It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Resolving Five of the Most Common Mistakes People Make About Science

page: 3
18
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 6 2015 @ 12:13 PM
link   
a reply to: purplemer

No, looking at something is not observation in this context. This whole "quantum woo" that tries to link consciousness to QM is just that... woo.




posted on Jun, 6 2015 @ 12:18 PM
link   
a reply to: GetHyped

Looking at the results is an observation.






posted on Jun, 6 2015 @ 12:27 PM
link   
a reply to: purplemer

In this context, observer = instrument. Anything else is erroneous semantics.



posted on Jun, 6 2015 @ 02:53 PM
link   
a reply to: pfishy

Cool!! Just good thing its not the mosquito that's being speed up to the speed of light in there...



posted on Jun, 6 2015 @ 02:55 PM
link   
a reply to: pfishy

Perhaps, but how can you expand a proton to the size of a mosquito? You can't grow a proton, a particle's size stay the same. No one go around seeing mosquito-sized protons and electrons.

Right? I mean about the particle expanding above its normal size.



posted on Jun, 6 2015 @ 08:28 PM
link   
a reply to: Yavanna

I know it's not actually a possibility. I was just making a point to attempt to illustrate the comparitive energy, were it actually mosquitoes colliding at that speed. The 13 mosquitoes analogy can be misleading. When you pack that energy into a proton stream that is a very, very small fraction of the diameter of a human hair, the results are considerably different.
edit on 6-6-2015 by pfishy because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 6 2015 @ 08:33 PM
link   
a reply to: purplemer

The participatory Anthropic principle is garbage. Reality would exist even if there were no intelligent minds to observe it. To argue otherwise is nothing more than egotistical self-gratification.



posted on Jun, 6 2015 @ 08:39 PM
link   
a reply to: GetHyped

Well, theories can become laws. Newton's laws were catagorized as theories until all possible avenues of testing had been exhausted and they stood up to each of them. A theory is considered a law when there are no points of said theory left in contention.



posted on Jun, 6 2015 @ 08:41 PM
link   
a reply to: pfishy

Ah okay.


Beside, I don't think the CERN would be stupid enough to make something destructive. Especially if most of the elite is in Switzerland, the country just beside the CERN. They're not yet immortal.



posted on Jun, 6 2015 @ 08:43 PM
link   
a reply to: GetHyped

Thereis, indeed, evidence to believe you are not a fire breathing goat. They are, without exception, absolutely terrible at utilizing the English language. It is a universal genetic flaw in their species. Therefore, I KNOW that you do not number among their ranks. However, you may be one of the goats that just coughs up sparks, and can't actually get a fire to ignite. That remains to be seen.



posted on Jun, 6 2015 @ 08:46 PM
link   
a reply to: Yavanna

Well, it's actually split fairly evenly between Switzerland and France. It runs under the border.

But my entire point was to illustrate that 13 mosquitoes carry ENORMOUS energy, when the amount is applied to the proper scale.



posted on Jun, 6 2015 @ 08:53 PM
link   
a reply to: Yavanna

Now, imagine the future. Say, maybe, 50 years from now. The technology will be more efficient, and the supply of raw energy will be greater. What could we build then? Perhaps squeezing the beam to only 4 particles wide, colliding at the energy of a head on train wreck per particle, at millions per second. It's feasible. Of course, everything involved would have to be substantially more robust to handle the energies involved, but the LHC was an impossibility with the tech of the 80's. Who knows?



posted on Jun, 6 2015 @ 09:40 PM
link   
a reply to: Yavanna

Imagine the spatial possibilities.



posted on Jun, 7 2015 @ 07:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: InTheLight
a reply to: Yavanna

Imagine the spatial possibilities.


And the energy requirement. Do you know how much electricity it takes just to accelerate a proton through the collider?

Alot.



posted on Jun, 7 2015 @ 08:38 AM
link   
a reply to: swanne

There is a thing I feel is missing in this list.

Science is about providing a mathematical description of reality.

So, of course "the electron is governed by a mathematical concept called, probability wave function".

But you might get away with simpler models depending on the field of application. And who knows, there might be a more complex electron model just waiting to be discovered.



posted on Jun, 7 2015 @ 02:29 PM
link   
a reply to: pfishy

Who knows indeed.



posted on Jun, 7 2015 @ 02:30 PM
link   
a reply to: InTheLight

Actually, I was more thinking about the poor mosquitoes being squashed to bits... I hate them but not that much.



posted on Jun, 7 2015 @ 03:24 PM
link   
Reality does not exist unless you observe it. 

Double-slit experiment?

Also, the distinction between a theory and a law seems to differ depending on which textbook you use. There seems to be a lack of consensus between textbook authors for some reason. It may be because they don't consider it a big enough issue to try to come to a universal agreement about it. IMO, the term law in science should be completely dismissed, and all laws should be called theories. I think that the scientific community refuses to do this out of respect to previous pioneers. If nothing else, they could at least come to a universal conclusion about their distinctions and definitions.



posted on Jun, 8 2015 @ 04:06 AM
link   
a reply to: gpawnday
Can you show an example of this supposed inconsistency between the definitions of 'theory' and 'law'?



posted on Jun, 8 2015 @ 05:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: MarioOnTheFly

Do you have any specific issues with TBBT or...?


it would be above my vocabulary and scientific knowledge to correctly explain my issues...not specifically with the Big Bang...but with "accepted" knowledge of the cosmos.

There is a link I red...about problems with Big Bang theory...but those are not my thoughts. Still...here it is...so maybe you guys with more in depth scientific knowledge can address some of the issues mentioned.

Problems with Big Bang theory

...to be honest...most of this stuff is above my ability to understand the concepts mentioned...so I won't engage in a deeper debate.




top topics



 
18
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join