SCIENCE - What actually is Science ?

[Strange]

But note that Einstein didn't just speculate that Brownian motion was caused by atoms, he theorized; in other words he produced a mathematical model that fit the observed behaviour.

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

But note that Einstein didn't just speculate that Brownian motion was caused by atoms, he theorized; in other words he produced a mathematical model that fit the observed behaviour.

Quite so : So we see the scientific method becoming a procedure that is followed to this day .

 

------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------

 

Observe . Think . Theorise . Or Hypothesise . Construct a model . Experiment .test . Analyse results , conclude . And recycle the whole thing over and over to improve and refine the scientific Theory . Then publicise .

 

------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------

 

Is that how you see it Strange ?

 

Mike

 

It is interesting Brown first observed the phenomenon ( 1827?) . Einstein took it on from there ! ( 1905 )

Edited March 29, 2016 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

.

Old fashion Science ( " De Rerum Natura " ( On the Nature. Of Things ) LUCRETIUS )

 

My ' Cuantum ' or discrete , integral , change observation of the demarcation lines on canal and sea water , when apparently roughed up by breeze is none the less still here . Even though it is at the Classical Physics level . So in this case I am referring to it as ' Cwantum ' so as not to be confused with near plank length size atomic Quantum Mechanics .

 

Again I returned to the Canal today and low and behold it was there again ?

 

New picture :-

 

 

Notice the foreground water is calm , then ( I believe a Cuantum discrete , integral change of breeze to wave energy transfer occurs to the roughened distant water surface.

 

So I have made the observation many many times now. I have made a theoretical , hypothesis , but it is early days yet , I need more experimental observation to take it further .

 

Mike

Edited March 30, 2016 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[swansont]

So in this case I am referring to it as ' Cwantum ' so as not to be confused with near plank length size atomic Quantum Mechanics .

 

 

Dear lord, no. You are assuming some new phenomenon before you've even scratched the surface of trying to explain this with known, mainstream science. (and Quantum has little to do with Planck scale unless you are talking about quantum gravity)

[hypervalent_iodine]

!

Moderator Note

Mike, enough of the nonsense. Stick to the topic that you yourself outlined in the OP or this will be closed.

 

As a side note, staff have really had enough of having to warn you on these points.

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

Ouch !

But note that Einstein didn't just speculate that Brownian motion was caused by atoms, he theorized; in other words he produced a mathematical model that fit the observed behaviour.

How come , you get all the ' browny points ' and I get all the ' telling off ' , when I do all the hard work , trudging around canals looking for real live examples , and looking Into mr Brown , mr Einstein , and all the Wikipedia citations , and just end up getting ' thrashed, ' and not get awarded brownie points for all my hard , wind blown, ( stick my neck out ) , cold labour ?

 

Mike

Edited March 31, 2016 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[ajb]

Okay Mike, you have observed some phenomena that is new to you. The next thing you should do is hunt the literature to see if anyone else has written about this phenomena or something similar. If you cannot find anything, then you may be in a position to contribute to science. In this case you would like to build models of surface waves on water...

 

However, this is already a big and established subject. Airy in the 19th century produced a model. Phillips and Miles in the 1950's produced other models. Today we have computers working on predicting surf condition across the globe. Waves on the boundary of two fluids is a big subject that uses methods from fluid dynamics, differential equations, basic theory of waves etc.

 

By 'jumping' into new and wild ideas without first seeing what is known and well established is not the way to do science. Again, you have produced an example of what not to do!

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

Okay Mike, ......, you have produced an example of what not to do!

.

Well maybe that is educational , in its own right ?

 

( perhaps I should take up ' stamp collecting ! ) perhaps I will not get so cold , wet , and yesterday dangerously near to falling into the canal. A passing couple said " don't do it ! Don't jump! It's never worth it ! "

 

Yes , but what if I just happened to have noticed ' a phenomenon ' that nobody else has noticed . Everybody thinking , " what a pretty view "

 

Mike

Edited March 31, 2016 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[ajb]

Well maybe that is educational , in its own right ?

I think so...

 

 

Anyway, what swansont and I would do when faced with something new is see what other people have written. It maybe new to us, but what we do not want to do is 'reinvent the wheel'.

 

So, part of science, or lets say how scientists work, is make sure as best that can that they are not going over old ground. Sometimes things do get missed and we do find papers that cover similar material. This is more often true if the original works are in some obscure journal, for example some old Soviet journal. Speaking with other experts also reduces the chances of just repeating what others have done. Of course, it maybe the case that a new perspective can be given to an old problem.

