tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post2527689672070767944..comments2024-03-28T06:22:23.961-07:00Comments on CONTRARY BRIN: Space news: from supermassive black holes to asteroidsDavid Brinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14465315130418506525noreply@blogger.comBlogger117125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-91378765160944441882022-07-30T12:54:28.496-07:002022-07-30T12:54:28.496-07:00Newton is not ‘debunked’ but proved to be a Reduct...Newton is not ‘debunked’ but proved to be a Reduction Simplification of Einstein at small speeds. and modest gravity.<br /><br />Poul Anderson has tremendous empathy! He simply assumed that history shows humans are inherently feudalistic/romantic/ hierarchical beings. He was right! We are!<br /><br />And that is an evolutionary trap, like peacock tails and the antlers of the Irish Moose. I count it in the top ten Fermi explanations for why no one gets into space. We must try to find a way out of that trap and there is a way! It might not succeed. But it sure does work.<br /><br /><br />---<br /><br />Now onward<br /><br />onward<br /><br />onward<br /><br />David Brinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14465315130418506525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-48563349874267599292022-07-30T11:55:23.268-07:002022-07-30T11:55:23.268-07:00Tony,
I have no issues with pragmatism, but the e...Tony,<br /><br />I have no issues with pragmatism, but the explanatory layer Newton described is wrong in the same way that Ptolemy's geocentric cosmos is wrong. We can re-use the predictive layers to a point without danger, but holding too close to the explanatory ones leads to self-inflicted conceptual errors.<br /><br />For engineers and everyone else, though, pragmatism must be the rule of the day. I'm fine with that. I don't care if my car is relativistically foreshortened as I roll down the road... as long as it works.<br /><br />Larry,<br /><br />Imagine building a house from blueprints that you later learn were written by foolish people. You learn that when the house falls in on itself. From that experience you'll likely use different blueprints next time, but you'll still use hammers, saws, and all the other tools of carpentry on the next house.<br /><br />It's like that.<br /><br />A hammer will still pound a nail into a board no matter where. <br /><br />Turns out our toolset isn't all that large. We can do amazing things with the tools we have, but truly astonishing things happen most often when someone invents a new tool. That's what I worked on as a grad student. We were trying to improve upon a tool few used because they were used to pushing nails into boards using only rocks.<br /><br />Robert,<br /><br />I'll be back on this today. Family demands have my attention this morning… but I'll be back. (Use a good Schwarzenegger accent there).Alfred Differhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01170159981105973192noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-37143623900954225402022-07-30T11:20:53.666-07:002022-07-30T11:20:53.666-07:00Robert:
I suspect a large part of my drift to the...Robert:<br /><i><br />I suspect a large part of my drift to the left is seeing that economically-right-wing policies seem to be increasing the wealth of the few at the cost of impoverishing the many.<br /></i><br /><br />I'm thinking back on what I learned in high school history, almost (gulp!) 50 years ago. What you describe was apparently what happened during the gilded age in the very late nineteenth century. For awhile, the average man on the street was against labor unions and worker-friendly policies because he tended to believe in the Horatio Alger mythos--that some day, he'd be rich too. It was only when it became glaringly obvious that that transformation would never happen that labor <i>qua</i> labor picked up populist support. Larry Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01058877428309776731noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-17848501059283981642022-07-30T11:15:05.978-07:002022-07-30T11:15:05.978-07:00It might be a truism that one becomes more economi...<i> It might be a truism that one becomes more economically conservative with age, as one acquires more investment in the system</i><br /><br />When I started university you could earn enough during the summer to pay for your education. That wasn't really true by the time I graduated. That's even less true now. I suspect a large part of my drift to the left is seeing that economically-right-wing policies seem to be increasing the wealth of the few at the cost of impoverishing the many.Roberthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04909011338723657265noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-41629359039790437262022-07-30T08:34:02.249-07:002022-07-30T08:34:02.249-07:00Alfred Differ:
