Changing Science

[Peron]

Quarks In Science

 

 

Science is conducted by observation, study, and prediction.

 

There's a problem, scientists have applied to many predictions to outer space that it has grown into a system of lies.

Lets go back to 1916 when Einstein published General Relativity.

He created mathematical formula's, and designed predictions all with out any knowledge of how the universe works.

Now there's a problem with math, all math is a language. A language that's good for measurement. You can build a house, a car, or a spaceship. But you cannot explain how space, or even life works with mathematical formula's.

Things like Bekenstein-Hawking radiation, laugh in the face of science. Because Hawking radiation is a prediction that was formulated with out any study or proof of black hole existence's.

 

Mathematical method Scientific method

1 Understanding Characterization from experience and observation

2 Analysis Hypothesis: a proposed explanation

3 Synthesis Deduction: prediction from the hypothesis

4 Review/Extend Test and experiment

 

Cosmology today is mostly driven by mathematical method.

Something is very wrong. People making predictions with out any observations, or study.

But they take this prediction and attach it to what they see. With out test and experiment.

This is a huge Quark in science.

Everything has turned into Pseudoscience.

 

"Today's scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality." N Tesla

Edited February 7, 2009 by Peron

[swansont]

Moved to P&S, out of suggestions

[Klaynos]

You can't predict accurately without maths, it's as simple as that.

 

To match the predictions to what you see IS conducting a test.

[Bignose]

I don't know about changing science, but clearly spelling is changing...

[Peron]

I don't know about changing science, but clearly spelling is changing...

 

Sorry about that was in a hurry:-)

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

You can't predict accurately without maths, it's as simple as that.

 

To match the predictions to what you see IS conducting a test.

 

Math can be token to the limit, here's example. Everyone including Einstein, believed in Time Travel. Yet, we have never observed it.

Another example, Time Dilation, We have never observed it.

And another one, The Light Barrier, We have never went that fast to see any "Light Barrier".

 

The list goes on and on. Wouldn't you agree that there is something wrong with science.

When everyone has accepted unproven, theories, about our universe, and then these theories are thought to our children in school. I mean there is seriously something wrong.

[Klaynos]

Sorry about that was in a hurry:-)

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

 

 

Math can be token to the limit, here's example. Everyone including Einstein, believed in Time Travel. Yet, we have never observed it.

 

Time travel backwards is removed due to the requirement for causality.

 

Another example, Time Dilation, We have never observed it.

 

Time dilation is continuously observed. If it was not GPS would not work. Both general and special realtivity time-dilation corrections are required for GPS.

 

And another one, The Light Barrier, We have never went that fast to see any "Light Barrier".

 

We have tested the "speed limit" for massive particles and up to every speed we've tried the equations have held.

 

The list goes on and on. Wouldn't you agree that there is something wrong with science.

 

Your list is not real.

 

When everyone has accepted unproven, theories, about our universe, and then these theories are thought to our children in school. I mean there is seriously something wrong.

 

You seem to not understand quite how science works and the fact it REQUIRES observational evidence.

[Kyrisch]

Au contraire, monsieur, time dilation has been extensively documented. In fact, the sheer amount of muons (particles with extremely short half-lives) that reach the Earth's surface that would have otherwise decayed in transit is testament to that very principle.

 

~EDIT~

 

Bleh... Cross-posted. I was responding to this,

Sorry about that was in a hurry:-)

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

 

 

Math can be token to the limit, here's example. Everyone including Einstein, believed in Time Travel. Yet, we have never observed it.

Another example, Time Dilation, We have never observed it.

And another one, The Light Barrier, We have never went that fast to see any "Light Barrier".

 

The list goes on and on. Wouldn't you agree that there is something wrong with science.

When everyone has accepted unproven, theories, about our universe, and then these theories are thought to our children in school. I mean there is seriously something wrong.

for the record. Klaynos did a much better job, anyway, though. xP

[Peron]

Time travel backwards is removed due to the requirement for causality.

 

 

 

Time dilation is continuously observed. If it was not GPS would not work. Both general and special realtivity time-dilation corrections are required for GPS.

 

 

 

We have tested the "speed limit" for massive particles and up to every speed we've tried the equations have held.

 

 

 

Your list is not real.

 

 

 

You seem to not understand quite how science works and the fact it REQUIRES observational evidence.

 

Fact: The Event Horizon of a Black Hole has never been observed.

Then why do scientists believe in it?

[Klaynos]

Fact: The Event Horizon of a Black Hole has never been observed.

Then why do scientists believe in it?

 

Ah a strawman nicely done. I've given you a link to observational evidence for blackholes somewhere else.

