My Conformity Challenge

[AV1611VET]

Does science conform to us, or do we conform to science?

Take the Law of Gravity for example.

Do scientists calibrate their machines to overcome lift in aerodynamics?

I would think so.

Scientists calibrate their machines to give them what they are trained to look for.

In this case, Gm[sub]1[/sub]m[sub]2[/sub]/r[sup]2[/sup].

 

[florida2]

Take the Law of Gravity for example.

Do scientists calibrate their machines to overcome lift in aerodynamics?

I would think so.

What do you mean? Which machines?

 

[pgp_protector]

No aerodynamics to overcome.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E43-CfukEgs

 

[AV1611VET]

What do you mean? Which machines?

Any machine.

Geiger counters, seismographs, thin layer chromatographs (if there is such an animal), wind tunnels, air conditioners.

Anything.

 

[AV1611VET]

No aerodynamics to overcome.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E43-CfukEgs

There are four forces that act on an airplane: two by nature, and two built to overcome them:

• Gravity must be overcome with Lift
• Drag must be overcome with Thrust

 

[florida2]

Any machine.

Geiger counters, seismographs, thin layer chromatographs (if there is such an animal), wind tunnels, air conditioners.

Anything.

I don't see how aerodynamics is relevant to any of them.

 

[pgp_protector]

There are four forces that act on an airplane: two by nature, and two built to overcome them:

• Gravity must be overcome with Lift
• Drag must be overcome with Thrust

You OP doesn't mention airplanes, are you Arab phoning your op question?

 

[AV1611VET]

I don't see how aerodynamics is relevant to any of them.

You don't equate wind tunnels with aerodynamics?

 

[VirOptimus]

Does science conform to us, or do we conform to science?

Take the Law of Gravity for example.

Do scientists calibrate their machines to overcome lift in aerodynamics?

I would think so.

Scientists calibrate their machines to give them what they are trained to look for.

In this case, Gm[sub]1[/sub]m[sub]2[/sub]/r[sup]2[/sup].

Science is a way of understanding reality, no more, no less.

This challenge is, like all your challenges, nonsensical.

 

[AV1611VET]

Science is a way of understanding reality, no more, no less.

I disagree.

But then I don't think like a scientist, so I could be wrong.

But I believe there's more to science than just "understanding reality."

Science is involved in quantifying & qualifying, sorting, labeling, and (ex materia) creation.

Just to name a few.

How do you think we got LSD?

 

[VirOptimus]

I disagree.

But then I don't think like a scientist, so I could be wrong.

But I believe there's more to science than just "understanding reality."

Science is involved in quantifying & qualifying, sorting, labeling, and (ex materia) creation.

Just to name a few.

How do you think we got LSD?

Firstly, science isnt a monolithic entity. The scientific method is used by people with all that that entails. Science doesnt do anything, people do.

Secondly, your debate tactic to use things that you think are bad as some sort of points against science is getting real old, its nonsensical and frankly pointless. It only proves that you dont understand the issues.

 

[pgp_protector]

I disagree.

But then I don't think like a scientist, so I could be wrong.

But I believe there's more to science than just "understanding reality."

Science is involved in quantifying & qualifying, sorting, labeling, and (ex materia) creation.

Just to name a few.

How do you think we got LSD?

But if shown wrong will you change your thinking?

 

[Freodin]

Does science conform to us, or do we conform to science?

Take the Law of Gravity for example.

Do scientists calibrate their machines to overcome lift in aerodynamics?

Err... no.

Read that sentence again, think a little, and then try again.

 

[AV1611VET]

Err... no.

Read that sentence again, think a little, and then try again.

What's the answer to my first question?

 

[RealityCheck01]

Does science conform to us, or do we conform to science?

The question is a bit nonsensical, AV1611VET.
You seem to be asking whether science is faked to fit with expectation which is just wrong .

You then follow with an incoherent question. Aerodynamics is not Newton's law of gravitation.

 

[Freodin]

What's the answer to my first question?

If you meant that last question I quoted as "an example" of what you were asking for in your first question (and that was what you said), I can only repeat my comment: try again.

 

[AV1611VET]

If you meant that last question I quoted as "an example" of what you were asking for in your first question (and that was what you said), I can only repeat my comment: try again.

Here it is again, with your answer:

Does science conform to us, or do we conform to science?

Err... no.

What do you mean by "no"?

 

[Elendur]

Here it is again, with your answer:

What do you mean by "no"?

It's a valid answer.
False or false -> false.
Therefore no.

I.e. you could see that as no to both embedded questions.

 

[AV1611VET]

It's a valid answer.

So we don't conform to science? is that what you want me to believe?

Using the example I provided, are you saying scientists can calibrate their equipment for gravity at Gm[sub]1[/sub]m[sub]2[/sub]/r[sup]3[/sup], and airplanes will still fly with the "new and improved" leading edges on their wings?

I think not.

 

[Elendur]

So we don't conform to science? is that what you want me to believe?

I don't want you to believe anything (not to be confused with "I want you to not believe in anything").

I was merely explaining how that answer was a proper way to answer that question. Binary questions are very easy like that. If you wanted him to expand upon his answer, why not ask for that?

Using the example I provided, are you saying scientists can calibrate their equipment for gravity at Gm[sub]1[/sub]m[sub]2[/sub]/r[sup]3[/sup], and airplanes will still fly with the "new and improved" leading edges on their wings?

I think not.

Gravity’s role plays little difference when it comes to the design of air planes.

If we assume that the maximum height of the plane would be the tropospheres edge, 20km, and assume that the radius of earth would be 6370 km, we could calculate the difference between the gravitational pull.

Dividing will yield the percentage. The constant g and the masses cancel out. It's approximately
(6370)²/(6370+20)² ~ 0,9938.

I.e. the gravitational pull would be off by not even a percent.

If we do the same calculation for r³ instead of r², we get the same cancelling:
(6370)³/(6370+20)³ ~ 0,9906.

Again less than a percents change. If the engineers build their planes sensitive to such small changes, I'd suggest they change line of work.