Classical theories enable you to p...Alfred Differ:<br /><i><br />Classical theories enable you to ponder a thing having a property (a stick has a length) independent of how it is measured. Quantum theories don't tolerate that. Show me, show me, show me.<br /></i><br /><br />So if I drop a hammer on a planet with a positive gravity, I do in fact have to see it hit the ground to know that it has in fact fallen.Larry Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01058877428309776731noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-73825488316301825052022-07-30T07:27:55.296-07:002022-07-30T07:27:55.296-07:00Robert:
defying conventional wisdom that we move ...Robert:<br /><i><br />defying conventional wisdom that we move to the right as we age<br /></i><br /><br />I've been doing that myself. In my 20s, I was considered the conservative of my college social group. Both my brother and my then-girlfriend were flaming lefties, and I considered myself the voice of reason, often mentioning that the Reagan/Bush Republicans weren't always wrong about everything.<br /><br />By the time I was in my 50s, a decade back, I was at the point in my sometimes-friendly, sometimes-not correspondence with Dave Sim, he considered me to be the secret leader of the feminist/homosexualist axis which he opposed.<br /><br />But this phenomenon is not as unusual as it is portrayed. While my late father did become more right-wing (and crotchety) in his old age, my mother became much more tolerant of departures from the norm as she grew older. <br /><br />It might be a truism that one becomes more <b>economically</b> conservative with age, as one acquires more investment in the system, but today's right wing is not about economics. It's about bullying. And on the spectrum of bullying vs sympathy, I think that age tends to simply make us more and more like ourselves.Larry Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01058877428309776731noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-27970791631752958252022-07-30T06:28:03.317-07:002022-07-30T06:28:03.317-07:00I find it interesting that David described Anderso...<i> I find it interesting that David described Anderson, a writer with one of the best grasps of 'otherness' I have ever read, as having political views to the right. The two are not commonly found together. At least, not these days.</i><br /><br />I think this points out a problem with the idea of a single left-right spectrum, which tries to summarize someone's position on a bunch of different issues into a single value that apples to all issue.<br /><br />The political compass adds a social axis (authoritarian/libertarian) to the classic economic one, which is more useful.<br /><br />https://www.politicalcompass.org/analysis2<br /><br />(In the interest of disclosure, I currently sit at -7.5 on both scales. I've been taking the test for nearly two decades, and gradually creeping more left/libertarian every year — defying conventional wisdom that we move to the right as we age.)Roberthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04909011338723657265noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-10823857205420239212022-07-30T05:48:29.754-07:002022-07-30T05:48:29.754-07:00Show me how you would measure it and we can talk a...<i> Show me how you would measure it and we can talk about digits of precision.</i><br /><br />The original example wasn't light but a sound. We were shown a graph showing displacement of a particle over time and played a sound supposedly matching the graph. (Which was more confusing, because the sounds <i>didn't</i> match the graphs — the pure tone was actually the two-frequency dial tone!) Then asked about which sound had a more uncertain duration. <br /><br />No mention was made about how the graph of a particle's displacement would be obtained. My initial answer was that the short 'chirp' had more uncertainty because it had shallower attack/decay and so it would be harder to decide exactly when it started/ended. So then the physicist throw out the Fourier transform and basically said that the wider spread of frequencies in the longer tone meant that it had more uncertainty, and that's where he lost me. Some back-and-forth later I drew two square pulses to eliminate any differences in attack/decay and he said that the math applied to all waves of any shape and he wished he had a whiteboard to write some equations and we were out of time.<br /><br />I doubt the equations would have helped because I was (and still am) unclear on what he meant by uncertainty.<br /><br /><br />So back to the original situation. I have a tone generator on one side of the room. I play a 0.1 s tone. Then I play a 1.0 s tone. Then I play a 10.0 s tone. I detect them with my ear, or a microphone, on the other side of the room. I can hook the microphone up to an oscilloscope to see the waves, if I want to more precisely measure the duration. The sound waves have crossed the room. It's anechoic so what I detect is only from the tone generator.<br /><br />Why does a physicist say the longer tones have more uncertainty than the shorter ones? I am measuring them with the same equipment, which has the same measurement error each time.