Council Member
Posts: 1,745 
Location: BC
Location: BC
March 28th, 2008, 11:40 PM
This made me lmao so I thought I would share:
Warning: Gravity is "Only a Theory"
All physics textbooks should include this warning label:
This textbook contains material on Gravity. Gravity is a theory, not a fact, regarding a natural law of attraction. Gravity should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered.
The Universal Theory of Gravity is often taught by Gravitationalists in public schools as a "fact." It is not a fact. It is not even a good theory.
Is gravity universal? Maybe. Maybe not. No one has measured gravity for every atom and every star. And gravitationalists are not attempting to remedy this lack of experiment evidence, afraid of failure, no doubt. It is undeniably a religious belief that gravity is universal.
Circular reasoning or elliptical reasoning?
According to gravitationalists, gravity is a force between objects with mass; Lines of gravitational force are straight. Gravity does not make objects spin in circles or ellipses. But planets are observed to move in elliptical orbits around the sun. Trying to dodge this contradiction, gravitationalists turn logic on its head and claim orbits somehow prove gravity. Circular reasoning and elliptical reasoning are common among gravitationalists.
The universe is tuned.
The moon rotates on its axis but at the same time always presents the same comforting face to us, gazing up from earth. Little Willie Dembski has calculated the chances of that happening at random and it is exactly 1 in 15 septdecillion. That exceeds the probabombastic resources of the universe, proving the intervention of an intelligent agent. Only an intelligent designer could arrange such a happy coincidence, always presenting the familiar side of the moon to us. Imagine how it might have altered human history if, for all these millennium, we had been gazing at the unfamiliar face of the moon.
Don't change the channel.
Astronomers are the lowest of the many subspecies of gravitationalists. Astronomers are barely scientists. They're classifiers, list-makers, like librarians with their Dewey decimal system. Except librarians don't claim the Dewey decimal system holds the Rosetta Stone to the universe. There were once great astronomers, but the morally vacuous ones began to promote their own at the universities.
Gravity relieves astronomers of a pesky moral code. Astronomers never have to say "We would like to drink ourselves into oblivion tonight, but that would violate Gravity." Instead they say, "Let's do it. If we fall down, it's just gravity." Astronomers subscribe to gravity not because it's science, which they hate, but out of wishful thinking. Gravity lets them off the hook morally.
Boltzmann bounces Newton.
Gravitational theory suggests that the planets have been moving in stable orbits for millions and millions of years. The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that all spontaneous processes increase the entropy of the universe. So where is the entropy increase arising from the spontaneously orbiting planets? Gravitationalists scan the universe with special entropy telescopes, searching for the missing entropy. But they cannot find it.
Microgravity? Yes! Macrogravity? No!
Microgravity is observable. Release an egg from three feet above your kitchen floor to observe microgravity in action. It will fall. But don't take our word for it. Try it yourself. Next observe macrogravity in action. Perform the same experiment with a very massive object, say an object with the mass of the moon. Oh, wait. The moon is suspended above us. It does not fall. This proves to us that macrogravity does not exist. Microgravity only makes small objects on earth fall. If there is macrogravity, why don't the sun, the moon, and the planets all fall down and hit the earth? Heavenly bodies do not fall, obviously, because there is no macrogravity.
God of the gaps.
The failings of the theory are obvious. Gaze up into the sky. The moon obviously rotates around the earth. You can see that. Why don't humans rotate around mountains? Why don't insects rotate around cars? Why doesn't the moon rotate around the sun? Sometimes the theory of gravity seems to work and other times not. There are obvious gaps in gravity theory. Gravitationalists cannot find the missing gravitational links.
In the beginning...
It is safe to say that without the Theory of Gravity, there would be no talk about a "Big Bang."
Very early after the big bag - so called, there was only one object with mass. If you think there were more objects than that with mass, then back time up a little until you finally believe in the time point of one object with mass. At that time point there could not have been gravity because gravity requires two objects with mass, and a distance between them. Now let time creep forward until the second object with mass appears. Suddenly you have not only two objects with mass, but a distance between them. The arrival of the second object and the establishment of the distance between them would have to happen simultaneously, or the universal law, so-called, of gravity would fall into disarray. But the Helm-Gibbholts Theorem of Irreducible Complexity tells us that two important things happen at the same time with vanishingly small probability, especially if the future of the universe is at stake. By Helm-Gibbholts we know that gravity is irreducibly complex and could not have evolved without the hand of a designer.
