Hoax is a hoax

[BADecker]

The assumptions in all this science theory are so great that science that is not closely tied to engineering is just a game.

A scarier example. Einstein figured out E=mc². This gave other scientists the go ahead to crack the atom. We got the atom bomb out of it. But we still don't know for a fact that it is the science of E=mc² that makes the bomb work like it does. It just seems to work that way. There might be some other unknown chunk of science that rides right along with E=mc² that is doing the actual work. It's kinda scary.

Science does proceed in this way though, it is all about getting closer to the truth. Way back in the 1600s we had Newton's Laws of Motion, which explained how objects move. And this was close enough to truth that we could use these laws for engineering, and did for a couple of hundred years, and indeed still do today. Then it became apparent that although the laws were great for everyday life and situations, they didn't really hold up so well with very small scales, very high speeds, or very strong gravitational fields. Nowadays we have relativity and quantum mechanics that describe these extreme situations very well... but no-one is saying these are absolute truths, just that they are the best we have at the moment. Through science our understanding of the universe is improving all the time.

The point isn't that people are trying to refine their understanding. Refining understanding and knowledge is a good thing.

The point is that average people don't understand one basic thing about science theory (and it seems that a lot of scientists don't, as well). This is the little part that science theory is designed to change.

Many scientists talk and act like the current theory is the factual answer. If they don't say it this way, they leave openings for the media to talk this way.

It's the engineers who are the scientists who make things happen. The theoreticists only supply something that they know isn't really factual. Sometimes it gets in the way fo what engineers would have accomplished if they had not heard the latest theory.

[1715675693]

1715675693

[1715675693]

1715675693

[1715675693]

1715675693

[1715675693]

1715675693

[styca]

Not really, it all starts with theories.
You have a hypothesis, test it, and if the results validate the original premise then great, it becomes a rule and can be used as a basis for future engineering and future theories.
The established rules don't suddenly appear fully formed, they are the results of theories that have been tested against evidence.

Yes we have engineers and we have theoreticians. But the engineers are working on rules and techniques supplied by previous generations of theoreticians.

[BADecker]

I would say that most of it starts with some kind of theory. Some of the simple stuff is simply recognition of the obvious. Science theories are different than regular theories.

[styca]

Science theories are different than regular theories.

Yes, in that science theories can (in the vast majority of cases) be proven or disproven.
The stuff we can't prove - well, we might be able to prove or disprove in the future, once our science has advanced some more.

[BADecker]

Science theories are different than regular theories.

Yes, in that science theories can (in the vast majority of cases) be proven or disproven.
The stuff we can't prove - well, we might be able to prove or disprove in the future, once our science has advanced some more.

But they never are proven. If they were, they would no longer be theories of any kind. They would be laws or facts.

[styca]

Science theories are different than regular theories.

Yes, in that science theories can (in the vast majority of cases) be proven or disproven.
The stuff we can't prove - well, we might be able to prove or disprove in the future, once our science has advanced some more.

But they never are proven. If they were, they would no longer be theories of any kind. They would be laws or facts.

Yeah, they are proven, of course they are. You can't say no science is ever proven! I don't know whether you are typing that on a phone or a laptop or whatever, but there is a hell of a lot of proven science that built that device. You really think it's all guesswork?

Here's a cell phone. It wasn't created just by someone saying I'll get some green stuff and put some silver stuff on it.

[BADecker]

Science theories are different than regular theories.

Yes, in that science theories can (in the vast majority of cases) be proven or disproven.
The stuff we can't prove - well, we might be able to prove or disprove in the future, once our science has advanced some more.

But they never are proven. If they were, they would no longer be theories of any kind. They would be laws or facts.

Yeah, they are proven, of course they are. You can't say no science is ever proven! I don't know whether you are typing that on a phone or a laptop or whatever, but there is a hell of a lot of proven science that built that device. You really think it's all guesswork?

Here's a cell phone. It wasn't created just by someone saying I'll get some green stuff and put some silver stuff on it.
https://i5.walmartimages.com/asr/750b8d8b-4375-40d6-8d31-6f64446b288a_1.b6642decb416e5fcc8044da82c7f0ed4.jpeg?odnWidth=450&odnHeight=450&odnBg=ffffff

But you are proving that you can't read, or can't think about what you read properly. I certainly didn't say that no science is ever proven.

I was talking about theories being proven. Just because there is engineering that works, doesn't mean that any scientific theories that are associated with the engineering, are associated exactly as the theories say. Most of the time engineers have to tweak the theories in their engineering, or the simply use the theories to give them ideas about how to engineer something. Almost never does a theory fit the engineering exactly.

