Perpetua... I mean... Interesting motion machine.

[kath]

Nick, understand that scientists sometimes use some words differently that you do, especially when arguing with each other. "Irrefutable" is one example. To you, it means: "it is impossible that it could ever be proven wrong, ever." To a scientist, it means something more like: "something so established, so tested, and so agreed upon by the scientific community, for so long, that it is not under discussion". Same goes for words like "fact" and "known", etc etc.

This sometimes makes scientists seem arrogant when they talk, and especially when they try to educate. The use of these words does not imply that the speaker does not understand the scientific method. Understand this before blowing up at steingar, or at textbooks, or whoever else.

Science is not a "mystical thing" that some small population of brainiacs is asking the rest of us to swallow without question. But to argue about it, you gotta learn it. ANYONE can learn it. (Sometime, let me derive "conservation of momentum" for you, from the principle of translational invariance. It's a hoot, you'll love it.)

--Kath

Edit: the same confusion happens with words like "believe". To many, it implies "faith", so when a scientist says that he or she believes this or that about the universe, it sounds religious almost. But it's not. To a scientist, it means more like "have formed an opinion".

 

[TMetzinger]

Kath, from you I'll accept those terms, because we both know that, if pressed (even gently), you'll admit that it's possible (though extremely unlikely) that there may be undiscovered exceptions. You've established your personal credentials and earned the respect of folks here by your demonstration of knowledge and a good attitude.

The other poster has not built up the same reputation, and when pressed, got defensive. Whole 'nother story, and the difference between faith (in a non-theological meaning) and fanaticism.

But heck, I'm a fanatic for believing (in spite of all evidence to the contrary) that GA isn't circling the drain.

Best wishes,

 

[Henning]

Edit: the same confusion happens with words like "believe". To many, it implies "faith", so when a scientist says that he or she believes this or that about the universe, it sounds religious almost. But it's not. To a scientist, it means more like "have formed an opinion".

And that differs from the religious person how?

Sorry Kath, couldn't resist. How you been?

 

[SkyHog]

Nick, understand that scientists sometimes use some words differently that you do, especially when arguing with each other. "Irrefutable" is one example. To you, it means: "it is impossible that it could ever be proven wrong, ever." To a scientist, it means something more like: "something so established, so tested, and so agreed upon by the scientific community, for so long, that it is not under discussion". Same goes for words like "fact" and "known", etc etc.

This sometimes makes scientists seem arrogant when they talk, and especially when they try to educate. The use of these words does not imply that the speaker does not understand the scientific method. Understand this before blowing up at steingar, or at textbooks, or whoever else.

Science is not a "mystical thing" that some small population of brainiacs is asking the rest of us to swallow without question. But to argue about it, you gotta learn it. ANYONE can learn it. (Sometime, let me derive "conservation of momentum" for you, from the principle of translational invariance. It's a hoot, you'll love it.)

--Kath

Edit: the same confusion happens with words like "believe". To many, it implies "faith", so when a scientist says that he or she believes this or that about the universe, it sounds religious almost. But it's not. To a scientist, it means more like "have formed an opinion".

I was hoping so much that was what you meant. Steingar, on the other hand, is adamantly arguing the opposite, that he means "It cannnot ever change" which defeats the purpose of science to begin with. Its ALWAYS open to change, provided evidence exists that supports it!

I'd love to hear the COM thing. Sounds fun.

 

[gismo]

I absolutely hate discussions in which both religion and science get discussed at the same time. They are not comparable at all, and do not belong in the same sentence.

I think that John Payne (as Fred Gailey in Miracle on 34th Street) highlighted the difference pretty well: "Faith is believing when common sense tells you not to."

P.S. Try teaching students science without using words like "we know..." or "it's a fact that...". It is nearly impossible. There is simply not time enough in the semester to begin every such sentence with "to this date, overwhelming evidence supports the conclusion that..." instead.

It took me a little time to catch on but eventually I began to realize that each time I advanced to another level in my chemistry and physics education the course began by explaining how some (or a lot) of what I was taught in the previous course wasn't considered exactly correct anymore and that this semester I'd be learning the "truth". Those weren't the exact words but that was in effect the message. Scientific "facts" do indeed evolve, but the probability that someone has found a way to circumvent conservation of energy is well below that of the sun disappearing from the solar system tomorrow.

 

[Eamon]

But will the machine work if placed on a treadmill?

 

[steingar]

The other day I was teaching Genetics, and in the middle of my class I realized what a departure Mendel was from previous teaching. Before his work, people thought that children inherited a blended mixture of traits from their parents. Mendel showed that it was actually quantized units of inheritance, a complete and utter departure. I told my students that Mendel was a rebel. They loved it.

So in such a background how cans someone like me make such absolute statements? Scientific discoveries are overturned every day. Why not the second law of thermodynamics? What is so special about basic Physics?

I would have to answer that these are among the best and most thoroughly tested aspects of Science. They are the best tested because they are also the easiest to test. In addition, they are fundamental to all of the technology we use. If we were wrong about these very basic concepts most of our technology would not work the way it should. I stated that the Earth and Sun rotate around a gravitational center, and someone asked how I know. I can be certain, because people use these facts to send spaceships throughout the solar system. If gravitation was wrong, the space ships would not make it to their targets. I cannot tell you how impressed I am with the people who send bits of metal millions of miles to rendevous with heavenly bodies. I have a hard time finding my socks.

So I greet anyone making a perpetual motion machine, which physics says is impossible, with a tremendous degree of scepticism. I said in my first post that I felt it was more likely that the gizmo tapped into George Lucas' fictional Force than do what its inventor claimed. My thought is that there could be some pervasive force of energy that we don't completely understand, and maybe someone will make a device that can tap into it. I would not be instantly sceptical. We thought we knew a lot about aerodynamics, but the Osprey taught us something new, and at a horrible cost.

If someone claims to have turned string theory upside down, I won't discount them out of hand (though I won't understand their arguments either). People recently claimed to have turned dermal fibroblasts into embryonic stem cells. Again, its amazing, but stem cell biology is poorly understood, obviously there is stuff there we didn't know and still is. But people claiming the existence of perpetual motion machines are going against extremely well tested and time proven principles. They invariably turn out to be either charlatans or cranks. And one guy in a video on Youtube is insufficient to convince me of anything else.