 

This is the first stage of any work: find out as best we can what is already known.

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

I..... Speaking with other experts also reduces the chances of just repeating what others have done. Of course, it maybe the case that a new perspective can be given .....

But I thought that was what I was doing . By discussing ,and questioning , here on the forum .. And with my Radio amateur friends .. Who walked out on me yesterday when I was attempting to demonstrate quantum behaviour in a dropping yellow water droplet onto black paper from a meter above the cafe table . ( maybe they thought the cafe owners would throw us out ? ) coincidently , one of them was a water behaviour expert . But we never managed to get that far , because they all walked out . ( including the ex NASA chemist )

 

 

 

But of course , I do agree with you . I should research literature , to see if it has already been researched. The trouble is reading all those citations on aX1V is tantamount to a reading nightmare .

 

I need another ' lifetime ' I do love seeing all these activities in nature, though , from a structural and functioning stance . And thinking. About how scientifically it does work ?

Hence those people thinking I was going to ' jump' .

 

Mike

Edited March 31, 2016 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[ajb]

By discussing ,and questioning , here on the forum ..

Which is good...

 

 

But lets try to keep this on topic. Your question is about science and what it is. We should keep discussion as best we can to this question, which may best be answered by describing what scientists do.

 

So, part of that must be

 

i) they do not make wild unfounded speculation, all speculations are based on what they know is established science.

ii) when presented with something new they hunt the literature and speak to others. They want to avoid covering old ground.

 

These two points are what are generally missing from out speculations sections, for example.

[Phi for All]

But of course , I do agree with you . I should research literature , to see if it has already been researched. The trouble is reading all those citations on aX1V is tantamount to a reading nightmare .

 

!

Moderator Note

This is very similar to the way many members feel about your insistence that science is missing something huge but nebulous and not well understood or supported by you. It's often a nightmare because it goes nowhere, mostly because you don't listen when members tell you about all the work being done that contradicts your assumptions. You wave your hands all over the place insisting there should be something more, when the "something more" is happening while you flap.

 

There are very few members here who enjoy this kind of Wild West guesswork and wishful thinking. And you tend to open up three or four threads at the same time, all starting out with different topics but ending up all talking about the same nebulous longing you have for some kind of meaning you haven't found yet. It's clear as well that you will never find this thing you're searching for by being unclear, uncooperative, and unscientific.

 

Once again, you're straying off your own topic, back into the weeds where nobody understands where you're coming from. Can we please keep these ramblings to a single thread, or can you make more of an effort to stick to a single topic per thread? Those are the rules, Mike, and you know that.

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

Where is the Answer ?

 

There must be some provision somewhere . Where an individual , happens to be at the right place at the right time to see a phenomenon , that nobody else has noticed , as everybody thinks it so trivial as to be totally unimportant .

 

What happens if that individual just by accident happens to be right though ? What can they do ? Because they can't do it alone ?

 

It's no good going back to University , I have done that Three times . Technology seems to overtake the University curriculum. In my sort of subject. By the time I have learned the new developments , more recent research has overtaken , what I studied.

 

Mike

[swansont]

Where is the Answer ?

 

There must be some provision somewhere . Where an individual , happens to be at the right place at the right time to see a phenomenon , that nobody else has noticed , as everybody thinks it so trivial as to be totally unimportant .

 

What happens if that individual just by accident happens to be right though ? What can they do ? Because they can't do it alone ?

 

 

 

Being at the right place at the right time is the luck of the draw, but being right by accident doesn't sound much like science at all.

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

Being at the right place at the right time is the luck of the draw, but being right by accident doesn't sound much like science at all.

 

Humm! I will need to think on that one ? Needless to say , I am by the canal again . The rucks in the water are still there but in different places.

 

Here is an extreme cut off , or cut in !

 

 

Mike

Edited March 31, 2016 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[Strange]

Where is the Answer ?

 

There must be some provision somewhere . Where an individual , happens to be at the right place at the right time to see a phenomenon , that nobody else has noticed , as everybody thinks it so trivial as to be totally unimportant .

 

There are plenty of examples of people (scientists and non-scientists) noticing such a thing and then taking a rigorous approach to studying it further and then drawing it to the attention of others to investigate.

