science is about predicting physical behavior?

[Strange]

So you are proposing simply observing something is not scientific?

 

No.

 

Observing can be scientific (depending how it is done) but is not, by itself, science.

 

 

Science a word that derived from the word knowledge

 

That is the etymological fallacy.

 

 

I don't see why people here are taking offense I pointed out a simple error (and it was).

 

An example is not an error. (And why do you think anyone has taken offence?)

[barfbag]

@ Ajb,

 

Determining how the lungs work would involve physics

 

 

Okay One more post.

 

While Chemistry - Physics would indeed be required to understand how lungs operate. Physics would NOT be needed (as I said in last post) to understand the purpose of the lungs, or heart, or liver.

 

I meant Why and your Physics answer would be the how

 

I'll change my science to Archeology, or Psychology then, or maybe Evolution, but I guess we could argue none of them are real science either. I'm sure there are better examples, but its getting late here.

[Strange]

So then I guess, its up to the scientist " team" etc, whom are " a little" better at noticing things than others?

 

Whom have "courageous attitudes" archaeologist for example, I hear at times live a somewhat risky life due to traveling in foreign countries on an exploration...

 

Another example: QM at times can make you question " reality."

 

Are these some forms of mental barrier that would otherwise stop these " new discoveries" and new theories from surfacing to the world of science?

 

Some of this might be inherent mental ability/attitude. Some of it is also about training: learning to question things, learning how to design tests and experiments, learning how to question whether those experiments are telling you what they seem to, questioning your own ideas, etc.

 

 

I hear new discoveries should not conflict with the current ones, why?

 

If you have a current theory that is "correct" (i.e. it accurately describes reality) then a new theory must agree with that theory if it also agrees with reality. That is why any theory that claims to show that relativity is wrong, for example, must be itself be wrong.

 

Of course we sometimes make new discoveries which show that what we knew before was incomplete. For example, Newton came up with his "Universal Law of Gravitation". This was fine for a few hundred year but then some very accurate measurements of planetary motions showed that they could not be described Newton's laws. This was one of the motivations for Einstein (and others) to come up with a new theory of gravity.

 

 

How does the Albert Einstein equations " predict" the existence of a black hole?

How does the math make you visualize this?

 

You solve the equations for a spherical mass. The equations tell you that if the mass is within a radius smaller than some limit, then light will not be able to escape (and all the other properties of black holes).

 

These equations tell you what we should look for to identify a black hole. We have observed a number of objects in space that are consistent with these predictions. And perhaps they can only be explained by these equations. So we conclude that they are probably black holes.

 

 

​x/y/z really confused me for a bit...

 

Sorry, I just meant the different things we would observe; maybe I should have said "this, that or the other". (I forget how literally you take things.)

[Iwonderaboutthings]

 

No.

 

Observing can be scientific (depending how it is done) but is not, by itself, science.

 

 

That is the etymological fallacy.

 

 

An example is not an error. (And why do you think anyone has taken offence?)

etymological, what difference does it make??

 

One thing I have observed very well, is the naming convention in the science community that suggest to discredit or disregard other cultures, beliefs and etc as to adding their "contributions to the standard model" as scientist.

 

All discoveries in one way or another started off by someone whom just looked and observed questioned and pondered, they had no titles that I am aware of and maybe never knew " then" that their discoveries made a good dollar for fortune five groups today.

 

 

Either that discovery was something accepted, not accepted, kept secret, or what ever the case, no one can possible say that "Science Today" is a 100% legit and correct method that does not somehow depict the forms of.

 

Ancient Sumeria

Ancient Egypt

Africa

Arabia

Asia,

 

and other " exotic cultures" whom considered scientist but denounced by etymological conditions.

I don't even know how to pronounce that word...

 

What on earth does this random rant have to do with anything??

 

Nothing really, its just an observation worth pondering on..... think about it..

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

..

Edited July 16, 2014 by Iwonderaboutthings

[Strange]

etymological, what difference does it make?? .

 

It is a fallacy to say that "this word used to mean ..." because what a word means today is not defined by what it meant in the past (even more so, if that was in another language).

 

 

no one can possible say that "Science Today" is a 100% legit and correct method that does not somehow depict the forms of.

 

Indeed. The way science is done has evolved over the centuries. We have become more rigorous about it but people did good science in the ancient past.

[Iwonderaboutthings]

Sure, but this is in the physics section and it seemed to me that the OP was really asking about physics.

In a sense I was.....

@ ajb,

 

True enough. good point. I made a mistake (seems I'm only one that admits that around here).

 

I was looking mostly at the thread title.

