Notices
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 100 of 161
Like Tree1Likes

Thread: All Science Is Wrong.

  1. #1 All Science Is Wrong. 
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    The Edge
    Posts
    189
    But, you think; Television, phones, Apollo 11, all work, so Science can’t be wrong?

    Wrong. Ideas, theories, Science, can be wrong, and yet the projects they are based on - can succeed.

    Example: all architecture proceeds on the assumption that the Earth is flat. No blueprints take into account that the Earth is (approximately) a sphere. And yet the buildings stay up. But their basic assumption – is wrong.

    Example: you want to send a spacecraft the to Moon, and work out the trajectories out with great precision, based on your knowledge of Gravity. 30 years later, we (seem to) discover that gravity isn’t at all what we thought it was. But Neil touches down safely regardless.

    Example: you want to lay a concrete slab upon which to put your jaccuzi. You calculate the area of a circle, roughly, Pi = 3, to get your area. But Pi is not ‘3’ – and yet – your jaccuiz ‘works’.



    In fact “Pi” is the perfect metaphor for what I’m saying.


    Let’s use the basis of Science, inductive reasoning, to analyse Science.

    The history of Science shows that, all Science is Wrong. I mean, everything we think we “know” right now will, in the future, be shown to be wrong. Either a little bit wrong, or entirely Wrong.


    If that wasn’t true, Science wouldn’t exist. If that wasn’t true, there would be no research.


    In fact it’s literally true to say that the only sure thing that Science proves (and I say again; literally), is that (current) Science is Wrong.

    One reaction to this is: so what? So… say out loud “all Science is wrong”, ten times. So what?

    Another reaction is to sense some kind of underworld attack on reality, family values and the price of a hamburger. All of Science is Wrong. “It can’t be, because my jacuzzi works”. Wrong.


    I invite you to ponder the certain (inductive, Scientific) fact that everything you think you know, is – wrong.

    And always, for a logical “fact’, will be.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,810
    the examples you're giving don't refer to science, but the application of science
    especially in fields such as engineering and architecture approximations are legio, as are safety factors, which make a mockery of the need to apply certain parameters to the nth decimal

    besides, central to science is not the body of knowledge, but the method of acquiring and evaluating it

    so in short, methinks you are attacking a strawman


    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    1,079
    This reminds me of a professor I had at University years ago. His first words to the class were 'Everything I tell you is wrong.'

    He was absolutely correct in that statement, at least, and this really points to what science is about: A series of approximations.

    Unlike fundamentalism, which is also wrong, but refuses to adapt.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    The Edge
    Posts
    189
    Well, that was easily brushed off. "Approximation" is not "wrong".


    free radical - I can't think of any definition of 'science' that doesn't make it a 'Fundamentalist' endeavour.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,810
    let's first see your definition of fundamentalist
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    The Doctor Quantime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    4,546
    Based on all what you put, It isn't science that is wrong. It is more like this:

    Current science is not completley right relative to our future science.

    I mean, when they said the Earth was flat or you could never communicate over large distances they never knew the technology would exist today, and would say what we do now is impossible. But here we are. Time like most things is a very effective smoke screen, but open mindedness is a ton of sunlight. (Which is you understand the mass of photons and what not, thats a lot of sunlight :wink.

    Example: you want to send a spacecraft the to Moon, and work out the trajectories out with great precision, based on your knowledge of Gravity. 30 years later, we (seem to) discover that gravity isn’t at all what we thought it was. But Neil touches down safely regardless.
    Once we master gravity, every single thought of the imagination is possible. That 'force' is the last key to unlock the secrets of the universe. Then again we may learn a lot more after that. So thats me being close minded there, so I'll rectify myself and say that knwoing all about gravity will give us a lot of advancements. I'd even be as bold to say it will help us go apparantly FTL.

    Science may be wrong, remember it itself is only good at explainging our surroundings and that alone. Science is just questions and answers, thats all. No meaning to why the questions was asked or what the answer will mean. But the enigma of not knowing something, and being flawed is what makes things tick. Because without knowing how something works, you seek to find out.
    "If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe". - Carl Sagan
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    6
    The only real flaw in science that I can see is that its based on the five senses, the question then is:

    How do we perceive our thoughts?

    Its not with any of the five senses. The point? Not everything can be analyzed using the scientific method.

    Very wonderful system though.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    The Edge
    Posts
    189
    I was disappointed this didn't get a better run. I think it's the most important thing there is to say here.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9 Re: All Science Is Wrong. 
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by Vexer
    Wrong. Ideas, theories, Science, can be wrong, and yet the projects they are based on - can succeed.
    Two points merit repetition.

    1. The examples you give relate to the application of science, but are not themselves science.
    2. Science is not the knowledge, but the process of acquiring and testing that knowledge.

    Quote Originally Posted by Vexer
    Example: all architecture proceeds on the assumption that the Earth is flat. No blueprints take into account that the Earth is (approximately) a sphere.
    Incorrect. If you are building a suspension bridge or other such structure you had better take account of curvature or they will fall down.

    Quote Originally Posted by Vexer
    Example: you want to send a spacecraft the to Moon, and work out the trajectories out with great precision, based on your knowledge of Gravity. 30 years later, we (seem to) discover that gravity isn’t at all what we thought it was. But Neil touches down safely regardless.
    Incorrect. Positions en route to the moon were confirmed by star sightings. Height above the lunar surface during descent was determined by radar. Proximity to the surface just prior to landing was detected by trailing sensors.
    Any deviation of gravity such as proposed by MOND would have had no measurable effect on the intial trajectory calculations.

    Quote Originally Posted by Vexer
    Example: you want to lay a concrete slab upon which to put your jaccuzi. You calculate the area of a circle, roughly, Pi = 3, to get your area. But Pi is not ‘3’ – and yet – your jaccuiz ‘works’.
    Only if you include a generous safety margin. Otherwise your Jacuzi will be stressed by hanging over the edge, or the slab will be stressed by being too thin.

    Quote Originally Posted by Vexer
    The history of Science shows that, all Science is Wrong. I mean, everything we think we “know” right now will, in the future, be shown to be wrong. Either a little bit wrong, or entirely Wrong.
    A little bit wrong and wrong are not at all the same thing. One relates to approximation (quantitative) or simplification (qualitiative), the other to complete incorrectness. In the first case one can still make valid predictions. In the second case on cannot.

    Quote Originally Posted by Vexer
    I invite you to ponder the certain (inductive, Scientific) fact that everything you think you know, is – wrong.

    And always, for a logical “fact’, will be.
    I've pondered it and noted the absence of logic.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Masters Degree Golkarian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    510
    I think you're argument is flawed in this way: architecture can assume that the world is flat, but it still works for a very very large spherical body, but satellites and circumnavigation require a spherical body. If we assumed the world was flat only some things would work. But not all things. Same with general relativity, some things work with Newtonian physics, doesn't mean that these things contradict general relativity.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11 Re: All Science Is Wrong. 
    Moderator Moderator TheBiologista's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    2,564
    Quote Originally Posted by Vexer
    But, you think; Television, phones, Apollo 11, all work, so Science can’t be wrong?

    Wrong. Ideas, theories, Science, can be wrong, and yet the projects they are based on - can succeed.

    Example: all architecture proceeds on the assumption that the Earth is flat. No blueprints take into account that the Earth is (approximately) a sphere. And yet the buildings stay up. But their basic assumption – is wrong.

    Example: you want to send a spacecraft the to Moon, and work out the trajectories out with great precision, based on your knowledge of Gravity. 30 years later, we (seem to) discover that gravity isn’t at all what we thought it was. But Neil touches down safely regardless.

    Example: you want to lay a concrete slab upon which to put your jaccuzi. You calculate the area of a circle, roughly, Pi = 3, to get your area. But Pi is not ‘3’ – and yet – your jaccuiz ‘works’.

    In fact “Pi” is the perfect metaphor for what I’m saying.

    Let’s use the basis of Science, inductive reasoning, to analyse Science.

    The history of Science shows that, all Science is Wrong. I mean, everything we think we “know” right now will, in the future, be shown to be wrong. Either a little bit wrong, or entirely Wrong.

    If that wasn’t true, Science wouldn’t exist. If that wasn’t true, there would be no research.

    In fact it’s literally true to say that the only sure thing that Science proves (and I say again; literally), is that (current) Science is Wrong.

    One reaction to this is: so what? So… say out loud “all Science is wrong”, ten times. So what?

    Another reaction is to sense some kind of underworld attack on reality, family values and the price of a hamburger. All of Science is Wrong. “It can’t be, because my jacuzzi works”. Wrong.

    I invite you to ponder the certain (inductive, Scientific) fact that everything you think you know, is – wrong.

    And always, for a logical “fact’, will be.
    Science is just a means of acquiring knowledge by observation and measurement of the universe. The limits in our ability to make such observations accurately is not a flaw in science but a flaw in our abilities or our technology. So all you're really attacking is the practice of estimation and the current state of scientific knowledge. You might be able to argue "all scientific knowledge is wrong", but that still wouldn't really fly since there are plenty of objectively verifiable facts in our common knowledge that don't rely on estimation.

    Golkarian's point is a good one also, and it applies to theory in general.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    The Edge
    Posts
    189
    A weak bunch of responses to what is probably the philisophicially most important point ever likely to be made on a Science forum.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard spuriousmonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,191
    There is just one scientific concept that was proven with this thread: that humans are intelligent.
    "Kill them all and let God sort them out."

    - Arnaud Amalric

    http://spuriousforums.com/index.php
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    The Edge
    Posts
    189
    Parrots have been recently show to be unexpectedly 'intelligent'.

    But they do repeat themselves mindlessly, a lot, don't you think?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard paralith's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    2,190
    Quote Originally Posted by Vexer
    Parrots have been recently show to be unexpectedly 'intelligent'.

    But they do repeat themselves mindlessly, a lot, don't you think?
    They can also form their own sentences if they are well taught.
    Man can will nothing unless he has first understood that he must count on no one but himself; that he is alone, abandoned on earth in the midst of his infinite responsibilities, without help, with no other aim than the one he sets himself, with no other destiny than the one he forges for himself on this earth.
    ~Jean-Paul Sartre
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by Vexer
    A weak bunch of responses to what is probably the philisophicially most important point ever likely to be made on a Science forum.
    A suite of moderately well constructed responses to a flawed, illogical, trivial opening post.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard spuriousmonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,191
    Quote Originally Posted by Vexer
    Parrots have been recently show to be unexpectedly 'intelligent'.

    But they do repeat themselves mindlessly, a lot, don't you think?
    Recently?
    "Kill them all and let God sort them out."

    - Arnaud Amalric

    http://spuriousforums.com/index.php
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Time Lord Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    5,196
    Quote Originally Posted by Vexer
    Parrots have been recently show to be unexpectedly 'intelligent'.

    But they do repeat themselves mindlessly, a lot, don't you think?
    You haven't spent much time with "parrots" have you? BTW parrots is a very broad term for a LOT of different genera with different learning levels.

    I agree with spuriousmonkey, recently?? African grays have been known to be extremely intelligent for decades now.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19 Re: All Science Is Wrong. 
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,416
    Quote Originally Posted by Vexer
    Example: all architecture proceeds on the assumption that the Earth is flat. No blueprints take into account that the Earth is (approximately) a sphere. And yet the buildings stay up. But their basic assumption – is wrong..
    Yet good enough--which is why they don't add the curvature terms. Why account for a millionth of an inch, and all the attendant complexity, when all you need is precision of an 1/8th of an inch. Most engineering and science make similar analysis of important and unimportant terms depending on what's being considered.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Forum Senior Kukhri's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    392
    Quote Originally Posted by Vexer
    Example: all architecture proceeds on the assumption that the Earth is flat. No blueprints take into account that the Earth is (approximately) a sphere. And yet the buildings stay up. But their basic assumption – is wrong..
    The surface they build on is graded flat. Construction workers break out the transits and skip loaders to make it so. If one were to exactly account for every variable, without beneficial consequence, nothing would get done. Why is this significant?

    Before this cascades into a long winded debate over a trifling subject, I'd like to mention that the title of the post "All science is wrong" sort of brands you as a troll, inviting argument. At least in my eyes.

    Quote Originally Posted by Vexer
    A weak bunch of responses to what is probably the philisophicially most important point ever likely to be made on a Science forum.
    You'll not sway anyone with obnoxious comments like this. This forum boasts some clever residents who lay down some pretty heavy philisophical concepts. I would be leery of calling myself top dog, here.
    Co-producer of Red Oasis
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by Kukhri
    Quote Originally Posted by Vexer
    A weak bunch of responses to what is probably the philisophicially most important point ever likely to be made on a Science forum.
    You'll not sway anyone with obnoxious comments like this. This forum boasts some clever residents who lay down some pretty heavy philisophical concepts. I would be leery of calling myself top dog, here.
    It is worse thant that Kukhri. Vexer is not just talking about probably the philisophicially most important point made on the Science Forum. Or even probably the philisophicially most important point that will ever be made on the science forum, but probably the philisophicially most important point to be made on any science forum at any time. Quite a claim from someone who can't even get their basic facts right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    The Edge
    Posts
    189
    What "basic facts" did I get wrong?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Transient
    Posts
    2,914
    Quote Originally Posted by Vexer
    Example: all architecture proceeds on the assumption that the Earth is flat. No blueprints take into account that the Earth is (approximately) a sphere. And yet the buildings stay up. But their basic assumption – is wrong..
    Okay... the Earth is (for the sake of argument) a Sphere of radius, what, 3900ish miles, right? That's 20592000ish feet. And 247104000ish inches. Say we make a building that's, what, a mile wide? thats 63360 inches, right? Now, on a circle (simplifying to stress a point.) with radius 247104000ish inches, we have (using an intersecting chord of the size of said building) an arc of (using the double the inverse sine of half the radius divided by the chord length) 0.01469 degrees. Now, taking the radius times 1 minus the cosine of that value, I will get the distance into the surface of the earth that this chord will intersect, which will be roughly how far off the planet the chord would sit were it a tangent instead of a chord. And I get 8 inches... Hmmm... sadly, that didn't illustrate what I wanted it to... Crap... Either way, architecture is about a relatively flat peice of land, not an exactly flat piece of land
    Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools, because they have to say something.
    -Plato

    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    625
    But, you think; Television, phones, Apollo 11, all work, so Science can’t be wrong?

