19 Sep 11
Originally posted by shahenshahThere are some "basic" theories in physics. Not sure if they are the basic theories in physics. And they haven't been replaced; there are plenty of situations where you wouldn't want to use relativity or quantum mechanics, for example because it makes the mathematical discription of the problem needlessly complex.
Sir, since you are a PHD student in Physics, could you help us out?
What are the basic theories in Physics and have the been replaced by Relativity and Quantum Mechanics?
19 Sep 11
Originally posted by shahenshahProper knob, A genius scientist with a brilliant idea would help.
Proper knob, A genius scientist with a brilliant idea would help.
However, "we" who are not scientists can at least think twice about these theories before accepting them. Just because a theory seems fit nicely or 'beautiful", doesn't mean it is actually right.
I am quoting your link below.
Down the drain
Experimental physicists working a ...[text shortened]... autiful; but there's no experimental data to say that it is correct."
We had that brilliant idea, it was called 'evolution'. That has been the central unchanged theme of biology for the last 150 years or so.
You are still yet to explain how someone was supposed to come up with the exact lineage of our evolutionary family tree 'at the start', when you readily admit that the fossils which are needed to plot out evolutionary path were yet to be discovered? The only way this could be achieved would be to see into the future, seeing how this capacity is unavailable to us humans the bottom line is we can't have plotted our exact evolutionary path 'from the start'. I know this, and i think you know this and instead of admitting as such you are just 'dilly-dallying' around.
How was a Victorian scientist expected to plot the lineage of our evolutionary family tree? No time wasting Mr Shahenshah, no obfuscating just make with the readies!!
19 Sep 11
Originally posted by KazetNagorraNewtons laws are an approximation of relativity or quantum mechanics for certain situations. So I wouldn't say you are not using relativity or quantum mechanics when you use Newtons Laws.
And they haven't been replaced; there are plenty of situations where you wouldn't want to use relativity or quantum mechanics, for example because it makes the mathematical discription of the problem needlessly complex.
20 Sep 11
Originally posted by Proper KnobProper Knob. I already mentioned it in my previous post.
[b]Proper knob, A genius scientist with a brilliant idea would help.
We had that brilliant idea, it was called 'evolution'. That has been the central unchanged theme of biology for the last 150 years or so.
You are still yet to explain how someone was supposed to come up with the exact lineage of our evolutionary family tree 'at the start', whe ...[text shortened]... family tree? No time wasting Mr Shahenshah, no obfuscating just make with the readies!![/b]
I shall repeat it again for you.
It is for the scientist to come up with a brilliant idea, such that we don't find H.Sapiens shifted from one branch to another, with every new find. (Almost like the children's game .. pin the tail on the donkey). I pointed out that Einstein did not travel at the speed of light but still discovered the theory of relativity. In the same way Darwin came up with his ideas from his observation of different species of finches and galapagos tortoise, not fossils. He just was not brilliant enough to plot the lineage of man... Just check out Charles Darwin on wiki.
Evolution is one of the "themes" or axioms of biology, it is not however the only one... again check out biology on wiki..
Mr Proper Knob, May I suggest that you stop implying that I am saying this or doing that.
20 Sep 11
1 edit
Originally posted by shahenshahHe just was not brilliant enough to plot the lineage of man... Just check out Charles Darwin on wiki.
Proper Knob. I already mentioned it in my previous post.
I shall repeat it again for you.
It is for the scientist to come up with a brilliant idea, such that we don't find H.Sapiens shifted from one branch to another, with every new find. (Almost like the children's game .. pin the tail on the donkey). I pointed out that Einstein did not travel a
Mr Proper Knob, May I suggest that you stop implying that I am saying this or doing that.
This is what i'm trying to ascertain from you. How was he, or anyone else for that matter, supposed to plot the lineage of man before the appropriate fossils had been discovered?
For instance scientists in Darwin's time assumed that humans evolved from an ancestor, but they had no idea how far back in time the family tree went. That was only resolved with the advent of molecular dating techniques in the 1990's.
How was someone supposed to plot our family tree when they don't know how far back to go and also have almost zero fossils to go on as evidence?
Originally posted by shahenshahI don't think I explained this clearly enough earlier in the thread. There are two different aspects to science:
It is for the scientist to come up with a brilliant idea, such that we don't find H.Sapiens shifted from one branch to another, with every new find.
1. The rules by which things work.
2. The actual instances of things following rules.
It is possible for a brilliant scientist to figure out rules - and the rules can then be applied universally. However, without observations, it is impossible to ever figure out the actual instances of things following rules.
So, although we may know the laws of gravity, we can know how planets form but without observing planets, we can never know what planets are there and what their orbits are. Sometimes we don't directly observe a planet but can figure out that a planet exists and even make accurate predictions as to where it is. But this to must be based on observations and can never be done purely based on theory.
If we discover a new planet in the outer solar system or orbiting another star, we don't suddenly say "physics is all wrong, how did they make that mistake!"
Similarly, when it comes to evolution, we know how it works, but we cannot know exactly how it happened based solely on theory. We must make observations. Regarding the family tree of Homo Sapiens, there are various observations we can make including: fossils, DNA, morphology of currently living animals. However, without these observations nobody can ever work out the family tree. It is not something that is predicted by evolution. Evolution only predicts that a family tree exists, not what it is.
As we make new observations, we draw up a preliminary family tree based on our best guess from the observations. Sometimes we can be very sure about particular parts of the family tree. (eg we are sure that Neanderthals are more closely related to humans than chimpanzees), sometimes we are not so sure. But if we make new observations and improve the family tree it shouldn't be seen as a failing of evolutionary theory.
20 Sep 11
Originally posted by twhiteheadExcept now we have new methods that extend our reach into the mists of time to put in place on the tree of life the fossil record without fossils:
I don't think I explained this clearly enough earlier in the thread. There are two different aspects to science:
1. The rules by which things work.
2. The actual instances of things following rules.
It is possible for a brilliant scientist to figure out rules - and the rules can then be applied universally. However, without observations, it is impossib ...[text shortened]... ions and improve the family tree it shouldn't be seen as a failing of evolutionary theory.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/09/110919151320.htm
Now they can analyze the DNA of modern animals and backtrack them millions of years to trace diversity of forms.
- Joined
- 18 Jan 07
- Moves
- 12477
20 Sep 11
Originally posted by shahenshahSo... what is your bone with evolution, exactly? That we don't yet know all the details even though we've had the essence worked out for a long time? As has been said again and again and again, this is true for all sciences, not just biology. Why do you single out evolution for your specific disparagement?
It is for the scientist to come up with a brilliant idea, such that we don't find H.Sapiens shifted from one branch to another, with every new find. (Almost like the children's game .. pin the tail on the donkey). I pointed out that Einstein did not travel at the speed of light but still discovered the theory of relativity. In the same way Darwin came ...[text shortened]... apagos tortoise, not fossils. He just was not brilliant enough to plot the lineage of man...
Richard
22 Sep 11
Originally posted by shahenshahI totally agree why did Newton mess around with F=ma and not skip straight to General Relativity?
C'mon, after all these years, we can't get it right?
... BTW, I know that is how science works, but why can't we come up with the right hypothesis / theory from the start?
Its plain laziness and dishonesty! (credit to Dasa)
😉
22 Sep 11
Originally posted by wolfgang59Yeah, and going back to Archimedes, He was so dam lazy he never went from the lever to nuclear reactors. What a twit.
I totally agree why did Newton mess around with F=ma and not skip straight to General Relativity?
Its plain laziness and dishonesty! (credit to Dasa)
😉
26 Sep 11
Originally posted by twhiteheadTowards the end of the wiki article on Newton's Law of motion, I found this paragrah....
Newtons laws are an approximation of relativity or quantum mechanics for certain situations. So I wouldn't say you are [b]not using relativity or quantum mechanics when you use Newtons Laws.[/b]
"These three laws hold to a good approximation for macroscopic objects under everyday conditions. However, Newton's laws (combined with universal gravitation and classical electrodynamics) are inappropriate for use in certain circumstances, most notably at very small scales, very high speeds (in special relativity, the Lorentz factor must be included in the expression for momentum along with rest mass and velocity) or very strong gravitational fields"
- Joined
- 18 Jan 07
- Moves
- 12477
27 Sep 11
Originally posted by shahenshahIn other words, twitehead is right and you are wrong. Perhaps you'd better admit that, now you've posted the evidence yourself?
Towards the end of the wiki article on Newton's Law of motion, I found this paragrah....
"These three laws hold to a good approximation for macroscopic objects under everyday conditions. However, Newton's laws (combined with universal gravitation and classical electrodynamics) are inappropriate for use in certain circumstances, most notably at very sma ...[text shortened]... ression for momentum along with rest mass and velocity) or very strong gravitational fields"
Richard