Perpetual Motion Discovered?

Originally posted by smaia
"Quantum Field Theory is a theory, but there's no mention of Hawking Radiation Theory. Instead it's referred to as a prediction."

Of course it is a prediction. A theory that does not make predictions is not a theory.
Alan wrote a book (accessible to the general public) called "The Inflationary Universe". In this book he explains the foundations of his idea ...[text shortened]... ion, a theory.

I have a question for you: What do you think theoretical physiscists do?

I don't know, but a quick search offers this:

Theoretical physicists use mathematics to describe certain aspects of Nature.

http://www.superstringtheory.com/basics/basic1.html

I would imagine they also get training into the nature of theory as an idea, and when to properly use the word theory; the same training I got but more in depth. I'm just speculating though. What else...maybe they follow what other physicists are doing, and try to find a grand model to explain all the different results; they study why quantum mechanics and relativity don't mesh perfectly...generally the interactions of established theories, trying to find a single theory to replace a number of smaller theories...etc. They are probably responsible for deciding when models become fringe theories become proposed theories become actual, recognized, theories.

Supersymmetry is listed as a proposed theory here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theoretical_physics#mainstream_theories

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
I don't know, but a quick search offers this:

Theoretical physicists use mathematics to describe certain aspects of Nature.

http://www.superstringtheory.com/basics/basic1.html

I would imagine they also get training into the nature of theory as an idea, and when to properly use the word theory; the same training I got but more in depth. s become fringe theories become proposed theories become actual, recognized, theories.

They also play chess. I played with three of them on Valentine's Day at a tournament near LAX, right after I got dumped. Nice guys. We slept at my parents' place and they ate a lot of Cheerios. Very level headed...one guy liked to sail and play board games.

I got a draw against a Master my first game and got raped by everyone else at the tournament. Our team was destroyed utterly.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
I don't know, but a quick search offers this:

Theoretical physicists use mathematics to describe certain aspects of Nature.

http://www.superstringtheory.com/basics/basic1.html

I would imagine they also get training into the nature of theory as an idea, and when to properly use the word theory; the same training I got but more in depth. I'm just speculating though.

I got your point. But I assure you the scientific community does not exclude from the universe of existing theories, ideas or other propositions that haven't been tested or proved as long as the requirements for any set of ideas to become a theory are met. And these requirements are pretty much in line with the defitinition.
In the history of physics, there were theories that proved to be correct (relativity, etc) and lots and lots of others that were wrong and abandonned. But in many cases, the wrong ones help the development of new - correct ones.
Mother nature has always the final word.
And of course there are theories that are -and probably will - forever remain in a limbo as there is no way to test the results they predict. Examples:
String Theory or Super-String Theory
M Theory
etc.

I apologize if I used "theory" too loosely, but I assure you I intended it to be used a little more loosely than the strictest mean of a scientific hypothesis which has been tested in thorough and significant manner under a wide range of possible scenarios (how wide would depend on the specific hypothesis).

I have instead used it in the sense of a hypothesis widely accepted as being largely correct, whether it has been thoroughly tested yet or not (if indeed the hypothesis is capable of being tested easily if at all).

I can understand a lot of people hold the philosophy and teaching of science to be very sacred, and I do think the general principles science is founded upon are, generally speaking, good and beneficial to all mankind.

However, in my honest opinion, science ought not be idolized as a cure-all and a god, so to speak.. Science is limited by our own ability to observe and perceive the world around us. As optical illusions will testify, our perceptions can be misleading and contrary to reality, so any scientist has to ask themself whether or not they can be absolutely sure whether their conclusions are trustworthy or not.

There may be some things which science cannot reveal to us. The existence and nature of a superbeing ( i.e. "God" ) is among those things for which science cannot reveal to us alone, and hence perhaps religion still is of us to mankind still.

Originally posted by geepamoogle
I apologize if I used "theory" too loosely, but I assure you I intended it to be used a little more loosely than the strictest mean of a scientific hypothesis which has been tested in thorough and significant manner under a wide range of possible scenarios (how wide would depend on the specific hypothesis).

I have instead used it in the sense of a hyp ience cannot reveal to us alone, and hence perhaps religion still is of us to mankind still.

The thing about using the word "theory" properly is that when you relax that restriction, you have creationists dismissing scientific conclusions as "just a theory, just like creationism is a theory." This is verbal trickery which is entirely dependent on the common man's ignorance of what that word means in science. If we didn't have Christian zealot freaks trying to destroy science education so as to bolster their unscientific faith based beliefs it wouldn't matter quite so much.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
The thing about using the word "theory" properly is that when you relax that restriction, you have creationists dismissing scientific conclusions as "just a theory, just like creationism is a theory." This is verbal trickery which is entirely dependent on the common man's ignorance of what that word means in science. If we didn't have Christian zeal ...[text shortened]... so as to bolster their unscientific faith based beliefs it wouldn't matter quite so much.

Let the creationists use the word "theory" if they wish to. It certainly belong to the the category of not-even-wrong class of theories.

