Posted on 12/25/2008 7:55:05 PM PST by Soliton
Prove it : ) I just opened the door to my fridge and there was nothing to eat. My wife said I was wrong, falsifying my observation.
Theoretically, their fat percentage is quite low. The whole idea behind the procedure is muscle mass is more dense.
Newton’s laws work fine in reference frames moving at relativistic constant velocity, as long as you make the measurements inside the moving frame.
If you make measurements on an object moving at relativistic speeds and you are measuring from the earth’s frame, then the Lorentz factor must be used.
???
For someone who’s posting history for the last two years has been virtually nothing but disparaging those who disagree with you, it says far more about you than those you berate.
Is that like the math you use in debating your geocentric view of the solar system?
Sorry, I’m not a physicist, nor do I play one on TV. However, I do know the difference between relativity and relativism, and it appears you’re selling both at the same time.
Au revoir.
Actually, I guess I'm not done yet.
Given the evidence on the tabe currently, how would you falsify germ theory? (Note: Don't take any advice from Billl Maher on this answer.)
You’re making me hungry and I’m about to go to the grocery! ... Bad field work with such vague parameters for experimentation.
I don't think that Newtons laws are applicable to an event horizon, which is within the "moving" frame.
If you make measurements on an object moving at relativistic speeds and you are measuring from the earth’s frame, then the Lorentz factor must be used.
That is correct. You don't use Newtons "laws.' Newton couldn't nail Mercury's orbit, Einstein did.
Show that microorganisms don't cause disease? Or demonstrate that the majority of diseases like cancer are not caused by microorganisms. Maybe that the specific pathogen is simply opportunistic and exploits already diseased cells?
Don't misunderstand what I am trying to say. I am not disputing Germ theory, Evolution, Relativity, QM, or even Newton (I use F=MA every day). All I am trying to say is that science is a process of falsification and elimination, not proof.
You would have to show that no disease is caused by microorganisms.
Hmmm, seems like science is kind of a racket. You can put forth anything you want, provide whatever you want as evidence, and expect them to believe it unless they can prove you wrong. So it’s up to everyone else to waste their time proving you wrong.
Why doesn’t the guy proposing the theory try to falsify it himself?
No glory, I guess.
If an object is moving at constant relativistic velocity (not accelerating) and you are moving alongside the object in its reference frame, then you are at rest with respect to that object. Newton’s laws then apply.
E=MC2? F=MA? How do you derive a geocentric view of the universe from that? I think that is called projection.
Which I don't allege of course. What is your point?
My point is that there are some things that are so well-proven that they are fact even if they are called theories. Not regarded as fact because they’re our best guess, but real fact. Germ theory would be one of those.
So apart from acceleration, gravitational fields, (an event horizon has both) and separate reference frames, yes I would agree with you : )
What are you trying to show though? That something in a steady state relative to yourself is in a steady state relative to yourself? That doesn't seem very interesting to me. It also doesn't prove any of Newtons laws either.
If you are in an accelerating reference frame, then Newton’s laws still apply because the sum of all forces still equals mass X acceleration, you just have extra forces (such as the coriolis and centrifugal forces in the earths rotationally accelerating frame).
Newton’s laws and Einstein’s predictions do not give the same result when gravitational fields are much larger than those on earth. Einstein’s theory of General Relativity is the most accurate gravitational theory we have because it works in all reference frames.
The steady state example actually illustrates Einstein’s idea in SR that the laws of physics are the same in all non-accelerating reference frames. It so happens that Newtonian mechanics is usually sufficient in these reference frames.
Pasteurs Germ Theory is that microorganisms cause fermentation. It is an observation, they do cause fermentation. Newton observed that apples fall from trees, apples do fall from trees. Where is the proof of their hypotheses? Repeated observations do not constitute proof. If all you have seen are White swans does that prove that all Swans are white? No it doesn't, all it takes is a single black Swan to prove that theory wrong.
This is how science works. We make guesses (hypotheses) and if they don't get contradicted or falsified they become "theories." Nothing ever gets proven, it just gets refined to the point that we accept it as a given.
Germ Theory, by the way, has been continually revised and refined too. It looks very little like it did a hundred years ago and I expect our version will look very quaint and simplistic a hundred years from now.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.