Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 Next
Immortalist
Guest
Fri Jul 16, 2010 2:31 am
On Jul 15, 6:05 am, John Stafford <n...@droffats.ten> wrote:
Quote:
In article
939dd223-1107-44f9-b1c6-1450a2bbf...@i19g2000pro.googlegroups.com>,
Immortalist <reanimater_2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Jul 14, 4:43 am, John Stafford <n...@droffats.ten> wrote:
In article
0210acfa-652b-4446-94c2-a8fe411b7...@u36g2000prg.googlegroups.com>,
Immortalist <reanimater_2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
I can tell you don't know much about the "formal philosophy of
science" since you act like you can can just make shit up and pass it
off as smelling like flowers.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_science
Hey, Mister Copy & Paste, you just blew a gasket.
What do you mean by this Mister Copy and Paste and how did I blow a
gasket? Are you imagining yourself in my position and realizing how
you would react and then attributing that to me?
No, I am not. That's your interjection and speculation.
Maybe you do need a
little more training in social science if that's how you become
aroused by situations that would embarrass you. Me on the other hand
have a calm disposition because your(SIC) not really providing any evidence
for your denial that peer review is a social science methodology and
hence is social science.
You did not supply a case study, either. I will point you in one
direction: look to the peer review processes (two actually) for Andrew
Wiles' general proof of Fermat's Last Theorem. There was no overarching
science to the choosing of the members of the review. A chairperson
chose them, and among themselves they reconciled the choice.
There is no social science that guides peer review. One may employ
social science to study peer reviews, but a study method is not the
thing studied.
I am not talking about some study method. I am claiming that the
actual formulation of peer review methods are social science not hard
science. Now your claiming that there is no methodology to the peer
review process. Plus you need to justify your claims about how much
evidence I must supply to make you happy. I sustain my claim, with
some evidence, that peer review methods are employed to maintain
standards, improve performance, and provide credibility, and these
methods a soft social science not hard physical science.
Peer review is a generic term that is used to describe a process of
self-regulation by a profession or a process of evaluation involving
qualified individuals with the related field. Peer review methods are
employed to maintain standards, improve performance, and provide
credibility.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peer_review
spudnik
Guest
Fri Jul 16, 2010 2:31 am
nice phraseology, and certainly apt, and
I refer to the article on Kepler's view of Aristotle's bogus
astronomy,
belowsville
Quote:
You missed the point. Peer-review groups and other communitarian
--les ducs d'oil!
http://tarpley.net
Immortalist
Guest
Fri Jul 16, 2010 2:31 am
On Jul 15, 5:15 pm, John Stafford <n...@droffats.ten> wrote:
Quote:
In article
2a28baaf-ec1f-46b7-b58c-e7bf49414...@t5g2000prd.googlegroups.com>,
Immortalist <reanimater_2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Jul 15, 6:10 am, John Stafford <n...@droffats.ten> wrote:
In article
09169636-eef7-45df-aac6-3d64b9649...@u4g2000prn.googlegroups.com>,
Immortalist <reanimater_2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Actually peer review was only one of many examples of how hard science
depends upon soft science. Whether I can convince you or not that peer
review is social science doesn't do much to my original argument.
You may call the method by which you study peer review as a social
science, but that does not mean that peer review is a social science,
nor does it mean that peer review is guided by principles of social
science. Peer review can be as idiosyncratic as the discipline.
In mathematics the outcome of peer review is quite different from very
many disciplines. There is no room for interpretation, conjecture,
philosophy, or soft-sciences of any kind.
As I wrote, you may employ social science to study peer review, but peer
review is not social science, nor does it look to social sciences for
its performance, organization or method.
The map is not the territory.
I am not talking about some map. I am claiming that the methodology is
either hard or soft science. I am claiming that the actual formulation
of peer review methods are social science not hard science.
You miss the point. Peer-review groups are not guided by social science.
You missed the point. Peer-review groups and other communitarian
aspects of the global scientific community must use social science -
soft science.
The methodology is either hard science or soft science. It is soft
science, social science. This is only one example of how the science
community depends upon social science to communicate an prove research.