<br /><br />At the moment I have two tentative guesses. (1) He was using "uncertainty" differently to how I understand it from engineering. (2) He was attempting an analogy to a quantum problem and I missed that by taking the analogy literally and he missed that I was taking it literally and so we talked past each other. (Not the first time that's happened!)<br /><br />Could this uncertainty be like de Broglie wavelength in that scale is important, and I'm obsessing about differentiating the wavelengths of an elephant and a rhino?<br /><br /><br />I really wish I had the slides he used, so I could show you. I can't shake a gut feeling that I missed a key point and have been haring off on a tangent.Roberthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04909011338723657265noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-42793884705686610662022-07-30T05:39:25.133-07:002022-07-30T05:39:25.133-07:00The word 'model' is tricky. There are dedu...The word 'model' is tricky. There are deductive models built on evidence and reason (inference) (eg Laplacian nebular hypothesis). Then there are inductive models built on interacting, usually artificial, agents (eg computational psychohistory). Then there are fashion models built on illusion. The most important concept in all three is 'measurement'.scidatahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07152319593457629592noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-57082296891529780472022-07-30T05:34:43.212-07:002022-07-30T05:34:43.212-07:00I find it interesting that David described Anderso...I find it interesting that David described Anderson, a writer with one of the best grasps of 'otherness' I have ever read, as having political views to the right. The two are not commonly found together. At least, not these days.Tony Fiskhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14578160528746657971noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-65065832303728806782022-07-30T05:29:34.397-07:002022-07-30T05:29:34.397-07:00Alfred Differ:
Newton's predictive module is ...Alfred Differ:<br /><i><br />Newton's predictive module is still in use in the model that took over. It HAS to be the case that it should be used… because it works at slow speeds. They tweaked it by making time a direction in the geometric fabric and went right back to F=ma but with four instead of three dimensions.<br /></i><br /><br />With all due respect to someone who knows this stuff better than I do, "tweaked" and "It HAS to be the case that it should be used" doesn't sound like "thoroughly debunked" to my ear.<br /><br />Not in the same way that "Thunder is the sound of the gods bowling" has been thoroughly debunked anyway.Larry Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01058877428309776731noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-77337845421788050722022-07-30T04:45:29.857-07:002022-07-30T04:45:29.857-07:00Pragmatism, Alfred. Models never claim to be the ...Pragmatism, Alfred. Models never claim to be the truth, just a close enough approximation to it given the starting assumptions. <br />Classical physics is good enough for most instances, and much easier to calculate with. We know its limits, and we know that other theories tend to it within those limits.<br />It isn't wrong.Tony Fiskhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14578160528746657971noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-6298047569083530562022-07-29T21:44:16.802-07:002022-07-29T21:44:16.802-07:00Robert,
It exists between 2.0 m and 3.0 m, just a...Robert,<br /><br /><i>It exists between 2.0 m and 3.0 m, just as the short pulse exists between 1.0 and 1.1 m (for an instant, anyway).</i><br /><br />No. It doesn't. Your model says it does, but you have no evidence that it does.<br /><br />THAT's the fundamental distinction quantum theories have relative to classical theories.<br /><br />"Thou musn't model what can't be observed."<br /><br /><br />"Where is the pulse?" must be answered with an experiment that can show it.<br /><br />——<br /><br />Uncertainty taught to engineers is about precision of measurement. How long is that beam? How many digits of precision are you allowed to use? It all depends on the measurement technique, right? <br /><br />Well… same things applies to the beam of light. How long is it? Show me how you would measure it and we can talk about digits of precision. Don't try too hard, though, because "How long is it?" is a trick question. You don't have a way to measure it… without changing it. Do that and you'll face the next question. Was it that way before you measured? There is no way to answer that one with a measurement either.<br /><br />Classical theories enable you to ponder a thing having a property (a stick has a length) independent of how it is measured. Quantum theories don't tolerate that. Show me, show me, show me.<br /><br /><br />The map is not the terrain unless you want to stick to classical theories of the universe.<br />They don't work (ALL of them) unless you want to give up something precious like 'locality'. <br />Do that and you open the door to time travel.