@BrianK

"Quasicrystals were discovered in France by Denis Gratias, research director at the CNRS, who determined their composition and their symmetrical structure (of the fifth order). "

So in 98 it had already entered the realm of "no, _I_ did it first"

_________________
This weeks pet peeve:
Using "voltage" instead of "potential", which leads to inventing new words like "amperage" instead of "current" (I, measured in A) or possible "charge" (amperehours, Ah or Coulomb, C). Sometimes I don't even know what people mean.

@olegil

Quote:

"Quasicrystals were discovered in France by Denis Gratias, research director at the CNRS, who determined their composition and their symmetrical structure (of the fifth order). " So in 98 it had already entered the realm of "no, _I_ did it first"

No man is an island. It appears that Gratias was co-author of the paper.
http://www.onera.fr/news/2011-1216-quasicrystal-denis-gratias.php
http://www.nature.com/news/2011/111005/full/news.2011.572.html

Last edited by BrianK on 21-May-2012 at 12:20 PM.

@Lou

Standard Model is the best working model we have. Though we're fully aware that we need new models to take us further. It's a good short read about how the Standard Model is sussing out very well. Along with the impact it's had to other models.

Using http://i.imgur.com/bktwQ.png for a comparative it turns out the Standard Model looks very much like the last diagram. Not perfect but certainly closer than any other evidence we have to date. Those other models are looking more like the one's on the section entitled 'we can eliminate demonstrably incorrect theories'.

@BrianK

If you ask me a question today and I give you an answer today, I don't really care if it took you 10, 20 or 30 years to make sure I was right because I knew I was right TODAY.

This reminds me of how things are done in other aspects of life...
Last year I told a friend of mine that a girl he was getting serious with in a drunken stupor let out that she had another man in her bed last week. He didn't want to believe me and our friendship was put on the side. Fast-forward to last month and he found her cheating thanks to some cellphone tracking. I was right last year and our friendship suffered for a year because of it, now he regrets not listening to me.

This is what happens in science and why its' always 30 years behind...
People make valid discoveries but get rejected for the wrong reasons. They can get rejected in such a way that no funding is even given to even allow verification. Verification cost $$$ and if the funding isn't there because a bunch of know-it-alls deems something impossible, then you have what happened with quasi-crystals in 1981...

Last edited by Lou on 21-May-2012 at 06:13 PM.

@Lou

Quote:

If you ask me a question today and I give you an answer today, I don't really care if it took you 10, 20 or 30 years to make sure I was right because I knew I was right TODAY.

Scientific method is built on skeptical empiricism. You may be 'right' today but the validitiy is unconfirmed and unconfirmable until others validate your conclusions. Without skeptisicm and validated through empirical methods how do you purpose we confirm validitiy and suss out frauds, cheats and liars? That all simply takes time. Again the image I posted a few times here provides a brief description as to why and how that all works. Each step in the process is one that takes time.

I think you can look to your own life for an example of how such an approach works. You say you are a programmer. Here is how I see your method works versus the reality of science.
SCIENCE:
Lou comes to work Monday morning. There's a new Project. Make an OS. The requires for the OS are documented out. Lou's project goes through extensive QA testing. The client is given the new OS. The client then conducts acceptability testing and ensures he's happy with the results and this works as idealized by the client. It took a few months to a few years but in the end the client is happy and gives Lou a big fat check.
LOU WANTS:
Lou comes to work Monday morning. There's a new Project. Make an OS. Lou goes to his desk. Picks up something, hands it to the client, and calls it an OS. Then Lou demands to receive a check. Done less than 5 minutes.


Quote:

This is what happens in science and why its' always 30 years behind...

I've clearly demonstrated your knowledge of historical dates surrounding quasi-crystals as wrong. It took 10 years. So your date here is wrong. However, the answer isn't 10 either, just in the case of quasi-crystals it was 10 between the 1982 experiment and the changing of the mainstream crystal definition to include the new information. In reality we never know how big a change might be. Larger changes are going to take longer simply because there's more datapoints to validate.

Quote:

People make valid discoveries but get rejected for the wrong reasons. They can get rejected in such a way that no funding is even given to even allow verification

I'd like to mention an area you charged me with (but failed to define by the way.) You are using science in two different ways which can cause confusion. The rejection for wrong reasons is not based on the scientific method. The rejection for the wrong reasons is based upon the politics of people involved within science. The politics, is a human problem not a scientific method problem.

