Difference between a fact ,theory and a guess

[lesliedellow]

It is exactly what I follow. I agree it describes non-ionized matter (planetary systems, .1%) quite accurately...

It just fails to describe the other 99.9% of the universe accurately, hence you need 95% ad-hoc theory.

Same old nonsense, talking out of your posterior. Relativity has been tested on a cosmological scale, and that is just a fact.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It is exactly what I follow. I agree it describes non-ionized matter (planetary systems, .1%) quite accurately...

It just fails to describe the other 99.9% of the universe accurately, hence you need 95% ad-hoc theory.

So explain how this doesn't fit what I follow?????


And yet you are the one proposing 95% never before seen or found in any experiment..... Imagine that.....



Please show me in any experiment an increase in distance between two objects in which the objects are not accelerating away from one another????

Just what I thought, pseudoscience.....

Now, a boat on a river carried along by the river does not have any acceleration with respect to the water, but it still possess both the kinetic energy and potential energy of the water....

Is this the point in the conversation where they invoke magic nothing as their explanation?????

If they are not an acceleration in the Newtonian sense, then why are they using Hubble's law to discover distance since that law requires red shift to be directly correlated to acceleration???

You see, you can't get around it. Either there is no acceleration and therefore Hubble's Law is invalid in determining distance, or there is acceleration in which case Hubble's Law can be used to determine distance.

So which is it????

Hubble law and the expanding universe

"Hubble's law is a statement of a direct correlation between the distance to a galaxy and its recessional velocity as determined by the red shift."

So either we throw out distances, which destroys their entire timeline of the Big Bang, or we accept those recessional velocities and accept time dilation corrections are required.

Come on, let's hear their pseudoscience excuses for ignoring that recessional velocity while claiming to be able to determine distance due to that recessional velocity.......

But i notice you failed to use any science to back any of your claims, why is that????

Since you are the one that believes in "Fairie Dust", an inappropriate application of science, I can't take you seriously.

Try again and see if you can make a proper point.

 

[Mountainmike]

Same old nonsense, talking out of your posterior. Relativity has been tested on a cosmological scale, and that is just a fact.

Do any of you actually READ what is written,
Or indeed read up beyond low grade science
He hasn't contested relativity per se which is a useful part of the model, its the entire model struggling.

Justatruth and I just know having been far deeper into science than any of our detractors that the cosmological model is bust.

Mass, matter, universe expansion, simply don't add up. Period, and some of the assumptions of constancy throughout history are simply speculation, as is dark matter, used as a sticking plaster on it,

And the repair fudge factor that is called dark matter was not conjectured because there is a little mass unaccounted, the point justatruth makes correctly is MOST of the matter is unaccounted, so the intellectual sticking plaster is ten times bigger than the entire body it seeks to mend!

simply reintroducing as " dark" into what is supposed to be free space potentially violates other issues ( I raised elsewhere, eg with problems for speed of light) nor has any of the competing theories of what might be the form of dark matter ever stacked up, in practice, nor have they so far for dark energy. It doesn't matter where you look in cosmology, there are problems - plasma theories are struggling too - another issue justatruth raises,

Sure there will be better models, but I wouldn't bet on dark matter being the ultimate bandaid that repairs it. In my view the concept of mass needs revisiting ( which as I point out would not be the first time - relativity did the same) as does other Constancies like the constancy of the speed of light over history or even throughout space, the solution will need to be radical, the errors are so vast.
And the problem with that is that also questions age of universe too - which is based on pure conjecture of constancy

The point justatruth and I are making is much of the research being done is useful, as it is in abiogenesis, but it is neither fact nor theory nor even valid hypothesis in some cases it is pure speculation - much is fairiedust.

Nor it just cosmology. Both quantum models and even black holes have serious philosophical problems if you try to regard them as fundamental to universe rather than just clever ( and indeed useful) math models of observation,

It is all far from fact and that those hold it as fact here do so because of trying to use science as a philosophical crutch of existence , which is not what science is for, where in reality science is just a model of the observable. Which is very useful, but more than creaking at the seams.


Even einstein called the cosmological constant - which was a fudge factor - and at the very heart of all this " his greatest blunder" although none have much improved on it since.

You should take his word for it. If you don't take ours!