<br /><br />——<br /><br />The Physics Community has two giant meta-theories that are still standing. One speaks about the geometry of the universe. The other speaks about the illusion we craft by modeling things we can't possibly measure. Both speak about what theoreticians MUST NOT DO.Alfred Differhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01170159981105973192noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-72183938102826093162022-07-29T21:26:05.559-07:002022-07-29T21:26:05.559-07:00Newton was quite thoroughly debunked. The fact tha...Newton was quite thoroughly debunked. The fact that we kept some of what he created says more about how humans work than it does about how his concepts succeeded.<br /><br />Physical theories come in two modules and a bunch of submodules. At the highest level we distinguish between the mathematical model that enables us to make predictions (predictive model) and the hows and whys that give meaning to the equations (explanatory model). What usually falls to the next generation is the explanatory model because some prediction failed.<br /><br />Most of our theories re-use physical models with a few tweaks. Truth is we don't actually have all that many physical "models" in use. Most of the ones we can image lead to impossibilities when it comes time to compute things. Even the ones we use lead to chaos in many settings, so we don't have a lot of choices. <br /><br />For a rough count, consider the partial differential equations (PDE's) we have named. Like Adam naming the beasts, we've named a few of these critters and studied them. The better understood ones show up in prediction models. Over and over and over. Just add a twist of lemon. For example, the heat diffusion PDE taught to engineers is re-used in the Black-Scholes model for options pricing. The citric bite comes from the stochastic variable tossed into the mix. It's used in your first quantum mechanics class. Add a dash of complex numbers.<br /><br />Newton's work depended on a second order Dif Eq. That's what F=ma is. That's inherent in the predictive layer.<br /><br />Newton's work also depended on an understanding of the geometry of the cosmos. Without that the position variables on which you take time derivatives don't mean anything. He reasonably assumed time wasn't geometric. It was just a scalar thing like a parameter one uses to mark motion in a Euclidian cosmos.<br /><br />Together, these two modules made for a very powerful predictive theory. SO powerful it shocked. It connected the Heavens and Earth when it correctly showed how the Moon was actually falling. It 'explained' cometary paths. It PREDICTED Neptune's existence by showing two possible options when predictions failed regarding orbits of outer planets. We could accept that Newton wasn't right out there… or there was another planet. Ah ha! A Test! Turns out Neptune was there.<br /><br />The explanatory module finally crashed, though, when electromagnetism was developed. They could possibly both be correct. E&M had different assumptions built in as to the geometry of the cosmos. Turns out E&M was more correct than Newton's version of the cosmos. (Students who don't get a chance to dig into this stuff don't realize just how astonishing that is. Studying currents and magnets and their relationship to light lead us to learn about the geometry of the universe.)<br /><br />Newton's predictive module is still in use in the model that took over. It HAS to be the case that it should be used… because it works at slow speeds. They tweaked it by making time a direction in the geometric fabric and went right back to F=ma but with four instead of three dimensions. You have to be a little careful about what you mean by a time derivative, but it's not too hard to pick up if your teacher draws the geometry for you first time through.Alfred Differhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01170159981105973192noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-4280833896909623112022-07-29T19:47:32.112-07:002022-07-29T19:47:32.112-07:00In Jack Williamson's TRIAL OF TERRA A pan gala...In Jack Williamson's TRIAL OF TERRA A pan galactic human civilization deems our Earth a primitive backwater condemned for a Vogon-style demolition, till they learn an early Saharan tribe escaped from Earth and started to expansion20,000 y.a.... without possessing even the wheel, but having discovered antigravity, instead.David Brinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14465315130418506525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-91856337950989870462022-07-29T19:17:41.096-07:002022-07-29T19:17:41.096-07:00scidata:
