A bunch of ranting - split from Challenging Science - split from The Selfish Gene Theory

[beecee]

6 hours ago, beecee said:

No, wrong again Reggy...I'm suggesting nothing. I'm stating a fact that the orbits of the planets, [other then the precession of Mercury which is explained by GR] were in line with Newtonian mechanics, and that when an "apparent pseudo anomaly" with the orbit of Uranus was found, physicists correctly again applied Newtonian and predicted this "pseudo anomaly"was not an anomaly at all that strayed from Newtonian, but simply a further vindication of Newtonian by predicting another planet, Neptune. That's the way history records it, that's the way science views it, and that's why you are still wrong in your faulty hypothetical suggestion......And of course the facts as I have presented them is supported by reputable summaries in at least three...or is it four links.

The totallity of what I said above. Obviously Reggy your desperation is evident in how you took what I said out of context below.

18 minutes ago, Reg Prescott said:

What Beecee has been suggesting is that the existence of Neptune, prior to its discovery, was somehow already in the data -- just waiting for someone to come along and find it, so to speak.  - me

"No, wrong again Reggy...I'm suggesting nothing". - Beecee

(about 7 posts above)

 

7 minutes ago, Reg Prescott said:

Well, Beecee, let's be explicit.

Is it your belief that the existence of Neptune was already "in the data"? Or was a hypothesis brought to the data?

At best you once again misinterpreted, at worst you lied. The evidence of what I said is in many posts throughout this thread and reproduced in this post..

Edited October 12, 2018 by beecee

[swansont]

4 minutes ago, Reg Prescott said:

Well, Beecee, let's be explicit.

Is it your belief that the existence of Neptune was already "in the data"? Or was a hypothesis brought to the data?

This only matters if your idea of the scientific method is true. But as it's a strawman, it doesn't matter. There is no one scientific method, so there is no need to pick.

Neutrinos were predicted, based on observations of beta decays that appeared to violate conservation of energy and momentum, based on the particles that were observed. Later, they were detected, because the information available allowed one to predict what properties they should have. In many aspects, this is what happened with Neptune. Sometimes theory leads and experiment follows, and sometimes it's the other way around. 

[beecee]

23 minutes ago, swansont said:

This only matters if your idea of the scientific method is true. But as it's a strawman, it doesn't matter. There is no one scientific method, so there is no need to pick.

Neutrinos were predicted, based on observations of beta decays that appeared to violate conservation of energy and momentum, based on the particles that were observed. Later, they were detected, because the information available allowed one to predict what properties they should have. In many aspects, this is what happened with Neptune. Sometimes theory leads and experiment follows, and sometimes it's the other way around. 

Hi swansont. I can see this has got somewhat confusing due to what I now believe to be  deliberate misinterpretations and lies. In essence what I have said now many times in different ways to attempt to get the message across, along with supporting links, is that when the anomaly in Uranus' orbit was found, it was by using Newtonian and Keplarian data. The planet Neptune was unknown at that time, but this pseudo anomaly led astronomers again using Newtonian mechanics, that a planet existed further out which explained that pseudo anomaly. This was predicted by Newtonian before it was observed.

At this time with the tooing and froing, denying and false accusations, I'm not sure where Reg stands, other then his apparent opinion that the discovery of Neptune had nothing to do with Newtonian maths and mechanics. In that I say he is emphatically wrong.

Edited October 12, 2018 by beecee

[studiot]

10 hours ago, Reg Prescott said:

@ Studiot -- You continue to lament my neglect of your posts. In the short time I've been here, you have repeatedly been abusive and condescending -- just like almost everyone else here (the usual suspects, as Rob describes them). See my thread on "The Scientific Method", for example, which also, thanks largely to your own efforts, is now locked. That's the reason I don't feel particularly inclined to engage.

Your question in the locked thread was completely answered and has your question in this one.

So perhaps it is time to wrap this one up as well.

[Reg Prescott]

12 minutes ago, swansont said:

This only matters if your idea of the scientific method is true. But as it's a strawman, it doesn't matter. There is no one scientific method, so there is no need to pick.

Neutrinos were predicted, based on observations of beta decays that appeared to violate conservation of energy and momentum, based on the particles that were observed. Later, they were detected, because the information available allowed one to predict what properties they should have. In many aspects, this is what happened with Neptune. Sometimes theory leads and experiment follows, and sometimes it's the other way around. 

 Right now we're discussing one particular discovery (Neptune) and how it came about; not a general "method" of science. As you know, my position is that there is no such thing. 

Re neutrinos: as with the discovery of Neptune, the neutrino hypothesis, if I understand correctly, was constructed in order to account for recalcitrant data. Perhaps other hypotheses were suggested, too, in order to account for the same data. You would know better than me. Isn't it the case that it was also suggested that the principle of conservation of energy of momentum may have to be given up in order to account for the same data? In which case, if your claim is that QM predicted the existence of the neutrino, to be consistent, you'd also have to claim that QM predicted the falsity of the aforementioned principle.

The existence of neutrinos was not, indeed could not be, derived from the data. Same as the existence of Neptune. And now that you guys have found them (right?), our ontology has expanded by one.

Now, you might want to claim that Pauli predicted the existence of the neutrino, much as Beecee can claim that Le Verrier predicted the existence of Neptune. To this I have no objection. In neither case, however, were they predictions of the theory, in any sense of "prediction" that I understand.

[beecee]

15 minutes ago, Reg Prescott said:

Of course you were allowed. The existence of the eighth planet, however, was not derived from the theory, in conjunction with the usual auxiliaries and background assumptions, of course.

The background assumption was that there were seven planets.

An eighth was hypothesized. And hey presto!

 Bingo!!!! At last!!! Hypothesised and predicted and found by Newtonian, just as gravitational waves were hypothesised, predicted and finally found by GR!!!!

 

Good night my beauty sleep time!

[Reg Prescott]

13 minutes ago, swansont said:

You claimed "could not have appeared in any background assumption or auxiliary hypothesis " and yet here we have this as a background assumption, leading to the prediction and discovery.

 Yes, that's what I claimed.

No, the eighth planet was not a background assumption. The background assumption was that seven planets existed.

That was subsequently adjusted to eight.

 

I gotta go for now.....

[beecee]

1 minute ago, Reg Prescott said:

 Yes, that's what I claimed.

No, the eighth planet was not a background assumption. The background assumption was that seven planets existed.

That was subsequently adjusted to eight.

No, seven planets were observed along with an apparent anomaly with Uranus because we could not see the eighth planet as predicted by Newtonian......then someone plugged in the numbers according to Newtonian, and predicted Neptune the eighth...and then voila!!! we actually saw it and once again Newtonian was validated. 

[Reg Prescott]

29 minutes ago, swansont said:

And yet, that's [neutrinos were derived from the data] what happened. Your hypothesis does not match with history. Ergo, it is false.

Well, as I requested of Beecee earlier, show me your derivation.

[Strange]

6 minutes ago, beecee said:

No, seven planets were observed along with an apparent anomaly with Uranus because we could not see the eighth planet as predicted by Newtonian......then someone plugged in the numbers according to Newtonian, and predicted Neptune the eighth...and then voila!!! we actually saw it and once again Newtonian was validated. 

Neptune: The original dark matter