Haha that’s funny as shit.
[quote]DickBag wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]Ronsauce wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
That answers non of the subjects mention any better than saying “god did it”[/quote]
You felt it was really worth pointing out that a Cracked article didn’t do a good job of explaining natural phenomena?
Now THIS is fucking ignorant.[/quote]
No, it isn’t. Science has its limitations. It can only be used to describe an occurrence, not understand it. I’m talking about the difference between calculating the gravitational constant and asking why masses attract one another. “Why” is not even a question you can scientifically ask, much less answer.
[/quote]
About gravity, couldn’t you argue that masses attract each other becasue of the exchange of gravitons, which has not been proven, but maybe one day?
[/quote]
So why are there gravitons? Why do this gravitons make things attract? Do you see how you haven’t actually answered the question?
No, we will never understand why an electron has charge in the absolute sense because there is no ultimate answer fro why it’s there in the first place. We know potential spring energy is 1/2kx^2, but not what it’s not 1/3kx^4.
I love science. I think its very useful, but I don’t consider it an answer to philosophical questions.
It’s also important to note in a conversation like this that no system is exactly predictable. The uncertainty principal precludes any scientific calculation from being exact. Science has proved that scientific predestination is impossible. I don’t think we can claim to know the natural world when we cannot predict even the simplest system without an error range.
[quote]DickBag wrote:
Yes but how confident are you with the Uncertainty principle? I don’t think its the be all and end all to physics.
[/quote]
They are pretty confident in it, it is supported by measurable evidence. If it were to change, it would change much of quantum. Gravity could be disproved at some point too, It happened once already.
He also rejected the idea of a dynamic universe. He was smart, but he was wrong about a good many things. Point being it is the currently accepted law.
Whos shutting down? and you are looking at the slit experiment the wrong way. science didn’t “give up” trying to figure out what slit it went through. They scientifically verified that it doesn’t go threw any one slit. The answer is that if you don’t interfere with it, it goes through both. That is the answer science arrived at, it didn’t give up on the question.
It’s not like a solid baseball thrown at the slits. Electrons travel as a wave-form, you cannot think of them classically.
[quote]
After i typed this, I deeply regret it, although i still believe in what i said. The reason why I regret it is maybe I just don’t really have a clue what I’m talking about.
I don’t know. Just my opinions man. I see what your saying but I have to say i find it pretty negative and pessimistic.[/quote]
I don’t think I’m being pessimistic. I’m just saying there is a point to philosophy. I guess if you try to use science to find meaning, this is pessimistic.
[quote]DickBag wrote:
double Duce, about the potential spring energy, how can you not completly understand why its 1/2kx^2 when you see the proof?
Is there something deeper to all this that i’m missing? When i see the mathmatical proof, it all makes sense!
[/quote]
I agree that it is .5 k x^2. I’m asking what makes it that. why is mgh mgh and not 1/2 mgh (work equaling 1/2 force x distance)?
It’s an equation for how something works, but why is it that the event can be described by it?
what makes the gravitational constant 6.67300 Ã? 10-11 m3 kg-1 s-2 and not 5.67300 Ã? 10-11 m3 kg-1 s-2?
[quote]
and about the charge on the electron, “charge” is only a word. Maybe we should be talking about the exchange of gluons, or whatever the the theory is for how “charges detect each other”.
And if so, whats a gluon? Ok, well lets find out! Or atleast maybe lets try to find out[/quote]
Gluons are still pretty theoretical. But, it’s just another way to label an invisible force. To me, a more detail equation doesn’t make gravity any less mysterious.
They may com up with some equations describing quantum entanglement, but that doesn’t mean we know why freaky crap like it exists.
Come on Dirtbag, I can’t believe you don’t see that there’s a mystery. The word is not the thing
[quote]DickBag wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
I agree that it is .5 k x^2. I’m asking what makes it that. why is mgh mgh and not 1/2 mgh (work equaling 1/2 force x distance)?
It’s an equation for how something works, but why is it that the event can be described by it?
what makes the gravitational constant 6.67300 Ã??? 10-11 m3 kg-1 s-2 and not 5.67300 Ã??? 10-11 m3 kg-1 s-2?
[/quote]
I see what your saying now. Maybe theres something Universal that everything derives from? From the sounds of it, it seems like the gravitational constant is just an arbitrary figure, could have been any other. But maybe theres some root to it all, which would put those questions of “why is it mgh and not 1/2mgh” to rest. When you see the proof for any equation, you base it on some other equation, or law. Maybe theres something very simple that everything stems from. Maybe we’l figure it out
Sounds like a good reason why “God” exists. (flame away)
About magnetism, I used to think “wtf?” but like you said earlier in the thread, its to do with relativity. When I read that in a modern physics book, I felt u had a solid understandning of it. The only thing that wasn’t explained, was how do the charges detect each other, electric fields aren’'t enough of an explanation. But perhaps we will know what they are and what a charge is eventually. I’m pretty sure Scientists would have told many that special relativity was a joke when it first came out. Boltzman died without any recognition for his work, and only years later ddi sicentists accept it. Thats why I want to keep an open mind. I don’t think we have came to any conclusions really.
You are missing the fact that no matter how exacting our equations become that’s still all they are. equations. They don’t answer why. explaining space curvature doesn’t answer why there is gravity. I’m asking why masses attract, and science tells me that x amount of mass warps space-time which causes y amount of “force” on object z. It doesn’t answer the question.
[quote]4est wrote:
[quote]SonnabenD wrote:
It’s a song about how beautiful our planet is and how there are “miracles” in our every day lives that we often overlook.[/quote]
Finally.
People need more appreciation for the simple things in life. Sometimes you just need to play barefoot in the springtime rain and let the mud squish up between your toes… [/quote]
I listened to it a couple more times and thought this. Even if someone is stupid, It doesn’t mean they are necessarily wrong. Life is pretty beautiful.
But then I listened to some of their other songs. Despite having lyrics that are aimed at people that are a little less than normal, or not all there, some of their lyrics are pretty damn violent. Normally I’m not bothered by the content of music, but if the lyrics are designed to appeal to people who are less able to tell the difference between what is real and what is not I think they could cause more problems then just teaching people that scientists are lying about magnets.
[quote]DickBag wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]DickBag wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
I agree that it is .5 k x^2. I’m asking what makes it that. why is mgh mgh and not 1/2 mgh (work equaling 1/2 force x distance)?
It’s an equation for how something works, but why is it that the event can be described by it?
what makes the gravitational constant 6.67300 Ã??? 10-11 m3 kg-1 s-2 and not 5.67300 Ã??? 10-11 m3 kg-1 s-2?
[/quote]
I see what your saying now. Maybe theres something Universal that everything derives from? From the sounds of it, it seems like the gravitational constant is just an arbitrary figure, could have been any other. But maybe theres some root to it all, which would put those questions of “why is it mgh and not 1/2mgh” to rest. When you see the proof for any equation, you base it on some other equation, or law. Maybe theres something very simple that everything stems from. Maybe we’l figure it out
Sounds like a good reason why “God” exists. (flame away)
About magnetism, I used to think “wtf?” but like you said earlier in the thread, its to do with relativity. When I read that in a modern physics book, I felt u had a solid understandning of it. The only thing that wasn’t explained, was how do the charges detect each other, electric fields aren’'t enough of an explanation. But perhaps we will know what they are and what a charge is eventually. I’m pretty sure Scientists would have told many that special relativity was a joke when it first came out. Boltzman died without any recognition for his work, and only years later ddi sicentists accept it. Thats why I want to keep an open mind. I don’t think we have came to any conclusions really.
You are missing the fact that no matter how exacting our equations become that’s still all they are. equations. They don’t answer why. explaining space curvature doesn’t answer why there is gravity. I’m asking why masses attract, and science tells me that x amount of mass warps space-time which causes y amount of “force” on object z. It doesn’t answer the question.[/quote]
I know that equations only describe hoo much force. They don’t answere why the masses are attracted, but I refuse to believe that there is no answere to why masses are attracted to each other.
Or why charges repell/attract each other.
Do you think there will ever be answeres to these questions? If you do, then we are on the same page.[/quote]
I think there can be more detailed equations for systems involving those things. However, science cannot provide answers to why things are the way they are. Period. It cannot answer than question. it is literally outside the definition of what science is capable of.
Bump.
We’re lucky enough to have our own magnet thread and it hasn’t hit 100 posts.
Fucking weak.
I agree with what doubleduce is saying. We can understand how things work, but just a like a child will do, we can always ask “why”. It doesn’t matter how many rules that govern the universe we can identify and how these rules work or even all the great applications we can make from this understanding, we can’t explain why these rules exist in the first place.
Simply naming interacting forces or explaining the mechanism of their action doesn’t explain why these interactions exist in the first place. Science explains how things work rather than why thing work.
[quote]challer1 wrote:
I agree with what doubleduce is saying. We can understand how things work, but just a like a child will do, we can always ask “why”. It doesn’t matter how many rules that govern the universe we can identify and how these rules work or even all the great applications we can make from this understanding, we can’t explain why these rules exist in the first place.
Simply naming interacting forces or explaining the mechanism of their action doesn’t explain why these interactions exist in the first place. Science explains how things work rather than why thing work.[/quote]
You right dog it’s all miracles AMIRIGHT Ninjas, ah yeah.