BlogBuster - 01 July 2009 09:00 PM

.....Einstein had to abandon his theory of the cosmic constant based on hubble observations.

That’s not bad for a guy who was dead before Hubble was even launched.

....yeah, the telescope was named after a guy who did some stuff..nevermind

BlogBuster - 02 July 2009 01:46 AM

....yeah, the telescope was named after a guy who did some stuff..nevermind

Sorry. My bad (as they say in the classics).

BlogBuster - 01 July 2009 09:00 PM

Hubble literally changed the observable universe, and in turn established new facts for which our theories evolve.

No, he literally didn’t. The observable universe had exactly the same properties before and after Hubble discovered red-shift. So it literally didn’t change (apart from expanding a little, gaining a bit of entropy, etc.).

The red shift is a direct example, Einstein had to abandon his theory of the cosmic constant based on hubble observations. Before hubble observed this phenomena the cosmic constant was a sound theory based in fact.

Again, the facts didn’t change, the hypothesis did (the steady state universe wasn’t really a theory).

As observations change and evolve, so do facts. I think we are arguing the same point, just based on different observations.

Observations do not change or evolve, observations accumulate. If I measure the rate of acceleration of a ball as it drops from the top of a tower, those measurements will not change at some future time, unless someone decides to fraudelently alter them. You can’t make that ball have fallen faster or slower, it fell at the speed it fell. An observation, once taken, is fixed. The past is not changeable (as far as we know).

So it doesn’t matter that the next day someone drops the same ball from the same tower and gets a different value. Their explanation for why the ball fell at the speed it did then must also account for why it fell at a different speed when I did it.

Again, the facts didn’t change, the hypothesis did (the steady state universe wasn’t really a theory).

Observations do not change or evolve, observations accumulate. If I measure the rate of acceleration of a ball as it drops from the top of a tower, those measurements will not change at some future time, unless someone decides to fraudelently alter them. You can’t make that ball have fallen faster or slower, it fell at the speed it fell. An observation, once taken, is fixed. The past is not changeable (as far as we know).

So it doesn’t matter that the next day someone drops the same ball from the same tower and gets a different value. Their explanation for why the ball fell at the speed it did then must also account for why it fell at a different speed when I did it.

If i look at a star using a telescope I see one picture of the star, If I use and infrared telescope i see another picture. Each picture is a seperate observation of the same object that show different data based on different observational techniques. The observations are different, the data is different and the facts are different. The object is the same, but our understanding of that object has changed. With the accumulation of the observations you get a bigger picture of that star, as you add more, different observations based on newer, more evolved technology you gain more data to describe what that object is.

With new, higher evolved technology, our understanding of what is going on also changes, otherwise why are we continuing to look. Our developments are based on neccesity, we dont need new observation techniques to describe the mecanics of a falling object on earth, but we do need more data to test our theories of the cosmos, which do change with the accumulation of new data. If you add observational data to the library of info about a star then the facts about that star change, they become something different than they were before, thay have evolved into a bigger picture. 

How many planets are in our solar system. The fact is it is 8, now. 20 years ago it was 9 and 1000 years ago the fact was planets didnt circle the sun. All of these facts are based on observational data. Why did we recently downgrade pluto’s status, because our observances of other similar, newly discovered objects caused us to redefine what planets are (again) as not to crowd our solar system.

BlogBuster - 02 July 2009 05:53 PM

If i look at a star using a telescope I see one picture of the star, If I use and infrared telescope i see another picture. Each picture is a seperate observation of the same object that show different data based on different observational techniques. The observations are different, the data is different and the facts are different.

The first observation has not, though, changed because of the second. You have just added a second observation.

The object is the same, but our understanding of that object has changed. With the accumulation of the observations you get a bigger picture of that star, as you add more, different observations based on newer, more evolved technology you gain more data to describe what that object is.

Again (again), observations do not change, interpretations do. It is you who claimed “observations change and evolve, so do facts.”

How many planets are in our solar system. The fact is it is 8, now. 20 years ago it was 9 and 1000 years ago the fact was planets didnt circle the sun. All of these facts are based on observational data. Why did we recently downgrade pluto’s status, because our observances of other similar, newly discovered objects caused us to redefine what planets are (again) as not to crowd our solar system.

Again you are confusing hypothesis, theory and fact. Please lean the decimation of worms, cinch it wool make it sow mulch easterly to commensurate.

ok I follow, so if i say “there are 8 planets in our solar system” is that a fact, theory or hypothesis?

I guess it would be better to say that the way we observe changes, which when added to existing observations change the meaning. Obviously i dont think that previous observations physically change, but it is what those observations mean in the grand scheme that do change.

i.e. - Supermassive black holes and small black holes are the only known black holes to exist in the universe. That is until now!!

Please lean the decimation of worms, cinch it wool make it sow mulch easterly to commensurate.

you have no idea.

SeaWasp - 02 September 2005 12:51 AM

It’s the attitude of most intellectuals that the law of thermodynamics can’t be broken so don’t even bother trying to create a perpetual motion machine!

They say it’s impossible so don’t even try etc… Your branded a crackpot if you do try. It’s this attitude which stiffles creative thinking and experimenting to find ways
to circumvent this law.. You have to put energy in to get energy out. True, but what about the energy or forces that exist and are all around us? Gravity for one is a continuing force that will drive an object with mass continually downwards.. Tapping into these energies could provide the answer. An inventor by the name of Bessler created a wheel in the 18th century which was powered by weights & gravity. It was very well tested & documented. This machine apparantly worked and it could do work. References can be found on the web. Just google “Bessler wheel”. Although his trade secret went with him to his grave, the amount of people who witnessed and verified the machine cannot be dismissed.

What I am saying is that If you think & believe that something is impossible then.. IT IS! But most and nearly all laws of motion, thermodynamics have been derived
by experimentation, trials, and THEORY! Open your mind to the possibilities and challenge the norm. This is the only way new theories & laws can be explored. Don’t say it’s impossible. Say it could be. You just have to find the right methods!

Cheers!

You are quite correct. Researched JB’s accounts, for a couple of years actually. My daughter at 8 was smart enough to turn Da Vinci’s drawing upside down and tell me that it would work. The trick was to create a mechanical system that could duplicate the configuration. I believe that’s all Bessler did. His biggest mistake was to create a bi-directional wheel to silence critics claims that it was all spring driven. He should have left his more powerful unidirectional wheel stand and challenge critics to duplicate it if they “knew” how he hoaxed it.

Turn Da Vinci’s drawing upside down for yourselves while you sit at your desks or whatever and analyze it. it speeds to destruction because gravity is an ACCELERATION, not just what is experienced as a downward (relative) force. Met with some people that worked at Los Alamos. They asked about a governor. Reply was you couldn’t even figure out the principle to begin with, took an 8 year old; why should you be given and thoughts on a governor? let you guys or the think tank at Herndon earn their keep.

BTW when I first posted about this there was some guy on here that IMO insinuated something really filthy about myself and my kid. It hasn’t been easy as a single parent raising a frigging genius (16 and in college). I am hoping that all of you on here don’t think that way. My kid was appalled when I showed her what was said.

The drawing of the setup that was sent to Smithy in Australia all those years ago is still available on the web. Too big a thing not to make it public (for NO profit, BTW). If persons are incapable of building the model to see for themselves then that’s not the fault of anyone here.

grim

of “grim and smithy’s wheel”