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

[studiot]

51 minutes ago, Rob McEachern said:

When you attempt to "measure something else", that your theory suggests exists, but that does not in fact actually exist in nature, then your theory "offers little" (though a little may nevertheless be a lot better than nothing)

Well I am sorry, Rob, that you have been put to producing such a long screed on a false assumption.

That is not a correct or literal rephrasing of what I actually said.

However I must take some blame for your misreading as I see from your extracted quote that I was not clear enough and I apologise for that.

 

I did not say that anyone deliberately attempted to measure something other than what they set out to measure.

What I did say, rather unclearly, was that if the results of their measurement did not accord with their prediction it might be as a result of faulty measurement for some reason.Then I gave a couple of possible reasons, known to have occurred in practice.

Of course this in no way precludes the possibility that there was actually nothing wrong with the mesurement, it was the theory (Feynman's guess) that was faulty.

 

IOW I was pointing out that Feynman was tacityly assumeing an experiment that was not faulty, in say it was 'right'.

 

I have already offered my 'brick' experiment as an example for discussion.

 

This has the merits of being much better defined than ramblings on the fringes of Science, even if it is less sexy.

[beecee]

34 minutes ago, Rob McEachern said:

On Challenging Science, particularly Physics, You have my sympathy Reg.

Perhaps before your sympathy for the poor underdog, you would do well to research all that our friend Reg has claimed, both here and elsewhere.

 

Quote

But nowadays, as Hawking's quote indicates, more and more theoretical physicists have come to actually believe that the "beauty of math" alone justifies all their beliefs, in their favorite conclusions, deduced from their favorite "self evident" assumptions, and experimental evidence is neither necessary nor desired, to sustain their beliefs, anymore than for those believing in the "beauty of god."  Because, “Hey, my conclusion really does follow from my premise! So it must be valid!” The possibility that the math just might, with absolute perfection "describe something else", a different premise, other than what the prevailing wisdom/dogma has supposed (the possibility suggested by the older generation of acclaimed physicists, like Einstein), has been summarily dismissed, as an "unnecessary hypothesis", by the lesser-lights in today's constellation of "best-selling" physicists. Laplace would roll over in his grave.

Again, like Reg, I'm not sure what you are trying to say. If you disagree with what mainstream physics has generally deemed correct, the opportunity is always open for you, Reg or any other young up and comer, to falsify whatever incumbent theory you are trying to falsify. And as you go about preparing a case summary to criticise or falsify some part of accepted mainstream, remember that all those theories that you are trying to invalidate, criticise or falsify, also at one time needed to run the gauntlet so to speak....as will whatever version/interpretation that you or Reg prefer. Or are you like Reg, simply practising some philosophical aspect of interpretation for the sake of being contrary just for the sake of it. Is Newtonian mechanics correct when applied within its zone of applicability? Is GR simply less wrong then Newtonian? Or more accurate then Newtonian? Are they just approximations that give answers that satisfy our needs and endeavours? Yes to all of them is my answer without any need for some abstract philosophical take by anyone that simply chooses to be contrary.

Quote

As the old saying goes, the race does not always go to the swift and the strong, but that is the way to bet. I’m betting on Einstein’s conception of the universe, not Brian Green’s, or Stephen Hawking’s, however elegant they may be. Dubious premises result in dubious conclusions, regardless of their beauty.

 Einstein as notable as he was, was also humble enough to admit when he was mistaken. Einstein also had views on the conception of the universe that he mentioned on more then one occasion, that aligned roughly with Spinoza. Again since I hate long posts that virtually say nothing, something Reg is adept at, and apparently yourself. in a few words, as few as possible, please explain to me why you believe Reg needs any sympathy. In my view I would hasten to add that Reg would be tickled pink to at last find someone who agrees with his rather confusing contrary view on science in general. But hey! I'm only a lay person so I'll leave you to ponder on a lay person's thoughts.

I once came upon a quote and for the life of me I can't find the bloody thing now...it goes like this, "I don't refuse to eat and drink, just because I don't know the process of digestion"

 

Bingo!  found it!!!!

