PDA

View Full Version : Why was this thread closed ??



jugs
12-19-2010, 06:28 AM
"Something interesting about our Sun"
It was interesting, informative, no bad feeling, no flaming so why :confused: - what did I miss :confused:

john
:)

clutch
12-19-2010, 07:10 AM
I didn't see anything all that objectionable and usually we have light and kind moderation. Maybe our benefactor doesn't want AGW threads on the board? Could be from previous experience.

Clutch

Evan
12-19-2010, 08:51 AM
George dislikes climate change/global warming/anything related threads.

(note: I am not guessing)

Liger Zero
12-19-2010, 09:01 AM
George is part of the team working on a method to blow up the sun.

See.. the sun is hot... and heat causes global warming... so according to his logic blowing up the sun is the only solution.

Oh and he wants it to be a surprise, that's why he closed the thread.

gary350
12-19-2010, 09:20 AM
The sun will turn in to a Red Giant and burn itself out some day that is a known fact.

Evan
12-19-2010, 09:26 AM
Like this:

http://ixian.ca/pics8/2000degrees.jpg

mike os
12-19-2010, 09:37 AM
The sun will turn in to a Red Giant and burn itself out some day that is a known fact.


nope it is speculation, we do not know, (because we cannot observe)nor can we prove by experement... we think it might, or theory suggests......

John Stevenson
12-19-2010, 09:42 AM
What is known is that this post is going to get closed as well :D

Evan
12-19-2010, 09:46 AM
It isn't specualtion. We observe other stars that are in the same category as our sun. We can determine their age by the spectral composition of elements which tells us what stage of stellar evolution they are in. The evolution of a star is determined by only one factor; it's mass. All stars follow an evolutionary path according to their mass called the main sequence. Depending on their age and the mass they started with they will eventually depart the main sequence in a predictable manner. For a star the size of our sun that includes a red giant phase during which it will blow off most of it's mass and then shrink to a cool dwarf star.

No need to worry though, it won't happen for at least 10 billion years.

http://ixian.ca/pics8/mainseq.jpg

John Stevenson
12-19-2010, 09:51 AM
No need to worry though, it won't happen for at least 10 billion years.



So you will be on your 12,876,345,834 job by then ?

KiddZimaHater
12-19-2010, 09:59 AM
I think the thread was closed because this is no longer the "Home Shop MACHINIST Forum".
It has become the "OT, OT, OT, OT" Forum.

Evan
12-19-2010, 10:07 AM
I know for a fact that George doesn't like global warming threads. That is why he closed it.

Evan
12-19-2010, 10:09 AM
So you will be on your 12,876,345,834 job by then ?


I don't have a job now. No reason to think I will have one then.

Liger Zero
12-19-2010, 10:13 AM
I think the thread was closed because this is no longer the "Home Shop MACHINIST Forum".
It has become the "OT, OT, OT, OT" Forum.


The machinists I've worked with have a hard time staying on topic too, so it's not our merry little band! :D

jackary
12-19-2010, 10:15 AM
I don't think you have to worry about global warming/end of world because of the snout ice effect.
Alan

daveo
12-19-2010, 10:19 AM
I wouldnt have closed it, I would have just deleted it.... And this one...:D

davidwdyer
12-19-2010, 10:45 AM
It's too bad. He closed it before I could get my dander up and write my rant about the global warming fiasco. (That should get it closed).

mike os
12-19-2010, 10:50 AM
anything to do with the life & function of stars is speculation & theory, anything else is unscientific. As we have never observed the life of a star and recorded the observations or managed to reproduce one under experimental conditions it remains a theory or hypothesis. Far too many "scientists" think their pet theories are now fact simply because they have repeated it often enough.

lynnl
12-19-2010, 11:28 AM
So you will be on your 12,876,345,834 job by then ?

John, you are a one man riot! :D :D

Paul Alciatore
12-19-2010, 11:31 AM
anything to do with the life & function of stars is speculation & theory, anything else is unscientific. As we have never observed the life of a star and recorded the observations or managed to reproduce one under experimental conditions it remains a theory or hypothesis. Far too many "scientists" think their pet theories are now fact simply because they have repeated it often enough.

Boy, you said it. A friend of mine from high school and college worked as a physicist developing radioisotopes for medical usage. Good work and I salute it. But, because he “worked as a scientist in the field”, he will tolerate no other opinions on any subject that involves radioactive materials, including nuclear power, a field he has absolutely no experience in. HE is the scientist so HE is right and other opinions are irrelevant.

We all need to maintain open minds and to listen to the opinions of others.

lynnl
12-19-2010, 11:41 AM
Man! Are we lucky! Good thing no one here is like that! :)

lazlo
12-19-2010, 12:06 PM
he will tolerate no other opinions on any subject that involves radioactive materials, including nuclear power, a field he has absolutely no experience in.
Man! Are we lucky! Good thing no one here is like that! :)

LOL! Between Lynn and John -- you just can't get entertainment like that anywhere else! ;)

moe1942
12-19-2010, 12:12 PM
OK folks, lets move on. Nothing to see here...:D

wierdscience
12-19-2010, 01:34 PM
George dislikes climate change/global warming/anything related threads.

(note: I am not guessing)

But it wasn't a GW/Climate change thread and was not titled or intended as such.

As usual those who STILL believe in that nonsense ran the thread into the ditch or at least began steering it that way.

A little variety on a board helps keep the thing alive afterall.

mike os
12-19-2010, 02:13 PM
We all need to maintain open minds and to listen to the opinions of others.


my philosophy in a nutshell

dp
12-19-2010, 02:52 PM
Problems with global warming threads is there's no way for one side or the other to win the debate because the science of it is still evolving. There is not enough to make the case for either side.

And it seems all such threads move quickly from talking about climate to talking about weather. The cold in Britain, for example, is weather. The warming in Canada is weather. The killing cold in South America is weather. The current climate allows these weather phenomena to occur. 10,000 years ago that would not have been the case. It will be different again in 10,000 years.

In the past we've always adapted. That is what we will do in the future. Adaption is currently a dirty word in climate talks because there's no way to control people and money policy through adaption. Imagine the UN demanding tax dollars and regulation power to adapt. Not in the short term bag of tricks.

Bolster
12-19-2010, 03:00 PM
Problems with global warming threads is there's no way for one side or the other to win the debate because the science of it is still evolving. There is not enough to make the case for either side.

There's two tracks, not just one: There's (1) the scientific case, and there's the (2) political/ideological/propaganda case. Science SHOULD be disinterested and not seeking any particular solution or answer. As soon as science has "a dog in the fight" and you get researchers who make more money if they find certain results, then it's undergone the political/ideological/self-interest morph that results in junk science.

If you couldn't tell, I'm a scientist...who is depressed at how motivated/political science has become in recent years. There are certain topics where you can't believe anything "scientific" because the researchers want to find certain answers. Ideologically contaminated, or self-interest science, is junk.

RB211
12-19-2010, 03:04 PM
Political threads are usually closed by those who usually lean to the left and can't come up with enough logic to support their side. I am not saying that the mod is a liberal, he was probably just inundated by requests from liberals to close it.

Bolster
12-19-2010, 03:07 PM
One more comment: The "round file" problem. Say you set p<.05 as most researchers do. You're allowing approximately 1 in 20 studies to be published with a false positive.

Now say 20 researchers go out there to "prove" theory X. If there is no actual support for theory X, at p<.05, on average you'll get 1 paper supporting theory X. And 19 studies that didn't find X go into the round file (the trash). (If all the researchers are good little ideologues, you'll get more...there are may ways to torture the numbers to get the results we want.)

So guess what's the general impression given to the scientific community and the media? Why, there's a new paper that's supported theory X!

As I tell my students: "If the research is on a politically hot topic, you have permission to ignore the results of 'science', because it's likely contaminated science."

dp
12-19-2010, 03:47 PM
Roger Pielke Jr. comes the closest to my way of thinking. He's for adaption (it will happen, period) and for decarbonizing the economy. He's made a good case for decarbonizing the economy not because it is good for the climate or environment (it is), but because it is good for the economy. The climate benefits as a secondary effect but the driver is that good old fashion capitalist need to turn a profit.

His book should probably be on the book shelf of anyone with a serious interest in the climate debate. http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2010/04/climate-fix.html

And for a good exposure to rational thinking from a scientist who is admittedly relearning what she thought she knew about climate, Dr. Judith Curry's blog is good but dry reading. There's some serious science discussed at http://JudithCurry.com/ and without the hyperbole seen on so many climate sites.

moe1942
12-19-2010, 03:57 PM
Was that thread closed or simply relocated..:D

lazlo
12-19-2010, 04:05 PM
Roger Pielke Jr. comes the closest to my way of thinking. He's for adaption (it will happen, period) and for decarbonizing the economy.

His book should probably be on the book shelf of anyone with a serious interest in the climate debate. http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2010/04/climate-fix.html

That's very surprising Dennis. Dr. Pielke is a staunch proponent of anthropomorphic global warming.

His book is excellent -- his key point is that, even if we start now, it will take decades to make a dent on the sheer volume of greenhouse gasses and pollution we're generating, and that hard limits as proposed by the Kyoto protocol are not politically viable, since the big three polluters: the US, China, and Russia, simply won't participate, while everyone else, who wouldn't be affected by hard pollution limits anyway, enthusiastically agree.

This is the jacket summary of The Climax Fix:


"In The Climate Fix, Pielke offers a way to repair climate policy, shifting the debate away from meaningless targets and toward a revolution in how the world's economy is powered, while de-fanging the venomous politics surrounding the crisis. The debate on global warming has lost none of its power to polarize and provoke in a haze of partisan vitriol. The Climate Fix will bring something new to the discussions: a commonsense perspective and practical actions better than any offered so far."

Regardless of your views on AGW, I think everyone would agree with the "haze of partisan vitriol" comment.

dp
12-19-2010, 04:14 PM
That's very surprising Dennis. Dr. Pielke is a staunch proponent of anthropomorphic global warming.

That is not so important as his solution. It works regardless of the source and doesn't require bankrupting the entire free world.

Oddly enough, he and his father, Dr. Pielke Sr., disagree on the climate issues :)

Evan
12-19-2010, 04:16 PM
anything to do with the life & function of stars is speculation & theory, anything else is unscientific. As we have never observed the life of a star and recorded the observations or managed to reproduce one under experimental conditions it remains a theory or hypothesis.

A theory is a hypothesis that has been proven by observation and/or experiment to be correct. We have both observation and experiment to support the the theory of how stars evolve. It isn't in doubt. We have done numerous experiments that verify the hypotheses of how the elements in a star are formed by fusion of elemental particles. It is really very simple since the basic ingredients of a star are just hydrogen and helium. Those then fuse to form a sequence of increasingly heavier elements until iron is formed. Iron is the end point of main sequence stellar evolution since iron cannot be fused to form heavier elements at the temperatures and pressures that exist in a star on the main sequence.

We can also observe stars at every point of their evolution from just recently formed to nearly dead. Since the only thing that affects a star's path along the main sequence is it's mass then all we need to observe is stars of the same mass and of different ages. Both mass and age are easily determined by observation. We know very well and completely scientifically what happens to a star such as our sun. There is no speculation involved.

Read all about it here:

http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~ryden/ast162_4/notes15.html

mike os
12-19-2010, 05:30 PM
If you couldn't tell, I'm a scientist...who is depressed at how motivated/political science has become in recent years.


I feel your pain:(

I hate theory presented as fact, espescially by people wo should know better or have an agenda.

Mcgyver
12-19-2010, 05:36 PM
A theory is a hypothesis that has been proven by observation and/or experiment to be correct.

Wrong, you can't prove a scientific theory you can only disprove it....it would be correct to say that it is supported by experiment and observation and that most/all scientists believe it to be true, however it can't be proven.

PeteF
12-19-2010, 05:50 PM
Wrong, you can't prove a scientific theory you can only disprove it....it would be correct to say that it is supported by experiment and observation and that most/all scientists believe it to be true, however it can't be proven.

Correct. Anyone who has ever written a thesis knows that the process involves, somewhat paradoxically, attempting to reject one's own hypothesis.

jugs
12-19-2010, 05:52 PM
Was that thread closed or simply relocated..:D

Closed, see- http://bbs.homeshopmachinist.net/showthread.php?t=45266

john
:)

dp
12-19-2010, 05:56 PM
Wrong, you can't prove a scientific theory you can only disprove it....it would be correct to say that it is supported by experiment and observation and that most/all scientists believe it to be true, however it can't be proven.

Is that a hypothesis, a theory, or a proof? :D

Bolster
12-19-2010, 06:38 PM
Correct. Anyone who has ever written a thesis knows that the process involves, somewhat paradoxically, attempting to reject one's own hypothesis.

Yes, and somewhere therein lies the rotting disease at the center of modern "politicized" science. Because politicized science ardently attempts to achieve a certain outcome to support a beloved hypothesis.

With the modern marriage of science and politics, we now have theories in search of supporting facts, and it's "legitimate" because "the goal of [fill in the blank] is so noble, we're allowed to bend the rules to show we're right."

A politically incorrect hypothesis will have its methodology assaulted repeatedly and universally, and its author's reputation trashed (ask John Philippe Rushton, for example, or John Lott). A politically correct hypotheses seems to go straight from the researcher's first draft to the front page of the New York Times with little if any critical reflection.

I'm aware of a researcher who demonstrated that divorce was economically unfair for women and favorable for men. Instant celebrity, and laws were remade on Capitol hill based on her research, making men pay more to divorced moms. A researcher in my lab could not reproduce her results, unless he (on purpose) "forgot" to take a reciprocal in a certain calculation (which is a common mistake made by newbie statisticians), and voila, her results were easily reproduced if this error was committed. A recheck of the original researcher's computations show that indeed, she (or her graduate student) did in fact make this error.

