so says the poster that has a womans ass as the "focal point" of their avatar.
Scientific theories and reality:
- Thread starter paddoboy
- Start date
sculptor
Valued Senior Member
Hey sculptor, is that avatar of your own making? If so, nice! if not, good choice.
yeh, mine (THANX)
didn't even use a model for this one
memory and imagination and a few pounds of clay and plaster
sculptor
Valued Senior Member
And a very nice ass it is?
I had a front of another sculpture for a previous avatar, but a mod removed it------thought it pornographic (which means I musta done a good job on that clay also?).
as/re: Very entertaining
I am a dilettante in that I do that which delights me, so when I post "very entertaining", that's a compliment.
Please always take it as such.
forrest noble
Registered Senior Member
A good job all the way around I would say
Have you thought of making castings of this one or another, with different mediums such as clay, plaster, metal, etc. then finish coating and selling them in large numbers? It looks salable to me okay.
instead of laughing your ass off, why don't you explain to me what the difference is, which one of the 2 was being discussed in the article, and how it applies to this ayala issue.
I just realized, I got distracted half way through that sentence. It should have read "He was a news editor for Science for ten years."
But then, you knew that having followed the link I provided for you.
Because, umm, he was a news editor and it was an opinion piece?
:Roll:
It's inane commentary such as this that leads to accusations of dishonesty...
Why would I waste my time trying to explain it to you for, what is it now, the third time?
probably because i don't see how this applies to ayala and what was published.
There are two basic types of theory; applied and pure. Applied theory is useful and is all about achieving practical results. This type of theory is commonly used in engineering. Pure theory is different and attempts to define a phenomena as it exists in natural reality, apart from practical and economic needs.
As an example of this contrast, Newtonian gravity is an applied theory that is still used today. It is still useful because it leads to practical results in the field. Einstein's theory of Relativity, which superseded Newtonian gravity, is closer to pure science. Although relativity is closer to pure, it is more cumbersome to use than Newtonian in our day to day world. Because both will be used side-by-side, many people think they are two competing theories. But in reality, they are both useful, but they differ by one being applied, and other being pure, making both valid for these purposes.
This discussion, of science theories and reality, boils down to being able to distinguish between applied and pure theory, and with some applied theory assumed to be pure, because of the results it gives, but it may not reflect reality, since it is not pure theory. It may be more like a good applied correlation.
If something is pure theory and therefore reflects the reality of nature, it might be self limiting in terms of synthetic and artificial needs. The Golden Gate bridge is not natural, therefore pure theory may not be able to define it. It needs an applied theory which is more flexible. Theory that would work better for extending the limits of natural reality, may not be pure to nature.
This leads to the concerned that since applied theory is the basis for extrapolation and fabrication, it can also be used to fabricate experiments or math to self prove the theory, creating the illusion of pure. These theories raise a yellow flag in terms of reflecting reality.
My approach is to look at theory, conceptually, since you can't always tell by experimental math or physical contrivances that rely on applied theory, to prove pure theory. Realty does not include such contrivances. Where would one find a super collider in nature? The reality is there is data from this contrivance that is real and now part of reality but not part of natural reality.
As an example of this contrast, Newtonian gravity is an applied theory that is still used today. It is still useful because it leads to practical results in the field. Einstein's theory of Relativity, which superseded Newtonian gravity, is closer to pure science. Although relativity is closer to pure, it is more cumbersome to use than Newtonian in our day to day world. Because both will be used side-by-side, many people think they are two competing theories. But in reality, they are both useful, but they differ by one being applied, and other being pure, making both valid for these purposes.
This discussion, of science theories and reality, boils down to being able to distinguish between applied and pure theory, and with some applied theory assumed to be pure, because of the results it gives, but it may not reflect reality, since it is not pure theory. It may be more like a good applied correlation.
If something is pure theory and therefore reflects the reality of nature, it might be self limiting in terms of synthetic and artificial needs. The Golden Gate bridge is not natural, therefore pure theory may not be able to define it. It needs an applied theory which is more flexible. Theory that would work better for extending the limits of natural reality, may not be pure to nature.
This leads to the concerned that since applied theory is the basis for extrapolation and fabrication, it can also be used to fabricate experiments or math to self prove the theory, creating the illusion of pure. These theories raise a yellow flag in terms of reflecting reality.
My approach is to look at theory, conceptually, since you can't always tell by experimental math or physical contrivances that rely on applied theory, to prove pure theory. Realty does not include such contrivances. Where would one find a super collider in nature? The reality is there is data from this contrivance that is real and now part of reality but not part of natural reality.
That's nonsense, well wisher -- every bit of it. There is no such thing as an "applied theory" or "pure theory". You made it up.
Notes on Scientific Laws, Theories and Hypotheses
A very common mistake of non-scientists and, believe it or not, some scientists, is to fail to correctly distinguish between scientific laws, theories and hypotheses. The difference is not just semantics. Conceptually, a scientific law is something very different from a theory. Following are some definitions, followed by some explanation and a few examples.
Scientific Law A scientific law is an empirical (ie based on experimental evidence) statement of great generality of something which seems to always be true.
Scientific Hypothesis A scientific hypothesis is a tentative explanation of an observation or pattern which has been observed in nature.
Scientific Theory A scientific theory is an explanation of a natural phenomenon with a broad range of significance and application.
The chief distinction between a scientific law, on the one hand, and a theory or hypothesis on another, is that a law is a generalization. It is NOT an explanation. It is the result of induction. It is an empirical (ie based on observation alone) statement of something which always appears to be true.
Hypotheses and theories, on the other hand, are an attempt to explain what has been observed. Often scientists form theories to explain laws.
There are two important distinctions between scientific hypotheses and theories. Remember that these two concepts are fairly similar to one another, while a law is something very different. Theories and hypotheses are both explanations, but a theory is different, in general, in that;
1. It has much more experimental support and
2. It is a much broader statement, with a wide variety of potential applications
than a hypothesis. Hypotheses are more tentative, but even more importantly, they apply to a rather specific and narrow set of circumstances, while a theory applies to a great number of problems.
The distinction is best explained by using practical examples which most of us are at least somewhat familiar with.
Laws:
1. The Law of Gravity. This law tells us the size of the gravitational force, but it does not explain why gravity exists or even why it is as strong as it is.
2. The First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics. The first law of thermodynamics tells us that every experiment ever done leads to the conclusion that energy is always conserved. It is an empirical fact, but it is not an explanation. The second law of thermodynamics is extremely successful at predicting what processes are spontaneous, but it cannot explain why entropy increase causes spontaneity.
Theories:
1. The theory of evolution is a theory (as opposed to a hypothesis) because it has very broad applications and explanatory power. We can explain the entire fossil record and the genetic code of all plants, animals and other forms of life using this theory. It is the breadth of the theory more than the amount of support which makes it a theory. In fact, the day it was published (1859 by Darwin) it was already a theory, not just a hypothesis, not because of all the support (the support was still fairly weak at the time) but because of the wide range of things it could explain.
Consider the following two predictions/explanations:
a. Compound A will prevent the spread of bacteria B because….
b. Compounds in the category A will have broad ability to kill microbes because….
Explanation a. is a hypothesis, while explanation b. is a theory. Explanation a. covers a very specific example and it does not have broad implications. Explanation b. is about a whole category of compounds and their application in a very broad range of microbes.
Sample question: Law, theory or hypothesis?
a. In every case, male birds are either similar or more colorful than their female counterparts .
b. Zinc in the diet will lower the rate and intensity of viral outbreaks.
c. There is a strong connection between nutrition and a variety of cancers.
Answers:
a. is a law. It is a statement of something which appears to always be true, but it is not an explanation of anything.
b. is a hypothesis. It is a very specific prediction about the connection between one thing and one other thing.
c. is a theory. It is a broad statement that nutrition in general can have an impact on a range of very different kinds of cancer.
A very common mistake of non-scientists and, believe it or not, some scientists, is to fail to correctly distinguish between scientific laws, theories and hypotheses. The difference is not just semantics. Conceptually, a scientific law is something very different from a theory. Following are some definitions, followed by some explanation and a few examples.
Scientific Law A scientific law is an empirical (ie based on experimental evidence) statement of great generality of something which seems to always be true.
Scientific Hypothesis A scientific hypothesis is a tentative explanation of an observation or pattern which has been observed in nature.
Scientific Theory A scientific theory is an explanation of a natural phenomenon with a broad range of significance and application.
The chief distinction between a scientific law, on the one hand, and a theory or hypothesis on another, is that a law is a generalization. It is NOT an explanation. It is the result of induction. It is an empirical (ie based on observation alone) statement of something which always appears to be true.
Hypotheses and theories, on the other hand, are an attempt to explain what has been observed. Often scientists form theories to explain laws.
There are two important distinctions between scientific hypotheses and theories. Remember that these two concepts are fairly similar to one another, while a law is something very different. Theories and hypotheses are both explanations, but a theory is different, in general, in that;
1. It has much more experimental support and
2. It is a much broader statement, with a wide variety of potential applications
than a hypothesis. Hypotheses are more tentative, but even more importantly, they apply to a rather specific and narrow set of circumstances, while a theory applies to a great number of problems.
