Leader

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Creation Science at its best

Collapse

300x250 Mobile

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • ray8285
    replied
    Originally posted by BigPat View Post
    , I was replying to a poster who claimed that evolution is not good science because the theory has changed.

    The poster said that "real science" like Newton's laws, does not change. I simply pointed out that all science changes and all scientific theories are modified as new information is discovered, including his example of Newton's laws, which have been superseded by Einstein's relativity theories. What did I say that was "BS"?
    Oversimplification of what this poster said---not just changed, but, the very heart of what the theory espouses and uses for evidence has changed

    Newtons Laws are still in effect, you are talking about additions to these laws but the base ideas are still there as is the evidence in support of it otherwise it could not be called a Law.

    Leave a comment:


  • BigPat
    replied
    Originally posted by JPR View Post
    I haven't heard that term since the early eighties. It's a great term. Explains a lot. Thanks for reminding me of it.

    Speaking of fertilizer, it is funny to hear some of the liberals impersonate scientists. They work so hard at using technical jargon and phrases to sound professorial but make basic mistakes. Even a business major that took only enough science classes to satisfy the GE requirement can see things that show they don't know what they are talking about.
    Please point out what specific statements I made that were incorrect.

    Leave a comment:


  • BigPat
    replied
    Originally posted by Rifleguy View Post

    Newtonian Mechanics has G as a given contant. That constant G, is the gravity of Earth so if you measured using Earth's gravity, the equation will fail for all non earth gravity bodies.
    As has already been mentioned, you are confusing "g" the measured value of earth's gravity with "G" the gravitational constant in Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation (or inverse square law). Using the constant "g" in a calculation is just assuming that the earth's gravity is constant (it is mostly uniform but it is not truly a constant value for the entire earth) rather than calculating or measuring the exact forces of Gravity at each point on earth.

    There's the problem. Both Einstein and Newton used 7 forces in their theories so its not a force argument unlike Quantum Gravity. If you use Earth's (G) there will be problems but the issue is how does one calculate other gravitional constants given gravities properties is the least understood force in nature.


    What you're missing is the fact Einstein actually developed two theories: special relativity and general relativity. Einstein's general relativity was meant to unite his special relativity theory with Newton's gravitational theory. Why? Because he couldn't get away from Newton. And until some one has answer for Gravity, you will see patchwork theories with regards to Newton's gravitional theories.
    Not really, General Relativity was an attempt to explain relativity in a relativistic way. General Relativity describes gravity in terms of curvature of space-time. Newtons law of Universal Gravitation can be derived from General Relativity if certain values are assumed for space-time. Is General Relativity the final answer on gravity? That is doubtful, but it goes along with the idea of the post that you called "BS" on. Scientific theories change with new scientific knowledge.

    Define working. Surefire way to start a war in any science field.
    Empirically confirmed.

    And what is approximate? And Einstein gives us how much deviation? Thats another way to get into a war. How about something say 3 ten thousanths of an inch?
    I don't know the exact numbers, but I know that at subluminal speeds or in the absence of large gravitational fields the effects of relativity are infinitesimally small.

    Being easy to solve has nothing to do with viability nor does it prove a theory correctly.
    Ok.

    So you're telling me that Newtonian equation is used because it gives an answer of "close enough?" Uh no not at all. Actually first year Calulus ( 1 and 2) will get you through Einsteinian equations.
    Newtonian mechanics works to a high degree of accuracy in most conditions. It is also far easier to use and much easier to teach and explain. That is why it is still used. There are some areas where newtonian mechanics cannot be used, such as in particle accelerators or in adjusting the clocks of GPS satellites. In those cases, relativistic calculations must be used.

    I do. My attitude problem is everytime something regarding science pops up, I constantly see liberals bashing conservatives when in fact they are no better at all.
    I am still trying to figure out what you are calling "BS" on. In my post, I was replying to a poster who claimed that evolution is not good science because the theory has changed. The poster said that "real science" like Newton's laws, does not change. I simply pointed out that all science changes and all scientific theories are modified as new information is discovered, including his example of Newton's laws, which have been superseded by Einstein's relativity theories. What did I say that was "BS"?

    Leave a comment:


  • livestrong6
    replied
    Originally posted by ray8285 View Post
    Thank you
    I think every physics teacher/professor would be happy with that correction.

