First Galaxies Were Born Much Earlier Than Expected

[luckytxn 2,265]

Science is based on modelling to explain what has been observed. The models work until something comes along that doesn't fit the model, and then it is time to construct a more complete model, add a fudge factor, or disregard the observation as some sort of heretical hallucination.

But, sometimes they get it pretty close. Didn't Ptolemy determine the circumference of the Earth with a few mirrors and a bit of geometry?

Yes he did and the idea came to him by an obvious source everyone sees and that was the shadow of the earth on the moon.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

You fellas talk like the scientific method has remained unchanged for centuries.

[luckytxn 2,265]

Too late. I just christened it with my political slant.

Don't worry you aren't the only Organizer that missed the obvious.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

I thought he used shadows that obelisk cast? He paid someone to pace off some long distance and compared the angles of the shadows.

And then there was Eratosthenes

Eratosthenes of Cyrene

Born in Cyrene (now Shahhat Libya) in 276 BC. He was the 2nd Librarian of Alexandria until his death around 195 BC.

It was known that on the day of the Summer Solstice in Syene Egypt (modern Aswan), the Sun was straight overhead at noon and did not cast shadows. Syene is on the lower Nile in southern Egypt.

On that same day, the noon Sun cast shadows at Alexandria, located north of Syene on the Nile delta.

Shadowless in Syene

Eratosthenes knew that no shadows on the Summer Solstice meant that Syene was on the boundary of the northern tropic zone (the Tropic of Cancer).

By measuring the length of the shadow in Alexandria at noon on the Summer Solstice when there was no shadow in Syene, he could measure the circumference of the Earth!

[Ban Hammer 13,488]

Too late. I just christened it with my political slant.

global warming/al gore/ and it's obama's fault too!

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

You fellas talk like the scientific method has remained unchanged for centuries.

But the conclusions change constantly.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

After the Renaissance came the scientific revolution. The 'renaissance men' believed that all knowledge was to be gained by reading ancient texts. The scientists believed that new knowledge could be gained by making new observations. This led to a split between science and the arts. Just as science often appears to come up against religion, it has also come up against the arts. This is inevitable given the initial academic 'turf wars' that established the difference fields. However it continues to flare up every time one group tries to claim 'turf' that belongs to the other. An example is a scientist claiming to have authority on the ethics of cloning because he understands the mechanism. Stephen Jay Gould has written a lot about these 'false battles.'

The new scientists began amassing vast volumes of observations, especially in what we now know as biology, but also in other fields. They also began coming up with new theories about the nature of the universe. Out of the scientific revolution emerged the modern scientific method. This is where we get the terms hypothesis, theory and law from. It can be summarised as follows:

1) Make observations

2) Come up with an hypothesis to explain your observations.

3) Design a repeatable experiment to test your hypothesis. It has to be a reasonable test that would disprove the hypothesis if it were false. If you cannot design such an experiment, your hypothesis is not scientific.

4) If your hypothesis gets tested among the scientific community and widely accepted it becomes a theory.

5) When the scientific community stops arguing about your theory it becomes law.

6) Someone makes a new observation that contradicts the law, theory or hypothesis and it all starts again.

All modern technology is based on knowledge gained through the modern scientific method. The modern scientific method gradually leads to more and more fundamental understanding of the nature of the universe. While it may seem frustratingly slow to those involved 'at the coalface,' in historical terms it has led to an explosion of new knowledge and technology. The reason science keeps going forward and discovering more is because the methods used prevent the scientific community being 'led down the garden path'. No bogus theories can get through. No theories can get through that will never be resolved by science. Provided of course that people stick to the modern scientific method.

[luckytxn 2,265]

After the Renaissance came the scientific revolution. The 'renaissance men' believed that all knowledge was to be gained by reading ancient texts. The scientists believed that new knowledge could be gained by making new observations. This led to a split between science and the arts. Just as science often appears to come up against religion, it has also come up against the arts. This is inevitable given the initial academic 'turf wars' that established the difference fields. However it continues to flare up every time one group tries to claim 'turf' that belongs to the other. An example is a scientist claiming to have authority on the ethics of cloning because he understands the mechanism. Stephen Jay Gould has written a lot about these 'false battles.'

The new scientists began amassing vast volumes of observations, especially in what we now know as biology, but also in other fields. They also began coming up with new theories about the nature of the universe. Out of the scientific revolution emerged the modern scientific method. This is where we get the terms hypothesis, theory and law from. It can be summarised as follows:

1) Make observations

2) Come up with an hypothesis to explain your observations.

3) Design a repeatable experiment to test your hypothesis. It has to be a reasonable test that would disprove the hypothesis if it were false. If you cannot design such an experiment, your hypothesis is not scientific.

4) If your hypothesis gets tested among the scientific community and widely accepted it becomes a theory.

5) When the scientific community stops arguing about your theory it becomes law.

6) Someone makes a new observation that contradicts the law, theory or hypothesis and it all starts again.

All modern technology is based on knowledge gained through the modern scientific method. The modern scientific method gradually leads to more and more fundamental understanding of the nature of the universe. While it may seem frustratingly slow to those involved 'at the coalface,' in historical terms it has led to an explosion of new knowledge and technology. The reason science keeps going forward and discovering more is because the methods used prevent the scientific community being 'led down the garden path'. No bogus theories can get through. No theories can get through that will never be resolved by science. Provided of course that people stick to the modern scientific method.

And yet you cling to Global Warming as a real science.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

And yet you cling to Global Warming as a real science.

Reading comprehension is not your strongest suit.

[luckytxn 2,265]

Reading comprehension is not your strongest suit.

Or yours. From what you posted Global Warming at the very most may be a Hypothesis.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Or yours. From what you posted Global Warming at the very most may be a Hypothesis.

Global Warming is a scientific theory and that is fact. Arguing that it is not is beyond silly. It's absurd.

Edited April 13, 2011 by 8TBVBN

[luckytxn 2,265]

You keep forgetting this part to make it a theory.

Design a repeatable experiment to test your hypothesis. It has to be a reasonable test that would disprove the hypothesis if it were false. If you cannot design such an experiment, your hypothesis is not scientific.

And while we are at it now lets add that suppressed data, get rid of the falsified data and so on.

[Darnell 8,479]

*** not a Political or Religious Topic, moving to Off Topic Forum ***

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

*** not a Political or Religious Topic, moving to Off Topic Forum ***

[one...two...tree 2,762]

*** not a Political or Religious Topic, moving to Off Topic Forum ***

It is definitely a political thread. Moving back to P&R.