Science!! Fucking magnets, how do they work?

  • Guest, it's time once again for the massively important and exciting FoH Asshat Tournament!



    Go here and give us your nominations!
    Who's been the biggest Asshat in the last year? Give us your worst ones!
T

Troll_sl

shitlord
1,703
7
There is no such thing as scientific dogma.

Dogma is immutable. It's for people who already have the answers. There would be no science if we had all the answers.

Scientific facts are open to revisability. If scientists fail at that, that is their problem. Just because something works and continues to work (until it proves to not work) does not make it fucking dogma.

And we'd be absolutely fucking ecstatic if we found that c is variable.How much fucking new science do you think that would open up?

Oh, I dunno. MAYBE ALL OF IT.
 
Ambiturner

Ambiturner

Ssraeszha Raider
16,043
19,530
The idea that science is full of dogma is complete bullshit and shows either a lack of understanding of what either science or dogma is.

Also, the example of light having variable speed "not even being checked" is 100% wrong. There's scientific papers on the subject all the time
 
P

Pants_sl

shitlord
31
0
I love when people say "scientists would hate if x were true," or the more common "scientists refuse to believe in x because it doesnt fit their world view." Scientists are the one group of people who would like it the MOST if they were completely wrong about x, y, or z and some crazy shit was true instead. First, unexpected findings are the most interesting. 99.9% of research is boring, infinitesimally small progress. Any major leap forward or shift is welcome no matter what it proves wrong from the past. It's way more interesting. Second, everyone would kill to be the person to discover x and become famous and revered in the scientific community. Everyone wants recognition for their work, and the way researchers get recognition is finding something new. Add to that the fact that so many researchers are narcissists who want nothing more than to be revered for their work, and you just add incentive to want to make unexpected discoveries.

Conservatives use it a lot to discredit climatologists; hippies use it to discredit western medicine. It's all just insane. If the most liberal academic somehow found proof that Walmart was in fact a wonderful force of good in the world, they'd be writing that manuscript in a week.
 
tad10

tad10

Elisha Dushku
5,533
595
Pants_sl said:
Conservatives use it a lot to discredit climatologists
Click to expand...
No conservatives point to Climategate emails showing climatologists attempting to use the innovative research methodology of "ganging up to shut up people who disagree with us" and at the NOAA's innovate research methodology of "altering historical weather data to better match our shitty models" to discredit climatologists. They also point to 1970's claims that we'd be freezing now, or 1990's claims that Florida would be under water. But hey, repeat whatever spin you want to make yourself feel better

The fiddling with temperature data is the biggest science scandal ever - Telegraph


Also @ whomever was saying mass doesn't change: some models of the Universe predict eventual proton decay.
 
Furry

Furry

🌭🍔🇺🇦✌️SLAVA UKRAINI!✌️🇺🇦🍔🌭
<Gold Donor>
21,883
28,605
Ambiturner_sl said:
The idea that science is full of dogma is complete bullshit
Click to expand...
Who's saying its full of dogma? The idea that there ISN'T dogma in science is ignorant. The guy in his speech gives one of the huge examples. The speed of light has been scientific dogma for a long time. There has always been small unexplained fluctuations which really shouldn't be happening. Rather than address or attempt to examine a pattern behind this, the scientific community simply slapped a UNCHANGABLE LAW defining what the speed of light is onto it. The speed of light is so important to so many theoretical studies science does not want it to change, much like temperatures raising was extremely important to climate gate. Tens of thousands of scientists have dedicated their lives to understanding nature with the assumption that the speed of light is a fixed law, do you honestly think they want their life's work to go up in smoke?

Unfortunately, most of our questions about light and its speed have to do with how it interacts with gravity, and the force of gravity cannot be manipulated on earth with any real potency by humans. That said, the force of gravity on earth does naturally fluctuate extremely slightly over time due to the position of the planets/moons and our relative distance from the sun. It would be interesting to see if a correlation could be found between gravitational force and measurements of the speed of light. Unfortunately it'd be extremely hard to go back and retroactively data mine these results, but having access to more raw numbers would help. The public is a lot smarter than most scientists give credit. Sure the lumies of the world are usually insane, but sometimes they make scientific discovers. Look at pea galaxies for an extremely pointed example. I absolutely love science in general, but I do not like arrogant people who think they know the answers.
 
Ambiturner

Ambiturner

Ssraeszha Raider
16,043
19,530
I don't think you understand what dogma means.

If a more accurate description of light is found it will then replace our current understanding. The idea that scientists are either covering this up or being willfully ignorant is 9/11 truther level crazy. The scientific community isn't a bros club that covers shit up for reach other. They try everything they can to invalidate each others work.

A scientist that proved something as fundamental as our understanding of the speed of light wrong would be a rock star. Whatever their "lifes work" has been up until this point wouldn't be jack shit compared to being the next Einstein or Hawking.
 
khalid

khalid

Unelected Mod
14,071
6,775
Even if you buy into scientists being dogmatic and set in their ways, grad students and post-docs would fall over something like this.
 
Furry

Furry

🌭🍔🇺🇦✌️SLAVA UKRAINI!✌️🇺🇦🍔🌭
<Gold Donor>
21,883
28,605
Ambiturner_sl said:
I don't think you understand what dogma means.

If a more accurate description of light is found it will then replace our current understanding. The idea that scientists are either covering this up or being willfully ignorant is 9/11 truther level crazy. The scientific community isn't a bros club that covers shit up for reach other. They try everything they can to invalidate each others work.

A scientist that proved something as fundamental as our understanding of the speed of light wrong would be a rock star. Whatever their "lifes work" has been up until this point wouldn't be jack shit compared to being the next Einstein or Hawking.
Click to expand...
This is the argument I most commonly hear, that we will replace our understand when we figure out the answer. The problem is, the answer to these questions is -extremely- hard to get, and it wont happen in the next hundred years most likely. Why do we assume our knowledge is fact in the mean time? Its only a part of the truth, and it should be portrayed as such.
 
Ambiturner

Ambiturner

Ssraeszha Raider
16,043
19,530
Furry_sl said:
Why do we assume our knowledge is fact in the mean time? Its only a part of the truth, and it should be portrayed as such.
Click to expand...
Because that is how progress is made?

You can have people try and make advancements based on current understanding while still having others challenge that understanding. Do you really think all science should just stop because some parts might be revised in the future?
 
Valishar

Valishar

Molten Core Raider
766
424
Furry_sl said:
Tens of thousands of scientists have dedicated their lives to understanding nature with the assumption that the speed of light is a fixed law, do you honestly think they want their life's work to go up in smoke?
Click to expand...
But their life's work doesn't go up in smoke, like who's ever heard of that guy Issac Newton? All those outdated theories, pssssh.

The fact of the matter is, our understanding of light isn't wrapped up in gravity. It's wrapped up in electromagnetism. Our models of electromagnetism are extraordinarily accurate, by something to like one part in a billion. So if you're going to say that the speed of light changes over time (without any theoretical explanation as to why), they are going to be extra skeptical of that claim. The old saying is extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, some guy looking back at old 'c' measurements and misunderstanding error bars isn't extraordinary evidence.
 
wormie

Asshat wormie

2023 Asshat Award Winner
<Gold Donor>
16,820
30,968
You guys are attempting to have a discussion with someone who doesnt believe in complex numbers. Please save yourselves.
 
Furry

Furry

🌭🍔🇺🇦✌️SLAVA UKRAINI!✌️🇺🇦🍔🌭
<Gold Donor>
21,883
28,605
valishar_sl said:
The fact of the matter is, our understanding of light isn't wrapped up in gravity. It's wrapped up in electromagnetism.
Click to expand...
Our models of electromagnetism are extraordinarily accurate... on earth, and there's one thing that doesn't change much on earth, nor can we manipulate it in laboratories: Gravity. That's my point, there's a lot more than earth to the universe.

We know gravity effects light/electromagnetism. There's been a shitload of experiments that prove it. The only questions are in which situations and how. There are plenty of situations we have not ever tested to any degree which could shatter our understanding of physics. I'm glad you know the answers already. I for one would like to see experiments done before I claim to understand how light works.
 
Ambiturner

Ambiturner

Ssraeszha Raider
16,043
19,530
Furry_sl said:
Our models of electromagnetism are extraordinarily accurate... on earth, and there's one thing that doesn't change much on earth, nor can we manipulate it in laboratories: Gravity. That's my point, there's a lot more than earth to the universe.

We know gravity effects light/electromagnetism. There's been a shitload of experiments that prove it. The only questions are in which situations and how. There are plenty of situations we have not ever tested to any degree which could shatter our understanding of physics. I'm glad you know the answers already. I for one would like to see experiments done before I claim to understand how light works.
Click to expand...
Gravity affecting light really isn't groundbreaking and was predicted by Relativity, so I'm not sure why that's such a hang up for you. You also seem to believe that an overwhelming amount of evidence should be ignored because there's some experiments out there you'd like to see done. That's not how the world works.

Relativity has been pretty fucking solid since it was published. It is taken so seriously because of the absolute shit ton of evidence backing it up. That's not "dogma" in any way shape or form. That's just common sense.
 
iannis

iannis

Musty Nester
31,351
17,656
Ambiturner_sl said:
Gravity affecting light really isn't groundbreaking and was predicted by Relativity, so I'm not sure why that's such a hang up for you. You also seem to believe that an overwhelming amount of evidence should be ignored because there's some experiments out there you'd like to see done. That's not how the world works.

Relativity has been pretty fucking solid since it was published. It is taken so seriously because of the absolute shit ton of evidence backing it up. That's not "dogma" in any way shape or form. That's just common sense.
Click to expand...
I dunno man. Look at how angry people get about dark matter and the big bang. They legit get angry. Even the observations become contentious. People disagree about the raw data. And I'm not talking about the "evolution debate" or raw philosophy. Of course that's largely nonsense. Similar but distinct nonsense. But when an observation is made that doesn't fit or refine the current understanding the reaction isn't "a new field of science!". Not at first it isn't. At first the reaction is, "Well that just can't be true. Therefore it isn't true". That's dogmatic.

It is good to remember that we are just human. Oh, every scientist in the world would love to be wrong! C'mon guys, that's fucking juvenille. No they wouldn't. Every scientist in the world would like to be right. They would be willing to accept they were wrong if it wereproven. That's dogma+.

But you can't always prove it by consensus. It's not an insult. It's why you need Newton, Einstein, Hubble, Freud, Currie, et. al.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.