There is not a single mention of gravity in the Bible. Nor is there mention of gravity in the constitution. Did Jesus not rise from the dead? Yes. As he rose, did Jesus have to worry about violating the Universe Theory of Gravity? If gravity wasn't important in Moses' day or Jefferson's day, and could be switched off and on at will by Jesus, who are we to take it seriously?
Teach the gravity controversy.
There are numerous alternative theories that should be taught on an equal basis with gravity. For example, the observed behavior of the earth revolving around the sun can be perfectly explained if the sun has a net positive charge and the planets have a net negative charge. Opposite charges attract and the force between them follows the inverse-square law, exactly as the increasingly discredited Theory of Gravity. Physics and chemistry texts used to use this same logic as the explanation for electrons orbiting atomic nuclei. But then electrons stopped orbiting and began inhabiting orbitals, with all those strange shapes. Who made up those weird f-orbitals? The source of this mind-numbing complexity is simple: it helps gravitationalists at places like Princeton line their pockets with safe, cushy government grants.
Let the private sector decide.
The U.S. Patent Office has never issued a patent for gravity or for anti-gravity. Why is this? According to natural law and homeopathy, everything exists in opposites: good-evil; grace-sin; positive charges-negative charges; north poles-south poles; good vibes-bad vibes; etc. We know there are anti-evolutionists, so why not anti-gravitationalists? It is clearly a matter of the scientific establishment elite protecting their own. Anti-gravity papers are routinely rejected from peer-reviewed journals, and scientists who propose anti-gravity quickly lose their funding. Universal gravity theory is just a way to keep the grant money flowing.
Newton knew nada.
Every time there is discussion the theory of gravity, it leads right into "fringe" mathematics. Isaac Newton, said to be the discoverer of gravity, had all sorts of problems developing the theory. Newton invented a whole new branch of mathematics, called fluxions, just to "prove" his theory. Fluxions became calculus, a deeply flawed branch of mathematics having to do with so-called "infinitesimals". Scientists have searched and searched for infinitesimals, but to this day no one has experimentally observed an infinitesimal. Then Einstein invented a new theory of gravity. He used an obscure bit of mathematics called tensors. Polling has shown that 82% of the residents of Kansas do not believe in tensors. Enough said.
Testable predictions?
Gravitational Theory purports to relate the force between two objects to the mass of each object and the inverse square of the distance between them. But this theory fails to make usable predictions. The theory fails to explain why Saturn has rings and Jupiter does not. It fails to account for obesity. If did not predict our "mass -ive" debt. It did not predict the steadily increasing masses of SUVs.
Any child can see how ridiculous it is to believe that people in Australia live their whole lives upside, apparently without being aware of it.
To make matters worse, gravitationalists hypothesize about mysterious things called gravitons and gravity waves. These have never been observed, and when some accounts of detecting gravity waves were published, the physicists involved had to quickly retract them.
When the planet Pluto was discovered in 1930 by Clyde Tombaugh, he relied on "gravitational calculations." But Tombaugh was a Unitarian, a liberal religious group that supports the Theory of Gravity. The present-day Unitarian-Universalists continue to rely on liberal notions and dismiss ideas of anti-gravity as unfounded. Tombaugh never even attempted to justify his "gravitational calculations" on the basis of Scripture, and he went on to be a founding member of the liberal Unitarian Fellowship of Las Cruces, New Mexico.
The theory of gravity violates common sense in many ways. Adherents have a hard time explaining, for instance, why airplanes, birds and butterflies do not fall. Anti-gravity, so clearly evident, is rejected by the scientific establishment. The theory, if taken seriously, implies that the default position for all airplanes is on the ground. While this is obviously true for Northwest Airplanes (relying on "a wing and a prayer"), it appears that Jet Blue and Southwest effectively overcome the weighty issues facing Northwest, and thus harness forces that overcome gravity, so-called.
The Law (of gravity) is an ass.
It is unlikely that the Law of Gravity will be out-and-out repealed given the present geo-political climate. But we should introduce the controversy into the K12 curriculum. There is, indeed, evidence that the Theory of Gravity is having a grave effect on morality. Activist judges and left-leaning teachers often use the phrase "what goes up must come down" as a way of describing gravity. Relativists have been quick to apply this to moral standards and common decency.
Finally, names like "Universal Theory of Gravity" and "Theory of Universal Gravity" have distinctly socialist rings to them. Secularists like to use confusing language and big words. The core idea of "to each according to his weight, from each according to his mass" is communist. Gravitationalists claim that gravity should apply equally to the righteous and the sinner, to the heathen and the born-again. We demand relief from such universalism. Universal Gravity today will surely lead to Universal health care tomorrow. It is this kind of universalism that saps a nation's moral fiber.
