Jump to content

Strange

Moderators

  • Joined

  • Last visited

View Profile Find content

Posts posted by Strange

    4 minutes ago, Romeo22 said:

    I have already talked about the difference between GR and QT and I said I favor the view of Newtonian Gravity, Maxwell dynamics and Quantum theory.

    Which doesn't answer the question.

    4 minutes ago, Romeo22 said:

    I favor the view of Newtonian Gravity

    It has the advantage of simplicity.

    But does labour under the not inconsiderable disadvantage of being wrong.

    0

    3 hours ago, Romeo22 said:

    SPACE is an entity that cannot interact with ALL forms of energy.

    As all forms of energy cause spacetime curvature, this appears to incorrect.

    Which forms of energy does it not interact with?

    0

    Just now, Romeo22 said:

    @stringjunky I have already made this clear that in GR space is different than Newtonian and Quantum physics.

    Thus I said you need to make a choice.

    And, for the purposes of this thread, that choice is "relativity".

    0

    12 hours ago, Romeo22 said:

    Space is not volume.

    Matter has volume so does space

    So you agree that space is volume?

    12 hours ago, Romeo22 said:

    whether that volume in R*3 is infinite or not is what u nd I should be discussing

    Whether space is infinite or not is not the subject of the thread. Note that this makes no difference to any theories and so we can’t know. 

    0

    2 hours ago, Siyatanush said:

    Do the forces like gravity or others do their job on their own or they are planned to do so by a higher force? 

    There is no evidence of any higher force. Look at the equation for gravity, for example. There is nothing in that equation that represents a “higher force”.

    0

    34 minutes ago, Siyatanush said:

    The systematic way in which the whole cosmos functions shows that there is a higher power who keeps control. The higher power called 

    God does not let things go haywire.

     

    Things function quite systematically without intervention.

    Unless you think that when you let go of an object your god has to intervene to carry it to the floor and ensure that it accelerates towards the floor at 9.8 m/s2

    It seems simpler to allow the gravity and other forces to do their job without a god having to be involved in every little movement or change

    0

    9 hours ago, coffeesippin said:

    For sure there is neither free speech nor general advancement in science here. 

    There is not free speech because we have rules about what people can say. If you don't like the rules, move on.

    There isn't much, if any, advancement of science here as it is a discussion forum not a research lab.

    9 hours ago, coffeesippin said:

    People presenting the latest science are labelled trolls and banned, so I have both scientific and spiritual objections to the quality of moderation on this forum. 

    People presenting the latest science, or even controversial science, are not labelled or banned. At least not for that. Some people who do that will persistently break the rules though. You know the sort of thing: hijacking other threads with their idea, preaching (either literally or metaphorically; both of which are against the rules), etc.

    You have run into problems with the rules because nearly eery thread you participate in gets dragged off into a discussion of your beliefs. 

     

    0

    23 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

    I'm envisioning two sticks facing 180 degrees away from each other.

    They wouldn't (except at the equator on the summer solstice, perhaps). In the northern hemisphere, the sun normally rises and sets south of you. (But I guess you don't literally mean 180º)

    But, of course, the line that bisects the angle would obviously also tell you where north was as well, just because it is opposite south!

    1

    5 minutes ago, ScienceNostalgia101 said:

    1. Would the bullet's path be kept horizontal for any non-negligible amount of time by air resistance, or would the vertical component of its motion immediately assume downward acceleration like everything else?

    If we ignore aerodynamic effects that might give it lift (I have no idea if that applies to bullets o not) it would fall down at the same rate as if it had been dropped.

    6 minutes ago, ScienceNostalgia101 said:

    2. How quickly would the horizontal component of its motion be slowed by air resistance?

    Don't know. It is probably hard to calculate, but I would bet there are guidelines for different types of bullets.

    7 minutes ago, ScienceNostalgia101 said:

    3. Either way, would it be safe for the drivers of this landspeeder to reach out of the window and grab the bullet, provided they maintained the same velocity as the bullet while it was in contact with their hands?

    They might want to wear gloves, it will probably be hot from air-resistance.

    0

    ·

    Edited by Strange

    6 hours ago, Reg Prescott said:

    The source is "Natural Philosophy of Cause and Chance" (1949), p47 -- M. Born

    1949. LOL

    6 hours ago, Reg Prescott said:

    [Even] if correct", then the claim that mainstream science is being questioned all the time is false, granting that dogma, almost by definition, refers to those doctrines that are not to be questioned.

