User talk:MM87

From Conservapedia

I hope that your post on Talk:Counterexamples to Relativity will lead to an insightful (or at least entertaining =P) discussion. The part of me that wants this project to be a reliable and respected resource fully agrees that that "article" needs a serious once-over since it has dragged down the reputation of the site. The rest of me, however, loves Quantum Jesus, so just like you, I'm feeling somewhat conflicted. ;) --Sid 3050 08:56, 8 August 2011 (EDT)

Thanks for your welcome! The same is for me: physics is a branch of human knowledge that relies (or should rely) of facts via the scientific method, not opinions. In particular, I hate when physics theories are misinterpretated or attacked with opinions or simply false statements, and not facts (as should be). Unfortunately I'm very busy at the moment (I'm writing the thesis) so I won't partecipate discussions very often or write articles.

My time, if any, will be spent on the liberal Wikipedia (where I wrote something in the past), sorry :P

--MM87 09:33, 8 August 2011 (EDT)

Overwrite of your edit explained

MM87, the discussion at Talk:Counterexamples to Relativity will remain at a high level of quality. Please keep it that way and avoid personal criticisms.--Andy Schlafly 10:22, 20 August 2011 (EDT)

It wasn't a criticism, more like a request of explanations on CP's history. Oh, well, ok... anyway, you still have to answer about these points with citations. How long has CP to wait for the needed citations? --MM87 10:37, 20 August 2011 (EDT)

You're welcome to post consistent with the high level of quality. Snide remarks that detract from the scientific discussion are not welcome.

I've answered many of your questions and will continue to do so, but I'm not sure you've answered my basic question: do you concede that criticism of Relativity disqualifies someone from being a contender for the Nobel Prize, or obtaining tenure at a major university? If Relativity were true, then why is such political pressure needed to prop it up?--Andy Schlafly 10:44, 20 August 2011 (EDT)

But you did not wrote any plausibile justification of these famous points. Why want you to keep these points even if a lot of competent people (SamHB and RSchlafly much more than me) say that they are simply absurd?

I thought I answered to your question, but I'll answer again. Someone is awarded with the Nobel prize (I'm strictly talking about the Physics prize) if has made an important experimental discovery, or a major technical advance, or contributions to theoretical physics that led to discoveries or insights in the experiments: Nobels aren't given if there isn't an experimental proof of a theory: this is the reason why any string theorists won't win the Nobel, since string theory doesn't make experimental predictions. Ok?

Now, there are two types of relativity critics (is a great simplification, of course): the first type, like you, rejects every kind of experiment that supports relativity. You simply don't trust science and scientists, without offering ideas about make a better theory: this is the reason why you won't win the Nobel ever ;-) (Saying "you" I mean "every person that thinks this way": there's nothing personal). If you don't accept the results of experiments, there is not possibility of dialogue between you and any physicist (as seems to happen in that talk page).

The second type of person criticizing the "standard" theory of relativity says that all, or almost all, current experiments are explained by relativity (as the experimentalists claim), and is waiting for the experiment that will disprove, for example, the costance of the speed of light. There are many, many, many models of modified relativity or things like that, but today simply there aren't any experimental proofs confirming any of these theories. The same can be said concerning the foundations of quantum mechanics. There is a small number of tenured professors working on these topic because this is high-risk science: there are a lot of theories, but only one, or none of them, will survive the experiments. Sure, in this case, the theory that explains the experiments will give a great insight on nature, but this is often not sufficient for a university to assume a researcher. You can be sure that, if a correction of the relativity laws will be found right (experimentally!), the proposer of that theory will be awarded with a Nobel prize.

I think that the right question is not "why there are so few quantum gravity researchers?", but "why there are so many string theorists?", and THIS is a matter of politics (IMHO). String theory is a high-risk research exactly as doubly special relativity, or loop quantum gravity, but is treated as low-risk research. --MM87 11:16, 20 August 2011 (EDT)

Your statement "the first type, like you [referring to me], rejects every kind of experiment that supports relativity. You simply don't trust science ...." is incorrect by such a wide margin that I don't think it's productive to debate the scientific issues with you further. Also, to the extent you imply that politics does not influence the awarding of the Nobel Prize in Physics, I think that is obviously incorrect also. See, e.g., Robert H. Dicke.

In the absence of clear correction on these points, particularly the first one, I don't expect to respond further to your comments.--Andy Schlafly 16:15, 20 August 2011 (EDT)

"Correction"? :D I didn't say that some "non scientific reasons" cannot influence the Nobel prize, but that criticizing relativity is not one of them. And I repeat: considering only a part of the experiments is deeply anti-scientific.

The Dicke case: here I really can't follow you. Did the Nobel commission say that Dicke would not be awarded because of his view about relativity? I really don't think so. Again, do you have the proofs, or some citations, of what are you saying? Remember that there are a lot more scientists than prizes.

Andy, the point here is not what I, or you, may or may not think about relativity. The point is that most of that counterexamples are wrong: if you are against relativity you have to attack it with solid arguments in your favour (for example, dark energy), not that points. So I'll ask you, once more: what about points (7), (8), (13), (16), (26), (32) and (33)? Since the have been proven false by some users, and you still have not cited references for any of these points, why are they still in that page? (are now limits clearer to you?)

Can I ask you, directly, the question I made in the talk page? When and how have you first noticed liberals promoting relativity? (the scientific theory, I mean) Since it is a personal question, maybe you would prefer an e-mail answer...

Cordially, --MM87 18:00, 20 August 2011 (EDT)

p.s. I forgot remembering that "common sense" and "obvious logic" are not always good estimators (in the statistical sense) of reality. See for example here. This is the reason why mathematical proofs or physical experiments exists.

No, the Nobel Prize commission did not admit that doesn't give awards to anyone who criticizes evolution or relativity. Would you really expect them to? But the evidence is too obvious for words.--Andy Schlafly 20:24, 21 August 2011 (EDT)