These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

EVE General Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
Previous page12
 

Einstein was wrong?

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Gregor Palter
#21 - 2011-09-23 08:50:11 UTC
The Apostle wrote:
Quote:
That's generally the conversation I have with people who read/learned about some stuff but lack the actual capacity to use that information.

They go "it's like this and that" where I'll reply with "no that's a theory,


Fair point, but is an apple falling on your head and you getting a bruise as a result a mere theory?

Some "theories" are indeed fact although they were theroies at the time of "discovery".

Most of the things we cannot determine by truth are bound by theory until we can prove a different theory or it indeed becomes fact per se.

Get it? I did. Just. Big smile


There's a difference between simply regurgitating what others have told you, which isn't necessarily truth, and the reality of getting hit by an apple :) One could ofcourse (and should probably) challenge this hole "reality" thing to begin with though, what is pain and what is an apple :P

Excuses are the refuge of the weak.

Florestan Bronstein
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#22 - 2011-09-23 09:04:00 UTC  |  Edited by: Florestan Bronstein
Gregor Palter wrote:
until we can prove a different theory or it indeed becomes fact per se.

lol, he wants to prove a theory

hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah

are you God or sth? 'cause the whole rest of us don't seem to have the access to universal truths you seem to have...
(and as a consequence have to stick with trying to falsify theories and can at best talk about verisimilitude)



your face when the apple falls upwards after a few millenia of falling down every single time
How dare it, my theory was proven, it was true!!!!

lololololololololol
RaTTuS
BIG
#23 - 2011-09-23 09:06:51 UTC
he [Einstein] did not believe in plate tectonics either

http://eveboard.com/ub/419190933-134.png http://i.imgur.com/kYLoKrM.png

Anya Ohaya
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#24 - 2011-09-23 09:07:23 UTC  |  Edited by: Anya Ohaya
Thorn Galen wrote:

The experiment which yielded the results spoken of in this thread was repeated at least 15 times in order to eliminate statistical error.


If they were eve players they would claim invention was broken.
Gregor Palter
#25 - 2011-09-23 09:10:47 UTC
Florestan Bronstein wrote:
Gregor Palter wrote:
until we can prove a different theory or it indeed becomes fact per se.

lol, he wants to prove a theory

hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah

are you God or sth? 'cause the whole rest of us don't seem to have the access to universal truths you seem to have...
(and as a consequence have to stick with trying to falsify theories and can at best talk about verisimilitude)



your face when the apple falls upwards after a few millenia of falling down every single time
How dare it, my theory was proven, it was true!!!!

lololololololololol


If you're going to quote someone it might be handy if you quote something I actually said or implied. Your reply just shows you didn't understand a word of it.

Excuses are the refuge of the weak.

Florestan Bronstein
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#26 - 2011-09-23 09:12:03 UTC
Thorn Galen wrote:

The experiment which yielded the results spoken of in this thread was repeated at least 15 times in order to eliminate statistical error.


doesn't exclude a systematic error in their experiment/installation

the need for funding tends to make scientists stupid - instead of calling a press conference they could have just waited a few months for folks at Fermilab to be able or unable to reproduce the results...
Florestan Bronstein
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#27 - 2011-09-23 09:14:30 UTC  |  Edited by: Florestan Bronstein
Gregor Palter wrote:
If you're going to quote someone it might be handy if you quote something I actually said or implied. Your reply just shows you didn't understand a word of it.

butthurt much?

brb, gonna prove (the theory of) gravitation by dropping a brick on my head, trololololololol

(you sir, are confusing theories and phenomena)
Jagga Spikes
Spikes Chop Shop
#28 - 2011-09-23 09:16:25 UTC
thing about science is: every theory ever made is just a special case. which means it will eventually be proven wrong, or at least inadequate, and superseded by better theory. as long as one keeps digging, reality never gets boring.
Gregor Palter
#29 - 2011-09-23 09:34:16 UTC
Florestan Bronstein wrote:
Gregor Palter wrote:
If you're going to quote someone it might be handy if you quote something I actually said or implied. Your reply just shows you didn't understand a word of it.

butthurt much?

brb, gonna prove (the theory of) gravitation by dropping a brick on my head, trololololololol

(you sir, are confusing theories and phenomena)


You really, really ought to reread what I posted and think it over a few times, if you keep at it you might realise that it's different from what you think it is.

Excuses are the refuge of the weak.

Thorn Galen
Bene Gesserit ChapterHouse
The Curatores Veritatis Auxiliary
#30 - 2011-09-23 09:34:32 UTC  |  Edited by: Thorn Galen
Florestan Bronstein wrote:
Thorn Galen wrote:

The experiment which yielded the results spoken of in this thread was repeated at least 15 times in order to eliminate statistical error.


doesn't exclude a systematic error in their experiment/installation

the need for funding tends to make scientists stupid - instead of calling a press conference they could have just waited a few months for folks at Fermilab to be able or unable to reproduce the results...


Yup, I figured that.
Hindsight is a biatch. I figure the CERN scientists involved in this figured that out as well. Thing is, there's a lot of professional pride and jealousy in that sphere of physics. Fermilab are direct competition to CERN and Fermi are doing their work on a far "cheaper" accelerator. There cannot be any exclusion of Fermilab finding Higgs-boson before CERN does.

Again, whatever the outcome, it's fascinating to me either way.

