 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 29-3-2010 18:17, Darren New wrote:
> Phil Cook v2 wrote:
>> Depends on the setup. Off the top of my head imagine a situation with
>> a night-guard on reception. The building is locked, but the alarms
>> aren't on. Now if the building can't be locked without the alarms
>> being activated that's a pointless function of the card.
>
> Yes, but that's not the problem. Indeed, that's how it works now.
>
> The problem is that the card unlocks the door but does *not* turn off
> the alarm. The right answer, in other words, is to disallow the card
> from unlocking the door if the alarm is already set. Because as it
> stands now, going into the building sets off the alarm, with no way to
> turn that off.
just do that a couple of times then they have to fix it.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] san rrcom> wrote:
> Warp wrote:
> > Just because these anomalies exist doesn't mean GR is bogus, even if
> > astrophysicists are scratching their heads with them.
> I would classify them under "measured wrong". I.e., there's something
> unaccounted for in the measurement. I guess you could classify evil spirits
> as "unaccounted for". :-)
It's just odd that it affects only flybys but not eg. satellites in orbit
or the Moon. Those work exactly like predicted by GR. (For example the
distance between the Earth and the Moon has been measured for 40 years
with an accuracy of about 1 cm, and this distance has changed exactly as
predicted by GR. There are tons and tons of other such measurements as well.
The flyby anomaly is an oddity with no currently known explanation.)
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> The flyby anomaly is an oddity with no currently known explanation.)
Yeah. I've heard several proposed theories, and I thought I remembered them
having figured out what was going on. But of course people say this, then
retract it, and say something else, so it's hard to keep up.
Me, I think GR is subtly wrong/incomplete. It'll be interesting to see *how*
wrong it is when people finally figure out how to unify it. I think even a
tiny bit of error over universe-sized differences could make for fairly
noticeable differences.
They also keep finding stuff happening like finding that over intergalactic
distances, different wavelengths of light move at different speeds, which
I'm pretty sure completely screws up the fundamentals of QM as well. (They
postulate it has to do with the wavelength of the light vs the size of
quantum foam or some such incomprehensible babble.)
In any case, it's all fun to watch the cutting edge.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Yes, we're traveling together,
but to different destinations.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> Argumentative religious people often seem to comment that science
> requires faith. Argumentative non-religious people say that's nonsense,
> since there is evidence. I contend that there are at least two things
> most scientists take on faith, without supporting evidence:
>
> 1) That reality works substantially in accordance with measurements.
> 2) Humans aren't special.
3) That the world of our experience is the only one.
4) That the world of our experience has always operated precisely as we
observe it to operate today.
Many things claimed by the non-religious worldview (such as the age of
the earth) demand that things like the speed of light and the decay rate
of radioactive isotopes have always had the values we measure them to
have today. They also demand that no major changes have been forced
upon the world of our experience by some agency, existing outside of
that world, at times where we have been unable to make observations.
These are no small assumptions. We measure carbon-14 as having a
half-life of ~5000 years, but our claim that it had the same half-life
in King Tut's day is not based on observation, but on the assumption
that some things about nature never change. How do we *know* it does
not change? Not in the same way that we know many other things about
nature (through observation).
In a like manner, how do we *know* that our world has operated without
any interference from any other? To be honest, we don't. To know for
sure, one way or the other, requires use to have observed nature for its
entire duration. Sure, we observe no such interruptions now, but that
in no way proves that none have happened in the part nor will happen in
the future. Perhaps some mad scientist in the next parallel over is
about to have an experiment go awry (or has such an experiment go awry
at some point in the past), and its effect spill over to where we can
see them.
Compounding the issue with #4 is the scientific concern with
repeatability. We don't control what happens in the next plane over,
and therefore cannot rein them into a systematic investigation, not even
to verify any reported observations. Science regards the non-repeatable
as unreliable and ultimately negligible.
This really goes with the territory. Principle #1 above is absolutely
vital to science; if we cannot assume that our sense reliably report to
us the state of the world, then we cannot do science at all. In a like
manner, if we cannot assume certain things about the operation of nature
to be constant (assumptions 3 and 4), then investigations into the
origin of life, and the state of the universe at much earlier periods,
are like a blind man trying to find his way across a strange city,
unassisted.
It is not easy to admit that we, in conducting science, have made
assumptions that we have no hope of proving; but this by no means
justifies the habit of denying that the wrongness of these assumptions
remains a possibility. Even though admitting these assumptions will
appear to us to hand a victory to science's enemies, we cannot do
science if we deny unpleasant truths.
