The Sun's power source.

Quote from: Tausami on May 23, 2011, 12:54:06 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on May 23, 2011, 12:37:40 PM

Quote from: markjo on May 23, 2011, 10:55:05 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on May 23, 2011, 08:31:33 AM

One cannot empirically say that pink unicorns exist if they have not been observed. Until they are observed one must treat the idea of pink unicorns as a fantasy. Likewise, neutrinos, protons, electrons and the rest of the sub atomic particles must be treated as fantasies until they have been demonstrated to exist.

While protons, electrons, et all, are taught as fact in grade school, their existence is extremely questionable. None of them have been observed. Some people suggest that matter does not exist at all, and what we call sub-atomic particles are actually a series of waves of varying properties.

Tom, a sub-atomic particle being made of energy does not necessarily make its particle nature a fantasy.  Einstein said long ago that energy and mass are interchangeable.  Where does the notion that the quarks that make up a proton are actually discrete bits of energy contradict the standard model?  In fact, particle physicists measure the mass of sub-atomic particles in electron-volts (a unit of energy).

http://www.glafreniere.com/matter.htm

The ideas presented in this link suggest that the particle nature of matter does not exist. Matter does not exist at all. What we know as matter is really just a series of waves. This contradicts the standard model which says that matter does exist.

Mainstream science has proven that particular matter exists.

Really? Who proved that particle matter exists?

Ernest Rutherford and J.J. Thompson.

The Demeter-Persephone hypothesis can make accurate predictions about crops in 2012 or 2013, which are events that have not yet been observed.  It's ill-advised to deny the overdetermination problem, since even globularist thinkers worth their salt acknowledge its truth.

Right, but it can only make a prediction about a general result we had without knowing anything about Demeter-Persephone. The general pattern is clear without that hypothesis. Whether neutrinos would accompany supernovas is not like that. Incidentally, you seem somewhat confused about terminology- overdetermination is when I've see it a synonym for overfitting, when one makes a hypothesis or set of curves that fits data too well when some of it is just noise. The classic example of this is what happens when one tries to make a high degree polynomial to  map a set of data points, it often becomes a poorer predictor of new data even as it matches the current data as well. But again, testing against new data is the key. The standard hypotheses about how the sun works fits with a lot of different types of tests which were not known when the hypotheses were constructed. That's the key.

The Demeter-Persephone hypothesis can make accurate predictions about crops in 2012 or 2013, which are events that have not yet been observed.  It's ill-advised to deny the overdetermination problem, since even globularist thinkers worth their salt acknowledge its truth.

Does the Demeter-Persephone hypothesis predict crop failure due to drought, disease or natural disaster?

Persephone comes back in the spring and stays for the summer; do you challenge the assertion that crops grow in the spring and summer? 

Does the Demeter-Persephone hypothesis hold valid for winter crops?
http://www.humeseeds.com/falwint.htm

Drought, disease and natural disasters will be averted as long as Demeter is properly appeased.

How does one properly appease Demeter?  I'm sure that the farmers in Russia would like to know.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/06/world/europe/06russia.html

Drought, disease and natural disasters will be averted as long as Demeter is properly appeased.

That didn't answer his question. Can droughts, disease, or natural disaster be predicted? What about winter crops?

We should expect to see an upsurge in neutrinos during a nearby supernova, especially at the very beginning of the supernova. This was dramatically confirmed  with the 1987a supernova which was bright enough to be visible to the naked eye (although this isn't perfect evidence because the supernova apparently occurred at a star that we didn't expect to supernova and people are still trying to figure out what happened.) A few hours prior, neutrino detectors saw spikes in neutrino  in the few hours before the supernova was visible.

The standard fusion theory predicts that stars can't have a mass more than about 300 times that of the sun, and that there should be almost none more than 200 masses (since heavier, less efficiently fusing elements are now prominent). In fact, the largest stars found are about a 150 solar masses. This has been consistent even as we've found the masses of more and more stars. (Note that estimating stellar mass is really difficult, so this is one of the weaker pieces of evidence).

The model of star formation also gives strong predictions about what elements will be most common in the universe. In particular, it predicts that elements that are heavier than iron will be rare and that they will be progressively rarer the heavier they are. This is something of a weak prediction, since we already had this information for Earth itself and the stellar model simply predicts that this will be true more or less in general.

