In Reply to: A dim wit and a weasel, that I am posted by unclestu52 on July 26, 2007 at 13:35:17:
>>Einstein's paper, Lemaitre aside (didn't he work closely with some astronomer?), was a theory, remember? That observational and practical proof (Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and those tests in the SW) came much later shows that there was a basis for the mathematical model he created. While physical proof was not immediately available, that mathematical model provided the basis for experimentation and observation which were made later. The bending of light gravitationally was made observationally by, hell, you are the NASA optical engineer and you ought to be familiar with that.<<
Whereas you're the Beltist researcher, and you ought to be familiar with the fact that there is observational (and practical) proof of the phenomenon. My point in bringing Lemaitre into this, was to show that even the most brilliant scientists can dismiss mathematical models (Einstein said Lemaitre's calculations were "bad physics"). Just as on the other side of the coin, they dismiss observational and practical proof. While purely objectively measurable proof is not yet available (I'm not assuming it will ever be), Peter's hypothetical model can be the basis for experimentation and observation. Keep in mind, the story of Einstein is just one example of how science works; it's not the blueprint for the way all scientific acheivements are made. I don't think building a nuclear bomb is quite the same as improving your audio system....
>>So, by your position, I believe you can state something more definitive than than sometimes odd is better and sometimes even is? The example you picked is interesting because it was a model upon which further experimentation yielded predictable results. As a physics major, you know that, or at least, you should know that.<<
You're looking to Clark to understand Belt's odd/even rule better than me? Ohhhhkay. Unless you are willing to do the research, taking odd theoretical stabs in the dark at this is not going to bring you any closer to understanding it. It will more likely bring you further and further away, and it will also make Beltists laugh at you. What research have you done on the odd/even rule? It's not enough. You're going to have to do more research than Peter if you want to do more than pretend to understand this, because so far, -no one- can state anything more definitive than "sometimes odd is better and sometimes even is". (And you didn't get that from me, because I've never confirmed what favours even). Also, it hasn't even been officially stated that the odd/even rule applies to everything. You've got your work cut out.
>>Are the Beltist tweaks truly predictable well in advance and truly universal? I do not find that so, although admittedly I haven't tried all of their tweaks. Some have no effect in my experience, while some do, adding further confusion. <<
Not unlike other reports I've heard, where some hear the effects of some tweaks but not others, or some tweaks only when repeated x number of times. Myself, I would have to say all the Belt tweaks are truly predictable* and universal, because I've never had one not have any effect. *(Depending on what you mean by 'truly predictable'.... Sometimes a normally beneficial tweak doesn't produce the predicted beneficial effect, depending on what you apply where. This is usually corrected by reapplications elsewhere).
>>In addition, there are alternate explanations in my experience and measurable also.<<
You''ve been able to measure these tweaks? How so?
>>As a science major, I would have hoped that was ingrained upon you. Perhaps you do know more than you let on. A model of the Beltist theory would be a nice start, and while a mathematical basis would be greatly appreciated, even a general written model would certainly be very nice. Something which would have predictability and be universal would be extremely nice to have.<<
I really shouldn't do this.... especially since it isn't my work (Clark came up with it after many nights laboring over it, and I had to like -beg- him for it for days and agree to do his housecleaning for 3 weeks!). But it's all in the interest of advancing science, right? Here is what you are asking about, and I truly hope it is appreciated and will help you to further understand the mysteries of Beltism:
E = PB^2"silence tells me secretly, everything..."
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- A mathematical model for the Beltist phenomenon, as requested. - Posy Rorer 14:34:13 07/26/07 (64)
- Our antagonist weaseled out again; that, coupled with David Aitkin's notable takedown of his illogic... - clarkjohnsen 08:14:54 07/30/07 (55)
- It is a sad time - unclestu52 12:42:11 07/30/07 (52)
- Posey's Doubly-Sad Mathematical Model & The Mars Lunar Lander - Posy Rorer 20:38:51 07/30/07 (50)
- "I'm not sure why he is [an antagonist] to you." - clarkjohnsen 08:23:23 07/31/07 (45)
- Hatfield vs. McCoy: The Polarity Years - Posy Rorer 11:15:12 07/31/07 (44)
