Some Einstein sh..tuff, science discussion

[Mark C]

Half of what you listed weren't actually even 'theories.'

And, to be correct, since you claim to want to be, if something is "proven," it is no longer a theory: It is called a "Law".

Like the "Law of Gravity." Or "Newton's Second Law of Thermodynamics."

And, no, Bohr's model of the atom (once "indivisible," by definition) hasn't even been 'proven.'

F=MA hasn't even been "proven". It just works almost all the time, in 'non-relativistic frames of reference.'

Furthermore, the Aether, once DISPROVEN, is back in favor again.

 

[Daniel DeLuca]

I did and what he posted was an argument and not proof.

He's actually quite wrong about a number of things. He criticizes the environment created in the 1952 Miller-Urey experiment as not occurring anywhere in the world today yet he leaves out that the experiment replicated the pre-biotic conditions of methane, ammonia, hydrogen, and water.

Oxygen (O2) being a byproduct of biotic life would not have been present in a pre-biotic environment. Ergo, the experiment would be flawed if it used our current atmosphere as its environment.

He's quite wrong about dismissing the results of Miller-Urey because they produced some organic molecules while the remainder of their test medium was not turned into organic molecules. He criticizes Miller and Urey for using pure compounds yet then he castigates them because their pure compounds did not produce pure results? That's not even an argument.

It's like castigating a gold miner because one ton of ore only produces ten ounces of gold! Is the gold miner a failure because most of what he produces is spoils? Of course not. That's simply not an argument at all let alone a scientific argument.

Earlier in this exchange I told you that I do not need to disprove the Hydroplate Theory because it is not my theory. The proponent of the theory needs to do a better job of substantiating his theory.

Seriously, it is a fool who sets out to disprove someone else's theory as substantiation for their own theory.

He is wrong therefore I am right is a conditional argument and it is logically flawed. I am not necessarily right just because someone else is wrong.

The logical paradox that can occur in such arguments is that one can create a dependency in which the false statement must exist in order to substantiate the claim.

Make your own argument and let it stand scrutiny. If there's a sound rational basis for the notion then it will stand scrutiny.

So it seems that you are willing to entertain the possibility that Plate Tectonics is junk science. Just because the plates move does not prove that the cause of the plates moving is convection currents. The Hydroplate Theory offers a plausible alternative, and the reality is, you don't even have to accept the entire Hydroplate premise to understand the concept that if the molten magma is actually being removed from the crust rather than coming from under the mantle, that this would explain why the earth shifts, and the process that the friction is what creates the heat which melts the crust which results in loss of material which results in more shifting. In other words it is a process where gravity is the driving force, rather than some mysterious circulation that has an unknown cause. You have seen the list of evidences supporting the Hydroplate theory as a preferable alternative to Plate Tectonics, and some of those evidences have been presented here.

Now on the abiogenesis front, Sure, God COULD have taken the materials and made them pure and caused them to form just right and removed all the impurities, such as we would expect to see in the gold mining process, or He couls have simply created a Universe that is capable of understanding His commands and obeying His spoken word, OR when He spoke, His ministering servants AKA the angels, could have gone into motion and carried out His commands. The latter two possibilities are compatible with what Moses wrote in Genesis 1. God spoke and it was so. As to whether there exists some planet Kolob or other planetary body that contains life, I have yet to see any indication in the Holy Bible that such events EVER occurred, and what we do read in Scripture, indicates that there are no other gods.

 

[Daniel DeLuca]

The theory of alternating current electricity has been proven.

Edison was right about the dangers of AC. Downed power lines kill hundreds of people. Ironically, what Tesla wanted to accomplish in providing free power to everyone, would have been more feasible with DC than with AC. The issues we are encountering with green energy, would not be so complicated if we were on a DC grid. Any power that is generated by wind mills and solar panels has to be converted from DC to AC and back, and there is always substantial loss of power in teh process. Having said this, the electric motors is our fans and washer and dryer machines do work better on AC then on DC, but the direction technology has been moving, where we can use stepper motors, has facilitated better motors that run on DC power. I have high regard for Tesla's intellect, but we would have been better off with a DC grid than with the current AC grid. I also believe we would be less dependant on fossil fuels, if the US Government did not regulate the power companies, requiring them to transmit power to remote regions. The people who shoose to live in those remote places would have no choice but to produce their own electricity, and that would have created more demand naturally for solar panels and wind mills.

 

[MeganC]

And, to be correct, since you claim to want to be, if something is "proven," it is no longer a theory: It is called a "Law".

You're the one who denied the existence of proof. I responded to your notion.

Understand, please, that when it comes to REAL 'science' - there is NO SUCH THING as "proof" - just evidence to support the hypothesis.

 

[MeganC]

So it seems that you are willing to entertain the possibility that Plate Tectonics is junk science.

Nope.

Just because the plates move does not prove that the cause of the plates moving is convection currents.

True. But it's the most likely explanation so far. New evidence will of course either reinforce the idea, modify it, or perhaps disprove it.

You have seen the list of evidences supporting the Hydroplate theory as a preferable alternative to Plate Tectonics, and some of those evidences have been presented here.

No, I've seen some You Tube videos and some excerpts from a book that was written at about a 12th grade level of English competency.

I've also noticed that the You Tube comment section is highly moderated. Dissent is not tolerated there. Now, of course, dissent doesn't have to be tolerated on You Tube but if Brown's theory is supposed to be taken seriously then it has to withstand criticism and outright mockery.

 

[Mark C]

This seems to be unclear, @MeganC - it shouldn't be:

Real 'science' doesn't PROVE things, it DISproves them; things that are then called "failed hypotheses" (by which definition, "evolution" is not science at all, neither is 'man-made global warming' - since no amount of evidence suffices to refute the hypothesis, it's money that matters.)

A 'theory' (i.e., Einstein's Theory of Relativity) often has ample evidence to support the hypothesis, which means is has NOT been refuted.

Something is called a "Law" because it WORKS, every time it is tested. Which is NOT the same as "proven." Just not un-proven. But it IS the way to bet.


PS> A theory which is not "falsifiable" (like evolution and AGW BS, clearly) is not really even a "theory" at all. Just cult religious dogma.

 

[Mark C]

I have high regard for Tesla's intellect, but we would have been better off with a DC grid than with the current AC grid.

The BIG problem with a DC grid is COPPER.* There jes' ain't enuf' of it...

There would need to be power generation plants every square mile or so, since transformers don't work on DC. (Notwithstanding Tesla's wireless transmission, which was NOT DC, but resonant AC 'interconnection'. And Big Bro still won't let you know about it.)

---------------------------------
* It's why thieves are robbing charging stations for silly EVs blind, too.

 

[MeganC]

Real 'science' doesn't PROVE things

Sometimes it does. When it does the results are documented and reproducible.

 

[MeganC]

A 'theory' (i.e., Einstein's Theory of Relativity) often has ample evidence to support the hypothesis,

Great. And the hydroplate theory falls short on that ample evidence.

One piece of simple evidence that is lacking is Brown posits a Great Lake that drained and caused the Grand Canyon.

Where is its shoreline? Is that shoreline consistently demonstrated in several locations where the lake would have been? (Hint: No.)

Other historic great lakes have shorelines we can readily identify and visit such as Lake Lahontan, Lake Bonneville, and Lake Missoula.

Lake Bonneville and Lake Missoula caused catastrophic damage when they emptied and they created erratics, boulders who were carried along by the flood waters and deposited miles and miles away from their origin.

There are no such erratics to be found at the mouth of the Colorado River or on its alluvial plain. The kind of flood Brown's theory requires would necessarily create erratics as evidence of such a massive flood. Yet there are none.

Like I said, Brown's theory is lacking evidence.

 

[Mark C]

Real 'science' doesn't PROVE things...

You left out the important part...

it DISproves them;

Sometimes it does. When it does the results are documented and reproducible.

You just don't seem to get it. It is still not a PROOF. (See: Geometry...)

It's just increasingly strong evidence, but it is never "settled."

It could be that some exception crops up (it's happened, usually it's called "bombshell" or similar) - and the new data means the 'science' MUST change to fit the facts. "Proofs" are for mathematics, not science.

 

[MemeFan]

This seems to be unclear, @MeganC - it shouldn't be:

Real 'science' doesn't PROVE things, it DISproves them; things that are then called "failed hypotheses" (by which definition, "evolution" is not science at all, neither is 'man-made global warming' - since no amount of evidence suffices to refute the hypothesis, it's money that matters.)

More precisely, can't prove that theory is correct per Carl Pooper.

You still try to find truth and only way is to build theory. Logically, you can prove it or not be able to disprove it. End result is same.

 

[MeganC]

You just don't seem to get it. It is still not a PROOF. (See: Geometry...)

It's just increasingly strong evidence, but it is never "settled."

Galileo theorized that in a perfect vacuum a feather and a hammer would drop at the same rate of acceleration.

And he was proven right.

 

[Mark C]

You still just don't get it. Using the word "proven" in a sentence proves nothing.

He THEORIZED that something would occur, and then he devised an experiment to TEST his hypothesis.

