Is holography currently available for use and misuse?

Originally posted by OrionStars

Originally posted by adampants2007
reply to post by OrionStars

 

lol.....look, I understand your statement. But EVERYTHING you said can be found in a PHYSICS text.

Since any and all qualified physics books consider the fourth dimension to be theorectical, perhaps you will share with us your physic books versions of the surreality of the fourth dimension?

When did time become theoretical?

reply to post by flice


What you have posted is a more advanced version of the peppers ghost trick which is technically not a hologram. Very nice videos, thanks for the post.

reply to post by adampants2007


OK now a little dose of reality.
There are 4 accepted dimensions
length
width
height
and
time

The above is what you'll find in physics books.
I'm sorry but what you're saying has no basis in reality, only in pseudo-science and meta-physics.

If you believe I am wrong, please show me scientifically reproducible data and I will be happy to admit you are correct.

Anything abstract is always personal perception and nothing more. It is not physical. Only the physical matter is considered reality aka physical reality. All else is abstractly hypothetical or theorectical.

Hypothesis - abstract unproved personal opinion

Theory - proved effect on physical matter caused by abstract invisible theoretical quantum energy

Originally posted by jfj123

Since any and all qualified physics books consider the fourth dimension to be theorectical, perhaps you will share with us your physic books versions of the surreality of the fourth dimension?

When did time become theoretical?

Can you touch, taste, smell, hear or see time? Or is it an abstract perception that time exists because people invented clocks and sun dials?

Originally posted by OrionStars
Anything abstract is always personal perception and nothing more. It is not physical. Only the physical matter is considered reality aka physical reality. All else is abstractly hypothetical or theorectical.

Hypothesis - abstract unproved personal opinion

Theory - proved effect on physical matter caused by abstract invisible theoretical quantum energy

Good info that hopefully adampants2007 will be able to apply to future posts.

Here's my favorite definition for a Scientific Theory
A theory is not a guess, not a hunch nor opinion. It's a well-substantiated, well-supported, well-documented explanation for our observations. It ties together all the facts about something, providing an explanation that fits all the observations and can be used to make predictions. In science, theory is the ultimate goal, the explanation. It's as close to proven as anything in science can be.
A theory never becomes a law. In fact, if there was a hierarchy of science, theories would be higher than laws. There is nothing higher, or better, than a theory. Laws describe things, theories explain them.

Originally posted by OrionStars

Originally posted by jfj123

Since any and all qualified physics books consider the fourth dimension to be theorectical, perhaps you will share with us your physic books versions of the surreality of the fourth dimension?

When did time become theoretical?

Can you touch, taste, smell, hear or see time? Or is it an abstract perception that time exists because people invented clocks and sun dials?


Sorry, I wasn't trying to be sarcastic.

Time can however, be measured.

Originally posted by jfj123

Sorry, I wasn't trying to be sarcastic.

Time can however, be measured.

Neither was I. Are you aware humans are the only members of the animal kingdom ever attempting to measure abstract, invisible time as if it is physical?

Time has no meaning to the rest of the animal kingdom - by human devised word or otherwise.

Originally posted by jfj123

A theory never becomes a law. In fact, if there was a hierarchy of science, theories would be higher than laws. There is nothing higher, or better, than a theory. Laws describe things, theories explain them.

I was in agreement right up until you stated the above. Laws are better than theory. The reason theories never become laws, is because of unknown variable interference preventing theories from becoming laws.

Until one meets those unknown variables, one will never know if a theory is always correct and never wrong (law). We can depend on laws. We cannot pull full faith into theories - any theories. We normally never know what failures occur in testing. We normally only know of the sucesses, and what does work after what ethically should be much peer review testing by same methodology.

Change the methodology of testing, and results can easily change as well and normally do.

Originally posted by OrionStars

Originally posted by jfj123

A theory never becomes a law. In fact, if there was a hierarchy of science, theories would be higher than laws. There is nothing higher, or better, than a theory. Laws describe things, theories explain them.

I was in agreement right up until you stated the above. Laws are better than theory. The reason theories never become laws, is because of unknown variable interference preventing theories from becoming laws.

Until one meets those unknown variables, one will never know if a theory is always correct and never wrong (law). We can depend on laws. We cannot pull full faith into theories - any theories. We normally never know what failures occur in testing. We normally only know of the sucesses, and what does work after what ethically should be much peer review testing by same methodology.

Change the methodology of testing, and results can easily change as well and normally do.

This is the scientific definition for a theory. As stated, a law is less then a theory. It's a common misconception.

reply to post by OrionStars


Here's an example of the difference between a law and theory

A theory never becomes a law. In fact, if there was a hierarchy of science, theories would be higher than laws. There is nothing higher, or better, than a theory. Laws describe things, theories explain them. An example will help you to understand this. There's a law of gravity, which is the description of gravity. It basically says that if you let go of something it'll fall. It doesn't say why. Then there's the theory of gravity, which is an attempt to explain why. Actually, Newton's Theory of Gravity did a pretty good job, but Einstein's Theory of Relativity does a better job of explaining it. These explanations are called theories, and will always be theories. They can't be changed into laws, because laws are different things. Laws describe, and theories explain.

www.notjustatheory.com...

Here's more law vs theory info

* Laws are generalizations about what has happened, from which we can generalize about what we expect to happen. They pertain to observational data. The ability of the ancients to predict eclipses had nothing to do with whether they knew just how they happened; they had a law but not a theory.

* Theories are explanations of observations (or of laws). The fact that we have a pretty good understanding of how stars explode doesn't necessarily mean we could predict the next supernova; we have a theory but not a law.

www.madsci.org...

and another

Theory: well- stated explanation that makes sense of a great variety of scientific observations. Explanations of observations (or of laws).

Law: are generalizations about what has happened, from which we can generalize about what we expect to happen. They pertain to observational data. They had a law but not a theory.

wiki.answers.com...

Hopefully this helps



[edit on 10-2-2008 by jfj123]

Originally posted by jfj123

This is the scientific definition for a theory. As stated, a law is less then a theory. It's a common misconception.

As I stated, a law is dependable. A theory never is, or any fully dependable theory would be law, rather than remaining a theory.

Would you care to source from where you got what you call a "scientific definition". From the way it appeared, those were your thoughts not someone else's. If you took from someone else, while not referencing the source, that constitutes plagiarism.

reply to post by jfj123


I have known the difference between law and theory since I was in elementary school. However, from what you present, I am not certain you understand the difference, because what you present is misleading to others admitting they do not understand.

Originally posted by OrionStars

Originally posted by jfj123

This is the scientific definition for a theory. As stated, a law is less then a theory. It's a common misconception.

As I stated, a law is dependable. A theory never is, or any fully dependable theory would be law, rather than remaining a theory.

Would you care to source from where you got what you call a "scientific definition". From the way it appeared, those were your thoughts not someone else's. If you took from someone else, while not referencing the source, that constitutes plagiarism.

Yep my bad, I'll post the sources in just a sec. I forgot.

Originally posted by jfj123
reply to post by OrionStars

 

Here's an example of the difference between a law and theory

A theory never becomes a law. In fact, if there was a hierarchy of science, theories would be higher than laws. There is nothing higher, or better, than a theory. Laws describe things, theories explain them. An example will help you to understand this. There's a law of gravity, which is the description of gravity. It basically says that if you let go of something it'll fall. It doesn't say why. Then there's the theory of gravity, which is an attempt to explain why. Actually, Newton's Theory of Gravity did a pretty good job, but Einstein's Theory of Relativity does a better job of explaining it. These explanations are called theories, and will always be theories. They can't be changed into laws, because laws are different things. Laws describe, and theories explain.

Where is the source reference? It is the second post in which you have not referenced source using the same words. The first time you failed to place quotation marks around the words. Quotation marks readily infer they are not your thoughts but someone else's instead. The second time you stated the word's were someone else's thoughts not not yours. Yet, we still have not seen a reference link to those words? From whom and where did those words originate?

Originally posted by jfj123

Yep my bad, I'll post the sources in just a sec. I forgot.

To avoid any misunderstanding, I posted a previous post, again requesting source, before I had the oppoturnity to view what you wrote above.

reply to post by OrionStars


Yep sorry for not posting the source. I reposted above and also added a few other sources. Thanks for the reminder.

Originally posted by jfj123
reply to post by OrionStars

 

Yep sorry for not posting the source. I reposted above and also added a few other sources. Thanks for the reminder.

What is that person's qualifications to define science by personal opinion? You are taking words from a philosophy blog and considering that qualified science definition? Why?

In another of your cited sources, the person used the American Heriitage Dictionary for a science definition source of theory and law. Why would anyone but an unqualified layperson do that? Because it is highly misleading to other unversed-in-science laypersons reading misinformation presented by other misinformed persons.

Any qualified academic or professional sites using that same definition? Because I have never seen that definition used by science academics or professionals. I do not even depend on Webster's for science definitions. I definitely do not depend on American Heritage for any correct defintions. I never depend on Wiki either.

I depend on Merriam-Webster and Oxford for most correct denotation and connotation definitions and descriptions. When I want science definitions, I access academic and professional science websites or certified science books and periodicals.

From one of your own sources. Did you miss the word philosophy of science, not science, on that website?

www.madsci.org...

This is a common question, and a common misconception. Unfortunately I learned it pretty much the same way you did... and didn't really have it corrected until I started digging into the philosophy of science rather recently.

The current consensus among philosophers of science seems to be this:

Laws are generalizations about what has happened, from which we can generalize about what we expect to happen. They pertain to observational data. The ability of the ancients to predict eclipses had nothing to do with whether they knew just how they happened; they had a law but not a theory.

Theories are explanations of observations (or of laws). The fact that we have a pretty good understanding of how stars explode doesn't necessarily mean we could predict the next supernova; we have a theory but not a law.

We philosophers are able to arrive a great deal of "mad sci" speculation all the time. However, the most logical of us never dwell on such speculation. except for philisophical brain exercise, when we have extra time to waste, on what can easily be nothing more than brain excercises in futility.

Laws of nature are indeed set in metaphorical stone and dependable. It is all in how one applies the laws, in order to arrive at cause and effect conclusions, resulting in validation or rejection of personal hypothesis. As long as someone keeps their experiment methodology honest in demand for objective truth result, truth will result. It may not be what was desired, but it will be the truth desired or not.

Originally posted by OrionStars
Can you touch, taste, smell, hear or see time? Or is it an abstract perception that time exists because people invented clocks and sun dials?

Can you touch, taste, smell, hear or see the other three dimensions?

Dimensions are not something, they are just properties of something.

You can measure all three dimensions of an object, and you can measure the time it takes you to do the measuring, if you like.

In both cases you are using an instrument, that was created (and given meaning to), by humans.

Originally posted by deezee
Can you touch, taste, smell, hear or see the other three dimensions?

Dimensions are not something, they are just properties of something.

Dimensions can be physical measurements, or hypothetical (abstract) or theoretical (abstract) measurement, when combined to physically measure cause to effect of energy (quantum) on physcial matter, which can easily become physically measurable (E=MC2, part of which resulted in H- and A-bombs being produced and used).

Can you touch other 3-D physical matter, such as your own body parts? Can you measure those body parts if necessary? If you have ever been able to do at least that much touching or measuring, you just answered your own question, and realized your own conclusion is wrong.