The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: What constitutes evidence?  (Read 1636 times)

Offline thedoc

  • Forum Admin
  • Administrator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 511
  • Thanked: 12 times
    • View Profile
What constitutes evidence?
« on: 22/07/2016 15:53:02 »
Carmen Chase asked the Naked Scientists:
   Hello Chris, Kat, & 5 live science team:

My question is, what constitutes EVIDENCE? More specifically, what turns an observed fact into evidence of a possible explanation? For example, if smoke is evidence of fire, then what conditions are, at bottom, necessary and sufficient for smoke to be evidence of fire? (i.e. indicative of fire)?

And a related 2nd question please:

We know the "correlation does not imply causation" mantra. O.K. So what conditions would be necessary and sufficient for correlation(s) to be indicative of causation? Can some causal relation be suggested or indicated from a tight correlation backed by tons of data? Or is it that converging correlated facts from many different angles are necessary to infer a some possible causal relation?

I have investigated these issues, and have some tentative criteria and answers, but it's always preferible to have a 2nd critical opinion. And I imagine this often overlooked issue may be of interest to other listeners as well.

We always look forward to your podcast and appreciate the good work necessary to make it!


What do you think?
« Last Edit: 22/07/2016 15:53:02 by _system »


 

Offline PmbPhy

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2773
  • Thanked: 38 times
    • View Profile
Re: What constitutes evidence?
« Reply #1 on: 26/07/2016 04:52:17 »
Carmen Chase asked the Naked Scientists:
   Hello Chris, Kat, & 5 live science team:

My question is, what constitutes EVIDENCE? More specifically, what turns an observed fact into evidence of a possible explanation? For example, if smoke is evidence of fire, then what conditions are, at bottom, necessary and sufficient for smoke to be evidence of fire? (i.e. indicative of fire)?
The concept of evidence is rather complicated. But simply put its how Wikipedia defines it. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence
Quote
Evidence, broadly construed, is anything presented in support of an assertion.
Your question appears to be seeking what kind of evidence can be taken as proof or an assertion. The answer is that it doesn't really exist in genera. That's why the concept of proof doesn't belong in science. What scientists do is collect more and more information and observations which support an assertion and in that way the assertion becomes more and more likely to be correct.

Consider your example using smoke. It's true that if there is a fire the people off in the distance will see smoke. I used the qualifier "off in the distance" because if you were right next to the source of the smoke then you might also be close enough to determine if there is a fire causing the smoke and thus seeing the smoke becomes superfluous. Notice that when you used the term "smoke" that you had something particular in mind. When you're merely looking at the smoke you don't know anything about it other than what it looks like. In reality it may not be the result of something being burned. It could merely be particulates suspended in the atmosphere which originated not from burning material such as wood or oil but could be a chemical reaction which merely produced what looks like smoke but in reality there may not have been anything burning. It could be an accident  at a chemical factory which produced what looks like smoke from a fire but in this example there's no fire.

Another piece of information would be knowing what's located at the place where the smoke appears to be coming from. If there's a gas station there then that's another piece of evidence. So now you have two pieces of evidence which are consistent with smoke from a fire. But again, this isn't proof. And my point is that, in general, there will never be proof. Just more and more information. But keep in mind that's a general statement and there may be exceptions such that enough information will constitute actual proof.

Quote
We know the "correlation does not imply causation" mantra. O.K. So what conditions would be necessary and sufficient for correlation(s) to be indicative of causation?
There is no general rule or condition.

Quote
Can some causal relation be suggested or indicated from a tight correlation backed by tons of data? Or is it that converging correlated facts from many different angles are necessary to infer a some possible causal relation?
The later.

Quote
I have investigated these issues, and have some tentative criteria and answers, but it's always preferible to have a 2nd critical opinion. And I imagine this often overlooked issue may be of interest to other listeners as well.
It's not overlooked by scientists, that's for sure. It's very important to scientists in fact. I've actually been dealing with this myself this week.
 