- All basically true, except that "it can only be determined subjectively". - clarkjohnsen 09:35:01 08/01/07 (0)
- RE: Hatfield vs. McCoy: The Polarity Years - rick_m 20:11:20 07/31/07 (1)
- RE: Hatfield vs. McCoy: The Polarity Years - Posy Rorer 22:27:48 07/31/07 (0)
- RE: Hatfield vs. McCoy - unclestu52 13:49:35 07/31/07 (40)
- RE: Hatfield vs. McCoy - Posy Rorer 16:20:50 07/31/07 (39)
- RE: Hatfield vs. McCoy - unclestu52 18:30:32 07/31/07 (38)
- RE: I now understand the emphasis on amplitude measurements over time measurements - rick_m 19:56:03 07/31/07 (19)
- This very problem was fingered as a culprit in The Wood Effect (1988). - clarkjohnsen 10:14:16 08/01/07 (0)
- RE: I now understand the emphasis on amplitude measurements over time measurements - unclestu52 20:48:42 07/31/07 (17)
- RE: I now understand the emphasis on amplitude measurements over time measurements - rick_m 22:29:17 07/31/07 (16)
- Usually inverting the polarity - unclestu52 01:36:44 08/01/07 (15)
- RE: Usually inverting the polarity - rick_m 07:58:41 08/01/07 (14)
- See how "they" have been messing with you? Just as with polarity! nt - clarkjohnsen 10:17:21 08/01/07 (13)
- Still waiting to know who "they" are.... -nt - rick_m 11:56:28 08/02/07 (5)
- "They" are Them; haven't you seen the movie? nt - clarkjohnsen 12:00:03 08/02/07 (4)
- I'm confused. I thought "Them" was Van Morrison's old band? -nt - Posy Rorer 22:05:26 08/02/07 (1)
- Them too. nt - clarkjohnsen 07:26:25 08/03/07 (0)
- RE: "They" are Them; haven't you seen the movie? nt - rick_m 13:10:05 08/02/07 (1)
- It's a wretched movie indeed, but highly informative. I'm with you on The Simpsons. In fact... - clarkjohnsen 07:20:48 08/03/07 (0)
- Actually, I don't see... - rick_m 11:33:23 08/01/07 (6)
- Question: Do the "speaker guys" ever tell us that they're selling phase incoherencers? - clarkjohnsen 11:41:59 08/01/07 (5)
- RE: Question: Do the "speaker guys" ever tell us that they're selling phase incoherencers? - rick_m 13:50:21 08/01/07 (4)
- What you say, was already well-known back in the Seventies and Eighties. - clarkjohnsen 08:43:08 08/02/07 (3)
- What WASN'T covered in 'The Wood Effect'? - rick_m 10:11:00 08/02/07 (2)
- Answer: What WAS, was anything and everything to do with polarity. - clarkjohnsen 10:34:21 08/02/07 (1)
- LOL!!!!! - unclestu52 15:02:22 09/16/07 (0)
- RE: Hatfield vs. McCoy - Posy Rorer 19:21:55 07/31/07 (17)
- A few observations on your observations - clarkjohnsen 10:10:22 08/01/07 (12)
- It is good to know - unclestu52 10:41:13 08/01/07 (11)
- RE: It is good to know - Posy Rorer 11:34:27 08/01/07 (10)
- RE: It is good to know - unclestu52 13:45:05 08/01/07 (9)
- RE: It is good to know - Posy Rorer 22:25:56 08/01/07 (8)
- The reason I tell him to "read the book" is because he claims to own it -- EXCEPT... - clarkjohnsen 09:00:01 08/02/07 (6)
- ex nihilo nihil fit - unclestu52 13:48:45 08/02/07 (5)
- aut concilio aut ense - Posy Rorer 22:57:11 08/02/07 (4)
- Yes; now you see what I mean. Good try, though, and thanks, but he's irredeemable. nt - clarkjohnsen 07:23:26 08/03/07 (2)
- The Clark sidestep.... - unclestu52 12:14:37 08/03/07 (0)
- Mind you, I added that before I had read his attempt at an indictment of me below. Lordy!! nt - clarkjohnsen 07:25:41 08/03/07 (0)
- My apologies for having - unclestu52 00:48:34 08/03/07 (0)
- Well, I am glad - unclestu52 22:38:26 08/01/07 (0)
- Did you know.... - unclestu52 19:51:37 07/31/07 (3)
- RE: Did you know.... - Posy Rorer 21:44:17 07/31/07 (2)
- "isn't the order of polarity locked into the recording?" No! - clarkjohnsen 11:35:43 08/01/07 (0)
- RE: Did you know.... - unclestu52 01:11:21 08/01/07 (0)
- Re Clark's Mathematical Model & The Mars Lunar Lander - unclestu52 22:19:43 07/30/07 (3)
- RE: Re Clark's Mathematical Model & The Mars Lunar Lander - Posy Rorer 00:31:26 07/31/07 (2)
- Lest this silliness continue... - clarkjohnsen 08:08:33 07/31/07 (1)
- Let's dance - unclestu52 13:54:09 07/31/07 (0)
- Re: "a degree in physics" - tlyyra 14:34:30 07/30/07 (0)
- You and Posy make quite a couple! - SF tech 11:17:50 07/30/07 (1)
- Naw, I think you & rlw make a much better couple. - Posy Rorer 21:51:56 07/30/07 (0)
- "Clark came up with it after many nights laboring over it, and I had to like -beg- him for it for days..." - SF tech 15:48:47 07/26/07 (7)
- Awww, whatsamatter, jr.? Did they kick you out of the PR Fan Club for attacking the less obsessive trolls? - Posy Rorer 23:56:27 07/26/07 (6)
- "I got a surprise waiting for you in my cabana...." -- Posy Rorer - SF tech 00:07:56 07/27/07 (5)
- "Are you human?" - SF Tech - Posy Rorer 06:23:17 07/27/07 (4)
- Witnessing your mental condition deteriorate is strangely fascinating... - SF tech 11:29:56 07/30/07 (3)
- LOL! Is anyone interested in taking up a collection to buy our "SF Tech" troll a sense of humour? - Posy Rorer 20:52:04 07/30/07 (2)
- LMAO! You *are* funny! - SF tech 22:59:46 07/30/07 (1)
- Gee, thanks. You are too. Never deliberately, alas. -nt - Posy Rorer 11:20:07 07/31/07 (0)