 

Note: I'm not apologizing to everyone who claimed Physic is all science though.

oooooooooooh no your not trust me..

 

It is a fallacy to say that "this word used to mean ..." because what a word means today is not defined by what it meant in the past (even more so, if that was in another language).

 

 

Indeed. The way science is done has evolved over the centuries. We have become more rigorous about it but people did good science in the ancient past.

more rigorous<-------GOOD POINT!

For sure mathematics and physics are deeply intertwined and mathematics is indispensable in all sciences, maybe at different levels but at its basic from simple statistics is needed for any experimental analysis.

 

Personally, I consider mathematics to be a science, though others have differing opinions. Thus I think we discover rather than invent some piece of mathematics. Research in mathematics does use a modified version of the scientific method and includes experiments (we call them examples and counter examples), refining your ideas due to these experiments and the final testing is in the form of a proof of some statements. The philosophy is the same as in science, just the standards are different.

 

 

So you have some model, this will usually be built on existing accepted models and some experimental data to help guide you (though in high energy physics this is experimental data beyond the standard model is missing). You then see if your model fits all the existing experimental data you expect it to. If so then it will become "accepted" as a good model. Hopefully your model will fit more data and with better agreement than previous models. Even better would be some prediction of some phenomena that cannot fit within the previous models which is then experimentally observed.

you say "energy physics this is experimental data beyond the standard model is missing"

 

why?

 

you say previous models.

 

 

why does my model need to be like others??

 

I thought new technology was that " new "

 

Its worth asking these questions..

 

Some of this might be inherent mental ability/attitude. Some of it is also about training: learning to question things, learning how to design tests and experiments, learning how to question whether those experiments are telling you what they seem to, questioning your own ideas, etc.

 

 

If you have a current theory that is "correct" (i.e. it accurately describes reality) then a new theory must agree with that theory if it also agrees with reality. That is why any theory that claims to show that relativity is wrong, for example, must be itself be wrong.

 

Of course we sometimes make new discoveries which show that what we knew before was incomplete. For example, Newton came up with his "Universal Law of Gravitation". This was fine for a few hundred year but then some very accurate measurements of planetary motions showed that they could not be described Newton's laws. This was one of the motivations for Einstein (and others) to come up with a new theory of gravity.

 

 

You solve the equations for a spherical mass. The equations tell you that if the mass is within a radius smaller than some limit, then light will not be able to escape (and all the other properties of black holes).

 

These equations tell you what we should look for to identify a black hole. We have observed a number of objects in space that are consistent with these predictions. And perhaps they can only be explained by these equations. So we conclude that they are probably black holes.

 

 

Sorry, I just meant the different things we would observe; maybe I should have said "this, that or the other". (I forget how literally you take things.)

 

YOU JUST NAILED SOMETHING INCREDIBLE!!!!!!!!

 

 

here you said this:

 

That is why any theory that claims to show that relativity is wrong, for example, must be itself be wrong.

 

 

My mind now is buzzing with questions..

 

is it because the math involved?

 

Some of this might be inherent mental ability/attitude. Some of it is also about training: learning to question things, learning how to design tests and experiments, learning how to question whether those experiments are telling you what they seem to, questioning your own ideas, etc.

 

 

If you have a current theory that is "correct" (i.e. it accurately describes reality) then a new theory must agree with that theory if it also agrees with reality. That is why any theory that claims to show that relativity is wrong, for example, must be itself be wrong.

 

Of course we sometimes make new discoveries which show that what we knew before was incomplete. For example, Newton came up with his "Universal Law of Gravitation". This was fine for a few hundred year but then some very accurate measurements of planetary motions showed that they could not be described Newton's laws. This was one of the motivations for Einstein (and others) to come up with a new theory of gravity.

 

 

You solve the equations for a spherical mass. The equations tell you that if the mass is within a radius smaller than some limit, then light will not be able to escape (and all the other properties of black holes).

 

These equations tell you what we should look for to identify a black hole. We have observed a number of objects in space that are consistent with these predictions. And perhaps they can only be explained by these equations. So we conclude that they are probably black holes.

 

 

Sorry, I just meant the different things we would observe; maybe I should have said "this, that or the other". (I forget how literally you take things.)

how nice of you to remember

Edited July 16, 2014 by Iwonderaboutthings

[Strange]

 

That is why any theory that claims to show that relativity is wrong, for example, must be itself be wrong.

 

is it because the math involved?

 

Not directly because of the maths.

 

But, for example, GR describes the effects of gravity better than Newtonian gravity does. We know there are places where Newton's theory is wrong: it doesn't agree with real observations. (But most of the time it is good enough.)

 

We do not (yet) know any places where GR does not agree with reality.