Overall, the Theory of Universal Gravity is not an attractive theory. It is based on borderline evidence, has many serious gaps, is clearly wrong in important respects, and has profound social and moral implications. If taught in the public schools, by mis-directed "educators," it must be balanced with alternative, more attractive theories with genuine gravamen and spiritual gravitas.
Let's get back... to the fundamental things.
Materialistic ideology has subverted the study of gravity so that the actual science has become corrupted. The problem is not merely that science is being used illegitimately to promote a materialistic worldview, but that this worldview is actively undermining fundamental truth, leading to incorrect and unsupported conclusions about gravity. We must always start with the obvious premise of a unique and special place of each and every person in creation. This fundamental truth must be safeguarded. We must be wary of any theory that seeks to undermine man's essential dignity and unique and intended place in the cosmos. The "Laws" invented by secular scientists must be held secondary to fundamental truth. Aspects of these "Laws" that undermine fundamental truth should be firmly rejected as an atheistic theology posing as science. We must constantly remind secular scientists of the lack of significance of their work.
Source
This made me lmao so I thought I would share:
Warning: Gravity is "Only a Theory"
All physics textbooks should include this warning label:
This textbook contains material on Gravity. Gravity is a theory, not a fact, regarding a natural law of attraction. Gravity should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered.
The Universal Theory of Gravity is often taught by Gravitationalists in public schools as a "fact." It is not a fact. It is not even a good theory.
Is gravity universal? Maybe. Maybe not. No one has measured gravity for every atom and every star. And gravitationalists are not attempting to remedy this lack of experiment evidence, afraid of failure, no doubt. It is undeniably a religious belief that gravity is universal.
Circular reasoning or elliptical reasoning?
According to gravitationalists, gravity is a force between objects with mass; Lines of gravitational force are straight. Gravity does not make objects spin in circles or ellipses. But planets are observed to move in elliptical orbits around the sun. Trying to dodge this contradiction, gravitationalists turn logic on its head and claim orbits somehow prove gravity. Circular reasoning and elliptical reasoning are common among gravitationalists.
The universe is tuned.
The moon rotates on its axis but at the same time always presents the same comforting face to us, gazing up from earth. Little Willie Dembski has calculated the chances of that happening at random and it is exactly 1 in 15 septdecillion. That exceeds the probabombastic resources of the universe, proving the intervention of an intelligent agent. Only an intelligent designer could arrange such a happy coincidence, always presenting the familiar side of the moon to us. Imagine how it might have altered human history if, for all these millennium, we had been gazing at the unfamiliar face of the moon.
Don't change the channel.
Astronomers are the lowest of the many subspecies of gravitationalists. Astronomers are barely scientists. They're classifiers, list-makers, like librarians with their Dewey decimal system. Except librarians don't claim the Dewey decimal system holds the Rosetta Stone to the universe. There were once great astronomers, but the morally vacuous ones began to promote their own at the universities.
Gravity relieves astronomers of a pesky moral code. Astronomers never have to say "We would like to drink ourselves into oblivion tonight, but that would violate Gravity." Instead they say, "Let's do it. If we fall down, it's just gravity." Astronomers subscribe to gravity not because it's science, which they hate, but out of wishful thinking. Gravity lets them off the hook morally.
Boltzmann bounces Newton.
Gravitational theory suggests that the planets have been moving in stable orbits for millions and millions of years. The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that all spontaneous processes increase the entropy of the universe. So where is the entropy increase arising from the spontaneously orbiting planets? Gravitationalists scan the universe with special entropy telescopes, searching for the missing entropy. But they cannot find it.
Microgravity? Yes! Macrogravity? No!
Microgravity is observable. Release an egg from three feet above your kitchen floor to observe microgravity in action. It will fall. But don't take our word for it. Try it yourself. Next observe macrogravity in action. Perform the same experiment with a very massive object, say an object with the mass of the moon. Oh, wait. The moon is suspended above us. It does not fall. This proves to us that macrogravity does not exist. Microgravity only makes small objects on earth fall. If there is macrogravity, why don't the sun, the moon, and the planets all fall down and hit the earth? Heavenly bodies do not fall, obviously, because there is no macrogravity.
God of the gaps.
The failings of the theory are obvious. Gaze up into the sky. The moon obviously rotates around the earth. You can see that. Why don't humans rotate around mountains? Why don't insects rotate around cars? Why doesn't the moon rotate around the sun? Sometimes the theory of gravity seems to work and other times not. There are obvious gaps in gravity theory. Gravitationalists cannot find the missing gravitational links.
In the beginning...
It is safe to say that without the Theory of Gravity, there would be no talk about a "Big Bang."
