Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

What is your understanding of the laws of physics?

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    What is your understanding of the laws of physics?

    I'm running up against a lot of people in threads who when challenged on their physics, come back with the stock response "Oh but our knowledge of physics is limited", and it's a bit of an affront to me. The laws of physics, their universality and the scientific method are what differentiate science from astrology or numerology.

    So, what's your stance and why? Oh, and how the heck do I post a poll? Is this another restriction on users here? Need a certain postcount? :s

    Now with added lesbians.

    #2
    To answer the bit about the poll, only mods can make polls. If you want a poll made, PM one of the mods and point them towards your thread.

    As for physics... I'm just taking it in high school here now. And I'm slow

    Note: User's posts are rarely serious.
    Member of the F.O.R.D. || Martouf Marty's Webpage || (LJ)

    Comment


      #3
      Originally posted by MartoufMarty
      To answer the bit about the poll, only mods can make polls. If you want a poll made, PM one of the mods and point them towards your thread.
      Aren't users trusted to make polls?!

      Now with added lesbians.

      Comment


        #4
        Originally posted by Three PhDs
        Aren't users trusted to make polls?!
        No.

        Note: User's posts are rarely serious.
        Member of the F.O.R.D. || Martouf Marty's Webpage || (LJ)

        Comment


          #5
          Originally posted by Three PhDs
          Aren't users trusted to make polls?!
          Apparently not.

          It would be correct to say our knowledge in anything is limited. In the field of physics (or any science), we can only know that which we can perceive and test. If there is something beyond our current perception, how are we to know that it's there? Early scientists used the same methods, but were more limited in their perceptions. What they knew worked until they came across an instance in which it didn't, at which point they percieved something new. And through further studies, more knowledge was added.

          It is supreme arrogance to believe we've figured out everything in a field of knowledge. How can you know that you know everything if there is a distinct possibility of something you don't realize you don't know? All we can do is continue to learn and correct our past understandings.
          Last edited by uknesvuinng; 19 November 2005, 09:00 AM.
          Cogito ergo dubito.

          "How happy are the astrologers if they tell one truth to a hundred lies, while other people lose all credibility if they tell one lie to a hundred truths." - Francesco Guicciardini

          An escalator can never be broken, it can only become stairs. You never see "Escalator temporarily out of service." It's "Escalator temporarily stairs. Sorry for the convenience." - Mitch Hedberg

          Comment


            #6
            /me weeps
            Lord §okar, Niles, Mark VI, etc: Dom Howard fan

            Tama, Bosphorus, Istanbul Mehmet, Sabian, Zildjian and Remo

            Comment


              #7
              Originally posted by Three PhDs
              Aren't users trusted to make polls?!
              Nope - they claim we would make pointless polls all day longs really they are just oppressing us

              I agree with you on the laws of physics
              gumboYaYa: you are all beautiful, your words and openness are what make that shine. don't forget how much talent love and beauty you all have.
              so for now, peace love love love more love and happy, and thank you, thank you, thank you
              love Torri

              Comment


                #8
                Originally posted by uknesvuinng
                It would be correct to say our knowledge in anything is limited.
                I agree.
                In the field of physics (or any science), we can only know that which we can perceive and test.
                I agree.
                If there is something beyond our current perception, how are we to know that it's there?
                If it had any effect on our tests, it would be noted, if it doesn't, it can (for the purposes of the test) be ignored.

                Early scientists used the same methods, but were more limited in their perceptions. What they knew worked until they came across an instance in which it didn't, at which point they percieved something new. And through further studies, more knowledge was added.
                Yet there is not one thing earlier scientists proved to be true that later was overturned, only things that were expanded upon. (Don't confuse proved with assumed)

                It is supreme arrogance to believe we've figured out everything in a field of knowledge.
                Yet it is supreme stupidity to blindly ignore that which we have discovered, tested and proven to be true all because "We don't know everything." - if a man is tried and found to be guilty in court, do we cast doubt on that verdict because we don't know the verdicts of all trials past present and future throughout all locations in the universe?

                How can you know that you know everything if there is a distinct possibility of something you don't realize you don't know? All we can do is continue to learn and correct our past understandings.
                And this is my point precisely: It is not required to know everything in order to say something with certainty.

                Now with added lesbians.

                Comment


                  #9
                  Originally posted by Three PhDs
                  I agree.
                  I agree.
                  If it had any effect on our tests, it would be noted, if it doesn't, it can (for the purposes of the test) be ignored.

                  Yet there is not one thing earlier scientists proved to be true that later was overturned, only things that were expanded upon. (Don't confuse proved with assumed)

                  Yet it is supreme stupidity to blindly ignore that which we have discovered, tested and proven to be true all because "We don't know everything." - if a man is tried and found to be guilty in court, do we cast doubt on that verdict because we don't know the verdicts of all trials past present and future throughout all locations in the universe?

                  And this is my point precisely: It is not required to know everything in order to say something with certainty.
                  I would say we agree, then. Though I would probably qualify the term "certainty". We can't say with absolute certainty, but we can operate with certainty until something comes along that challenges the belief.
                  Cogito ergo dubito.

