Putting the final nail into modern science's coffin

Originally posted by CircleOfDust
reply to post by tachyonmind

 

Oh really? What happens when you divide by zero? That's right.

nothing happens when you divide by zero, zero has no value. you're basically asking me what happens when you try to find out how much nothing in is something.. but nothing is nothing, it doesn't exist, if it did, it would be something, which clearly isn't nothing.

I can't help it if you can't read all of my thread past that point to see my evidence.

i have read through your thread and it was a waste of my time, you provide no evidence.

You didn't watch the video.

"Therefor there's a fundamental flaw in the formulation of Einstein's theory of Relativity"

Michio Kaku

yeah, the fundamental flaw is that physics breaks down in the centre of a black hole. this doesn't make relativity any less accurate for describing the rest of the universe we live in.

"everywhere we look in the heavens, einstein's theory hits right on the spot." -michio kaku

black holes are the one exception to relativity, because there is no physics currently available to explain infinity.. this does not mean it's crumbling, it just means we need more study..

Why should I hold your hand? Why can you ask me to show my proof, but you can't show me yours of his being disproved?

the burden of proof is on you if you are trying to disprove what is already accepted as self-evident.

Originally posted by phishyblankwaters
reply to post by purplemer

 

People are fast to forget that science itself is a philosophy and creates models of the universe. These are models at best. Never reality itself.

people are equally fast to forget that science is self repairing. Science updates itself as theories are tested and found to be accurate or wrong. That's kinda the whole way science works, at the core, proving each other wrong.

Yes, it does take time for a new theory to be accepted by the whole, and it will only be deemed acceptable once it can be tested.

Granted science updates its theories but it is still restricted by the philosophy that dictates science. As I said science works of falsification. It breaks the world down into a dualistic subject/object view. This view may not be correct what soever. It is a premise on which science builds models of the universe.

The only thing you truly know to exist is yourself. You experience of being. Scienntifaly it is impossible to prove that...You, your experience of self exists. Science has limitations like any other philosophy or religion.

Originally posted by purplemer
reply to post by purplemer

 

Granted science updates its theories but it is still restricted by the philosophy that dictates science. As I said science works of falsification. It breaks the world down into a dualistic subject/object view. This view may not be correct what soever. It is a premise on which science builds models of the universe.

this is untrue.. science does not break down the world into a dualistic view, it simply measures the world around us and uses these measurements to build a mathematical model of what we detect.. the philosophy of science is one of vigorous analysis and re-analysis, its goal is to understand how the objective reality we experience works, subjectivity only comes into the equation under certain conditions, namely quantum mechanics and the "observer effect"..

The only thing you truly know to exist is yourself. You experience of being. Scienntifaly it is impossible to prove that...You, your experience of self exists. Science has limitations like any other philosophy or religion.

this is also untrue.. we know we exist because we can measure our existence and its effects on the objective world..

if we truly know that we ourselves exist, then by definition everything else has to exist.. if nothing exists except subjective experience, then material science wouldn't be able to objectively measure anything..

you speak as if philosophy and religion are alternatives or variations of material science, but they are no where near the same thing.. the subjects of study in philosophy and religion are subjective.. things such as consciousness, morality, etc..

material science cannot measure these things because they cannot be detected or even defined as yet in the observable objective physical world, just as religion and philosophy cannot precisely measure gravitation or radio waves or anything else outside of an internal subjective experience..

philosophy is a science of language and interpretation and its terms are often loose and open to redefinition, it is the science of human nature.. material science is precise, using rigid, quantifiable mathematical formula to explain the forces of the universe around us as observed by all objectively, it is the science of universal nature..

philosophy cannot be used to disprove material science and material science cannot be used as an argument against philosophy.. certainly material science cannot be called a philosophy or a religion either, it's an objective description of the world, concrete and precise, whereas philosophy and religion are subjective, describing how we think and feel, and attempting to find out why..

no one will every fully understand how the universe works. We have only been given a general idea, like a lot of things in the universe. Let me give you an example....."the smarter you are or even think you are, actually the dumber you really are because you actually think you know something when you don't really know it".

Originally posted by spartacus699
no one will every fully understand how the universe works. We have only been given a general idea, like a lot of things in the universe. Let me give you an example....."the smarter you are or even think you are, actually the dumber you really are because you actually think you know something when you don't really know it".

this is just a needlessly negative attitude.. what we know about the workings of the universe is growing every day, don't forget that modern science is still very young, and we have at least 13 billion years of universal evolution to study and catch up to.. what we know is more than a "general idea", it's the start of a definite understanding..

a more positive quote which i quite like is one attributed to socrates: "the more you know the more you realise you have to learn."

reply to post by tachyonmind


Everyone hates a know it all, that's all you need to know to know not to be a know it all

Originally posted by spartacus699
reply to post by tachyonmind

 

Everyone hates a know it all, that's all you need to know to know not to be a know it all

what do you mean, a "know it all"? you just said in the previous post that no one can know it all.. it sounds like you mean "everyone hates people who know things they don't", which is kinda silly..

then again, i guess you could be just resorting to childish name calling, and if so then fair enough mate, i had it coming xD

Originally posted by purplemer
Science has limitations like any other philosophy or religion.

science is neither a philosophy nor a religion though. Science deal in facts. Religion is based on blind faith and philosophy is in simplistic terms a way of thinking or viewing the world around you. Neither philosophy or religion deal in facts, observation or measurement of any form, thus the comparison is rather...naïve at best. religions peddles myth and being a philosopher is generally being a professional BS artist. In science we take a hypothesis and then test the hypothesis. it is then reviewed by other people in your field who will then attempt to replicate your findings independently. when this process has gone round and round a few times and the results are reviewed by the scientific community it is either disproven and tossed, it is substantiated and becomes an accepted theory or occasionally a combination where some of your findings are refuted and others that are proven are added or incorporated into the ever evolving lexicon. Some of my favorite moments were finding that I was incorrect because it allowed me to see where I was going wrong and where to get back on the right track. science is a process, there are no temples, there are no tithes.

reply to post by CircleOfDust

A YouTube video is just some idiot's opinion.

You said mainstream science 'admitted that relativity is flawed and crumbling'. Show us something from a mainstream science journal, published paper or even a reputable popular-science publication that admits this.

We are not interested in your personal entertainment choices.

reply to post by Astyanax


You shouldn't be so obvious that you didn't watch. But I can't quite blame you. Some would go crazy if they took their blinders off to see just a glimpse of reality.

reply to post by tachyonmind


thanks for reply.. soz for quick response off to work soon...

this is untrue.. science does not break down the world into a dualistic view, it simply measures the world around us and uses these measurements to build a mathematical model of what we detect

It is not untrue. You try and do and experiment without a subject /object

if we truly know that we ourselves exist, then by definition everything else has to exist.. if nothing exists except subjective experience, then material science wouldn't be able to objectively measure anything..

No just because you exist does not by definition mean everything else has to exist. There is no way to prove for example that reality is not a manifestation of the mind. (Solipsism)

you speak as if philosophy and religion are alternatives or variations of material science, but they are no where near the same thing.. the subjects of study in philosophy and religion are subjective.. things such as consciousness, morality, etc.

Of course science is philosophy it a based on rules and methodology. Sir Karl Raimund Popper is arguably the greatest scientific philosopher.. Where do you think the criterion falsification come from.. Popper.

Originally posted by purplemer
reply to post by tachyonmind

 

thanks for reply.. soz for quick response off to work soon...

this is untrue.. science does not break down the world into a dualistic view, it simply measures the world around us and uses these measurements to build a mathematical model of what we detect

It is not untrue. You try and do and experiment without a subject /object

an experiment without a subject or context of study, nor object of observation, is not a material science experiment, it's a thought experiment.

if we truly know that we ourselves exist, then by definition everything else has to exist.. if nothing exists except subjective experience, then material science wouldn't be able to objectively measure anything..

No just because you exist does not by definition mean everything else has to exist. There is no way to prove for example that reality is not a manifestation of the mind. (Solipsism)

solipsism is a philosophy, it is not founded in material science.

you speak as if philosophy and religion are alternatives or variations of material science, but they are no where near the same thing.. the subjects of study in philosophy and religion are subjective.. things such as consciousness, morality, etc.

Of course science is philosophy it a based on rules and methodology. Sir Karl Raimund Popper is arguably the greatest scientific philosopher.. Where do you think the criterion falsification come from.. Popper.

you are trying to compare two very different branches of science. philosophical science is the science of psychology, ideology, morality, and personal consciousness, material science is mathematics, chemistry, biology, physics, astrophysics etc, theoretical science is string theory, quantum mechanics, and unified field theory etc..

the "criterion falsification" or "falsifiability" aspect does not take anything away from what has been discovered by material science.. if reality is nothing more than the observer's imagination, then it must be a shared or mutual imagination, creating a "solid" objective reality.

Fresh off the science mill: Einstein's Cosmic Speed Limit Passes New Test
www.space.com...

Now and then, Einstein deserves to be tested. To that end, scientists have put his special theory of relativity — particularly its notion of the speed of light as the cosmic speed limit — to the test.

Physicists measured the energy required to change the speed of electrons as they hopped from one orbital to another inside atoms of dysprosium, all while Earth rotated over a 12-hour period. This allowed the scientists to measure that the maximum speed of an electron, which, according to special relativity should be the speed of light, is the same in all directions to within 17 nanometers per second. This measurement was 10 times more precise than previous tests of electrons' maximum speed.

So far, Einstein still comes out on top, and the theory holds. But the researchers hope to follow up the experiment with a more precise trial that might prove capable of poking holes in special relativity. That could actually be a good thing, scientists say, at least in terms of the advancement of physics.

Read the full story.

While Relativity, in the form published by Einstein, might not be here forever, it's still the mainstream (read - proper) science that will refine and update it.

Have alternative / crank / metaphysical theories produced anything useful, apart from books, videos, and a crowd of followers?

reply to post by tachyonmind

an experiment without a subject or context of study, nor object of observation, is not a material science experiment, it's a thought experiment.

Yes I agree but I was using it in the context of your point: 'science does not break down the world into a dualistic view' by your own admission it does..

solipsism is a philosophy, it is not founded in material science.

I was simply trying to point out the limitation in the statement you said below. We cannot know everything else exists because we do. I understand that the premise of science needs an objective reality to exist for science to function. But do not forget this is a premise not a proven truth. It is a philosophy.

if we truly know that we ourselves exist, then by definition everything else has to exist.. if nothing exists except subjective experience, then material science wouldn't be able to objectively measure anything.

...

you are trying to compare two very different branches of science. philosophical science is the science of psychology, ideology, morality, and personal consciousness, material science is mathematics, chemistry, biology, physics, astrophysics etc, theoretical science is string theory, quantum mechanics, and unified field theory etc.. the "criterion falsification" or "falsifiability" aspect does not take anything away from what has been discovered by material science.. if reality is nothing more than the observer's imagination, then it must be a shared or mutual imagination, creating a "solid" objective reality.

I am not comparing branches of science psychology. K.Popper built the modern framwork in which science works. Every single factuality of science works within this framework.

Things are only discovered with science using falsification. That is how the wheel turns. You never prove something correct you disprove it. These are rules of science and they where introduced by Popper.

reply to post by purplemer


Spot on.

reply to post by purplemer

You try and do and experiment without a subject /object.

I raise you:

You try to frame a conversation without a subject and object.

See the problem?

The division of reality into a subject and objects is rather hard to avoid.

reply to post by Astyanax

I raise you: You try to frame a conversation without a subject and object. See the problem? The division of reality into a subject and objects is rather hard to avoid.

Thank you for your reply..

As I write these words a conversation exists that I have not shared with anyone until I hit the reply button... Show me the subject and object...

reply to post by wildespace


Einstein by his own admission stated that his theory was incomplete and inaccurate and here you are holding it up like a holy pillar.
Ofc Einstein was wrong his greatest mistake his refusal to believe in the basics of quantum mechanics. That does not take away from the man. He was a genius and a theory can be measured in its usefulness not how correct it is..

Have alternative / crank / metaphysical theories produced anything useful, apart from books, videos, and a crowd of followers?

Are you saying that nothing useful was created until the invention of science..

reply to post by Astyanax

You said mainstream science 'admitted that relativity is flawed and crumbling'. Show us something from a mainstream science journal, published paper or even a reputable popular-science publication that admits this.

I think it would be easier an fairer to ask you to show the compatibility between relativity and quantum mechanics.. It just does not fit..

reply to post by tachyonmind

"everywhere we look in the heavens, einstein's theory hits right on the spot." -michio kaku black holes are the one exception to relativity, because there is no physics currently available to explain infinity.. this does not mean it's crumbling, it just means we need more study.

No there is another exception.. The giant pink elephant in the room.. Quantam mechanics..