Very early after the big bag - so called, there was only one object with mass. If you think there were more objects than that with mass, then back time up a little until you finally believe in the time point of one object with mass. At that time point there could not have been gravity because gravity requires two objects with mass, and a distance between them. Now let time creep forward until the second object with mass appears. Suddenly you have not only two objects with mass, but a distance between them. The arrival of the second object and the establishment of the distance between them would have to happen simultaneously, or the universal law, so-called, of gravity would fall into disarray. But the Helm-Gibbholts Theorem of Irreducible Complexity tells us that two important things happen at the same time with vanishingly small probability, especially if the future of the universe is at stake. By Helm-Gibbholts we know that gravity is irreducibly complex and could not have evolved without the hand of a designer.
There is not a single mention of gravity in the Bible. Nor is there mention of gravity in the constitution. Did Jesus not rise from the dead? Yes. As he rose, did Jesus have to worry about violating the Universe Theory of Gravity? If gravity wasn't important in Moses' day or Jefferson's day, and could be switched off and on at will by Jesus, who are we to take it seriously?
Teach the gravity controversy.
There are numerous alternative theories that should be taught on an equal basis with gravity. For example, the observed behavior of the earth revolving around the sun can be perfectly explained if the sun has a net positive charge and the planets have a net negative charge. Opposite charges attract and the force between them follows the inverse-square law, exactly as the increasingly discredited Theory of Gravity. Physics and chemistry texts used to use this same logic as the explanation for electrons orbiting atomic nuclei. But then electrons stopped orbiting and began inhabiting orbitals, with all those strange shapes. Who made up those weird f-orbitals? The source of this mind-numbing complexity is simple: it helps gravitationalists at places like Princeton line their pockets with safe, cushy government grants.
Let the private sector decide.
The U.S. Patent Office has never issued a patent for gravity or for anti-gravity. Why is this? According to natural law and homeopathy, everything exists in opposites: good-evil; grace-sin; positive charges-negative charges; north poles-south poles; good vibes-bad vibes; etc. We know there are anti-evolutionists, so why not anti-gravitationalists? It is clearly a matter of the scientific establishment elite protecting their own. Anti-gravity papers are routinely rejected from peer-reviewed journals, and scientists who propose anti-gravity quickly lose their funding. Universal gravity theory is just a way to keep the grant money flowing.
Newton knew nada.
Every time there is discussion the theory of gravity, it leads right into "fringe" mathematics. Isaac Newton, said to be the discoverer of gravity, had all sorts of problems developing the theory. Newton invented a whole new branch of mathematics, called fluxions, just to "prove" his theory. Fluxions became calculus, a deeply flawed branch of mathematics having to do with so-called "infinitesimals". Scientists have searched and searched for infinitesimals, but to this day no one has experimentally observed an infinitesimal. Then Einstein invented a new theory of gravity. He used an obscure bit of mathematics called tensors. Polling has shown that 82% of the residents of Kansas do not believe in tensors. Enough said.
Testable predictions?
Gravitational Theory purports to relate the force between two objects to the mass of each object and the inverse square of the distance between them. But this theory fails to make usable predictions. The theory fails to explain why Saturn has rings and Jupiter does not. It fails to account for obesity. If did not predict our "mass -ive" debt. It did not predict the steadily increasing masses of SUVs.
Any child can see how ridiculous it is to believe that people in Australia live their whole lives upside, apparently without being aware of it.
To make matters worse, gravitationalists hypothesize about mysterious things called gravitons and gravity waves. These have never been observed, and when some accounts of detecting gravity waves were published, the physicists involved had to quickly retract them.
When the planet Pluto was discovered in 1930 by Clyde Tombaugh, he relied on "gravitational calculations." But Tombaugh was a Unitarian, a liberal religious group that supports the Theory of Gravity. The present-day Unitarian-Universalists continue to rely on liberal notions and dismiss ideas of anti-gravity as unfounded. Tombaugh never even attempted to justify his "gravitational calculations" on the basis of Scripture, and he went on to be a founding member of the liberal Unitarian Fellowship of Las Cruces, New Mexico.
The theory of gravity violates common sense in many ways. Adherents have a hard time explaining, for instance, why airplanes, birds and butterflies do not fall. Anti-gravity, so clearly evident, is rejected by the scientific establishment. The theory, if taken seriously, implies that the default position for all airplanes is on the ground. While this is obviously true for Northwest Airplanes (relying on "a wing and a prayer"), it appears that Jet Blue and Southwest effectively overcome the weighty issues facing Northwest, and thus harness forces that overcome gravity, so-called.
