In Despair of Folly (Page 3) BelgianStrider: In the total concept of Einstein's theory Newton's fictuous vision is incorrect, that is true. The bending of the time-space continuum is not taken in account, and that makes it faulty. Correct. Does that mean we should get rid of Newton's laws? Did Einstein's theory change the direction and the acceleration of the "falling apple"? Did Copernnicus view change the movement of the stellar objects? Did that ptolomean view of the spheric earth changed? BelgianStrider: I am convinced that there are "scientific fantical indoctrinated zealots". And using that to proof god does not exists. In fact they are fanatical atheists. BlueShirt1: Well, dude, you can't help but come across, at least to me, as a lttle overzealous (not unlike these religious wackos) in your defence of science. Yes, an excessive degree of passion and objectivity do tend to be in tension with one another. Re falling apples, for example. With or without science, it has been known since time immemorial that apples fall down and do not fall up. No doubt we have many things to thank science for. The knowledge that apples fall down is not one of them. (Edited by BlueShirt1) BlueShirt1: "Does that mean we should get rid of Newton's laws?" - Belgium Well, that's a matter for the scientists to decide, not me. Clearly they are still taught, we might say for their "heuristic value". What ought to be recognized, however, is that if by "law" we mean a "true universal generalization", then Newton's laws are no more lawful than "All birds are flightless". Both are untrue. David Bohm again . . . "It is clear that the form of Newton's laws of motion is NOT invariant under a Lorentz transformation. And since the experimental facts that have been discussed (as well as others) make it evident that the actual transformation between coordinate frames must be that of Lorentz and not that of Galileo, as well as that the laws of mechanics are indeed invariant to a change of velocity of the reference frame, it follows that Newton's laws CANNOT be the correct laws of mechanics (except as an approximation holding in the limiting case as v/c approaches zero)." David Bohm, "The Special Theory of Relativity", p87 (emphasis in original) BelgianStrider: F= M*m/ d*d (when distance d decrease, F will augment and a -acceleration- wil augment, thus acceleration is not "constant", what the heck is the problem ????) Again the Lorentz transformation are used in GRT and using in within the Newtonian model is useless ans senseless. (Edited by BelgianStrider) BelgianStrider: It is correct I had a "scientifical" education, and I can't deny I have more "faith" in science. I do not have no formation in any filosofy, and to be honest sometimes I have the weird feeling the used logic is hmmm let's say "dubious" BelgianStrider: And again every "theory" is a "simplified description" of observed phenomenons. As Bohm said correctly "the Newtonian model is an approximation holding in the limiting case as v/c approaches zero". What means "low speed"... (Post deleted by BlueShirt1 ) (Post deleted by BlueShirt1 ) BlueShirt1: It's as painful to have to listen to your drivel as it is to listen to the religious nutjobs. (Edited by BlueShirt1) (Post deleted by BlueShirt1 ) BlueShirt1: A quick lesson for my subscribers . . . Whenever anyone says "Science is all about X" [insert any X you like] Or whenever anyone says "Science has nothing to do with Y" [insert any Y you like] You might consider subscribing to another channel BlueShirt1: Would you mind explaining how general relativity, say, is a "simplified description" of observed phenomenons"? On second thoughts , never mind BelgianStrider: Well let's say all wheather forecasting models are mathematical models. The best mathematical and most exact mathematical model will be that one that take in account the flutter of a butterfly in (let's say) Timbuktu concerning the track of a typhoon in the Philipines. No mathematical model take that in account, so in your opinion they are all false (you are right on that point). Though does it have an important impact on the track of that Typhoon??? Is that flutter of that butterfly really relevant?? Again most description are mathematical models and they don't, even can't take in account everything what happens in the universe, we just don't have the knowledge. So mostly is the model a "mathematical simplification" of the real situation to be "workable". It will always be approximations, Humans are once (and forever) creatures with limitations. (Edited by BelgianStrider) BelgianStrider: Science has it limitations. Everyone knows that. Again if the goal is to obtain only the total truth, what concerns science it is just a wishfull thinking. We get to know more and better, but still there are many unanswered questions, and one question answered brings ten more questions to answer... Was eveything in ptolomean description incorrect? Nope the spheric earth was correct and is kept. Is everything in the Newtonian model incorrect? Nope and it is still used. Is everything in Einstein's model correct? Nope, we know some anomalies in astronomy that Einstein's model can't explain. Do we have till now a better model ?..... euuuh no, not yet. I presume they are working on it. Will it then be the perfect model? I am affraid no, it will not be the perfect one (Edited by BelgianStrider) BelgianStrider: Again if a "model"/"theory" seems to be incorrect in specific situations, should it be thrown completely to the bin? (Edited by BelgianStrider) BelgianStrider: If for you a theory is "false" because it has limitations and not always applicable, yeah you are right, it is "false" in "sensus stricto". But then, we should not use anything anymore too. There are certain things we know we are correct and it is quite correct beyond reasonable doubt. Does that means "it has the complete truth"? No. Is it usable and valid with what we know? Yes. And that is enough for me as I know the complete truth is utopic. So you will never get me to say that science is "de facto" (completely) "false". Those are two specific and total different views BlueShirt1: You know what scares me about religious wackos? They say everything with so much self-assurance, and a double-figure IQ, that one almost wants to kill oneself. Know what scares me about scientistic wackos? See above. BelgianStrider: Bwa I don't know, most scientist can say "I don't know" And I am not affraid to say "I don't know" Can't say that about religious wackos (Post deleted by BlueShirt1 ) | Science Chat Room 2 People Chatting Similar Conversations |