EDAboard.com | EDAboard.de | EDAboard.co.uk | WTWH Media

OT: Liquid water is composed of 150-unit branching polymers

Ask a question - edaboard.com

elektroda.net NewsGroups Forum Index - Electronics Design - OT: Liquid water is composed of 150-unit branching polymers

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next

David Brown
Guest

Fri Feb 08, 2019 12:45 pm   



On 07/02/2019 22:01, John Larkin wrote:
Quote:
On Wed, 6 Feb 2019 21:49:47 +0100, David Brown
david.brown_at_hesbynett.no> wrote:

On 06/02/2019 17:27, John Larkin wrote:
On Wed, 6 Feb 2019 17:12:02 +0100, David Brown
david.brown_at_hesbynett.no> wrote:

On 06/02/2019 16:40, John Larkin wrote:
On Wed, 6 Feb 2019 09:05:32 +0100, David Brown
david.brown_at_hesbynett.no> wrote:

On 06/02/2019 02:31, whit3rd wrote:
On Tuesday, February 5, 2019 at 4:55:20 PM UTC-8, gnuarm.del...@gmail.com wrote:

Which water weirdness will this work over?

There are so many; the slipperyness of ice, the expansion on solidification, the
unusual sensitivity to contamination in 'polywater', the combination of
polar and nonpolar solubilities, and there's another frontier entirely in
the behavior of concentrated solutions (important in electroplating).


"Polywater" ? Do you want to include "water memory" and "pentawater" in
your list?

There are enough unusual and interesting properties of water without
bringing pseudoscience into it.

Polywater was "real" science for a while. There's a book:

https://www.amazon.com/Polywater-Felix-Franks/dp/0262060736/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1549467536&sr=1-1&keywords=polywater


Is this your usual high-quality "science" knowledge?


Polywater was a major scientific group delusion. That happens
sometimes.

"Polywater" was clearly nonsense from its first conception. But at the
time, in the 1960's, all sorts of drivel was treated as /possibly/ true
by the USA, because there were rumours that the Russians knew more than
the Americans, and could somehow make a secret weapon.

But you are right, it /was/ investigated scientifically for a while.


Read the book.


I am not going to buy and read a book just for that. (It may be an
interesting book - but I have hundreds that are higher up on my to-read
list.)


The hard experimental sciences are usually [1] self-correcting fairly
fast.


Yes.

Quote:
Lots of other "sciences" aren't subject to serious experiment, so can
propagate mass delusion among their experts. Such fields are subject
to wild swings, on the order of a generation, about 20 years.


That /can/ happen, yes. Usually, however, it is not the scientists that
swing - it is politicians, media, company marketing departments,
religious fanatics, people who are looking for power, money or
popularity rather than science, facts and truth. So it is easy to get
the impression that there is "scientific debate" or "disagreement
amongst the experts" in fields such as evolution or climate change, when
there is overwhelming agreement (like 95%+ in agreement, amongst
scientists in the right fields) on the basics. Details, of course, will
be subject to debate, swings, new evidence, and so on.

Quote:

[1] except string theory and multi-universe and a few things like that
in physics.


Those are not "hard" science, except in the sense that they are rather
difficult to understand. They are not "hard science", precisely because
they are no "experimental science" - no one has yet imagined any
practical and helpful experiments in these fields, never mind tried to
carry them out. Maybe they will get there in the end, but for now these
are purely theoretical sciences. Really, "string theory" is a misnomer
- it should be called "string hypothesis".

David Brown
Guest

Fri Feb 08, 2019 5:45 pm   



On 08/02/2019 17:19, John Larkin wrote:
Quote:
On Fri, 8 Feb 2019 12:40:20 +0100, David Brown
david.brown_at_hesbynett.no> wrote:

On 07/02/2019 22:01, John Larkin wrote:
On Wed, 6 Feb 2019 21:49:47 +0100, David Brown
david.brown_at_hesbynett.no> wrote:

On 06/02/2019 17:27, John Larkin wrote:
On Wed, 6 Feb 2019 17:12:02 +0100, David Brown
david.brown_at_hesbynett.no> wrote:

On 06/02/2019 16:40, John Larkin wrote:
On Wed, 6 Feb 2019 09:05:32 +0100, David Brown
david.brown_at_hesbynett.no> wrote:

On 06/02/2019 02:31, whit3rd wrote:
On Tuesday, February 5, 2019 at 4:55:20 PM UTC-8, gnuarm.del...@gmail.com wrote:

Which water weirdness will this work over?

There are so many; the slipperyness of ice, the expansion on solidification, the
unusual sensitivity to contamination in 'polywater', the combination of
polar and nonpolar solubilities, and there's another frontier entirely in
the behavior of concentrated solutions (important in electroplating).


"Polywater" ? Do you want to include "water memory" and "pentawater" in
your list?

There are enough unusual and interesting properties of water without
bringing pseudoscience into it.

Polywater was "real" science for a while. There's a book:

https://www.amazon.com/Polywater-Felix-Franks/dp/0262060736/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1549467536&sr=1-1&keywords=polywater


Is this your usual high-quality "science" knowledge?


Polywater was a major scientific group delusion. That happens
sometimes.

"Polywater" was clearly nonsense from its first conception. But at the
time, in the 1960's, all sorts of drivel was treated as /possibly/ true
by the USA, because there were rumours that the Russians knew more than
the Americans, and could somehow make a secret weapon.

But you are right, it /was/ investigated scientifically for a while.


Read the book.


I am not going to buy and read a book just for that. (It may be an
interesting book - but I have hundreds that are higher up on my to-read
list.)


The hard experimental sciences are usually [1] self-correcting fairly
fast.


Yes.

Lots of other "sciences" aren't subject to serious experiment, so can
propagate mass delusion among their experts. Such fields are subject
to wild swings, on the order of a generation, about 20 years.

That /can/ happen, yes. Usually, however, it is not the scientists that
swing - it is politicians, media, company marketing departments,
religious fanatics, people who are looking for power, money or
popularity rather than science, facts and truth. So it is easy to get
the impression that there is "scientific debate" or "disagreement
amongst the experts" in fields such as evolution or climate change, when
there is overwhelming agreement (like 95%+ in agreement, amongst
scientists in the right fields) on the basics. Details, of course, will
be subject to debate, swings, new evidence, and so on.

Agreement among experts is no substitute for experimental
verification.


Of course. But agreement amongst experts on the results of
observations, experiments and the overall theories /is/ a reasonable
basis for accepting something as "true". (As noted, there are often
details that are debated, and often what experts agree on is about how
much they don't know.)

> Vilifying dissenters is another mechanism for defending mass delusion.

When 95% of experts say one thing, and 5% say say something else, then
usually those 5% are wrong. When those 5% have clear motives for their
opinions (money, politics, religion, etc.), then it is almost a sure bet
that they are wrong. When most of them don't even have scientific
credentials in the field in question, you can risk your life savings on
them being wrong.

Basically, you do not get "mass delusion" amongst large groups of
independent scientists.

That does not mean that outlying dissenters are never wrong - merely
that it is very rarely the case. "Extraordinary claims require
extraordinary evidence" - that applies particularly when the claim is
"I'm right, everyone else is wrong".

Quote:

A physicist can question the Standard Model or Newton's laws of
gravitation, and be taken seriously. In fields like evolution and
climate, experiment is impossible and dissent is attacked.


Attacking a dissenter is not good science or polite behaviour. But it
is entirely reasonable to ask them to "put up, or shut up". No one has
put up any counter-evidence to evolution, nor any reasonable hint of a
theory, nor any idea about possible experiments. The same goes for
climate change and human influence in it. (The /level/ of the human
influence is questionable, the types of effects are a matter of more
research. The fact that the climate is changing and that humans are
significantly to blame is not.)

And there are experiments in both these fields, along with a great deal
of observation.

Quote:



[1] except string theory and multi-universe and a few things like that
in physics.


Those are not "hard" science, except in the sense that they are rather
difficult to understand. They are not "hard science", precisely because
they are no "experimental science" - no one has yet imagined any
practical and helpful experiments in these fields, never mind tried to
carry them out.

There is enthusiasm for a next-generation collider, much bigger than
CERN, to test some past-standard-model theories. $20 billion or so.

CERN failed to find a lot of proposed particles; a bigger collider may
fail to find even more.


