Smeggy's Forums

Forums where you CAN vent!

Skip to content

What has always bugged you about science?

Into science? Chat about its amazing wonders here. E really does equal MC^2 -> Einstein would be proud!

Top Forum Index Page New Posts

Posted on

      

hackenslash wrote:Incidentally, saying that 'it's not a theory, it's observational science' is horribly wrong. In science, a theory is not a guess, or a feeling, it's an explanatory framework encompassing all the facts, laws and hypotheses of a particular area of interest. Theory is pretty much the highest status achievable in science.


Apart from Law :thumb:

The best facial is a daily facial.

User avatar
Insane Poster
Posts: 23423
Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2009 6:40 pm
How Hot Are You?: Siberia
Current Mood: unknown

Top Forum Index Page New Posts

Posted on

      

Channel Hopper wrote:
hackenslash wrote:Incidentally, saying that 'it's not a theory, it's observational science' is horribly wrong. In science, a theory is not a guess, or a feeling, it's an explanatory framework encompassing all the facts, laws and hypotheses of a particular area of interest. Theory is pretty much the highest status achievable in science.


Apart from Law :thumb:


Nope. A law is part of a theory.



User avatar
On a roll!
Posts: 109
Joined: Sat Jan 19, 2013 1:01 am
How Hot Are You?: A Nice English Summer's Day
Current Mood: unknown

Top Forum Index Page New Posts

Posted on

      

ghostgirl wrote:I think you forgot the actual link, Dolls :)



:confused: ooops :doh: :oops: sorry

:maddy: Image


Image

User avatar
Forum Slapper Lush
Posts: 35264
Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 9:53 pm
Location: East London with Just Dave now.
How Hot Are You?: Centre Of The Sun
Current Mood: Eff it.

Top Forum Index Page New Posts

Posted on

      

Interesting thread. :thumb:
Not an area of expertise for me but interesting all the same.

Heard about this the other day. Wonder if this could actually be possible?

http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Traveling_Faster_Than_the_Speed_of_Light_999.html



Sit on my Facebook!
Posts: 11555
Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 3:01 pm

Top Forum Index Page New Posts

Posted on

      

Stanley Tweedle wrote:Interesting thread. :thumb:
Not an area of expertise for me but interesting all the same.

Heard about this the other day. Wonder if this could actually be possible?

http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Traveling_Faster_Than_the_Speed_of_Light_999.html


Nasa are already trying to create a warp bubble in the lab so I guess we'll find out.

Whether long range weapon or suicide bomber a wicked mind is a weapon of mass destruction whether you're soar away sun or BBC 1 misinformation is a weapon of mass destruc you could a Caucasian or a poor Asian racism is a weapon of mass destruction whether inflation or globalization fear is a weapon of mass destruction whether Halliburton or Enron or anyone greed is a weapon of mass destruction we need to find courage, overcome inaction is a weapon of mass destruction

User avatar
Bra Burning Hippy
Posts: 3585
Joined: Sun Feb 17, 2008 8:46 pm
How Hot Are You?: A Nice English Summer's Day
Current Mood: waiting

Top Forum Index Page New Posts

Posted on

      

hackenslash wrote:
Channel Hopper wrote:Apart from Law :thumb:


Nope. A law is part of a theory.


Not - quite - true, whilst a law is pigeonholed with empirical criteria applied at the time, laws remain laws regardless of which theory might appear at the time, or after.

Theories can additionally be falsified, a law cannot. One reason why there are so many scientists around coming up with theories, but not as many that have their name before the word 'law'.

The only point at which discrediting occurs is if time is manipulated, before a law reaches status, usually by some cleverdick in one of these.

Image

The best facial is a daily facial.

User avatar
Insane Poster
Posts: 23423
Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2009 6:40 pm
How Hot Are You?: Siberia
Current Mood: unknown

Top Forum Index Page New Posts

Posted on

      

Morgan le Fay wrote:
Mr Squirrel wrote:What has always bugged me about Science is this...

When the Enterprise comes out of maximum warp, why dosent Captain Picard fall out of his seat?


Inertial dampeners.


Are they devices with makes things wet when you try and change direction. :D :D

-----|0| None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free. |0|-----

"Capitalism profits from War - Humanity profits from Peace."