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4728
  • Thanked: 155 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: What constitutes evidence?
« Reply #2 on: 26/07/2016 13:17:23 »
Science generally proceeds by an absence of "negative evidence". We make an observation, generate an explanatory hypothesis, then extrapolate that to predict the next observation. For as long as the hypothesis explains all that we have seen, and continues to predict what we see next, it is part of the body of scientific knowledge - in short, the residue of explanatory and predictive hypotheses thet have not been proved wrong by experiment.

From time to time we need to introduce a wholly disruptive hypothesis such as quantum mechanics, viruses, universal gravitation, Newton's laws, disease vectors, self-propagation of electromagnetic radiation,  relativity....but the test remains the same: does it explain all that we have seen and is it robust under test? In some cases (particularly quantum and relativistic physics) it is comforting that the new hypothesis approximates to the old one if the scale is appropriate.

The test of causation can take two general forms, If we hypothesise that A causes B, then decreasing A (and only A) should decrease B, possibly with a time lag, or vice versa.  A more sensitive test is to wiggle A up and down and look for variations in B with the same frequency, again with a phase lag. This is where the "CO2 as climate driver" hypothesis falls down: B consistently leads A over historic periods (even the tiniest lead contradicts causation) and the seasonal oscillatory component of atmospheric CO2 content is not reflected in the temperature graph.   
 

Offline PhysBang

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 588
  • Thanked: 14 times
    • View Profile
Re: What constitutes evidence?
« Reply #3 on: 26/07/2016 13:36:50 »
Science generally proceeds by an absence of "negative evidence". We make an observation, generate an explanatory hypothesis, then extrapolate that to predict the next observation. For as long as the hypothesis explains all that we have seen, and continues to predict what we see next, it is part of the body of scientific knowledge - in short, the residue of explanatory and predictive hypotheses thet have not been proved wrong by experiment.
This is a nice myth, but it can't explain science generally since so much of science is offering positive evidence in favor of a position. While I understand Popper gives a nice, simple way to conceptualize science, the scientific papers and the popular press seem filled with positive evidence and claims.
Quote
From time to time we need to introduce a wholly disruptive hypothesis such as quantum mechanics, viruses, universal gravitation, Newton's laws, disease vectors, self-propagation of electromagnetic radiation,  relativity...
I can't see how these are wholly disruptive. All of these theories, except perhaps viruses (which is what theory? the germ theory of disease?), built upon existing theories and used positive evidence to establish themselves. Newton's universal gravity is a great example of positive evidence built up over the argument of the Principia and the centuries after Newton. Einstein's work is a great example of taking the same positive methods of Newton and using them to build a better physics by adding to the kinematics and mechanics established with Newtonian mechanics.
 

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4728
  • Thanked: 155 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: What constitutes evidence?
« Reply #4 on: 26/07/2016 17:07:54 »
Quote
scientific papers and the popular press seem filled with positive evidence and claims.
Being a professional pedant, I'd class these as observations - especially the claims. But then I'm an old cynic.

Before Planck and Einstein, all mathematical descriptions in physics were of an infinitesimally divisible continuum. The idea that some states of matter are "forbidden" is disruptive, and based on the negative evidence that, for instance, there is an upper limit to the energy  of black body radiation  and the hydrogen atopm does not spontanously collapse. Prior to Newton, force was required to sustain constant motion, and Newtonian gravitation explains why the Aristotelian mechanics  of falling bodies is not experimentally demonstrated. It is difficult to see how the discovery of the malaria vector "built on" the hypothesis of mal air.
 

