21
Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / What existed before the Big Bang?
« on: 27/12/2008 03:58:57 »
This sounds like a confused version of m-theory.
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Re: Birkeman, "a greater, larger, and more disciplined perception is absolutely necessary to perceive the obvious truth herein," applies specifically to your spectacular statement that all science is theory. If you are suggesting, but not specifically, or otherwise indicating that "all" science is essentially provisional, than, without realizing it, we are actually in accord.Well, firstly why not try to get my name correct without the implied insults?
But to proffer that all science is theory, without qualification, is manifestly wrong. Your distinction between a formal theory, and the 'casual' understanding, employed in common parlance, does not justify, or elucidate your usage, in any logical, or scientific sense. Therefore, please explain, without your inappropriate or helpful insults, exactly why, "all of science is theory," and how such theory functions as science.Certainly. Theory is the word used for a model of perceived reality. Other words such as 'truth' are entirely inappropriate. We know, for example that all models are just that - models. "The map is not the territory".
I offer a few examples to make the argument that all science is not theory. Constructing bridges, skyscrapers, cars, airplanes, rockets, cell phones, and so forth, require concrete scientific understanding, not theory. At the point it is possible to construct anything, based upon theory, it is no longer theory, but demonstrated fact. At the point it is possible to verify and demonstrate all of the relevant elements, or constituents that scientifically characterize a theory, it is no longer a theory, but fact. The best example is perhaps the ancient theory that the earth was flat, and harbored edges. Exploration and scientific observation proved otherwise. Therefore the theory was replaced with fact. There are many such examples. This fact of science is hopefully obvious, and requires no further explanation.No...wrong. Firstly science is rarely obvious (that is why the basic questions are often the deepest). Consider one of your examples - constructing a bridge. We cannot accurately predict the behaviour of a bridge. We can model it with appropriate degrees of 'certainty' but when the physics become chaotic (with differential load patterns, wind harmonics and other factors) then the best models give a spread of possible outcomes. The same applies to your other examples. What we do is construct our 'kit' with a safety range, statistically determined, to make it as safe as we reasonably can.
Re: Birkeman, "All of science is theory - that is how it functions." This statement reflects a truly limited understanding of established scientific understanding and methodology. Sound theories are grounded upon science that is verifiable, and predictable, as well as accord with, primarily, and constitute laws and principles, derived from observation, and logical deduction; the very essences of scientific 'truth'. Must we not distinguish between hard science; well established, and verifiable, and soft science, (theory and speculation}, that dilutes rational thought. Merely restating, or varying an idea or concept, does not expand or validate the concept. True understanding is a function of direct insight, and knowledge. Such understanding is not necessarily amenable to ordinary perception. A greater, larger, and more disciplined perception is absolutely necessary to perceive the obvious truth herein.Err...I think you have missed the entire point, and gone off on some postmodernist ego trip.
LOL..don't forget Hick, Close, Bell and Alott....There appears to be something amiss with this. Surely this is scraping the botham of the barrel. Now, I like cricket alott, it certainly rings my bell, but to butcher a thread in such a way is snow joke. Stop behaving like a hick and bring this to a close.
The 'Amiss' & 'Botham' puns are bad enough for this thread, but did you have to pitch in with butchers and snow? You've opened a whole new can of worms now! There'll be a barage of new puns ballooning now!!!
Any idea where the American accent came from?Hmm...one of the main differences is in the pronunciation of r after vowels. Most American dialects are rhotic (they pronounce the r), with exception of Bostonese and a few others. Most English dialects are non-rhotic (we drop the r after vowels). It seems that this change to non-rhotic pronunciation took place in London a couple of centuries ago and spread out gradually - with the exception of some parts of the South-West and East Anglia.