Theoretically, there's a particle out there which, at its slowest speed, is at the speed of light, so actually finding it will be nigh impossible at current TeV levels and technology.

Juicy juicy.

COO - Bene Gesserit Chapterhouse  CEO - Sanctuary Pact Alliance
Kehro Urgus
Dark Nebula Academy
O X I D E
#31 - 2011-09-23 09:35:59 UTC
Maybe the conditions within the supercollider allowed the neutrinos to break the local light speed rather, achieve a slightly higher speed than normal. Kind of the opposite effect of Cerenkov radiation effects seen in nuclear reactors. What?

Yeeee! 
Florestan Bronstein
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#32 - 2011-09-23 09:48:45 UTC
Gregor Palter wrote:
Florestan Bronstein wrote:
Gregor Palter wrote:
If you're going to quote someone it might be handy if you quote something I actually said or implied. Your reply just shows you didn't understand a word of it.

butthurt much?

brb, gonna prove (the theory of) gravitation by dropping a brick on my head, trololololololol

(you sir, are confusing theories and phenomena)


You really, really ought to reread what I posted and think it over a few times, if you keep at it you might realise that it's different from what you think it is.

still mad at your maths teacher for flat out dismissing all of your "empirical proofs"?
Gregor Palter
#33 - 2011-09-23 10:01:51 UTC
I concede to your level of stupidity.

Excuses are the refuge of the weak.

Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises
Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM
#34 - 2011-09-23 10:45:58 UTC
Scientific Theory: A model which fits the observed phenomenon closely enough to be used to predict things accurately.


Theory, in regular English use: An idea used to account for a situation or justify a course of action


Subtle difference between them. And scientific theories doesn't actually say 'this is the ways things are'. They say 'This explains stuff to the limits of our understanding. It might not be exactly right, but it's good enough for government work. We'll adjust it, if it doesn't actually fit'

It's all about levels of abstraction. Newtonian physics is good enough for most stuff in this world, but breaks down when you get really really small. Quantum physics explains stuff at that level, but isn't so good at bigger stuff.

Woo! CSM XI!

Fuzzwork Enterprises

Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter
Gregor Palter
#35 - 2011-09-23 10:57:42 UTC
Steve Ronuken wrote:
Scientific Theory: A model which fits the observed phenomenon closely enough to be used to predict things accurately.


Theory, in regular English use: An idea used to account for a situation or justify a course of action


Subtle difference between them. And scientific theories doesn't actually say 'this is the ways things are'. They say 'This explains stuff to the limits of our understanding. It might not be exactly right, but it's good enough for government work. We'll adjust it, if it doesn't actually fit'

It's all about levels of abstraction. Newtonian physics is good enough for most stuff in this world, but breaks down when you get really really small. Quantum physics explains stuff at that level, but isn't so good at bigger stuff.


Exactly that, yet many idiots mistake findings and theories for facts and argue on that basis. They just gobble up stuff they've learned or read somewhere and poop it out as facts out without actual knowledge or the necessary addendum that they are nothing more than theories.

Case in point; if you ask a moron how the universe started there's a good chance he starts spouting one of the string theories as fact.

Excuses are the refuge of the weak.

Eternum Praetorian
Doomheim
#36 - 2011-09-23 11:23:56 UTC  |  Edited by: Eternum Praetorian
Down Boy!

Quote:

the tiny particles were clocked at 300,006 kilometres per second, slightly faster that the speed of light, the researchers said today.



Quote:
Light would have covered the distance in around 2.4 thousandths of a second, but the neutrinos took 60 nanoseconds -- or 60 billionths of a second -- less than light beams would have taken.



That's not allot faster is you factor in variables like warped space, particle interaction and the fact that we cannot calculate the speed of light to 100% accuracy.



Also, I have some questions for some of you science nuts out there


Fact: inertia is a property of matter (insert equations about how it functions here)

What you can't tell me: what are the physical mechanisms that govern it? Meaning, HOW can matter have inertia in a vacuum? Is it a field? A particle? a gremlin? the will of god? why does an object in a perfect vacuum have inertia and what mechanisms can I visibly see that make it so?






Second Fact: Charge follows + and - differentials and magnetic fields follow "Flux lines"

What you can't tell me: what exactly is it that surrounds a particle that coveys it's charge through a perfect vacuum? Is it an even smaller particle? Well then... I will ask the same about that even smaller particle. What can I SEE and have have you DETECTED that can explain the purveyance of charge through nothing?

Is it magic made by Steven Hawkins? Lol




So what do you really know?
Not a whole lot when you think about it...

[center]The EVE Gateway Blog[/center] [center]One Of EVE Online's Ultimate Resources[/center]
Karn Dulake
Doomheim
#37 - 2011-09-23 11:27:37 UTC
Well of course Einstein was wrong

My ship moves at 3AU a second and according to him thats impossible.

In your face Einstein, in your face
I dont normally troll, but when i do i do it on General Discussion.
JackStraw56
Run Like an Antelope
#38 - 2011-09-23 11:34:04 UTC
It's just an error in the experiment IMO. That's the simplest explanation at this point.
CCP Navigator
C C P
C C P Alliance
#39 - 2011-09-23 11:34:59 UTC
As this topic is covered in OOPE both here and here, this thread will be locked as it is off topic ofr General Discussion.
Previous page12