Forum accelerant (a question)

Lummox JR · Post by **Lummox JR** » Fri May 04, 2001 1:20 am

Heh. Actually the logic itself is a little flawed. If you don't know whether others' bleeding was caused by cuts, you can't really use it as data because there's no knowledge; the presumption that they were cut is just your original hypothesis but there's no additional data just from knowing that people are bleeding. If you asked them what events led up to their bleeding and all (or most) of them responded that they had been cut, that might work. Of course for a proper experiment you'd need a control group (people who don't get cut) and an experimental group (people who will be cut) and you'd have to check on the results. Kind of a ghastly experiment, though.Lummox JR

Chris Purcell · Post by **Chris Purcell** » Fri May 04, 2001 3:30 am

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Lummox JR:
Of course the Einsteinian viewpoint basically gets around a lot of the weirdness inherent in the theory by saying space can be warped. However this is basically just fancy geometry, like looking at a curve in Euclidian space and calling it a straight line under a different geometry.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Yes - that's the point. Or rather, the point is that by considering this particular geometry, we accurately predict what curves will appear - not that we shift all apparent curves to make them straight. This latter would be bad physics; the former is acceptable.I always rather liked the basic tenets of Einstein's theories. The idea that there is no "fixed" frame that light moves relative to is a big relief after first finding out that the speed of light is constant, at least for me. And what is wrong with the speed of light (in a vacuum) being insurmountable? So many people claim it just can't be true, there's no reason for it. I have much more sympathy for those who claim the millennium was at the beginning of 2000 - while technically wrong, at least it was no more arbitrary than when it actually occurs.End rant.Chris/Kritter (a mathmo pretending to be a natsci.)

Michael · Post by **Michael** » Fri May 04, 2001 4:04 am

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by BoxJam:
Well, accepting that carbon-14 decays at a
steady rate is only half the battle, Michael.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Ah. Sho nuff, and my apologies to Lummox -- but creationists do question the stability of rate of decay. Really. I didn't really distinguish between the current argument and ones I'd heard before. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>
If the rate of radiation from the sun wasn't
constant (though I feel it's a safe bet that
it was),
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Um... It's a pretty safe bet it wasn't, actually. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Anyhow, I'm with you in not understanding
why testing some hypotheses is science, and
some isn't.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Afterwards I remembered I wanted to make one more point: Steven Jay Gould's popular books would tend to support Lummox, kinda. He talks about two different kinds of science -- paleontology is the other one, because you can't run experiments which last a billion years. You've got a single set of data, and you have to create ex post facto hypotheses to explain the data. You can devise tests along the way, but it's a different approach.He does still call it science, though. And he ought to know. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>
Another philosophical question: does
a non-deterministic universe make the
scientific method unusable? That is, if
the universe has truly random aspects, what
good is testing a hypothesis? Something
random may happen next time to give different
results.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>That's a sticky wicket, isn't it? Actually, physicists are not the people to ask about that. Physicists run screaming from philosophy, at least the ones I know (except my wife; I've poisoned her mind sufficiently).Isn't that induction? Isn't it generally handled statistically?By the way, on this whole matter of stability and assumptions and stuff -- one of the basic assumptions is that there is no preferred direction. Turns out there may be. Sorry, I don't know the details; my wife and I don't really share the same cognitive universe. She talks about her stuff, I talk about my stuff, and we each understand about 10%, I think, on a good day.But apparently there may be another force. I think that's really cool.I'm still holding out for the warp drive, though.------------------
<A HREF="http://www.vivtek.com/toonbots/" TARGET=_blank>Toonbots.</A> Only the coolest of people like it. You want to be cool, don't you?

