World may not be warming, say scientists

[cybrsage]

The fail is stronger in this sentence. If you'd studied statistics you'd know you can prove one theory is more accurate.

This is not what you said. You clearly said:

IF YOU CAN PROVE ANY OF YOUR IDEAS, THEN THEY BECOME SCIENCE.

Which is wrong.

Even if we pretend you said what you are now saying, it is STILL wrong. Statistics do not PROVE anything. It deals in confidence levels.

 

[richaron]

To clarify you do have to disprove an accepted idea (read idea proven to most accurate), or at least prove a different idea is better. You are just saying "NO NONO NO NO". Any idea might not be "provable" (as you say), but it's easily possible to prove an idea is better than another, which is what you should be trying to do.

Which one are you going to keep, agreeing that Hawking is correct and therefor Newton's Law has been disproven, or saying Newton's Law has not been disproven and therefor Hawking is not correct. You cannot keep both, they are diametrically opposed views

Please show how they a diametrically opposed?

As I've said on numerous occasions, all of these are tools, they have their particular purpose & they don't work for other purposes. THEY ARE THE BEST TOOLS WE HAVE FOR THEIR PURPOSE.

Don't blame me if you can't tell the difference between a hammer and a screwdriver.

 

[NikolaeVarius]

This is not what you said. You clearly said:



Which is wrong.

Even if we pretend you said what you are now saying, it is STILL wrong. Statistics do not PROVE anything. It deals in confidence levels.

"Please answer my arguments"

"Please stop ignoring my arguments and tunnel visioning into your arguments"

 

[cybrsage]

To clarify you do have to disprove an idea, or at least prove a different idea is better. You are just saying "NO NONO NO NO". Any idea might not be "provable" (as you say), but it's easily possible to prove an idea is better than another, which is what you should be trying to do.



Please show how they a diametrically opposed?

As I've said on numerous occasions, all of these are tools, they have their particular purpose & they don't work for other purposes. THEY ARE THE BEST TOOLS WE HAVE
FOR THEIR PURPOSE.

Don't blame me if you can't tell the difference between a hammer and a screwdriver.

I already showed it to Niko, but I will requote it here for you:

Stephen Hawking said, "On the other hand, you can disprove a theory by finding even a single observation that disagrees with the predictions of the theory."

The Universal Law of Gravitation fails to predict the orbit of the Mercury. This means, if you believe Hawking to be correct, that Newton's Universal Law of Gravitation is disproven.

You cannot have it both ways, you cannot believe Hawking is correct that finding even one failed prediction means the theory is disproven AND say the theory (which has billions of examples where it fails) has not been disproven.

 

[cybrsage]

"Please answer my arguments"

"Please stop ignoring my arguments and tunnel visioning into your arguments"

You need to answer my question first before we go and answer your later asked questions. You made an erroneous claim and now want to pretend it never happened and veer off into a different topic. Is not going to happen. You may be able to cover your failures this way with others, but not me.

 

[NikolaeVarius]

You need to answer my question first before we go and answer your later asked questions.

Already answered it in previous posts

"Please answer my arguments"

"Please stop ignoring my arguments and tunnel visioning into your arguments"

I simply refuse to let you get away with this crime against knowledge and science.

Please answer this question. You have ignored a million other arguments that completely debunk you, you have completely ignored any argument that proves you wrong.


"In fact, I will actually stoop to your level and claim that I won the argument by making a argument in the form of a question that is a pretty stupid argument in the first place.

"Do you believe that 100 years of science, spaceflight mechanics, astronomy, quantum mechanics, quantum physics, atomic manipulation of matter, quantum computing, quarks, gluons, the entirety of the standard model, nuclear energy, nuclear fusion reactors, the LHC, the existance of CERN, and the existance of NASA are all complete shams and complete wastes of money because general relativity, special relativity, and quantum mechanics are wrong because they fail to operate throughout the entire universe because they simply cannot hope to cope with the myriad of situations that the universe can place matter into?"

You DO realize that under your framework, general relativity, special relativity, and quantum mechanics are wrong right? They are disproven theories. ""

 

[cybrsage]

Already answered it in previous posts.

Quote where you said it, if you actually did.

