Flat Earth?

[Bobbie Bobster]

3 hours ago, paul's got wright said:

Nothing is far too complex for me to understand

"I think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics." —Richard Feynman, The Character of Physical Law (MIT Press: Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1995), 129.

[paul's got wright]

37 minutes ago, wrighty said:

Clarity of writing not your strong point is it. From the bit in bold, I take it therefore that you’re happy to accept mathematical proofs as true even though you don’t understand them. So you accept, for example, the statement of Fermat’s last theorem as being true, even though it means accepting the word of others, given that you can’t understand the proof yourself. 

By extension, do you accept the work of the scientists such as Einstein and Bohr as being valid (given the technology, that works, that is a direct result of their theories) even though you can’t personally understand it, and that by the definition of science you repeatedly make reference to, isn’t in your view ‘science’, as they didn’t demonstrate, by experiment, cause and effect? (Einstein’s model of the universe has mass/energy as a cause of spacetime curvature, but he could only model this and carry out indirect experiments, analogous to Eratosthenes, rather than set an experimental mass as the independent variable and measure its effect on spacetime curvature)

Reap what you sow wrighty

The bit in bold means i understand the question, not what you have sugested. Everything you attribute to me thereafter, is nosense based on the first erroneous assumption.

You are correct however, that einstein did no such experiment, proving that a model, just means you have a limitation on the hypothesis. It couldnt be validated/invaldated via experimental testing. 

And we all know what that means wrighty x

[paul's got wright]

50 minutes ago, Bobbie Bobster said:

"I think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics." —Richard Feynman, The Character of Physical Law (MIT Press: Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1995), 129.

Logical fallacy blobzie. If he doesnt understand it, how could he know? Doesnt sound too sure of himself either!

I can simply means, have the capability to, as we all do really. Where theres a will theres a way blob x

[paul's got wright]

Del n gav breaking down the basics, beyond the imaginary curve x

 

[wrighty]

1 hour ago, paul's got wright said:

 

The bit in bold means i understand the question

Are you going to share your answer with me? This is, as you’ve said, a discussion, which implies questions and answers. So again, do you accept the proof of Fermat’s theorem even though you don’t understand that proof?

[paul's got wright]

8 minutes ago, wrighty said:

Are you going to share your answer with me? This is, as you’ve said, a discussion, which implies questions and answers. So again, do you accept the proof of Fermat’s theorem even though you don’t understand that proof?

I will answer any question you have, within reason, and the context of this far ranging subject.

Please would you offer me the same courtesy?

Thank you wrighty x

[Uhtred]

42 minutes ago, wrighty said:

Are you going to share your answer with me? This is, as you’ve said, a discussion, which implies questions and answers. So again, do you accept the proof of Fermat’s theorem even though you don’t understand that proof?

Wrighty - I’m afraid you’ve fallen into what is known as The Chinahand Vortex. It involves an informed, articulate, commentator attempting to engage in rational, reasoned discussion with PGW. The result is as inevitable as it is fruitless. The Chinahand Vortex.

[Chinahand]

Paul, what is the prediction of gravitational waves decades prior to their discovery, if it isn’t an awesome confirmation of Einstein’s scientific insight into the universe. 

Think about Rochester University’s steps:

1) Einstein observed a phenomenon 

2) Came up with a hypothesis to explain it - relatively 

3) Made a prediction based on that hypothesis - large gravitational events will dissipate energy creating ripples in space time. 

4) Undertake experiments to verify the prediction. 

It took Kip Thorne et al multiple decades to do 4). 

[Bobbie Bobster]

2 hours ago, paul's got wright said:

I can simply means

[paul's got wright]

1 hour ago, Chinahand said:

Paul, what is the prediction of gravitational waves decades prior to their discovery, if it isn’t an awesome confirmation of Einstein’s scientific insight into the universe. 

Think about Rochester University’s steps:

1) Einstein observed a phenomenon 

2) Came up with a hypothesis to explain it - relatively 

3) Made a prediction based on that hypothesis - large gravitational events will dissipate energy creating ripples in space time. 

4) Undertake experiments to verify the prediction. 

It took Kip Thorne et al multiple decades to do 4). 

Really?

What was the naturally observed phenomena?

[Chinahand]

The behaviour of light.

[paul's got wright]

9 minutes ago, Chinahand said:

The behaviour of light.

Be specific china, what was the hypothesis, and independent variable?

[Chinahand]

Paul, you have a very rigid and inflexible view of science, but anyway ... you can create multiple hypotheses with multiple independent variables from observing the results of the experiments being undertaken on light back at the end of the 19th century and the beginning of the 20th century.  All these experiments inspired scientists to try to come up with hypotheses to explain them.

How about this one - the wave length (or frequency) of a light (or radio) source changes as it moves relative to you - the red shift is z, it is calculated by observing how different the wavelength (or frequency) is when the light source is moving compared to when it is stationary, and dividing this difference by the original wavelength (or frequency).

The redshift z depends on the velocity of the object (the independent variable) and the constant speed of light.

Lots of scientists measured these redshifts and compared how the redshift varied with the speed of the object as measured by the observer.

Einstein came up with the equation which explains the effect:

 

This exactly fits your definition of science - a single independent variable (velocity) a single dependent variable (speed) and is the basis of speed radar guns.  

You can't explain this effect in detail without understanding special relativity.

[Chinahand]

Paul, I have provided what you wanted, there are multiple other ones, but let's assume you find some way to reject all of them.  What was Einstein doing? 

You seem to want to claim it wasn't SCIENCE (as you insist it is defined) ... my reply to this is huh ... science is about being able to predict a phenomenon - maybe the result of an experiment, maybe a natural phenomenon - does predicting eclipses fit your definition of science? 

What use is this definition of science if it tries to create an arbitrary demarcation within successful scientific predictions, some of which fit your over rigid definition, and most which do not.

Leaping up and down saying the ones that don't aren't science is to miss what science is used for.  A method to enable us to predict events and so skilfully react to them.  Einstein's relativity and eclipses do this, no matter your going on about independent variables.

[P.K.]

6 hours ago, Bobbie Bobster said:

"I think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics." —Richard Feynman, The Character of Physical Law (MIT Press: Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1995), 129.

The famous Feynman "Problem Solving Algorithm" -

Write Down The Question.

Think Very Hard

Write Down The Answer

Question : "Is the Earth flat?"

Think VERY hard.

Answer: "The Earth is a very slightly oblate sphere" 

Correct.

With thanks to Eratosthenes.....

QED.

Goodnight....