Michael · Post by **Michael** » Fri May 04, 2001 4:11 am

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Lummox JR:
Light does slow down; it's slowed by interaction with matter, which is the cause of refraction. Unless the argument here is that highly refractive matter thins out space such that light is traveling farther, not slower, I don't see an alternate explanation. (One of the sticking points of this theory with me is that light somehow violates rules other particles are bound by; it travels at "top speed" while ordinary matter can never reach it. Can it really be argued that photons have absolutely no mass?)
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>The individual photons aren't going slower, though. The aggregate speed of the light is slower because some of the photons are being reflected backwards and have to catch up, effectively. Light speed is still exactly 1c in between the particles of the substance.Photons have no rest mass, meaning, effectively, that if you could stop one without breaking the universe, it would weight nothing. But that explanation is sophistry. Actually, I suspect the correct answer to the question "How much does a photon weigh" is "the question is invalid" (and no, not only because weight is not the same as mass.)In the same way, the question "where is this particle and how fast is it going?" is simply invalid. It feels like a violation of logic only because at the macro level we inhabit, the statistical uncertainty is vanishingly small that a baseball isn't where we thought it was. Or at least, most of the baseball is where we thought it was -- how would we know if an electron or two ended up on the other side of the bleachers?I'm running on here for no good reason other than the fact that I like to hear myself type, and I'm avoiding work.Ahem.------------------
<A HREF="http://www.vivtek.com/toonbots/" TARGET=_blank>Toonbots.</A> Only the coolest of people like it. You want to be cool, don't you?

Michael · Post by **Michael** » Fri May 04, 2001 10:02 am

Scuse me for bumbling into this topic late, but I can't resist mouthing off.- We have seen atoms -- Scientific American had a cover picture of uranium atoms in the 80's. Well, that was a scanning tunnelling electron microscope, but that's pretty darned close to seeing. (I mean, we all agree the Earth has an interior, even though it's opaque and thus nobody's actually seen it.)- Light doesn't slow down. The average speed of light in a medium other than vacuum is just an average because the photons get reflected a lot, then get back on course, etc. Light bends, in a way -- but in a very real sense, light's still going straight. It's space that bends. Lightspeed is absolute.- Science consists of: (1) making a hypothesis (2) checking the hypothesis against data. Whether the data were already there or are gathered specifically in order to test the hypothesis is immaterial -- in fact, there's a good case to be made for saying that building an experiment specifically for a single hypothesis is more likely to overlook data that don't support it. My wife is a real live working physicist, and it's amazing to realize what experiments just don't measure because they're testing a single hypothesis.- The strong, weak, and EM forces are actually already unified. Gravity's the odd man out. My wife is undecided as to whether it will actually unify; she's really more convinced that gravity is a pseudoforce (like centrifugal "force"). I don't pretend even to have a glimmering of why that might be, but it's interesting enough to pass on.- I'm only funding my wife's doctoral research in hopes of getting a warp drive. She says there's still hope but it really doesn't look good.Sigh.- If you can't trust carbon-14 to keep the same rate of decay (and it's been measured to check that the rate doesn't change) then how can you trust your calibrated thermometer to expand at the same rate tomorrow? In other words, taking the temperature of a dinosaur would be precisely as unscientific as any other measurement. In fact, if you don't accept the concept of stability, all bets are off regardless. A giant turtle could eat the sun next week.On that note, I'm going to pick up my son at daycare. Carry on the Good Fight, BoxJam.------------------
<A HREF="http://www.vivtek.com/toonbots/" TARGET=_blank>Toonbots.</A> Only the coolest of people like it. You want to be cool, don't you?

BoxJam · Post by **BoxJam** » Fri May 04, 2001 10:47 am

Well, accepting that carbon-14 decays at a
steady rate is only half the battle, Michael.Things can be dated by carbon-14 dating if
they took in carbon 14 from the air.Carbon-14 exists in the air because carbon
dioxide in the air absorbs neutrons from solar
radiation.If the rate of radiation from the sun wasn't
constant (though I feel it's a safe bet that
it was), or some other assumption was
violated, it'd be messed up, even though we
accept the decay as constant.Anyhow, I'm with you in not understanding
why testing some hypotheses is science, and
some isn't.And I believe the original argument that
paleontology wasn't science was to question
its results, even though we've all agreed
scientific conclusions can be overturned, and
that this other 'form of inquiry,' if
recognized as different, wasn't worse than
science.Another philosophical question: does
a non-deterministic universe make the
scientific method unusable? That is, if
the universe has truly random aspects, what
good is testing a hypothesis? Something
random may happen next time to give different
results.------------------
<A HREF="http://www.boxjamsdoodle.com/" TARGET=_blank>BoxJam's Doodle</A> - the ballast
that keeps <A HREF="http://www.altbrand.com/" TARGET=_blank>Alt Brand</A> down.

