CoolATIGuy

Get a glass of water and go back to bed.

ugh...maybe I should get that glass of water. *smack* I can't believe I, czar of sarcasm, didn't look past the end of my nose. Anywho, I'm getting a clearer picture...thanks!

CoolATIGuy

Mass and Length and Time are the only fundamental types of physical quantity

So just what are temperature, electric charge, etc.? And putting it that way sounds like a modified version of what was believed along time ago, that everything was either wind, fire, earth, or water, doesn't it?

CoolATIGuy

Science works under assumptions though. You cannot 'do science' unless, at the very least, you assume that empiricism is a proper means of enquiry. Also, you assume that the universe behaves as though it is following laws, if you know these laws and the starting conditions, then you can predict the outcome. But using these assumptions, we can say that an observation of one set of conditions can be used to work out a relationship which will hold for others. It doesn't matter if they are now, or in the future, or in the past. The same rules should apply.

Aha, that is true! You would think that the same rules *should* apply. However, what happens if something happened in the past that caused those rules to change?

What I think is that all theories are correct only up to the time when we do not evidences to rejects them.

So you think that if I say that you are not a human but a gelatinous blob of off-brand jello, then that is correct until proven otherwise? I should *hope* not! I believe that *no* theory is correct simply because there is not evidence as of a certain time reference against it.

As long as over laboratery physics is coorect and there is no preferred place in the universe we can study past accurately on the basis of signatures which past events leaves ,like CMBR.

To bring up my point again, what if past events were changed, such as higher radiation levels, or light (when brought into existence) had already reached every point of the universe, and then slowed down? (I'm not validating these theorims, simply using them as examples....)

CoolATIGuy

Wow! Thanks for the posts, guys!

However, I am a bit confused...maybe it would help to start by asking for clarification on this:

For E=mc2 the 'c' needs to be squared to make the dimensions balance.

Why in (Energy) = (Mass) x (Speed of Light, squared), is the SoL squared at all? I'm trying to grasp the reason, but all I can come up with is the fact it is going through 3d space, but in that case it would be cubed. I'm just very lost as to *why* it completes the equation...

Thanks, and I look forward to great enlightenment!

CoolATIGuy

True enough, but at some point you have to make some assumptions and get on with life.

Skye,

So true! If one does not "make assumptions" (aka. have faith) in some sort of groundwork, one will get nowhere. My point exactly! But making those assumptions cannot be considered scientific, just because of one's lack of time, methods, or desire to research further (which very well may be no fault of their own, simply the facts of our physical world). So do you agree that there are some aspects that are currently considered "science", that maybe ought not to be labeled as such?

CoolATIGuy

Well, the subject line was a bit blatant. Basically, I'm wondering why many physics equations are squared, e.g. E=MC2, kg*m/s2=Newton, etc. Maybe it's just coincidence that it happens to solve the equation, but I've got a hunch that maybe there is some common physics factor that requires things to be squared for a common purpose. Does it have anything to do with the inverse square law ( http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/forces/isq.html )? If I'm totally off-track and it's not, then why are things like the afore mentioned squared, i.e. how does it complete the equation for those two examples?

Cheers!

CoolATIGuy

Doesn't a lie detector work by measuring anxiety? (As revealed by changes in persperation, respiration, heart rate, etc.)

Good point, but I agree with Dave...that is measuring "changes in persperation, respiration, heart rate, etc.", not anxiety.

When the author used red and sweat he was probably talking about an experiment where the scientist would just observe with his own eyes to determine if something was red or if it was sweating. In this case they would be qualitative because he didn't hook up the sample to any machines.

Hmm...possibly. But the author did say, "not directly detectable by mechanical devices."

I understand about qualitative observables being relative to an individuals perception in spacetime and their own views & biases. Thanks

CoolATIGuy

Direction depends on your coordinate system. As far as one can tell the basic nature of space is isotropic - there is no preferred direction.

Correct, but distance is the same...we, as humans, just chose set lengths to determine distances. So wouldn't direction be the same?

