Moderators; Admins; Etc.

[Klaplunk]

Hello!

 

I'm a student at Oxford University currently studying Philosophy and Law. I find myself learning small percentages of other subjects, due to the nature of conversation in a 'universities environment'. I live in a rented detached abode - with six room-mates; we all have our own opinions on life and delve into our imaginations to answer many of the unanswered questions, for self-fulfilment.

 

We were browsing 4c, and it lead us here; more directly towards the 'Speculation' section. We also noticed that 99% of all threads made in that section are immediately over-run with moderators and administrators - who immediately dismiss any idea when, to their knowledge, it is incorrect.

 

The warning given in every single thread is: "This is not Science".

Then you explain your actions by perplexing the - 'Theory' or 'Speculation'. A few of the threads that took my interest were very interesting, and sounded like great ideas; not great scientific proof though.

 

I think where you (mods, admins) go wrong, is broadening your minds, and understanding that the past is ---> behind us. "Scientific Evidence" that supports many of your current theories could be wrong; something explained by someone in 1950 could have been explained wrongly, or knowingly. If you don't accept the term 'flaws' into any theory anyone conjures, then how do you accept the ones that are set in your mind?

 

Who's to say that things didn't go differently many years ago, and who's to say that many of the rules that you use in modern day science are edited, played "Chinese Whispers" along the line. I'm 100% sure that in many cases, a rule can be exchanged with another rule and still be correct; that rule may fall down for something else, if it does, then the second 'thing' may need a different rule.

 

What makes you guys correct?

Please answer this question, in the direction of four people.

 

Me: Philosophy (2nd Year)

Steve: Physics (1st Year)

Emily: Media Major (2nd Year)

Eric: F-Maths (Masters)

[Fuzzwood]

Correct until PROVEN otherwise, else they are just rambling.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Here's what we mean when we say "this is not science:"

 

Many speculations we see in the forums here are untestable. That is, they don't make meaningful predictions -- there's no mathematics to say "when I perform this experiment, I should get 47 as the result" and no meaningful framework that lets you guess at results. Oftentimes we ask for testable predictions, and get evasive answers about mathematics not being everything, or predictions that disagree with what has already been observed.

 

"This is not science" does not mean "your idea is wrong." No, untestable predictions could be right or wrong, but there's no way of finding out, so there's not much of a point, is there? The person advancing the idea has to take the time to develop their idea to the point of making predictions.

 

There's another large proportion of speculators who don't know what established science currently says about the subject. Perhaps the current science is wrong, and they could prove it wrong if they tried, but they don't even take the time to learn it. They often misuse existing formulas or terminology, making it difficult to understand what they mean, and when current theories are explained to them they reject them without taking the time to fully understand them. This, naturally, leads to disputes.

 

Now, if someone came to us and said, "Relativity is flawed. Here's why: If you do this calculation, you'll see that the result is 23, when the value observed from these binary pulsars is clearly 74," we'd be glad to consider that relativity is flawed -- after eliminating all the other possibilities (such as other effects altering the results), since relativity has a large amount of evidence behind it. But even if relativity turned out to be valid, the suggestion that it's flawed would be scientific and would be one we'd love to debate, simply because it's specific, testable, and explained by someone who understands what they're talking about.

 

That's all. It's not about what's right or wrong. It's about making testable predictions and understanding the current theories before going off and making your own based on incomplete knowledge and faulty understanding.

 

Incidentally, which one of you four is Clipper?

[Klaplunk]

Perhaps you may rename the speculation section to something more appropriate; so when us 'speculators' make a speculation, we don't go posting it into the wrong section. You've made this 'freelance science' section so to speak, then you've incorporated rules and regulations - therefore the freedom from speculation is removed; therefore, not a speculation section.

 

If you want to talk science and you don't want to notice other peoples ideas, unless enough evidence is provided, then you shouldn't give the privilege. "What if" one of those ideas were correct? At this point in time there is no evidence; that does not mean you cannot try and help find evidence or at-least "discuss" or "contribute" to the idea.

 

In all, you contradict yourself when you choose not to discuss or escalate an idea, because they don't follow sciences rules; yet you openly admit that science, in some sections, can be wrong.

 

While you were being educated, when you took part in experiments, how did you learn? I can give a descriptive evaluation on my education: I learn what I'm told is true. I can decipher the correct from the incorrect by using my brain. I can only progress towards new heights by accepting what I've been told is true, as if I don't, everything else is a lie. I can change the truth and end up in the same position - progression wise.

 

Without 'Rules', what is science?

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

The point is that many speculations cannot be supported with evidence, because they make no testable predictions. I could speculate that quarks are made of tiny fairies who team up to act exactly like quarks, and there's no way you could test my hypothesis -- if they act exactly like quarks, there's no way to distinguish between fairies and normal quarks. So the speculation is pointless.

 

We'd love to discuss new ideas if (a) the author shows he actually understands the applicable physics and (b) the idea makes testable predictions. It doesn't matter if those predictions have been tested yet.

 

This is not a question of who's right and who's wrong. It's a matter of presenting your ideas so we can tell if you're right. Using confusing or incorrect terminology and making no testable predictions does not help that goal.

 

Incidentally, which one of you four is Clipper?