 

Please do not use logical fallacies, they are annoying and get you no where.

[Peron]

Ah a strawman nicely done. I've given you a link to observational evidence for blackholes somewhere else.

 

Please do not use logical fallacies, they are annoying and get you no where.

 

Any way my point isn't to disprove black holes, it is to change how astronomy is conducted.

I say mathematicians don't belong in science. Because with math you cant even draw a atom correctly, they invent things like a size less electrons. Zero-point energy, with out observing how the universe functions.

I mean you don't see evolutionists using math to prove evolution.

Darwin went on a ship half way around the world, Studying, and documenting his observation, then forming a hypotheses, he first did not carve out a mathematical formula predicting evolution!

He observed, studied, measured, documented, and then formed a hypothesis, this is how science is conducted, this is how they teach you in school to do it, and math is just something that just gets in the way.

Math is used as a measurement tool, math cant tell you how my eye works!

 

If you do not agree then my friend you have lost the meaning of science.

[Klaynos]

Any way my point isn't to disprove black holes, it is to change how astronomy is conducted.

 

You wont, you do not offer anything better. Science HAS to make predictions the only accurate way to do this is to use maths.

 

I say mathematicians don't belong in science. Because with math you cant even draw a atom correctly,

 

Yes you can, without maths you can't draw an atom, correctly or incorrectly, you just can't do it. If you draw a circle, that circle clearly has a mathematical function associated with it.

 

they invent things like a size less electrons.

 

Any experiment ever conducted to find the size of an electron has found that it is smaller than the experiment can resolve.

 

Zero-point energy, with out observing how the universe functions.

 

Science (read physics) is fundamentally about mathematically modelling and testing these models of reality.

 

I mean you don't see evolutionists using math to prove evolution.

 

I think these days you do.

 

Darwin went on a ship half way around the world, Studying, and documenting his observation, then forming a hypotheses, he first did not carve out a mathematical formula predicting evolution!

 

Shockingly science has moved on since then. This is a strawman AGAIN!

 

He observed, studied, measured, documented, and then formed a hypothesis, this is how science is conducted,

 

These days the hypothesis to be more accurate than our current ones has to be mathematical, else it falls down on the accuracy and gets thrown out. This is how science is conducted.

 

this is how they teach you in school to do it, and math is just something that just gets in the way.

 

School teaching is not science. Science is doing new things to be able to predict reality to greater and greater accuracy.

 

Math is used as a measurement tool, math cant tell you how my eye works!

 

Maths is used primarily as a prediction tool and to show us what's going on. It's the language of science, without it we cannot be accurate.

 

If you do not agree then my friend you have lost the meaning of science.

 

I think you have a laymans idea of what science is. Science is fundamentally mathematical as we have to make and test predictions.

[iNow]

I was going to login to correct you on your assertion about the study of evolution not involving math, or in your thinking that the study of evolution is the same today as it was when Darwin articulated his position, but as I kept reading, only one response seemed appropriate.

 

Not even wrong.

 

 

 

EDIT: I see that Klaynos is wearing his special cross-posting cloak again today. His reply is far more patient and explanatory than mine. Thanks, mate.

[Peron]

You wont, you do not offer anything better. Science HAS to make predictions the only accurate way to do this is to use maths.

 

 

 

Yes you can, without maths you can't draw an atom, correctly or incorrectly, you just can't do it. If you draw a circle, that circle clearly has a mathematical function associated with it.

 

 

 

Any experiment ever conducted to find the size of an electron has found that it is smaller than the experiment can resolve.

 

 

 

Science (read physics) is fundamentally about mathematically modelling and testing these models of reality.

 

 

 

I think these days you do.

 

 

 

Shockingly science has moved on since then. This is a strawman AGAIN!

 

 

 

These days the hypothesis to be more accurate than our current ones has to be mathematical, else it falls down on the accuracy and gets thrown out. This is how science is conducted.

 

 

 

School teaching is not science. Science is doing new things to be able to predict reality to greater and greater accuracy.

 

 

 

Maths is used primarily as a prediction tool and to show us what's going on. It's the language of science, without it we cannot be accurate.

 

 

 

I think you have a laymans idea of what science is. Science is fundamentally mathematical as we have to make and test predictions.

 

So when I say, I will reincarnate tomorrow, and have a mathematical formula that shows you I will. You will believe me???

With math you have infinity, in reality infinity doesn't exists.

In math you cant define a point. In reality I know what a point is.

 

You don't need math, you need experiments. Making tests observing then forming a hypotheses.

 

And I don't need math to see an atom, you need a power full microscope to see an atom.

 

If I cant measure my shoe, I don't call it size less, I get another measuring tool that is more accurate.

