Quote Originally Posted by Seraphim View Post
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.



Quote Originally Posted by Seraphim View Post
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.