Whats the deal with science

Discussion in 'Science and Nature' started by captain_crook, Feb 20, 2009.

  1. i mean its really weird stuff. i was pondering science in general and this is what i came up with. its kinda long so, or at least it felt long when i was writing, so be prepared.
    In the past, great scientists were faced with a great challenge of creating science for themselves. There were no precedents on which to base their work. And so they observed the world and made up their own rules, physical laws. Frames of reference, someone created the idea that every earthly reference point moving with a constant acceleration would observe some given happening as the same, regardless of the reference point observed from. Now that such ideas exist as universal codes of observing, there is not much left to simply create with regard to universal scientific laws and so it has become the job of today's modern thinkers and scientists to disprove the previously made and accepted laws through laws of our own rather than create new ones as the scientists of the past did. We will just continue adding more and more laws. Einstein's relativity, Einstein has taken light as an example to use in order to disprove Newton's previous ideas of planes of reference. As I only know Einstein's theory of relativity to a relatively shallow extent I will only be explaining it to a relatively shallow extent. Now two reference planes of the same acceleration, in this instance standing still, will not necessarily record the same observations of the same event. Now it depends on how far away we are from the event as in every situation of observation the light of what is happening has to bounce off the observed object and travel to each observer and since light always travels at the same constant speed it may be able to get to the first observer first, because the first observer is closer. Or vice versa. So we have disproved Some of the earlier ideas of planes of reference, something thought to be impossible, but Einstein did that supposedly by bringing some unthought-of of aspect into the frame, light.
    The truth is that the concept of light affecting experimental observation did not exist in Newton's time as it had never been thought of, never been mentally observed. And I am a strong believer that by mentally observing something, thinking it, you are in fact putting it into existence. So the physical laws of the universe changed between the times of Newton and Einstein. This means that any observation governed by the laws of Newton's day could be completely incorrect in our day. Such observations must have been taken in different frames of reference, different times. So now not only can distance from the observed object have an effect on the measurements you take but it even matters in what year you have taken these observations. So if you will allow me for the remainder of this paper, I have just changed the laws with regard to frames of reference yet again.
    In continuing to discover and record new observations of the earth's laws and rules we are not really extending our knowledge of the world any more, we are only playing a universal mind game, which is in no sense a bad thing. We are throwing ideas into the atmosphere and waiting for the radar system of other like minds to pick them up, analyze them, and make an argument against them. And there are millions of contenders. Everyone who wants a part in it simply has to ponder the issues of the past and figure a way to disprove them or figure a way to squeeze their own rule through the loopholes of the previously created rule, like Einstein did. There will be hundreds more ideas thrown back and forth before we realize that it truly doesn't matter, that every observation is relative to the person making it, that we are but animals playing rather than with our paws and teeth, rolling in the grass, with our minds, creating false battles to keep ourselves occupied for the extent of our stay on this planet. Everything is relative. But what I just said is only from my point of view. Don't go making universal laws based on it.
  2. I had a hard time reading your text, due to bad grammar, and inoconsistent spacing, but here's what I picked up on.

    The scientific community does not take in an idea, even if the previous one was found to have a loophole, or be disproven or anything like that. The new idea must be supported by evidence, otherwise it is only an hypothesis an not taken as fact, or taught. Untill ample evidence is found then it becomes commonly accepted. Also, as soon as something disproved to a certain point the whole community drops it like a stone.

    You also said that ideas now a days are just sprung off of new ones, this is not true, new ideas are constantly being thought up. It's just that they do not break through to the media, you have to be a part of the community. Go to propsals, were they pitch thier ideas and display thier evidence.