[Klaplunk]

None of us is Clipper?

 

You've blown it out of the water with your example; of-course, using supernatural factors would make a theory seem wrong - although we cannot prove it is. If we're talking reality and things that occur in reality; it becomes a different kettle of fish.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

None of us is Clipper?

 

You've blown it out of the water with your example; of-course, using supernatural factors would make a theory seem wrong - although we cannot prove it is. If we're talking reality and things that occur in reality; it becomes a different kettle of fish.

 

If you'd prefer, I could change my example to tiny gnomes, which are not supernatural at all. They're just very small living gnomes.

 

It's obvious, you see. Why else would we invent garden gnomes as lawn ornaments? The gnomes that make us up are exerting their influence and making us pay homage to them.

 

 

 

...

 

see? There's an untestable prediction for you that is not supernatural.

 

Another possible untestable speculation is a hypothesis about hyperspace, without providing any clues on how one might access said hyperspace to test the hypothesis. That's a popular one.

 

Or hypothesizing extra dimensions that are impossible to access by any normal means, so equipment can't reach them.

 

Or just hypothesizing "superconductivity works because of x", without ever figuring out how one would prove it. If you can't concoct an experiment for it, there's not much point.

[Klaplunk]

If you'd prefer, I could change my example to tiny gnomes, which are not supernatural at all. They're just very small living gnomes.

 

It's obvious, you see. Why else would we invent garden gnomes as lawn ornaments? The gnomes that make us up are exerting their influence and making us pay homage to them.

 

 

 

...

 

see? There's an untestable prediction for you that is not supernatural.

 

Another possible untestable speculation is a hypothesis about hyperspace, without providing any clues on how one might access said hyperspace to test the hypothesis. That's a popular one.

 

Or hypothesizing extra dimensions that are impossible to access by any normal means, so equipment can't reach them.

 

Or just hypothesizing "superconductivity works because of x", without ever figuring out how one would prove it. If you can't concoct an experiment for it, there's not much point.

 

Again your glibness pays you no credit. You're approaching this with little maturity - yet still stand by your reasons. I could say the moon is made from cheese, or I could suggest that maybe the moon tastes like cheese, or I could say there is cheese on the moon; three different stages - your examples relate to the first one; you then stoop (closer to my level) and your example relates to the second one. The third example is the most relevant; it's not proven, yet it can be proven, correct or incorrect.

 

When someone explains a 'Theory', they don't automatically believe it is the answer; they want progression. A "Theory" is a question. You dismiss it as drivel - when it is nothing more than an idea; one that could or could not be correct.

 

What proves E=MC2 correct?

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Again your glibness pays you no credit. You're approaching this with little maturity - yet still stand by your reasons. I could say the moon is made from cheese, or I could suggest that maybe the moon tastes like cheese, or I could say there is cheese on the moon; three different stages - your examples relate to the first one; you then stoop (closer to my level) and your example relates to the second one. The third example is the most relevant; it's not proven, yet it can be proven, correct or incorrect.

All of those hypotheses are testable. An untestable hypothesis would be "the moon is made of cheese that looks exactly like rock to any sensor we might use."

 

Or perhaps "the moon is made of cheese, but it's really weird cheese, and I don't know anything else about it, so don't bother trying to find the cheese."

 

When someone explains a 'Theory', they don't automatically believe it is the answer; they want progression. A "Theory" is a question. You dismiss it as drivel - when it is nothing more than an idea; one that could or could not be correct.

I believe the word you are looking for is "hypothesis," not "theory."

 

In general, we dismiss things as drivel when they clearly contradict evidence, not when they are untested. If they are untested, we ask for predictions that could be tested. If there are none, we see no point in the venture, since the idea cannot be tested or falsified.

 

What proves E=MC2 correct?

Evidence.

 

Special and general relativity are among the most tested scientific theories currently in existence, and they have consistently matched experiments.

 

It'd be more appropriate to say "e=mc² matches experiment" rather than "is correct" though.

[Bignose]

Again your glibness pays you no credit. You're approaching this with little maturity - yet still stand by your reasons. I could say the moon is made from cheese, or I could suggest that maybe the moon tastes like cheese, or I could say there is cheese on the moon; three different stages - your examples relate to the first one; you then stoop (closer to my level) and your example relates to the second one. The third example is the most relevant; it's not proven, yet it can be proven, correct or incorrect.

 

When someone explains a 'Theory', they don't automatically believe it is the answer; they want progression. A "Theory" is a question. You dismiss it as drivel - when it is nothing more than an idea; one that could or could not be correct.

 

What proves E=MC2 correct?

 

Have you taken a Philosophy of Science course? Or read one of the many good books about it? Because your replies show an ignorance of what some of your peers in philosophy have written.

 

Karl Popper's The logic of scientific discovery immediately springs to mind.

