Washington football community discussions spanning the Redskins to Commanders era. 20+ years of game analysis, player discussions, and fan perspectives.
https://the-hogs.net/messageboard/
UK Skins Fan wrote:And so you should be.NC43Hog wrote:I'm Stuffed!!
If only you knew some Cockney rhyming slang, you could probably say exactly what you need to, and nobody would be any the wiser.NC43Hog wrote:UK Skins Fan wrote:And so you should be.NC43Hog wrote:I'm Stuffed!!
You Are Evil . . . you know I can't respond appropriately in this forum.
. . . I'm Stuffed.
crazyhorse1 wrote:DarthMonk wrote:"Put in context" is a lot better than "overthrown." How about we let Einstein himself explain:
"Creating a new theory is not like destroying (overthrowing) an old barn (Newton)and erecting a skyscraper (relativity) in its place. It is rather like climbing a mountain, gaining new and wider views, discovering unexpected connections between our starting points and its rich environment. But the point from which we started out (Newtonian barn) still exists and can be seen (put in context), although it appears smaller and forms a tiny part of our broad view gained by the mastery of the obstacles on our adventurous way up."
-- Albert Einstein, The Evolution of Physics.
DarthMonk
I know he great deal about Einstein and know his political needs that caused him to say it. The most ingeniously ingenuine part of the statement is at it's end, when he says that Newton's observations formed a tiny part of the broad view gained by "the masteryof the obstacles on the way." Newton was an "obstacle" to the way up. By overcoming his error science achieved a way to the light. Einstein was being attacked by defenders of Newtonian physicas who were threatened by his discoveries and impeded his career. He was trying to placate them but at the same time was too filled with pride and anger not to use his doubletalk.
Later in his life, he denied the literal existence of death when he said that true scientists don't believe in it because they know that time is a "persistent illusion." He flat out deinied that Newtonian physics described the real world, not only in relation to dependence on the "illusion" of time but also in relation to the concept of gravity. If Einstein's notion of reality is true, Newton's is not. One might have led to the discovery of the other, but they cannot be reconciled.
DarthMonk wrote:crazyhorse1 wrote:DarthMonk wrote:"Put in context" is a lot better than "overthrown." How about we let Einstein himself explain:
"Creating a new theory is not like destroying (overthrowing) an old barn (Newton)and erecting a skyscraper (relativity) in its place. It is rather like climbing a mountain, gaining new and wider views, discovering unexpected connections between our starting points and its rich environment. But the point from which we started out (Newtonian barn) still exists and can be seen (put in context), although it appears smaller and forms a tiny part of our broad view gained by the mastery of the obstacles on our adventurous way up."
-- Albert Einstein, The Evolution of Physics.
DarthMonk
I know he great deal about Einstein and know his political needs that caused him to say it. The most ingeniously ingenuine part of the statement is at it's end, when he says that Newton's observations formed a tiny part of the broad view gained by "the masteryof the obstacles on the way." Newton was an "obstacle" to the way up. By overcoming his error science achieved a way to the light. Einstein was being attacked by defenders of Newtonian physicas who were threatened by his discoveries and impeded his career. He was trying to placate them but at the same time was too filled with pride and anger not to use his doubletalk.
Later in his life, he denied the literal existence of death when he said that true scientists don't believe in it because they know that time is a "persistent illusion." He flat out deinied that Newtonian physics described the real world, not only in relation to dependence on the "illusion" of time but also in relation to the concept of gravity. If Einstein's notion of reality is true, Newton's is not. One might have led to the discovery of the other, but they cannot be reconciled.
Dear crazyhorse1:
I generally like what you have to say - particularly in the political threads - but I think you are missing the boat on this one. All he's talking about is the general evolution of physical theories. I was the one who related the different sentences to the current discussion of Newton and overthrowing him vs. putting him in context.
Newton still applies and is better than relativiity for things like throwing a curve ball or getting a plane off the ground. That is the context in it which is accurate and "correct." Newton was not an obstacle on the way up. He was a rung on the ladder. Similarly, quantum theory did not overthrow Einstein either. It addresses areas relativity does not just as relativity address areas Newtonian mechanics does not. I don't think there was anything ingenuine at all here. It's just a fairly simple statement that theories evolve and the establishment of a new one is not like a demolition or an overthrowing of an old one when the old one works so well in the area in which it has been experimentally confirmed. This whole quotation of Einstein is really about the correspondence principle. Any new theory (if it's worth its salt) must agree with the old one where the old one has been shown to be accurate. Relativity reduces to Newton at low speeds and what not. That doesn't make Newton wrong. It just puts Newtonian mechanics in its place - as a low speed limit to something (relativity) that handles more general situations.
DarthMonk
You don't understand what a "law" or a "theory" is in relation to science. Very briefly, a " law" and a "theory" in science are of equal weight, something laymen do not presume to be true because they use definitions in everyday life that differ from scientific usage. Roughly speaking, a "law" is an established, scientifically uncontested fact in relation to all known data; a "theory" is an established, scientificically uncontested explanation of how something operates and must be all inclusive in relation to all known data.Countertrey wrote:CH, you even manage to twist and distort the works of the worlds greatest physicists!!!!
It is more accurate to claim that the various laws proposed by Newton are "incomplete" rather than invalid ( as you attempt). On the scales of our earthly perspective, they are perfectly fine for explaining the relationships of gravity, inertia, mass, force, time and speed.
It is only on quantum scales of size, or speeds approaching light, (where relativistic perceptions become necessary), that flaws appear. The THEORIES of Newton remain perfectly valid for our purposes...
As it pertains to whether the aircraft flew or not... well...
The plane flew.
Get over yourself.
Hypothesis
A hypothesis is an educated guess, based on observation. Usually, a hypothesis can be supported or refuted through experimentation or more observation. A hypothesis can be disproven, but not proven to be true.
Example: If you see no difference in the cleaning ability of various laundry detergents, you might hypothesize that cleaning effectiveness is not affected by which detergent you use. You can see this hypothesis can be disproven if a stain is removed by one detergent and not another. On the other hand, you cannot prove the hypothesis. Even if you never see a difference in the cleanliness of your clothes after trying a thousand detergents, there might be one you haven't tried that could be different.
Theory
A scientific theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing. A theory is valid as long as there is no evidence to dispute it. Therefore, theories can be disproven. Basically, if evidence accumulates to support a hypothesis, then the hypothesis can become accepted as a good explanation of a phenomenon. One definition of a theory is to say it's an accepted hypothesis.
Example: It is known that on June 30, 1908 in Tunguska, Siberia, there was an explosion equivalent to the detonation of about 15 million tons of TNT. Many hypotheses have been proposed for what caused the explosion. It is theorized that the explosion was caused by a natural extraterrestrial phenomenon, and was not caused by man. Is this theory a fact? No. The event is a recorded fact. Is this this theory generally accepted to be true, based on evidence to-date? Yes. Can this theory be shown to be false and be discarded? Yes.
Law
A law generalizes a body of observations. At the time it is made, no exceptions have been found to a law. Scientific laws explain things, but they do not describe them. One way to tell a law and a theory apart is to ask if the description gives you a means to explain 'why'.
Example: Consider Newton's Law of Gravity. Newton could use this law to predict the behavior of a dropped object, but he couldn't explain why it happened.
As you can see, there is no 'proof' or absolute 'truth' in science. The closest we get are facts, which are indisputable observations. Note, however, if you define proof as arriving at a logical conclusion, based on the evidence, then there is 'proof' in science. I work under the definition that to prove something implies it can never be wrong, which is different. If you're asked to define hypothesis, theory, and law, keep in mind the definitions of proof and of these words can vary slightly depending on the scientific discipline. What is important is to realize they don't all mean the same thing and cannot be used interchangeably.
You don't understand what a "law" or a "theory" is in relation to science.
Countertrey wrote:You don't understand what a "law" or a "theory" is in relation to science.
Condescension: CH's newest ineffective debating tool. Such an attitude does not make your effort at argument valid. It does, however, underline a high degree of arrogance.
Additionally, it avoids the point, which is, Newton's Laws of motion are more than adequate to explain why...
The plane flew.
