Knowledge of science

Discussion in 'Pseudoscience' started by adhams, Dec 20, 2014.

  1. adhams Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    331
    Here we may discuss what we know about science
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. adhams Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    331
    Now every one is free to demonstrate his knowledge theories and others in order to know if they were correct or not ironically I put the thread here coz there must be theories that should be disproved hopefully this thread will help ppl know more including me
    Now every body will criticize u or we would simply know the truth
     
    Last edited: Dec 20, 2014
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. rpenner Fully Wired Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,833
    (I was invited to this thread by the OP via PM.)

    A dictionary defines two senses of the term "science" as systematic study of the behavior of things (science-as-an-occupation) and also the knowledge so gained by such practices (science-as-a-thing). Thus science has pieces that fit into a comprehensive knowledge of the world, and that knowledge is progressive in that it grows with labor added over time. The units of this knowledge are the empirical laws which describe a narrow category of phenomena and the theories which are the precise, communicable frameworks for reliably determining the behavior of a wide category of phenomena.

    The Ideal gas law generalizes a bunch of empirical studies about the behavior of low pressure gases, their pressure, mass, volume and temperature. Atomic theory provides a framework for understanding why the ideal gas law is approximately correct and a less good approximation at high pressure.

    Because science is progressive, more-precise or equally-precise-but-more-generally-applicable theories displace their competition as time goes on, and so knowledge accumulates.

    By placing this discussion in the "Pseudoscience" forum, the signal is sent that this discussion is more about aping the form of science-as-an-occupation rather than its function, in which case, I must decline to participate.

    Some comments:
    Your grant of permission is meaningless, arrogant and twee.
    Your grant of liberty is much the same.
    So-called theories which can be so easily disproved on a web discussion forum do not deserve the appellation "theory" but "half-assed hypothesis" is to be preferred.
    Education requires a mind receptive to new ideas. The practice of science requires brutal personal honesty and a principled acceptance that one's beliefs may be in error. The type of people who advance wrong theories on the Internet tend not to be in the class of people who are receptive to evidence supporting the idea that their theory is wrong.
    No one "simply" knows the truth. Both education and science are life-long pursuits for those that seek truth and not just the authority of appearing to know.
     
    Last edited: Dec 20, 2014
    Aqueous Id likes this.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. krash661 [MK6] transitioning scifi to reality Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,973
    as was i. for what reason, i do not know. i looked and now i'm leaving.
    yzarc.
     
  8. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,451
    This is a ridiculous exercise. It would take me days to write down everything I've learnt about science, from school through to Chemistry Finals, and to what end? Others can look it all up in books or the internet, because none of it is my personal theory. Everything I know about science is well-established, so there is little chance of it being "disproved" by a motley bunch of amateurs and nutcases, on a discussion forum.

    You simply don't seem to have any idea of how robust and pervasive the theories of science are.
     
    Aqueous Id likes this.
  9. danshawen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,951
    Days? Right. And for whose edification, exactly, are we doing this? If you are missing a science textbook, we can point you to a free one (and it's pretty good, too). If you have a particular theory you r interested in, we can steer you in the right direction also. Self learning works pretty well for some things, but science gets pretty technical pretty quickly. Don't believe everything you read on the internet, or that you do a Google search about. Too many Google scholars lack depth of understanding these days. Look in the Urban Dictionary under "bag of hammers", and think about what that term means.

    Science is always a work in progress. Just because we show you someone else's theory doesn't mean its the last word in science, or anything else. Since you posted this discussion in the pseudoscience forum, you probably should understand something about the demarcation problem (between science and pseudoscience), and also the taxonomy of ignorance.

    Thanks for inviting krash661, rpenner and exchemist also. Any particular reason you invited this group?

    What was all that weird noise I saw in the single postings under General Philosophy this morning? One of them actually looked suicidal / homicidal, even if it was otherwise too incoherent to state as much in a clear fashion. I believe I called in Trippy to moderate.
     
