Qualitative versus Quantitative models

[Siggy_G]

Qualitative versus Quantitative models

If one observes spiral shapes in nature, whether it is within a galaxy or a conch, one will see that they are never perfect, nor without some variation from the otherwize perfect and conceptual shape they portray.

The same goes for the fractal like patterns seen in e.g. a tree, a conch, a snow crystal or lightning (branches or repetitions). Such patterns are repeated and are clearly fractal of nature, but not exact and mathematically correct as according to one straight formula.

There are randomizations in the evolving cycle of pattern generation due to external influences - whether it is from varying pressure, varying medium density, energy transfer or influences from gravitational or electromagnetic fields.

Now, a qualitative model can explain what the processes are, what one can expect from it, its cause and effects - and usually under which circumstances (i.e. approximatelly when) it will occur.

A quantitative model will be expected to precalculate and retrocalculate exactly when and where everything will be happening at any given time. A purely mathematical model of lightning, would tell exactly when and where the branching will occur, according to one or more formulas. But it will surely be mere conceptual (therefore Einstein's quote: "As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality.").

A quantitative model will be expected to precalculate and retrocalculate exactly when and where everything will be happening at any given time – IF all internal and surrounding conditions are known, not just now, but also some time back.

Now, how often is all of this data at hand, especially when it comes to cosmos? For the above mentioned reasons, I think qualitative models are effectively scientifically satisfactory, given that one can observe the mentioned effects or can fully or partly measure expected outcomes. As we know from the Big Bang model, if any unexpected outcome is observed, the model just needs some more work... The "demand" for a proven quantitative model before a qualitative model can be considered scientifically satisfactory, as brought up in other threads and foras, is to me puzzling.

[jjohnson]

Me, too; all of the above.

It is premature, IMHO, for Nereid or anyone else to be demanding quantitative (i.e. numerically quantifiable) data, formulas, laws, and predictions from the EU as represented by Forum members.

If you are shooting pool, and can correctly call the eight ball off the six and two rails in the corner pocket, it is not necessary to bring up quasi-elastic collisions and Snell's ideal laws of reflection off deformable straight line surfaces, with rolling and sliding friction and off-center cue impact considerations. At least not yet.

The EU set of ideas and conjectures is a captivating, potentially plausible, and possibly valid qualitative model in its own right, at this stage of its development. As I kept reminding Nereid, it doesn't pass the test of what most of today's scientists would consider to be a developed theory, at least in Popper's definition. It probably isn't even a hypothesis. So why apply their tests for substantiating whether the EU is a theory or not, when we freely admit that it is still a developing, qualitative model or description of what we expect to see happen if this and that are correct?

When we are approached with invitations to debate or to "show us what you've got, quantitatively", we are simply being goaded, inappropriately. The requesters know, as do we all, that editors would not put an EU article in a peer-reviewed journal because it would likely have little or no prior peer-reviewed articles "by other sanctioned authors" as references. This is a new approach, and not one that has "been previously dismissed with no real observations and data, so it is no good" as they imply or, frequently, state. Antecedents are few in a new paradigm, if you don't count contributions from Maxwell, Faraday, Volta, Tesla, Birkeland, and those other scientists who had to be published in "less rigorously reviewed" journals such as IEEE, or even arXive. Our arguments are DOA, by their definition.

That dismissal does not change our arguments.
Non carborundum illegitimi !

The best response is no response, to such goads, and to keep plugging along, introducing these ideas to as wide an audience as possible. Age-wide, world-wide, science-wide if possible.

[davesmith_au]

A small correction Jim, if I may...

... and those other scientists who had to be published in "less rigorously reviewed" journals such as IEEE ...

It is incorrect to characterize the IEEE journals as "less rigorously reviewed". If anything, it is more difficult to get published in the IEEE than most any other journal. You only need ask those who have had papers published there. That it is "less rigorously reviewed" is one of the myths perpetrated by those who wish to dismiss content therefrom. Their other widely claimed mantra is that "IEEE publishes on industrial applications of plasma, and should not publish anything about cosmology or astrophysics" or something equally as lame. Who better to review plasma physics? A plasma physicist or an astrophysicist?... Anyhow no biggie Jim, but I'd hate to see such a quote gain legs.