Long story short, the original researcher left the country but no retraction was ever made, and US law is still influenced by this flawed study...because it fits with politically correct doctrine: men are brutes, women are victims.

We are lead around by the ideology of the chattering classes (media, academia & entertainment).

jugs
12-19-2010, 07:00 PM
[quote=dp]Problems with global warming threads is there's no way for one side or the other to win the debate because the science of it is still evolving. There is not enough to make the case for either side.

And it seems all such threads move quickly from talking about climate to talking about weather. The cold in Britain, for example, is weather. The warming in Canada is weather. The killing cold in South America is weather. The current climate allows these weather phenomena to occur. 10,000 years ago that would not have been the case. It will be different again in 10,000 years.

In the past we've always adapted. That is what we will do in the future. quote]

There is no debate, only fact.
The climate has always been changing (geology tells us that) & always will, it's a result of solar output & our orbit. You can debate the amount of effect man has had compared to a volcanic eruption or a solar event, but constant change is a fact of life.


In the life of our planet, many life forms have come & gone, some with more success than others. The ones that can adapt fast survive the others don't, I believe humans are probably in the later category.
The religious should see it as part of gods plan & the non-religious see it as evolution.

The bible states "The meek will inherit the earth" I think insects, bacteria, slime-molds are pretty meek (well perhaps not pretty) ,but they can adapt fast, sadly mankind is too specialized to survive even small changes.

gnm109
12-19-2010, 07:10 PM
10 billion years, eh? Well, I'm much relieved. I thought I'd have to make a will and give my property away. Phew.

vpt
12-19-2010, 07:30 PM
I am sure our government will take care of things when the sun burns out.

jugs
12-19-2010, 07:34 PM
10 billion years, eh? Well, I'm much relieved. I thought I'd have to make a will and give my property away. Phew.

Noooooo, it was 10 thousand yrs, so you do have to make a will and give your property away :D I'll have the machine tools :cool:

john
:)

gnm109
12-19-2010, 07:42 PM
Noooooo, it was 10 thousand yrs, so you do have to make a will and give your property away :D I'll have the machine tools :cool:

john
:)


Take my wife, too? We may have a deal.......lol. :D

lazlo
12-19-2010, 07:49 PM
How ironic -- George locks the last thread because it predictably deteriorated into a "haze of partisan vitriol", and now someone has created a new one for him to lock :)

Paul Alciatore
12-19-2010, 08:16 PM
I have to disagree with some of the statements above about science. No scientific theory is ever "proven to be completely true". Science works in the following manner.

First observations (experiments) are made and a body of facts (data) is generated.

Then someone looks at those facts/data/observations and attempts to explain them with a theory.

Third, additional predictions about how the universe works are made according to the postulated theory.

Fourth, more experiments (observations) are made to try to acertain if these predictions are correct or wrong. This provides additional data/observations/facts which are used to confirm or disprove the theory.

Fifth, when a theory is disproven, scientists attempt to postulate a new one to explain both the original facts and the new ones.

And the whole thing starts over again. More predictions, more experiments to test those observations, more new theories, etc.

The cycle is endless. It does not end with any theory that is the final truth. It just continues to refine the truth in an endless manner.

Some theories are able to survive many tests and may, as a result, be considered "Laws of Science". Newton's Laws are one example of this. They work quite well for everyday life. But in the end, even the best of them eventually fall. Einstein has shown where Newton was wrong. Yes, Newton's Laws are wrong. And others have shown where Einstein was wrong. The process continues. No scientific "fact" is the final word. "Scientific fact" is a contradiction in terms. The only "facts" in science are the observations and even there, there is observational error. This observational error is often the source for completely false theories.

"Laws of Science" are not laws at all: they are just really good theories which will be shown to be wrong one day if they haven't already been.

jugs
12-19-2010, 08:17 PM
How ironic -- George locks the last thread because it predictably deteriorated into a "haze of partisan vitriol", and now someone has created a new one for him to lock :)

"haze of partisan vitriol", :confused: what thread on what forum were you reading :confused:

THIS thread has now moved on to trade.



Take my wife, too? We may have a deal.......lol. :D


I'll swap my wife - for a big CNC mill, none of your Bridgeport rubbish (shes worth more than that, having just been refurbished (new ball joint on main suspension strut, new pipes around main pump & spare tyre removed for better handling) some slight dents & blemishes but should be good for another 20/25yrs before scrapping or scraping)

john

PeteF
12-19-2010, 08:28 PM
Yes, and somewhere therein lies the rotting disease at the center of modern "politicized" science. Because politicized science ardently attempts to achieve a certain outcome to support a beloved hypothesis

The final vetting process has always been in having one's paper (hopefully) published for review by academic peers. Sadly these days that process is more often than not simply bypassed and data cherry-picked to fulfill desired outcomes. Even more powerful than the political pressures you speak of is the power of the mighty $$$ and sponsorship of "studies" that, unremarkably enough, further the agenda of the sponsor. It's this process that I personally find particularly abrasive as there is no "science" in the process or outcomes; the scientific equivalent of an infomercial. An absurd terminology if there ever was one, there is no "info" in the 'mercial!

lazlo
12-19-2010, 08:37 PM
"haze of partisan vitriol", :confused: what thread on what forum were you reading :confused:

Yes, this thread has been a paragon of constructive scientific debate :rolleyes:
You've got tinfoil hats claiming "liberals" are forcing George to shut down global warming threads for lack of supporting evidence, others referring to the "nonsense [AGW] that ran the [previous GW] thread into the ditch"...

Yes, it's a haze of partisan vitriol, and has absolutely nothing to do with machining.

If you want to argue for or against global warming with people you've no hope of convincing, try the PM, or CNCZone forums dedicated to it.

RobbieKnobbie
12-19-2010, 08:40 PM
I machined some new wheels for my engine hoist today out of solid barstock; mystery metal, but it machined like generic low carbon, 1018 maybe. I'm hoping these will be a big improvement over the cheesy cast iron ones that came with it...

Oh wait, sorry, I should have started this post with OT: Machining Related Content. Won't happen again, fellas, carry on...

Evan
12-19-2010, 08:45 PM
Theories are never "proven" but if they haven't been falsified then they are as close to fact as you ever get in science. I am perfectly aware of the scientifc method. Sorry I don't have time to discuss this further but we are having a Christmas party right now.

PeteF
12-19-2010, 08:47 PM
Sorry I don't have time to discuss this further but we are having a Christmas party right now.

