A Sky, cable and digital tv forum. Digital TV Banter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » Digital TV Banter forum » Digital TV Newsgroups » uk.tech.digital-tv (Digital TV - General)
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

uk.tech.digital-tv (Digital TV - General) (uk.tech.digital-tv) Discussion of all matters technical in origin related to the reception of digital television transmissions, be they via satellite, terrestrial or cable. Advertising is forbidden, with no exceptions.

calling all physicists



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old September 30th 17, 09:42 AM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
Jim Lesurf[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,228
Default calling all physicists

In article , Bill Wright
wrote:
Weirdly, a lot of this stuff starts to sound like the scientists modify
the theory to make it fit. A bit like Einstein did with his made up
cosmological constant


Science is based on collecting evidence and then ensuring any theories fit
the reliable and relevant evidence. In the process, though, we also have to
assess and check the reliability of any evidence so as to avoid being
mislead by unreliable claims.

Hence 'surprising' evidence would need to be looked at in terms of how it
was obtained, etc, and other experiments/observations done to see if it
stood up to critical scrutiny. This weeds out the cherry picking, wishful
thinking, and bandwaggon jumping as exhibited often in newspapers, or by
large companies, because it suits them to peddle twaddle.

To a large extent, science is a process of *looking* for evidence that
raises questions about our ideas - as distinct from people simply spouting
ideas because they'd find an alternative inconvenient or doesn't suit their
purposes. Religion often being a an example.

Unforunately, this is all too often characterised on the basis that "We
don't know everything" is treated as a synonym for "we know nothing". When
in reality we know quite a lot, but far from everything.

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

  #22  
Old September 30th 17, 07:43 PM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
R. Mark Clayton[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 548
Default calling all physicists

On Friday, 29 September 2017 23:46:27 UTC+1, wrote:
On 29/09/2017 14:16, Jim Lesurf wrote:

Massless particles include photons, a particle of light (or any
electromagnetic wave). These do indeed travel at light speed in a
vacuum.


More precisely, have no rest mass. They do have momentum and energy, and
thus mass in accord with Relativity.

Jim


Weirdly, a lot of this stuff starts to sound like the scientists modify
the theory to make it fit. A bit like Einstein did with his made up
cosmological constant, or like the warmists are doing like crazy these
days as it becomes more and more obvious that the observations don't fit
the computer models.


Relativity was a theory. As it happens Special and General relativity fit the universe we observe very closely and for instance the GPS satellites correct for both effects.

OTOH Einstein's proposal of a cosmological constant to account for the red shift of distant galaxies did not - this is explained these days by the Big Bang theory.

Global warming is also just a theory, however the facts do happen to fit what is happening and almost all serious scientists accept it in principle.



Funny business, science. It used to be like Caesar's wife, but now we
start to realise they're all just worried about grants and careers and
mortgages and reputations, like the rest of us.

Bill


  #23  
Old October 1st 17, 03:11 AM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
Bill Wright[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,095
Default calling all physicists

On 30/09/2017 19:43, R. Mark Clayton wrote:

Relativity was a theory. As it happens Special and General relativity fit the universe we observe very closely and for instance the GPS satellites correct for both effects.

OTOH Einstein's proposal of a cosmological constant to account for the red shift of distant galaxies did not - this is explained these days by the Big Bang theory.

Global warming is also just a theory, however the facts do happen to fit what is happening and almost all serious scientists accept it in principle.


They don't. The models have been shown to be wrong. The IPCC have had to
admit it, although they put a weird slant on it by saying they had been
right all along, really, and the fact that they were wrong, actually,
(some cognitive dissonance that), just meant that we had longer before
the Earth burnt up.

Incidentally I can remember when they were telling us that falling sea
levels would leave Venice surrounded by muddy ditches.

Bill
  #24  
Old October 1st 17, 03:39 AM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
Bill Wright[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,095
Default calling all physicists

On 30/09/2017 22:45, Huge wrote:
On 2017-09-30, R. Mark Clayton wrote:

[21 lines snipped]

Global warming is also just a theory,


Anyone who says "just a theory" doesn't understand what a scientific theory
is.


Anyone who says "The science is settled" doesn't know what science is.

Bill
  #25  
Old October 1st 17, 08:28 AM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
Brian Gaff
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,958
Default calling all physicists

A photon went into a hotel and asked for a room, the attendant said, shall
I bring your luggage up? The photon replied, no there is none I'm travelling
Light.

Brian

--
----- -
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...

Blind user, so no pictures please!
"R. Mark Clayton" wrote in message
...
On Friday, 29 September 2017 03:50:48 UTC+1, wrote:
Apparently shock waves can travel trough the air at speeds exceeding
that or normal sounds. In that case, if an electromagnetic shock wave
was generated could it travel faster than the speed of light?

Bill


There was a young lady called Bright
Who could travel faster then light
She set of one day
In a relative way
And came back the previous night!



  #26  
Old October 1st 17, 11:18 AM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
Roderick Stewart[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,180
Default calling all physicists

On 30 Sep 2017 21:45:30 GMT, Huge wrote:

Global warming is also just a theory,


Anyone who says "just a theory" doesn't understand what a scientific theory
is.


Perhaps they find it easier to say than "just a hypothesis", and think
it means the same.

Rod.
  #27  
Old October 2nd 17, 01:05 PM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
MR
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 26
Default calling all physicists

On Friday, 29 September 2017 03:50:48 UTC+1, wrote:
Apparently shock waves can travel trough the air at speeds exceeding
that or normal sounds. In that case, if an electromagnetic shock wave
was generated could it travel faster than the speed of light?

