|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#51
|
|||
|
|||
Critical Test for the Big Bang and Discrete Fractal Paradigms
In a parenthetical comment, mjh wrote:
[Mod. note: it's supposed to be Lev Landau who said that `cosmologists are often in error, but never in doubt'. Most working cosmologists, of course, would not fall into the elementary error in classical statistical tests of confounding a confidence level of rejection of the null hypothesis with a confidence level of acceptance of one's favourite alternative -- mjh] Most scientists of any stripe would not fall into the error of seeing such an outlandish level of "confidence", and blithely accepting it, but would instead make the reasoned inference that some completely incorrect assumption about physical reality had intruded, and was the much more likely source of "confidence" more firm than the limits of accuracy even of quantum theory, the most precise theory known to science. xanthian. |
#52
|
|||
|
|||
Critical Test for the Big Bang and Discrete Fractal Paradigms
Thus spake Kent Paul Dolan
In a parenthetical comment, mjh wrote: [Mod. note: it's supposed to be Lev Landau who said that `cosmologists are often in error, but never in doubt'. Most working cosmologists, of course, would not fall into the elementary error in classical statistical tests of confounding a confidence level of rejection of the null hypothesis with a confidence level of acceptance of one's favourite alternative -- mjh] Most scientists of any stripe would not fall into the error of seeing such an outlandish level of "confidence", This is the statistical definition of confidence. If someone tossed a coin 377 times, and it came up heads 288 times and tails only 89 times, you would be pretty confident that there was something funny going on. and blithely accepting it, but would instead make the reasoned inference that some completely incorrect assumption about physical reality had intruded, That is the point. Clearly an incorrect assumption about reality has intruded. The test is simple enough however, that there is not a lot that can be wrong, apart from the assumption that the standard Doppler law applies. and was the much more likely source of "confidence" more firm than the limits of accuracy even of quantum theory, the most precise theory known to science. Quantum theory does not apply here. It is a simple test analogous to tossing a coin. Regards -- Charles Francis moderator sci.physics.foundations. substitute charles for NotI to email |
#53
|
|||
|
|||
Critical Test for the Big Bang and Discrete Fractal Paradigms
Oh No wrote:
Thus spake Kent Paul Dolan Most scientists of any stripe would not fall into the error of seeing such an outlandish level of "confidence", This is the statistical definition of confidence. Oh, nice job of splitting a sentence in the middle and then answering a fragment whose meaning has been completely changed by not allowing the thought to be completed. Since I was nowhere quarreling with the standard definition of staticial confidence, your followup is a complete non sequitur. and blithely accepting it, but would instead make the reasoned inference that some completely incorrect assumption about physical reality had intruded, That is the point. Clearly an incorrect assumption about reality has intruded. The test is simple enough however, that there is not a lot that can be wrong, apart from the assumption that the standard Doppler law applies. Oh really? And what would the test have produced if your assumption that dopplar shifts should be spherically isotropic from the solar system were instead the incorrect assumption? Your agenda commitment to teleconnection blinds you to much more obvious sources of error in your thinking, error that would create a blatantly incorrect null hypothesis and thus provoke such unbelievablely high "confidence" when that "confidence" is incorrectly misdirected to support of your agenda. The galaxy has been a busy and frequently explosive place, on levels large and small. I can think of no reason whatever to presume that looking different directions from the solar system shouldn't find you looking at groups of stars with vastly different histories, and therefore properties. Indeed, according to recent TV cosmology presentations, the Milky Way is already a composite galaxy made up of several smaller collided galaxies, not to mention the collision upcoming with Andromeda. There have not yet been sufficient total turns of our galaxy to throughly blend the star populations of the separate galaxies of which it is comprised, so looking different directions from Sol will be looking at different mixture proportions (think "stripes in an incompletely stirred mixture of vanilla and chocolate pudding", if it helps) of the contributing collided galaxies, making different average motions the _expectation_, not some astonishing discovery that supports overthrowing the accepted wisdom of cosmology. Verba volant, scripta manent. xanthian. |
#54
|
|||
|
|||
Critical Test for the Big Bang and Discrete Fractal Paradigms
Thus spake Kent Paul Dolan
Oh No wrote: Thus spake Kent Paul Dolan Most scientists of any stripe would not fall into the error of seeing such an outlandish level of "confidence", This is the statistical definition of confidence. Oh, nice job of splitting a sentence in the middle and then answering a fragment whose meaning has been completely changed by not allowing the thought to be completed. Since I was nowhere quarreling with the standard definition of staticial confidence, your followup is a complete non sequitur. I am glad to hear it. By putting confidence in inverted commas, you rather made it appear that you did not know what the word means in context. and blithely accepting it, but would instead make the reasoned inference that some completely incorrect assumption about physical reality had intruded, That is the point. Clearly an incorrect assumption about reality has intruded. The test is simple enough however, that there is not a lot that can be wrong, apart from the assumption that the standard Doppler law applies. Oh really? And what would the test have produced if your assumption that dopplar shifts should be spherically isotropic from the solar system were instead the incorrect assumption? I have pointed out that an alternative