Leaderboard

Here's something with a little meat on the bone that adds a bit of weight to the underlying point our OP is trying (and struggling) to describe: https://neurosciencenews.com/meaningless-psychiatric-diagnosis-14434/

This was originally going to be a response to another thread, but it would have taken it sufficiently off topic (and now the thread is closed). As I went on writing, it got really long, so I'm just turning it into a very short introduction of science. Now, Popper was on the right track, but he was off by quite a bit. Popper's naïve falsification is essentially just a modus tollens. T⊃O ~O ∴~T If the theory is true, we have a predicted observation (within a certain amount of uncertainty). When we measure something outside of that range for that predicted observation, we need to throw out the theory wholesale. Think about that. Anytime we have a falsifying observation, per Popper, the whole thing goes out the window. So, let's take the recent measurement of superluminal neutrinos. Do we then throw out all of relativity? But, wait, we're not just testing relativity. No theory is an island-Special Relativity is a deductive consequence of ElectroDynamics (in fact, Einstein's paper was called "Zur Elektrodynamik bewegter Körper" which is translated as "On the ElectroDynamics of Moving Bodies") and the relativity principle which goes back to Galileo. This is called the Duhem problem (sometimes the Quine-Duhem thesis). Now this makes Popper's wholesale trashing upon falsification an even bigger deal. Do we throw out ALL of the related theories that are tangled up in this experiment? If not, which do we toss and which do we keep? (T1&T2&...&Tn)⊃O ~O ∴~(T1&T2&...&Tn) So, because of this insight, upon falsification, we know they can't all be right, but we don't know which, if any, are right. Here comes Lakatos who made a more sophisticated version of falsificationism in that he tried to get rid of the Duhem problem. It's a fairly ingenious thing to do. He broke up a theory into what he called a "research programme" which consists of the theoretical "hard core" and ancillary assumptions composing what he calls the "protective belt". So, with this framework, if a research programme is falsified, you go from an indefinite number of inconsistent theories to two inconsistent classes. If a programme is falsified, check your protective belt of ancillary assumptions and do the test again. This, it turns out, is what science actually does. Going back to the observation of superluminal neutrinos, that falsifies a huge swath of physics given the Duhem problem. But with Lakatos's research programme formulation, we should check out ancillary assumptions first. After checking all of our ancillary assumptions, we found one that was wrong. We assumed that all of our cables were connected properly. This assumption, however was wrong. It turns out, that the neutrinos weren't superluminal after all! On the face of it (or "prima facie", to use fancy philosophy terms), this is a very elegant solution. There is a problem, though. Lakatos's solution doesn't give us any way to know what goes in the "hard core" and what goes in the "protective belt". It also doesn't tell us why to check the protective belt first. So, after a bit of thinking about it, Lakatos's solution seems a bit ad hoc, and that's generally not a good thing. At this point, a guy named Dorling comes along wielding one of the most powerful tools in existence. With it, he showed that Lakatos was correct and he answered the things Laktos's approach couldn't answer, putting Lakatos's more sophisticated falsificationism on firm epistemological ground. What tool is was it that he used? If you've read many philosophy posts by me, you can probably guess. It's the equation that pretty much rules the world--Bayes's Theorem: [math]P_{f}(h_1)=P_{0}(h_1|e_i)=\frac{P(e_i|h_1){\times}P_{0}(h_1)}{\sum^n_{j=1}{P(e_i|h_j){\times}P(h_j)}}[/math] Where P(h|e) is how likely the hypothesis is given the evidence in question, P(e|hn) is how likely the evidence in question is given the hypothesis in question is true, and P(h) is just how likely the hypothesis is without considering the evidence in question. I actually prefer Howson and Urbach's example of Dorling's approach to the example Dorling used in his own paper. The example they use is that of William Prout (a chemist and medical practitioner from the early nineteenth