Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
He's just talking about anti-matter, but said anti-electron rather than Positron which is the commonly used term (both are correct though). I'm not sure why though, unless you work at CERN or are employed as a theoretical physicist (heh, employed) it's not really something many people would know or think about unless they Google search it. Everything you need to know you can Google so I'm not sure what he's trying to prove there with that comment
The anti-electron part isn't the part that's nonsense, it's the "anti-spin" and the "formation of time" that are meaningless gibberish.
I'll try not to take the "heh, employed" part personally...*mutter**it is to a real job**sob*
Blood rains down from an angry sky, my WAAAGH! rages on, my WAAAGH! rages on!
I've never trusted the Chemists, join forces and I'll even say Physics is almost as useful as Biology
Thousand Sons: 3850pts / Space Marines Deathwatch 5000pts / Dark Eldar Webway Corsairs 2000pts / Scrapheap Challenged Orks 1500pts / Black Death 1500pts
Why does everyone hate us chemists? I would much rather cuddle the cuttlefish then die to it.
To stay on topic I'll say something related, I don't know, science and fluff are contradictory, rogue trader has fluff that doesn't work with more recent developments, blah? I feel like the debate kinda ran itself into the dirt.
5000pts Necrons
5000pts Salamanders
Battle for Zycanthus box set
Bunch of old Heroscape stuff
I can't believe people are still debating / arguing / trying to convince this guy. It's pretty blatant he's just trolling.. Or has a brain made of rock. One or the other.
jeffersonian000 wrote: On science versus engineering, I'm pretty sure science is based on building an hypothesis on an observable phenomena, building tests to verify the hypothesis, repeat the tests to gain a larger data sample, and have peers review the hypothesis, tests, and data samples to find flaws.
Spoiler:
Actually you are mistaken, that is not how science works. A hypothesis is developed based on observable phenomena, then that hypothesis is tested by an attempt to disconfirm, this is done by experiment. If the experiment does not disconfirm the hypothesis it is tentatively accepted, but not taking it as proven. This is then submitted to a journal for peer review, a process in which the write up is checked to ensure that the process used to coem to the conclusion is sound. After this others may then retest and/or do a different test in an attempt to disconfirm the hypothesis. There is never a test to verify as that is not really possible.
The above is why you will often here scientists couch things in particular language (because we are trained to) such that definitive statements are avoided. 'The data suggests', 'There is a >99.9% probability that the effect did not occur by chance', 'The evidence shows that, based on the model...' etc.
By this method history and tradition are irrelevant and, where they have an effect, they are unwanted. Only evidence matters to science, if you are appealing to anything else you have departed from doing science. For this reason the scientific suggestion would be that the evidence indicates that Eldar/Human hybrids do not exist, as the evidence of their separate development, different genetics and such strongly indicate this. The only counterexample is hearsay from a source we know to be both fallible and dishonest. Doesn't seem that strong a case to me.
Again I would point to my earlier comment that the chances of a human breeding with an Eldar are lower than the chances of a human breeding with an oak tree. Do you think tree/human hybrids are possible?
All of this of course is discounting intervention from the warp, as magic makes all things possible, so I'll give you Eldar/Human and Human/Tree hybrids if a wizard did it. At that point though we have completely departed from asking about a natural occurrence, so its moot.
Excellent response, and thank you for restating my point, but with greater detail. Not sure way it has become so common these days to disagree by agreeing, but I'll take it.
SJ
Its interesting how you ignore the majority of the substance of my posts. I've bolded the main bit you got wrong about how science works, that is the opposite of what is done and a common misconception (one that can lead to erroneous application of scientific understanding).
This message was edited 5 times. Last update was at 2015/04/13 08:25:21
So you are saying that while science is based on testing, science does not test? I can only assume you are referring to Christian Science, not actual science.
SJ
“For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world.”
- Ephesians 6:12
Woah there, leave religion bashing out of this. My best friend is christian and one of the darn smartest people I know. Leave your racism out of this dumb flame war.
5000pts Necrons
5000pts Salamanders
Battle for Zycanthus box set
Bunch of old Heroscape stuff
jeffersonian000 wrote: So you are saying that while science is based on testing, science does not test? I can only assume you are referring to Christian Science, not actual science.
SJ
Good job twisting what he said. He was pointing out that you claiming that science creates a hypothesis and designs experiments to prove it is wrong. The tests are designed to try and disprove the hypothesis
jeffersonian000 wrote: So you are saying that while science is based on testing, science does not test? I can only assume you are referring to Christian Science, not actual science.
SJ
Good job twisting what he said. He was pointing out that you claiming that science creates a hypothesis and designs experiments to prove it is wrong. The tests are designed to try and disprove the hypothesis
I'm assuming that's a typo?
