Scientists: Asteroid killed dinosaurs, now shut up!

[bluestarultor]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20100304/sc_nm/us_dinosaurs_asteroid

So yes, reviewing all the data collected over two decades, science has declared as fact what they'd been telling us for all those years.

[Green Spanner]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20100304/sc_nm/us_dinosaurs_asteroid

So yes, reviewing all the data collected over two decades, science has declared as fact what they'd been telling us for all those years.

That's what they want you to think!

They're covering up that the dinosaurs were killed in a conspiracy involving whichever group and/or person we don't like right now.

[Professor Smarmiarty]

This is a bullshit story- it's not fact, it's just one study- I was reading people have already started to take issue with this study. Oddly enough this story has been picked up by lots of papers- slow news day everywhere.

[Bells]

no no no no... "teacher losses job over Facebook Status update" is slow news day (also a real story!), this is fuel to the fire.

But hey, i'm sure someone at sometime said "Theory of relativity? Fuck that! That can't be true... it's just one study! A Theory at best!"

But i do take issue with calling anything in science "The only plausible solution"... it's nitpicking, but i feel better about it when they relate to stuff like that in a open form instead of a closed one like "The only one likely to happen".

[Professor Smarmiarty]

The theory of relativity isn't one study- it's millions of studies and the most proven theory in the history of science. Your analogy is ridiculous.

[Aerozord]

that and it clearly states its a theory

but yea this isn't really news. Yes they got more evidence and all but its not like it was widely disputed. It would be like if after launching the first satelite there was a news story that "Scientists today have found conclusive evidence that the Earth is round"

[bluestarultor]

I wasn't really posting it as much as "news" as "by God, is this really what it's come to?"

It reads very much like a slow news day article, but I thought it would be a spectacle in terms of what people are spending money on these days, long after most people have stopped actually caring about the issue. It's almost diplomatic, because it's almost like it's just to give people an answer so they can move on.


I probably could have been clearer on that.

[Bells]

The theory of relativity isn't one study- it's millions of studies and the most proven theory in the history of science. Your analogy is ridiculous.

I know it's a multi layered study that completes itself and was writen down from several sources over the years... but someone had to do it first, and between the first to do and the second one i would imagine someone would oppose.

Although, yeah, i could have made a better example with something else, or should at least make the point i was trying to pull across more clear...

[POS Industries]

that and it clearly states its a theory
"Theory" basically means anything that's pretty much determined to be true through years of exhaustive research, experimentation, and refinement but is too complex to be definitively declared a "law" (i.e. basic rules of physics like matter cannot be created nor destroyed, every action has an equal and opposite reaction, etc.) and affords some amount of wiggle room for further refinement of the details, but the overall idea is considered fact. It's why the rules of making noise that human ears can properly recognize as music is called "music theory" and not "music laws."

[Funka Genocide]

Well fuck, there goes the Turok Assumption.

[Professor Smarmiarty]

Actually the difference between a law and a theory is that a law cannot explain things- it is a set of empirical observations- whereas a theory posits a mechanism of explanation.

[BitVyper]

So then a law is essentially what happens where a theory is why.

[Archbio]

Silly scientists, the dinosaurs aren't dead!

[Bells]

i still prefer that other option

http://i180.photobucket.com/albums/x116/ilford1/jesus_dinosaur.jpg

Less science, more awesome

[Seil]

http://z.about.com/d/dinosaurs/1/0/K/7/-/-/bobdinosaur.gif

Dinosaurs aren't dead - they're just hiding behind stuff.

[The Artist Formerly Known as Hawk]

Silly scientists, the dinosaurs aren't dead!

Of course not, they just went home!

BTW, Dinosaurs are aliens.

[BitVyper]

BTW, Dinosaurs are aliens.

I thought everyone knew that. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pfz-Fqv8nbo)

[Aerozord]

A theory is something that cannot be conclusively proven. As Einstein said "a thousand experiments cannot prove I am right, but just one can prove I am wrong". Most science we have is based on theory. You take it for granted just how much is based on assumptions. Gravity is a theory, the laws of motion are based on a theory, one that Einstein proved wrong centries later.

Evolution is a theory, big bang is a theory, that doesn't make it invalid to use just that you must realize the potential that its wrong.

[Professor Smarmiarty]

, the laws of motion are based on a theory, one that Einstein proved wrong centries later.


The laws aren't incorrect- they just only apply in certain situations. And that's the thing- you CAN'T prove laws wrong you can however show that they only apply in certain circumstances.

[Aerozord]

no Newtons theory of gravity was proven incorrect not the laws. Though some of the equations, like the velocity equation breaks down as you near the speed of light, why we have a new more complicated one to take relativity into account

[Professor Smarmiarty]

The laws are still correct however- and theories are based on laws not the other way around. And yes they don't work in certain situations which is what I said- they are still laws they are just modified in that we have to say they only apply in certain situation.

[Aerozord]

then they aren't laws. Laws are things that always hold true. They are things that cannot be broken, if there are situations where they aren't applicable then clearly there is something we are still missing. Its why gravity is a theory because we still dont fully understand it. Like why black holes spew out matter despite having a gravity well that should make that impossible, or why galaxies are accelerating apart.

[Geminex]

Like why black holes spew out matter despite having a gravity well that should make that impossible, or why galaxies are accelerating apart.

I'm not entirely certain, but these don't seem to be such mysteries to astrophysicists...
Black holes spew out radiation, because near its event horizon, the extreme gravitational pull takes matter apart into its individual components.
Galaxies are accelerating apart because our universe is, as of yet, expanding. We're still missing quite a bit of information on this, but it's not a complete mystery.



And that's the thing- you CAN'T prove laws wrong you can however show that they only apply in certain circumstances.
...
Qua?
How do you come to the conclusion that you can't prove laws wrong? Of course you can! Newton's theories were disproven and supplanted by Einstein. They don't apply in any circumstances. In everyday life we still use Newton's laws, because people don't like factoring the speed of light into everyday equations, and because at the kind of speeds we work with there's barely a noticeable difference, but every time you went p=mv (not a "Newton's Law", I know, but closely related), your result was wrong by an minuscule amount. Newton's Laws are no longer laws.

And where did you read that the difference between laws and theories lies in theories giving an explanation?

I might be wrong here, but I was under the impression that the definition of a theory is a generalized scientific statement to summarize and explain a set of observations or phenomena.
This includes anything from relativity, to gravity.

Of course, we frequently use the word "law", but the thing about a law is that it's absolute. Cannot, will not, has never been, will never be disproven.
And while I'm sure that gravity has always been effective for the past 6 billion years, and I can't imagine how it could disappear for the duration of the universe's life, none of us can prove that gravity is an eternal force.
Hence, it's a theory. An assumption that cannot be said to have absolute truth.
And the same would apply to any other statement.

[Aerozord]

I'm not entirely certain, but these don't seem to be such mysteries to astrophysicists...
Black holes spew out radiation, because near its event horizon, the extreme gravitational pull takes matter apart into its individual components.
Galaxies are accelerating apart because our universe is, as of yet, expanding. We're still missing quite a bit of information on this, but it's not a complete mystery.


thats what I was saying, we are missing alot of information. But noticing something and why its happening aren't the same thing. Even with Newton's discover of physics, equations, and entire mathmatical system created solely to do the calculations it was still flawed because because there were things going on they didn't understand. Like why a feather fell slower then a brick. Or the realization that things dont actually 'fall' down, but both mutually fall towards one another and one is just expontially moving faster.

On blackhole thing, all blackholes decay over time. Its why people weren't worried about the micro ones the particle accelerated made. Not even black holes are eternal. Personally I'm betting the reason this decay happens is the same as why the big bang happened. Thats a pure guess of course but I figured something had to cause that tiny ball of everything to go boom

[Azisien]

Hmmm, pure guess, or 99.999% experimentally verified theories, well I've never been a betting man but...

I'm sure a large, timely asteroid would have an impact on the dinosaurs, considering how temperature dependent they all were. However, my favourite hypothesis was that the dinosaurs became so successful they wiped out critical ecosystem services and killed themselves. I think the prof was probably drunk, but it was a nice analogy to human activity anyway. Wish he would have cited a paper. I'm sooo lazy searching for papers.

[Professor Smarmiarty]

...
Qua?
How do you come to the conclusion that you can't prove laws wrong?
They can't be wrong by definition. People just call things laws thataren't.

Of course you can! Newton's theories were disproven and supplanted by Einstein. They don't apply in any circumstances. In everyday life we still use Newton's laws, because people don't like factoring the speed of light into everyday equations, and because at the kind of speeds we work with there's barely a noticeable difference, but every time you went p=mv (not a "Newton's Law", I know, but closely related), your result was wrong by an minuscule amount. Newton's Laws are no longer laws.
As you do here. Go read what the laws actually are.


And where did you read that the difference between laws and theories lies in theories giving an explanation?
History of science books but shit, it's on Wikipedia under scientific theory.
Some people use the terms differently but those people are shit.

Of course, we frequently use the word "law", but the thing about a law is that it's absolute. Cannot, will not, has never been, will never be disproven.
And while I'm sure that gravity has always been effective for the past 6 billion years, and I can't imagine how it could disappear for the duration of the universe's life, none of us can prove that gravity is an eternal force.
Hence, it's a theory. An assumption that cannot be said to have absolute truth.
And the same would apply to any other statement.

The act of "gravitation" is a law- basically the fact that two objects move towards each other in a mathematically controlled fashion is a law. The reason they do so is a theory.
And if say gravity went away, we would just add limiting factors to it- it would still be a law. A law doesnot have to be universally valid.

[Azisien]

Just cause the speed limit is 50 here doesn't mean it's 50 here, there, everywhere, forever through space and time.

Absoluteness of laws must be the result of years of schooling by THE MAN.

[Professor Smarmiarty]

The cops can get you everywhere man! Like you better not drop your shit too fast in the loo- they can get you there too

[Green Spanner]

Just cause the speed limit is 50 here doesn't mean it's 50 here, there, everywhere, forever through space and time.

Absoluteness of laws must be the result of years of schooling by THE MAN.

I've always liked the idea that if you go faster than the speed of light, a policeman on a little space-buggy gives you a ticket.

[Aerozord]

is there a particular reason you just duplicated my post?

[MasterOfMagic]

Psst: look at the signature. Must be a spambot.

[Sithdarth]

Black holes spew out radiation, because near its event horizon, the extreme gravitational pull takes matter apart into its individual components.

Depends on what radiation you are talking about. A feeding black hole releases radiation in three different ways. The first one is the friction of the in falling material. Not being ripped apart mind you but being packed closer and closer together. A rotating one creates strong electric and magnetic fields that can rip apart matter from the disk and chuck it out in jets before it gets anywhere near the even horizon. Then all of them evaporate due to a combination of the Uncertainty Principle and Thermodynamics. This happens by one of a pair of virtual particles falling into a black hole while the other doesn't taking some of the black holes mass with it in the process. This is the only one that really happens near the event horizon and gravitationally pulling something apart doesn't really change its energy.

Galaxies are accelerating apart because our universe is, as of yet, expanding. We're still missing quite a bit of information on this, but it's not a complete mystery.

The acceleration of Galaxies is due to dark energy which is predicted not only because of the acceleration expansion but also the near flatness of the visible Universe. Saying Galaxies are accelerating apart because the Universe is expanding is kind of redundant. In that if the Universe wasn't expanding there would be no place for the Galaxies to go.

I might be wrong here, but I was under the impression that the definition of a theory is a generalized scientific statement to summarize and explain a set of observations or phenomena.
This includes anything from relativity, to gravity.

Relativity, which refers to both general and special relativity, is the theory of what gravity is. There are no accepted theories of gravity other than that. Newton did not have a theory of how gravity behaves. He had a statement about it that he said once when someone asked him but it was never a developed theory. All Newton ever had where mathematical laws deduced by observation to explain observation and nothing else. That being said theories explain why and make predictions that is what a theory does. Laws simply recreate observed data. Which is why you can't prove a law wrong. A law applies only to what could be observed at the time it was formulated. Though some laws are still Universal. Thermodynamics for example.

Of course, we frequently use the word "law", but the thing about a law is that it's absolute. Cannot, will not, has never been, will never be disproven.
And while I'm sure that gravity has always been effective for the past 6 billion years, and I can't imagine how it could disappear for the duration of the universe's life, none of us can prove that gravity is an eternal force.
Hence, it's a theory. An assumption that cannot be said to have absolute truth.
And the same would apply to any other statement.

Just a nit pick but the theory of gravity is not the same thing as gravity. That is to say the theory of gravity is Relativity but that is not gravity. Gravity is a concept and a physical thing and calling it a theory is like calling red a theory or rocks a theory.

[Satan's Onion]

Spambot gotten. Occasionally you get one that's wily enough to sneak past the rules acceptance thread. Please feel free to carry on with your scientifickal discussionalizin'.