Remember me
▼ Content

Scientific Theories?



Page 2 of 2<12
04-09-2016 23:57
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
IBdaMann wrote:
Surface Detail wrote: I see that F = ma does indeed work here, but it's not quite as obvious as I thought.

But the relationship in question, i.e. F=ma, was spectacularly obvious. Any guy on the street can see it.

The model comes with its falsifiability branded on the packaging. There's no guarantee that all purchasers will be able to derive valid hypotheses or devise valid experiments but the falsifiability comes in the box.

Surface Detail wrote: Still, not to be discouraged,

...and still not starting with the model...


Surface Detail wrote: I propose a new test.

...and I say "Whoa, easy there tiger. A test of what hypothesis?"

This is where you explain the prediction of nature you derived from the model (and briefly your derivation) for which the gyroscope test would make a valid experiment.

You have to do that first.

Surface Detail wrote: I've got one of these spinning things - a gyroscope. I spin it up to speed and set it down on the table at an angle. I expect that, when I let it go, it'll fall to the table as the force of gravity acts on it. It doesn't! Instead, it starts to circle round. It even does this in a vacuum! Why is F = ma not working? Surely this has falsified Newton's second law! Or has it?

You might very well predict the correct result when you derive your hypothesis from the model.. If not, you'll know what to look for when reviewing your test results and when you form a second test.

Let me rephrase then.

We're talking about falsifying Newton's second law, F = ma, which you claim should be valid under all conditions.

The hypothesis: Given the force of gravity acting downwards, the top of a gyro set down at an angle on a table top should, in accordance with F = ma, accelerate downwards until it hits the table. That is, the gyro should fall over.

The test: I take a spinning gyro and set it down at an angle on the table top.

The outcome: The gyro doesn't fall over. Here's a video of someone else doing this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X1eDLSEMMyI

Conclusion: Newton's second law is falsified. Or is it? If not, why not.
05-09-2016 05:02
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4301)
Surface Detail wrote:Let me rephrase then.

We're talking about falsifying Newton's second law, F = ma, which you claim should be valid under all conditions.

Before we lose context, we were discussing how the falsifiability of a model is obvious, not necessarily how we might most effectively test that falsifiability. Are we good on that point?

Surface Detail wrote:The hypothesis: Given the force of gravity acting downwards, the top of a gyro set down at an angle on a table top should, in accordance with F = ma, accelerate downwards until it hits the table. That is, the gyro should fall over.

Then I might ask you "Have you taken all of the laws of motion into account? After all, they are all supposed to apply at all times, not just one at a time, and your testable hypothesis potentially involves the gyroscope having lots of angular momentum (spinning really fast) or perhaps having no angular momentum (zero spin), and that first law of motion says something about a body staying the way it is...or something like that, so how would that play here?"

You respond "I really don't think the spin matters. I predict it will fall over regardless of its angular momentum."

So we write up our hypothesis and prediction and we perform our test. We are totally surprised by the results and you say to me "Maybe you were on the right track with that first law of motion thing coming into play. How do you think it does that?"

I respond "I haven't the vaguest frick'n clue, but I noticed that it started off spinning really really fast and spent the entire test slowing down, and it's attitude changed as the angular momentum changed. Maybe it has to do with that."

Conclusion: we have reason to suspect that this test does not isolate Newton's second law so we can't be certain the gyroscope represents a valid test.

We nonetheless write up our results with our thoughts and caveots , but we look for another test that gives us greater confidence that we actually isolated and falsified the second law (assuming that's still our focus).


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
06-09-2016 03:16
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
It's good to see you've now acknowledged that falsification isn't quite such a straightforward process. The example with the gyroscope illustrates that there may be situations that appear to the layman to falsify theories, but on closer examination by experts don't. The thing is that even with something as apparently simple as F = ma, it takes an expert to determine that an apparent falsification isn't actually what it seems. Can you tell me why the gyroscope example doesn't falsify Newton's second law? I doubt it.