Shall I refuse my dinner because I do not fully understand the process of digestion?

Oliver Heaviside (1850-1925) English physicist.

[Rob McEachern]

37 minutes ago, beecee said:

If you disagree with what mainstream physics has generally deemed correct, the opportunity is always open for you, Reg or any other young up and comer, to falsify whatever incumbent theory you are trying to falsify.

I already have. See below. By the way I am not so young anymore either; Been there, done that.

 

58 minutes ago, studiot said:

This has the merits of being much better defined than ramblings on the fringes of Science

No ramblings are involved. I previously provided links to both a "much better defined", line-by-line computer demonstration, together with a paper that describes it, that falsifies Bell's claim and all the existing claims for "loop-hole free" Bell tests (by actually constructing classical entities, that falsify the most fundamental, unrecognized assumption of all, namely that there is "something else to measure" after the first measurement has been completed). Anyone can reproduce the result on their own computer. It has been publicly available for two years, been reproduced by others, and no one of the over 1000 different people that have downloaded the demonstration to date, has been willing to publicly declare that they have found any error it. When I challenged some of the usual suspects here to attempt to do so, they all went silent - see the last post in the thread "Is there any reason this Quantum Telegraph couldn’t work?"; they would rather shut up than calculate, when it means their dogma is being falsified.

That is one of the major problems with physics today, everyone says "put or or shut up" and then, when someone actually does "put up", very few are willing to ever admit that they cannot find a flaw in the argument; for fear of "losing face" if someone smarter than they, eventually comes along and finds the flaw, making them look dumb. So everyone just sits on the fence, hoping someone smarter themselves will come along and save them and their dogma. If you think you are that person, then hit me with with best shot. But don't give me any more "ramblings on the fringe of Science": State exactly were some problem lies within the computer demonstration, after you have downloaded it and run it, and actually thought about what you are witnessing. Put up or shut up. I'm calling your bluff.

 

[studiot]

2 minutes ago, Rob McEachern said:

No ramblings are involved.

But you still misread my statement and all else that you posted was based on this misreading so is therefore void.

[Rob McEachern]

1 minute ago, studiot said:

all else that you posted was based on this misreading so is therefore void

Ideal rambling. Prove my demonstration is void.

[studiot]

I don't have to prove anything.

First you falsely accuse me of misrepresentation, then when I attempt to smooth over this and pursue the real OP here, you pretend this didn't occur and carry on with some demonstration or other, that has nothing to do with anything I have posted in this thread.

[beecee]

57 minutes ago, Rob McEachern said:

I already have. See below. By the way I am not so young anymore either; Been there, done that.

I don't believe you have done anything more then offer some possible alternative that as yet hasn't been accepted due to lack of empirical evidence supporting it. I've also come across fools that diligentley   claim they have invalidated GR...I can direct you to that forum if you wish by PM. 

Quote

That is one of the major problems with physics today, everyone says "put or or shut up" and then, when someone actually does "put up", very few are willing to ever admit that they cannot find a flaw in the argument; for fear of "losing face" if someone smarter than they, eventually comes along and finds the flaw, making them look dumb. So everyone just sits on the fence, hoping someone smarter themselves will come along and save them and their dogma. If you think you are that person, then hit me with with best shot. But don't give me any more "ramblings on the fringe of Science": State exactly were some problem lies within the computer demonstration, after you have downloaded it and run it, and actually thought about what you are witnessing. Put up or shut up. I'm calling your bluff.

Quite a confident sounding if arrogant outlook...the same as put by the fool claiming he had invalidated GR, or at least found a better model. Talk is cheap actually. Yes, you need to put up or shut up, and forums such as this open to any Tom, Dick and Harry, is not really the stage to do it on, despite obviously professionals operating here. You know the procedure. 

Quote

When I challenged some of the usual suspects here to attempt to do so, they all went silent - see the last post in the thread "Is there any reason this Quantum Telegraph couldn’t work?"; they would rather shut up than calculate, when it means their dogma is being falsified.