That's ok Evan, we'll get over it

dp
12-19-2010, 08:49 PM
How ironic -- George locks the last thread because it predictably deteriorated into a "haze of partisan vitriol", and now someone has created a new one for him to lock :)

That's a good one :) Not quit so dramatic as your "red mist" comment in the gunship attack thread, but still full of... color :)

I like "The afternoon burned into evening and flagons of solutions to all the world's problems were flowing steady. When came the dawn not a problem or sorrow remained on any tongue owing to a stuporous sleep that conveyed itself among the recently reveling throng".

lazlo
12-19-2010, 08:58 PM
Not quit so dramatic as your "red mist" comment in the gunship attack thread, but still full of... color :)

"Red Misting" is a Army term -- when personnel are hit by an artillery shell, or in this case a 30 mm anti-tank round, it doesn't leave a wound, it turns you into a red mist.

oldtiffie
12-19-2010, 08:59 PM
The title of the OP was/is: Why was this thread closed ??

The text of the OP is:


"Something interesting about our Sun"
It was interesting, informative, no bad feeling, no flaming so why :confused: - what did I miss :confused:

john
:)

After seeing where this thread has gone and where of a myriad of ways it has to and may well go, my guess is that George in his Machiavellian way has chosen to leave it "as is" for a while and rather than cancel/"lock" it to suit some and in spite of others he had left it to wend its own way and let some learn a good lesson and stew in their own juice.

Bravo George.

dp
12-19-2010, 09:12 PM
"Red Misting" is a Army term -- when personnel are hit by an artillery shell, or in this case a 30 mm anti-tank round, it doesn't leave a wound, it turns you into a red mist.

I know that - but like "antitheist" it's a dramatic word that doesn't show up every day in a machinist's forum :)

dp
12-19-2010, 09:14 PM
The title of the OP was/is: Why was this thread closed ??

The text of the OP is:


After seeing where this thread has gone and where of a myriad of ways it has to and may well go, my guess is that George in his Machiavellian way has chosen to leave it "as is" for a while ...

Tiffie - it's Sunday in the US. He's probably reading his bible and thinking pleasant thoughts about his babysitting job in this forum.

lazlo
12-19-2010, 09:15 PM
I know that - but like "antitheist" it's a dramatic word that doesn't show up every day in a machinist's forum :)

Hey, if it's good for entertainment purposes, buy me a beer sometime -- I owe John a dozen or so by now ;)

oldtiffie
12-19-2010, 09:27 PM
Originally Posted by oldtiffie
The title of the OP was/is: Why was this thread closed ??

The text of the OP is:


After seeing where this thread has gone and where of a myriad of ways it has to and may well go, my guess is that George in his Machiavellian way has chosen to leave it "as is" for a while ...


Tiffie - it's Sunday in the US. He's probably reading his bible and thinking pleasant thoughts about his babysitting job in this forum.

That may well be true Dennis and if it is my guess is that it should not be limited and should be a comprehensive "baby-sitting" of some here and include but not be limited to "burping", diaper-changing and wet-nursing - and a good figurative whack in the ear and o/r kick in the ar$e.

Perhaps George lets it go on as he may see that there is no saving some from themselves and each other.

If that's the case, George is not only pushing the barbed knife (bayonet?) in and out - but is twisting it as well.

Perhaps he may send some off to "Brat Camp" where they will be wished on each other.

Nice irony there.

Well done George.

Mcgyver
12-19-2010, 10:04 PM
Theories are never "proven" but if they haven't been falsified then they are as close to fact as you ever get in science. I am perfectly aware of the scientifc method. Sorry I don't have time to discuss this further but we are having a Christmas party right now.

well, apparently not that perfectly aware, but hey, there's always 2011 for making it through a year without being wrong :D hey wait, thats "scientific" - 2 errors in one thread OMG.

Discuss? whats' to discuss? All you had to say was "Oooops that one slipped through or something..... its no biggy requiring discussion about being wrong on a minor point.....just razzing you Evan, enjoy the party!

Evan
12-20-2010, 12:02 AM
I don't know what you are referring to as I haven't read anything past your post after mine. We are just now cleaning up.

John Stevenson
12-20-2010, 02:52 AM
I don't know what you are referring to as I haven't read anything past your post after mine. We are just now cleaning up.

From ONE mince pie ???????????????????

.

Evan
12-20-2010, 04:03 AM
It's our annual Christmas party for the residents of this hill. BTW, I hate mince pie and can't eat it anyway. We had turkey, ham three kinds of potatos, stuffing (gluten free) plenty of other appetizers, no alcohol, and I was forced to finish off the remains of the trifle. (URP).

I am still very busy as I must prepare for a hearing on my disability appeal. Deadline for submitting my documents is the 22nd.

philbur
12-20-2010, 07:24 AM
2 + 2 = 4 is a theory based on observation and therefore can only be considerd a rule of thumb.

2 - 3 = -1 cannot be observed so may in fact not be true at all.

Phil:)


I have to disagree with some of the statements above about science. No scientific theory is ever "proven to be completely true". Science works in the following manner.

First observations (experiments) are made and a body of facts (data) is generated.

Then someone looks at those facts/data/observations and attempts to explain them with a theory.

Third, additional predictions about how the universe works are made according to the postulated theory.

Fourth, more experiments (observations) are made to try to acertain if these predictions are correct or wrong. This provides additional data/observations/facts which are used to confirm or disprove the theory.

Fifth, when a theory is disproven, scientists attempt to postulate a new one to explain both the original facts and the new ones.

And the whole thing starts over again. More predictions, more experiments to test those observations, more new theories, etc.

The cycle is endless. It does not end with any theory that is the final truth. It just continues to refine the truth in an endless manner.

Some theories are able to survive many tests and may, as a result, be considered "Laws of Science". Newton's Laws are one example of this. They work quite well for everyday life. But in the end, even the best of them eventually fall. Einstein has shown where Newton was wrong. Yes, Newton's Laws are wrong. And others have shown where Einstein was wrong. The process continues. No scientific "fact" is the final word. "Scientific fact" is a contradiction in terms. The only "facts" in science are the observations and even there, there is observational error. This observational error is often the source for completely false theories.

"Laws of Science" are not laws at all: they are just really good theories which will be shown to be wrong one day if they haven't already been.

SmoggyTurnip
12-20-2010, 07:58 AM
A theory is a hypothesis that has been proven ...



Theories are never "proven" ...



Hmmmmmmmm.

Evan
12-20-2010, 08:03 AM
Define proven in a scientific context.

That statement was made (the first one ) for someone that didn't know what a theory is.

I will also point out that a theory that is correctly bounded can be proven. I also haven't read the intervening posts as it very likely isn't constructive.

SmoggyTurnip
12-20-2010, 08:13 AM
Define proven in a scientific context.




Definition of proven : Place definition here

A theory is a hypothesis that has been "Place definition here"...

A theory is never "Place definition here"...

Evan
12-20-2010, 08:16 AM
A NEW PROOF OF THE FOUR-COLOR THEOREM

http://people.math.gatech.edu/~thomas/SLIDE/fcsl.pdf

JCHannum
12-20-2010, 08:29 AM
The question was dealing with theories, not theorems. They are two different animals.