Offline William McC

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 158
  • Thanked: 4 times
    • View Profile
Re: What constitutes evidence?
« Reply #5 on: 07/08/2016 05:31:05 »
Science generally proceeds by an absence of "negative evidence". We make an observation, generate an explanatory hypothesis, then extrapolate that to predict the next observation. For as long as the hypothesis explains all that we have seen, and continues to predict what we see next, it is part of the body of scientific knowledge - in short, the residue of explanatory and predictive hypotheses thet have not been proved wrong by experiment.
This is a nice myth, but it can't explain science generally since so much of science is offering positive evidence in favor of a position. While I understand Popper gives a nice, simple way to conceptualize science, the scientific papers and the popular press seem filled with positive evidence and claims.
Quote
From time to time we need to introduce a wholly disruptive hypothesis such as quantum mechanics, viruses, universal gravitation, Newton's laws, disease vectors, self-propagation of electromagnetic radiation,  relativity...
I can't see how these are wholly disruptive. All of these theories, except perhaps viruses (which is what theory? the germ theory of disease?), built upon existing theories and used positive evidence to establish themselves. Newton's universal gravity is a great example of positive evidence built up over the argument of the Principia and the centuries after Newton. Einstein's work is a great example of taking the same positive methods of Newton and using them to build a better physics by adding to the kinematics and mechanics established with Newtonian mechanics.

I would have to disagree totally, I believe you have described how it might work or how it should be. However from my experience, the current scientists are not in search of negative theories. When a negative theory rears its head they do not simply lay it to rest with a few sane words, a simple experiment, or a helpful explanation. The current scientists will direct you to mountains of theoretical work that would baffle any human, but they are not a friendly guiding light to truth. At least from my own personal experience. I have found that they tend to attack negative theories as if these negative theories could somehow destroy "reality" if they indeed had the laws of reality under their control.

I truly have gotten to the basics of matter through individuals that really built everything we have today on a basic level many decades ago. I can assure you the plan in both England and the U.S. after WWII was to make sure the citizens of earth, did not have the basics of matter. That keeps individuals from having the power of armies. You might think "what a great plan by great peace loving geniuses". However these geniuses were so intent on destroying knowledge that they really did not keep any for themselves. The evidence is in modern products that fail, while those same products have failed already in the past from the same short comings. In almost every case where a product failed, I can trace the failure back to a misunderstanding brought about by counterintelligence to cover up the basics of matter, and of course world bending weapons of mass destruction.

Sincerely,

William McCormick


 

Offline William McC

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 158
  • Thanked: 4 times
    • View Profile
Re: What constitutes evidence?
« Reply #6 on: 07/08/2016 14:29:00 »
It is funny but if you look at what we call evidence, the smoking gun in someones hand, the knife dripping blood over a body, right away I think of evidence as theory, speculation. In America we used to practice innocent until proven guilty, because many times the man with the smoking gun took it from the murderer, or the man with the knife pulled it out of the person murdered, a loved one, because he thought it might help during his state of panic and helplessness.

So we would first need to agree on the term evidence. It seems evidence is anything presented as such, that is not immediately, laughably excusable, by the majority.

Perhaps we are using the wrong words? Years ago science was a strict routine of forming a hypothesis to explain and prove to 99.9 accuracy that something was what we hypothesized it was, acted or reacted as we hypothesized it acted or reacted. Then it was a pain stacking process of listing all the variables of our experiment to prove our theory. There are tens of thousands of variables in most simple experiments that are never listed or recorded, much less understood. Most experiments today rarely take into consideration the location of the experiment. Because the laboratory is kept at 70 degrees Fahrenheit, they list the temperature as 70 degrees Fahrenheit. They will often over look the outside temperature. This outside temperature can have a huge effect upon the experiment. That is why years ago scientists went to Antarctica and the North Pole to perform experiments.

Very good scientists years ago stopped classifying elements at Uranium because they found when other scientists performed the exact same experiments with the exact same sourced elements and equipment in a different location, a different climate, they were getting wholly different results, this was after other scientists had proclaimed 99.9 accuracy. It was at this point that two groups of scientists formed. The group that listed the variables, and knew their limitations, was actually pushed aside by wild claims of magical scientific advancement by witch doctor like methods. Some of that voodoo science almost ended the world as we know it on more than one occasion.

So my question would be, what do people consider to be evidence in the field of science?

