- #71
Dale
Mentor
- 35,235
- 13,457
Then prove me wrong by showing me how you can use the scientific method to answer questions of some other form.CosmicVoyager said:I disagree that it is a common misunderstanding.
Then prove me wrong by showing me how you can use the scientific method to answer questions of some other form.CosmicVoyager said:I disagree that it is a common misunderstanding.
DaleSpam said:Then prove me wrong by showing me how you can use the scientific method to answer questions of some other form.
That is fine. If you or pip1974 can re-phrase the question into that form then I would heartily agree that the question is scientific.CosmicVoyager said:I think the problem may be that the people I am referring to are claiming that questions are not scientific when they are. That is, that the answer could be a "mathematical model X correctly predicting the observation Y in experiment Z to within experimental error", but that current equations already do that.
What you are suggesting here is that people use a more complicated mathematical model than is necessary to explain the data. I do not, in principle, have any problem with that. It does violate Occham's razor, but it is not contrary to the scientific method.CosmicVoyager said:In other words, there is a mechanism inside the ball, which we could develop a mathematical model for that would predict observations, but because a model already exists that predicts without a complete description of all structure, they have no interest in doing so. That is sufficient for practical applications, but people want to fully understand the structure of the universe.
Excellent advice.CosmicVoyager said:Advice to people asking question: May contributors here have an allergic reaction to the word "why". Instead say something such as "How is it that...". I have discovered that by actually simply avoiding using the word "why" while still asking essentially the same question, you get better responses, and avoid the negative reponses to "why" that we are so annoyed with.
DaleSpam said:TWhat you are suggesting here is that people use a more complicated mathematical model than is necessary to explain the data. I do not, in principle, have any problem with that. It does violate Occham's razor, but it is not contrary to the scientific method.
You obviously don't have any four-year-old kids.CosmicVoyager said:And I don't think there will be an infinite regression of why questions.
I believe that my responses have "properly contextualized" the question that I responded to:nitsuj said:It seems the issue is the one answering cannot (i hope this is a word) contextualize a response.
The above question is not akin to your "what makes the sun hot" vs "why is the sun hot" example. I think that you are the one having trouble "properly contextualizing" the question. He is specifically rejecting answers of the form that science can provide. If you disagree then kindly re-phrase the question in the form I have mentioned above, because I am obviously too stupid to see the rephrasing which is so clear to you.pip1974 said:we can explain and describe almost everything we can observe. But what's missing is the 'why' bit.
CosmicVoyager said:I anticipated bringing up Occam's razor, and almost included that. LOL I don't think it is the simplest answer because questions still remain. Why is it moving that way? What is inside the ball? And I don't think there will be an infinite regression of why questions. I think a point can be reached where it finally all makes sense. Where the picture is complete. Where apparent contradictions are resolved rather than just being adjusted for.
nitsuj said:Calrid It's not simply semantics, and it is really important that people don't piss on other people's pursuit of "why" something is simply because an f-ing graph doesn't translate to their accepting it as the answer "why".
I quoted it directly in post 77, to which you were responding. I re-post it here again for your convenience.nitsuj said:I don't know what the question was but if "He is specifically rejecting answers of the form that science can provide" that should help you "contextualize" your response, no?
Note, that you can click on the little arrow to be taken back to the post and see it in context.pip1974 said:we can explain and describe almost everything we can observe. But what's missing is the 'why' bit.
That is a good example. What would your answer be to the question "Why is the sky blue?" And I will remind you of your own comment which sparked this debate:pip1974 said:If someone asked me why the sky is blue, I would be able to understand their question and give them an answer based on my knowledge of science.
So by your own criteria that we are discussing, an explanation and a description (i.e. a mathematical model) is not sufficient to answer "why".pip1974 said:we can explain and describe almost everything we can observe. But what's missing is the 'why' bit.
DaleSpam said:This is a very common misunderstanding. Science is fundamentally incapable of addressing "why" questions. Science can only answer questions of the following form: "Does the mathematical model X correctly predict the observation Y in experiment Z to within experimental error?". Even if the answer is "yes" the scientific method does not and cannot answer the question "why" the model works.
CosmicVoyager said:[..] They want to know about the mechanism inside. And if you can come up with a design of the mechanism that works, then it will also be accurately predicting observations. [..]
CosmicVoyager said:I am asking why there is a "universal velocity c."
