The Principle--most controveral movie of science of this century?

[indio007]

The MM experiment is a pretty good experiment, it has been repeated many times with better and still better apparatus. I believe that only Dayton Miller was convinced that there actually was a detectable fringe shift.

Every MM experiment detects a fringe shift.

The Experiments on the relative motion of the earth and ether have been completed and the result decidedly negative. The expected deviation of the interference fringes from the zero should have been 0.40 of a fringe – the maximum displacement was 0.02 and the average much less than 0.01 – and then not in the right place. As displacement is proportional to squares of the relative velocities it follows that if the ether does slip past the relative velocity is less than one sixth of the earth’s velocity.

—Albert Abraham Michelson, 1887

It's shrinks proportionally to the light path. This is interpreted in the main stream as a reduction of the shift proportional to the test's accuracy.



I don't have a problem with the experiment per se. I have a problem with the conclusions of what the results of the experiment mean.

Resonators versions have similar but different issues.

[indio007]

In any case the people who worship logic don't have any more real answers than anyone else which by their own logic should have been the first indication that they may be doing something wrong.

I love this!

it reminds me of Occam's Razor.

Everyone believes that it is a useful tool but the actual evidence of that it is wrong.
http://homes.cs.washington.edu/~pedrod/papers/dmkd99.pdf

If science invariably applied Occam's razor the simple solution is that all science is wrong!

[wayne.ct]

Logic

Every field of human action, thoughts, words and behavior is steeped in its own jargon, terminology, words and concepts. By intentionally and purposefully ignoring and twisting the tools of communications anyone that wants to do so can make anything mean anything. This relates to the notion of semiotics and semiotics is the work of Pierce, referred to above. This is a subfield in the field of philosophy but is intimately connected to communication and LOGIC.

Talking, or in this case writing, in ignorance of the usage and context is not productive. On the other hand, it seems very few participants in this forum seem interested in greater productivity. I keep hoping to find some useful information and ideas related to energy and related notions. It is of interest to me. However, the various lines of thought continue to be more divergent than convergent.

It seems we will need a greater measure of good luck to produce something useful in this environment than I at first estimated. Still, it does make for interesting reading and in some cases viewing. I found Keshe interesting but not particularly informative. Same with Rodin. I think I am developing the same feeling toward TA.

About logic, if a thing does not make logical sense to me then my first cut at an assessment of a statement is that it is not logical. I may then take a few more "cuts" at the reading to see if I can make logical sense of a thing. If an experiment suggests itself as a means to test an idea, I consider the cost and feasibility of performing a test.

In summary, if a thing cannot be reduced or related to something testable it needs to be held in reserve as something unproved. Things that are unproved may still be discussed, weighed and evaluated but only in the context of the related field. To drift or vary from that field is to reduce any valid or valuable so called conclusion to nothing more than an unproven claim. To base a conclusion on meaningless words is not merely error prone it is practically guaranteed to be erroneous.

[TheoriaApophasis]

About logic, if a thing does not make logical sense to me then my first cut at an assessment of a statement is that it is not logical.

that internalization, personalization is a fallacious premise to begin an investigation with.


Most peoples denotative idea of "logic" TURNS OUT to be merely connotative and utterly PERSONAL


and that "aint good"



True investigation requires one divest themselves of any and all personal investment in a formerly held position or positions.


One must adjust to both what is provable, and if not empirically provable, then what must be necessitated to be so from all known deductive and retroductive conclusions which are devoid of any counter-intuitive ad hoc speculations or hyperbolic pontifications which have no basis in reason or are naturally obtusely complex or convoluted and therefore to be rejected.

[wayne.ct]

Complexity

it reminds me of Occam's Razor.

The statement of Occam's razor in the pdf seems pertinent. The theory or explanation should not be more complicated than NECESSARY. It seems obvious to me that some complexity is going to be necessary.

[TheoriaApophasis]

The statement of Occam's razor .

Ockham's razor, the Absolute, and the search for supreme truth
copyright 4-2010 TheoriaApophasis

William of Ockham, famous for a take upon his statement that one should not multiply entities beyond necessity “Entia non sunt multiplicanda sine necessitate”; now known only as “Ockham’s razor” was a metaphysical conclusion taken upon himself from the Platonic texts to which he was oft to have studied. It is certainly true that Ockham’s position to wit that the only “true necessity was that of God; all else is a (compounded) contingency” is at least nearly correct, as taken from the position of his Creationist mentality which cannot be cleaved from Ockham’s error that the Absolute was a composite entity with self-sentience.