Cheers, Dave.

[jjohnson]

Dave,
That is precisely the reason I placed the phrase "less rigorously reviewed" in quotes — to emphasize that it quotes the mainstream opinionizers and not the EU's. I find their argument about the IEEE papers being less rigorously reviewed than other scientific journals to be inf*@#ingcredible!

Maybe my humour or sarcasm is too subtle, sometimes...


Jim

[davesmith_au]

Sorry Jim, I didn't even register the quotes, just the phrase... suffering a small bout of idiotitis today...

Cheers, Dave.

[Sparky]

Siggy_G, and jjohnson, thank you for your clear and well expressed perspectives.

History has recorded deficiencies in both models, injecting errors that took our understanding off onto tangents. The relative young scientific method, still evolving, if adhered to closely, would prevent or reduce those dead end tangents.

Though I can not function at a high level of critical thinking, I do appreciate those who can, and I try to adjust my perspective with inputs from greater minds that express themselves with clarity.

thank you...

[Nereid]

Interesting thread; good job Siggy_G.

It is premature, IMHO, for Nereid or anyone else to be demanding quantitative (i.e. numerically quantifiable) data, formulas, laws, and predictions from the EU as represented by Forum members.

Why (is it premature)?

As far as I can tell, the only physics which has not been around for many decades is Narlikar's Variable Mass Hypothesis (central to an explanation of Arp's model of quasars, which is a key part of EU theory).

That physics - mostly just classical electromagnetism with a sprinkling of some key results from atomic physics - has been applied to the development of descriptions/explanations of astronomical phenomena and observations for over a century, in one form or another.

What is it that prevents EU theorists - and active members of this forum like yourself and Siggy_G - from doing the same sorts of things as Peratt and Lerner (and publishing the results)?

[mharratsc]

Ms. Nereid:

What is it that prevents EU theorists - and active members of this forum like yourself and Siggy_G - from doing the same sorts of things as Peratt and Lerner (and publishing the results)?

That seems to me a most disingenious question. Are you seriously asking why a retired architect is not publishing research papers in Astronomy journals??

You know- it's one thing to read papers, and decide for oneself which courses of logic are most appealing/incontrivertible (and argue said points), and quite another to conduct lines of research one's self... or do you truly not see it that way? o.O

[Nereid]

Ms. Nereid:

What is it that prevents EU theorists - and active members of this forum like yourself and Siggy_G - from doing the same sorts of things as Peratt and Lerner (and publishing the results)?

That seems to me a most disingenious question. Are you seriously asking why a retired architect is not publishing research papers in Astronomy journals??

No Mike, I am not asking that at all.

I recall reading that Siggy_G stated he was picking up Peratt's PIC simulations, and running them on one of today's PCs (which would count as a supercomputer, in 1986). That's a piece of research considerably more challenging than some straight-forward modelling based on the published electric Sun model.

Over at Galaxy Zoo, there's a regular guy (Waveney) who is now doing a PhD in astronomy, based on inputs from citizen scientists ("zooites").

And publishing is easy, if you - an independent researcher - set your sights lower than Nature or ApJ.

You know- it's one thing to read papers, and decide for oneself which courses of logic are most appealing/incontrivertible (and argue said points), and quite another to conduct lines of research one's self... or do you truly not see it that way? o.O

I truly do not see it that way; in fact, I even created a thread putting my money where my mouth is (so to speak), honouring you.

[Siggy_G]

What is it that prevents EU theorists - and active members of this forum like yourself and Siggy_G - from doing the same sorts of things as Peratt and Lerner (and publishing the results)?