BTW I've suggested authors for you to read about changes in Scientific Paradigms. Did you ever bother to pick up any Kuhn or Popper? Really your arguement here is again not about science itself but about the politics of scientists. The 'problem' really is anytime more than 1 person is involved in something politics comes into play. I argue that instead we need to understand the politic and work with it to continually improve it and try to remove it as much as humanly possible from an otherwise human endeavor.

Last edited by BrianK on 21-May-2012 at 07:36 PM.
Last edited by BrianK on 21-May-2012 at 07:29 PM.
Last edited by BrianK on 21-May-2012 at 07:26 PM.

@Lou

Quote:

If you ask me a question today and I give you an answer today, I don't really care if it took you 10, 20 or 30 years to make sure I was right because I knew I was right TODAY.

This is all very well if you are actually right, however your assertion that you are right has to be tested. If we simply accept that all assertions are correct, we have to go back every day to disprove Bechers Phlogiston theory of combustion, Phrenology, or even Einsteins static universe theory.

Quote:

This reminds me of how things are done in other aspects of life...

A very interesting story, however there are just as many stories of people telling such stories of infidelity, and it later being demonstrated to be false. Back in 1986, assertions made against Richard Buckland concerning rape and murder were thrown out of court due to scientific evidence. The same evidence then went on to secure the first criminal conviction using DNA evidence. Three years later Gary Dotson became the first man to have a conviction overturned as a result of DNA evidence.

The fact that Daniel Shechtman was vindicated in his claims about quasi-crystals has no bearing on any other scientific endeavours and does not prove that any of the crackpots that you are citing are somehow less ridiculous. All it proves is that the process may work slowly, but it does work.

_________________
When in trouble, fear or doubt, run in circles, scream and shout.

@Lou

Thought you might be intereted in this. Are waveforms objective or subjective views of reality . I think we know what you'd tell us (EM_is_God). However, the current state of science is we're still in the postulating and assessing phases on that determination.

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: @Lou Thought you might be intereted in this. Are waveforms objective or subjective views of reality . I think we know what you'd tell us (EM_is_God). However, the current state of science is we're still in the postulating and assessing phases on that determination.

LOL this guy's got it right: http://phys.org/news/2012-05-black-hole-universe-physicist-solution.html Finally the anti-BrianK, some who sees the big picture!

Now spin...where have I heard that before...
Oh yeah: http://www.scribd.com/doc/38637585/Nassim-Haramein-The-origin-of-spin

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: @Lou Quote: If you ask me a question today and I give you an answer today, I don't really care if it took you 10, 20 or 30 years to make sure I was right because I knew I was right TODAY. Scientific method is built on skeptical empiricism. You may be 'right' today but the validitiy is unconfirmed and unconfirmable until others validate your conclusions. Without skeptisicm and validated through empirical methods how do you purpose we confirm validitiy and suss out frauds, cheats and liars? That all simply takes time. Again the image I posted a few times here provides a brief description as to why and how that all works. Each step in the process is one that takes time. I think you can look to your own life for an example of how such an approach works. You say you are a programmer. Here is how I see your method works versus the reality of science. SCIENCE: Lou comes to work Monday morning. There's a new Project. Make an OS. The requires for the OS are documented out. Lou's project goes through extensive QA testing. The client is given the new OS. The client then conducts acceptability testing and ensures he's happy with the results and this works as idealized by the client. It took a few months to a few years but in the end the client is happy and gives Lou a big fat check. LOU WANTS: Lou comes to work Monday morning. There's a new Project. Make an OS. Lou goes to his desk. Picks up something, hands it to the client, and calls it an OS. Then Lou demands to receive a check. Done less than 5 minutes. Quote: This is what happens in science and why its' always 30 years behind... I've clearly demonstrated your knowledge of historical dates surrounding quasi-crystals as wrong. It took 10 years. So your date here is wrong. However, the answer isn't 10 either, just in the case of quasi-crystals it was 10 between the 1982 experiment and the changing of the mainstream crystal definition to include the new information. In reality we never know how big a change might be. Larger changes are going to take longer simply because there's more datapoints to validate. Quote: People make valid discoveries but get rejected for the wrong reasons. They can get rejected in such a way that no funding is even given to even allow verification I'd like to mention an area you charged me with (but failed to define by the way.) You are using science in two different ways which can cause confusion. The rejection for wrong reasons is not based on the scientific method. The rejection for the wrong reasons is based upon the politics of people involved within science. The politics, is a human problem not a scientific method problem. BTW I've suggested authors for you to read about changes in Scientific Paradigms. Did you ever bother to pick up any Kuhn or Popper? Really your arguement here is again not about science itself but about the politics of scientists. The 'problem' really is anytime more than 1 person is involved in something politics comes into play. I argue that instead we need to understand the politic and work with it to continually improve it and try to remove it as much as humanly possible from an otherwise human endeavor.

