Scientific theories and reality:

Discussion in 'General Science & Technology' started by paddoboy, Jul 6, 2014.

  1. forrest noble Registered Senior Member

    (my quote deleted from your posting of it, to save space)

    (bold added)

    My next paper is now in editing. I expect to publish it in about a couple months or so. I have had many offers of publication. I haven't decided as yet which journal since I continue looking for the ones that provide the most peer-reviewed responses and citations after the paper is published. Of course this is subjective since such responses also depend upon the paper content and proposal. This next paper will be less technical so I'm hoping for more responses, especially questions.

    I haven't decided exactly on the title yet but the preliminary title and introduction is below:

    Title: "Explaining many possible problems with the standard Big Bang Concordance model while proposing an alternative cosmology to replace it. "

    Beginning introduction/ Abstract: "This paper presents a summary of many observations and quotes therein, that seem to contradict standard Big Bang cosmology. It provides a general summary of these possible problems, and at the same time presents a summary of a very different alternative cosmology to overcome these problems, allegedly without creating new problems.
    Last edited: Jul 21, 2014
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. Aqueous Id flat Earth skeptic Valued Senior Member

    My comments to you have nothing to do with Lewin or Gould, but your errors about how they have impacted the curricula. As I have said about 5 times now, you are misrepresenting what the curricula teach (they do teach about punctuated equilibrium) then telling us evolution therefore can't be true. I'm telling you you are in error (I showed you a typical curriculum that explains Gould's theory) and you're ignoring the links I gave you, pretending they do not exist. But they do, therefore you are in error.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. leopold Valued Senior Member

    i haven't misrepresented ANYTHING.
    the quotes i posted CAME DIRECTLY from the issue.
    it's as simple as that.
    like i said, you either believe what was published, or you don't.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Interesting discussion.

    forrest noble:

    Quantum mechanics fits your preferred criteria of a theory nicely. It is well-substantiated by repeated observation and experiment. It explains all kinds of things about the physical world, from the existence of atomic spectra to the principle of operation of a laser. It's history is a classic example of the hypothetico-inductive methodology of science. It has the most accurate predictive power of any scientific theory we have, and without it many things we know about the natural world would lack an explanation.


    Quantum mechanics is first and foremost a scientific model that can be applied, for example, to processes at the atomic and molecular level. Why does a hydrogen atom have the emission spectrum it has? QM explains as no other theory can.

    It predicts the gyromagnetic ratio of the electron to a level of accuracy unmatched by any other theory generated by human beings. And that's just one example picked at random.
  8. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member


    I see you're still banging on about the one article you've read about evolution - that one published back in 1980. Remember how I walked you through the problem with your reliance on that one article? No? Oh, that must be because you ignored that post of mine, which occurred the last time you went off on your creationist hobby-horse.

    I won't walk you through it again. It seems you're unwilling to learn anything new.

    So, to this:

    What riddle?

    In what way do you think life is more than the sum of its parts? Please explain. (I know you don't answer inconvenient questions, so I won't hold my breath.)

    Ever heard of Deep Blue? Or the computer that won Jeopardy? I thought they had their 15 minutes of fame already.

    I don't think you're at all up to date with current computing technology in the field of inspiration, creative and genius.

    Oh, do tell. What things are you thinking of? God particles?

    Humans will never create heavier-than-air flying machines. No computer will ever beat a Grand Master in Chess. We'll never be rid of Smallpox. Nobody will ever know what a star is made of. We'll never be able to predict the weather with any level of accuracy, given the complexities of the atmosphere, the oceans and their interactions. We will never know how old the universe is, or whether it had a beginning. The similarities between human beings and the other apes will always remains an impenetrable mystery.

    Ho hum.
  9. leopold Valued Senior Member

    it's interesting to see how many will drag a respected source through the mud and accuse its editors of lying and misrepresentation.
    you yourself must admit there are some interesting discrepancies between reality and what the article says.
    and nobody seems to want to get to the bottom of it.
    they are more interested on accusing the messenger of being creationist.
    i'm not sure about you, but i'm certainly more than the sum of 5 or 6 pounds of chemicals.
    search algorithms are relatively simple to program.
    in both of the above examples, everything, all of the information, was already programmed into the machine.
    you would be wrong.
  10. krash661 [MK6] transitioning scifi to reality Valued Senior Member

  11. leopold Valued Senior Member

  12. krash661 [MK6] transitioning scifi to reality Valued Senior Member

    why would the source admit they are wrong after being embarrassed for being wrong then causing an uproar from it ?

    but the misquote contradicts other independent sources that attended the same conference

    the bottom line is,
    (shakes head)
  13. leopold Valued Senior Member

    you can "justify" this any way you like.
    just turn around, and walk away.
  14. forrest noble Registered Senior Member

    James, it's not my "preferred criteria of a theory" that's involved here. Quantum Mechanics does not seem to meet the scientific definition and characteristics to rightfully be called a theory. In a prior posting I gave the definition of theory. Here it is again from several sources:

    The United States National Academy of Sciences defines "scientific theories" as follows: A comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence. theory science

    A scientific theory summarizes a hypothesisor group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing. If enough evidence accumulates to support the hypothesis, it moves to the next step—known as a theory.....

    A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method, and repeatedly confirmed through observation and experimentation. As with most forms of scientific knowledge, scientific theories are inductive in nature and aim for predictive power and explanatory force.

    Quantum mechanics is not a hypothesis that can be summarized. It does not have verbal explanations or a specified logical justification for its existence. It does not conform to Occam's Razor nor pass its test. It is not an "inductive" summary or conclusion of verbal logic. Granted, some science-minded people like yourself argue that QM is a theory by itself without any verbal justification needed for its formulations. Also some call Quantum Mechanics Quantum Theory. Some also propose or interpret a definition for the word "theory" where QM could qualify. But I think that is a minority opinion.

    QM is a statistical, mathematical system developed from a long history of observations to calculate the probabilities of occurrences in the quantum world. Quantum Theories, on the other hand, are hypothesis or theories, and there are many of them, that were developed so that the mathematics, with explanations, could qualify as a theory. A list of some of the more common Quantum Theories and interpretations is given below:

    --- Local hidden variables, Einstein and others
    --- The Copenhagen interpretation
    --- Many Worlds
    --- Consistent histories
    --- Ensemble interpretation, the statistical interpretation
    --- de Broglie theory (local hidden variables, pilot wave)
    --- de Broglie–Bohm (non-local hidden variables)
    --- Relational quantum mechanics
    --- Transactional interpretation
    --- Stochastic mechanics
    --- Objective collapse theories
    --- Von Neumann/ Wigner interpretation: consciousness causes wave-function collapse
    --- Many minds
    --- Quantum logic
    --- Quantum information theories
    --- Modal interpretation quantum theory
    --- Time-symmetric theories
    --- Branching space–time theories


    All of the above Quantum Theories meet the definition of either a theory or a hypothesis. All of the above use the same statistical/ mathematical system for their predictions, Quantum Mechanics.

    Quantum Mechanics can be called a "model" but not a hypothesis or theory according to the definitions that I have posted above. QM does not predict the certainty of any future events or observations, only the possibility or probability of those occurrences. It is a statistical/ mathematical system with no verbal explanations to it. It requires a Quantum Theory for its completeness to be judged by Ocamm's Razor. It is the mathematics behind all Quantum Theories listed above.
    Last edited: Jul 21, 2014
  15. Russ_Watters Not a Trump supporter... Valued Senior Member

    Forrest noble: you are talking in circles. I already said and you agreed, that the language of physics is math. Physics theories are written in the language of math and QM is as good as they come.

    Beyond that, your idea of contracting objects only superficially matches a small set of observations (you multiply redshift curves by 1/1)and requires a mountain of corresponding assumptions you never explore (how is chemistry affected by electrons orbiting closer to atoms?). It does not meet the definition of a theory.

    That a particular theory is "just math" seems to be the rallying cry of a lot crackpots around here.
  16. krash661 [MK6] transitioning scifi to reality Valued Senior Member

    maybe just like what you are doing(you can "justify" this any way you like) and maybe you should also ?

    what ever you need to tell yourself.
  17. krash661 [MK6] transitioning scifi to reality Valued Senior Member

    i love how " comprehensive explanation " is in bold.
    please explain why you chose to high light this part.
    just because one individual has a problem understanding , makes this a non theory ?

    then " supported by a vast body of evidence " is high lighted.
    please explain why you chose to high light this part
    it appears it's not acknowledge of the " vast evidence " of how correct quantum physics is.
    maybe actually learning and understanding quantum physics and what is produced from QM will help ?
    it appears the lack of comprehension of what is read is the problem here,
    as the continuous incorrect(as obvious as it can be) post shows that's the problem

    it also appears that it is not realized how this post(#131) contradicts it's self.
  18. Trippy ALEA IACTA EST Staff Member

    Oh, so you've read the article I referred you to then?
  19. Trippy ALEA IACTA EST Staff Member

    You're still the only person suggesting this...
  20. Russ_Watters Not a Trump supporter... Valued Senior Member

    You are lying about what other people have said: no one ever made any such accusation.

    You backed yourself into this ridiculous corner month ago and clearly will go to any lengths to avoid admitting you were wrong.
  21. leopold Valued Senior Member

    then everyone is in agreement.
    the conclusion of the conference is valid and dr. ayala said what he said.
    live with it.
  22. krash661 [MK6] transitioning scifi to reality Valued Senior Member

    " you can "justify" this any way you like "
    what ever you need to tell yourself.
  23. Trippy ALEA IACTA EST Staff Member

    Nope. We're not in agreement when you put it like that.

Share This Page