 

[NikolaeVarius]

Quote where you said it, if you actually did.

Hawkings is correct, newtons law is disproven for the universe, works perfectly under its own applicable framework.


Quid Pro Quo once again


"Please answer my arguments"

"Please stop ignoring my arguments and tunnel visioning into your arguments"


"In fact, I will actually stoop to your level and claim that I won the argument by making a argument in the form of a question that is a pretty stupid argument in the first place.

"Do you believe that 100 years of science, spaceflight mechanics, astronomy, quantum mechanics, quantum physics, atomic manipulation of matter, quantum computing, quarks, gluons, the entirety of the standard model, nuclear energy, nuclear fusion reactors, the LHC, the existance of CERN, and the existance of NASA are all complete shams and complete wastes of money because general relativity, special relativity, and quantum mechanics are wrong because they fail to operate throughout the entire universe because they simply cannot hope to cope with the myriad of situations that the universe can place matter into?"

You DO realize that under your framework, general relativity, special relativity, and quantum mechanics are wrong right? They are disproven theories. ""

 

[richaron]

it's easily possible to prove an idea is better than another, which is what you should be trying to do.

I already showed it to Niko, but I will requote it here for you: Stephen Hawking said, "On the other hand, you can disprove a theory by finding even a single observation that disagrees with the predictions of the theory."

Obviously don't understand what "prove an idea is better than another" means

 

[NikolaeVarius]

"Please answer my arguments"

"Please stop ignoring my arguments and tunnel visioning into your arguments"

 

[cybrsage]

Hawkings is correct, newtons law is disproven for the universe, works perfectly under its own applicable framework.

Ummm....the framework for Newtons UNIVERSAL Law of Gravitation is the...wait for it...wait for it...universe!

Have you now recanted and are admitting Newton's Law is disproven for everything?

Want more proof Newton's Law has been disproven?

Newton's description of gravity is sufficiently accurate for many practical purposes and is therefore widely used. Deviations from it are small when the dimensionless quantities φ/c2 and (v/c)2 are both much less than one, where φ is the gravitational potential, v is the velocity of the objects being studied, and c is the speed of light.[32] For example, Newtonian gravity provides an accurate description of the Earth/Sun system, since

where rorbit is the radius of the Earth's orbit around the Sun.
In situations where either dimensionless parameter is large, then general relativity must be used to describe the system. General relativity reduces to Newtonian gravity in the limit of small potential and low velocities, so Newton's law of gravitation is often said to be the low-gravity limit of general relativity.

Newton's Theory of Gravitation requires that the gravitational force be transmitted instantaneously. Given the classical assumptions of the nature of space and time before the development of General Relativity, a significant propagation delay in gravity leads to unstable planetary and stellar orbits.

Newton's Theory does not fully explain the precession of the perihelion of the orbits of the planets, especially of planet Mercury, which was detected long after the life of Newton.[33] There is a 43 arcsecond per century discrepancy between the Newtonian calculation, which arises only from the gravitational attractions from the other planets, and the observed precession, made with advanced telescopes during the 19th Century.

The predicted angular deflection of light rays by gravity that is calculated by using Newton's Theory is only one-half of the deflection that is actually observed by astronomers. Calculations using General Relativity are in much closer agreement with the astronomical observations.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton's_law_of_universal_gravitation#Problems_with_Newton.27s_theory

You cannot say that Hawking is correct AND that Newton's Law is correct at the same time. Only one of the two can be true.

EDIT: Before we can continue onto other things, the discussion of the first must be completed. You have yet to even admit Newton's Law has been disproven...even though you claim to agree with Hawking that showing even ONE observation which does not match the prediction disproves the theory.

 

[cybrsage]

Obviously don't understand what "prove an idea is better than another" means

Sure I do. It does not address Newton's Law being disproven, though. Which it has been, easily repeated.

 

[NikolaeVarius]

Ummm....the framework for Newtons UNIVERSAL Law of Gravitation is the...wait for it...wait for it...universe!

Have you now recanted and are admitting Newton's Law is disproven for everything?

Want more proof Newton's Law has been disproven?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton's_law_of_universal_gravitation#Problems_with_Newton.27s_theory

You cannot say that Hawking is correct AND that Newton's Law is correct at the same time. Only one of the two can be true.

"Newton's description of gravity is sufficiently accurate for many practical purposes and is therefore widely used. Deviations from it are small when the dimensionless quantities φ/c2 and (v/c)2 are both much less than one"

"Newtonian gravity provides an accurate description of the Earth/Sun system"


"Please answer my arguments"

"Please stop ignoring my arguments and tunnel visioning into your arguments"


"In fact, I will actually stoop to your level and claim that I won the argument by making a argument in the form of a question that is a pretty stupid argument in the first place.

"Do you believe that 100 years of science, spaceflight mechanics, astronomy, quantum mechanics, quantum physics, atomic manipulation of matter, quantum computing, quarks, gluons, the entirety of the standard model, nuclear energy, nuclear fusion reactors, the LHC, the existance of CERN, and the existance of NASA are all complete shams and complete wastes of money because general relativity, special relativity, and quantum mechanics are wrong because they fail to operate throughout the entire universe because they simply cannot hope to cope with the myriad of situations that the universe can place matter into?"

You DO realize that under your framework, general relativity, special relativity, and quantum mechanics are wrong right? They are disproven theories. ""

 

[cybrsage]

"Newton's description of gravity is sufficiently accurate for many practical purposes and is therefore widely used. Deviations from it are small when the dimensionless quantities φ/c2 and (v/c)2 are both much less than one"

"Newtonian gravity provides an accurate description of the Earth/Sun system"

Sigh...you are never going to actually admit you think Hawking has no idea what he is talking about with regards to scientific theories, are you?

You claim Newton's Theory has not been disproven, even though I can show you billions of observations which do not match the theory's predictions while also claiming that you agree with Hawking who said that even ONE observation which does not match the theory's predictions disproves the theory.

We are back to square one, with you claiming two opposite positions are both true at the same time. You cannot have it both ways, which do you choose?

Is the theory disproven, as Hawking claims, or is it not disproven and therefor Hawking is wrong? Which do you choose?

 

[NikolaeVarius]

Sigh...you are never going to actually admit you think Hawking has no idea what he is talking about with regards to scientific theories, are you?

You claim Newton's Theory has not been disproven, even though I can show you billions of observations which do not match the theory's predictions while also claiming that you agree with Hawking who said that even ONE observation which does not match the theory's predictions disproves the theory.

We are back to square one, with you claiming two opposite positions are both true at the same time. You cannot have it both ways, which do you choose?

Is the theory disproven, as Hawking claims, or is it not disproven and therefor Hawking is wrong? Which do you choose?

Newtonian gravity does not function for all instances. However, it is applicable to a wide variety of applications as it is still perfectly acceptable to use for calculations where general relativity is overkill. This does not in any way conflict with Hawkings

"Please answer my arguments"

"Please stop ignoring my arguments and tunnel visioning into your arguments"

"In fact, I will actually stoop to your level and claim that I won the argument by making a argument in the form of a question that is a pretty stupid argument in the first place.

"Do you believe that 100 years of science, spaceflight mechanics, astronomy, quantum mechanics, quantum physics, atomic manipulation of matter, quantum computing, quarks, gluons, the entirety of the standard model, nuclear energy, nuclear fusion reactors, the LHC, the existance of CERN, and the existance of NASA are all complete shams and complete wastes of money because general relativity, special relativity, and quantum mechanics are wrong because they fail to operate throughout the entire universe because they simply cannot hope to cope with the myriad of situations that the universe can place matter into?"

You DO realize that under your framework, general relativity, special relativity, and quantum mechanics are wrong right? They are disproven theories. ""

 

[cybrsage]

Newtonian gravity does not function for all instances.

We are close to finishing this part of the discussion, then we can move forward. You will undoubtedly base future parts of the discussion on this part, so ensuring everything is stated clearly is important.

So far, you have agreed that Hawking is correct, that showing even ONE observation which does not match the prediction of a theory disproves the theory. You have no agreed that there is at least one observation of the Universal Law of Gravitation which does not match the prediction of the Universal Law of Gravitation.

I need you to clarify if that means you agree with Hawking that the Universal Law of Gravitation has been disproven.

 

[NikolaeVarius]

We are close to finishing this part of the discussion, then we can move forward. You will undoubtedly base future parts of the discussion on this part, so ensuring everything is stated clearly is important.

So far, you have agreed that Hawking is correct, that showing even ONE observation which does not match the prediction of a theory disproves the theory. You have no agreed that there is at least one observation of the Universal Law of Gravitation which does not match the prediction of the Universal Law of Gravitation.

I need you to clarify if that means you agree with Hawking that the Universal Law of Gravitation has been disproven.

Sure, if you agree to answer my question because I still refuse to let you not answer any of my arguments. Also, if you had the ability to read and think, you would realize that 1) already answered your arguments, and 2) placing arguments in my mouth is not actually an argument.

"Please answer my arguments"

"Please stop ignoring my arguments and tunnel visioning into your arguments"

"In fact, I will actually stoop to your level and claim that I won the argument by making a argument in the form of a question that is a pretty stupid argument in the first place.

"Do you believe that 100 years of science, spaceflight mechanics, astronomy, quantum mechanics, quantum physics, atomic manipulation of matter, quantum computing, quarks, gluons, the entirety of the standard model, nuclear energy, nuclear fusion reactors, the LHC, the existance of CERN, and the existance of NASA are all complete shams and complete wastes of money because general relativity, special relativity, and quantum mechanics are wrong because they fail to operate throughout the entire universe because they simply cannot hope to cope with the myriad of situations that the universe can place matter into?"

You DO realize that under your framework, general relativity, special relativity, and quantum mechanics are wrong right? They are disproven theories. ""

 

[cybrsage]

Sure, if you agree to answer my question because I still refuse to let you not answer any of my arguments.

I have already stated, many times, that we will continue onward after the first point is complete. It is silly to move the conversation forward until the current item is finished.

Once it is done, we will move onto your questions. Have to finish with the first one, though. I will repost for ease of quoting for you:


We are close to finishing this part of the discussion, then we can move forward. You will undoubtedly base future parts of the discussion on this part, so ensuring everything is stated clearly is important.

So far, you have agreed that Hawking is correct, that showing even ONE observation which does not match the prediction of a theory disproves the theory. You have no agreed that there is at least one observation of the Universal Law of Gravitation which does not match the prediction of the Universal Law of Gravitation.

I need you to clarify if that means you agree with Hawking that the Universal Law of Gravitation has been disproven.

 

[NikolaeVarius]

I have already stated, many times, that we will continue onward after the first point is complete. It is silly to move the conversation forward until the current item is finished.

Once it is done, we will move onto your questions. Have to finish with the first one, though. I will repost for ease of quoting for you:


We are close to finishing this part of the discussion, then we can move forward. You will undoubtedly base future parts of the discussion on this part, so ensuring everything is stated clearly is important.

So far, you have agreed that Hawking is correct, that showing even ONE observation which does not match the prediction of a theory disproves the theory. You have no agreed that there is at least one observation of the Universal Law of Gravitation which does not match the prediction of the Universal Law of Gravitation.

I need you to clarify if that means you agree with Hawking that the Universal Law of Gravitation has been disproven.

Sure. This is funny because you obviously do not understand how science works (of course now you're going to take this sentence and say something completely weird to avoid answering my question)

I've already answered about hawkings, I've already answered that universal gravity has been disproven for all circumstances but functions perfectly under certain conditions, which your own link conceded because the theory is very accurate for many situations. There is obviously cases where universal gravity does not work. Happy? It's strikes me so hilarious that your points have no final impact to my argument, while you have everything to lose by answering my argument which you simply will not answer

Now answer my question

"Please answer my arguments"

"Please stop ignoring my arguments and tunnel visioning into your arguments"

"In fact, I will actually stoop to your level and claim that I won the argument by making a argument in the form of a question that is a pretty stupid argument in the first place.

"Do you believe that 100 years of science, spaceflight mechanics, astronomy, quantum mechanics, quantum physics, atomic manipulation of matter, quantum computing, quarks, gluons, the entirety of the standard model, nuclear energy, nuclear fusion reactors, the LHC, the existance of CERN, and the existance of NASA are all complete shams and complete wastes of money because general relativity, special relativity, and quantum mechanics are wrong because they fail to operate throughout the entire universe because they simply cannot hope to cope with the myriad of situations that the universe can place matter into?"

You DO realize that under your framework, general relativity, special relativity, and quantum mechanics are wrong right? They are disproven theories. ""

 

[richaron]

I need you to clarify if that means you agree with Hawking that the Universal Law of Gravitation has been disproven.

Dude, lets try to use a bit of logic here. With regards to modern scientific theories:

1) Nobody claims they are accurate for all cases
2) They a proven to be the most accurate idea for some cases

Obviously picking holes in them doesn't prove anything (see #1). Therefore to disprove them you need to prove another idea is more accurate.

 

[cybrsage]

Dude, lets try to use a bit of logic here. With regards to modern scientific theories:

1) Nobody claims they are accurate for all cases
2) They a proven to be the most accurate idea for some cases

Obviously picking holes in them doesn't prove anything (see #1). Therefore to disprove them you need to prove another idea is more accurate.

Newton did. He claimed it was for the Universe. He even claimed gravity is transmitted to all other objects in the universe instantaneously and undiminished.

Newton was wrong. If we agree that Hawking is correct with how theories work, then we have disproven Newton's theory a billion times over.

EDIT: Most theories are able to be altered when they are disproven. That is the power of science. In the case of Newton, there is no way to alter his theory. His underlying assumptions were wrong.

 

[cybrsage]

I've already answered about hawkings, I've already answered that universal gravity has been disproven for all circumstances but functions perfectly under certain conditions, which your own link conceded because the theory is very accurate for many situations. There is obviously cases where universal gravity does not work. Happy? It's strikes me so hilarious that your points have no final impact to my argument, while you have everything to lose by answering my argument which you simply will not answer.

You have not yet actually answered the final part. I will restate just that piece.

I need you to clarify if that means you agree that the Universal Law of Gravitation has been disproven. Has it been disproven, yes or no.

 

[richaron]

I your were consistent in your zealotry, you would throw away all your computer equipment & never use the net again.

omg sometimez silicon chips don't work from factory & have to be thrown away THEY HAVEN'T PERFECTED CASTING WAFERS SO NO CHIPS ARE EVER USEFUL.

omg tcp has failures so they use ip & error checking THE INTERNET ISN'T PERFECT SO IT DOESN'T WORK WE CAN'T USE IT.

Edit: yes tcp & ip are backwards...

 

[NikolaeVarius]

Newton did. He claimed it was for the Universe. He even claimed gravity is transmitted to all other objects in the universe instantaneously and undiminished.

Newton was wrong. If we agree that Hawking is correct with how theories work, then we have disproven Newton's theory a billion times over.

Oh good god. Stop avoiding the question. This question is in the exact same line of thought as your complete bullshit and inane requests for an answer that was already given multiple times (of course now whats going to happen is that you're going to demand that I quote the lines I've quoted a half dozen times already) because you are too dumb to realize when you have lost.

Answer this question.

""Do you believe that 100 years of science, spaceflight mechanics, astronomy, quantum mechanics, quantum physics, atomic manipulation of matter, quantum computing, quarks, gluons, the entirety of the standard model, nuclear energy, nuclear fusion reactors, the LHC, the existance of CERN, and the existance of NASA are all complete shams and complete wastes of money because general relativity, special relativity, and quantum mechanics are wrong because they fail to operate throughout the entire universe because they simply cannot hope to cope with the myriad of situations that the universe can place matter into?"

You DO realize that under your framework, general relativity, special relativity, and quantum mechanics are wrong right? They are disproven theories because they have exceptions where these theories do not work because the equations cannot explain certain universal phenomena "

 

[NikolaeVarius]

You have not yet actually answered the final part. I will restate just that piece.

I need you to clarify if that means you agree that the Universal Law of Gravitation has been disproven. Has it been disproven, yes or no.

Yes. Sure. It was disproved to work as a universal law, but as your own links say, it is still widely used because it provides accurate answers. So yes, it is a disprovem theory that is still widely accepted by the scientific community to be perfectly usable to every day calculations.

Now answer my question.