User avatar
Aliens Ate My Chicken!
Posts: 118533
Joined: Sat Dec 15, 2007 8:32 am
Location: Smegland
How Hot Are You?: The Big Bang!!
Current Mood: Won Tons Mons

Top Forum Index Page New Posts

Posted on

      

hackenslash wrote:More later.

Is Hack coming back to the house?

Come on laddie, I'm waiting to be en-light-ened regarding my speed of light post. :D

Image
"TONGUE-tied and twisted, just an earthbound misfit, I"

User avatar
Haunting Beauty
Posts: 4600
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2009 4:20 pm
Location: Scotland
Current Mood: Spine chillingly spooky

Top Forum Index Page New Posts

Posted on

      

Channel Hopper wrote:Not - quite - true, whilst a law is pigeonholed with empirical criteria applied at the time, laws remain laws regardless of which theory might appear at the time, or after.


Errr, no. Firstly, laws aren't simply pigeon-holed, they are actually subservient to theory. A law is simply a formal description of an occurrence.

Theories can additionally be falsified, a law cannot. One reason why there are so many scientists around coming up with theories, but not as many that have their name before the word 'law'.


Absolutely incorrect. Newton's laws of universal gravitation was falsified. We still call it a law, because it's still useful, but it isn't actually true. Apart form anything else, General Relativity tells us that, in certain circumstances, gravity can actually be repulsive, and indeed it's one of the main candidates for the 'dark energy' driving the acceleration of cosmic expansion.

Many laws are simply experimental laws, and all must be open to the possibility of a falsifying observation. If you find even one exception, it isn't a law.

The only point at which discrediting occurs is if time is manipulated, before a law reaches status, usually by some cleverdick in one of these.

Image


Speaking of which...

ghostgirl wrote:Is Hack coming back to the house?

Come on laddie, I'm waiting to be en-light-ened regarding my speed of light post. :D


Tough crowd! Keep yer 'air on! :D

Morgan le Fay wrote:My point was in response to Ghostie and yourself. You may notice that Ghostie (in the bit you just removed when you quoted ;) ) said she had a problem with the constantness of light speed, and you didn't address it, so I replied to your post.


I kind of did. However, if you'd like more detail...

The constancy of the speed of light is a function of the fabric of spacetime. The maximum speed possible through all dimensions is s, and it is this speed that we all travel through spacetime at all the time. Translated to travel only through space, this is c, what we call the speed of light. If an entity is travelling through space, time slows down from the inertial frame of that entity. Photons, the bosons (messenger particles) of the electromagnetic force, have zero rest mass and, as a consequence, always travel through space at c, hence they don't travel through time at all. As a result, you will always measure the same speed for light no matter how fast you travel.

I'll give more on this later. Time is limited today.

Theory is not the highest status in science - a proven theory is.


No such beastie. Proof is only possible in the negative sense, a point alluded to by Channel Hopper above. To be scientific, a theory must be open to falsification. Indeed, for a theory to be proven would require one to be omniscient, because it would require that every possible relevant observation has been carried out and that no falsifying observation is possible.

Proof is a formal axiomatic procedure only applicable to mathematics, a discipline in which the axioms are true by definition. It's also possible in formal logic, in which true premises lead, via valid reasoning, to a conclusion that is necessarily true.

What I was saying was that light speed as a constant is proven and it is observable, and has been observed for the last 4 hundred years.


It hasn't been proven to be a constant, and certainly not for that long. The first experimental validation of c as a constant came in 1887, with the Michelson-Morley experiment (trying to measure the luminiferous aether), in the greatest null result in the history of science. While everybody else was running around trying to work out what had gone wrong with the experiment, Einstein ran with the result, and the outcome was Special Relativity.

Stanley Tweedle wrote:Heard about this the other day. Wonder if this could actually be possible?

http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Trave ... t_999.html


I'm not holding my breath. One of the problems with the Alcubierre drive is that you need an Alcubierre drive in order to be able to build one. I'll be overjoyed if it turns out to work, of course.

Back later with more detail on relativity.