    Wrong. Ideas, theories, Science, can be wrong, and yet the projects they are based on - can succeed.

    Example: all architecture proceeds on the assumption that the Earth is flat. No blueprints take into account that the Earth is (approximately) a sphere. And yet the buildings stay up. But their basic assumption – is wrong.

    Example: you want to send a spacecraft the to Moon, and work out the trajectories out with great precision, based on your knowledge of Gravity. 30 years later, we (seem to) discover that gravity isn’t at all what we thought it was. But Neil touches down safely regardless.

    Example: you want to lay a concrete slab upon which to put your jaccuzi. You calculate the area of a circle, roughly, Pi = 3, to get your area. But Pi is not ‘3’ – and yet – your jaccuiz ‘works’.



    In fact “Pi” is the perfect metaphor for what I’m saying.


    Let’s use the basis of Science, inductive reasoning, to analyse Science.

    The history of Science shows that, all Science is Wrong. I mean, everything we think we “know” right now will, in the future, be shown to be wrong. Either a little bit wrong, or entirely Wrong.


    If that wasn’t true, Science wouldn’t exist. If that wasn’t true, there would be no research.


    In fact it’s literally true to say that the only sure thing that Science proves (and I say again; literally), is that (current) Science is Wrong.

    One reaction to this is: so what? So… say out loud “all Science is wrong”, ten times. So what?

    Another reaction is to sense some kind of underworld attack on reality, family values and the price of a hamburger. All of Science is Wrong. “It can’t be, because my jacuzzi works”. Wrong.


    I invite you to ponder the certain (inductive, Scientific) fact that everything you think you know, is – wrong.

    And always, for a logical “fact’, will be.
    There are several basic facts you've gotten wrong. I'll be pointing out, step by step, where you've ogne wrong.

    Firstly:

    Wrong. Ideas, theories, Science, can be wrong, and yet the projects they are based on - can succeed.
    But why? Obviously, if you're going to proceed with something wrong, you'll get something wrong. If I assume 1 +1 = 3, obviously I'll get the wrong answer each time.

    Example: all architecture proceeds on the assumption that the Earth is flat. No blueprints take into account that the Earth is (approximately) a sphere. And yet the buildings stay up. But their basic assumption – is wrong.
    You know, I never thought I'd actually see something so bizarrely wrong posted. Earth, for one, is not approximately a sphere; it is a sphere. The size of the Earth means that, over a relatively small distance, the Earth can appear flat, and is so, at small distances. This is basic mathematics, that in a sufficiently small region, a non-Euclidean surface (i.e. a curved surface) simplifies into Euclidean (or flat) geometry.

    So architecture's basic assumption is actually correct, as long as they restrict themselves to small spaces. Since the Earth's size is so big, these 'small spaces' are themselves quite large from our point of view, meaning that it is safe to assume that our houses are on flat ground, and proceed construction with that assumption.

    Example: you want to send a spacecraft the to Moon, and work out the trajectories out with great precision, based on your knowledge of Gravity. 30 years later, we (seem to) discover that gravity isn’t at all what we thought it was. But Neil touches down safely regardless.
    Wrong Fact #1: General relativity was proposed in 1915, and proved experimentally by Eddington in 1919. The moon mission happened in 1969. We already knew Newtonian gravity was not the whole picture 60 years before the mission.

    Wrong Fact #2: Using Newtonian mechanics isn't wrong; heck, general relativity itself reduces to Newtonian gravity with small enough masses. So NASA was indeed fine with using Newtonian gravity to predict the trajectories. Using general relativity for a problem Newtonian gravity would answer just as well only complicates the problem.

    The history of Science shows that, all Science is Wrong. I mean, everything we think we “know” right now will, in the future, be shown to be wrong. Either a little bit wrong, or entirely Wrong.
    Yet you quote no examples for this. In fact, most of science has yet to be shown wrong, which, according to you, will happen. I assume you probably think Einstein showed Newton was wrong, when, in fact, Einstein simply showed Newton was right with small enough masses, but his theory needed to be expanded to cover large enough masses.

    If you could give me some examples, I'd be happy to point out that, in fact, old science was actually built on.

    And, anyway, according to you, this means that the law of conservation of energy will one day be shown to be wrong. Which is naively foolish.

    Example: you want to lay a concrete slab upon which to put your jaccuzi. You calculate the area of a circle, roughly, Pi = 3, to get your area. But Pi is not ‘3’ – and yet – your jaccuiz ‘works’.
    Wrong Fact #1: Nobody will ever proceed with the incorrect assumption that pi = 3. They will instead proceed along with 3.14, which is an accepted approximation.

    Wrong Fact #2: You seem to think that the jacuzzi will not work if we take an approximation. This is wrong. According to this, if we attempt to calculate something using the number 3, we will get the wrong answer because 3 is actually an approximation for 3.00000000000000000000 ... and if we want the right answer, we should use this tediously long number, rather than a simple, short number which means exactly the same thing!

    Likewise, for pi, using 3.14 is all right if you don't care too much about decimal expansions. You could instead use 3.14159265, but then all you'd get is more decimals, which don't matter for extremely large things. Also, pi is an irrational, meaning it is infinitely long, so attempting to calculate something using pi in its expanded and entire form would take an infinite number of years just to write down all the numbers in pi.

    In fact, here's an exercise. Calculate the the area of a circle with radius 1 cm with pi = 3.14 and then calculate the area of the same circle with pi = 3.14159265. The two answers will match, but the second one will have more decimals. And unless you are anal-retentive or suffer from obsessive-compulsive disorder, there is no point in calculating all the deicmals involved, if only because we can get apprximately the same answer with only a few decimals.
    In control lies inordinate freedom; in freedom lies inordinate control.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Reptile Dysfunction drowsy turtle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,255
    Example: all architecture proceeds on the assumption that the Earth is flat. No blueprints take into account that the Earth is (approximately) a sphere. And yet the buildings stay up. But their basic assumption – is wrong.
    Interesting...

    If I was going to design a blueprint for a building, I would specify that the ground is flattened first, to ensure that the building is on a flat and level surface. In effect, you are taking a tangent to the curvature of the Earth, to build upon.

    Or, if I was not laying foundations for whatever reason, I would be more bothered about hills, trees, individual grains of sand etc. in the way than the curvature of the Earth which is an insignificant amount.
    "The major difference between a thing that might go wrong and a thing that cannot possibly go wrong is that when a thing that cannot possibly go wrong goes wrong it usually turns out to be impossible to get at or repair." ~ Douglas Adams
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard spuriousmonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,191
    Actually it is often cheaper to adjust the building to the landscape in landscapes that have a lot of gradients.
    "Kill them all and let God sort them out."

    - Arnaud Amalric

    http://spuriousforums.com/index.php
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Reptile Dysfunction drowsy turtle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,255
    The point being, the curvature of the Earth has no effect on the design of the building compared to other, more pressing, factors.
    "The major difference between a thing that might go wrong and a thing that cannot possibly go wrong is that when a thing that cannot possibly go wrong goes wrong it usually turns out to be impossible to get at or repair." ~ Douglas Adams
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by Vexer
    What "basic facts" did I get wrong?
    The same ones that were wrong the last time I pointed them out to you.

    Quote Originally Posted by Vexer
    Example: all architecture proceeds on the assumption that the Earth is flat. No blueprints take into account that the Earth is (approximately) a sphere.
    Incorrect. If you are building a suspension bridge or other such structure you had better take account of curvature or they will fall down.

    Quote Originally Posted by Vexer
    Example: you want to send a spacecraft the to Moon, and work out the trajectories out with great precision, based on your knowledge of Gravity. 30 years later, we (seem to) discover that gravity isn’t at all what we thought it was. But Neil touches down safely regardless.
    Incorrect. Positions en route to the moon were confirmed by star sightings. Height above the lunar surface during descent was determined by radar. Proximity to the surface just prior to landing was detected by trailing sensors.
    Any deviation of gravity such as proposed by MOND would have had no measurable effect on the intial trajectory calculations.

    Quote Originally Posted by Vexer
    Example: you want to lay a concrete slab upon which to put your jaccuzi. You calculate the area of a circle, roughly, Pi = 3, to get your area. But Pi is not ‘3’ – and yet – your jaccuiz ‘works’.
    Only if you include a generous safety margin. Otherwise your Jacuzi will be stressed by hanging over the edge, or the slab will be stressed by being too thin.

    And, to repeat yet again, your examples are all about engineering - the application of science - not about science itself.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    sox
    sox is offline
    Forum Masters Degree sox's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Uk - Scotland
    Posts
    598
    Actually there are some building that take into account the curvature of the earth... get it right OP!

    __________________________________________________ _____________
    "Happy is the man who can recognise in the work of To-day a connected portion of the work of life, and an embodiment of the work of Eternity. The foundations of his confidence are unchangeable, for he has been made a partaker of Infinity." - James Clerk Maxwell
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    76
    It is an option to accept that there are "right" things so we can talk about some others are "wrong". Welcome to the game of "binary oppositions" (black-white; good-bad; we-other; etc.)! We can not think without them. But nature can.

    First thing first: Our existence is based on a material world. Not only that, some codes and relations in material world. You can not just scatter the various matter and expect an alive creature; you need a code, DNA. Forget that, you need another code (we still do not know what it is...) which holds protons and electrons together so we can barely start to talk about "matter", oxygen, hydrogen, iron. Is this right? Or wrong? If you ask the sufferers of this life, they will say "All life sucks man, everything is wrong".
    What is their criteria? Art and Science of the consciousness and understanding of real life. Nothing else. Are they right or wrong?

    If you are not satisfied from humans (since they can have "wrong" ideas and/or assumptions and built an entire architecture on falseness) you can take animals, bacterias, plants and ask them how wrong are they. Maybe the common wrong of all living things are based on a wrong assuption so they simply die. If they were right at least as right as an atom, they would survive billions of years. Yes they could, but not as evolving living things. Not many animals do calculate or formulate the velocity, angle and speed. They don't even know. They just catch their pray. Maybe this is also wrong: Why do living things not live in peace and eat each other! This definetely can not be right. Evolution lost the 99% of its species during the history of living things on earth throughout the 3.5 Billion years. And as one wrond leads nowhere but another wrong, finally humans emerged. If something works my fellow humans, it can be considered successfully real.

    Of course not only science, but everything is wrong. No doubt about it. Our mission, as human beings is to correct the false and wrong mechanisms of existence. At least starting with ours. We will not die thanks to future technology and the science behind it. We will not allow the extinction of anything, we will turn the whole universe into a massive museum.
    We are the magicians, the creators. We can make reality out of any dream.
    This is right...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Transient
    Posts
    2,914
    Quote Originally Posted by baftansowibat
    you need another code (we still do not know what it is...) which holds protons and electrons together so we can barely start to talk about "matter", oxygen, hydrogen, iron.
    The Strong and Weak Force?
    Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools, because they have to say something.
    -Plato

    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    76
    Quote Originally Posted by Arcane_Mathematician
    Quote Originally Posted by baftansowibat
    you need another code (we still do not know what it is...) which holds protons and electrons together so we can barely start to talk about "matter", oxygen, hydrogen, iron.
    The Strong and Weak Force?
    Strong and Weak Force are the effects of the code, like chemical relations between amino acids in DNA. We still do not know how atom works: What is the mechanism behind the atomic forces and particles dynamics? This is one of the reason why they built the Large Hadron Collider.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Transient
    Posts
    2,914
    CERN was built more to discover the odd beginnings of our universe and the cause of gravity, I thought. The four fundamental forces and how they work are pretty well known(except gravity) if I'm not mistaken.
    Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools, because they have to say something.
    -Plato

    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    76
    "The Higgs boson is a massive scalar elementary particle predicted to exist by the Standard Model in particle physics. At present there are no known fundamental scalar particles in nature.

    The Higgs boson is the only Standard Model particle that has not yet been observed. Experimental detection of the Higgs boson would help explain the origin of mass in the universe. More specifically, the Higgs boson would explain the difference between the massless photon, which mediates electromagnetism, and the massive W and Z bosons, which mediate the weak force. If the Higgs boson exists, it is an integral and pervasive component of the material world.
    " - Wikipedia.

    We do not even know the components, let alone how does it work. Let me put it that way: You can re-organise, copy, interfere DNA. This is what I call "knowing the code". We knew the entire chemical components of living things before the code was cracked. Today we know a great deal of components of an atom, but we do not know its logic, yet.

    The general perspective and intention of LHC is little different than you think:

    "The Large Hadron Collider (LHC) will be the world's largest and highest-energy particle accelerator, intended to collide opposing particle beams, of either protons at an energy of 7 TeV per particle, or lead nuclei at an energy of 574 TeV per nucleus. The Large Hadron Collider was built by the European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN) with the intention of testing various predictions of high-energy physics, including the existence of the hypothesized Higgs boson and of the large family of new particles predicted by supersymmetry." - Wikipedia again...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    Reptile Dysfunction drowsy turtle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,255
    Quote Originally Posted by baftansowibat
    "The Higgs boson is a massive scalar elementary particle predicted to exist by the Standard Model in particle physics. At present there are no known fundamental scalar particles in nature.

