Announcement

Collapse

Natural Science 301 Guidelines

This is an open forum area for all members for discussions on all issues of science and origins. This area will and does get volatile at times, but we ask that it be kept to a dull roar, and moderators will intervene to keep the peace if necessary. This means obvious trolling and flaming that becomes a problem will be dealt with, and you might find yourself in the doghouse.

As usual, Tweb rules apply. If you haven't read them now would be a good time.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

What do those Nobel people know anyway?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by TheLurch View Post
    Uhm, it's entirely possible to use science while hypothesizing. Indeed, it's difficult to hypothesize without using science, given that a valid hypothesis has to be consistent with all the scientific information we have already.

    I think there's two iffy bits of language usage that are contributing to the two of you talking past each other. One is that you're terming a theoretical extension of known physics as non-scientific, when that's not how it works. And Shuny is taking that and accusing you of being anti-science, which you're clearly not.
    I mean by "science" is doing something to prove the hypothesis. You know, make predictions, find evidence, do experiments, confirm the hypothesis.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Sparko View Post
      I mean by "science" is doing something to prove the hypothesis. You know, make predictions, find evidence, do experiments, confirm the hypothesis.
      Science is a bit broader than that. When Einstein was developing relativity, he didn't have any specific data he was trying to interpret, and it took him a while to figure out the math well enough to make any predictions with it. There was no magical point where his theoretical work suddenly became science. And at least one of the predictions - gravitational waves - took a century for us to figure out how to generate evidence for.

      As i said earlier, it was the same way with the Higgs. Several scientists took established physics (quantum field theory again) and figured out how to extend it to a new area, where a field could generate particle masses. It took a while for one of them to figure out that there would be a particle as a consequence of that, even longer for other researchers to figure out the properties of that particle, and then longer still for us to build a particle collider capable of producing sufficient numbers of them.

      To me, and pretty much all other scientists, that whole process is science. In fact, i'd argue the process of figuring out how to test something, not the actual evidence gathering, is the most fundamental part of science.
      "Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from trolling."

      Comment


      • Originally posted by TheLurch View Post
        Science is a bit broader than that. When Einstein was developing relativity, he didn't have any specific data he was trying to interpret, and it took him a while to figure out the math well enough to make any predictions with it. There was no magical point where his theoretical work suddenly became science. And at least one of the predictions - gravitational waves - took a century for us to figure out how to generate evidence for.

        As i said earlier, it was the same way with the Higgs. Several scientists took established physics (quantum field theory again) and figured out how to extend it to a new area, where a field could generate particle masses. It took a while for one of them to figure out that there would be a particle as a consequence of that, even longer for other researchers to figure out the properties of that particle, and then longer still for us to build a particle collider capable of producing sufficient numbers of them.

        To me, and pretty much all other scientists, that whole process is science. In fact, i'd argue the process of figuring out how to test something, not the actual evidence gathering, is the most fundamental part of science.
        Oh I am not arguing any of that. But when there is zero evidence to support a hypothesis, then at that point it is just a guess, a conjecture. It isn't science. It is what starts the science.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Sparko View Post
          Oh I am not arguing any of that. But when there is zero evidence to support a hypothesis, then at that point it is just a guess, a conjecture. It isn't science. It is what starts the science.
          So, for the Higgs, things started with "particles have mass, and quantum field theory works - can we extend quantum field theory to explain that?"

          For the thing you're complaining about, it's starting with "the universe exists, and quantum field theory works - can we extend quantum field theory to explain that?"

          I guess i'm not seeing what your criteria is in drawing a distinction between the two.
          "Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from trolling."

          Comment


          • Originally posted by TheLurch View Post
            So, for the Higgs, things started with "particles have mass, and quantum field theory works - can we extend quantum field theory to explain that?"

            For the thing you're complaining about, it's starting with "the universe exists, and quantum field theory works - can we extend quantum field theory to explain that?"

            I guess i'm not seeing what your criteria is in drawing a distinction between the two.
            OK then let's drop it.

            I have another question, now that you mention the Higgs and mass.

            Mass bends space and causes gravity right?

            And the faster an object moves the more mass it has according to Einstein, which is why nothing can go faster than light.

            But if you took a pea for example and accelerated it to close to the speed of light, while it's mass would increase, it's gravity would not. right?

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Sparko View Post
              I mean by "science" is doing something to prove the hypothesis. You know, make predictions, find evidence, do experiments, confirm the hypothesis.
              That is actually what Vilenkin, Guth, Krauss, Hawking and others do concerning Quantum Mechanics and the origins o our universe, You decidedly lack the competence to judle their work.
              Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
              Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
              But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

              go with the flow the river knows . . .

              Frank

              I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                Shuny you don't even seem to remember WHAT your post was that I was complaining about do you? Let me remind you:




                Ah the old "Appeal to Authority" fallacy. nice.


