Re: How the comet flies

In article <1174697340.808578.57460@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
"nando_ronteltap@xxxxxxxxx" <nando_ronteltap@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On 23 mrt, 17:13, Timberwoof <timberwoof.s...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
"nando_rontel...@xxxxxxxxx" <nando_rontel...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

There are limits to variaton as well, as anybody knows, even
scientists.

Well, yes. That actually defeats your own argument. It is only when an
orbiting body moves in some non-orbital manner without some obvious
cause like a comet ejecting gases, that you can even begin to suspect
something else is going on.

But in actual fact variation in results is observed, so does that mean
then that your argument is defeated.

So which way do you want it, limits to variation, or variations re
observed? Of course the raw measurements "report" variations; those are
errors in the experimental design. When you report the numbers, you
round them off to exclude accuracy you cannot expect from your
equipment.


But you ignored the point that you have gone back and forth on the
accuracy of measurement, and now you have gone back and forth on
variations in movement.

I've not gone back and forth on that, I have always said that to my
mind the observations are basically accurate. But people didn't bring
observations they brought theory.

You're lying. You said that they were inaccurate because of Heisenberg's
Uncertainty Principle.

The are "basically" accurate, to the limits imposed by the instruments
used.

You're the one who has posited a hypothesis ... you just presented it
again ... but you have never given a shred of evidence for it. You've
never given a reason to accept that over known errors in measurement.

Of course if it is proven that the variation is due to error in
measurement, then I have no case, but that is usually just mentioned
as a rest category together with a litany of other things the
scientists can think of that might have caused the variation in
results.

You can't make any claims at all about variations that are less that the
instrument's limit of accuracy.

Bull***. Scientists do investigate those causes. They work constantly
to increase the accuracy of their measurements. Why do you think people
build radar imaging of Venus or put retroreflectors on the Moon?

That's true that scientists work for increasing precision, but still
the standard procedure in most all papers is to just to mention error
measurement in a rest category of possible influences, or to simply
denote all variation as error, and calculate the variation so that it
doesn't cross some limit to make the findings in the study
meaningless.

That generalization is so broad that it is meaningless.

So in other words, as instruments and measurements get more and more
accurate, the wiggle room for "something else" gets smaller and smaller.

Yes that's true, but there has always been variation observed in the
measurements. Ultradeterminism has already been refuted at the
quantumlevel, next it should be refuted at the macroscopic level,
because the measurements at macroscopic level show variation.

Sigh. Do you know why they show variation? Of course. You say the
measurements are perfect, even when made with imperfect instruments, and
those errors are really ghosts or gremlins pushing things around.

Alternatives and decisions provide for extremely simple and
practically convenient explanations, which I guess is why we use that
logic all the time.

Like what?

Like with the ball. Athletes will anticipate from decision to
decision. So like if the ball bounces there, it might go this way or
that, and then from there it goes this way or that, and so on. This
kind of logic we use all the time for many things.

That proves nothing. A ball bouncing funny off an irregular surface
proves nothing about the ball's free will.

Using only predeterminative theory without acknowledging alternatives
and decisions,

What alternatives and decisions? You've never supplied any evidence that
there are any.

I supplied the velocity and position alternatives. The decision is
proven by the fact that for each TIME one can only measure either
velocity or position.

If you mean for planets and comets, then you are completely wrong. Here,
I'll go measure the position and velocity of my house. At this moment
350 feet from the nearby survey marker and its velocity is 0.0 cm/sec.

If both velocity and position could be measured
at the same time, then no decision would have been made between them
obviously.

Uh .. that's not even wrong.

The mathematical formulas aren't conjured. And what's interesting about
them is that they're self-consistent and consistent with observations.

Not true, the observations show variation from equal conditions, and
the formula's don't.

What observations?

Take the laws of motion for instance: people used to believe that the
motion of a falling object was governed by different rules than the
motions of astronomical bodies. Now we use the same basic laws to
predict the motions of both. However big or small they are, they work
better than appealing to ghosts.

Gee, you are also correct in assuming that free behaviour is required
for ghosts, just as it is for consciousness.

So you are conjuring up ghosts?

And if you reject conjured-up huge mathematical formulations as accurate
models of nature, then you can't use them in your arguments.

I don't know what you're talking about.

Of course you don't know what I'm talking about. You wrote it, I quoted
you, and you skipped over it.

You wrote the following:

you would have to conjure up huge mathematical
formulations covering many books to predict even the most simplest
things to accuracy of a wavelength.

The Heiseinberg Uncertainty Principle is one such mathematical
formulation. It's complicated, requires some background in physics to
understand, and requires respect for when it does and does not apply.
Nevertheless, you're happy to misuse it in whichever way you think
supports your story today.


Twaddle. You're using the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle and its
corollaries, which are "huge mathematical formulations". You have
rejected them as "conjured". In the first place, you should not misuse
them, and in the second place, since you reject them, you should not use
them at all.

Well why do you as someone who doesn't believe in free behaviour,

I believe that humans have "free behavior", but planets do not. Don't
make a straw-man for what I believe. I am capable of more subtlety in
thought than you are.

use
the uncertainty principle which presents 2 possible alternatives? You
shouldn't use that principle if you argue like that.

Because I understand that the Uncertainty Principle is not necessarily
about two mutually exclusive alternatives. In astronomical calculations,
the HUP doesn't come into play.

I'm talking about that you have to make individual formula's for every
event, this is not just a simple matter of changing the parameters.
Every result of a decision you have to predict in advance, making one
humongous formula that predicts everything. In practice that means
making the formula after it already happend of course, since usually
it is impossible to cover all the possible results beforehand. I can
just go from decision to decision using mostly the simple standard
formulas between decisions. I have no need for those humongous
formula's that predicts everything yes.

I don't know what you're talking about. What, exactly, is this huge
formula, and when did I present it? Never mind: you made it up as a
stupid straw-man argument that's easy to knock down.

It's not wrong to ask questions about morals. It is wrong to accuse me
of immorality when I present an objective way of evaluating whether a
situation has something in it that exercises free will.

Oh so you find my claim that you are destroying people's knowledge
about freedom unreasonable. Maybe you don't intend to, but that is the
result from constantly doubting, and ridiculing anything to do with
free behaviour.

I am only ridiculing what you have said about it insofar as you claim
that planets have free will. Don't whine about things I didn't say.

--
Timberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com> http://www.timberwoof.com
Level 1 Linux technical support: Read The Fscking Manual!
Level 2 Linux technical support: Write The Fscking Code Yourself!

.

Loading