There is a huge amount of knowledge gained from CERN, both scientific
and technical - and /some/ particles were found. There is no doubt that
we could learn more from an even bigger device. Could we learn enough
to make it worth the cost? Or would the money be better spent on other
types of scientific research? That is the big question.

Quote:

Maybe they will get there in the end, but for now these
are purely theoretical sciences. Really, "string theory" is a misnomer
- it should be called "string hypothesis".

Hypothesis sciences?


John Larkin
Guest

Fri Feb 08, 2019 5:45 pm   



On Thu, 7 Feb 2019 23:26:49 -0800 (PST), whit3rd <whit3rd_at_gmail.com>
wrote:

Quote:
On Thursday, February 7, 2019 at 5:16:20 PM UTC-8, John Larkin wrote:

Who was it that complained about experiments ruining beautiful
theories?

Complaint?

...slaying of a beautlful hypothesis by an ugly fact.

Read between the lines: that's a boast.


In Sabine H's book, she talks about theoretical physicists that insist
that their theories are so beautiful that they should not be tested by
experiment.


--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc

lunatic fringe electronics

John Larkin
Guest

Fri Feb 08, 2019 5:45 pm   



On Fri, 8 Feb 2019 12:40:20 +0100, David Brown
<david.brown_at_hesbynett.no> wrote:

Quote:
On 07/02/2019 22:01, John Larkin wrote:
On Wed, 6 Feb 2019 21:49:47 +0100, David Brown
david.brown_at_hesbynett.no> wrote:

On 06/02/2019 17:27, John Larkin wrote:
On Wed, 6 Feb 2019 17:12:02 +0100, David Brown
david.brown_at_hesbynett.no> wrote:

On 06/02/2019 16:40, John Larkin wrote:
On Wed, 6 Feb 2019 09:05:32 +0100, David Brown
david.brown_at_hesbynett.no> wrote:

On 06/02/2019 02:31, whit3rd wrote:
On Tuesday, February 5, 2019 at 4:55:20 PM UTC-8, gnuarm.del...@gmail.com wrote:

Which water weirdness will this work over?

There are so many; the slipperyness of ice, the expansion on solidification, the
unusual sensitivity to contamination in 'polywater', the combination of
polar and nonpolar solubilities, and there's another frontier entirely in
the behavior of concentrated solutions (important in electroplating).


"Polywater" ? Do you want to include "water memory" and "pentawater" in
your list?

There are enough unusual and interesting properties of water without
bringing pseudoscience into it.

Polywater was "real" science for a while. There's a book:

https://www.amazon.com/Polywater-Felix-Franks/dp/0262060736/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1549467536&sr=1-1&keywords=polywater


Is this your usual high-quality "science" knowledge?


Polywater was a major scientific group delusion. That happens
sometimes.

"Polywater" was clearly nonsense from its first conception. But at the
time, in the 1960's, all sorts of drivel was treated as /possibly/ true
by the USA, because there were rumours that the Russians knew more than
the Americans, and could somehow make a secret weapon.

But you are right, it /was/ investigated scientifically for a while.


Read the book.


I am not going to buy and read a book just for that. (It may be an
interesting book - but I have hundreds that are higher up on my to-read
list.)


The hard experimental sciences are usually [1] self-correcting fairly
fast.


Yes.

Lots of other "sciences" aren't subject to serious experiment, so can
propagate mass delusion among their experts. Such fields are subject
to wild swings, on the order of a generation, about 20 years.

That /can/ happen, yes. Usually, however, it is not the scientists that
swing - it is politicians, media, company marketing departments,
religious fanatics, people who are looking for power, money or
popularity rather than science, facts and truth. So it is easy to get
the impression that there is "scientific debate" or "disagreement
amongst the experts" in fields such as evolution or climate change, when
there is overwhelming agreement (like 95%+ in agreement, amongst
scientists in the right fields) on the basics. Details, of course, will
be subject to debate, swings, new evidence, and so on.


Agreement among experts is no substitute for experimental
verification.

Vilifying dissenters is another mechanism for defending mass delusion.

A physicist can question the Standard Model or Newton's laws of
gravitation, and be taken seriously. In fields like evolution and
climate, experiment is impossible and dissent is attacked.

