Are people against science?

FISMA

Not trying to be offensive, however, many/most of the posters in this thread have totally missed my point. Also, I did not want to condescendingly ask anyone if they were still in secondary school or an undergrad. Fortunately, they have answered the question themselves.

Nick Dolan wrote: »

as coincidence would have it Im one exam away from completing a second Second year at college. To be honest im really looking forward to not having to shove stuff into my brain for a few weeks.

Nick, we understand, not a problem, your quotes are what is expected at this level. We will not ask you to put much more into your head. We will ask for less to come out - just kidding. Good luck with your second second year -Third times a charm!:D - just kidding.

Johnny_Coyle wrote: »

Wrong. You cannot test a theory. You cannot reproduce a theory. That's why scientists call it a theory.

Johny, did you really mean this in the general sense? Point of clarification: some theories can be tested, others cannot. Big bang and evolution will always remain as theories as they are past events. Those events cannot be reproduced or observed. Thus, I agree, that these theories cannot be tested or reproduced.

Other theories that are limited in outcome say by our technology or understanding, may be proven in time.

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

A theory cannot be proved, it can only be disproved.

Once upon a man named Gallileo believed that the solar system was not geocentric but heliocentric. Gallileo had a theory, based upon experimental data and wanted to teach his findings in Catholic Learning Institutions. As you probably have not heard, the Church said you CAN teach this, but only as a theory, unless you have proof.

Gallileo insisted that he be allowed to teach his theory as fact without proof. The controversy that followed I am sure you have heard, at least one side at of.

Later on, by direct observation, measurement, and tests, it would be shown that that Gallileo's theory was correct. His theory was proven.

Some theories can be proven, others, especially when it comes to a one time past even, like the big bang or evolution, will never be proven.

I think a few people need to "read up."

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Learn about electron shells, S,P,D and then about hybridisation

At this juncture, I can no longer say that you are missing the point but trying to avoid it.

There is atomic theory. The electrons are modeled in orbitals and give the atom its "shape'. The shape is NOT DEFINITE. We model the object to better understand and teach it. These are not definite shapes but a probabilistic model of theoretical objects.

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

two points
Read up on Maxwell, you can calculate the speed of light without measuring it.

To which equation are you referring - Ampere's, Faraday...? I will assume you are going to a crossed fields example. You may not need direct measurement of light, but measurements are needed. That is the point - something was measured. To get v = E/B you have to now measure two things. More measurements = more error. More error because of the inherent inaccuracy of measuring.

If you disagree with the OP that you can measure c without making any measurements whatsoever, please provide a link/experiment.

Actually, never mind. I read your link as shown below. One question - did you?

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

http://www-03.ibm.com/ibm/history/exhibits/vintage/vintage_4506VV1003.html

This was supposed to be evidence to support your claim that

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

... individual atoms have been visualised by electron microscope.

Again, do you understand that it is impossible to see an atom? They may be visualized, but not seen. What filled shells are shown in your link, the I, B, or M shell?

Perhaps, djpBarry would care to comment on Capt'n's quotes. I find myself agreeing with dj's quotes, however, I think you missed the point that I was trying to make.

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Every physicist knows F=ma is wrong.

I think I will end it here. What more can anyone say about a comment like this.

Nick Dolan

FISMA wrote: »

Not trying to be offensive, however, many/most of the posters in this thread have totally missed my point. Also, I did not want to condescendingly ask anyone if they were still in secondary school or an undergrad. Fortunately, they have answered the question themselves.

Nick, we understand, not a problem, your quotes are what is expected at this level. We will not ask you to put much more into your head. We will ask for less to come out - just kidding. Good luck with your second second year -Third times a charm!:D - just kidding.

Both sneaky and very condescending. What comes out of my head is better than what comes out of your head

djpbarry

FISMA wrote: »

Point of clarification: some theories can be tested, others cannot. Big bang and evolution will always remain as theories as they are past events. Those events cannot be reproduced or observed. Thus, I agree, that these theories cannot be tested or reproduced.