 

Therefore if someone has a new theory that produces results different from GR, then their theory must produce different results than reality. Therefore their theory is wrong.

 

(Of course, they might have a new theory that produces exactly the same results as GR. But then you just have choice of two equivalent theories - neither of them a re wrong. Until you can find some data that is explained by one but not the other.)

 

 

why does my model need to be like others??

 

It doesn't. GR is completely different from Newton's theory, for example. (But, in the cases where Newton's theory is correct, then GR and Newton's theory agree.)

Edited July 16, 2014 by Strange

[ajb]

you say "energy physics this is experimental data beyond the standard model is missing"

 

why?

So far there is not any hard experimental data that points to physics beyond the standard model. For example we have no evidence of supersymmetry, so far the Higgs boson seem to be the one predicted by the standard model (though more data is really needed here), we have no evidence of extra dimensions and so on. Theoretical high energy physics is ahead of experiment in that sense. That said, there is still lots of work to do with understanding QCD and in particular non-perturbative tests, for example do glueballs really exist?

 

 

you say previous models.

 

 

why does my model need to be like others??

It does not have to look like existing models as such, but it will have to reduce to something close to an existing model in some limits. For example we know how general relativity reduces to Newtonian gravity in the weak field limit. It it did not then we would be at a loss as to how both theories could be considered good models in their respective domains of validity.

[Iwonderaboutthings]

So far there is not any hard experimental data that points to physics beyond the standard model. For example we have no evidence of supersymmetry, so far the Higgs boson seem to be the one predicted by the standard model (though more data is really needed here), we have no evidence of extra dimensions and so on. Theoretical high energy physics is ahead of experiment in that sense. That said, there is still lots of work to do with understanding QCD and in particular non-perturbative tests, for example do glueballs really exist?

 

 

 

It does not have to look like existing models as such, but it will have to reduce to something close to an existing model in some limits. For example we know how general relativity reduces to Newtonian gravity in the weak field limit. It it did not then we would be at a loss as to how both theories could be considered good models in their respective domains of validity.

I assume that " observations" that predict physical behavior, "must include the physical properties of light " meaning that you must be able to see something in order to predict anything, see the results with your eyes, and so fourth..

 

In this video here it says:

 

If you are inside a mass object, "shell" in the interior and shine " a flash light" in any direction, you will feel the force of gravity that is proportional to your own weight..

 

 

Universal Gravitation -- Shell Theorem

What does that flash light have to do with the person "seeing the wall's interior shell" and their weight"?

 

It would appear then, that pure observation alone is not really the only option??

 

Not directly because of the maths.

 

But, for example, GR describes the effects of gravity better than Newtonian gravity does. We know there are places where Newton's theory is wrong: it doesn't agree with real observations. (But most of the time it is good enough.)

 

We do not (yet) know any places where GR does not agree with reality.

 

Therefore if someone has a new theory that produces results different from GR, then their theory must produce different results than reality. Therefore their theory is wrong.

 

(Of course, they might have a new theory that produces exactly the same results as GR. But then you just have choice of two equivalent theories - neither of them a re wrong. Until you can find some data that is explained by one but not the other.)

 

 

It doesn't. GR is completely different from Newton's theory, for example. (But, in the cases where Newton's theory is correct, then GR and Newton's theory agree.)

You say, We do not (yet) know any places where GR does not agree with reality.

 

Does this include, frequency information?

residual Images, virtual Images??

 

Are these considered, "reality" in terms of " nature and the physical world around us."

 

When I say, virtual Images I mean what humans see through "well" an--->observation...

Mirrors,Telescopes, Red shifts for examples..

 

Was that even correct to compare?

Edited July 17, 2014 by Iwonderaboutthings

[Strange]

I assume that " observations" that predict physical behavior, "must include the physical properties of light " meaning that you must be able to see something in order to predict anything, see the results with your eyes, and so fourth..

 

Not necessarily. We measure all sort of phenomena by indirect effects that don't involve light. (Although we tend to use our eyes to read the final results, but there are blind scientists so that isn't necessary).

 

 

In this video here it says:

 

Christ. That was painful. ("Well, I'm errr.... no let me .... uh ... change that ... so.... what we .... and um ...")

 

He could have written himself a script, or even some notes before he started.

 

Anyway.

 

What does that flash light have to do with the person "seeing the wall's interior shell" and their weight"?

 

I think he was trying to use the way light illuminates the wall as an analogy for the amount of mass that contributes gravity to your position. But it is a confusing way of explaining it presented in a confusing way.

[ajb]

I assume that " observations" that predict physical behavior, "must include the physical properties of light " meaning that you must be able to see something in order to predict anything, see the results with your eyes, and so fourth..