[styca]

Just because there is engineering that works, doesn't mean that any scientific theories that are associated with the engineering, are associated exactly as the theories say. Most of the time engineers have to tweak the theories in their engineering, or the simply use the theories to give them ideas about how to engineer something. Almost never does a theory fit the engineering exactly.

I don't know how to respond to that.

[BADecker]

I don't know how to respond to that.

I appreciate your sincerity.     

[styca]

I don't know how to respond to that.

I appreciate your sincerity.     

 

I think you are sincere as well, although I disagree with everything you write

[BADecker]

I don't know how to respond to that.

I appreciate your sincerity.     

 

I think you are sincere as well, although I disagree with everything you write

Oh, drat! I knew I should have said that I didn't think you were sincere.

[DaftAjax]

<...>

<...>

I have to say. I enjoy reading them.

To spice things up. If scientists, or should I say, theoreticians didn't come up with theories, do you think engineers would even engineer something(?) or rather, would engineering even exist in the 1st place? You would probably argue and say that those are just regular theories and not scientific theories--for instance, gravity is a scientific theory tho we can say its just a regular theory just because we experience/see it every day, but no one really figures it out, until Newton had scientifically proven it. The same goes for everything in engineering. True, every theory that is associated with what they're engineering doesn't have to be exactly as what the theories said, but they use it anyway. Why? They tweak their works most of the time because they can, or should I say, these theories let them do so, not because the theories are proven to be wrong, BUT those theories provide these so-called "formulae"--that depending on the given situation will provide different results OR the answers that they needed. In fact, what we use right now are just temporary laws/facts, it is subject to change and depending on the circumstances, other theories might actually finally be proven and other laws might be completely abolished.

[BADecker]

<...>

<...>

I have to say. I enjoy reading them.

To spice things up. If scientists, or should I say, theoreticians didn't come up with theories, do you think engineers would even engineer something(?) or rather, would engineering even exist in the 1st place? You would probably argue and say that those are just regular theories and not scientific theories--for instance, gravity is a scientific theory tho we can say its just a regular theory just because we experience/see it every day, but no one really figures it out, until Newton had scientifically proven it. The same goes for everything in engineering. True, every theory that is associated with what they're engineering doesn't have to be exactly as what the theories said, but they use it anyway. Why? They tweak their works most of the time because they can, or should I say, these theories let them do so, not because the theories are proven to be wrong, BUT those theories provide these so-called "formulae"--that depending on the given situation will provide different results OR the answers that they needed. In fact, what we use right now are just temporary laws/facts, it is subject to change and depending on the circumstances, other theories might actually finally be proven and other laws might be completely abolished.

Engineer theories aren't necessarily scientific theories. Engineers aren't necessarily engineers in the way science describes engineers. A person inventing a better wheel 5,000 years ago might be an engineer.

Gravity isn't a scientific theory. Gravity Theory is a scientific theory. Gravity is a word given to the gravity experience that happens to all people all around the world all the time.

An engineer can make a scientific theory. But that doesn't stop him from engineering without using a scientific theory. He might use a non-scientific theory. Or, if it's simple enough, he might barely use a theory at all.

An engineer can tweak his engineering to be different than the theory says, not because the theory is proven wrong, but because he can't make the object of his engineering to work according to the theory. This doesn't prove that the theory is wrong. It simply shows that there is a glitch somewhere in this particular scientific theory application to this particular feat of engineering. Might be the theory, but could be something in the engineering.

If you search for it, you can find that scientists have generally agreed that something is a law when there are less than 10 to the 40th power odds in favor of the thing, with only one or less against. Of course, the scientists could be wrong about this.

[styca]

Gravity isn't a scientific theory. Gravity Theory is a scientific theory. Gravity is a word given to the gravity experience that happens to all people all around the world all the time.

Yes, gravity is a thing that happens. We didn't know what it was until we had a theory to describe it. Crazy as it might seem, some people actually thought it was a work of "God". But now we know what it is and why it happens, we can apply it to explain many other things, such as the motion of the planets.

An engineer can make a scientific theory. But that doesn't stop him from engineering without using a scientific theory. He might use a non-scientific theory. Or, if it's simple enough, he might barely use a theory at all.

No, you're thinking of wizards. Engineers use physics. Wizards use made-up magic stuff.

 

[BADecker]

Gravity isn't a scientific theory. Gravity Theory is a scientific theory. Gravity is a word given to the gravity experience that happens to all people all around the world all the time.

Yes, gravity is a thing that happens. We didn't know what it was until we had a theory to describe it. Crazy as it might seem, some people actually thought it was a work of "God". But now we know what it is and why it happens, we can apply it to explain many other things, such as the motion of the planets.

An engineer can make a scientific theory. But that doesn't stop him from engineering without using a scientific theory. He might use a non-scientific theory. Or, if it's simple enough, he might barely use a theory at all.

No, you're thinking of wizards. Engineers use physics. Wizards use made-up magic stuff.

 

If you don't understand that gravity is a work of God, you don't really understand about gravity. However, gravity does what it does without having any gravity theory involved. People who are affected by gravity, and want to call the affect "gravity," don't need to understand gravity theory to know that it's gravity.

Engineers using physics doesn't have anything to do with engineering. We all use physics all the time for everything that we do. Or do you think that if we aren't engineers, or that engineers themselves, suddenly stop using the physics of the universe? Maybe at death. Is that what you are talking about?

[Balthazar]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tytOwMLqufg

[notbatman]

I can't confirm or deny any of this, nor am I sure if this even qualifies as a hoax but:



5G LED WEAPON SYSTEM DEPLOYED ON THE STREETS OF THE UK -- https://youtu.be/qWzIh1OOa8Y

[styca]

If you don't understand that gravity is a work of God, you don't really understand about gravity.

There is no evidence for God!!!

gravity does what it does without having any gravity theory involved. People who are affected by gravity, and want to call the affect "gravity," don't need to understand gravity theory to know that it's gravity.

True. But a benefit of having the scientific explanation is that science advances. If we just relied on the stuff that we can physically witness, without trying to understand what it is and how it works, we'd still be living in caves.

Engineers using physics doesn't have anything to do with engineering. We all use physics all the time for everything that we do. Or do you think that if we aren't engineers, or that engineers themselves, suddenly stop using the physics of the universe? Maybe at death. Is that what you are talking about?

Not sure what you're suggesting. Engineers use physics (and the laws of physics), yes.

[BADecker]

If you don't understand that gravity is a work of God, you don't really understand about gravity.

There is no evidence for God!!!

gravity does what it does without having any gravity theory involved. People who are affected by gravity, and want to call the affect "gravity," don't need to understand gravity theory to know that it's gravity.

True. But a benefit of having the scientific explanation is that science advances. If we just relied on the stuff that we can physically witness, without trying to understand what it is and how it works, we'd still be living in caves.

Engineers using physics doesn't have anything to do with engineering. We all use physics all the time for everything that we do. Or do you think that if we aren't engineers, or that engineers themselves, suddenly stop using the physics of the universe? Maybe at death. Is that what you are talking about?

Not sure what you're suggesting. Engineers use physics (and the laws of physics), yes.

Everybody uses physics. Engineers aren't some special class of people who use physics while the rest of the people don't. So, why pick on them or physicists?

There is no proof that science advances with scientific explanations. Why? Because some of the explanations are wrong. And because they are wrong, they get in the way of continued exploration and advancing that would have been done by scientists who believe the wrong explanations, and quit exploration because of it. So, scientific advancements are often more like religion than science.

Search here https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.0 and you will find the proof that God exists... if you happen to be enough of a scientist that you know how to apply scientific proof.

[af_newbie]

If you don't understand that gravity is a work of God, you don't really understand about gravity.

There is no evidence for God!!!

gravity does what it does without having any gravity theory involved. People who are affected by gravity, and want to call the affect "gravity," don't need to understand gravity theory to know that it's gravity.

True. But a benefit of having the scientific explanation is that science advances. If we just relied on the stuff that we can physically witness, without trying to understand what it is and how it works, we'd still be living in caves.

Engineers using physics doesn't have anything to do with engineering. We all use physics all the time for everything that we do. Or do you think that if we aren't engineers, or that engineers themselves, suddenly stop using the physics of the universe? Maybe at death. Is that what you are talking about?

Not sure what you're suggesting. Engineers use physics (and the laws of physics), yes.

Everybody uses physics. Engineers aren't some special class of people who use physics while the rest of the people don't. So, why pick on them or physicists?

There is no proof that science advances with scientific explanations. Why? Because some of the explanations are wrong. And because they are wrong, they get in the way of continued exploration and advancing that would have been done by scientists who believe the wrong explanations, and quit exploration because of it. So, scientific advancements are often more like religion than science.

Search here https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.0 and you will find the proof that God exists... if you happen to be enough of a scientist that you know how to apply scientific proof.

MRCA is used in reference to the ancestry of haplotypes rather than organisms. The people who wrote your proof #65 completely ignored the fact that humans share 4% of Neanderthal DNA.  MRCA for Homo Sapiens lineage is estimated to be around 200,000 years old.  LUCA is estimated to have lived 3.5 to 3.8 billions years ago.

The person who wrote this 'proof' knew diddly squat about human evolution.

Learn a bit more about speciation so that you can read such 'proofs' and understand what you are reading.