Quote:


[1] except string theory and multi-universe and a few things like that
in physics.


Those are not "hard" science, except in the sense that they are rather
difficult to understand. They are not "hard science", precisely because
they are no "experimental science" - no one has yet imagined any
practical and helpful experiments in these fields, never mind tried to
carry them out.


There is enthusiasm for a next-generation collider, much bigger than
CERN, to test some past-standard-model theories. $20 billion or so.

CERN failed to find a lot of proposed particles; a bigger collider may
fail to find even more.


Quote:
Maybe they will get there in the end, but for now these
are purely theoretical sciences. Really, "string theory" is a misnomer
- it should be called "string hypothesis".


Hypothesis sciences?

--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc

lunatic fringe electronics


Guest

Fri Feb 08, 2019 6:45 pm   



On Friday, February 8, 2019 at 11:19:31 AM UTC-5, John Larkin wrote:
Quote:

A physicist can question the Standard Model or Newton's laws of
gravitation, and be taken seriously. In fields like evolution and
climate, experiment is impossible and dissent is attacked.


Lol! I will give this comment all the response it deserves...


Quote:
There is enthusiasm for a next-generation collider, much bigger than
CERN, to test some past-standard-model theories. $20 billion or so.

CERN failed to find a lot of proposed particles; a bigger collider may
fail to find even more.


Yes, failure to verify an idea is a necessary part of science, yes? I had the impression that was how you do a lot of your design work. Draft a basic idea, run a simulation to find a lot of component values that don't work well until you find the few that do. Or breadboard a circuit so you can explore and prove an idea will or won't work. Does everything you design (which is 100% explained by existing theory unlike particle physics) work perfectly?


Quote:
Maybe they will get there in the end, but for now these
are purely theoretical sciences. Really, "string theory" is a misnomer
- it should be called "string hypothesis".

Hypothesis sciences?


Isn't that a part of science?

I can see JL thinks science should proceed like electronic design. A theory is developed, proven, shipped and bragged about in SED.

Rick C.

Martin Brown
Guest

Fri Feb 08, 2019 6:45 pm   



On 08/02/2019 16:09, John Larkin wrote:
Quote:
On Thu, 7 Feb 2019 23:26:49 -0800 (PST), whit3rd <whit3rd_at_gmail.com
wrote:

On Thursday, February 7, 2019 at 5:16:20 PM UTC-8, John Larkin wrote:

Who was it that complained about experiments ruining beautiful
theories?

Complaint?

...slaying of a beautlful hypothesis by an ugly fact.


It is often miss quoted by people attacking science but it was
originally coined by Thomas Henry Huxley in an address to the British
Association in defence of science. His point was that it matters not one
jot how pretty the theory is if it doesn't explain the observations.

https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Thomas_Henry_Huxley#1870s
Quote:

Read between the lines: that's a boast.

In Sabine H's book, she talks about theoretical physicists that insist
that their theories are so beautiful that they should not be tested by
experiment.


That is a nonsense. The whole purpose of experimental physics is to keep
the wider flights of fancy of theoreticians under control. I have known
theoreticians lament that their pet theory was refuted by a convincing
experiment but never to complain about the experiment being done!

More often than not they look for a testable prediction of their theory
that would allow it to be distinguished from the status quo.

Nature ultimately trumps all - it doesn't matter how beautiful a new
theory is if it doesn't explain the universe that we live in.

Though sometimes people play around with computer models of universes
that don't exist. When I was an undergraduate ideal 2D conductive
materials were popular for theoretical games but we never dreamt that
one day someone with nothing more than sellotape would make real ones.

Likewise for buckeyballs which mystified astronomers dust spectra.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

Martin Brown
Guest

Fri Feb 08, 2019 6:45 pm   



On 08/02/2019 16:19, John Larkin wrote:
Quote:
On Fri, 8 Feb 2019 12:40:20 +0100, David Brown
david.brown_at_hesbynett.no> wrote:

On 07/02/2019 22:01, John Larkin wrote:

Lots of other "sciences" aren't subject to serious experiment, so can
propagate mass delusion among their experts. Such fields are subject
to wild swings, on the order of a generation, about 20 years.

