Klaynos

Nu is traditionally frequency in electromagnetics.

Hi, what I'm going to do is give you some filter types to help in your search. That way you'll do the research which will help you understand more of the area around your specific request. Notch filter Band pass filter Band stop filter Edge pass filter Long pass filter Short pass filter Dichroic filter Line filter Searching these should give you and understanding of what's feasible at what cost and the methods of manufacture.

A GPS receiver only knows time and position. It then calculates speed from that, depending on the specific receiver will depend how often it does that calculation. If the location is not very accurate what will happen to the speed even if the box is stationary?

I think there are two things you should think about. The first is that we believe that black holes can lose mass via hawking radiation. The other is that a larger black hole will not necessarily grow at a faster rate. It depends on the local environment. If a black hole the same mass of the sun replace the sun we would continue to orbit it, the gravitational effect would remain the same.

How accurate do you think that speed is? Do you understand how it's calculated by the GPS module? Is it really 1994? Or in your screenshot 2012...

I think if you continue to use it you are likely to confuse people who have yet to tread your new definition of the word.

Yes sorry, SM, not SB. The word you're looking for is mainstream.

One of the traditional reasons for not having a forum on a given topic, say palaeontology, is that in the related areas where people might post topics (say other or biology) there are not many topics on the subject. So to keep the number of fora to a manageable level they are not included. If there was a sudden upspike in threads I think it would be reviewed. Similarly in the past some fora have been merged due to very few threads. Of course there is also the argument that having a specific forum will encourage more threads.

This distinction is what had been missing in many of the op's examples. I think it has been described in the thread as confusing observations with theory. And for the record, SB, many of the observations in cosmology and qm are repeatable. In qm most experiments are repeatable. Your definition of fringe just indicates a lack of understanding of where those areas of physics are. Which doesn't help your general argument.

If it's not testable it's not science it's just sorry telling. Even if the test cannot be repeated exactly in say meteorology you can statistically analyse the different measurements to test the prediction. But testable, I mean testable in principle, so even if the experiment isn't built yet or can't be built with current technology it could feasibly be built. SB had stated that truthfulness cannot be tested. Not that we don't know how, but cannot be done.

Yeah you said we couldn't test, therefore we can't know how true something is, discussing it is therefore academic, see my comment about unicorns above.

By science education I do not necessarily mean undergraduate studies in this context. I think this should be something taught through general education. It doesn't seen to be though. Communicating effectively requires you to know how the audience will interoperate your words, you cannot provide ask if the information required to understand since concepts in second that's why people study then for their entire lives. I do think in this thread what's leaving is a good definition of truth and how you can test against it. I agree.

Good to see that this thread hasn't moved forward. We're still discussing the fact you can never tell how true a theory is and SB is still confusing concepts such as communication of science with non scientists and what scientist are actually doing. The kids asking, or non scientists, saying it's the most consistent with the evidence is the best we can do but unless you work in science or gave a good science education you might not understand why this us the best and start harping on about truth. Which it then turns out after pages of discussion you can't measure truth anyway.

You're confusing observations and theory. The observations are that it's getting warmer, the precision and details of these observations is a discussion all of itself. The theory that is most consistent with this is human cause climate change. Now you've added in something different, his we should communicate science with non-scientists. That's yet another discussion and not what we've been taking about. This is why people keep saying you're moving the goalposts, your posts are all over the place, keep adding in extra little caveats, never acknowledging when people give you direct answers that disagree with your point of view.

I'm not after certainty, I'm after a test to give sine value of his close. The earth orbiting the sun is the most consistent concept with regards to the observations. On this scale Newtonian gravity is consistent with the observations as is general relativity. Ludicrously misguided. The theory is consistent with the evidence.

If it's just a word his can you ever tell if a theory is true? And what would that mean in a physical sense?

You've not answered my question. Just restated your apparent assumption that we can compare to the "truth" until you show that's even possible what's the point of this conversation? It's as useful as asking whether unicorns can funcfidilly in the moon? The definitions are unclear, aspects of it may not exist...

If you cannot test "the way things really are" then how does anyone know? I have to say I'm not impressed with your idea that you can just choose some posts disagree with you too much so you're going to ignore them. Which is what it looks like you're doing.

Calculators are not perfect. They do rounding, in both the calculation and in presentation of the result. What you're seeing are rounding errors.

But I can't answer that question, trueness is not measurable, all you can do is comment on their comparison to observations. You ask if all a theory is is the equations above. The answer is yes, the stories are just to make people, normally not the scientists, feel a bit better about it. The maths is where the real stuff is. Physics is the mathematical modeling of the universe and the testing of those models.

Inconsistent with the observations and therefore false ... If they make equally accurate predictions when compared to the observations you have no choice but to consider then equally good theories. The challenge then is to devise a test that can distinguish them from one another and perform that experiment.

Those complications, such as how you counted them, do brown dwarfs count, what are the limitations if your optical system matter though. Do no I don't think you can say that statement is true or false. Again this is an observation. Testability is fundamental else there's no point.

How have you tested the water for impurities? Can you prove that what the dog is drinking is 100% H2O? If you cannot then how is that statement "true"? This is also an observation, not a prediction. Without knowing how to test trueness, without a clear definition of true your argument just seems and argument for the sake of it.

Can you define true? It is consistent with the observations. It is the most constituent theory with those observations that we have.

Evolution is consistent with what we observe, your argument is a strawman. I think a further definition of truth and "really are" would be required for someone to make the statement you present.