the big bang

12467

Comments

  • GiantMike
    GiantMike Posts: 3,139
    Tom Dean wrote:
    If you want to cast doubt on the scientific process, you will need some justification. You have not provided any.

    Enjoy your holiday :D

    Oh, for the love of God! When have I tried to cast doubt on 'the scientific process'?

    Let me make my position clear. I said that scientists make assumptions and that these assumptions may be wrong. I I have said that it is possible to believe that 2 opposing theories could be correct. That's pretty much all I have said. I haven't tried to cast doubt on the scientific process, haven't said that I believe the contracting universe theory, haven't said that my thoughts were profound, haven't cast doubts on a theory based on the dedication at the start of a theory (and a set of statements does qualify as a theory), haven't said that any theory is true or isn't, haven't said that evidence should be discounted etc etc

    Norway's great by the way. Vast clear skies. And all the stars have a strange blue tint. :wink:
  • Tom Dean
    Tom Dean Posts: 1,723
    You have said nothing of any use or interest. We are in agreement at last!
  • meursault
    meursault Posts: 1,433
    Tom Dean wrote:
    If you want to cast doubt on the scientific process, you will need some justification. You have not provided any.

    Enjoy your holiday :D

    I'll take a stab.


    Ask a Question

    This is OK we all have questions


    Do Background Research

    Now we have have the potential to lose our way. It's possible the research is incorrect. Does the researcher have an agenda? Is the data trustworthy?

    If the answer to these or any like it are unsatisfactory, then the deal is off.

    Construct a Hypothesis

    No problem with this

    Test Your Hypothesis by Doing an Experiment

    How accurate is your test? Are you using formal logic http://www.mtnmath.com/whatth/node20.html for your analysis? Is this accurate?

    eg. Formal logic states a = a. This is fine for abstract or math, but in reality a never equals a. There are no two things that exist that are equal to each other.

    Analyze Your Data and Draw a Conclusion

    Same questions as above



    Communicate Your Results

    Same questions as research above

    I am aware I am straying into philosophy here, but if science is the truth, then it must be universal. Also, I am not anti science, I am merely questioning it's accuracy.
    Superstition sets the whole world in flames; philosophy quenches them.

    Voltaire
  • Tom Dean
    Tom Dean Posts: 1,723
    meursault wrote:
    eg. Formal logic states a = a. This is fine for abstract or math, but in reality a never equals a. There are no two things that exist that are equal to each other.
    orly.jpg
    meursault wrote:
    I am aware I am straying into philosophy here, but if science is the truth, then it must be universal. Also, I am not anti science, I am merely questioning it's accuracy.
    It is not 'the truth'. Science provides the best representation, based on the available evidence. Questioning accuracy is part of the process.
  • GiantMike
    GiantMike Posts: 3,139
    meursault wrote:
    stuff

    Don't do it man. He'll just take pot shots at you and put words into your mouth and use them against you. Then after 5 pages he'll tell you you're boring.

    Apparently that's how science works.

    Have fun :wink:
  • meursault
    meursault Posts: 1,433
    @ Tom

    Really, unless you can provide me any examples that disprove this logic.

    If we agree that science isn't the truth, then fine.

    @Giant Mike

    It's all good, nothing wrong with some debate.
    Superstition sets the whole world in flames; philosophy quenches them.

    Voltaire
  • Daz555
    Daz555 Posts: 3,976
    meursault wrote:
    I am aware I am straying into philosophy here, but if science is the truth, then it must be universal. Also, I am not anti science, I am merely questioning it's accuracy.
    Well science has delivered civilisation so it is certainly pulling its weight at least!
    You only need two tools: WD40 and Duck Tape.
    If it doesn't move and should, use the WD40.
    If it shouldn't move and does, use the tape.
  • meursault
    meursault Posts: 1,433
    Daz555 wrote:
    meursault wrote:
    I am aware I am straying into philosophy here, but if science is the truth, then it must be universal. Also, I am not anti science, I am merely questioning it's accuracy.
    Well science has delivered civilisation so it is certainly pulling its weight at least!

    Indeed it did, but civilisation isn't necessarily a good thing, for the future of the species.
    Superstition sets the whole world in flames; philosophy quenches them.

    Voltaire
  • Tom Dean
    Tom Dean Posts: 1,723
    meursault wrote:
    @ Tom

    Really, unless you can provide me any examples that disprove this logic.
    meursault wrote:
    eg. Formal logic states a = a. This is fine for abstract or math, but in reality a never equals a. There are no two things that exist that are equal to each other.