John Stafford
Guest
Fri Jul 16, 2010 2:54 am
In article
<5507093c-d680-4dc8-b39b-8e38632beb9a_at_a4g2000prm.googlegroups.com>,
Immortalist <reanimater_2000_at_yahoo.com> wrote:
Quote:
You miss the point. Peer-review groups are not guided by social science.
You missed the point. Peer-review groups and other communitarian
aspects of the global scientific community must use social science -
soft science.
Pathetic. They do not use any such thing. They appoint persons within
their field to review the work - for better or worse, and in the case of
mathematics it is critical to seek the very best.
They do not pull out some tome or rules of social science to make their
decision regarding the peers they choose.
Get over it. You don't know what you are writing about.
Arindam Banerjee
Guest
Fri Jul 16, 2010 5:46 am
On Jul 16, 9:40 am, spudnik <Space...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Quote:
OK, anyone can see that it is Liebniz's *vis viva*,
which got rid of Galileo's notion, I think ... except
for the N and the k factors (and I forgot the factor of a half).
anyway, isn't that where e=mcc, comes from?
e=mcc comes from
c(v=V1) = c(v=V2) which comes from an analytical bungle from the null
results of the MMI experiment
as opposed to
c(v=V) = c(mu,ep) + V ... and as I have been showing recently Mother
Nature supports this formula
Quote:
e=mVV(N-k)N? (not "sumorial" .-)
will put all that up in my domain website, as I promised to
--the Queen of the sciences!http://wlym.com
--les ducs d'oil!http://tarpley.net
Bret Cahill
Guest
Fri Jul 16, 2010 6:55 am
Quote:
You miss the point. Peer-review groups are not guided by social science.
You missed the point. Peer-review groups and other communitarian
aspects of the global scientific community must use social science -
soft science.
Pathetic. They do not use any such thing. They appoint persons within
their field to review the work -
You don't think "hard" scientists can do "soft" science? Very often
they are better at soft science than those who have studied soft
science.
The atom bomb guy was the first to try chemo therapy.
Quote:
for better or worse, and in the case of
mathematics
Math ain't a science.
.. . .
Quote:
They do not pull out some tome or rules of social science to make their
decision regarding the peers they choose.
Why would that be necessary?
Pavlov's dog could do a lot of "soft" science.
Bret Cahill
spudnik
Guest
Thu Jul 22, 2010 10:57 pm
where did the N and k go, and how is it different
from *vis viva*?... anyway,
there are lots of Einsteinmaniacs who believe that
"M&M got 'no result,'" but taht doesn't make it, so.
Quote:
c(v=V1) = c(v=V2) which comes from an analytical bungle from the null
results of the MMI experiment as opposed to
c(v=V) = c(mu,ep) + V ...
thus:
you want credentials, check doctor S. Fred Singer's (or,
you could just *read* his old, retrospective metastudy
on glaciers.
thus:
anyone can grok spatial math,
just by beginning with the 14th Book of Euclid,
which is actually by Hypsicles; but, I can't do it
for you, either.
Quote:
BP's cap&trade is before the Senate; it appears that
the financial reform bill actually puts-off regulating
the derivatives for so long, that it amounts to a "prelude"
to BP's cap and trade.
thus:
so, what is the difference between Liebniz' *vis viva*, and
your example with the N and the k?
thus:
I know what Thermite (TM) is, and I didn't even googol it.
Quote:
Professor Dr Steven Jones, who sacrificed his career at BYU
thus:
if the entagnlement of two Newtonian rocks o'light,
could traansmit information, then it would be some thing, but
they are actually not photons per se.
thus:
more folks should know about this quantumization!
Quote:
I no longer accept redshift as a Doppler motion and
that would have huge consequence to a Tifft quantization.
--BP's next bailout of Wall St. and "the City"
(of London, gated community & financial district), or
the last, if nothing is left of the USA.
http://tarpley.net/online-books/george-bush-the-unauthorized-biography/chapter-8-the-permian-basin
Arindam Banerjee
Guest
Fri Jul 23, 2010 5:13 am
Is it impossible for you to think straight? Looks like your skills
are vital for einsteinism!
spudnik
Guest
Fri Jul 23, 2010 7:24 pm
didn't get your notation in both cases, and
you didn't explain, either. I mean,
"c" paramaterized by mu and epsilon, or
"V" parameterized by N and k?
