Falsifiable or Not?

Wake wrote:We don't care bout no "study". Only falsifiable theories.

IBdaMann wrote:

Wake wrote:We don't care bout no "study". Only falsifiable theories.

Correct. Studies are not science. "Evidence" is not science. A "consensus" of subjective opinion is not science nor is science determined by any democratic vote among any group.

Science is a collection of falsifiable models from which predictions of nature (hypotheses) can be derived.

The scientific method is a systematic and exhaustive battery of tests attempting to falsify a science model.
.

Wake wrote: A hypothesis is where an IDEA starts.

IBdaMann wrote:

Wake wrote: A hypothesis is where an IDEA starts.

Hey moron, all ideas start in the mind. Ideas are ideas. Being an idea does not make it science.

In sciences, an hypothesis is derived from a falsifiable model. Without a falsifiable model, there's no science and thus no hypotheses can be derived.

What a fugging bozo. You think ideas are automatically science, and you don't even know from where ideas come.

Too funny.

Tell us something else about what you think science is.


.

IBdaMann wrote:

Wake wrote: A hypothesis is where an IDEA starts.

Hey moron, all ideas start in the mind. Ideas are ideas. Being an idea does not make it science.

In sciences, an hypothesis is derived from a falsifiable model. Without a falsifiable model, there's no science and thus no hypotheses can be derived.

What a fugging bozo. You think ideas are automatically science, and you don't even know from where ideas come.

Too funny.

Tell us something else about what you think science is.


.

Wake wrote: The problem with your idea of science is that it simply isn't possible.

Wake wrote: How do you prove that the speed of light is the same everywhere in the Universe.

Wake wrote: The Big Bang Theory calculates that the universe expanded at several times the speed of light in the first couple of milliseconds.

How the hell could you EVER prove or disprove something like that?

IBdaMann wrote:

Wake wrote: The problem with your idea of science is that it simply isn't possible.

I'm in a more cordial mood at the moment so bear with me.

Science is not an action. Science is a collection of falsifiable models from which nature-predicting hypotheses can be derived.

What is impossible about that?

Wake wrote: How do you prove that the speed of light is the same everywhere in the Universe.

You don't. You show that it is false ... if you can. Falsifiable models are "falsifiable" not "provable" or "confirmable."

Wake wrote: The Big Bang Theory calculates that the universe expanded at several times the speed of light in the first couple of milliseconds.

How the hell could you EVER prove or disprove something like that?

You don't. Neither Evolution, Big Bang or any other speculation about the past is science. Until we develop time machines, the scientific method cannot be applied to any speculation about past.


.

Wake wrote: As is usual you cordiality is questionable. Rather than answer the questions you invent answers to your own questions.

Wake wrote: I plainly asked you - how do you know that the speed of light is the same everywhere in the Universe even after I've quoted that the initial universe expanded at a rate faster than the speed of light?

Wake wrote: Can you for once address the question instead of closing your mind yet tighter?

Wake wrote: I find it no surprise rather than answer a question you run away with a stupid, "Falsifiable models are "falsifiable" not "provable" or "confirmable.""

Wake wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Wake wrote: A hypothesis is where an IDEA starts.

Hey moron, all ideas start in the mind. Ideas are ideas. Being an idea does not make it science.

In sciences, an hypothesis is derived from a falsifiable model. Without a falsifiable model, there's no science and thus no hypotheses can be derived.

What a fugging bozo. You think ideas are automatically science, and you don't even know from where ideas come.

Too funny.

Tell us something else about what you think science is.


.

You have to admit that was some pretty good insults.

The problem with your idea of science is that it simply isn't possible. How do you prove that the speed of light is the same everywhere in the Universe.

Wake wrote:
The Big Bang Theory calculates that the universe expanded at several times the speed of light in the first couple of milliseconds.

Wake wrote:
How the hell could you EVER prove or disprove something like that?

IBdaMann wrote:

Wake wrote: The problem with your idea of science is that it simply isn't possible.

I'm in a more cordial mood at the moment so bear with me.

Science is not an action. Science is a collection of falsifiable models from which nature-predicting hypotheses can be derived.

What is impossible about that?

Wake wrote: How do you prove that the speed of light is the same everywhere in the Universe.

You don't. You show that it is false ... if you can. Falsifiable models are "falsifiable" not "provable" or "confirmable."

Wake wrote: The Big Bang Theory calculates that the universe expanded at several times the speed of light in the first couple of milliseconds.

How the hell could you EVER prove or disprove something like that?

You don't. Neither Evolution, Big Bang or any other speculation about the past is science. Until we develop time machines, the scientific method cannot be applied to any speculation about past.


.

Into the Night wrote:

IF you develop a time machine, how do you know that what you are visiting is in fact the past? How do you know it works? Can you test a time machine to a point in time before the time machine itself existed?

IBdaMann wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

IF you develop a time machine, how do you know that what you are visiting is in fact the past? How do you know it works? Can you test a time machine to a point in time before the time machine itself existed?

QUESTION: What does time travel into the past have in common with "greenhouse effect"?
ANSWER: Their explanatory thought experiments always violate physics.

Time travel always ends up either violating the 2nd LoT which, not coincidentally, gives us our "time arrow" or it requires a mass to accelerate beyond the speed of light. There is no process or device that can send any object or any information into the past without generating such an increase in temperature that the device or process becomes destroyed first. .

IBdaMann wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

IF you develop a time machine, how do you know that what you are visiting is in fact the past? How do you know it works? Can you test a time machine to a point in time before the time machine itself existed?

QUESTION: What does time travel into the past have in common with "greenhouse effect"?
ANSWER: Their explanatory thought experiments always violate physics.

Time travel always ends up either violating the 2nd LoT which, not coincidentally, gives us our "time arrow" or it requires a mass to accelerate beyond the speed of light. There is no process or device that can send any object or any information into the past without generating such an increase in temperature that the device or process becomes destroyed first.


.

Wake wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

IF you develop a time machine, how do you know that what you are visiting is in fact the past? How do you know it works? Can you test a time machine to a point in time before the time machine itself existed?

QUESTION: What does time travel into the past have in common with "greenhouse effect"?
ANSWER: Their explanatory thought experiments always violate physics.

Time travel always ends up either violating the 2nd LoT which, not coincidentally, gives us our "time arrow" or it requires a mass to accelerate beyond the speed of light. There is no process or device that can send any object or any information into the past without generating such an increase in temperature that the device or process becomes destroyed first. .

You needn't twist the laws of thermodynamics around when the laws of relativity work quite nicely.

Somewhere you wish to go is two light years away. You go at 10 times the speed of light and when you get there it is two years later. This is why there will never be real space travel.

Into the Night wrote:

Wake wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

IF you develop a time machine, how do you know that what you are visiting is in fact the past? How do you know it works? Can you test a time machine to a point in time before the time machine itself existed?

QUESTION: What does time travel into the past have in common with "greenhouse effect"?
ANSWER: Their explanatory thought experiments always violate physics.

Time travel always ends up either violating the 2nd LoT which, not coincidentally, gives us our "time arrow" or it requires a mass to accelerate beyond the speed of light. There is no process or device that can send any object or any information into the past without generating such an increase in temperature that the device or process becomes destroyed first. .

You needn't twist the laws of thermodynamics around when the laws of relativity work quite nicely.

Somewhere you wish to go is two light years away. You go at 10 times the speed of light and when you get there it is two years later. This is why there will never be real space travel.

Love to see you try to accelerate a mass to 10 times the speed of light without destroying it!

Wake wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Wake wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

IF you develop a time machine, how do you know that what you are visiting is in fact the past? How do you know it works? Can you test a time machine to a point in time before the time machine itself existed?

QUESTION: What does time travel into the past have in common with "greenhouse effect"?
ANSWER: Their explanatory thought experiments always violate physics.

Time travel always ends up either violating the 2nd LoT which, not coincidentally, gives us our "time arrow" or it requires a mass to accelerate beyond the speed of light. There is no process or device that can send any object or any information into the past without generating such an increase in temperature that the device or process becomes destroyed first. .

You needn't twist the laws of thermodynamics around when the laws of relativity work quite nicely.

Somewhere you wish to go is two light years away. You go at 10 times the speed of light and when you get there it is two years later. This is why there will never be real space travel.

Love to see you try to accelerate a mass to 10 times the speed of light without destroying it!

Of course that's impossible but as you can see - with the theory of relativity it wouldn't have helped you in the least to be able to do it.

Wake wrote:

Wake wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Wake wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

IF you develop a time machine, how do you know that what you are visiting is in fact the past? How do you know it works? Can you test a time machine to a point in time before the time machine itself existed?

QUESTION: What does time travel into the past have in common with "greenhouse effect"?
ANSWER: Their explanatory thought experiments always violate physics.

Time travel always ends up either violating the 2nd LoT which, not coincidentally, gives us our "time arrow" or it requires a mass to accelerate beyond the speed of light. There is no process or device that can send any object or any information into the past without generating such an increase in temperature that the device or process becomes destroyed first. .

You needn't twist the laws of thermodynamics around when the laws of relativity work quite nicely.

Somewhere you wish to go is two light years away. You go at 10 times the speed of light and when you get there it is two years later. This is why there will never be real space travel.

Love to see you try to accelerate a mass to 10 times the speed of light without destroying it!

Of course that's impossible but as you can see - with the theory of relativity it wouldn't have helped you in the least to be able to do it.

The fastest object that Earth has produced to leave this Solar System (we THINK it's left), is travelling at approximately 30,000 mph. The closest star is Proxima Centuri at 4.243 light years or 24,905,194,804,800 miles away.

So the fastest object that Earth has produced will take about 755 million years to get there if it had even been aiming for that star. Were Earth to stretch their power and produce a vehicle that could go 100 times faster we're still talking about 7.5 million years aren't we.

The CLOSE areas of the universe are unimaginably far and the same people that think that man will fly to the stars someday think that man-made climate change is happening.

If you ponder that but for a minute you can see the extreme failing of the educational systems around the world.