This isn't to say that we have everything figured out. Far from it.  There's a lot still we don't know. For example, as I mentioned earlier, estimating stellar mass is really difficult. And then there are a handful of just weird things, like how Betelgeuse has been apparently changing size over the last hundred years. A lot of our understanding is very rough. Part of this is just due to the computational difficulty (even today, simulating the inside of a star is tough). And although there is some near-surface fusion, the vast majority of the fusion is taking place deep inside stars which is very hard to get data about (again, neutrinos are one of our few sources of information). And even some surface behavior like that of solar flares and sunspots, where we do have a lot of data, are still not well understood. But, these are all essentially details. The overarching picture of stellar fusion is pretty strongly established.

You get a lot of credit for honesty, but if you're trying to convince me that the sun is well understood by RE cosmological standards, you are doing a poor job.

Ski, we don't understand all the details but the basic issue at hand here- that the sun and the other stars are powered by fusion is very clear.

Ski, we don't understand all the details but the basic issue at hand here- that the sun and the other stars are powered by fusion is very clear.

Given all that we don't understand about the sun, I submit that it's entirely possible that the sun is powered by fusion even if it is 32 miles wide.  We just don't understand how yet.  I'm honestly perplexed why this is never an issue in RE but it is always one in FE.

Quote from: James on May 26, 2011, 02:15:55 PM

Drought, disease and natural disasters will be averted as long as Demeter is properly appeased.

That didn't answer his question. Can droughts, disease, or natural disaster be predicted? What about winter crops?

Yeah. So long as you know when Demeter is displeased, you can predict it.

Quote from: JoshuaZ on May 26, 2011, 05:35:39 PM

Ski, we don't understand all the details but the basic issue at hand here- that the sun and the other stars are powered by fusion is very clear.

Given all that we don't understand about the sun, I submit that it's entirely possible that the sun is powered by fusion even if it is 32 miles wide.  We just don't understand how yet.  I'm honestly perplexed why this is never an issue in RE but it is always one in FE.

Just because we don't understand everything about the sun or nuclear fusion, that doesn't mean that we don't understand enough to realize that a 32 mile diameter sun could not possibly be powered by nuclear fusion.

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on May 26, 2011, 06:38:40 PM

Quote from: JoshuaZ on May 26, 2011, 05:35:39 PM

Ski, we don't understand all the details but the basic issue at hand here- that the sun and the other stars are powered by fusion is very clear.

Given all that we don't understand about the sun, I submit that it's entirely possible that the sun is powered by fusion even if it is 32 miles wide.  We just don't understand how yet.  I'm honestly perplexed why this is never an issue in RE but it is always one in FE.

Just because we don't understand everything about the sun or nuclear fusion, that doesn't mean that we don't understand enough to realize that a 32 mile diameter sun could not possibly be powered by nuclear fusion.

I see no problem with this.  All we have to do is postulate an unobserved mechanism, much like physicists do with dark energy, dark matter, dark flow, gravitons, parallel universes, hyperspatial dimensions, etc!

It needs a placeholder name, of course.  How about fusionite?

Quote from: markjo on May 26, 2011, 07:17:11 PM

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on May 26, 2011, 06:38:40 PM

Quote from: JoshuaZ on May 26, 2011, 05:35:39 PM

Ski, we don't understand all the details but the basic issue at hand here- that the sun and the other stars are powered by fusion is very clear.

Given all that we don't understand about the sun, I submit that it's entirely possible that the sun is powered by fusion even if it is 32 miles wide.  We just don't understand how yet.  I'm honestly perplexed why this is never an issue in RE but it is always one in FE.

Just because we don't understand everything about the sun or nuclear fusion, that doesn't mean that we don't understand enough to realize that a 32 mile diameter sun could not possibly be powered by nuclear fusion.

I see no problem with this.  All we have to do is postulate an unobserved mechanism, much like physicists do with dark energy, dark matter, dark flow, gravitons, parallel universes, hyperspatial dimensions, etc!

It needs a placeholder name, of course.  How about fusionite?

There's an important distinction there. In those cases, they aren't just using placeholders. They are taking theories that have been already tested, and trying to deal with apparent discrepancies. Then, they make predictions based on those terms. Thus for example the standard hypotheses for dark matter all make different, specific predictions, and scientists are busy testing them. Thus for example, neutrino mass was a popular explanation for dark matter at one point, but careful experiments showed that it cannot account for more than about 5% of dark matter. Similarly, some of the more exotic possible particles have been ruled out. Thus, much of the dark matter comes down to likely being low-albedo conventional objects (such as brown dwarfs) or particles arising from supersymmetry or similar constructions. One is welcome to make place holders but one can't stop there. One needs to then ask "ok. What can I put in this place holder that fits what else I know? How can I go about testing it?"

