Thread: Science vs Pseudoscience

Further validation of my theory is shown here byresearchers at Harvard.

Originally Posted by Seraphim

Point #1 was not about whether that equation was correct or not (thank you for the update, though), but rather trying to explain that the story about these little protons in the LHC having the same energy as a mosquito in flight was a bit of a song and dance by the LHC media relations team to placate the hoi polloi. So, if you plug in the numbers in your updated equation, you still have these protons travelling at extremely high speed, and thus possesing enough energy to smash each other to bits, right? Isn't that the whole point of a particle accelarator? To impart extreme velocity to stuff?
The point I was trying to make was that scientists make the story fit what they want it to often times,

The energy can be that of a mosquito, or that of a speeding train, it depends on how close the speed of the particle is to the speed of light. So if somebody has calculated that for the particles accelerated in the LHC the energy is that of a mosquito, I can either check the claim myself, or just accept them at their word. I don't think that claiming they are wrong based on my perception of them having hidden agenda makes any sense. They are either right or wrong and their agenda is completely separate issue. Debating how dangerous is the energy of mosquito is very relevant, but very different thing. The fact that they can smash each others to bits doesn't mean that they can smash a human to bits. I can easily smash a mosquito with almost no effort between my two fingers, but I wouldn't attempt to do the same with an elephant.

I think that's what critical thinking should be - instead of political spin ask objective questions.

Originally Posted by Seraphim

But how is directly observing planets in motion fall under the category of indirect observation?

I would contest that observation as being labeled 'direct'. Detecting the differences of the non-inertial frame of reference requires precision greater than that of just gazing at the sky - you need precision instruments like telescopes and photomultipliers. Now, bending the trajectories of the photons with optical lenses or all kinds of electronics is not exactly direct observation.
It seems that separating science based on how 'direct' an observation is is just rephrasing the problem, you still have to specify explicitly where the line between direct and indirect is, and so far nobody seems to be doing this.

As far as the inertial and non inertial reference frames go this actually isn't a physical phenomena that can be observed directly or indirectly. It's a postulate for the sake of convenience in having relatively simple framework describing the observations. Inertial reference frame is the one in which any object that does not interact with anything else moves with a constant velocity. Obviously there is no such thing as noninteracting object in our physical world, and the fact that something does not move at constant velocity may mean that you have not accounted for all of the interactions. The spin of the water in the toilet as it flushes can either be attributed to the Earth's rotation, or to a mysterious Coriolis force in the frame of reference connected to the toilet, in which the earth is stationary. It's exactly the same thing, no matter which way you decide to describe it.

The point of all this is that even very simple things can be very rigorous but at the same time people who don't know much about a subject could claim it's all BS.

Originally Posted by Seraphim

It also used to be theorized that the sun revolved around the Earth.

Until it was later determined that they were looking at things all wrong.

That's all I'm saying here guys. Indirect proof of a theory ("hey look, the sun comes up and then goes down again, it is obviously rotating around the Earth!") is all fine and good, until either A: you prove that it is true, or B: you realize that it wasn't quite right to begin with.

It wasn't actually theorized in any scientific sense. It was assumed. There is an important distinction between the two. Once a study was made and science employed it was shown the assumption that the Sun revolves around the Earth was false.

Originally Posted by Jimbo

Gugi, does that equation assume the speed of light is constant?

It does assume c is constant equal to the speed of light in vacuum. So far every measurement has confirmed both of these things.

Originally Posted by Jimbo

Because I have good reason to believe it is not. If you, dear brethren all, also believe it is not, send $5, to help defray the costs of changing all physics equations to do with "c", to

Jimbo Speed of light Ministries
as PO Box approaches Infinity
Qua(r)ck-ville, 666 666
Australia

James.

I am GUrkGIgler and I endorse this message.

I repeat: 666 666

Next stop - recursion! Tighten your belts and send those fivers.

Originally Posted by Seraphim

Inside of a black hole light can travel at any damn speed it likes. But often times it likes to pull over, get a bite to eat, and just take a break from rushing about the universe at 300,000,000 m/s.

Some of the holes I've eaten in were damn near black and they were veeeryyyyy sloooow, too. I must have visited one!

You forgot to mention the Hawking radiation in your post. It sure must have some interesting effects on the holes, too. In my case, I was eventually kicked out every single time.

Originally Posted by Seraphim

Inside of a black hole light can travel at any damn speed it likes. But often times it likes to pull over, get a bite to eat, and just take a break from rushing about the universe at 300,000,000 m/s.

This also will clearly show how astronomical black holes are formed from microscopic black holes due to the variation of the speed of light inside of the black hole itself.

So, the Swarzchild radius of a black hole is shown thusly:



And is an inverse square relationship to the speed of light.

Since we take for granted that microscopic black holes exist (it would be foolish not to, given all the evidence...), what happens is this: A microscopic black holes forms due to a random event, let's say a scientist waving his hand. Then a beam of light enters into this microscopic black hole. Since the speed of light is completely variable inside of a black hole, it oftentimes slows down, as submitted above. When the speed of light slows down, it can then be clearly seen that Swarzchild radius gets larger. This is a self-perpetuating cycle,as the black hole expands, it sucks in nearby stuff, cars, boats, trains, trees, and when more fully expanded: moons, planets, stars, and green clovers. Also more and more light gets drawn in, it creates photonic traffic jams, accidents, etc, etc, all of which further slow down the speed of light, thus directly leading to the expansion of the microscopic black hole to astronomical dimensions.

This obviously can lead to disasterous results.

So, it can also be clearly seen that it is best if scientists do not resort to simple hand waving when presenting theories.

Sorry, but when c appears in an equation, it refers to the speed of light in vacuum, and it is therefore a constant. As such, your "argument" falls on it's face.

There are, however, equations which can determine the lifetime of a black hole (see it and some background here: Lifetime of a black hole). It is this equation that explains why small scale black holes created in the atmosphere by cosmic rays or in accelerators are not dangerous; in addition to their gravitational forces being very weak, they are very short lived.

I'd also like to throw out a reminder that the point of this thread was to distinguish science from pseudoscience. Bearing that in mind, I make the claim that there have been a lot of pseudoscientific statements made recently...