From this obviously untenable position it is of no surprise that “Ockham’s razor” is often wielded as an argument against a Creationist theos by the equally ignorant nihilists and metaphysical atheists who realize the incommensurate errors which lie at the heart of positing the Absolute as more than the essence of being, but rather a supreme being in and of itself, to which the Platonists are vociferously apposite. It is therefore ironic that Ockham himself was a Creationist merely well versed and agreed with the logical Monism as found in the Platonic texts to which he was well learned, save for subjective adaptation to fit into his God-model of cosmic mechanics.


Ockham was arguably important in physics for his view, apparently an application of his razor, that motion is essentially self-conserving in itself without need of any causal force to which it need be added that Monism’s very core denies a “first sin” or “original cause” for the descent of being into empirical entrapment. The great “secret”, for lack of better designation, of Emanationism (proodos) and Platonic Monism is that descent and embodiment are ananke (necessitated, unavoidable; choate principle and attribute of the Absolute itself) to which wisdom’s revelation invokes the divine insight in the seeker that what the Absolute “is” and what it “does” are without distinction, in whole or in part, and are one and the very same essence, that being nous, or spirit, will, or “mind” in the non-empirical sense. To which what spirit ‘is’ and its attribute (what it ‘does’) are without differentiation.


Rightly so, his skepticism to which his ontological divine-simplicity request leads, appears in his doctrine that human reason can prove neither the immortality of the soul nor the existence, unity, and infinity of God. These truths, he teaches, are known to us by noetic revelation alone; logically all empirical speculation and theories are objective consubstantial conscious machinations which can neither provide revelation or bring about assimilation, i.e. bring proximity of the spirit to itself.


“Ockham’s razor”, in summation, lays contrary to the Creationist-God of Ockham himself but equally and intensely so against that of the materialist-nihilist. Ignoring this nuance as defect in the engrained Abrahamic mentality of Ockham’s Euro-Christian mentality, his “razor” sits at the very cornerstone and foundation upon which Platonism, logic and truth are built. This divine edifice of Emanationist Monism to which Ockham himself is famous for, but which he merely rediscovered, is the “supreme simplicity” which is stunningly simplex, yet which composes the entire mechanics of Emanationism/Platonic Monism. All beauty and complexity in nature are based upon Phi or Phi composites and it is certainly no surprise this divine ratio (Phi is to 1, as 1 is to Phi; or that Phi and 1 are but both the same thing, one delineated, the other numerated principle) was center of much study by the Platonists and the Pythagoreans before them (and before them?…).


Given a great deal of sufficient wisdom it must be stated that just beneath the ecstatic unspeakable and transcendent bliss of synthesis with the Absolute, this holy union of Self with Self/Absolute; second to this is the intense stupefaction one is blessed to ‘see’, as product of wisdom, the incredible simplicity, the necessity (“it cannot be another way”) of the mechanics of totality. The elimination internally of all of mankind’s most common and many metaphysical “whys” wiped for all eternity from ones soul, is a spiritual Kingship that cannot be described in any sense or relation to another. “Ockham’s razor” is merely a very late and rehashed statement attributed to William of Ockham as to his insights gleaned from his Platonic studies; just as all things known and unknown are, there is “nothing new under the sun, only things said and lost, and rediscovered and made new again”.


What is most important of this “razor” is that, unlike the nihilism of atheism and illogic of Creationism, Emanationism stands at the epicenter of abductive logic, of truth, of unspeakably divine simplicity, of incontrovertibility, as the undeniable model of totality and the cosmos both spiritual and material. Thereof the wise and fool alike are begged to take precious time to study and come to internally know (gnosis, not episteme) what is true and most beneficial. Just as the Aryan kneels with bent head before the holy alter of wisdom (the same alter upon which the gods themselves also ‘sacrifice’) and which can bear one upon spiritual holistics, and the noetic righting of all former errors.

The “razor” is not Ockham’s, nor the Platonists, but it is supremely true, is timeless, and revelation nonetheless; a paradigm the wise will nod to as acknowledgement of what they know as unquestionably accurate about the Absolute.