Science wrong.... again.

Originally posted by jackphotohobby

Originally posted by Lillydale
Yes but did you even read what was being replied to??????

All I said was that math had proven math was a fraud. See, it was a joke because the premise of this thread is that science has been proven a fraud........by science. Did everyone lose their sense of humor? I was really not looking to debate whether or not penguins have utilized i.

Yes, I didn't think he was implying that mathematics was a fraud. I thought he was making light of the links between language and abstract concepts. I was defending the joke, by pointing out it's not entirely unheard of in certain branches of mathematics.

Judging by the emotiveness of your replies, I can see you're upset. Best thing to do is walk away from the keyboard before leaning on the question mark key and making a bit of a fuss.

Thank you.

Ok. I was being facetious.
I think the OP is trying to state that science constantly proves theory. Period.

Lillydale, in response to your post. I thought your beginning posts were thoughtful and creative. I got the joke.
I guess I might have instigated a little bit.

All in good fun.

[Spelling edit]



[edit on 20-12-2009 by havok]

Originally posted by jackphotohobby
Yes, I didn't think he was implying that mathematics was a fraud. I thought he was making light of the links between language and abstract concepts. I was defending the joke, by pointing out it's not entirely unheard of in certain branches of mathematics.

Judging by the emotiveness of your replies, I can see you're upset. Best thing to do is walk away from the keyboard before leaning on the question mark key and making a bit of a fuss.

I am not upset. It just comes across that way when you cannot hear my tone of voice. My writing always seems far more terse than any actual conversation with me in person is. I missed the joke so bad on me. I did not get it. I thought my joke was being corrected and corrected with bad facts. If I was just plain off the mark, then I apologize to you and him.

I was just trying to make light to begin with myself. I certainly was not looking to argue about anything in particular here.

I know this is no excuse but I had my teenage nephew over for the entire weekend. He is somewhat learning disabled but not so much that he can not still be an obnoxious teenager. He corrects EVERYTHING you say. He usually has no idea what he is talking about but if you say words, they will be corrected for some reason. He left a few hours ago. I guess I thought I would come here and have a few chuckles, read what looked like someone correcting me, when I was just making a stupid joke anyway, and maybe I lashed out here because I cannot tie up my nephew and torture him.

Whatever the deal was, I apologize and meant no harm. I really just wanted to keep things light so it is time to go smoke and relax.

Originally posted by havok

Lillydale, in response to your post. I thought the beginning post were thoughtful and creative. I got the joke. I guess I might have instigated a little bit.

All in good fun.

Nah, apparently I just did not get your response and that is my bad. I was hoping it was all in good fun too. I really meant no malice at any point and maybe I need to actually be in a good mood before I try to joke around here. Since what I write seems much more angry than I ever mean to sound, perhaps that is the same voice I am reading with this morning. Being female does allow me to claim I am feeling emotional or some crap, right?

reply to post by Lillydale


I guess the real question is:

Did we intentionally de-rail this thread?

reply to post by Lillydale


We've all done it. Very difficult to judge emotional tone through text. So no problem .

Kind of an example of how arguing isn't a bad thing if it's taken into account and we move on. Kind a of a very very basic example of how science works. To get back on topic .

This is funny because I've recently been in correspondence with math Professor Luigi Borzacchini about this very issue -- the faulty logic at the foundation of mathematics.

In fact math Professor Joe Mazur said I had done important research and encouraged me to submit my "mathematical equation" disproving mathematics to the most read math journal in the world -- the MMA journal.

Of course it was rejected without comment so Mazur then recommended I try an Indian History of Science journal? Why?

Well Stephen Hawkings in his recent book "God Made the Integers" details the Indian proof for the Pythagorean Theorem does not use irrational magnitude (the secret for the Greek Miracle) but instead uses "divide and average" numbers as an infinite process.

Actually what I was proposing is neither "divide and average" arithmetic nor "infinite" irrational geometry but instead "complementary opposites" as natural resonance from music theory.