century). Prout had a hypothesis (which Howson and Urbach label "t")that was almost universally accepted at the time. His hypothesis was that all chemical elements were made of hydrogen and thus they all have atomic weights as integer multiples of the atomic weight of hydrogen. At the time, almost all recorded atomic weights were close enough to integer multiples of the atomic weight of hydrogen within the limits of error. Then we measured one that breaks the pattern. We'll call that measurement the evidence, "e". Now, this experiment had a hypothesis entangled with t. That is the accuracy of measurement, purity of samples, etc. Howson and Urbach call that "a". Now e falsifies a&t, so P(a&t|e)=0 and, by a simple corollary, P(e|a&t)=0. The hypotheses t and a are independent, so P(a|t)=P(a), P(~a|t)=P(~a), P(t|a)=t, and P(~t|a)=~t (with similar results from negating the thing upon which the probability is conditional). What we're interested in finding out is which hypothesis (or hypotheses) we should reject. So, what we want to know is Pf(t) and Pf(a|e). From Bayes's Theorem (above): [math]P(t|e)=\frac{P_{0}(t){\times}P(e|t)}{P(e)}[/math] and [math]P(a|e)=\frac{P_{0}(a){\times}P(e|a)}{P(e)}[/math] Since P(e|t)=P(e|t&a)xP(a|t)+P(e|t&~a)xP(~a|t) (by the Total Probability Theorem) and the results mentioned above, P(e|t)=P(e|t&~a)xP(~a), P(e|~t)=P(e|~t&a)xP(a)+P(e|~t&~a)xP(~a) and P(e|a)=P(e|a&~t)xP(~t). At the time, the only real competing theory for Prout's theory was random distribution. From the details of that theory and from the details of the actual measurement of e allows calculation of P(e|~t&a), P(e|~t&~a), and P(e|t&~a): P(e|~t&a)=0.01, P(e|~t&~a)=0.01, and P(e|t&~a)=0.02. The historical values of P(a) and P(t) have been estimated at P(a)=0.6 and P(t)=0.9. This gives: P(e|~t)=(0.01)x(0.6)+(0.01)x(0.4)=0.01 P(e|t)=(0.02)x(0.4)=0.008 P(e|a)=(0.01)x(0.1)=0.001 The Total Probability Theorem tells us that P(e)=P(e|t)xP(t)+P(e|~t)xP(~t). P(e)=(0.008)x(0.9)+(0.01)x(0.1)=0.0082 [math]P(t|e)=\frac{(0.9){\times}P(0.008)}{P(0.0082)}=0.878[/math] which is still pretty darn high (compare to the original value of 0.9) [math]P(a|e)=\frac{(0.6){\times}P(0.001)}{P(0.0082)}=0.073[/math] which is a dramatic decrease from 0.6 (the original value). As we can see, this one piece of evidence that falsifies the conjunction doesn't automatically falsify everything (though it makes them all less likely). So, through Dorling type Bayesian approach, we get a good semi-Lakatosian view of falsification which tells us exactly how each part of the programme being tested is affected via the final probability. This also vindicates Lakatos's distinction between "progressive" and "degenerative" research programmes. A progressive research programme is one that is repeatedly confirmed and a degenerative research programme is one that is repeatedly disconfirmed. A progressive research programme can stand up to some data that doesn't quite fit the programme (which is why we didn't throw General Relativity out the window when we found out about the Pioneer Anomaly). And Popper would have absolutely no truck with this as he was very anti-inductive. Confirmation was a dirty word for him. For Popper, if a test didn't falsify your hypothesis, the only value of the experiment was getting rid of other hypotheses from the pool of competing hypotheses. But, as you can see from Bayes's Theorem, even experiments that don't falsify your hypothesis, it can in fact give partial confirmation to your hypothesis by raising the probability of the hypothesis. It's all about what the P(e|h) is. Bayes's Theorem tells us that Carl Sagan's mantra "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" is a mathematical fact. [math]P_{f}(h_1)=P_{0}(h_1|e_i)=\frac{P(e_i|h_1){\times}P_{0}(h_1)}{P(e)}[/math] P(e) is a function of all competing hypotheses, so it will remain constant in the evaluation here. Now, this makes P(h|e)=kP(e|h)xP(h). So, let's set a threshold for what we can rationally believe (a lower bound for P(h|e)) this will be a constant. We can divide one constant by the other to get another constant. C=P(e|h)xP(h), so it is blindingly clear that the lower is, the higher P(e|h) needs to be to reach the threshold of rational belief. Contrary to Popper, we need both falsification (a version far more sophisticated than his using tools he wouldn't like) and partial confirmation (which he really wouldn't like).