 

Popper's main point is one of falsifiability. Without the ability to falsify an idea, the idea is NOT science. It is story telling.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demarcation_problem

 

Let me copy a block from the above link:

 

The criteria for a system of assumptions, methods, and theories to qualify as science today vary in their details from application to application, and vary significantly among the natural sciences, social sciences and formal science. The criteria typically include (1) the formulation of hypotheses that meet the logical criterion of contingency, defeasibility, or falsifiability and the closely related empirical and practical criterion of testability, (2) a grounding in empirical evidence, and (3) the use of scientific method. The procedures of science typically include a number of heuristic guidelines, such as the principles of conceptual economy or theoretical parsimony that fall under the rubric of Ockham's razor. A conceptual system that fails to meet a significant number of these criteria is likely to be considered non-scientific. The following is a list of additional features that are highly desirable in a scientific theory[citation needed]:

 

* Reproducible. Makes predictions that can be tested by any observer, with trials extending indefinitely into the future.

* Falsifiable and testable. See Falsifiability and Testability.

* Consistent. Generates no obvious logical contradictions, and 'saves the phenomena', being consistent with observation.

* Pertinent. Describes and explains observed phenomena.

* Correctable and dynamic. Subject to modification as new observations are made.

* Integrative, robust, and corrigible. Subsumes previous theories as approximations, and allows possible subsumption by future theories. ("Robust", here, refers to stability in the statistical sense, i.e., not very sensitive to occasional outlying data points.) See Correspondence principle

* Parsimonious. Economical in the number of assumptions and hypothetical entities.

* Provisional or tentative. Does not assert the absolute certainty of the theory.

 

Threads that end up in Speculations are because they have failed multiple of these bullet points, and hence are closer to story-telling than science.

[DrDNA]

What proves E=MC2 correct?

 

To expound on what Cap said.

 

It was actually empirically tested first in 1932 by Cockcroft and Walton.

They performed the first successful nuclear transmutation of one element (Li) into another (He) (by people vs stars).

 

They accelerated H nuclei in a discharge tube and used it to bombardard Li.

 

When the H nucleus (1 proton) collided with the Li nucleus (3 protons and 4 neutrons), the Li broke into two He nuclei, each having 2 protons and 2 neutrons each.

 

They observed the results directly on a zinc sulfide screen- they saw the wave patterns characteristic of the He nucleus which wasn't there before.

 

Then, they measured the total kinetic energy of the He nuclei.

 

It was greater than that of the original H and Li nuclei and they observed a loss in the total mass of the nuclei.

 

This was a confirmation of E = mc2 on the equivalence of mass and energy.

[Mr Skeptic]

We also noticed that 99% of all threads made in that section are immediately over-run with moderators and administrators - who immediately dismiss any idea when, to their knowledge, it is incorrect.

 

Well, a fair bit of them were moved to the speculations thread from elsewhere. In any case, we are a science forum and not a misinformation or random gibberish forum. One thing we can't tolerate is people who claim false information is true, as they may mislead less knowledgeable people. So one of the first things we do when people make false claims is point out that they are false.

 

The same goes for unsupported claims. In science, whoever makes a claim must provide evidence that it is "true". This is pretty harsh since it is a difficult thing to do, and all the more so because it must match or exceed existing theories, some of which were developed by famous geniuses like Einstein and tested for centuries by thousands of scientists. That is what their ideas are up against, and most people and most ideas simply aren't up to the task.

 

And just to clarify: by evidence, we don't mean "I like it and it makes sense to me". We mean it gives exact, testable predictions, preferably numerical ones. Oh, and they need to match reality too. It doesn't really matter how neat or clever or sensible etc an idea is, if it can't make real predictions, it's not science. Incidentally, the aspect of making predictions is not "It would only make sense that such and such" it would be "My hypothesis must be false if such and such doesn't happen."

 

Who's to say that things didn't go differently many years ago, and who's to say that many of the rules that you use in modern day science are edited, played "Chinese Whispers" along the line. I'm 100% sure that in many cases, a rule can be exchanged with another rule and still be correct; that rule may fall down for something else, if it does, then the second 'thing' may need a different rule.

 

It's not like the theories are meaningless gibberish. The whole purpose of them is to make accurate predictions, and if they don't they get discarded. Try passing on this as a chinese whisper: "437 567 * 349 875 = 153 093 754 125". It will be plenty easy to tell if there were some simple mistake passing this on, at least if you have a calculator. And if it were passed on wrong and someone corrected it, then it would still be easy to tell if it was good math. Same with science, it simply needs to make good predictions and the particulars don't really matter.

 

What makes you guys correct?

 

Who says we're correct? We just make good predictions. That's as close to "truth" as science can get. (really really good predictions -- a good seven significant figures is about right for physics predictions).

[Klaplunk]

Philosophy of the Mind.

 

Anyway, on terms of E=MC2. Isn't it the Speed of Light and Mass?

No-ones ever travelled at the speed of light, so what makes you believe it has a speed? Was it not just a educated guess, that was made into a rule, then placed against other "theories" or "hypothesis", where it worked?

 

So what's the problem with coming up with another rule? Inconvenience? I'm very sorry if I've misunderstood some of your explanations in the other threads; maybe you're talking using "Scientific Language", which wouldn't be the same as the Anglo or English language in some respects. However, point still stands! You've never travelled the speed of light; (some say it's impossible), so how do you ""KNOW FOR SURE"", that it has a speed?

 

-If you don't, then how can you deny the principle of coming up with new rules, even without enough evidence to support it. Humanity and Science = 0.00000000001%, probably less according to science, of the universe. How can you put your trust in such a small number? Sorry, not the question. How can you trust a certain path, closed in with certain rules as walls, instead of knocking down those walls and broadening your minds?