That /can/ happen, yes. Usually, however, it is not the scientists that
swing - it is politicians, media, company marketing departments,
religious fanatics, people who are looking for power, money or
popularity rather than science, facts and truth. So it is easy to get
the impression that there is "scientific debate" or "disagreement
amongst the experts" in fields such as evolution or climate change, when
there is overwhelming agreement (like 95%+ in agreement, amongst
scientists in the right fields) on the basics. Details, of course, will
be subject to debate, swings, new evidence, and so on.

Agreement among experts is no substitute for experimental
verification.


It depends what you mean by experimental verification. Astrophysicists
are stuck on Earth and only able to observe things at a distance that
send out electromagnetic waves, particles or most recently gravitational
waves. We are well aware that we cannot test theories by going out and
tweaking a galaxy to see what happens or restarting the universe from
the Big Bang and so are stuck with doing computer simulations.

Observational astronomy is limited to making ever more powerful
telescopes and ingenious detectors to see what is out there. A new big
instrument typically throws up a few surprises like the Canadian phased
array which spotted fast radio bursts. This is actually a paper about
one seen by the Australian 1km array but it has the same properties.

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/2041-8213/aa71ff/pdf

> Vilifying dissenters is another mechanism for defending mass delusion.

Some dissenters deserve to be vilified.

The ones ranting on about MMR vaccine and autism have made measles a new
serious disease in the UK and elsewhere. People have forgotten just how
nasty measles was in the old days and we have now broken herd immunity.

Quote:
A physicist can question the Standard Model or Newton's laws of
gravitation, and be taken seriously. In fields like evolution and
climate, experiment is impossible and dissent is attacked.


A physicist who denied conservation laws would get very short shrift
unless they had a very convincing argument.

Evolution is still happening all around us. You only have to look at the
emergence and spread of antibiotic resistant bacteria. You can drive it
in short lived species like fruit flies to test the theories. There is
even a teaching computer model for it to avoid all the tedious lab work.

Quote:
[1] except string theory and multi-universe and a few things like that
in physics.

Those are not "hard" science, except in the sense that they are rather
difficult to understand. They are not "hard science", precisely because
they are no "experimental science" - no one has yet imagined any
practical and helpful experiments in these fields, never mind tried to
carry them out.


There may be ways to distinguish between them. They have far too many
free parameters for my taste but some people I know do take them
seriously. One of my peer group is a world leading string theorist.

Quote:
There is enthusiasm for a next-generation collider, much bigger than
CERN, to test some past-standard-model theories. $20 billion or so.

CERN failed to find a lot of proposed particles; a bigger collider may
fail to find even more.


The present one found the Higg's boson which was enough to get Higg's a
Nobel Prize. https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/physics/2013/summary/
Quote:


Maybe they will get there in the end, but for now these
are purely theoretical sciences. Really, "string theory" is a misnomer
- it should be called "string hypothesis".

Hypothesis sciences?


All theories start out life as a working hypothesis. They only really
become theories as they begin to gain acceptance in the community.

In the case of Big Bang that virtually meant waiting until all of the
Steady State people had finally popped their clogs. Fred Hoyle coined
the term "Big Bang" theory as a derogatory term and it stuck. His
supporters fought a rearguard action against Big Bang.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

John Larkin
Guest

Fri Feb 08, 2019 9:45 pm   



On Fri, 8 Feb 2019 17:09:11 +0000, Martin Brown
<'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:

Quote:
On 08/02/2019 16:09, John Larkin wrote:
On Thu, 7 Feb 2019 23:26:49 -0800 (PST), whit3rd <whit3rd_at_gmail.com
wrote:

On Thursday, February 7, 2019 at 5:16:20 PM UTC-8, John Larkin wrote:

Who was it that complained about experiments ruining beautiful
theories?

Complaint?

...slaying of a beautlful hypothesis by an ugly fact.

It is often miss quoted by people attacking science but it was
originally coined by Thomas Henry Huxley in an address to the British
Association in defence of science. His point was that it matters not one
jot how pretty the theory is if it doesn't explain the observations.

https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Thomas_Henry_Huxley#1870s

Read between the lines: that's a boast.

In Sabine H's book, she talks about theoretical physicists that insist
that their theories are so beautiful that they should not be tested by
experiment.

