0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
"Where do the laws of physics come from?" My supposition is that they have always existed, and are a set of invariant natural laws ...
My supposition is that they have always existed, and are a set of invariant natural laws that govern an
The scientific process is one of discovery rather than invention.
Words or maths? Well, you can describe Pythagoras in words, but it is the maths that makes it useful. Both are language, choose the right tool for the job.
I don't know about that Collin. Sometimes you have to invent something, to discover something. CERN would be a pretty good example,
but even theories themselves are inventions. You couldn't discover anything about relativity until Einstein invented the theory.
Consensus is a huge part of science already. It does have its pitfalls. Consensus has a way of clouding objectivity, while turning unknowns into beliefs.
but consensus eludes the scientific process.
Not saying an infinite universe isn't possible, I just can't see the logic in it at this time. Given everything we already know. I consider it unlikely.
I would still draw a distinction between the invention and the discovery. Inventing an experiment or procedure is part of the process of discovery, but not the discovery itself.
We are in danger here of using the word invention in 2 different ways in the same paragraph.I would consider scientific theories to be descriptions of how the universe appears to work, rather than inventions.
A scientific theory has to be observable and repeatable, it needs to make predictions that are verifiable (falsifiable). When such a theory is first published it needs to be checked to see whether others can repeat the results, the first stage of this is peer review to see whether the suggestion is consistent. If there is sufficient experimental evidence that the predictions are repeatable the theory is accepted. This testing process is objective.
Noting your arguments and objections, infinities are hard to deal with. Nevertheless, arguing for or against cosmological infinities always seems to come right down to the difference between where you and I are at on it.
Quote from: andreasva on 23/03/2018 14:25:00but consensus eludes the scientific process. Not really.
There's very little hard evidence to draw conclusions on just about anything in physics. It's a fragile house of cards built on a foundation of hypothesis. The observations can be interpreted a number of different ways, both rightly, or wrongly.
I spent a good 10 years on the UNIKEF site.
I'm not convinced Einstein ever bought into it either, honestly. He started with an aether, but failure to detect the aether seemed to force him down another path. To publish, you have to make testable predictions. He didn't have much choice but to pull the aether out after Mickelson & Morley's failed experiment.
It's an observation of the process from the outside
Am I right in thinking you take this view on, say, the observations of Faraday, Ampere, Gauss etc.
Yes, one of the sites which contain a large number of ideas that don’t hold water. At one point it is talking about circles, but uses the formula for spheres to make, incorrect, conclusions.
I appreciate your view would probably be that it is a property of time.
From the inside I can assure you that "Science" is very good at consensus
You seem to be mistaking the lack of consensus among scientists for a lack of consensus in science.