HD Tactical

Just how insignificant we are in the scale of things.

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Gulf Coast States

Member Benefits:

  • Fewer Ads!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • wildrider666

    Master
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Joined
    Sep 26, 2012
    Messages
    8,753
    Points
    113
    Location
    Panama City Beach, Fl
    definition

    So......... neither "Hypothesis" or "Theory" is Fact, and they remain unproven. I said best guess but Scientific guess my be more palatable.

    There are often opposing theories on the same issue: they all can't be right. There are dozens Theories covering all scientific fields that once "had major concensus" only to be superceded, obsolete or just totally false. Understandably, there are descoveries and improvement in suporting technology that allow incorrect theories to be identified but they were unproven originally. Some Newton and Pasteur theories proved partially or fully incorrect.
     

    FrommerStop

    Master
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Joined
    Apr 7, 2016
    Messages
    6,897
    Points
    113
    Location
    NWFL
    So......... neither "Hypothesis" or "Theory" is Fact, and they remain unproven. I said best guess but Scientific guess my be more palatable.

    There are often opposing theories on the same issue: they all can't be right. There are dozens Theories covering all scientific fields that once "had major concensus" only to be superceded, obsolete or just totally false. Understandably, there are descoveries and improvement in suporting technology that allow incorrect theories to be identified but they were unproven originally. Some Newton and Pasteur theories proved partially or fully incorrect.
    While not as common there are scientific laws also. Newtonian laws for the conditions under which they were formulated hold true last time I checked and are not theories. https://www.grc.nasa.gov/www/k-12/airplane/newton.html
    Newton's first law states that every object will remain at rest or in uniform motion in a straight line unless compelled to change its state by the action of an external force. This is normally taken as the definition of inertia. The key point here is that if there is no net force acting on an object (if all the external forces cancel each other out) then the object will maintain a constant velocity. If that velocity is zero, then the object remains at rest. If an external force is applied, the velocity will change because of the force.

    The second law explains how the velocity of an object changes when it is subjected to an external force. The law defines a force to be equal to change in momentum (mass times velocity) per change in time. Newton also developed the calculus of mathematics, and the "changes" expressed in the second law are most accurately defined in differential forms. (Calculus can also be used to determine the velocity and location variations experienced by an object subjected to an external force.) For an object with a constant mass m, the second law states that the force F is the product of an object's mass and its acceleration a:

    F = m * a

    For an external applied force, the change in velocity depends on the mass of the object. A force will cause a change in velocity; and likewise, a change in velocity will generate a force. The equation works both ways.

    The third law states that for every action (force) in nature there is an equal and opposite reaction. In other words, if object A exerts a force on object B, then object B also exerts an equal force on object A. Notice that the forces are exerted on different objects. The third law can be used to explain the generation of lift by a wing and the production of thrust by a jet engine.
     

    shootnstarz

    Master
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Joined
    Dec 23, 2012
    Messages
    2,810
    Points
    63
    Location
    N/W Pensacola
    Here's a good one, if a hypothetical black hole suddenly appeared 1 light year from Earth, would the gravitational effects be felt instantly or a year later?

    Rick
     

    rtprthd

    Master
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Joined
    Mar 12, 2013
    Messages
    2,005
    Points
    38
    Location
    Daphne, AL
    Here's a good one, if a hypothetical black hole suddenly appeared 1 light year from Earth, would the gravitational effects be felt instantly or a year later?

    Rick

    We wouldn't see it until a year later, but I guess it's possible the effects are faster than the speed of light and could be felt? I don't know I just watch The Planets and Beyond, etc. when I go to bed. I'm no scientist.
     

    wildrider666

    Master
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Joined
    Sep 26, 2012
    Messages
    8,753
    Points
    113
    Location
    Panama City Beach, Fl
    While not as common there are scientific laws also. Newtonian laws for the conditions under which they were formulated hold true last time I checked and are not theories. https://www.grc.nasa.gov/www/k-12/airplane/newton.html

    Newtonian Gravity (Newton's Law of Gravitation) was wrong. It is also totally incompatable with quantum mechanics. Einstein's General Relatively is correct. Newton's is still being used because its computations are easier BUT it produces "approximate answers". Einstine's provides answers of extreme precision. That's from people much smarter than I.

    You post a Firm Price for your firearm, I'll just pay you an approximate amount. Lol
     

    FrommerStop

    Master
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Joined
    Apr 7, 2016
    Messages
    6,897
    Points
    113
    Location
    NWFL
    Newtonian Gravity (Newton's Law of Gravitation) was wrong. It is also totally incompatable with quantum mechanics. Einstein's General Relatively is correct. Newton's is still being used because its computations are easier BUT it produces "approximate answers". Einstine's provides answers of extreme precision. That's from people much smarter than I.

    You post a Firm Price for your firearm, I'll just pay you an approximate amount. Lol

    Read the fine print of my statement.

    "Newtonian laws for the conditions under which they were formulated hold true"
    Newton's law has since been superseded by Albert Einstein's theory of general relativity, but it continues to be used as an excellent approximation of the effects of gravity in most applications. Relativity is required only when there is a need for extreme precision, or when dealing with very strong gravitational fields, such as those found near extremely massive and dense objects, or at very close distances (such as Mercury's orbit around the Sun).
     

    wildrider666

    Master
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Joined
    Sep 26, 2012
    Messages
    8,753
    Points
    113
    Location
    Panama City Beach, Fl
    Read the fine print of my statement.

    "Newtonian laws for the conditions under which they were formulated hold true"

    Your beating your dead horse. Your adding that caveat after the fact to support a lost position. I said "Some Newton and Pasteur theories proved partially or fully incorrect." Newton's Law of Gravity has been superceded because a "Law" must apply universally and this didn't. It was wrong from the start but the problem was unknown until years later when certain applications failed. Any credible reference that has Newton's Gravity (often not referenced as a Law anymore) and Einstein General Relativity will state this.

    Science does get it wrong, even at the highest levels of acceptance. Search: Failed, superceded and obsolete scientific theory and you will find examples in most if not every Field including Newton's Gravity.
     

    FrommerStop

    Master
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Joined
    Apr 7, 2016
    Messages
    6,897
    Points
    113
    Location
    NWFL
    Your beating your dead horse. Your adding that caveat after the fact to support a lost position. I said "Some Newton and Pasteur theories proved partially or fully incorrect." Newton's Law of Gravity has been superceded because a "Law" must apply universally and this didn't. It was wrong from the start but the problem was unknown until years later when certain applications failed. Any credible reference that has Newton's Gravity (often not referenced as a Law anymore) and Einstein General Relativity will state this.

    Science does get it wrong, even at the highest levels of acceptance. Search: Failed, superceded and obsolete scientific theory and you will find examples in most if not every Field including Newton's Gravity.
    Your adding that caveat after the fact to support a lost position.
    Not so. That was part of my original statement.
    Below is what was said and this whole conversation is becoming silly.
    While not as common there are scientific laws also. Newtonian laws for the conditions under which they were formulated hold true last time I checked and are not theories. https://www.grc.nasa.gov/www/k-12/airplane/newton.html

    Also certainly scientists can be wrong just like anyone else. They are after all just humans.

    Here is a link to a discussion of it https://www.livescience.com/21457-what-is-a-law-in-science-definition-of-scientific-law.html

    In general, a scientific law is the description of an observed phenomenon. It doesn't explain why the phenomenon exists or what causes it. The explanation of a phenomenon is called a scientific theory. It is a misconception that theories turn into laws with enough research.
     

    wildrider666

    Master
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Joined
    Sep 26, 2012
    Messages
    8,753
    Points
    113
    Location
    Panama City Beach, Fl
    My last :deadhorse: A falling body moves by inertia not gravitational forces. Newton's Gravity: 1st Runner up for greatest wrong theory in physics and why. YOUR OWN responses include that it has been superceded and provides approximate answers: that clearly fits my comment of "partially incorrect" (that started this line of debate). Justifying it by stating its still being used does not eliminate the fact it its been formally superceded by better science. Close enough applies to hand grenades, atom bombs and Newton's Gravity. Lol. I'm done with this,you ca have the last word. Good debate, thanks.

    https://www.forbes.com/sites/chador...reatest-wrong-theory-in-physics/#48a870fbd2eb
     
    Top Bottom