Electro-Magnetic-Space/Time Continuum?

[RTHolmes]

not a stretch at all. no quantum theory, no semiconductors. no semiconductors, no computers. well not the kind that we could launch to the moon.

No one got in a space ship based on a theory hoping they were right

yes thats exactly what they did, and exactly how science works. science tells you that you have a very good chance of something working, not that it will work. 99.9% recurring is the best that science has to offer. if you want to be 100% sure about something, you have to make it up yourself. and make sure it doesnt interface with reality at all.

[FireDrgn]

Didn't read this whole thread so not sure if this was mentioned yet, but another unusual thing about magnetic feilds & gravitational fields is their 2 of the 4 fundamental interactions of nature, yet magnetism is much stronger then gravity, you can see this by taking a small magnet and picking an object up, thus defeating gravity, but no one knows why magnetism is so much stronger then gravity, they should be the same strength, the only theory I've heard to explain it is that gravity is being deluded by extra dimensions, so we only feel part of it.

What scale are you using to know magnetism is stronger than gravity?

[Sonicblu]

shouldnt that be we dont know yet?

and useful lies?

I smell some kind of anti-science agenda here, maybe you should decare your interests.

 

Your great at taking things out of context.

No just anti stupid science

[Tupac]

If light doesn't have mass, then how can it be affected by black holes?

[Sonicblu]

Let me frame it better for you.

Not close to probable.

Lol is your statement true or just probable.

You use deductive logic to make your point, true or false claim, about probability. Nice

Is that a philosophical fact or are you using scientific probability?

You keep missing the point, I understand that if you use inductive logic to give a scientific claim it can only be a probability. If that statement is true I had to use deductive logic. You can't separate logic from science. You tried to reframe what I said by labeling it philosophy. Nice attempt.

We are in violent agreement. I called them useful lies. You called them unproven theories. They are conditional beliefs until proven wrong, because they are the most probable.

You said nothing is proven in science. I ask is that a philosophical statement? Or is that a scientific claim of 100 % probability? How do you know it's a true statement? Oh wait only you get to use nothing is proven in a philosophical way. Show me how you know that scientifically, and not philosophically?

Logic does precede science you can't make a truth or probability claim without it. You can't use the scientific method without it. Science can't part from truth claims  because that's what we are looking for. Even if we can only express them as probabilities.  

[Sonicblu]

(Two slits shows exact wave pattern - one slit shows exact particle pattern - not random)

As far as I know, you even can't say for sure how the photons should act - as we really don't know what a photon exactly is. Is it a particle? a wave? both (whatever that is)? or someting else?

Exactly

Just to make sure we are in agreement. Didn't I say the exact same thing you did? The slit test prove non randomness of photons.

Because the best theories out there said they should be random, the slit test " proves " otherwise doesn't it?
So the next theory right now is they take every possible path at once.
I just think it's " not probable " based on the philosophy of the question. I would like to see a test like the slit test done on that theory before some scientists call it probable.

[bozon]

Logic does precede science you can't make a truth or probability claim without it. You can't use the scientific method without it. Science can't part from truth claims  because that's what we are looking for. Even if we can only express them as probabilities.  

Logic and math have absolute truth and this is the only kind of truth they have. But they are not science - they are (perhaps greatest) human invention and a tool for science, but the only requirement they need to fulfill is self consistency. It is just a game played out in our minds. Their application to the real world is where the foggy truth creeps in.

A scientist creates a mathematical description of physics, lets say Newton's mechanics. The math and logic in his theory are perfect, self consistent and absolute truths within the mathematical imaginary world of the model. However, the model itself is not accurate and fuzzy. "F=ma" is postulated based on experiment results - noisy experiment results and limited in the range of parameter values they test. Newton had no way to do the experiments at near light speeds, or he would have found "F" does not equal "ma" by his definitions of force mass and acceleration.

In math and logic one is free to set up his own fundamental laws and axioms. As long as they are self consistent, they cannot be wrong because you made them up. In science the fundamental laws and even the very basic terms we use (particle, wave for example) are not well defined or are based on limited empirical observations. On top of that, for practical reasons, science abuses math and apply many simplifications and approximations to the mathematical models, thus often even the math itself is not absolute truth in science. The trick is the control of this deviation from the absolute truth, which is the obsession with quantifying "uncertainty" that scientists have.
This is why, putting it in a logical expression format: (math & logic) /= science.