“For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world.”
- Ephesians 6:12
Of course it isn't. Creating an experiment to try and prove a hypothesis is useless, any one can manage it and doesn't actually do anything to help prove your point. If you have an experiment that is designed to disprove it and fails it actually adds some weight to the hypothesis
Edit, that's worded incredibly poorly, have the concept in my head but can't word it
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/04/13 19:45:42
statu wrote: Of course it isn't. Creating an experiment to try and prove a hypothesis is useless, any one can manage it and doesn't actually do anything to help prove your point. If you have an experiment that is designed to disprove it and fails it actually adds some weight to the hypothesis
Edit, that's worded incredibly poorly, have the concept in my head but can't word it
I know what you mean. Then, I did from the other post too, because it was clear what you meant. Co'tor Shas pointed out that what I wrote was wrong but he explained it pretty well anyway.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/04/13 20:11:25
That isn't fully right as well. When you have a hypothesis you conduct an experiment (although for real scientific proof it's often dozens, or even hundreds), and see if the results support you hypothesis or not. If so, keep testing to improve your hypothesis, if not a new hypothesis based on the evidence, and keep testing.
Basically, tests have no bias to prove or dis-prove, they just do (or don't).
Homosexuality is the #1 cause of gay marriage.
kronk wrote: Every pizza is a personal sized pizza if you try hard enough and believe in yourself.
sebster wrote: Yes, indeed. What a terrible piece of cultural imperialism it is for me to say that a country shouldn't murder its own citizens
BaronIveagh wrote: Basically they went from a carrot and stick to a smaller carrot and flanged mace.
Co'tor Shas wrote: That isn't fully right as well. When you have a hypothesis you conduct an experiment (although for real scientific proof it's often dozens, or even hundreds), and see if the results support you hypothesis or not. If so, keep testing to improve your hypothesis, if not a new hypothesis based on the evidence, and keep testing.
Basically, tests have no bias to prove or dis-prove, they just do (or don't).
Yes the experiment itself has no bias, but when it is designed, the person designing it will be utilising it to try and disprove
Co'tor Shas wrote: That isn't fully right as well. When you have a hypothesis you conduct an experiment (although for real scientific proof it's often dozens, or even hundreds), and see if the results support you hypothesis or not. If so, keep testing to improve your hypothesis, if not a new hypothesis based on the evidence, and keep testing.
Basically, tests have no bias to prove or dis-prove, they just do (or don't).
I don't completely agree with this. The idea is to test the hypothesis, so it has to have a failure condition. The sort of gold standard for a theory, and the standard it must meet to be considered scientific, is for it to be falsifiable; that is, to predict something that can be proven untrue. If the theory is true, it should withstand any such attacks. The test has to be designed in such a way that it is possible for the theory to fail; in this sense, the objective of a test is to be able to prove the theory false.
The researchers themselves must be unbiased, and the experiment should be designed in such a way that any biases they have cannot affect the outcome of the measurement, but the design of the experiment itself should be done in a way that can it disprove the hypothesis.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2015/04/13 21:15:40
Blood rains down from an angry sky, my WAAAGH! rages on, my WAAAGH! rages on!
So your argument against my statement is based on semantics? Interesting.
SJ
“For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world.”
- Ephesians 6:12
It's based on so much more than that, but I don't think you're ever gonna care enough to actually try and understand this point, so I'm not going to bother trying to explain it
jeffersonian000 wrote: So your argument against my statement is based on semantics? Interesting.
SJ
Yeah, no offense dude, but I'm sort of done trying to explain basic science to you. We've explained why you're wrong, you don't want to listen, so...what more is there to say? You're the only one that still doesn't understand even what science actually does, and pretty well every statement you've made has been false. When you're just going to respond to being corrected by stating untrue things, well, what's the point?
Blood rains down from an angry sky, my WAAAGH! rages on, my WAAAGH! rages on!
You've explained that my statement reguarding building tests to prove an hypothesis is wrong because in fact you build tests to disprove an hypothesis. The semantics is that succeeding at proving is the same as failing to disprove, while succeeding at disproving is the same as failing to prove. Of the two of us, I at least understand how to write an argument.
SJ
“For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world.”
- Ephesians 6:12
Example hypothesis: plants need beer to grow
To set out to prove this I give plants beer
The plants continue to grow with the addition of beer
Therefore I've proven plants require beer to grow
That is why you don't set out to prove and why it is more that a semantics thing.
Co'tor Shas wrote: That's actually not an experiment at all. You would also need to test other liquids, as well, soda, water, gasoline, ect.
It was an oversimplified example I made up in two seconds while looking at a cactus to try and help make my point
And proving my last post. Or was it failing to disprove my last post?
SJ
“For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world.”