    E=mc^2 is one you might have heard of. Are you saying you don't agree?
  • daviesee
    daviesee Posts: 6,386
    Tom Dean wrote:
    E=mc^2 is one you might have heard of. Are you saying you don't agree?
    Scientists at CERN don't agree.
    http://www.inquisitr.com/144267/scienti ... han-light/
    None of the above should be taken seriously, and certainly not personally.
  • Tom Dean
    Tom Dean Posts: 1,723
    They made a mistake http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-17560379
  • Cleat Eastwood
    Cleat Eastwood Posts: 7,508
    A big problem is that Western science–especially “medical science” (and its reliance on business), just like religion–has become dogmatic, so that it rejects any conclusion which lies outside its paradigm.

    The prevailing attitude is - If we can’t explain it on our own terms, it does not exist, because only our terms are valid. Cultural anthropologists, as i'm sure you are aware, call such systematic (for want of a better word) ignorance “ethnocentrism”–being confined, unaware of the confinement, by one’s own culture.

    Anyway if anyone has a theory of why I like claire balding please let me know. :D
    The dissenter is every human being at those moments of his life when he resigns
    momentarily from the herd and thinks for himself.
  • Tom Dean
    Tom Dean Posts: 1,723
    What dogma do you say science is based on? Reliance on empirical evidence?

    Conclusions 'outside the paradigm of science' are not rejected, they are, err - outside the paradigm of science. relevant to you maybe, but irrelevant to science.
  • daviesee
    daviesee Posts: 6,386
    Tom Dean wrote:
    They made a mistake http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-17560379
    Caught, dammit! :wink:
    Does this mean that scientists are sometimes wrong? :twisted:
    None of the above should be taken seriously, and certainly not personally.
  • freddiegrubb
    freddiegrubb Posts: 448
    I was only asking about the big quiet.
  • meursault
    meursault Posts: 1,433
    Tom Dean wrote:
    meursault wrote:
    @ Tom

    Really, unless you can provide me any examples that disprove this logic.
    meursault wrote:
    eg. Formal logic states a = a. This is fine for abstract or math, but in reality a never equals a. There are no two things that exist that are equal to each other.

    E=mc^2 is one you might have heard of. Are you saying you don't agree?

    I agree in principal and the abstract. You have posted a math formula that's fine in the abstract but not in reality. It should read

    energy (which we cannot measure completely accurately) can never = (exactly) mass times the speed of light squared.

    Because the atoms, molecules, electrons and such are not measurable exactly. Any engineer will tell you they work to a tolerance, which is good enough for the application.
    Superstition sets the whole world in flames; philosophy quenches them.

    Voltaire
  • Tom Dean
    Tom Dean Posts: 1,723
    The equation either holds or it doesn't. Our level of certainty in the theory may depend on the accuracy of observational data, but a percentage error in the data does not lead to a percentage error in values of E or mc^2. It certainly does not follow that the two sides can never be equal.
  • meursault
    meursault Posts: 1,433
    Tom Dean wrote:
    The equation either holds or it doesn't. Our level of certainty in the theory may depend on the accuracy of observational data, but a percentage error in the data does not lead to a percentage error in values of E or mc^2. It certainly does not follow that the two sides can never be equal.

    You just need to separate reality from abstract.

    Imagine you had to weigh some energy. Because it's dynamic, you could never actually weigh it exactly. Now imagine you had to weigh some mass from the other side of the equation. You could also never weigh it for the same reasons stated.

    Therefore in reality, E does not equal mass etc.

    But as math theory it's fine.

    Formal logic is OK to a point, for rough estimations, but it doesn't work for exactness, because everything in reality is dynamic.
    Superstition sets the whole world in flames; philosophy quenches them.

    Voltaire
  • Tom Dean
    Tom Dean Posts: 1,723
    meursault wrote:
    You just need to separate reality from abstract.
    The equation is a description of reality.
    meursault wrote:
    Imagine you had to weigh some energy. Because it's dynamic, you could never actually weigh it exactly. Now imagine you had to weigh some mass from the other side of the equation. You could also never weigh it for the same reasons stated.
    I don't know if there is a fundamental reason why perfectly accurate measurements are not possible in principle. It is beside the point. 'Because it's dynamic' is not a reason.
    meursault wrote:
    Therefore in reality, E does not equal mass etc.
    The actual values i.e. the reality is not dependent on our ability to measure it!
  • alanp23
    alanp23 Posts: 696
    edited October 2012
    Hang on...

    I started off on this thread nodding along with Giant Mike and didnt agree with Tom Dean. I was also agreeing with Meursault, but now I agree with Tom, and I don't agree with Meursault

    I am totally lost with this thread. Maybe it is is all just relative.
    Top Ten finisher - PTP Tour of Britain 2016
  • meursault
    meursault Posts: 1,433
    Tom Dean wrote:
    meursault wrote:
    You just need to separate reality from abstract.
    The equation is a description of reality.
    meursault wrote:
    Imagine you had to weigh some energy. Because it's dynamic, you could never actually weigh it exactly. Now imagine you had to weigh some mass from the other side of the equation. You could also never weigh it for the same reasons stated.
    I don't know if there is a fundamental reason why perfectly accurate measurements are not possible in principle. It is beside the point. 'Because it's dynamic' is not a reason.
    meursault wrote:
    Therefore in reality, E does not equal mass etc.
    The actual values i.e. the reality is not dependent on our ability to measure it!