And you forget that there is POLITICS AND GREED IN 'SCIENCE'!
You keep talking about an idealistic 'science'. It doesn't really exist except in small isolated examples. You need to come to terms with that.

@Lou

Quote:

You keep talking about an idealistic 'science'. It doesn't really exist except in small isolated examples. You need to come to terms with that.

Have you any EVIDENCE of this?

I take it that you have spoken to every scientist in every scientific establishment (public & private businesses) on the entire planet and put all your data together and come up with this pile of horse s#@t generalized blanket statement.

Please stop posting generalized c#@p as FACT.

Opinion does not equal FACT - You need to come to terms with that.

Saying that this is true and this is fact without any EVIDENCE or DATA to support your this is this and that is that DOES NOT make it true. You need to come to terms with that too.

_________________
Live Long and keep Amigaing!

A1200, Power Tower, TF1260 128MB RAM, 68060 Rev 6, OS3.9 BB2, HD-Floppy, Mediator TX+ PCI, Voodoo 3 3000, Soundblaster 4.1, TV Card, Spider USB, 100MBit Ethernet, 16GB CF HD, 52xCDRom.

@Lou

Quote:

LOL this guy's got it right: http://phys.org/news/2012-05-black-hole-universe-physicist-solution.html Finally the anti-BrianK, some who sees the big picture!

Typical. lots of suppositions, presumptions and assertions, but never even a vestige of evidence. This individual believes that "it's all torsion" in exactly the same way, and with as little evidence as you believe "it's all EM". Until such time as you can procure some mathematics that isn't fudged to fit using false arithmetic, and that compares accurately with real world observations, "it's all BS".

_________________
When in trouble, fear or doubt, run in circles, scream and shout.

@Lou

Quote:

And you forget that there is POLITICS AND GREED IN 'SCIENCE'!

Did you happen to read what you quoted? You'll find admissions there, and in various other past quotes, that politics exists in every human endeavor including science. Again if you read what I wrote I asked you to make the purposals that might exist to minimize if not eliminte the con of politics.

Quote:

You keep talking about an idealistic 'science'.

You seem to believe that every scientific process is corrupt and results in nothing. However the history of science is staring you right in the face. Humanity is discovering, verifying, and utilizing science at a increasing rate. This rate of discovery and adoption is higher than at any time in the annuals of human history.

Nor should you assume that politics and greed is always bad. It's exactly those items which foster competition. You can review history again and quickly understand those individuals, groups, companies, and nations which are able to build the better technology through discoveries in science not found in other societies constantly and consistently have had a leg up in the world.


Quote:

It doesn't really exist except in small isolated examples. You need to come to terms with that.

Strangely you provided the example which shows the science did work! In 1982 4/5 guys experimented and found quasi-crystals. On one hand the politics almost kicked them out, sure. What you are neglicting is the other hand and the net positive result. When the SCIENCE was followed by verifying their results. The SCIENCE was followed to conduct new experiments. The EVIDENCE was created that validated their discovery. It was this "gold rush" created by the new discovery which resulted in scientists focusing on exciting new discovery, and resulted in hard work following the scientific method that resulted in the validation and subsequent acceptance by 'mainstream science.'

Again did you ever bother with Kuhn or Popper you might understand how some of the leading philosphers on the subject understand the interplay that politics has in the realm of science?


The problem you've identified is one of politics. Politics is that realm that deals with the interplay of relationships between people. The scientific method and scientific inquiry does not have politics as part of it. Politics is the nature of humans. Because humans are doing science and humans form groups what happens as a result is scientific communities are formed. Your answer, that I'll summarize as, throw out all science is incorrect because it doesn't in any way address the problem. You've left all the humans which are the source of your identified problem, politics. And in science's place you've pulled out an agreed framework of how to skeptically ascertain ideas and replaced it with nothing. What your method has resulted in, is a weaker underlying system of verification of knowledge and actually a higher amount of politic. Why? Because your system has become one of immediately escalating every guess (postulate) without evidence to a truth. The arguements are then around which book of beliefs is more true. In short you've created a religious war.