The Pythagorean Theorem was developed from music ratios and I proved this by solving the secret music equation for Archtyas' solution to "doubling the cube" -- to get the cube root of two as the major third music interval -- 5:4.

naturalresonancerevolution.blogspot.com... has further details. See my blog book "Deep Disharmony." Math Professor Luigi Borzacchini states that my math is correct (he specializes in musical mathematics) but he states there's no historical evidence for my math! haha.

There's certainly a lot of contextual evidence though! Peter Kingsley, a Ph.D. on Greek Pythagorean philosophy has also exposed that Plato and Aristotle LIED about the true logic of nonwestern healing energy. peterkingsley.com... has his excellent book "In the Dark Places of Wisdom." Enjoy!

Originally posted by Lillydale
AHA! Math had finally been proven the fraud I always knew it was. Math is nothing more than a carnival trick meant to enslave the masses. I know so because some mathematicians proved math is a fraud with a mathematical formula...

I am just thinking of other thread titles and OPs that would make this a real nice little category all its own. I mean when you have scientists making scientific discoveries and that disproves science altogether, then you really have something.

reply to post by drew hempel


but uh....2 + 2 still equals 4 right?

I mean, I am just saying. You are not looking to disprove MATH are you or just certain advanced mathematical theorems? Now I am curious.

Originally posted by havok
reply to post by Lillydale

 

I guess the real question is:

Did we intentionally de-rail this thread?

That is an interesting question. I just meant to make one joke. You just meant to make one joke. It snowballed from there. Hmmm. I bet there is some scientific method for determining if our derailment was intentional or ....oh wait, science is fraudulent. Nevermind.

reply to post by Total Package


You're absolutely right on one point, that science does in fact prove itself wrong, which is of course the entire point of the scientific method. I hope we never "know it all", as the thrill of discovery and the quest to continually better understand our universe will be over.

At any given moment, the scientific method produces the best probable answer, based on the information currently available, to whatever question we may be asking. This is due to the process itself, by trying to prove or disprove the null hypothesis (nothing to see here) and disprove all other potential answers in a repeatable & testable way. Then by publishing your findings, and having other people all over the world try it out and prove or disprove your theory. Science will always be fluid and grasping for an even better answer than what we currently understand. That is it's strength not it's weakness, as the OP seems to suggest. It is the antithesis of the dogmatic/religious way of understanding of the world where it's better to burn the messenger than accept what can plainly be seen through the telescope. No new information can ever be found when you are sure you have got it all sewn up in the first place. But science has a built in method for not only being able to assimilate new information, but to actively seek it out and and test their most basic assumptions in the quest for an ever more refined understanding.

Does it always seamlessly work this way? Of course not, but that isn't the failure of the method, it is the failure of the humans who practice it. Whose ego's (or funding) may become tied up in their theory, or by their own unexamined and limiting assumptions. But someone will inevitably break that barrier, publish, others will check for themselves, and we all will have a better and more complete understanding of the amazing world around us.

Have you given up your car? The medicines that extend your life? TV, movies, cd's, computers, Internet, cell phones, modern food preservation techniques, plastic, Velcro, etc? ALL of these things (and countless more) came by science or were based on the scientific principles created by others. Talk about bashing the hand that feeds you!

Originally posted by MrPenny

Originally posted by DangerDeath
Jupiter's huge EM field which at times engulfs even Earth,

Can you back that claim up with some authoritative sources please? I can't seem to locate anything that supports this statement.

Originally posted by DangerDeath
Sure.

en.wikipedia.org...

That isn't even close to explaining the same thing. A semi-focused cone of radio wave emissions is clearly not the same thing as being "engulfed in Jupiter's EM field". A barely minimal relationship exists only because of the breadth of the electromagnetic spectrum. By that reckoning, in some hundreds of light years....the Earth's EM field could be claimed as "engulfing" some distant galaxy....only by virtue of the radio waves that have traversed the space between.

One of the worst features of these forums is the willingness of ignorant posters to toss any perceived fact out.....with a complete disregard for its relation to the issue at hand.

A quick Wikipedia scan.....and seeing some "key" words that just might be close to what you're looking for, is a really crappy way of conducting a discussion or debate.

Edit: grammar



[edit on 20-12-2009 by MrPenny]

reply to post by MrPenny


You are wrong. Jupiter's EM field does engulf Earth, and there is very strong interference between it and Earth's ionosphere. Did you notice that its elongated end reaches Saturn's orbit? Earth does physically pass through Jupiter's EM field.

Underestimating EM influence on us and everything for that matter, should not be taken so lightly. The fact that we don't know much about it is not really a credible fact.

What science is actually based on is observations and reproducibility, as science's objective is to try to understand and explain the natural and physical world(s).

Science is not based on theories, much less theories in the same sense as people ignorant of what science is about, particularly religious extremists, think of it. Theories (scientific theories) are just one process, out of many, that science has. These theories, that some of you described as "a bunch of guesses", are required to have some foundation in scientific knowledge and facts to be considered scientific theories otherwise they are something else.

A frequent mistake people, unaware of what science is about, make is that when they hear about some new theory they assume science, and scientists, automatically give them the same weight as proven facts.

Everything in science is a process that goes through several stages, with many different people and groups of people testing, attempting to reproduce it and confirm the results. It's a complex, elaborate and time consuming process that produces results that have to, ultimately, conform to the observable and testable reality of the physical world.

Science is, in its basic essence, a tool for man to understand and acquire knowledge about the physical world.

Those that complain about science "sometimes getting it wrong" don't understand that science is a process that, contrary to organized religion for example, not only demands to continually be questioned, it expects people to make mistakes and through those mistakes will hopefully find the real answers.


This is directed at Total Package and others that don't understand why some would look at the UFO phenomena through science- there are those that are content in merely believing something. Some of us aren't, and recognize that believing and knowing something are two quite different things.

Science provides the best tool to, eventually, know what the facts about something really are, and hopefully understand that something. If you think the answers are within you and come to you in the form of belief, that's fine - I hope that fulfills you.

Now watch as the rest of us that base our understanding of the Universe on acquired knowledge and facts, strive to climb that mountain of the unknown once again, symbolized here by the mysterious UFO phenomenon, to hopefully plant the flag at the top for the benefit of all mankind and not just a group of like-minded believers.

reply to post by havok


Mathematics/Logic is only exact intersubjective language which we can share across cultures. If we accept axioms (it is problematic) of euclidean geometry, then we can talk with common language - with full respect to other non-euclidean geometries. For more then detailed investiagation of this theme please refer to Immanuel Kant and Edmund Husserl for example.

After reading not much of the posts, I think the op is trying to get by that (punctuation aside), that people who tout science shouldn't have arrogance in it unless they can prove it themselves. Basically, if you are arguing on something, people must learn to disagree and get on with it, and accept the others beliefs and cater to that person a little bit in your communication to them.

Thanks, was fun but i need a nap.

To OP - what a pile of # you posted. You completely twisted what is written in the article, exaggerated it and put it out of context. And then completely ignored the post which showed your fallacy.

I think a lot of scientists are payed by the government to keep regular people in the dark. They are not going to tell the real truth and they misinform people on a lot of things and people believe them.

Originally posted by sphinx551
I think a lot of scientists are payed by the government to keep regular people in the dark.

Nah....no need for a payroll. "Regular" people will keep themselves stupid with no help from scientists.

Originally posted by DangerDeath
reply to post by MrPenny

 

You are wrong. Jupiter's EM field does engulf Earth.....

No....you are wrong....Earth has a fleet of EM field fighting elves, riding the backs of cyclopean spaghetti monsters, pushing back Jupiter's EM field with bowls of warm tapioca pudding.

That makes just as much sense as childishly spouting off whatever nonsense you wish. I swear to God, I can read the pout in your response.

I would have hoped by this time that you could have done some research and discovered the difference between the fixed EM field and the variable Magnetosphere.



[edit on 20-12-2009 by MrPenny]

Science is much more plausible than religion, please be reasonable....


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

Originally posted by Perplexity
Science is much more plausible than religion, please be reasonable....

Not that I am religious or anything but I believe some things in science are misinformation to keep people from knowing the real truth. The Government doesn't want people to know.

[edit on 20-12-2009 by sphinx551]