Evan
12-20-2010, 08:49 AM
The only difference between a theory and a theorem is the bounding of the hypothesis. Since it isn't reasonable to expect a theory to explain everything if the hypothesis is correctly bounded then the theory may be proven in the same manner that a mathematical theorem is bounded and proven. If you start with axioms or physical laws then the derivation of those axioms provides bounded extensions to the intital assumptions and the theory may be considered proven if the evidence supports it within the bounds.

vpt
12-20-2010, 08:51 AM
I hear there is more snow coming. We might have an old time normal winter yet!

Evan
12-20-2010, 09:14 AM
It is snowing and -20 here right now. That's normal enough for me.

lazlo
12-20-2010, 09:23 AM
It is snowing and -20 here right now. That's normal enough for me.

Today's high is 75°, and it's supposed to be 80° on Christmas Day -- that's hot, even by Austin standards.

It must be because of that giant solar flare that Darin posted :D

JCHannum
12-20-2010, 09:35 AM
Following that circuitous reasoning, the only difference between an apple and an orange is the color of the skin.

bob ward
12-20-2010, 09:51 AM
The only difference between a theory and a theorem is the bounding of the hypothesis. Since it isn't reasonable to expect a theory to explain everything if the hypothesis is correctly bounded then the theory may be proven in the same manner that a mathematical theorem is bounded and proven. If you start with axioms or physical laws then the derivation of those axioms provides bounded extensions to the intital assumptions and the theory may be considered proven if the evidence supports it within the bounds.


So is Darwin's Theory of Evolution actually a theory, a theorem, an axiom or an hypothesis? And how do global warming, the global financial crisis, profligate Dems spending, religion, disarming the civilian population, and banning the use of imperial measurements by mid 2011, fit in with Darwin's 'Theory'?

jugs
12-20-2010, 09:57 AM
quote=JCHannum-
The question was dealing with theories, not theorems. They are two different animals.


Ok, so how many legs, where do they live & what do the eat :confused:



quote=Evan-
The only difference between a theory and a theorem is the bounding of the hypothesis.


EVAN !!! I'm shocked :eek: ..... did you have to bring animal sex into it. the thread will be closed !!


Last tiime my hypothesis was bounding, the doctor told me to watch less porn :D

john
:)

philbur
12-20-2010, 10:04 AM
Well that pretty much clears that up then.

Phil:)


The only difference between a theory and a theorem is the bounding of the hypothesis. Since it isn't reasonable to expect a theory to explain everything if the hypothesis is correctly bounded then the theory may be proven in the same manner that a mathematical theorem is bounded and proven. If you start with axioms or physical laws then the derivation of those axioms provides bounded extensions to the intital assumptions and the theory may be considered proven if the evidence supports it within the bounds.

Mcgyver
12-20-2010, 11:06 AM
The only difference between a theory and a theorem is the bounding of the hypothesis. Since it isn't reasonable to expect a theory to explain everything if the hypothesis is correctly bounded then the theory may be proven in the same manner that a mathematical theorem is bounded and proven. If you start with axioms or physical laws then the derivation of those axioms provides bounded extensions to the intital assumptions and the theory may be considered proven if the evidence supports it within the bounds.

keep on digging

It is incorrect to compare a mathematical theorem, which by definition means it is proven, with a theory in science which contrary to your assertion is accepted by every scientist and scientific mind on the planet as something that cannot be proven.

Maintaining a theory can be proven is indefensible for someone who claims to know the scientific method.

I have a theory that it must really suck to never be able say, ooops I was wrong :eek: :D ....I can stack up evidence in support thereof but i can never prove it lol

dp
12-20-2010, 12:09 PM
The science is settled.
.
.
.
There is no more need for debate!

Former vice president and Nobel prize winner Albert Gore

lazlo
12-20-2010, 12:14 PM
Former vice president and Nobel prize winner Albert Gore

I thought he got the Nobel Prize for inventing the Internet?

jugs
12-20-2010, 12:23 PM
Former vice president and Nobel prize winner Albert Gore



I thought he got the Nobel Prize for inventing the Internet?


No, it was for being president of vice.

john
:)

lazlo
12-20-2010, 12:25 PM
No, it was for being president of vice.

You're thinking of the President at the time :p

Paul Alciatore
12-20-2010, 12:56 PM
Define proven in a scientific context.

That statement was made (the first one ) for someone that didn't know what a theory is.

I will also point out that a theory that is correctly bounded can be proven. I also haven't read the intervening posts as it very likely isn't constructive.


Evan,

OK, here we go.

Yes, a theory that is "correctly bounded" could be proven or established as fact. The problem is, you can NEVER be certain that you have "correctly bounded" it. Future facts/observations/experimental data can always show that your previous bounds were not correct. That is the problem with the idea of "scientific fact".

Science has theories, and theories are always subject to further refinement.

Paul Alciatore
12-20-2010, 12:59 PM
Well that pretty much clears that up then.

Phil:)

No it does not. Read my previous post. Evan is falling for the same trap that many scientists do.

Paul Alciatore
12-20-2010, 01:01 PM
Former vice president and Nobel prize winner Albert Gore


Nobel prizes are awarded for your accomplishments, not your private philosophies.

wierdscience
12-20-2010, 01:34 PM
Nobel prizes are awarded for your accomplishments, not your private philosophies.

Lately they are awarded to people who haven't accomplished anything;)

macona
12-20-2010, 01:41 PM
Nobel prizes are awarded for your accomplishments, not your private philosophies.

Obama proved that wrong...

SmoggyTurnip
12-20-2010, 01:47 PM
The difference between a proof in math and proof in science is that in math you can always assume the axioms are without any doubt 100% true. In science you can never make that assumption. In science it is the axioms we are looking for. The best we can ever do is find a set of axioms that do not contradict our current observations. We will never be sure if a future observation will contradict our current set of axioms.

Evan
12-20-2010, 01:48 PM
Paul,

Theories may be bound after the fact. An example is Newton's theory of gravitation. It hasn't been discarded because it doesn't describe the extremes correctly. Einstein placed bounds on it but Newton's theory is still used by NASA to navigate their spacecraft. Within the appropriate bounds it is correct to a degree that the errors cannot be determined by measurement.

If you are looking for absolute analytical precision then, sorry, it isn't available in much of mathematics or physics. That doesn't stop science from declaring phenomena as physical laws, the equivalent of mathematical axioms.

Try telling an astrophysicist that the Main Sequence is pure speculation.

SmoggyTurnip
12-20-2010, 02:03 PM
Paul,

That doesn't stop science from declaring phenomena as physical laws, the equivalent of mathematical axioms.



This is a mistake. Science does not declare physical laws to be the equivalent of mathematical axioms.

Physical laws are always being tested for validation and it is the scientific method that allows any physical law to be proven false.

Mathematical axioms are never tested - they are just true by definition.

Mcgyver
12-20-2010, 02:11 PM
Try telling an astrophysicist that the Main Sequence is pure speculation.

So things must be either pure speculation or proven?

if we're to try telling people things, try telling a scientist a scientific theory can be proven

philbur
12-20-2010, 02:41 PM
My post was intended to convey a subtle hint of sarcasm:rolleyes:, possibly it was too subtle.