Last edited by BrianK on 23-May-2012 at 12:30 PM.

@Lou

Quote:

LOL this guy's got it right: http://phys.org/news/2012-05-black-hole-universe-physicist-solution.html Finally the anti-BrianK, some who sees the big picture!

This is one of several postulates that we're part of a multiverse. The thing I take away from this article is that the real scientists are anti-Lou as they are asking what is the EVIDENCE we can gather to support or deny these sets of guesses.

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: @Lou Quote: LOL this guy's got it right: http://phys.org/news/2012-05-black-hole-universe-physicist-solution.html Finally the anti-BrianK, some who sees the big picture! This is one of several postulates that we're part of a multiverse. The thing I take away from this article is that the real scientists are anti-Lou as they are asking what is the EVIDENCE we can gather to support or deny these sets of guesses.

Let's get it straight about 'science'...
There are thousands and thousands of 'scientists'. However, they are not part of some 'collective' where each one knows what the others are working on.

The article I linked is from ANOTHER scientist who independently came up with the same view of the universe as A scientist I have posted about. The author of the article was obviously intrigued by this "new" theory, but it isn't so new as I have demonstrated. In fact what the author was asking for, before it can get more credibility, has already been done by Nassim Haramein.

So you see, having old theories with holes that you worship eventually has led to better theories. But old text worshippers like you and Nimrod will cling to old ideas that have no more proof of validity than the new ones...and usually less actually...

@Amiboy

Thanks for joining the thread and talking out your hindside immediately.

@Lou

Quote:

Thanks for joining the thread and talking out your hindside immediately.

No problem!

_________________
Live Long and keep Amigaing!

A1200, Power Tower, TF1260 128MB RAM, 68060 Rev 6, OS3.9 BB2, HD-Floppy, Mediator TX+ PCI, Voodoo 3 3000, Soundblaster 4.1, TV Card, Spider USB, 100MBit Ethernet, 16GB CF HD, 52xCDRom.

@Lou

Quote:

The article I linked is from ANOTHER scientist who independently came up with the same view of the universe as A scientist I have posted about. The author of the article was obviously intrigued by this "new" theory, but it isn't so new as I have demonstrated. In fact what the author was asking for, before it can get more credibility, has already been done by Nassim Haramein

There's probably as many ideas out there than there are people. The capable ones are going to be the scientists that can not only spawn these new ideas but prove their effectiveness and usefulness. Again read some scientific history and learn that multiple similar ideas do exist. Darwin vs Wallace would be a good example for you.

As for your mischaracterization of old text worshipping the old text I worship is the one that says bring your evidence to the party if you're claiming to have truth. Something repeatedly requested of you and repeatively failed by you.

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: @Lou Quote: The article I linked is from ANOTHER scientist who independently came up with the same view of the universe as A scientist I have posted about. The author of the article was obviously intrigued by this "new" theory, but it isn't so new as I have demonstrated. In fact what the author was asking for, before it can get more credibility, has already been done by Nassim Haramein There's probably as many ideas out there than there are people. The capable ones are going to be the scientists that can not only spawn these new ideas but prove their effectiveness and usefulness. Again read some scientific history and learn that multiple similar ideas do exist. Darwin vs Wallace would be a good example for you. As for your mischaracterization of old text worshipping the old text I worship is the one that says bring your evidence to the party if you're claiming to have truth. Something repeatedly requested of you and repeatively failed by you.

Excuse me, but correct me if I'm wong...
The Big Bang Theory is still a THEORY is it not?
Come back and tell me another one is WRONG when it becomes the BIG BANG FACT!

@Lou

Quote:

Excuse me, but correct me if I'm wong... The Big Bang Theory is still a THEORY is it not? Come back and tell me another one is WRONG when it becomes the BIG BANG FACT!

http://i.imgur.com/bktwQ.png

EDIT: A good idea you need to work to understand.
http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm

Last edited by BrianK on 24-May-2012 at 01:11 PM.

@BrianK

Thats exactly what I was going to post.

But I also felt like posting this:

The Big Bang Theory

............seems its kind of a "fact" to me

_________________
Live Long and keep Amigaing!

A1200, Power Tower, TF1260 128MB RAM, 68060 Rev 6, OS3.9 BB2, HD-Floppy, Mediator TX+ PCI, Voodoo 3 3000, Soundblaster 4.1, TV Card, Spider USB, 100MBit Ethernet, 16GB CF HD, 52xCDRom.