The Law (of gravity) is an ass.
It is unlikely that the Law of Gravity will be out-and-out repealed given the present geo-political climate. But we should introduce the controversy into the K12 curriculum. There is, indeed, evidence that the Theory of Gravity is having a grave effect on morality. Activist judges and left-leaning teachers often use the phrase "what goes up must come down" as a way of describing gravity. Relativists have been quick to apply this to moral standards and common decency.
Finally, names like "Universal Theory of Gravity" and "Theory of Universal Gravity" have distinctly socialist rings to them. Secularists like to use confusing language and big words. The core idea of "to each according to his weight, from each according to his mass" is communist. Gravitationalists claim that gravity should apply equally to the righteous and the sinner, to the heathen and the born-again. We demand relief from such universalism. Universal Gravity today will surely lead to Universal health care tomorrow. It is this kind of universalism that saps a nation's moral fiber.
Overall, the Theory of Universal Gravity is not an attractive theory. It is based on borderline evidence, has many serious gaps, is clearly wrong in important respects, and has profound social and moral implications. If taught in the public schools, by mis-directed "educators," it must be balanced with alternative, more attractive theories with genuine gravamen and spiritual gravitas.
Let's get back... to the fundamental things.
Materialistic ideology has subverted the study of gravity so that the actual science has become corrupted. The problem is not merely that science is being used illegitimately to promote a materialistic worldview, but that this worldview is actively undermining fundamental truth, leading to incorrect and unsupported conclusions about gravity. We must always start with the obvious premise of a unique and special place of each and every person in creation. This fundamental truth must be safeguarded. We must be wary of any theory that seeks to undermine man's essential dignity and unique and intended place in the cosmos. The "Laws" invented by secular scientists must be held secondary to fundamental truth. Aspects of these "Laws" that undermine fundamental truth should be firmly rejected as an atheistic theology posing as science. We must constantly remind secular scientists of the lack of significance of their work.
Source
March 29th, 2008, 10:51 AM
It's from the religious folk at Discovery Institute, pseudo-science.
According to the Intelligent design folks at DI, here are some other theories:
Chemistry
Geology
Solar system
Literature
They want the US to withdraw from IUPAC, because it's:
International
Represents French people
Represents non-Christians
Supports the use of Arabic numerals ( I guess they don't like using 0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9)
Is intelligent design testable? Does having a blind spot in our visual field sound like an intelligent design? I don't think so.
It's from the religious folk at Discovery Institute, pseudo-science.
According to the Intelligent design folks at DI, here are some other theories:
Chemistry
Geology
Solar system
Literature
They want the US to withdraw from IUPAC, because it's:
International
Represents French people
Represents non-Christians
Supports the use of Arabic numerals ( I guess they don't like using 0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9)
Is intelligent design testable? Does having a blind spot in our visual field sound like an intelligent design? I don't think so.
Executive Member
Posts: 9,533
March 29th, 2008, 12:54 PM
Quoting eh1eh
It is a sarcastic diatribe. Some of it is downright comical. Gravity is hardly a theory, but a well-proven, fundamental, fact/law of physics. Newton was probably the first to put a handle on it but gravity is not a theory.
That is either a well crafted sarcastic diatribe or it may be better suited in one of the religious forums. I can't tell which.
No party affiliation
Posts: 1,968
Location: Oshawa
Location: Oshawa
March 29th, 2008, 02:10 PM
Now you can see how silly you really are.
Quoting Scott Free
Funny comment and post coming from the guy who dosen't buy into the theory of global warming and climate change. This made me lmao so I thought I would share:
Now you can see how silly you really are.
Grossly Underrated
Posts: 6,198
Location: In the bush somewhere near Sudbury
Location: In the bush somewhere near Sudbury
March 29th, 2008, 02:59 PM
Woof!
Quoting Avro
Gravity is a lot easier to prove than a human influence on global warming.
Funny comment and post coming from the guy who dosen't buy into the theory of global warming and climate change.
Now you can see how silly you really are.
Now you can see how silly you really are.
Woof!
No party affiliation
Posts: 1,968
Location: Oshawa
Location: Oshawa
March 29th, 2008, 05:50 PM
Not really, the scienc of both is really quite simple. My sister showed me an experiment she had preformed in a lab on global warming.....pretty amazing stuff and really quite easy to get.
Quoting lone wolf
Gravity is a lot easier to prove than a human influence on global warming.
Woof!
Woof!
Not really, the scienc of both is really quite simple. My sister showed me an experiment she had preformed in a lab on global warming.....pretty amazing stuff and really quite easy to get.