    The Higgs boson is the only Standard Model particle that has not yet been observed. Experimental detection of the Higgs boson would help explain the origin of mass in the universe. More specifically, the Higgs boson would explain the difference between the massless photon, which mediates electromagnetism, and the massive W and Z bosons, which mediate the weak force. If the Higgs boson exists, it is an integral and pervasive component of the material world.
    " - Wikipedia.

    We do not even know the components, let alone how does it work.
    None of the mentioned particles are constituents of atoms. Also, and more importantly, in this case how it works is know, but not why it works.

    Quote Originally Posted by baftansowibat
    Let me put it that way: You can re-organise, copy, interfere DNA. This is what I call "knowing the code". We knew the entire chemical components of living things before the code was cracked. Today we know a great deal of components of an atom, but we do not know its logic, yet.
    Speak for yourself. I know it quite well, and I am positive that others know it better.

    Quote Originally Posted by baftansowibat
    The general perspective and intention of LHC is little different than you think:

    "The Large Hadron Collider (LHC) will be the world's largest and highest-energy particle accelerator, intended to collide opposing particle beams, of either protons at an energy of 7 TeV per particle, or lead nuclei at an energy of 574 TeV per nucleus. The Large Hadron Collider was built by the European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN) with the intention of testing various predictions of high-energy physics, including the existence of the hypothesized Higgs boson and of the large family of new particles predicted by supersymmetry." - Wikipedia again...
    So again, particles which are not included in atoms. No, I'm sorry, I don't buy it.
    "The major difference between a thing that might go wrong and a thing that cannot possibly go wrong is that when a thing that cannot possibly go wrong goes wrong it usually turns out to be impossible to get at or repair." ~ Douglas Adams
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    76
    Quote Originally Posted by drowsy turtle

    Speak for yourself. I know it quite well, and I am positive that others know it better.
    I do not know what you are trying to do, but this passage is from CERN website about LHC:

    What is the origin of mass? Why do tiny particles weigh the amount they do? Why do some particles have no mass at all? At present, there are no established answers to these questions.

    Now if you and others know about what’s going on, please let them -scientists- know, because they are struggling to understand what makes the particles, is string theory correct, what makes quantum world ticking, where does mass come from, and many... Go on, tell us what makes quarks get together and establish an atom, while there are many scattered non-atomic matter here and there?

    Thanks to you, everybody can get a break, and we can start to build ultimate computers or we can know how big an atom can get and similar type of mysteries of the tiny, as well as massive structures of the universe…
    Can you do that? Not now. Because, you do not know anything yet. Make a proper research starting with CERN website…
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #37  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by baftansowibat
    It is an option to accept that there are "right" things so we can talk about some others are "wrong". Welcome to the game of "binary oppositions" (black-white; good-bad; we-other; etc.)! We can not think without them. But nature can.
    I can and I do so routinely in one of two ways. I assume that your statement was not meant to be factual, but was hyperbole designed to set up the subsequent discussion.
    Quote Originally Posted by baftansowibat
    Forget that, you need another code (we still do not know what it is...) which holds protons and electrons together so we can barely start to talk about "matter", oxygen, hydrogen, iron. Is this right? Or wrong? ..
    In this instance, as Arcane has pointed out to you repeatedly, your statement is wrong. The LHC is largely fixed on the nature of gravity and on matter/energy behaviour at very high energies. The basics of nuclear behaviour are reasonably well understood.
    Quote Originally Posted by baftansowibat
    If you ask the sufferers of this life, they will say "All life sucks man, everything is wrong".
    What is their criteria? Art and Science of the consciousness and understanding of real life. Nothing else. Are they right or wrong?
    They are both right and wrong. That seems to me obvious. If you need me to walk you through it I shall be happy to do so.
    Quote Originally Posted by baftansowibat
    Maybe the common wrong of all living things are based on a wrong assuption so they simply die. If they were right at least as right as an atom, they would survive billions of years...
    Some atoms survive for less time than a bacterium.
    You seem to be changing your definition of right and wrong from sentence to sentence and paragraph to paragraph. It's a technique that makes good (right) poetry, but poor (wrong) science.
    Quote Originally Posted by baftansowibat
    Not many animals do calculate or formulate the velocity, angle and speed. They don't even know. They just catch their pray(sic). .
    1. Angle and speed are velocity, which is a vector not a scalar quantity.
    2. Any predator most certainly calculates velocity. It may not do so with an abacus, but the calculation is made, the result is produced and it is acted upon.
    Quote Originally Posted by baftansowibat
    Maybe this is also wrong: Why do living things not live in peace and eat each other! This definetely can not be right. Evolution lost the 99% of its species during the history of living things on earth throughout the 3.5 Billion years. And as one wrond leads nowhere but another wrong, finally humans emerged. If something works my fellow humans, it can be considered successfully real.
    ...
    Are you contradicting yourself, or being ironic. I don't know. Is 'successfully real' the equivalent of 'right'?
    Peace, by the way is a human concept and so is irrelevant to animals.
    Quote Originally Posted by baftansowibat
    Of course not only science, but everything is wrong. No doubt about it....
    Well, I doubt it. The findings of science are incomplete. The findings of science are often wrong. The practitioners of science are sometimes wrong, or apply science incorrectly. However, science, within its defined limits, is never wrong. If you think it is, give me a single instance.
    Quote Originally Posted by baftansowibat
    We are the magicians, the creators. We can make reality out of any dream.
    This is right...
    Back to the poetry I see.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #38  
    Reptile Dysfunction drowsy turtle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,255
    Quote Originally Posted by baftansowibat
    Quote Originally Posted by drowsy turtle

    Speak for yourself. I know it quite well, and I am positive that others know it better.
    I do not know what you are trying to do, but this passage is from CERN website about LHC:

    What is the origin of mass? Why do tiny particles weigh the amount they do? Why do some particles have no mass at all? At present, there are no established answers to these questions.

    Now if you and others know about what’s going on, please let them -scientists- know, because they are struggling to understand what makes the particles, is string theory correct, what makes quantum world ticking, where does mass come from, and many... Go on, tell us what makes quarks get together and establish an atom, while there are many scattered non-atomic matter here and there?
    You contradict yourself. I very much doubt you could explain to me how a computer works, yet somehow you are able to use it; predicting what it will do and using said effects to fit your purpose. It is the same with atoms and the four forces. We know how they work, perfectly well. Why they work is a different issue, and only matters to those who are deeply into particle physics (e.g. me).

    Quote Originally Posted by baftansowibat
    Thanks to you, everybody can get a break, and we can start to build ultimate computers or we can know how big an atom can get and similar type of mysteries of the tiny, as well as massive structures of the universe…
    Can you do that? Not now.
    I wouldn't be so sure. I've heard plans for quantum computers, and ones with theoretical components which can change depending on the need. I have also read about a predicted 'island of stability' in proton and neutron 'shells' where the heaviest elements may be possible.

    It is clear to me that you don't know what you're talking about.

    Quote Originally Posted by baftansowibat
    Because, you do not know anything yet. Make a proper research starting with CERN website…
    Yes, interactions between theoretical particles at high energies is exactly the same as the inside of the atom......
    "The major difference between a thing that might go wrong and a thing that cannot possibly go wrong is that when a thing that cannot possibly go wrong goes wrong it usually turns out to be impossible to get at or repair." ~ Douglas Adams
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #39  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    76
    I contradict myself because CERN people and other scientists say that there are issues we still do not know. You know what particles (building blocks of an atom) and forces are made of and how they packed to establish the structure. However you have no intention to tell us, so they will continue to make experiments.

    By the way my computer works with magic as my brain works with grass...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #40  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by baftansowibat
    I contradict myself because CERN people and other scientists say that there are issues we still do not know. ...
    No one is arguing that point. We are disputing the boldened portion of the following statement:
    "Forget that, you need another code (we still do not know what it is...) which holds protons and electrons together so we can barely start to talk about "matter", oxygen, hydrogen, iron. Is this right? Or wrong? .."

    We are saying that we know how the strong and weak nuclear force act. We have good models for their interaction within a nucleus. You say we do not, that we do not have the code. We say you are quite mistaken.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #41  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Transient
    Posts
    2,914
    It just so happens that the manipulation of the four fundamental forces is a BIT more difficult than, say, DNA. We know EXACTLY how the electromagnetic force works, how its made, how it behaves, what it can do, etc... We don't necessarily know the 'why' of it's existence, but thats fine, we still know how it works. Same with the Strong and Weak forces. CERN designed the hadron collider to try to gain understanding about the beginnings of our universe, which happen to involve the 'why' questions that are likely never to be answered. We all know that the 'why' answer is quite elusive, as it's more a philosophical question than a physics question. The 'how' question is much more important. We know what Gravity does, and we know (kind of) how it behaves. We understand that gravity attracts all mass in the universe together, but at the same time, we don't understand the mechanism it goes through, we can't answer the question "How is it that the Earth is drawn to the Sun? How does Gravity do that?" It is the last mysterious force. after we understand it completely, we will press forward more passionately with the 'why' questions.

    As John said, we care more about your statement that all four forces are mysterious than your statement about CERN's intentions.
    Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools, because they have to say something.
    -Plato

    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #42  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    76
    They can make syntetic DNA and it works. They can enter in between these codes and get an ear behind the mouse, or even they can insert language gene inside the brain of a mouse. This is what I call "knowing the code". So you are telling me we know -for instance- how gravity works with atom, but we still have to send our spaceships with rockets, or we have to burn fossil oil instead of harvesting fusion energy. If you talk about standard model you can not say "strong force and weak force, thank you let's go to home". Standard model necessarily includes gravity (and electromagnetic force).
    We have a very good model which is created in nearly a century time. But we still do not know certain critical issues. Anyway, my point was on "being wrong" in the first place. So, I am wrong. We know atom. We know everything. Yet we are still here on this planet.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #43  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    You appear to be confusing science with technology. We know in some considerable detail exactly how fusion occurs. (Thank you Sir Fred.) We have no trouble initiating fusion. What we have not learned to do is how to accomplish this in a controlled fashion that generates a net energy output. This is technology, a quite different beast from science. Sometimes we can achieve things with technology without understanding how they are achieved. Or we know what is theoretically possible, but we lack the technique, or the money to do it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #44  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Transient
    Posts
    2,914
    elegantly put, and dead on point. You are arguing for technological advancement. We will likely NEVER be able to manipulate the fundamental forces in the way you want, and we will likely NEVER leave this solar system. Science isn't an answer to these questions that you have, it explains the potential that we can achieve, and the limits of our abilities. Technology makes the attempt to reach these limits, and it isn't a 'science', so to speak.
    Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools, because they have to say something.
    -Plato

    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #45  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    76
    I do not want to circle around same issue over and over, but I would like to clarify my standing point, using the division between technology and science.

    (By the way, in terms of preventing any kind of unnecessary arguments, I must tell you that I am using Wikipedia as a middle (not extreme) reference source or somewhere to start; definitely not an absolute source of the knowledge and/or meaning)

    Science (from the Latin scientia, meaning "knowledge") refers to any systematic knowledge-base or prescriptive practice that is capable of resulting in a prediction or predictable type of outcome. In this sense, science may refer to a highly skilled practice.
    and,
    Technology is a broad concept that deals with an animal species' usage and knowledge of tools and crafts, and how it affects an animal species' ability to control and adapt to its environment.
    -Wikipedia.

    For me, it's not that complicated: They are human games to understand (science) and to manipulate (technology) the universe: They are nothing more than this. Methods are subject to politics, of course. If you live in the middle of the agricultural era, let’s say around 5000 years ago, neither Gods, nor natural mystic nor the cleverest people around you could have guessed about what we know (science) and can do (technology) today. Just as we can not guess what is going to happen in 100 years time. Methods and ethics change depending on what is imagined within a particular human social environment or history.
    Science comes from humans. The only way to prove the value of any knowledge is the experiment. It will tell you if you “really” know it or not. The clear distinction between what is thought and what is put into the practice has different degree of respect among humans. As far as history tells us, humans just can not wait to build a responsive gadget as soon as they produce a piece of knowledge. Some of them are just rubbish, while some others are brilliant. I can think or imagine million things about how atom works. But when I can technologically prove it the perception becomes intact, single, and inarguable, and reliable and repeatable. Simply, the most precious and valuable material for us: Tools. For our brains, pleasure, civilization, culture.
    Technology is an animalistic ability says Wikipedia… Nobody understands or treats honeycombs as a product of technology; they are “naturally-occurred structures”. Without human science, technology does not make a sense in nature, at least not for us. We can not naturally build combs like bees; we need to have the science of structures in order to build our buildings.

