Science vs Pseudoscience

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sparq

Ding ding! This round is up.

The next round - string theory vs. LQG. Sharpen your pencils please!

:jedi:

---

I'm so on it!
http://lh4.ggpht.com/_4ruQ7t4zrFA/SY...ing-theory.JPG

Well, let me bring some reality - direct observations do not exist in absolute sense.

To observe something means to collect knowledge through senses, which is actually a process in itself - something causes the respective receptors to make certain chemical reactions which produce electrical charges that are transmitted along neurons and end up in the brain where they do something.
Now any part of this process can be modified by another process and in fact it is constantly being modified. Even without bringing the uncertainties from quantum mechanics which is the only theory able to describe these processes, it's pretty clear that the concept of direct observation is very ambiguous.

So, there are observations and there are theories that are attempting to provide some structure to these observations and predict future observations. The level where this becomes science is basically determined by the willingness to account for any phenomena that can affect the results. Of course the planets' and stars' configuration has an effect on everything happening on earth. Using the applicable theories of physics (gravity) these effects can be evaluated and predictions can be made.
Now if the predictions are made without using tested scientific theories within the domain of their validity, then those predictions are at best hypotheses.

In the case of black holes, a hole in space, collapsed star, or a little gugi- daemon in there, taken by themselves are equally meaningless hypotheses. What makes one of them valuable is the theory based on that hypothesis which actually can make predictions that can be tested.


As far as I'm concerned scientific law is pretty much the equivalent of 'extensively tested scientific theory which can be formulated simply'.
Newton's laws of mechanics are actually wrong - there are observations which contradict them. But they are still called laws and remain in the physics textbooks, because they are simple and in many cases can make correct predictions because you don't have enough precision to measure the differences where they are wrong (plus their historic value, of course).

Nah, you are all wrong. Science has an ever changing definition, but generally it boils down to whatever types of research bring money to the Institution in question.

And that, gentlemen, is science. :D

James.

Practical science-hard cold facts.
Theoretical science-mathamatical models and conjecture.

Pseudo or junk science is when you take a tiny bit of truth and a huge lump of theoretical and try to pass it off as Practical science.As soon as you do this you are basically lieing. All junk science reports usually begin with the words,( I believe,may,might,could,possibly ect.) and then proceed to try and convince you that it is 100% truth.
The sad part is that, the majority of science today is junk science.

Before Newton, apples never fell of trees.

It was the law.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AussiePostie

Practical science-hard cold facts.
Theoretical science-mathamatical models and conjecture.

Pseudo or junk science is when you take a tiny bit of truth and a huge lump of theoretical and try to pass it off as Practical science.

---

And how can you tell the difference?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by holli4pirating

And how can you tell the difference?

---

Real science does its best to remove personal bias and is always trying to disprove itself. If the findings can be repeated and still be shown to be true even by the harshest critic then it lives as science. It gets published in peer reviewed journals.

Pseudo science uses real science, but fails because it cherry picks its favourite bits and sells you a bill of goods. It gets broadcast directly to the public via the media.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by xman

Pseudo science uses real science, but fails because it cherry picks its favourite bits and sells you a bill of goods. It gets broadcast directly to the public via the media.

---

:OTSounds a bit like global warming hey?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JMS

:OTSounds a bit like global warming hey?

---

No, Mark. Although there is still some debate about the issue, the human cause of global warming has been published in peer reviewed papers and it has not been discounted. It's more than just media hype. Please do your research. All I did was type 'global warming peer review' into Google to confirm my answer. [/off topic segment]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by xman

No, Mark. Although there is still some debate about the issue, the human cause of global warming has been published in peer reviewed papers and it has not been discounted. It's more than just media hype. Please do your research. All I did was type 'global warming peer review' into Google to confirm my answer. [/off topic segment]

---

X, your claim that the AGW is a proven theory that is not challenged by skeptics in the ranks of scientists is a very bold one; bordering with a religion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sparq

X, your claim that the AGW is a proven theory that is not challenged by skeptics in the ranks of scientists is a very bold one; bordering with a religion.

---

Please read my post again, I never said such a thing. Let's get back on topic.

"LOOK! The cliffs of insanity!"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ControlFreak1

"LOOK! The cliffs of insanity!"

---

It's inconceivable!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seraphim

It's inconceivable!

---

"You keep using that word. I don't think that it means what you think it means."

:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ControlFreak1

"You keep using that word. I don't think that it means what you think it means."

:)

---

Just because something is inconceivable, doesn't mean it's not scientifically valid. As long as you get it published, and no one can disprove it, you're Golden!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by holli4pirating

Black holes have been created in labs, and they are created in our atmosphere all the time as well. The black holes that I am speaking of fit the only important definition of a black hole, which is the ratio of mass to radius - namely the Schwarzchild radius.

---

Can you please post a link for that? Sounds like a bit of theoretical hocus-pocus going on there....

Especially if you use things which can't be proven or disproven.

:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seraphim

Can you please post a link for that? Sounds like a bit of theoretical hocus-pocus going on there....

---

Here's the first example google brought me to:

"Although theory predicts that microscopic black holes decay rapidly, even hypothetical stable black holes can be shown to be harmless by studying the consequences of their production by cosmic rays."

From The safety of the LHC

I searched Google with: black hole cosmic ray earth atmosphere

I'd make a video, but I'm not as cool as X.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by holli4pirating

And how can you tell the difference?

---

Sometimes it,s not easy, but basically if you find that the "reseacher" has a barrow to push on the subject it will be a flawed study.
Example-The anti tobacco movements statement that "even 30 seconds exposure to second hand tobacco smoke will harm you"
But when you look at every scientific study done on this, even the study done by the world health organization, this statement is not true. But this statment is peddled as if it is a scientific fact, when the only fact associated with this statment is that it is a blatant lie.
They did take junk science to new heights with "third hand smoke" Even they couldn,t make that one swim.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AussiePostie

Sometimes it,s not easy, but basically if you find that the "reseacher" has a barrow to push on the subject it will be a flawed study.
Example-The anti tobacco movements statement that "even 30 seconds exposure to second hand tobacco smoke will harm you"
But when you look at every scientific study done on this, even the study done by the world health organization, this statement is not true. But this statment is peddled as if it is a scientific fact, when the only fact associated with this statment is that it is a blatant lie.
They did take junk science to new heights with "third hand smoke" Even they couldn,t make that one swim.

---

Yeah, I researched that. They had studies for years that couldn't prove anything about second had smoke, then they had one that might have proven something, and the whole anti-smoking movement ran with it the best they could. I haven't looked in depth at the study, but I have a feeling it was something like they did with marijuana to prove it was harmful-namely force the rat to inhale what would be the human equivalent of several tons at once.

There's a good example of psuedo science for you, alot of these studies to keep drugs like LSD and marijuana illegal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AussiePostie

Sometimes it,s not easy, but basically if you find that the "reseacher" has a barrow to push on the subject it will be a flawed study.
Example-The anti tobacco movements statement that "even 30 seconds exposure to second hand tobacco smoke will harm you"
But when you look at every scientific study done on this, even the study done by the world health organization, this statement is not true. But this statment is peddled as if it is a scientific fact, when the only fact associated with this statment is that it is a blatant lie.
They did take junk science to new heights with "third hand smoke" Even they couldn,t make that one swim.

---

It sounds to me like the only difference you are citing is that a scientist does not have an agenda while a pseudo scientist does. That does not seem correct, to me. Bias may be one thing that interferes with "science," but that can't be the only thing. Is the only thing that makes the 'scientific studies' "scientific" that they are not run by anti-tobacco movements?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pete_S

Yeah, I researched that. They had studies for years that couldn't prove anything about second had smoke, then they had one that might have proven something, and the whole anti-smoking movement ran with it the best they could. I haven't looked in depth at the study, but I have a feeling it was something like they did with marijuana to prove it was harmful-namely force the rat to inhale what would be the human equivalent of several tons at once.