As an example there was never any proof of a force of attraction in our universe. No working theory ever emerged, no demonstrable principle that did not use a pushing force was ever demonstrated. Yet they claimed the neutron particle was somehow real and existed based on forces of attraction. Now to me that is where we can call science dead, road kill. Because from there it was just chaos from my point of view. Having been lectured by extreme top scientists of their time, that warned us of the phony neutron particle, I have more than enough proof for myself. Yet mountains of "evidence" exist that claim the neutron is real and exists.

Another principle put forth as proven was that there are positive and negative sub matter particles, it emerged from "evidence". Yet no demonstrable principle had ever been presented. Because it would require the imaginary force of attraction.

Do substances act as if they are attracted to one another sure we are surrounded by evidence of that. However when you look at that theory it collapses rather quickly, if you have been adhering to real science and scientific method principles. So there is evidence that there are attraction forces in the universe, however there is no proof of it at all.

Sincerely,

William McCormick
 

Offline puppypower

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 561
  • Thanked: 43 times
    • View Profile
Re: What constitutes evidence?
« Reply #7 on: 07/08/2016 21:14:47 »
Correlation and causation use different standards of evidence. Correlation uses a weaker standard of evidence, compared to causation. A casual relationship, like E=MC2 requires exacting evidence, that hits the nail on the head each time.

Correlation does not have to be a perfect fit. Rather it can use evidence within a margin of error; fuzzy dice evidence. For example, today coffee is good for you and tomorrow coffee is bad for you. This is not rational, allowing the evidence to be fuzzy.

Causation usually begins with a line of reasoning from which a math equation might appear. This equation than defines a curve, like E=MC2. Evidence has to hit the curve, dead on.

Correlation does this backwards. It generates data, and then draws the best curve. There is no logic required up front. Further evidence does not even have to touch the curve, as long as all the new evidence averages to the curve.

This looser evidence standard is not be allowed with casual data curves. Often, even one missed data point, can require rethinking the logical basis for a casual claim. If someone was able to demonstrate unique evidence, where E does not equal MC2, then it back to the old drawing board. Whereas correlations, with their looser evidence standard, get to linger, longer, since the weak data standard has built in buffer, which does not even have to touch the curve.
« Last Edit: 07/08/2016 21:17:34 by puppypower »
 

Offline William McC

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 158
  • Thanked: 4 times
    • View Profile
Re: What constitutes evidence?
« Reply #8 on: 10/08/2016 04:02:15 »
E=MC^2 has never come into play in my world. It offers me nothing of benefit.

If you were to ask the most honest church goers or most honest religious sorts about taxation. The finest mathematicians, the best scientists and physicists if taxes were necessary they would all say of course. No hesitation no regrets about confirming taxation as being a staple product of our survival. Almost on par with 2+2=4.

Yet as an American that understands my founding fathers most remarkable discovery I cannot just believe that. A discovery they made as they were designing the new systems that they would use to start their new nations systems. Agricultural, monetary, postal, transportation, defense and every other system the new country would need.

Benjamin Franklin was a printer a fine printer, so he printed Americas first demonstration money. George who's wife was wealthy had gold, the standard of their day. Benjamin Franklin gave George Washington a freshly printed American note, and George forked over the rare metal with a golden sheen. Next they had to demonstrate how they would collect the all important taxes England had made them all sure, were needed to sustain life itself. Perhaps even God and church. So George Washington proceeded to spend his freshly printed note for farm implements or some staple need, he gave it to Thomas Jefferson, Ben Franklin the government quickly intervened and suggested that he be given the current 50 percent tax England was collecting at the time. They exchanged the $100.00 note for two fifties one of which was given to Thomas Jefferson and the other to Ben Franklin the government.

They all had an epiphany at about this moment, that their new nation was going to be very rich. Thomas Jefferson then gave his fifty dollar note to John Adams for some staple product, and Ben Franklin once again stepped in and took half of the $50.00 exchange. Now Benjamin Franklin the government in this demonstration had the gold, and $75.00 of the freshly printed $100.00 note, back in his possession. And all he did was put his hand out for the money. Needless to say Benjamin Franklin could have ended up with all the gold that existed on earth in a very short period time.