Bill


  #28  
Old October 2nd 17, 01:07 PM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
MR
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 26
Default calling all physicists


Global warming is also just a theory, however the facts do happen to fit what is happening and almost all serious scientists accept it in principle.



Just a theory?

Climate-change deniers and creationists have deployed the word "theory" to cast doubt on climate change and evolution.

"It's as though it weren't true because it's just a theory," Allain said.

That's despite the fact that an overwhelming amount of evidence supports both human-caused climate change and Darwin's theory of evolution.

Part of the problem is that the word "theory" means something very different in lay language than it does in science: A scientific theory is an explanation of some aspect of the natural world that has been substantiated through repeated experiments or testing. But to the average Jane or Joe, a theory is just an idea that lives in someone's head, rather than an explanation rooted in experiment and testing.

(From Scientific American)

MR
  #29  
Old October 2nd 17, 03:42 PM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
Java Jive[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,710
Default calling all physicists

On Mon, 02 Oct 2017 13:46:12 +0100, Chris Hogg wrote:

On Mon, 2 Oct 2017 05:07:42 -0700 (PDT), MR
wrote:

That's despite the fact that an overwhelming amount of evidence supports both human-caused climate change and Darwin's theory of evolution.

Part of the problem is that the word "theory" means something very different in lay language than it does in science: A scientific theory is an explanation of some aspect of the natural world that has been substantiated through repeated experiments or testing. But to the average Jane or Joe, a theory is just an idea that lives in someone's head, rather than an explanation rooted in experiment and testing.

(From Scientific American)

MR


chuckle


I don't know why you're chuckling unless it's because ...

Oh, ignorance is bliss!


.... your own ignorance of the scientific method allows you blissfully
to ignore any evidence that you don't happen to like.

So where are the 'experiments or testing' that prove climate change is
more than a theory, or even more than an hypothesis?


I've already linked some in this ng, and Google would find you plenty
more, if only you'd let it. The problem is not that there is no
evidence, there's shedloads of it, it's that climate denialists such
as yourself deliberately ignore it all, because it doesn't fit a
deviant viewpoint that has become a religion to you. People in such a
state ignore vast acreages of fruitful pasture supporting the widely
accepted scientific view, only to pick up one or two pieces of rubbish
that have been blown onto it by the wind, and say: "There, look, I
told you so, this land is no good!" Everyone else can see the
absurdity, but seemingly you can't.

I repeat, this issue is a politicised religion to you - the evidence
for it being so was there right from your first post in the thread
"BBC Inaccuracies", which contrived its oblique introduction into an
otherwise unrelated thread, through your moving the goalposts every
time you were defeated there, through to here where you are, again,
re-introducing it into another unrelated thread.

To you and others like you, the real question, the only one that is
relevant, the only one that matters, is: "Where are the 'experiments
or testing' that prove climate change is NOT happening, despite all
the evidence that show that apparently it is?" Until you can come up
with ACTUAL EVIDENCE, which so far you have completely failed to do,
you have no grounds for questioning the prevailing scientific opinion!
In fact, I'd go further than that, and say that because this is an
issue of paramount importance to the future of the world, without
proper evidence, you have absolutely no right to do so.
--
================================================== ======
Please always reply to ng as the email in this post's
header does not exist. Or use a contact address at:
http://www.macfh.co.uk/JavaJive/JavaJive.html
http://www.macfh.co.uk/Macfarlane/Macfarlane.html
  #30  
Old October 2nd 17, 04:19 PM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
Indy Jess John
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,242
Default calling all physicists

On 02/10/2017 15:42, Java Jive wrote:

I've already linked some in this ng, and Google would find you plenty
more, if only you'd let it. The problem is not that there is no
evidence, there's shedloads of it, it's that climate denialists such
as yourself deliberately ignore it all, because it doesn't fit a
deviant viewpoint that has become a religion to you. People in such a
state ignore vast acreages of fruitful pasture supporting the widely
accepted scientific view, only to pick up one or two pieces of rubbish
that have been blown onto it by the wind, and say: "There, look, I
told you so, this land is no good!" Everyone else can see the
absurdity, but seemingly you can't.

I repeat, this issue is a politicised religion to you - the evidence
for it being so was there right from your first post in the thread
"BBC Inaccuracies", which contrived its oblique introduction into an
otherwise unrelated thread, through your moving the goalposts every
time you were defeated there, through to here where you are, again,
re-introducing it into another unrelated thread.

To you and others like you, the real question, the only one that is
relevant, the only one that matters, is: "Where are the 'experiments
or testing' that prove climate change is NOT happening, despite all
the evidence that show that apparently it is?" Until you can come up
with ACTUAL EVIDENCE, which so far you have completely failed to do,
you have no grounds for questioning the prevailing scientific opinion!
In fact, I'd go further than that, and say that because this is an
issue of paramount importance to the future of the world, without
proper evidence, you have absolutely no right to do so.


I am absolutely certain that climate change exists, and it will happen.
What I am less convinced about is that human activity causes it or that
anything humans can do can stop it or even lessen it.

None of the scientific papers I have looked at make this distinction;
either they are denying that it exists, or claiming it exists because of
the actions of humanity, but not separating the natural causes from
human activity. It is this disconnect that allows the two opposing
arguments to exist.

Jim

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 01:25 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.SEO by vBSEO 2.4.0
Copyright 2004-2017 Digital TV Banter.
The comments are property of their posters.