Phil:)


No it does not. Read my previous post. Evan is falling for the same trap that many scientists do.

lazlo
12-20-2010, 03:00 PM
My post was intended to convey a subtle hint of sarcasm:rolleyes:, possibly it was too subtle.

Not really :)

mike os
12-20-2010, 03:54 PM
Nobel prizes are awarded for your accomplishments, not your private philosophies.


no... they used to be awarded for acomplishment... now they are as often as not political as well

mike os
12-20-2010, 03:59 PM
Try telling an astrophysicist that the Main Sequence is pure speculation.

If said astrophysisist insists that his theory is fact then I will quite happily tell him he is full of ****, If he tells me this is what we think & it explains as many of the observations as we can at this time I will acept it as such.. a scientific investigation of an observed phenomena and an interpretation of those events within our current understanding.

dp
12-20-2010, 04:13 PM
If said astrophysisist insists that his theory is fact then I will quite happily tell him he is full of ****, If he tells me this is what we think & it explains as many of the observations as we can at this time I will acept it as such.. a scientific investigation of an observed phenomena and an interpretation of those events within our current understanding.

The Met office in the UK needs to hear from you.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/dominic_lawson/article6982310.ece


In fact, the Met still asserts we are in the midst of an unusually warm winter — as one of its staffers sniffily protested in an internet posting to a newspaper last week: “This will be the warmest winter in living memory, the data has already been recorded. For your information, we take the highest 15 readings between November and March and then produce an average. As November was a very seasonally warm month, then all the data will come from those readings.

It is only December 20 and they have already collected the data for Winter :eek:

lazlo
12-20-2010, 04:27 PM
The Met office in the UK needs to hear from you.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/dominic_lawson/article6982310.ece

"In fact, the Met still asserts we are in the midst of an unusually warm winter — as one of its staffers sniffily protested in an internet posting to a newspaper last week: “This will be the warmest winter in living memory, the data has already been recorded. For your information, we take the highest 15 readings between November and March and then produce an average. As November was a very seasonally warm month, then all the data will come from those readings."

It is only December 20 and they have already collected the data for Winter :eek:

If you Google that quote: "This will be the warmest winter in living memory...", up pops Who's Who in American Winger sites. But not a single hit on any the UK MET web site. Political Haze indeed :)
That quote is supposedly from January, 2010. Now go back and look up the official UK MET office report for last Winter and... uh, oh, -- where did this come from? :rolleyes:


From March, 2010:

British winter was the coldest for 31 years

Met Office figures recorded a December-to-February mean UK temperature of just 1.51C, while the 1971-2000 average is 3.7C

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/mar/02/british-winter-coldest-30-years

See, the beauty of making sh!t up and sending it around by chain emails is most people won't bother to look up to see if it's authentic...

mike os
12-20-2010, 04:36 PM
It is only December 20 and they have already collected the data for Winter :eek:


Of course.... they are experts at this weather & climate stuff... dont let the data confuse you;)

mike os
12-20-2010, 04:38 PM
[QUOTE=lazloSee, the beauty of making sh!t up and sending it around by chain emails is most people won't bother to look up to see if it's authentic...[/QUOTE]


or even use the press & news services....seems to work for most "experts" these days

lazlo
12-20-2010, 04:42 PM
or even use the press & news services....seems to work for most "experts" these days

Yes, except for Fox. They're the only news network who's not biased.

(That "article" Dennis posted was first broadcast on Hannity)

dp
12-20-2010, 05:52 PM
Yes, except for Fox. They're the only news network who's not biased.

(That "article" Dennis posted was first broadcast on Hannity)

Time to try some objectivity. Did Hannity write it? Did Hannity influence the story? Does the story stand on its own merrit? Is the story accurate? What was Hannity's role in the story? How does Hannity's relationship with the story affect the content of the story?

Hannity, btw, is not a journalist. His job is not to be fair and balanced - he is required to sell advertising. That part, at least, is working.

I don't watch TV so except for your viewership I'd never have known. What do you watch that crap anyway? :)

pgmrdan
12-20-2010, 05:58 PM
Hannity, btw, is not a journalist.


He's a political satirist isn't he? :D

dp
12-20-2010, 06:09 PM
See, the beauty of making sh!t up and sending it around by chain emails is most people won't bother to look up to see if it's authentic...

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/2009/pr20091210b.html


Looking further ahead, our experimental decadal forecast confirms previous indications that about half the years 2010–2019 will be warmer than the warmest year observed so far — 1998.

Be cautious of Googling paraphrases.

lazlo
12-20-2010, 07:52 PM
See, the beauty of making sh!t up and sending it around by chain emails is most people won't bother to look up to see if it's authentic...http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/2009/pr20091210b.html

Be cautious of Googling paraphrases.

Uh, how does that link at the UK MET office have anything to do with a made-up Winger quote?

From your link:


Climate could warm to record levels in 2010

A combination of man-made global warming and a moderate warming of the tropical Pacific Ocean, a phenomenon known as El Niño, means it is very likely that 2010 will be a warmer year globally than 2009.

Recently released figures confirm that 2009 is expected to be the fifth-warmest year in the instrumental record that dates back to 1850.

Right, so 2009 was the 5th hottest year since temperature records have been kept. So what does that have to do with Hannity's made-up MET quote?

dp
12-20-2010, 08:22 PM
I don't know. What was Hannity's quote and who what he quoting?

The Met's own quote is quite adequate to establish their recent series of failures in predicting winter conditions. In fact, in October of this year they announced they were getting out of the predicting game.

BTW, did you see gem from the UEA with a similar silly quote.


According to Dr David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia,within a few years winter snowfall will become "a very rare and exciting event".

"Children just aren't going to know what snow is," he said.

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/snowfalls-are-now-just-a-thing-of-the-past-724017.html

dp
12-20-2010, 08:25 PM
Warming from El Niño is precedent to cooling. The heat is released from the ocean and transmitted to the atmosphere which then radiates it to space. At the end of the process the earth is a cooler place. It is not the result of trapping new energy from the sun.

A.K. Boomer
12-20-2010, 08:36 PM
Wow, all this mess about an OT post about an OT post --- is machining really that boring?,

For the most part it is --- but you guys are taking it to an entirely new level of proving that:rolleyes:

Paul Alciatore
12-20-2010, 11:05 PM
Obama proved that wrong...

Yes, I stand corrected.

Paul Alciatore
12-20-2010, 11:12 PM
no... they used to be awarded for acomplishment... now they are as often as not political as well

I was speaking of the original intent of the prizes. Many things in this world are corrupted.

Paul Alciatore
12-20-2010, 11:46 PM
Paul,

Theories may be bound after the fact. An example is Newton's theory of gravitation. It hasn't been discarded because it doesn't describe the extremes correctly. Einstein placed bounds on it but Newton's theory is still used by NASA to navigate their spacecraft. Within the appropriate bounds it is correct to a degree that the errors cannot be determined by measurement.

