Originally posted by The Dark Cloud
This is true. However it's accelerated geometrically in the last 100-150 years, I have a hard time believing that is part of natural cycles.
There have been four ice ages in the last ~2 million years (maybe more). In between each one of these ice ages the sea level rose to a level higher then they are today. Why would this inter glacier period be any different?
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
There have been four ice ages in the last ~2 million years (maybe more). In between each one of these ice ages the sea level rose to a level higher then they are today. Why would this inter glacier period be any different?
You will get no argument from me that the earth has natural cycles of cooling and warming. What's differet about this one is the rate it's happeing. What's happened in the last couple hundred years should take several thousand.
Originally posted by The Dark Cloud
This is true. However it's accelerated geometrically in the last 100-150 years, I have a hard time believing that is part of natural cycles.
Whaaaa?
It has?
Evidence, or it didn't happen. It's kind of leveled out in the last 10 years. Also, much more warming occured up to 1940 than in the years since then.
Originally posted by dadudemon
Wha...?That's an awful lot of assumptions, considering I believe in anthropogenic global warming. I just don't believe it to the extent as some of the libtards take it.
On top of that, I haven't been campaigned at all. That's absurd. I just recently ran across anti-man-made global warming stuff (about 2 years ago). My opinion of it still hasn't changed.
Wait, I thought it was the opposite: we need a discussion on the memes with regard to man-made global warming ideas spreading, quite literally.
Lulz.
It's like, you think I think anthropogenic global warming doesn't exist.
I don't like to give a forum to people that are ape-shit over man-made global warming because they are usually idiots that focus too one sided, won't listen to reason, and deny contrary logic and evidence. I'm not saying that's you, but I've run across those idiots in my "travels."
uggh, ya, sorry man, bad day, lol
crazy extremists
Originally posted by King Kandy
Quite sure. Well, the fact that there is some force that pulls us to the ground is self evident. That it is gravity that causes this and it obeys the laws of gravity is a theory.
No, gravitational laws are not theories, they are laws.
Scientific Theories and laws are not the same.
I learned that, also, in 8th grade physical science. It was the chapter 4 test: the test that occured after the IU test.
Originally posted by dadudemon
No, gravitational laws are not theories, they are laws.Scientific Theories and laws are not the same.
I learned that, also, in 8th grade physical science. It was the chapter 4 test: the test that occured after the IU test.
there are no immutable laws in science
the law of gravity is still subject to the fact that better observation could replace it
but technically, "graviton", "loop", and "quantum" are the theories of the gravitational law (the mechanisms that describe the concept)
Gestalt laws of perceptual grouping are a good example of this
Originally posted by King Kandy
I never said that the laws of gravity was a theory (though in the 'theory, not a fact' sense you were using the word, they still are). I said that [B]the notion that there is a force called gravity that obeys the laws, and it is responsible for the numerous interactions between masses we see is a theory. [/B]
K. 😐
But you described the laws of gravity when talking about the pull you get from some force. I don't care what you say after that, you just described one of the Newtonian Laws of Gravity, but called them a theory.
I won't post on this again because it will be more annoying back-pedaling. It gets bothersome...and everyone does it here, including myself.
The aind.
Originally posted by inimalist
there are no immutable laws in sciencethe law of gravity is still subject to the fact that better observation could replace it
but technically, "graviton", "loop", and "quantum" are the theories of the gravitational law (the mechanisms that describe the concept)
Gestalt laws of perceptual grouping are a good example of this
Yeah, I never said that. Jsut that, there's a difference between laws and theories. Usually, there will only be exceptions to laws, but the scienfitic laws will still remain.
Originally posted by dadudemon
Yeah, I never said that. Jsut that, there's a difference between laws and theories. Usually, there will only be exceptions to laws, but the scienfitic laws will still remain.
not necessarily. I know, at least in the fields I am familiar with, the term "law" is never used in academic writing. The term comes from an earlier time in the philosophy of science, when they thought the universe could be broken down into independent laws of action (which it can and can't). So, a lot of the physics of that time has remained good, as in, the "law" of gravity is still observed through experimentation (though we have no idea of why it works that way), though others have not.
For instance, the "Gestalt Laws" of perceptual grouping, owing their name to the same tradition of science that named things laws (re: Victorian science), were very basic ways that items in a scene are grouped into perceptual wholes. They generally hold up, though no mechanism is proposed, but they are not always correct. Because the context was so important, the laws were renamed "heuristics", and today, the tendency is to do away with talk of laws altogether. Gravity has shown to be less context dependent, but that doesn't make it, in a philosophical sense, any more "law-like" than the Gestalt principles were. Another instance of this is with regard to the term "Natural Selection", which is interchangeably called a law and a theory in lay terms, but this is owed to its origins in Victorian science.
There may be definitions that you can look to as an authority on what differentiates a law and a theory, but even then, "law" isn't the appropriate term in the modern application of scientific theory. Not to be cynical, but this is probably an anachronism due to how easy it is to think of the universe as being run by these laws, but it is all just folk-science.
Originally posted by inimalist
There may be definitions that you can look to as an authority on what differentiates a law and a theory, but even then, "law" isn't the appropriate term in the modern application of scientific theory. Not to be cynical, but this is probably an anachronism due to how easy it is to think of the universe as being run by these laws, but it is all just folk-science.
We are saying the same things with different words with a different emphasis.
I posted "usually" in my post for a reason: the scientific laws we have in place now will, almost all of them, remain in place 100 years from now. That means that some could be "de-canonized". lulz
Originally posted by dadudemon
We are saying the same things with different words with a different emphasis.I posted "usually" in my post for a reason: the scientific laws we have in place now will, almost all of them, remain in place 100 years from now. That means that some could be "de-canonized". lulz
my point is a bit different: The "laws" of science are only named such because of the era they originated in. There is no academic or scientific reason to call them laws, and it really only serves a purpose in folk-science.
Originally posted by inimalist
my point is a bit different: The "laws" of science are only named such because of the era they originated in. There is no academic or scientific reason to call them laws, and it really only serves a purpose in folk-science.
There's only 1 law that matters...Tucker's Law.
Originally posted by jaden101
There's only 1 law that matters...Tucker's Law.
Don't know what the **** that is from, but LuLz.
Originally posted by dadudemon
K. 😐But you described the laws of gravity when talking about the pull you get from some force. I don't care what you say after that, you just described one of the Newtonian Laws of Gravity, but called them a theory.
I won't post on this again because it will be more annoying back-pedaling. It gets bothersome...and everyone does it here, including myself.
The aind.
Well, the fact that there is some force that pulls us to the ground is self evident. That it is gravity that causes this and it obeys the laws of gravity is a theory.
THAT IT IS GRAVITY THAT PULLS US TO THE GROUND is the theory. That is what this post says. Stop trying to force your misreadings upon others.
Originally posted by Robtard
Don't know what the **** that is from, but LuLz.
Originally posted by jaden101
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Thick_of_It
Thanks, will have to give it a go, when time permits.