Once in a while it would be good to have an intelligent conversation on here, but the responses we get, when they are not pure ad hominem , betray a woeful ignorance of physics. So there is hardly a point to posting further.

Most of the atheists that hang on to physics as a crutch for existence seem unaware of how fragile and fickle and limited it is!

I directed an astrophysics facility once!

 

[lesliedellow]

Do any of you actually READ what is written,
Or indeed read up beyond low grade science
He hasn't contested relativity per se which is a useful part of the model, its the entire model struggling.

Quote: “It is a theory that has been tested countless times and has shown to be extremely accurate right here in the solar system without any of that ad-hoc theory.”

In case you missed the implication, and he has said it often enough elsewhere, General Relativity doesn’t apply beyond our solar system; or at least, it doesn’t apply anywhere it doesn’t want it to apply.

So physical laws are different elsewhere in the universe is the new orthodoxy, is it? I would like to know how you are proposing to do astrophysics on that basis, especially as we would have not a clue what those different physical laws might be.

 

[xianghua]

Convergent evolution, is not about the exact same genetic sequences

simply wrong:

Convergent evolution seen in hundreds of genes

can you admit that you were wrong about that?

 

[Bobber]

Not accepting science is denying physical reality, not a good place to be.

So what do you do when things that were thought of as hard rock science in years later are shown to be an untruth? Things like bloodletting.

 

[Tinker Grey]

So what do you do when things that were thought of as hard rock science in years later are shown to be an untruth? Things like bloodletting.

It's called learning; it's a good thing.

 

[Mountainmike]

Quote: “It is a theory that has been tested countless times and has shown to be extremely accurate right here in the solar system without any of that ad-hoc theory.”

In case you missed the implication, and he has said it often enough elsewhere, General Relativity doesn’t apply beyond our solar system; or at least, it doesn’t apply anywhere it doesn’t want it to apply.

So physical laws are different elsewhere in the universe is the new orthodoxy, is it? I would like to know how you are proposing to do astrophysics on that basis, especially as we would have not a clue what those different physical laws might be.

He is correct in saying the properties are all assumed constant, but the fact alternatives are difficult to model , and it appears to be constant in close proximity, doesn't make It viable to model it as constant everywhere and for all time, So you cannot call him wrong for telling it how it really is. Assumption.

What we do know is the cosmological sums don't work , and the sticking plaster being used of missing mass is far bigger than the patient! So some profound change is needed to make it work We also know einstein wasn't happy with the cosmological constant ( and therefore model) even he called a blunder.

So the mind games on dark matter are worthwhile, but just because it is the least profound change to the model doesn't make it right, even if it is the only game in town at present, indeed my instinct says the obvious is unlikely. Too much is missing .

The point of the posts using dark matter types as example is that just because they are the thrust of research, dont make them fact, theory or even necessarily a valid hypothesis - even though it is valid research. Jury is out. Indeed the jury has yet to sit on a viable theory.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Quote: “It is a theory that has been tested countless times and has shown to be extremely accurate right here in the solar system without any of that ad-hoc theory.”

In case you missed the implication, and he has said it often enough elsewhere, General Relativity doesn’t apply beyond our solar system; or at least, it doesn’t apply anywhere it doesn’t want it to apply.

So physical laws are different elsewhere in the universe is the new orthodoxy, is it? I would like to know how you are proposing to do astrophysics on that basis, especially as we would have not a clue what those different physical laws might be.

And yet here is a theory tested to a 99.8% accuracy inside the solar system which requires you to add 95% ad-hoc theory to it outside the solar system.

So Who is really accepting the facts? Me, who admits that it is extremely accurate when applied to the correct states of matter, or you, who insists it is accurate, but then ignores that accuracy and fudges it with 95% ad-hoc theory?

Why do you all ignore that very accuracy of 99.8% without any ad-hoc theory at all?????

 

[lesliedellow]

He is correct in saying the properties are all assumed constant, but the fact alternatives are difficult to model , and it appears to be constant in close proximity, doesn't make It viable to model it as constant everywhere and for all time, So you cannot call him wrong for telling it how it really is. Assumption.

