When does theory become fact?

[shawn001]

Did you watch the episode you need a high powered laser. Better yet Please calculate for me the location right now, I'm in west caldwell, NJ and I have a laser pointer. Is there a simple devise I can use to catch the bounce back.

Yes you do and its also very tricky. Your laser pointer won't work, although some of its photons would hit the moon.


What Neil & Buzz Left on the Moon

"Ringed by footprints, sitting in the moondust, lies a 2-foot wide panel studded with 100 mirrors pointing at Earth: the "lunar laser ranging retroreflector array." Apollo 11 astronauts Buzz Aldrin and Neil Armstrong put it there on July 21, 1969, about an hour before the end of their final moonwalk. Thirty-five years later, it's the only Apollo science experiment still running."
"
Here's how it works: A laser pulse shoots out of a telescope on Earth, crosses the Earth-moon divide, and hits the array. Because the mirrors are "corner-cube reflectors," they send the pulse straight back where it came from. "It's like hitting a ball into the corner of a squash court," explains Alley. Back on Earth, telescopes intercept the returning pulse--"usually just a single photon," he marvels.
http://science.nasa.gov/mailing-lists/subscribe/
The round-trip travel time pinpoints the moon's distance with staggering precision: better than a few centimeters out of 385,000 km, typically.
Targeting the mirrors and catching their faint reflections is a challenge, but astronomers have been doing it for 35 years. A key observing site is the McDonald Observatory in Texas where a 0.7 meter telescope regularly pings reflectors in the Sea of Tranquility (Apollo 11), at Fra Mauro (Apollo 14) and Hadley Rille (Apollo 15), and, sometimes, in the Sea of Serenity. There's a set of mirrors there onboard the parked Soviet Lunokhud 2 moon rover--maybe thecoolest-looking robot ever built.

In this way, for decades, researchers have carefully traced the moon's orbit, and they've learned some remarkable things, among them:

(1) The moon is spiraling away from Earth at a rate of 3.8 cm per year. Why? Earth's ocean tides are responsible.

(2) The moon probably has a liquid core.

(3) The universal force of gravity is very stable. Newton's gravitational constant G has changed less than 1 part in 100-billion since the laser experiments began.

What Neil & Buzz Left on the Moon - NASA Science

 

[bobhikes]

"No its not saying I want a layman doing heart surgery on me. Its saying I want some one else to verify the drug before the drug company tests it on me"

That is WHY there is peer review. It is no easy process for sure.

"Personally I believe we went to the moon"

Thats good and we did. I am involved with people who went.

I believe were in the space station but I can't verify it.

Yes you can, first you can go to their site and track it and watch it fly over.

ISSTracker ~ Real-Time Location Tracking of the International Space Station

You can also get one of these and it will tell you when it flies over and light up on your desk.

ISS Above | The International Space Station Above YOU TODAY

"Everything that is presented to me is presented through NASA. Where is the independent verification."

Of what? The space Station, I just told you and the moon there is lots of info. But what else. We went to Titan? We landed on Mars?

Other countries work with NASA and tons of private companies as well and hundreds of thousands of researchers.

"But How do you verify you hit a mirror left on the moon."

Because we have been doing it since the 1969 and you can check it out. Its measuring how fast the moon is moving away from us. Someday Earth won't have a moon, of course by then the sun will go red giant, so we have about 5 billion years on that one.
"Can you do the calculations, can you build the laser, do you know what results "

I don't have to they did it already. Yes you can build a laser and yes you can do the calculations, but getting a mirror on the moon personally would be costly.

What I read is that you have a lot of faith in science. You have never verified anything yourself. You just let history, probably scientific journals(you didn't mention any I'm assuming) and government websites inform you of all the valuable scientific achievements. You don't have to verify scientists are completely trustworthy, I mean they don't get paid to succeed.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Theories do not become facts - theories explain the facts. In science theory is the ultimate graduation point of a body of knowledge, there is nothing above it.

1) Theories are ideally predictive to the extent that they are more or less distinct from a scientific field. I can easily explain data with reference to religion and magic. And competing scientific theories are competing because they explain phenomena differently. What settles it (ideally) is the predictive power of a theory. If my explanation of X phenomenon can predict Y and Y happens, it lends credence to my theory. In fact, the reliance on explanatory experimental designs is a serious deficit in many areas of the social sciences (and elsewhere). See e.g.,
Taagepera, R. (2008). Making Social Sciences More Scientific: The Need for Predictive Models. Oxford University Press.
2) There isn't any status "theory" that makes Svensmark's theory of cosmoloclimatology (GRCs as a significant forcing via cloud-seeding) or Hudson's "Word Grammar" theory of language somehow not theories, but they are both highly contested while special relativity is not.
3) There really isn't a single theory of evolution, because it is more like the "ultimate graduation point of a body of knowledge" as it is a coherent framework with many theories and spread across disciplines that is so successful and has so much evidence for it that it is the bases for other fields.

 

[Bunyip]

Did you watch the episode you need a high powered laser. Better yet Please calculate for me the location right now, I'm in west caldwell, NJ and I have a laser pointer. Is there a simple devise I can use to catch the bounce back.