In the end the founding fathers trembled for 22 days and nights, without sleep letting go of the ignorance of taxation (slavery behind a mask). The truth was that a penny on the dollar contribution would be all that was needed to allow banks to collect old and dirty money all of it in fact, and replace it with clean healthy money. The problem was that most in the colonies could not have been that ignorant. "There must have been some good or Godly reason for poverty and slavery (taxation), by their government".

I have studied Einstein a little bit, and I have many doubts and many missing variables not listed along with experiments done either in his name or experiments that were credited to him.

The one in particular is the bending of light near the moon. Gravity does not bend light. However a varying density gas will. Space is not empty it is filled with a gas hydrogen gas. Hydrogen gas near the moon, will be the most dense closest to the moon. That will bend light. Gravity will not. Gravity can bend matter. Cause it to compress, distort. So can magnetic fields.

Einstein as far as I know was a particle guy. All the time theory stuff in my opinion was a joke. In his time, here in the U.S. when there was just one sub matter particle the particle of electricity, he did not attack that theory to my knowledge.

Things were easier back then with just one sub matter particle, with its velocity creating the different effects. You could afford to joke around a bit back then, and not lose your way. But we could not be that stupid about science too?

Sincerely,

William McCormick
 
« Last Edit: 10/08/2016 04:07:14 by William McC »
 

Offline syhprum

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3823
  • Thanked: 19 times
    • View Profile
Re: What constitutes evidence?
« Reply #9 on: 10/08/2016 10:24:43 »
One man or two woman according to the Koran
 

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4728
  • Thanked: 155 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: What constitutes evidence?
« Reply #10 on: 10/08/2016 13:58:36 »
E=MC^2 has never come into play in my world. It offers me nothing of benefit.


Funny, that. Most of us use a lot of sunshine (either directly or via vegetable fuels) or nuclear power.
 

Offline William McC

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 158
  • Thanked: 4 times
    • View Profile
Re: What constitutes evidence?
« Reply #11 on: 11/08/2016 00:09:35 »
That formula does not actually give exacting answers in the particle oriented universe. You might make a good general guesstimate using it, however you will find that different results occur, at different distances. Because of the way rays at a certain velocity are altered as they pass through matter. It is a variable that E=MC^2 does not even consider.

So many modern scientists and schools teach that you can stop radiation with materials. They say you can stop infrared, light, or x-rays with materials. However if you actually do some hands on research you will find that the radiations are positively accelerated, to velocities that we no longer detect as the original radiation. Or, we are no longer negatively affected by the now normal ambient radiation velocity emissions, after they pass through a substance or structure.

Look at a radiometer, in the dark infrared will not spin the radiometer. With the faintest light present in the room the radiometer subjected to infrared will spin with amazing vigor, many times faster than direct sunlight or other light source. The reason is that the white paddle when illuminated by light allows a light emission to carry away the heat of the infrared as light instead of heat. However in a dark room both white and black paddles heat evenly under the infrared emission and the device will not spin. 

We used to harden metal with compounds that contained zinc and or phosphorous that would glow with a blinding light when a red hot piece of metal was placed into the white powdery substance. It would cause even soft hot rolled steel to obtain a hard surface hardening. By quickly removing heat from the part. More than cold water quenching. 

Sincerely,

William McCormick
 

Offline hamdani yusuf

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 173
  • Thanked: 14 times
    • View Profile
Re: What constitutes evidence?
« Reply #12 on: 11/08/2016 02:46:52 »
That formula does not actually give exacting answers in the particle oriented universe. You might make a good general guesstimate using it, however you will find that different results occur, at different distances. Because of the way rays at a certain velocity are altered as they pass through matter. It is a variable that E=MC^2 does not even consider.

So many modern scientists and schools teach that you can stop radiation with materials. They say you can stop infrared, light, or x-rays with materials. However if you actually do some hands on research you will find that the radiations are positively accelerated, to velocities that we no longer detect as the original radiation. Or, we are no longer negatively affected by the now normal ambient radiation velocity emissions, after they pass through a substance or structure.

