Thread: What is "science"

I know. By definition it's "the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment". But if something is believed to be science, and turns out to be false, was it not science to begin with even though originally thought to be? How do we know our next observations won't eventually be proven false?

I think Science isn't the observations and paths we take to reach the truth, science IS the truth. Whether we know the truth to something or not, every action has an equal and opposite reaction. That reaction is science. Not necessarily how we "observe" that reaction. What if we discover something without observing it on purpose. Does that not make it science?

Popper thinks science is only something testable and falsifiable. But if nothing can be proven truth, how do we know exactly what we are observing if we're not certain what it is, no matter how much evidence? How is THAT science. There is an explanation to everything whether we know it or not.

An example to this is the question does a God-like being exists? There truly is a right or wrong answer to it, we just can't prove it yet. Either its yes, or it's no. It does't change.

I'd like to hear some opinions on this. Is science the observations made to seek the truth, or the truth itself? If it's the observations to seek the truth, does the truth become irrelevant to science, and only the observations make it science​? Or if science is the truth, would the credibility to the observation to reach that truth not matter?

If you'd like me to try and elaborate my question more I will.

Originally Posted by Cudamerica

But if something is believed to be science, and turns out to be false, was it not science to begin with even though originally thought to be? How do we know our next observations won't eventually be proven false?

Yes, it is Science.
Science is following the Scientific Method. It does not serve the purpose of finding absolute truths, but to build models of reality to help us understand reality. These models require constant research to make them as accurate as possible and that is a never-ending effort.
This means that occasionally, enough study will open up areas of further research that will require models to be modified to predict current observation or even, abandoned altogether.

Originally Posted by Cudamerica

Popper thinks science is only something testable and falsifiable. But if nothing can be proven truth, how do we know exactly what we are observing if we're not certain what it is, no matter how much evidence? How is THAT science. There is an explanation to everything whether we know it or not.

Yes. But Science is not about finding the absolute truths. In order to find absolute truths, we would need to leave this Universe to a form of existence that requires no Universe and observe any Universe from outside of it.
There will always be things we don't know or cannot observe directly. So we might believe that there is an explanation for everything but still must adhere to the Scientific Method to shield our conclusions from our own bias.
Belief in science is not science- it is belief.

Originally Posted by Cudamerica

Is science the observations made to seek the truth, or the truth itself?

It is the theories we build to model reality and the effort to maintain the accuracy of the models.

Originally Posted by Cudamerica

If it's the observations to seek the truth, does the truth become irrelevant to science, and only the observations make it science​? Or if science is the truth, would the credibility to the observation to reach that truth not matter?

Science is the observation to seek a better model of reality and anyones declared "truth" is irrelevant.

I do understand exactly what you mean... This is my two bits on it.

You might believe that there is an explanation for why water boils. But that is a belief.
If you them employ the scientific method to support that belief and draw up a "Theory of Boil," then you may validate your belief.
If it contradicts your belief, then you are likely to try to make further observations to find out why your belief failed to match observation.
Believing that "truth" may well be validated- but until it is validated with study, observation and work, then you won't really know for sure that it was not a personal bias on your part.

Thanks for the response! From what I absorbed you believe the only science is science that falls under the criterion of the scientific method? Let me know if I misinterpreted.

One thing I am a little confused about is your comment about observing something from a totally outside perspective. You think that's the the only way to obtain the absolute truth to anything? I'm not debating if whether or not the truth to something is obtainable via human observation, but more so stating that the answer to anything and everything IS out there, and science, to current understanding, appears to be the methods used to comprehend the best explanations to define those "truths".

But under this current view of science, from what I gathered, the "truth" is entirely irrelevant to science. What makes science science is just our methods of interpretation whether or not they're wrong, just as long as they seem right given that they fall under the scientific method. What's the point of truth then? As it stands under this view it's irrelevant.

Originally Posted by Cudamerica

Thanks for the response! From what I absorbed you believe the only science is science that falls under the criterion of the scientific method? Let me know if I misinterpreted.

Yes that is my perspective and you did not misinterpret it.

Originally Posted by Cudamerica

One thing I am a little confused about is your comment about observing something from a totally outside perspective. You think that's the the only way to obtain the absolute truth to anything?

In any manner in which you can observe all factors from outside of the Universe (To avoid influencing the factors or entanglement).