 

One of the nicest examples is the Mpemba Effect (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mpemba_effect)

[swansont]

Humm! I will need to think on that one ? Needless to say , I am by the canal again . The rucks in the water are still there but in different places.

 

Mike

 

 

Which is completely beside the point. The canal isn't the topic of the thread.

[Klaynos]

 

 

Which is completely beside the point. The canal isn't the topic of the thread.

Although, as has been mentioned, once you observe something like this the first step is to search the literature. In this case the answer can be found within a few seconds on Google. Which, as one might have surmised, is due to local variations in wind, banks and bottom.

[Strange]

And, I assume (at the risk of confusing things further) this is an example of gravity waves.

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

Which is completely beside the point. The canal isn't the topic of the thread.

 

You have misinterpreted my reason for bringing this water/ wind mini research into this tread . I intended to introduce a simple science real life observation and development of the genuine , science investigation . This as a live example of doing science .

I intended to do this along side past famous examples , like the ' Brownian motion ' by brown and Einstein . Which I have also done . I was going to provide some other examples of a different sort . However if everybody is fed up with it , I can stop.

 

I have just this second captured a picture which seems to endorse what Klaynos is saying .

I am near a bridge , and the bridge seems to be funnelling the breeze , this shot shows a funnelling action with appropriate ripples.

 

 

And across from where the dogs are standing off the opposite bank .

 

This then appears to be the pre bridge funnelling of the wind , with bank effect .

 

So I must say this has been a fair example , though rushed of . DOING SCIENCE .

 

observation , research Literature/ Google by Klaynos . Discussions with colleagues, debate , more research . A first off hypothesis or two . Further cycles of research and experiment observation . ( the wind and canal provide the experiment. I see it as doing science ( all be it ) very quick and unprepared, I accept . But surely science even on a bigger scale is like that .

 

Mike

Edited March 31, 2016 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[swansont]

You have misinterpreted my reason for bringing this water/ wind mini research into this tread . I intended to introduce a simple science real life observation and development of the genuine , science investigation . This as a live example of doing science .

I intended to do this along side past famous examples , like the ' Brownian motion ' by brown and Einstein . Which I have also done . I was going to provide some other examples of a different sort . However if everybody is fed up with it , I can stop.

 

 

Since the OP was very general in nature, I think it would be far better to bring up actual examples of doing science to support (or possibly refute) the definition, if that's what you want, rather than some (what we know see as a failed) attempt at doing it, since that just gets bogged down in the scientific details rather than the process.

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

And, I assume (at the risk of confusing things further) this is an example of gravity waves.

Bravo !

 

Yippee ! I might even be vindicated in here somewhere?

 

Mike

Edited March 31, 2016 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[swansont]

Bravo !

 

Yippee ! I might even be vindicated in here somewhere?

 

Mike

 

 

How so? You were claiming quantum mechanics, which is a long way from gravity.

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

How so? You were claiming quantum mechanics, which is a long way from gravity.

No . I have just wanted to use the word " Quantum " . ( not the couplet ' quantum mechanics' ) , To describe an incremental quantity of a ' value ' which represented a minimum , energy that was required for a change to occur . ( say an increment value of energy transfer ' breeze to water wave ' ) . So in this discussion , I have been featuring wind or breeze blowing against the surface of water , so as to set up small surface waves. As shown in my photographs . I thought it could be used across all values , not just sub atomic values. Thus to go to the next size up of wave , there would be a second incremental change , so a double amount of energy required . In other words I was suggesting there was not a continuous range of wave sizes possible . But I could of course be wrong.

 

I appreciate for this I would need to experiment to prove the values of energy , for each wave size . *

 

I was imagining this had its parralel with the threshold for Laser strike or surface emision of electrons from a metal .

 

However if the use of the word Quantum is not allowable for such activity , then I can speak in terms of descrete minimum values . Or incremental values .

 

Mike

* it would seem this has all been previously investigated by others .

 

Unfortunately , the last time I was doing research in my university project. I had to order up physical copies of papers in Plymouth University and look up some research held on CD's .this was long winded and tedious. Like weeks ( during 1980-1990's) . Now apparently KLAYNOS looked it up on the net in 2 minutes. How times have changed . I feel like a Dinosaur.

Edited April 1, 2016 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[Strange]

However if the use of the word Quantum is not allowable for such activity , then I can speak in terms of descrete minimum values . Or incremental values

 

But the waves you are describing are not quantised (or discrete, or incremental).

Edited April 1, 2016 by Strange