Probably a wrong one, in the right eyes. However, in the case of giving a definition i suppose i think of space in the spacetime manifold sense. Which also shows my point: Volume is a measure of space, in the manifold sense. This is also intrinsic. As to the latter part, it should be evident that if volume is a measure of space then it is not space it self. I think i can see how you can equate them but its a bit artificial and forced imo, so i would rather hear your ''notion of space" and your arguments for why volume is a property (of what precisely? objects?), and why it equates with your notion of space. I suspect that your definition might be something along the lines of "volume is the space a thing occupies" (not to put words in your mouth! please, correct me), in which case i totally see your point of view. I think we had different initial contexts in mind, and thats why i disagreed.

Do I understand it right that despite the widespread stereotype a hybrid and electric vehicles are not a real threat to oil and gas producing countries? Because all this hybridization and electrification will take many decades and... 1) A new huge electric generating power plants have to be build and expended. 2) An electric infrastructure have to be modified and expanded. 3) It will take (many) decades to switch all the automotive industry to hybrids and electric cars production. 4) Hybrids and electric cars will become more and more common among the passenger vehicles, but among pickups and trucks they will spread more slowly. And even more so among plains, ships, agricultural and construction machinery, trains, etc. For now there no even serious plans to build an electric plains ever... 5) Signifficant amount of oil in the World (around 40-50%) is used for petrochemical needs rather than motor fuels. This is just in a few developed countries the portion of motor fuels reach 75-80%. So, in time when all this changes will start to affect oil market seriously, there will be severe shortage of oil in the World already and some modern oil producing countries like Russia, Mexico, Norway may leave the title of oil producing powerhouses. If there will be no oil saving techniques in 50 years, oil prices will get so high and oil will get so scarce that people throughout the World will be simply forced to abandon hydrocarbons as an energy source completely. So, paradoxically the technologies like hybrid vehicles help to make hydrocarbon era longer than it otherwise would be. If all the modern vehicles would have the same fuel economy as they did in 1970-th, there will be no more conventional oil anywhere in the ground already. And anyone would use biofuel.

I'll tell you before they do- you need to give a description of what it is. Links should only be used as further/more detailed information for those who are interested.

So you are proposing to generate electromagnetic pulses using a scheme that you don't understand and don't think is possible? This raises the obvious question: why? We have extremely efficient methods for converting electric power into directional electromagnetic radiation. (The word "laser" comes to mind, for some reason.) So why try and invent a new one, when you don't understand how or if it could work? I'm sure it would. But you might want to explain what the point is, first.

Venus colony talk about hot real estate lol

! Moderator Note You've had three pages to persuade us with your verbal arguments about your idea, and each of your arguments have been shot down. Now you're just repeating the same arguments you've had from the beginning. If you knew the maths involved in what you're proposing, you could fairly easily try to model your idea using two extra time dimensions, and because you knew the maths, you could equally easily see why the idea results in an unworkable, unpredictable state. Much of the physics we know works would be changed if your idea had ANY merit. Everything we know works about Relativity and the observer effect wouldn't work if there were two extra time dimensions. If you come up with evidence to support yourself, please contact a staff member about re-opening this thread, but otherwise don't bring it up again.

First, to repeat, there is no way you can beat the law of conservation of momentum. And before you post next modification or new idea, there is no way you can beat the law of conservation of momentum. I have already explained about wires and radiation, your way of seeing does not match how reality behaves. Your "what about this variant of..." is already beaten by the more general principle. You would have to work on the fundamental level of physics, not some detail in magnetics/mechanics/rocks/trampolines Trying another angle. Conservation of momentum is extremely general. It's not one type of conservation of momentum for a few cases of macroscopic mechanics, another conservation of momentum for electricity/photons/particles etc. It is the same principle. Try this thought experiment*: Let's say you have come up with one case in everyday life where conservation of momentum is broken. That means objects can gain momentum without force applied. That would mean, since a very general principle is broken, that such things could happen all the time? Celestial bodies leaving the orbits. Subatomic particles leaving their atoms. Forum members and moderators spontaneously accelerating in every direction. Cars impossible to stop since they gain more momentum than acceleration provided. Such a universe seems rather chaotic and not what is observed and therefore not a very likely scenario. If conservation of momentum is wrong** it is wrong for everything, it would not be isolated to a few cables in your system. Note: always be very careful when defining the "system". Example: I could say to an inventor: "No your idea of space propulsion is wrong, conservation of momentum is not possible to beat, your rocket engine is a failure". Inventor "But there are fumes coming out from the back of the rocket, look!" I say: "you can't beat the conservation of momentum. The rocket's centre of mass is not accelerating." Inventor "AHA! I see! you define the rocket as the shell, fuel and exhausts! The complete system! I don't include the fumes from the engine, they leave the system." Me: "Good point! I got it wrong!" That is a different thing, the engine will work in space and your rocket will accelerate." The above case is intended to be kind of childish but intended to illustrate that this is one aspect of each and every kind of reactionless propulsion I have come across. The inventor and/or the one analysing is missing some aspect or failing to realise where boundaries are. Before posting more variants of attempts please read and analyse the responses so far. I think you might be close to that aha-moment where the conservation of momentum makes sense in the general case? Maybe you need to ask some questions about the conservation of momentum from a more general point of view, instead of wasting time on one case after another where the answer is known to be you can beat the law of conservation of momentum? *) Disclaimer: Quick post, not much time to think too deeply about the correctness of this part. **) Im not discussing universe as a whole here, I think universe was mentioned in an earlier post. For instance the accelerating increasing distances between remote galaxies is not "propulsion". On such scales "proper velocity" etc complicates the discussion too much for this thread.