If you are looking for absolute analytical precision then, sorry, it isn't available in much of mathematics or physics. That doesn't stop science from declaring phenomena as physical laws, the equivalent of mathematical axioms.

Try telling an astrophysicist that the Main Sequence is pure speculation.

Evan,

Yes, they may be bound after the fact, but there is no reason to believe that even these after the fact bounds are any more permanent or accurate than the original intent. We can go back even further and place bounds on the flat earth theory to keep it within the area that it provides accurate predictions. In fact, we do this every day when we survey a small area of land. We assume the boundary lines are straight and they meet at right angles to each other. This practice assumes that the flat earth theory is correct. And it works for a hundred feet or so. Only when we stack hundreds of these small plots next to each other do we finally have to admit that the theory is wrong and we must account for the curvature of the earth.

Absolute precision indeed is not available in physics or any of the sciences. But it is indeed available in mathematics. 1+1 is exactly 2. 3^2 + 4^2 = 5^2 EXACTLY. These are true today, yesterday, and will be true tomorrow and for all the tomorrows. There are many more examples of complete precision in the world of mathematics. Axiums in mathematics are assumed to be true and mathematical proofs use logic to draw conclusions from them. This is where mathematics is different from science. As long as the axiums are true and the logic is correct, the results are true - exactly true. There are examples where math has gone wrong, but either the logic was faulty or the axiums were not correct.

On the other hand physics, the most basic of the sciences and the one that all the others lean on, can never reach any final, exact conclusions. It can only follow the cycle I enumerated in my earlier post: observe, deduct, formulate theories, test the theories with further observations, and repeat the cycle. As I said, it is endless. I don't care how convinced any scientist is that his theory is correct or that it is a law, it is always subject to correction and change. As to weather I can tell him this, I may try but would not be surprised to find that his ego stands in the way of understanding. But I would never say that his carefully crafted theory is "pure speculation". At least not unless I already had an alternative theory that did a better job of explaining the observed facts.

So math and the sciences do have an essential difference. One, math, does have an element of absolute precision while the other, science, always has an element of imprecision and uncertanity.

daveo
12-20-2010, 11:59 PM
1+1 is exactly 2. 3^2 + 4^2 = 5^2 EXACTLY= DELETE!

Evan
12-21-2010, 12:20 AM
Absolute precision indeed is not available in physics or any of the sciences. But it is indeed available in mathematics.

I brought up the 4 color theorem for a good reason. It is considered "proven" in the world of mathematics. The proof was the first of a class of proofs in mathematics that are not rigorous or elegant. It depended on a brute force attack on the problem. By numerically proving case after case of the problem the probability of there being an exception remaining was reduced to very, very close to zero. This caused quite a lot of controversy in the world of mathematics since the proof could not be derived without the aid of a computer. In the end the proof was accepted as exactly that, a Mathematical Proof of the correctness of the 4 color theorem.

One cannot separate the study of mathematics from physics. The physics of the universe are described by mathematics and to the degree that mathematics is imprecise then so is the physics. The subset of perfect proofs that are rigorous in mathematics is, like rational numbers, infinitely smaller than the set of all numbers.

Proof is not absolute and everywhere it is accepted that there are degrees of proof. Courts operate on "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" or "A preponderance of evidence". Weapons are "proof tested" without absolute assurance that they will not fail. The strength of alcoholic beverages is measured in "proof" which is always less than absolute. The correctness of complex computers programs can not be absolutely verified because of a problem called the "Halting problem". Ironically, the "halting problem" has been rigorously demonstrated to be an absolute barrier to absolutely proving program correctness for non trivial logical constructs.

jugs
12-21-2010, 04:20 AM
Wow, all this mess about an OT post about an OT post --- is machining really that boring?,

For the most part it is --- but you guys are taking it to an entirely new level of proving that:rolleyes:

No it isn't, but life isn't just all about machining (except to a few geeks), most of us have other interests/knowledge/experience/opinion's which, via the magic of the interweb, can be communicated around the world between like minded people in sec.

You have 4600+ posts have they been all about machining.....NO, just like the rest of us, you have had your say on lots of OT subjects. Discussion, like travel broadens the mind & can introduce you to new ideas.

So for those who don't want to join in ....dont, it's called freedom.

john
:)

jugs
12-21-2010, 04:39 AM
One cannot separate the study of mathematics from physics. .

Rubbish.

Pure mathematics, is not applied mathematics, it is entirely a figment of imagination.

BUT, you cannot separate the study of physics from mathematics.

john
:)

John Stevenson
12-21-2010, 04:48 AM
So for those who don't want to join in ....dont, it's called freedom.

john
:)

But can you weld it ?

jugs
12-21-2010, 04:58 AM
But can you weld it ?

Yes. our canal boat called Freedom has been welded on many occasions!!

John
:)

Evan
12-21-2010, 05:46 AM
Rubbish.

Pure mathematics, is not applied mathematics, it is entirely a figment of imagination.


Hmm. One cannot separate the study of mathematics from (Implied: the study of) physics. The sentence presumes that one is studying physics.


BUT, you cannot separate the study of physics from mathematics.

Your sentence presumes one is studying mathematics. While mathematics is a property of physics, physics is not a property of mathematics.

Semantically I said you cannot take the math out of physics.

You said I cannot take the physics out of math. RUBBISH.

Cobra62
12-22-2010, 12:54 AM
I think here in Canada our former Prime Minister explained best about proof.
I don't believe he was ever a scientist though.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aX6XMIldkRU

oldtiffie
12-22-2010, 01:38 AM
The title of the OP is:
Why was this thread closed ??
The text of the OP is:


"Something interesting about our Sun"
It was interesting, informative, no bad feeling, no flaming so why :confused: - what did I miss :confused:

john
:)

So far as I can see, people are avoiding the question or the answer or is it that they don't know or just don't want to know?

I guess that (only?) George Bulliss knows - why don't you ask him?

dp
12-22-2010, 02:08 AM
The title of the OP is:
The text of the OP is:


So far as I can see, people are avoiding the question or the answer or is it that they don't know or just don't want to know?

I guess that (only?) George Bulliss knows - why don't you ask him?

Perhaps the question was rhetorical as nobody but George can know (and he like all of us was asked in the general sense by the OP). The replies have been interesting but are now spiraling into the all too predictable quagmire of bickering. Perhaps George has decided to allow this thread to provide by example the answer to the OP's question.

dp
12-22-2010, 02:29 AM
So here's quite a mirthful story of climate activism.

http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2010/12/warmer-means-colder.html

The word of the day: Dichotomy

jugs
12-22-2010, 03:32 AM
The word of the day: Dichotomy

My mate Dave, who only has his front teeth, is known as "Di central eating"

john
:)

oldtiffie
12-22-2010, 03:51 AM
Originally Posted by oldtiffie
The title of the OP is:
The text of the OP is:


So far as I can see, people are avoiding the question or the answer or is it that they don't know or just don't want to know?

I guess that (only?) George Bulliss knows - why don't you ask him?


Perhaps the question was rhetorical as nobody but George can know (and he like all of us was asked in the general sense by the OP). The replies have been interesting but are now spiraling into the all too predictable quagmire of bickering. Perhaps George has decided to allow this thread to provide by example the answer to the OP's question.

Dennis,

inasmuch as the question was not directed to George, he was under no obligation to give an answer. And if - as it seems - that only he knows the answer, the question of itself seems to have been rhetorical whether intended or not initially by the OP and then by others.

So.

George, please advise why you "locked" the "previous thread" thread referred to in the OP, and further, is this thread to be locked, and if so why and when?

There, not so hard was it? or was it?

Sometimes a bit more humility and a lot less omnipotence can be a big help.

SmoggyTurnip
12-22-2010, 09:20 AM
The subset of perfect proofs that are rigorous in mathematics is, like rational numbers, infinitely smaller than the set of all numbers.


All proofs in mathematics are perfect and rigorous - by definition.

If one presents a "proof" for the four color theorm that has mistakes in it then it does not belong to the set of proofs in mathematics. It may belong to the set of arguments that convince some people some of the time but is does not belong to the set of mathematical proofs.

lazlo
12-22-2010, 09:33 AM
I think here in Canada our former Prime Minister explained best about proof.
I don't believe he was ever a scientist though.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aX6XMIldkRU

LOL! A Canadian George Bush!


"I miss being pampered."
--George W. Bush, reflecting on his presidency, University of Texas at Tyler, Oct. 19, 2010

http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/blbushisms.htm

Evan
12-22-2010, 11:20 AM
All proofs in mathematics are perfect and rigorous - by definition.


Not any more they aren't.



The authenticity of a mathemati-
cal proof is not absolute but only
probabilistic.... Proofs cannot be
too long, else their probabilities go
down, and they baffle the check-
ing process. To put it another way:
all really deep theorems are false
(or at best unproved or unprov-
able). All true theorems are trivial.


A few years later, in Mathematics:
The Loss of Certainty, Morris Kline
portrayed mathematics as a teetering
superstructure with flimsy timbers
and a crumbling foundation; continu-
ing with this architectural conceit, he
argued that proofs are “a façade rather
than the supporting columns of the
mathematical structure.”

See here:

http://www.experimentalmath.info/news/amsci-2007-01.pdf

Mcgyver
12-22-2010, 12:11 PM
LOL! A Canadian George Bush!


I'll leave commentary of yours to US citizens, but ours was a bad man, the protegee of a bad bad man.

SmoggyTurnip
12-22-2010, 02:05 PM
Not any more they aren't.



See here:

http://www.experimentalmath.info/news/amsci-2007-01.pdf


Well I read the interesting article and nowhere did i see a redefinition of mathematical proof. Only a journalists frustration with his (and others) ability of recognizing valid proof when they see one. The low probability of a complex argument being a proof is only a measure of ones ability to recognize it and says nothing as to weather or not it is rigorous. If it is rigorous it is a proof - otherwise it is not. Ask John Cretien.

Paul Alciatore
12-22-2010, 03:01 PM
Math and physics. As I and many others see it, math is independent of physics and of science in general. Mathematicians generally are quite content to sit in their own world.

Physicists, on the other hand, use math as a tool to help analyze and explain their observations and to develop theories. Math is at the heart of physics and since physics is the most basic of the sciences, it is at the heart of science in general.

I am not saying that there is no line crossing in these two areas. Most mathematicians are well aware of physics and all physicists must be knowledgeable in math. So, in a sense, they do work hand in glove. But the mathematicians do not need to have a scientific application for a new idea that they may want to work on. They do it out of a desire for new knowledge in their own area. There are many examples of mathematical disciplines that were developed with no known application at the time. The fact that they are later applied to an area of physics or another science is of no interest to the developers and in some cases, this practical application has only happened after the death of the original mathematician who developed it. Physicists and other scientists use math as a tool, just as we would use a lathe or milling machine.

The four-color map problem is one of particular interest. I have loosely followed this conjecture over my lifetime. In my university days when I got a degree in physics with a minor in math, this conjecture was unproven and some would have felt that it was going to remain so for many years, perhaps forever. I have attempted to get some understanding of the proof that was published about a decade or two ago. It is, indeed, hard to understand. Many things in math and science have been explained in a manner that an educated person can follow and understand. This proof is not one of these. It does depend on a lot of computer work. I have yet to even see an explanation of the general outline of the proof that allows me to follow the logic. So I can not either agree or disagree with Evan’s statement that it has not been proven in the rigorous sense. I am not alone in this as many mathematicians also do not completely understand it. I do know that it has been rigorously proven for all maps from five to over 100 regions. RIGOROUSLY PROVEN for these cases! Thus, it has been known for some time that it is highly likely that the general statement is also correct.

Perhaps it is a rigorous proof. Perhaps it is not. I don’t know. If it is not a rigorous proof, then it is quite exceptional in the area of math. I can, however, tell you this. If I were a map maker, I would not hold my breath waiting for an example of a map that requires five colors.

oldtiffie
12-22-2010, 03:29 PM
Any help?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_color_theorem

lazlo
12-22-2010, 03:43 PM
I'll leave commentary of yours to US citizens, but ours was a bad man, the protegee of a bad bad man.

The only good politician is 6 feet under. :p

Politicians are almost always the worst of human-kind. They're the kids in school who really wanted to be the hall monitors :)

dp
12-22-2010, 04:36 PM
Dennis,

inasmuch as the question was not directed to George, he was under no obligation to give an answer. And if - as it seems - that only he knows the answer, the question of itself seems to have been rhetorical whether intended or not initially by the OP and then by others.

Tiffie - the OP's question was not directed at anyone specifically, but to the membership generally. Last I looked George was a member of this board. Nobody was compelled to respond but the discussion has been interesting so far so I'm glad the question was posed.


So.

George, please advise why you "locked" the "previous thread" thread referred to in the OP, and further, is this thread to be locked, and if so why and when?

There, not so hard was it? or was it?

Sometimes a bit more humility and a lot less omnipotence can be a big help.

It also presumes George has the time/inclination to wade through every post of every thread looking for these specific invitations to comment. To be more effective you should PM him though to be honest I think it presumptuous to assume he owes anyone an explanation for his actions or inactions. If he has seen the question and not responded then there is your answer but you won't know more than you did. Absence of evidence of moderation is not equivalent to no moderation.

oldtiffie
12-22-2010, 06:46 PM
Quite so Dennis.

I merely made the point that to get a direct answer from George it was best to ask him directly as he, and so far as I can see for all practical purposes he decides if and when a thread is locked.

As you say whether George read it or not or if he did whether he chooses to answer it or not is entirely up to George - who does not have to "give reasons" either, although he may choose to do so.

Your point about moderation is very well put and taken