each other, abiding in putrefaction and inertia, curled up comfy in it like hogs in a mud hole! And while I, of all people, fret and sweat for a way to pull these Simple Simons out of the bog, you stand around making flatulent noises for the titillation of the vulgar mob. And while he’s bubbling himself, what are you doing, you pusillanimous pack of popcorn pickers? You clattered clutch of clucks? The town dilapidating around you, coasting downhill in a handcart to Hell while you stand about gaping for flies and going patty-cake with your hands!
    Mayor: There now! Now just one minute you!
    Michael O’Toole: All right, all right, all right! Fine! Keep it, and treasure it the way it is! For when all this trash has collapsed into one pile, and the howling wilderness has claimed its own again, I want you hicks to be happy, belching and spitting, laughing and singing, swinging from tree to tree, with your friend Soapy Sam here, the Uriah Heep of the hookworm belt, standing around below waiting to steal anything that falls to the ground. If a nut should drop and fall – leave it lying there. It’s probably my little brother Timothy.
    Sheriff: Is that all?
    [O’Toole throws up his hands]
    Sheriff: [Crowd applauds]
    Sheriff:
    By acclamation – the winner of the cussin’ contest – Michael O’Toole!

Viewing 15 posts - 31 through 45 (of 70 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.