brucep, I am fairly certain that you DO UNDERSTAND what "constitutes a theoretical science" - or at least you seemed to have a fairly decent grasp on it in your Post #351.
Neutron Star
- Thread starter RajeshTrivedi
- Start date
Seriously.
Well if you have to remove your shoes to count/figure beyond the number 10 - then you are NOT using the Theoretical aspects of math.
No, seriously...Math can be Theoretical - but all math is NOT entirely Theoretical.
Nicely put OnlyMe.....Any sciences and all aspects of the sciences need each other to compliment and extend.
Theoretical science, and scientific theory are one and the same. And they both more than likely depend on the Maths tool...or as I have seen it put....Maths being the language of physics.
Again I reiterate, it's patently obvious how some grab the "theory" or "theoretical" description of science, analogous to lay people referring to it as "Ahaa, but its only a theory." We all know the type, and we all know the remark stems from ignorance as to what a scientific theory, or what theoretical science really is, and how they inevitably try and use it to deride the scientific discipline.
This appears to be what is behind this invalidated paper the thread is about.
...brucep?
...Only Me?
BTW : thinly disguised personal attacks are still only personal attacks :
Last edited:
My point is, mathematics doesn't directly involve phenomena that are part of the physical world. Relativity, quantum mechanics, and so on all have applications to, or are descriptive of, the physical universe and how it works.
Maths describes how physics works, and physics describes how reality works. I suppose in that sense, maths is more of a "meta" discipline: theoretical?
Maths describes how physics works, and physics describes how reality works. I suppose in that sense, maths is more of a "meta" discipline: theoretical?
feel free to elaborate dmoe.....plenty of reputable references out there.
But again, we are at the stage in this thread, where we are waiting for the initiator to concede his paper is nonsense, in the face of overwhelming reputable evidence.
You have yet to speak on that.
I wouldn't argue either way Daecon..close enough...I see it though as the language of physics.
PS: Congrats on the great win by the Kiwis in the ANZAC test yesterday arvo.
...then maybe you could Post a "reputable reference" supporting the following assertion :
Please?
I see normal conversation with you remains in the realms of fantasy.
In light of where this will predictably lead, I leave your thoughts and hypothesis to yourself.
Byeeee
I prefer not to be a party to any "personal attacks"...so therefore I choose not to "speak on that".
....fantasy...predictably lead...
Yes, after my request to you in Post #488...which led to your ^^above quoted^^
Last edited:
Adding to that, I would say it ties up with the scientific method, and how robust, near certain scientific theories grow starting from speculated hypothesis.
The following covers it all and certainly blurs any imagined distinction between theoretical science and scientific theories.......
http://pages.uoregon.edu/its/index.shtml
The Institute of Theoretical Science is a center for research in several interrelated disciplines that encompass mathematics, theoretical chemistry, and theoretical physics.
Research interests of the institute's members include particle physics (ideas for physics beyond the standard model, quantum chromodynamics, heavy ion physics, accelerator design), astrophysics and cosmology (dark energy, neutron stars, general relativity), condensed matter physics and statistical mechanics (quantum phase transitions, liquid crystals, complex fluids and polymers), mathematics (group theory, algebraic geometry, the geometrization conjecture, partial differential equations), atomic physics (highly excited atoms), nonlinear dynamics (highly excited vibrations of molecules, chaos), optical physics (microcavity optics), biophysics (flocking, protein dynamics, signal transduction mechanisms), and the foundations of quantum mechanics (quantum control theory and quantum computing, quantum manifestations of chaos).
The Institute provides research space for faculty members, postdoctoral fellows, and students, and fosters the exchange of ideas that lead to cross-fertilization and new insights across disciplines.
okay...NOT the Institute of Science, NOR the Institute of Scientific Theories....... but the Institute of Theoretical Science
so...NOT Chemistry - but Theoretical Chemistry...
and...NOT Physics - but Theoretical Physics...
If a Chemist physically does experimentation in a Laboratory with physical chemicals, that is a Chemist practicing Physical Chemistry!
If a Chemist performs virtual experiments on abstractions or models - whether in their thoughts or on a computer abstract or model - then that is a Theoretical Chemist practicing Theoretical Chemistry!
Since there has yet to be even ONE SINGLE Physicist/Cosmologist that has ever physically been able to actually perform any experiment on an actual Neutron Star or Black Hole - in Person, or Up Close and Personal, so to speak - those in that discipline would be considered a Theoretical Physicist, Theoretical Cosmologist or Theoretical Scientist practicing Theoretical Science.
The Institute of Theoretical Science is an institute for such Theoretical Scientists.
Seriously, you cannot truly believe that : "Theoretical science, and scientific theory are one and the same.", can you?
so...NOT Chemistry - but Theoretical Chemistry...
and...NOT Physics - but Theoretical Physics...
If a Chemist physically does experimentation in a Laboratory with physical chemicals, that is a Chemist practicing Physical Chemistry!
If a Chemist performs virtual experiments on abstractions or models - whether in their thoughts or on a computer abstract or model - then that is a Theoretical Chemist practicing Theoretical Chemistry!
Since there has yet to be even ONE SINGLE Physicist/Cosmologist that has ever physically been able to actually perform any experiment on an actual Neutron Star or Black Hole - in Person, or Up Close and Personal, so to speak - those in that discipline would be considered a Theoretical Physicist, Theoretical Cosmologist or Theoretical Scientist practicing Theoretical Science.
The Institute of Theoretical Science is an institute for such Theoretical Scientists.
Seriously, you cannot truly believe that : "Theoretical science, and scientific theory are one and the same.", can you?
Last edited:
Science is the study of natural phenomena. It's common to use theoretical models to make predictions about natural phenomena but there's no theoretical sciences. That would imply that the natural phenomena in the domain of theoretical science is only theoretical or we might just use the word science.
It's all unnecessary pedant brucep, I wouldn't be too concerned.
What gets annoys the anti brigade, is the fact that some of our scientific theories, that evolve from theoretical science via the scientific method, are, well how many times do I need to say it, near certain.
Like I said, and as the article said, they all merge and any distinguishing barriers are totally blurred.
The majority here no that without any of the present nonsense going on.
And having GR fit into that category automatically invalidates the paper in question.
No it's a language. A language we use to derive predictions from theoretical models to understand natural phenomena.
Look at the definition for the words and how you arranged them. They're scientific theory but not theoretical science. It's no big fucking deal until we make it one. I meant big funking deal. LOL.
It's also rather silly to claim that since we cannot get a sample of a NS, or a BH, that the people who study and research them, are just "theoretical physicists" 
Those same cosmologists simply use the laws of known physics and GR, to extrapolate logic and reasonable sensibility to those artifacts in the cosmos.
We also have never had a sample of the Sun, but we know for certain, due to the application and data from Atomic physics that nuclear fusion is the only method by which the Sun maintains its power and energy.
It's worse then pedant nonsense, like I said, its just plain silly.
In essence then, and quite seriously, I mean really seriously, you cannot truly believe that there is any real differences between "Theoretical science, and scientific theory.
You're correct brucep...It's no big fucking deal!
Those same cosmologists simply use the laws of known physics and GR, to extrapolate logic and reasonable sensibility to those artifacts in the cosmos.
We also have never had a sample of the Sun, but we know for certain, due to the application and data from Atomic physics that nuclear fusion is the only method by which the Sun maintains its power and energy.
It's worse then pedant nonsense, like I said, its just plain silly.
In essence then, and quite seriously, I mean really seriously,
you cannot truly believe that there is any real differences between "Theoretical science, and scientific theory.You're correct brucep...It's no big fucking deal!
Last edited:
Then The Institute of Theoretical Science : http://pages.uoregon.edu/its/index.shtml , linked in the Post above must remain fairly empty.
Seriously, though...
...you honestly believe that there are NO Theoretical Sciences?
I am sure that you have heard of Aristotle - 'google', or whatever, "Aristotle / Theoretical Sciences" , without the " " of course, maybe?
If you are actually "curious", you may enjoy this Link : http://pcts.princeton.edu/pcts/
I never said anything about anyone being "just" this or "just" that.
The fact of the matter is that there indeed exists both the Theoretical Sciences and Theoretical Scientists that are a very Large and Important Part of Science...so neither one nor the other are "just" this or "just" that.
Maybe E-Mail your friend in Colorado, at University - he can tell you about the Theoretical Sciences and Theoretical Scientists.