                  "How happy are the astrologers if they tell one truth to a hundred lies, while other people lose all credibility if they tell one lie to a hundred truths." - Francesco Guicciardini

                  An escalator can never be broken, it can only become stairs. You never see "Escalator temporarily out of service." It's "Escalator temporarily stairs. Sorry for the convenience." - Mitch Hedberg

                  Comment


                    #10
                    Originally posted by Three PhDs
                    I'm running up against a lot of people in threads who when challenged on their physics, come back with the stock response "Oh but our knowledge of physics is limited", and it's a bit of an affront to me. The laws of physics, their universality and the scientific method are what differentiate science from astrology or numerology.

                    So, what's your stance and why? Oh, and how the heck do I post a poll? Is this another restriction on users here? Need a certain postcount? :s
                    My grasp of physics is:

                    drop apple. apple falls.

                    That's about it.

                    Comment


                      #11
                      Originally posted by uknesvuinng
                      I would say we agree, then. Though I would probably qualify the term "certainty". We can't say with absolute certainty, but we can operate with certainty until something comes along that challenges the belief.
                      When it comes to matters such as relativity, which says that as you approach the speed of light, you gain mass exponentially till you require an infinite amount of energy to accelerate at all, thus faster than light travel is impossible for any objects with mass. Relativity has been tested on that very thing, and found to be true. This then allows me to say that in no uncertain terms, no object with mass shall travel faster than light. It's just that when I say things like that the "Oh but..." crowd come out in force, not realising I'm not guessing, I'm stating truth, fact.

                      Now with added lesbians.

                      Comment


                        #12
                        Originally posted by Three PhDs
                        When it comes to matters such as relativity, which says that as you approach the speed of light, you gain mass exponentially till you require an infinite amount of energy to accelerate at all, thus faster than light travel is impossible for any objects with mass. Relativity has been tested on that very thing, and found to be true. This then allows me to say that in no uncertain terms, no object with mass shall travel faster than light. It's just that when I say things like that the "Oh but..." crowd come out in force, not realising I'm not guessing, I'm stating truth, fact.
                        Understandable there. It's entirely possible a condition could exist in which mass could travel faster than light, but there's no reason to assume that such a situation exists unless you observe something that indicates such a thing. Mass travelling faster than light is highly improbable, and in fact impossible to our knowledge. I'm certainly not expecting it to be otherwise anytime soon.
                        Cogito ergo dubito.

                        "How happy are the astrologers if they tell one truth to a hundred lies, while other people lose all credibility if they tell one lie to a hundred truths." - Francesco Guicciardini

                        An escalator can never be broken, it can only become stairs. You never see "Escalator temporarily out of service." It's "Escalator temporarily stairs. Sorry for the convenience." - Mitch Hedberg

                        Comment


                          #13
                          Originally posted by Three PhDs
                          When it comes to matters such as relativity, which says that as you approach the speed of light, you gain mass exponentially till you require an infinite amount of energy to accelerate at all, thus faster than light travel is impossible for any objects with mass. Relativity has been tested on that very thing, and found to be true. This then allows me to say that in no uncertain terms, no object with mass shall travel faster than light. It's just that when I say things like that the "Oh but..." crowd come out in force, not realising I'm not guessing, I'm stating truth, fact.
                          Prove it...because to my knowledge, it has NOT be tested on "everything"....that would be an impossible task, as our knowledge of the universe is pitifully small. Truth, is relative and what may appear to be "truth", may in fact, be illusion.
                          On fighting:
                          Farrah: "A swordsman does not fear death, if he dies with honor."
                          Dr. Who: "Then he's an idiot."

                          Comment


                            #14
                            Originally posted by Lida
                            Prove it...because to my knowledge, it has NOT be tested on "everything"....that would be an impossible task, as our knowledge of the universe is pitifully small. Truth, is relative and what may appear to be "truth", may in fact, be illusion.
                            Truth is not relative, our perception of truth is what is relative.
                            Cogito ergo dubito.

                            "How happy are the astrologers if they tell one truth to a hundred lies, while other people lose all credibility if they tell one lie to a hundred truths." - Francesco Guicciardini

                            An escalator can never be broken, it can only become stairs. You never see "Escalator temporarily out of service." It's "Escalator temporarily stairs. Sorry for the convenience." - Mitch Hedberg

                            Comment


                              #15
                              Originally posted by Lida
                              Prove it...because to my knowledge, it has NOT be tested on "everything"....that would be an impossible task, as our knowledge of the universe is pitifully small. Truth, is relative and what may appear to be "truth", may in fact, be illusion.
                              This is exactly the kind of attitude I'm talking about.

                              Relativity is a very very simple mathematical formula used to express the relationships in physical phenomena.

                              Relativity says a great many things about the state of the universe, makes predictions that can be tested.

                              Relativity has been tested a great many times all around the world by various independent bodies.

                              Relativity has never failed in any of these tests.

                              Unless you cling to the school of logic that says "We might one day drop a match on petrol and it might not burn, so we haven't proven petrol is flammable" then relativity is proven.

                              Now with added lesbians.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X