Re: The LHC - sabotaged from the future?

Quiet, "Kyle T. Jones" <KBfoMe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> -- I'm transmitting rage.

James Schrumpf wrote:
Quiet, dam <dave.melvin@xxxxxxxxx> -- I'm transmitting rage.

On Oct 15, 11:52 am, "J.C. Watts Enslin" <jens...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Oct 15, 10:04 am, "The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior"

<iamtj4l...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/13/science/space/13lhc.html?_r=2&ref=
s...
...."I?m talking about the notion that the troubled collider is
being sabotaged by its own future. A pair of otherwise distinguished
physicists have suggested that the hypothesized Higgs boson, which
physicists hope to produce with the collider, might be so abhorrent
to nature that its creation would ripple backward through time and
stop the collider before it could make one".....
OK...and people wonder why many scientific theories are treated with
speculation.

Jon
Theories *are* speculation. Did you mean "skepticism"? Science is all
about skepticism.

dam


Theories are _not_ speculation. _Hypotheses_ are speculation.
Theories are models of nature that have been proven to both explain
existing observations and predict new behavior, but have not reached
the level of provitude to become "laws."




That's all so wrong, I wouldn't know where to begin. But, when has that
ever stopped me?

Mainly, theories *are* speculative in nature, and theories *don't*
aspire to become laws. They're just different types of things - the
first attempts to explain phenomena, the second merely describes
phenomena.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_law
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/scientific+law
http://chemistry.about.com/od/chemistry101/a/lawtheory.htm
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_is_a_scientific_law_different_from_a_scient
ific_theory




You don't know where to begin because you are clueless as to the scientific
method. Theories are _not_ speculative. They are, according to Stephen
Jay Gould, "structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts."

Theories are a _model_, not a guess. The Theory of Relativity is not a
guess. The Theory of Evolution is not a guess. The Theory of Gravitation
is not a guess.

They are all models of how systems behave in nature, not "guesses" or even
"eduated guesses."

However, a hypothesis _is_ an educated guess. Hypotheses are derived by
making many observations, attempting to find a pattern in the data and then
making a prediction that can be tested either by experiment or further
observation.

Laws are statements that express a fundamental principle of science. A
theory may not "aspire to become laws," but you won't get to a law without
stumbling into a theory.

--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
James Schrumpf http://www.hilltopper.net
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Curing Einsteins Disease (is Copyrighted)
    ... Laws of Nature by many ... that physicists take the lazy way out... ... from gravity a greater force than a slower object of the same mass. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Curing Einsteins Disease (is Copyrighted)
    ... But true Laws of Nature have ... They *discover* the laws by which nature works. ... that physicists take the lazy way out... ... from gravity a greater force than a slower object of the same mass. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Physicists and Laws.
    ... Physicists do not dictate to Nature their laws. ... strange, as the physicists think of it. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: The LHC - sabotaged from the future?
    ... physicists hope to produce with the collider, ... speculation. ... models of nature that have been proven to both explain existing observations and predict new behavior, but have not reached the level of provitude to become "laws." ... They're just different types of things - the first attempts to explain phenomena, ...
    (rec.sport.football.college)
  • Physicists and Laws.
    ... Physicists do not dictate to Nature their laws. ... Electron, Energy are. ...
    (talk.origins)