Anyway, on to the third test. The smart people who understand gyroscopes and tell us that they don't actually falsify Newton's laws have observed something that is bothering them. The perihelion of Mercury's orbit isn't precessing as it should according to Newton's laws. They've done their sums and they're sure. Something's wrong with Mercury's orbit. Newton's second law has been falsified. Or has it?
06-09-2016 15:17
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4301)
Surface Detail wrote: It's good to see you've now acknowledged that falsification isn't quite such a straightforward process.

Hold on. You're shifting semantics all of a sudden. I'm getting the impression you are just trying to get me to be "wrong" about something.

Our discussion began with falsifiability being obvious. You never acknowledged that.

Falsifiability is one absolute requirement for science and it is obvious if a model has it.

Falsification is never guaranteed.

Do you acknowledge and agree or not?


Surface Detail wrote: Anyway, on to the third test. The smart people who understand gyroscopes and tell us that they don't actually falsify Newton's laws have observed something that is bothering them. The perihelion of Mercury's orbit isn't precessing as it should according to Newton's laws.

You used the word "bothered." This tells me you're taking this right out of an overhyped article by a writer who understands nothing of the topic.

Just for grins, could you provide me the link to that article. It will probably be good for a chuckle.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
06-09-2016 15:54
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1295)
IBdaMann wrote:
Surface Detail wrote: It's good to see you've now acknowledged that falsification isn't quite such a straightforward process.

Hold on. You're shifting semantics all of a sudden. I'm getting the impression you are just trying to get me to be "wrong" about something.

Our discussion began with falsifiability being obvious. You never acknowledged that.

Falsifiability is one absolute requirement for science and it is obvious if a model has it.

Falsification is never guaranteed.

Do you acknowledge and agree or not?


Surface Detail wrote: Anyway, on to the third test. The smart people who understand gyroscopes and tell us that they don't actually falsify Newton's laws have observed something that is bothering them. The perihelion of Mercury's orbit isn't precessing as it should according to Newton's laws.

You used the word "bothered." This tells me you're taking this right out of an overhyped article by a writer who understands nothing of the topic.

Just for grins, could you provide me the link to that article. It will probably be good for a chuckle.


His point (Hank's) is that sometimes falsifyability is not obvious. Sometimes it is easy to see that the theory has fallen down sometimes not so. Sometimes it even looks like the theory is broken when it is not.

I very much doubt that his post was taken from any other source than his own head.

There is the option of believing everthing which is wrong. There is the option of doubting everything. This is equally wrong but in the other direction. Then there is any level of doubt/skeptisim between 5% and 95% which will come to the same sensable conclusions, generally.

To do the sensable method you will need to not talk about stuff you don't understand.
06-09-2016 20:04
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4301)
Tim the plumber wrote:
His point (Hank's) is that sometimes falsifyability is not obvious.

Well, it was Surface Detail's assertion and I attempted to correct that assertion.

Falsifiability is obvious. Falsification is never guaranteed. If your issue is that you don't understand the difference between those two words, I'll be more than happy to it explain to you.

Tim the plumber wrote: Sometimes it is easy to see that the theory has fallen down sometimes not so. Sometimes it even looks like the theory is broken when it is not.

You are not talking about falsifiability here. You are talking about pursuing falsification, the application of the exhaustive scrutiny of the scientific method.

Falsifiability is just a characteristic of a model and is required for the scientific method to be applied. The scientific method requires work. Realizing the falsifiability of a model does not.

Tim the plumber wrote: I very much doubt that his post was taken from any other source than his own head.

So now you claim to be doubting things all of a sudden. What happened to the doubting when you were handed a load of "greenhouse effect" crap?

Tim the plumber wrote: There is the option of believing everthing which is wrong. There is the option of doubting everything. This is equally wrong but in the other direction. Then there is any level of doubt/skeptisim between 5% and 95% which will come to the same sensable conclusions, generally.

All religions make this absurd assertion, i.e. "It is reasonable for you to question and doubt everything up to *OUR* religious dogma at which point your doubting and questioning become unreasonable."