Too much research req'd though, so I...scidata:<br /><i><br />Too much research req'd though, so I dropped it. I'm very impressed by hard SF writers like OGH.<br /></i><br /><br />Likewise. I've indulged in amateur writing myself, but I write linearly. I start a story with a general idea of where it will end up, but I approach the intervening chapters as if I'm a reader. I don't reveal a lot of the surprises to myself until I have to. :)<br /><br />My disappointment with <i>Return of the Jedi</i> had to do with the feeling that I could have written a better finale to the series than the movie. But, like you, I am grateful for writers who can produce something with complexity that I couldn't possibly do myself, like <i>The Postman</i> or <i>Earth</i>.<br /><br />I even remember the first time I came to that realization. I was 16 when my parents took the family to see the play <i>Deathtrap</i>, a murder mystery play about a playwright whose fictitious play that he is writing is precisely the play that we, the audience, is watching on stage. The recursiveness is beautiful and flawless. And though "The Simpsons" would be more than a decade in the future, the thought I had was very much like, "I couldn't write something like that if I lived to be a million." But I'm willing to pay someone who can.Larry Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01058877428309776731noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-18392835033445227612022-07-29T19:05:53.593-07:002022-07-29T19:05:53.593-07:00Robert:
Newton explains gravitational acceleratio...Robert:<br /><i><br />Newton explains gravitational acceleration as being caused by a force. Better (ie. more predictive) explanations involve the curvature of space, or the exchange of gravitons. <br /></i><br /><br />Ok, I was thinking more of the accuracy of <i>f = ma</i> or conservation of momentum than I was for the metaphysical explanations of <i>why</i> reality works the way it does.<br /><br /><i><br />His theories give the same results for terrestrial conditions, but are they still correct because of that?<br /></i><br /><br />I guess it depends what is meant by "correct". If I just want to predict results, I'm ok with a theory that gives the correct answers (under specific conditions). That doesn't make it "correct" in the sense of explaining what is really going on. But the difference between gravity being a force and being something that works so much like a force that (under specific conditions) you can't tell the difference seems to me like so much splitting of hairs.Larry Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01058877428309776731noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-18908798831848627552022-07-29T18:50:06.446-07:002022-07-29T18:50:06.446-07:00Newton wasn't "debunked" in the sens...<i> Newton wasn't "debunked" in the sense of being proven wrong. His theories were shown to only apply to a subset of conditions</i><br /><br />Were they, though? Newton explains gravitational acceleration as being caused by a force. Better (ie. more predictive) explanations involve the curvature of space, or the exchange of gravitons. His theories give the same results for terrestrial conditions, but are they still correct because of that?<br /><br />I would view it more as his model works for a wide range of conditions, so we can keep using it because it's simpler. It's like how we model a projectile as travelling a parabolic trajectory with gravity only acting down — it's not completely true, but it's close enough for most practical purposes and it's a lot easier to understand. <br /><br /><br />One of my friends once wrote one of his university exams using only the luminiferous ether to solve problems. He challenged his failing grade, on the grounds that nothing taken in that class (or its prerequisites) actually disproved that theory, and so in a proper science course it should be an acceptable explanation (or something like that, it's been years since I heard the story). He won his appeal.Roberthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04909011338723657265noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-73855997162425502122022-07-29T18:36:07.649-07:002022-07-29T18:36:07.649-07:00We're gonna have to disagree whether you have ...<i> We're gonna have to disagree whether you have hurriedly shifted your stance</i><br /><br />You'll have to take my word that my stance hasn't shifted. I'm a stubborn bastard and it takes more than a few words on the internet to make me change my mind. I'm not a good writer, so I'll cop to explaining myself poorly, especially when trying to be brief.<br /><br /><br /><i>you have never once addressed my question of where YOU got those historically anomalous values.</i><br /><br />I gave you my sources, at least the ones that loom largest in my memory. I'm a little astounded to realize just how many I learned from my father and grandfather, actually. (Both English, as am I.) Can no longer ask them where they got them, sadly. Roberthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04909011338723657265noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-69813934521554936712022-07-29T18:12:36.491-07:002022-07-29T18:12:36.491-07:00Imagine that long pulse. Now... where is it? Point...<i>Imagine that long pulse. Now... where is it? Point to it. You'll point in many directions and I'll say "There?". You'll say "All of there."</i><br /><br />It exists between 2.0 m and 3.0 m, just as the short pulse exists between 1.0 and 1.1 m (for an instant, anyway). I deliberately gave both pulses start/stop positions to the same accuracy. Given that neither pulse is a point (i.e. both have a length/duration) why do we describe the larger pulse as more uncertain? Surely the uncertainty is the same: each pulse's start/stop is given to the closest 0.1 m? Indeed, in percentage terms doesn't the larger pulse have less uncertainty, because the 'fuzzy' edges are a smaller fraction of its total length?