The greatest success story in physics

[goat]

So, if I say to you "I assert that the hypotenuse of a right triangle is the square root of the sum of the squares of the other two sides" ... I might not have ever proved it, but rather extrapolated (guessed) from some examples that I have and noted that it seems to work.

The Pythagorean theorem is high school math first used 4000 year ago, yet you make it sound complicated.

The intended audience. I certainly wasn't intending for you to respond, if that's what you're asking; you can't even read half of it and you wouldn't understand the remaining half.


My intended audience seems to find it simple and clear. Are you experiencing FOMO? Try learning some science and that will happen less.

The gig is up. Your longwinded bullcrap doesn't dazzle anyone.

 

[Into the Night]

^^^ Someone doesn't have any family or friends to hang with on Easter Sunday.

Must be you. I enjoyed Easter with my friends and family.

 

[Into the Night]

One asserts that the god Inti is lighting the world for his people
Another asserts that Apollo's chariot is carrying Apollo across the heavens on his daily routine.
Another asserts that the "bright" moon is passing.
Another asserts that the earth is an orb that is spinning.

Got it. Thus far, neither has provided any rational basis for his assertion.

Nope. Not assertions. Theories.

Thus far, we have no explanations, only assertions.

Nope. Theories.

This is where you get twisted around the axle. You are discussing proofs/rational bases, the purposes of which are to support assertions, which is why they always "conclude" the theorem/assertion.

I am discussing no proof of any kind here.

So, if I say to you "I assert that the hypotenuse of a right triangle is the square root of the sum of the squares of the other two sides" ... I might not have ever proved it, but rather extrapolated (guessed) from some examples that I have and noted that it seems to work. This would correctly be called "IBDaMann's theorem" and you might not buy it right away. You might require more convincing. I could pull out the examples that I have and that might be good enough for you ... or you might try thirty other cases and convince yourself when you find that it seems to work. Either way, we still have a theorem/assertion, regardless of the fact that it has not been proved (as far as we know).

Attempted proof by contrivance fallacy.

Similarly, if I assert F=mA, we can never prove it True. We will have this assertion until it is shown to be false.

It is not possible to prove an assertion either True or False.

Sure. Until that day, however, the assertion stands.

Circular argument fallacy (fundamentalism).

Correct. This means that the model itself is the authority as to what shows it to be false, not any person, i.e. the model itself specifies what is required to show it to be false.

A model is not a theory (or an assertion).

Nothing gets to be called science until it has survived the scrutiny of scientific method,

There is no 'method' or 'procedure' of science.

which means that internal consistency holds,

Not part of science. Part of logic.

the external consistency has been at least scrutinized,

Not part of science. Part of logic.

and at least the null hypothesis has been tested.

Interesting. You once argued quite the opposite.

You can assert lots of neat things, but no assertion garners the label of "science" until having met a minimum level of rigor.

Science is not mere assertions.

This doesn't mean that an inventor, say, must somehow wait to start building something until the underlying assertion is declared "science" by anyone.

Never said they did.

I totally agree.


The assertion is what the tests are designed to destroy. They aren't designed to destroy any supporting evidence.

You cannot prove an assertion either True or False.

Sure they do. Don't confuse falsifiable non-science assertions (ones that merely don't predict nature) with unfalsifiable assertions.

There is no such thing as a 'falsifiable' assertion, since you cannot prove an assertion False.

Simulations can be run on models that have their own version of "physics engines" or that use non-Euclidean geometry or that are simply logical or mathematical models (my previous mention of SysML being a good example) shows that they are falsifiable while not being science.

Buzzword fallacy. Physics is not a software 'engine' or random number generator.

Of course, no prosecutor's assertion of "who dunnit" can be considered falsifiable without recorded evidence (transcending time) because we don't have time travel and assertions about the past are therefore entirely speculative.

Circular argument fallacy (fundamentalism). A falsification is not an assertion. A prosecutor cannot make any valid case without a crime. Merely making an assertion isn't good enough.

Sadly, the assertion of greenhouse effect and of Global Warming serves as prime examples of many logical antipatterns.

There is no such thing as a 'logical antipattern'. Buzzword fallacy.

I disagree. The observation is not of that which is asserted.
The observation is merely of the assertion itself,

A theory is not an assertion. A theory is not an observation either, but it's formation may be based on one (and often is).

which is then regurgitated to the next person who will observe the assertion being asserted, and who will then regurgitate the assertion to the next person, and so on and so forth.

No. Observations cannot be 'regurgitated' and 'reused'. They can only be made by the observer directly.

The religion is one of preaching the required dogma on faith alone, without ever questioning the original assertion, only regurgitating it.

Not a mere assertion. A nonscientific theory. Like all theories, it explains 'what is', as far as the believer is concerned. This is why it's so difficult to get someone to change their religion.

You are well aware that this is not our experience.

It is. You are discussing the idiocy of things like a Bessler wheel and other perpetual motion machines even now. You point out buzzwords in people's arguments even now.

Warmizombies open with preaching the assertion, that Global Warming is settled science, but promptly EVADE all such explanation and AVOID all such science.
Theory. A nonscientific theory. It serves to explain what they perceive as 'valid data'. We both know it's not valid, but to them it is.

They will not define terms and will not clarify the gibberish they spew.

True. Even the term 'global warming' is a meaningless buzzword since it does not specify a starting or ending time of the so-called 'warming'.

This is deliberate non-explanation and is antithetical to supporting an argument, i.e. it is preaching that demands unquestioning acceptance.

This is the fundamentalist nature of this religion, attempting to prove it's True. Like all religions, however, it is based on a nonscientific theory. The term 'climate change' is not based on anything at all, since 'climate' has no value to measure and cannot 'change'. That's just mangling a language in an attempt to rebrand the Church of Global Warming, especially for winter, when things are cold (never mind the summer in the other hemisphere!).

My wording is that religions have a dogma (no connotation implied, just a set of required assumptions, circular or otherwise) that represent personal beliefs and require no rational basis.

Yet each one attempts to explain something.

Warmizombies pull the rug out from under their own religion by declaring that their religion is not a religion, but instead insist that it is science. This garners their religion the logical value of False the moment the scientific method is applied, which is for what warmizombies unwittingly beg when they declare their religion to be science.

A fallacy does NOT necessarily prove any statement False. Fallacy fallacy.

One difference between religion and science that is rarely mentioned is that whereas religions are not subject to any rules about what beliefs their respective dogmas consider "mandatory," science carries the "Occam's Razor" philosophy that an assertion must have a rational basis in order to say that it should/must be accepted. In this case, Occam's Razor says that since no temperature change can be discerned, there is no reason to believe it, or alternatively, all things being equal, not believing that there is any temperature change in the first place is the simplest model, so Occam's Razor cuts that assertion away. One thing warmizombies forget is that the humans of planet earth would be able to discern an earth whose average global equilibrium temperature had increased by 40C, even though we would not be able to measure it. The fact that humans, such as myself, cannot discern any temperature difference, or any ocean level difference*, or any loss of any coral reefs, etc ... precludes any reason to accept the Climate Change assertion or any of its dogma.

Occam's Razor is not a proof. It does not demand an assertion must have a rational basis or that an assertion must be accepted. It is also not science. You are not even using Occam's Razor here.

* - something that I will be adding to the "ways to verify no sea level rise" debunk on Politiplex is the Santa Monica pier, featured prominently in GTA5. It got me thinking. There was an episode of The Rockford Files (1970s) centering on the Santa Monica pier (underside, antagonist dumping bodies at low tide) and it is exactly that way today. It hasn't changed. In fact, the part of the pier up close to the beach hasn't changed discernably since its construction in 1909.

A nice addition to Politiplex.

I require no convincing. Your point is granted.

You are also aware that this is also irrelevant. How a theory comes about is totally immaterial.

It is completely material. No theory forms in a vacuum.

Stefan-Boltzmann came into existence as the result of taking an integral.

No. While it can be, the theory was first developed empirically (by observing materials hot enough to glow, and noting that always happened at the same temperature regardless of the material). The theory is an explanation of this phenomenon and describes how thermal energy is converted into light in the form of a ratio (E=t^4 * how well the material radiates (and absorbs) light * C or a natural constant that serves to convert the relation to our units of measurement).

Yes, it can be obtained by taking an integral, but that came AFTER the theory was developed.

Anything can bring an assertion into existence, and nothing is ever captured in the resulting assertion ... no data, no research, no observations, no explanations, no episodes of the Rockford Files ... nothing.

Anything may inspire a theory. A theory is not a simple assertion.

... and we agree that The Principia is not science. However, if I could direct your attention to said work:

Of course the book provides support for these theorems/assertions, but you wish to include the support/rational basis as part of a theorem, but it isn't. The rational basis can be omitted without losing any of the "proposition." Acceptance of the theorem might suffer, but acceptance of the theorem is not the theorem itself. The rational basis can be altered for clarity and the assertion does not change.

Theory, not theorem. A theorem is not a theory. A theorem is a proof. A theory is not. The etymology of these two words is completely different and they have completely different meanings.

As you often allude, perception is not reality.

I have stated quite the opposite. Reality is not absolute. There is no absolute reality. Reality to you is just as unique to you as your fingerprints. It is different from any else's reality. You are ignoring phenomenology, which defines 'reality' and the reasoning for it's definition.

That said, there are common realities, between people with similar backgrounds and perceptions. One example is the so-called Western Thought, which many people in the United States share due to their common background from Europe.

Feeling that it is hot does not verify Global Warming.

Never said it did. Nevertheless, feeling that is hot can inspire the Theory of Global Warming. Feeling it is hot is not a proof or verification of the Theory of Global Warming, of course. I never said it was.

A human perception of a straight path is ignoring all the other relationships. All lines are curves, but not all curves are straight lines.

Keep your chart paper dry. I won't curl like that.

It's like Einstein was trying to claim that everything is relative. I wonder how that worked out for him.

It is falsifiable, not just potentially. All that is needed are separate inertial frames of reference. This is one case wherein satellites provide the necessary magic. GPS satellites, being timing systems, provide everything necessary to test Relativity. It's how we know that clocks in separate inertial reference frames cannot be synchronized.

It does not prove either the Theory of Special Relativity nor the Theory of General Relativity True.

You would have to first show that that assertion follows from Relativity. I can understand the lack of any absolute zero speed being intuitive, but I don't recall it ever being derived from Relativity.

It wasn't. But Relativity was derived from not having any absolute zero speed. It was also derived from Maxwell's equations being applied to all frames of reference, and the failure of the Michelson and Morley experiment (which wound up falsifying the theory that light traveled in some kind of medium then called the aether.

Nope. The speed of light (in a vacuum) is the same for all observers, irrespective of inerntial frame of reference.

It is the same, but it can appear to move slower for an observer outside that frame of reference. This is why the Lorentz transformation is central to this theory. By combining frames of reference, it can be seen why light appears slower in the other frame of reference for either observer. The seeming paradox is resolved. Both frames of reference DO use the same speed of light, and for the observer IN that frame of reference, the speed of light is the same as any other observer in their own frame of reference.

It is why clocks appear slower by an observer in the other frame of reference, but on time for the observer IN that frame of reference.

Getting back to wording, I don't personally care how you package "theories." The important thing is that you are defining your terms, which you are at liberty to do as you see fit. The only point of contention will be rather cosmetic, but will highlight the fact that you and I are using different wording, is when you claim that science somehow explains things, and then either I or someone else points to the science and asks you to point out the explanation in that science. Of course, you will not be able to point to any explanation because there isn't any there, nor is there any data, nor research, nor "studies" nor any other observations ... only an assertion that amounts to a prediction of nature.

I have no problem with explaining what inspired most theories or their history or what the theory itself is explaining.

I could certainly jump onboard with wording to the effect of the rational basis for any science being an explanation for a great many things. Asserting that a force in one direction will result in an equal force in the opposite direction, i.e. F1 = -F2, calls for support (rational basis) that will certainly prove enlightening to whomever is learning it for the first time.

Shoot a cannon, gun, arrow, etc. There is always a reaction. That's a measurable force, just as the force applied to the cannonball, bullet, or arrow is.

None of that explanation, however, can be found in F1 = -F2.

Reversal fallacy. F1 = -F2 does not derive the observation that created this theory.

 

[IBDaMann]

The Pythagorean theorem is high school math first used 4000 year ago, yet you make it sound complicated.

The Pythagorean theorm is easy-peezy, yet you perceive it as complicated.

 

[Into the Night]

Who do you think will read and respond to this crap?

You, since you just responded to it.

We're on an obscure political message board.

And what has this got to do with phase of the Moon?

You're not publishing a paper here.

I see no paper, just a website.

There has to be a reason you refuse to keep it simple and clear. I can post the psychology on this if you want.

It is simple and clear.

You can post whatever you want (subject to the rules here), but your illiteracy has nothing to do with made up buzzwords that you call 'psychology'.
Don't try to call 'psychology' any kind of science.

 

[Into the Night]

The Pythagorean theorm is easy-peezy, yet you perceive it as complicated.

Indeed. Even construction guys call it the '3 4 5 Rule'. They use it as one technique to square up a corner.

 

[Port Tack]

I've covered this. Reread my two posts and you will see this.

A model is not an assertion. It is simply a noun, so to speak, where the theory is the verb making use of it. Science, of course, make use of many models. NONE of them are the theory itself, nor the actual Universe in any way. Imaging little bouncing balls against the walls of a container is one way to help describe the Ideal Gas law, for example, and it works quite well, but air is not just 'bouncy balls' for atoms or molecules. It is possible, for example, to CHANGE those molecules and manipulate them using chemistry.

Bohr's model of the atom is still used in teaching chemistry and electricity/electronics to this day, but science has long ago abandoned this model for others that better explain the characteristics observed in atoms.


Please don't try to equate mathematics with theories. Theories exist without mathematics at all. Fermat's Conjecture was a simple assertion, not a theory.

The theory itself is all the support the theory needs, once formed. The reasoning for that theory comes from observations, however. After that, the observation or any data collected by it is no longer needed, even though the formation of that theory was predicated upon the observation to begin with. Remember IF an observation was found to conflict with the earlier one, the theory can be falsified!

It is not possible to prove an assertion either True or False.

A theory is not a model. It IS an argument, however. An assertion is neither a model, nor a theory, nor an argument.

ALL theories explain something.

Every theory explains something. F=mA is no exception.

Science does not use assertions. Only falsifiable theories. It is not possible to prove an assertion as either True or False.

It is humorus watching two ignorant assholes arguing over who is the most ignorant.

 

[Into the Night]

It is humorus watching two ignorant assholes arguing over who is the most ignorant.

You are describing yourself again, Sock. It is YOU that denies the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law.
It is YOU that tries to equate your various religions as 'science'.

You cannot project YOUR problems on anybody else, Sock.

 

[Port Tack]

You are describing yourself again, Sock. It is YOU that denies the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law.
It is YOU that tries to equate your various religions as 'science'.

You cannot project YOUR problems on anybody else, Sock.

 

[Into the Night]

You can't laugh your way out of your illiteracy, Sock.

 

[Port Tack]

You can't laugh your way out of your illiteracy, Sock.

 

[IBDaMann]

While we undoubtedly have more to learn about the fundamental make-up of the universe (dark matter comes to mind),

Too funny. Gullible Cypress thinks there actually is dark matter. I bet that he believes this because he read it on the internet.

Wait a minute, I didn't see any "dark matter" on his artwork, which means he has no reason to believe it exists. Cypress is screwed up.

... the basic framework of the Standard Model is one of the most thoroughly tested and verified theories in the history of science.

Too funny. Cypress thinks artwork has somehow been "tested." Why can't Cypress express this "Standard Model" beyond showing artwork that isn't a model?

Any model that can correctly predict the magnetic strength of an electron to 12 decimal places must be a exceptionally excellent approximation of true reality.

Your artwork has never predicted anything. Predictions are not possible with mere artwork.

Wait, let me check. Open question to the board: What does the Mona Lisa predict?

 

[IBDaMann]

It is humorus watching two ignorant assholes arguing over who is the most ignorant.

So, one of whom claims to be a chemistry genius who asserts that carbon is a hydrocarbon ... and who is the other?

 

[Cypress]

I run my mouth claiming to be scientific literate, but I never even heard of the Standard Model of particle physics before!

It's literally just only one of the most important scientific theories in human history.

What do you mean by "the standard model"?

​

Darwin's theory of evolution is not science

​

hint: energy and matter are not interchangeable

​

Wave-Particle duality is classical physics.

​

There is no such thing as an accelerating reference frame!!

​

science doesn't explain anything about nature!

​

 

[IBDaMann]

It's literally just only one of the most important scientific theories in human history.

​

Too funny! One would think that Cypress would be able to give at least one example of technology that was based on his artwork, especially considering that he is referring to it as one the most important scientific theories in human history (recently downgraded from the greatest intellectual achievement of mankind). One would think that Cypress would be able to give at least one example of how his artwork predicts nature in some way that classical physics and chemistry cannot.

 

[Cypress]

I'm a plagiarizer and a troll

^^ Likes to present herself as very scientifically informed, but has never heard of arguably the most important scientific theoretical framework in modern science.

What do you mean by "the standard model"?

​

Darwin's theory of evolution is not science

​

hint: energy and matter are not interchangeable

​

Wave-Particle duality is classical physics.

​

There is no such thing as an accelerating reference frame!!

​

science doesn't explain anything about nature!

​

 

[Cypress]

What do you mean by "the standard model"?

There is no such thing as a 'standard model' (of particle physics).

​

It's just the best and most important theory humanity has for the physical reality of the universe. Unlike chemistry or biology, it is a robust explanation of the fundamental matter of the universe (fermions, leptons, bosons) and the forces (e.g., quantum fields) that cause them to interact (electromagnetism, the strong force, the weak nuclear force), and an explanation for the mass of subatomic particles (Higgs field).

It's nothing less than a well tested explanation for all the physical reality we experience, except for gravity.

Center for European Nuclear Research (CERN)

The theories and discoveries of thousands of physicists since the 1930s have resulted in a remarkable insight into the fundamental structure of matter: everything in the universe is found to be made from a few basic building blocks called fundamental particles, governed by four fundamental forces. Our best understanding of how these particles and three of the forces are related to each other is encapsulated in the Standard Model of particle physics. Developed in the early 1970s, it has successfully explained almost all experimental results and precisely predicted a wide variety of phenomena. Over time and through many experiments, the Standard Model has become established as a well-tested physics theory.

 

[IBDaMann]

... arguably the most important scientific theoretical framework in modern science.

I am so glad you "went there." How would you argue this, exactly?

 

[IBDaMann]

As a question to the board, please read these quotes from Cypress:

Our best explanation of physical reality.

As a testament to human intellectual and creative achievement, the standard model is every bit as important
as the collective work of Shakespeare or the artistic heritage of Michelangelo.

... it is arguably the most important scientific framework in the history of human intellectual achievement.

The standard model explains all forces except gravity, namely electromagnetism, the strong force, and the weak force via the electroweak theory (including quantum electrodynamics) and quantum chromodynamics.

... it is widely regarded as possibly the most important scientific theory in human history.

... one of the most important theories in the history of science.

Any model that can correctly predict the magnetic strength of an electron to 12 decimal places must be a exceptionally excellent approximation of true reality.

It's nearly a complete description of all known physical reality.

All the fundamental forces, except gravity are explained rigourously and mathematically by the standard model, via quantum chromodynamics and the electroweak theory.

The Standard Model of particle physics is one of the most important theories in the history of science.

It's literally just only one of the most important scientific theories in human history.

... and then ... [drumroll please] ... this:

three things: up quarks, down quarks, and electrons. ... That's basically all that picture represents.

Now, realize that all of the above comments are referring not to any science or to any model, but to a mere graphic, specifically to this graphic artwork:

Does Cypress not know what science even is, or might Cypress simply be delusional? Yes, we are all aware that Cypress is a scientifically illiterate and mathematically incompetent individual who believes himself to be a science genius, so we all expect him to take this angle on whatever he lifts off the internet. The issue is whether his claims might be plausible per some technology that was developed from his graphic, or by some null hypothesis that somehow predicts nature that can be constructed from his graphic. If anyone can offer some examples from either category, please post them here in this thread.

p.s - Cypress truly believes that his geniuth has falthified chemithtry

Atoms and molecules are not fundamental particles of nature.

p.p.s. - Cypress is unaware that "unknowingly" and "unwittingly" are redundant.
p.p.p.s. - Cypress thinks that singulars and plurals are interchangeable.

 

[Cypress]

You CAN'T represent a scientific theory with an image, picture, or diagram!!!

Perhaps it seems that way to the scientifically illiterate.

People who are scientifically literate and understand the important theories of modern science have a good grasp on the theories an image represents-->

What do you mean by "the standard model"?

There is no such thing as a 'standard model' (of particle physics).

​