Intelligent Design

[Openmind]

You are correct. I'm sorry, I should have posted V =

where v is the velocity of system Sv with respect to inertial system So, u' is the velocity of a system Su with respect to system Sv and V is the velocity of Su with respect to So.

This is the famous relativistic addition of velocities equation which would be applicable to your plane example.

No physicist would ever use an example where v and u' are both at the speed of light because anything with mass cannot travel at the speed of light, only a massless particle can do that.(A photon.) So your consideration that
(186,000 miles per seconds) + speed of headlight (186,000 miles per second) = speed of headlight beams (186,000 miles per second)
could never happen physically, even though the equation makes sense if both velocities = c, the common notation for the speed of light.

Yes, dear. Now, put your books away and get to discussing a relevant issue please.
You see, anyone can find just about anything on the web. . . anyone can demonstrate "book knowledge" of just about any subject on earth.

It doesn't mean they have the critical and moral ability to deciphere and integrate what is "knowledge" and what is just "repetitive dogma or trivia!"

 

[Lagboltz]

Yes, dear. Now, put your books away and get to discussing a relevant issue please.
You see, anyone can find just about anything on the web. . . anyone can demonstrate "book knowledge" of just about any subject on earth.

It doesn't mean they have the critical and moral ability to deciphere and integrate what is "knowledge" and what is just "repetitive dogma or trivia!"

Yes. Yes. I couldn't help myself when a thread entitled Intelligent Design digressed to a tedious discussion on 2+2=4. Some posters don't have an idea what is behind number theory and relativity. BTW I have taken graduate courses in number theory and relativity. The formula I posted came from wikipedia because it was easy to copy. The text I just posted came from my head. Anyone who took a course in relativity has that summation of velocities formula pounded into their head.

I understand your attempt at put-down because "web knowledge" is becoming a norm as a replacement for thinking. I learned physics in the 1960's when the concept of the web wasn't even a dream. But complex concepts must be in your head in order to progress science. If it is only on your monitor screen nobody will get anywhere.

 

[Openmind]

Yes. Yes. I couldn't help myself when a thread entitled Intelligent Design digressed to a tedious discussion on 2+2=4. Some posters don't have an idea what is behind number theory and relativity. BTW I have taken graduate courses in number theory and relativity. The formula I posted came from wikipedia because it was easy to copy. The text I just posted came from my head. Anyone who took a course in relativity has that summation of velocities formula pounded into their head.

I understand your attempt at put-down because "web knowledge" is becoming a norm as a replacement for thinking. I learned physics in the 1960's when the concept of the web wasn't even a dream. But complex concepts must be in your head in order to progress science. If it is only on your monitor screen nobody will get anywhere.

It is easy to recognize the difference between text that is original, and text that is a mere regurgitation of journal or articles.

I never thought you wrote from a book. . . I have admired what seems to be a broad ability to grasp difficult (for most, including me) concepts and bring them to the lay person with ease and without being verbose.

My previous comment was not directed to you. I am certain that, given the time (yours and mine!), I would learn a lot from you in the scientific area, which, I confess, I have not much enjoyed exploring.

Just to clarify where I stand.

 

[Lagboltz]

It is easy to recognize the difference between text that is original, and text that is a mere regurgitation of journal or articles.

I never thought you wrote from a book. . . I have admired what seems to be a broad ability to grasp difficult (for most, including me) concepts and bring them to the lay person with ease and without being verbose.

My previous comment was not directed to you. I am certain that, given the time (yours and mine!), I would learn a lot from you in the scientific area, which, I confess, I have not much enjoyed exploring.

Just to clarify where I stand.

Thank you for your understanding. There is a lot of cut-and-paste thoughts on forums with little critical thinking. I almost did not post the bit about my education because it is often a cheap shot at trying to make a point seem more valid. The last time I did, I got a lot of flak, e.g "Yeah right, you grade school *****." Some people are fun and challenging to argue with, and others are a pain in the rectal sphincter muscle.

 

[Openmind]

Thank you for your understanding. There is a lot of cut-and-paste thoughts on forums with little critical thinking. I almost did not post the bit about my education because it is often a cheap shot at trying to make a point seem more valid. The last time I did, I got a lot of flak, e.g "Yeah right, you grade school *****." Some people are fun and challenging to argue with, and others are a pain in the rectal sphincter muscle.

Probably because they feed you "organic fertilizer!"