Chris Purcell · Post by **Chris Purcell** » Fri May 04, 2001 10:48 am

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Michael:
- If you can't trust carbon-14 to keep the same rate of decay (and it's been measured to check that the rate doesn't change) then how can you trust your calibrated thermometer to expand at the same rate tomorrow? In other words, taking the temperature of a dinosaur would be precisely as unscientific as any other measurement. In fact, if you don't accept the concept of stability, all bets are off regardless.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Not that I can be bothered to check the previous posts, but did anyone claim that C-14 could change its decay rate? Carbon dating is potentially unreliable because the amount of C-14 in the atmosphere (and hence in the sample when it dies) can alter. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>A giant turtle could eat the sun next week.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>AAAAAAAARGGGGH!!! OMIGOSH! HIDE! HIDE!...oh, sorry, could...Phew! == takes the paper bag off his head ==Chris/Kritter

Lummox JR · Post by **Lummox JR** » Fri May 04, 2001 10:58 am

Michael, Carbon-14's rate of decay isn't in question--the rate at which it's absorbed into living tissue, however, I do question, and that depends on its prevalence in the environment. As far as anyone's ever observed, nuclear decay rates are absolutely constant.Light does slow down; it's slowed by interaction with matter, which is the cause of refraction. Unless the argument here is that highly refractive matter thins out space such that light is traveling farther, not slower, I don't see an alternate explanation. (One of the sticking points of this theory with me is that light somehow violates rules other particles are bound by; it travels at "top speed" while ordinary matter can never reach it. Can it really be argued that photons have absolutely no mass?)Of course the Einsteinian viewpoint basically gets around a lot of the weirdness inherent in the theory by saying space can be warped. However this is basically just fancy geometry, like looking at a curve in Euclidian space and calling it a straight line under a different geometry. In math, though, such abstractions don't matter; in reality either one geometry or the other must be true, but I say there's really no conclusive proof in favor of Einstein's relativity over the old standby.Everything we use to measure is based on light (or gravity, and who knows how that works into the mess); about the only way we could really test out this theory properly would be to develop a rocket that could, under general relativity, accelerate past c, set it off on a looped course, and see what happens. Of course if it didn't return there'd be no guarantee it proved one thing or the other, since something could have gone wrong. Anything moving faster than the speed of light would need to be shielded very well to avoid getting destroyed by friction from interstellar gases alone, much less objects of any size in its flight path.For now I think special relativity has served physics well only because it does well to describe our perceptions of astronomy and quantum physics. But does it describe the reality as well, or just how we perceive it? Occam's razor has a bit to say in favor of a more Euclidian general relativity.Lummox JR------------------
It's the 21st century; where's my flying car?