--les ducs d'oil!
http://tarpley.net
Arindam Banerjee
Guest
Sun Jul 25, 2010 2:32 am
On Jul 24, 2:24 am, spudnik <Space...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Quote:
didn't get your notation in both cases, and
you didn't explain, either. I mean,
"c" paramaterized by mu and epsilon, or
"V" parameterized by N and k?
--les ducs d'oil!http://tarpley.net
Why don't you try to derive e=0.5mVVN(N-k) from first principles? It
is as simple and vital as say
s=vt, v=u+at, s=ut+0.5att, vv=uu+2as, f=ma.
Give it a shot, and a real boost for theoretical physics.
I can do it in a few lines, published that often in Usenet. So you
can cheat if you want.
Cheers,
Arindam Banerjee
spudnik
Guest
Mon Jul 26, 2010 2:31 am
<deletia impletum>
I have no idea what (N-k) is supposed to do, and
I don't googol ****, partly because of a restraining order;
unfortunately, I'm using their front-end for these NGs.
thus:
3 choices, 2 choices, 1 choices (3?, or "three summorial" .-)
yeah, direction cosines are nice & homogenous, but
why not stay with vectors (quaternions' inner & outer products) ??
thus: IFF probably is "if & only if," that is to say,
Liebniz's neccesity & sufficiency, used in literate manner!
Quote:
Iff ... then ...
--les ducs d'oil!
http://tarpley.net
--Stop BP's cap&trade looting!
http://wlym.com
Arindam Banerjee
Guest
Mon Jul 26, 2010 4:01 pm
On Jul 26, 10:43 am, spudnik <Space...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Quote:
<deletia impletum
I have no idea what (N-k) is supposed to do, and
I don't googol ****, partly because of a restraining order;
unfortunately, I'm using their front-end for these NGs.
thus:
3 choices, 2 choices, 1 choices (3?, or "three summorial" .-)
yeah, direction cosines are nice & homogenous, but
why not stay with vectors (quaternions' inner & outer products) ??
thus: IFF probably is "if & only if," that is to say,
Liebniz's neccesity & sufficiency, used in literate manner!
Iff ... then ...
--les ducs d'oil!http://tarpley.net
--Stop BP's cap&trade looting!http://wlym.com
Let us say a body is capable of moving with internal force. With
respect to a reference frame R0 he accelerates for a time t to reach a
velocity v. With respect to R0, the energy he has gained (kinetic) is
0.5Mvv. Let us say that the reference frame he is now is R1. With
respect to R1, he accelerates for a time t to reach a velocity v,
which is v+v=2v with respect to R0. With respect to R0, his kinetic
energy is 0.5M(2v.2v). With N such "hits" his energy with respect to
R0 will be 0.5MNvNv. Let us say that for each hit, energy E is
expended and this energy comes from an internal source in the body.
It *has* to be the same for each hit, for all it does is spend it
constantly over the same time period t and is totally independent of
the distance covered by the body. This energy is related to the
energy gain per "hit" 0.5Mvv by a factor k, or 0.5kMvv. In N hits,
the internal energy spent is 0.5NkMvv. The net difference in energy,
or free energy, based upon the initial reference frame R0 is 0.5MNNvv
- 0.5MNkvv or as I wrote,
e=0.5MNvv(N-k).
I derived this equation in 1999, and published it in Usenet in 2000.
In that year I elaborated it in my book "To the Stars!" which was
available freely from my website. This equation and its derivation
was published in print by Outlook India Science Section in 2003. I
have discussed it extensively for the last ten years in Usenet. This
equation is a "missing equation" in physics, as important as say f=ma,
vv= uu+2as, s=vt, etc. With this equation, the universe is understood
much better. In my unpublished book "The Principles of Motion" I have
shown how this equation can be used to explain the dynamics underlying
all explosions, the energy of the heavenly bodies, etc. Once properly
grasped, it will engender a revolution in theoretical physics.
