studiot Posted January 30, 2018 Share Posted January 30, 2018 Thank you StringJunky and OldChemE for extending my knowledge. +1 apiece. I seem to remember something about barbers from the past here are some references. https://www.google.co.uk/search?source=hp&ei=E1ZwWsT-DJS5gQa9w4XgDw&q=history+of+barber's+poles&oq=history+of+barber's+poles&gs_l=psy-ab.3..0i22i30k1l2.1758.8333.0.8526.25.23.0.2.2.0.165.2309.9j13.22.0....0...1c.1.64.psy-ab..1.24.2367...0j0i131k1j0i22i10i30k1.0.KWoQu0QL760 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Itoero Posted January 31, 2018 Author Share Posted January 31, 2018 On 27-1-2018 at 5:33 PM, Strange said: Because you were wrong. I was correct, read this theorem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ewald–Oseen_extinction_theorem. The fact that scattering causes refraction should be common sense for physicists. Your make your own 'science', based on logical interpretations and faith. On 27-1-2018 at 5:33 PM, Strange said: Everybody knows that. But the theory is (as far as we know) correct and it is the only model we have. You could say "we can't test the theory in these conditions so we will assume it doesn't apply". That isn't logical. A more sensible default position is, "we cannot be sure it is correct but there is no evidence it isn't so we will use it until we have a better theory". Most people don't know this. The no-hair theoremhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-hair_theorem is not scientiffically proven. A better name would be: no-hair hypothesis. Yet it's the no-hair theorem that led to the Black hole info paradox...which led to many more theories. On 27-1-2018 at 5:33 PM, Strange said: There is a branch of science call "theoretical physics". So? Mathematical modals have to be scientifically proven else it's not 'science'. On 27-1-2018 at 11:17 PM, swansont said: Is refraction based on logic rather than evidence? The wrong interpretation of refraction (thread Energy photon)is based on faith. On 28-1-2018 at 1:19 PM, Lord Antares said: This is true and I agree. For example, the ever so appealing ''theory'' of the holographic universe and life being an illusion. There is no possible way to prove or disprove this and it makes no difference in anything we do or learn. It is quite possibly not even possible to prove it or find how it impacts life. Therefore, it cannot be scientific, but it can be bad philosophy at best. The holographic principle can be 'proven'. It's not a wild idea of a crazy scientist. A quote of Sherlock Holms explains how you should interpret the holographic principle and how it was formed. "Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth." https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/jp59b8/there-is-growing-evidence-that-our-universe-is-a-giant-hologram https://phys.org/news/2017-01-reveals-substantial-evidence-holographic-universe.html The idea that entanglement builds space is based on the holographic principle. The quantum gravity model of Hiroshi Ooguri is based on the holographic principle. On 28-1-2018 at 2:45 PM, Eise said: hat it is wrong. The topic of science is empirical reality: physics studies matter, chemistry studies chemical reactions, biology the living nature etc etc. Philosophy studies our way of thinking, tries to find out which ways of thinking lead to valid conclusions. That's just an opinion, it's not defined what philosophy is. And it's not as straightforward as you think. Metaphysics is categorized under philosophy. And cosmology is a branch of metaphysics.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysics 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkE Posted January 31, 2018 Share Posted January 31, 2018 17 minutes ago, Itoero said: Most people don't know this. The no-hair theoremhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-hair_theorem is not scientiffically proven Has it been proven that black holes are objects anyway? Theodor Kaluza solved Einstein’s general relativity equations (gravity) with the extra (5th) dimension, and emerged of them came Maxwellian equations for electromagnetism. The event horizon is a stronger gravitational part of a black hole, so gravity could be hypothetically much stronger on short distances (Not 4πr2 (3D, like the inverse square law of light) but 2πr (2D). This is also not scientifically proven, but scientists have done tests in our solar system that show that our gravity low could not be 1 over R3, but 1 over R4th is not yet completely ruled out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted January 31, 2018 Share Posted January 31, 2018 32 minutes ago, Itoero said: Most people don't know this. The no-hair theoremhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-hair_theorem is not scientiffically proven. A better name would be: no-hair hypothesis. You appear to be confusing "theory" and "theorem" 32 minutes ago, Itoero said: The wrong interpretation of refraction (thread Energy photon)is based on faith. You had said "logic ideas not based on scientific evidence". Here you are moving the goalposts to claim that explanations you don't like are somehow suspect. That's quite different. What is it about refraction that is not based on evidence? We can observe refraction, and confirm Snell's law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
studiot Posted January 31, 2018 Share Posted January 31, 2018 How have we wandered so far off topic? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted January 31, 2018 Share Posted January 31, 2018 16 minutes ago, studiot said: How have we wandered so far off topic? It's part of the OP's flawed premise. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