There's a good example of psuedo science for you, alot of these studies to keep drugs like LSD and marijuana illegal.

---

I can niether confirm, nor deny any allegations, that in my misspent youth I may, or may not have inhaled several tons of marijuana smoke.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by holli4pirating

Here's the first example google brought me to:

"Although theory predicts that microscopic black holes decay rapidly, even hypothetical stable black holes can be shown to be harmless by studying the consequences of their production by cosmic rays."

From The safety of the LHC

I searched Google with: black hole cosmic ray earth atmosphere

I'd make a video, but I'm not as cool as X.

---

It would seem that microscopic black holes only exist in theory, and that theory would also extend to say that they would rapidly decay. Not that they actually do exist.

Quote:

---

Micro black holes are tiny hypothetical black holes, also called quantum mechanical black holes or mini black holes, for which quantum mechanical effects play an important role.<SUP class=reference id=cite_ref-carr_0-0>[1]</SUP>

---

Wiki


Another interesting bit of propaganda in that link to the LHC:

Quote:

---

Nature forms black holes when certain stars, much larger than our Sun, collapse on themselves at the end of their lives. They concentrate a very large amount of matter in a very small space. Speculations about microscopic black holes at the LHC refer to particles produced in the collisions of pairs of protons, each of which has an energy comparable to that of a mosquito in flight. Astronomical black holes are much heavier than anything that could be produced at the LHC.

---

They try to placate you by saying "look at these little protons....each has no more enrgy than a mosquito in flight..."

But in reality, they want to accelerate those cute little protons to close to the speed of light and smash them together, per another portion of their website:

Quote:

---

Inside the accelerator, two beams of particles travel at close to the speed of light with very high energies before colliding with one another.

---

Well the definition of momentum is

p = mv

p= momentum
m= mass
v= velocity

When the velocity is as high as close to the speed of light (300,000,000 m/s) the mass of whatever you are moving at that velocity is really a rather insignificant part of the equation.

A weak analogy:
A bullet does not weigh very much, but when you accelerate it down the barrel of a gun, it aquires alot more *oomph* doesn't it?


Scientists play it "cute" with crap like that, just like we all do. But when they make a statement, it comes from Scientists "trust us".

Critical thinking must be applied to all fields.

I'm not saying anything against the LHC, or think it's a doomsday device.

But I do find it intereting the way they presented the information above. I think it illustrates rather well that scientists quite often "cook the books" to present the information how they want it to be seen.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seraphim

It would seem that microscopic black holes only exist in theory, and that theory would also extend to say that they would rapidly decay. Not that they actually do exist.

---

Very close to the truth. First let's remember that scientific theories are not the same as colloquial theories. They are based on the physical laws of the universe, so it's a little dishonest to say they 'only' exist in theory. It is truer to say they haven't been detected ... yet. Just like quarks were solidly theorised for many years before we were able to detect them.

Personally, I suspect that quantum singularities will be created before dark matter is directly observed.

Gravitational lensing has actually allowed cosmologists to make maps of dark matter in the universe!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seraphim

It would seem that microscopic black holes only exist in theory, and that theory would also extend to say that they would rapidly decay. Not that they actually do exist.


Wiki


Another interesting bit of propaganda in that link to the LHC:



They try to placate you by saying "look at these little protons....each has no more enrgy than a mosquito in flight..."

But in reality, they want to accelerate those cute little protons to close to the speed of light and smash them together, per another portion of their website:



Well the definition of momentum is

p = mv

p= momentum
m= mass
v= velocity

When the velocity is as high as close to the speed of light (300,000,000 m/s) the mass of whatever you are moving at that velocity is really a rather insignificant part of the equation.

A weak analogy:
A bullet does not weigh very much, but when you accelerate it down the barrel of a gun, it aquires alot more *oomph* doesn't it?


Scientists play it "cute" with crap like that, just like we all do. But when they make a statement, it comes from Scientists "trust us".

Critical thinking must be applied to all fields.

I'm not saying anything against the LHC, or think it's a doomsday device.

But I do find it intereting the way they presented the information above. I think it illustrates rather well that scientists quite often "cook the books" to present the information how they want it to be seen.

---

I must be missing something. Where did you make a calculation of the energy of a particle inside the LHC or of a mosquito in flight?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by holli4pirating

I must be missing something. Where did you make a calculation of the energy of a particle inside the LHC or of a mosquito in flight?

---

It was on that page you linked previously;

Quote:

---

Microscopic black holes

Nature forms black holes when certain stars, much larger than our Sun, collapse on themselves at the end of their lives. They concentrate a very large amount of matter in a very small space. Speculations about microscopic black holes at the LHC refer to particles produced in the collisions of pairs of protons, each of which has an energy comparable to that of a mosquito in flight. Astronomical black holes are much heavier than anything that could be produced at the LHC.
According to the well-established properties of gravity, described by Einstein’s relativity, it is impossible for microscopic black holes to be produced at the LHC. There are, however, some speculative theories that predict the production of such particles at the LHC. All these theories predict that these particles would disintegrate immediately. Black holes, therefore, would have no time to start accreting matter and to cause macroscopic effects.
Although theory predicts that microscopic black holes decay rapidly, even hypothetical stable black holes can be shown to be harmless by studying the consequences of their production by cosmic rays. Whilst collisions at the LHC differ from cosmic-ray collisions with astronomical bodies like the Earth in that new particles produced in LHC collisions tend to move more slowly than those produced by cosmic rays, one can still demonstrate their safety. The specific reasons for this depend whether the black holes are electrically charged, or neutral. Many stable black holes would be expected to be electrically charged, since they are created by charged particles. In this case they would interact with ordinary matter and be stopped while traversing the Earth or Sun, whether produced by cosmic rays or the LHC. The fact that the Earth and Sun are still here rules out the possibility that cosmic rays or the LHC could produce dangerous charged microscopic black holes. If stable microscopic black holes had no electric charge, their interactions with the Earth would be very weak. Those produced by cosmic rays would pass harmlessly through the Earth into space, whereas those produced by the LHC could remain on Earth. However, there are much larger and denser astronomical bodies than the Earth in the Universe. Black holes produced in cosmic-ray collisions with bodies such as neutron stars and white dwarf stars would be brought to rest. The continued existence of such dense bodies, as well as the Earth, rules out the possibility of the LHC producing any dangerous black holes.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by xman

Very close to the truth. First let's remember that scientific theories are not the same as colloquial theories. They are based on the physical laws of the universe, so it's a little dishonest to say they 'only' exist in theory. It is truer to say they haven't been detected ... yet. Just like quarks were solidly theorised for many years before we were able to detect them.

Personally, I suspect that quantum singularities will be created before dark matter is directly observed.

Gravitational lensing has actually allowed cosmologists to make maps of dark matter in the universe!

---

So, basically, microscopic black holes are on the same scientifically provable level as Russell's teapot.

It, and they, simply haven't been detected yet.

EDIT:

Forgot the Youtube link for the sake of veracity of truth:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2IlHgbOWj4o


Don't make me break out the Oingo Boingo on ya....

They have been detected by looking at their decays. I know you want to discount "indirect evidence," but entire fields of science depend on it.

What these particles have that the teapot does not is that they are predicted by relativity and supported mathematically. Think of finding footprints in the sand.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by xman

What these particles have that the teapot does not is that they are predicted by relativity and supported mathematically. Think of finding footprints in the sand.

---

That's just too good to pass up!

http://www.cprompt.ca/talley/footprints.jpg

Predicted religiously, and supported experiencially.:nj

i.e.- just as well supported as microscopic black holes. You can't detect them but only see the effects indirectly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by xman

What these particles have that the teapot does not is that they are predicted by relativity and supported mathematically. Think of finding footprints in the sand.

---

I have seen, touched and experienced teapots. So have you. They are real. Repeatably demonstrable as existing. You don't even need an advanced degree to explain a teapot, or how it came into existance.

Thus I postulate it is far more likely, and scientifically valid that somehow a teapot got into orbit in outer space than microscopic black holes exist.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by holli4pirating

They have been detected by looking at their decays. I know you want to discount "indirect evidence," but entire fields of science depend on it.

---

I warned you!

YouTube - Oingo Boingo "Weird Science"

http://www.livedispatch.org/facepalm.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by xman

Very close to the truth. First let's remember that scientific theories are not the same as colloquial theories. They are based on the physical laws of the universe, so it's a little dishonest to say they 'only' exist in theory. It is truer to say they haven't been detected ... yet. Just like quarks were solidly theorised for many years before we were able to detect them.

Personally, I suspect that quantum singularities will be created before dark matter is directly observed.

Gravitational lensing has actually allowed cosmologists to make maps of dark matter in the universe!

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by holli4pirating

It sounds to me like the only difference you are citing is that a scientist does not have an agenda while a pseudo scientist does. That does not seem correct, to me. Bias may be one thing that interferes with "science," but that can't be the only thing. Is the only thing that makes the 'scientific studies' "scientific" that they are not run by anti-tobacco movements?

---

What I am trying to get at is the way that the research is presented.
eg. You buy one lottery ticket, of which one million are sold.You have a one in a million chance of winning or bugger all! Now if you buy two tickets the hard facts are your chance of winning is still bugger all.
But you can twist this information to make it appear appealing,eg.You are now twice as likely to win or you have now increased your chances of winning by 100%. Technically this is not lieing but it is not giving you the true picture and this is how junk science works at making things appear better or worse than they actually are to suit an agender.

I personally like scientific stuff especially theoretical science, all that what if or what would happen conjecture, makes for good conversation :) So long as they don,t try telling me it,s fact.

Interesting thread. There are a couple of things that I find important that I haven't seen discussed.

First, true science never proves anything. Science only seeks evidence that says something about a theory. It doesn't matter if it is positive evidence, which supports a theory, or negative evidence, which questions a theory.

Second, science never really observes anything. Even if we think that we did, it is impossible. There is some reality out there, but we cannot actually see it. And we can only describe what we do see. Even if we could see what was out there, we know that the act of viewing it would distort it. Because of these limitations, there will always be error associated with everything studied empirically. Error means that the results might be wrong.

Because of this problem, science is only concerned with ordering knowledge to an acceptable amount of error. This is why mathematics is not considered a science. In math, things can be proven. Science can only say something like we are 99%, 99.9%, or 99.99% confident that evidence supporting a theory isn't just an error. The community that interprets the science is responsible for determining what level of error is acceptable. It varies from discipline to discipline.

Because this error exists, science can never really say that it has proven anything. By replicating results over and over, science yields additional support that can reduce error. However, it is impossible to ever get rid of it completely. Even the most supported theory might be wrong.

This idea of 'acceptable' is at the crux of the difference between science and psuedo-science. What is in fact scientific is determined by standards of the scientific community. Psuedo-science is anything that simply claims to be scientific while failing to comply with these standards. It really has nothing to do with science being 'right' and psuedo-science being 'wrong'.

Aussie, while I do agree that science must not manipulate data in order to spin results, does that mean that anyone who does not spin data is a scientist? Certainly a necessary condition, but not a sufficient one I'd say.

Some very interesting points, captain, but dare I say, you've wrapped up with something akin to "science is what scientists say it is." Who are these "scientists," how do you know who is or isn't a "scientist," and what do they say "science" is?

That is precisely the point. A cobbler trying to figure out the best way to resole shoes, provided he acknowledges validity issues with his research and presents his findings to the cobbling community for scrutiny is a scientist. But even if all the other cobblers agree that he has really worked something out, he hasn't proven anything.

I am not familiar with the microscopic black holes and the evidence about them, but I think I should set some simple scientific facts straight. In USA this is introductory level physics that any science, engineering, bio-, premeds etc. students have to pass.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seraphim

Well the definition of momentum is

p = mv

p= momentum
m= mass
v= velocity

When the velocity is as high as close to the speed of light (300,000,000 m/s) the mass of whatever you are moving at that velocity is really a rather insignificant part of the equation.

---

And you are implying that the mass is a constant. That's what Newthon thought, but it's been over 100 years that the observations (yes indirect) have been that this equation is not really correct, especially for velocity close to the speed of light. Now an easy way is to deal with that is to make the mass also increase with the velocity, so you have seemingly as simple equation as before, but it is just hiding something a lot more complicated, namely

Code:

---

p=m v/\sqrt(1-(v/c)^2)
(c is the speed of light, and m is now constant again as it used to be in Newton's time)

---

Quote:

---

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.

---

And actually it is correct, the sun does rotate around the earth - motion is relative. But there is a difference between the frame of reference attached to the Earth, the one attached to the Sun, the one attached to the center of the galaxy, or to any other galaxies, etc.

The point is that you can name things any way you like, but what is important is what that naming actually means.

I think most people will agree with the need of critical thinking, what I'm having problem here is your choice of examples illustrate your points pretty poorly.

In the case of the Sun and the Earth the critical approach of science is what's behind the understanding of inertial and non inertial frames of reference, and that was driven by... yes, you got it, indirect observations :p

Is that the full story? I don't think so, more indirect observations with better precision and it is very likely there is something else happening too.

Being dismissive is fairly easy and can be somewhat effective, but you better make sure you're right, because when you're not it's rather embarrassing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gugi

I am not familiar with the microscopic black holes and the evidence about them, but I think I should set some simple scientific facts straight. In USA this is introductory level physics that any science, engineering, bio-, premeds etc. students have to pass.


Quote:
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=8 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">Originally Posted by Seraphim http://straightrazorpalace.com/image...s/viewpost.gif
Well the definition of momentum is

p = mv

p= momentum
m= mass
v= velocity

When the velocity is as high as close to the speed of light (300,000,000 m/s) the mass of whatever you are moving at that velocity is really a rather insignificant part of the equation.

</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
And you are implying that the mass is a constant. That's what Newthon thought, but it's been over 100 years that the observations (yes indirect) have been that this equation is not really correct, especially for velocity close to the speed of light. Now an easy way is to deal with that is to make the mass also increase with the velocity, so you have seemingly as simple equation as before, but it is just hiding something a lot more complicated, namely

Code:


p=m v/\sqrt(1-(v/c)^2)(c is the speed of light, and m is now constant again as it used to be in Newton's time)
</PRE>
Quote:
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=8 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">Originally Posted by Seraphim http://straightrazorpalace.com/image...s/viewpost.gif
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.

</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
And actually it is correct, the sun does rotate around the earth - motion is relative. But there is a difference between the frame of reference attached to the Earth, the one attached to the Sun, the one attached to the center of the galaxy, or to any other galaxies, etc.

The point is that you can name things any way you like, but what is important is what that naming actually means.

I think most people will agree with the need of critical thinking, what I'm having problem here is your choice of examples illustrate your points pretty poorly.

In the case of the Sun and the Earth the critical approach of science is what's behind the understanding of inertial and non inertial frames of reference, and that was driven by... yes, you got it, indirect observations :p

Is that the full story? I don't think so, more indirect observations with better precision and it is very likely there is something else happening too.

Being dismissive is fairly easy and can be somewhat effective, but you better make sure you're right, because when you're not it's rather embarrassing. .

---

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,

Nice points in regard to frames of reference. But how is directly observing planets in motion fall under the category of indirect observation?