What Are Junk Miles

[fozzy]

Heisenberg had a discussion with Einstein. He said to Einstein 'A good theory must be based on directly observable magnitudes.'

To which Einstein replied: 'But you don't seriously believe that none but observable magnitudes must go into a physical theory.'

Heisenberg: 'Isn't that precisely what you have done with relativity.'
Einstein: 'Possibly I did use this kind of reasoning, but it's nonsense all the same.'

Nobody knows what gravity is. Certainly not Stephen Hawking who isn't even a physicist. He's belongs to the 'rabbit out of the hat' brigade.

Firstly, you have truncated the quote between Heisenberg and Einstein, and this illuminates more of the discussion than you have quoted. Secondly, this refers to Quantum theory, of which Einstein was a noteable opponent ("God does not play with Dice"). But this is getting away from the point. General Relativity is not a perfect theory by any stretch, but observations (e.g. deviations in Mercury's orbit around the Sun, as to those predicted by Newton, Gravitation Lensing etc) have validated it and it is accepted by nearly every physicst and the general scientific community.

I do not know what you mean by "rabbit out of the hat brigade"

[fozzy]

What does a 'chemical imbalance' imply?

Chemical inbalance implies a change in levels to baseline. This could be that a particular chemical in lower than normal or be that one is higher than normal. There are many possible reasons for causing an imbalance. I am not discounting your theory that overtraining could lead to a chemical imbalance, but it is only one possible theory.

As you have already pulled me up on the point, perhaps you could provide observable evidence for this?

[nikalas]

What an utterly stupid response. The best thing for you is to go back to the Lake District for an eternal chill.

Tetchy, tetchy, easy tiger... if you can't take it.....

[nikalas]

If it's not clear where the research took place, then it probably didn't take place. The date, time and place of research is the only way to validate results.

Do you live your whole life under the delusion of a massive all encompassing conspiracy theory? It's a wonder you ever leave your house.

Personally, I see sound scientific methodology, robust analysis and interpretation of results and a publication in a respected peer reviewed journal as being pretty good validation.

[fozzy]

If it's not clear where the research took place, then it probably didn't take place. The date, time and place of research is the only way to validate results.

A fundamental point of science is that results should not depend on (a). the person carrying out the experiment. (b). the location of the experiment and (c). the time of the experiment.

Take, for example, a measurement the stiffness (or to be exact and scientific, the Young's modulus) of a pure titanium rod, then if you were to measure the Young's modulus using the same experimental method at 12pm on Sunday 31st October 2010 in Australia and I were to measure an identical rod at 5pm on Monday 1st November 2010, then we would get the same answer (within the error of the experiment).

As for validating the results in a paper, I prefer to look at the results gained and the methods used and see if I can draw the same conclusions that the authors have come to without being biased towards my own point of view (not always easy).

[Fnstein]

So, what are junk miles?

[CL]

A fundamental point of science is that results should not depend on (a). the person carrying out the experiment. (b). the location of the experiment and (c). the time of the experiment.

Take, for example, a measurement the stiffness (or to be exact and scientific, the Young's modulus) of a pure titanium rod, then if you were to measure the Young's modulus using the same experimental method at 12pm on Sunday 31st October 2010 in Australia and I were to measure an identical rod at 5pm on Monday 1st November 2010, then we would get the same answer (within the error of the experiment).

As for validating the results in a paper, I prefer to look at the results gained and the methods used and see if I can draw the same conclusions that the authors have come to without being biased towards my own point of view (not always easy).

In respect of human subjects, the time, date and place is of utmost importance. Without that information we may as well make things up. Which is what a lot of researchers actually do.

[nikalas]

So, what are junk miles?

See post 95 unless you've got some time to kill.

[fozzy]

What constitutes a 'perfect theory?' A theory must contain no contradictions to be perfect. If it does then it should be discarded. Gravity does produce a force, but the point you miss is nobody knows what produces this force. Explaining it in terms of space time and curvature doesn't tell you either, because you'd have to answer the question 'a curvature of what?'

The problem with the physics community is they have embraced the mysticism passed down from Bohr,Heisenberg, Hawking etc. I call them the 'rabbit out of the hat brigade.' In Hawking's case his ideas stem from a philisophical flaw. Namely that the universe was created out of 'absolutely nothing.'

As you say, a "perfect theory" must be just that. No theory is entirely perfect, because observations cannot prove a theory, only disprove. All observations to date have agreed with General Relativity. Is it perfect, no. Does it contain problems, yes. That is what Physicists who work in the are working on. For practical purposes, General Relativity is a good theory. GPS satellites, for example work because we understand General Relativity.
The Physics of the big bang are not easy to (a) understand and (b) explain. But, if you mean that he believes that the observable Universe came from a singularity, then yes, Professor Hawking does believe this (as far as I am aware, I don't know him personally). This is hardly a philosophical flaw. His understandings of the theories in Cosmology have led him to that conclusion. This point also does not invalidate other theories that he has developed. Anyway, General Relativity was developed by Albert Einstein and not Stephen Hawking. He merely explains General Relativity in laymans terms in "A Brief History of Time" and then goes on to discuss some of his own theories.

The Physics community have built on theories and observations that were developed by the scientists you have mentioned, along with a great deal of others. At every step of the way, there have been dissenters and also observations made to prove/disprove Quantum theory (which I believe is the "mysticism" to which you refer). However, the overwhelming evidence has shown that this theory, although with its flaws is generally correct. Again, Physicists are working to understand the flaws and correct/modify the theories.
Quantum theory is very hard to understand, but it is not mysticism. Just because you do not understand how and why the scientific community derives a theory, it does not make it automatically wrong. They are not "pulling a rabbit of a hat," instead they are working in a subject that is hard to understand and hard to fully explain.

[fozzy]

In respect of human subjects, the time, date and place is of utmost importance. Without that information we may as well make things up. Which is what a lot of researchers actually do.

No you are wrong.

The example I gave for the rod still holds, but when dealing with human parameters (any medical-based subject area), you are dealing with a larger natural variability and therefore larger error.

I don't know any researchers who make things up. I do know some whom I feel draw the wrong conclusions from the data they have produced/used and others who have done poor experiments, but to actually completely fake a paper, no.

There have been examples of researchers faking papers (one guy about cold fusion, but I can't remember his name at the moment), but they are very isolated and rare incidences, mainly because when someone else comes to prove/disprove the conclusions, they get found out very quickly.