In AWT this phenomena can be of real emergent nature and it manifests itself with switching of intersubjectively accepted opinion into dual perspective, whenever the density of facts increases up to certain level. It's analogous to dispersive spreading of waves at the water surface, which is switching its character with distance from longitudinal into transverse waves and back into longitudinal waves again. It corresponds the layered fractally nested character of Universe and observable reality.
For example, from terrestrial perspective the epicycle model of solar system appears relevant. With increasing scope this model has been replaced with heliocentric model but now the evolution of galactic arms can be described with epicycle model again. It's just the number of observable objects, which makes epicycle or heliocentric model more relevant.
After all, the acceptation/refusal of aether model is of the same emergent evolution. Before some time old Greeks believed in Aether, later (Newton) this concept has been replaced with concept of absolute space. In 19th century the aether based models were quite popular again, but they're were replaced later with relativity model of space-time. Now the aether model is returning into physics again with model of Higgs field, which is responsible for particle mass.
The emergent character of observable reality can be understood by example of compression of gas, which is changing into fluid or even solid during this. The density fluctuations of newly formed phase are behaving like another generation of gas particles and when the compression continues, they're condensing and changing into nested fluid phase and solid again. The newly formed phase is embedded into previous generation of matter and this process can be repeated many times.
I presume, the same evolution occurs during pilling and condensation of facts into theories in hyperdimensional causal space. I Czech we have a proverb: "Stokrát nic umořilo osla" which roughly means "A hundred times nothing killed the donkey". The meaning of this proverb is, even the smallest chores are tiresome (if there is too many).
Posts
50 comments:
The Truth Wears Off: Testing the decline effect
Nabokov Theory on Polyommatus Blue Butterflies Is Vindicated - well, just another example of peer-review process failure.
Are physicists wasting their time hunting for a theory that unites the forces of nature? Nope, as they're making money with it. The would lost their safe jobs like alchemists of medieval era looking for [lapis philosophorum](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosopher's_stone), after then - as Robert Wilson, the former president of APS recognized already. He was a bright, farseeing man, indeed.
Parody of Supersymmetry/Superspace/Theoretical Physics Papers
From this graph is evident, SUSY has been well dead before twenty years already, yet theorists are still investing huge amount of public money into its confirmation. SUSY failure is just one of many recent examples. So far no gravitational waves have been found. Existence of Higgs boson is highly uncertain, too. No extradimensions were found. String theory/LQG are both left unconfirmed for thirty years.. And so on - it's evident, the whole physics of the last thirty years is on the dead track. Its experts are best payed scientists in the human history - and they were all wrong.
The funny part is, most of phenomena predicted with these theories still exists and they're living well - just at another places, when their founders are expecting. We know about many forces, violating inverse square law - yet theorists are struggling with finding of extradimensions. Gravitational waves are known for years - as a cosmic background noise. Higgs fields manifests with Yukawa coupling, which is known for decades. The well known dilepton channel of top quarks decay is just the example of Higgs field symmetry, which the physicists are looking for during Higgs boson searches.
Can We Trust Scientists?
I can't do this anymore, it's too much! Here, go to this link, i'm not doing this anymore, and Zephir, I'm blaming this alll on you, and, now I don't care about grammar correcting because it's TOO MUCH! to ask of a 12 year old to do this. :(:(:(:(:(:(:(:(:(:(:(:(:(:(:(:(:(:(:(:(:(:(:(:(:(:(:(:(:(:(:(:(:(:(:(:(:(. And stop ARGUING with each other and just meet each other and work with each other and actuallyRESEARCH with each other instead of yapping off and maybe, just maybe you could be able to find out if this teory is true, instead of WASTING YOUR TIME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!. too much. :(. And become SCIENTISTS. Please for yours and mines sake, PLEASE FOR THE LOVE OF YOUR BICKERING, AND YOUR OWN CURIOUSITY, STOP THAT GOD DANGM BICKERING.
/*..PLEASE FOR THE LOVE OF YOUR BICKERING .. STOP THAT GOD DANGM BICKERING...*/
Umm, well - isn't it a sorta circular reasoning?
