Total Posts:149|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Conservation of energy

janesix
Posts: 4,076
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/31/2016 8:42:40 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
I don't understand. How do they know this is a law? How do they know this is true everywhere in the universe? What is the proof?
You are what you do when it counts
...and it always counts

"Your mother still exist and created you, despite her nasty spaghetti" Fatihah
Welfare-Worker
Posts: 1,540
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/1/2017 12:51:40 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 12/31/2016 8:42:40 PM, janesix wrote:
I don't understand. How do they know this is a law? How do they know this is true everywhere in the universe? What is the proof?

It is a law because it has never been demonstrated false.

It seems like a good idea, and makes many Scientific Theories much easier. If it were not assumed, based on the limited evidence available, a whole lot of Science would have to be scrapped.
I am confident there have been some very nice thought experiments to confirm it, aka computer simulations.

If it is shown to be false (computer simulations probably won't count, unless they are very convincing), or if someone comes up with a more robust law, the current one will be chucked. That is how science works.

Right now the numbers do not add up, to support the law, but this is not strong evidence the law is at fault. It is probably something else. Matter/anti-matter understanding and verification is weak.
Admittedly I am weak on the details, others with stronger science backgrounds can explain the details.

A basic premise, assumption, of Science is that Laws , things like gravity, are uniform across the universe.
No convincing evidence is needed for basic assumptions.
Fallacious arguments work just fine. Faith fills in the blanks.
janesix
Posts: 4,076
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/1/2017 5:11:28 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 1/1/2017 12:51:40 AM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
At 12/31/2016 8:42:40 PM, janesix wrote:
I don't understand. How do they know this is a law? How do they know this is true everywhere in the universe? What is the proof?

It is a law because it has never been demonstrated false.

It seems like a good idea, and makes many Scientific Theories much easier. If it were not assumed, based on the limited evidence available, a whole lot of Science would have to be scrapped.
I am confident there have been some very nice thought experiments to confirm it, aka computer simulations.

If it is shown to be false (computer simulations probably won't count, unless they are very convincing), or if someone comes up with a more robust law, the current one will be chucked. That is how science works.

Right now the numbers do not add up, to support the law, but this is not strong evidence the law is at fault. It is probably something else. Matter/anti-matter understanding and verification is weak.
Admittedly I am weak on the details, others with stronger science backgrounds can explain the details.

A basic premise, assumption, of Science is that Laws , things like gravity, are uniform across the universe.
No convincing evidence is needed for basic assumptions.
Fallacious arguments work just fine. Faith fills in the blanks.
Hmmm. It just occurred to me to question how they would know something like that. I'm going to have to research how/why they came up with the idea, and maybe I will understand.
You are what you do when it counts
...and it always counts

"Your mother still exist and created you, despite her nasty spaghetti" Fatihah
dee-em
Posts: 7,209
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/1/2017 8:15:30 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 12/31/2016 8:42:40 PM, janesix wrote:
I don't understand. How do they know this is a law? How do they know this is true everywhere in the universe? What is the proof?

There is no proof for anything in physics, Jane. Put simply, it is an assumption. However it is an assumption based on sound principles. Everywhere we test in our local neighbourhood we find that the law holds true. We then extrapolate to the whole universe based on the principle of mediocrity. In order for the law to vary across the universe there would have to be something different or special about our local region. We do not detect anything different or special when we look out into the universe with instruments. All regions in every direction look pretty much the same.

That is not to say that scientists are not continually testing their assumptions. They do:

http://www.universetoday.com...

Furthermore there would be measurable consequences if the law of conservation of energy did not hold universally. The universe would either be cooling or heating up as a result (ignoring the case where energy were being created and destroyed at an equal rate). The universe is indeed cooling but this cooling is precisely explained by the expansion of space. There is no measurable anomaly in the background heat temperature of the universe.

I hope that helps.
Fatihah: It's like your mother making spaghetti and after you taste it and don't like it, you say "well my mom must not exist". Not because their is no logical evidence but because she doesn't do what you want.
dee-em
Posts: 7,209
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/1/2017 8:52:28 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 1/1/2017 12:51:40 AM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
At 12/31/2016 8:42:40 PM, janesix wrote:
I don't understand. How do they know this is a law? How do they know this is true everywhere in the universe? What is the proof?

It is a law because it has never been demonstrated false.

It seems like a good idea, and makes many Scientific Theories much easier. If it were not assumed, based on the limited evidence available, a whole lot of Science would have to be scrapped.

Not really. Some other assumptions might have to be reevaluated.

I am confident there have been some very nice thought experiments to confirm it, aka computer simulations.

Not really.

If it is shown to be false (computer simulations probably won't count, unless they are very convincing), or if someone comes up with a more robust law, the current one will be chucked. That is how science works.

Again, not really. A more fundamental law would be a better description. It would be hard to imagine a more fundamental law than the conservation of energy. If anything, it would complicate things enormously.

Right now the numbers do not add up, to support the law, but this is not strong evidence the law is at fault.

What numbers?

It is probably something else. Matter/anti-matter understanding and verification is weak.

What are you talking about and how does it relate to conservation of energy/matter?

Admittedly I am weak on the details, others with stronger science backgrounds can explain the details.

Of course.

A basic premise, assumption, of Science is that Laws , things like gravity, are uniform across the universe.

Yes, unless there is evidence to the contrary.

No convincing evidence is needed for basic assumptions.

The assumptions are always being tested.

Fallacious arguments work just fine. Faith fills in the blanks.

What fallacious arguments? What faith?
You are describing theism, not science.
Fatihah: It's like your mother making spaghetti and after you taste it and don't like it, you say "well my mom must not exist". Not because their is no logical evidence but because she doesn't do what you want.
Annnaxim
Posts: 371
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/1/2017 12:02:10 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 12/31/2016 8:42:40 PM, janesix wrote:
I don't understand. How do they know this is a law? How do they know this is true everywhere in the universe? What is the proof?
I don't think anyone really knows.
And with the advent of Dark Energy, we are probaly less sure today than ever before.