User avatar
On a roll!
Posts: 109
Joined: Sat Jan 19, 2013 1:01 am
How Hot Are You?: A Nice English Summer's Day
Current Mood: unknown

Top Forum Index Page New Posts

Posted on

      

What's always bugged me about Science?

It's bloody hard work! Phew.

Also learning about something that may not be relevant in a year, or tomorrow. Bet a lot of the stuff they taught me at school is now proven to be false.

They used to tell us that experiments were to prove something. Whether it be that it is true that a chemical reaction has taken place.
Are we talking specifically about Physics with regards to something only being proven false rather than true or can that be said about Chemistry also?
Sorry I'm a thicko when it comes to this, I'll readily admit it. :)



Sit on my Facebook!
Posts: 11555
Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 3:01 pm

Top Forum Index Page New Posts

Posted on

      

Stanley Tweedle wrote:What's always bugged me about Science?

It's bloody hard work! Phew.


Hehe. It isn't that difficult to grasp the principles once you get the right mindset, although the mathematics can be a trudge.

Also learning about something that may not be relevant in a year, or tomorrow. Bet a lot of the stuff they taught me at school is now proven to be false.


Depending on the discipline, it's fairly certain that it was false at the time. Much of the teaching of physics, for example, is not so much about teaching you what's true but about building a platform upon which moire refined and accurate models can be built for understanding. For example, when I was at school, they taught the Rutherford 'solar system' model of the atom, a model that had been shown to be wrong almost a century before. It's a useful approximation, though, because it's intuitive, and allows intuition to be nudged in the right direction for understanding of the less intuitive but more accurate models that superseded it. Terry Pratchett calls it, in his Science of the Discworld series (recommended, by the way) 'lies to children'.

They used to tell us that experiments were to prove something. Whether it be that it is true that a chemical reaction has taken place.


Again, this is simplification. Nothing is ever proven in science. Take gravity, as an example. All observations thus far have shown that, when you let go of a pencil, it falls down (again a simplification, because we know there are circumstances in which 'down' is a nonsensical concept). Were I to assert that a pencil will always fall down, even here on Earth, I would be running too far with the ball, because there is always a possibility, however remote, that it will not.

As far as 'proving' that a chemical reaction has taken place, this is a misuse of 'proof' which, as I said, is a formal axiomatic procedure, requiring true axioms to arrive at a necessarily true conclusion.

Example:

Axiom: The addition of two integers gives the sum.
Proof: 1+1=2.

In formal logic:
Premise 1: All men are mortal
Premise 2: Socrates was a man (forget for the moment that it's not even clear he ever existed)
Conclusion: Socrates was mortal

This is a proof as well. In syllogistic logic, however, proof is more difficult, because it isn't easy to demonstrate the truth of the premises, and P1, for example, may well turn out to be false, depending on advances in medical science over the next few centuries. That's why it really only applies fully in mathematics, in which all the axioms are true because they've been defined that way. It's why we say that mathematics is axiomatically complete.

Are we talking specifically about Physics with regards to something only being proven false rather than true or can that be said about Chemistry also?


It applies to all of science. It's Popper's principle of falsifiability coupled with Hume's problem of induction. The former says that if a postulate is not capable of being falsified, it isn't scientific. Indeed, if it can't, in principle, be falsified, it can't even be tested. The latter tells us that we can only provisionally accept the conclusions of science because we can't make every possible relevant observation. It would require that we know everything in order to accept a conclusion as absolutely true. We can accept the result of a single observation as absolutely true, i.e. that this pencil fell to the floor this time, but we can't say anything about future observations until after we've made them.



User avatar
On a roll!
Posts: 109
Joined: Sat Jan 19, 2013 1:01 am
How Hot Are You?: A Nice English Summer's Day
Current Mood: unknown

Top Forum Index Page New Posts

Posted on

      

Hackenslack Wrote:
ghostgirl wrote:
Is Hack coming back to the house?

Come on laddie, I'm waiting to be en-light-ened regarding my speed of light post.



Tough crowd! Keep yer 'air on!


