Krugman: Views Differ on Age of Planet

[Underdog]

Originally Posted by SeanL

Gravity is a theory. I dare you to jump off a cliff. I don't think you know what a scientific theory means.

Maybe you are referring to a hypothesis.

Newton's LAW of Universal Gravitation is not a theory, it's a fact... Do you know what a theory is?

[MavsFTR]

Originally Posted by Underdog

Newton's LAW of Universal Gravitation is not a theory, it's a fact... Do you know what a theory is?

We can use Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation to calculate how strong the gravitational pull is between the Earth and the object you dropped, which would let us calculate its acceleration as it falls, how long it will take to hit the ground, how fast it would be going at impact, how much energy it will take to pick it up again, etc.

While the law lets us calculate quite a bit about what happens, notice that it does not tell us anything about why it happens. That is what theories are for. In the language of science, the word "theory" is used to describe an explanation of why and how things happen. For gravity, we use Einstein's Theory of General Relativity to explain why things fall.

[SeanL]

Originally Posted by Underdog

Newton's LAW of Universal Gravitation is not a theory, it's a fact... Do you know what a theory is?

You don't know what you are talking about. Gravity is also a theory:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravita...of_gravitation

And as your article states, "Newton's law has since been superseded by Einstein's theory of general relativity."

[Underdog]

Originally Posted by SeanL

You don't know what you are talking about. Gravity is also a theory:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravita...of_gravitation

And as your article states, "Newton's law has since been superseded by Einstein's theory of general relativity."

Yeah, but the reason why you're so damn confident that I'd fall if I stepped off the side of a cliff is because it's an easily measurable/repeatable experiment... You can't explain why I'd fall (the theory), but you know that I will every time I try (the law) - it was your "I dare you to jump off a cliff" statement that created the context here.

The theory of relativity, on the other hand, is not so measurable - you'll just have to rely on faith unless you have a Millennium Falcon, since the stepping stone between theories and laws is tangibility... Which is why most science (especially theoretical science) is dependent on consensus - no different than religion (take a look at how the Talmud was assembled for reference.)

[SeanL]

Originally Posted by Underdog

Yeah, but the reason why you're so damn confident that I'd fall if I stepped off the side of a cliff is because it's an easily measurable/repeatable experiment... You can't explain why I'd fall (the theory), but you know that I will every time I try (the law) - it was your "I dare you to jump off a cliff" statement that created the context here.

The theory of relativity, on the other hand, is not so measurable - you'll just have to rely on faith unless you have a Millennium Falcon, since the stepping stone between theories and laws is tangibility... Which is why most science (especially theoretical science) is dependent on consensus - no different than religion (take a look at how the Talmud was assembled for reference.)

Actually the theory of relativity is very measurable. Your iPhone would not work without time dilation.

Here is a list of various tests for the theory of relativity:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_o...ral_relativity

And back to the topic of the discussion, the age of the earth is very measurable. Saying it is any younger than a couple of billion of years makes you look like an anti-science loon.

[Underdog]

Originally Posted by SeanL

Saying it is any younger than a couple of billion of years makes you look like an anti-science loon.

Good thing I never said that...

[SeanL]

Originally Posted by Underdog

Good thing I never said that...

No but you are defending the logic of those who do, and if you are not then you hijacked this thread.

[Underdog]

Originally Posted by SeanL

No but you are defending the logic of those who do, and if you are not then you hijacked this thread.

No I'm not - the Biblical idea of creationsim is batsh!t crazy... Just because I'm not with you doesn't mean I'm against you.

You're the one making this a Pepsi/Coke debate, rather than giving into the infinite options of scientific rigor... Hell, you're pretty much reinforcing my point about science being another religion, as you've chosen to ignore any kind of scientific method when drawing conclusions about religion, and instead fall back on broad generalizations - your rush to judgement reeks of fundamentalism, albeit scientific fundamentalism. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck...

[The Ghost of Championship]

Originally Posted by Underdog

Newton's LAW of Universal Gravitation is not a theory, it's a fact... Do you know what a theory is?

Gravity has a few holes, as all physicists know.

I'll have to go through the rest of this thread sober. For now, Krugman is a fanatic rockstar of the left and used plenty of fanatical fear mongering in that article. Wish he'd stick to econ from a puristic view.