I havn't seen that thread nor am I really interested, other then to say and quote an old saying about "one swallow does not a Summer make" or words to that effect. There are many "would be's if they could be's in the world that will always remain "would be's if they could be's"

ps: I'm not so young anymore either, and while I have been there, there is much I didn't do that I wished I had. That anyway was not in reference to you or Reg, rather the reality of young up and coming physicists and cosmologists that will show the way and carry the day.

Edited October 11, 2018 by beecee

[Reg Prescott]

@ Rob McEachern -- Glad to have you aboard. I'd been oh so alone! 

Very interested to read your thoughts, Rob. Not being a physicist myself the physics is largely beyond me, though it's gratifying to see that not everyone blithely and unquestioningly accepts the prevailing dogma of the day. My own interest and ability lies mainly with conceptual issues, as opposed to the nuts and bolts of any particular theory.

For now (more later, perhaps -- I just woke up), a quick word on the discovery of Neptune that Beecee continues to insist, though not demonstrate, was a prediction of Newtonian mechanics.

Earlier I offered two examples of a derivation -- a conclusion being derived from premises -- both inductive and deductive (involving ravens, blackness, and a box) for illustration. The terms that appear in the conclusion of an inductive or deductive argument are always precisely the same as those that are contained in the premises. No new terms will appear in the conclusion.

A more realistic example of a prediction derived from a scientific theory would be something like the following:

Premise 1: Newtonian theory
Premise 2: The position and velocity of Venus (for example) at time t1
Premise 3: Various auxiliary hypotheses and background assumptions
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conclusion : The position and velocity of Venus at time t2

 

Note again that the terms in the conclusion are precisely the same as those in the premises: no new terms appear. The ontology does not change.

Now, for precisely this reason, it is impossible that the existence of Neptune can be described as a prediction derived from Newtonian theory inasmuch as Neptune was unknown at the time in question, thus could not possibly have appeared as a term in the premises. The term "Neptune" (or simply "unknown planet") appears nowhere in Newtonian theory (Sir Isaac was unaware of it), and could not have appeared in any background assumption or auxiliary hypothesis for the very same reason -- it was unknown! Therefore, it could not possibly appear in the conclusion, either.

Like yourself, I also called Beecee's bluff, challenging him to put his money where his mouth is: "put up or shut up" in your own words, and show us his derivation. For fairly obvious reasons, he did not.

(One might as well claim that the existence of the neutrino was a prediction of QM. It was not: it was a hypothesis proposed -- by Pauli -- to account for recalcitrant data).

@ 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.

Edited October 12, 2018 by Reg Prescott
added -- (or simply "unknown planet")

[beecee]

56 minutes ago, Reg Prescott said:

@ Rob McEachern -- Glad to have you aboard. I'd been oh so alone! 

Yes I guessed that might give you renewed vigour to post your unsupported crap.

Quote

 

Very interested to read your thoughts, Rob. Not being a physicist myself the physics is largely beyond me, though it's gratifying to see that not everyone blithely and unquestioningly accepts the prevailing dogma of the day. My own interest and ability lies mainly with conceptual issues, as opposed to the nuts and bolts of any particular theory.

For now (more later, perhaps -- I just woke up), a quick word on the discovery of Neptune that Beecee continues to insist, though not demonstrate, was a prediction of Newtonian mechanics.

 

That has already been explained to you and why your mythical derivation is just that...mythical. But let me show you again...[1] An anomaly was observed with Uranus' orbit which "seemed" to  stray from what Newtonian physics said it should be.[2] Upon applying Newtonian physics to the actual "anomaly" it was predicted that another planet should be where Neptune should be.[3] The planet was later observed to be where it was expected, using Newtonian maths, and explaining the "now not so anomalous orbit of Uranus". Newtonian physics was again correct.

All other planets aligned with Newtonian, except of course for Mercury and the precession, which was later validated by GR, a theory far more accurate then Newtonian, 

And of course I also offered two reputable links to support my rather common well known claim.

 

Quote

Like yourself, I also called Beecee's bluff, challenging him to put his money where his mouth is: "put up or shut up" in your own words, and show us his derivation. For fairly obvious reasons, he did not.