Somebody Strange · Post by **Somebody Strange** » Fri May 04, 2001 11:51 am

For a while I was worried that such a cerebral topic would scare off other folks, and this might become a Lummox/BoxJam debate. Not necessarily a bad thing at all, but I'm glad to have the additional participation.Just for the record: my silence is due to ignorance. The discussion has progressed past the point at which I feel able to participate. PLEASE don't stop discussing this just because I "don't get it". I'm starting to get it, and I like that. I miss learning.I have a question for bambibasher: what, exactly, is polyscience? Do you mean Poli Sci (political science?) or is there a field that combines multiple research endeavors (poly-science?)If you mean Poli Sci, I think I would agree with you -- that's an area that I just can't see as science, even though I'm sure someone else here could probably argue me out of that opinion. I might be willing to accept it as a branch of sociology, which I really personally feel belongs in the realm of psychology, and therefore it would be science -- but the one sociology class I took seemed to be a large string of generalizations that took the cheap way out by always ending with a caveat about individual human behavior affecting the model.I don't know if that made sense or not. The sociological models I learned were really basic, and they made obvious observations such as "in a democracy, a minority must diligently seek representation when their views oppose that of the majority". Well, duh. And we talked about subcultures and feminism and mores, but what it always came down to seemed to be "this model isn't foolproof, because individual actions can't be predicted."The prof tried to compare it to meteorology -- we don't know for certain it will rain tomorrow, but the factors are there. Yeah, well, you don't face in meteorology like a truck driver taking too much caffeine, having a heart attack at the wheel, plowing over an innocent bystander whose husband goes crazy and begins picking off hot dog vendors with a hunting rifle, causing numerous gun legislation proposals and an election of a new mayor, whose nasty comments about the Chicago Bears lead to an unfriendly rivalry that erupts in petty backstabbing in Congress, which ultimately results in the unpopular passage of a bill designed to cut back on the import of coffee from Colombia, which causes a weakening of diplomatic ties and eventual economic assistance to Colombia from China, and pretty soon Taiwan is gone. I mean, seriously -- you can make grand theories in sociology, but how do you measure them? And to my original comment about Poli Sci -- unless the courses I was in were completely wonky, sociology seemed to be the biggest factor in Poli Sci. What do people want?I'm ranting here. Sorry.Lummox, I gotta tell you I'm leaning towards BoxJam in terms of the definition of science. I guess I don't understand why you have to have empirical evidence of something in order to test the theory "scientifically".I pulled this off another page, but then lost the page, so no link. Sorry.
<OL TYPE=1><LI>Observe some aspect of the universe.
<LI>Invent a tentative description, called a hypothesis, that is consistent with what you have observed.
<LI>Use the hypothesis to make predictions.
<LI>Test those predictions by experiments or further observations and modify the hypothesis in the light of your results.
<LI>Repeat steps 3 and 4 until there are no discrepancies between theory and experiment and/or observation.
</OL> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by BoxJam: 
Were dinosaurs warm blooded or cold blooded?
Well, it finally occurred to somebody that if
they were warm blooded, vegetarian dinosaurs
would have to outnumber carnivorous dinosaurs
in biomass about 20 to 1, whereas with cold-
blooded, you'd expect 5 to 1.Then they went and looked at the data they
had, and vegetarians outnumber carnivorous,
taking size into account, about 20 to 1.To me, that's a test, and I think to you, it
would not be.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>These accounts seem to match... the scientists observed a biomass ratio based on warm-vs-cold-bloodedness, hypothesized that warm-blooded dinos would need a certain ratio, observed that they had it, and the theory was born.I guess to me that seems like: I observed that I tend to bleed when cut. I hypothesized blood was a result of the cut, and predicted others would also bleed when cut. I observed bleeding that was presumably the result of being cut, thus justifying my hypothesis and giving me the theory that people bleed. And I didn't need to actually cut anyone to find out. So sticking a thermometer up a stego's sewerpipe somehow doesn't seem that important to me.Please feel free to point out errors in my logic!--Strange/Dave------------------
<A HREF="http://viciouslies.keenspace.com" TARGET=_blank>Vicious Lies.</A> Falsely promising you a grand opening since Friday the 13th.
Neurotic -- sane, but unhappy about it.

Captain Kool-Aid · Post by **Captain Kool-Aid** » Sat May 05, 2001 5:11 am

Holy crap that a lot of responses! I should say that was a forum accelerant!!!!

Nd · Post by Nd » Mon May 07, 2001 4:26 am

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Lummox JR:
Okay, so paleontology is half science, half speculation.
Lummox JR<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Um... All science involves specualation. ALL.What were the questions for how I got here again? Blame Boxjam. He's a jerk.------------------
<A HREF="http://ironshamrock.keenspace.com" TARGET=_blank>Iron Shamrock</A>, the comic that's more half-assed than yours.

Nd · Post by Nd » Mon May 07, 2001 4:41 am

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Michael:
 Actually, physicists are not the people to ask about that. Physicists run screaming from philosophy, <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>After doing enough undergrad work towards a physics degree, I started to lose my enchantment with the world. There was no longer any childlike wonderment in how things could be what they were. Everything could be described mathematically. It annoyed me to know end. Then, once things were viewed on a cosmic or atomic scale, it became increasingly obvious that we know nothing about anything. The wonderment returned and it started opening new avenues of philosophy for me. How can things with measurable traits react so vastly differently because of some arbitrary scale? Where is the magic cut off point for what rules certain masses have to play by? It truly does open up an entirely new can of worms. Without philosophy, science could not advance. Philosophy alone obviously is not enough though. You have to combine it with critical thinking skills and application.I wish I had seen this thread sooner...------------------
<A HREF="http://ironshamrock.keenspace.com" TARGET=_blank>Iron Shamrock</A>, the comic that's more half-assed than yours.

Chris Purcell · Post by **Chris Purcell** » Tue May 08, 2001 1:17 am

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Somebody Strange:
Falsely promising you a grand opening since Friday the 13th.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>So what are you going to change your sig to when you've had the grand opening, Dave? I suggest: "Vicious Lies - Come for the grand opening tomorrow!" <IMG SRC="http://www.keenspace.com/forums/tongue. ... is/Kritter

Somebody Strange · Post by **Somebody Strange** » Tue May 08, 2001 7:51 am

::evil grin::So... psychic phenomena, anyone? Or is that not the hotbed of opinions I expect?--Strange/Dave------------------
<A HREF="http://viciouslies.keenspace.com" TARGET=_blank>Vicious Lies.</A> Falsely promising you a grand opening since Friday the 13th.
Neurotic -- sane, but unhappy about it.