You are a climate lemming. You aren't a skeptic of any of the WACKY religious "Climate" dogma. You won't dare question any egregious violation of physics that you were instructed to BELIEVE while you were bent over being reamed by your indoctrinators.

Tell me again how questioning your WACKY physics-violating boolschit is "unreasonable."




< c - l - I - m - a - t - e - * - l - e - m - m - I - n - g - * - m - o - r - o - n >



Tim the plumber wrote:To do the sensable method you will need to not talk about stuff you don't understand.

Bring it on, baby, bring it on. Does this mean you are going to stop being an intellectual coward and will face the physics you disregard? ... or are you going to continue as a science denier out of your FEAR of questioning your WACKY religious dogma?


< c - o - w - a - r - d >



.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist

Edited on 06-09-2016 20:05
06-09-2016 20:29
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Tim the plumber wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Surface Detail wrote: It's good to see you've now acknowledged that falsification isn't quite such a straightforward process.

Hold on. You're shifting semantics all of a sudden. I'm getting the impression you are just trying to get me to be "wrong" about something.

Our discussion began with falsifiability being obvious. You never acknowledged that.

Falsifiability is one absolute requirement for science and it is obvious if a model has it.

Falsification is never guaranteed.

Do you acknowledge and agree or not?


Surface Detail wrote: Anyway, on to the third test. The smart people who understand gyroscopes and tell us that they don't actually falsify Newton's laws have observed something that is bothering them. The perihelion of Mercury's orbit isn't precessing as it should according to Newton's laws.

You used the word "bothered." This tells me you're taking this right out of an overhyped article by a writer who understands nothing of the topic.

Just for grins, could you provide me the link to that article. It will probably be good for a chuckle.


His point (Hank's) is that sometimes falsifyability is not obvious. Sometimes it is easy to see that the theory has fallen down sometimes not so. Sometimes it even looks like the theory is broken when it is not.

I very much doubt that his post was taken from any other source than his own head.

There is the option of believing everthing which is wrong. There is the option of doubting everything. This is equally wrong but in the other direction. Then there is any level of doubt/skeptisim between 5% and 95% which will come to the same sensable conclusions, generally.

To do the sensable method you will need to not talk about stuff you don't understand.

Yes, indeed, that was what I (Surface Detail) was working towards. It isn't always obvious that a particular theory is falsifiable or when it has been falsified. The latter point was what I was illustrating with the gyroscope experiment. To the casual observer, this does appear to falsify Newton's second law, and you need a pretty good understanding of mechanics to understand why it doesn't.

As any student of physics will know, correctly predicting the discrepancies in Mercury's orbit that were one of early triumphs of Einstein's theory of special relativity that succeeded Newton's laws. This observation did indeed falsify Newton's laws of motion. But, of course, this doesn't mean that Newton's laws aren't still useful!

As regards falsifiability, I'd ask how you'd know that astrology, for example, isn't falsifiable. It does, after all, make predictions, and those predictions sometimes come true. Do the predictions that don't pan out falsify astrology, or is it more complicated than we think, like the gyroscope? What is the essential difference between astrology and Newton's laws?

(Just to clarify: Of course I don't believe in Astrology; this is just for the sake of argument!)
Edited on 06-09-2016 20:30
06-09-2016 20:36
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4301)
Surface Detail wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Surface Detail wrote: It's good to see you've now acknowledged that falsification isn't quite such a straightforward process.

Hold on. You're shifting semantics all of a sudden. I'm getting the impression you are just trying to get me to be "wrong" about something.

Our discussion began with falsifiability being obvious. You never acknowledged that.

Falsifiability is one absolute requirement for science and it is obvious if a model has it.

Falsification is never guaranteed.

Do you acknowledge and agree or not?


Surface Detail wrote: Anyway, on to the third test. The smart people who understand gyroscopes and tell us that they don't actually falsify Newton's laws have observed something that is bothering them. The perihelion of Mercury's orbit isn't precessing as it should according to Newton's laws.