After playing the Joker card, and then the Victim card twice, we now after continued failure play the Dishonesty card......Your "calling my bluff" was no more then a childish effort that could never and was never going to eventuate. Again, if you want to play childish games, I'm sure there would be a forum to tender to your childish needs.

 

Quote

(One might as well claim that the existence of the neutrino was a prediction of QM. It was not: it was a hypothesis proposed -- by Pauli -- to account for recalcitrant data).

 

Quote

@ 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.

The irony meter has busted again! Your threads were closed because your recalcitrant attitude blinded you to the many errors of judgements that you made and the thread [just as this is now] was simply going around in circles. 

[Reg Prescott]

@ Beecee -- no offence intended but it's blindingly obvious that you lack the analytic tools necessary to appraise the situation.

I suggest you do a little reading on deduction, induction, abduction, inference to the best explanation... then get back to me.

Edited October 12, 2018 by Reg Prescott
added "analytic"

[beecee]

8 minutes ago, Reg Prescott said:

@ Beecee -- no offence intended but it's blindingly obvious that you lack the tools necessary to appraise the situation.

I suggest you do a little reading on deduction, induction, abduction, inference to the best explanation... then get back to me.

I'm not interested in your hairy fairy error ridden philosophical nonsense, which is why your threads are closed.

And I certainly have appraised you correctly.

Edited October 12, 2018 by beecee

[beecee]

1 hour ago, Reg Prescott said:

@ Beecee -- no offence intended but it's blindingly obvious that you lack the analytic tools necessary to appraise the situation.

I suggest you do a little reading on deduction, induction, abduction, inference to the best explanation... then get back to me.

And of course once again, you ignore the facts re Newtonian mechanics and why it did/does explain the Uranus anomaly and why it was Newtonian maths that predicted where the planet was before it was observed.  

It seems also that I've angered some god botherer or other agenda laden member enough that he gives me the max 5 reds in quick time,just as he or she did yesterday. That certainly will not stop me from confronting to the best of my ability, the nonsense that some are apt to claim.  

http://www.pas.rochester.edu/~blackman/ast104/perturbations.html

Gravitational Perturbations

However, the small deviations from this ideal picture have consequences if careful measurements are made. These small deviations from the simplified picture are called perturbations. They can be calculated systematically using Newton's laws of motion and gravitation from the positions of the known masses in the Solar System.

If we account carefully for all known gravitational perturbations on the motion of observed planets and the motion of the planet still deviates from the prediction, there are two options:

1. Newton's Law of Gravitation requires modification,

    

2. There is a previously undetected mass that is perturbing the orbits of the observed planets.

We shall see that the history of astronomy following the introduction of the Law of Gravitation by Newton gives examples of both

The Discovery of the New Planet Neptune

In 1846, the planet Neptune was discovered after its existence was predicted because of discrepancies between calculations and data for the planet Uranus. Astronomers found the new planet almost exactly at the position predicted by the calculations of Leverrier (Adams had also calculated the position independently). We illustrate the situation schematically in the adjacent diagram. The dominant interaction between Uranus and the Sun is indicated with the heavy line, but some perturbations associated with other masses are indicated by thin lines. By using Newton's laws to calculate the perturbations on the orbit of Uranus by an hypothesized new planet, Leverrier and Adams were able to predict where the planet had to be in order to cause the observed deviations in the position of Uranus. Once astronomers took this calculation seriously, they found the new planet within hours of turning their telescopes on the region of the sky implicated by the calculations.

This precise prediction of the new planet and its location was striking confirmation of the power of Newton's theory of gravitation. (Although in truth it must be said that both Leverrier and Adams made an incorrect assumption in their calculations concerning the radius of the new planet's orbit. Fortunately, the error largely cancelled out of the calculations and had little effect on their final results.)

The Accidental Discovery of Pluto

Later, similar calculations on supposed perturbations of the orbits of Uranus and Neptune suggested the presence of yet another planet beyond the orbit of Neptune. Eventually, in 1930, a new planet Pluto was discovered, but we now know that the calculations in this case were also in error because of an incorrect assumption about the mass of the new planet. It is now believed that the supposed deviations in the orbits of Neptune and Uranus were errors in measurement because the actual properties of Pluto would not have accounted for the supposed perturbations. Thus, the discovery of Pluto was a kind of accident. 