Oh... before I forget... HAPPY NEW YEAR! :-)
keithprosser
Posts: 2,927
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/1/2017 12:40:48 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 12/31/2016 8:42:40 PM, janesix wrote:
I don't understand. How do they know this is a law? How do they know this is true everywhere in the universe? What is the proof?

I think the problems is that from a distance science can look like a body of dogmatic facts that you just have to accept to be a scientist. In school science can be taught that way, but I think that is bad teaching and it must be that j6 had a bad science teacher or she wouldn't ask the question she did.

A scientific 'fact' is actually not something that is ever proven - it is something that no-one has disproven yet. If it is a useful idea then it gets used to to build more science on top of it. Can you see the flaw?

The flaw is that any time someone will find some 'scientific fact' is wrong and everything built on top of it will come crashing down. And that has happened serveral times - most famously when Einstein shows that the facts Newton relied on were wrong and when Planck, Bohr and others showed the facts of 'classical mechanics' were wrong.

But unlike theology where heretics who undermine the bedrock are excommuicated or burnt at the stake, science gives its iconoclasts Nobel prizes, fame and fortune especially if they not only find the problem and say how to fix it, but quite often prizes are given for one or the other alone.

In the case of dark matter and dark energy, the situation is that scientists have found part of the their great building has collapsed. The imprortant thing to be aware of is that the terms 'dark matter' and 'dark energy' are really in-jokes, not explanations or proposed fixes. Problem 1 is that the rotation of galaxies shows some scientific fact is wrong and problem 2 is the universe is expanding faster and faster which shows some other scietific fact is wrong. Dark matter is the name for whatever it is that gets discovered to fix the rotation problem and dark energy is the name of whatever it is that gets discovered to fix the expansion problem. It would be more accurate to say 'the rotation problem' and 'the expansion problem' rather than 'dark matter' and 'dark energy', but the 'dark' terms caught on because they sound more dramatic!

But just as finding a problem shows a scientific fact to be wrong, everytime a problem doesn't show up gives scientists confidence that if some fact is wrong it is not very wrong. The conservation of energy is relied on by every machine ever biult and everything else we rely on day-to-day. If the conservatio of energy wasn't true - or as near to true as dammit - then bridges would fall down for no reason and it would be impossible to get any machine - from a hand-operated mangle to a super-computer - to work.

That doesn't mean theconsevation of energy is precisely true everywhere and forever, but it does mean that it is tested a billion times everyday and not found wanting. One day someone might well find the conservation of energy isn't quite like that, but obviously it is so nearly correct we can treat is as being exactly correct for now because we would certainly know by now if was wrong in any serious way.
Welfare-Worker
Posts: 1,540
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/1/2017 1:24:07 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 1/1/2017 12:40:48 PM, keithprosser wrote:
At 12/31/2016 8:42:40 PM, janesix wrote:
I don't understand. How do they know this is a law? How do they know this is true everywhere in the universe? What is the proof?

I think the problems is that from a distance science can look like a body of dogmatic facts that you just have to accept to be a scientist. In school science can be taught that way, but I think that is bad teaching and it must be that j6 had a bad science teacher or she wouldn't ask the question she did.

A scientific 'fact' is actually not something that is ever proven - it is something that no-one has disproven yet. If it is a useful idea then it gets used to to build more science on top of it. Can you see the flaw?

The flaw is that any time someone will find some 'scientific fact' is wrong and everything built on top of it will come crashing down. And that has happened serveral times - most famously when Einstein shows that the facts Newton relied on were wrong and when Planck, Bohr and others showed the facts of 'classical mechanics' were wrong.

But unlike theology where heretics who undermine the bedrock are excommuicated or burnt at the stake, science gives its iconoclasts Nobel prizes, fame and fortune especially if they not only find the problem and say how to fix it, but quite often prizes are given for one or the other alone.

Oh for Pete's sake.
Religious heretics stopped being burned at the stake 250 years ago.
The first Novel prize was less than half that that many years ago.
Hardly comparable.
Martin Luther, one of the most famous Christian heretics of all time, was recognized, by protestants, as a great reformer.

Saint Albert the great (1206-1280) is the patron saint of scientists.

Roger Bacon, credited with being one of the earliest advocates of the modern Scientific Method, was a Catholic friar. A man of the church, credited with the formulation of the Scientific Method - imagine that.
Pope Clement was one of his greatest supporters.

In the case of dark matter and dark energy, the situation is that scientists have found part of the their great building has collapsed. The imprortant thing to be aware of is that the terms 'dark matter' and 'dark energy' are really in-jokes, not explanations or proposed fixes. Problem 1 is that the rotation of galaxies shows some scientific fact is wrong and problem 2 is the universe is expanding faster and faster which shows some other scietific fact is wrong. Dark matter is the name for whatever it is that gets discovered to fix the rotation problem and dark energy is the name of whatever it is that gets discovered to fix the expansion problem. It would be more accurate to say 'the rotation problem' and 'the expansion problem' rather than 'dark matter' and 'dark energy', but the 'dark' terms caught on because they sound more dramatic!

But just as finding a problem shows a scientific fact to be wrong, everytime a problem doesn't show up gives scientists confidence that if some fact is wrong it is not very wrong. The conservation of energy is relied on by every machine ever biult and everything else we rely on day-to-day. If the conservatio of energy wasn't true - or as near to true as dammit - then bridges would fall down for no reason and it would be impossible to get any machine - from a hand-operated mangle to a super-computer - to work.

That doesn't mean theconsevation of energy is precisely true everywhere and forever, but it does mean that it is tested a billion times everyday and not found wanting. One day someone might well find the conservation of energy isn't quite like that, but obviously it is so nearly correct we can treat is as being exactly correct for now because we would certainly know by now if was wrong in any serious way.
Dirty.Harry
Posts: 1,753
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/1/2017 2:50:09 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 12/31/2016 8:42:40 PM, janesix wrote:
I don't understand. How do they know this is a law? How do they know this is true everywhere in the universe? What is the proof?

They don't - it's that simple, no law of nature can be proven to be a law, only potentially disproved.
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 13,644
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/1/2017 3:23:12 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 12/31/2016 8:42:40 PM, janesix wrote:
I don't understand. How do they know this is a law? How do they know this is true everywhere in the universe? What is the proof?

It's really quite simple, potential energy (in Joules) gets transformed to kinetic energy, and in any given closed system, that energy will remain the same.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
There would be peace if you obeyed us.~Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
Dirty.Harry
Posts: 1,753
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/1/2017 3:44:39 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 1/1/2017 3:23:12 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 12/31/2016 8:42:40 PM, janesix wrote:
I don't understand. How do they know this is a law? How do they know this is true everywhere in the universe? What is the proof?

It's really quite simple, potential energy (in Joules) gets transformed to kinetic energy, and in any given closed system, that energy will remain the same.

That all fine n dandy but you never answered any of the questions (as usual), here they are again for you separated out to make it a bit easier for you:

1. How do they know this is a law?
2. How do they know this is true everywhere in the universe?
3. What is the proof?

Do you understand what was asked? I do wonder about you sometimes Dummel.
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 13,644
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/1/2017 3:50:06 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 1/1/2017 3:44:39 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 1/1/2017 3:23:12 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 12/31/2016 8:42:40 PM, janesix wrote:
I don't understand. How do they know this is a law? How do they know this is true everywhere in the universe? What is the proof?

It's really quite simple, potential energy (in Joules) gets transformed to kinetic energy, and in any given closed system, that energy will remain the same.

That all fine n dandy but you never answered any of the questions (as usual), here they are again for you separated out to make it a bit easier for you:

1. How do they know this is a law?

Because it's testable.
2. How do they know this is true everywhere in the universe?

Because the universe is homogeneous and isotropic.

3. What is the proof?

In the consistent, accurate results of testing.

Do you understand what was asked? I do wonder about you sometimes Dummel.

I don't have to wonder about you. I know you're ignorant of science.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
There would be peace if you obeyed us.~Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
Dirty.Harry
Posts: 1,753
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/1/2017 4:00:43 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 1/1/2017 3:50:06 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 1/1/2017 3:44:39 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 1/1/2017 3:23:12 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 12/31/2016 8:42:40 PM, janesix wrote:
I don't understand. How do they know this is a law? How do they know this is true everywhere in the universe? What is the proof?

It's really quite simple, potential energy (in Joules) gets transformed to kinetic energy, and in any given closed system, that energy will remain the same.

That all fine n dandy but you never answered any of the questions (as usual), here they are again for you separated out to make it a bit easier for you:

1. How do they know this is a law?

Because it's testable.

But being testable isn't the same thing as being a law! Netwon's theory is testable and falsely claimed to be a universal law, but we now know it isn't.
Sorry but your answer is stupid and show you lack understanding of basic science.

2. How do they know this is true everywhere in the universe?

Because the universe is homogeneous and isotropic.
That's not an answer because all you did was restate what was asked. Let me make it easier for you:

How do they know the universe is homogeneous and isotropic?


3. What is the proof?

In the consistent, accurate results of testing.

But as I just pointed out to you - passing tests does not prove laws - how could it given what you (surely?) know about Newtonian gravity?


Do you understand what was asked? I do wonder about you sometimes Dummel.

I don't have to wonder about you. I know you're ignorant of science.

You're actually pretty stupid sometimes, you either know very well you're being evasive but cant resist trying to impress people or you really are a lightweight, either way you seem to have no idea what law and proof mean within the realm of epistemology.
keithprosser
Posts: 2,927
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/1/2017 4:19:34 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 1/1/2017 4:00:43 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
you seem to have no idea what law and proof mean within the realm of epistemology.

It's a fact of life that science uses words like 'fact' and 'proof' in a way that would make a philosopher's or mathematician's toes curl and his skin crawl.

That isn't a defect of science - although it is possibly a defect of language. To a scientist, a fact or law is something that is useful to assume and hasn't been disproven yet and 'proven' means 'tested very extensively'.

As I said - totally toe curling from an 'epistemological' point of view, but that is how it is in science!

You have to get used to the way the word is used by those using it in the context it is used. 'Chat' means something quite different in French from what it means in English. You can't complain that the French are therefore using the world 'chat' wrong! And its the same with words like 'law' and 'fact' in science and philosophy.
Dirty.Harry
Posts: 1,753
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/1/2017 4:24:53 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 1/1/2017 4:19:34 PM, keithprosser wrote:
At 1/1/2017 4:00:43 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
you seem to have no idea what law and proof mean within the realm of epistemology.

It's a fact of life that science uses words like 'fact' and 'proof' in a way that would make a philosopher's or mathematician's toes curl and his skin crawl.

That isn't a defect of science - although it is possibly a defect of language. To a scientist, a fact or law is something that is useful to assume and hasn't been disproven yet and 'proven' means 'tested very extensively'.

Well said, shame Dummel doesn't understand this.


As I said - totally toe curling from an 'epistemological' point of view, but that is how it is in science!

You have to get used to the way the word is used by those using it in the context it is used. 'Chat' means something quite different in French from what it means in English. You can't complain that the French are therefore using the world 'chat' wrong! And its the same with words like 'law' and 'fact' in science and philosophy.

No argument from me, your answers are a far better response to the OP than anything Dumell posted.
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 13,644
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/1/2017 4:31:58 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 1/1/2017 4:00:43 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 1/1/2017 3:50:06 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 1/1/2017 3:44:39 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 1/1/2017 3:23:12 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 12/31/2016 8:42:40 PM, janesix wrote:
I don't understand. How do they know this is a law? How do they know this is true everywhere in the universe? What is the proof?

It's really quite simple, potential energy (in Joules) gets transformed to kinetic energy, and in any given closed system, that energy will remain the same.

That all fine n dandy but you never answered any of the questions (as usual), here they are again for you separated out to make it a bit easier for you:

1. How do they know this is a law?

Because it's testable.

But being testable isn't the same thing as being a law!

Ah, your lack of reading comprehension skills is at it again.

Netwon's theory is testable and falsely claimed to be a universal law, but we now know it isn't.

Really? You mean it was tested and the results were not consistent and accurate?

Sorry but your answer is stupid and show you lack understanding of basic science.


2. How do they know this is true everywhere in the universe?

Because the universe is homogeneous and isotropic.
That's not an answer because all you did was restate what was asked.

Yes, that's an answer, Harry.

Let me make it easier for you:

How do they know the universe is homogeneous and isotropic?

That's a different question with a different answer, Harry.


3. What is the proof?

In the consistent, accurate results of testing.

But as I just pointed out to you - passing tests does not prove laws

Yeah, it does, Harry, but I know you don't understand these things.

- how could it given what you (surely?) know about Newtonian gravity?


Do you understand what was asked? I do wonder about you sometimes Dummel.

I don't have to wonder about you. I know you're ignorant of science.

You're actually pretty stupid sometimes, you either know very well you're being evasive but cant resist trying to impress people or you really are a lightweight, either way you seem to have no idea what law and proof mean within the realm of epistemology.

Sure Harry, whatever you say. LOL.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
There would be peace if you obeyed us.~Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 13,644
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/1/2017 4:35:11 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 1/1/2017 4:24:53 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 1/1/2017 4:19:34 PM, keithprosser wrote:
At 1/1/2017 4:00:43 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
you seem to have no idea what law and proof mean within the realm of epistemology.

It's a fact of life that science uses words like 'fact' and 'proof' in a way that would make a philosopher's or mathematician's toes curl and his skin crawl.

That isn't a defect of science - although it is possibly a defect of language. To a scientist, a fact or law is something that is useful to assume and hasn't been disproven yet and 'proven' means 'tested very extensively'.

Well said, shame Dummel doesn't understand this.


As I said - totally toe curling from an 'epistemological' point of view, but that is how it is in science!

You have to get used to the way the word is used by those using it in the context it is used. 'Chat' means something quite different in French from what it means in English. You can't complain that the French are therefore using the world 'chat' wrong! And its the same with words like 'law' and 'fact' in science and philosophy.

No argument from me, your answers are a far better response to the OP than anything Dumell posted.

Your reading comprehension skills have not entered the toilet, flushed down.

Are you not aware, Harry, that my answers were to different questions than Keiths? Can you not read and understand the English language, Harry?
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
There would be peace if you obeyed us.~Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
Dirty.Harry
Posts: 1,753
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/1/2017 4:36:56 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 1/1/2017 4:31:58 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 1/1/2017 4:00:43 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 1/1/2017 3:50:06 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 1/1/2017 3:44:39 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 1/1/2017 3:23:12 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 12/31/2016 8:42:40 PM, janesix wrote:
I don't understand. How do they know this is a law? How do they know this is true everywhere in the universe? What is the proof?

It's really quite simple, potential energy (in Joules) gets transformed to kinetic energy, and in any given closed system, that energy will remain the same.

That all fine n dandy but you never answered any of the questions (as usual), here they are again for you separated out to make it a bit easier for you:

1. How do they know this is a law?

Because it's testable.

But being testable isn't the same thing as being a law!

Ah, your lack of reading comprehension skills is at it again.

Netwon's theory is testable and falsely claimed to be a universal law, but we now know it isn't.

Really? You mean it was tested and the results were not consistent and accurate?

Yes it was tested and found incorrect. If you really knew anything about the history of GR you'd know this. One of the key tests of GR was that it gave a correct result for the precession of the perihelion of mercury whereas Newtonian gravitation gave incorrect.


Sorry but your answer is stupid and show you lack understanding of basic science.


2. How do they know this is true everywhere in the universe?

Because the universe is homogeneous and isotropic.
That's not an answer because all you did was restate what was asked.

Yes, that's an answer, Harry.

Let me make it easier for you:

How do they know the universe is homogeneous and isotropic?

That's a different question with a different answer, Harry.


3. What is the proof?

In the consistent, accurate results of testing.

But as I just pointed out to you - passing tests does not prove laws

Yeah, it does, Harry, but I know you don't understand these things.

- how could it given what you (surely?) know about Newtonian gravity?


Do you understand what was asked? I do wonder about you sometimes Dummel.

I don't have to wonder about you. I know you're ignorant of science.

You're actually pretty stupid sometimes, you either know very well you're being evasive but cant resist trying to impress people or you really are a lightweight, either way you seem to have no idea what law and proof mean within the realm of epistemology.

Sure Harry, whatever you say. LOL.

You can stop now Dummel, Keith has answered the OP in a way you never could.
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 13,644
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/1/2017 4:43:35 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 1/1/2017 4:36:56 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 1/1/2017 4:31:58 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 1/1/2017 4:00:43 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 1/1/2017 3:50:06 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 1/1/2017 3:44:39 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 1/1/2017 3:23:12 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 12/31/2016 8:42:40 PM, janesix wrote:
I don't understand. How do they know this is a law? How do they know this is true everywhere in the universe? What is the proof?

It's really quite simple, potential energy (in Joules) gets transformed to kinetic energy, and in any given closed system, that energy will remain the same.

That all fine n dandy but you never answered any of the questions (as usual), here they are again for you separated out to make it a bit easier for you:

1. How do they know this is a law?

Because it's testable.

But being testable isn't the same thing as being a law!