You used the word "bothered." This tells me you're taking this right out of an overhyped article by a writer who understands nothing of the topic.

Just for grins, could you provide me the link to that article. It will probably be good for a chuckle.


His point (Hank's) is that sometimes falsifyability is not obvious. Sometimes it is easy to see that the theory has fallen down sometimes not so. Sometimes it even looks like the theory is broken when it is not.

I very much doubt that his post was taken from any other source than his own head.

There is the option of believing everthing which is wrong. There is the option of doubting everything. This is equally wrong but in the other direction. Then there is any level of doubt/skeptisim between 5% and 95% which will come to the same sensable conclusions, generally.

To do the sensable method you will need to not talk about stuff you don't understand.

Yes, indeed, that was what I (Surface Detail) was working towards. It isn't always obvious that a particular theory is falsifiable or when it has been falsified. The latter point was what I was illustrating with the gyroscope experiment. To the casual observer, this does appear to falsify Newton's second law, and you need a pretty good understanding of mechanics to understand why it doesn't.

As any student of physics will know, correctly predicting the discrepancies in Mercury's orbit that were one of early triumphs of Einstein's theory of special relativity that succeeded Newton's laws. This observation did indeed falsify Newton's laws of motion. But, of course, this doesn't mean that Newton's laws aren't still useful!

As regards falsifiability, I'd ask how you'd know that astrology, for example, isn't falsifiable. It does, after all, make predictions, and those predictions sometimes come true. Do the predictions that don't pan out falsify astrology, or is it more complicated than we think, like the gyroscope? What is the essential difference between astrology and Newton's laws?

(Just to clarify: Of course I don't believe in Astrology; this is just for the sake of argument!)


I really wish you would read my posts. I know you're not required to but it would save so much time.

Much of your post above is wrong; the explanations are in previous posts.



.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
07-09-2016 04:10
Leafsdude
★☆☆☆☆
(141)
So we pick one, say, the second, and we seriously doubt this F=ma bullshit. We think "Nature doesn't work this way ALL the time!" so we aim to find an example in nature that does not adhere to F=ma. So we start developing an hypothesis that we think doesn't hold up.


Did you know that we already found a place where F=ma does not stand up?

In Quantum Mechanics, F=dp/dt, which is similar, but definitely different from F=ma. As a law, though, as opposed to a theory, F=ma and F=dp/dt can both co-exist, as they only describe situations in a specific set of circumstances. They do not require to be always true, just true for the situation(s) they're defined to explain.

This is what a law is, and why your use of Stefan-Boltzmann and Planck's laws to counter Greenhouse theory are flawed.

"Acceptance" is subjective. I can only speak for me.


"Acceptance" is subjective. "Reasonable acceptance" is not.

All of your wording in your questions implies there is some sort of governing body that determines all these subjective decisions for us and decides what is science


How, exactly?

i.e. your questions are all loaded with a fundamental error that reveals a misunderstanding on your part of what science is and "how it all works."


As per above, I'm pretty certain that it's you that misunderstands science.

But as I've stated before, projecting is a pretty common tactic for those peddling illogical reasoning. The fact that you need to talk about me rather than the facts further damages your claims, too.

The best answer I can give you is that I certainly accept the number I computed for my purposes. If the day ever comes that I need to chart out a path for my shuttle ride to Pluto I will revisit my "acceptance" of that number.


Why do you accept your number? Moreover, why do you accept the laws of motion?


The rest of the context from IBdaMann's quote:

"Raw data does not show accurate trends. As many deniers like to state, using raw data would not account for effects like the Urban Heat Island effect or El Nino's and La Nina's (though the latter can and does show up even when the data is modified) as well as basic noise from normal, natural changes in yearly weather patterns. This is why climatologists use anomalous temperature events rather than actual temperatures, as they've proven to be more accurate at showing trends."
Edited on 07-09-2016 04:44
07-09-2016 11:37
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1295)
Surface Detail wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Surface Detail wrote: It's good to see you've now acknowledged that falsification isn't quite such a straightforward process.

Hold on. You're shifting semantics all of a sudden. I'm getting the impression you are just trying to get me to be "wrong" about something.

Our discussion began with falsifiability being obvious. You never acknowledged that.

Falsifiability is one absolute requirement for science and it is obvious if a model has it.

Falsification is never guaranteed.

Do you acknowledge and agree or not?


Surface Detail wrote: Anyway, on to the third test. The smart people who understand gyroscopes and tell us that they don't actually falsify Newton's laws have observed something that is bothering them. The perihelion of Mercury's orbit isn't precessing as it should according to Newton's laws.

You used the word "bothered." This tells me you're taking this right out of an overhyped article by a writer who understands nothing of the topic.

Just for grins, could you provide me the link to that article. It will probably be good for a chuckle.


His point (Hank's) is that sometimes falsifyability is not obvious. Sometimes it is easy to see that the theory has fallen down sometimes not so. Sometimes it even looks like the theory is broken when it is not.

I very much doubt that his post was taken from any other source than his own head.

There is the option of believing everthing which is wrong. There is the option of doubting everything. This is equally wrong but in the other direction. Then there is any level of doubt/skeptisim between 5% and 95% which will come to the same sensable conclusions, generally.

To do the sensable method you will need to not talk about stuff you don't understand.

Yes, indeed, that was what I (Surface Detail) was working towards. It isn't always obvious that a particular theory is falsifiable or when it has been falsified. The latter point was what I was illustrating with the gyroscope experiment. To the casual observer, this does appear to falsify Newton's second law, and you need a pretty good understanding of mechanics to understand why it doesn't.

As any student of physics will know, correctly predicting the discrepancies in Mercury's orbit that were one of early triumphs of Einstein's theory of special relativity that succeeded Newton's laws. This observation did indeed falsify Newton's laws of motion. But, of course, this doesn't mean that Newton's laws aren't still useful! [ I think it's still true that f=ma but the time bit if a is all complex. Newtons laws hold true but time moves at different speeds, just to make our heads spin.]

As regards falsifiability, I'd ask how you'd know that astrology, for example, isn't falsifiable. It does, after all, make predictions, and those predictions sometimes come true. Do the predictions that don't pan out falsify astrology, or is it more complicated than we think, like the gyroscope? What is the essential difference between astrology and Newton's laws?

(Just to clarify: Of course I don't believe in Astrology; this is just for the sake of argument!)


If astrology made predicttions that were both unexpected and turned out to be accurate more often than expected it would be reasonable to believe in it.

Given that the AGW thing has made predictions so wide that only a cooling of the earth would be outside it's range the predictions it has made are not very unexpected. Even these wide predictions are looking increasingly a miss as we have not seen warming even in line with the lowest end of the IPCC's predictions.
07-09-2016 13:11
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4301)
Tim the plumber wrote:If astrology made predicttions that were both unexpected and turned out to be accurate more often than expected it would be reasonable to believe in it.

Believe in it? ...as one believes in God? Like one believes in a religion?

Tim the plumber wrote: Given that the AGW thing has made predictions so wide that only a cooling of the earth would be outside it's range the predictions it has made are not very unexpected.

There have never been any predictions derived from any falsifiable model because there is no AGW science. There have only been hopeful guesses from very religious people.

For the same reason there have never been any "climate change" predictions, only regurgitation of WACKY religious dogma.

...and you know all this. You just won't admit it to yourself. There's too much faith at stake.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist

Edited on 07-09-2016 13:12
Page 2 of 2<12





Join the debate Scientific Theories?:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
There is no scientific basis doubling CO2 concentration increases temperature.312-03-2019 13:23
Scientific Consensus14126-05-2018 20:34
Scientific Challenge8304-08-2017 02:03
There is no Scientific Consensus on Global Warming4929-02-2016 14:36
There is no mathematical and scientific foundation nor any experimental evidence of the greenhouse effect516-01-2016 18:59
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2019 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact