Life on Earth older than thought?

[Skybird]

Häh...?

[Letum]

What makes theories in Skybirdianism that make good sense better than ones
that make less sense if the one that make less sense is of more practical use?

[Aramike]

Originally Posted by Letum

That is a little blunt Armike.
Newtonian physics used to be the very definition of a scientific truth, a
universal, unchanging law that allowed technology to expand and new
inventions to be made.
Einstein pissed all over that and showed the floors and inconsistencies in
Newtonian physics. What we thought where laws, where no longer.

It is foolish to claim to know any unchanging and universal truth.


I, however, disagree with Skybird on a further point. Whilst SB believes that
any given theory is just a model used to explain and predict and can not
possibly contain any truth value about the external universe, I believe that
theories and ideas can be relatively good or relatively bad descriptions of
the actual external universe based on their coherency, which I believe is a
reliable indicator how how the universe fits as it is impossible to have
an incoherent external world.

i hope SB will excuse my paraphrasing.

Newtonian laws are still laws within their vacuum. Most of Einstein's work did not contradict Newtonian physics; rather, it refined it.

[Letum]

A change of one letter in one sentence of a law shows that it was neither
universal, completely true nor timeless.

[Aramike]

Originally Posted by Letum

A change of one letter in one sentence of a law shows that it was neither
universal, completely true nor timeless.

Umm, we're not talking about universal laws - we're talking about laws in a vacuum. (which means under specific conditions certain behaviors will always be the same).

And, you're inaccurate about changing one letter in a law changes the law. Many laws are reduced and simplified as better formulas are found, for instance. Also, many different sentences can be used to express the same thing, rendering that concept moot.

Newtonian Laws are still used today. His law of gravitation is accurate in a vacuum. Einstein's work on gravity wasn't so much the law - it was the theory of what gravity actually was, and whether or not there was an impact on photons and particles without mass. In other words, the laws describe gravity's effects, the theory is WHY those effects occur.

The law will ALWAYS be the same as the effects will always be the same under the same conditions. Laws do not change. We may learn more about other conditions, but that would merely ammend the law to include other conditions, and doing so in NO way invalidates the original law.

Also, Newton's laws of motion are still laws, and are unchanged.

[Letum]

Both Newtons laws of gravity and motion are wrong.
Most notable because they rely on his "gravitational aether", which is no
longer thought to exist and upon the speed of time being a constant, which it
isn't.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Letum

What makes theories in Skybirdianism that make good sense better than ones
that make less sense if the one that make less sense is of more practical use?

More word surgery? Will lead you nowhere, but anyhow:

What you say is no contradiction, since we tend to push those theories in science that are best suited to enable us to pragmatically carry on, both in preparing the next method of observation, and to supplemm ent our existing set of theories. These form our currently valid paradigm. Paradigms do not get revolted again that often. Maybe once every 50 years or so. In case of choice between two possible theories or answers, so the unwritten golden rule in science: choose the theory of the two that explains the same thing in the simplier way. No need to make things complicated when not gaining something from that. Chose the more complicated explanation when the simplier answers do not make sense or contradict known data.

and if all of a sudden you make a discovery or observation that violates all known stuff alltotgether, etheir burn the author on the stakes, or kick all old theory alltogether.

You once said you find mindgames over words like this entertaining, and i replied I take not as much entertainment from them. I think it still is like this with us two. Forgive when I leave the train at the next station then. There is a long awaited DVD and a bottle of red vine waiting to be killed.

[Aramike]

Originally Posted by Letum

Both Newtons laws of gravity and motion are wrong.
Most notable because they rely on his "gravitational aether", which is no
longer thought to exist and upon the speed of time being a constant, which it
isn't.

Actually, they are not wrong, considering the vacuum of his postulations. In fact, agencies such as NASA still use his equations, as they are still considered scientific law.

What you're refering to is his THEORIES regarding motion and gravitation - not the laws. The laws describe WHAT happens under specific conditions, the theories deal with why.