... You would have to be what people term as an Omnipotent God.

Originally Posted by Cudamerica

but more so stating that the answer to anything and everything IS out there, and science, to current understanding, appears to be the methods used to comprehend the best explanations to define those "truths".

I agree with that belief and I share it- But that is a belief and not Science.

Originally Posted by Cudamerica

But under this current view of science, from what I gathered, the "truth" is entirely irrelevant to science. What makes science science is just our methods of interpretation whether or not they're wrong, just as long as they seem right given that they fall under the scientific method. What's the point of truth then? As it stands under this view it's irrelevant.

The absolute truth is irrelevant to science- but not to us.

Science is a methodology, a technique for skirting around our bias in order to try to see the world around us.
This is important because we are prone to belief and to speculation. If an "interpretation" seems "right" because it matches observation, then you have little recourse but to accept that it's probably accurate. Interpretation is often merely describing what you've observed.

But the point is quite simply- to learn. Even if we can never 'prove' anything... we still can build fantastically detailed models that are very, very accurate and use these models to technologically advance. The principles that enable your computer to function are Theories, not "Proven Facts." Yet, the advancement works. Because theories tend to be solidly supported by a lot of evidence.

We're curious. We want to know, to understand. Setting the goal outside of what we can attain makes no sense. But setting the goal to what we can not only attain, but share with future generations that they may achieve far more makes a lot of sense.

We may never prove something but we can achieve 99.99999% certainty. And that's still pretty good, in my book.

I don't have much to add to Neverfly's excellent description.

Originally Posted by Cudamerica

But under this current view of science, from what I gathered, the "truth" is entirely irrelevant to science. What makes science science is just our methods of interpretation whether or not they're wrong, just as long as they seem right given that they fall under the scientific method. What's the point of truth then? As it stands under this view it's irrelevant.

I wouldn't say that truth is irrelevant to science. I think it is more that scientist know that they can only approximate a "true" description of the world. Because scientific knowledge is based on an objective measurement and observation of the world, we hope it produces an accurate description. But we also understand that what we are capable of seeing, measuring, observing is limited and therefore our description must be an approximation. Hopefully our approximations improve over time as we learn more and gather more information.

For example, Newtonian gravity was a good description and fit perfectly with what was known at the time. It was only when we learnt more that we found it didn't always produce the same results. Now we have a new theory (general relativity) that seems to always produce the same results. Newtonian gravity is still a useful model (it is much simpler) and is still used. No one expects that relativity is the final answer, but at the moment we have no evidence showing how or where it might be wrong or incomplete.

It is very rare for a scientific theory to be shown to be completely wrong, more often it is found to be incomplete. So int hat sense we are getting closer and closer to a "true" description of the world.

(Note that this description is from a "naive realist" point of view, which assumes that our scientific theories describe how the world "really" is. There are other philosophical views that say it is just a description of how the world "appears" to be and that we can never know what the "real world" is really like. To which I say: whevs.)

Undisproved theories eventually become what we know as science.

Originally Posted by Magic Pixel

Undisproved theories eventually become what we know as science.

Not at all.

In science you look for fact. Fact cannot be found. This is the closest thing avalable. It has been tried tested and proven numerous times. If there is a better model that you know, out with it. Things can always be improved upon. Looking something up in wikipedia does not garantee fact. For science forumers, they seem for the most part to have strange and differing concepts of what science is. I will have to say for now that science is just science. It is what it is. What do you think it is?

Originally Posted by Magic Pixel

In science you look for fact. Fact cannot be found.

Incorrect. Didn't we just cover this, above?

Originally Posted by Magic Pixel

It has been tried tested and proven numerous times.

What has been 'Proven?'

Originally Posted by Magic Pixel

For science forumers, they seem for the most part to have strange and differing concepts of what science is.

Examples?

Originally Posted by Magic Pixel

I will have to say for now that science is just science. It is what it is. What do you think it is?

I think...

Science is That!

Everyone uses the wiki definition, it is so entertaining. It describes science. In fact it even feels sciencey. It is so entertaining. Everyone uses it except scientists. Ask one. Maybe some might, those are not the good ones . Save your wind and do a study on your own. I am not saying you are wrong. It's just that the correct information is lacking or unavailable. Science and luck.