Yes Bob, you need a high power laser - like most universities and many surveyors have. And no I am not going to calculate the coordinates of the mirror for you right now - if you were interested honestly you would just look it up. The coordinates do not change, they are the same as they ever were.

 

[Bunyip]

1) Theories are ideally predictive to the extent that they are more or less distinct from a scientific field. I can easily explain data with reference to religion and magic. And competing scientific theories are competing because they explain phenomena differently. What settles it (ideally) is the predictive power of a theory. If my explanation of X phenomenon can predict Y and Y happens, it lends credence to my theory. In fact, the reliance on explanatory experimental designs is a serious deficit in many areas of the social sciences (and elsewhere). See e.g.,
Taagepera, R. (2008). Making Social Sciences More Scientific: The Need for Predictive Models. Oxford University Press.
2) There isn't any status "theory" that makes Svensmark's theory of cosmoloclimatology (GRCs as a significant forcing via cloud-seeding) or Hudson's "Word Grammar" theory of language somehow not theories, but they are both highly contested while special relativity is not.
3) There really isn't a single theory of evolution, because it is more like the "ultimate graduation point of a body of knowledge" as it is a coherent framework with many theories and spread across disciplines that is so successful and has so much evidence for it that it is the bases for other fields.

No idea what point you are trying to make. Nor does any of that refute, engage with or contribute to what I said in the comment you are responding to in any way. You seem to just delight in posting these pointless off topic lectures at me - why, I have no idea, but could care less.

 

[bobhikes]

Yes Bob, you need a high power laser - like most universities and many surveyors have. And no I am not going to calculate the coordinates of the mirror for you right now - if you were interested honestly you would just look it up. The coordinates do not change, they are the same as they ever were.

So the moon rotates on its axis and rotates around the earth yet the coordinates to hit the mirror remain the same. Fortunately I know you are wrong otherwise I would really doubt science but it also shows me you use faith for science.

Just so you know they lost the position of one of the 3 mirror arrays on the moon and it took them years to find it again.

 

[Bunyip]

So the moon rotates on its axis and rotates around the earth yet the coordinates to hit the mirror remain the same. Fortunately I know you are wrong otherwise I would really doubt science but it also shows me you use faith for science.

The coordinates on the map of the moon Bob, they do not change.

Just so you know they lost the position of one of the 3 mirror arrays on the moon and it took them years to find it again.

But they found it.

 

[shawn001]

What I read is that you have a lot of faith in science. You have never verified anything yourself. You just let history, probably scientific journals(you didn't mention any I'm assuming) and government websites inform you of all the valuable scientific achievements. You don't have to verify scientists are completely trustworthy, I mean they don't get paid to succeed.

"What I read is that you have a lot of faith in science."

No faith is not a part of real science.

"You have never verified anything yourself."

Wrong again.

I verify things all the time. I have also spent 40 some years studying cosmology and astronomy and have learned aq little, lke where carbon come from, which you never answered so I wil;l tell you. A process called Nucleosynthesis.

I have also studied many of the earth sciences and plate tectonics and volcanism.

As well as the history of religions.


"You just let history, probably scientific journals(you didn't mention any I'm assuming) and government websites inform you of all the valuable scientific achievements. You don't have to verify scientists are completely trustworthy, I mean they don't get paid to succeed."

Understanding an learning history is a plus.

scientific journals are a plus

government websites can be a plus, such as NOAA, NASA and others I check.

"You don't have to verify scientists are completely trustworthy"

Yes you do

"I mean they don't get paid to succeed"

Yes they do, but a lot of them do it out of interest and love for what they are doing.

I am currently working on an aerospace project.

Do you apply the same standards and verification of religion as you ask about science? Or take it on blind faith alone?

Science does not biol down to faith. Your also mostly likely alive because of science.

 

[shawn001]

So the moon rotates on its axis and rotates around the earth yet the coordinates to hit the mirror remain the same. Fortunately I know you are wrong otherwise I would really doubt science but it also shows me you use faith for science.

Just so you know they lost the position of one of the 3 mirror arrays on the moon and it took them years to find it again.

You do know the moon is locked in an orbit that allows us to see one side of it and we never see the dark side unless we fly behind it. Well no I guess not with what you said.

 

[shawn001]

"Have you ever heard the term the 'far-side' of the Moon? Because of the effect on the Moon of tidal forces due to the Earth, the same side of the moon always faces the Earth. In other words, it takes the Moon the same amount of time to rotate around once as it does for the Moon to go around the Earth once. Therefore, Earth-bound observers can never see the 'far-side' of the Moon."

The Moon's Orbit and Rotation - Windows to the Universe

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

No idea what point you are trying to make. Nor does any of that refute, engage with or contribute to what I said in the comment you are responding to in any way. You seem to just delight in posting these pointless off topic lectures at me - why, I have no idea, but could care less.

I'm interested in presenting an accurate view of what theory is. Your description is inaccurate and distorted. This thread concerns theory and facts. How is describing what theory really is and how it differs from fact off-topic?

