Is the Scientific Method really Scientific?

[Polymath257]

I really don't want to get in it with you again, it was exhausting on that other post to have 6 people all at once challenging me! I am one person against many, and basically it had deteriorated in trading barbs! If you are trying to start that up again, I don't want any part of it

Then don't enter into the debate. if you show your ignorance, it will be pointed out to you.

I notice you didn't address anything I actually wrote. Hmmm?

 

[Polymath257]

I had hoped that I could keep evolution out of this discussion and just talk about how science works

Um, *you* were the one that brought up evolution. I responded originally to your note about mathematics being undeniable. I pointed out that the applicability of a mathematical model is something that needs to be tested scientifically; that the math may not apply to any given situation. That *is* a discussion about how science works.

 

[jonathan180iq]

"Publishing" your work makes it available for peer review. This is one part of the Scientific method and I'll show you how it works...

The earth's continental plates fit together perfectly if you could remove all of the oceans.

And?

But this only works on a much smaller planet.

The surface of a planet covers the surface of a planet, regardless of size...
Interestingly enough even Mars, a much smaller planet, is subject to the very tectonic movements that you are claiming don't occur in nature.

All of the oceanic plates are no older than 200 million years, according to our currently flawed dating methods.

The Oceanic plates are younger because of the subduction that you claim isn't happening... They're being renewed much more often.

And all of the continental crusts are much older.

Again, this is because of volcanic renewal on the ocean floors and recycling through subduction which you say isn't occurring.

This implies that the earth once existed without oceans, and was much smaller.

While this is a true statement, it is not because of any implication that you've brought forth. It's part of the known process of planetary accretion:

Accretion (astrophysics) - Wikipedia

The earth is expanding, just as the universe is expanding.

Do you have any data to substantiate this claim? (I imagine that you do not, since it's not true...)

NASA - NASA Research Confirms it’s a Small World, After All

You're referencing an old-world understanding of geology that has been long replaced with more accurate information. It made sense before we knew about tectonic subduction. Now, however, it's simply a harbinger of ignorance and misinformation.

We know that there is insufficient mass being added to the earth to cause this expansion of the size of the earth. It is not being caused by meteors. It is not the result of photons bombarding our planet being transformed to mass. It is not about mass.

You're right - it's not about mass - but for a very different reason; it's because the Earth isn't actually expanding...

The earth is growing because there is a direct correlation to the density of the universe and everything in it.

No, it's not.

I have no proof, because this is my hypothesis.

The first part of this sentence should tell you everything you need to know about your opinion on Tectonic subduction.

I have not tested it.

Again, that should mean something to you...
What that means should not be "I'm totally right! Modern science is a sham!"

I'm just trying to make sense of the obvious, and that requires setting aside the established theory of tectonic plate subduction, for which there is no evidence.

What Is a Subduction Zone?
Subduction - Wikipedia
BBC Earth - Plate boundaries cause earthquakes and volcanoes
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v535/n7610/full/nature17992.html
Subduction: The Sinking of Tectonic Plates
Orogeny - Wikipedia
https://www.exploratorium.edu/faultline/basics/faults.html

 

[Jenny Collins]

I commented on a post and gave an informed answer, therefore I didn't enter a debate being ignorant! However people were trying to get into it deeper with me and I explained what I could! They entered into a debate with me and wouldn't buzz off and much of what they were saying was just drivel and insults! Not even anything about evolution, just ad hominen attacks

Then don't enter into the debate. if you show your ignorance, it will be pointed out to you.

I notice you didn't address anything I actually wrote. Hmmm?[/QUOT

 

[Polymath257]

So diddly squat then

Why would you say that? Certainly Hawking and Tyson contributed to actual science. Hawking has a highly respected position at Cambridge for a reason: he did very, very good physics. Tyson's study of supernovas is certainly good science. I am less able to judge the work of Dawkins, but certainly Hawking and Tyson are respectable as scientists as distinct from their work popularizing science.

 

[Polymath257]

I commented on a post and gave an informed answer, therefore I didn't enter a debate being ignorant! However people were trying to get into it deeper with me and I explained what I could! They entered into a debate with me and wouldn't buzz off and much of what they were saying was just drivel and insults! Not even anything about evolution, just ad hominen attacks

Not on *this* thread. On this thread, you made a comment to which I replied, then you went off about how people challenge your position and brought evolution into the mix.

Sorry, but if you give answers that are known to be wrong, you will be challenged. if you don't like that, don't give wrong answers. That may mean getting into things 'deeper' than you have before.

 

[Jenny Collins]

I commented on a post and gave an informed answer, therefore I didn't enter a debate being ignorant! However people were trying to get into it deeper with me and I explained what I could! They entered into a debate with me and wouldn't buzz off and much of what they were saying was just drivel and insults! Not even anything about evolution, just ad hominen attacks

Um, *you* were the one that brought up evolution. I responded originally to your note about mathematics being undeniable. I pointed out that the applicability of a mathematical model is something that needs to be tested scientifically; that the math may not apply to any given situation. That *is* a discussion about how science works.

No, I am talking about the OTHER post! Somebody, possibly you, came to my comment and started with me! I explained how I will not get in over my head, and then other people came along and some started insulting me, and claiming that I was dumb! If I have something that I can add to a discussion I will, if I can't take it further, I will humbly admit it! And when I explained that people started bashing me and taking my words out of context and twisting things! They would quote me and put their own spin on it! I come to sites like this for pure reasons, with good motives! I start out wanting to have respectful discussion and it always ends up being a shark attack against me! And nobody ever feels badly about it, although I do at times have defenders who were not a part of the attacks! On one site an atheist came along and told the others to shut up and shared a link of a speech by Philip Plait telling people "Don't be a *&^+" a word that means jerk!

 

[Jenny Collins]

Not on *this* thread. On this thread, you made a comment to which I replied, then you went off about how people challenge your position and brought evolution into the mix.

Sorry, but if you give answers that are known to be wrong, you will be challenged. if you don't like that, don't give wrong answers. That may mean getting into things 'deeper' than you have before.

If you are through, will you move on?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Why would you say that? Certainly Hawking and Tyson contributed to actual science. Hawking has a highly respected position at Cambridge for a reason: he did very, very good physics. Tyson's study of supernovas is certainly good science. I am less able to judge the work of Dawkins, but certainly Hawking and Tyson are respectable as scientists as distinct from their work popularizing science.

what practical contribution to science did Hawking ever make? specifically?

 

[Revoltingest]

what practical contribution to science did Hawking ever make? specifically?

I keep my black holes in an airtight plastic bag, now that I know (thanx to Steve) that they evaporate.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

I keep my black holes in an airtight plastic bag, now that I know (thanx to Steve) that they evaporate.

Hawking radiation has never been verified to exist beyond his imagination, just like Big Crunch and multiverses

I've left mine out in the sun all day, and I can assure you they are fresh as daisies!

 

[Revoltingest]

Hawking radiation has never been verified to exist beyond his imagination.

I've left mine out in the sun all day, and I can assure you they are fresh as daisies!

It takes a long time for them to evaporate though.
One day is too little time to judge.
But before the plastic bag trick, I used to have to
vacuum up Hawking radiation around the house.

Other than this, it's difficult to decide what scientific advancements are the most practical.
GR is great for time measurement, GPS navigation, & piloting spacecraft.
QM is great for electronics, & computing.
Genetics is useful in medicine, crime fighting & history.
I'm too ignorant to give a comprehensive picture.

 

[leibowde84]

Hawking radiation has never been verified to exist beyond his imagination, just like Big Crunch and multiverses

I've left mine out in the sun all day, and I can assure you they are fresh as daisies!

He's a theoretical physicist, just like einstein. He supports his theory with math. Our current inability to prove his theories in the way you are suggesting doesn't make his discovery any less significant.

 

[Polymath257]

what practical contribution to science did Hawking ever make? specifically?

He didn't contribute to technology, if that's what you mean. But he did contribute massively to our understanding of general relativity and quantum mechanics.

 

[Polymath257]

In addition to Hawking radiation (still to be demonstrated), Hawking showed that singularities are inevitable in certain situations in general relativity, That *is* a contribution to physics.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

It takes a long time for them to evaporate though.
One day is too little time to judge.
But before the plastic bag trick, I used to have to
vacuum up Hawking radiation around the house.

Well he has a deal with the vacuum manufacturers of course, I smell something fishy

 

[Guy Threepwood]

In addition to Hawking radiation (still to be demonstrated), Hawking showed that singularities are inevitable in certain situations in general relativity, That *is* a contribution to physics.

so was the big crunch before it was debunked. It's not very difficult to make your theory fit the current math- when it is unencumbered by any actual real life observation

 

[Revoltingest]

so was the big crunch before it was debunked. It's not very difficult to make your theory fit the current math- when it is unencumbered by any actual real life observation

Think how fortunate we are that theories are regularly debunked & replaced.
Why?
It's a consequence of our observations showing the universe is more complex
than we thought. This is fascinating....which provides not just entertainment
to us all, but has the practical value of keeping scientists sharp & engaged.

 

[leibowde84]

so was the big crunch before it was debunked. It's not very difficult to make your theory fit the current math- when it is unencumbered by any actual real life observation

Can you provide support for your claim that the Big Crunch hypothesis was debunked?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Can you provide support for your claim that the Big Crunch hypothesis was debunked?

By supernova measurements allowing a more accurate benchmark for distances and rates of expansion, Hawking himself acknowledges this- though he was one of the slowest to come around