It is an assumption science necessarily makes. If physical laws are allowed to vary in space, you cannot consistently argue that they must remain constant over time, and then you can’t say anything about anything, except for the present, recent past and near future. You certainly can’t say the Earth is 4.6 billion years old. So perhaps the creationists are right after all, and the Earth is only 6,000 years old.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

He is correct in saying the properties are all assumed constant, but the fact alternatives are difficult to model , and it appears to be constant in close proximity, doesn't make It viable to model it as constant everywhere and for all time, So you cannot call him wrong for telling it how it really is. Assumption.

What we do know is the cosmological sums don't work , and the sticking plaster being used of missing mass is far bigger than the patient! So some profound change is needed to make it work We also know einstein wasn't happy with the cosmological constant ( and therefore model) even he called a blunder.

So the mind games on dark matter are worthwhile, but just because it is the least profound change to the model doesn't make it right, even if it is the only game in town at present, indeed my instinct says the obvious is unlikely. Too much is missing .

The point of the posts using dark matter types as example is that just because they are the thrust of research, dont make them fact, theory or even necessarily a valid hypothesis - even though it is valid research. Jury is out. Indeed the jury has yet to sit on a viable theory.

The profound change that is needed is for astronomers to just accept the fact that (non-ionized matter - planetary systems - or .1% of the universe) is the only place that Relativity is the dominating force in that state of matter.

The reason it needs 95% fudge factor rescue devices added to it outside the solar system is that the universe is 99.9% plasma, a state of matter that does not behave like solids, liquids and non-ionized gasses.

This has been confirmed in every single laboratory experiment done with plasma for the last 200+ years..... Yet astronomers studying a universe 99.9% plasma continue to ignore that state of matter and continue to try to sledgehammer gravitational forces to be the dominant force, when it is only secondary. And so fudge factors are required.

They are trying to calculate the charge of single ionized particles using the physics for clumps of matter. Experiments their own physicists have shown to be the wrong approach.

Moondust in the Wind | Science Mission Directorate

"We've had some surprising results," says Abbas "We're finding that individual dust grains do not act the same as larger amounts of moon dust put together. Existing theories based on calculations of the charge of a large amount of moondust don't apply to the moondust at the single particle level."

But this is exactly what they do anyways, they calculate what they believe to be the charge of those single particles, based upon their existing theories for the charge of large clumps of matter..... even if experiment after experiment after experiment has shown they can not do this......

And hence because they ignore the results of those experiments, they imagine mysterious magical particles where none exist as a rescue device to the theories that couldn't calculate the correct charge.....

They don't even believe in the accuracy of the theory they claim to follow and what it is trying to tell them.... Knowing it requires no ad-hoc theory to be 99.8% accurate inside the solar system, they immediately ignore that and add 95% ad-hoc theory to fudge it once beyond the confines of the solar system. It needs no rescue device. It is perfectly accurate when applied to the proper states of matter. As soon as they return to real physics, as in every plasma laboratory, they will one day be able to dispense with their placeholder dark matter and accept plasma behavior for plasma......

 

[Justatruthseeker]

It is an assumption science necessarily makes. If physical laws are allowed to vary in space, you cannot consistently argue that they must remain constant over time, and then you can’t say anything about anything, except for the present, recent past and near future. You certainly can’t say the Earth is 4.6 billion years old. So perhaps the creationists are right after all, and the Earth is only 6,000 years old.

yes you can, if you understand what is happening.

Einstein told you that only in frames moving in relative motion with one another were the laws of physics the same.

Do you really believe that clocks slow and rulers change size, yet they obtain the exact same results as frames with a lower energy????

You must also change the zero points for your measuring devices proportional to the change in your measuring devices.

C doesn't remain c because it is constant. it remains c because your devices change according to energy and your zero points shift proportionally. You call a tick of a different duration a second.....

Look at the speedometer on your car. Imagine that 100 mph is the speed of light. Accelerate to 50 mph. As you begin acceleration the division marks (clocks and rulers) begin to change proportionally to the energy added at the quantum level. Now comes an even more important requirement. You must rotate the dial so that your zero point follows the needle.

Notice the consequences. 100 mph is still 100 mph and can not be reached. Also your velocity through space now reads as zero, not 50 mph. just as it does right now despite our spinning around the earths center, orbiting the sun, which is orbiting the galaxy, which itself is traveling through space. Your zero points shifting compensate exactly for your change in velocity.....