 

[Bunyip]

I'm interested in presenting an accurate view of what theory is. Your description is inaccurate and distorted. This thread concerns theory and facts. How is describing what theory really is and how it differs from fact off-topic?

My description was perfectly accurate, your comment did not argue otherwise. As I said theories explain facts and are the ultimate graduation point of a body of evidence. That is true, it is accurate.
You just want to bicker with me, and i do not wish to participate.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

My description was perfectly accurate

Theories may explain facts but this is a misleading characterization and it is not at all true that theory is the "ultimate graduation of a body of evidence." Some theories are, others have very little evidence behind them and conflict with theories that are widely-held to be true.

You just want to bicker with me, and i do not wish to participate.

I've responded to several people's posts here and disagreed with some of them. You aren't special, just wrong.

 

[bobhikes]

You do know the moon is locked in an orbit that allows us to see one side of it and we never see the dark side unless we fly behind it. Well no I guess not with what you said.

So what your saying then when they see the moon in China I can just shoot out set coordinates from my home in New Jersey and hit the array. At 8:00 pm in New Jersey would be the exact same coordinates as 4:00 am.

 

[Bunyip]

Theories may explain facts but this is a misleading characterization

No, it is true. Theories do explain facts.

and it is not at all true that theory is the "ultimate graduation of a body of evidence." Some theories are, others have very little evidence behind them and conflict with theories that are widely-held to be true.

Theories are the highest level of knowledge in science, that is also true. You are nit picking over semantics.

I've responded to several people's posts here and disagreed with some of them. You aren't special, just wrong.

Not that you have demonstrated so. Again I repeat that I am not interested in bickering with you.

If there is something superior to theory in science, what is it?

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

What I read is that you have a lot of faith in science.

So does anybody who uses any form of transportation other than a bike or a horse.

I mean they don't get paid to succeed.

Have you ever applied for a research grant? Or heard the expression "publish or perish"? Both in the academic world and the private sector, success can mean the difference between having a job and not, just as it can elsewhere. Sure, the dynamics are different. And it is possible to be a scientists and get paid without doing much research at all but teaching instead. However, for the most part the more a scientist gets paid the more success in her or his work is required. Also, in academia, it's not whether or not you get paid that is most directly tied to success but whether or not you get grant money to do any research at all. If your lab can't sell itself on the successes it has, you don't get money to do your research and it doesn't matter if you still have a position and a paycheck at some university (at least not from the perspective of research).

 

[bobhikes]

So does anybody who uses any form of transportation other than a bike or a horse.


Have you ever applied for a research grant? Or heard the expression "publish or perish"? Both in the academic world and the private sector, success can mean the difference between having a job and not, just as it can elsewhere. Sure, the dynamics are different. And it is possible to be a scientists and get paid without doing much research at all but teaching instead. However, for the most part the more a scientist gets paid the more success in her or his work is required. Also, in academia, it's not whether or not you get paid that is most directly tied to success but whether or not you get grant money to do any research at all. If your lab can't sell itself on the successes it has, you don't get money to do your research and it doesn't matter if you still have a position and a paycheck at some university (at least not from the perspective of research).

I understand completely. My key point is faith. The two I am arguing with do not want to admit having faith in science. For them science is fact, hard core logic, rational not faith they can't admit they have faith in science. I'll admit I'm taking it a little far but this is a religious forums and not a scientific one.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

No, it is true. Theories do explain facts.

“The goal of theory is not so much to explain things as to use explanations to predict things.”
Shoemaker, P. J., Tankard, J. W., & Lasorsa, D. L. (2004). How to build social science theories. Sage.

Theories are the highest level of knowledge in science

“The term ‘theory’ is used variously in science to refer to an unproven hunch, a scientific field (as in ‘electromagnetic theory’), and a conceptual device for systematically characterizing the state-transition behaviour of systems.”
Theories, Scientific. In Craig, E. (ed.)(1998). Philosophy of Science (Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy). Routledge.

There was a time when words like theory, law, hypothesis, etc., had much more meaning. One can still find sources that argue that laws are superior to theories:
“If scientists can be wrong about scientific laws, they certainly can be wrong about scientific theories. Thus, although there is a vast amount of evidence supporting the theories of electromagnetism, evolution, and relativity, it is perhaps better to think of them nonetheless as theories rather than as laws.
(Shoemaker et al; 2004)

However, this fails to reflect how scientists actually work. A term like theory can apply to something that more or less a guess in scientific literature or it can apply to an entire field. The vast semantic differences among different but common uses is completely different from you description.

If there is something superior to theory in science, what is it?

Consensus.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

I understand completely. My key point is faith. The two I am arguing with do not want to admit having faith in science. For them science is fact, hard core logic, rational not faith they can't admit they have faith in science. I'll admit I'm taking it a little far but this is a religious forums and not a scientific one.

Fair enough.

 

[shawn001]

So what your saying then when they see the moon in China I can just shoot out set coordinates from my home in New Jersey and hit the array. At 8:00 pm in New Jersey would be the exact same coordinates as 4:00 am.

Bob, one side of the moon faces Earth. This is new to you?

As for your question? By you figuring it out yourself, then perhaps you might learn something.