Ah, your lack of reading comprehension skills is at it again.

Netwon's theory is testable and falsely claimed to be a universal law, but we now know it isn't.

Really? You mean it was tested and the results were not consistent and accurate?

Yes it was tested and found incorrect. If you really knew anything about the history of GR you'd know this. One of the key tests of GR was that it gave a correct result for the precession of the perihelion of mercury whereas Newtonian gravitation gave incorrect.

Wow, your knowledge is unbelievable, Harry. You just offered something that was well know decades ago. LOL.

And, in this thread you applaud General Relativity for supplanting Newtonian Gravity for accuracy and proof, yet in another thread, you say something is wrong with GR, but just can't seem to explain it.

Hilarious.


Sorry but your answer is stupid and show you lack understanding of basic science.


2. How do they know this is true everywhere in the universe?

Because the universe is homogeneous and isotropic.
That's not an answer because all you did was restate what was asked.

Yes, that's an answer, Harry.

Let me make it easier for you:

How do they know the universe is homogeneous and isotropic?

That's a different question with a different answer, Harry.


3. What is the proof?

In the consistent, accurate results of testing.

But as I just pointed out to you - passing tests does not prove laws

Yeah, it does, Harry, but I know you don't understand these things.

- how could it given what you (surely?) know about Newtonian gravity?


Do you understand what was asked? I do wonder about you sometimes Dummel.

I don't have to wonder about you. I know you're ignorant of science.

You're actually pretty stupid sometimes, you either know very well you're being evasive but cant resist trying to impress people or you really are a lightweight, either way you seem to have no idea what law and proof mean within the realm of epistemology.

Sure Harry, whatever you say. LOL.

You can stop now Dummel, Keith has answered the OP in a way you never could.

Whatever you say, Harry.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
There would be peace if you obeyed us.~Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
Dirty.Harry
Posts: 1,753
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/1/2017 4:52:39 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 1/1/2017 4:43:35 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 1/1/2017 4:36:56 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 1/1/2017 4:31:58 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 1/1/2017 4:00:43 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 1/1/2017 3:50:06 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 1/1/2017 3:44:39 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 1/1/2017 3:23:12 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 12/31/2016 8:42:40 PM, janesix wrote:
I don't understand. How do they know this is a law? How do they know this is true everywhere in the universe? What is the proof?

It's really quite simple, potential energy (in Joules) gets transformed to kinetic energy, and in any given closed system, that energy will remain the same.

That all fine n dandy but you never answered any of the questions (as usual), here they are again for you separated out to make it a bit easier for you:

1. How do they know this is a law?

Because it's testable.

But being testable isn't the same thing as being a law!

Ah, your lack of reading comprehension skills is at it again.

Netwon's theory is testable and falsely claimed to be a universal law, but we now know it isn't.

Really? You mean it was tested and the results were not consistent and accurate?

Yes it was tested and found incorrect. If you really knew anything about the history of GR you'd know this. One of the key tests of GR was that it gave a correct result for the precession of the perihelion of mercury whereas Newtonian gravitation gave incorrect.

Wow, your knowledge is unbelievable, Harry. You just offered something that was well know decades ago. LOL.

And, in this thread you applaud General Relativity for supplanting Newtonian Gravity for accuracy and proof, yet in another thread, you say something is wrong with GR, but just can't seem to explain it.

Don't you feel just a bit stupid having just said "Really? You mean it was tested and the results were not consistent and accurate?" !

Hilarious.


Sorry but your answer is stupid and show you lack understanding of basic science.


2. How do they know this is true everywhere in the universe?

Because the universe is homogeneous and isotropic.
That's not an answer because all you did was restate what was asked.

Yes, that's an answer, Harry.

Let me make it easier for you:

How do they know the universe is homogeneous and isotropic?

That's a different question with a different answer, Harry.


3. What is the proof?

In the consistent, accurate results of testing.

But as I just pointed out to you - passing tests does not prove laws

Yeah, it does, Harry, but I know you don't understand these things.

- how could it given what you (surely?) know about Newtonian gravity?


Do you understand what was asked? I do wonder about you sometimes Dummel.

I don't have to wonder about you. I know you're ignorant of science.

You're actually pretty stupid sometimes, you either know very well you're being evasive but cant resist trying to impress people or you really are a lightweight, either way you seem to have no idea what law and proof mean within the realm of epistemology.

Sure Harry, whatever you say. LOL.

You can stop now Dummel, Keith has answered the OP in a way you never could.

Whatever you say, Harry.

You can stop now Dummel, Keith has answered the OP in a way you never could.
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 13,644
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/1/2017 5:08:11 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 1/1/2017 4:52:39 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 1/1/2017 4:43:35 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 1/1/2017 4:36:56 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 1/1/2017 4:31:58 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 1/1/2017 4:00:43 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 1/1/2017 3:50:06 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 1/1/2017 3:44:39 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 1/1/2017 3:23:12 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 12/31/2016 8:42:40 PM, janesix wrote:
I don't understand. How do they know this is a law? How do they know this is true everywhere in the universe? What is the proof?

It's really quite simple, potential energy (in Joules) gets transformed to kinetic energy, and in any given closed system, that energy will remain the same.

That all fine n dandy but you never answered any of the questions (as usual), here they are again for you separated out to make it a bit easier for you:

1. How do they know this is a law?

Because it's testable.

But being testable isn't the same thing as being a law!

Ah, your lack of reading comprehension skills is at it again.

Netwon's theory is testable and falsely claimed to be a universal law, but we now know it isn't.

Really? You mean it was tested and the results were not consistent and accurate?

Yes it was tested and found incorrect. If you really knew anything about the history of GR you'd know this. One of the key tests of GR was that it gave a correct result for the precession of the perihelion of mercury whereas Newtonian gravitation gave incorrect.

Wow, your knowledge is unbelievable, Harry. You just offered something that was well know decades ago. LOL.

And, in this thread you applaud General Relativity for supplanting Newtonian Gravity for accuracy and proof, yet in another thread, you say something is wrong with GR, but just can't seem to explain it.

Don't you feel just a bit stupid having just said "Really?

Sorry, but I couldn't show my laughing at you while saying it. It's very old news, Harry.

You mean it was tested and the results were not consistent and accurate?" !

Newtonian physics are still be used to put probes on Mars, Harry. Although, not dead accurate, it's still pretty close.

Hilarious.


Sorry but your answer is stupid and show you lack understanding of basic science.


2. How do they know this is true everywhere in the universe?

Because the universe is homogeneous and isotropic.
That's not an answer because all you did was restate what was asked.

Yes, that's an answer, Harry.

Let me make it easier for you:

How do they know the universe is homogeneous and isotropic?

That's a different question with a different answer, Harry.


3. What is the proof?

In the consistent, accurate results of testing.

But as I just pointed out to you - passing tests does not prove laws

Yeah, it does, Harry, but I know you don't understand these things.

- how could it given what you (surely?) know about Newtonian gravity?


Do you understand what was asked? I do wonder about you sometimes Dummel.

I don't have to wonder about you. I know you're ignorant of science.

You're actually pretty stupid sometimes, you either know very well you're being evasive but cant resist trying to impress people or you really are a lightweight, either way you seem to have no idea what law and proof mean within the realm of epistemology.

Sure Harry, whatever you say. LOL.

You can stop now Dummel, Keith has answered the OP in a way you never could.

Whatever you say, Harry.

You can stop now Dummel, Keith has answered the OP in a way you never could.

Keith answered a question, and I answered other questions, Harry. You really need to pay attention.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
There would be peace if you obeyed us.~Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
Dirty.Harry
Posts: 1,753
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/1/2017 6:58:48 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 1/1/2017 5:08:11 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 1/1/2017 4:52:39 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 1/1/2017 4:43:35 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 1/1/2017 4:36:56 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 1/1/2017 4:31:58 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 1/1/2017 4:00:43 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 1/1/2017 3:50:06 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 1/1/2017 3:44:39 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 1/1/2017 3:23:12 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 12/31/2016 8:42:40 PM, janesix wrote:
I don't understand. How do they know this is a law? How do they know this is true everywhere in the universe? What is the proof?

It's really quite simple, potential energy (in Joules) gets transformed to kinetic energy, and in any given closed system, that energy will remain the same.

That all fine n dandy but you never answered any of the questions (as usual), here they are again for you separated out to make it a bit easier for you:

1. How do they know this is a law?

Because it's testable.

But being testable isn't the same thing as being a law!

Ah, your lack of reading comprehension skills is at it again.

Netwon's theory is testable and falsely claimed to be a universal law, but we now know it isn't.

Really? You mean it was tested and the results were not consistent and accurate?

Yes it was tested and found incorrect. If you really knew anything about the history of GR you'd know this. One of the key tests of GR was that it gave a correct result for the precession of the perihelion of mercury whereas Newtonian gravitation gave incorrect.

Wow, your knowledge is unbelievable, Harry. You just offered something that was well know decades ago. LOL.

And, in this thread you applaud General Relativity for supplanting Newtonian Gravity for accuracy and proof, yet in another thread, you say something is wrong with GR, but just can't seem to explain it.

Don't you feel just a bit stupid having just said "Really? You mean it was tested and the results were not consistent and accurate?" !

Sorry, but I couldn't show my laughing at you while saying it. It's very old news, Harry.

Don't lie thicko - just read the post history you lying slime ball:

Harry: How do they know this is a law?
Dunce: Because it's testable.
Harry: But being testable isn't the same thing as being a law!
Dunce: Ah, your lack of reading comprehension skills is at it again.
Harry: Netwon's theory is testable and falsely claimed to be a universal law, but we now know it isn't.
Dunce: Really? You mean it was tested and the results were not consistent and accurate?
Harry: Yes it was tested and found incorrect.
Dunce: Wow, your knowledge is unbelievable, Harry. You just offered something that was well know decades ago. LOL.

Come on bozo, anyone can see from reading that dialog who the real dummy is here - see how no one's defending you?

Thickhead.
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 13,644
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/1/2017 7:19:04 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 1/1/2017 6:58:48 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 1/1/2017 5:08:11 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 1/1/2017 4:52:39 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 1/1/2017 4:43:35 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 1/1/2017 4:36:56 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 1/1/2017 4:31:58 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 1/1/2017 4:00:43 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 1/1/2017 3:50:06 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 1/1/2017 3:44:39 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 1/1/2017 3:23:12 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 12/31/2016 8:42:40 PM, janesix wrote:
I don't understand. How do they know this is a law? How do they know this is true everywhere in the universe? What is the proof?

It's really quite simple, potential energy (in Joules) gets transformed to kinetic energy, and in any given closed system, that energy will remain the same.

That all fine n dandy but you never answered any of the questions (as usual), here they are again for you separated out to make it a bit easier for you:

1. How do they know this is a law?

Because it's testable.

But being testable isn't the same thing as being a law!

Ah, your lack of reading comprehension skills is at it again.

Netwon's theory is testable and falsely claimed to be a universal law, but we now know it isn't.

Really? You mean it was tested and the results were not consistent and accurate?

Yes it was tested and found incorrect. If you really knew anything about the history of GR you'd know this. One of the key tests of GR was that it gave a correct result for the precession of the perihelion of mercury whereas Newtonian gravitation gave incorrect.

Wow, your knowledge is unbelievable, Harry. You just offered something that was well know decades ago. LOL.

And, in this thread you applaud General Relativity for supplanting Newtonian Gravity for accuracy and proof, yet in another thread, you say something is wrong with GR, but just can't seem to explain it.

Don't you feel just a bit stupid having just said "Really? You mean it was tested and the results were not consistent and accurate?" !