Cheers,
Arindam Banerjee
Zinnic
Guest
Mon Jul 26, 2010 8:49 pm
On Jul 26, 8:01 am, Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1...@gmail.com>
wrote:
Quote:
On Jul 26, 10:43 am, spudnik <Space...@hotmail.com> wrote:
<deletia impletum
I have no idea what (N-k) is supposed to do, and
I don't googol ****, partly because of a restraining order;
unfortunately, I'm using their front-end for these NGs.
thus:
3 choices, 2 choices, 1 choices (3?, or "three summorial" .-)
yeah, direction cosines are nice & homogenous, but
why not stay with vectors (quaternions' inner & outer products) ??
thus: IFF probably is "if & only if," that is to say,
Liebniz's neccesity & sufficiency, used in literate manner!
Iff ... then ...
--les ducs d'oil!http://tarpley.net
--Stop BP's cap&trade looting!http://wlym.com
Let us say a body is capable of moving with internal force. With
respect to a reference frame R0 he accelerates for a time t to reach a
velocity v. With respect to R0, the energy he has gained (kinetic) is
0.5Mvv. Let us say that the reference frame he is now is R1. With
respect to R1, he accelerates for a time t to reach a velocity v,
which is v+v=2v with respect to R0. With respect to R0, his kinetic
energy is 0.5M(2v.2v). With N such "hits" his energy with respect to
R0 will be 0.5MNvNv. Let us say that for each hit, energy E is
expended and this energy comes from an internal source in the body.
It *has* to be the same for each hit, for all it does is spend it
constantly over the same time period t and is totally independent of
the distance covered by the body. This energy is related to the
energy gain per "hit" 0.5Mvv by a factor k, or 0.5kMvv. In N hits,
the internal energy spent is 0.5NkMvv. The net difference in energy,
or free energy, based upon the initial reference frame R0 is 0.5MNNvv
- 0.5MNkvv or as I wrote,
e=0.5MNvv(N-k).
I derived this equation in 1999, and published it in Usenet in 2000.
In that year I elaborated it in my book "To the Stars!" which was
available freely from my website. This equation and its derivation
was published in print by Outlook India Science Section in 2003. I
have discussed it extensively for the last ten years in Usenet. This
equation is a "missing equation" in physics, as important as say f=ma,
vv= uu+2as, s=vt, etc. With this equation, the universe is understood
much better. In my unpublished book "The Principles of Motion" I have
shown how this equation can be used to explain the dynamics underlying
all explosions, the energy of the heavenly bodies, etc. Once properly
grasped, it will engender a revolution in theoretical physics.
Cheers,
Arindam Banerjee- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
" Let us say that for each hit, energy E isexpended and this energy
comes from an internal source in the body.It *has* to be the same for
each hit, for all it does is spend it constantly over the same time
period t and is totallyindependent ofthe distance covered by the body.
spudnik
Guest
Mon Jul 26, 2010 10:43 pm
can't say I get what you mean by "hit"
w.r.t. "internal energy, but why is KE multiplicative?
thus:
the first footnote shows the problem
with Newton's "theory" of emmission.
Quote:
http://www.aip.org/history/gap/PDF/michelson.pdf
Null in MMX is obvious. But in 1925 Michelson detected
the Earth rotation. So the exact result of MMX is 0.5 km/s.
thus:
and, of course, disenfranchizing past felons
was also against the law, and Gore didn't do anything
about that; did he?
--les ducs d'oil!
http://tarpley.net
--Stop BP's cap&trade looting & toss them out of USA waters!
http://wlym.com
Arindam Banerjee
Guest
Tue Jul 27, 2010 2:31 am
On Jul 27, 5:43 am, spudnik <Space...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Quote:
can't say I get what you mean by "hit"
w.r.t. "internal energy, but why is KE multiplicative?
By hit I mean the energy it takes to move from 0 to v, v to 2v and so
on. This is done by internal force, with an energy source contained
in the body and the body is totally detached from anything else. If
we take E to move from 0 to v, then it will be E to move from (N-1)v
to Nv. So summing up N "hits" the KE is NE with a K factor for
inefficiencies.
This is the quality of motion using internal force, not a force
grounded to a R0 frame of reference. All natural phenomena and
explosions can be more beautifully and clearly analysed with this new
formula, e=0.5MVVN(N-k) where k>=1.
Only proper engineering which I would very much like to do, can show
conclusively that you can move from 0 to v with internal force. I
think I can do it next year.
Cheers,
Arindam Banerjee
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 Next