Once you understand why light always travels at c regardless of your velocity, you will also understand why our constants always remain constant - despite the increase in energy. Zero points also shift proportionally to energy..... It isn't just your rulers and clocks that are changing, but what we call the zero points for all our measurements as well......

The earth is young, it just appears old because everyone refuses to adjust for time dilation. They are using the slower clocks of today to try to calculate backwards when clocks ticked faster. If clocks slow as velocity increases, then clocks speed up as velocity decreases. There is no mystery. It is all relative because it is all relative to the energy each system has due to its velocity through space. But since no one will adjust their clocks or zero points as they calculate backwards to when velocity was less, they all (even Christians) come up with incorrect answers....

 

[VirOptimus]

So what do you do when things that were thought of as hard rock science in years later are shown to be an untruth? Things like bloodletting.

Well bloodletting wasnt science to begin with. The modern scientific method is quite young.

 

[DogmaHunter]

simply wrong:

Convergent evolution seen in hundreds of genes

can you admit that you were wrong about that?

And yet, they can still differentiate between the bat and dolphine genes.
Did you even read the article?

It speaks of "similar" mutations. Not "identical".

Yet, evolution sometimes solves the same problem through similar genetic solutions. Yet, they take different evolutionary pathways to get there. Which means that it doesn't add up in the exact same genetic sequences.

Nothing in that article states otherwise.

 

[DogmaHunter]

So what do you do when things that were thought of as hard rock science in years later are shown to be an untruth? Things like bloodletting.

Be happy about science taking yet another leap forward.

But bad example though - bloodletting has about as much to do with science as alchemy and astrology

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Einstein told you that only in frames moving in relative motion with one another were the laws of physics the same.

Not exactly, but close enough. However, all frames are in relative motion with each another - that's how they're defined. Which implies the laws of physics are the same in all frames; and empirically, this does appear to be the case.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

And yet, they can still differentiate between the bat and dolphine genes.
Did you even read the article?

It speaks of "similar" mutations. Not "identical".

Yet, evolution sometimes solves the same problem through similar genetic solutions. Yet, they take different evolutionary pathways to get there. Which means that it doesn't add up in the exact same genetic sequences.

There's no reason why convergent evolution shouldn't produce identical genetic sequences, although the longer the sequence, the less likely it is to be exactly duplicated by convergent evolution (unless it is composed of shared sub-sequences).

 

[Justatruthseeker]

There's no reason why convergent evolution shouldn't produce identical genetic sequences, although the longer the sequence, the less likely it is to be exactly duplicated by convergent evolution (unless it is composed of shared sub-sequences).

There is no reason why two random processes would ever produce anything, let alone identical sequences.... but it is quite logical for a functioning design to be altered by an engineer to be used in a similar but different situation.....

 

[DogmaHunter]

There's no reason why convergent evolution shouldn't produce identical genetic sequences, although the longer the sequence, the less likely it is to be exactly duplicated by convergent evolution (unless it is composed of shared sub-sequences).

Sure, but this started out about the imaginary (well... you know how it goes with that fellow) future where mammals grow feathers and wheter or not those underlying genetics would be identical accross the board with birds.

They wouldn't. That would require a replication of 300 million years of evolution.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Not exactly, but close enough. However, all frames are in relative motion with each another - that's how they're defined. Which implies the laws of physics are the same in all frames; and empirically, this does appear to be the case.

No!!!!!! They are not all in relative motion with each other. They are in relative motion to each other..... There is a difference.... Einstein was talking about the same approximate velocity. Such is why transforms are needed between frames not moving at approximately the same velocity....


Empirically it doesn't seem to be the case, hence galaxies moving at fractions of c according to their redshift.

Physics only appears to be the same because you keep calling different duration ticks of time seconds and different length rulers meters. You only think they are the same because you can't tell when your own clocks and rulers change.....

And if they were the same, no transformations would be required between one frame not moving in relative motion to the other, as they would already be the same.........

By using transformations to transform between frames not moving in relative motion, you declare the physics is not the same, you just have not realized that yet..... you are transforming their physics to your physics, not merely using the same physics.....