Compelling evidence for in vacuo light speed anisotrophy
in [Relativity]
|
From: Edward Green on 8 Apr 2008 12:31 On Apr 8, 9:07 am, Surfer <n...(a)spam.please.net> wrote: > If the data is correct and his predictions match the data, how could > he be wrong? As a proposition in logic, that is false: in general we can be wrong even if we sometimes predict things that are right.
From: Edward Green on 8 Apr 2008 12:36 On Apr 8, 11:02 am, Surfer <n...(a)spam.please.net> wrote: > On Tue, 8 Apr 2008 07:21:27 -0700 (PDT), Dono <sa...(a)comcast.net> > wrote: > > > > >1. The paper By Anderson makes no claim to light speed anisotropy as > >explanation of the anomalous changes. > > Correct. But it provides data that can be interpreted in two ways: > > 1) In accordance with the orthodox interpretation of SR. In which case > anomalies emerge in the analysis. > > 2) In accordance with Cahill's interpretation of SR. In which case no > anomalies emerge. (That would seem to me to be a good thing.) That's a good analysis and an old one. Most anomalies simply point to unaccounted effects in existing theory. Some point to new theory. I have no opinion on the probabilities in this case. A key point would be whether the "prediction" of the anomalies was inevitable in detail from the new theory, or left room for tweaking.
From: Dirk Van de moortel on 8 Apr 2008 12:36 Edward Green <spamspamspam3(a)netzero.com> wrote in message 70eae33b-3be2-453b-89b1-cf97970f1c25(a)a70g2000hsh.googlegroups.com > On Apr 8, 9:07 am, Surfer <n...(a)spam.please.net> wrote: > >> If the data is correct and his predictions match the data, how could >> he be wrong? > > As a proposition in logic, that is false: in general we can be wrong > even if we sometimes predict things that are right. I predicted once that Reg Cahill, when he was exposed as posting with the name "Peter", would soon return with another alias. He did. You are talking to the embodiment of my prediction. Dirk Vdm
From: Edward Green on 8 Apr 2008 12:43 On Apr 8, 12:36 pm, "Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvandemoor...(a)ThankS-NO- SperM.hotmail.com> wrote: > Edward Green <spamspamsp...(a)netzero.com> wrote in message > > 70eae33b-3be2-453b-89b1-cf97970f1...(a)a70g2000hsh.googlegroups.com > > > On Apr 8, 9:07 am, Surfer <n...(a)spam.please.net> wrote: > > >> If the data is correct and his predictions match the data, how could > >> he be wrong? > > > As a proposition in logic, that is false: in general we can be wrong > > even if we sometimes predict things that are right. > > I predicted once that Reg Cahill, when he was exposed as posting > with the name "Peter", would soon return with another alias. > He did. You are talking to the embodiment of my prediction. I said "in general". If the prediction is that the sky is blue, and the sky is blue, we cannot be wrong. If the prediction is that the sky of blue because Thor stole all the red, then we may be wrong... In general, the obvious makes the best pedantry. :-)
From: Dirk Van de moortel on 8 Apr 2008 13:11
Edward Green <spamspamspam3(a)netzero.com> wrote in message b0bc3ac3-0f82-405d-bf52-7c5ec67b6d81(a)a1g2000hsb.googlegroups.com > On Apr 8, 12:36 pm, "Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvandemoor...(a)ThankS-NO- > SperM.hotmail.com> wrote: >> Edward Green <spamspamsp...(a)netzero.com> wrote in message >> >> 70eae33b-3be2-453b-89b1-cf97970f1...(a)a70g2000hsh.googlegroups.com >> >>> On Apr 8, 9:07 am, Surfer <n...(a)spam.please.net> wrote: >> >>>> If the data is correct and his predictions match the data, how could >>>> he be wrong? >> >>> As a proposition in logic, that is false: in general we can be wrong >>> even if we sometimes predict things that are right. >> >> I predicted once that Reg Cahill, when he was exposed as posting >> with the name "Peter", would soon return with another alias. >> He did. You are talking to the embodiment of my prediction. > > I said "in general". If the prediction is that the sky is blue, and > the sky is blue, we cannot be wrong. If the prediction is that the > sky of blue because Thor stole all the red, then we may be wrong... > > In general, the obvious makes the best pedantry. :-) Oh yes :-) Dirk Vdm |