/sci/ - Science & Math

There'll be a stream held by some researchers on that in just 15 minutes right here: http://new.livestream.com/WorldScienceFestival/WhatIsTime

>>5805533
how long is it going to be?

>>5805546
ok me again, I checked, 1 hour

>>5805505
... well, yes. You are traveling into the future right now.

>>5805505
Yeah, luckily we have Kepler's laws of planetary motion to let us know where the planets will be in whatever time frame we'd choose to "land" in

>>5805554
At the absolutely dizzying rate of 1 s/s!

>>5805555
But does Kepler's law include the orbits of the Sun or galaxy?

The movement of the local cluster even???

>>5805591
Yes. How do you think astronomers know that certain phenomena won't happen for hundreds of years? (ex. Venus' transit across the sun)

>>5805533
FUCKING ALAN ALDA IS THERE? sweet :)

>>5805505
It can't not be space travel, because of relativity. However, any individual jump of travel can only be classified as either regular travel (to the future light cone), FTL travel (to outside the light cone) OR time travel (to the past light cone), so it still makes sense to abide to that classification and just ignore the space component for the sake of classification.

>>5805505
>>5805555
>>5805591
>>5805615

Motion is relative, bros. The Earth isn't moving in its own frame of reference.

>>5805559
I am currently at 2 meters below sea level (Dutch polders ftw). You are probably at a higher altitude, and thus experiencing more seconds per second than I. Relative to you, I am in fact traveling into the future, at a blistering speed of about 10^-20 seconds per second.

Physics is always gonna be a wannabe science because its only hold on the real world is inductive reasoning. Therefore, you can only PREDICT shit about the real world, but physics is just that: hopes and assumptions that the theory will pertain to reality, just very rigorous hopes and assumptions. It's always theory following observation, not the other way around.

>>5805628
Ah. Right. Retrograde motion

>>5805643
>Physics
>wannabe science
dohoho

also the Higgs boson is one recent example of a major breakthrough where observation came after theory

checkmate Kasparov

>>5805643
Physics is the base for all other sciences. It deals with the laws of nature that are fundamental to very thing in our universe. Fucking moron.

>>5805660

>"Scientist" makes a guess
>guess is right
>guess still didn't prove anything before experimental confirmation
>all guessing did was narrow down the experiments needed to perform before observation gave new data for theory
>yourmovemrbond.jpg

>>5805671

Inductive reasoning built off of inductive reasoning does not equal deductive reasoning, "moron."

>>5805643
All of science depends on inductive reasoning.

>>5805701

Exactly. It means science can only guess (although you can make very good guesses) about what will happen and what is possible, but there's always a "what if."

>>5805704
So physics is just another science and your original point was nonsense.
And it's not a guess, it's an assumption that what was observed will hold.

>>5805681
Science:
1.
a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws: the mathematical sciences.
2.
systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.

move yours the is

>>5805643

The pretentious undergrad mathfag is strong with you, my troll bro.

>>5805712

Read up on David Hume and you'll see the problem.

>>5805681
That's how all science works.

>>5805710

1) I didn't say physics wasn't a science, it is. It uses the same principles of inductive reasoning just as much as the others. The problem is just that questions such as these are so beyond our ability to measure that it seems pretty stupid when you're limited only to what you can measure.

2)

Here's a dictionary result to help you out with your struggles with the English language: (Oxfd. English Dictionary results):

Definition of guess
verb
[with object]

estimate or suppose (something) without sufficient information to be sure of being correct:

Definition of assume
verb
[with object]

suppose to be the case, without proof

>>5805757
1) You said it was a "wannabe science" so it was somehow different, which it isn't and you agree.

2) Not the same. We make a calculation which is true if our assumptions hold. This is true of any calculation, even in mathematics. So is mathematics guesswork? No, and neither is the predictions of theory.

>>5805643
Did you seriously call physics a "wannabe science"? GTFO the fuck out.

>>5805757
>it seems pretty stupid when you're limited only to what you can measure.

Please name one thing that exists and cannot be measured or observed.

>>5805794
qualia

>>5805704
What if you are a complete idiot?

Fucking pseudo-intellectual solipsist

>>5805777

You might want to reread 1).
>The problem is just that questions such as these are so beyond our ability to measure that it seems a pretty stupid when you're limited only to what you can measure.

You also might want to reread 2). All you're talking about is a premise-conclusion relationship. In other words, from assumptions or premises you derive a conclusion. The difference between maths and physics is that maths doesn't rely on physical observations to test the validity of its premises, whereas physics does (see the difference between a valid and a sound argument). That's why physics has a degree of guesswork and math doesn't.

Try harder

>>5805813
Do they exist? Where's your evidence? What are the observable effects?

>>5805794
inb4
consciousness maaaaaan

>>5805818
No you're first point was still rubbish. You tried to single it out with induction, which failed and now you're trying this.
>The problem is just that questions such as these are so beyond our ability to measure that it seems a pretty stupid when you're limited only to what you can measure.
No, we're aware of what can and cannot be measured. This is not a problem specific to physics.

>The difference between maths and physics is that maths doesn't rely on physical observations to test the validity of its premises
In physics assumptions (axioms) can tested in mathematics they often cannot be. Mathematics includes assumptions which are not derived from anything. Mathematics is no more guesswork than physical theory.

>>5805794

Pragmatic scientific claim: X chemical will have Y physiological changes on the body.
Why? 1) Testable, 2) Affordable if X chemical can be marketed

I know how cool a physics textbook can look on your bookshelf, and I know how we all get this fuzzy feeling inside studying theory, but seriously, the problem with physics (mostly modern physics, which is what this thread is about) today is that its uses are much less in comparison to say, medicine, and its testability is usually a joke. Sorry to crush your dreams, but hey, maybe the popsci TV channel will come on and woo you some more.

>>5805839
Funny you couldn't give an example.
>its testability is usually a joke.
Give us some examples of standard physical theory which cannot be tested.

>>5805821
>name one thing that exists without observable effects

>>5805871
That's right, it's a contradiction. Existence is defined by having observable effects.

>>5805884
define observable effects

>>5805888
no

>>5805891
why

>>5805892
because

>>5805836
your*

Haha, again you've completely missed the point. The problem is the difficulties associated with inductive reasoning when it comes to subjects such as time travel because its costs of research and our ability to even research them magnify the problem of inductive reasoning. What this means is that no experiment is going to happen anytime soon to figure it out one way or another, and so it really is a guess either way at the moment, the original problem about inductive reasoning.

If you still miss the second point, I highly recommend you educate yourself and read the work of people such as Hume. But to answer your point in another way, the difference is that mathematics doesn't need external verification in the same way that physics does because it's not trying to explain and predict the physical universe, which is the entire point and purpose of physics and this thread, moron.

>>5805893
because what

>>5805898
Because philososhit belongs on >>>/lit/ >>>/x/ >>>/b/ >>>/r9k/ >>>/s4s/ >>>/b/ >>>/pol/ >>>/lounge/

>>5805905
>science deals with observables
>observables aren't defined
fak u gooby

>>5805905
Define "philososhit"

>>5805916

>>5805921
>opinion

>>5805615
I somehow doubt the Earth has taken the same exact position in space twice within the last couple centuries.

Isn't there also the theory that everything in space is expanding continuously?

>>5805934
>space position

>>5805921
And who uses google? Mentally retarded high school students, like you.

>>5805937
>portraying google as bad using it as deflection
You can do better

>>5805930
No, I'm posting facts. Opinions don't belong on a science board.

>>5805937
>infantile insults
Why do philososhits always fail at debating and resort to childish behaviour?

>>5805939
>uses google suggestions fed by community college dropouts to support his opinion

>>5805946
>his

>>5805943
>>infantile insults
You mean the ones you posted in >>5805921?

>>5805943
>No, I'm posting facts
What facts? You posted a picture of google suggestions. What is that supposed to mean?

>>5805946
These google suggestions are representing common consensus. Can't you into peer review?

>>5805951
No, I mean the ones you posted. My post was rational and appropriate.

>>5805952
If you weren't illiterate, you would have read it and knew what it means.

>>5805954
>common consensus
If common consensus was to jump in a water full of sharks, would you support that?

>>5805954
>ad populum

>>5805957
I did read it, I know what it is supposed to mean, I'm just not seeing what your point is exactly. Care to elaborate?

>>5805896
>What this means is that no experiment is going to happen anytime soon to figure it out one way or another, and so it really is a guess either way at the moment, the original problem about inductive reasoning.
It's not a guess as explained. All sciences have things that are beyond their current reach, this does not make physics any less of a science. Time travel isn't part of standard theory so physics makes no solid claims about it. 20 years ago the Human genome wasn't sequenced. There are problems in biochemistry that simply cannot be solved even with the largest supercomputers today. All sciences have things which cannot currently be tested, this is not specific to physics.

>mathematics doesn't need external verification in the same way that physics does because it's not trying to explain and predict the physical universe
This is about the meaning of words, you can't draw lines in the sand here. If you say something is a guess because it is false if it's assumptions are false then mathematics is guesswork.

>>5805957
I never posted any insults.

>>5805934
It's standard theory that space expands on cosmological scales. Position is not absolute so you can say earth has been stationary forever and deal with the consequences.

>>5805960
More like ad hurrdurrium

>>5805794
you're conscious

>>5805972
What does that mean? What are its observable effects?

>>5805974
you cannot observe them but they are there

>>5805980

>>>/x/

>>5805983
no

>>5805983
>>>/b/

And here we have a grand example of the nesting behavior of the nearly extinct philosoraptor genus.

>>5805963
You didn't explain jack shit (correctly), and no it's just a fucking guess and you're too enchanted with the subject to see more than that. And if you seriously, SERIOUSLY want to consider that physics is even comparable to say biochemistry in terms of active research, look no further than bureau of labor statistics for the two occupations and see which employs more people and see just how wrong you are.

Nowhere did I say "something is a guess because it is false if it's assumptions are false," something is a guess if its conclusions rely on unproven premises, as I previously stated. The truth of the matter is, it's a physical claim that's the discussion of this thread (possibility or impossibility of time travel), and mathematics seeks to make no such claim, something that only physics would here. And if you seriously want to try and compare the two, while mathematics does have some logical difficulties in its explanation (i.e. Gödel's incompleteness theorem), literally every single law in physics rests on assumptions of observations. Do you really want to compare the two? Rofl

>>5806018
>consider that physics is even comparable to say biochemistry
"Number of people employed" has nothing to do with this.
Your argument was that physics is a lesser science because it has experiments that cannot be carried out, I have shown this is true of other sciences. Your argument is rebuked.

>something is a guess if its conclusions rely on unproven premises
Which is what an axiom is, so mathematics is guesswork. You've just reworded what I said. Whether or not mathematics makes claims about the real world has nothing to do with this. If you accept your definition of a guess then mathematics is guesswork.
Again comparisons have nothing to do with this, stay on topic.

>>5806058
Wrong wrong and still wrong. Did you know that if you say something, like "I'm right" while being wrong, you're still wrong? Sorry that it doesn't work like that.

"Number of people employed" has everything to do with it when nobody wants to fund a dead, shit science that's only entertained by dusty books and popsci tards like you. My argument (as you've misinterpreted again and again, showing either your inability to read or inclination to twist it because it was too hard to make a comeback otherwise) was that physics is relatively more difficult and less productive to test in comparison to other sciences, and especially in modern physics topics and the subject of this thread (your argument has been "rebuked." (what a cute little comeback, faggot))

Secondly, I didn't reword what you said because there's a key and subtle difference: your definition hides something that can't be proven (theoretically or realistically) as not being a guess, whereas mine (as shared by every dictionary in the world) does (I'm sorry if the butthurt is getting to be too much, I understand). Additionally, I said that every part of physics shares the problem of all of its claims being little more than a guess that the future will follow the past in its limited observations, however rigorous they may be, which is a far cry from the syntactical rather than description nature of mathematics. Don't forget that you were the one who tried to compare mathematics with physics by saying it had issues with soundness of argument, so that's your fault of trying to get off topic.

This will be my last post cause honestly, just like how one can't metaphorically put sight into a blind eye, you can't put intelligence into a retard (you can quote me if you like, you know, borrowing quotes from someone more intelligent than you). So I'm sorry if this educational lesson is now over for you, but daddy has more important things to do.

>>5806139
Number of people employed has nothing to do with it.
>physics is relatively more difficult and less productive to test in comparison to other sciences
Let's say this is true (which you haven't proven but this argument is too long already) that wouldn't make physics less of a science, it makes it harder nothing else.

>your definition hides something that can't be proven as not being a guess
No it doesn't but this is besides the point. I didn't compare mathematics to physics, I'm using it to show your definition is wrong.

You've completely ignored my point so one more time. If we use your definition:
>something is a guess if its conclusions rely on unproven premises
Mathematics is guesswork. It's that simple. So either your definition is bunk or mathematics is guesswork.

This thread is an example of why 4chan needs a philosophy and rhetoric board, to contain their mental masturbation there.

>>5806198
and dont foget history for the feels

So to conclude, it is in fact, due to various relative motions of objects in space around their stars, galaxies, clusters and general expanding of space (if it is true), time travel is in fact not possible in the way we think of it now? As in you appear in the same place only 10 minutes in the past?

my brain hurts

Time travel is bullshit. You're trying to physically go where the universe isn't; by going into the future, you're trying to go where the universe hasn't physically expanded to yet; and into the past, the universe has already physically moved on from that 'position'.

Time travel is OBVIOUSLY impossible, from pure universe structural understanding.

>>5808182
>what is dimensional physics
>what is quantum physics
>what is life

>>5805591
....Dude, You can apply Kepler's to ANY orbit.

>>5806198
OP question has nothing to do with philosophy