What's really entertaining is a fool who thinks crop circles are made by aliens using controlled fusion thinking they know anything about science. Are you a troll or just thick?

Originally Posted by Magic Pixel

Everyone uses the wiki definition, it is so entertaining. It describes science. In fact it even feels sciencey. It is so entertaining. Everyone uses it except scientists. Ask one. Maybe some might, those are not the good ones . Save your wind and do a study on your own. I am not saying you are wrong. It's just that the correct information is lacking or unavailable. Science and luck.

I don't even know what the Wiki Definition says.

Either way, it appears that you believe it's you against a slew of scientists... Good luck with that.

Scientists seem to share this false mistaken and unpopular according to you belief. You do your science your way, and we will do ours the way I described. Good luck.

Originally Posted by Magic Pixel

Everyone uses the wiki definition

Citation needed.

Everyone uses it except scientists

Citation needed.

Maybe some might, those are not the good ones

Citation needed.

I am not saying you are wrong

But you're implying that: heavily.

It's just that the correct information is lacking or unavailable

What "information"?

Originally Posted by Magic Pixel

Scientists seem to share this false mistaken and unpopular according to you belief.

What?

Originally Posted by Magic Pixel

You do your science your way, and we will do ours the way I described. Good luck.

What is 'your way?'

If it's not "disproven" then it must be true?


Unicorns did it. Prove me wrong.

~ Umm.. " The unicorns were eaten by the tigers on the Ark ".. No record of a unicorn has been found from before or since.
No fossil record, no remains, no unicorns descendants or predecessors have yet been established... Oh wait, it's them that make the crop circles. Running in circles from the Tigers. It looks to me that 'Magic Pixel' is alone and lost as to what science is.
Some of us understand the scientific method. To test and challenge.

Test and challenge is philosophy. Better to translate that into equational form where it will fit into the computer. Our ways are the same except that the undisproved theories way is more exacting. We don't need inexacting guesswork science. And the youtube vidios suggest orbs as opposed to unicorns in the production of those crop circles. Fact, truths, theories, undisproven theories. Choose something to use for your science and use it well.

Is this Hill Billy again? The trolling style is familiar (although this incarnation can spell better), is it coincidence these dingbats are turning up shortly after his ban?

Originally Posted by Magic Pixel

Test and challenge is philosophy.

It's a philosophy.
But practising it is science.

Better to translate that into equational form where it will fit into the computer.

You can't get an equation until you've done tests.
The real world doesn't fit in a computer.

Our ways are the same except that the undisproved theories way is more exacting.

Whut?

We don't need inexacting guesswork science. And the youtube vidios suggest orbs as opposed to unicorns in the production of those crop circles. Fact, truths, theories, undisproven theories. Choose something to use for your science and use it well.

Yeah blah blah blah...

Originally Posted by Magic Pixel

Test and challenge is philosophy. Better to translate that into equational form where it will fit into the computer. Our ways are the same except that the undisproved theories way is more exacting. We don't need inexacting guesswork science. And the youtube vidios suggest orbs as opposed to unicorns in the production of those crop circles. Fact, truths, theories, undisproven theories. Choose something to use for your science and use it well.

using the verification principle I have determined that the statement: 'Magic Pixel is an ignorant fool' is correct as it's empirically verifiable and falisiable. Guess what? science is either verifiable or falisifable too or else it's philosophy - ur philosophy is crap.

For some reason they won't listen. Wikipedia knows all. Anyway, thank you Trivium.

Originally Posted by Magic Pixel

It is so entertaining.

I am not entertained by your posts. Please bring them up to a higher standard.

Originally Posted by Magic Pixel

Undisproved theories eventually become what we know as science.

Absurd.

There are an infinite number of "undisproved theories" and the vast majority of them are not accepted science.

Science is a methodology that leads you to the best possible conclusion. By your description, my Theory of Unicorns is as equally disproved as the Big Bang Theory in regards to the emergence of our known universe and, thus, must be equally accepted.

I have another theory; you're a doofus speaking above your understanding. Disprove it or we must accept it.

Originally Posted by Flick Montana

I have another theory; you're a doofus speaking above your understanding. Disprove it or we must accept it.

I have a modification to make to your theory.

Originally Posted by modified hypothesis

you're a doofus speaking above your understanding or a troll trying to be funny.