Science is done through observation of natural phenomena, and/or through experimentation that tries to simulate natural events under controlled conditions.

 

Case Closed.

[Klaynos]

So when I say, I will reincarnate tomorrow, and have a mathematical formula that shows you I will. You will believe me???

 

*sigh* I clearly state that we also test the maths against reality.

 

With math you have infinity, in reality infinity doesn't exists.

 

Very true, infinities that appear in theories are considered to be break downs of that theory. Areas where they do now work, our science is not perfect.

 

In math you cant define a point. In reality I know what a point is.

 

You can define a point ajb will do that for you... he's very good at geometry... go on then define a "point" in reality. Without using any maths.

 

You don't need math, you need experiments. Making tests observing then forming a hypotheses.

 

You make a hypothesis first normally, you say "if I do this, x will happen if it doesn't my hypothesis is wrong," the only way to do that accurately is with maths. You then test it, and then test it again, and then think of a new way to test it and test it again.

 

And I don't need math to see an atom, you need a power full microscope to see an atom.

 

Les use something bigger than an atom, let's go for a bacteria, so it's big enough to see with an optical microscope. You need maths to work out how the optics will change the light paths to tell you how big the bacteria actually is compared to how big the image is. Else you don't know what you're looking at.

 

If I cant measure my shoe, I don't call it size less, I get another measuring tool that is more accurate.

 

That is what we do. As far as we can tell electrons are pointlike. Theories that make other predictions that turn out to be true say they should be pointlike.

 

Science is done through observation of natural phenomena, and/or through experimentation that tries to simulate natural events under controlled conditions.

 

Case Closed.

 

You are right, but science also requires accurate predictions which require maths. Observation of natural phenomena is experimentation. Else all you're doing is kicking stuff and laughing at the noise it makes.

[Peron]

*sigh* I clearly state that we also test the maths against reality.

 

 

 

Very true, infinities that appear in theories are considered to be break downs of that theory. Areas where they do now work, our science is not perfect.

 

 

 

You can define a point ajb will do that for you... he's very good at geometry... go on then define a "point" in reality. Without using any maths.

 

 

 

You make a hypothesis first normally, you say "if I do this, x will happen if it doesn't my hypothesis is wrong," the only way to do that accurately is with maths. You then test it, and then test it again, and then think of a new way to test it and test it again.

 

 

 

Les use something bigger than an atom, let's go for a bacteria, so it's big enough to see with an optical microscope. You need maths to work out how the optics will change the light paths to tell you how big the bacteria actually is compared to how big the image is. Else you don't know what you're looking at.

 

 

 

That is what we do. As far as we can tell electrons are pointlike. Theories that make other predictions that turn out to be true say they should be pointlike.

 

 

 

You are right, but science also requires accurate predictions which require maths. Observation of natural phenomena is experimentation. Else all you're doing is kicking stuff and laughing at the noise it makes.

 

Math is a good thing. The word was built on math! The tools scientists use all built with math.

There's even things like, genetic algorithm. That help build new groundbreaking devices, to help the world.

Math is a good thing. But it can be abused, by people like Hawking, he stated in his book, A Brief History In Time, That a spherical globe in his room, was of course, 2D, then he said that the room is 3D. But of course he is math in his calculations, in physics, there is Height, Width, and Length. For location we have, Altitude, Latitude and longitude.

But in math you have known of these so mathematicians don't function on the levels that scientist, do.

:-)

[Bignose]

Please be a little clearer: What exactly do you mean by "abused"?

 

Because while words can be incredibly descriptive -- I'm sure we've all read some very wonderful novel ans stories -- words are incredibly inexact. What each of us thinks of as a "large number" is different, based on our history and experiences.

 

Just as a simple example, say I hit a golf ball with a certain speed, launched at a certain angle, and with a given spin rate. With math, I can predict exactly where that ball will hit the ground. With words, the best you can do is "over there" or "near that sign" or "on top that hill" or something similar. With math, I can be very exact, saying "134 yards" or "255 yards". If you limit yourself to only words, how can you conduct any kind of experiment with any kind of accuracy? How can you make a prediction with any kind of specificity?

[Phi for All]

You can live in a foreign country without knowing the language and still make yourself understood adequately. But to insist that the natives stop using their language because *you* don't see the necessity is a bit egoistic, don't you think?

[Peron]

Math, like I said before is a good thing. But and I know this for a fact, that Math, special and general relativity, has given nothing to society. And here is why.

 

Math did not build a building, Science built the buildings. Edison used math to design the light bulb, build the light bulb, but not invent it. He used science.

 

Einstein had no experiments to back his theories, there for how does the scientific community say this is how it is. Einstein also did not believe in black holes, saying they go against science.

