I have a theory

jwoodward48 wrote:
Only one problem: why the hell would they do that?

jwoodward48 wrote:1. This is a hypothesis, not a theory.

Tai Hai Chen wrote:
The distance between Jupiter and Saturn is cyclical and varies over time just like day and night and the four seasons. Once in a while, Jupiter and Saturn move to closest to each other and pull Earth further away from the Sun and this starts glacial periods. Once in a while, Jupiter and Saturn move to furthest away from each other and Earth is pulled closer to the Sun and this starts interglacial periods. Unless the Sun's output changes, the only thing that can meaningfully affect Earth's climate is Earth's distance from the Sun. What do you think? Makes sense?

jwoodward48 wrote:
Tai's statement hasn't been tested. Theories are supported by data; hypotheses are just educated guesses about to be tested.

Of course, there's also the null hypothesis.

IBdaMann wrote:

jwoodward48 wrote:
Tai's statement hasn't been tested. Theories are supported by data; hypotheses are just educated guesses about to be tested.

Of course, there's also the null hypothesis.

An hypothesis is derived from a model.

Tim the plumber wrote:[color=blue]Not really. You have to have a working theory or hypothesis to build a model.

IBdaMann wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote:[color=blue]Not really. You have to have a working theory or hypothesis to build a model.

It's the other way around.

You gather up the empirical, i.e. your observations, your data, etc.., you analyze it and you use that to form a model.

Then, from your model you derive an hypothesis, which usually takes the form of "If this model is correct then that would mean X will happen if we do Y under circumstances Z."

That hypothesis then becomes the basis of an experiment. If the experiment shows the hypothesis to be false then it's not the hypothesis that must be fixed but rather the model from which the hypothesis was derived.


.

IBdaMann wrote:

jwoodward48 wrote:
Tai's statement hasn't been tested. Theories are supported by data; hypotheses are just educated guesses about to be tested.

Of course, there's also the null hypothesis.

An hypothesis is derived from a model.


.

Tai Hai Chen wrote:
The distance between Jupiter and Saturn is cyclical and varies over time just like day and night and the four seasons. Once in a while, Jupiter and Saturn move to closest to each other and pull Earth further away from the Sun and this starts glacial periods. Once in a while, Jupiter and Saturn move to furthest away from each other and Earth is pulled closer to the Sun and this starts interglacial periods. Unless the Sun's output changes, the only thing that can meaningfully affect Earth's climate is Earth's distance from the Sun. What do you think? Makes sense?

spot wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote:[color=blue]Not really. You have to have a working theory or hypothesis to build a model.

It's the other way around.

You gather up the empirical, i.e. your observations, your data, etc.., you analyze it and you use that to form a model.

Then, from your model you derive an hypothesis, which usually takes the form of "If this model is correct then that would mean X will happen if we do Y under circumstances Z."

That hypothesis then becomes the basis of an experiment. If the experiment shows the hypothesis to be false then it's not the hypothesis that must be fixed but rather the model from which the hypothesis was derived.


.

how does that work in astronomy?

jwoodward48 wrote: Hypotheses don't necessarily have to come from a model, though; see "null hypothesis".

jwoodward48 wrote:
That's not the null hypothesis. The null hypothesis is "no correlation", or "no significant difference between A and B", or whatever. In a medical study, the null hypothesis is that the treatment is effectively a placebo - this is certainly not what is predicted at the time!

jwoodward48 wrote:
Oh, for ****'s sake. The null hypothesis is not "what we think will happen". That's a normal hypothesis. You're all barking mad.

jwoodward48 wrote:
What the model predicts, that is. Most people accept the current models. Most scientists will be testing said models. Most scientists will be using a null hypothesis, not of "the model is correct", but of "no correlation."

jwoodward48 wrote: Oh, damn it. There are two meanings to that word. We're both right.

jwoodward48 wrote:I'm talking about the meaning of "null hypothesis" specifically. It has been used to mean both "no correlation" and "predictions of current accepted models." (Not at the same time, of course.) (And that doesn't mean "not within the same time period," but rather "when I say "null hypothesis," it can only have one meaning out of the two.")

jwoodward48 wrote:Your definition: The null hypothesis is that there is a positive correlation between speed and mass (because that's what the model predicts).

jwoodward48 wrote: Websites that agree with me:

IBdaMann wrote:

jwoodward48 wrote:Your definition: The null hypothesis is that there is a positive correlation between speed and mass (because that's what the model predicts).