<br /><br />I'm beginning to wonder if the term 'uncertainty' has a different meaning here to the one I learned in engineering. Is that the case?Roberthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04909011338723657265noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-4595752461936836972022-07-29T17:16:59.960-07:002022-07-29T17:16:59.960-07:00Larry Hart: You're hoping for some ancient scr...Larry Hart: <i>You're hoping for some ancient scroll or tablet written in FORTH?</i><br /><br />You jest, but I started a short story years ago about a paleolithic tribe that used pebbles laid out in stacks on the ground for calculation. Forth in 50,000 BC using a proto-abacus. Too much research req'd though, so I dropped it. I'm very impressed by hard SF writers like OGH.scidatahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07152319593457629592noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-81359926245593161182022-07-29T17:02:47.674-07:002022-07-29T17:02:47.674-07:00scidata:
A second ancient computer (or a whole bo...scidata:<br /><i><br />A second ancient computer (or a whole box of 'em) would be a stunning breakthrough.<br /></i><br /><br />You're hoping for some ancient scroll or tablet written in FORTH?Larry Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01058877428309776731noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-49378635378290723522022-07-29T17:01:29.516-07:002022-07-29T17:01:29.516-07:00Alfred Differ:
I'd side with your teacher. 8)...Alfred Differ:<br /><i><br />I'd side with your teacher. 8)<br /><br />It's important to understand why a model fails, so we must study them to ground our hubris.<br /></i><br /><br />I don't disagree with that, but...<br /><br /><i><br />None of that would have happened if Newton hadn't been debunked, but studying HOW that happened shows which part of Newton's model we changed. We actually kept most of it.<br /></i><br /><br />That last sentence is key. Newton wasn't "debunked" in the sense of being proven wrong. His theories were shown to only apply to a subset of conditions, and conditions that we take for granted in most of our experience. It's like the idea that the acceleration of gravity is 9.8 meters per second squared. Ok, that's not true everywhere--just in the range of altitudes that most humans spend most of their lives.<br /><br />That's not quite "debunking" in the same way that there is no such element as phlogiston.<br /><br />In any case, we're discussing this as older and wise men. When I was 17 or so in high school, hearing "This theory is obsolete," sounded an awful lot like "This won't be on the test."Larry Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01058877428309776731noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-67744301019564560722022-07-29T16:56:11.262-07:002022-07-29T16:56:11.262-07:00Re: failed scientific theories
I'm digging aro...Re: failed scientific theories<br />I'm digging around for info on the new Heracleion wreck. Specifically, whether it's 'rich' enough to hope for another Antikythera mechanism (it certainly doesn't look like a simple grocery run). A second ancient computer (or a whole box of 'em) would be a stunning breakthrough. Ptolemy would have some 'splainin to do.scidatahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07152319593457629592noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-84757840257579381452022-07-29T16:39:30.251-07:002022-07-29T16:39:30.251-07:00Larry,
I'd side with your teacher. 8)
It'...Larry,<br /><br />I'd side with your teacher. 8)<br /><br />It's important to understand why a model fails, so we must study them to ground our hubris.<br /><br />A wonderful example comes up during elections. Trickle Down. It's been shown it doesn't work a few times. It's been shown to be an intentional fraud too. Yet... people still believe it works. All it needs is for people to not be cheaters.<br /><br />Lots of other examples too. Rent Control and other price freezes as ways to ensure the poorest among us have access to what they need. Doesn't work. <br /><br /><br />Science theories are easier to disprove only because we agree on what constitutes falsification, but our host has a decent way to address that in other fields with challenges. <br /><br />1. Show me a single example of "X".<br />2. Bet me on that!<br />...and others.<br /><br />Studying HOW a concept failed to survive falsification teaches us meta-theories. For example, Special Relativity is really a meta-theory. It speaks to how other theories of physics must make certain assumptions about the geometry of space and time. General Relativity makes use of that and assigns a physical role to geometry. None of that would have happened if Newton hadn't been debunked, but studying HOW that happened shows which part of Newton's model we changed. We actually kept most of it.Alfred Differhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01170159981105973192noreply@blogger.com