Topic: Hoax is a hoax - page 6. (Read 2037 times)

Oh, drat! I knew I should have said that I didn't think you were sincere.

 

I think you are sincere as well, although I disagree with everything you write

I appreciate your sincerity.     

I don't know how to respond to that.

But you are proving that you can't read, or can't think about what you read properly. I certainly didn't say that no science is ever proven.

I was talking about theories being proven. Just because there is engineering that works, doesn't mean that any scientific theories that are associated with the engineering, are associated exactly as the theories say. Most of the time engineers have to tweak the theories in their engineering, or the simply use the theories to give them ideas about how to engineer something. Almost never does a theory fit the engineering exactly.

Yeah, they are proven, of course they are. You can't say no science is ever proven! I don't know whether you are typing that on a phone or a laptop or whatever, but there is a hell of a lot of proven science that built that device. You really think it's all guesswork?

Here's a cell phone. It wasn't created just by someone saying I'll get some green stuff and put some silver stuff on it.

But they never are proven. If they were, they would no longer be theories of any kind. They would be laws or facts.

Yes, in that science theories can (in the vast majority of cases) be proven or disproven.
The stuff we can't prove - well, we might be able to prove or disprove in the future, once our science has advanced some more.

I would say that most of it starts with some kind of theory. Some of the simple stuff is simply recognition of the obvious. Science theories are different than regular theories.

Not really, it all starts with theories.
You have a hypothesis, test it, and if the results validate the original premise then great, it becomes a rule and can be used as a basis for future engineering and future theories.
The established rules don't suddenly appear fully formed, they are the results of theories that have been tested against evidence.

Yes we have engineers and we have theoreticians. But the engineers are working on rules and techniques supplied by previous generations of theoreticians.

The point isn't that people are trying to refine their understanding. Refining understanding and knowledge is a good thing.

The point is that average people don't understand one basic thing about science theory (and it seems that a lot of scientists don't, as well). This is the little part that science theory is designed to change.

Many scientists talk and act like the current theory is the factual answer. If they don't say it this way, they leave openings for the media to talk this way.

It's the engineers who are the scientists who make things happen. The theoreticists only supply something that they know isn't really factual. Sometimes it gets in the way fo what engineers would have accomplished if they had not heard the latest theory.

Science does proceed in this way though, it is all about getting closer to the truth. Way back in the 1600s we had Newton's Laws of Motion, which explained how objects move. And this was close enough to truth that we could use these laws for engineering, and did for a couple of hundred years, and indeed still do today. Then it became apparent that although the laws were great for everyday life and situations, they didn't really hold up so well with very small scales, very high speeds, or very strong gravitational fields. Nowadays we have relativity and quantum mechanics that describe these extreme situations very well... but no-one is saying these are absolute truths, just that they are the best we have at the moment. Through science our understanding of the universe is improving all the time.

You don't need me explaining religion to you all the time. Simply follow this link - https://www.dictionary.com/browse/religion?s=t - and apply every definition part in every way you can.

This is the point about religion though, isn't it? Religion is just another word for all of the stuff that we are supposed to take as true with zero evidence to back it up.

If people wanted to, they could make logical theories all day that fit the reason why variations in the speed of light are minimal these days. But since we have found that the speed fluctuates slightly, even through space, nobody can say with certainty that it ever was a constant, and that it always was a constant.

Prove it was a constant 5,000 years ago. All we have is guesstimations, at best. If you gotta get out there to test stuff, you might ask God if you can borrow Ezekiel's spaceship - https://en.wikipedia.org./wiki/The_Spaceships_of_Ezekiel.

Guess all you want. But if you think that we have proof, you are only deluding yourself.

We have so much evidence for the speed of light. We have a theory that has been comprehensively verified. You can't just say oh well it doesn't agree with the universe being a few thousand years old, so my theory of a young universe (which has no evidence to back it up) must be right, and established verifiable science must be wrong.
I will go out there and prove it for you as soon as God gives me a magic space chariot. I can't prove that magic space chariots don't exist, therefore they must exist, right? The Spaghetti Monster can give me a tow if God is busy.

(By the way... I know we are always on opposite sides, but I do enjoy these discussions - thanks for providing a constant challenge! )

In fact, Religion doesn't have anything to do with Science, because first of, they are in a different field. What I mean by that is, when we talk about Science, it will always imply discoveries, experiments, inventions--facts, things that have evidence to prove its existence. While Religion is neither necessarily opposed nor on the same level, you could say it doesn't have the same "goal". In religion, the evidence isn't really important. If a "well-educated" person read the bible you would just simply understand it as it is, and will not (supposedly) urge for proof. As the goal of Religion is to make people mentally healthy and morally aligned through its teachings. It's more on the "rational" side of thinking rather than "making any sense".

But what I have to nitpick about Religion is, when 2 people read the same "bibble", they will sometimes have a different understanding. As we are all not of the same mind (well, after all, you're entitled to your own opinions). So the (supposedly) same "teachings/religion" will have "sects".


I got confused a bit when you said "real science", but I think there's no such thing as real science but just science. The term you're looking for is "theories", that means--not proven yet, but is a possibility if performed to practice.

So you HAVE been out to Alpha Centari and checked light speed out there, right? Congratulations. Were you the first?

Sure. Slightly, through a medium. We're talking about vacuum though, space. Even if the speed of light fell to 1% of its normal value, which it doesn't, it wouldn't make the universe 7,500 years old. We can see way further out (and therefore back in time) than that.

The speed of light changes slightly when light moves through a transparent or translucent object. We even have evidence that the speed of light fluctuates slightly when going through the same medium. Have we been getting measurements of the speed of light from Voyager or other artificial satellites?

Have you been out to Alpha Centari lately, to measure the speed of light out there?

Regarding the science hoaxes I have been talking about. A small group of scientists walks into the kid's room. There on the floor are a pair of dice. The scientists start to discuss the position of the dice thrower in order to get the dice to land exactly as they are on the floor. The talk gets heated. The kid comes into the room and says, "Who knocked my dice off the top shelf onto the floor?" Everybody looks up at the top shelf. There's the mouse.

The assumptions in all this science theory are so great that science that is not closely tied to engineering is just a game.

A scarier example. Einstein figured out E=mc². This gave other scientists the go ahead to crack the atom. We got the atom bomb out of it. But we still don't know for a fact that it is the science of E=mc² that makes the bomb work like it does. It just seems to work that way. There might be some other unknown chunk of science that rides right along with E=mc² that is doing the actual work. It's kinda scary.