studiot Posted January 31, 2018 Share Posted January 31, 2018 You mean he's off he premises? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eise Posted February 1, 2018 Share Posted February 1, 2018 16 hours ago, Itoero said: That's just an opinion, it's not defined what philosophy is. It is not defined exactly. If it really would not be defined, your OP would be meaningless: science is a subfield of 'something undefined'. How can one decide such a question if we do not agree about what philosophy is at all? 16 hours ago, Itoero said: And cosmology is a branch of metaphysics. It once was. Modern metaphysics has nothing to do with that. See e.g. David Armstrong. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
studiot Posted February 1, 2018 Share Posted February 1, 2018 1 hour ago, Eise said: It is not defined exactly. If it really would not be defined, your OP would be meaningless: science is a subfield of 'something undefined'. How can one decide such a question if we do not agree about what philosophy is at all? It once was. Modern metaphysics has nothing to do with that. See e.g. David Armstrong. Neat +1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted February 1, 2018 Share Posted February 1, 2018 18 hours ago, Itoero said: So? Mathematical modals have to be scientifically proven else it's not 'science'. The point is that the word "theory" is used differently in theoretical physics than in some other branches of science. But theoretical physics is still based on the existing theoretical (in the strict sense) frameworks that are well supported by evidence. The "theories" of theoretical physics are hypothetical extensions of those theories. I'm not sure what the problem is whit that. Everyone knows that string theory, for example, is not tested and therefore not known to be correct (although it is consistent with known science). And mathematical models do not have to be proven to be science. But they do have to be falsifiable, in principle. String theory is capable of being tested (not by any technology we have now) and so it can be falsified and so it is scientific. In other words, hypotheses that have been shown to be wrong are still scientific. The steady state model of the universe was a scientific theory that was shown to be incorrect. Ditto aether and phlogiston. The fact that they were found to be incorrect does not mean they are not scientific. 18 hours ago, Itoero said: The wrong interpretation of refraction (thread Energy photon)is based on faith. Is that what your misunderstanding is based on? Your faith that you know better than actual physicists (despite not being able to provide any support for your beliefs). I did wonder. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Itoero Posted February 8, 2018 Author Share Posted February 8, 2018 (edited) On 31-1-2018 at 5:48 PM, MarkE said: Has it been proven that black holes are objects anyway? Theodor Kaluza solved Einstein’s general relativity equations (gravity) with the extra (5th) dimension, and emerged of them came Maxwellian equations for electromagnetism. The event horizon is a stronger gravitational part of a black hole, so gravity could be hypothetically much stronger on short distances (Not 4πr2 (3D, like the inverse square law of light) but 2πr (2D). This is also not scientifically proven, but scientists have done tests in our solar system that show that our gravity low could not be 1 over R3, but 1 over R4th is not yet completely ruled ou According to a theory of Hawking the black hole event horizon is an apparent horizon. “If you feel you are in a black hole, don’t give up,” he told an audience at a public lecture in Stockholm, Sweden, yesterday. He was speaking in advance of a scientific talk today at the Hawking Radiation Conference being held at the KTH Royal Institute of Technology in Stockholm. “There’s a way out.”https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn28090-stephen-hawking-says-he-has-a-way-to-escape-from-a-black-hole/ Hawking's soft hair theory states that quantum excitations known as soft hairs form a halo around a black hole, holding the information for the things that were consumed. https://arxiv.org/pdf/1601.00921.pdf If he's correct then a black Hole is imo not an object. On 31-1-2018 at 5:59 PM, swansont said: You appear to be confusing "theory" and "theorem" No. A hypothesis (plural hypotheses) is a proposed explanation for a phenomenon. The no-hair theorem is a proposed explanation concerning black holes. The fact that its based on math. doesn't change this. On 31-1-2018 at 5:59 PM, swansont said: You had said "logic ideas not based on scientific evidence". Here you are moving the goalposts to claim that explanations you don't like are somehow suspect. That's quite different. What is it about refraction that is not based on evidence? We can observe refraction, and confirm Snell's law. Oink? I stated that refraction is due to scattering. You people denied that...you people denied science. You denied the quantum world in classically described phenomena. Or like is said in the extinction theorem: "An important part of optical physics theory is starting with microscopic physics—the behavior of atoms and electrons—and using it to derive the familiar, macroscopic, laws of optics." Shell's law is irrelevant. On 1-2-2018 at 9:47 AM, Eise said: t is not defined exactly. If it really would not be defined, your OP would be