Fran
Discord ID: 168176288706723840
2,069 total messages. Viewing 100 per page.
Page 1/21
| Next
Science can't prove anything and it never claimed it could
It is simply a methodology for tweaking your confidence that one hypothesis could accurately reflect reality. Your confidence can never reach 100%, it can only approach it.
Science doesn't intend to prove...
it's not like a math proof that is logically 100% true
@Hamburger Guy a math proof logically follows from it's premises. The only way a math proof is wrong is if the premises are flawed or if logic itself is flawed. Science doesn't operate or seek to operate in this way.
Math can prove things in the domain of mathematics, it can prove there are an infinite number of primes numbers, ect. Application of this to the physical world results in degrees of error which make the calculations not 100% accurate
?
@Hamburger Guy scientific laws can never be trusted in 100% because of degrees of error in our experiments. The only way to remove all error is to make an infinite number of measurements which is impossible, so you cannot prove a scientific law
however you can say I have 99.9999999% confidence this law will hold true
@rightthehand it's probably less than that but yeah it is possible due to some never noticed law of physics
It's not at all likely
I would bet everything against it
@rightthehandi never said I did I said it's very astronomically unlikely in fact
@rightthehand yes... Literally this. Science does not seek to prove
@rightthehand when we saying nothing can be proven we are talking about laws modeling the physical world
In this regard nothing can be proven to be accurate 100%
@rightthehand that universality is a question for philosophers
I am only dealing with physical law
yes in physics yes, no law can be found to be "proven" to be true
That is philosophy and epistemology though lol
๐
@Citizen Z if you preform the Michelson moorely experiment on a train car moving, you will still get null results if you're on the cart.
It shows the Galeian view of relativity is insufficient to describe light's motion
I am doing the Michelson Moorely experiment in my optics class in a year I will get back to you with pictures if you want
I think its my optics class
If not I can probably just borrow the apparatus lol
How do you define pressure
๐
hot take
the earth is a kline bottle
idiots
living on the surface of a kline bottle would present all the same phenomena we see in the flat earth or globe model
Science does not seek to prove anything
๐ซ
by prove I mean
100% certainty
You cannot 'prove' anything with the scientific method
The box model containing gas and the globular earth atmosphere are not analogous models
Yes but he is probably asking 'why is that the case'
which is a deeper question, but the fact we can't answer that doesnt mean calling gravitational fore the stress-energy tensor is a failed model
You can ask 'why' about literally anything and reduce it to some fundamental physics question without a satisfactory answer
At some point your dealing with philosophy and epistemology however
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=36GT2zI8lVA video related
are there flat earth minion memes?
someone should make some
well if you think the earth moves upward at 9.8m/s/s then you dont need gravity to explain why objects fall
or why they have weight
so i dont think thats the right way to argue against it
what do you believe
literally isnt a strawman
I said If you think X
A strawman would say "ah yes all these people believe X"
When X isnt what they believe
idk it seems like some people think this
i bought korean instant coffee
it is very good
for instant coffee
good compared to normal coffee too
ok that sphere pic is pretty bad
what is conservation of momentum
I know I'm joking
That's how rockets work
if you believe in Newton's laws, conservation of momentum follows DIRECTLY.
are the tires full?
usually you can only tell when a tire is flat because the weight of the car makes it squish out at the bottom
suspended in air it would probably be harder to tell if it's flat unless you could poke it
why would they let such obvious bubbles be released to the general public if it's pre recorded
I'd hope if they can orchestrate a conspiracy of such epicness, that they could see some bubbles before giving the video the Ok
good point, seems silly right?
Nonzero considering how many rocks there are
yes rocks come in many shapes
do you disagree with that statement?
literally no rock has those proportions?
๐
bold statement
I shouldn't have to
you should have seen many differently shaped rocks in your life to come to the conclusion on your own
no I claimed there is a nonzero chance rocks shaped like that animal exist
hm yes quite
all hail amazon
thank you for giving me this job Bezos and letting me pee in a bottle while i work in the warehouse
Bezos-san
requires a force being applied to separate tho
ye
thats why things like blood separate faster in a centrifuge
the same 'force' that causes people to fall downward. if the balloon was floating in a gas of greater density with 0 force being applied to the system, it wouldn't move
Why does the application of force seem to cause things of different densities to separate faster
This is very easy to demonstrate yourself
No? They are obviously going up because of a force. Centrifugal force is just a way to apply a lot of force.
Its a different type of force
It quite literally is archimedes principal, which is null and void if no force is being applied downward.
No, Force is required... Unless you disagree with Newton?
You also didnt explain why things with greater forces applied seem to seperate faster
It would follow from that that if no force were applied things would seperate slowly.... or not at all
Im leaning towards not at all
You didn't offer explanation under your model why things in a centrifuge separate quicker
Its obviously is relevant, they both deal with differing densities and bouyancy
do they not?
2,069 total messages. Viewing 100 per page.
Page 1/21
| Next