Council Member
Posts: 1,745
Location: BC
Location: BC
March 29th, 2008, 06:56 PM
Newtonian physics on gravity are actually in error. They are good enough to get us to the moon and launch satellites but for more precise calculations physicists need to use relativity since it is far more accurate but likewise more complicated.
I just hope a more accurate global warming theory is forthcoming soon before the world loses its mind to hysteria. I don't doubt global warming can be demonstrated in a turned over goldfish bowl but the earth biosphere and solar system on whole is a tad more complicated.
Quoting Avro
It depends on what is meant by "theory."
Not really, the scienc of both is really quite simple. My sister showed me an experiment she had preformed in a lab on global warming.....pretty amazing stuff and really quite easy to get.
Newtonian physics on gravity are actually in error. They are good enough to get us to the moon and launch satellites but for more precise calculations physicists need to use relativity since it is far more accurate but likewise more complicated.
I just hope a more accurate global warming theory is forthcoming soon before the world loses its mind to hysteria. I don't doubt global warming can be demonstrated in a turned over goldfish bowl but the earth biosphere and solar system on whole is a tad more complicated.
No party affiliation
Posts: 1,968
Location: Oshawa
Location: Oshawa
March 29th, 2008, 08:10 PM
Do you even know what it means?
I'm sure not hysterical but I am concerned about what we have done to this planet and more so about those who wish to circumvent any effort to rectify it.
Quoting Scott Free
Funny how you keep using the word hysteria.
It depends on what is meant by "theory."
Newtonian physics on gravity are actually in error. They are good enough to get us to the moon and launch satellites but for more precise calculations physicists need to use relativity since it is far more accurate but likewise more complicated.
I just hope a more accurate global warming theory is forthcoming soon before the world loses its mind to hysteria. I don't doubt global warming can be demonstrated in a turned over goldfish bowl but the earth biosphere and solar system on whole is a tad more complicated.
Newtonian physics on gravity are actually in error. They are good enough to get us to the moon and launch satellites but for more precise calculations physicists need to use relativity since it is far more accurate but likewise more complicated.
I just hope a more accurate global warming theory is forthcoming soon before the world loses its mind to hysteria. I don't doubt global warming can be demonstrated in a turned over goldfish bowl but the earth biosphere and solar system on whole is a tad more complicated.
Do you even know what it means?
I'm sure not hysterical but I am concerned about what we have done to this planet and more so about those who wish to circumvent any effort to rectify it.
A modern nomad
Posts: 1,118
Location: Berlin, Germany
Location: Berlin, Germany
April 1st, 2008, 12:56 PM
It is sort of like if I asked someone to guess my age, but I told them they were wrong because they didn't get the days right, or the minutes, or the seconds...
I know it is nitpicky, but it is an important distinction.
Quoting Scott Free
Newtonian physics isn't wrong, it is merely the first term in a (v/c) power series expansion. It is incomplete, not the whole series. When the quest for general relativity began, they knew that it had to reduce to Newtonian physics in the (v/c) -> 0 limit.
It depends on what is meant by "theory."
Newtonian physics on gravity are actually in error. They are good enough to get us to the moon and launch satellites but for more precise calculations physicists need to use relativity since it is far more accurate but likewise more complicated.
I just hope a more accurate global warming theory is forthcoming soon before the world loses its mind to hysteria. I don't doubt global warming can be demonstrated in a turned over goldfish bowl but the earth biosphere and solar system on whole is a tad more complicated.
Newtonian physics on gravity are actually in error. They are good enough to get us to the moon and launch satellites but for more precise calculations physicists need to use relativity since it is far more accurate but likewise more complicated.
I just hope a more accurate global warming theory is forthcoming soon before the world loses its mind to hysteria. I don't doubt global warming can be demonstrated in a turned over goldfish bowl but the earth biosphere and solar system on whole is a tad more complicated.
It is sort of like if I asked someone to guess my age, but I told them they were wrong because they didn't get the days right, or the minutes, or the seconds...
I know it is nitpicky, but it is an important distinction.
Council Member
Posts: 1,745
Location: BC
Location: BC
April 1st, 2008, 02:25 PM
Anyway, my point in all this is about something that started on another thread; and I was pointing out that if a theory can't make accurate predictions then there is something wrong with it and it needs to be taken back into the shop.
Quoting Niflmir
Using your metaphor, wouldn't it matter why they weren't able to make an accurate guess at your age?
Newtonian physics isn't wrong, it is merely the first term in a (v/c) power series expansion. It is incomplete, not the whole series. When the quest for general relativity began, they knew that it had to reduce to Newtonian physics in the (v/c) -> 0 limit.
