[quote]Makavali wrote:
“In fact, the researchers themselves are not ready to proclaim a discovery and are asking other physicists to independently try to verify their findings.”[/quote]
Because it goes against all their understanding of physics, not because they are unsure about their process or measurements. They have already done everything they can to try to disprove the discovery.[/quote]
You claim to be a science guy, but you don’t understand this very basic part of the scientific method? And then try to claim science is a religion?
[quote]Makavali wrote:
“In fact, the researchers themselves are not ready to proclaim a discovery and are asking other physicists to independently try to verify their findings.”[/quote]
Because it goes against all their understanding of physics, not because they are unsure about their process or measurements. They have already done everything they can to try to disprove the discovery.[/quote]
You claim to be a science guy, but you don’t understand this very basic part of the scientific method? And then try to claim science is a religion?
Good grief.[/quote]
I think you missed something chief. My point was that they followed the method and got those results. The reservations are because of what the results mean in regard to current beliefs, NOT because there are reservations about their method.
And I never claimed science was a religion. Maybe this is some projection on your part or something. I distinctly separated actual science from the “religion” of science. I specifically defined that religion as people trying to make science something that it’s not. I never said anything remotely resembling the claim that science was a religion. In fact I made the opposite claim, that real science isn’t anything close to religion. You been drinking?
It seems like you have an issue with the fact that there is MORE to be known in pretty much every area. It’s not all or nothing.[/quote]
All science is physics. Physics is all or nothing. It isn’t a question of adding more, it is a process of constantly deleting and replacing.
And as of now, general relativity is deleted and there isn’t even a replacement. So now there is no theory of planetary motion.
For example, people always tout the triumph of science when the sun replaced the Earth as the center of the universe. The real truth is that a sun centered universe is just as wrong as an Earth centered one. All of science and every one of it’s theories is the same. They are all equally wrong. All fundamentally imperfect and flawed.
You still haven’t shown me a single thing science knows.[/quote]
You need to separate theoretical physics and applied physics. There have been murmurings for some time that changes to Einstein’s equations may be needed because in the extremes of physics (the theoretical areas) they can break down. Applied physics, however rarely operates at these extremes. Finding that something has surpassed the speed of light doesn’t mean that we have been designing bridges and pipelines and all other manner of engineering feats incorrectly. I’m not saying that the results can’t be true (you have already made up your mind, however) but that it doesn’t change much of what goes on in the applied physics side of things. And if it is true than it certainly is hugely significant, but i still don’t get your gleeful trumpeting of the fall of science.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
“In fact, the researchers themselves are not ready to proclaim a discovery and are asking other physicists to independently try to verify their findings.”[/quote]
Because it goes against all their understanding of physics, not because they are unsure about their process or measurements. They have already done everything they can to try to disprove the discovery.[/quote]
You claim to be a science guy, but you don’t understand this very basic part of the scientific method? And then try to claim science is a religion?
Good grief.[/quote]
I think you missed something chief. My point was that they followed the method and got those results. The reservations are because of what the results mean in regard to current beliefs, NOT because there are reservations about their method.
And I never claimed science was a religion. Maybe this is some projection on your part or something. I distinctly separated actual science from the “religion” of science. I specifically defined that religion as people trying to make science something that it’s not. I never said anything remotely resembling the claim that science was a religion. In fact I made the opposite claim, that real science isn’t anything close to religion. You been drinking?[/quote]
Who claims science is a religion? Who is making science more than it is? Its certainly not scientists. No scientist ever believes a law of empirical science to be incontrovertible. Science does allow us to know a lot of things with a high degree of probability.
It seems like you have an issue with the fact that there is MORE to be known in pretty much every area. It’s not all or nothing.[/quote]
All science is physics. Physics is all or nothing. It isn’t a question of adding more, it is a process of constantly deleting and replacing.
And as of now, general relativity is deleted and there isn’t even a replacement. So now there is no theory of planetary motion.
For example, people always tout the triumph of science when the sun replaced the Earth as the center of the universe. The real truth is that a sun centered universe is just as wrong as an Earth centered one. All of science and every one of it’s theories is the same. They are all equally wrong. All fundamentally imperfect and flawed.
You still haven’t shown me a single thing science knows.[/quote]
You need to separate theoretical physics and applied physics. There have been murmurings for some time that changes to Einstein’s equations may be needed because in the extremes of physics (the theoretical areas) they can break down. Applied physics, however rarely operates at these extremes. Finding that something has surpassed the speed of light doesn’t mean that we have been designing bridges and pipelines and all other manner of engineering feats incorrectly. I’m not saying that the results can’t be true (you have already made up your mind, however) but that it doesn’t change much of what goes on in the applied physics side of things. And if it is true than it certainly is hugely significant, but i still don’t get your gleeful trumpeting of the fall of science.[/quote]
I’m a mechanical and electrical engineer. I know about the applied side. Bridges aren’t now wrong, because there is no such thing in the applied side. The applied side is nothing but ballpark estimates with big safety factors and lots of physical testing. An estimate can’t be right or wrong, it can only be more or less accurate.
I’m not hailing the fall of actual physics, that goes on. It’s people that believe in absolutes in physics that fell.
It seems like you have an issue with the fact that there is MORE to be known in pretty much every area. It’s not all or nothing.[/quote]
All science is physics. Physics is all or nothing. It isn’t a question of adding more, it is a process of constantly deleting and replacing.
And as of now, general relativity is deleted and there isn’t even a replacement. So now there is no theory of planetary motion.
For example, people always tout the triumph of science when the sun replaced the Earth as the center of the universe. The real truth is that a sun centered universe is just as wrong as an Earth centered one. All of science and every one of it’s theories is the same. They are all equally wrong. All fundamentally imperfect and flawed.
You still haven’t shown me a single thing science knows.[/quote]
First, my money is on this being proven to be an error of some kind. So don’t go counting your chickens before they hatch.
Next, imperfect and flawed as you might call them, we have some extremely close approximations.
It seems like you have an issue with the fact that there is MORE to be known in pretty much every area. It’s not all or nothing.[/quote]
All science is physics. Physics is all or nothing. It isn’t a question of adding more, it is a process of constantly deleting and replacing.
And as of now, general relativity is deleted and there isn’t even a replacement. So now there is no theory of planetary motion.
For example, people always tout the triumph of science when the sun replaced the Earth as the center of the universe. The real truth is that a sun centered universe is just as wrong as an Earth centered one. All of science and every one of it’s theories is the same. They are all equally wrong. All fundamentally imperfect and flawed.
You still haven’t shown me a single thing science knows.[/quote]
You need to separate theoretical physics and applied physics. There have been murmurings for some time that changes to Einstein’s equations may be needed because in the extremes of physics (the theoretical areas) they can break down. Applied physics, however rarely operates at these extremes. Finding that something has surpassed the speed of light doesn’t mean that we have been designing bridges and pipelines and all other manner of engineering feats incorrectly. I’m not saying that the results can’t be true (you have already made up your mind, however) but that it doesn’t change much of what goes on in the applied physics side of things. And if it is true than it certainly is hugely significant, but i still don’t get your gleeful trumpeting of the fall of science.[/quote]
I’m a mechanical and electrical engineer. I know about the applied side. Bridges aren’t now wrong, because there is no such thing in the applied side. The applied side is nothing but ballpark estimates with big safety factors and lots of physical testing. An estimate can’t be right or wrong, it can only be more or less accurate.
I’m not hailing the fall of actual physics, that goes on. It’s people that believe in absolutes in physics that fell.[/quote]
Had you said that last sentence from the outset then there would’ve been no discussion because I doubt anyone would disagree with that. But this is PWI.
[quote]groo wrote:
Three kinds of rocks make up most of the Earth?s crust: igneous, sedimentary, and metamorphic.[/quote]
A label doesn’t add knowledge. I could as easily call it all mud and be just as correct by my oun terminology. Labels only hold value by convention. To know that you would have to prove your terminology beyond convention.
But the bases of what you are calling ingenious (all the little particles that make it up) are undefined. You cannot claim to know what a solar system is without knowing what an individual planet is.
Who claims science is a religion? Who is making science more than it is? Its certainly not scientists. No scientist ever believes a law of empirical science to be incontrovertible. Science does allow us to know a lot of things with a high degree of probability.
[/quote]
Many scientists do. Hawking is a good example. He not only believes that the equations are perfectible, but that we are capable of it, AND that figuring the equations will get us a glimpse of the supernatural nature of it.