The distinction is best explained by using practical examples which most of us are at least somewhat familiar with.
Laws:
1. The Law of Gravity. This law tells us the size of the gravitational force, but it does not explain why gravity exists or even why it is as strong as it is.
2. The First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics. The first law of thermodynamics tells us that every experiment ever done leads to the conclusion that energy is always conserved. It is an empirical fact, but it is not an explanation. The second law of thermodynamics is extremely successful at predicting what processes are spontaneous, but it cannot explain why entropy increase causes spontaneity.
Theories:
1. The theory of evolution is a theory (as opposed to a hypothesis) because it has very broad applications and explanatory power. We can explain the entire fossil record and the genetic code of all plants, animals and other forms of life using this theory. It is the breadth of the theory more than the amount of support which makes it a theory. In fact, the day it was published (1859 by Darwin) it was already a theory, not just a hypothesis, not because of all the support (the support was still fairly weak at the time) but because of the wide range of things it could explain.
Consider the following two predictions/explanations:
a. Compound A will prevent the spread of bacteria B because….
b. Compounds in the category A will have broad ability to kill microbes because….
Explanation a. is a hypothesis, while explanation b. is a theory. Explanation a. covers a very specific example and it does not have broad implications. Explanation b. is about a whole category of compounds and their application in a very broad range of microbes.
Sample question: Law, theory or hypothesis?
a. In every case, male birds are either similar or more colorful than their female counterparts .
b. Zinc in the diet will lower the rate and intensity of viral outbreaks.
c. There is a strong connection between nutrition and a variety of cancers.
Answers:
a. is a law. It is a statement of something which appears to always be true, but it is not an explanation of anything.
b. is a hypothesis. It is a very specific prediction about the connection between one thing and one other thing.
c. is a theory. It is a broad statement that nutrition in general can have an impact on a range of very different kinds of cancer.
forrest noble
Registered Senior Member
That's not an answer to the question being asked.
Tell me something. How much information do you think we have on the reproductive habits of ceratopsians (or, for that matter, Triceratops)?
They're interpretations of QM. They all recover the theoretical model we call quantum mechanics. They're equivalent. They're basically pedagogical tools for helping students understand the theory. QM as a theoretical model is understood in detail without any need of interpretation models.
Your equations have nothing to do with real natural phenomena. So I do completely understand that the paper you wrote and linked for us is bullshit nonsense. IE: your equations are derived from bullshit cosmology. Bullshit in bullshit out. I'm pretty sure you've heard this before.
listen, i love cleavage and camel toes as much as the next man.
if you want to post like this, then take it to "about the members" or "free thoughts".
this is the science section, mind your manners.
was it not you who brought it up in the science section ?
One has to be careful with thinking math defines reality. Rather a conceptual foundation leads, and the math follows. If we agree upon a conceptual foundation then the math can be a way to extrapolate other meaning. But if the conceptual foundation is flawed, math can lead to a distortion of reality. If I assume gravity due to the repulsion of matter by space, instead of an attraction of matter, it works out the same way. We can develop the math to get the same results but since this is flawed, any extrapolation, beyond practical results, starts to lose touch with reality.
One simple problem with math, that is common to solving many equations, is division by a fraction, such as 1/ (1/2) = 2. If I have one gallon of gasoline and divide by one half, I get two gallons of gas. This is perpetual motion, which is not possible. Solving equations often relies on this perpetual motion step. The reason we overlook this is because of the math can be useful for applied theory leading to practical results. But from a pure POV perpetual motion is still taboo and this should not be allowed without a waiver for the reader.
The bible miracle of feeding the masses, where Jesus feeds the thousands with only a few fish and loaves of bread, can be proven with math. All Jesus had to do with divide the fish and bread by 1/1000, since math can prove anything. A least one miracle is supported by math.
One simple problem with math, that is common to solving many equations, is division by a fraction, such as 1/ (1/2) = 2. If I have one gallon of gasoline and divide by one half, I get two gallons of gas. This is perpetual motion, which is not possible. Solving equations often relies on this perpetual motion step. The reason we overlook this is because of the math can be useful for applied theory leading to practical results. But from a pure POV perpetual motion is still taboo and this should not be allowed without a waiver for the reader.
The bible miracle of feeding the masses, where Jesus feeds the thousands with only a few fish and loaves of bread, can be proven with math. All Jesus had to do with divide the fish and bread by 1/1000, since math can prove anything. A least one miracle is supported by math.