No. The problem is that you are writing in natural language (i.e. English). The null hypothesis is a test of the formal expression of the science as it is.

I'll repeat my previous example. Please pay attention:

Newton's model for gravity is not the English verbiage "There is an attractive force between any two masses that decreases with greater distance."

Newton's model of gravity is the formal expression:

Given two masses M1, M2 distance d apart, Gravity = g[M1*M2]/d^2

When the scientific method tests the null hypothesis, it tests exactly this, trying to show it to be false. How can you go about testing the null hypothesis for Newton's model yourself? You try to show that some pair of masses d-distance apart have some gravity other than g[M1*M2]/d^2. Just one example renders the model false. Find one example, whatever it takes.

This should look familiar. It is exactly what I'm asking of Surface Detail, i,e, provide just one example of any gas the fails Planck's null hypothesis. I'm requesting only what the scientific method demands. Of course Surface Detail whines and complains because, when you put it that way, it makes him look really stupid.

Hey, does this mean that the scientific method is the next thing to "not apply"?

jwoodward48 wrote: Websites that agree with me:

Ooooh, you just dropped four points in the polls. First, consensus has no bearing on science. Science is not determined by subjective opinion. No one owns science.

Secondly, I saw Wikipedia in that list. Dismissed!

Look, the main point here is that every model must be directly tested. If you don't want to use the term "null hypothesis" then don't use it.

If a falsifiable model that predicts nature is directly tested rigorously through the scientific method, survives and the word "null hypothesis" is never used then it's still passes on to the next set of tests.

Personally, I don't use the term "null hypothesis" myself. I prefer just stating "direct testing."

jwoodward48 wrote: Is that specific source dismissed, or the entire argument?

jwoodward48 wrote: Oh, okay. (Not the "evil leftist liberal bias", but the "Wikipedia is unreliable." As an occasional vandal-fighter myself, I know firsthand how inaccurate a statement can be.)

IBdaMann wrote:

jwoodward48 wrote: Oh, okay. (Not the "evil leftist liberal bias", but the "Wikipedia is unreliable." As an occasional vandal-fighter myself, I know firsthand how inaccurate a statement can be.)

You, or anyone for that matter, are welcome to present any "evil leftist liberal bias" you want, i.e. your opinion. You are welcome to present your beliefs on any topic.

My particular issue is not the Global Warming religion; I'm happy to discuss all faiths.

My issue is the bulveristic declaration of said religious dogma being science. That's a whole different Oreo cookie. When someone claims something is science then I should be able to apply all the scientific method to it *and* it should hold up. I should be able to question, doubt, examine and scrutinize every aspect without getting a rash of knee-jerk religious hatred.

As you are well aware, warmizombies become complete ashsoles to those who simply don't worship as they do, and that holds especially true when the non-believer points out that their unfalsifiable beliefs are not science.

Surface Detail and spot are classic examples. They are ficking haters. If I were a betting man I'd bet that they are classic losers who sit around thinking the world owes them everything. They are hateful morons who project their own scientific illiteracy onto those who simply hold differing opinions.

...and they're both as stupid as fock. They probably depend on Wikipedia to find the bathroom. If the two of them were to leave, the IQ of this site would shoot up. All you can expect from them is bogus gibber-babble and petty hate-filled insults.

...and don't expect Surface Detail to be giving you any examples of any gases radiating in violation of Planck's. You have seen how he insists that's the case despite knowing that he has no example. He won't ever be honest. If I could sell his honesty short, I'd make a mint.

Surface Detail wrote:
[quote]IBdaMann wrote:I love it when you lose it.

jwoodward48 wrote:
IB: You have to admit, though, you are insulting them, which to a newcomer poisons the well for whatever else you say.

jwoodward48 wrote: IB: You have to admit, though, you are insulting them, which to a newcomer poisons the well for whatever else you say.