rte@houxl.UUCP (R.EDWARDS) (04/04/85)
Recently this flame appeared in net.physics: > >I've never seen a demonstration of the (perpetual motion) machine, and I >don't know if it works or not. What bothers me is the indignant and >arrogant attitude of all those who appeal to the "fundamental laws of physics" >to ridicule any theory or device which does not fall within the current >scientific paradigm. > > Knee-jerk skeptics who dismiss ideas that don't happen to correspond to > their own beliefs would probably have laughed at Copernicus for suggesting > that the earth was not the center of the universe, or Columbus for suggesting > that the earth wasn't flat. > Several people have pointed out the Columbus half truth. No one so far has pointed out that it was Galileo who really got in hot water over the which revolves around who broohaha. But beyond this, there is a far deeper misunderstanding evidenced here, a misunderstanding of what science is, and how scientists act. Science is not a system of belief, religions are systems of belief, science is made up of careful, systematic, open minded observations. Scientific theory is an attempt to describe the observations in the most compact, precise, and understandable way possible. Scientists don't go around trying to sweep disagreeable facts under the rug. If you think that, you simply don't know any scientists. As a scientist I participated in a series of experiments all of which got the expected answers, over a period of a bout 10 years. I then participated in a series of experiments that got quite unexpected results. When you get an unexpected result first you check it very carefully, because it may be wrong, but when you are sure it's new, that's the whole justification of your life, it's so much more pleasing than the other. When you start giving talks you start out with, everybody knows..., and then switch to your results. Every scientist in basic research wants new and unexpected results. But, there is a difference between being open minded and empty headed, saying that basic physical laws say you can't get something for nothing, is a shorthand way of saying that over the last 200 years thousands of people have examined very carefully the question of conservation of energy, and every time there appeared to be some question about it, the explanation was not in doing away with the principle. Who is arrogant, the guy who suggests that these thousands of careful experimenters are wrong, or the guy who suggests that each new crackpot probably isn't up to the standards of Galileo, Newton, Maxwell, and Einstein. I would hope that people who write on net.physics would not get their ideas about science and scientists from a Steven Spielberg movie.
pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M Koloc) (04/05/85)
> Science is not a system of belief, religions are systems of belief, > science is made up of careful, systematic, open minded observations. > Scientific theory is an attempt to describe the observations in the > most compact, precise, and understandable way possible. > Scientists don't go around trying to sweep disagreeable facts under the rug. > If you think that, you simply don't know any scientists. > It is my contention that both scientists and theologians (and some are both) are only human. They both deal with reality and generate a theory/ies of reality. Science is more local. (Where the hell did the initial energy come from that forms the physical Universe?) This is a question more for theologians, now, but science is getting there and someday maybe they too may recognize (hypothesize) the existance of non-physical (2d) hypermatter or some other name that moves science into a broader reality. As for compact, precise, and (comprehensible) understandings? Well, every once in a while that happens, but most of the time NOT. For example, the epicycles to explain planetary motion, and the particle charts to explain the excited particle states of simple +-electrons. They don't sweep disagreeable "facts" under the rug? Very cleverly they do it all the time. Anything that can't be correlated with other more simpler things are given a name. For example, electron. What is an electron? It's a charged particle that obeys the Lorentz force and has slight mass and some spin, you say? It's can NOT even be a particle in the sense that the word `particle' suggests independent existance, and removing a single electron from the universe "box" would forever change the physical laws of the remaining universe, fundamentally. That is a truely removed electron could leave no universe charge +1 behind otherwise it really wouldn't be removed. The truth is that electrons are more like "half particles" in that although they have separable location they nevertheless are field line tied. The laws of conservation will probably eventually be collapsed into a single law of information conservation which has both operator and array expressions. Time as a quantized entity would be not so different than the frames of an artificial reality "motion picture" unfolding one at a time. Information in quantity being conserved and the shutter being both creation and anihilation operator for the "2d" screen projection. Since time passes for us, it's reasonable to assume that information is being exchanged across each "time" frame. Maybe what "particles really are" relates to the operator and array processing units for our unfolding "reality". So that by analogy a particle does two things. It is like a television monitor to display a grainy information array and it is also a video camera "viewing" the monitor and at the same time feeding its signal to it for display. In this sense, electrons could be "holes" in space into which information "grains" disappear, or go out of existance, thus allowing "time" to proceed. The net flow of information though space may be associated with the vector A. And, the precise number of "grains" created or anihilated in a single time frame with the value and sign of "charge". That's conservation of information and that IS precision. Known to more places than any other constant. So this is certainly a "crackpot" thought, but, such thoughts are certainly necessary if simplifications and improvements in understandings are to come. The problem with "physicists"** is that they sweep what is not known or not yet fully related "under the rug, by simply giving it a different name. electron charge gravity .. ..etc. Any person with common sense instinctively knows that reality is a woven fabric of a single entity, "information, intelligence,..." so there is a real problem in getting people to study physics and "believe the b.... s....". At the present time physics requires fervent "belief" just like "religion" and if we don't accept that little goody, our probability of having the humility it takes to advance science by simplifying it is not very high. Overstated to make the point. ** Feynman excepted! -- |-------------------------------------------------------|--------| | pmk@prometheus: (301) 445-1075 | FUSION | | Prometheus II Ltd., College Park, MD 20740-0222 | this | | ..!{umcp-cs,seismo}!prometh!pmk | decade | |-------------------------------------------------------|--------|
brooks@lll-crg.ARPA (Eugene D. Brooks III) (04/06/85)
> -- > |-------------------------------------------------------|--------| > | pmk@prometheus: (301) 445-1075 | FUSION | > | Prometheus II Ltd., College Park, MD 20740-0222 | this | > | ..!{umcp-cs,seismo}!prometh!pmk | decade | > |-------------------------------------------------------|--------| I reccomend that we start a subgroup named net.physics.pmk so that this fellow can put his postings there. This way the old ug command can be used by those who care to without dropping from net.physics.
pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M Koloc) (04/06/85)
> > -- > > |-------------------------------------------------------|--------| > > | pmk@prometheus: (301) 445-1075 | FUSION | > > | Prometheus II Ltd., College Park, MD 20740-0222 | this | > > | ..!{umcp-cs,seismo}!prometh!pmk | decade | > > |-------------------------------------------------------|--------| > > I reccomend that we start a subgroup named net.physics.pmk so that > this fellow can put his postings there. This way the old ug command > can be used by those who care to without dropping from net.physics. Fortunately for you, I only come up rarely since I spend most of my time "doing" these fun things. If you can hang on for a while I'll get busy on something else. In the meantime grep for Koloc and answer "n" when the file # shows up on net.physics. Just another week or two. Hope someone likes this stuff. Keep nibbling. (The truth will out) Keep the faith! -- |-------------------------------------------------------|--------| | pmk@prometheus: (301) 445-1075 | FUSION | | Prometheus II Ltd., College Park, MD 20740-0222 | this | | ..!{umcp-cs,seismo}!prometh!pmk | decade | |-------------------------------------------------------|--------|
ellis@spar.UUCP (Michael Ellis) (04/10/85)
> I reccomend that we start a subgroup named net.physics.pmk so that > this fellow can put his postings there. This way the old ug command > can be used by those who care to without dropping from net.physics. The author of this remark should either: 1) Provide well-reasoned arguments against pmk's remarks. 2) Say nothing Frankly, I enjoy reading pmk's somewhat unusual comments, and I suspect his mother does as well. Counting pmk, that makes three at least three of us. (sorry, Andy.. are you there?) Just what has he said to deserve such harsh commentary? -michael