It is sort of like if I asked someone to guess my age, but I told them they were wrong because they didn't get the days right, or the minutes, or the seconds...
I know it is nitpicky, but it is an important distinction.
It is sort of like if I asked someone to guess my age, but I told them they were wrong because they didn't get the days right, or the minutes, or the seconds...
I know it is nitpicky, but it is an important distinction.
Anyway, my point in all this is about something that started on another thread; and I was pointing out that if a theory can't make accurate predictions then there is something wrong with it and it needs to be taken back into the shop.
A modern nomad
Posts: 1,118
Location: Berlin, Germany
Location: Berlin, Germany
April 1st, 2008, 02:49 PM
Using my metaphor, no, it wouldn't matter why they weren't able to guess my age to the exact second. If they can guess my age right to the correct year, that is pretty good. If they can get it correct to the month, that is incredible. To the day is positively amazing, and so on. My metaphor is supposed to point out how disingenuous it is to ask for more accuracy when the accuracy attained is impressive with the information given. If we made a bet with the wording, "I bet you ten dollars that you can't guess my age!" and you guessed my age correctly, I would be a sore loser if I refused to pay because I have some months more than my yearly age.
Quoting Scott Free
Well even that is not really true; not without pages of explanation as to what you mean by "theory that can't make accurate predictions". There are many things which are essentially toy models not meant to make predictions and that look useless at first sight, but turn out to be useful in very realistic situations. The Riemann problem is a good example.
Using your metaphor, wouldn't it matter why they weren't able to make an accurate guess at your age?
Anyway, my point in all this is about something that started on another thread; and I was pointing out that if a theory can't make accurate predictions then there is something wrong with it and it needs to be taken back into the shop.
Anyway, my point in all this is about something that started on another thread; and I was pointing out that if a theory can't make accurate predictions then there is something wrong with it and it needs to be taken back into the shop.
Using my metaphor, no, it wouldn't matter why they weren't able to guess my age to the exact second. If they can guess my age right to the correct year, that is pretty good. If they can get it correct to the month, that is incredible. To the day is positively amazing, and so on. My metaphor is supposed to point out how disingenuous it is to ask for more accuracy when the accuracy attained is impressive with the information given. If we made a bet with the wording, "I bet you ten dollars that you can't guess my age!" and you guessed my age correctly, I would be a sore loser if I refused to pay because I have some months more than my yearly age.
House Member
Posts: 3,323
April 1st, 2008, 09:12 PM
One intersting one from when I was younger was that gravity is actually a "push" force.
Gravity is an observable phenomenom, but exactly HOW and WHY it functions as it does is still a theory.
Quoting #juan
Actually not quite, there are some other theories which also can't seem to be disproven with current knowledge (perhaps they have been since I last read of them).
It is a sarcastic diatribe. Some of it is downright comical. Gravity is hardly a theory, but a well-proven, fundamental, fact/law of physics. Newton was probably the first to put a handle on it but gravity is not a theory.
One intersting one from when I was younger was that gravity is actually a "push" force.
Gravity is an observable phenomenom, but exactly HOW and WHY it functions as it does is still a theory.
Council Member
Posts: 1,745
Location: BC
Location: BC
April 1st, 2008, 09:15 PM
My opinion is that if a theory isn't accurate to the second, that if it is only good at general analysis but fails on the more precise ones, then there is a distinct possibility it has gotten something wrong. When the validity of a theory rides on its ability to predict then every second, every micron, matters. If it isn't as accurate as possible then it is wrong.
The only way we could say it doesn't matter how accurate a theory is so long as it seems right (which is your argument), is that we accept the risk of not describing the natural world but rather what we hope or desire the natural world to be.
I happen to think there are a great many theories that are in error and that their acceptance despite their flaws has caused great harm to science.
I'll give another metaphor to explain my stance: an audience of scientists can watch a magician at work. They can come up with a theory of how he performs a trick and even predict how the trick will turn out. Their correctness depends entirely on their accuracy because they could easily have just invented one of many possible solutions. They don't know how the magician is performing the trick and they never really will unless they can ask the magician, all they can do is hazard an educated guess.
God is in the details - every single detail.
Quoting Niflmir
Yours is the popular opinion, I don't think it is a good one though, but suit yourself.
Well even that is not really true; not without pages of explanation as to what you mean by "theory that can't make accurate predictions". There are many things which are essentially toy models not meant to make predictions and that look useless at first sight, but turn out to be useful in very realistic situations. The Riemann problem is a good example.