Effects Beyond Newtonian Perturbations

The power of Newton's theory became apparent as detailed calculations accounted more and more precisely for the orbits of the planets. Any deviations from the expected behavior soon became viewed as evidence for unseen masses in the Solar System. However, later observations of anomalies in the orbit of Mercury could not be accounted for by the gravitational perturbation of a new planet (the hypothetical new planet, which turned out not to exist, was called Vulcan). As we discuss in the next section, early in this century this forced the replacement of Newton's Law of Gravitation with Einstein's Theory of General Relativity.

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

The underlined point [1] of course was in relation to Mercury, as previously explained to Reggy, and being the planet closest to the Sun, the Newtonian approximation was not good enough, and GR obviously came to the rescue. The Uranus  "non existent" anomaly though was readily explained by Newtonian.

[Reg Prescott]

To all:

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. 

This represents an inductivist model of scientific method. A good inductivist such as Isaac Newton would be proud indeed of Beecee. Good on ya, mate! As I described things in my now deceased "The Scientific Method" thread:

Quote

"Under Newton's inductivist characterization of the scientific method, propositions are to be extracted inductively from data; one does not bring a hypothesis to the data."

Exactly as Beecee is suggesting here vis-à-vis the discovery of Neptune.

There are, however, two problems with Beecee's analysis:

(1) Inductivism, as a candidate model for The Scientific Method, is more or less dead (for reasons I'll explain if anyone cares). In other words, contemporary consensus has it that Newton was misdescribing what he himself did -- by no means a rare phenomenon. Just as Richard Feynman misdescribes what scientists invariably do in the video I posted on the previous page.

(2) Beecee's inductivist analysis contradicts his very own characterization of "The Scientific Method" which he sketched for us in the aforementioned thread of the same name, and I quote:

 

Quote

[1] ask a question: [2] Research: [3] Formulate an hypothesis: [4] Test said hypothesis: [5] Collect, study and research results: [6] Publish and promote continued tests, observations, experiments.
(from his first post on page 1)

 

If Beecee's "method" does indeed capture how science proceeds, then we would fill in [1] - [6] in something like the following manner:

[1] Ask "Why is Uranus misbehaving?"
[2] 
[3] Formulate a hypothesis. E.g. "There is an unknown body causing the perturbations in Uranus' orbit"
[4] Look for it. Oh, there it is! 
[5], [6]

And as I've tried to make clear, in this particular case, this is precisely what happened. The existence of Neptune was not derived inductively; its existence was not extracted from the data; it was not a prediction of Newtonian physics. Rather, a hypothesis was brought to the data.

Some of you may be aware that a celebrated debate took place in the 19th century over how Kepler discovered the elliptical orbits of the planets. John Stuart Mill -- the good inductivist -- insisted that Kepler found ellipses in the data, much as Beecee has been arguing here. His opponent, William Whewell, argued to the contrary that Kepler brought the ellipse hypothesis to the data.

And contemporary scholars, I think you'll find, vindicate Whewell.

Edited October 12, 2018 by Reg Prescott

[beecee]

 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2016/05/20/when-did-isaac-newton-finally-fail/#5161436d48e7

When Isaac Newton put forth his universal theory of gravitation in the 1680s, it was immediately recognized for what it was: the first incredibly successful, predictively powerful scientific theory that described the one force ruling the largest scales of all. From objects freely falling here on Earth to the planets and celestial bodies orbiting in space, Newton's theory of gravity captured their trajectories spectacularly. When the new planet Uranus was discovered, the deviations in its orbit from Newton's predictions allowed a spectacular leap: the prediction of the existence, mass and position of another new world beyond it: Neptune. The very night the Berlin Observatory received the theoretical prediction of Urbain Le Verrier -- working 169 years after Newton's Principia -- they found our Solar System's 8th planet within one degree of its predicted position. And yet, Newton's laws were about to prove insufficient for what was to come.

The problem all started not at the outer reaches of the Solar System, but in the innermost regions: with the planet Mercury, orbiting closest to the Sun. Every planet orbits the Sun not in a perfect circle, but rather in an ellipse, as Kepler noticed nearly a full century before Newton. The orbits of Venus and Earth are very close to circular, but both Mercury and Mars are noticeably more elliptical, with their closest approach to the Sun differing significantly from their greatest distance.

Mercury, in particular, reaches a distance that’s 46% greater at aphelion (its farthest point from the Sun) than at perihelion (its closest approach), as compared to just a difference of 3.4% from Earth. This doesn't have anything to do with the theory of gravity; this is merely the conditions which these planets formed under that led to these orbital properties. But the fact that these orbits aren’t perfectly circular means we can study something interesting about them. If Kepler’s laws were absolutely perfect, then a planet orbiting the Sun would return to the exact same spot with each and every orbit. When we reached perihelion one year, then if we counted out exactly one year, we’d expect to be at perihelion once again, and we’d expect the Earth to be in the same exact position in space — relative to all the other stars and the Sun — as it was the year before.

But we know Kepler’s laws can’t be perfect, because they only apply to a massless body in orbit around a massive one, with no other masses present at all. And that doesn’t describe our Solar System at all.

 

 

 

 

4 minutes ago, Reg Prescott said:

To all:

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. 

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.

 

[Reg Prescott]

With regards the two sources you've provided, Beecee, remember my warning -- and Feynman's warning (previous page) -- about falling victim to "Whig" history of science? I suggest you just did.

Let's go back to the period in question and examine the situation: Uranus is not behaving in the manner Newton's theory predicts. Therefore, either (i) Newton's theory is false, or (ii) Newton's theory is true, but there is something wrong in our background knowledge and auxiliary hypotheses.

Your first source claims the only other option besides the falsity of Newton's theory is: "There is a previously undetected mass that is perturbing the orbits of the observed planets". I suggest this is false: this is/was not the only other option.

An indefinite number of hypotheses, all consistent with Newtonian theory, and of varying plausibility, could have accounted for Uranus' anomalous orbit. Let's use our imaginations and see what we can up with. I've no idea how many of these are physically possible. It matters not; the point is conceptual.

H1: the existence of an unknown planet (you know who!)
H2: the existence of a binary planet system, with the same orbit as Neptune, and same total mass
H3: the existence of a trinary (is that a word?) planet system, with the same orbit as Neptune, and same total mass
H4: the existence of a mini black hole, with the same orbit as Neptune, and same total mass (yes, I know black holes hadn't been thought of then. Neither had Neptune).

Now, so far your source is correct inasmuch as, in all the above cases, it is "undetected mass" which is, or would have been, responsible for Uranus' contumacious behavior. But why stick with mass?

H5: A previously unknown force is acting on Uranus, causing the anomalous orbit

In H5, we still assume that Newton's theory is true. We don't tweak the theory; we tweak the background assumptions instead, as we've been doing in H1-H4. Turns out that our ontology is a bit bigger than we'd previously thought, that's all.

H6: Two previously unknown forces are acting on Uranus, causing the anomalous orbit. 
[...]
H154: One hundred and fifty previously unknown forces are acting on Uranus, causing the anomalous orbit. 

 

Now, if you're going to insist that H1 is a prediction of Newton's theory, to be consistent you'd have to claim that H1 - H154 (and I could continue) are all predictions of Newton's theory. You'd also have to claim that the existence of Vulcan was a prediction of Newton's theory.

And supposing H5 and not H1 had turned out to be the accepted explanation, then instead of the Whig history you're now citing, you'd be trumpeting a different Whig history that proclaims "Newton's theory predicted the existence of a previously unknown force", rather than an unknown planet.
 

Edited October 12, 2018 by Reg Prescott

[beecee]

1 hour ago, Reg Prescott said:

With regards the two sources you've provided, Beecee, remember my warning -- and Feynman's warning (previous page) -- about falling victim to "Whig" history of science? I suggest you just did.