meaningless: science is a subfield of 'something undefined'. How can one decide such a question if we do not agree about what philosophy is at all? I mean there is no set definition. Most nouns have definitions. I agree with the Wikipedia-definition: Philosophy (from Greek φιλοσοφία, philosophia, literally "love of wisdom") is the study of general and fundamental problems concerning matters such as existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language. On 1-2-2018 at 11:47 AM, Strange said: Is that what your misunderstanding is based on? Your faith that you know better than actual physicists (despite not being able to provide any support for your beliefs). I did wonder. I stated that refraction is due to scattering of photons. You people denied that...you people denied science. Check this theorem, it shows I was correct: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ewald–Oseen_extinction_theorem. "An important part of optical physics theory is starting with microscopic physics—the behavior of atoms and electrons—and using it to derive the familiar, macroscopic, laws of optics." On 1-2-2018 at 11:47 AM, Strange said: And mathematical models do not have to be proven to be science. But they do have to be falsifiable, in principle. String theory is capable of being tested (not by any technology we have now) and so it can be falsified and so it is scientific. That's new. I thought hypotheses demand empirical evidence to be scientific. Math is the language of logic... On 1-2-2018 at 11:47 AM, Strange said: n other words, hypotheses that have been shown to be wrong are still scientific. The steady state model of the universe was a scientific theory that was shown to be incorrect. Ditto aether and phlogiston. The fact that they were found to be incorrect does not mean they are not scientific. I don't think Steady State theory was scientific....just like the big bang theory. But don't those models demand empirical evidence to be science? Edited February 8, 2018 by Itoero 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted February 8, 2018 Share Posted February 8, 2018 29 minutes ago, Itoero said: Oink? I stated that refraction is due to scattering. You people denied that...you people denied science. I have no interest in re-arguing this (that should be done in the other thread), but evidence was presented, at least on the "refraction is not scattering" side. Ironically, all you did was what you are decrying here — simply assert something to be true. In the broader picture, whether refraction is or isn't scattering is a matter of how you define scattering. IOW, it's semantics. There's no real science question being addressed. There was no denying of science going on. 29 minutes ago, Itoero said: You denied the quantum world in classically described phenomena. Or like is said in the extinction theorem: "An important part of optical physics theory is starting with microscopic physics—the behavior of atoms and electrons—and using it to derive the familiar, macroscopic, laws of optics." Shell's law is irrelevant. Snell's law is irrelevant? A law, which is something that can be used to predict and test an idea, is irrelevant? That's a large part of what separates science from the "logic ideas" that you say aren't science. Snell's law belongs in the science part, not in the "not science" part. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted February 8, 2018 Share Posted February 8, 2018 1 hour ago, Itoero said: I thought hypotheses demand empirical evidence to be scientific. There needs to be the possibility of evidence. In other words, it has to be testable and falsifiable to be scientific. It doesn't need to have been tested already to be a scientific hypothesis (or theory, in the language of theoretical physics). Although I have come across one person who thought that a theory he didn't like wasn't scientific because it hadn't been falsified (as opposed to being falsifiable). In other words, he would only accept it as scientific if science showed it to be wrong. 2 hours ago, Itoero said: I don't think Steady State theory was scientific....just like the big bang theory. But don't those models demand empirical evidence to be science? They are both scientific. The steady state model was consistent with the evidence at the time; once the CMB was discovered it became harder for the steady state model to adapt to the evidence. The big bang model has always been consistent with the available evidence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eise Posted February 9, 2018 Share Posted February 9, 2018 15 hours ago, Itoero said: I mean there is no set definition. Most nouns have definitions. I agree with the Wikipedia-definition: Philosophy (from Greek φιλοσοφία, philosophia, literally "love of wisdom") is the study of general and fundamental problems concerning matters such as existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language. You said philosophy is not defined: On 31/01/2018 at 5:21 PM, Itoero said: That's just an opinion, it's not defined what philosophy is. So you are saying: We do not exactly agree on what philosophy is But science is a subfield of it. Well it is my opinion that, whatever philosophy is, it is not empirical science. I've studied both, and I can tell you, philosophy and empirical science are very different. Interesting enough your Wikipedia quote does not list 'empirical reality' as one of the matters with which philosophy is concerned. And before you come with cosmology as part of metaphysics, and metaphysics being a part of philosophy: today this is just not true anymore. Cosmologists are not necessarily metaphysicians anymore. 16 hours ago, Itoero said: That's new. I thought hypotheses demand empirical evidence to be scientific. Great, then you have learned something. Strange is completely right. A hypothesis is scientific, if it has empirical consequences, and is consistent with established scientific facts. A scientific hypothesis can be: Wrong, when the empirical consequences cannot be confirmed (Strange's examples: steady state theory, phlogiston, the aether) Correct (at least for the moment) when the empirical consequences are confirmed Open, when the empirical consequences are not tested (yet). It is true that scientific hypotheses demand empirical evidence. But that is because we want to know if the hypotheses are correct. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkE Posted February 13, 2018 Share Posted February 13, 2018 On 08/02/2018 at 5:34 PM, Itoero said: Hawking's soft hair theory states that quantum excitations known as soft hairs form a halo around a black hole, holding the information for the things that were consumed. https://arxiv.org/pdf/1601.00921.pdf If he's correct then a black Hole is imo not an object. Thanks! This is the kind of information I'm looking for, very interesting. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Itoero Posted February 14, 2018 Author Share Posted February 14, 2018 On 8-2-2018 at 6:13 PM, swansont said: In the broader picture, whether refraction is or isn't scattering is a matter of how you define scattering. IOW, it's semantics. There's no real science question being addressed. There was no denying of science going on I'm sorry I keep reacting but you people denied science. You people believe the properties of light can change without it's photons that interact with particles. It had nothing to do with a semantic problem. Scattering causes refraction!!!!https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ewald–Oseen_extinction_theorem On 8-2-2018 at 6:13 PM, swansont said: Snell's law is irrelevant? A law, which is something that can be used to predict and test an idea, is irrelevant? That's a large part of what separates science from the "logic ideas" that you say aren't science. Snell's law belongs in the science part, not in the "not science" part. Did you even read the theorem? An important part of optical physics theory is starting with microscopic physics—the behavior of atoms and electrons—and using it to derive the familiar, macroscopic, laws of optics. Shell's law is a macroscopic law. On 8-2-2018 at 7:36 PM, Strange said: There needs to be the possibility of evidence. In other words, it has to be testable and falsifiable to be scientific. It doesn't need to have been tested already to be a scientific hypothesis (or theory, in the language of theoretical physics). OK, I didn't know that. On 8-2-2018 at 7:36 PM, Strange said: They are both scientific. The steady state model was consistent with the evidence at the time; once the CMB was discovered it became harder for the steady state model to adapt to the evidence. The big bang model has always been consistent with the available evidence. OK, thx for the wisdom. On 9-2-2018 at 9:53 AM, Eise said: You said philosophy is not defined: Since all words have definitions, I meant "it's not exactly defined." On 9-2-2018 at 9:53 AM, Eise said: Well it is my opinion that, whatever philosophy is, it is not empirical science. I've studied both, and I can tell you, philosophy and empirical science are very different. Empirical science is exact defined, philosophy is not. Philosophy is a more general term then empirical science. On 9-2-2018 at 9:53 AM, Eise said: But science is a subfield of it. Science should be described as a subfield. 1 Special relativity is better described as a philosophical theory.https://arxiv.org/pdf/1610.05640.pdf 2 All sciences need philosophyhttps://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1307/1307.1244.pdf 3 Much has been written on the Demarcation problem, and the difficulties of cosmology are always front and center. But so are the difficulties of many other sciences, including archaeology and astronomy, where you have to take what the universe gives you rather than being able to conduct experiments at will. 4 Problem-solving is an important field of study and discipline in philosophy. Science develops/evolves via problem solving....science needs philosophy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted February 14, 2018 Share Posted February 14, 2018 1 minute ago, Itoero said: I'm sorry I keep reacting but you people denied science. You people believe the properties of light can change without it's photons that interact with particles. No one said any such thing. This is just the same straw man you keep using. 3 minutes ago, Itoero said: 1 Special relativity is better described as a philosophical theory.https://arxiv.org/pdf/1610.05640.pdf I can't imagine why you would cite something that appears to be a crackpot paper to support an erroneous claim. You seem to like denying science for the fun of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