 The philosopher Imre Lakatos talked about this a lot. To summarize his view of things, it is important to distinguish between fruitful and non-fruitful theories (he actually talked about "research programs" but for our purposes this is the same thing). Both get "defensive hypotheses" attached to them, essentially hypotheses which would protect the theory from falsification (as dark matter protects our theories of gravity). But a fruitful theory generates not just defensive hypotheses but makes useful predictions, and generates other hypotheses about related issues which can be used to make interesting predictions. If a theory just generates defensive hypotheses with no content then it isn't fruitful, and should be rejected. The standard theories of gravity, and stellar fusion have both been fruitful. The theory that the sun is 32 miles wide hasn't been very fruitful.

But dark matter has also failed some predictions, hasn't it?  This should weaken the theory... yet it is the accepted explanation for the gravitational anomalies it was designed to explain.  I would imagine that's just because they haven't come up with anything better.  There's an incessant need in modern science to fill in holes that we aren't really equipped to fill; I believe that may be where zeteticism has a leg up on the scientific method.

Also, utility is not the same as truth; Newton's theory of gravity was and still is very useful, but it's wrong.  To suggest that a 32 mile sun cannot possibly exist because postulating its existence has not yet been "fruitful" (a perspective with which a number of FEers would probably disagree anyway) is fallacious.  Let's face it: until the day when FET replaces RET as the dominant worldview, progress in FET will naturally be much slower than it has been in RET, because there have been many more RE-oriented scientists than FE-oriented zeteticists.  It took forty years after dark matter was first postulated before anybody actually corroborated it.

Quote from: markjo on May 23, 2011, 06:37:42 AM

Quote from: James on May 23, 2011, 01:52:25 AM

But has anyone actually seen a neutrino?  Would we even know what one would look like if we did see it?

Has anyone actually seen a photon?  Would we even know what one would look like if we did see it?
Has anyone actually seen an electron?  Would we even know what one would look like if we did see it?
Has anyone actually seen any sub-atomic particle?  Would we even know what one would look like if we did see it?
Has anyone actually seen an atom?  Would we even know what one would look like if we did see it?

Gee, this is easy, although I'm not sure what it's supposed to prove.

No, no, no, and no. None of that has been seen. James is correct in that if it hasn't been seen or detected there is no reason to assume that they exist.

One cannot empirically say that pink unicorns exist if they have not been observed. Until they are observed one must treat the idea of pink unicorns as a fantasy. Likewise, neutrinos, protons, electrons and the rest of the sub atomic particles must be treated as fantasies until they have been demonstrated to exist.

While protons, electrons, et all, are taught as fact in grade school, their existence is extremely questionable. None of them have been observed. Some people suggest that matter does not exist at all, and what we call sub-atomic particles are actually a series of waves of varying properties.

http://www.glafreniere.com/matter.htm

This is the difference between a Zetetic and a Scientician. The Zetetic starts from inquiry, keeping all possibilities open, accepting only what has been demonstrated empirically. The Scientician starts from fantasy, following media hype like a dog to the whistle, building one unproven hypothesis atop the next in rapid and mumbling succession.

All those particles had been detected, they have all made verifiable predications that have been proven true, a lot of technology relies on the existence of these particles. Scientists rely on experiments, before a theory becomes mainstream it must make verifiable predictions which are then verified. If experiments show that somethings wrong with and accepted theory then the theory will often change. (Like what happened to what we knew about the composition of atoms after the geiger marsden experiment.) You can't make tech without the underlying science, if the underlying science is wrong then the tech will not work.

Quote from: JoshuaZ on May 23, 2011, 09:40:44 AM

What does this mean? Electrons are wave-particles. And yes, that duality is used in your computer. If it weren't for that duality, small transistors wouldn't function for example.

I'm talking about the idea that matter only exists as waves as presented in this link: http://www.glafreniere.com/matter.htm

The idea presented in the link is that sub-atomic particles do not exist, and what we believe are sub-atomic particles are actually just waves of varying properties. The function and operation of a wave-only electron is indistinguishable from a conventional electron. The operation of a computer chip does not demonstrate either hypothesis. A computer chip can work just as well with a wave electron as it can with a conventional electron.