Your predictions may not have anything to do with light directly, to see something only means that you have inferred some phenomena via what you have detected. That could be, for instance the electric current or a magnetic flux and so on. You don't need to see the phenomena directly, the movement of a needle on a detector of some sort maybe all you see with your eyes. (Today it is usually more computerised that this, but you get the idea.)

[Iwonderaboutthings]

 

Not necessarily. We measure all sort of phenomena by indirect effects that don't involve light. (Although we tend to use our eyes to read the final results, but there are blind scientists so that isn't necessary).

 

 

Christ. That was painful. ("Well, I'm errr.... no let me .... uh ... change that ... so.... what we .... and um ...")

 

He could have written himself a script, or even some notes before he started.

 

Anyway.

 

I think he was trying to use the way light illuminates the wall as an analogy for the amount of mass that contributes gravity to your position. But it is a confusing way of explaining it presented in a confusing way.

amount of mass that contributes gravity to your position....

 

HOW???????? You can be as technical as you want....if you wish...

Your predictions may not have anything to do with light directly, to see something only means that you have inferred some phenomena via what you have detected. That could be, for instance the electric current or a magnetic flux and so on. You don't need to see the phenomena directly, the movement of a needle on a detector of some sort maybe all you see with your eyes. (Today it is usually more computerised that this, but you get the idea.)

Yes actually I do..

[Strange]

amount of mass that contributes gravity to your position.....

 

Yes, I didn't phrase that very well !

 

The basic point of the shell theorem is that inside a sphere (with a wall of even thickness all around) is that there is no overall gravity anywhere inside. You might think that if you get closer to the wall on one side, then that wall would attract you more than the opposite wall (which is further away).

 

This makes sense at the centre. All of the surface of the sphere is the same distance away and so pulls on you the same amount. But what if you are not at the centre?

 

What Newton cleverly showed is that there is a smaller area of the wall that is close to you but there is a much larger are of wall that is further away. It works out that if you add up the effects from all areas of the wall, there is an equal gravitational force in all directions.

 

To work this out you really need basic calculus. But it is one of those (rare?) things that is quite hard to explain in words but is a really simple exercise in calculus. Which is why we rely on maths in science!

 

The other part of the shell theorem is for outside the sphere. The gravitational force of the sphere behaves exactly the same as if it came from a single point at the centre of the sphere (with all the mass of the sphere there.

[Iwonderaboutthings]

 

Yes, I didn't phrase that very well !

 

The basic point of the shell theorem is that inside a sphere (with a wall of even thickness all around) is that there is no overall gravity anywhere inside. You might think that if you get closer to the wall on one side, then that wall would attract you more than the opposite wall (which is further away).

 

This makes sense at the centre. All of the surface of the sphere is the same distance away and so pulls on you the same amount. But what if you are not at the centre?

 

What Newton cleverly showed is that there is a smaller area of the wall that is close to you but there is a much larger are of wall that is further away. It works out that if you add up the effects from all areas of the wall, there is an equal gravitational force in all directions.

 

To work this out you really need basic calculus. But it is one of those (rare?) things that is quite hard to explain in words but is a really simple exercise in calculus. Which is why we rely on maths in science!

 

The other part of the shell theorem is for outside the sphere. The gravitational force of the sphere behaves exactly the same as if it came from a single point at the centre of the sphere (with all the mass of the sphere there.

Yes I can visualize this somewhat. But not sure to visualize this as a Flat Shell...Meaning Mass Energy..

 

So then, masses of all types shapes, and forms, "Particles Included"

 

In "some way" can be described by the concept of Newton Shell Theorem?

 

I am thinking this because I read much on " point mass" " point charges" black holes " points in space" surface charges and etc, until now I think I understand what they are...

Edited July 17, 2014 by Iwonderaboutthings

[Strange]

So then, masses of all types shapes, and forms, "Particles Included"

 

In "some way" can be described by the concept of Newton Shell Theorem?

To a limited extent. It only applies exactly for something that is spherical and symmetrical. But it is often a good approximation in many real world cases.

 

We can often treat planets, moons and asteroids, etc as if they were spherical (even when they are not) and therefore model their gravity as coming from a point at the centre.

 

If you need to model the effects of a very irregular asteroid when you get close to it, then you can't use the shell theorem.

 

If you want to do a very detailed analysis of Earth's gravity at different locations (and depths) then you can't use the shell theorem.

[Iwonderaboutthings]

To a limited extent. It only applies exactly for something that is spherical and symmetrical. But it is often a good approximation in many real world cases.