Relativity has given us nothing, no new technologies have come out of these theories.

This is a fact. Not my random thoughts.

In fact Einstein was disproven, by observations done by Edwin Hubble. So I stand correct that observation, study, and experiments are useful tools for science.

I am not saying science is bad, but it can be misused.

This is a fact, not my random thoughts.

I have studied this and concluded that science and math are two completely different things.

[Klaynos]

Math, like I said before is a good thing. But and I know this for a fact, that Math, special and general relativity, has given nothing to society. And here is why.

 

I hope you do not use GPS, or the internet, because without GR and SR corrections neither of these two technologies would worl.

 

Math did not build a building, Science built the buildings. Edison used math to design the light bulb, build the light bulb, but not invent it. He used science.

 

Einstein had no experiments to back his theories, there for how does the scientific community say this is how it is. Einstein also did not believe in black holes, saying they go against science.

 

Shockingly we didn't just take Einstein's word for it but experimentally tested it. The evidence is astounding. Not to mention the fact that it was all consistent with ALL the previous experiments.

 

Relativity has given us nothing, no new technologies have come out of these theories.

 

Please see above. You are wrong.

 

This is a fact. Not my random thoughts.

 

It is wrong.

 

In fact Einstein was disproven, by observations done by Edwin Hubble. So I stand correct that observation, study, and experiments are useful tools for science.

 

Indeed, Einstein was wrong about many many things, that does not devalue the things he was right about.

 

I am not saying science is bad, but it can be misused.

This is a fact, not my random thoughts.

I have studied this and concluded that science and math are two completely different things.

 

You I'm afraid are wrong. They are inseparable.

[Peron]

Speak of GPS, At high altitude, where the GPS clocks orbit the Earth, it is known that the clocks

run roughly 46,000 nanoseconds (one-billionth of a second) a day faster than at

ground level... The orbiting clocks also pass through that field at a rate of three

kilometers per second--their orbital speed. For that reason, they tick 7,000

nanoseconds a day slower than stationary clocks. To offset these two effects,

the GPS engineers reset the clock rates, slowing them down before launch by

39,000 nanoseconds a day. They then proceed to tick in orbit at the same rate as

ground clocks, and the system "works." ... In (Einstein) theory, however, it was

expected that... continuously varying relativistic corrections would have to be

made to clock rates.... But these corrections were not made. Yet "the system

manages to work, even though they use no relativistic corrections after launch...

They have basically blown off Einstein

[Klaynos]

There are continuous corrections for both special and general relativistic time effects on GPS clocks, what makes you say there isn't?

[Baby Astronaut]

Peron, I see where you're going, and truly math and physics are different -- one uses the other as its central tool, but not vice versa. Yet they are intimately linked. It's sometimes easier/faster to have observational evidence and tests, but you do need math to verify what you're seeing. And often, we can't even observe something -- thus we need math to figure that kind of stuff out. But not only does math supply us with accurate predictions, it constantly surprises us with unexpected predictions, which lead to discoveries we might not stumble upon through normal observation.

 

http://www.pdasupport.com/PDAencyclopediaGPS.htm

 

The clocks on the satellites are also affected by both special, and general relativity, which causes them to run at a slightly faster rate than do clocks on the Earth's surface. This amounts to a discrepancy of around 38 microseconds per day, which is corrected by electronics on each satellite. This offset is a dramatic test of the theory of relativity in a real-world system; the offset of which is measured is exactly that predicted by theory, within the limits of accuracy of measurement.

Edited February 7, 2009 by Baby Astronaut

[allien]

Really there is a problem somewhere.

we have an event and we try to formulate it.

we had an equation and we want to improve it by math. but while we doing this if we are using assumptions, the result could be wrong even math and formulation right.

That is why results always must be checked according to observing or genaralization which is done.

 

Lets turn Big Bang. According to most popular model, Radius was increased from nearly zero to E+25 meters. The time passed during this event is E-11 second. Avarage explosion speed E+33 km/sec. So it was much more than light speed. Than all the particles made a break and slow down suddenly.

So model could be wrong, time could be wrong or light speed is not the max. speed in the universe.

 

Big elements occured while supernova explosion by neutron capture.

If this is the case, why bigger isotopes of the elements are high amounth than the smaller isotopes? when you deeply investigate, as if bigger elements try to reduce nucleons to reach smaller elements.

 

Any way, I want to say that even equation and math is true, the result must be rechecked. Similar like trial-eror method. They must be compatible the thing in our hand.

[Daecon]

Particles can't travel through space faster than light speed.

 

It says nothing about how fast space itself can expand.