Scientific vs Wrong

[TLK Valentine]

One of Aristotle's theories stunted the growth of science for two thousand years.

Which one would that be?

 

[AV1611VET]

Which one would that be?

The one that said matter is comprised of earth, air, fire, and water.

 

[TLK Valentine]

The one that said matter is comprised of earth, air, fire, and water.

And how did science finally get out from under that?

 

[AV1611VET]

And how did science finally get out from under that?

With moar science.

 

[TLK Valentine]

With moar science.

Funny how that works, isn't it? Self-correcting, and all that.

 

[AV1611VET]

Funny how that works, isn't it? Self-correcting, and all that.

Amazing!

 

[Justatruthseeker]

And how did science finally get out from under that?

By accepting that all things come from God...... Energy.....

 

[TLK Valentine]

By accepting that all things come from God...... Energy.....

Earth, Air, Fire, and Water also come from God.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

I'm aware that orbits can be spiral, e.g. the moon moving away from the Earth, but that nice animation is complete fiction - as Pauli would say, "Not even wrong".

The whole thing is wrong on so many levels it's nonsense.

It's closer than your flat motionless model where it all appears circular or elliptical. Granted small details like some planets lead the sun are not obvious, until you actually watch the video and see that some do at times....

This is the pathetic motion you want to portray.

Now this, this is wrong on so many levels..... Even more than the slight discrepancies in the other video.

https://solarsystem.nasa.gov/resources/310/orbits-and-keplers-laws/

So your source agrees NASA is even more incorrect in the way they portray the motions as circular or ellipses and confine them to the suns ecliptic. With no motion at all.....

Sad you all can not see the errors that are 10 fold in your own models of orbital motion.....

And my source does not mention vortexes at all, That video was stolen from this one and perverted to its own end.

And I said spiral and I meant spiral.

http://www.mathematische-basteleien.de/spiral.htm

"If you draw a circle with x=cos(t) and y=sin(t) and pull it evenly in z-direction, you get a spatial spiral called cylindrical spiral or helix."

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Earth, Air, Fire, and Water also come from God.

Who is Energy/Mind/Thought. So science understands all things came from Energy - God.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Who is Energy/Mind/Thought.

Says who?

 

[MoneyGuy]

Of course science can be wrong, as can religion.

 

[The Barbarian]

Science goes from being wrong, to being less wrong. Since we don't know all the rules, and have to infer them from examples, we merely get closer and closer to the truth.

This might seem like a poor method, but it showed us how to make computers out of dirt. Which seems like a good thing.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Can something be scientific and wrong at the same time?

Yes

 

[Kylie]

By accepting that all things come from God...... Energy.....

Wait, I'm sorry.

When did this happen?

 

[expos4ever]

Every 200 years or so everything we believed scientifically to be true has been turned upside down. It’s almost time again.....

Not that those who ignore history will ever admit. Everytime we think we got it all figured out, click..... a new light bulb flicks on..... and we start all over again.

I think you are misrepresenting a little bit. Yes, scientific models change, but such changes tend to be incremental - there is little, if any, “starting all over again”.

 

[expos4ever]

However, such theories are not "science" in the true sense of the word, but if they were (i.e. if the atheists presented falsifiable hypotheses for each of their beliefs), such beliefs would be both scientific (i.e. falsifiable hypotheses) and wrong (falsified hypotheses).

What? Big bang theory, for example, is rife with falsifiable hypotheses.

 

[expos4ever]

Yes. Newton's ideas about gravity and his equations describing gravity were wrong.

I suspect you are unintentionally playing into the hands of the anti-science crowd.

I think you will agree that Newton was “wrong” in the sense of being “not correct to 10 decimals and downright wrong in extremely exotic circumstances”. For many practical applications, Newton works just fine.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

It's closer than your flat motionless model where it all appears circular or elliptical. Granted small details like some planets lead the sun are not obvious, until you actually watch the video and see that some do at times....

This is the pathetic motion you want to portray.

Now this, this is wrong on so many levels..... Even more than the slight discrepancies in the other video.

https://solarsystem.nasa.gov/resources/310/orbits-and-keplers-laws/

So your source agrees NASA is even more incorrect in the way they portray the motions as circular or ellipses and confine them to the suns ecliptic. With no motion at all.....

Sad you all can not see the errors that are 10 fold in your own models of orbital motion.....

And my source does not mention vortexes at all, That video was stolen from this one and perverted to its own end.

And I said spiral and I meant spiral.

http://www.mathematische-basteleien.de/spiral.htm

"If you draw a circle with x=cos(t) and y=sin(t) and pull it evenly in z-direction, you get a spatial spiral called cylindrical spiral or helix."
View attachment 236380

Meh. That video is nicely-produced nonsense, as are the helical orbits described; regardless of the models you think I favour.

 

[Kylie]

I suspect you are unintentionally playing into the hands of the anti-science crowd.

I think you will agree that Newton was “wrong” in the sense of being “not correct to 10 decimals and downright wrong in extremely exotic circumstances”. For many practical applications, Newton works just fine.

Newton was wrong in that he assumed gravity worked instantaneously when it does not. It is true that this error makes no practical difference in everyday situations, but being wrong by only a little bit is still being wrong.