That is a nonsense. The whole purpose of experimental physics is to keep
the wider flights of fancy of theoreticians under control. I have known
theoreticians lament that their pet theory was refuted by a convincing
experiment but never to complain about the experiment being done!

More often than not they look for a testable prediction of their theory
that would allow it to be distinguished from the status quo.

Nature ultimately trumps all - it doesn't matter how beautiful a new
theory is if it doesn't explain the universe that we live in.

Though sometimes people play around with computer models of universes
that don't exist. When I was an undergraduate ideal 2D conductive
materials were popular for theoretical games but we never dreamt that
one day someone with nothing more than sellotape would make real ones.

Likewise for buckeyballs which mystified astronomers dust spectra.


Digikey will sell you graphite sheets that have phenominal thermal
conductivity in the plane of the sheet. Unfortunately, the heat
usually flows in the third axis.

They will float above a magnet.


--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc
picosecond timing precision measurement

jlarkin att highlandtechnology dott com
http://www.highlandtechnology.com

John Larkin
Guest

Sat Feb 09, 2019 1:45 am   



On Fri, 8 Feb 2019 15:47:52 -0800 (PST), whit3rd <whit3rd_at_gmail.com>
wrote:

Quote:
On Friday, February 8, 2019 at 8:19:31 AM UTC-8, John Larkin wrote:

CERN failed to find a lot of proposed particles; a bigger collider may
fail to find even more.

Oh, yeah, like 'the recent election failed to put good people into office',
that's just a linguistic bit of trickery, elections make the will of the people
known, which is NOT failure. Experimentation makes knowledge.
The experiment is a success if it discovers a feature, AND a success if
it discovers a void.

The Grand Canyon is quite a sight, you should go see it sometime. It's a void.


A lot of science could be done for the cost of the ISS or the next
collider, both of which are likely to discover nothing.

What's more likely to advance science, one $20 billion experiment or
20,000 million-dollar experiments?




--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc
picosecond timing precision measurement

jlarkin att highlandtechnology dott com
http://www.highlandtechnology.com

whit3rd
Guest

Sat Feb 09, 2019 1:45 am   



On Friday, February 8, 2019 at 8:19:31 AM UTC-8, John Larkin wrote:

Quote:
CERN failed to find a lot of proposed particles; a bigger collider may
fail to find even more.


Oh, yeah, like 'the recent election failed to put good people into office',
that's just a linguistic bit of trickery, elections make the will of the people
known, which is NOT failure. Experimentation makes knowledge.
The experiment is a success if it discovers a feature, AND a success if
it discovers a void.

The Grand Canyon is quite a sight, you should go see it sometime. It's a void.


Guest

Sat Feb 09, 2019 2:45 am   



On Saturday, February 9, 2019 at 3:19:31 AM UTC+11, John Larkin wrote:
Quote:
On Fri, 8 Feb 2019 12:40:20 +0100, David Brown
david.brown_at_hesbynett.no> wrote:
On 07/02/2019 22:01, John Larkin wrote:
On Wed, 6 Feb 2019 21:49:47 +0100, David Brown
david.brown_at_hesbynett.no> wrote:
On 06/02/2019 17:27, John Larkin wrote:
On Wed, 6 Feb 2019 17:12:02 +0100, David Brown
david.brown_at_hesbynett.no> wrote:
On 06/02/2019 16:40, John Larkin wrote:
On Wed, 6 Feb 2019 09:05:32 +0100, David Brown
david.brown_at_hesbynett.no> wrote:
On 06/02/2019 02:31, whit3rd wrote:
On Tuesday, February 5, 2019 at 4:55:20 PM UTC-8, gnuarm.del...@gmail.com wrote:

Which water weirdness will this work over?

There are so many; the slipperyness of ice, the expansion on solidification, the unusual sensitivity to contamination in 'polywater', the combination of polar and nonpolar solubilities, and there's another frontier entirely in the behavior of concentrated solutions (important in electroplating).


"Polywater" ? Do you want to include "water memory" and "pentawater" in your list?

There are enough unusual and interesting properties of water without
bringing pseudoscience into it.

Polywater was "real" science for a while. There's a book:

https://www.amazon.com/Polywater-Felix-Franks/dp/0262060736/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1549467536&sr=1-1&keywords=polywater


Is this your usual high-quality "science" knowledge?

