Quizzes & Puzzles2 mins ago
Science Changes Its Mind
New Horizons spacecraft 'alters theory of planet formation'.
https:/
Perhaps now we may now once again open up this section to all and sundry releasing it from the ridiculous imposition that anything posted here must conform to current scientific thinking. Current scientific thinking is often short lived.
https:/
Perhaps now we may now once again open up this section to all and sundry releasing it from the ridiculous imposition that anything posted here must conform to current scientific thinking. Current scientific thinking is often short lived.
Answers
It's the Handbrake Turn Effect, doesn't inspire confidence in plebs like me. See also Impending Ice Age Morphs To Global Warming In A Relatively Short Lifetime, (mine). People in white coats just like scaring folk. :-)
08:12 Fri 14th Feb 2020
So what in particular did Spike Psarris say that you disagree with?
Bear in mind that his lecture is dotted with quotes and claims from the scientific establishment.
In particular, he asks how material coalescing together, builds up pressure, when such pressure in the vacuum of space would end in some kind of equilibrium, and not progress into planet formation.
The old theory based on many assumptions has been replaced with a new theory based on new assumptions.
Bear in mind that his lecture is dotted with quotes and claims from the scientific establishment.
In particular, he asks how material coalescing together, builds up pressure, when such pressure in the vacuum of space would end in some kind of equilibrium, and not progress into planet formation.
The old theory based on many assumptions has been replaced with a new theory based on new assumptions.
In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
May as well adopt that; make your bed, clean your room, prepare breakfast - all else is vanity.
May as well adopt that; make your bed, clean your room, prepare breakfast - all else is vanity.
People, including scientists, like to latch onto anything that supports their pet theory.
Confirming a theory with one observation is ludicrous. We could equally point at the leading theory for the formation of the Moon as evidence of very violent collisions.
I would expect both gentle and violent agglomeration as well as everything in between to be involved in planetary formation.
Confirming a theory with one observation is ludicrous. We could equally point at the leading theory for the formation of the Moon as evidence of very violent collisions.
I would expect both gentle and violent agglomeration as well as everything in between to be involved in planetary formation.
A handy example of someone reading too much into something they would like to be true is Naomi's //Current scientific thinking is often short lived.//
He claim is patent nonsense. There are relatively few examples of scientific thinking being turned on its head, particularly in the past several decades, so using the word "often" is quite inappropriate.
Science is largely a process of refinement. For example, contrary to popular notions among the scientifically illiterate, Newton was not proven wrong by Einstein.
Einstein showed that Newton's laws were a special case of his own laws which perfectly described motions and gravitation at the scales we are familiar with. We went to the Moon and distant planets on Newton's laws because the circumstances where Einstein's laws would be relevant were not encountered on those journeys.
Finding sub atomic particles didn't disprove atomic theory. Crick and Watson's discoveries in genetics didn't disprove Mendel. They all still stand today, we just have a more detailed picture.
He claim is patent nonsense. There are relatively few examples of scientific thinking being turned on its head, particularly in the past several decades, so using the word "often" is quite inappropriate.
Science is largely a process of refinement. For example, contrary to popular notions among the scientifically illiterate, Newton was not proven wrong by Einstein.
Einstein showed that Newton's laws were a special case of his own laws which perfectly described motions and gravitation at the scales we are familiar with. We went to the Moon and distant planets on Newton's laws because the circumstances where Einstein's laws would be relevant were not encountered on those journeys.
Finding sub atomic particles didn't disprove atomic theory. Crick and Watson's discoveries in genetics didn't disprove Mendel. They all still stand today, we just have a more detailed picture.
beso; "Scientific thinking" continues as always, but individual thoughts & theories are under constant revision along with our over all world view, Weltanschauung
You mention Newton, but he said;
“This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being … This Being governs all things, not as the soul of the world, but as Lord over all; and on account of his dominion he is wont to be called Lord God.”
Something you would not uphold, I think.
You mention Newton, but he said;
“This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being … This Being governs all things, not as the soul of the world, but as Lord over all; and on account of his dominion he is wont to be called Lord God.”
Something you would not uphold, I think.
did anything become of this one, Jim?
https:/
(Serious question, I was interested to read about it but haven't come across anything since.)
https:/
(Serious question, I was interested to read about it but haven't come across anything since.)
Beso. //A handy example of someone reading too much into something they would like to be true is Naomi's //Current scientific thinking is often short lived.////
I beg to differ. I understand it's uncomfortable for those who try to give the rest of us the impression that science is the be all and end all - but there are numerous examples of science changing its mind. The fact is had the possibility of this new discovery been proposed here a few weeks ago, under new 'rules' it would have been in danger of being removed - which is why I posted it. A good example of why this section shouldn't carry restrictions likely to deter people from posting.
//Science is largely a process of refinement.//
I'll read that as handy terminology for 'best guesses'. Always room for change.
I beg to differ. I understand it's uncomfortable for those who try to give the rest of us the impression that science is the be all and end all - but there are numerous examples of science changing its mind. The fact is had the possibility of this new discovery been proposed here a few weeks ago, under new 'rules' it would have been in danger of being removed - which is why I posted it. A good example of why this section shouldn't carry restrictions likely to deter people from posting.
//Science is largely a process of refinement.//
I'll read that as handy terminology for 'best guesses'. Always room for change.
It would be nice if, tomorrow, the Ed would clarify whether, if someone now states (or implies) that material violently crashed together to form ever larger clumps until they became worlds, this would now be removed as it constitutes a misleading theory. If the purpose of potentially removing threads is not for cases like this, I personally (and I think Naomi) would like to know why, and, what sort of thing might be under threat of removal.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.