Wrong...Planets don't misbehave. Uranus was simply following Newtonian mechanics, and of which all the data was not available to Earth based physicists at that time.eg: The yet to be discovered planet as predicted by Newtonian maths.

Edited October 12, 2018 by beecee

[Reg Prescott]

Re: all of the above. Philosopher of science Imre Lakatos offered the following parable for illustrative purposes:

 

"The story is about an imaginary case of planetary misbehavior. A physicist of the pre-Einsteinian era takes Newton's mechanics and his law of gravitation, (N), the accepted initial conditions, I, and calculates, with their help, the path of a newly discovered small planet, p. But the planet deviates from the calculated path. Does our Newtonian physicist consider that the deviation was forbidden by Newton's theory and therefore that, once established, it refutes the theory N? No. He suggests that there must be a hitherto unknown planet q which perturbs the path of p. He calculates the mass, orbit, etc., of this hypothetical planet and then asks an experimental astronomer to test his hypothesis. The planet q is so small that even the biggest available telescopes cannot possible observe it: the experimental astronomer applies for a research grant to build yet a bigger one. In three years' time the new telescope is ready. Were the unknown planet q to be discovered, it would be hailed as a new victory of Newtonian science. But it is not. Does our scientist abandon Newton's theory and his idea of the perturbing planet? No. He suggests that a cloud of cosmic dust hides the planet from us. He calculates the location and properties of this cloud and asks for a research grant to send up a satellite to test his calculations. Were the satellite's instruments (possibly new ones, based on a little-tested theory) to record the existence of the conjectural cloud, the result would be hailed as an outstanding victory for Newtonian science. But the cloud is not found. Does our scientist abandon Newton's theory, together with the idea of the perturbing planet and the idea of the cloud, which hides it? No. He suggests that there is some magnetic field in that region of the universe, which disturbed the instruments of the satellite. A new satellite is sent up. Were the magnetic field to be found, Newtonians would celebrate a sensational victory. But it is not. Is this regarded as a refutation of Newtonian science? No. Either yet another ingenious auxiliary hypothesis is proposed or . . . the whole story is buried in the dusty volumes of periodicals and the story never mentioned again."

-- "Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge" (1970)

[Ghideon]

5 hours ago, Reg Prescott said:

To all:

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. 

I've briefly followed this from the sidelines and have, possibly a rather naive, question: Isn't the Kepler mission* exo planet search based on what @beecee says? The exo planets are already in the data,  waiting for discovery. What does the statements about Neptune discovery say about the methods or results of Kepler mission; is methods or results, wrong, invalid, different? 

I know the methods for finding transiting exo planets differs from the search for Neptune, so the question above is intended more about "already in the data" than about Newton.

 

*) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kepler_(spacecraft)

Edited October 12, 2018 by Ghideon
grammar

[beecee]

9 minutes ago, Ghideon said:

I've briefly followed this from the sidelines and have, possibly a rather naive, question: Isn't the Kepler mission* exo planet search based on what @beecee says? The exo planets are already in the data,  waiting for discovery. What does the statements about Neptune discovery say about the methods or results of Kepler mission; is methods or results, wrong, invalid, different? 

I know the methods for finding transiting exo planets differs from the search for Neptune, so the question above is intended more about "already in the data" than about Newton.

 

*) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kepler_(spacecraft)

Bingo! You've hit the nail on the head. 

https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/kepler/overview/index.html

Edited October 12, 2018 by beecee

[Reg Prescott]

2 minutes ago, Ghideon said:

I've briefly followed this from the sidelines and have, possibly a rather naive, question: Isn't the Kepler mission* exo planet search based on what @beecee states? The exo planets are already in the data,  waiting for discovery. What does the statements about Neptune discovery say about the methods or results of Kepler mission; is methods or results, wrong, invalid, different? 

I know the methods for finding transiting exo planets differs from the search for Neptune, so the question above is intended more about "already in the data" than about Newton.

 Hi Ghideon,

Well, first of all, after I put this to him, Beecee denied that he believes the existence of Neptune was already "in the data". 

