is TIME a problem? Or is this guy retarded?
POSTED BY: kaneman
UPDATED: Saturday, May 26, 2007 14:33
VIEWED: 10984
PAGE 8 of 10
Show me somebody treating scientific laws as theories and I can find you as many scientists as you like not willing to take that person seriously.
"Only if it all goes through the maw of an active sun."
I also said that there will still be light elements, except that they too will be useless because they're too far apart for gravitational pull to have a significant effect, and hence they wouldn't be able to form anything.
"And no one knows quite what happens to the stuff which goes into a black hole."
Let's stick to what we know and not what might be. This is also the issue I had with Sigma earlier.
Questions are a burden to others. Answers are prison for oneself.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Khyron,
Are you claiming that no one is studying gravity? Or space/ dimensions/ quantum theory and gravity? That b/c it's a "law" there's no active research? UUhhh ...
"I also said that there will still be light elements ..."
In an ever expanding universe (as proposed) don't you think there will be non-light matter that escapes the various suns?
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Khyron:
Show me somebody treating scientific laws as theories and I can find you as many scientists as you like not willing to take that person seriously.
As it's been explained to me by a source I trust, the idea of a scientific law is no longer in favor. The reality is that given the progressive nature of science even something that is known to be true will not be immune to refinement, thus the concept of an immutable law is no longer considered valid and new discoveries that in previous generations might have had the title of law applied to them are now being left at the status of theory.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
You're the one who brought up the law of gravity, maybe you need a reminder of what it actually is. Yes, I'm claiming that nobody outside of high school is studying this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_universal_gravitation
What causes gravity is a different matter, that's not what this law is about.
"In an ever expanding universe (as proposed) don't you think there will be non-light matter that escapes the various suns?"
Not sure what your point is. Unless a star is at the end of its life, no heavy elements are formed, so none can escape. Even if the star were to form them, I doubt it would emit them. But even without an expanding universe stars explode and hurl all sorts of heavy elemental junk into the cosmos... so? Where are you going with this?
Questions are a burden to others. Answers are prison for oneself.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Of interest: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_law and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_of_science
From the first link: "Simply stated, while a law notes that something happens, a theory explains why and how something happens."
Fred, I still think there's a significant difference between laws and theories, but I don't object to the reclassification as long as it's understood that it doesn't mean that theories that have previously been accepted as laws are now less true or points of contention, they're just differently labelled.
Questions are a burden to others. Answers are prison for oneself.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Khyron
There are laws that have come under question. Entropy is one of them and gravity is another. When scientists probe into the beginnings the of the universe, its basic structure, and possible end the laws - as currently formulated - fall short. So yes, these supposedly immutable laws do come under scrutiny.
Your contention is that there will be either heavy or light elements. That isn't true unless you're considering that light is hydrogen and helium, and heavy is everything else. (In that case the final dead universe will be composed the same as the current one.)
edited: Einstein put a lot of stock in the idea of entropy. I was looking for the quote (I can't find it) but it went something like - even if all of his theories were to be proven untrue, and in fact if all other physics theories were proven untrue, he thought entropy would remain. For all the credit he gave the idea though, he still recognized it as being a testable theory.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Khyron:
From the first link: "Simply stated, while a law notes that something happens, a theory explains why and how something happens."
By that definition a law would be reclassified as a fact.
Quote:
Fred, I still think there's a significant difference between laws and theories
There is, it's just that from what I've heard many if not most scientists are backing away from the idea of a law of science since nothing can be proven absolutely in science.
Quote:
but I don't object to the reclassification as long as it's understood that it doesn't mean that theories that have previously been accepted as laws are now less true or points of contention, they're just differently labelled.
This is the problem. One of the favorite tactics of the anti-evolution people is to say "It's only a theory" by playing off of the general publics definition of theory. A scientist will know that being shifted from law to theory isn't much of a downgrade, but to the ublic it seems huge.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I am trying to say that if molecules and particles are the same throughout the universe, as claimed, where is the evolution? Why don't particles evolve? If they do, why the same everywhere in the universe? If one form of matter evolves shouldn't it all?
And if it is the same every where..can we conclude it comes from the same origin? If we can agree on that, how does it not evolve differently so far removed from its self? After all the whole premise of evolution is to turn the innate into living..but in the end it comes down to Protons, electrons, and such.............they should NOT act uniformly everywhere.........
*Kaneman washes his pecker and goes out for a drink.......*
*slaps his girlfriend, while yelling "hurry the fuck up bitch. I am getting thirsty!"
*slaps baby on her ass saying, "thata girl"*
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Sure, under extreme circumstances, such as the time after the Big Bang, or when the bodies are moving at high speeds relative to each other, etc, the laws need to be tweaked. But as far as I can tell we weren't talking about anything like that. In pretty much any given situation, the laws hold.
Originally posted by rue:
There are laws that have come under question. Entropy is one of them and gravity is another. When scientists probe into the beginnings the of the universe, its basic structure, and possible end the laws - as currently formulated - fall short.
Quote:In this context I consider heavy elements to be the ones that couldn't form a star, i.e. one couldn't get nuclear fusion started. So basically what I'm saying is that there'll be lots of stuff with which one can't form new stars, and all of the stuff with which one could form stars is too few and far between.
Your contention is that there will be either heavy or light elements. That isn't true unless you're considering that light is hydrogen and helium, and heavy is everything else. (In that case the final dead universe will be composed the same as the current one.)
Effectively, the universe will be dead. Unless there's a Big Crunch and everything starts anew.
Questions are a burden to others. Answers are prison for oneself.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Don't see why. 'The fact of universal gravity' sounds less impressive and commanding. Plus one can't use 'facts' to compute stuff, for instance gravitational attraction.
Originally posted by fredgiblet:
By that definition a law would be reclassified as a fact.
Quote:It's the first I've heard of it, but I guess that doesn't mean that it isn't happening. I'm a maths student and we don't hang out with the physicists too much (they have dandruff and watch Star Trek... *shudder*).
There is, it's just that from what I've heard many if not most scientists are backing away from the idea of a law of science since nothing can be proven absolutely in science.
Questions are a burden to others. Answers are prison for oneself.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME