Hookah's video amounted to little more than character assassination of a bunch of dunderpates that can't even be bothered to find out what the sun is made of. That's not fair!
My problem with the graph is that, with a smaller earth you don't have, say, an exposed outer core...instead, what would be the outer core is now the surface. Is this graph applicable to other, smaller planets? If not, that is my point. Either way, I will say no more.
The scientific method (or simply scientific method) is a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge. To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning.
Seeing as you linked the wikipedia article, I'm going to assume you agree with it. Now riddle me this:
What's empirical, measurable evidence? Is it like the wiki says "information acquired by means of observation or experimentation"? In that case, an elephant is larger than the moon. I witnessed an elephant the other day and it was huge - if I look at the moon it's tiny. There, information acquired by means of observation or experimentation.
To get back to the point though: Quote from Wikipedia:
The scientific method (or simply scientific method) is a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge. To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning.
Seeing as you linked the wikipedia article, I'm going to assume you agree with it. Now riddle me this:
What's empirical, measurable evidence? Is it like the wiki says "information acquired by means of observation or experimentation"? In that case, an elephant is larger than the moon. I witnessed an elephant the other day and it was huge - if I look at the moon it's tiny. There, information acquired by means of observation or experimentation.
Part of the scientific method is "acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge". If we didn't know better, your theory that an elephant is bigger than the moon would be the prevailing one, until someone looked into a telescope.
My problem with the graph is that, with a smaller earth you don't have, say, an exposed outer core...instead, what would be the outer core is now the surface. Is this graph applicable to other, smaller planets? If not, that is my point. Either way, I will say no more.
Expanding Earth theory works under the assumption that all this mass came by after planetary accretion. So the outer core is already made and that graph is a perfect representation of what you'd expect.
What's empirical, measurable evidence? Is it like the wiki says "information acquired by means of observation or experimentation"? In that case, an elephant is larger than the moon. I witnessed an elephant the other day and it was huge - if I look at the moon it's tiny. There, information acquired by means of observation or experimentation.
And then that finding proves to be inconsistent when you look at an elephant from 500 meters away and the moon is still the same size. Or your conclusion is inconsistent with other data. And then you have to come up with something new to explain this. And then that new thing is also disproved in another example and you come up with something else. And so on.
Science attempts to explain natural phenomena and tries to get as close to the truth as possible, knowing that uncertainty will always exist but that it can be minimized. I think it's about coming up with theories, brutally murdering them and coming up with newer, more consistent theories.
Part of the scientific method is "acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge". If we didn't know better, your theory that an elephant is bigger than the moon would be the prevailing one, until someone looked into a telescope.
Thats not really part of it. The main thing about scientific method, that scientific statements must have prediction, which can be tested by experiment.
I did say I was putting on my philosophical troll hat. Either way - I know the rest of the wiki article. My aim in posting any of this was to see if people here (who are such staunch advocators of science) did. It's no fun though, Vjetar answered the question correctly pretty much immediately :(
TheZizz isn't really trolling btw, he's doubting. Which is technically the core of science. Problem?
In regards to your newest post: I don't see how what you and Gradius said is mutually exclusive. If anything those two things correspond.
If you want to debate, go make another thread. This thread is for posting informative links to topics related to science.
Then why is there a poll asking me if I like science? And if the aim of the thread isn't to debate, then why is it here? You can look up any academic database for a collection of links having to do with science.
Okay. These troll accusations are puerile garbage. It's just a blanket term that denigrates us both.
Now, if this falls within the scope of the thread, may I request an article? See, I'm trying to see if the planets are ultimately moving closer or farther away from the sun, but I get conflicting results. I just can't find a clear consensus.
@Gradius12: Go
Hookah's video amounted to little more than character assassination of a bunch of dunderpates that can't even be bothered to find out what the sun is made of. That's not fair!
My problem with the graph is that, with a smaller earth you don't have, say, an exposed outer core...instead, what would be the outer core is now the surface. Is this graph applicable to other, smaller planets? If not, that is my point. Either way, I will say no more.
*Puts on philosophical troll hat*
What's science?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method
Thats what The Zizz cleary dont know.
For more detailed answer the book I always suggest from the brilliant Feynman: http://www.eknigu.com/get/P_Physics/PPop_Popular-level/Feynman%20R.%20The%20Meaning%20of%20It%20All%20(1963)(52s).pdf
@Hookah604: Go
Your second link doesn't work for me.
To get back to the point though:
Seeing as you linked the wikipedia article, I'm going to assume you agree with it. Now riddle me this:
What's empirical, measurable evidence? Is it like the wiki says "information acquired by means of observation or experimentation"? In that case, an elephant is larger than the moon. I witnessed an elephant the other day and it was huge - if I look at the moon it's tiny. There, information acquired by means of observation or experimentation.
Part of the scientific method is "acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge". If we didn't know better, your theory that an elephant is bigger than the moon would be the prevailing one, until someone looked into a telescope.
Expanding Earth theory works under the assumption that all this mass came by after planetary accretion. So the outer core is already made and that graph is a perfect representation of what you'd expect.
And then that finding proves to be inconsistent when you look at an elephant from 500 meters away and the moon is still the same size. Or your conclusion is inconsistent with other data. And then you have to come up with something new to explain this. And then that new thing is also disproved in another example and you come up with something else. And so on.
Science attempts to explain natural phenomena and tries to get as close to the truth as possible, knowing that uncertainty will always exist but that it can be minimized. I think it's about coming up with theories, brutally murdering them and coming up with newer, more consistent theories.
But I don't know. You're the trollosopher.
@Mozared: Go You are trying to troll like Zizz? At least read more, than the first few lines of the wiki article.
The link is pdf btw, use Adobe reader.
Thats not really part of it. The main thing about scientific method, that scientific statements must have prediction, which can be tested by experiment.
@Hookah604: Go
I did say I was putting on my philosophical troll hat. Either way - I know the rest of the wiki article. My aim in posting any of this was to see if people here (who are such staunch advocators of science) did. It's no fun though, Vjetar answered the question correctly pretty much immediately :(
TheZizz isn't really trolling btw, he's doubting. Which is technically the core of science. Problem?
In regards to your newest post: I don't see how what you and Gradius said is mutually exclusive. If anything those two things correspond.
If you want to debate, go make another thread. This thread is for posting informative links to topics related to science.
http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2012-10/smarter-safer-stronger-far-out-future-stuff
http://www.popsci.com/technology/article/2012-10/deep-space-suit
http://www.materials360online.com/newsDetails/33300
http://www.materials360online.com/newsDetails/33200
http://www.materials360online.com/newsDetails/33160
http://www.materials360online.com/newsDetails/33020
http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/345721/description/Supersolidity_loses_its_luster
http://www.materials360online.com/newsDetails/27120
http://www.materials360online.com/newsDetails/23941
http://www.materials360online.com/newsDetails/22760
http://www.rsc.org/chemistryworld/2012/10/continuous-polystyrene-recycling
http://www.rsc.org/chemistryworld/2012/10/superconductors-conventional-unconventional-bismuth-barium
http://www.materials360online.com/newsDetails/21126
http://www.materials360online.com/newsDetails/18167
http://www.rsc.org/chemistryworld/2012/09/carbon-conduction
Inverted pendulum stability:
Then why is there a poll asking me if I like science? And if the aim of the thread isn't to debate, then why is it here? You can look up any academic database for a collection of links having to do with science.
@Mozared: Go
It's for gathering data; that's why polls are used. Where did you think I got the links?
If you want to debate, go make another thread. This thread is for posting informative links to topics related to science.
Okay. These troll accusations are puerile garbage. It's just a blanket term that denigrates us both.
Now, if this falls within the scope of the thread, may I request an article? See, I'm trying to see if the planets are ultimately moving closer or farther away from the sun, but I get conflicting results. I just can't find a clear consensus.
@TheZizz: Go
Assuming that you're not confusing it with eccentric orbits, you must be talking about this: http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=563
Battle for AI rages on :) : http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/books/2012/11/ray-kurzweils-dubious-new-theory-of-mind.html
Fuck yeah:
Physicists have teleported quantum information from one ensemble of atoms to another 150 metres away, a demonstration that paves the way towards quantum routers and a quantum Internet:
http://www.technologyreview.com/view/507531/first-teleportation-from-one-macroscopic-object-to-another/
@FDFederation: Go
Damn. I had an ulterior motive in asking, but it hinged on the planets conclusively moving further away over time.
On Denisovans:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=denisovan-genome
And some other videos:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/space/ultimate-mars-challenge.html
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/tech/what-future-be-like.html
And some more links:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=how-safe-are-americas-2-5-million-miles-of-pipelines
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=our-drugs-make-fish-flounder
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=coal-plants-smother-communities-of-color
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=artificial-muscle-advance
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=misfolded-protein-transmits-parkinsons-from-cell-to-cell
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=brain-scans-of-rappers-shed-light-on-creativity
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=statistics-win-in-us-election
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=clean-water-act-at-40
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=blood-thinning-rat-poison-is-killing-birds-too
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=draft-sequence-of-pig-genome-could-benefit-agriculture-and-medicine
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=us-ranchers-struggle-to-adapt-to-climate-change
Did someone just generalize all the spam threads on the site?
Hmm... Only review articles and summaries, not one original research paper cited. A sad day for academia.
Mathematics is the interaction of numbers
Pysics is the mathematics of the forces that make up existance
Chemistry is the physics of how matter interacts with one another
Biology is the chemistry of life
Science is the quest to gain an inderstanding of the above
Engineering is the directed application of scientific knowledge toward solving a specified problem
Technology is the result of engineering able to be applied to a consumer
Contribute to the wiki (Wiki button at top of page) Considered easy altering of the unit textures?
https://www.sc2mapster.com/forums/resources/tutorials/179654-data-actor-events-message-texture-select-by-id
https://media.forgecdn.net/attachments/187/40/Screenshot2011-04-17_09_16_21.jpg