 

We can often treat planets, moons and asteroids, etc as if they were spherical (even when they are not) and therefore model their gravity as coming from a point at the centre.

 

If you need to model the effects of a very irregular asteroid when you get close to it, then you can't use the shell theorem.

 

If you want to do a very detailed analysis of Earth's gravity at different locations (and depths) then you can't use the shell theorem.

I see now...Thanks.

 

Ok, if a "Color Book" experiment "showed" that " you don't necessarily need " color crayons" to color in the contours of shapes IE flowers, animals etc, and the experiment, is physically tested and legitimate, IE black and white contours have color in them " but no crayons were used." I assume this does not agree with our standard model and " nature" in regards to visual perception?

 

Would this mean a possible new discovery has been made in regards to the human senses, or have the human senses been misunderstood?

 

 

Thats where i really get confused...How can a discovery be a discovery if something was miss understood..

I think that is something worth pointing out..

 

 

In simpler words, or maybe even a better example: If you saw this flower on a white piece of paper, just as it is in the photo below " has no color", then you printed this on paper, and held this in your hand for say about 5 seconds and saw a formation of colors "appearing on it" ie: you saw all colors for example" What would that mean??

 

 

 

 

To me it could mean some of the following: We could build holograms "in empty"?

We have misunderstood " the human senses??

Edited July 17, 2014 by Iwonderaboutthings

[Strange]

Ok, if a "Color Book" experiment "showed" that " you don't necessarily need " color crayons" to color in the contours of shapes IE flowers, animals etc, and the experiment, is physically tested and legitimate, IE black and white contours have color in them " but no crayons were used." I assume this does not agree with our standard model and " nature" in regards to visual perception?

 

Would this mean a possible new discovery has been made in regards to the human senses, or have the human senses been misunderstood?

 

If you are talking about seeing colours (that shouldn't be there) then there are many possible explanations: optical illusion (there are many optical illusions that generate colour from black and white images; including "impossible" colours like yellow-blue) or hallucination (due to drugs, tiredness, illness, etc) or synaesthesia or ...

 

You need to understand that pretty much everything you see is generated by the brain, not the eyes. This is a very complex process that can create all sorts of odd effects. So it is very easy to "fool" the visual system.

[Iwonderaboutthings]

 

If you are talking about seeing colours (that shouldn't be there) then there are many possible explanations: optical illusion (there are many optical illusions that generate colour from black and white images; including "impossible" colours like yellow-blue) or hallucination (due to drugs, tiredness, illness, etc) or synaesthesia or ...

 

You need to understand that pretty much everything you see is generated by the brain, not the eyes. This is a very complex process that can create all sorts of odd effects. So it is very easy to "fool" the visual system.

What if others have seen it too??? They are healthy productive citizens.

I've read extensively on this till blue in the face.

 

Its an observation that does not agree with the standard model.

[Strange]

What if others have seen it too?

 

Then maybe it is an optical illusion. There are optical illusion that only some people see, but in general they have the same effect on everybody.

 

 

Its an observation that does not agree with the standard model.

 

I can't really comment because I am not really sure what effect you are describing (for example, the black and white flower in your post just looks black and white to me) and I don't know what you mean by the "standard model". Vision is a very complex thing. You may have discovered a new optical illusion.

[Iwonderaboutthings]

 

Then maybe it is an optical illusion. There are optical illusion that only some people see, but in general they have the same effect on everybody.

 

 

I can't really comment because I am not really sure what effect you are describing (for example, the black and white flower in your post just looks black and white to me) and I don't know what you mean by the "standard model". Vision is a very complex thing. You may have discovered a new optical illusion.

If you say optical illusion, then I will go with that...

 

When I say " standard model" pertaining to vision , I mean its not usual to see colors in contours such as the image provided...

 

 

 

Remember the video Universal Gravitation -- Shell Theorem " on this thread" and the flash light?

Do we " really create reality as we see reality " with light'???

 

Is this why energy and mass are described as flat space time and continuum of space?

 

 

 

Since light comes from on single point mass-less particle "photon" , then shouldn't we be " seeing nothing at all"?

 

Or should it be that what we see is the exact size of a light photon?????

Inversely Proportional right????

 

 

I get this idea in regards to " sighting" in a mirror, sighting in a book, etc, with the human eyes..

To focus your vision in one direction or point focus.

 

 

They say that all else is within infinity..

 

For example when you read a book, the word you focus on, is only seen, the book the room etc, everything else that you are not focused on is said to be in infinity...Right?

 

I am thinking that when you shine light on something, it becomes real?

Edited July 18, 2014 by Iwonderaboutthings

[Strange]

Er ... no. (Sorry, don;t know what else to say )