    What an execrable piece of logic. 

    "Science isn't questioned because it is dogma and dogma means it is not to be questioned"  A prime example of the fallacy of begging the question. 

    Do you have any examples of scientific "doctrines that are not to be questioned"?

    Fundamental things that have been, and are, questioned (some leading to changes, others being repeatedly confirmed):

    • the sun going round the Earth
    • universal and immutable time and space
    • the infinite and eternal universe
    • conservation of energy
    • the presence of a medium for light
    • the fixed continents on the surface of the Earth
    • nothing can move faster than light
    • Lorentz invariance / Galilean relativity

    And, as swansont points out, every single experiment tests a whole swathe of other "dogma" because it is based on them and if any of them were wrong then the results would be different.

    Scientists don't do their work just hoping to confirm what they already know they also hope to prove some fundamental thing wrong and discover new science. That is where the rewards (personal and literal) and accolades are.

    0

    36 minutes ago, swansont said:

    Show that relativity is wrong and a whole lot of stuff comes crashing down.

    True. But showing that relativity is wrong would, itself, require more than showing one thing to be wrong (in part because so much else is consistent with / dependent on it). 

    3 minutes ago, studiot said:

    Again I have no idea who Kuhn is or was but I find his views no real improvement.

    I haven’t read any Philosophy of Science for a long time but I think “Reg” may be misrepresenting him. 

    For example:

    “the "paradigm" in Kuhn's jargon -- is, by and large, not challenged (or "questioned") at all. Rather than being subjected to severe testing, it is simply taken for granted. Normal science is extremely conservative, dogmatic even.”

    This is not dogmatism, it is pragmatism. When you want add two numbers, you don’t go back to set theoretical definitions of arithmetic. When writing software, one doesn’t worry about the quantum theory underlying the transistors in the processor, or even the correctness of the compiler. 

    One takes the underlying mechanisms for granted. Until thing go wrong. Then you might have to consider all possibilities? Is it my code? Is the compiler buggy? Is there a bug in the processor caused by a transistor misbehaving?

    Similarly, most paradigm changing advances in science arise from “normal” science when people notice something odd (insert Asimov(*) quote here). And at that point all possibilities are open. For example, when the energy deficit that led to the discovery of neutrinos was spotted, one serious suggestion was that maybe energy was not conserved. That is the exact opposite of dogmatism.

    (*) Attributed to Asimov (by the Unix ‘fortune cookie’ program) but probably based on something said by Fleming. 

    0

    ·

    Edited by Strange

    3 hours ago, swansont said:

    To claim otherwise is to ignore they ways that science is interconnected and how it rests upon its foundations.

    Some people seem to think it is a house of cards (“if I can just prove this one detail wrong, the whole thing collapses”) whereas it is more like a complex structure of mutually supporting pillars and beams. Change one thing and a few other bits might need to be adjusted, but the whole structure is stable. 

    0

    As we are still seeing fairly regular headlines such as “GR passes another test” (almost a century after the first experiment) I find it hard to understand how anyone could imagine science isn’t constantly being tested. (GR is just an example, there are similar tests of pretty much every area every day - at every level: we had a great science teacher at school who encouraged the students to think of new ways of testing what they had been taught)

    0

    1 hour ago, cornel said:

    Both are quantum physics experts.

    This is (1) irrelevant and (2) not true. 

    1 hour ago, cornel said:

    member of royal family

    Huh!?

    Also untrue and, if possible, even less relevant. 

    1 hour ago, cornel said:

    This link explains it in the simplest way.

    That is a trashy tabloid. I wouldn’t rely on it for accurate science reporting. 

    0

    ·

    Edited by Strange

    There is no evidence for these things and, arguably, there cannot be evidence for gods. 

    On the other hand, science cannot disprove the existence of gods either. Although it can show that some of the things that gods are supposed to have done did not actually happen. 

    0

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.

Configure browser push notifications
Chrome (Android)
  1. Tap the lock icon next to the address bar.
  2. Tap Permissions → Notifications.
  3. Adjust your preference.
Chrome (Desktop)
  1. Click the padlock icon in the address bar.
  2. Select Site settings.
  3. Find Notifications and adjust your preference.