Because: "there is no way you can beat the law of conservation of momentum." Or, to put it another way: "there is no way you can beat the law of conservation of momentum." Or, you could say: "there is no way you can beat the law of conservation of momentum." Momentum is conserved, no matter how many rocks you throw. You could fire a machine gun at the (bullet proof) trampoline. Or, more safely, a large piece of absorbent material. It would make no difference to the momentum of the system. The only way to change the momentum of the system is either to apply energy from outside (eg. a solar sail) or allow something to leave the system (eg. a rocket). We already know that the first rock make no difference, so we can ignore it. That just leaves the second rock. But we already know that a single rock makes no difference. So, to go back to the answer: no. Why? Because there is no way you can beat the law of conservation of momentum. Please tell me which part of that sentence you don't understand.

A man died and went to heaven. As he stood in front of St Peter at the pearly gates, he saw a huge wall of clocks behind him. He asked, “What are those clocks?” St Peter answered, “Those are Lie-Clocks. Everyone on earth has a Lie-Clock. Every time you lie, the hands on your clock will move.” “Oh,” said the man. “Whose clock is that?” “That’s Mother Theresa’s. The hands have never moved, indicating that she never told a lie.” “Incredible!” said the man. St Peter continued, pointed to another and said, “That’s Abraham Lincoln’s clock. The hands have moved twice, telling us that Abe told only two lies in his entire life.” “Where’s Trumps clock?” “His clock is in Jesus’ office. He’s using it as a ceiling fan.”

Is pedophilia necessarily wrong? Yes.

What? No, I am just asking you to provide some support for your claim that science can prove things. I'll give you a hand. One of the leading philosophers of science(*), Karl Popper, said: "In the empirical sciences, which alone can furnish us with information about the world we live in, proofs do not occur, if we mean by 'proof' an argument which establishes once and for ever the truth of a theory" http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/sciproof.html (*) Note that this is nothing to do with "his diploma", just the fact that he is an expert in the field who spent very many years studying the subject. It is relevant, because if you don't understand how science works, then how can you evaluate any theories about spacetime?

For instance, in a forum that gets less attention on here, "the lounge", this topic has gotten 2 more views even though it was posted thirty minutes later than my other topic in speculations. Why? Because, like homosexuality, which I find gross, pedophilia (which I think is natural because children are cuter and should or aught to trigger a protective and therefore attractive instinct in adults) is shamed. Why? Because people are stupid, a, and because b, people are pedophiles, and are jealous of pedophiles. In fact, when I was a child, I recall being more attracted to adults than other children. If being a pedophile were so punishable, than how could that be the case? I think the Gestapo are pedophiles, because the Vatican are pedophiles, and therefore explicitly condemn the slave class from fornicating with children.

Say this pedophile, as revolting as he may be, doesn't cause the child physical pain, opting instead to just caress her or something. Should he really spend a veritable eternity getting raped up the ass for this. You see this is one of the reasons I think the Illuminati of the German Police Force should been dismantled and disarmed and shamed. Other than the fact that most children don't mind getting rubbed down enough to report it, the majority of child molesters claim they don't harm children physically. According to the FBI, only one out of ten cases of child sexual abuse is reported to law enforcement. So all a child has to do is fight back and most pedophiles, will not persist to the point where they have to cause them harm. If the child is really emotionally uncomfortable, they will back. So children aren't even uncomfortable with being rubbed most of the time they like it! Law and Order GREATLY condemns specifically pedophilia, as does South Park, misrepresenting pedophiles as unintelligent, or unattractive. Which is no different from Stereotyping.

every human have their perspective about science it pointless to force someone to accept your perspetive

i just googled ST isuses and copy then

so you judge people by their diploma not by their brains. this topic is about space dimension and their structures not about pointless talk.