Inability to detect sarcasm, lies may be early sign of dementia. If it's true, then the inability to detect serious meaning (of AWT, for example) could serve as a late sign of infantility, instead. It's not surprising, the finding of TOE is not the job for both quite young, both quite old persons.
Oscar Wilde: "The old believe everything, the middle-aged suspect everything, the young know everything"
Search for dark matter moves one step closer to detecting elusive particle
Actually this result was negative, so it cannot bring us closer, but farther. But mainstream propaganda wants the public support for science, so it inverts the meaning for every episode, which could be confronted with belief of public in mistakable power of science.
Another example of such bias (event the usage of word connection "God particle" can be considered propagandistic)
'God particle' may be discovered soon
What Dr Myers actually said was:
"The performance of the detectors and of the machine means that even at a lower energy we could discover the Higgs or disprove its existence"
Why so many people choose not to believe what scientists say, The Science of Why We Don't Believe Science, Is Science Just a Matter of Faith?
Evidence on peer review—scientific quality control or smokescreen?
Coburn report: NSF wastes millions of dollars on wasteful projects. Response.
It's depressing to see that 1) whether something is publishable in high impact journals is such an important criterion for what we do, 2) skeptical science that replicates and refutes is considered a waste of effort, and 3) students are discouraged from carrying out such work, because there is some strange bias that will hurt their chances of employment.
Why We Have So Much 'Duh' Science: "Eryn Brown writes in the LA Times that accounts of "duh" research abound as studies show that driving ability worsens in people with early Alzheimer's disease, that women who get epidurals experience less pain during childbirth than women who don't, that young men who are obese have lower odds of getting married than thinner peers, and that making exercise more fun might improve fitness among teens. But there's more to duh research than meets the eye writes Brown as experts say they have to prove the obvious again and again to influence perceptions and policy. "Think about the number of studies that had to be published for people to realize smoking is bad for you," says Ronald J. Iannotti, a psychologist at the National Institutes of Health. "There are some subjects where it seems you can never publish enough." Kyle Stanford, a professor of the philosophy of science at UC Irvine, thinks the professionalization of science has led researchers — who must win grants to pay their bills — to ask timid questions and research that hews to established theories is more likely to be funded, even if it contributes little to knowledge. Perhaps most important, sometimesa study that seems poised to affirm the conventional wisdom produces a surprise. "Many have taken the value of popular programs like DARE — in which police warn kids about the dangers of drug use — as an article of faith," writes Brown. "But Dennis Rosenbaum of the University of Illinois at Chicago and other researchers have shown that the program has been ineffective and may even increase drug use in some cases.
It's trash, so I hope that you don't praise it.
Hello, El Cid, I'm glad to hear you! Your link is perfect, I'll read about it definitely. The connection of aether model to the general relativity follows clearly from this homomorphism.
Is modern physics rotting?
Crazy Research The U.S. Government Is Funding
An essay by Freeman Dyson on the missed opportunities in science: "The progress of both mathematics and physics has in the past been seriously retarded by our unwillingness to listen to one another."
This unwillingness is a consequence of many psychosocial factors of modern era: the increasing number of information and web twaddlers, the increasing level of competition between research groups and the fact, the physicists are motivated in continuity of research and their safe salaries, rather than in actual finding - as Bob Wilson recognized and named pregnantly. And I definitely missed many other potential reasons...
"The wise man speaks because he has something to say, the fool because he has to say something"
Scientists about scientists: a sociological research paper on the mindsets of cosmologists
Studies of studies show that we get things wrong. Of 51 reports, 16 found that a practice currently believed to be effective was, in fact, ineffective.
It’s Science, but Not Necessarily Right - Why Science Struggles to Correct Its Mistakes
Gustave Le Bon, 1895: "The masses have never thirsted after truth. Whoever can supply them with illusions is easily their master; whoever attempts to destroy their illusions is always their victim.” "
Lubos Motl wrote:
“The 1500-page manifesto“ (by Anders Behring Breivik) “says many things and if I were given this text before the murder and had the freedom to say what I thought about it, of course that I would agree with a significant part of it. Well, as you can see, I just indirectly said that I agree with many things in it. There are also many things I disagree with.“
Zephir,
Do you think Lubos Motl is a psychopath?