Which came out as he expected. Thus, SUPPORTING his theory.

Do you even understand the difference? Which was the hypothesis, and what was the test?


PS> So there's no doubt. The 'theory' involved drag, aerodynamics, and atmosphere. Which he tried to figure out how to test in an era before "perfect" - or even mediocre - vacuum.

The elements are F=MA, and F=G* m1*m2 / r**2
...if the same "F" acts on both bodies, the rate of Acceleration is also equal.

(Ultimately - it IS 'rocket science.')

 

[Mark C]

Enough already. Do something that CNN, MSNBC, and most hi-skool idiots never attempt: Get a simple physics textbook and study what "science" is, what a "theory" is, and why "proofs" are what mathematics does; 'science' is about evidence, experiment, and 'falsifying' hypotheses.

They are not "proven" - just increasingly SUPPORTED.

 

[MeganC]

Enough already.

Okay.

 

[Daniel DeLuca]

 

[Daniel DeLuca]

Great. And the hydroplate theory falls short on that ample evidence.

One piece of simple evidence that is lacking is Brown posits a Great Lake that drained and caused the Grand Canyon.

Where is its shoreline? Is that shoreline consistently demonstrated in several locations where the lake would have been? (Hint: No.)

Other historic great lakes have shorelines we can readily identify and visit such as Lake Lahontan, Lake Bonneville, and Lake Missoula.

Lake Bonneville and Lake Missoula caused catastrophic damage when they emptied and they created erratics, boulders who were carried along by the flood waters and deposited miles and miles away from their origin.

There are no such erratics to be found at the mouth of the Colorado River or on its alluvial plain. The kind of flood Brown's theory requires would necessarily create erratics as evidence of such a massive flood. Yet there are none.

Like I said, Brown's theory is lacking evidence.

The lakes that emptied out were the Grand Lake and the Hopi Lake. The shoreline would have happened, if the lake had been around for a significant amount of time. When you have a lake that bursts the dam before it has had time to develop a shoreline, you see features described in the video.

 

[Daniel DeLuca]

The BIG problem with a DC grid is COPPER.* There jes' ain't enuf' of it...

There would need to be power generation plants every square mile or so, since transformers don't work on DC. (Notwithstanding Tesla's wireless transmission, which was NOT DC, but resonant AC 'interconnection'. And Big Bro still won't let you know about it.)

---------------------------------
* It's why thieves are robbing charging stations for silly EVs blind, too.

The big problem with DC, is high voltage generation for the purpose of transission. The electricity that runs through high voltage electric lines has very little current running through it. The high current is where the power loss occurs. By transforming the power from relatively low voltage, high current, to Very high voltage with low current, through the windings in the transformers, we can transmit the electricity long distances to the substations, which reduce the voltage and increase the current again through windings in the transformers, until it reaches industries, offices, commercial buildings, homes, churches, government buildings, etc. where various appliances, lighting fixtures, power hubs, etc. can reduce the voltage level to the level needed by those consumers. Transforming from high voltage to low voltage, is not so much of an issue. I experimented with a 47KΩ resistor, and inserted two tiny copper insulated wires into an outlet, using a diode for semi rectivication, and a medium sized capacitor, as a substitute for a 9V battery, and I was able to measure the results on one of those old Radio Shack 160 in one electronics kits. That's not the only stupid thing I did as a teenager, but at least I had the concept that 110 volts needed to have more resistance on the load to reduce the overall current, and the voltage drop across the resistor, was obviously much greater than the voltage drop across the remainder of the circuitry. I had not taken any physics courses at the time, but the concept of resistance had already been etched in my mind, from having toyed around with the kits that I had available.

 

[MeganC]

The lakes that emptied out were the Grand Lake and the Hopi Lake. The shoreline would have happened, if the lake had been around for a significant amount of time. When you have a lake that bursts the dam before it has had time to develop a shoreline, you see features described in the video.

Nonsense. Every lake has a shoreline and wave action defines it in short order. Man-made lakes have only been around a short while and they leave distinct shorelines. Grand Lake and Hopi Lake would have had to have been huge in capacity and it would have taken a long time for them to form. They would have left shorelines even if they were only 20-30 years old.

But they didn't.

In short, no shoreline? No lake.

 

[Mark C]

The big problem with DC, is high voltage generation for the purpose of transission. The electricity that runs through high voltage electric lines has very little current running through it. The high current is where the power loss occurs.

You just said what I said. It's "Ohm's Law."

DC cannot be transmitted over long distances for that reason.

I use higher voltage solar panel (series) connections to save on copper wire even for runs of just dozens of FEET.