    And for the possibility of we may NEVER leave the Solar System… This, my friend, does not count as an option. I accept that it is a ticking bomb situation between nature and us, but unless we hit by a meteor or any other natural mystic, we will do our best to stay alive like any other creature. However, our “staying alive” strategy and perspective is little bit wider than our closest primate cousins. And we should have pride, energy, perspective, policy, belief or anything you need, just to get us out of the imminent and actual restrictions of nature, like suffering, like death, like planet earth and its atmosphere. We must protect every single precious human brain as keys to ultimate survival. As Freddy Mercury says in the song: "Yes we'll keep on trying, till the end of time..." (Innuendo)
    Humans can take risks for their dreams, so can try something new depending on available scientific knowledge and application possibilities. What am I going to do with some inapplicable piece of science?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #46  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Transient
    Posts
    2,914
    take solace in the fact that you know that inapplicable bit of science. listen, the nearest solar system to ours is, what, several light years away at best, several hundred at worst. How long do you think is a realistic expectation for us in terms of travel time?
    Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools, because they have to say something.
    -Plato

    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #47  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    76
    Realistic is a relative concept, like everything else in this universe. Probably this relativity stands somewhere between general relativity and special relativity. You can find our civilization quite realistic, but I don't think any ancient mind would find it realistic. Magical or Godlike maybe. If we come to a point of realisation that material existence does not occupy more than 10 percent of the whole universe and there are more to know, that simply means we don't know if there is anything out there that can travel faster than light. And even we ignore the this possibility due to the lack of supporting evidence, the idea of time and space can be relative depending on the longevity and options of any existence. We can first maximise, then alternate human existence within the possibilities of already working and developing scientific disciplines: Nanotechnology ,genetic, human brain studies are just some nominees. Moreover, we have every right to expect to crack another physical opportunity if we keep doing what we are doing, only in an accelerated pace. A brain simulation in an artificial environment may sound unrealistic today, just as sending robots to Mars were an unattainable goal only two centuries ago.
    If I can see it, I must reach to it, or at least collect all usefull information other than light, preferably more than light. We did not have a clue that we were just a part of an average size galaxy in the universe, let alone the knowledge of vast number of other galaxies until Mr. Hubble enlightened us. Today we take pictures of them.
    Of course the distances are gigantic and logically unreachable in today's standards. We must change the logic then: We now know that they exist, and somehow we must reach them; it's an unstoppable urge and it will stuck to our future until we do it. "Nature would not allow us"... It wouldn't have allowed many other things, but we fooled the nature. I don't see or think any serious obstacle against human ingenuinity other than human stupidity. And I mean, in entire universe...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #48 Re: All Science Is Wrong. 
    墨子 DaBOB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    1,674
    Quote Originally Posted by Vexer
    Example: all architecture proceeds on the assumption that the Earth is flat. No blueprints take into account that the Earth is (approximately) a sphere. And yet the buildings stay up. But their basic assumption – is wrong.
    You would need a pretty darn hefty building before worrying about this. Also, you build a foundation on a flat surface (which you measure with a level). And, you may notice that not all buildings/rooms are "flat"; meaning, if you put a marble on one side of the room it may slowly roll down to the other side.


    Bad example. Sorry, if someone already pointed all this out but I didn't read the other posts.
    Do not try and bend the spoon. That's impossible. Instead... only realize the truth. There is no spoon. Then you'll see that it is not the spoon that bends, it is only yourself. -Spoon Boy
    Reply With Quote  
     

  50. #49  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    625
    Probably this relativity stands somewhere between general relativity and special relativity.
    For your sake, I hope you are joking. Special relativity deals with relative motion, and attempts to reconcile Maxwellian electrodynamics with Galilean motion. General relativity expands this to cover the more general case of acceleration, and describes the structure, for want of a better word, of gravity. Your notion of 'relativity' as you have referred to in your last post is entirely philosphical and attempting to line it up with two scientific theories of the universe does you more harm than good.

    If we come to a point of realisation that material existence does not occupy more than 10 percent of the whole universe and there are more to know, that simply means we don't know if there is anything out there that can travel faster than light.
    Forgive me, but this sentence is highly illogical. How does believing that ordinary matter makes up only 10% of the universe and that there is more to know imply that we don't know if tachyons (hypothetical particles that supposedly move faster than light) exist? The two have practically nothing to do with each other.

    In any case, if tachyons did exist, how come no experimental evidence of them has yet to be found?

    And even we ignore the this possibility due to the lack of supporting evidence, the idea of time and space can be relative depending on the longevity and options of any existence
    By time and space here, do you refer to the physical notions of space and time, or do you refer to vague philosophical notions of time?

    We can first maximise, then alternate human existence within the possibilities of already working and developing scientific disciplines: Nanotechnology ,genetic, human brain studies are just some nominees.
    I understand what you mean by 'maximising' human existence, but then what do you mean by 'alternating' it?
    In control lies inordinate freedom; in freedom lies inordinate control.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  51. #50  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    76
    Einstein showed us time and space (do not get me wrong; the real ones) are relative. He constructed two types of relativity theories; Special and General. One of them is leading humanity in small particles and the world of tiny in general. The second one is dealing with massive space objects (let's say universe in great scale). Some theoretical physicists are trying to unite two understanding in order to discover or formulate what is called as "The theory of everything". I am convinced, so far so good…

    My claim is, whatever we call reality, it stands somewhere in between these relativities. And my related claim is, we can crack and play with the reality, because it is relative to your standing point in terms of science, perception, technologic capability. We do not take things as they are. We simply can not do that, we have to transform it (reality) into human understandings, words and formulas. Then we can redefine the reality according to new findings and create possibilities, such as washing machine, Large Hadron Collider, or anything else you can possibly imagine.

    About 10% maximum space of the material world… As you know, material world consist of E=mc2; either in matter or in energy formation. The rest is dark matter and dark energy. We can not observe them, but we have good reasons to believe in their existence according to recent scientific observations and universe models. And my 10% is not accepted by many calculated predictions; some says all matter we can observe with our current physics holds merely 5% of the structure of universe. Light belongs to our material world. Dark matter for instance does not interact with light as material world does. So simply we need to discover at least 90% of a new natural rules and phenomenon. Forget about hypothetical particles, undetectable dark matter and dark energy, we should still explain how galaxies hanging in the space since their total material gravitational power can not possibly keep them as they are, yet they are there. How are we going to explain expanding universe since all these materials has neither intention nor the power to provide the calculated speed of the expansion? We still do not know. We have predictions, but we can not detect them.

    I am talking about philosophical time and space, like everyone else does. Obviously, the very physical notion of time and space already differs among different situations and actors. How big the planet earth is? The answer depends if you are an ant or planet Jupiter. Same is true for time: You can finish a particular journey in two days, two hours or two minutes, depending on the transport you use. OK, the great obstacle “nothing can travel faster than light”, because light is the lightest form of matter. Yet it belongs to 10% of the known existence.

    Finally “alternating the human existence” means, finding other material resources and possibilities for our consciousness other than mortal ape bodies. It could be half robot, half organism; it could be Artificial Intelligence in virtual environment. Speculations are endless, just as dreams.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  52. #51  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Transient
    Posts
    2,914
    atleast this crap is in gen discussion, and not physics.
    Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools, because they have to say something.
    -Plato

    Reply With Quote  
     

  53. #52  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    76
    Quote Originally Posted by Arcane_Mathematician
    atleast this crap is in gen discussion, and not physics.
    Nice to know you.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  54. #53  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    76
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt
    However, science, within its defined limits, is never wrong. If you think it is, give me a single instance.
    I am simply not interested with the rest of your comments, because you are not sure whether all this thing is poetic or ironic...

    But for your information, every scientific statement should be falsifiable, that means, every scientific knowledge must necessarily be open to new perspectives and experiments. Otherwise we should either not consider Newton as scientist, or we should blame Einstein who falsified sir Newton. Choice is yours.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  55. #54  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Transient
    Posts
    2,914
    You are posting on philosophical ideals and presenting them as physics principles. It is a general fallacy that makes me question how well you actually comprehend the subject upon which you are injecting the ideal that you understand. You are making the, rather bold, claim that the laws of physics can be manipulated and toyed with at your leisure, given the right equipment. Now, I myself have a decent rudimentary understanding of the physical laws that govern the universe, and I recognize the theories you are invoking, and it pains me to see that you have what seems to be little to no understanding of them, AT ALL, aside from what would be presented in a 'pop'science magazine. This is what I've noticed, and your few posts only portray a lack of knowledge on the topics you are posting about.
    Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools, because they have to say something.
    -Plato

    Reply With Quote  
     

  56. #55  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    76
    Quote Originally Posted by Arcane_Mathematician
    You are posting on philosophical ideals and presenting them as physics principles. It is a general fallacy that makes me question how well you actually comprehend the subject upon which you are injecting the ideal that you understand. You are making the, rather bold, claim that the laws of physics can be manipulated and toyed with at your leisure, given the right equipment. Now, I myself have a decent rudimentary understanding of the physical laws that govern the universe, and I recognize the theories you are invoking, and it pains me to see that you have what seems to be little to no understanding of them, AT ALL, aside from what would be presented in a 'pop'science magazine. This is what I've noticed, and your few posts only portray a lack of knowledge on the topics you are posting about.
    What is the title of the original thread?

    All science is wrong. It is not what is the correct in atomic balance of particles or what is the orbit of earth. Of course, this is about the philosophy of science and how -not experimental scientists- but ordinary people can perceive the issue. If you go back to my first post under this thread, you will realise that I am trying to approach the science issue as a tool, and being right or wrong has nothing to do with the outcomes in the universe. DNA did not care if it was right to combine certain amino acids. It was available and it worked.

    One more thing, if any of us start to approach scientific knowledge as something divine and not falsifiable, we are making a grave mistake. Even your popular science magazines wouldn't dare to touch this basic rule of scientific knowledge and statements: Everything is falsifiable.

    What does that portray about you?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  57. #56  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard spuriousmonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,191
    Luckily physics isn't science.
    "Kill them all and let God sort them out."

    - Arnaud Amalric

    http://spuriousforums.com/index.php
    Reply With Quote  
     

  58. #57  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    625
    He constructed two types of relativity theories; Special and General. One of them is leading humanity in small particles and the world of tiny in general.
    Congratulations. You have now officially convinced me that your knowledge of modern-day physics is completely null. You can tell that's the case when you confuse special relativity with quantum mechanics, even though the two are completely different, and then go on to state, erroneously, that physicists are trying to unite the twin theories of relativity, when in fact the problem is attempting to unite general relativity (or, to be a little less precise, Einstein's theory of gravity) and quantum mechanics into a consistent theory free of infinities.

    Despite what you might have read, the Theory of Everything is NOT concerned withy the unification of gravity and quantum mechanics, although it is part of it. The Theory of Everything is actually concerned with attempting to show that all the forces of the world, namely, the strong, weak, electromagnetic and gravitational forces, are all different aspects of the same fundamental force.

    Einstein showed us time and space (do not get me wrong; the real ones) are relative.
    Time is relative in the sense that it appears to slow down for observers moving at fast velocities. In this, at least, you are correct. However, space is not relative. The length of observers, at least when measured by another observer from a state of rest, differs based on their speeds. This is called Fitzgerald or Lorentz contraction, and this is the closest to what can be construed from 'space is relative'.

    Under no circumstances should space be considered relative.

    My claim is, whatever we call reality, it stands somewhere in between these relativities.
    Instead of ignoring what I have just written, it would be best if you listened to what I said. Special and general relativity have nothing whatsoever to do with your notion of 'realistic relativity'. Neither theory deals with reality at all. You''d be better advised learning more about quantum mechanics if you want to look at reality, and understand the many paradoxes it is highlighting.

    And my related claim is, we can crack and play with the reality, because it is relative to your standing point in terms of science, perception, technologic capability.
    Can you prove this experimentally?

    We do not take things as they are. We simply can not do that, we have to transform it (reality) into human understandings, words and formulas.
    An apple falls to the ground. Prove that we translate this simple image into human understanding, words and formulas, and I'll believe you.

    Please understand that your notion of reality is entirely philosophical, and really only has a suitable place on the philosophy forum.

    Then we can redefine the reality according to new findings and create possibilities, such as washing machine, Large Hadron Collider, or anything else you can possibly imagine.
    When did the LHC, or, for that matter, a washing machine become a finding?

    About 10% maximum space of the material world… As you know, material world consist of E=mc2; either in matter or in energy formation.
    No, no, no. 10% maximum space? Absolutely wrong. Ordinary matter comprises only 25% of all the matter in this world; that is what scientists say, NOT that ordinary matter can only fill in 10% of the universe.

    The material world (a philosphical notion, by the way, which does not constitue any part of science) does not consist of . It consists of matter and energy, if indeed a 'material world' exists. The formula you refer to simply states that, at a state of rest, the amount of energy in an object is exactly equal to its mass multiplied by the speed of light squared. Why it is here in this discussion, I fail to understand.

    The rest is dark matter and dark energy.
    This also constitutes the material world, if we go by your definition.

    And my 10% is not accepted by many calculated predictions; some says all matter we can observe with our current physics holds merely 5% of the structure of universe. Light belongs to our material world. Dark matter for instance does not interact with light as material world does. So simply we need to discover at least 90% of a
    Actually, you'll find that some scientists do not believe dark matter exists. You see, the only evidence there is for dark matter comes from observed discrepancies between the orbits of stars in a system and the predicted orbits of general relativity. The situation can just as easily be explained if general relativity itself is as yet incomplete, and needs further expansion, by postulating a new theory of gravity to explain the discrepancy.

    So, really, dark matter itself is a matter of opinion.

    I am talking about philosophical time and space, like everyone else does. Obviously, the very physical notion of time and space already differs among different situations and actors.
    If I might, we're all human. The physical notions of time, I will grant, can be excused. However, I find it odd that you claim that space (by which I will translate to mean the dimensions of space) are different. No matter whether you're human or an elephant, the radius of the Earth will always remain the same. The distance between the moon and the Earth can be measured.

    By physical time and space, I meant in the context of measurable distances and so on. After all, dealing with either as abstract entities is hardly useful when faced with experimentally measured facts.