    Leave a comment:


  • ray8285
    replied
    Originally posted by livestrong6 View Post
    , It's not a very large issue. It's Newton's Law of universal gravitation, not Newton's gravitional theory!
    Thank you

    Leave a comment:


  • livestrong6
    replied
    Originally posted by JPR View Post
    I haven't heard that term since the early eighties. It's a great term. Explains a lot. Thanks for reminding me of it.

    Speaking of fertilizer, it is funny to hear some of the liberals impersonate scientists. They work so hard at using technical jargon and phrases to sound professorial but make basic mistakes. Even a business major that took only enough science classes to satisfy the GE requirement can see things that show they don't know what they are talking about.
    speak for yourself rock star!

    Leave a comment:


  • JPR
    replied
    Originally posted by JasperST View Post
    They do it to try to silence their opposition. "If you can't d***le them with your brilliance, baffle them with your bull****".
    I haven't heard that term since the early eighties. It's a great term. Explains a lot. Thanks for reminding me of it.

    Speaking of fertilizer, it is funny to hear some of the liberals impersonate scientists. They work so hard at using technical jargon and phrases to sound professorial but make basic mistakes. Even a business major that took only enough science classes to satisfy the GE requirement can see things that show they don't know what they are talking about.

    Leave a comment:


  • Monty Ealerman
    replied
    Originally posted by Rifleguy
    ...
    Newtonian Mechanics has G as a given contant. That constant G, is the gravity of Earth so if you measured using Earth's gravity, the equation will fail for all non earth gravity bodies. There's the problem. Both Einstein and Newton used 7 forces in their theories so its not a force argument unlike Quantum Gravity. If you use Earth's (G) there will be problems but the issue is how does one calculate other gravitional constants given gravities properties is the least understood force in nature.
    ...
    You're apparently confusing "Big G", the universal gravitational constant, with "little g", the accelerational force of the local gravitational field.

    Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation, and Einstein's Theory of General Relativity, both make reference to "Big G", which is the cube of the Planck Length divided by the Planck Mass and by the square of the Planck Time.

    I don't like the practice of naming physical phenomena or principles after the people who discover and articulate them, but it does apparently incent some persons to aspire to greater discovery and articulation, and it's often easier to look things up when they're tagged with the name of someone.

    Leave a comment:


  • livestrong6
    replied
    Originally posted by Rifleguy View Post
    What you're missing is the fact Einstein actually developed two theories: special relativity and general relativity. Einstein's general relativity was meant to unite his special relativity theory with Newton's gravitational theory. Why? Because he couldn't get away from Newton. And until some one has answer for Gravity, you will see patchwork theories with regards to Newton's gravitional theories..
    Just one thing, It's not a very large issue. It's Newton's Law of universal gravitation, not Newton's gravitional theory!

    Leave a comment:


  • Rifleguy
    replied
    Originally posted by JasperST View Post
    They do it to try to silence their opposition. "If you can't d***le them with your brilliance, baffle them with your bull****".
    I like all the 'approximate' talk. It shows how they never actually had to work a single problem before.

    Leave a comment:


  • JasperST
    replied
    Originally posted by Rifleguy View Post
    I do. My attitude problem is everytime something regarding science pops up, I constantly see liberals bashing conservatives when in fact they are no better at all.
    They do it to try to silence their opposition. "If you can't d***le them with your brilliance, baffle them with your bull****".

    Leave a comment:


  • Rifleguy
    replied
    double post
    Last edited by Rifleguy; 10-25-2009, 04:51 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Rifleguy
    replied
    Science isn't "liberal" or "conservative"
    I was referring to you.

    Sure it has , at speeds approaching that of light or in situations of strong gravitational fields, Newtonian mechanics does not give correct anwered, relativistic mechanics does.

    This has been proven empirically. Newrons equations gave the erong answers concerning the orbit of Mercury and the concering the deflection of starlight by the sun, while Einstein's equations gave teh correct answer.
    Newtonian Mechanics has G as a given contant. That constant G, is the gravity of Earth so if you measured using Earth's gravity, the equation will fail for all non earth gravity bodies. There's the problem. Both Einstein and Newton used 7 forces in their theories so its not a force argument unlike Quantum Gravity. If you use Earth's (G) there will be problems but the issue is how does one calculate other gravitional constants given gravities properties is the least understood force in nature.