Why can they not be tested? Surely as new evidence arises, a theory may be 'tested' to gauge whether said new evidence supports/contradicts the theory in its present form? For example, the advent of genetics and molecular biology has had a significant influence on the theory of evolution.

FISMA wrote: »

Once upon a man named Gallileo believed that the solar system was not geocentric but heliocentric. Gallileo had a theory, based upon experimental data and wanted to teach his findings in Catholic Learning Institutions. As you probably have not heard, the Church said you CAN teach this, but only as a theory, unless you have proof.

Gallileo insisted that he be allowed to teach his theory as fact without proof. The controversy that followed I am sure you have heard, at least one side at of.

Later on, by direct observation, measurement, and tests, it would be shown that that Gallileo's theory was correct. His theory was proven.

That is an altogether different version of events to that with which I am familiar. However, it is inaccurate to state that Galileo’s theory has been 'proven' - there is merely more evidence to support his theory than there was during his lifetime. It is also inaccurate to state that Galileo wished to teach his theory 'as fact without proof' - he simply wished to present the strong evidence he had obtained that suggested the Earth was not at the centre of the solar system. Or to put it another way, substantially more evidence existed to support his heliocentric theory than existed to support the church's geocentric teachings.

Capt'n Midnight

FISMA wrote: »

Not trying to be offensive, however, many/most of the posters in this thread have totally missed my point. Also, I did not want to condescendingly ask anyone if they were still in secondary school or an undergrad. Fortunately, they have answered the question themselves.

LOL

Johny, did you really mean this in the general sense? Point of clarification: some theories can be tested, others cannot. Big bang and evolution will always remain as theories as they are past events. Those events cannot be reproduced or observed. Thus, I agree, that these theories cannot be tested or reproduced.

A good scientific theory makes predictions which you can observe.
If the observations don't match predictions then you have to modify the theory. ( excluding observational error of course )

This means that the theory of the big band and evolution will be dropped if someone finds some compelling counter evidence.

Other theories that are limited in outcome say by our technology or understanding, may be proven in time.

If it is possible to prove something then by definition it is not a theory.

Later on, by direct observation, measurement, and tests, it would be shown that that Gallileo's theory was correct. His theory was proven.

Some theories can be proven, others, especially when it comes to a one time past even, like the big bang or evolution, will never be proven.

I think a few people need to "read up."

You have already been asked not to comment on theory until you learn the basics.

You have shown that you still don't understand or wish to use the correct meaning of the word theory in science.

Capt'n Midnight

FISMA wrote: »

Not trying to be offensive,

At this juncture, I can no longer say that you are missing the point but trying to avoid it.

There is atomic theory. The electrons are modeled in orbitals and give the atom its "shape'. The shape is NOT DEFINITE. We model the object to better understand and teach it. These are not definite shapes but a probabilistic model of theoretical objects.

You still don't grasp the concept that in science everyone knows that we will drop a theory if a better one comes along.

To which equation are you referring - Ampere's, Faraday...? I will assume you are going to a crossed fields example. You may not need direct measurement of light, but measurements are needed. That is the point - something was measured. To get v = E/B you have to now measure two things. More measurements = more error. More error because of the inherent inaccuracy of measuring.

If you disagree with the OP that you can measure c without making any measurements whatsoever, please provide a link/experiment.

You quoted me as saying Read up on Maxwell, you can calculate the speed of light without measuring it.I did not say you could measure the speed of light without some measurements. You implied I said that.

Again, do you understand that it is impossible to see an atom? They may be visualized, but not seen. What filled shells are shown in your link, the I, B, or M shell?

I said atoms could be visualised. You then implied that I said they could be seen.


There is a saying that you should never argue with idiots because they will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience. Whatever about that, science has no room for dishonesty. Neither has this Forum.