CoolATIGuy

In cosmology, you can observe the Universe and interpret it, create theories, etc. Even though you weren't there when the Universe was formed, you can still take a guess at how it happened by looking at the Universe now. An example would be Cosmic Background Radiation; we can observe it and hypothesize how the Universe began using its data, even though we obviously weren't there. In religion, it's hard to observe something such as a god, which you can't observe...

Well, history is not observable (as of yet), only the effects of it. However, if those effects are skewed, because something in between then and now (relative) changed, then our view of history is also skewed. Chew on this: Science is like a pyramid. In Science, *all* constants are built upon other constants. Every single *truly* scientific theory is a block (some large and some small), all sitting on top of other blocks. If a scientific theory is not the right "shape, size, or material" (in terms of a block), then it is discarded, as the more reliable constants around it are firmer. However, this poses a problem. If one should trace the scientific pyramid allllll the way down to it's base contants, one would come to the logical conclusion that those must be based upon something....

It is at this point that faith enters. No matter what religious (or lack of) beliefs one would have, all *truly* scientific facts would have to be based upon some sort of faith at the beginning. To use evolution as an example, here are a few points (based on a physics book):

1. The Scientific Method doesn't apply to past events

2. The evolutionary Principles claim infallibility, which puts it outside of the scientific realm (scientific theories can be proved wrong, but never proved to be *absolutely and infallibly* right)

3. Evolution claims why the universe was formed, even though motives cannot be explained by *true* science

Also, Hypothosis' must be testable - is the creation of matter from nothing testable?

Hope my thoughts aren't too spread apart.

CoolATIGuy

what is it about Length, Mass, and Time that make them fundemental?

Maybe that's what I need clarified...what *does* make them fundemental/what does that imply/what does that mean?

direction is fundemental in a 3D shape and if you are talking about movement, but to a 2D shape, direction isnt really important.

If you are referring to a "shape" as an object, direction *is* still important to a 2 Dimension shape, isn't it? It can go any direction in a 3d environment, and still has 2 directions in a 2D environment...

If you are referring to a "shape" as an environment, direction *is still important to a 2 Dimension environment, isn't it? Objects inside can still go 2 directions...

CoolATIGuy

Maybe this will stir up *too much* debate, but I find it interesting...and not just limited to Cosmology. When scientific topics are brought into focus (Physics, Astronomy, Cosmology, Oceanography, etc.), shouldn't it also be brought into focus that *nothing* can be considered *truly* scientific that relates to pre-historic/first-matter creation? Science is based upon facts, and since man was not around to record the facts in pre-historic "time", then anything before man-made records cannot be considered a science, correct? Any religious belief (or lack of) (Christianity, Humanism, Darwinism, etc.) all require the same thing - faith. It does not take faith without physical perception (hearing, seeing, etc.) to believe that the earth rotates around the sun - we can see that. However, you cannot see, nor are there man-made records of matter being brought into existence, so it requires faith to have a beginning...

So, in an effort to quit the rambling (), let me end with the question, "Will true science allow for things that are pre-historic, such as the study of Cosmology?"

CoolATIGuy

Just curious...I've been reading about 3 fundamental properties (Length, Mass, and Time), and was wondering about direction...what is that? It's definitely not Time nor Mass, but it's not quite Length. Are there more fundamental properties?

Sorry if this is too basic; gotta start somwhere.

CoolATIGuy

Preliminarily, I'd like to apologize if I didn't get this posted in the right TA - It's a newbie first-post.

To get to my question: I came across a webpage ( http://www.ebtx.com/ntx/ntx10.htm ), which states:

Note: Qualitive observables such as "red", "sweet", "left", "anxiety", etc. are not directly detectable by mechanical devices.

How is that mechanical devices can't detect those? For starters, "red" is simply a set frequency of light. A mechanical device could take in that proportion, and match it against a set amount to determine the color quality. For sweet, it could dig in the molecular structure to see what it's makeup is, then determine what senses it would stimulate in the mouth....

I understand that some things, like the spiritual realm and emotional realms, cannot be measured with physical scientific instruments. But red? That's just a label for quantitive amount, e.g. photon wave frequency...

Any thoughts? Or maybe clarification on the author's (intended) words?

CoolATIGuy