    What you're missing is the fact Einstein actually developed two theories: special relativity and general relativity. Einstein's general relativity was meant to unite his special relativity theory with Newton's gravitational theory. Why? Because he couldn't get away from Newton. And until some one has answer for Gravity, you will see patchwork theories with regards to Newton's gravitional theories.

    There is no working theory of quantum gravity yet.
    Define working. Surefire way to start a war in any science field.

    Yes, there is a very good reason for this. Newtonian mechanics gives an extremely close approximation to the actual value.
    And what is approximate? And Einstein gives us how much deviation? Thats another way to get into a war. How about something say 3 ten thousanths of an inch?

    In most common circumstances (i.e. speeds well under light speed, no extreme gravitational fields) the results will be nearly the same. The equations of Newtonian mechanics are easy to solve and can mostly be done with first year level calculus. Einsteins equations are far more difficult to solve, making it impractical to use relativistic mechanics to solve standard science and engineering problems. Newtonian mechanics gives such a close approximation in most cases that it is unneccesary to use relativistic mechanics.[/
    Being easy to solve has nothing to do with viability nor does it prove a theory correctly. So you're telling me that Newtonian equation is used because it gives an answer of "close enough?" Uh no not at all. Actually first year Calulus ( 1 and 2) will get you through Einsteinian equations.


    BTW, I looked at the occupation that you listed in your profile. How do you not know this stuff already??
    I do. My attitude problem is everytime something regarding science pops up, I constantly see liberals bashing conservatives when in fact they are no better at all.

    Leave a comment:


  • BigPat
    replied

    Time for the BS flag. Once again you liberals screw up science.
    Science isn't "liberal" or "conservative"

    Newtonian mechanics has never been superceded by your "General and Special relavity."
    Sure it has , at speeds approaching that of light or in situations of strong gravitational fields, Newtonian mechanics does not give correct anwered, relativistic mechanics does.

    This has been proven empirically. Newrons equations gave the erong answers concerning the orbit of Mercury and the concering the deflection of starlight by the sun, while Einstein's equations gave teh correct answer.

    Newtonian Mechanics has never been superseded by Quantum Mechanics,
    If you were describing the behavior of an individual photon or electron then quantum mechanics would apply, not Newtonian mechanics.

    Einsteinian nor the heavily disputed "Quantum Gravity."
    There is no working theory of quantum gravity yet.

    here is a reason every engineering, physic and chemistry curriculum REQUIRES a year of NEWTONIAN MECHANICS and its sure isn't because its superseded.
    Yes, there is a very good reason for this. Newtonian mechanics gives an extremely close approximation to the actual value. In most common circumstances (i.e. speeds well under light speed, no extreme gravitational fields) the results will be nearly the same. The equations of Newtonian mechanics are easy to solve and can mostly be done with first year level calculus. Einsteins equations are far more difficult to solve, making it impractical to use relativistic mechanics to solve standard science and engineering problems. Newtonian mechanics gives such a close approximation in most cases that it is unneccesary to use relativistic mechanics.


    While Newtonian Mechanics suffers dealing with the infintestimally small and large, neither theories have what one would call a perfect working theory.
    Did you read the preceding discussion? My response was tor Ray, when he criticized evolution because it had changed over time. All scientific theories change.

    Furthermore, he claimed that "proven theories" are chttp://forums.officer.com/forums/images/confused.giflassified laws, and gave an examole of Newton's laws as "real science". I was simply pointig out that Newton's laws don't make correct predictions in all conditions, and they have been superseded by general and special relativity, which are classified as theories. I never stated that Newton's laws were not good science or taht they had no value.

    BTW, I looked at the occupation that you listed in your profile. How do you not know this stuff already??

    Leave a comment:


  • Monty Ealerman
    replied
    Maybe do a search on "instantaneous gravity".

    Leave a comment:

MR300x250 Tablet

Collapse

What's Going On

Collapse

There are currently 5303 users online. 264 members and 5039 guests.

Most users ever online was 158,966 at 05:57 AM on 01-16-2021.

Welcome Ad

Collapse
Working...
X