 

Remember this; the imagination that is in our heads, and the childrens, and the psychopaths locked up in padded cells, is all man made. How is it possible to imagine something without knowledge of something existing?

 

Here's an example: **not science, naturally**

I'm 0; I say yes or no.

I then see 2; he is a man, and quite tall and hirsute. I acknowledge him, so I've said yes.

I then see 3; she's a golden eagle, and she's flying pretty fast! I acknowledge her! Yes!

I'm 0; I say yes or no. I know of a tall hairy man and a large flying bird.

 

What could '0', Imagine, at this point?

[ydoaPs]

Anyway, on terms of E=MC2. Isn't it the Speed of Light and Mass?

Yes, although that's a simplification of the equation assuming you are at rest with respect to the system you're studying.

 

No-ones ever travelled at the speed of light, so what makes you believe it has a speed?

You can't be serious with this. There's a few ways.

1)It is predicted by our theory of electromagnitism. It 'falls out' of the Maxwell Equations. If the speed of light wasn't exactly c, multiple of the best tested theories in history are flat out wrong. I don't see that happening, based on the fact that both your computer and GPS work.

2)We can measure it. We can shine a light at something and time how long it takes to get there. In fact, there is a retroreflector set up on the moon that does this(well, it reflects it and we time how long it takes for the pulse to return) in order to measure the distance of the moon.

 

How can you trust a certain path, closed in with certain rules as walls, instead of knocking down those walls and broadening your minds?

It works.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Philosophy of the Mind.

 

Anyway, on terms of E=MC2. Isn't it the Speed of Light and Mass?

No-ones ever travelled at the speed of light, so what makes you believe it has a speed? Was it not just a educated guess, that was made into a rule, then placed against other "theories" or "hypothesis", where it worked?

 

So what's the problem with coming up with another rule? Inconvenience? I'm very sorry if I've misunderstood some of your explanations in the other threads; maybe you're talking using "Scientific Language", which wouldn't be the same as the Anglo or English language in some respects. However, point still stands! You've never travelled the speed of light; (some say it's impossible), so how do you ""KNOW FOR SURE"", that it has a speed?

Because I can put a radio transmitter in one place, a receiver at another place, and measure the time it takes for the radio waves (which are light waves) to travel between the two.

 

Heck, mailservers can demonstrate the speed of light:

 

http://www.ibiblio.org/harris/500milemail.html

 

-If you don't, then how can you deny the principle of coming up with new rules, even without enough evidence to support it. Humanity and Science = 0.00000000001%, probably less according to science, of the universe. How can you put your trust in such a small number? Sorry, not the question. How can you trust a certain path, closed in with certain rules as walls, instead of knocking down those walls and broadening your minds?

Because science, by definition, is the investigation of how the universe works.

 

Remember this; the imagination that is in our heads, and the childrens, and the psychopaths locked up in padded cells, is all man made. How is it possible to imagine something without knowledge of something existing?

 

Here's an example: **not science, naturally**

I'm 0; I say yes or no.

I then see 2; he is a man, and quite tall and hirsute. I acknowledge him, so I've said yes.

I then see 3; she's a golden eagle, and she's flying pretty fast! I acknowledge her! Yes!

I'm 0; I say yes or no. I know of a tall hairy man and a large flying bird.

 

What could '0', Imagine, at this point?

What relevance does this have to science and speculation?

 

Sure, perhaps scientists have not yet imagined hypotheses that could explain many facets of the universe. But that doesn't mean that any random idea you can imagine should be taken seriously. An idea has merit if it can be tested.

 

Do you dispute that scientific theories need to be testable?

[Klaplunk]

Because I can put a radio transmitter in one place, a receiver at another place, and measure the time it takes for the radio waves (which are light waves) to travel between the two.

 

Heck, mailservers can demonstrate the speed of light:

 

http://www.ibiblio.org/harris/500milemail.html

 

 

Because science, by definition, is the investigation of how the universe works.

 

 

What relevance does this have to science and speculation?

 

Sure, perhaps scientists have not yet imagined hypotheses that could explain many facets of the universe. But that doesn't mean that any random idea you can imagine should be taken seriously. An idea has merit if it can be tested.

 

Do you dispute that scientific theories need to be testable?

 

I don't understand, I know the difference between a radio wave and a light wave. One is visible, the other isn't. I can cut down a tree into four vertical quarters, then place them on-top of each other. They have then travelled distance; it was pretty slow, so I would say the speed of wood is 00.9 miles per hour. No.

 

How do you relate radio waves to light? There's an obvious difference, AN OBVIOUS DIFFERENCE. It's like saying a sheep and a pig, they're not the same. Sheep's taste better, naturally.

 

What relevance does this have to science and speculation?

 

Sure, perhaps scientists have not yet imagined hypotheses that could explain many facets of the universe. But that doesn't mean that any random idea you can imagine should be taken seriously. An idea has merit if it can be tested.

 

This bit was the best.

 

But that doesn't mean that any random idea you can imagine should be taken seriously

 

Automatically our ideas become 'Random' and 'Silly'; why? Because we don't follow sciences rules! That's not fair at all, that's biased; especially to those wise and committed people who spend time coming up with these theories or hypothesis.

 

Why should your ideas make more sense than mine? Because you can tell me that the sheep (which I know is a sheep), is a sheep because it has - "these cells" and its wool is made from mithril and rainbow dust. It's still a sheep, and I can tell the difference between a sheep and a cat.

 

Lets say a shaven sheep walked past my house in 30 minutes time. Am I allowed to call it a sheep, or would I need to do vigorous testing on it first to define that it is so.

 

Or gravity! It pulls us towards the earth , I know this. Yet, because you know that it pulls in this weight, and is composed of electro-magnetic energy, you are more qualified to create theorems, because you can explain it in an elegant way.

 

Where I would say, "Gravity, it pulls us towards the planet! LOLIDUNNO"

You would say, "Quark. Up, Down, Top, Bottom, Charm and Strange.

F=21, x=12 xD2 .... ...."

 

I have no problem with this! I do have a problem with you telling me that my theorems or hypothesis are random and silly, just because I cannot explain them in the way you can. You're very selfish and self-loving to think that. I would be the first to congratulate you if you made a discovery; but you're the first to dismiss someone else's if they don't have enough evidence to prove it.

 

The thing is though, what are you discovering? I don't see you, or any other moderator, discovering anything. I do see young people, and old, using there brains and trying hard to come up with an answer to this life; and then you throwing it away, as it means nothing to you and your current progress with your current rules.

 

Obviously, science needs to be testable - that doesn't mean you can't try other rules. Here's you:

 

------------------------- Science

 

------------------------- Other Path

 

------------------------- Another Path

 

Does the science path break by the other two paths existing? No it doesn't; however those paths are exempt, because science dismisses them, and seeing as science is this thing that everyones got to believe, cause billions of cash is spent on it, and the build rockets to go into space and stuff (sorry, i'm so tired, effortless typing).

 

You can easily follow sciences rules AND indulge in others; it will still make it testable. It's just that science wont allow these other paths. Is it really that hard to get a fresh piece of paper and try new rules? ALONGSIDE the ones you already know; I'm not saying forget them, just put them aside to try something else.

 

Do you have a problem with that?

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

I don't understand, I know the difference between a radio wave and a light wave. One is visible, the other isn't. I can cut down a tree into four vertical quarters, then place them on-top of each other. They have then travelled distance; it was pretty slow, so I would say the speed of wood is 00.9 miles per hour. No.

One of the nifty advances of modern science is that radio waves and light waves are the same thing. Also, they travel at a constant speed that never varies. We can measure that too -- measure it multiple times using different methods and you get the same answer.

 

But that's not the point of this discussion.

 

Or gravity! It pulls us towards the earth , I know this. Yet, because you know that it pulls in this weight, and is composed of electro-magnetic energy, you are more qualified to create theorems, because you can explain it in an elegant way.

Electromagnetism is entirely separate from gravitation, but I digress...

 

It's not about qualifications. Qualifications do not make you automatically think in terms of scientific theories, as opposed to nonscientific ideas.

 

I have no problem with this! I do have a problem with you telling me that my theorems or hypothesis are random and silly, just because I cannot explain them in the way you can. You're very selfish and self-loving to think that. I would be the first to congratulate you if you made a discovery; but you're the first to dismiss someone else's if they don't have enough evidence to prove it.

You've missed the point entirely.

 

The point is not whether hypotheses are silly. There are lots of accepted scientific theories that were thought to be silly when first thought up. The problem is some things are not scientifically useful.

 

The point of science is to describe how the universe works. If I have an idea that makes no predictions about the universe -- it doesn't say "when x happens, y will happen" or anything -- it is useless to describe the universe. It gives me no information about it.

 

Similarly, statements like "a black hole will swallow the universe" isn't helpful unless you can make predictions. Under what situation would that occur? What mechanism would let it happen?

 

If you don't know, but you want to find out, that's great. It's a learning experience. But so many people don't know and actively resist finding out. They refuse to listen to others or learn about other science. That's when we step in and close the discussion.

 

The thing is though, what are you discovering? I don't see you, or any other moderator, discovering anything. I do see young people, and old, using there brains and trying hard to come up with an answer to this life; and then you throwing it away, as it means nothing to you and your current progress with your current rules.

I believe a few of our moderators work in labs or in doing research. Actually, counting through our staff list (including resident experts), at least thirteen are actively involved in research, development, or other scientific pursuits.

 

You can easily follow sciences rules AND indulge in others; it will still make it testable. It's just that science wont allow these other paths. Is it really that hard to get a fresh piece of paper and try new rules? ALONGSIDE the ones you already know; I'm not saying forget them, just put them aside to try something else.

 

Do you have a problem with that?

This is a science forum, not an everything-else forum.

[ydoaPs]

I don't understand, I know the difference between a radio wave and a light wave. One is visible, the other isn't.

...

How do you relate radio waves to light? There's an obvious difference, AN OBVIOUS DIFFERENCE. It's like saying a sheep and a pig, they're not the same. Sheep's taste better, naturally.

Obvious, eh? There's an obvious difference between water and ice(one is a liquid and one is a solid); does that mean they're not the same?

 

The thing about science is that it's testable! Let's test this. For this test, you'll need:

1)A light source(say, a lamp)

2)A prism

3)A thermometer

3)A recording device(pencil and paper is fine)

 

Turn on the light and put the prism in the path of the light. This should break the white light into its component spectrum; you'll see a rainbow. Now, take the ambient temperature of the room and record it. After recording that, take the temperature of a spot in each of the colours and record the result. Now you should move the thermometer just past the red part of the spectrum and record that temperature once the reading stabilizes. Based on your hypothesis, this last temperature should be exactly that of the ambient, since there's OBVIOUSLY no light there.

 

Let's take a look at the data now. Surprisingly, the last temperature is HIGHER than the ambient temperature! Why on earth could this be? It turns out that not all light is visible! The light we just from which we just got a temperature increase is InfraRed(the same type of light that your television remote's LED produces)!

 

There's a LARGE specrtum of light including radio waves, microwaves, infrared, visible, ultraviolet, xray, and gamma rays. In fact, the visible spectrum is a VERY tiny portion of the spectrum; it is the smallest part. This 'obvious difference' you noted is a limitation of our eyes rather than a limitation of light.

 

Automatically our ideas become 'Random' and 'Silly'; why? Because we don't follow sciences rules!

I was really gonna go with that they aren't based on data or experimentation. But, then again, that somewhat does boil down to it not using scientific methodology.

 

Science:

1)Make observation

2)Get idea to explain observation

3)Make prediction based on said idea

4)Perform experiment to confirm or falsify this prediction

5)Evaluate data from experiment

6)Use the data to refine explanation if necessary or discard explanation if falsified.

 

That's why our method is better; it makes our explanations falsifiable. We can tell if the ideas are correct. We're continually testing our ideas to make them more and more correct. As swansont says, the job of science is to limit the uncertainty in 'for all we know.'

 

Now, what rules would you prefer?

 

That's not fair at all, that's biased; especially to those wise and committed people who spend time coming up with these theories or hypothesis.

It is? How so? Our methodology makes our hypotheses falsifiable; we can tell if they're wrong.

 

If you don't do science, you don't theories. The word theory has a very specific meaning. A theory is a falsifiable explanation that is supported by a vast array of evidence and experiments.

 

Why should your ideas make more sense than mine?

Because our methodology makes our ideas falsifiable. Because our methodology makes our ideas testable repeatedly(if you don't believe the results, you can test it yourself). Our methodology is the only way to truly varify whether or not an idea is true.

 

The thing is though, what are you discovering? I don't see you, or any other moderator, discovering anything.

Then you've not really looked vary far. Several of our members are scientists. Klaynos, for example, works with quantum computing. Swansont happens to do several very awesome things with the US Naval Observatory.

 

I do see young people, and old, using there brains and trying hard to come up with an answer to this life; and then you throwing it away, as it means nothing to you and your current progress with your current rules.

Because our current progress has evidence. Our current progress is why you can power up your computer, log on to the internet, and make posts on a message board saying your random thoughts are just as good as the theories that made such a thing possible.

 

 

Obviously, science needs to be testable - that doesn't mean you can't try other rules. Here's you:

 

------------------------- Science

 

------------------------- Other Path

 

------------------------- Another Path

 

Does the science path break by the other two paths existing? No it doesn't; however those paths are exempt, because science dismisses them, and seeing as science is this thing that everyones got to believe, cause billions of cash is spent on it, and the build rockets to go into space and stuff (sorry, i'm so tired, effortless typing).

What path do you suggest? What works anywhere near as good as science?

 

 

You can easily follow sciences rules AND indulge in others; it will still make it testable. It's just that science wont allow these other paths.

Science works; the 'other paths' simply don't.

[Klaplunk]

This is my last post in this thread, just a question:

 

This is a science forum, not an everything-else forum.

 

Why can you not incorporate these other paths within science? You would still be studying the universe. You may find, with these new rules, new answers. It doesn't mean you have to make two sections: Science/Not Science. It means you can make ScienceA and ScienceB - and as for "missing the point", you have done since the start. I'm tired, that's my excuse, 06:33am. I've been up all night studying 'Quarks'.

 

I know exactly what you're saying; I just don't understand YOUR mind; you seem so trapped, you won't accept anything but the "scientific truth" which isn't the truth - it's the truth only according to rules. Well, okay. By taking that path you have received some answers. With that, you can take other paths, and probably progress along them faster than the first. I don't see why not; again, what's hard about picking up ANOTHER piece of paper and drawing out a new theorem, with new rules? Don't throw away the OLD theorems, have them alongside the new ones. Although it's not "science", it should be, because it's studying the universe, either way, no matter how small. Not everyone has the equipment; everyone has a brain and is human, and lives.

 

Gnight! x)

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Obvious, eh? There's an obvious difference between water and ice(one is a liquid and one is a solid); does that mean they're not the same?

 

The thing about science is that it's testable! Let's test this. For this test, you'll need:

1)A light source(say, a lamp)

2)A prism

3)A thermometer

3)A recording device(pencil and paper is fine)

 

Turn on the light and put the prism in the path of the light. This should break the white light into its component spectrum; you'll see a rainbow. Now, take the ambient temperature of the room and record it. After recording that, take the temperature of a spot in each of the colours and record the result. Now you should move the thermometer just past the red part of the spectrum and record that temperature once the reading stabilizes. Based on your hypothesis, this last temperature should be exactly that of the ambient, since there's OBVIOUSLY no light there.

 

Let's take a look at the data now. Surprisingly, the last temperature is HIGHER than the ambient temperature! Why on earth could this be? It turns out that not all light is visible! The light we just from which we just got a temperature increase is InfraRed(the same type of light that your television remote's LED produces)!

 

There's a LARGE specrtum of light including radio waves, microwaves, infrared, visible, ultraviolet, xray, and gamma rays. In fact, the visible spectrum is a VERY tiny portion of the spectrum; it is the smallest part. This 'obvious difference' you noted is a limitation of our eyes rather than a limitation of light.

 

I was really gonna go with that they aren't based on data or experimentation. But, then again, that somewhat does boil down to it not using scientific methodology.

 

Science:

1)Make observation

2)Get idea to explain observation

3)Make prediction based on said idea

4)Perform experiment to confirm or falsify this prediction

5)Evaluate data from experiment

6)Use the data to refine explanation if necessary or discard explanation if falsified.

 

That's why our method is better; it makes our explanations falsifiable. We can tell if the ideas are correct. We're continually testing our ideas to make them more and more correct. As swansont says, the job of science is to limit the uncertainty in 'for all we know.'

 

Now, what rules would you prefer?

 

 

It is? How so? Our methodology makes our hypotheses falsifiable; we can tell if they're wrong.

 

If you don't do science, you don't theories. The word theory has a very specific meaning. A theory is a falsifiable explanation that is supported by a vast array of evidence and experiments.

 

 

Because our methodology makes our ideas falsifiable. Because our methodology makes our ideas testable repeatedly(if you don't believe the results, you can test it yourself). Our methodology is the only way to truly varify whether or not an idea is true.

 

Then you've not really looked vary far. Several of our members are scientists. Klaynos, for example, works with quantum computing. Swansont happens to do several very awesome things with the US Naval Observatory.

 

 

Because our current progress has evidence. Our current progress is why you can power up your computer, log on to the internet, and make posts on a message board saying your random thoughts are just as good as the theories that made such a thing possible.

 

 

What path do you suggest? What works anywhere near as good as science?

 

 

 

Science works; the 'other paths' simply don't.

 

I'll answer this later today; I need sleep. I'll ask one thing though fast; what has temperature got to do with light, isn't that heat? If light produces heat, then that is two factors, heat and light. So when you say light has a speed, you really mean light and heat have a speed?

 

I'll edit this later. Gnight.

[ydoaPs]

Why can you not incorporate these other paths within science?

"Don't fix what aint broke!"

 

You would still be studying the universe. You may find, with these new rules, new answers. It doesn't mean you have to make two sections: Science/Not Science. It means you can make ScienceA and ScienceB - and as for "missing the point", you have done since the start.

What 'new rules' would you suggest? What works better, or even as good as, science?

 

I know exactly what you're saying; I just don't understand YOUR mind; you seem so trapped, you won't accept anything but the "scientific truth" which isn't the truth - it's the truth only according to rules.

Why would I accept something that doesn't work?

 

I'll answer this later today; I need sleep. I'll ask one thing though fast; what has temperature got to do with light, isn't that heat? If light produces heat, then that is two factors, heat and light. So when you say light has a speed, you really mean light and heat have a speed?

Light has momentum. Once a photon is absorbed, the its momentum is absorbed too. This means the atoms absorbing the photons vibrate more. Since temperature is a measure of the average molecular kinetic energy, this means that the temperature goes up.

 

Heat, on the other hand, is a different beast altogether. Heat is energy transfer between systems based solely on a difference in temperature of those systems.

[Klaplunk]

"Don't fix what aint broke!"

 

 

What 'new rules' would you suggest? What works better, or even as good as, science?

 

Why would I accept something that doesn't work?

 

Light has momentum. Once a photon is absorbed, the its momentum is absorbed too. This means the atoms absorbing the photons vibrate more. Since temperature is a measure of the average molecular kinetic energy, this means that the temperature goes up.

 

Heat, on the other hand, is a different beast altogether. Heat is energy transfer between systems based solely on a difference in temperature of those systems.

 

You make no sense - Remember, I'm a Philosophy student. If you could explain that in English rather than Science, it would help a lot.

 

Here's a rule; how do you know that the gravitational pull of the earth isn't cause by a reaction from an opposite 'magnetic force' in space. For example, this thread I was just reading: http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=52740

 

If in each corner of that diagram, lay a magnetic force = to either positive or negative; and the core of the earth held a similar magnetic force, the earth would be spinning AND tilting very very slowly. That would answer your question for a rule you COULD use - however it cannot be a rule, as it can't or won't be tested. So for now it's just a hypothesis; and that's all it will be. It sounds reasonable, and sounds possible; that's where WISDOM plays its part - one can decipher the difference between possibility and impossibility. I'm not talking flying pigs or talking bread; I'm speaking about magnetism! It's reality, and if it were TRUE it would work! All the evidence that shows that 'If it were true it would work' is in our lives. I loved that thread, was a great read. I also enjoyed the Hyperspace thread - I didn't see you contesting the Hyperspace one, so I imagine what he's trying to explain is correct.

