Uncategorized

A Benchmark

So you say, you can predict? That you have software which puts out very accurate predictions. Doesn’t matter if it is closed or open source. Freeware or proprietary. Made by NASA or by yourself.

Give it a file with all the dates between January the first 1600, and the last day of December 1999. That makes 146097 dates.

If the prediction program can’t tell you, that the next will be the first day of the year 2000 – a still unobserved value – then this software of yours is no good.

Of course, if the Gregorian calendar is hard-coded in to this oracle, then it’s merely a fake.

Just some advice for calibrating things.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Advertisements
Standard
astrophysics, physics

Low Level Reasoning

The gloves should be off, when pondering science. No courtesy for authorities, no courtesy for the rest of humanity. Nothing is granted and everybody suspected of treason, including yourself. Still, it is you who is conducting the investigation so you have to have some confidence in good old you.

‘Where were you when your husband was murdered, your majesty?’

‘Do you know who you are talking to?! I am The Queen of England! etc.’

‘Yes. Isn’t she a female version of the Pope in a somewhat smaller church? So, where were you, madame?’

This is the kind of spirit, you have to have, when thinking of fundamentals.

When a character like Sagan or bigger pops up, talking about stars, he is already a prime suspect in the crime of being fundamentally wrong. And wrong he was, as we now know. Not only him, but the whole gang.

For stars never die. And they are never born. Only clouds of cosmic gas get denser in some circumstances and glow more intensely due to the faster fusion. The talk of a dying star can be very misleading. The narrative ‘they convert mass to energy when shining’, is directly wrong. Because even when you ‘convert matter to energy’, the amount of mass does not change. This fact that has been staring at us for a century, has been acknowledged only recently. Stars don’t convert mass into energy. Only some particles transform while  the mass and the energy, which are equal, stay the same! The fact that now the mass-energy is in photons and neutrinos as opposed to atoms of hydrogen doesn’t change this.

Okay, you may say, that’s just nitpicking. It’s irrelevant.

No it isn’t! You want the table to be clean when performing a surgery, assembling a computer chip or dealing with any other delicate matter. Germs and dust may result in failure.

When pondering galaxies, atoms, numbers, sets, dark energy and so on, the table must be even cleaner. Spotting the dirt and being absolutely dogmatic in the matters of hygiene is very crucial.

I am afraid, that Her Majesty has no alibi here. And that the desks are dirty. The good science doctors of today, are as blind as those doctors of medicine from the Victorian era, completely unafraid of the so called microbes.

Astrophysics, as is it is now, is particularly messy. “You know, there might be an infinite number of Universes like ours out there!” they claim enthusiastically.

Excuse me, sir! What infinity are you talking about? The countable one? Do you mean the continuum many? More than that? Something between aleph zero and aleph one, in the Cohenian sense? What the Hell are you talking about? Your desk is as dirty as it can be, and you aren’t afraid that your patient might get infected? Are you sure, that there is a patient at all? Are you sure that the desk is?

Put this way – “There might be an infinite number of Universes near us” – reminds me more of mud wrestling a pig, then of rigorous science.

Another example. Some astrophysicists are equally enthusiastic when telling us about a time in the far future, when there will be no more galaxies visible from Earth, and a civilization will have no way of knowing that they were once plentiful.

Excuse me, sir! Would every far future civilization necessarily prohibit paleontology and other past researching sciences? When and why will all the information about the past be erased?

Even thought you are ‘just talking for the sake of understanding, to the general public now’, your table is dirty. I suspect it might be dirty even when ‘real science’ is going on.

Astrophysics has no preferential treatment here. Chemistry can also be dirty. When they tell us, that some weird quantum effects are responsible for smelling substances, not just chemistry… Sorry, the whole of chemistry is ‘weird quantum effects’. Every single chemical reaction is just a manifestation of electro-weak, strong and gravitational forces interacting. Yes all of them!

Is Math dirty? Oh, yes, it is. Stay tuned for another post exclusively about it.

Standard
Uncategorized

A Cathedral’s Cathedral in Swiss

 
 
Another case, where the science Cathedral is very unforgiving is the CERN LHC.
 
Years ago, they were quite detrminated to:
 
  1. find a lot of new particles
  2. likely to produce some miniature black holes
  3. likely to confirm supersymmetry
  4. possibly find some unexpected events 
  5. NOT endanger our world in any way whatsoever (any different view is deeply unscientific)
How to reconcile 4 with with 5, I wondered back then and I still do. 
 
As I am happy, that all we “unsceintific sceptics”  have been proven wrong, and we are still here, I have to say that nobody expected a certain end of the world, only a possibility.
 
Now, after this first turn of a Russian roulette, which went so well, they are filling the pistol once again, for a slightly bigger bang in 2015.
 
The Cathedral assures us that NOTHING can possibly go wrong. Didn’t you all see, how they discovered the Highs boson? Or at least some signs of it? And they told us that it’s competently safe! We are supposed to be thrilled!
 
 
Standard
Uncategorized

What is ‘Cathedral’?  It’s a political term for a wide consensus between the so called mainstream politicians. From American Republicans to French Socialists. Supported by all the mainstream media, universities, civil services and so on. From the Cathedral’s point of view, the far right and the far left are just crackpots, not worth listening to, mildly put.

The same goes for science, there is a Cathedral, that you don’t want to challenge in any way, for fear of being labeled a crackpot or worse.

Where is The scientific Cathedral wrong, where does it manipulate with the facts? Even if its members and the institutions it encompasses are mostly right, they probably do make a mistake every now and then, don’t they?

For example, they are telling us, that our genetic code is 99% similar to that of an average chimpanzee. Well, genetic code is a code, and even a single different bit (1 billionth) could result in a completely different outcome.

1% is a huge difference between us and chimps. Huge.

The Cathedral

Aside