Why is there a c? Why is there a speed limit to the universe? Why is there a limit to how quickly a cause can follow an effect at distance? Why is there a "causality constant"?
What is(are) the limiting factor(s) that make it what is? The speed limit is a consequence of what? Is what we know to be the speed limit the result of measurements? Or is it a logical problem that can be figured out in a thought experiment?
GrayGhost said:CosmicVoyager,
All very good questions :)
To be frank, no one (anywhere) has answered these questions to date in any satisfactory way. When you do, a nobel prize sits begging.
One fellow here brought up geometry as a fundamental root of this. That's a reasonable and fundamental statement I suppose, but it doesn't answer the question.
Here's my opinion on the matter ...
Relativity theory suggests we all travel thru the continuum at the equivalent of c. This suggests that what we measure as "the relative motion between material entity" is the result of unparallel speed-c vlocities thru the continuum. If parallel, then they are at rest with each other.
The next questions is this ... Why would we travel thru spacetime at c?
I would suggest that the answer here may relate to "spacetime expansion". It could be that light does not move at all, that it only appears to move, because we move thru spacetime at c. This is no different than each of 2 inertial starships assuming themself the stationary and the other in motion, and both being correct. It's all relative. Anywho, food for thought.
GrayGhost
nitsuj said:If time stops at C, and space is time, then is it not true at C you are in the same space as you were previously so nothing changes, ie no time?
It makes sense to me. Objects cannot exist in the same space another object occupies, if it could wouldn't that mean there is no time between them?.
CosmicVoyager said:...In other words, there is a mechanism inside the ball, which we could develop a mathematical model for that would predict observations, but because a model already exists that predicts without a complete description of all structure, they have no interest in doing so. That is sufficient for practical applications, but people want to fully understand the structure of the universe.
D'oh! I quoted it a half-dozen times and never noticed that it wasn't actually a question.nitsuj said:I didn't recognized it as a question because it is not a...nvm.
DaleSpam said:
Why on Earth would you say that? He came up with an amazingly simple mathematical model that is still in use more than 3 centuries later due to its simplicity and accuracy.harrylin said:For example, if you were right, Newton's work on mechanics was a failure*.
CosmicVoyager said:@bobc2
I should have replied the first time to say thanks and that I find it difficult to convert the graph into visualizing what is happening in 3D. What I would like to see is an animation of a photon in a 3D grid, or an illustration with 2D representing 3D and 3D representing time.
CosmicVoyager said:You seem to be saying the universe is changing shape, which it obviously cannot be doing since it would require the universe to simultaneously have different shapes for every particle moving at a different speed. That is a direct contradiction.
bobc2 said:Let me think about that and see if I can figure out a way to do a better job of communicating.
bobc2 said:I think I fully agree with you. But, I must be cardful that we are talking about the same universe. When I think of the universe not changing shape, I'm picturing the 4-dimensional universe. But, with the so-called "block universe" model the observers experience a continuous sequence of new cross-sections of the 4-dimensional universe. And this does mean that observers moving at different speeds would, at any instant of time, be "living" in different 3-D universes. And that would certainly be contradictory if it were not for a model that feature a 4-dimensional universe populated with 4-dimensional objects (including the 4-dimensional bodies of the observers)..
The concept of a universal speed limit, c, is a fundamental principle in physics known as the speed of light. It states that the speed of light in a vacuum is constant and is the maximum speed at which all matter and information can travel.
The speed of light being a universal speed limit has significant implications in the laws of physics. It means that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light, and it is a fundamental limit for the transfer of energy and information in the universe.
The speed of light was first measured by Danish astronomer Ole Rømer in the 17th century using observations of the moons of Jupiter. Later, in the 19th century, scientists such as James Clerk Maxwell and Albert Michelson conducted experiments that confirmed the speed of light as a constant and universal speed limit.
The speed of light, c, is a fundamental physical constant and is defined as 299,792,458 meters per second. This value is derived from the relationship between the electric and magnetic properties of a vacuum, and it is a result of the laws of electromagnetism.
According to the current understanding of physics, the speed of light cannot be exceeded. As an object approaches the speed of light, its mass increases, and the amount of energy required to accelerate it further becomes infinite. Additionally, as an object approaches the speed of light, time and space become distorted, making it impossible to exceed the speed of light.