 

[Lagboltz]

They might call them facts, but if no one knows whether they are true or not, then they aren't facts. They are opinions. In the opinion of one scientist, neutrinos have mass. In the opinion of another, they don't.

Once it is proven one way or another, then the mass of neutrinos will be as much of a fact as the mass of a baseball. I'm pretty sure that everyone would agree that baseballs have mass.

For a long time the neutrino was thought to be massless, but a supernova was seen to have a brilliant burst. Very shortly thereafter several neutrinos were detected simultaneously at various sites. The small time difference between the burst of light and the burst of neutrinos meant neutrinos have mass. A wiki article says that the experiment shows "...consistent with a speed of light for the neutrinos..." I don't now know which is correct a Scientific American article I read some time ago or the wiki article. The truth is given in "statistical significance" of the time difference. So yes, you might say that observation is controversial. If you are interested search "neutrino oscillation" for experiments that show the neutrino does have mass.

Cold Fusion: There is more than one claim on cold fusion. Experiments from different science groups have always found disagreement with any cold fusion claim. It is generally accepted that cold fusion has not been demonstrated yet.

The word "fact" is often related to "statistical significance" in all sciences.

 

[Lagboltz]

Probably because they feed you "organic fertilizer!"

LOL you one-upped me.

 

[PLC1]

For a long time the neutrino was thought to be massless, but a supernova was seen to have a brilliant burst. Very shortly thereafter several neutrinos were detected simultaneously at various sites. The small time difference between the burst of light and the burst of neutrinos meant neutrinos have mass. A wiki article says that the experiment shows "...consistent with a speed of light for the neutrinos..." I don't now know which is correct a Scientific American article I read some time ago or the wiki article. The truth is given in "statistical significance" of the time difference. So yes, you might say that observation is controversial. If you are interested search "neutrino oscillation" for experiments that show the neutrino does have mass.

Cold Fusion: There is more than one claim on cold fusion. Experiments from different science groups have always found disagreement with any cold fusion claim. It is generally accepted that cold fusion has not been demonstrated yet.

The word "fact" is often related to "statistical significance" in all sciences.

Fact: There was a small time difference between the burst of light and the burst of neutrinos.

Opinion, supported by the fact: Neutrinos have mass.

I have to admit, I'm totally out of my depth discussing whether neutrinos have or don't have mass. I do understand the difference between fact and opinion, however, and the assertion that they do appears to me to be an opinion that is supported by a fact.

Back to the original question, do scientists disagree over facts, the answer is no. Scientists, being human after all, do disagree over opinions.

 

[Lagboltz]

Fact: There was a small time difference between the burst of light and the burst of neutrinos.

Opinion, supported by the fact: Neutrinos have mass.

I have to admit, I'm totally out of my depth discussing whether neutrinos have or don't have mass. I do understand the difference between fact and opinion, however, and the assertion that they do appears to me to be an opinion that is supported by a fact.

If the neutrino hit earth at the identically the same time as the light, then the neutrino would have to have zero mass (by some basic laws of physics.) Otherwise the neutrino has mass that can easily be computed from the time difference. (Don't ask me how)

What may have come out of the science is a statement (I'm making this up)
"From the calculations, and statistical uncertainty in the neutrino time measurements, we compute its mass to be 7 plus or minus 6 fempto-femtograms, with a confidence level of 95%." Is this fact that the neutrino has mass? It's hard to say.

Back to the original question, do scientists disagree over facts, the answer is no. Scientists, being human after all, do disagree over opinions.

I agree with you. In this case and many other marginal experiments, a fact boils down to whether everyone believes a statement has the proper degree of statistical certainty to be considered a fact. You are correct about opinion if an experiment has marginal statistical certainty.

 

[Dr.Who]

They might call them facts, but if no one knows whether they are true or not, then they aren't facts. They are opinions. In the opinion of one scientist, neutrinos have mass. In the opinion of another, they don't.

Once it is proven one way or another, then the mass of neutrinos will be as much of a fact as the mass of a baseball. I'm pretty sure that everyone would agree that baseballs have mass.

Except perhaps on an internet forum.

Just a little joke, that last sentence. no need to take it seriously.

Does a fact have to be known to be a fact? I either do or don't have any nickels in my pocket. Whether or not anyone knows the contents of my pocket I either do or don't have any nickels in my pocket. If they are there it is a fact and if they are not it is still a fact.

But yes, for the things we do not know they are opinions.

How do we know what is an opinion and what is a fact? I used the neutrino example because there is compelling evidence that it MUST have mass. There is also compelling evidence that it MUST not. The case for both is so strong that each side can rightly say they have proven their case and can rest assured that it is a fact. The same was true about the particle/wave controversy which was solved so abysmally by just saying that light is both a particle and a wave.

These are complex issues. But are simple facts any more known and proven? How many assumptions are needed to assert even the simplest of facts?

 

[Dr.Who]

Please souce thqt assertion. It surprises me greatly to read that scientists disagree on facts, so I would like to see exactly what they do say, their own words, if you will.

http://www.scienceclarified.com/dispute/Vol-2/Historic-Dispute-Do-neutrinos-have-mass.html

http://www.scienceclarified.com/dispute/Vol-2/Does-cold-fusion-exist.html

 

[Dr.Who]

You are correct. I'm sorry, I should have posted V =

where v is the velocity of system Sv with respect to inertial system So, u' is the velocity of a system Su with respect to system Sv and V is the velocity of Su with respect to So.

This is the famous relativistic addition of velocities equation which would be applicable to your plane example.

No physicist would ever use an example where v and u' are both at the speed of light because anything with mass cannot travel at the speed of light, only a massless particle can do that.(A photon.) So your consideration that
(186,000 miles per seconds) + speed of headlight (186,000 miles per second) = speed of headlight beams (186,000 miles per second)
could never happen physically, even though the equation makes sense if both velocities = c, the common notation for the speed of light.

Perhaps a bad example then. so use einstein's in which the source of the light was lightning bolts at the front and rear of the train. Regrdlesss of examples, Newtonian math has been replaced so that while it appears to be true in extreme examples it is actually only almost true. 2+2=almost 4. I have to admit that I am offering suggestions at the limits of my understanding. (am I supposed to be comparing Newtonian to non-newtonian or Euclidian to non-euclidian?)

 

[PLC1]

Does a fact have to be known to be a fact? I either do or don't have any nickels in my pocket. Whether or not anyone knows the contents of my pocket I either do or don't have any nickels in my pocket. If they are there it is a fact and if they are not it is still a fact.

But yes, for the things we do not know they are opinions.

How do we know what is an opinion and what is a fact? I used the neutrino example because there is compelling evidence that it MUST have mass. There is also compelling evidence that it MUST not. The case for both is so strong that each side can rightly say they have proven their case and can rest assured that it is a fact. The same was true about the particle/wave controversy which was solved so abysmally by just saying that light is both a particle and a wave.

These are complex issues. But are simple facts any more known and proven? How many assumptions are needed to assert even the simplest of facts?

If a thing can be definitively proven, then it is a fact. That neutrinos have mass was shown to be true, and shown to be untrue, then it can't be proven or at least hasn't been proven definitively.

There are 100 centimeters in a meter, it is raining outside (or not), the shape of the wing is what gives an airplane lift, if you travel 100 KPH for an hour, you've gone 100 kilometers, all simple facts. What assumptions do they require?

 

[ProudLefty]

....

There are 100 centimeters in a meter, it is raining outside (or not), the shape of the wing is what gives an airplane lift, if you travel 100 KPH for an hour, you've gone 100 kilometers, all simple facts. What assumptions do they require?

Its pretty much always rains outside. If it is raining inside there are other problems. Also, it is always raining outside. May be not right here, right now, but its raining somewhere. The shape of the wing does not provide lift. Take that plane out to space and the wing is as useless as a fact to a Republican. Also, you fly that plane at 100KPH into a 100KPH headwind and at the end of an hour you have not even left the runway.

But I get your point. I hope you get mine.

 

[Lagboltz]

Perhaps a bad example then. so use einstein's in which the source of the light was lightning bolts at the front and rear of the train. Regrdlesss of examples, Newtonian math has been replaced so that while it appears to be true in extreme examples it is actually only almost true. 2+2=almost 4. I have to admit that I am offering suggestions at the limits of my understanding. (am I supposed to be comparing Newtonian to non-newtonian or Euclidian to non-euclidian?)

In number theory, 2 + 2 = 4. Period.
In physics, velocity is a unit of distance divided by a unit of time.
Or V = d / t.
Of course you already know that, but what makes the simple formula so subtle is that there is a screwy relation between Einstein's space and time in that they are two different aspects of the same measure. Distance and time measurements depend on the motion of the observer as you point out in your lightening and train example. In this context the only constant in Relativity is generally denoted as S, which is the distance between two events. But any further discussion of that of course lies beyond the scope of Intelligent Design.