Scienticians teach children that conventional atomic theory is fact, when it is not. There are competing hypothesis' of equal predictive capability. No version of atomic theory has been demonstrated to be true. Yet scienticians are all the happier to go on teaching and believing in the most popular fantasy. Truth does not matter to the scientician. Scienticians believe in the most popular fantasy with the best media hype, not that which has been demonstrated to be true.

How many new verifiable or falsifiable predictions have they made?

Quote from: Tom Bishop on May 23, 2011, 08:31:33 AM

Quote from: markjo on May 23, 2011, 06:37:42 AM

Quote from: James on May 23, 2011, 01:52:25 AM

But has anyone actually seen a neutrino?  Would we even know what one would look like if we did see it?

Has anyone actually seen a photon?  Would we even know what one would look like if we did see it?
Has anyone actually seen an electron?  Would we even know what one would look like if we did see it?
Has anyone actually seen any sub-atomic particle?  Would we even know what one would look like if we did see it?
Has anyone actually seen an atom?  Would we even know what one would look like if we did see it?

Gee, this is easy, although I'm not sure what it's supposed to prove.

No, no, no, and no. None of that has been seen. James is correct in that if it hasn't been seen or detected there is no reason to assume that they exist.

One cannot empirically say that pink unicorns exist if they have not been observed. Until they are observed one must treat the idea of pink unicorns as a fantasy. Likewise, neutrinos, protons, electrons and the rest of the sub atomic particles must be treated as fantasies until they have been demonstrated to exist.

While protons, electrons, et all, are taught as fact in grade school, their existence is extremely questionable. None of them have been observed. Some people suggest that matter does not exist at all, and what we call sub-atomic particles are actually a series of waves of varying properties.

http://www.glafreniere.com/matter.htm

This is the difference between a Zetetic and a Scientician. The Zetetic starts from inquiry, keeping all possibilities open, accepting only what has been demonstrated empirically. The Scientician starts from fantasy, following media hype like a dog to the whistle, building one unproven hypothesis atop the next in rapid and mumbling succession.

All those particles had been detected, they have all made verifiable predications that have been proven true, a lot of technology relies on the existence of these particles.

No they haven't. No one has ever seen an electron or a proton. Despite that they're talked about every day by millions of people, they remain completely undiscovered and hypothetical. Traditional atomic theory isn't at all proven.

Scientists rely on experiments, before a theory becomes mainstream it must make verifiable predictions which are then verified. If experiments show that somethings wrong with and accepted theory then the theory will often change. (Like what happened to what we knew about the composition of atoms after the geiger marsden experiment.) You can't make tech without the underlying science, if the underlying science is wrong then the tech will not work.

Nah. A computer chip can work just as well with particle electrons as it can with wave electrons.

A mouse trap could work just as well made of birch wood as it can made out of cedar wood.

No they haven't. No one has ever seen an electron or a proton. Despite that they're talked about every day by millions of people, they remain completely undiscovered and hypothetical. Traditional atomic theory isn't at all proven.

You don't have to see something for you to know it exists. We have seen it's effects, and that's enough.

Scienticians teach children that conventional atomic theory is fact, when it is not. There are competing hypothesis' of equal predictive capability. No version of atomic theory has been demonstrated to be true. Yet scienticians are all the happier to go on teaching and believing in the most popular fantasy. Truth does not matter to the scientician. Scienticians believe in the most popular fantasy with the best media hype, not that which has been demonstrated to be true.

How would you know when you have reached "the truth" ?, Tom.  

No one has ever seen an electron or a proton. Despite that they're talked about every day by millions of people, they remain completely undiscovered and hypothetical. Traditional atomic theory isn't at all proven.

How would you know define "seen", Tom ?

Quote from: Tom Bishop on June 05, 2011, 09:56:19 PM

No they haven't. No one has ever seen an electron or a proton. Despite that they're talked about every day by millions of people, they remain completely undiscovered and hypothetical. Traditional atomic theory isn't at all proven.

You don't have to see something for you to know it exists. We have seen it's effects, and that's enough.

The wave theory of atomic matter would also cause the same effects.

How would you know when you have reached "the truth" ?, Tom.

You know that you've reached the truth when the results of your work have reached conclusions beyond a shadow of a doubt, eliminating all other contradicting possibilities.

How would you know define "seen", Tom ?

Detected, observed.

Quote

How would you know define "seen", Tom ?