The challenging factors are primary time, secondary funding and admitedly also data/knowledge. I've found that for every thing you want to do, you need to do a couple of other things first... This also goes for data/knowledge - one needs to read into other theories and papers to make sure things are coherent (and it doesn't help that we seem to find anomalies with some of the theories/processes we thought were understood - e.g. as mentioned in "Electric Sun - a Quantitative Calculation" thread). The amount of work required for publishing papers and especially writing a new kind of simulation software probably takes a few weeks worth of full-time work. It's a reason why researchers apply for statual funding or already are on a payroll to focus full-time on research.

I agree with you (Nereid) that we should try to get some of this work done. I agree with Thornhill that the amount of work required to build each block of a coherent cosmology is tremendous for a few persons. And I agree with Mike H that we are still in position as forum members to ask critical questions even if we can't point to personal published papers. The requirement is first of all to have some basis to back up the claims or questions.

I recall reading that Siggy_G stated he was picking up Peratt's PIC simulations, and running them on one of today's PCs (which would count as a supercomputer, in 1986). That's a piece of research considerably more challenging than some straight-forward modelling based on the published electric Sun model.

I started looking into this a few months ago, but I can only pick up on it now and then, due to time constraints, as I'm full-time occupied with work etc. I would preferably need to engage a skilled programmer to do custom code as well, so there is funding issues too. I did talk to representatives for a statual funding program, but this kind of work (simulation, Sun hypothesis, electric currents) was on the borderline of the program's focus. Though, it would be great to find a program that allows for funding this kind of work, which is not unlikely (the Research Council of Norway announces some experimental programs every now and then that one can apply for). Oh, and one should preferably be a part of a research institution or university, which is a bit of a barrier.

[mharratsc]

Ms. Nereid:

What is it that prevents EU theorists - and active members of this forum like yourself and Siggy_G - from doing the same sorts of things as Peratt and Lerner (and publishing the results)?

That seems to me a most disingenious question. Are you seriously asking why a retired architect is not publishing research papers in Astronomy journals??

No Mike, I am not asking that at all.

I recall reading that Siggy_G stated he was picking up Peratt's PIC simulations, and running them on one of today's PCs (which would count as a supercomputer, in 1986). That's a piece of research considerably more challenging than some straight-forward modelling based on the published electric Sun model.

Over at Galaxy Zoo, there's a regular guy (Waveney) who is now doing a PhD in astronomy, based on inputs from citizen scientists ("zooites").

And publishing is easy, if you - an independent researcher - set your sights lower than Nature or ApJ.

You know- it's one thing to read papers, and decide for oneself which courses of logic are most appealing/incontrivertible (and argue said points), and quite another to conduct lines of research one's self... or do you truly not see it that way? o.O

I truly do not see it that way; in fact, I even created a thread putting my money where my mouth is (so to speak), honouring you.

Well you'll have to color me absolutely and completely disgusted at the moment with the notion of putting forth any work into any of this stuff, writing it up, and then submitted said work anywhere that might be read and commented on by 'orthodox' cosmologists.

You see- I sadly made the mistake of forcing myself to read through various 'treatments' of EU topics to date on the BAUT forums, and I doubt that I shall ever recover from my new conviction that it is*impossible* to reach *any* of those people who lurk on that forum... Ever.

Only a few people there posted with anything close to an objective demeanor, or an open mind. A handful amongst hundreds.

'Scientific objectivity'? Pshhh! Dead, from what was displayed there. Dead. Buried. Period.

Sadly, I won't outlive most of them, so I won't be able to watch as the current 'Defenders of the Realm' pass away to allow a new generation to stretch their wings. Ahh well. Such is the nature of our species, it seems.

I'm done... done with the notion of reaching through their psychological conditioning. My desire to discuss with them the logic I see in the EU/PC model is just as cold and dead within my chest as the scientific objectivity, honor, and simple courtesy is in theirs...

The next arrogant, belittling jackass that I encounter personally is going to be made very aware of how very, very, very much I dislike that sort of condescension...