Polywater was a major scientific group delusion. That happens
sometimes.

"Polywater" was clearly nonsense from its first conception. But at the
time, in the 1960's, all sorts of drivel was treated as /possibly/ true
by the USA, because there were rumours that the Russians knew more than
the Americans, and could somehow make a secret weapon.

But you are right, it /was/ investigated scientifically for a while.

Read the book.

I am not going to buy and read a book just for that. (It may be an
interesting book - but I have hundreds that are higher up on my to-read
list.)

The hard experimental sciences are usually [1] self-correcting fairly
fast.

Yes.

Lots of other "sciences" aren't subject to serious experiment, so can
propagate mass delusion among their experts. Such fields are subject
to wild swings, on the order of a generation, about 20 years.

That /can/ happen, yes. Usually, however, it is not the scientists that
swing - it is politicians, media, company marketing departments,
religious fanatics, people who are looking for power, money or
popularity rather than science, facts and truth. So it is easy to get
the impression that there is "scientific debate" or "disagreement
amongst the experts" in fields such as evolution or climate change, when
there is overwhelming agreement (like 95%+ in agreement, amongst
scientists in the right fields) on the basics. Details, of course, will
be subject to debate, swings, new evidence, and so on.

Agreement among experts is no substitute for experimental
verification.


Nobody (except perhaps John Larkin) thinks that it might be.

Quote:
Vilifying dissenters is another mechanism for defending mass delusion.

A physicist can question the Standard Model or Newton's laws of
gravitation, and be taken seriously. In fields like evolution and
climate, experiment is impossible and dissent is attacked.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Lindzen

isn't attacked. His hypotheses have been tested against reality and falsified, but that's science, not attack.

John Larkin does have a blind spot about observational science. You can't do experiments, but you can go out an collect relevant data, which does much the same job. You don't actually manipulate the environment before you collect the data, so it isn't an experiment, but the business of working out where to, and how to collect the data fulfils the same function.

Quote:
[1] except string theory and multi-universe and a few things like that
in physics.

Those are not "hard" science, except in the sense that they are rather
difficult to understand. They are not "hard science", precisely because
they are no "experimental science" - no one has yet imagined any
practical and helpful experiments in these fields, never mind tried to
carry them out.

There is enthusiasm for a next-generation collider, much bigger than
CERN, to test some past-standard-model theories. $20 billion or so.

CERN failed to find a lot of proposed particles; a bigger collider may
fail to find even more.


As in the Michelson-Morley ether drift experiment

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson%E2%80%93Morley_experiment

the negative results are extremely informative. John Larkin hasn't been informed - he doesn't realise that there was anything to be informed about.

Quote:
Maybe they will get there in the end, but for now these
are purely theoretical sciences. Really, "string theory" is a misnomer
- it should be called "string hypothesis".

Hypothesis sciences?


Hypotheses are a central part of science. If you haven't got a hypothesis to test, you aren't in the science business.

John Larkin is actually a creationist - he believes that some God invented the world to provide us with intellectual puzzles to tease out. Reality is less constrained.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney


Guest

Sat Feb 09, 2019 2:45 am   



On Saturday, February 9, 2019 at 11:09:40 AM UTC+11, John Larkin wrote:
Quote:
On Fri, 8 Feb 2019 15:47:52 -0800 (PST), whit3rd <whit3rd_at_gmail.com
wrote:

On Friday, February 8, 2019 at 8:19:31 AM UTC-8, John Larkin wrote:

CERN failed to find a lot of proposed particles; a bigger collider may
fail to find even more.

Oh, yeah, like 'the recent election failed to put good people into office',
that's just a linguistic bit of trickery, elections make the will of the people
known, which is NOT failure. Experimentation makes knowledge.
The experiment is a success if it discovers a feature, AND a success if
it discovers a void.

The Grand Canyon is quite a sight, you should go see it sometime. It's a void.

A lot of science could be done for the cost of the ISS or the next
collider, both of which are likely to discover nothing.


In John Larkin's opinion - which is free, but worthless.

Quote:
What's more likely to advance science, one $20 billion experiment or
20,000 million-dollar experiments?


Let's do both and find out. Which is what actually happens ...

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

John Larkin
Guest

Sat Feb 09, 2019 4:45 am   



On Fri, 8 Feb 2019 18:55:40 -0800 (PST), George Herold
<gherold_at_teachspin.com> wrote:

Quote:
On Friday, February 8, 2019 at 7:09:40 PM UTC-5, John Larkin wrote:
On Fri, 8 Feb 2019 15:47:52 -0800 (PST), whit3rd <whit3rd_at_gmail.com
wrote:

On Friday, February 8, 2019 at 8:19:31 AM UTC-8, John Larkin wrote:

CERN failed to find a lot of proposed particles; a bigger collider may
fail to find even more.

Oh, yeah, like 'the recent election failed to put good people into office',
that's just a linguistic bit of trickery, elections make the will of the people
known, which is NOT failure. Experimentation makes knowledge.
The experiment is a success if it discovers a feature, AND a success if
it discovers a void.

The Grand Canyon is quite a sight, you should go see it sometime. It's a void.

A lot of science could be done for the cost of the ISS or the next
collider, both of which are likely to discover nothing.

What's more likely to advance science, one $20 billion experiment or
20,000 million-dollar experiments?

What happened to all the industrial research labs? Bell, GE, IBM,
etc. I guess we have billionaire funding.
(that's always been around.)


They are mostly gone.

https://www.amazon.com/Idea-Factory-Great-American-Innovation/dp/0143122797


--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc

lunatic fringe electronics

George Herold
Guest

Sat Feb 09, 2019 4:45 am   



On Friday, February 8, 2019 at 7:09:40 PM UTC-5, John Larkin wrote:
Quote:
On Fri, 8 Feb 2019 15:47:52 -0800 (PST), whit3rd <whit3rd_at_gmail.com
wrote:

On Friday, February 8, 2019 at 8:19:31 AM UTC-8, John Larkin wrote:

CERN failed to find a lot of proposed particles; a bigger collider may
fail to find even more.

Oh, yeah, like 'the recent election failed to put good people into office',
that's just a linguistic bit of trickery, elections make the will of the people
known, which is NOT failure. Experimentation makes knowledge.
The experiment is a success if it discovers a feature, AND a success if
it discovers a void.

The Grand Canyon is quite a sight, you should go see it sometime. It's a void.

A lot of science could be done for the cost of the ISS or the next
collider, both of which are likely to discover nothing.

What's more likely to advance science, one $20 billion experiment or
20,000 million-dollar experiments?

What happened to all the industrial research labs? Bell, GE, IBM,
etc. I guess we have billionaire funding.
(that's always been around.)

George H.
Quote:



--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc
picosecond timing precision measurement

jlarkin att highlandtechnology dott com
http://www.highlandtechnology.com


Jeff Layman
Guest

Sat Feb 09, 2019 9:45 am   



On 09/02/19 00:57, bill.sloman_at_ieee.org wrote:

> Hypotheses are a central part of science. If you haven't got a hypothesis to test, you aren't in the science business.

They are, but isn't your conclusion a step too far? Before you can have
a hypothesis, you have to observe. Surely before the "how" comes the
"why". "Why" is the observation; "how" the hypothesis. Both are
essential parts of science. Where would Newton have been without the apple?

> John Larkin is actually a creationist - he believes that some God invented the world to provide us with intellectual puzzles to tease out. Reality is less constrained.

But at the extremes it all becomes blurred. I don't think that anyone
put it better than Asimov - a scientist with an unusual way of looking
at things.
<https://www.multivax.com/last_question.html>

--

Jeff

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next

elektroda.net NewsGroups Forum Index - Electronics Design - OT: Liquid water is composed of 150-unit branching polymers

Ask a question - edaboard.com

Arabic version Bulgarian version Catalan version Czech version Danish version German version Greek version English version Spanish version Finnish version French version Hindi version Croatian version Indonesian version Italian version Hebrew version Japanese version Korean version Lithuanian version Latvian version Dutch version Norwegian version Polish version Portuguese version Romanian version Russian version Slovak version Slovenian version Serbian version Swedish version Tagalog version Ukrainian version Vietnamese version Chinese version Turkish version
EDAboard.com map