plenty of profound female scientists around(misogynist pronoun culture needs to be continuously challenged) butt my main point here is "practicing a known theory" sounds more like an artist creating than a process of rendering repeatable results from a documented replicable function like a mathematics equation or scientific experiment in a lab. group 1 field group 2 doctrines group 3 known theory "known theory" is not "scientific established laws of physics etc etc" are you loading the dice deliberately to manufacture the outcome or is this how you think ?
Then, you must accept such is the way it is today. Speed of light is not constant in vacuum but still is an imposed conventional idea, and scientists practice their fields based on a theory rather than a fact, and so forth...
Links please where light is shown to be inconsistent in a vacuum Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
That is not what my science teacher put on my science exam sheet Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Yes, thats happen if you are a student. Professionals on other hand, if they are mastering science honestly, cant be wrong. This is because science is not about opinion or philosophical truth, it is about facts with method, mathematical logic and rationality. If you use logic on facts correctly, you can say something is true or false. With the same facts and the same logic, the result of your rational activity is always the same. The facts can not change with time... The logic neither... So cant the result change neither too. With the same facts - and they cant change... because they have been selected for this purpose for their consistance (you can and must be able to reproduce the experiments that validate or invalidate an hypothesis) - and the same logic (hoping mathematical logic will not change within time Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!) you will have the same right result. After you have validated that a scientific experiment linking fact and logic leads to a conclusion, this conlusion is alway true (logical true), nothing can change this (unless we discover the facts where massivly fraud or that the logic was stupid, but this happens very few)
Noooo. Science is about what fits the observations and with everything being the same does the observations produce same result If you change the parameters of one observation can you predict the new outcome Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Not noooo, yeeees ! Thats why in science, we validate not the fact, not the parameters, not the result, but all together... One hypothetis is validated under certain conditions. If conditions change, you go outside the domain permited by the theory. This make not precedent conclusion false, this change the conditions you validate one hypothesis.
The scientific method is that it provides a path to understanding the universe, that can be repeatedly demonstrated. Science isn't about ''being'' right or wrong, it's a method of how to view the world.
Not especialy to understand the universe, but you are right (and this is what i am trying to explain), science is not dealing with truth, it is dealing with logic.
Well, evidence that supports theories (that are accepted theories) is what the method is about. Do you not believe in certain theories that have evidence to support them?
Look, this is the problem (and this is why there is some controverse in this thread where there should not be some), you ask me if "i believe". No, i dont believe in anything when it come to science. I agree or i disagree because like anyone, i can see , so as anyone that practice science, that the facts that are provided, fit with the hypothesis. In many experiences we also have a sigma or an incertitude coming with the mesure that are provided with the observations. This do not mean we are not certain, this mean anybody who practice science will agree with the results as it takes in account some sigma or randomness incertainty. Nobody here is wrong if he accept the scientific result... I think that the incomprehension of that is that many think that science is result (if you would live 1000 years you would probably observe that precedent science results can be interpreted differently) but in reality science is method. It is like mixing up the journey and the destination of a path.
Ummm did that. Told that lady I spoke to Luchito is now saying there is no a perfect vacuum. She remarked you are moving the goal post and to go back and ask for a link again So please provide link Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
My link is the direct information coming from NASA*, because I did it years ago while I was reviewing the famous 1919 eclipse expeditions plaques results. I was trying to expand the whole possibilities to explain such a phenomenon of the displacement of the image of a star by the presence of a celestial body between the star in question and the observer. (*NASA had a direct telephone number for asking questions, this is year 1999) The question was about speed of light in vacuum, and first thing the dude from NASA clarified me is that there is no perfect vacuum. This is my link. Take it or leave it.
Such is doubtless. When you apply the scientific method, logic is the last in line, even not needed. Results are so contradictory is many cases that logic loses all its value. In real life, humility is not in the room when doing tests and experiments, the experimenter usually wishes his prediction to be validated, and a negative result brings frustration rather than recognition.
Can you please show us an example of this ? Usually ? You mean you have worked hard on the subject and now you are able (and proud if you are only a human) to present us your work, showing the statistics that permit to conclude that "experimenter usually whished his prediction to be validated, and a negative result brings frustaration rather than recognition" ?
Ummmm phone NASA from Bali, on a phone number from 21 years ago, which is not provided????? Leave it Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Two expeditions made to observe a total solar eclipse. The Principe expedition in Africa and the Sobral expedition in Brazil. Results between the observations from those two points of view were disparate. Such is common. Lets see results from one expedition alone, the Sobral The telescopes used were of two kind of instruments, an astrograph and a 4 inch telescopes. The plaques from the 4 inch telescope gave 1,86 and 2.1 seconds of arc. These gave the average of 1.98 seconds of acr. It didn't favored much Relativity prediction because was way to high of the 1.7 second predicted arc. The another telescope brought the average of 0.86 seconds of arc, which favored greatly the prediction made by Newton. "Logic" will state a similar result from both telescopes by the Sobral expedition, however, the results favored both predictions, in greater level the prediction of Newton was validated, even when the plaques of the astrograph telescope were some kind of lower quality at the time of showing the images. Here you have an example when "logic" presence was missing. Following the example given above. The results from the plaques of the Principe expedition were the whole of bad quality image, which in any review should be discarded just because that reason. The results switched from 1.31 and 1.91 seconds of arc, giving as average result 1.62 seconds of arc. Eddington, who was in charge, and was the one who pressed hard to the expeditions be made, because he wanted desperately to validate Relativity at all cost, he was pissed off with the contradictory results. He ignored the request of the scientists suggesting that no plaques were validated because no one of them showed the required six fixed stars in order to be used as guide to make the proper measures of the displacement of the image of the star. Only 5 fixed stars were visible in the whole plaques. Besides this inconvenience, the total results of the plaques from Principe expedition must be discarded because those were of very bad quality. What the "experimenter" (Eddington) did? He ignored completely the requirements and the suggestions from the rest of scientists, and thru"make ups" on the plaques, he validated the plaques of the Principe expedition and discarded the complete sets from Sobral expedition. The rest of scientists also rejected Eddington's fraud, and were in complete disagreement with the validation of Relativity prediction. (Einstein's Luck, by science historian John Waller) Here you have a sure example that humility is not a requisite at a high level membership inside the scientific community. The frustration of Eddington didn't end when he validated Relativity prediction with fraud, but was increased when the Swiss Academy rejected a second Nobel Prize to Einstein because his theory of Relativity. At this time, he was not in control as he was in England, having the Royal Astronomer as his friend, so he had no other choice but wait for a next opportunity later on. By the way, no one in those years understood Relativity, scientists didn't buy such doctrines of dilatation of time and similar. Those ideas were inserted in science later on. After Relativity lost credibility by the Swiss Academy, the theory itself was not considered at all, and only sporadic scientists tried to review it. Lorentz never reviewed the results of the solar eclipse, according to John Wallace, in those years scientists had no funds to make their own expeditions or travel to verify results, they just accepted the news "by mail". Lol. Well, you have here one example of how is the reaction of some experimenters when the results are contrary to their expected prediction, which is frustration rather than humility and acceptance of the contrary results.