                All you did was dismiss Seer and use an appeal to authority to do the dismissal. Basically "You are not as smart as the scientists whom I am name dropping here, Seer so your voice doesn't count" You used an appeal to authority and they are not even using science, they are merely hypothesizing. And you cherry picked them.

                You continue to do it too. While denying doing it.

                For your information: The Appeal to Authority Fallacy is:

                Argument from authority (Latin: argumentum ad verecundiam), also called the appeal to authority, is a common form of argument which leads to a logical fallacy. The appeal to authority relies on an argument of the form:

                1 - A is an authority on a particular topic
                2 - A says something about that topic
                3 - A is probably correct

                Which is exactly what you keep doing.
                False, I accuse seer of not an appeal to authority, but an inconsistent selective misrepresentation reference of a scientist to justify his agenda.

                You are being dishonest, I never accused seer o the fallacy of the appeal to authority.
                Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                go with the flow the river knows . . .

                Frank

                I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                  OK then let's drop it.
                  If you wish. I'm personally interested in how people perceive science, so i'm curious. Would happily discuss outside this thread as well.


                  Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                  I have another question, now that you mention the Higgs and mass.

                  Mass bends space and causes gravity right?

                  And the faster an object moves the more mass it has according to Einstein, which is why nothing can go faster than light.

                  But if you took a pea for example and accelerated it to close to the speed of light, while it's mass would increase, it's gravity would not. right?
                  I suspect its gravitational attraction would increase with its speed, though i'd want to talk to an actual physicist to confirm this.

                  The reason i think so comes from the fact that other physical interactions do change due to the increased mass. That's the only reason why particle accelerators work. The details, since i find them neat:

                  You can't accelerate uncharged particles very easily, so the LHC strips the electrons off hydrogen to leave its nucleus, a charged proton behind. But it does so with bunch of protons at a time, and you'd think there'd be a problem due to the charge repulsion pushing the bunch apart. That turns out not to be a problem once you start accelerating them because of relativity.

                  Now, the charge of protons remains constant, even as acceleration near the speed of light is constantly increasing their mass. So the force generated by charge repulsion is also constant. But, if you take F=ma and solve for acceleration, you'd see its F/m. Force is constant, mass goes up, therefore the acceleration from charge repulsion goes way down as you push things up to the speed of light. So, once the bunches of protons have been accelerated, it takes very little force to hold them together.


                  So, from that, it seems like the increase in mass is "real", in the sense that it has real-world consequences. As a result, i expect increased gravitational attraction would be one of those consequences.
                  "Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from trolling."

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                    That is actually what Vilenkin, Guth, Krauss, Hawking and others do concerning Quantum Mechanics and the origins o our universe, You decidedly lack the competence to judle their work.
                    I wouldn't judle their work if you paid me. whatever judling is.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                      False, I accuse seer of not an appeal to authority, but an inconsistent selective misrepresentation reference of a scientist to justify his agenda.

                      You are being dishonest, I never accused seer o the fallacy of the appeal to authority.
                      what? did you forget your medication again?

                      I never said you accused seer of using appeal to authority. I accused YOU of using it. Keep up.


                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                        I wouldn't judle their work if you paid me. whatever judling is.
                        I apologize or the spelling error. Nonetheless your incompetence with an agenda is glaringly apparent.

                        That is actually what Vilenkin, Guth, Krauss, Hawking and others do concerning Quantum Mechanics and the origins o our universe, You decidedly lack the competence to judge their work.
                        Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                        Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                        But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                        go with the flow the river knows . . .

                        Frank

                        I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                          I apologize or the spelling error. Nonetheless your incompetence with an agenda is glaringly apparent.

                          That is actually what Vilenkin, Guth, Krauss, Hawking and others do concerning Quantum Mechanics and the origins o our universe, You decidedly lack the competence to judge their work.
                          Shunya if anyone lacks competence around here, it's you.

                          You prove it with every post.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                            Shunya if anyone lacks competence around here, it's you.

                            You prove it with every post.
                            No coherent response here. Actually I accept the scientists as the experts here, and not me. I do not ridicule them nor their work as you do without any expertise in their fields. No, they are not always right, nor do they all agree as I cited.
                            Last edited by shunyadragon; 11-09-2017, 07:23 PM.
                            Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                            Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                            But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                            go with the flow the river knows . . .

                            Frank

                            I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                            Comment

                            Related Threads

                            Collapse

                            Topics Statistics Last Post
                            Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-18-2024, 12:15 PM
                            48 responses
                            135 views
                            0 likes
                            Last Post Sparko
                            by Sparko
                             
                            Started by Sparko, 03-07-2024, 08:52 AM
                            16 responses
                            74 views
                            0 likes
                            Last Post shunyadragon  
                            Started by rogue06, 02-28-2024, 11:06 AM
                            6 responses
                            46 views
                            0 likes
                            Last Post shunyadragon  
                            Working...
                            X