    OK, the great obstacle “nothing can travel faster than light”, because light is the lightest form of matter.
    Just a nitpick, but please don't think that nothing can travel faster than light purely because light is the lightest particle. This is wrong in many ways. Light has no rest mass at all, for one, and nothing may travel faster than light because any object with mass will have infinite mass at the speed of light, and hence will require infinite energy to actually achieve such a speed. Also, light is not a form of matter, if only because matter is defined as anything which has mass and volume, neither of which qualities light possesses.
    In control lies inordinate freedom; in freedom lies inordinate control.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  59. #58  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    76
    Liongold, please just read your so-called criticism again. I will just give you few examples from your letter and you can apply the same logic and intention for the rest of it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Liongold
    He constructed two types of relativity theories; Special and General. One of them is leading humanity in small particles and the world of tiny in general.
    Congratulations. You have now officially convinced me that your knowledge of modern-day physics is completely null. You can tell that's the case when you confuse special relativity with quantum mechanics, even though the two are completely different, and then go on to state, erroneously, that physicists are trying to unite the twin theories of relativity, when in fact the problem is attempting to unite general relativity (or, to be a little less precise, Einstein's theory of gravity) and quantum mechanics into a consistent theory free of infinities.

    Despite what you might have read, the Theory of Everything is NOT concerned withy the unification of gravity and quantum mechanics, although it is part of it. The Theory of Everything is actually concerned with attempting to show that all the forces of the world, namely, the strong, weak, electromagnetic and gravitational forces, are all different aspects of the same fundamental force.
    1. Just because the statement is divided in two sentences, you feel you have right to take the first part and leave the second part (the sentence which starts with "The second one,..." outside of your quote. So you can get exited freely.
    2. "The Theory of Everything is NOT concerned withy the unification of gravity and quantum mechanics, although it is part of it." This is what you say. And your intention is a constructive one I assume... You expect me to explain the Einstein's whole papers in here. As you understood, I gave the "part of it". I can also elaborately parrot what I found from different websites, this is not the main point.


    Quote Originally Posted by Liongold
    My claim is, whatever we call reality, it stands somewhere in between these relativities.
    Instead of ignoring what I have just written, it would be best if you listened to what I said. Special and general relativity have nothing whatsoever to do with your notion of 'realistic relativity'. Neither theory deals with reality at all. You''d be better advised learning more about quantum mechanics if you want to look at reality, and understand the many paradoxes it is highlighting.
    1. Nothing called "realistic relativity" is included in what I wrote. It is "relativity of the reality".
    2. If Einstein's theories are not dealing with "reality" as you claim, people would not take him so seriously, would they?

    And finally,

    Quote Originally Posted by Liongold
    And my related claim is, we can crack and play with the reality, because it is relative to your standing point in terms of science, perception, technologic capability.
    Can you prove this experimentally?
    Before the knowledge of the DNA people tend to consider life as a present from God, or just separate species which do not share anything in common (not Darwin though, because he realised something strange was going on). Their perception of reality of life could not possibly grasp the mutations, genes and the mechanism as a whole. Now we can, because we have a different knowledge and technology. For specific experiments for DNA alterations, you can visit related websites on the issue...

    I and anybody else can find better definitions than what you put as “corrections”. If this is what you can do best, please just continue.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  60. #59  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Transient
    Posts
    2,914
    Quote Originally Posted by baftansowibat
    One more thing, if any of us start to approach scientific knowledge as something divine and not falsifiable, we are making a grave mistake. Even your popular science magazines wouldn't dare to touch this basic rule of scientific knowledge and statements: Everything is falsifiable.

    What does that portray about you?
    what does what portray about me? I never made a claim that anything is unfalsifiable. As a matter of fact, I was just differentiating between your theory on being capable of bending the fundamental laws of physics to suit your needs and the reality that no principle in physics can be manipulated, in ANY way, shape, or form. We can, however, falsify our theory and come up with a new, better one, but we can't just change that one all willy-nilly either like you seem to think we can. DNA is a horrible thing to relate this to, really. DNA is a construct, where the laws that govern it aren't. Altering DNA is essentially the same as manipulating data on a computer, albeit more complex and difficult.
    Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools, because they have to say something.
    -Plato

    Reply With Quote  
     

  61. #60  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Transient
    Posts
    2,914
    Quote Originally Posted by Liongold
    The material world (a philosphical notion, by the way, which does not constitue any part of science) does not consist of . It consists of matter and energy, if indeed a 'material world' exists. The formula you refer to simply states that, at a state of rest, the amount of energy in an object is exactly equal to its mass multiplied by the speed of light squared. Why it is here in this discussion, I fail to understand.
    sorry to be nit-picky, but it would be a state of relative rest, or, rather, a state of constant velocity.
    Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools, because they have to say something.
    -Plato

    Reply With Quote  
     

  62. #61  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    76
    Quote Originally Posted by Arcane_Mathematician
    DNA is a horrible thing to relate this to, really. DNA is a construct, where the laws that govern it aren't. Altering DNA is essentially the same as manipulating data on a computer, albeit more complex and difficult.
    What do you think you are doing when you start your computer? You manipulate the force of electromagnetic and get generated electricity. You decide the amount that you harvest. This is what I call manipulation.
    DNA is your current ship in the ocean of the forces and particles. There are much to control, much to learn and eventually make your own codes (like computers) in order to survive.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  63. #62  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    76
    OK Liongold, let’s start with the first quest about my original “two sentence”( Which is cut into half in your quotation adventure!) comment:

    He constructed two types of relativity theories; Special and General. One of them is leading humanity in small particles and the world of tiny in general. The second one is dealing with massive space objects (let's say universe in great scale).

    Here some remainders:

    Einstein's "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies"[12], his third paper that year, was published on June 30. It reconciles Maxwell's equations for electricity and magnetism with the laws of mechanics, by introducing major changes to mechanics close to the speed of light. This later became known as Einstein's special theory of relativity.
    The paper mentions the name of only five other scientists, Isaac Newton, James Clerk Maxwell, Heinrich Hertz, Christian Doppler, and Hendrik Lorentz. This paper introduces a theory of time, distance, mass, and energy that was consistent with electromagnetism, but omitted the force of gravity.
    ” - Wikipedia

    quantum field theory of the interactions of charged particles with the electromagnetic field. It describes mathematically not only all interactions of light with matter but also those of charged particles with one another. QED is a relativistic theory in that Albert Einstein’s theory of special relativity is built into each of its equations.”- Britannica

    This is how I relate the world of small with special relativity. But attention to the last sentence in quote from Wikipedia: “…omitted the force of gravity”: Gravity is very much related with “heavenly bodies” (planets, stars) and the subject of General Relativity.

    Yes, I admit I should have introduced Einstein’s other crucial piece of paper about the universe of small:

    Albert Einstein's mathematical description in 1905 of how the photoelectric effect was caused by absorption of quanta of light (now called photons), was in the paper named "On a Heuristic Viewpoint Concerning the Production and Transformation of Light". This paper proposed the simple description of "light quanta", or photons, and showed how they explained such phenomena as the photoelectric effect. His simple explanation in terms of absorption of discrete quanta of light explained the features of the phenomenon and the characteristic frequency. Einstein's explanation of the photoelectric effect won him the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1921.” – Wikipedia.

    If you are not satisfied about this relation please let me know.

    The second issue, about the relativity of space, I can start with this paragraph:

    In physics, spacetime (or space–time) is any mathematical model that combines space and time into a single continuum. Spacetime is usually interpreted with space being three-dimensional and time playing the role of a fourth dimension that is of a different sort than the spatial dimensions. According to certain Euclidean space perceptions, the universe has three dimensions of space and one dimension of time. By combining space and time into a single manifold, physicists have significantly simplified a large number of physical theories, as well as described in a more uniform way the workings of the universe at both the supergalactic and subatomic levels.” – Wikipedia.

    This is a general tendency. But if you want to think of the relativity of space separately try this:

    If I am at a definite point in Paris, at the Place du Panthéon, for instance, and I say, "I will come back here tomorrow;" if I am asked, "Do you mean that you will come back to the same point in space?" I should be tempted to answer yes. Yet I should be wrong, since between now and tomorrow the earth will have moved, carrying with it the Place du Panthéon, which will have travelled more than a million miles. And if I wished to speak more accurately, I should gain nothing, since this million of miles has been covered by our globe in its motion in relation to the sun, and the sun in its turn moves in relation to the Milky Way, and the Milky Way itself is no doubt in motion without our being able to recognise its velocity. So that we are, and shall always be, completely ignorant how far the Place du Panthéon moves in a day.”- this is not even from Einstein; almost a decade earlier, from The Relativity of Space from Science & Method (1897) by Henri Poincaré.

    The third point, you asked this question:

    An apple falls to the ground. Prove that we translate this simple image into human understanding, words and formulas, and I'll believe you.”- Liongold.

    The “words” part of the proof is already given by yourself: “An apple falls to the ground”. What can I say, yes I do understand what you are trying to say. Because I can draw a mental picture of this situation since I know what “an apple” is, how “falling” occurs, and what the “ground” is.
    Human understanding is very much related with above word construction and imagination of the words. There is more: For human understanding, I can deduce many other knowledge out of your statement. I can think of what season it could be, or as sir Newton assumedly achieved, I can even imagine one of the forces of the universe, gravity.
    And formulas… I have no intention to list a various movement and/or mass formulas. Only think about that:
    1 N is the force of Earth's gravity on an object with a mass of about 102 g (1⁄9.8 kg) (such as a small apple)”- Wikipedia.

    Fourth point is also about your intention and quotation ethics:

    I wrote this and you quoted in your quest:

    Then we can redefine the reality according to new findings and create possibilities, such as washing machine, Large Hadron Collider, or anything else you can possibly imagine.


    However, in your question you expect what kind of “findings” do washing machine and LHC represent? Read my sentence again; you will realise that I say “we can redefine the reality according to new findings (such as controlling electromagnetic and generating electricity in power plants) and create possibilities (so LHC or washing machines are possibilities which are created by humans). I think you can understand why I did not want to answer your questions in the first place: Because you did not read what I wrote as I wrote. You ideologically, or politically, or unethically ( I do not want to think about the possibility of “carelessly”) accused me with chopping my sentences and undressing the meaning…

    The fifth point… 10% of matter, or material world, or world of mass issue. I specifically stated in my post that this percentage is an exaggerated assumption and many scientists keep this volume lower than I speculated. You say that Dark matter and Dark energy are part of the same world with matter. In terms of being within the universe, yes this can be said. However, they can not be observed and measured with our current physics. Their existence or appearance needs another type of approach, device, formulas, etc. in order to gain them as subjects of our science. So currently, we don’t know them, and they occupy larger area than our material world –matter, light, etc.

    And I voluntarily give up saying anything about the sixth issue: Light. If you have a good intention to understand what I was trying to say, you can make your own search.

    Happy?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  64. #63  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Transient
    Posts
    2,914
    Quote Originally Posted by baftansowibat
    What do you think you are doing when you start your computer? You manipulate the force of electromagnetic and get generated electricity. You decide the amount that you harvest. This is what I call manipulation.
    DNA is your current ship in the ocean of the forces and particles. There are much to control, much to learn and eventually make your own codes (like computers) in order to survive.
    That is SO much different it's not even funny. You are manipulating quantity and generation, not the laws themselves... You need to take a couple physics courses, because it seems you have NO understanding of classical physics to speak of. You can use it, but you can't change it.
    Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools, because they have to say something.
    -Plato

    Reply With Quote  
     

  65. #64  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    76
    Quote Originally Posted by Arcane_Mathematician
    Quote Originally Posted by baftansowibat
    What do you think you are doing when you start your computer? You manipulate the force of electromagnetic and get generated electricity. You decide the amount that you harvest. This is what I call manipulation.
    DNA is your current ship in the ocean of the forces and particles. There are much to control, much to learn and eventually make your own codes (like computers) in order to survive.
    That is SO much different it's not even funny. You are manipulating quantity and generation, not the laws themselves... You need to take a couple physics courses, because it seems you have NO understanding of classical physics to speak of. You can use it, but you can't change it.
    What do you understand from manipulating the law? What is your expectation? I turn the turbines in physical level we can directly see (water, turbine, kinetic energy, motion, etc.) using the laws of physics, I generate electricity using the knowledge of electromagnetic law of physics in atomic level. Then I start my computer , of which working principles are 0 and 1 digital coding system designed by human creativity, and I see words and pictures on the screen. What kind of example will satisfy your quest?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  66. #65  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Transient
    Posts
    2,914
    I'll be satisfied when you break the laws. Like, say, making a proton attract another proton. THEN I'll be satisfied in your manipulation of these laws. Until then, you are abiding by them, not manipulating them

    All of your examples are constructs that play by the rules of physics, not manipulation of the laws to suit your will. Just curious, but do you know why binary code is used in computers?
    Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools, because they have to say something.
    -Plato

    Reply With Quote  
     

  67. #66  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    76
    Quote Originally Posted by Arcane_Mathematician
    I'll be satisfied when you break the laws. Like, say, making a proton attract another proton. THEN I'll be satisfied in your manipulation of these laws. Until then, you are abiding by them, not manipulating them

    All of your examples are constructs that play by the rules of physics, not manipulation of the laws to suit your will. Just curious, but do you know why binary code is used in computers?
    Excuse me dude, but now I sincerely believe that you are attacking for the sake of attacking... The proof, logic or meaning of the words do not make any effect on your stubborn and empty attacks. Check out the meaning of the "manipulate", "manipulation" or "manipulating" from any resource or reference you would find reliable. No body can change the meaning or usage of "manipulation" word just because you have personal allergy to it.