    Yes it's a description, and not reality, that is what I am saying.

    For something to equal something else, it has to be EXACTLY the same as the other thing. There is nothing in the universe that fits this description. No two things are exactly the same in all ways.

    Therefore the energy of something (that exists in reality) can never be equal to something else. It can only be equal to itself, and that is always, also changing.
    Superstition sets the whole world in flames; philosophy quenches them.

    Voltaire
  • meursault
    meursault Posts: 1,433
    alanp23 wrote:
    Hang on...

    I started off on this thread nodding along with Giant Mike and didnt agree with Tom Dean. I was also agreeing with Meursault, but now I agree with Tom, and I don't agree with Meersault

    I am totally lost with this thread. Maybe it is is all just relative.

    As much as I love science, I think it is flawed as an explanation of reality, that's basically my beef. It's not an original thought, most quantum scientists agree. For example, we don't know why gravity is, we just know it is.
    Superstition sets the whole world in flames; philosophy quenches them.

    Voltaire
  • Escadrille Ecosse
    Escadrille Ecosse Posts: 164
    [quote="Tom Dean"
    The actual values i.e. the reality is not dependent on our ability to measure it![/quote]

    Uh, yes it does. I'm sure Shroedinger's cat has come up somewhere in this post by now, but essentially this is what Mr Heisenberg was on about.
    Coffee is not my cup of tea

    Moda Fresco track racer
    Kinesis Crosslight Pro 6 winter commuter
    Gunnar Hyper X
    Rocky Mountain ETSX
    Cannondale Scalpel 3000 (retro-bike in bits)
    Lemond Poprad Disc, now retired pending frame re-paint.
  • Tom Dean
    Tom Dean Posts: 1,723
    meursault wrote:
    Therefore the energy of something (that exists in reality) can never be equal to something else. It can only be equal to itself, and that is always, also changing.
    I don't understand why you think this is the case (or why you think a measurable quantity must necessarily be changing, although it's not relevant). Please provide some justification.
  • daviesee
    daviesee Posts: 6,386
    I now feel as if I am watching a bad episode of The Big Bang Theory.
    More jokes are required. :wink:
    None of the above should be taken seriously, and certainly not personally.
  • Tom Dean
    Tom Dean Posts: 1,723
    Escadrille Ecosse wrote:
    Uh, yes it does. I'm sure Shroedinger's cat has come up somewhere in this post by now, but essentially this is what Mr Heisenberg was on about.
    We haven't actually defined what kind of measurements we are talking about. As I understand it, the uncertainty principle would apply to pairs of properties of a particle like position and velocity. I'm not sure mass or energy would be affected, you could still measure e.g. 'how many particles?' (in the video I posted he mentions in passing that experiments are done in quantum electrodynamics that agree with theory to TEN decimal places. Amazing)

    The observer effect comes into play in various areas, but not all, and still does not change the FACT of a particular value prior to measurement.
  • pb21
    pb21 Posts: 2,171
    Tom Dean wrote:
    Escadrille Ecosse wrote:
    Uh, yes it does. I'm sure Shroedinger's cat has come up somewhere in this post by now, but essentially this is what Mr Heisenberg was on about.
    We haven't actually defined what kind of measurements we are talking about. As I understand it, the uncertainty principle would apply to pairs of properties of a particle like position and velocity. I'm not sure mass or energy would be affected, you could still measure e.g. 'how many particles?' (in the video I posted he mentions in passing that experiments are done in quantum electrodynamics that agree with theory to TEN decimal places. Amazing)

    The observer effect comes into play in various areas, but not all, and still does not change the FACT of a particular value prior to measurement.

    At a quantum level mass and energy are interchangeable, and energy and therefore mass is affected by velocity.
    Mañana
  • Tom Dean
    Tom Dean Posts: 1,723
    At all levels, in fact (E=mc^2). Does this imply that a particle's mass or energy are unmeasurable?
  • pb21
    pb21 Posts: 2,171
    Tom Dean wrote:
    At all levels, in fact (E=mc^2). Does this imply that a particle's mass or energy are unmeasurable?

    Certainly.
    Mañana
  • Tom Dean
    Tom Dean Posts: 1,723
    Sorry, the question was badly put when I said "a particle". My point is, scientists are able to quantify the uncertainty and perform experiments that verify theory to a very high level of precision.

Categories