Only the best ingredients goes into my science.

Well when you present some science we'll see if that's true. So far you've presented a smorgasbord of nonsense the main ingredient of which appears to be bullshit.

Without a good understanding of organic chemistry, you can't even know what SHT is and cannot specify bull or otherwise. But there you are using it.

If you were to turn around quickly ,you might be able to catch a glimps of all of tiny microbes partying within your rectum at this very moment. This is science. I would like to watch you even try to disprove this.

Originally Posted by Magic Pixel

Without a good understanding of organic chemistry, you can't even know what SHT is and cannot specify bull or otherwise. But there you are using it.

I knew those chemistry degrees I have would come in handy -- bullshit definitely present.

Originally Posted by Magic Pixel

If you were to turn around quickly ,you might be able to catch a glimps of all of tiny microbes partying within your rectum at this very moment. This is science. I would like to watch you even try to disprove this.

Yeah, lot's of science in this post -- admit it you're a troll.

With reference to my avatar, I am a unicorn.

I would like to say what I think you are but you're not worth getting banned over.

Originally Posted by Magic Pixel

If you were to turn around quickly ,you might be able to catch a glimps of all of tiny microbes partying within your rectum at this very moment. This is science. I would like to watch you even try to disprove this.

Warning. Knock off the idiotic posts or you are headed for a suspension.

Originally Posted by Magic Pixel

Only the best ingredients goes into my science.

You've presented no science. PhDemon seems to on the right track. You appear to be trolling.

hey, what is opposite of science?
bullshitt?

Originally Posted by sir ir r aj

hey, what is opposite of science?
bullshitt?

Anti-science:

Originally Posted by RationalWiki

The term "anti-science" refers to persons or organizations that promote their ideology over scientifically-verified evidence, either by denying said evidence and/or inventing their own. Anti-science positions are maintained and promoted especially in areas of conflict between the politically- or religiously-motivated pseudo-scientific position and actual science.

(Bold mine)

Originally Posted by sir ir r aj

hey, what is opposite of science?
bullshitt?

Faith

Science is like tree climbing, it can be fun. Not science can be like tightrope walking a limb. Only it isn't there . Its imaginary. Faith has its part. I would like to say that the opposite of science is heresay, but science is not known well enough to have a true opposite.

Utter drivel.

Thanks, Ph, I liked that one myself.

Magic Pixel: Define science.

What sort of definition would you like?

One that isn't an incomprehensible and asinine metaphor.

Alright,Flick and Neverfly. Flick I saw your picture in the what are you doing post. I hope you have cooked the turkey by now.Ok for a scientific defining of science. From the tone of this thread the only defininition I can think of think of is this one. Ok ,here it goes.

You guys can think of science as being the non infidel which occures within our precieved reality.

I have defined it before. I don't know if there are better definitions avaliable. I hope all of your questions can be answered.

Originally Posted by Magic Pixel

You guys can think of science as being the non infidel which occures within our precieved reality.

No. I can't. Because I have no idea what that means.

Originally Posted by Magic Pixel

You guys can think of science as being the non infidel which occures within our precieved reality.

So... Science is a Muslim but only if said Muslim exists within our Universe?

I am assuming that you are some sort of scientist Flick. People think of science in a laboratory with men in white coats and lab equipment everywhere. Science occurs inside of only one test tube in that lab. The definition is small. Science is fact.

"Science is fact" is just as poor a definition of science as any other you have put forth.

Are you like this on purpose or can you not help it?

This isn't the most nonsense multiple choice question I have ever been asked. 1, this is on purpose. 2, I can't help it. Can you give me a guess, because neither of these answeres seem correct. I am perplexed. I will have to stay with the answer of neither. With of course an explanation.

If science is not fact then science is allowed to be fiction. Within that scenerio your question seem valid. But science being somewhat more factual ,your questions become non valid and therefore unanswerable. I hope this answers some of them.

Science is not fact because fact is already fact.

Science is a methodology.

To be honest, there really is no point continuing the thread beyond Neverfly's first post. He pretty much sums it up. All you're doing is stringing some apparently random words together in a failed attempt to communicate.

Define fact.

Why? The point of the thread is to define "science".

Science was described as fact. Therefore the definition of fact should describe science. And possibly also define it again.