Look at a radiometer, in the dark infrared will not spin the radiometer. With the faintest light present in the room the radiometer subjected to infrared will spin with amazing vigor, many times faster than direct sunlight or other light source. The reason is that the white paddle when illuminated by light allows a light emission to carry away the heat of the infrared as light instead of heat. However in a dark room both white and black paddles heat evenly under the infrared emission and the device will not spin. 

We used to harden metal with compounds that contained zinc and or phosphorous that would glow with a blinding light when a red hot piece of metal was placed into the white powdery substance. It would cause even soft hot rolled steel to obtain a hard surface hardening. By quickly removing heat from the part. More than cold water quenching. 

Sincerely,

William McCormick
It seems like an interesting experiment. Can you provide the link to articles or videos about it?
 
The following users thanked this post: William McC

Offline William McC

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 158
  • Thanked: 4 times
    • View Profile
Re: What constitutes evidence?
« Reply #13 on: 11/08/2016 03:26:28 »
E=MC^2 has never come into play in my world. It offers me nothing of benefit.


Funny, that. Most of us use a lot of sunshine (either directly or via vegetable fuels) or nuclear power.

Individuals who's hobbies are explosives, especially fuel air type, understand that the mass of the explosive, not tied to its weight as in the mass used in physics, is what causes an explosive to have the potential to harness ambient radiation and cause devastation.

In other words the weight of the explosive is secondary to the size of the explosive core, or mass as in volume. 

The acetylene accident in China that I tried to avoid, by warning people for years, was an example of such a fuel air explosive. It was not the weight of the explosive, rather the volume of the core. The Green Beret used to practice with acetylene, to wipe out whole cities. They could be dropped into a country and move through the country taking out whole cities as they traveled, using only industrial and common farm products readily available.

Hydrogen bombs use a similar principle, they create an area similar in nature to the surface of the sun. The core is huge. The rays, like the rays of the sun are very lethal, miles and miles away. It is not the matter, that causes the energy for the bomb, it is the ambient radiation, ambient radiation is the potential energy. This is old school, but it built everything we have today that works.

I experiment with explosives, the more I do, the more I find out about how things work. Before a blast, before any visible sign of an explosion, as a fuel air bomb is ignited, the time it takes to create the blast, from the time of ignition about 1.5 seconds, there is a phenomena that can be witnessed. There is a force similar to gravity, that will push your body towards the unexploded fuel air explosive. Cameras with enough open aperture time can capture UV heading towards the bomb well before it explodes. The bomb the area within the bomb becomes very high in voltage. If you truly understand electricity like Benjamin Franklin, you know that only electricity stops electricity. Insulators do not stop electricity at all, until the insulator is at least partially charged by electricity.

The bomb reaches such a high voltage that ambient radiation cannot pass through the bomb core. Ambient radiation being electricity as per old school teachings. As the voltage ramps up in the bomb, you can get x-rays, Ultra violet, and certainly light and infrared emissions, before the blast. Often heading towards the bomb. You can also certainly get those same emissions after the blast. Ambient radiation cannot be stopped, or the whole universe would be consumed in a massive explosion. In order to avoid this, a higher power than me, created the bomb. It disperses an area that is universally, destructively high in voltage. So that it can no longer block ambient radiation. E=MC^2 is not even in the ball park on this.



Sincerely,

William McCormick

 

Offline William McC

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 158
  • Thanked: 4 times
    • View Profile
Re: What constitutes evidence?
« Reply #14 on: 11/08/2016 03:52:32 »
That formula does not actually give exacting answers in the particle oriented universe. You might make a good general guesstimate using it, however you will find that different results occur, at different distances. Because of the way rays at a certain velocity are altered as they pass through matter. It is a variable that E=MC^2 does not even consider.

So many modern scientists and schools teach that you can stop radiation with materials. They say you can stop infrared, light, or x-rays with materials. However if you actually do some hands on research you will find that the radiations are positively accelerated, to velocities that we no longer detect as the original radiation. Or, we are no longer negatively affected by the now normal ambient radiation velocity emissions, after they pass through a substance or structure.