    "abiding by them" you say... For me, this sounds very much like "praying to them"; "accept them as they are" maybe. Humans temporarily obey. But they fart and swear while they are bowing in front of the Kingdom of Universe and its undestructable, untransformable forces and rules: "What the heck.. We are going to die anyway..."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  68. #67  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Transient
    Posts
    2,914
    Quote Originally Posted by baftansowibat
    Quote Originally Posted by Arcane_Mathematician
    I'll be satisfied when you break the laws. Like, say, making a proton attract another proton. THEN I'll be satisfied in your manipulation of these laws. Until then, you are abiding by them, not manipulating them

    All of your examples are constructs that play by the rules of physics, not manipulation of the laws to suit your will. Just curious, but do you know why binary code is used in computers?
    Excuse me dude, but now I sincerely believe that you are attacking for the sake of attacking... The proof, logic or meaning of the words do not make any effect on your stubborn and empty attacks. Check out the meaning of the "manipulate", "manipulation" or "manipulating" from any resource or reference you would find reliable. No body can change the meaning or usage of "manipulation" word just because you have personal allergy to it.

    "abiding by them" you say... For me, this sounds very much like "praying to them"; "accept them as they are" maybe. Humans temporarily obey. But they fart and swear while they are bowing in front of the Kingdom of Universe and its undestructable, untransformable forces and rules: "What the heck.. We are going to die anyway..."
    Manipulate
    3. to adapt or change (accounts, figures, etc.) to suit one's purpose or advantage.

    Again, you can not manipulate the laws of physics. you can manipulate things within them, not the laws themselves, you are arguing technology and philosophy, not physics. If my responses seem to be an attack for the sake of attacking, I apologize. I'm not intending to attack you, only the claims you are making, and my intention is more to see and understand where these claims are coming from, so that I may better understand exactly why you feel and think the way you do.
    Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools, because they have to say something.
    -Plato

    Reply With Quote  
     

  69. #68  
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    421
    Quote Originally Posted by Arcane_Mathematician
    I'll be satisfied when you break the laws. Like, say, making a proton attract another proton. THEN I'll be satisfied in your manipulation of these laws. Until then, you are abiding by them, not manipulating them

    All of your examples are constructs that play by the rules of physics, not manipulation of the laws to suit your will. Just curious, but do you know why binary code is used in computers?
    That reminds me of this idea I had for a routine where this guy frees a genie from a lamp. In return for his freedom, the genie offers to grant the man a wish.

    --Any wish?

    --Anything at all.

    --Okay. Make Planck's constant equal to a million Joules seconds.

    --You bastard.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  70. #69  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Transient
    Posts
    2,914
    I thought planck's constant was a length?
    Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools, because they have to say something.
    -Plato

    Reply With Quote  
     

  71. #70  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    76
    Quote Originally Posted by Arcane_Mathematician
    and my intention is more to see and understand where these claims are coming from, so that I may better understand exactly why you feel and think the way you do.
    For that you can enter sentences on Google such as "manipulating physical laws" "manipulating electromagnetic force" "manipulating nuclear force" or "not yet manipulating gravity" and entertain yourself.

    My point is clear: Survival of human beings with its environment at all cost; make the law of physics obey us or make us obey the laws of physics, or bit of both; I don't mind about the ideology, whatever it is, it must be an imagination a lie against the ultimate reality that we die. And you can not find any physical law without a human understanding, application, logic, reasoning, intention or philosophy behind it. You can not conceive or talk about your surrounding nature without human tools and methods, at least you can not share it with others. In the example of LHC, the knowledge, quest, and technology are human origin and trying to find out some answers so they can develop some solutions for themselves. At the end, no other existence but only humans can speculate about those formulas. And no other intelligence but only humans know the meaning of the time and what it does to existence.

    The OP of this thread, I recall, asks "All science is wrong". I get this statement as "All humans are wrong". But I could not care less, because they are running a great show, and they have capacity to run even better ones...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  72. #71  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    625
    1. Just because the statement is divided in two sentences, you feel you have right to take the first part and leave the second part (the sentence which starts with "The second one,..." outside of your quote. So you can get exited freely.
    I omitted the second part because you were partly correct about that, in that general relativity does intend deal with large objects; for good reason, it is at the moment irreconcilable with quantum mechanics, although efforts are being made by scientists, so it does not really matter much in the realm of tiny particles.

    However, the first part was the focus of my quotation precisly because it was completely wrong. Special relativity does not in any way focus on small particles; that is where quantum mechanics comes in, and relativistic quantum theories are a relatively recent achievement. Paul Dirac, for example, had to resort to Clifford algebra to incorporate special relativity in the equation that governs the electron.

    You expect me to explain the Einstein's whole papers in here.
    Hardly. I merely expect you to understand what something is before invoking it. If that is not a reasonable expectation, please tell me why.

    As you understood, I gave the "part of it".
    Really? Then you should clarify this before you proceed to state that the Theory of Everything is indeed the unification of general relativity and quantum mechanics, or, as you had written, special relativity, in your post. Otherwise you can hardly blame me for misunderstanding what you meant to say.

    I can also elaborately parrot what I found from different websites, this is not the main point.
    Indeed. Exactly why do you mention this? I have certainly not parroted information, merely gave you a brief understanding of the theories of relativity, admittedly in a patronising tone, for which I apologise. Nonetheless, I have not parroted information, as you seem to imply.

    1. Nothing called "realistic relativity" is included in what I wrote. It is "relativity of the reality".
    "Realistic relativity" is my name for your 'relativity of the reality'. Having no other name for your idea, I adopted one of my own, since you haven't exactly mentioned the name of it before.

    2. If Einstein's theories are not dealing with "reality" as you claim, people would not take him so seriously, would they?
    Einstein's theories do not deal with your notion of reality, which is entirely philosophical. They are 'real' in the sense that it is a scientific theory that correctly explains several parts of the universe, hence it is taken seriously; however, your notion of reality implies being able (and this I have gleaned from your other posts; forgive me if I have misunderstood something) to manipulate and/or change existing physical laws, which is entirely inaccurate.

    Besides, I have yet to see any philosopher correctly answer the question "What is reality?". Since reality itself cannot be defined properly, it is pointless to ask if Einstein's theories deal with reality or not.

    Now we can, because we have a different knowledge and technology.
    But then how does this change reality? All that has happened is that we have changed our understanding of reality, which is not the same as changing reality itself. People have simply come across more information, which has led them to conclude something different about reality itself. In no way does any of this imply that reality has changed, or indeed is subject to change.

    OK Liongold, let’s start with the first quest about my original “two sentence”( Which is cut into half in your quotation adventure!) comment:
    Just wish to mention that I didn't exactly expect you to come up with an eloquent rebuttal, complete with sources. Keep doing this, and we shall have an excellent debate.

    “quantum field theory of the interactions of charged particles with the electromagnetic field. It describes mathematically not only all interactions of light with matter but also those of charged particles with one another. QED is a relativistic theory in that Albert Einstein’s theory of special relativity is built into each of its equations.”- Britannica
    Relativistic quantum theories are still hard to develop. Take the Feynman-Wheeler theory, where the frorce acting on a lone electron is described by waves moving back in time and forward in time. While it was good as a classical theory, neither scientist (and both, might I add, were extremely good physicists, and their ideas still have influence today) was ever able to make a consistent quantum theory out of it.

    Another example is the Schrodinger equation, which was never a relativistic equation, because it gave incorrect answers when meshed together with special relativity. The Dirac equation, I believe, was the first relativistic quantum equation, and this happened several years after Schrodinger first published his equation.

    This is how I relate the world of small with special relativity.
    Well, then, you should have clarified. Saying that special relativity is " leading humanity in small particles and the world of tiny in general" immediately opens you up for criticism if you do not clarify, doesn't it?

    Yes, I admit I should have introduced Einstein’s other crucial piece of paper about the universe of small:

    “ Albert Einstein's mathematical description in 1905 of how the photoelectric effect was caused by absorption of quanta of light (now called photons), was in the paper named "On a Heuristic Viewpoint Concerning the Production and Transformation of Light". This paper proposed the simple description of "light quanta", or photons, and showed how they explained such phenomena as the photoelectric effect. His simple explanation in terms of absorption of discrete quanta of light explained the features of the phenomenon and the characteristic frequency. Einstein's explanation of the photoelectric effect won him the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1921.” – Wikipedia.
    That wasn't exactly necessary since this, as I can see, has nothing to do with my criticism. I was correcting your post on that special relativity is a theory of the small, and light quanta, at least in that sense, had nothing to do with it. Nonethless, good to see you doing your best for sources and explanation. :-D

    This is a general tendency. But if you want to think of the relativity of space separately try this:

    “If I am at a definite point in Paris, at the Place du Panthéon, for instance, and I say, "I will come back here tomorrow;" if I am asked, "Do you mean that you will come back to the same point in space?" I should be tempted to answer yes. Yet I should be wrong, since between now and tomorrow the earth will have moved, carrying with it the Place du Panthéon, which will have travelled more than a million miles. And if I wished to speak more accurately, I should gain nothing, since this million of miles has been covered by our globe in its motion in relation to the sun, and the sun in its turn moves in relation to the Milky Way, and the Milky Way itself is no doubt in motion without our being able to recognise its velocity. So that we are, and shall always be, completely ignorant how far the Place du Panthéon moves in a day.”- this is not even from Einstein; almost a decade earlier, from The Relativity of Space from Science & Method (1897) by Henri Poincaré.
    You misunderstand me, or more precisely, I misunderstood you. I was under the impression that you were talking about the relativity of space in cconjunction with special relativity, which I attempted to correct, and I also had a slightly different conception of what you were trying to say, since I've never heard this referred to as the relativity of space before. I apologise for the misunderstanding.

    “An apple falls to the ground. Prove that we translate this simple image into human understanding, words and formulas, and I'll believe you.”- Liongold.

    The “words” part of the proof is already given by yourself: “An apple falls to the ground”. What can I say, yes I do understand what you are trying to say. Because I can draw a mental picture of this situation since I know what “an apple” is, how “falling” occurs, and what the “ground” is.
    But then one falls into an infinite sequence, as I can then ask you to prove that we translate the notion of 'falling', 'the ground' and an 'apple' into human understanding. And if you do answer that we can draw a mental picture of this, we fall into the realm of circular definitions: you can translate it into human understanding because you already know what it is. And, no, that is indeed a circular definition.

    How do you propose to extricate yourself from this?

    I wrote this and you quoted in your quest:

    “Then we can redefine the reality according to new findings and create possibilities, such as washing machine, Large Hadron Collider, or anything else you can possibly imagine.”
    My reply was a pedantic joke. Technically, one doesn't actually refer to inventions as findings, hence my reply. Nonetheless, I'll reply to your answer.

    Read my sentence again; you will realise that I say “we can redefine the reality according to new findings (such as controlling electromagnetic and generating electricity in power plants) and create possibilities (so LHC or washing machines are possibilities which are created by humans).
    Again, we fall into the notion of redefining reality. It's not that reality has changed, it's simply our understanding of it that has changed. But I digress.

    Your answer is quite adequate. However, I have a question. If the LHC represents a finding, then what about the discoveries it will enable us to make? Would the LHC also represent those findings? Or would machines built because of them (unlikely, since the energies of the LHC are unlikely to be matched by others anyime soon) represent them?

    You ideologically, or politically, or unethically ( I do not want to think about the possibility of “carelessly”) accused me with chopping my sentences and undressing the meaning…
    I'm sorry, but how would I unethically, or for that matter, politically, or even ideologically, accuse you of chopping sentences and undressing your meaning? Sorry, but the words are a very strange combination, you must admit.

    I apologise if that is what you perceived. Suffice it to say that it was never my intention to accuse you of doing so; as far as I remember, I have never accused anyone of doing so. As I explained, it was a pedantic joke.

    The fifth point… 10% of matter, or material world, or world of mass issue. I specifically stated in my post that this percentage is an exaggerated assumption and many scientists keep this volume lower than I speculated. You say that Dark matter and Dark energy are part of the same world with matter. In terms of being within the universe, yes this can be said. However, they can not be observed and measured with our current physics.
    Actually, I said that dark matter or energy can be counted as matter, since the mass-energy equivalence you referred to does not exclude them from being counted as such. The only difference between dark and ordinary matter is that they do not interact with the electromagnetic force i.e. they do not produce light. The only difficulty in studying dark matter is the fact that it is located several hundred lightyears away, so we cannot physically touch it and subject it to experiments. We must rely on observations of the motion of objects to determine their properties. So, really, our current physics allows them to exist; there are simply obstacles of distance that prevents us from studying it more closely.

    I must mention here that I do not believe in dark matter; I believe that the observations actually imply that our understanding of gravity is incomplete, and I further believe that finally unifying quantum theory with gravity should explain the observations fully.

    Their existence or appearance needs another type of approach, device, formulas, etc. in order to gain them as subjects of our science.
    Why? The only difference between it and ordinary matter is that it doesn't produce light. Dark matter has mass, obviously, and therefore it must have energy, making it only slightly different from ordinary matter. All we need is a way to bring dark matter into our laboratories to study it more closely. Otherwise everything we know about the universe can continue to exist undisturbed.

    And I voluntarily give up saying anything about the sixth issue: Light. If you have a good intention to understand what I was trying to say, you can make your own search.
    ... I was only nitpicking. I understood what you said, hence I didn't comment on it.

    Happy?
    Since I have had the honour of being replied to twice, with a very good last post, yes, I am quite happy.

    I look forward to your response. :-D
    In control lies inordinate freedom; in freedom lies inordinate control.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  73. #72  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Transient
    Posts
    2,914
    Quote Originally Posted by baftansowibat
    Quote Originally Posted by Arcane_Mathematician
    and my intention is more to see and understand where these claims are coming from, so that I may better understand exactly why you feel and think the way you do.
    For that you can enter sentences on Google such as "manipulating physical laws" "manipulating electromagnetic force" "manipulating nuclear force" or "not yet manipulating gravity" and entertain yourself.

    My point is clear: Survival of human beings with its environment at all cost; make the law of physics obey us or make us obey the laws of physics, or bit of both; I don't mind about the ideology, whatever it is, it must be an imagination a lie against the ultimate reality that we die. And you can not find any physical law without a human understanding, application, logic, reasoning, intention or philosophy behind it. You can not conceive or talk about your surrounding nature without human tools and methods, at least you can not share it with others. In the example of LHC, the knowledge, quest, and technology are human origin and trying to find out some answers so they can develop some solutions for themselves. At the end, no other existence but only humans can speculate about those formulas. And no other intelligence but only humans know the meaning of the time and what it does to existence.

    The OP of this thread, I recall, asks "All science is wrong". I get this statement as "All humans are wrong". But I could not care less, because they are running a great show, and they have capacity to run even better ones...
    I'd rather not have to go outside this site to reseach your thoughts... And no, Physical laws exist outside of humans, that must be one of the most arrogant statements I've ever heard, "only humans will understand"... tsk, tsk, tsk... Now THAT'S a religious concept. Humans aren't that special, my friend. Physical laws are INTERPRETED by humans, but have existed since the inception of this plane of existence, most definitely. And to say that it is only humans that can understand them? wow. again, this shows that you don't really understand the physics you are talking about.
    Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools, because they have to say something.
    -Plato

    Reply With Quote  
     

  74. #73  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    76
    Quote Originally Posted by Arcane_Mathematician
    Humans aren't that special, my friend.
    I don't care if it is religious or not, but I totally disagree with this statement. For me, there is a qualitative difference between galaxies rotating, DNA mutating or gravity pulling and humans are going to space... Of course, humans are special; because they have developed this speciality throughout their evolution, that's why we make mistakes and commit stupid acts alongside ingenious ones . This speciality has not been given neither by any divine power nor by nature; human generations fight for it and earn it. Your perception about humans are totally alien to my view about them ...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  75. #74  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    76
    Quote Originally Posted by Arcane_Mathematician
    And no, Physical laws exist outside of humans, that must be one of the most arrogant statements I've ever heard, "only humans will understand"
    I was not planning to reply this just because of this "arrogance" issue, then I realized that this is the most crucial point: How one can be arrogant if he/she can not find any relevant solution to a problem other than one's own species. Nobody said physical laws do not exist without humans; quite opposite, they do exist, roll, smash, integrate, heat up, speed up, slow down, crash, mutate and do not consider us at all. This is why since we realized the basics of survival we have been trying to find better methods, technology and strategies for not only for survival, but also in better ways of survival, within the limits of given possibilities. We drink, sing, play, compete and race to forget the ultimate reality, but in the end we die, it finishes, simple as that.

    I do not believe in God or any other supreme being is watching us, regulating us and prepare after life parties. Because there is simply no evidence or remark about it, other than the stories of human religions (You see, they created themselves unexisting worlds and Gods and belived in them for thousands of years).

    I do not consider the possibility of any alien civilization are watching us, and they are watching us and will interfere our disasters. Because there is simply no evidence or remark, only a probability. I can not depend on any unpredictible story for my survival. On top of it, there is no guarantee that such possible civilization will contact me in a friendly manner.

    I do belive and sense only two realities: Humans and Nature. If I do not separate them I would leave the destiny of humanity into the hands of nature. And I know that nature do not favour any of its species. Because nature consist of many different forces and dependencies where humans are still useless to free themselves from them.

    Although humans are part of nature, and their entire existence is completely depend on it, humans have somehow developed sophisticated set of knowledge and tools in order to know and manipulate their environment. Even the agricultural revolution provided a source to feed the "civilization" today. If we do not feed, it's because of the policies, not because of the capacity. When I look at the history of things, stones, animals, planets and humans, I can see that we have the only ones who have a chance to touch, interfere, change and alter our environment for the purposes of our minds, beyond our natural senses and responsibilities.

    You can call me "arrogant", but I really can not see any reliable and/or capable option other than our species in terms of our existence. If you think of an Artificial Intelligence in the future, it has to be created by humans again. If you are telling me that I am arrogant because I do not consider other species, you are right, because they simply don't know what I know, and I want different things than other species. Humans accepted the entire species of earth as part of their existence, and nature has destroyed the most of its species. This is an existential opposition between nature and humans: But same nature also transformed some of its elements, used them in different ways: It made atoms from particles, DNA from atoms, or it made us from chimpanzees (that was the available I think). Of course nature have been doing this without any conscious decision, they naturally happens.
    Humans will, I want to believe that, appreciate the rules and structures in nature more clearly, and they will build "something else" from humans in order to enrich the evolution, make an impact in their existence or simply for survival. If it does not happen, if humans can not take the control and manipulation of their environment, nobody or nothing else will do anything for them. We are eventually history, doomed, went extinct, gone for good, disintegrated inside the atoms, dinosaurised...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  76. #75  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    625
    Of course, humans are special; because they have developed this speciality throughout their evolution, that's why we make mistakes and commit stupid acts alongside ingenious ones
    Human beings are not the only intelligent species in the world. There are several other species that can be said to be intelligent, such as the parrot, the pig, the dolphin, and so on. The only difference is in degree; we are simply slightly more intelligent.

    But I'm curious: what kind of specialness do you refer to in humans, if not intelligence?
    In control lies inordinate freedom; in freedom lies inordinate control.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  77. #76  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    The Edge
    Posts
    189
    Arcane_Mathematician, apparently you wrote: at least this crap is in gen discussion, and not physics.


    Physics is full of crap, always has been. That’s why you do research, to replace the old crap, with new crap.

    Examples: trace the history of the theories, of light, sound, gravity - constantly being revised in such a way that one can only say that the previous version was ‘crap’.

    “Gravity? Well, everything sucks everything else. Here’s a rubber sheet, let me explain.”

    “No, wait, actually, er, it appears that at some scales, gravity is actually a repulsive force! That’s only the exact opposite of what we’ve been saying, since we were saying anything. The scientific name for this kind of massive reversal is “D’oh!”

    Don’t worry, I’m sure that the idea that gravity can be repulsive is also crap. Just wait ten more years.

    Physics is not any less Wrong than any other field of Science.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  78. #77  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    625
    Physics is full of crap, always has been. That’s why you do research, to replace the old crap, with new crap.
    Is it, now? Then why do you persist in typing on this computer? If it wasn't for physics and the knowledge we now have because of it, the computer would never exist. Neither would the television, your mobile phone, or even the elevator. Man would never land on the moon, there would never be any satellites, and nuclear power would never be invented.

    According to you, then, man's progress is therefore crap. And that only serves to confirm my opinion about you.

    Examples: trace the history of the theories, of light, sound, gravity - constantly being revised in such a way that one can only say that the previous version was ‘crap’.
    An example involving light, please? In fact, an example involving sound would be even better.

    “No, wait, actually, er, it appears that at some scales, gravity is actually a repulsive force! That’s only the exact opposite of what we’ve been saying, since we were saying anything. The scientific name for this kind of massive reversal is “D’oh!”
    It's the first time I'm hearing anyone claim that gravity is repulsive. Are you sure you're not confusing this with another force?

    And, besides, the fact (and I get this feeling that you've heard this before) that science can undergo major reversals is one of its strengths. Once we know something is wrong, we will discard it, if not at once, then slowly, as edvidence accumulates.

    Physics is not any less Wrong than any other field of Science.
    Really? Could you give me an example of where physics is completely wrong? And don't tell me you've just given me an example of gravity. I would like something else, please.
    In control lies inordinate freedom; in freedom lies inordinate control.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  79. #78  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    The Edge
    Posts
    189
    Liongold

    Is it, now? Then why do you persist in typing on this computer?

    It is. Try reading the first post in this thread.


    If it wasn't for physics and the knowledge we now have because of it, the computer would never exist.

    That’s true. And our understanding can still be Completely Wrong (or ‘crap’ as we were recently advised to say). (See first post here)



    It's the first time I'm hearing anyone claim that gravity is repulsive. Are you sure you're not confusing this with another force?

    I like to educate. I like to teach you new things. (It’s widespread knowledge).

    http://www.faqs.org/docs/Newtonian/Newtonian_198.htm


    And of course “No”, (sigh), I’m not basing what I said on this site. Because- it’s Common Knowledge.


    Really? Could you give me an example of where physics is completely wrong?

    “Completely” wrong? I never said that. But, can you explain how Aristotle’s theory of the four elements is *completely* wrong? You can’t. Because it’s not. It makes perfect sense. Even though it’s crap, really. Looks good, makes a surface kind of sense.

    But it’s crap, really.

    There is literally no logical cause to suspect that today’s physics is any different.

    The inductive logic of Science guarantees that.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  80. #79  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    76
    Quote Originally Posted by Liongold
    what kind of specialness do you refer to in humans, if not intelligence?
    Knowledge and the application of knowledge.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  81. #80  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Transient
    Posts
    2,914
    Quote Originally Posted by baftansowibat
    Quote Originally Posted by Liongold
    what kind of specialness do you refer to in humans, if not intelligence?
    Knowledge and the application of knowledge.
    how do you know this doesn't exist in any other species? How do you know there isn't some species in another galaxy massively more advanced than us? Why do you assume it's only humans that are this way?
    Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools, because they have to say something.
    -Plato

    Reply With Quote  
     

  82. #81  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Transient
    Posts
    2,914
    Quote Originally Posted by Vexer
    Examples: trace the history of the theories, of light, sound, gravity - constantly being revised in such a way that one can only say that the previous version was ‘crap’.

    “Gravity? Well, everything sucks everything else. Here’s a rubber sheet, let me explain.”

    “No, wait, actually, er, it appears that at some scales, gravity is actually a repulsive force! That’s only the exact opposite of what we’ve been saying, since we were saying anything. The scientific name for this kind of massive reversal is “D’oh!”
    Gravity is still a completely attractive force, never once have I heard of repulsion, could you please cite a source for this? And, to be more exact, most theories NEVER get that massive reversal, or the D'oh! effect, as you so elegantly put it; please cite a theory if you think there was one. Theories on mechanics haven't changed much since newton, infact. His theory was only slightly 'tweaked' to accomodate the newer theories that predict for events that Newton could have never known about. In all reality, he only dealt with the macro, never the micro, because he never had the ability to explicitly observe the micro. He was never "wrong" as you like to put it.
    Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools, because they have to say something.
    -Plato

    Reply With Quote  
     

  83. #82  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    76
    Quote Originally Posted by Arcane_Mathematician
    Quote Originally Posted by baftansowibat
    Quote Originally Posted by Liongold
    what kind of specialness do you refer to in humans, if not intelligence?
    Knowledge and the application of knowledge.
    how do you know this doesn't exist in any other species? How do you know there isn't some species in another galaxy massively more advanced than us? Why do you assume it's only humans that are this way?
    Arcane_Mathematician, you may remember that once I accused you as attacking for the sake of attacking. I change it now: I think you are writing for the sake of writing, too. Forget me; can you get a sound answer from anywhere; including your own imagination, about what you have just asked?

    Where does this idea come from? Definitely, not from a factual evidence. The only difference between God’s existence and Alien existence is that at least the probability of Aliens is based upon our own civilization experience, and they should have experienced similar types of universal rules. Other than this, they (God and Aliens) are both same human fantasies. I will tell you two scenarios on your assumption:

    First: We have been evolving on a planet which rotates around its sun, and they both travel within a galaxy, Milky Way. There are billions of galaxies in the universe, and each of them has billions of stars. So it is not unlikely to find some other species with high tech civilization, maybe higher than ours. Although we have no evidence of life other than the one we know on earth, it is because we couldn’t find it yet, or somehow they did not find us. Still there are billions of places to look for…

    Second: Life started on this planet approximately 3.5 billion years ago. Follow the route to humans: Throughout this considerably vast amount of time, the earth’s climate and surface have changed a lot of times. You could not recognise this planet if you were able to go back in time, let’s say, 2 billion years ago. And life itself did not appear suddenly: Amino acids get together, they established a type of relationship among each other. First RNA has appeared than its relations created DNA. Then bacteria, small and large but relatively simple species, then life got complicated, species moved to land, back to water, back to land, vertebrates, birds, dinosaurs, then great dinosaurs disappeared after millions of years dominancy. Later on mammals appeared. Some of them evolved into monkey type creatures and eventually into apes. Some of these apes started to walk on their two feet, at least 4 million years ago. Any connection could have been broken any point of history of evolution (it still can). Some humanoid species emerged and our ancestors somehow became more successful than, for example, Neanderthals. Then some people developed agriculture 10 000 years ago. You know the rest of the story. And we are unique among billions of species on this planet.

    Now you are telling me that there is a probability of other intelligent civilizations around the cosmos. OK, but the possibility of “we are the only ones” deserves the same level of attention when you consider how we came here from some atoms. As long as there is no any evidence, both possibilities (there are Aliens/we are alone) have similar degree of probability.

    We can still go extinct. And you are my friend, just helping to this possibility. I bet you would sell the planet with its entire species to any Alien kind for a good deal, and wouldn’t even remember any of us; admit it, this is also a possibility...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  84. #83  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    76
    Vexer, since you have visited your post; May I ask you to enlighten us about the lesson, point, logic or meaning of this “crap”. We use science to understand, to make a sense and eventually change or affect our environment in order to satisfy our aims. Can we do that? I think we do: We turn night into day. Today not cycles of nature but our computers plan our lives from birth to death with all our production, education, finance, communication, almost everything, and even without being a “proper” AIs yet. We can enter codes inside the DNA. Our “crap” somehow works.
    My quest is, does that make the nature itself a “crap” too? A set of craps that establish an environment with farting materials and forces, then eventually we, the lord of the craps, emerged from the biggest bastards of the entire animal kingdom –the apes, and mastered the crap. So does it make us the ultimate craps of the universe?

    OK, but what does it make sense?
    Does that mean, everything is crap; so we should not do anything (“what’s the point” thing)?
    Or does it mean, everything is crap; so being crap or doing crap and existing within a crap make “the wrongness” the ultimate reality essence (Relativity of Gravity, thought for a fool)?
    Or does it mean that if we realise that everything (including our science that can open our eyes and opportunities about this “everything”) is crap, so we should create the smart one? Should we reorganise our human civilization in order to protect the survival of our crap minds against the chaotic madness of the nature?

    I did not get it…
    Reply With Quote  
     

  85. #84  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    625
    It is. Try reading the first post in this thread.
    I did. I even replied to it a few pages ago. I have neverquite seen a more bizarre post than your OP.

    If it wasn't for physics and the knowledge we now have because of it, the computer would never exist.

    That’s true. And our understanding can still be Completely Wrong (or ‘crap’ as we were recently advised to say). (See first post here)
    Your understanding, probably. I've already listed all of the major mistakes you made in your post in my post discussing your OP.

    And again, if our understanding is completely wrong, then why does it work? Is there one process you can point to that is completely ambiguous in the functioning of a computer and can be attributed to another physical theory?

    I like to educate. I like to teach you new things. (It’s widespread knowledge).

    http://www.faqs.org/docs/Newtonian/Newtonian_198.htm
    If you link a source, at least make sure that source explains why gravity is thought to be repulsive, or even mentions the fact that gravity is thought to be repulsive. I looked through all of the pages, at least until it got to Kepler and the subject changed noticeably. Not once did I see any instance of gravity being repulsive, or being shown to be repulsive, or even thought of as being repulsive.

    And of course “No”, (sigh), I’m not basing what I said on this site. Because- it’s Common Knowledge.
    All right. If that's so, I'd be quite delighted to see how many people will actually write that they know gravity is repulsive. Arcane Mathematician, a trustworthy person, does not know of it; nor, I am sure, will DrRocket, or Janus, or KALSTER for that matter. And these, Vexer, are the people who really know their physics.

    But, can you explain how Aristotle’s theory of the four elements is *completely* wrong?
    Actually, I can. Aristotle claimed that all the elements of this world comprise of only four elements: fire, air, water and earth. He also claimed, in addition to this, that animal representations of these elements exist e.g. fish represent the water element, birds the air, land mammals the earth, and fiery creatures (that, by the way, happen to live on the moon) fire.

    Here's a very easy way to show that he makes no sense.

    Let's take one of his elements - fire, to be precise. Fire is not an element in the strict sense; it is simply photons being emitted in a combustion with oxygen. If an element contains fire, it must constantly react with oxygen and produce a tremendous amount of photons. Since there exist bacteria that do not breathe oxygen - it is, in fact, quite poisonous - one can very well argue that fire is not a part of them. We humans do not produce fire, which would burn us - nor does any other animal extant.

    Another element - air. Air is a mixture of gases, and not an element. If air was a part of elements, I guarantee you would find trace amounts of krypton, xenon, neon, and so on, along with oxygen, nitrogen and carbon dioxide. If you can find all of these in any element, I will personally buy you a jumbo jet.

    Let's move on to water, which is a combination of hydrogen and oxygen in a certain ratio, and hence a compound. A simple way to break it into two is electrolysis. Please, perform it on yourself, and then check to see if you have somehow broken up into separate pieces of hydrogen and oxygen. If you have not, water is not an element in you.

    Last, but not least, earth. Since earth can be used to make hard pots, please turn yourself into a pot. Feel free to use a kiln, or a potter's wheel, or an assistant. In fact, use any materials you can, so long as you manage to turn yourself into a pot. If you cannot, I consider my case vindicated.

    The inductive logic of Science guarantees that.
    Prove it.
    In control lies inordinate freedom; in freedom lies inordinate control.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  86. #85  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Transient
    Posts
    2,914
    I will now make the claim that people are made of jello. The fact that I made a claim, and can support my claim through observation (look, I just jiggled), does not make it true, rational, nor, most importantly, scientific. But look, I jiggle, I see people around me jiggle, and jello jiggles, so we MUST be jello. I further this, there are FOUR elementary materials; Jello (soft stuff that jiggles), Water (stuff that flows and doesn't hold shape), Wind (that weird stuff that you cant see but you can feel), and Rock (the really really hard stuff that doesn't jiggle). EVERYTHING can be described as being either in whole or in part one or more of these things, yes? I jiggle, but inside I'm hard, so I must be part Rock. But also, there's a bit in me that flows, so I must be part Water too. And sometimes I can feel stuff I can't see coming from inside me, so I'm part Wind as well.

    I made the observations that led to this conjecture, is it not true then?

    Or, like I ALSO stated, is this all just poppycock and crap, unworthy of notice to ANY person of scientific merit? Now, had I no understanding of the world around me, these observations would be valid. Granted, I'd be wrong, but I would appear to right to those who, like me, had no understanding of the world around us. This is, in essence, the birth of science. I may notice, that some bit's of rock are different than others, so I must redefine my theory to include different categories of rock, making me "more right", is this correct? Now, going through this pattern, I will gain more and more understanding about the world around me by constantly redefining my position based on the influx of new data I get. As a matter of fact, at one point, I will be right, most definitely. I may not be COMPLETELY right, but for all intents and purposes that I may have, I will be right. There are 3 primary particles in atoms, the Electron, the Proton, and the Neutron. This is most definitely right, regardless of the constituents of those subatomic particles.

    Science is the inception of trial and error, of redefinition after redefinition and of the total refinement of our theories to the point that we can accept them as true and accurate for the purposes we have at hand. as we try to get more and more accurate, we need to get more and more specific, and need to gain more data to get a better, more specific, theory. Relativity is, for all the uses you will EVER need it for, be true. Theoretically, no. Theoretically, we need to get more specific. That's fine, and it makes relativity no less right. It just restricts its applications.
    Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools, because they have to say something.
    -Plato

    Reply With Quote  
     

  87. #86  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    76
    For those who try to prove how Aristotle's four elements are not actually elements, but actually how wrong he was:

    Aristotle never claimed that he was a scientist. He could not be one, because the methods you are employing to test his ideas now, were miles away from his era. He was just a thinking human being. He had no idea, device or knowledge of your understanding of "elements". He used the term "element" as "basic".

    Why don't you appreciate what he did in his time? He belongs to an agricultural civilization, and you can still dissapear from existence if you take out any of his "elements" from your daily life. If you could go back in time and told him about your ideas on elements, protons, electrons, etc. he might have chased you with a big stick in his hand. To be honest, I doubt that. As far as I can guess, he would still sit and listen to your ideas.

    Mocking with Aristotle today is not very different than anybody from future is mocking Einstein. These are the people who took our attention from animalistic daily life issues to somewhere "special". You should appreciate the evolution of human knowledge accumulation throughout the history. It is not like we were banana loving apes on Wednesday and we are masters of forces on Thusday. There is a process going on.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  88. #87  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Transient
    Posts
    2,914
    Aristotle was a Philosopher, you're right. He studied under Plato, IIRC. And most of what he did he just made observations, and then noticed similarities, and wrote down what his thoughts on it were. He was never a man of 'science' as he was alive LONG before the inception of modern science (the scientific method), and he didn't have the technology of men today, and as such couldn't make the kinds of observations that we can today. A brilliant thinker, but, given his circumstances, all he could do was make claims from ignorance, and by today's standards, his claims are pointless.
    Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools, because they have to say something.
    -Plato

    Reply With Quote  
     

  89. #88  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,231
    Arcane Mathematician, a trustworthy person, does not know of it; nor, I am sure, will DrRocket, or Janus, or KALSTER for that matter. And these, Vexer, are the people who really know their physics.
    Thanks for big-up, but I don't belong in that list. The rest certainly do know their stuff and, while they (and me) might have heard of alternate theories that posits gravity as a repulsive force (a la William McCormick), these most certainly do not represent the consensus. No idea how he could have thought that, except, of course, if he didn't have the slightest idea what he was talking about.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  90. #89  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    14
    This whole thread is kind of ridiculous. Science isn't all wrong, it's dynamic. Constantly changing with our understanding of the universe. That's what it's designed to do.
    HEY YOU! Yes, you. Do you like technology? Do you enjoy computers and electronics? Are you disappointed by the lack of people to discuss concepts like programming and hardware with? Then You should join Technicism, a forum devoted to discussing technology and related topics. Not big on technology? Don't worry, you can hang out in our non-technology section and discuss topics of interest like politics, movies, music, sports, or whatever else crosses your mind. Pay a visit to Technicism today!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  91. #90  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    The Edge
    Posts
    189
    Gravity is still a completely attractive force...

    Hm. I suggest you're behind the times.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  92. #91  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    The Edge
    Posts
    189
    "Constantly changing.."


    It's logical fact that is can't "change" without making what came before "wrong".

    Constantly.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  93. #92  
    Forum Professor marcusclayman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,702
    And so you have proven that some scientific theories are wrong. Your power of induction are mind boggling if this is proof that ALL science is wrong.
    Dick, be Frank.

    Ambiguity Kills.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  94. #93  
    Forum Professor Obviously's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    1,415
    Quote Originally Posted by Vexer
    "Constantly changing.."


    It's logical fact that is can't "change" without making what came before "wrong".

    Constantly.
    Doesn't mean they were completely wrong. It just shows that scientific theories can always be up for refinement, ever more 'limping' towards a more and more accurate picture of what the theories set out to explain.

    It's the best method to date, and you can't argue with results; I mean, the 21th century is a monument to scientific achievements.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  95. #94  
    Forum Senior PhoenixG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    336
    Quote Originally Posted by Vexer
    "Constantly changing.."


    It's logical fact that is can't "change" without making what came before "wrong".

    Constantly.
    This isn't true at all.

    New discoveries/evidence can refine as well as rebuke. Newton's equations still work in most cases even though Einstein's work showed that gravity was more complicated than we thought. The discovery of DNA radically altered our ability to understand evolution, but it confirmed Darwin's predictions rather than forcing his theory out the door.

    So while it certainly is possible for "change" to make something "wrong", it is not a "logical fact" that it always does so.
    "PhoenixG makes me puke that why I quoted him." - esbo
    Reply With Quote  
     

  96. #95  
    Forum Professor marcusclayman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,702
    Has anything ever proven math wrong?
    Dick, be Frank.

    Ambiguity Kills.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  97. #96  
    Forum Senior PhoenixG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    336
    Quote Originally Posted by marcusclayman
    Has anything ever proven math wrong?
    Do you mean, have anyone ever done math incorrectly? I assure you that I do math incorrectly all the time.
    "PhoenixG makes me puke that why I quoted him." - esbo
    Reply With Quote  
     

  98. #97  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,650
    Quote Originally Posted by marcusclayman
    Has anything ever proven math wrong?
    The Trinity. 1+1+1=1
    Religious Fundamentalist Club - Member #1.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  99. #98  
    Forum Senior PhoenixG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    336
    Quote Originally Posted by (Q)
    The Trinity. 1+1+1=1
    Epic win.
    "PhoenixG makes me puke that why I quoted him." - esbo
    Reply With Quote  
     

  100. #99  
    New Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    4
    Quote Originally Posted by (Q)
    Quote Originally Posted by marcusclayman
    Has anything ever proven math wrong?
    The Trinity. 1+1+1=1
    Ur definitely not going to take that as a serious example, that has nothing to do with mathematics.
    Everything in mathematics and science in general is right unless it's proven to be wrong, so if we are just saying that science is wrong and ur not really proven it, then this idea is wrong.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  101. #100  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    625
    Everything in mathematics and science in general is right unless it's proven to be wrong, so if we are just saying that science is wrong and ur not really proven it, then this idea is wrong.
    Just want to clarify something. Everything in science need not be considered right unless proven wrong. The notion of dark matter, for example, is still resented by some physicists, primarily because the evidence for it is 'sketchy' i.e. it can also occur because of some aspect of gravity we have yet to understand.

    The only thing considered to be correct in science is something which has been explicitly supported by observational experience. If an experiment disagrees with it, however, only then is it worth considering that the theory may be wrong. This is rare, however; experimental disagreement usually leads us to question some part of the existing theory and 'correct' it or add something to the theory which can be proven to be wrong or right and which also gives the right answer. This can be seen in Einstein's theory of special relativity, as it managed, for want of a better word, to add something to the existing theories of Galilean relativity, and Maxwellian electrodynamics, making them both compatible. Instead of questioning the edifice of Newtonian and Galiean mechanics, he merely proceeded logically to relaise that the two theories were completely compatible.

    Mathematics is an extraordinarily special case. Anything that has been proved logically and consistently to be right has no hope of ever being proven wrong. you cannot disagree with the existing status quo, and say that something that has been exlicitly proven is incorrect. That is the nature of mathematics, that every statement must be proven logically before continuing - mistakes are never accepted in mathematics. Nothing in mathematics can ever be proven to be wrong, unless it is a conjecture.
    In control lies inordinate freedom; in freedom lies inordinate control.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •