A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Astronomy and Astrophysics » Amateur Astronomy
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

The Progressive Niceness of Science



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old December 4th 17, 11:26 AM posted to sci.astro.amateur
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 306
Default The Progressive Niceness of Science

On Monday, December 4, 2017 at 7:00:17 AM UTC, Gerald Kelleher wrote:
Magnetism is a visible form of attraction but with the empirical 'gravity' getting in the way, the ability to use electromagnetic analogies to large scale objects is lost.


You are always dropping hints about how electromagnetism affects planetary orbits, I wish you would spell it out.

It sounds much funnier than your dual rotation spiel.
  #12  
Old December 4th 17, 12:42 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Gary Harnagel
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 659
Default The Progressive Niceness of Science

On Sunday, December 3, 2017 at 6:02:08 PM UTC-7, Davoud wrote:

Gary Harnagel:

...There are some
universe-shaking things yet to discover. One of them is the problem of
dark matter. Another is the incompatibility of general relativity and
quantum electrodynamics: once a viable quantum gravity theory is achieved,
it will drastically change our conception of cosmology, IMHO.


When do you reckon that will happen?


Tomorrow? Next year? Next decade? 50 years? Who knows? There are
several avenues of quantum gravity being investigated.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/quantum-gravity/
  #13  
Old December 5th 17, 05:36 AM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Quadibloc
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 7,018
Default The Progressive Niceness of Science

On Monday, December 4, 2017 at 12:00:17 AM UTC-7, Gerald Kelleher wrote:

Magnetism is a visible form of attraction


So is gravity.

I suppose people have already mentioned the "Cavendish experiment" to you?

Because like electrical charges repel, however, electrostatic forces tend to
operate only on small scales. Electromagnetism fares somewhat better - but it is
still far weaker than gravity on large scales. A bar magnet can outpull the
Earth's gravity, but the Earth's own magnetism needs a sensitive compass needle
to detect it, while gravity is obvious everywhere.

John Savard
  #14  
Old December 5th 17, 05:16 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Martin Brown[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 189
Default The Progressive Niceness of Science

On 03/12/2017 15:35, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Sat, 2 Dec 2017 09:45:41 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc
wrote:

An Ars Technica article gave me this link:

http://chem.tufts.edu/answersinscien...ityofwrong.htm

which is an essay by the (horrors!) _science fiction_ writer Isaac Asimov that
explains why, although the scientific theories of today will doubtless be improved
upon in the future, they can indeed be accepted as a very close approach to truth,
superior to that which we had in the past.


It's a point I've made often, that some people have problems with: it
appears that we have reached the point where we substantively
understand the Universe and have an accurate model of reality. Some


You can never be sure that someone tomorrow will not announce an
experiment that shows our understanding of how the structure of
spacetime, gravity and quantum mechanics interact is completely wrong.

A new theory that explains the novel experiment will still include every
theory we have today as weak field limiting cases but will also
correctly predict the outcome of the new experiment and suggest other
places to look for novel results.

people like to compare that to past aphorisms about everything useful
having been invented or similar, but the fact is, when we look at the
growth of knowledge, the big stuff is looking pretty solid. I can't
think of a major theory that has been overturned in the last century
or so. We look at all the core ideas of physics and all we see is more
and more support from additional independent lines of evidence. And


Steady state universe took something of a violent beating in the 1960's.
There have been embarrassing after dinner speeches at physic conferences
to the effect that physics would be solved in a couple more decades.
This was just before radioactivity and photoelectric effect showed up.

where new concepts have come along- dark energy and dark matter are
good examples- we don't see them replacing the theories we already
worked with, but simply refining them. (I increasingly prefer not to
look at science in terms of "theories", but rather in terms of
"models", which are how we understand complex systems which are
described by multiple individual theories.)


Dark energy is one where the ad hoc nature of its invocation does beg
the question as to whether some of our physics is wrong on the largest
scales. You could argue the same for dark matter too and some do.

I tend to view our understanding now as looking like a jigsaw puzzle.
There are still lots of missing pieces, but the landscape we see in
the many pieces which are already in place isn't going to somehow
change into something different as we continue to add pieces.


There is less scope for things to change radically. But it is entirely
possible that a new and better mathematical formalism will eventually
arise that contains present day quantum mechanics as a limiting case.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown
  #15  
Old December 5th 17, 06:32 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Chris L Peterson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,007
Default The Progressive Niceness of Science

On Tue, 5 Dec 2017 16:16:09 +0000, Martin Brown
wrote:

It's a point I've made often, that some people have problems with: it
appears that we have reached the point where we substantively
understand the Universe and have an accurate model of reality. Some


You can never be sure that someone tomorrow will not announce an
experiment that shows our understanding of how the structure of
spacetime, gravity and quantum mechanics interact is completely wrong.


Nor do I make any such claim. But I do think such a thing is
increasingly unlikely.

Steady state universe took something of a violent beating in the 1960's.


Because by the 1960s the steady state universe was largely a fringe
belief system, well outside of scientific consensus. (I recall a party
in the late 1970s where Fred Hoyle was expounding on it, while pretty
much everybody around him was just looking embarrassed.)

Dark energy is one where the ad hoc nature of its invocation does beg
the question as to whether some of our physics is wrong on the largest
scales. You could argue the same for dark matter too and some do.


That's a possibility. But again, these things fit in so well with
existing theory that it's far more likely we'll simply refine our
understanding of their nature than overturn something like GR. Indeed,
even if these things turn out to represent totally different physics,
at this point that new physics is likely to look like some additional
term in a GR equation. Revision, not replacement.

There is less scope for things to change radically. But it is entirely
possible that a new and better mathematical formalism will eventually
arise that contains present day quantum mechanics as a limiting case.


I'm not sure what you mean by that.
  #16  
Old December 5th 17, 06:59 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Gerald Kelleher
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,551
Default The Progressive Niceness of Science

On Tuesday, December 5, 2017 at 5:32:35 PM UTC, Chris L Peterson, Martin Brown


There is an issue going on over here in the Western isles of Europe where a group called the DUP who live back in the 17th century politics find it impossible to adapt to 21st century concerns. Their heritage rests on a victory known as the Battle of Aughrim on the 12th July 1691 but because the 'enlightened' British academics refused to accept the necessary calendar correction employed by most of Continental Europe via the Vatican until another 60 years later, they have to give the title to the Battle of the Boyne which became the 12th after they made the correction (that battle happened July 1st in the old calendar).


Strange people who don't so much live out their lives in the late 17th century academic concerns and can't adapt to contemporary imaging but just as dull and dismal as the DUP.

  #17  
Old December 16th 17, 05:25 AM posted to sci.astro.amateur
RichA[_6_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,076
Default The Progressive Niceness of Science

On Sunday, 3 December 2017 02:41:37 UTC-5, Chris.B wrote:
On Saturday, 2 December 2017 18:45:44 UTC+1, Quadibloc wrote:
An Ars Technica article gave me this link:

http://chem.tufts.edu/answersinscien...ityofwrong.htm

which is an essay by the (horrors!) _science fiction_ writer Isaac Asimov that
explains why, although the scientific theories of today will doubtless be improved
upon in the future, they can indeed be accepted as a very close approach to truth,
superior to that which we had in the past.

John Savard


Science has the unique advantage of pluralism and growing equality on the human hierarchical scale.
No longer can a rich, pompous, white ass, with a Professorship, poo poo a distant Chinese, Indian or African upstart with a much better idea.
The upstart is quite probably leading the team in the nearest university.
Despite not having enjoyed the rich kid's, monopolistic, fast track to guaranteed academia.


The only degrees rich people ever got in which they could then fake their way through a career are liberal arts degrees which are basically worthless anyway.
  #18  
Old December 16th 17, 09:08 AM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Chris.B[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,001
Default The Progressive Niceness of Science

On Saturday, 16 December 2017 05:25:53 UTC+1, RichA wrote:
On Sunday, 3 December 2017 02:41:37 UTC-5, Chris.B wrote:


Despite not having enjoyed the rich kid's, monopolistic, fast track to guaranteed academia.


The only degrees rich people ever got in which they could then fake their way through a career are liberal arts degrees which are basically worthless anyway.


Thank you for sharing your [uniquely biased] insight [again.]

Imagine a world where all enjoy equal status and equal opportunity.
That global revolution may be coming a lot sooner than you could possibly imagine.
The stresses to the present system are the daily stuff of increasingly unfiltered, news headlines.
Our present leadership's clowning has made countless individuals seriously question the right to govern by force of privilege alone.

A combination of AI, robotics, the internet and mass unemployment will steadily sweep away the present, narrow privileges.
Helping to remove their power to discard most of humanity to act as cheap, mindless workers, consumers and innocent victims of greed.
The present system is almost indistinguishable from mass, global slavery.

That is now changing fast as the filtration begins of the powerful by means of increasingly negative publicity.
Victims finally have access to the unfiltered, global media to express their moral outrage.
Owning the "justice" system, by means of expensive teams of lawyers, is no longer a guaranteed acquittal.
The lawyers have lost their power to protect the guilty from the global media, lynch mob.
A few, privileged innocents will be hung out to dry but then literally billions of others have never enjoyed anything remotely, like, true justice.

A few scholarships do not mean equal opportunity in the Western world.
China now manufactures more engineers and scientists than the present Western system of filtration of the masses in favour of the privileged few.
While the disillusioned brats of the wealthy increasingly descend into drugs, drink and vacuous escapism.
Anything to hide from their guilt and shame at their undeserved, lottery win. When they never even had to "invest" in a single ticket.
All lottery wins, including life itself, are paid for by the countless losers.
A pyramid scam, on a global scale, lasting for countless millennia.
With endless rollovers to keep the ever-hopeful "investing" constantly in their system.

We should all be eternally grateful to Strumpet.
He repeatedly proves that privilege is no measure of a man.
That investing in his privilege can somehow protect us from literally anything.
We no longer believe in the countless, empty promises in exchange for our vote.
The World and American voters were never given any real choice.
The Devil you know? Or the Devil you don't?
That is the real lesson for humanity.
Perhaps AI, alone, can offer a fairer alternative for all?
Nothing invented by man has worked in their favour so far.
  #19  
Old December 16th 17, 10:29 AM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Mike Collins[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,824
Default The Progressive Niceness of Science

RichA wrote:
On Sunday, 3 December 2017 02:41:37 UTC-5, Chris.B wrote:
On Saturday, 2 December 2017 18:45:44 UTC+1, Quadibloc wrote:
An Ars Technica article gave me this link:

http://chem.tufts.edu/answersinscien...ityofwrong.htm

which is an essay by the (horrors!) _science fiction_ writer Isaac Asimov that
explains why, although the scientific theories of today will doubtless be improved
upon in the future, they can indeed be accepted as a very close approach to truth,
superior to that which we had in the past.

John Savard


Science has the unique advantage of pluralism and growing equality on
the human hierarchical scale.
No longer can a rich, pompous, white ass, with a Professorship, poo poo
a distant Chinese, Indian or African upstart with a much better idea.
The upstart is quite probably leading the team in the nearest university.
Despite not having enjoyed the rich kid's, monopolistic, fast track to
guaranteed academia.


The only degrees rich people ever got in which they could then fake their
way through a career are liberal arts degrees which are basically worthless anyway.


The facts seem to suggest you’re wrong.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education...t/engineering/


  #20  
Old December 17th 17, 11:17 AM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Chris.B[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,001
Default The Progressive Niceness of Science

On Saturday, 16 December 2017 10:29:39 UTC+1, Mike Collins wrote:
RichA wrote:
On Sunday, 3 December 2017 02:41:37 UTC-5, Chris.B wrote:
On Saturday, 2 December 2017 18:45:44 UTC+1, Quadibloc wrote:
An Ars Technica article gave me this link:

http://chem.tufts.edu/answersinscien...ityofwrong.htm

which is an essay by the (horrors!) _science fiction_ writer Isaac Asimov that
explains why, although the scientific theories of today will doubtless be improved
upon in the future, they can indeed be accepted as a very close approach to truth,
superior to that which we had in the past.

John Savard

Science has the unique advantage of pluralism and growing equality on
the human hierarchical scale.
No longer can a rich, pompous, white ass, with a Professorship, poo poo
a distant Chinese, Indian or African upstart with a much better idea.
The upstart is quite probably leading the team in the nearest university.
Despite not having enjoyed the rich kid's, monopolistic, fast track to
guaranteed academia.


The only degrees rich people ever got in which they could then fake their
way through a career are liberal arts degrees which are basically worthless anyway.


The facts seem to suggest you’re wrong.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education...t/engineering/


You appear to be nitpicking from a very small database.
Not all billionaire's are equal. ;-)
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
WTF Progressive Collapse??? G=EMC^2TreBert Misc 2 January 1st 15 01:29 AM
WTF Progressive Collapse??? [OST + EMP = GZ] Arc Michael Misc 3 December 30th 14 06:42 AM
Progressive Political Party Platform kT Policy 15 October 8th 08 05:56 PM
Progressive Mayor Double-A Misc 15 December 15th 06 11:02 AM
progressive precession wahid Misc 5 January 31st 06 05:26 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:26 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.