Using my metaphor, no, it wouldn't matter why they weren't able to guess my age to the exact second. If they can guess my age right to the correct year, that is pretty good. If they can get it correct to the month, that is incredible. To the day is positively amazing, and so on. My metaphor is supposed to point out how disingenuous it is to ask for more accuracy when the accuracy attained is impressive with the information given. If we made a bet with the wording, "I bet you ten dollars that you can't guess my age!" and you guessed my age correctly, I would be a sore loser if I refused to pay because I have some months more than my yearly age.
Using my metaphor, no, it wouldn't matter why they weren't able to guess my age to the exact second. If they can guess my age right to the correct year, that is pretty good. If they can get it correct to the month, that is incredible. To the day is positively amazing, and so on. My metaphor is supposed to point out how disingenuous it is to ask for more accuracy when the accuracy attained is impressive with the information given. If we made a bet with the wording, "I bet you ten dollars that you can't guess my age!" and you guessed my age correctly, I would be a sore loser if I refused to pay because I have some months more than my yearly age.
My opinion is that if a theory isn't accurate to the second, that if it is only good at general analysis but fails on the more precise ones, then there is a distinct possibility it has gotten something wrong. When the validity of a theory rides on its ability to predict then every second, every micron, matters. If it isn't as accurate as possible then it is wrong.
The only way we could say it doesn't matter how accurate a theory is so long as it seems right (which is your argument), is that we accept the risk of not describing the natural world but rather what we hope or desire the natural world to be.
I happen to think there are a great many theories that are in error and that their acceptance despite their flaws has caused great harm to science.
I'll give another metaphor to explain my stance: an audience of scientists can watch a magician at work. They can come up with a theory of how he performs a trick and even predict how the trick will turn out. Their correctness depends entirely on their accuracy because they could easily have just invented one of many possible solutions. They don't know how the magician is performing the trick and they never really will unless they can ask the magician, all they can do is hazard an educated guess.
God is in the details - every single detail.
House Member
Posts: 3,639
Videos: 2
Location: 50° 30' N, 104° 38' W
Videos: 2
Location: 50° 30' N, 104° 38' W
April 1st, 2008, 11:47 PM
Quoting Scott Free
Actually it's the opinion justified by about 4 centuries of scientific experience, and it's not particularly popular, except among scientists. Just look around at all the mystic nonsense you can find just here at CC about how people think reality works.
Yours is the popular opinion, I don't think it is a good one though, but suit yourself.
Quote:
That's not even close to Niflmir's argument. He's arguing that if a theory makes correct predictions within the limits of accuracy of the observations, then it's useful. No scientific theory is true or correct in any absolute sense, and science would not make such a claim. Newton's formulation of gravity worked extraordinarily well for a long time, and in fact still does under most circumstances, until observations caught up with it and showed it to be missing something. Einstein reconceptualized and reformulated it in a fashion that can be understood, as Niflmir indicated, as a power series expansion of v/c in which Newton's formulation is only the first term, and under most ordinary circumstances it's by far the largest term. That doesn't mean Newton was wrong, he just didn't get it all, and he couldn't have, he didn't have the observations or the mathematical tools that would have enabled him to. Doesn't mean Einstein was right either, and in fact we know he wasn't entirely right, because relativity implicitly assumes a non-quantized reality. He just got closer than Newton did to whatever the reality actually is.
If it isn't as accurate as possible then it is wrong.
The only way we could say it doesn't matter how accurate a theory is so long as it seems right (which is your argument), is that we accept the risk of not describing the natural world but rather what we hope or desire the natural world to be.
The only way we could say it doesn't matter how accurate a theory is so long as it seems right (which is your argument), is that we accept the risk of not describing the natural world but rather what we hope or desire the natural world to be.
Quote:
You "happen" to think that? Surely you have better reasons than that, and I'd like to see you give some examples of what you're referring to. I think you're demanding too much of science and not understanding what it's about. Every scientific theory we have is "in error" in some sense, at least the way you're using the phrase, and every scientist worthy of the title knows it, that's why they keep exploring. Error is really the wrong word, and in fact entirely the wrong idea. Incomplete is the right one. And that's really just another way of admitting we don't know everything.
I happen to think there are a great many theories that are in error and that their acceptance despite their flaws has caused great harm to science.
House Member
Posts: 3,639
Videos: 2
Location: 50° 30' N, 104° 38' W
Videos: 2
Location: 50° 30' N, 104° 38' W
April 2nd, 2008, 12:36 AM
Quoting Scott Free
Examples Scott, we need examples. What is science wrong about, why do you think it's wrong, and what better explanations do you have?
I am quite certain science is wrong about a great many things and wrong is exactly the word I mean.