Look at a radiometer, in the dark infrared will not spin the radiometer. With the faintest light present in the room the radiometer subjected to infrared will spin with amazing vigor, many times faster than direct sunlight or other light source. The reason is that the white paddle when illuminated by light allows a light emission to carry away the heat of the infrared as light instead of heat. However in a dark room both white and black paddles heat evenly under the infrared emission and the device will not spin. 

We used to harden metal with compounds that contained zinc and or phosphorous that would glow with a blinding light when a red hot piece of metal was placed into the white powdery substance. It would cause even soft hot rolled steel to obtain a hard surface hardening. By quickly removing heat from the part. More than cold water quenching. 

Sincerely,

William McCormick
It seems like an interesting experiment. Can you provide the link to articles or videos about it?

I was the individual who did the experiment, many many years ago. Someone doubted infrared moving the radiometer, so I took the old video I made and converted it for Youtube so they could at least see it. At the time no one was interested because it was a blow against modern science. Now people are getting to like bashing modern science a bit.

That radiometer was not the best radiometer. I have had better radiometers that really go fast especially when you turn up the infrared heater a bit. The heater is just barely outputting, I am powering it with a variac to lower its output, the camera picks up the orange and red more than the human eye.

Glad to find another individual with interest in science, the universe.

You will just have to take my word that no matter how much infrared, in a dark room the radiometer does not turn. But the slightest bit of light even a candle will cause it to turn with infrared. I was aware of the fact that light removes heat though. That is how it all started. But all those years of people telling you it is light that is making it turn, kind of takes a lot of time to weed it all out of your brain.

youtu.be/uldK7UpySII

Sincerely,

William McCormick
« Last Edit: 11/08/2016 04:17:59 by William McC »
 

Offline William McC

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 158
  • Thanked: 4 times
    • View Profile
Re: What constitutes evidence?
« Reply #15 on: 12/08/2016 02:23:18 »
That formula does not actually give exacting answers in the particle oriented universe. You might make a good general guesstimate using it, however you will find that different results occur, at different distances. Because of the way rays at a certain velocity are altered as they pass through matter. It is a variable that E=MC^2 does not even consider.

So many modern scientists and schools teach that you can stop radiation with materials. They say you can stop infrared, light, or x-rays with materials. However if you actually do some hands on research you will find that the radiations are positively accelerated, to velocities that we no longer detect as the original radiation. Or, we are no longer negatively affected by the now normal ambient radiation velocity emissions, after they pass through a substance or structure.

Look at a radiometer, in the dark infrared will not spin the radiometer. With the faintest light present in the room the radiometer subjected to infrared will spin with amazing vigor, many times faster than direct sunlight or other light source. The reason is that the white paddle when illuminated by light allows a light emission to carry away the heat of the infrared as light instead of heat. However in a dark room both white and black paddles heat evenly under the infrared emission and the device will not spin. 

We used to harden metal with compounds that contained zinc and or phosphorous that would glow with a blinding light when a red hot piece of metal was placed into the white powdery substance. It would cause even soft hot rolled steel to obtain a hard surface hardening. By quickly removing heat from the part. More than cold water quenching. 

Sincerely,

William McCormick
It seems like an interesting experiment. Can you provide the link to articles or videos about it?

If you do the radiometer experiment and you can get a virgin computer chip wafer the modern larger variety. You will see that the wafer, allows infrared to pass right through the wafer without heating up. Yet it blocks all light output from the heater. The wafer is opaque to light however it allows infrared to pass right through it. Excellent device to use for experiments.

Sincerely,

William McCormick

 

Offline puppypower

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 561
  • Thanked: 43 times
    • View Profile
Re: What constitutes evidence?
« Reply #16 on: 13/08/2016 12:05:22 »
I think E=MC2 only discusses the relationship between mass and energy; interconversion equivalence. In nuclear reactions, there is often a mass change. The equation gives one an idea of the energy that will be released.