- Ephesians 6:12
Fancy explaining how it is you manage to take something said against you, and somehow twist it so that to you it reinforces what you say? Cause I'm pretty impressed with it
jeffersonian000 wrote: You've explained that my statement reguarding building tests to prove an hypothesis is wrong because in fact you build tests to disprove an hypothesis. The semantics is that succeeding at proving is the same as failing to disprove, while succeeding at disproving is the same as failing to prove. Of the two of us, I at least understand how to write an argument.
@statu - see, again, when he's this wrong, what's the point in arguing? You're not going to teach him anything. He's been pretty impervious to facts so far, and this is what I mean - he responds to being corrected by saying nonsensical or untrue things.
Like "proving is the same as failing to disprove"...just nonsense. If "failing to disprove" were the same thing as "proving" science would fall apart. You can never prove a theory, you can only test it. Newtonian gravity was never "true", it works in most cases but it's a special case of general relativity. If we'd considered it proved every time we verified one of its predictions, we'd have some trouble explaining the precession of the perihelion of Mercury, wouldn't we? Likewise "succeeding at disproving is the same as failing to prove" - again obviously untrue, you could fail to prove a thing without disproving it. All you ever do is fail to disprove things (ie, they pass the test) without ever proving them either.
He doesn't understand the difference between designing an experiment to falsify something as opposed to designing one to verify it, and he's unwilling to learn anything new. If you want to bang your head against the brick wall, man, go nuts, but you're not going to break through. You'll just get a headache.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/04/13 23:03:41
Blood rains down from an angry sky, my WAAAGH! rages on, my WAAAGH! rages on!
I'm not the one that keeps making falsifiable statements, but that's okay. I'll let you sciency types go about your testing without testing, and get back to actual application of science via engineering. Have fun!
SJ
“For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world.”
- Ephesians 6:12
jeffersonian000 wrote: I'm not the one that keeps making falsifiable statements, but that's okay. I'll let you sciency types go about your testing without testing, and get back to actual application of science via engineering. Have fun!
So, by your own reasoning, because you have failed to prove your argument, you've disproved it?
I accept your concession
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/04/14 04:16:16
Blood rains down from an angry sky, my WAAAGH! rages on, my WAAAGH! rages on!
jeffersonian000 wrote: I'm not the one that keeps making falsifiable statements, but that's okay. I'll let you sciency types go about your testing without testing, and get back to actual application of science via engineering. Have fun!
So, by your own reasoning, because you have failed to prove your argument, you've disproved it?
I accept your concession
My argument was sustained a few pages back, when I accepted your concession. But reading for content has been a noticeable issue for you this entire thread, so it's not a surprise you missed that, too.
SJ
“For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world.”
- Ephesians 6:12
jeffersonian000 wrote: I'm not the one that keeps making falsifiable statements, but that's okay. I'll let you sciency types go about your testing without testing, and get back to actual application of science via engineering. Have fun!
So, by your own reasoning, because you have failed to prove your argument, you've disproved it?
I accept your concession
My argument was sustained a few pages back, when I accepted your concession. But reading for content has been a noticeable issue for you this entire thread, so it's not a surprise you missed that, too.
Okay:
1) Humans and Eldar hybrid using REAL Science to answer it: no, never happen
2) Humans and Humans and Eldar hybrid using PSEUDO-40K Science to answer it: a) Yes in Rogue Trader b) No by today's fluff standards
3) Does it matter?: No, you can still imagine the existence if it makes you happy
4) A hypothesis is a proposed idea or explanation based on what little evidence you have on a situation. The experiment is done to figure out how much of that original hypothesis is correct / incorrect. The only bias is that the experiment is focussed on that area of the subject and may miss out parts of the bigger picture (you test variable A, B and C but it turns out variable Z is also a limiting factor which you didn't test)
A positive result or a negative result is still useful data.
Other people then test the hypothesis using the same experimental method (that's why methods are written down) to see if the data is reproducible. If it is, then it adds more evidence to support the initial hypothesis as correct. If the results are different, then either the original, or repeat, or both are inaccurate. Indeed it could be that both are correct but for an unseen reason.
So it's repeated again, and again and again.
Can we maybe close this thread as some of these posts are just turning into a petty 'you proved me right, you're stupid, you can't read, allow me to correct you blah blah blah' slanging match.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/04/14 09:59:17
Thousand Sons: 3850pts / Space Marines Deathwatch 5000pts / Dark Eldar Webway Corsairs 2000pts / Scrapheap Challenged Orks 1500pts / Black Death 1500pts
Thousand Sons: 3850pts / 
Space Marines Deathwatch 5000pts / 
Dark Eldar Webway Corsairs 2000pts / 
Scrapheap Challenged Orks 1500pts / 
Black Death 1500pts