I think we have a conceptual difference - you confer too much status to the word "theory". I don't. There are (and there has always been) tons of theories in the market of ideas that have no chance of being recognized as acceptable interpretations of the universe, and that cannot even be used as the basis for the development of correct ones.

Originally posted by smaia
Let the creationists use the word "theory" if they wish to. It certainly belong to the the category of not-even-wrong class of theories.

I think we have a conceptual difference - you confer too much status to the word "theory". I don't. There are (and there has always been) tons of theories in the market of ideas that have no chance of being recognized as a ...[text shortened]... he universe, and that cannot even be used as the basis for the development of correct ones.

Look at how the word was used in the post I responded to! It was completely incorrectly used in any sense, but he's basing his statement off of a completely wrong hard science definition of theory! Considering the context I don't think being careful of how we use the word is unreasonable. If I don't make this point I'm contributing to the scientific stupidity of humanity, because people who think they understand what he wrote will be completely confused by actual scientific statements that use the jargon correctly.

However, they fall outside the ability of science to observe or test with any confidence, and so they must remain theories.

Implication - theory means faith, and if one could apply the scientific method to them they'd stop being theories. Isn't that what he's saying?

Originally posted by smaia
Let the creationists use the word "theory" if they wish to. It certainly belong to the the category of not-even-wrong class of theories.

I think we have a conceptual difference - you confer too much status to the word "theory". I don't. There are (and there has always been) tons of theories in the market of ideas that have no chance of being recognized as a ...[text shortened]... he universe, and that cannot even be used as the basis for the development of correct ones.

By 'creationist' I meant 'Young Earth Creationist'. The universe is not 6000 years old. YEC is NOT a "not even wrong theory". It's wrong. Probably. We can't be 100% certain about anything, of course. I can't be sure I was alive yesterday either.

Originally posted by geepamoogle
I apologize if I used "theory" too loosely, but I assure you I intended it to be used a little more loosely than the strictest mean of a scientific hypothesis which has been tested in thorough and significant manner under a wide range of possible scenarios (how wide would depend on the specific hypothesis).

I have instead used it in the sense of a hyp ience cannot reveal to us alone, and hence perhaps religion still is of us to mankind still.

No you didn't. You used the word completely incorrectly by any definition. You can absolutely test the Theory of Special Relativity. It was tested long after it was proposed and it passed the test. You said things that cannot be scientifically tested are theories, and that if they could be, they wouldn't be theories.

Originally posted by FabianFnas
Einstein didn't build any machine to let out the energy from the atom, but he had the equations to show that it was possible, but not how (Elise Meitner did that). But on the other hand, he was accepted by the science community.

Well, that's the thing. Perpetual Mobilists like to claim that "they laughed at Einstein, too, you know". And well, no, they didn't. Nobody who meant anything, at least; plenty of pre-relativist kooks on the 'net now who scoff at Einstein, but real scientists back then, even those who disagreed with his theories, didn't laugh at Einstein. And the reason is obvious: Einstein did have a worked-out theory, which was consistent both internally and with observable evidence. If a Perpetual Mobilist wants to be taken seriously, he'll have to do the same: provide consistent evidence, not bluster. Up to now, none has; quite the reverse, in fact.

Richard

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
By 'creationist' I meant 'Young Earth Creationist'. The universe is not 6000 years old. YEC is NOT a "not even wrong theory". It's wrong. Probably. We can't be 100% certain about anything, of course. I can't be sure I was alive yesterday either.

By "not-even-wrong" I meant not even a theory in the scientific sense. It belongs more to the realm of religion.

Some observations..

First off, science is inherently inductive in nature, rather than deductive. That is to say that scientists attempt to determine rules based on facts as they perceive them, rather than to determine facts based on rules.

Inductive reasoning by its very nature cannot ever be certain to be correct, although certainly a specific hypothesis can be disproven if it is false. This is one of science's limitations.

Second, science is dependent on our ability to perceive things accurately and precisely. Now instruments and gadgets can help us in this area, but it is still possible for someone to see something wrongly, perhaps based on assumptions that are false, and believe fully that they have perceived something correctly.

The field of magic tricks thrives on this, but certainly mistaken impressions are not limited only to intentional deceit. For one, a person's perception may be colored by psychological factors, a fact which has to be accounted for in medical trials by use of a placebo..

As for the hypothesis of a young created Earth, science may be used to investigate partially the feasibility of it, inasmuch as the hypothesis concerns physical things, but I do agree that a good portion of it lies within the perview of religion alone, based on an interpretation of Biblical text which may or may not be correct, even for those who hold Scripture sacred. It just almost as impossible to prove "Young Earth Creation" as it is to prove a Creator God.

But all of this is OK with me, because I don't believe religion should attempt to replace science any more than I think the reverse should be true.

It would be my statement that God intended us to be rational, thinking beings, and so science and religion aren't as incompatible as many think they are. They are still different realms of thought, however, and ought be treated as such.

That statement, however, is based on things I take to be true on religious faith, and so others will probably disagree.

Originally posted by XZantoth
Possibly... but if so, then where did that come from?

Don't know. Maybe it always existed.

So, having jumped in on this one a bit late, what is the result of the 'perpetual motion' machine they spent megabucks on?