is to drop assumptions on which all our physical theories are based. You are welcome to do that if you find it more reasonable. Your agenda commitment to teleconnection blinds you to much more obvious sources of error in your thinking, Your agenda on the other hand appears to be committed to hurling insults with regard to things you do not understand. Indeed, as I recall, when you objected to the formation of sci.physics.foundations, it was on the ground that hurling abuse was against the charter. error that would create a blatantly incorrect null hypothesis and thus provoke such unbelievablely high "confidence" when that "confidence" is incorrectly misdirected to support of your agenda. As Martin has pointed out, no competent cosmologist is likely to make such an elementary error. It is your error to accuse me of it, not mine. As I pointed out, I have used the word confidence in the statistical sense, as a level of confidence for rejecting the null hypothesis, not as a level of confidence for accepting a particular alternative. If you are not happy with that, then you should study the definition and stop arguing with it. Regards -- Charles Francis moderator sci.physics.foundations. substitute charles for NotI to email |
#55
|
|||
|
|||
Critical Test for the Big Bang and Discrete Fractal Paradigms
Thus spake Kent Paul Dolan
The galaxy has been a busy and frequently explosive place, on levels large and small. I can think of no reason whatever to presume that looking different directions from the solar system shouldn't find you looking at groups of stars with vastly different histories, and therefore properties. Indeed, according to recent TV cosmology presentations, the Milky Way is already a composite galaxy made up of several smaller collided galaxies, not to mention the collision upcoming with Andromeda. Before you complain that I snipped the rest of your post, may I just point out that if you had followed any of the analysis you would already know that your hypothesis that such things can explain the result can be rejected with just as high a level of confidence as the null hypothesis used in the tests. Regards -- Charles Francis moderator sci.physics.foundations. substitute charles for NotI to email |
#56
|
|||
|
|||
Critical Test for the Big Bang and Discrete Fractal Paradigms
Oh No wrote:
As I pointed out, I have used the word confidence in the statistical sense, as a level of confidence for rejecting the null hypothesis, not as a level of confidence for accepting a particular alternative. So, then, the posting: http://groups.google.com/group/sci.a...b49dbe7e53af8e In which it is claimed, essentially, that by rejecting the null hypothesis, the only hypothesis that is left is the one of your agenda: In this there is only one alternative, as far as I know at the present time. Understanding the alternative fully means delving into recherche areas of differential geometry, but I don't see how there can be another alternative consistent with the general principle of relativity, and consistent with foundations of quantum theory. was forged by someone else in your name, since you claim here that you've made no such illogical presumption? I'll reiterate the advice I gave to Oldershaw, he http://groups.google.com/group/sci.a...9fb976c7e71191 Those who are unwilling to behave as scientists, should not feel that they have the right to demand to be treated with the respect freely granted to those who do. Verba volant, scripta manent. xanthian. [Mod. note: please try to talk about the science, not each other's motivations --- mjh] |
#57
|
|||
|
|||
Critical Test for the Big Bang and Discrete Fractal Paradigms
Thus spake Kent Paul Dolan
Oh No wrote: As I pointed out, I have used the word confidence in the statistical sense, as a level of confidence for rejecting the null hypothesis, not as a level of confidence for accepting a particular alternative. So, then, the posting: http://groups.google.com/group/sci.a...b49dbe7e53af8e In which it is claimed, essentially, that by rejecting the null hypothesis, the only hypothesis that is left is the one of your agenda: In this there is only one alternative, as far as I know at the present time. Understanding the alternative fully means delving into recherche areas of differential geometry, but I don't see how there can be another alternative consistent with the general principle of relativity, and consistent with foundations of quantum theory. was forged by someone else in your name, since you claim here that you've made no such illogical presumption? Of course I claim no such thing. Distinguish the logical steps, and be precise with the language. The null hypothesis is rejected at a high level of confidence according to statistical analysis. That does not allow you to apply that level of confidence to another theory. As a second, and distinct logical step once the null hypothesis has been rejected, if there is only one theory consistent with the facts, consistent with general relativity, and consistent with quantum theory, then one is lead to accept that theory. Even so, you cannot apply the statistical definition of confidence to the acceptance of that theory, since that would neglect things which may not have been thought of. I'll reiterate the advice I gave to Oldershaw, he http://groups.google.com/group/sci.a...9fb976c7e71191 Those who are unwilling to behave as scientists, should not feel that they have the right to demand to be treated with the respect freely granted to those who do. I don't think you are in a position to advise until such point as you know what you are talking about. In this case it is your out of hand rejection of both scientific theory and of empirical analysis which shows whether you are willing to behave as a scientist. Note that while posters here scientifically more minded and also better qualified than yourself, such as Philip Helbig, Steve Willner, and the moderator himself, will obviously not accept what I say purely on the basis of my say so, nor do they reject it out of hand. In contrast to yourself, they have given good advice. [Mod. note: further purely personal discussion in this thread will be rejected. -- mjh] Regards -- Charles Francis moderator sci.physics.foundations. substitute charles for NotI to email |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|