Fin

[Nereid]

The challenging factors are primary time, secondary funding and admitedly also data/knowledge. I've found that for every thing you want to do, you need to do a couple of other things first... This also goes for data/knowledge - one needs to read into other theories and papers to make sure things are coherent (and it doesn't help that we seem to find anomalies with some of the theories/processes we thought were understood - e.g. as mentioned in "Electric Sun - a Quantitative Calculation" thread). The amount of work required for publishing papers and especially writing a new kind of simulation software probably takes a few weeks worth of full-time work. It's a reason why researchers apply for statual funding or already are on a payroll to focus full-time on research.

I agree with you (Nereid) that we should try to get some of this work done. I agree with Thornhill that the amount of work required to build each block of a coherent cosmology is tremendous for a few persons.

What do you think of this comparison?

The time and funding that a great many people devote to their serious hobbies - over a couple of years or so - is comparable to that which might be required to do at least one serious EU project; namely, of the order of 1,000 hours and €10,000. Think of serious amateur astrophotographers, for example.

And I agree with Mike H that we are still in position as forum members to ask critical questions even if we can't point to personal published papers. The requirement is first of all to have some basis to back up the claims or questions.

Hear, hear!

[mharratsc]

Sorry for that post above. Trying to quit the nicotene. Please pardon the tone if you would.

[jjohnson]

Well, Nereid, I still feel it is premature to get into a debate on the quantitative aspects of the EU ideas versus the highly quantitative ideas developed over along period of time under the Standard Model. As noted above and lots of other threads locally, we don't present a lot of academic theory grounded in advanced math, even including "classical" physics of electromagnetism, even though that's there and well-known. We don't generally have any published papers at all, as few here try to publish papers, and even fewer editors would find such efforts publishable.

As you, Nereid, point out correctly, all it takes is about the same effort and investment as an expensive hobby, but almost no one here seems to have made that investment in time and money and run experiments and published the results quantitatively, have they? As a result, there is simply not a lot of home-grown substantive ammunition in a quantitative sense that we would find useful in any debate. And from a quantitative sense, you have a long litany of asking questions about sources and explanations and substantiations of ideas being expressed, which is designed to make us see our deficiencies.

Some people don't want to have deficiencies exposed, and respond by getting mad, ignoring the agent provocateur, or getting even. Getting even is harder without the facts, ma'am, as you delightfully point out indirectly to us. As for me, my readings in what I think are relevant subject areas pretty well substantiate how unenlightened I am, and how maladept I am at mathematical manipulation, without a lot of additional help. I'd rather be asking you questions than the other way around.

Your probing suggestions are helpful in the sense of they reveal areas where we need to do a lot more critical work in order to start getting up to speed. They don't motivate me to get too involved in discussing subjects about which I don't know much compared to the typical third-year undergraduate student, however. Maybe second year. Science is as hard and complex as one wants to make it. I find plasma physics even more so, and deeply complex. Baby steps for me for a long while.

But be advised that even a teacher might find it interesting to drop the disbelief now and then and do a little poking and imagine "what if this might be correct, then what?" once in a while. Who knows where thoughtful investigation might lead? That's my tack, as a student, self-taught and all, to see where this can lead if I keep doing homework, and get smarter people than me to get interested, do actual work and investigation, and start answering some of my questions. I'm still just "matching patterns" like a third year architecture student learning "subject-ground relationships". Thanks for your even tone, by the way. It can keep discussions going. Please try to be helpful occasionally and point to an article or book or other source that you have thought, "this might support that other viewpoint and they don't even know it." I'd appreciate that, for one.

[Nereid]

As you, Nereid, point out correctly, all it takes is about the same effort and investment as an expensive hobby, but almost no one here seems to have made that investment in time and money and run experiments and published the results quantitatively, have they?

I know this is somewhat off topic, but I'm not aware of anyone having even suggested any experiments, at least none that would explicitly test some aspect of published EU theory or a hypothesis derived therefrom.

Do you know of any? Or did you have any in mind?

(more later)