I'm not going to debate with you whether or not accepted scientific terminology is correct until you show some credentials. Here's a few links I'd recommend checking out:

http://www.wilstar.com/theories.htm
http://chemistry.about.com/od/chemis.../lawtheory.htm
http://science.kennesaw.edu/~rmatson/3380theory.html

Here's a great summary:

A law generalizes a body of observations. At the time it is made, no exceptions have been found to a law. Scientific laws explain things, but they do not describe them. One way to tell a law and a theory apart is to ask if the description gives you a means to explain 'why'.

No exceptions, for instance, have been found to Newton's Law of Gravity. Rather, there are conditions which his law doesn't explain which General Relativity is needed (this involves the subatomic level or infinate volumes/masses). As such, his law isn't incorrect - it descibes exactly what it does. However, under different conditions a different theory is needed (not a law, because the conditions themselves are theoretical).

[Letum]

Originally Posted by Aramike

Here's a great summary:No exceptions, for instance, have been found to Newton's Law of Gravity. Rather, there are conditions which his law doesn't explain which General Relativity is needed[...]

In all conditions special/general relativity is needed to produce an accurate
result. Newtonian laws may be excellent for approximations. in fact, the
approximations that Newtonian laws give are easily good enough for NASA to
use to send men to the moon etc. However, because the laws are false, they
produce errors. These errors do not become apparent until we look at the
very small or the very fast, but they are also present in all calculations.

The law of universal gravitation is a good example as it implies that gravity
acts instantly, which is not the case.
According to Newton, if the sun vanished, then the earth would instantly
begin to leave orbit. Our more advanced understanding of gravity, however,
tells us that earth would not stop orbiting the place where the sun was for
eight and one half minutes after the sun had vanished due to the speed
at which gravitational information travels.

[Aramike]

In all conditions special/general relativity is needed to produce an accurate
result. Newtonian laws may be excellent for approximations. in fact, the
approximations that Newtonian laws give are easily good enough for NASA to
use to send men to the moon etc. However, because the laws are false, they
produce errors. These errors do not become apparent until we look at the
very small or the very fast, but they are also present in all calculations.

That's completely inaccurate. You're comparing theoretical physics to observational physics within specific conditions, which is apples and oranges.

However, if, as you say, in ALL conditions relativity is needed, than wouldn't relativity be an absolute truth (which I believe in our current vacuum of nature it is)? This brings us full circle.

Here, I'll simplify: If one were to make the statement that, on Earth, any body with mass thrown up with less than escape velocity, discounting forces other than gravity acting upon it, it will return to the Earth (what goes up, must come down), that would be a law as the statement will be accurate 100% of the time.

Now, if one were to make the statement explaining WHY this happens, that would be a theory.

[Letum]

Originally Posted by Aramike

However, if, as you say, in ALL conditions relativity is needed, than wouldn't relativity be an absolute truth (which I believe in our current vacuum of nature it is)? This brings us full circle.

No.
It is perfectly possible that one day we will find an error in GR.
It can't be a law one day, but not the next.

...on Earth, any body with mass thrown up with less than escape velocity, discounting forces other than gravity acting upon it, it will return to the Earth (what goes up, must come down), that would be a law as the statement will be accurate 100% of the time.

That would be accurate so far as we know.

However, that is not the point. The point is that it is possible that one day
we will discover data that will force us to revise the "what goes up, must
come down" law. Just because we have not found any data to contradict it
so far, does not mean we never will. We can't say that we know without
doubt.

Bertrand Russell's chicken got fed at sunrise all it's life. It decided that it
was a true law that when the sun rises, food came. It was true 100% of
the time. No data the chicken collected ever contradicted that law.
Then one day the farmer broke the chicken's neck instead of feeding it.
As Russell said, "more refined views as to the uniformity of nature would
have been useful to the chicken".

Truths can not be found through induction.

Ed: here you go: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_induction

[Skybird]

Reminds a bit of the basis of classical test theory in statistics, that assumes - and demands - an almost infinite number of case studies as a basis for it'S theoretical claims. But when doing statistic or testing examinations, you simply never have an infinte number of case studies. you even do not have an infinite number of testing population from which to randomly select a representative sample for your test battery.

In statistics and test theory, that is a very huge problem.

Never heared of that Russel chicken before. But the story made me burst with laughter. For that I spend one round of free beer.

[Aramike]

No.
It is perfectly possible that one day we will find an error in GR.
It can't be a law one day, but not the next.

Which is why relativity is a theory and not a law.

That would be accurate so far as we know.

However, that is not the point. The point is that it is possible that one day
we will discover data that will force us to revise the "what goes up, must
come down" law.

If that day comes, it would be indicative of a change in the vacuum in which the law exists. In other words, what goes up will always come down as the law states. Should that change, the conditions will have changed, therefore the law wouldn't apply.

This is pretty simple stuff.

[Letum]

Someone help me out here....Hume...anyone?

Ok Aramike, you think that "what goes up, must come down" is a law because
it has always happened in the past, but how does your past observation tell
you about what will happen in the future?

Russell's chicken thought it could learn laws by observing data in the past and
present to make a law that would be true for the future and so do you.

Just as the chicken was surprised when it's neck was broken, for all you know
you will be surprised when under the same circumstances, without any change
in your vacuum, you throw up a tennis ball and then the tennis ball vanishes
and you turn into a frog.

As the chicken had to change it's law from "I get fed every sunrise" to "I get
fed every sunrise, except when I get my neck broken"; you will have to change
your law to involve vanishing masses and frogs.

A law that has to change can't have been right in the first place and we have no
way of knowing that any given law won't be forced to change because inductive
reasoning does not tell us about the future.

Just because your "law" has never been wrong before, doesn't mean it
won't be wrong tomorrow.

Get a more refined views as to the uniformity of nature!

[Aramike]

Someone help me out here....Hume...anyone?

I don't see anyone coming to your rescue because the concept of a scientific law is very simplistic in its definition.

Ok Aramike, you think that "what goes up, must come down" is a law because
it has always happened in the past, but how does your past observation tell
you about what will happen in the future?

The past observation tells me that an object will always "come down" because the THEORIES predicting the occurence also agree. Should this change, than the conditions will also have changed, rendering the law irrelevent.

But seriously, are you trying to postulate the "what comes up must come down" may actually just suddenly change? If so, the concept is no more sophisticated than a simple "God-done-it". If the law were to change, than the facts that were the basis of the law will have changed as well, thusly rendering the law invalid.

The LAW is CONDITIONAL - all things being exactly as they are now, what goes up must come down. Should that change, the conditions must also change. This is the key to the rules to logic (something cannot both exist and not exist at the same time).

Think about it: should the law in question change, would it be smart to simply say "just because" or rather to look into WHY it changed, thereby changing the conditions.

Futhermore, you have yet to show a single law that has mysteriously just changed because "goddidit" rather than having its conditions redefined.

I posit that you're fighting a losing battle, versus both semantics and the scientific method, because you're too stubborn to acknowledge what is fact. All things being equal, you'll continue to do so. Should you change your perspective, a condition will have changed rendering that law irrelevent.

Although that law may be short term, it will be 100% (as such be a law) as your position will not change unless some other condition forces it to.3

To simplify it further (which I don't believe I should have to do as I believe that you're intentionally dodging the logic), let's say that using my legs and feet in a certain matter over a specific terrain in certain conditions causes me to walk. We'll call it the Law of Walking. Should my using the same appendages in the same manner result in a different result, would not the conditions have changed, meaning the Walking Law is irrelevent?

This is a question of semantics and logic. If we were to throw those out in favor of a "we never know anything" philosophy, why not just abandon science altogether?

There's a reason renowned scientists worldwide (smarter than both you and I) use scientific terminology precisely along with the scientific method.