I used E=MC2 as an example of a causal relationship. This was used to show how casual relationships and correlations have different evidence standards. For example, consider the correlation of cigarettes and cancer. If I showed you people, who smoked for 50 years, and lived well into their 80's, and died of other causes, this will not impact the social correlation, since the evidence standard for correlation us not that tight, even though you get to make a blanket statement. There is something else at work, beyond reason. This is why correlations, like stereo-types, are popular. They define all with evidence that applies to some. There is a level of disconnect from reality. 

Mudslinging, used in political campaigns makes use of a correlation, where one bad day, can be correlated to a relationship of doom, for an otherwise good career. Years of hard evidence, to the contrary of the negative correlation, due to a lifetime of achievement, may not matter to the electorate,  who will accept this correlation. This is not rational, but it does have practical value. Correlation is often about practical value, which does not have to be rational to work.

It reminds me of a story about an ole timer who was one of the experts at electroplating. He said his secret; correlation, was him spitting chewing tobacco juice into the vat. This was not provable, but his claim did appear to work for him, based on his  excellent results. The rational evidence standard is sort of waived, due to his value of the practical results. The urban legion was worth his value to the company.

Money, power and prestige can act as evidence enhancers, when it comes to correlations. For example, if an artist, prosperous, many people assume their prestige equate to them being experts in other things, due to the enhancement created by their money and prestige. They may become political spokesmen or women; evidence enhancement, without having much background beyond the layman. 

Rational is the best way. It much higher evidence standard, makes it harder to game the system, with the various subjective enhancement factors, that make it appear rational, once these are added.

 
The following users thanked this post: William McC

Offline William McC

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 158
  • Thanked: 4 times
    • View Profile
Re: What constitutes evidence?
« Reply #17 on: 14/08/2016 00:27:19 »
I think E=MC2 only discusses the relationship between mass and energy; interconversion equivalence. In nuclear reactions, there is often a mass change. The equation gives one an idea of the energy that will be released.

I used E=MC2 as an example of a causal relationship. This was used to show how casual relationships and correlations have different evidence standards. For example, consider the correlation of cigarettes and cancer. If I showed you people, who smoked for 50 years, and lived well into their 80's, and died of other causes, this will not impact the social correlation, since the evidence standard for correlation us not that tight, even though you get to make a blanket statement. There is something else at work, beyond reason. This is why correlations, like stereo-types, are popular. They define all with evidence that applies to some. There is a level of disconnect from reality. 

Mudslinging, used in political campaigns makes use of a correlation, where one bad day, can be correlated to a relationship of doom, for an otherwise good career. Years of hard evidence, to the contrary of the negative correlation, due to a lifetime of achievement, may not matter to the electorate,  who will accept this correlation. This is not rational, but it does have practical value. Correlation is often about practical value, which does not have to be rational to work.

It reminds me of a story about an ole timer who was one of the experts at electroplating. He said his secret; correlation, was him spitting chewing tobacco juice into the vat. This was not provable, but his claim did appear to work for him, based on his  excellent results. The rational evidence standard is sort of waived, due to his value of the practical results. The urban legion was worth his value to the company.

Money, power and prestige can act as evidence enhancers, when it comes to correlations. For example, if an artist, prosperous, many people assume their prestige equate to them being experts in other things, due to the enhancement created by their money and prestige. They may become political spokesmen or women; evidence enhancement, without having much background beyond the layman. 

Rational is the best way. It much higher evidence standard, makes it harder to game the system, with the various subjective enhancement factors, that make it appear rational, once these are added.

It is funny however most processes that change one substance to another rely on a radioactive substance. Tobacco is known, for its radio active nature.

They can expose potassium contaminated with a radio active substance, and create argon by subjecting it to an ARC.

Sincerely,

Wiliam McCormick
« Last Edit: 14/08/2016 00:36:13 by William McC »
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

Re: What constitutes evidence?
« Reply #17 on: 14/08/2016 00:27:19 »

 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums