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

😂

@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

👍

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

😫

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

https://wiki.tfes.org/Universal_Acceleration

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?

😂

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

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=isMYGtCFljc

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?