Detected, observed.

In that case we have seen a proton and electron.

Quote

How would you know define "seen", Tom ?

Detected, observed.

Like with one of these?

The Compact Muon Solenoid (CMS) is an example of a large particle detector. Notice the person for scale.

Or, one of these?

Low energy beta particle tracks can be observed in a Supersaturated Environments Cloud Chamber. Particles emitted from a Carbon-14 source placed at a source port will follow trajectories that are deflected by the 1000 Gauss magnetic field produced by our Rare Earth Magnet. Carbon-14 yields a maximum particle energy of 156 keV, resulting in frequent scattering in STP air. An increase in deflection curvature and ionization per unit length is observed as each particle is slowed in air.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on June 06, 2011, 08:13:53 AM

Quote

How would you know define "seen", Tom ?

Detected, observed.

Like with one of these?

Quote from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Particle_detector

The Compact Muon Solenoid (CMS) is an example of a large particle detector. Notice the person for scale.

Or, one of these?

Quote from: http://www.cloudchambers.com/betadeflection.htm

Low energy beta particle tracks can be observed in a Supersaturated Environments Cloud Chamber. Particles emitted from a Carbon-14 source placed at a source port will follow trajectories that are deflected by the 1000 Gauss magnetic field produced by our Rare Earth Magnet. Carbon-14 yields a maximum particle energy of 156 keV, resulting in frequent scattering in STP air. An increase in deflection curvature and ionization per unit length is observed as each particle is slowed in air.

How do you know it's detecting particles and not waves?

How do you know it's detecting particles and not waves?

How would a wave leave a distinct trail in a cloud chamber?

Quote from: Tom Bishop on June 06, 2011, 08:43:20 AM

How do you know it's detecting particles and not waves?

How would a wave leave a distinct trail in a cloud chamber?

A trail of waves.

Quote

How would you know when you have reached "the truth" ?, Tom.

You know that you've reached the truth when the results of your work reached conclusions beyond a shadow of a doubt, eliminating all other contradicting possibilities.

...and what if you discovered a new "possibility" that contradicted the "truth", later on?  (e.g. following a new discovery?)

To put it another way, how do you know that you know all contradicting possibilities?

Quote from: Tom Bishop on June 06, 2011, 08:13:53 AM

Quote

How would you know when you have reached "the truth" ?, Tom.

You know that you've reached the truth when the results of your work reached conclusions beyond a shadow of a doubt, eliminating all other contradicting possibilities.

...and what if you discovered a new "possibility" that contradicted the "truth", later on?  (e.g. following a new discovery?)

To put it another way, how do you know that you know all contradicting possibilities?

That shouldn't happen if your work has eliminated all other contradicting possibilities.

If it does happen, then your work did not eliminate all other contradicting possibilities.

Quote from: Moon squirter on June 06, 2011, 09:40:24 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on June 06, 2011, 08:13:53 AM

Quote

How would you know when you have reached "the truth" ?, Tom.

You know that you've reached the truth when the results of your work reached conclusions beyond a shadow of a doubt, eliminating all other contradicting possibilities.

...and what if you discovered a new "possibility" that contradicted the "truth", later on?  (e.g. following a new discovery?)

To put it another way, how do you know that you know all contradicting possibilities?

That shouldn't happen if your work has eliminated all other contradicting possibilities.

How do you know if you are in the state of having eliminated all contradicting possibilities?

Quote from: Moon squirter on June 06, 2011, 09:40:24 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on June 06, 2011, 08:13:53 AM

Quote

How would you know when you have reached "the truth" ?, Tom.

You know that you've reached the truth when the results of your work reached conclusions beyond a shadow of a doubt, eliminating all other contradicting possibilities.

...and what if you discovered a new "possibility" that contradicted the "truth", later on?  (e.g. following a new discovery?)

To put it another way, how do you know that you know all contradicting possibilities?

That shouldn't happen if your work has eliminated all other contradicting possibilities.

How can you be sure you have all the possible possibilities?   For example, supposing you discover a new contradicting interaction under certain extreme conditions, not previously possible to produce.

EDIT - Beaten by Harutsedo

Quote from: markjo on June 06, 2011, 09:29:24 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on June 06, 2011, 08:43:20 AM

How do you know it's detecting particles and not waves?

How would a wave leave a distinct trail in a cloud chamber?

A trail of waves.

How does one tell the difference between a trail left by a particle and a trail left by a wave?