 

Anyway, yeah, never mind sleep, quarks got me awake!

[the tree]

Here's a rule; how do you know that the gravitational pull of the earth isn't cause by a reaction from an opposite 'magnetic force' in space.

Okay, that's easy. If bodies with a large gravitational pull had a large magnetic force to go with them, then a priori it'd have a polarising effect on sheets of ferromagnetic material. As it happens, putting an oven tray on the floor doesn't turn that oven tray into a magnet. Therefore gravity and magnetism are entirely different beasts. (basic, primary school stuff that).

 

That would answer your question for a rule you COULD use - however it cannot be a rule, as it can't or won't be tested. So for now it's just a hypothesis; and that's all it will be.

No. A hypothesis must be testable - once the testing is done it stands a chance of being regarded as theory. It is idle speculation.

 

I'm not talking flying pigs or talking bread; I'm speaking about magnetism! It's reality, and if it were TRUE it would work!

What do you think the difference between flying pigs and an undetectable force from outer space is? Hint: one can be presented as a hypothesis, the other cannot.

 

"if it were true then it'd work" hints at nothing more than internal consistency, which even idle speculation tends to live up to.

[swansont]

You make no sense - Remember, I'm a Philosophy student. If you could explain that in English rather than Science, it would help a lot.

 

I find this fascinating. Between this and previous posts, you're basically admitting to being a scientific illiterate, and yet you know the process is flawed.

 

Automatically our ideas become 'Random' and 'Silly'; why? Because we don't follow sciences rules! That's not fair at all, that's biased; especially to those wise and committed people who spend time coming up with these theories or hypothesis.

 

It is biased. Science is not a democracy, it is a meritocracy. Ideas gain support because they have evidentiary support, and are falsifiable but have not been falsified despite experiments designed to test them. In science, effort is not the metric used to determine the validity of an idea. if it doesn't fit the evidence, it's wrong. If it makes no testable predictions, it's not useful and not science.

 

Fairness doesn't enter into it. The idea that apples might fall up because of invisible pink fairies doesn't warrant equal time — or any time, really — in a scientific discussion.

 

I think where you (mods, admins) go wrong, is broadening your minds, and understanding that the past is ---> behind us. "Scientific Evidence" that supports many of your current theories could be wrong; something explained by someone in 1950 could have been explained wrongly, or knowingly. If you don't accept the term 'flaws' into any theory anyone conjures, then how do you accept the ones that are set in your mind?

 

The reason we have confidence in theories is that it is not based simply on one experiment. Important ideas are repeatedly tested, and then other ideas are based on them. These would not work if the original idea were wrong. You mentioned the E=mc^2 from relativity; the concepts of relativity have been tested by thousands of scientists over the last 100+ years, in millions of experiments (GPS alone counts for millions of daily experiments). They confirm the idea. If evidence arose indicating the idea was wrong in some way, it would be modified or discarded, as appropriate. Science history has many examples of ideas that were provisionally accepted and then later discarded (phlogiston, caloric), and others that were modified (gravity, kinematics), because evidence was found that mandated this. But these examples are but a small fraction of ideas that were discarded quickly, because they were shown to be wrong — most ideas are.

[Mr Skeptic]

Here's a rule; how do you know that the gravitational pull of the earth isn't cause by a reaction from an opposite 'magnetic force' in space. For example, this thread I was just reading: http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=52740

 

Well, that's not a rule (nor a hypothesis nor a theory nor a law). It's a question, and a meaningless one at that. Not so much meaningless of itself, but rather meaningless in context -- the person asking the question means something different than science does when they say "gravity" and "magnetism" and doesn't explain what their new definitions mean, so no one can make sense of this question. This question really doesn't make much sense to someone who knows what electricity and magnetism are.

 

In any case, that's really not how to ask a scientist a question. More to the point, it makes no predictions whatsoever (not without clarification as to what exactly the question means). What would, if you were to observe such, prove that earth's gravitational pull is not caused by a reaction from an opposite 'magnetic force' in space? Alternately, how could magnetism possibly cause gravity, and what formula gives the relation between the magnetic force and the gravitational force? If you can't answer that sort of question, that is why it is not a hypothesis and we are calling it random gibberish.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

To put it another way, how do you know that gravity isn't caused by leftover meatballs from the flying spaghetti monster? How do you know that gravity isn't caused by fairies? How do you know that gravity isn't caused by gravitons? How do you know that gravity isn't caused by matter warping the geometry of spacetime? This is all gibberish, and the correct answer to this sort of questions is "How could you tell?"

[swansont]

Okay, that's easy. If bodies with a large gravitational pull had a large magnetic force to go with them, then a priori it'd have a polarising effect on sheets of ferromagnetic material. As it happens, putting an oven tray on the floor doesn't turn that oven tray into a magnet. Therefore gravity and magnetism are entirely different beasts. (basic, primary school stuff that).

 

Here's another: orbits. The moon is, at best, very weakly magnetic, so how can magnetism account for the orbit of the moon? And magnets are dipoles (or higher-order multipoles), so the interaction is 1/r^3. Orbits require a 1/r^2 force.