“ And they may even be more efficient while killing - and the probable reason is that Breivik (or his potential counterparts) may have a higher IQ than your garden variety left-wing or Islamic terrorist.“
By Lubos Motl :-D
Do you think Lubos Motl is a psychopath?
He's extreme nerd, who can recognize only black & white (as many formally thinking people do). So his thinking is always biased by its very nature. IMO he suffers with Asperger's syndrome. Even the graphic design of blogs and websites speaks for it...;-)
We all think that science is about objectivity and “just the facts, ma’am.” Not so fast, philosophers, historians and sociologists of science have been arguing now for a number of decades.
The Wall Street Journal reports that retractions of scientific papers have surged in recent years, with the top 3 journals issuing retractions being PNAS, Science and Nature. The graph above shows the increase in the rate of retracted papers
img w=640&h=485
Nice post, keep up the good work.
People are biased against creative ideas, studies find
Misconduct in science - An array of errors: Investigations into a case of alleged scientific misconduct have revealed numerous holes in the oversight of science and scientific publishing
Pressure for positive results puts science under threat
Albert Einstein: "As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality".
Has the Einstein Revolution Gone Too Far?
The Weak Evidence Effect: People who receive weak but supportive evidence are less optimistic about the outcome than people who receive no evidence.
Confirmed at the case of aether theory, antigravity, cold fusion, etc. (weak evidence) with compare to Higgs, gravity waves, superstrings (no evidence). Most of redditrolls (including highly qualified PhD students) tend to believe complex but solely unsupported theories rather than unverified experiments and apparent, but qualitative analogies.
One of the consequences of this seeming paradox is, the unsupported theories are examined until people are exhausted and all money sources are depleted and, while no one bothers to repeat the simple cold fusion experiments, once they were impeached first.
"You are the only person with whom I am actually willing to come to terms. Almost all the other fellows do not look from the facts to the theory but from the theory to the facts; they cannot extricate themselves from a once accepted conceptual net, but only flop about in it in a grotesque way."
-Albert Einstein, (in a letter to Erwin Schrödinger )
Why Science Majors Change Their Minds (It’s Just So Darn Hard)
Weathering Fights – Science – What’s It Up To?
Scientists spend two-thirds of their time re-inventing Willis. If we combine it with the fact, scientists are spending 40% of research time with collection of money for additional research, we could fire 87% of them immediately.
The less people know about important complex issues such as the economy, energy consumption and the environment,
the more they want to avoid becoming well-informed, according to new research. Aether theory and cold fusion can be added to the list w/out problem.
Peter Woit
:-D
Albert Einstein: "The greatest obstacle to understanding reality is not ignorance but the illusion of knowledge." (Autoritätsdusel ist der größte Feind der Wahrheit, 1901). Then he rejected the quantum mechanics.
"Every scientific statement must remain tentative for ever."
- Karl Raimund Popper -
Graham offers the following Disagreement Heirarchy:
DH0. Name-Calling.
DH1. Ad Hominem.
DH2. Responding to Tone.
DH3. Contradiction.
DH4. Counterargument.
DH5. Refutation.
DH6. Refuting the Central Point.
DH7. Make the Argument Better, and then Refute Its Central Point.
The Biggest Problem in Physics Theoretical physics as ivory tower is described there. Journals won't even bother to read papers that challenge generally accepted assumptions.
What you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.
Graham offers the following Disagreement Heirarchy:
DH0. Name-Calling.
DH1. Ad Hominem.
DH2. Responding to Tone.
DH3. Contradiction.
DH4. Counterargument.
DH5. Refutation.
DH6. Refuting the Central Point.
DH7. Make the Argument Better, and then Refute Its Central Point.
U.S. State Science Standards Are "Mediocre to Awful"
Researchers feel pressure to cite superfluous papers
Post a Comment