My point was that the earlier posters definition of theory, which you criticized, was, IMO, right on the money: "A theory IS a hypothesis that has been proposed and tested" [emphasis mine], although I would add "and confirmed". I've never heard the usage in which "theories suggest hypotheses". Nor do they "become laws", as claimed by the Henry Clay high school web site you linked to. Though, I agree with you that the over-touchyness about definitions is ordinarily much ado about nothing. But in the context of this discussion, the precise definition strikes at the very heart of the issue, since the creationist typical response is "evolution is only a theory", as if it ever gets any better than that. It doesn't.
I wasn't trying to "prove you wrong" so much as to make certain we're all speaking the same language (by which I mean using a consistent set of definitions for things like "theory" and "hypothesis", which apparently we aren't).
I've also never heard before of such a distinction between "theory" and "model", vis a vis testing one and not the other. That's interesting, since I've always heard the two used more or less interchangably, with "model" perhaps being somewhat less formal and quantitative.
>So the whole point was that someone said "sadly
>it will still be a theory" and I understood he
>meant "in the end, that won't be any proof that
>this is how things are", and I happen to agree
Yes, I do too.
>The only thing that really upset me is this:
>>Ensteinian theory, as elegant as it might be is
>not tested
>Nonsense. Not only is it tested, it's been
>confirmed.
>I don't know anyone who doesn't know about what
>you're talking about,
Sorry if I jumped to the wrong conclusion here. Spend some time listening to the kooks on sci.physics.relativity once in a while, who claim that there is no experimental confirmation of Relativity whatsoever and that it's provably false from the get-go, and you'll understand my reaction:-).
This "Separating theory from its hypothesis" part still bugs me. This is a very unusual usage, in my experience. Oh well...
Sure. No difference whatsoever. Whether or not you'll be killed if you jump off the roof of a skyscraper is just a matter of faith. Faith that God will save you, versus faith that F equals m*a. It's all faith.
Uh-huh.
Regarding "it is still a theory": That's a compliment. "Theory" is as good as it gets. The next step after theory is "falsified former-theory". "Theories" don't become "laws". Theories are explanations. Laws are general principles (e.g. "law" of conservation of mass) or simple equations expressing observed relationships (e.g. "Ohm's law"),
>Any plausible explanation is wellcome as a theory
There. You just confirmed it. You don't know what "theory" means. You just defined "hypothesis".
>Anyway, I don't think you actually test the theory
You do if you're interested in doing science.
>Ensteinian theory, as elegant as it might be is not tested
Nonsense. Not only is it tested, it's been confirmed. Over and over again. In fact, few scientific theories, other than the round-earth theory, are better confirmed than Special Relativity and General Relativity. If you even bothered to do a web search, you would pick up things like this.
> unless... it will never prove your theory.
No theory is provable. By definition. (You do know the difference between "prove" and "confirm", don't you?)
Some genes require full-gene alignment, and others require even double-gene alignment. Those introns are just padding to preserve alignment. Many earlier species died out because of bus errors (core dumped) during the sperm/egg copy constructor.
I don't see the double-edged sword here. What is the basis of the premise that "SATs may be close to worthless"? Here we have the one and only nation-wide uniform standard for measuring acadamic ability, and some schools are thinking of tossing it? This makes no sense. And the premise in the story at yahoo is completely illogical. SATs distort the way young people learn? I was in school learning for over a decade before I even saw my first preliminary-SAT test.
This COULD make sense IF there have been studies demonstrating a lack of correlation, or even a negative correlation, between SAT score and subsequent academic achievement at the undergraduate or graduate level. But no such study was cited in the article. In fact, the article did not even say that anyone was SUGGESTING that this was the case, let alone studying it and demonstrating it.
The only "argument" relayed by the article in favor of eliminating the requirement for SATs was that it would increase the number of Blacks and Hispanics gaining admission. Although I am not a member of either of these communities, I suspect that if I were, I would find this argument highly insulting.
>I have yet to meet a real artist that didn't like
>napster. (metallica don't count they are NOT
>artists.)
They're not? Is that because you personally don't like their music? Or is it because they don't like napster and therefore constitute a counter-example to your theory?
>it still boggles my mind that anybody could
>actually argue that Napster should be shut down:
>they don't even distribute any copyrighted
>material! all Napster does is to tell people
>where to get information; information that may be
>copyrighted
I guess napster has changed since the last time I checked it out. Apparently now, the client software isn't involved in the transfer. The client software just gives a list of IP addresses to which the user can then initiate an anonymous FTP session, knowing that the destination computer is running an FTP daemon. It's nice to see that napster does not in any way participate in the transfer, either on the server end or the client end. This should help their case a lot.
>Well...if discrimination against race is
>wrong...how can discrimination against genetics be right?
You hit the nail right on the head! ALL discrimination is wrong! Universities should be forced to grant admission regardless of SAT scores and academic record, because discrimination against academic under-achievers is wrong. The NY Yankees should be forced to hire a certain percentage of incompetent baseball players, because discrimination against clutzes is wrong. Horse-races should give 300 lb. jockeys a head start, so that small jockeys don't have an unfair advantage.
Yes, ALL discrimination is ALWAYS wrong. Discrimination on the basis of race is ALWAYS wrong. Discrimination on the basis of age is ALWAYS wrong. Discrimination on the basis of sex is ALWAYS wrong. The next time there's a casting call for someone to play Rosa Parks in a movie about the civil rights movement, a young white male like me should have an equal shot at it, even if I can't act my way out of a paper bag.
So, at the moment you lose your GPS signal, you have a known position and velocity. Add a few simple accelerometers and you can do second-order dead reckoning, at least for a short distance while you lose the satellite signal.
Who the hell is moderating this?
on
The Challenger
·
· Score: 1
Instead of trying to sound out terms that, for lack of ever having read a book, you're never seen in print before, how about getting a dictionary? Most will have even French-derived terms like "coup d'etat".
>The article also talks about how detailed and
>precise NASA engineers are
Precision: The distance to the Mars surface is 18.387563
Accuracy: Them's meters, not feet.
It's the latter where they need a little work.:-)
Re:Not acceleration, GRAVITY.
on
E=MC
·
· Score: 1
No, you're wrong. Read my other post on this thread, the one with the subject "Bzzzzt YOU'RE wrong". It contains a detailed explanation of the common misconception that you demonstrate, as well as links to the FAQ that addresses this and other Relativity questions.
Re:Bzzzt! YOU'RE Wrong! -- Here's the reference
on
E=MC
·
· Score: 1
>Special relativity applies only to inertial frames
No. The POSTULATES of Special Relativity apply only to inertial frames. But these postulates allow you to DERIVE results for accelerated frames, provided that spacetime is flat in the region under consideration.
And no, gravity and acceleration are not the same thing. They are *locally* indistinguishable, meaning only in small regions of spacetime. In an accelerated coordinate system, the pseudo-gravitational field lines are all parallel. In real gravitational fields, they radiate out of the mass source.
You're simply wrong about special relativity not working for an accelerated frame of reference. Granted, the POSTULATES don't apply, and therefore accelerated frames cannot be treated as simply as inertial frames, but accelerated frames *can* be handled using Special Relativity and calculus to integrate over the continuum of inertial frames in the worldline of an accelerated object.
For further details, please see the Usenet Relativity FAQ here . Note specifically the question about whether SR can handle accelerated frames
>theory of special relativity where special meant
>constant velocity, no acceleration.
Wrong. "Special" does not mean no acceleration. Special Relativity is quite capable of handling acceleration, using a little calculus. The "special" means "flat spacetime", i.e. the absence of any (significant) spacetime curvature (a.k.a. "gravity") due to the presence of large nearby masses. Flat spacetime is the assumption under which the Two Postulates of Special Relativity [1. Principle of Relativity -- all inertial frames are created equal. 2. Law of Propagation of Light -- light's speed is a constant independent of the motion of its source] are made.
General Relativity is the extension of Special Relativity that handles GRAVITY (not acceleration). Don't overestimate the signifigance of the Equivalence Principle -- it applies only locally. That's why SR+calculus can handle acceleration, but gravity requires GR. SR is a special case of GR, in the low-mass limit. That's the difference.
Slashdot Mirror
Amazing. A slashdotter who wants to jam a cell phone transmission because he doesn't like the *content*.
Do you work for Net-nanny?
My point was that the earlier posters definition of theory, which you criticized, was, IMO, right on the money: "A theory IS a hypothesis that has been proposed and tested" [emphasis mine], although I would add "and confirmed". I've never heard the usage in which "theories suggest hypotheses". Nor do they "become laws", as claimed by the Henry Clay high school web site you linked to. Though, I agree with you that the over-touchyness about definitions is ordinarily much ado about nothing. But in the context of this discussion, the precise definition strikes at the very heart of the issue, since the creationist typical response is "evolution is only a theory", as if it ever gets any better than that. It doesn't.
:-).
I wasn't trying to "prove you wrong" so much as to make certain we're all speaking the same language (by which I mean using a consistent set of definitions for things like "theory" and "hypothesis", which apparently we aren't).
I've also never heard before of such a distinction between "theory" and "model", vis a vis testing one and not the other. That's interesting, since I've always heard the two used more or less interchangably, with "model" perhaps being somewhat less formal and quantitative.
>So the whole point was that someone said "sadly
>it will still be a theory" and I understood he
>meant "in the end, that won't be any proof that
>this is how things are", and I happen to agree
Yes, I do too.
>The only thing that really upset me is this:
>>Ensteinian theory, as elegant as it might be is
>not tested
>Nonsense. Not only is it tested, it's been
>confirmed.
>I don't know anyone who doesn't know about what
>you're talking about,
Sorry if I jumped to the wrong conclusion here. Spend some time listening to the kooks on sci.physics.relativity once in a while, who claim that there is no experimental confirmation of Relativity whatsoever and that it's provably false from the get-go, and you'll understand my reaction
This "Separating theory from its hypothesis" part still bugs me. This is a very unusual usage, in my experience. Oh well...
Sure. No difference whatsoever. Whether or not you'll be killed if you jump off the roof of a skyscraper is just a matter of faith. Faith that God will save you, versus faith that F equals m*a. It's all faith.
Uh-huh.
Regarding "it is still a theory": That's a compliment. "Theory" is as good as it gets. The next step after theory is "falsified former-theory". "Theories" don't become "laws". Theories are explanations. Laws are general principles (e.g. "law" of conservation of mass) or simple equations expressing observed relationships (e.g. "Ohm's law"),
>I'm pretty sure you actally don't.
... it will never prove your theory.
I'm pretty sure he does.
>Any plausible explanation is wellcome as a theory
There. You just confirmed it. You don't know what "theory" means. You just defined "hypothesis".
>Anyway, I don't think you actually test the theory
You do if you're interested in doing science.
>Ensteinian theory, as elegant as it might be is not tested
Nonsense. Not only is it tested, it's been confirmed. Over and over again. In fact, few scientific theories, other than the round-earth theory, are better confirmed than Special Relativity and General Relativity. If you even bothered to do a web search, you would pick up things like this.
> unless
No theory is provable. By definition. (You do know the difference between "prove" and "confirm", don't you?)
Some genes require full-gene alignment, and others require even double-gene alignment. Those introns are just padding to preserve alignment. Many earlier species died out because of bus errors (core dumped) during the sperm/egg copy constructor.
>Somehow I don't think that babes in bikinis
>dripping over the latest PC system will sell
>magazines(I could be wrong)
You're new around here, aren't you?
It seems to me that admission is not only quantitative, it's EXTREMELY quantitative: it's binary.
it stood for "Saturday Afternoon Test".
I don't see the double-edged sword here. What is the basis of the premise that "SATs may be close to worthless"? Here we have the one and only nation-wide uniform standard for measuring acadamic ability, and some schools are thinking of tossing it? This makes no sense. And the premise in the story at yahoo is completely illogical. SATs distort the way young people learn? I was in school learning for over a decade before I even saw my first preliminary-SAT test.
This COULD make sense IF there have been studies demonstrating a lack of correlation, or even a negative correlation, between SAT score and subsequent academic achievement at the undergraduate or graduate level. But no such study was cited in the article. In fact, the article did not even say that anyone was SUGGESTING that this was the case, let alone studying it and demonstrating it.
The only "argument" relayed by the article in favor of eliminating the requirement for SATs was that it would increase the number of Blacks and Hispanics gaining admission. Although I am not a member of either of these communities, I suspect that if I were, I would find this argument highly insulting.
>I have yet to meet a real artist that didn't like
>napster. (metallica don't count they are NOT
>artists.)
They're not? Is that because you personally don't like their music? Or is it because they don't like napster and therefore constitute a counter-example to your theory?
>it still boggles my mind that anybody could
>actually argue that Napster should be shut down:
>they don't even distribute any copyrighted
>material! all Napster does is to tell people
>where to get information; information that may be
>copyrighted
I guess napster has changed since the last time I checked it out. Apparently now, the client software isn't involved in the transfer. The client software just gives a list of IP addresses to which the user can then initiate an anonymous FTP session, knowing that the destination computer is running an FTP daemon. It's nice to see that napster does not in any way participate in the transfer, either on the server end or the client end. This should help their case a lot.
>Well...if discrimination against race is
>wrong...how can discrimination against genetics be right?
You hit the nail right on the head! ALL discrimination is wrong! Universities should be forced to grant admission regardless of SAT scores and academic record, because discrimination against academic under-achievers is wrong. The NY Yankees should be forced to hire a certain percentage of incompetent baseball players, because discrimination against clutzes is wrong. Horse-races should give 300 lb. jockeys a head start, so that small jockeys don't have an unfair advantage.
Yes, ALL discrimination is ALWAYS wrong. Discrimination on the basis of race is ALWAYS wrong. Discrimination on the basis of age is ALWAYS wrong. Discrimination on the basis of sex is ALWAYS wrong. The next time there's a casting call for someone to play Rosa Parks in a movie about the civil rights movement, a young white male like me should have an equal shot at it, even if I can't act my way out of a paper bag.
unsetenv SARCASM
>Do we want to see Homo Superior Plutocri overrun us all?
Sorry, pal. You can't stop us.
I don't think an obfuscated eidola constest would be challenging enough. How about an UNobfuscated APL contest? Now that would be something!
Actually, I think Professor Abian died a few years ago.
.. and change the gravitational constant of the universe.
What do you mean, "how"? You just DO it!
So, at the moment you lose your GPS signal, you have a known position and velocity. Add a few simple accelerometers and you can do second-order dead reckoning, at least for a short distance while you lose the satellite signal.
How the hell did this get "Score:5 - Funny"?
Ugh. It figures I'd have a typo in a spelling flame. Clearly, I meant "you've".
Instead of trying to sound out terms that, for lack of ever having read a book, you're never seen in print before, how about getting a dictionary? Most will have even French-derived terms like "coup d'etat".
>Grammar was correct as well. Could not of been Taco.
You mean, "Could not HAVE been Taco", right?
>The article also talks about how detailed and
:-)
>precise NASA engineers are
Precision: The distance to the Mars surface is 18.387563
Accuracy: Them's meters, not feet.
It's the latter where they need a little work.
No, you're wrong. Read my other post on this thread, the one with the subject "Bzzzzt YOU'RE wrong". It contains a detailed explanation of the common misconception that you demonstrate, as well as links to the FAQ that addresses this and other Relativity questions.
>Special relativity applies only to inertial frames
No. The POSTULATES of Special Relativity apply only to inertial frames. But these postulates allow you to DERIVE results for accelerated frames, provided that spacetime is flat in the region under consideration.
And no, gravity and acceleration are not the same thing. They are *locally* indistinguishable, meaning only in small regions of spacetime. In an accelerated coordinate system, the pseudo-gravitational field lines are all parallel. In real gravitational fields, they radiate out of the mass source.
You're simply wrong about special relativity not working for an accelerated frame of reference. Granted, the POSTULATES don't apply, and therefore accelerated frames cannot be treated as simply as inertial frames, but accelerated frames *can* be handled using Special Relativity and calculus to integrate over the continuum of inertial frames in the worldline of an accelerated object.
For further details, please see the Usenet Relativity FAQ here . Note specifically the question about whether SR can handle accelerated frames
Hope this helps.
Christopher R. Volpe
>theory of special relativity where special meant
>constant velocity, no acceleration.
Wrong. "Special" does not mean no acceleration. Special Relativity is quite capable of handling acceleration, using a little calculus. The "special" means "flat spacetime", i.e. the absence of any (significant) spacetime curvature (a.k.a. "gravity") due to the presence of large nearby masses. Flat spacetime is the assumption under which the Two Postulates of Special Relativity [1. Principle of Relativity -- all inertial frames are created equal. 2. Law of Propagation of Light -- light's speed is a constant independent of the motion of its source] are made.
General Relativity is the extension of Special Relativity that handles GRAVITY (not acceleration). Don't overestimate the signifigance of the Equivalence Principle -- it applies only locally. That's why SR+calculus can handle acceleration, but gravity requires GR. SR is a special case of GR, in the low-mass limit. That's the difference.