On 24 Mar, 17:31,
sir.jeanpaul-turc...@neuf.fr wrote:
So, dear Oriel, you are questioning the scientific method ?
Well, this is good but as it is outlaid down here, where do you see it
at fault ?
Personally I see it at fault in the way that :
Quote
People see in things only what they want to see,
And they want to see only what they know
Unquote
What is your own opposition to the Scientific Method then ? jpturcaud
§http://teacher.pas.rochester.edu/phy_labs/AppendixE/AppendixE.html
Introduction to the Scientific Method
The scientific method is the process by which scientists, collectively
and over time, endeavor to construct an accurate (that is, reliable,
consistent and non-arbitrary) representation of the world.
Recognizing that personal and cultural beliefs influence both our
perceptions and our interpretations of natural phenomena, we aim
through the use of standard procedures and criteria to minimize those
influences when developing a theory. As a famous scientist once said,
"Smart people (like smart lawyers) can come up with very good
explanations for mistaken points of view." In summary, the scientific
method attempts to minimize the influence of bias or prejudice in the
experimenter when testing an hypothesis or a theory
I. The scientific method has four steps
1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.
2. Formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena. In physics,
the hypothesis often takes the form of a causal mechanism or a
mathematical relation.
3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena,
or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations.
4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several
independent experimenters and properly performed experiments.
Empiricism is a cult and its adherents,including you,must be
approached in the way all other cult members are approached.You
believe a certain set of principles using a certain set of characters
and nothing shakes you from the stories or the conclusions.From that
website -
"We are all familiar with theories which had to be discarded in the
face of experimental evidence. In the field of astronomy, the earth-
centered description of the planetary orbits was overthrown by the
Copernican system, in which the sun was placed at the center of a
series of concentric, circular planetary orbits. Later, this theory
was modified, as measurements of the planets motions were found to be
compatible with elliptical, not circular, orbits, and still later
planetary motion was found to be derivable from Newton's laws."
http://teacher.pas.rochester.edu/phy_labs/AppendixE/AppendixE.html
I had already shown you that there is no way to reconcile the approach
Copernicus took to retrogrades (and Kepler and Galileo understood his
approach and resolution) with the way Newton approached the observed
behavior of the other planets.It is a plain and clear affirmation of
the main Copernican argument based on observed motions from an
orbitally moving /axially rotating Earth whereas Newton used a
hypothetical observer on the Sun.
It takes a cult member to force the word 'experiment' in astronomical
reasoning whereas a genuine persopn simply enjoys what Copernicus did
and how he figure out the Earth is orbitally moving between Venus and
Mars and axially rotating at the same time -
http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap011220.html
You and your empirical kind manage to justify the false approach of
Newton regardless of how many times it is shown that it is false -
"For to the earth planetary motions appear sometimes direct, sometimes
stationary, nay, and sometimes retrograde. But from the sun they are
always seen direct.." Newton
How you are going to explain axial rotation from a hypothetical
observer on the Sun I do not know nor care to know,it is easy enough
to understand from an axial rotating Earth just as it is easy to
understand the orbital motion of the Earth through watching how the
planets behave in our common orbit around the central Sun.
I do not have to engage empirical cult members,they all bear the same
mark of making up whatever story it needs to reach the desired
conclusionI can only appeal to those people who,after experiencing the
delight of undersatanding what Coperniucs did and how he did it will
reserve indignation that a less careful man hijacked his insights and
imposed his own idiosyncratic and destructive method on the great
Western astronomical achievement.
The root of the imposed and artificial conflict between matters of
faith and investigations of terrestrial/astronomical phenomena is
right here in astronomy,the root cause is a combination of Flamsteed's
astrologiucal framework and Newton's cockeyed view of Copernican
reasoning.- Masquer le texte des messages précédents -
- Afficher le texte des messages précédents -