BoxJam · Post by **BoxJam** » Tue May 08, 2001 8:34 am

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by nd:

All science involves specualation. ALL.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Huh. I thought it was just gynecology.
------------------
<A HREF="http://www.boxjamsdoodle.com/" TARGET=_blank>BoxJam's Doodle</A> - the ballast
that keeps <A HREF="http://www.altbrand.com/" TARGET=_blank>Alt Brand</A> down.

Somebody Strange · Post by **Somebody Strange** » Tue May 08, 2001 10:04 am

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by BoxJam:
 Huh. I thought it was just gynecology.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Man, this made me laugh on three separate occasions... for three separate reasons.--Strange/Dave------------------
<A HREF="http://viciouslies.keenspace.com" TARGET=_blank>Vicious Lies.</A> Falsely promising you a grand opening since Friday the 13th.
Neurotic -- sane, but unhappy about it.

BoxJam · Post by **BoxJam** » Wed May 09, 2001 7:10 am

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Somebody Strange:
 Man, this made me laugh on three separate occasions... for three separate reasons.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>OK, I've been thinking about this for a day. I made two jokes on purpose. What's the third reason? Is there something in my teeth? ------------------
<A HREF="http://www.boxjamsdoodle.com/" TARGET=_blank>BoxJam's Doodle</A> - the ballast
that keeps <A HREF="http://www.altbrand.com/" TARGET=_blank>Alt Brand</A> down.

Somebody Strange · Post by **Somebody Strange** » Thu May 10, 2001 4:55 am

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by BoxJam:
 OK, I've been thinking about this for a day. I made two jokes on purpose. What's the third reason? Is there something in my teeth? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Well, two of the reasons are pretty similar... but (1) the pun on speculum. (2) the general non-doctor male tendency to guess rather than become informed about the actual biological workings, so as not to take away from the "mystery". (3) the fact that we can't stop thinking about it... and yet (until I got married) I had nothing but wild speculative guesses as to how to get it and what it was going to be like (hint: very, very good).--Strange/Dave------------------
<A HREF="http://viciouslies.keenspace.com" TARGET=_blank>Vicious Lies.</A> Falsely promising you a grand opening since Friday the 13th.
Neurotic -- sane, but unhappy about it.

RichardIWebster · Post by **RichardIWebster** » Thu May 10, 2001 8:06 am

Why do you talk about a "Grand Opening",
when your comic started some time ago?
*Obviouly i am extreamly Puzzled*

Somebody Strange · Post by **Somebody Strange** » Thu May 10, 2001 8:12 am

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by RichardIWebster:
Why do you talk about a "Grand Opening",
when your comic started some time ago?
*Obviouly i am extreamly Puzzled*<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>It's kind of like a broadway show. They have previews for a while to get the kinks out, and then there's a big to-do when it officially opens. The cast and crew go out for dinner, drinks, and dancing; the director gets toasted and roasted by the participants; the audience has to pay full price; and the lead actor comes stumbling in to rehearsal the next day with a major hangover, a tattoo on his bahookey, and vague recollections of a chimpanzee, a very angry zookeeper, and a really off-color joke about an organ grinder.Although in my case, what it means is that I'm going to revamp the front page a little and do an advertising blitz that will stop just shy of spam. Well, that's exaggerating. I'm going to post on all the message boards I frequent (and that's quite a few) as well as some that I don't visit often at all. It won't be an annoying or obtrusive post -- just a heads-up message to try to bring in the traffic.The major reason I don't consider this "open" yet is that I'm two days behind. "Today's" comic is for Tuesday, May 8. By midnight tonight I hope to have posted Wednesday and Thursday, and then when it becomes Friday, I'll only be one day behind... and so on. Eventually I'll be able to relax with a minimum one-day buffer to keep me from getting behind again.By the way -- welcome Richard!!!
**Edit -- sorry, Richard, I forgot you were the one who pointed out that snot does indeed have an odor.--Strange/Dave------------------
<A HREF="http://viciouslies.keenspace.com" TARGET=_blank>Vicious Lies.</A> Falsely promising you a grand opening since Friday the 13th.
Neurotic -- sane, but unhappy about it.[This message has been edited by Somebody Strange (edited 05-10-2001).]