Sorry, but I couldn't show my laughing at you while saying it. It's very old news, Harry.

Don't lie thicko - just read the post history you lying slime ball:

Harry: How do they know this is a law?
Dunce: Because it's testable.
Harry: But being testable isn't the same thing as being a law!
Dunce: Ah, your lack of reading comprehension skills is at it again.
Harry: Netwon's theory is testable and falsely claimed to be a universal law, but we now know it isn't.
Dunce: Really? You mean it was tested and the results were not consistent and accurate?
Harry: Yes it was tested and found incorrect.
Dunce: Wow, your knowledge is unbelievable, Harry. You just offered something that was well know decades ago. LOL.

Come on bozo, anyone can see from reading that dialog who the real dummy is here - see how no one's defending you?

Thickhead.

Poor Harry, he now has to resort to pointing out others not chiming in to defend me. Classic fallacy, Harry. Hilarious. Or should I say, Harrylarious!
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
There would be peace if you obeyed us.~Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
Dirty.Harry
Posts: 1,753
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/2/2017 3:51:04 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 1/1/2017 7:19:04 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 1/1/2017 6:58:48 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 1/1/2017 5:08:11 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 1/1/2017 4:52:39 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 1/1/2017 4:43:35 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 1/1/2017 4:36:56 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 1/1/2017 4:31:58 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 1/1/2017 4:00:43 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 1/1/2017 3:50:06 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 1/1/2017 3:44:39 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 1/1/2017 3:23:12 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 12/31/2016 8:42:40 PM, janesix wrote:
I don't understand. How do they know this is a law? How do they know this is true everywhere in the universe? What is the proof?

It's really quite simple, potential energy (in Joules) gets transformed to kinetic energy, and in any given closed system, that energy will remain the same.

That all fine n dandy but you never answered any of the questions (as usual), here they are again for you separated out to make it a bit easier for you:

1. How do they know this is a law?

Because it's testable.

But being testable isn't the same thing as being a law!

Ah, your lack of reading comprehension skills is at it again.

Netwon's theory is testable and falsely claimed to be a universal law, but we now know it isn't.

Really? You mean it was tested and the results were not consistent and accurate?

Yes it was tested and found incorrect. If you really knew anything about the history of GR you'd know this. One of the key tests of GR was that it gave a correct result for the precession of the perihelion of mercury whereas Newtonian gravitation gave incorrect.

Wow, your knowledge is unbelievable, Harry. You just offered something that was well know decades ago. LOL.

And, in this thread you applaud General Relativity for supplanting Newtonian Gravity for accuracy and proof, yet in another thread, you say something is wrong with GR, but just can't seem to explain it.

Don't you feel just a bit stupid having just said "Really? You mean it was tested and the results were not consistent and accurate?" !

Sorry, but I couldn't show my laughing at you while saying it. It's very old news, Harry.

Don't lie thicko - just read the post history you lying slime ball:

Harry: How do they know this is a law?
Dunce: Because it's testable.
Harry: But being testable isn't the same thing as being a law!
Dunce: Ah, your lack of reading comprehension skills is at it again.
Harry: Netwon's theory is testable and falsely claimed to be a universal law, but we now know it isn't.
Dunce: Really? You mean it was tested and the results were not consistent and accurate?
Harry: Yes it was tested and found incorrect.
Dunce: Wow, your knowledge is unbelievable, Harry. You just offered something that was well know decades ago. LOL.

Come on bozo, anyone can see from reading that dialog who the real dummy is here - see how no one's defending you?

Thickhead.

Poor Harry, he now has to resort to pointing out others not chiming in to defend me. Classic fallacy, Harry. Hilarious. Or should I say, Harrylarious!

No, you should say "Sorry" to the forum for trolling and wasting everyone's time by trying to ruin threads, go and start a thread of your own - if you know how to that is.
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 13,644
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/2/2017 4:28:30 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 1/2/2017 3:51:04 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 1/1/2017 7:19:04 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 1/1/2017 6:58:48 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 1/1/2017 5:08:11 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 1/1/2017 4:52:39 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 1/1/2017 4:43:35 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 1/1/2017 4:36:56 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 1/1/2017 4:31:58 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 1/1/2017 4:00:43 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 1/1/2017 3:50:06 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 1/1/2017 3:44:39 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 1/1/2017 3:23:12 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 12/31/2016 8:42:40 PM, janesix wrote:
I don't understand. How do they know this is a law? How do they know this is true everywhere in the universe? What is the proof?

It's really quite simple, potential energy (in Joules) gets transformed to kinetic energy, and in any given closed system, that energy will remain the same.

That all fine n dandy but you never answered any of the questions (as usual), here they are again for you separated out to make it a bit easier for you:

1. How do they know this is a law?

Because it's testable.

But being testable isn't the same thing as being a law!

Ah, your lack of reading comprehension skills is at it again.

Netwon's theory is testable and falsely claimed to be a universal law, but we now know it isn't.

Really? You mean it was tested and the results were not consistent and accurate?

Yes it was tested and found incorrect. If you really knew anything about the history of GR you'd know this. One of the key tests of GR was that it gave a correct result for the precession of the perihelion of mercury whereas Newtonian gravitation gave incorrect.

Wow, your knowledge is unbelievable, Harry. You just offered something that was well know decades ago. LOL.

And, in this thread you applaud General Relativity for supplanting Newtonian Gravity for accuracy and proof, yet in another thread, you say something is wrong with GR, but just can't seem to explain it.

Don't you feel just a bit stupid having just said "Really? You mean it was tested and the results were not consistent and accurate?" !

Sorry, but I couldn't show my laughing at you while saying it. It's very old news, Harry.

Don't lie thicko - just read the post history you lying slime ball:

Harry: How do they know this is a law?
Dunce: Because it's testable.
Harry: But being testable isn't the same thing as being a law!
Dunce: Ah, your lack of reading comprehension skills is at it again.
Harry: Netwon's theory is testable and falsely claimed to be a universal law, but we now know it isn't.
Dunce: Really? You mean it was tested and the results were not consistent and accurate?
Harry: Yes it was tested and found incorrect.
Dunce: Wow, your knowledge is unbelievable, Harry. You just offered something that was well know decades ago. LOL.

Come on bozo, anyone can see from reading that dialog who the real dummy is here - see how no one's defending you?

Thickhead.

Poor Harry, he now has to resort to pointing out others not chiming in to defend me. Classic fallacy, Harry. Hilarious. Or should I say, Harrylarious!

No, you should say "Sorry" to the forum for trolling and wasting everyone's time by trying to ruin threads, go and start a thread of your own - if you know how to that is.

Yet, I answered relevant questions, you did not.

But, thanks for saying sorry to the forum for trolling, but I'm sure you'll continue.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
There would be peace if you obeyed us.~Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
Annnaxim
Posts: 371
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/4/2017 9:06:10 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 1/1/2017 1:24:07 PM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
Oh for Pete's sake.
Religious heretics stopped being burned at the stake 250 years ago.
The first Novel prize was less than half that that many years ago.
Hardly comparable.
Correct!

Martin Luther, one of the most famous Christian heretics of all time, was recognized, by protestants, as a great reformer.

Don't forget that Luther was also an extreme Jew-hater. He believed, that the Jews were responsible for the killing Christ.

Saint Albert the great (1206-1280) is the patron saint of scientists.

That's hard to believe since the term "scientist" wasn't introduced until well into the mid 1800s.
Besides... scientists don't need patron saints. LOL

Roger Bacon, credited with being one of the earliest advocates of the modern Scientific Method, was a Catholic friar. A man of the church, credited with the formulation of the Scientific Method - imagine that.
Ditto... see above.

Pope Clement was one of his greatest supporters.
Ditto... see above.
keithprosser
Posts: 2,927
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/4/2017 10:51:28 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 1/4/2017 9:06:10 AM, Annnaxim wrote:
Saint Albert the great (1206-1280) is the patron saint of scientists.

That's hard to believe since the term "scientist" wasn't introduced until well into the mid 1800s.
Besides... scientists don't need patron saints. LOL

There is a patron saint for everything - even Lidwina, patron saint of ice skaters.
https://en.wikipedia.org...

There is probably a patron saint of patron saints.
chui
Posts: 538
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/4/2017 11:17:39 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 12/31/2016 8:42:40 PM, janesix wrote:
I don't understand. How do they know this is a law? How do they know this is true everywhere in the universe? What is the proof?

To understand this it is necessary to know that energy is the ability to do work and that through work energy is transferred.

Work is defined as the amount of transferred energy and is given by the equation: W= F x d
Where F is force and d is distance moved by the point of application of the force.

When two objects interact, eg collide, there is a transfer of energy. Is the total energy of the two objects the same as before the collision? To answer this question we need to find the change in energy of both and see if the total change is zero ie what one losses the other gains.

Lets say that during the collision the objects move a distance d while still in contact.

So energy change for object one is: W1 = F1 x d
and energy change for object two is: W2 = F2 x d
F1 and F2 and the force on each object due to being hit by the other object.

Now F1=-F2 by Newton's third law
So W1=-W2
Therefore W1 + W2 = 0
Therefore the change in total energy is 0 and energy is conserved. QED
Let's hope "the truth is out there" cos there is bugger all round here.
Welfare-Worker
Posts: 1,540
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/4/2017 2:24:41 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 1/4/2017 9:06:10 AM, Annnaxim wrote:
At 1/1/2017 1:24:07 PM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
Oh for Pete's sake.
Religious heretics stopped being burned at the stake 250 years ago.
The first Novel prize was less than half that that many years ago.
Hardly comparable.
Correct!

Martin Luther, one of the most famous Christian heretics of all time, was recognized, by protestants, as a great reformer.

Don't forget that Luther was also an extreme Jew-hater. He believed, that the Jews were responsible for the killing Christ.

And how is this relevant to anything?
If Jews were not responsible for the killing of Christ, who was?
Would you claim that bigots are not capable of reforming institutions?
Maybe this is simply an ad hominem argument.
Wouldn't it be nice if he were the only influential person in the history of the world who was a Jew hater.
At least we can be sure he was not guilty of scientific racism. Easy to guess where that came from.

Saint Albert the great (1206-1280) is the patron saint of scientists.

That's hard to believe since the term "scientist" wasn't introduced until well into the mid 1800s.
Besides... scientists don't need patron saints. LOL

A name for a thing, and the thing itself are not the same.
"A rose by any other name............."
I was probably the first on this board to point out that it was "natural philosophers" who were doing the work of Science before the late 1800s.
You now seem to argue that no one was doing the work of Science, before they were named "scientist". That claim would be foolish.
As to whether or not certain groups of persons "needed" a patron saint, I would expect many natural philosophers would disagree with you. You do not have the right to decide for them.

Roger Bacon, credited with being one of the earliest advocates of the modern Scientific Method, was a Catholic friar. A man of the church, credited with the formulation of the Scientific Method - imagine that.
Ditto... see above.
What ditto?
You now claim there was no scientific method until the late 1800s?
Well, ditto, see above.


Pope Clement was one of his greatest supporters.
Ditto... see above.

So you have some strange graphic stuttering problem.
My sympathies
v3nesl
Posts: 4,998
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/4/2017 4:18:47 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 12/31/2016 8:42:40 PM, janesix wrote:
I don't understand. How do they know this is a law? How do they know this is true everywhere in the universe? What is the proof?

Yeah - a reminder that the first science is philosophy. Without a philosophy you can't do science. So for me, the important question here is: Why should I trust my instincts? What philosophy is consistent with humans having not only practical, but abstract instincts that are reliable?
This space for rent.