In which case, he's forced to say that a hypothesis was brought to the data. And I think that's exactly right.

But how that can possibly be described as a "prediction of the theory" is beyond me. It was, rather, a hypothesis that was compatible with the theory (among countless others), and if true, would explain the anomalous orbit of Uranus.

As for the Kepler mission, I couldn't comment.

[beecee]

1 minute ago, Reg Prescott said:

 Hi Ghideon,

Well, first of all, after I put this to him, Beecee denied that he believes the existence of Neptune was already "in the data". I

Your continued desperation is leading to total dishonesty now. Perhaps you may like to show us all where I said that. 

[Reg Prescott]

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

(8 posts above)

Edited October 12, 2018 by Reg Prescott

[beecee]

8 hours ago, beecee said:

Yes I guessed that might give you renewed vigour to post your unsupported crap.

That has already been explained to you and why your mythical derivation is just that...mythical. But let me show you again...[1] An anomaly was observed with Uranus' orbit which "seemed" to  stray from what Newtonian physics said it should be.[2] Upon applying Newtonian physics to the actual "anomaly" it was predicted that another planet should be where Neptune should be.[3] The planet was later observed to be where it was expected, using Newtonian maths, and explaining the "now not so anomalous orbit of Uranus". Newtonian physics was again correct. 

 

48 minutes ago, beecee said:

Wrong...Planets don't misbehave. Uranus was simply following Newtonian mechanics, and of which all the data was not available to Earth based physicists at that time.eg: The yet to be discovered planet as predicted by Newtonian maths.

 

5 hours ago, beecee said:

 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2016/05/20/when-did-isaac-newton-finally-fail/#5161436d48e7

When Isaac Newton put forth his universal theory of gravitation in the 1680s, it was immediately recognized for what it was: the first incredibly successful, predictively powerful scientific theory that described the one force ruling the largest scales of all. From objects freely falling here on Earth to the planets and celestial bodies orbiting in space, Newton's theory of gravity captured their trajectories spectacularly. When the new planet Uranus was discovered, the deviations in its orbit from Newton's predictions allowed a spectacular leap: the prediction of the existence, mass and position of another new world beyond it: Neptune. The very night the Berlin Observatory received the theoretical prediction of Urbain Le Verrier -- working 169 years after Newton's Principia -- they found our Solar System's 8th planet within one degree of its predicted position. And yet, Newton's laws were about to prove insufficient for what was to come.

 

 

 

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 above shows that what Reggy said in desperation below is at best misinterpreted, or at worst a lie.

15 minutes ago, Reg Prescott said:

 Hi Ghideon,

Well, first of all, after I put this to him, Beecee denied that he believes the existence of Neptune was already "in the data". 

 

[Reg Prescott]

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?

[swansont]

10 hours ago, Reg Prescott said:

 Very interested to read your thoughts, Rob. Not being a physicist myself the physics is largely beyond me, though it's gratifying to see that not everyone blithely and unquestioningly accepts the prevailing dogma of the day. My own interest and ability lies mainly with conceptual issues, as opposed to the nuts and bolts of any particular theory.

Interesting. You don't understand the physics, and yet know that it's dogma. 

10 hours ago, Reg Prescott said:

For now (more later, perhaps -- I just woke up), a quick word on the discovery of Neptune that Beecee continues to insist, though not demonstrate, was a prediction of Newtonian mechanics.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discovery_of_Neptune

10 hours ago, Reg Prescott said:

 Now, for precisely this reason, it is impossible that the existence of Neptune can be described as a prediction derived from Newtonian theory inasmuch as Neptune was unknown at the time in question, thus could not possibly have appeared as a term in the premises. The term "Neptune" (or simply "unknown planet") appears nowhere in Newtonian theory (Sir Isaac was unaware of it), and could not have appeared in any background assumption or auxiliary hypothesis for the very same reason -- it was unknown! Therefore, it could not possibly appear in the conclusion, either.

Could not have appeared as a term? You put an unknown term (e.g. "x") in the equation and then solve for x. Physicists do this all the time.