:stomp:

Image
"TONGUE-tied and twisted, just an earthbound misfit, I"

User avatar
Haunting Beauty
Posts: 4600
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2009 4:20 pm
Location: Scotland
Current Mood: Spine chillingly spooky

Top Forum Index Page New Posts

Posted on

      

hackenslash wrote:
No such beastie. Proof is only possible in the negative sense, a point alluded to by Channel Hopper above. To be scientific, a theory must be open to falsification. Indeed, for a theory to be proven would require one to be omniscient, because it would require that every possible relevant observation has been carried out and that no falsifying observation is possible.



Interesting. I've often heard it cited that you "cannot prove a negative"

But then I've often though that if you can prove Explanation A is responsible for the a Theory, then from that you prove Explanation B wasn't responsible for the Theory.

However if you cannot prove Explanation A ( or any other explanation ) was responsible then that surely means you cannto prove Explanation B wasn't responsible.

IOW you can't prove a negative or positive.

Make sense? :)

-----|0| None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free. |0|-----

"Capitalism profits from War - Humanity profits from Peace."

User avatar
Aliens Ate My Chicken!
Posts: 118533
Joined: Sat Dec 15, 2007 8:32 am
Location: Smegland
How Hot Are You?: The Big Bang!!
Current Mood: Won Tons Mons

Top Forum Index Page New Posts

Posted on

      

What you been smoking Smeggy? :D



Sit on my Facebook!
Posts: 11555
Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 3:01 pm

Top Forum Index Page New Posts

Posted on

      

Stanley Tweedle wrote:What you been smoking Smeggy? :D


Stan Smith's special CIA/MKUltra/Mossad Mind Control Herb Preperation™ :splif:

Image


Upon hearing a special code phrase I leap out of the nearest bush shouting ....

"God, Democracy, Freedom, Obesity, Anti-Depressants, Oprah and the USA are GREAT!"


.... and then I obliterate all nearby Al-Qaeda, Taliban, Conspiracy Theorists, Thinkers, anti-Semites, Real Journalists, Effective Dissidents, Gays, the Disabled and Illegal Sourbread dealers! :D :D

Upon hearing a disabling code phrase I return to the ineffective dissident Smeggypants who rants against Rothschild-Masonic-Zionism, the cold blooded self serving politicans who are bankriolled by them, and who spends ost time on photogrpahy and diverse world cooking. :)


... and porn.

Do NOT mention the code phrases!!!!

-----|0| None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free. |0|-----

"Capitalism profits from War - Humanity profits from Peace."

User avatar
Aliens Ate My Chicken!
Posts: 118533
Joined: Sat Dec 15, 2007 8:32 am
Location: Smegland
How Hot Are You?: The Big Bang!!
Current Mood: Won Tons Mons

Top Forum Index Page New Posts

Posted on

      

smeggypants wrote:Interesting. I've often heard it cited that you "cannot prove a negative"

But then I've often though that if you can prove Explanation A is responsible for the a Theory, then from that you prove Explanation B wasn't responsible for the Theory.

However if you cannot prove Explanation A ( or any other explanation ) was responsible then that surely means you cannto prove Explanation B wasn't responsible.


Well, you can certainly prove that B wasn't responsible without proving that A was, where A and B are hypotheses erected as possible explanations. It boils down to just what a hypothesis is. A hypothesis is basically a prediction generator. You essentially make a guess as to what the possible explanation of a phenomenon is, and then you work out what the consequences of that guess being correct would be, which amounts to a prediction of what you expect to observe if your guess is correct. It should also include the 'null hypothesis' which is a prediction of what you would expect to observe if your guess is not correct. If you observe the latter, your hypothesis is falsified, regardless of the status of any competing hypothesis. Further, if the predicted consequences are not observed, your hypothesis is false.

Any hypothesis that makes correct predictions and for which no null predictions have been observed is deemed 'empirically adequate'. Empirical adequacy is the most you can hope for for any given hypothesis, because you always run up against the problem of induction.



User avatar
On a roll!
Posts: 109
Joined: Sat Jan 19, 2013 1:01 am
How Hot Are You?: A Nice English Summer's Day
Current Mood: unknown

Top Forum Index Page New Posts

Posted on

      

Excuse me, Mr Hack, but, being and Attention Seeker of the highest order an' all, I'm a little miffed to notice that you have entirely failed to respond to my earlier post. First you tell me that I'm failing to ask an "Actual Question", AND THEN, later, when I go to the trouble of refining my post so as to actually define "The Question", you proceed to UTTERLY AND COMPLETELY IGNORE IT!!! :hmmm:

I'm officially in the huff. :roll:


Take my eyes (or possibly my mind, if we want to more accurately describe the point at which "I" become aware of the phenomena) as being the receptacle of an incoming beam of light, travelling towards me from an external source - so that my eyes/mind becomes the destination, as it were, - and let's say that this beam of light takes 5 minutes to reach me from it's source. Now let's imagine another beam of light reaching me from a source that's a much greater distance away, and coming from the opposite direction. And then let's add yet more beams of light, all coming from every direction imaginable, and all reaching Me from some random distance away, but of course all reach me simultaneously. Does this scenario imply that my eyes/mind - i.e. the destination - is/are 'the present', and that any physical distance outwards from my eyes/mind, is to be considered to be at least some time in the past, effectively making Me the centre of the Universe, or, rather, I should say, the most recent Time in the Universe?

And another thing...

Let's say that my eyes are currently observing a photograph of a lit candle framed against a distant star-filled night sky, - a photograph is generally assumed to capture a single instant in time, - but what is it a single instant of? The picture captures light entering the lens of the camera, but the light entering the lens from the lit candle arrives from a very short distance away, whereas the light from the distant stars behind the candle has travelled a much greater, not to mention very varied, - distance. What does this say about the developed 'image', - has it indeed 'captured an instant in time'? Or is that notion inherently inaccurate, - a lie, in fact, - since the stars I can clearly see in the picture are no longer in the same position relative to the lit candle that the image implies?

My question, then, becomes, "What is 'an instant' in time?" Is there is even such a thing as an instant in time? Is a stationary photon, which unfortunately blinks out of existence the very 'instant' it becomes still, nevertheless the best description of an instant that we have? If we cannot explain an instant, then what is the sum of 1 instant + 1 instant? Can we add instants together at all? Is 'motion' considered to be the sum of many discrete instants linearly strung together? Is a beam of light really 'in motion' at all? Does it have a speed? Or is it a stream of discrete instants reaching out through space-time, not moving at all, yet removed from Me by ever greater distances? What is the difference between 'distance' and 'time'?


Hnn?? :chin:

Image
"TONGUE-tied and twisted, just an earthbound misfit, I"

User avatar
Haunting Beauty
Posts: 4600
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2009 4:20 pm
Location: Scotland
Current Mood: Spine chillingly spooky

Top Forum Index Page New Posts

Posted on

      

Sorry, I haven't ignored it, it will simply take a colossal post on special relativity, which requires a little more time than I've had. I'll post a response in the morning before work.

Apologies.



User avatar
On a roll!
Posts: 109
Joined: Sat Jan 19, 2013 1:01 am
How Hot Are You?: A Nice English Summer's Day
Current Mood: unknown

Top Forum Index Page New Posts

Posted on

      

hackenslash wrote:Sorry, I haven't ignored it, it will simply take a colossal post on special relativity, which requires a little more time than I've had. I'll post a response in the morning before work.

Apologies.

Your gonna post BEFORE WORK?? Oh for the love of "god" (??!?!?) please don't!! :rofl: Unless you start work at like 3pm or something civilised and not 7am or an equally horrid our of the day. Take your time ffs!!! Jeez, I feel really guilty now?! :(

Image
"TONGUE-tied and twisted, just an earthbound misfit, I"

User avatar
Haunting Beauty
Posts: 4600
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2009 4:20 pm
Location: Scotland
Current Mood: Spine chillingly spooky

Top Forum Index Page New Posts

Posted on

      

Not a problem. I do my best work in the early morning over my first four cups of coffee. It helps me to wake up. :thumbup:



User avatar
On a roll!
Posts: 109
Joined: Sat Jan 19, 2013 1:01 am
How Hot Are You?: A Nice English Summer's Day
Current Mood: unknown

PreviousNext

Share this Topic on Facebook:

Return to General Science

Similar topics

  • Topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post
    Top of Page

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest