Time.

[Gene Vincent]

hairykrishna said:

The scientific method has been 'discarded'?

No, just the rather quaint idea of what it means... very 1950s, boffins, white coats for goal posts, tea and crumpets tom-foolery...

[hairykrishna]

What? Kenzle was quite right. No physical theory is proved correct, we just fail to disprove them. This hasn't been discarded and it's not 'quaint' as it's the very essence of scientific investigation.

[Gene Vincent]

I'll say it again, your image of what constitutes 'the scientific method' is skewed.

It is as dated as the Kettering Distributor and the starting handle.

Live with your image if it makes you feel better, but don't confuse it with reality.

[hairykrishna]

Gene Vincent said:

I'll say it again, your image of what constitutes 'the scientific method' is skewed.

It is as dated as the Kettering Distributor and the starting handle.

Live with your image if it makes you feel better, but don't confuse it with reality.

...and I'll say again that it's not.


How is it possible to prove a physical theory correct?

[Gene Vincent]

On track again. Welcome back. We all suffer brain faze occasionally, it's part of the territory.

If you don't, you're not thinking hard enough.. enough of the time.

[moreflaps]

What is the probability that dark energy is the result of observational error? e.g. that the explosion time course of a supernova is history dependent (I'm thinking about heavy metal content)?

Cheers

[Gene Vincent]

moreflaps said:

What is the probability that dark energy is the result of observational error?

Vanishingly small, it was predicted by QM, and then confirmed by WMAP and supernovae observation, the fit is almost too exact for some, but for me the exactness is not so much an issue of concern as the maths are very sharply defined and the observations are (for once) equal to the maths in terms of reading accuracy.

[moreflaps]

Gene Vincent said:

moreflaps said:

What is the probability that dark energy is the result of observational error?

Vanishingly small, it was predicted by QM, and then confirmed by WMAP and supernovae observation, the fit is almost too exact for some, but for me the exactness is not so much an issue of concern as the maths are very sharply defined and the observations are (for once) equal to the maths in terms of reading accuracy.

Hang on a moment I though the acceleration of the cosmos was detected before any theories of dark energy. What was the prior paper that predicted dark energy?

Cheers

[Gene Vincent]

Your incredulity may stem from what you perceive as being the 'Standard Model'.

The SM simply tells us about Electro-magnetic plus the Weak and Strong Nuclear Forces.

It is not a way of explaining everything, but it does provide clues to further avenues of investigation.

The things it doesn't 'describe' does not mean that within the Model it doesn't allude to them...

It does this by being so accurate in describing what it is meant to, any aberration is a legitimate avenue for further investigation, that is what is meant by the model showing the presence of 'something' more in the mix.

[moreflaps]

Gene Vincent said:

hairykrishna said:

Gene Vincent said:

You get betterer and betterer... there is a huge difference between annihilation and cancellation of properties... what the holy fk do you think those traces are in the images?

Please keep posting, you add humour to my day.

Nothing, absolutely nothing, is ever 'annihilated' in this Cosmos.

Everyone who works with them refers to the interaction between an anti particle and the corresponding particle as an annihilation. Just because energy and other properties are conserved doesn't make it not an annihilation. I am glad that your own twisted definition of a term is providing you amusement.

You are huge fun, so let's do a proper thought experiment... you know a real one, not a flight of fantasy...

You have two bar magnets, both the same size and power... each has a N and S so you have 2 Ns and 2 Ss you join them together one N to one S.

Have we annihilated anything? Certainly a N and S has disappeared but we've lost nothing, we just have a stronger and longer bar magnet.

This situation is analogous to the manner in which P/A-P behave.

Longer yes, but stronger? Some basic physics seems to be missing...

Cheers

[Simpo Two]

Or would it be because the 'power' of the cancelled-out poles goes wholly or partly into the remaining two - thereby more magnetism over the same surface area?

[moreflaps]

Simpo Two said:

Or would it be because the 'power' of the cancelled-out poles goes wholly or partly into the remaining two - thereby more magnetism over the same surface area?

The missing part is the distance between the poles and the permeability...

Cheers

Edited by moreflaps on Tuesday 4th September 15:28

[Simpo Two]

Hang on, I'll get some shorter magnets...

[moreflaps]

Simpo Two said:

Hang on, I'll get some shorter magnets...

Does magnetic material 'saturate'?

Cheers

[Gene Vincent]

I missed out a huge amount ... we could go down to looking at how Bosons (integer spin particles) bring about the ever mounting effect of magnetism thanks to not having to obey the PEP allowing greater and greater strengths of magnetism being achievable... but simplicity is key here for now, we can get to some of the more involved and deeper truths later.

[moreflaps]

Gene Vincent said:

I missed out a huge amount ... we could go down to looking at how Bosons (integer spin particles) bring about the ever mounting effect of magnetism thanks to not having to obey the PEP allowing greater and greater strengths of magnetism being achievable... but simplicity is key here for now, we can get to some of the more involved and deeper truths later.

Is it me, or does this sound like pachydermic proleptic posturing?

Cheers

[Gene Vincent]

moreflaps said:

Is it me, or does this sound like pachydermic proleptic posturing?

Cheers

It's you.

But my post did have a purpose...

[dodgyviper]

Gene Vincent said:

moreflaps said:

Is it me, or does this sound like pachydermic proleptic posturing?

Cheers

It's you.

But my post did have a purpose...

pachydermic - Any of various large, thick-skinned, hoofed mammals such as the elephant, rhinoceros, or hippopotamus

proleptic - The use of a descriptive word in anticipation of the act or circumstances that would make it applicable

posturing - behaviour or speech which is intended to attract attention and interest, or to make people believe something that is not true


Dude - give me a whoosh parrot if necessary, but as the head scratching monkey would say, "what the fk are you on about".

[dodgyviper]

GV - you've mentioned a couple of times a mentor by the name of Jim Muecke.

As you've stated he sometimes has different ideas compared to yourself, could you point us in the direction of anything he's published.

Google wasn't my friend on this one. (Not unless he's an eye specialist in Oz)

[Gene Vincent]

dodgyviper said:

pachydermic - Any of various large, thick-skinned, hoofed mammals such as the elephant, rhinoceros, or hippopotamus

proleptic - The use of a descriptive word in anticipation of the act or circumstances that would make it applicable

posturing - behaviour or speech which is intended to attract attention and interest, or to make people believe something that is not true


Dude - give me a whoosh parrot if necessary, but as the head scratching monkey would say, "what the fk are you on about".

This is PH, almost all threads reach a point around 250 posts where the 'personalities' arrive.

I think that in the Science! forum there should be a rule about the number of posts a thread can have before being in the 'Pending Closure' area, something like 250 posts, then after that summations only.

This might be a way of concentrating minds on the subject, rather than personalities.

It doesn't have to be a hard and fast rule, if a subject has become contemporaneous with events then it should stay open, but if not, the guillotine is a humane way to stop the dumb devaluing good debate.