studiot Posted February 14, 2018 Share Posted February 14, 2018 (edited) 38 minutes ago, Itoero said: Empirical science is exact defined, philosophy is not. Philosophy is a more general term then empirical science. Science should be described as a subfield. Since we have reached the point of offerening definitions in this discussion please define what you mean by "subfield" exactly for me. What, for instance, are the characteristics that distinguish it from a 'field' ? Edited February 14, 2018 by studiot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted February 14, 2018 Share Posted February 14, 2018 49 minutes ago, Itoero said: I'm sorry I keep reacting but you people denied science. Nope. Nobody denies that refraction happens. The discussion (which is closed) was how it was categorized. What it was called. It's semantics. 49 minutes ago, Itoero said: You people believe the properties of light can change without it's photons that interact with particles. No, you misunderstand the objection. Drop it already. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phi for All Posted February 14, 2018 Share Posted February 14, 2018 1 hour ago, Itoero said: I'm sorry I keep reacting but you people denied science. You people believe the properties of light can change without it's photons that interact with particles. It had nothing to do with a semantic problem. Scattering causes refraction!!!!https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ewald–Oseen_extinction_theorem ! Moderator Note That was a topic you couldn't support adequately, so it was closed. You don't get to bring it up again, especially to assert the validity of anything else. Knock it off or your stuff will be trashed as off-topic, or we can place you on the mod queue if you don't think you have the willpower to stop hijacking. No need for a response to this in this thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkE Posted February 15, 2018 Share Posted February 15, 2018 (edited) On 08/02/2018 at 5:34 PM, Itoero said: According to a theory of Hawking the black hole event horizon is an apparent horizon. “If you feel you are in a black hole, don’t give up,” he told an audience at a public lecture in Stockholm, Sweden, yesterday. He was speaking in advance of a scientific talk today at the Hawking Radiation Conference being held at the KTH Royal Institute of Technology in Stockholm. “There’s a way out.”https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn28090-stephen-hawking-says-he-has-a-way-to-escape-from-a-black-hole/ Hawking's soft hair theory states that quantum excitations known as soft hairs form a halo around a black hole, holding the information for the things that were consumed. https://arxiv.org/pdf/1601.00921.pdf If he's correct then a black Hole is imo not an object. I've read Hawking's theory you've shared. Which section of its content gave you the conclusion that, if Hawking is right, black holes aren't objects? Edited February 15, 2018 by MarkE Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted February 15, 2018 Share Posted February 15, 2018 14 minutes ago, MarkE said: I've read Hawking's theory you've shared. Which section of its content gave you the conclusion that, if Hawking is right, black holes aren't objects? Even without that paper, I think it is doubtful whether black holes are properly described as "objects". But if they are then, like you, I can't see why this paper would change anything. (I think it is just more of Itoero's anti-science schtick.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ag400002 Posted February 15, 2018 Share Posted February 15, 2018 Is there a general or public definition or public understanding of objectivity or subjectivity or is it just always a unique personal intuititive concept Very generally I consider objectivity as being in the realm of philosophy and subjectivity as being in the realm of mathematics, both to intermingle as physics But this is personal and wouldn't do for everyone Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eise Posted February 16, 2018 Share Posted February 16, 2018 On 14/02/2018 at 6:06 PM, Itoero said: 1 Special relativity is better described as a philosophical theory.https://arxiv.org/pdf/1610.05640.pdf This was dealt with by Strange: it is a crackpot article. On 14/02/2018 at 6:06 PM, Itoero said: All sciences need philosophyhttps://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1307/1307.1244.pdf See my disclaimer. There are philosophical groundstones of sciences, but it definitely is not true that therefore science is a subfield of philosophy. And most scientists fare pretty well without thinking about these groundstones. On 14/02/2018 at 6:06 PM, Itoero said: Much has been written on the Demarcation problem, and the difficulties of cosmology are always front and center. But so are the difficulties of many other sciences, including archaeology and astronomy, where you have to take what the universe gives you rather than being able to conduct experiments at will. The demarcation problem is the problem of distinguishing science from pseudo-science, not of science and philosophy. On 14/02/2018 at 6:06 PM, Itoero said: Problem-solving is an important field of study and discipline in philosophy. Science develops/evolves via problem solving....science needs philosophy. Problem solving is also an important field of puzzles. And most philosopher are not even capable of solving the problems of e.g. physicists. The mathematics is way too complicated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted February 16, 2018 Share Posted February 16, 2018 2 hours ago, Eise said: There are philosophical groundstones of sciences, but it definitely is not true that therefore science is a subfield of philosophy. For example, automobiles depend on rubber farming that doesn't make the automotive industry a subset of agriculture. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now