Science is not fact. Science may use facts, but it is not defined as fact. Is the Big Bang a fact or is it just the best explanation we have given what we currently know?

If you want to define science as a single word, I would go with "logic".

Originally Posted by Magic Pixel

Science was described as fact.

by who?

Therefore the definition of fact should describe science. And possibly also define it again.

If something based on a bad premise, it usually isn't worth further thinking.

What we should post votes on what science is? Science is fact and not fiction. I think that stands. When authority is qustionable, question authority.

Science uses facts. Science finds facts. Facts are unavalable. Science uses the next best thing. Science uses undisprovable theories. Some theories are not undisprovable. Science uses the next best thing again. Science uses currently undisproved theories. Facts, undisprovable theories, and currently undisproved theories. These are all acceptable as science. Science uses fact.

"Undisproved theory" is acceptable as fact...

Unicorns are an "undisproved theory."

Therefor, Unicorns = fact.

I don't claim to be any kind of expert on unicorns , but I'm sure they are not an undisproved theory. Myth maybe.

Your example though is completely correct.
And there are a lot of strange things in science currently that are accepted as science.
Worst examples are anti matter, esp, black holes, light speed, the list goes on and on. All of these things may not be facts.

But they are still science.

Science is how they were arrived at.

~ Aaugh ! I am atheist but this could make a angel weep. Whats a angel ? ' See despair ' What is science ?
~ Science is the overview of the never ending quest for truth. ~ It is not facts or methods.. It is not faith or religion. It is testing, challenging, questioning, All of these things and more..

Originally Posted by Magic Pixel

And there are a lot of strange things in science currently that are accepted as science.
Worst examples are anti matter, esp, black holes, light speed, the list goes on and on. All of these things may not be facts.

I'm sorry, are you questioning the existence of antimatter, black holes and the speed of light?

How can you question the speed that light travels and whether it is fact?

This would become psudoscience if I gave a complete answer now. But yes for my own personal reasons,I not anyone else, question all three of them 'and' a lot more. I may explain it another time.

A professor of mine once said it best: "Science: The act of not fooling yourself." Also, Magic Pixel is clearly only trolling.

Originally Posted by Magic Pixel

Science was described as fact. Therefore the definition of fact should describe science. And possibly also define it again.

Originally Posted by Magic Pixel

Worst examples are anti matter, esp, black holes, light speed, the list goes on and on. All of these things may not be facts.

But they are still science.

Can you spot your self contradiction here? Or do I need to explain it?
Not to mention that anti-matter, black holes, and the constant c are all factually existential. But please do not attempt to explain as to why you believe they are not, the stupid burns enough already.

Originally Posted by Magic Pixel

This would become psudoscience if I gave a complete answer now. But yes for my own personal reasons,I not anyone else, question all three of them 'and' a lot more. I may explain it another time.

Oh I think this became pseudoscience at "undisproved".

Why don't you believe the speed that light travels at? Do you believe in the speed of sound?

@GiantEvil, I think anti-matter and black holes are nihilistic.

Originally Posted by Ninja Pancakes

@GiantEvil, I think anti-matter and black holes are nihilistic.

So you think that anti-matter and black holes posses the cognitive wherewithal to contemplate a perceived pointlessness to existence?
Uh, okay, whatever.

I was making a joke, crikey. You called them existential. It's supposed to be funny because black holes trap matter and anti-matter annihilates itself and its counterpart upon contact. Hence, nihilstic. Who peed in your coffee?

I also think that consciousness is a fundamental property of matter, but that's a whole nother topic.

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

Originally Posted by sir ir r aj

hey, what is opposite of science?
bullshitt?

Faith

got answer from nt

That's an awful, terrible question.

Science is a method of inquiry ... a path to truth. It is not 'opposite' to any other path ... such as religion or faith ... in the sense that if you pursue science you are moving *away* from religion or faith. That is a terrible misconception.

Science is NOT the opposite of religion. The two are completely compatible. You can be deeply religious AND a strong believer in science.

It's like asking what is the opposite of philosophy? Or what is the opposite of mathematics? These questions are nonsensical.

But the reason I complain about the question 'what is the opposite of science?' is that it is not just nonsensical, but divisive and damaging.

and

Usually, it is pseudoscience. Most cranks and crackpots work in reverse of the scientific method. They usually come up with a conclusion and then attempt to form fit other bits of information to support their conclusions.

and

Nescience. Presumably a random, natural or unintended state of being uninformed. Since deliberate maintenance of such could itself conflictingly be construed as a kind of "science" or developed approach / system to sustaining a lack of knowledge.