Regards,
John
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 29-3-2010 20:08, John VanSickle wrote:
> Darren New wrote:
>> Argumentative religious people often seem to comment that science
>> requires faith. Argumentative non-religious people say that's
>> nonsense, since there is evidence. I contend that there are at least
>> two things most scientists take on faith, without supporting evidence:
>>
>> 1) That reality works substantially in accordance with measurements.
>
>> 2) Humans aren't special.
>
> 3) That the world of our experience is the only one.
>
> 4) That the world of our experience has always operated precisely as we
> observe it to operate today.
These two are not basic assumptions. They follow from application of
Occam's razor. But perhaps we can promote the belief in the razor to a
form faith.
>
> Many things claimed by the non-religious worldview (such as the age of
> the earth) demand that things like the speed of light and the decay rate
> of radioactive isotopes have always had the values we measure them to
> have today. They also demand that no major changes have been forced
> upon the world of our experience by some agency, existing outside of
> that world, at times where we have been unable to make observations.
>
> These are no small assumptions. We measure carbon-14 as having a
> half-life of ~5000 years, but our claim that it had the same half-life
> in King Tut's day is not based on observation, but on the assumption
> that some things about nature never change. How do we *know* it does
> not change? Not in the same way that we know many other things about
> nature (through observation).
What people do is precisely measure decay rates now and compare it with
20 years ago. This will give an upper boundary on change. Also these
figures are compared with independent measurements like tree rings and
yearly ice deposits. I though that there is no indication that things
have changed over time yet.
NB we are still puzzled by the fine structure constant. If we don't know
why it has that value, it might not be a constant.
I do understand what you mean, but for me the assumption that the laws
of physics were the same 10k or 100M years ago is a much smaller step
than assuming that someone or something that has no physical presence
anymore did at some point in time something that was contrary to every
physical law that now seems to be operating.
> In a like manner, how do we *know* that our world has operated without
> any interference from any other? To be honest, we don't. To know for
> sure, one way or the other, requires use to have observed nature for its
> entire duration. Sure, we observe no such interruptions now, but that
> in no way proves that none have happened in the part nor will happen in
> the future. Perhaps some mad scientist in the next parallel over is
> about to have an experiment go awry (or has such an experiment go awry
> at some point in the past), and its effect spill over to where we can
> see them.
>
> Compounding the issue with #4 is the scientific concern with
> repeatability. We don't control what happens in the next plane over,
> and therefore cannot rein them into a systematic investigation, not even
> to verify any reported observations. Science regards the non-repeatable
> as unreliable and ultimately negligible.
>
> This really goes with the territory. Principle #1 above is absolutely
> vital to science; if we cannot assume that our sense reliably report to
> us the state of the world, then we cannot do science at all. In a like
> manner, if we cannot assume certain things about the operation of nature
> to be constant (assumptions 3 and 4), then investigations into the
> origin of life, and the state of the universe at much earlier periods,
> are like a blind man trying to find his way across a strange city,
> unassisted.
>
> It is not easy to admit that we, in conducting science, have made
> assumptions that we have no hope of proving; but this by no means
> justifies the habit of denying that the wrongness of these assumptions
> remains a possibility. Even though admitting these assumptions will
> appear to us to hand a victory to science's enemies, we cannot do
> science if we deny unpleasant truths.
AFAIC we always have in the back of our minds that we may be wrong. In
physics the basic assumption is that we are. And I don't think you can
find a physicist that really thinks that QM or GR is the final word.
Sometimes ( = too often) however, people have other motives apart from
wanting to know how it all works. Many scientists will loose large sums
of (grant) money if they are proven to be wrong. In general they will be
the older people. Big changes in perception therefore often take a
generation, because the people new in the field have not yet invested a
lot in the old view.
That is why I am not happy with the current trend of increasing
dependency on grant money for all scientists working at the
universities. This money is often awarded (divided) by (among) the
current top in the field. That is a recipe for stagnation.
It is also why I am in favor of limited lifespans (but we already
covered that a few months ago).
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 28-3-2010 19:50, Darren New wrote:
> Argumentative religious people often seem to comment that science
> requires faith. Argumentative non-religious people say that's nonsense,
> since there is evidence. I contend that there are at least two things
> most scientists take on faith, without supporting evidence:
>
> 2) Humans aren't special.
I think there is evidence for that. Almost nothing in modern medicine or
biology makes sense if we were special.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 03/29/10 08:52, Darren New wrote:
> Neeum Zawan wrote:
>> Why do toasters always have a setting that burns the toast to a horrible
>> crisp, which no decent human being would eat?
>
> That's a good question. The sort of thing that occurs to me all the
> time, really.
Probably because they're used to toast things other than toast.
--
Why do toasters always have a setting that burns the toast to a horrible
crisp, which no decent human being would eat?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
John VanSickle wrote:
> 3) That the world of our experience is the only one.
Well, if there's more than one, and we can't experience it, I'd say it
doesn't particularly matter. What most people mean by that, tho, is that we
*rarely* experience it.
If there's really another world in which God lives, is it actually a
different world if God actively intervenes in ours?
> 4) That the world of our experience has always operated precisely as we
> observe it to operate today.
I don't think science assumes that at all.
> Many things claimed by the non-religious worldview (such as the age of
> the earth) demand that things like the speed of light and the decay rate
> of radioactive isotopes have always had the values we measure them to
> have today.
No they don't. They're measured in different ways and they agree.
> They also demand that no major changes have been forced
> upon the world of our experience by some agency, existing outside of
> that world, at times where we have been unable to make observations.
True. I think there's a general assumption that there isn't a conspiracy to
fool scientific measurements. (What amuses me is when the faithful will
assert that it's their caring and loving god doing to lying.)
> These are no small assumptions. We measure carbon-14 as having a
> half-life of ~5000 years, but our claim that it had the same half-life
> in King Tut's day is not based on observation, but on the assumption
> that some things about nature never change.
This isn't true. You measure things like radioactive decay, and you compare
it against rings in trees, and layers of arctic ice, and the numbers of
generations of animal bones found in tar pits, and they all match up. This
is one set of assumptions scientists don't really make without support. Of
course, it helps that we actually have written records of when the mummies
were mummified and such, as well as things like Oklo.
Certainly it's likely more common in astronomical fields, methinks, simply
because the time frames and distances are far too large to be able to do
more than estimate. All you can do is look at a large amount of pretty much
static data and deduce things from that. For example, some of the hubble
measurements are based on seeing stars in our galaxy behave a particular
way, and stars in the neighboring galaxies behave a particular way, and
assuming that stars too far away for paralax measurements behave the same
way. I'd put that under #2, myself.
> How do we *know* it does
> not change? Not in the same way that we know many other things about
> nature (through observation).
By measuring things a bunch of different ways, then finding the consistencies.
> In a like manner, how do we *know* that our world has operated without
> any interference from any other? To be honest, we don't.
Tautologically. If they interfered, they're part of our world. :-)
> and its effect spill over to where we can see them.
I think that would make it open to scientific investigation. Certainly
that's part of the whole "what caused the big bang" investigation.
> if we cannot assume certain things about the operation of nature
> to be constant (assumptions 3 and 4),
I don't think we assume those things. We check them.
> It is not easy to admit that we, in conducting science, have made
> assumptions that we have no hope of proving;
I think we can certainly disprove that (for example) humans are at the
middle of the universe or that evil spirits interfere in our measurements.
(For example, all we need is Satan to appear and admit it.)
I'm thinking that most of the BS that religious people try to argue
scientifically (like transitional fossils, or carbon dating, or etc) are
easy to "prove" in a scientific way without assuming the universe has always
operated under the same approximate set of laws. But I do think there are a
number of unprovable assumptions (like that that set of laws is in theory
discoverable) that don't discredit science but rather power it.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Yes, we're traveling together,
but to different destinations.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
John VanSickle wrote:
> 3) That the world of our experience is the only one.
Actually, I think the whole "string theory" bits and "brane" bits are an
investigation of exactly this. So I don't think this is a fundamental
assumption.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Yes, we're traveling together,
but to different destinations.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
andrel wrote:
> On 28-3-2010 19:50, Darren New wrote:
>> Argumentative religious people often seem to comment that science
>> requires faith. Argumentative non-religious people say that's
>> nonsense, since there is evidence. I contend that there are at least
>> two things most scientists take on faith, without supporting evidence:
>>
>> 2) Humans aren't special.
>
> I think there is evidence for that. Almost nothing in modern medicine or
> biology makes sense if we were special.
How about the fact that the stars of the universe are all red-shifted the
farther they get from *us*? Or the fact that we seem to be the only
creatures in the entire *universe* that broadcast radio signals?
(I don't necessarily mean "special" in terms of biology-on-earth, but
special in a more universal sense.)
People don't say "the red shift shows everything is moving away from us" or
"humans happen to live where time passes fastest in the universe." They say
"the red shift shows everything is moving away from everything else."
(Actually, now that I think about it, "humans happen to live at the top of
the universe where time passes fastest" completely explains *both* those
bits of evidence. :-)
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Yes, we're traveling together,
but to different destinations.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