    Science evolves much like we do.
  3. Ye canna change the laws of physics, Jim.
  4. I agree. The laws did not change, understanding is what changed as more knowledge was gained.
  5. gotta say I love my velcro, thanks science!
  6. I love my AC, my radio, my TV, my DVD player, my iPod, my computer, my games, God (a.k.a. The Internet) Wikipedia, Dictionary.com, and number of things I cannot name. Thank you science, for making the modern age possible! :D
  7. science is the study of natural phenomena using empirical evidence.

    also, the physical properties of the universe most certainly did not change, rather our understanding of them and its workings did.
  8. ton of things came into my head with this thread

    first, cantharis...I definately had scotty's voice in my head, and laughed afterward. nice

    and to the OP...nah. just because we broaden our understanding doesnt mean that we change what is around us. for example, do you propose that at one time we did exist in a geocentric universe? I dont

    and third, this made me think of a book series I read, The Coldfire Trilogy by C.S. Friedman

    its a fantasy trilogy, about humans on a different planet. they came from earth, had some earth technology, but quickly devolved the ability to use it because of the environment around them...their thoughts actually could alter the environment. for example, guns werent used, even though they knew how to make them. the reason was the fear that a gun could misfire on the user made that a real possibility, and a likely one at that.

    made for a cool read back in the day
  9. but we create the laws, no other animal on the earth has the capacity to change the laws. without humans there are no laws at all, things just happen. as our understanding changed we changed the laws themselves rendering any observation taken before these laws to be possibly innacurate in the realm of the new laws. how can proper scienctific experiments be carried out in a world where the laws of physics are constantly evolving with out understanding.
  10. The laws of nature do not change, only our understanding of them.
  11. without our perceiving and understanding them, the laws of nature do not exist
  12. lol I want one!
  13. i dont think we create the laws, we observe them.

    Does a falling tree with no one around make a sound? yes. as long as its not in a vacuum. I dont have to be present to know that. It made a sound before I was born too.

    our understanding of the natural laws change as we progress, simply because we gain observational benefits and the ability to learn from the past. recorded history is also when we really started racing towards attaining more than "societal" knowledge.

    so, even though someone may make a wrong calculation/assumption, the natural stimulus still exists in the same form.

    lightning thrown from zeus' hand is no different than lightning from a spring storm today, but we know a lot more about it (and still some to learn I might add)
  14. this almost seems like a linguistics argument or something technical

    think about it like this

    2+2 is ALWAYS 4, no matter what language you translate it into. In the same way that the natural world exists in the same fashion no matter how you try to observe/describe it. changing your explanation doesnt change the fundamental phenomena
  15. To which the troublesome philosopher may reply:

    You have proven 100% that when you observe a tree falling, it makes a sound. You have conjectured therefore a tree falling always makes a sound as in your 18,000,000 observations, it always has. However, you have never made an observation when you were not observing. Therefore you have a zero experiment sample space with which to use as proof that a tree that falls unobserved makes a sound.
  16. so, I need to observe a tree falling to know that there is a transfer of energy as the collision occurs, and that this in turn causes vibrations of matter, which would be audible to the human ear?

    maybe, but im pretty sure that it's going to happen either way. did anyone hear it fall? nope. but if they were present, they would have...hearing is just us interpreting vibration in our ear, and I know the vibration are there if a tree collapes void of a vacuum
  17. My point was that you can not have proof that something happens unless you observe it. You can only make an (incredibly) educated guess.

    We have never had the chance to observe the sun rising from the east tomorrow morning, but based on past observation we are pretty sure it will rise from the east in the morning.
  18. what is said vibration without a human ear to interpret it? surely it cannot be called a sound. It is merely a vibration, a transfer of energy. Without a sense of hearing present, a tree falling will not make a sound or a sound cannot exist void of an interpretive ear. who knows how many other phenomena exist that we are unaware of due to our lack of the proper sensory organ to observe it, or trippier yet a lack of knowledge of said organ.
  19. ok, so using the word sound is bad.

    word it like "does a tree falling with no one around produce vibrations capable of being interpreted as sound by the human ear?" and the answer is my point


    by your analogy for sunrise, i could also make the argument that I dont really know 2+2=4. I know that everytime it has been correctly calculated previously, the answer is 4. how do I know it will be 4 next time?

    i feel that would be an incorrect assessment, and as such am of the school of thought that there are fundamental laws governing nature, and that these laws can be observed and understood.
  20. I certainly put my faith in science, particularly quantum mechanics. It is interesting to know that it is impossible to observe certain characteristics and events. Makes one think what else may be impossible...and how to find a way to make it possible...

Share This Page