The basic premise that underlies all science is:

The natural universe is a closed system (the colloquial definition of the term: a system not acted upon by forces outside of itself) whose behavior can be predicted by theories derived logically from empirical observation of its present and past behavior.

Therefore, a reasonable search for antiscience would look carefully at other belief systems or models of the universe that reject one or more of the elements of this premise.

Religion is always the first result of this search, because it rejects the notion of a closed system. Religions are predicated on the assumption that an invisible, illogical supernatural universe exists, from which fantastic creatures and unbelievable forces emerge at random intervals for the express purpose of fucking up the behavior of the natural universe. This is a complete rejection of science.

My favorite example is the biblical flood. It would take about five times as much water as there is on the entire planet and in the atmosphere to raise sea level to the top of the Himalayas. That extra water must have come through a portal from the supernatural universe.

The opposite of science is a troll.

Science seeks to put into order, the facts of our observations, via rational logic and common sense.

Trolls seek to create chaos,with false and unneccesary commentary that has little to no basis in rationality, logic or common sense

Trust and someone with credentials telling it is so makes it science? On you way out hit the light and measure how fast it gets darker.

Originally Posted by Magic Pixel

Trust and someone with credentials telling it is so makes it science? On you way out hit the light and measure how fast it gets darker.

No. Fulfilling the criteria of a theory make it accepted science. You're not very good at using words precisely. "Accepted science" is not the same as "truth". It is not the same as anything except "accepted science". Why do you feel the need to replace perfectly suitable words with your own and distort the other poster's meaning?

Distort? Corrected would be more accurate.

Originally Posted by Magic Pixel

Distort? Corrected would be more accurate.

Correct? 'Bagels' would be more accurate.

Bagel? You mean like antimatter traveling through a hole in the curvature of spacetime. Is that what you mean? Please explain further.

No. When I say "bagel", I mean "bagel". If the post made no sense to you, then you now know how everyone else feels about everything you say. Point made.

Originally Posted by Cudamerica

Thanks for the response! From what I absorbed you believe the only science is science that falls under the criterion of the scientific method? Let me know if I misinterpreted.

One thing I am a little confused about is your comment about observing something from a totally outside perspective. You think that's the the only way to obtain the absolute truth to anything? I'm not debating if whether or not the truth to something is obtainable via human observation, but more so stating that the answer to anything and everything IS out there, and science, to current understanding, appears to be the methods used to comprehend the best explanations to define those "truths".

But under this current view of science, from what I gathered, the "truth" is entirely irrelevant to science. What makes science science is just our methods of interpretation whether or not they're wrong, just as long as they seem right given that they fall under the scientific method. What's the point of truth then? As it stands under this view it's irrelevant.

I very much agree with Neverfly and Strange.

It seems to me that scientists believe there is an objective physical reality which they seek to model various aspects of, in the theories of science. But only a very arrogant scientist would claim that his or her model actually is 100% complete and correct. History has so often shown us the need for further development, revision or complete overthrow of theories. And in fact we often use different models of the same thing to suit different tasks. Not much need to consider relativity when designing a car - Newton will do fine (apart from the GPS perhaps). But in particle physics or cosmology it's a different story.

So I think questions about "truth" in science are tricky. "Truth" is in a sense "what works", i.e. "what seems to be the case". But the word "seems" is important to the scientist, as all "truth" in science is provisional, for the reasons outlined above.

For want of better science, what is all of this distort, bagels, arrogance? Express your idea. Stop trying to be insultive.

People will stop being insultive [sic] when you stop being a stupid f***ing troll.

Hello again ph. I saw in the other colume about your nso experiment not working right, just do the energy math first and it should come out right next time. And as for me being stupid ,you are right. Trying to convince those school brainwashed idiots of what science is, is stupid.

Originally Posted by Magic Pixel

And as fo me being stupid ,you are right.

Now you're starting to understand "fact".

Reading comprehension and f***ing dumbness noted. My experiments are working fine, it's the model that is having trouble and your suggestion makes absolutely no sense, not surprising really bearing in mind how dumb your posts are. Oh and stop trolling.

