Questions about Sound in Space

POSTED BY: BlueBomber
UPDATED: Tuesday, November 30, 2021 06:47
VIEWED: 12723
PAGE 3 of 5

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT PAGE

BIKISDAD

Friday, June 10, 2005 3:46 PM

Grounded:

Thank you, thank you, thank you for injecting this discussion of physical reality with actual evidence to prove said reality. See my previous post regarding theory vs. fact. Glad to have such solid support.

The "luminiferous aether" is a disproven hypothesis, hence, not fact. Einstein's "theory" of general relatively (ie. gravity), on the other hand has been proven correct time and time again and is, hence, fact. Even such simple observations as the orbit of Mercury around the sun show the "Theory" of relativity to be a proven fact of physical existence.

Apathy on the Rise. No One Cares.

YT

Friday, June 10, 2005 6:29 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by bikisdad:
Einstein's "theory" of general relatively (ie. gravity), on the other hand has been proven correct time and time again and is, hence, fact. Even such simple observations as the orbit of Mercury around the sun show the "Theory" of relativity to be a proven fact of physical existence.

I believe it was Einstein who said that no amount of experimentation could prove him right, but it would take only one experiment* to prove him wrong.
* by which is meant: one experiment with results contrary to prediction
Relativity is a theory that has, so far, not been disproven.

Even if it is, in future, disproven, it may still be useful, just as Newtonian mechanics is still useful, despite its failure to predict the orbit of Mercury.

Keep the Shiny Side Up . . . (wutzon) Dark Star Orchestra, "Estimated Prophet", from "Thunder & Lightnin' "

GROUNDED

Friday, June 10, 2005 6:48 PM

Well put YT

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Friday, June 10, 2005 7:07 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Grounded:
There are good reasons to believe the ether doesn't exist:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson-Morley_experiment

No one is suggesting that there aren’t good reasons. But good reasons do not constitute an absolute. The Michelson-Morley experiment clearly demonstrates that there is no detectable motion through a fluid ether from the earth’s frame of reference. And many other experiments make applying a consistent ether theory difficult. This could be because it doesn’t exist; that is certainly the trivial solution. It could also be because the ether is entrained, not fluid or in some way different from our idealizations. The question of whether there is or is not an “ether” is more complicated then simply citing the hundred year old Michelson-Morley experiment. Obviously the idealized concept of a fixed ether would seem to not hold up against the facts, but neither did the idealized concept of an “indivisible” atom, yet we didn’t dismiss atomic theory. Very little of physics has withstood dramatic changes over the last hundred years, and that certainly would include the Ether theory. Ether is not as much a disproved hypothesis as it is an unneeded one.

Relativity is a theory, not a fact. This desire to label theories as “facts” simply because they are successful is unfortunate. Science is not an authoritarian philosophy. We do not elevate concepts to absolutes simply because they appear to work; likewise we should not dismiss concepts simply because they don’t appear to work. That’s a practice better left to religions. Clearly, Newtonian physics appeared to work for many years, until Relativity demonstrated that there was more to the story. This doesn’t mean that Newtonian physics is necessarily wrong, nor does it mean that relativity is necessarily right. This is simply the way theories work; they evolve to suit the evidence, unlike facts which must be true in order to exist. A theory therefore cannot be a fact, and to insist that it is is to interject a rigid authoritarianism into science.

-------------
Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum.

JASONZZZ

Friday, June 10, 2005 7:07 PM

hmmm... That's pretty much the definition of what is a scientific theory - that you can prove that it is consistent with a set of facts thru experiementation and live data gather. No theory ever becomes a fact, there's just no such thing. In the science world, you come up with some sort of hypothesis, gather some data, you construct a model that is hopefully somewhat self consistent, then you go off, publish it, have it peer reviewed, experiments proposed to gather data and prove the model to be correct and consistent with physical data. When those experiments can be shown to be rigorous and repeatable, and the data collected can be explained best by the model. Then maybe people will start calling it a theory.

Theories are the best operating models scientists have to describe the physical universe around us and supported by facts and data. Theories *do not* become facts. Theories can be consistently modified and improved as we understand our universe more though...

Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity (STR) is not completely consistent either, there are still lots of experiments to do for us to understand it better. It is also well known that it's not consistent at the quantum level; thus the big search for the GUT/TOE/String theory, etc. in attempts to unify our understanding of them both.

Sounds in space, you bet, especially if there is a huge explosion ejecting a large amount of gases and debris and you are in the path of it...

Quote:
Originally posted by YT:
Quote:
Originally posted by bikisdad:
Einstein's "theory" of general relatively (ie. gravity), on the other hand has been proven correct time and time again and is, hence, fact. Even such simple observations as the orbit of Mercury around the sun show the "Theory" of relativity to be a proven fact of physical existence.

I believe it was Einstein who said that no amount of experimentation could prove him right, but it would take only one experiment* to prove him wrong.
* by which is meant: one experiment with results contrary to prediction
Relativity is a theory that has, so far, not been disproven.

Even if it is, in future, disproven, it may still be useful, just as Newtonian mechanics is still useful, despite its failure to predict the orbit of Mercury.

Keep the Shiny Side Up . . . (wutzon) Dark Star Orchestra, "Estimated Prophet", from "Thunder & Lightnin' "

Like Fireflyfans.net?
Haken needs a new development system. Donate.
http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=5&t=3283

Given the freedom to do so, anarchy will result in an organic organization unto itself.

BIKISDAD

Friday, June 10, 2005 9:41 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:

Relativity is a theory, not a fact. This desire to label theories as “facts” simply because they are successful is unfortunate. Science is not an authoritarian philosophy. We do not elevate concepts to absolutes simply because they appear to work; likewise we should not dismiss concepts simply because they don’t appear to work. That’s a practice better left to religions. Clearly, Newtonian physics appeared to work for many years, until Relativity demonstrated that there was more to the story. This doesn’t mean that Newtonian physics is necessarily wrong, nor does it mean that relativity is necessarily right. This is simply the way theories work; they evolve to suit the evidence, unlike facts which must be true in order to exist. A theory therefore cannot be a fact, and to insist that it is is to interject a rigid authoritarianism into science.

Yes, I know that according to the scientific method, "No theory can be proven, only disproven."

OK, then let's look at the horse. Millenia ago, horses were dog-sized quadripeds with five toes. The fossil record clearly shows that horses, over many millenia, EVOLVED into the large, one-toed animal we see today.

So, is the "Theory" of evolution not a proven fact? It happened (and horses are one of boatloads of documented examples), didn't it? To ignore the obvious proof and say it's only a possible theory seems like a pretty stupid way to handle the situation. No wonder the "creationists" are making headway at getting their completely unsupported dogma taught as an equal "theory" in the schools.

Einstein was right. Newton was wrong. The universe is a logical place (except for the human race). Einstein's solution is so sublime, so logical, that it has to be right. Newton's solution tried to fit a square peg in a round hole. Now that works fine as long as the peg is small enough to fit in the wrong-shaped hole, which it often is, but it's ultimately wrong. Einstein's solution doesn't have that problem.

So, E=mc(squared), just a theory? Tell that to the people who experienced that theory at Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Apathy on the Rise. No One Cares.

GROUNDED

Friday, June 10, 2005 10:22 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
The question of whether there is or is not an “ether” is more complicated then simply citing the hundred year old Michelson-Morley experiment.

You know, that had occurred to me ;)

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Friday, June 10, 2005 10:44 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by bikisdad:
Yes, I know that according to the scientific method, "No theory can be proven, only disproven."

I’m not so sure that’s necessarily the case either.

Quote:
Originally posted by bikisdad:
OK, then let's look at the horse. Millenia ago, horses were dog-sized quadripeds with five toes. The fossil record clearly shows that horses, over many millenia, EVOLVED into the large, one-toed animal we see today.

Actually the fossil record shows that various animals increasingly similar to a horse may have existed in sequential periods of time. That may be a fact. That this means that the horse evolved from a previous ancestor is an assumption.

Quote:
Originally posted by bikisdad:
So, is the "Theory" of evolution not a proven fact? It happened (and horses are one of boatloads of documented examples), didn't it? To ignore the obvious proof and say it's only a possible theory seems like a pretty stupid way to handle the situation. No wonder the "creationists" are making headway at getting their completely unsupported dogma taught as an equal "theory" in the schools.

The Theory of Evolution is not a “proven fact.” It is an assumption based on factual evidence from the fossil record, among other sources. Evolution is a theory.

A theory cannot be a fact. They are two different things.

Incidentally, “proven fact” is superfluous. A fact is by definition proven.

Quote:
Originally posted by bikisdad:
So, E=mc(squared), just a theory? Tell that to the people who experienced that theory at Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Yes, it is a theory. Those people experienced a nuclear explosion; that’s probably a fact, which is consistent with the principle of mass-energy equivalence. But no one has ever done an experiment that has ever proven that Einstein’s mass-energy equivalence principle is a fact. Sorry.

Quote:
Originally posted by Grounded:
Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
The question of whether there is or is not an “ether” is more complicated then simply citing the hundred year old Michelson-Morley experiment.

You know, that had occurred to me ;)

I’m glad to hear that.

-------------
Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum.

BIKISDAD

Friday, June 10, 2005 11:05 PM

I have to admit, I love your way of thinking. In your version of the universe, it's still possible (despite some anecdotal evidence to the contrary) that the earth is flat and we will be eaten by monsters when we sail over the edge. What a fun world to live in.

Apathy on the Rise. No One Cares.

PERFESSERGEE

Friday, June 10, 2005 11:11 PM

It's true that during the Miocene horse-like ungulates had 5 toes, and it's also true that one can follow the reduction and loss of those toes in an elegant series of fossils culminating with the modern one-toed horse. These are facts, and they clearly show that horses evolved over the last 40 millioin years or so. Those fossils and modern horses share so many anatomical features that by far the most parismonious conclusion is that they are part of the same evolutionary lineage. Only the truly ignorant (and willfully so) can deny this. Not that that form of ignorance is uncommon; it makes up about half the US population. But, evolution by natural selection (the theory most clearly articulated by Darwin and Wallace but not entirely unique to them) is a theory and will remain so because it is an explanation of *how* horses came to look the way they currently do. That is, as an adaptation enabling horses to run fast and far ove open grassland habitats (note that this latter statement is a conclusion, neither theory nor fact). Note also that it's not the only way to do this - cloven-hoofed ungulates do it with 2 hooves instead of one. The explanation (the theory) is entirely consistent with the very large range of facts used to test it, and it has held up very well over the last 150 years. It has held up so well that virtually all biologists (not just evolutionary ones like me) hold it to be correct. And none of us deny the facts that underlie the theory; we leave that up to creationists, "intelligent design theorists" and others in the willfully ignorant faction. That it is a theory does not mean that it is untrue or incorrect. After all, gravitation is also a theory (one less fully understood than evolution) but few people want to test it by jumping off a building. Hmmmmmm, maybe we could get the ignorant to test it for us...................!

PS, it's not that Newton was wrong, his explanation worked just fine given the facts then at hand and the then-current state of ability to measure things. And it still works just fine as long as things aren't too big (or too small) and aren't moving too fast. Violate those conditions and you need relativity and/or quantum mechanics to explain things.

perfessergee

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT PAGE