  10. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,252
    Considering that I'd already told the OP that I'd pass on all my knowledge of science if he had 20 or 30 years to spare I wonder why I got the invite.
    Especially bearing in mind that he's shown a marked tendency to invent his own "science"...
     
    Aqueous Id likes this.
  11. leopold Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,455
    you must first define what "science" is, only then can we discuss "what we've learned" from it.
    i believe science is some sort of investigative process.
    with the above definition in mind, we can easily say ANY type of investigation is science.
    mulling over the "what if" scenario is science.
    correctly diagnosing a car problem is science.
    science, although great, is not the end all of the acquisition of knowledge.
    one cannot ignore creativity, resourcefulness, insight, and instinct.
     
  12. danshawen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,951
    Well, that explains why someone wanted this discussion in the pseudoscience forum then, doesn't it?

    As far as I am concerned, this is the end of the discussion. If you really wish to know what science is, you will need to learn some science first. If you wish to learn how to tell science from pseudoscience, read Karl Popper's take on it. However, you will note that Karl Popper was a philosopher, not a scientist, and even if he were able to discern the demarcation between science and pseudoscience, he neglected the necessary first step of discerning philosophy from pseudo-philosophy, and that is the principle reason that most real scientists don't look to his work for guidance in their own specialties.

    Popper was resourceful, insightful, and all the rest. I will even grant that he was clever in using natural selection as a model for how real science works. Still, he was no scientist, and taking induction out of science is very much like confiscating all of the instrumentation science has developed to work with. As such, Popper and Hume were both philosophical fools. Pseudoscience cannot use induction very much because the foundation is too shaky to build upon. Yet alchemy became the science of chemistry somehow. Many sciences have their roots in superstition. But you will not get far in science without induction, and as I said, that will mean learning some real science first.
     
  13. adhams Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    331
    Iam sorry for u all but what I actually wanted to know about is physics particularly quantum mechanics
    I wanted to add to Alberts theory by changing the cocept of gravitation which I needed to understand and actually I didn't want chemistry I needed to know about physics chemistry is way too long
     
  14. danshawen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,951
    Well, then, you actually are in the right place. Why didn't you just say so to begin with?

    There have been, like, millions of challenges to every tiny bit of both Albert's Special Relativity and General Relativity theories. None of those challenges has succeeded in changing anything about either theory. Both theories are tested in practical and applied science each and every day in the 21st century, and they are the most consistently accurate and precision theories known to science. To challenge any part of his theories in any manner will likely make you into another of millions of bad science jokes perpetrated by people who either don't understand science, or simply hate Einstein, or both. This has been a constant for both theories since the first one was released in 1905. For a successful challenge, you'll need much more than luck and the first idea that pops into your head.

    But you need to understand that even Albert did not 'actually' understand exactly what gravity is, and by that I mean, what actually causes gravity. Neither did Newton, or any other noted physicist, even though a few kooks like me claim they do. You also need to understand that despite this fact, Albert's theory nonetheless describes precisely how gravity behaves mathematically, and that this is what you are up against. About the fastest way to become one of those bad science jokes is to pretend you understand something that Einstein didn't. My own is the Higgs boson and the Higgs mechanism. So, by all means, humor us. What's yours?
     
  15. adhams Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    331
    Well I have read about his consistent theories and in fact I thought like if u can't beat them then join them I did that recently after the curvature thingy now what are the jokes that u know of?
     
  16. adhams Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    331
    Also iam sure that some one would give the origin of gravity in a more consice way than Alberts one it may even not contradict with him and btw I hate the guy and have very little knowledge about his theory in fact I don't understand the deep seated ideas the theory is about any how I hope that my theory be accepted in TEO quest I also invited constant theorist to post his theory over there we both can say a lot of crap about new theories even tho he seems to know a lot about Alberts theory iam sure that we both would be corrected to the correct theory which is Alberts or they may take some of ours and stick it to the guys face

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    That guy did super in drilling the damned name of his theory into my head
    Now I believe that all what ppl here need to do is to tell the one that he is wrong tell him why and leave him not to insult him and enter in quarrels with him lol
     
    Last edited: Dec 22, 2014
  17. zgmc Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    831
    Here are a couple of videos, there are plenty more out there on the you tube. You can also find many of Einsteins works in various places online.




    Gravity, Brian Greene.


    The Elegant Universe is well worth watching btw.
     
  18. danshawen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,951
    Dude; hating Albert is like, being a Nazi or something. You're not serious, are you?

    I'm sorry if anyone here "drilled the idea into your head". You will notice that I didn't. An idea whose time has come will either find its place or go away, and there isn't much anyone can do about it either way. Albert didn't "drill" anyone with his. Neither would I.
     
  19. adhams Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    331
    I watched some of Alberts work I think ppl made a stupid decision to listen to him I would rather go and do monkey business rather than listening to all his true and validated crap
    Sht he has gravity prob b omg omg what's that guy
     
  20. Russ_Watters Not a Trump supporter... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,051
    Are you still wondering why people aren't very nice to you here?
    Have you considered punctuation? Are your thoughts really disorganized gibberish like that, or are you just lazy with your writing?
     
  21. danshawen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,951
    I have no idea what you mean. Look; if someone invented the wheel, and got a lot of credit for inventing it, and, say, you're driving around in your car with all your bling and just decide: Hey, maybe cars would work better and drive smoother with square wheels on them. How should we treat YOUR idea, particularly when it doesn't work very well to smooth out our rides?

    Not as far fetched as you may think. Einstein also invented refrigeration (even held a patent for an early system). Do you eat? How do you think your cheeseburger stayed fit for you to eat between the time it was a cow in Texas and your sandwich? You have Einstein to thank for that. Television would have been much more difficult to realize in the early 20th century without his early analysis of the photoelectric effect. Do you use GPS in your car to navigate? Thank Albert for that. Without the clock synchronization made possible by GR, after about a day, your position would be wrong (and STAY that way!) by city blocks. The math associated with GPS would be too difficult for us to manage by any other technique of synchronization. The man was simply a genius, and a peaceful one, too. He also never actually worked on the A-bomb, even though he gets unwanted credit for the equation that made such things possible. What have you or anyone else you know done that compares?

    Most folks today don't know their own names if it doesn't come up on a Google search. That didn't exist when Einstein produced his theories. Lots of Google scholars think they are smarter than Einstein because they can just look it up and read the short form. I know that doesn't work. It isn't good to depend on computers for all your information. You never know who wrote what you are reading, much less if they had some sort of agenda or issue with the topic.

    And to prove Godric's law again, Nazi's were as bad as it gets. Nazis hated (and neo-Nazis still hate) Einstein for not peacefully taking the next train to Auswitz instead of warning Roosevelt about the Nazi bomb project. If you should ever rise to have power over a great country, about the worst mistake you could ever make is to follow through militarily on your vision of what a perfect world should be. It's basically nest-making behavior for cuckoo birds who think that a world where everyone thinks alike, looks alike, and acts alike or as you would like them to would be an improvement for most people who don't conform to your ideas about perfection.

    So go ahead and think about a change to relativity theory if you like, but do your homework, cause square wheels don't roll, and so far, that's all we seem to get for theories from Einstein haters in particular, and for over the last hundred years. Better advice is to do what YOU are good at, and do it the best you can. Don't worry about the rest of the world; it can take care of itself.
     
    Last edited: Dec 22, 2014
    paddoboy likes this.
  22. adhams Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    331
    Haha as if I can change it all I can do is to try and play along I believe it's even hard to modify it any how my first question about his theory is why e=mc2 not e=mc ? It seems like a correct theory even tho I don't understand it
     
  23. AlexG Like nailing Jello to a tree Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,304
    If you don't understand it what basis do you use to judge it?
     

Share This Page