My chem teacher in high school ,Pauli, always gave that advice. Energy math first.

Stop trolling.

Originally Posted by Magic Pixel

My chem teacher in high school ,Pauli, always gave that advice. Energy math first.

you will be castrated (sorry, banned) if you dont stop posting all these unscientific thoughts. This forum is very strict.

Originally Posted by Magic Pixel

Trust and someone with credentials telling it is so makes it science? On you way out hit the light and measure how fast it gets darker.

When you go outside at night and you look up at the stars. How far away do you think those stars are?

And if they are a certain distance away, how do you think you should be measuring the time it takes for the light from those stars to reach your eyeballs?

Because light travel is not so much science but a measurement of distance and time. It is not a matter of flicking a light switch, but a matter of seeing how fast the light from an object reaches you, ie, how fast you are able to see the light from that object.

For example, when you look up at the stars outside on a clear night, what you are seeing, or whichever star you decide to look at, you aren't looking at it in real time. You are seeing it how it looked in the past, because the light from that star takes that long to reach your sight. That travel distance is the speed of light - the speed it takes for you to see the distant light.

Lets look at our own sun, as a prime example. The light from the sun takes just over 8 minutes to teach us on planet Earth. That is the speed of light - that just over 8 minutes, is the speed of light. We even know the exact speed that light travels at. 299,792,458 meters per second, which works out to be around 186,000 miles per second. That is the speed of light, or the time it takes for light to travel whatever distance.

This is not a theory, but a measurement.

So you will understand why I question your doubts that it even exists.

Or do you think the stars that you see are not really stars but something else?


PS: I'm sorry for butchering physics..

What you see coming from space travels at exactly the speed you described since it is mostly within vacume. I myself have a different theoretical view, which has nothing to do with what you see or how fast it gets there.
The physical properties of light are not yet well enough described from science to be certain that light actually moves at all. Therefore my thoughts about the speed of light are uncertain presently.

Utter crap. Light is very well understood by science. It's only ignorant trolls like you who are confused about it. STOP TROLLING.

Originally Posted by Magic Pixel

What you see coming from space travels at exactly the speed you described since it is mostly within vacume. I myself have a different theoretical view, which has nothing to do with what you see or how fast it gets there.
The physical properties of light are not yet well enough described from science to be certain that light actually moves at all. Therefore my thoughts about the speed of light are uncertain presently.

you see, maybe you don't quite understand what science is about - it's all about evidence and how well it stands up to scrutiny
personal opinions may drive scientific investigations, but whether a scientific theory stands up to scrutiny has nothing to do with opinion

all evidence points to the fact that the speed of light in a vacuum is a constant, and any tests that have been thrown at it have only confirmed what the initial evidence seems to point at
it's come to the point that stating that light speed is not a constant is such an extraordinary statement that it requires extraordinary evidence to support it - mere opinion won't cut the mustard

Originally Posted by Magic Pixel

What you see coming from space travels at exactly the speed you described since it is mostly within vacume. I myself have a different theoretical view, which has nothing to do with what you see or how fast it gets there.
The physical properties of light are not yet well enough described from science to be certain that light actually moves at all. Therefore my thoughts about the speed of light are uncertain presently.

~ Oh what a wonderfully constructed argument... Yea right. ~ Magic Pixel is in need of education. It's saddens me to see such foolishness. Just as many astronomers understand very well what it is we see when the lens cap is removed. We understand what 'Magic Pixel' can't even conceptualize how we might test light velocity equations. Pfft ! His " different theoretical view " might just be bullshit.

Originally Posted by Magic Pixel

What you see coming from space travels at exactly the speed you described since it is mostly within vacume. I myself have a different theoretical view, which has nothing to do with what you see or how fast it gets there.
The physical properties of light are not yet well enough described from science to be certain that light actually moves at all. Therefore my thoughts about the speed of light are uncertain presently.

This is akin to saying there is no such thing as gravity. Ole Rømer is turning over in his grave as I type. They have understood the speed of light since the late 1600's.

Please explain your view of how you are able to see the light of distant stars. Please explain how and why it takes just over 8 minutes for the light from our own sun to reach Earth.

Originally Posted by Magic Pixel

Therefore my thoughts...

...are not worth the effort it takes to to type them.
FIFY.