Questions about Sound in Space by BlueBomber

Radio waves are part of the electromagnetic spectrum, which includes visible light, infrared, ultraviolet, x-rays and a bunch of other electromagneticky things (mmm scientific). In the quantum description, electromagnetic waves are composed of quanta - essentially 'particles' of light (or radio waves or whatever) that are entities in their own right and can move through vacuum, just like particles of matter.

Sound waves are, as you say, vibrations transmitted through a medium. They are not part of the EM spectrum.

Read more:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_optics
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sound

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 9, 2005 11:20 AM

BLUEBOMBER

Oh, wow! Learn something new every day. Thanks, y'all!

"Mwah ha ha ha...mine is an evil laugh. Now die."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 9, 2005 12:15 PM

SICKDUDE

I thought radio waves moved through the ether.

Wait a minute, my science textbook is copyrighted 1907. Dangit....

"Don't say 'ka' until you've tried it." Daniel Jackson

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 9, 2005 12:30 PM

Yeah radio waves are not actual physical waves. In fact they aren’t necessarily waves at all. The wave nature of the EM spectrum is a mathematical construct. We don’t actually know how EM waves travel. We can model them mathematically as waves, but we can also model them as particles and get the same results. Whether or not this says anything about how EM waves physically travel is debatable.

And we shouldn’t be too quick to dismiss the “ether” theory either.

-------------
Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 9, 2005 12:56 PM

SHINY

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
And we shouldn’t be too quick to dismiss the “ether” theory either.

Metcalf made a pretty penny on the ether stuff, so I'm not dismissing it...

Jayne, your mouth is talkin. Might want to look into that.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 9, 2005 1:12 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
And we shouldn’t be too quick to dismiss the “ether” theory either.

Oh really?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 9, 2005 1:43 PM

Yep.

-------------
Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 9, 2005 2:10 PM

GUNRUNNER

Quote:
Originally posted by BlueBomber:
There's no sound in space because sound waves require some sort of medium (like air) to travel through. Since space is one big vacuum, there's no air and hence no sound.

Cool science stuff on that subject:
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/mystery_monday_030922.html

EV Nova Firefly mod Message Board:
http://s4.invisionfree.com/GunRunner/index.php?act=idx

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 9, 2005 2:16 PM

PERFESSERGEE

Well folks, we appear to have forgotten the other half of the sound/EM "wave" dichotomy: sound waves require a medium because they are actually pressure waves that involve compression and decompression of molecules in space (not "outer space", just space). The medium can be pretty much anything - air, water, the Earth, etc. "Outer space" isn't really a true vacuum, it just doesn't have a high enough density of molecules for compression waves to propagate. As to whether EM radiation is a wave, a particle, or both at the same time remains to be seen.

2 cents worth from an academic.

perfessergee

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 9, 2005 3:23 PM

As I remember it (from a long time ago), "outer space" was thought to contain about one hydrogen atom per cubic meter - or really close to a complete vacuum - which is why sound doesn't propogate. The probability that each hydrogen atom in a cubic meter will bump into the one in the next cubic meter (and thereby propogate sound waves) is so statistically insignificant as to be infinite(ly small).

If someone has an update on the one hydrogen per cubic meter figure, that would be great. There's probably been a lot more study on the subject since I learned that.

Apathy on the Rise. No One Cares.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 9, 2005 6:33 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by bikisdad:
If someone has an update on the one hydrogen per cubic meter figure, that would be great. There's probably been a lot more study on the subject since I learned that.

It sounds a little low to me. I think the density of interstellar hydrogen is more on the order of a million Hydrogen per cubic meter.

-------------
Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 9, 2005 7:24 PM

I suppose it would really depend on where you took the measurement. If it's taken within a solar system, such as ours, there would probably be at least as much hydrogen as you mentioned (probably more), and probably a lot of other trace elements, as well.

If you took it within the galaxy, but far between solar systems, it would be significantly lower, probably no trace elements, but still a lot of hydrogen.

Lowest of all would be a measurement taken in inter-galactic space - millions of light years away from any galaxy. That really represents the majority of the volume of the universe and that's where I think the density of hydrogen would be very, very low. I don't think it could be as high as a million per cubic meter, or you would have star formation occuring all over the universe, rather than just within concentrated areas like galaxies.

However, when you say inter-stellar space, as in between stars within a galaxy, that makes a lot of sense because there is star formation going on within galaxies all the time. So a density of a million per cubic meter makes a lot of sense.

I was really looking for the density in inter-galactic space, rather than inter-stellar space within a galaxy.

Apathy on the Rise. No One Cares.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 9, 2005 10:49 PM

PERFESSERGEE

Mea culpa! It occurs to me that while we've discussed sound vs. EM transmission on this thread, we've perhaps missed the point of the original question. The reason that there is no sound in space is that human ears (and the "ears" of every other species on this particular beautiful planet) respond to compression waves. Where compression waves can't propagate we can't hear them. We terrestrial organisms respond to "sound" in a variety of ways (think of your reaction to your favorite form of music as opposed to a firetruck siren). We also respond to EM radiation in a variety of interesting ways, but that's a different matter.

perfessergee

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 10, 2005 12:33 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Yep.

Care to elaborate?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 10, 2005 3:06 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Grounded:
Care to elaborate?

Not really. I’m not sure it is useful to get into speculation on Relativity and Quantum foam theories. The luminiferous ether was dismissed because the scientific community preferred Relativity. In the end, however, both are still theories.

-------------
Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 10, 2005 3:19 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by bikisdad:
I was really looking for the density in inter-galactic space, rather than inter-stellar space within a galaxy.

Okay, if you’re talking about empty space between galaxies then 1 hydrogen per cubic meter is probably a good estimate.

-------------
Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 10, 2005 3:23 AM

The persistent use of the term "Theory" to describe the laws of physics is unfortunate. Some theories are, indeed, proven facts, whereas others are disproven hypotheses. It would be mucho helpful if the scientific community would come up with a nomenclature for differentiating between the two so that people wouldn't constantly lump them into the same bin.

Apathy on the Rise. No One Cares.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 10, 2005 5:20 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Quote:
Originally posted by Grounded:
Care to elaborate?
Not really. I’m not sure it is useful to get into speculation on Relativity and Quantum foam theories. The luminiferous ether was dismissed because the scientific community preferred Relativity. In the end, however, both are still theories.

There are good reasons to believe the ether doesn't exist:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson-Morley_experiment

Don't tease people with lines like: "And we shouldn’t be too quick to dismiss the “ether” theory either." if you don't want to discuss them. This is a message board - it's primary purpose is for discussion!

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 10, 2005 5:46 AM

Grounded:

Thank you, thank you, thank you for injecting this discussion of physical reality with actual evidence to prove said reality. See my previous post regarding theory vs. fact. Glad to have such solid support.

The "luminiferous aether" is a disproven hypothesis, hence, not fact. Einstein's "theory" of general relatively (ie. gravity), on the other hand has been proven correct time and time again and is, hence, fact. Even such simple observations as the orbit of Mercury around the sun show the "Theory" of relativity to be a proven fact of physical existence.

Apathy on the Rise. No One Cares.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 10, 2005 8:29 AM

the movie is not the Series. Only the facts have been changed, to irritate the innocent; the names of the actors and characters remain the same

Quote:
Originally posted by bikisdad:
Einstein's "theory" of general relatively (ie. gravity), on the other hand has been proven correct time and time again and is, hence, fact. Even such simple observations as the orbit of Mercury around the sun show the "Theory" of relativity to be a proven fact of physical existence.

I believe it was Einstein who said that no amount of experimentation could prove him right, but it would take only one experiment* to prove him wrong.
* by which is meant: one experiment with results contrary to prediction
Relativity is a theory that has, so far, not been disproven.

Even if it is, in future, disproven, it may still be useful, just as Newtonian mechanics is still useful, despite its failure to predict the orbit of Mercury.

Keep the Shiny Side Up . . . (wutzon) Dark Star Orchestra, "Estimated Prophet", from "Thunder & Lightnin' "

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 10, 2005 8:48 AM

Well put YT

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 10, 2005 9:07 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Grounded:
There are good reasons to believe the ether doesn't exist:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson-Morley_experiment

No one is suggesting that there aren’t good reasons. But good reasons do not constitute an absolute. The Michelson-Morley experiment clearly demonstrates that there is no detectable motion through a fluid ether from the earth’s frame of reference. And many other experiments make applying a consistent ether theory difficult. This could be because it doesn’t exist; that is certainly the trivial solution. It could also be because the ether is entrained, not fluid or in some way different from our idealizations. The question of whether there is or is not an “ether” is more complicated then simply citing the hundred year old Michelson-Morley experiment. Obviously the idealized concept of a fixed ether would seem to not hold up against the facts, but neither did the idealized concept of an “indivisible” atom, yet we didn’t dismiss atomic theory. Very little of physics has withstood dramatic changes over the last hundred years, and that certainly would include the Ether theory. Ether is not as much a disproved hypothesis as it is an unneeded one.

Relativity is a theory, not a fact. This desire to label theories as “facts” simply because they are successful is unfortunate. Science is not an authoritarian philosophy. We do not elevate concepts to absolutes simply because they appear to work; likewise we should not dismiss concepts simply because they don’t appear to work. That’s a practice better left to religions. Clearly, Newtonian physics appeared to work for many years, until Relativity demonstrated that there was more to the story. This doesn’t mean that Newtonian physics is necessarily wrong, nor does it mean that relativity is necessarily right. This is simply the way theories work; they evolve to suit the evidence, unlike facts which must be true in order to exist. A theory therefore cannot be a fact, and to insist that it is is to interject a rigid authoritarianism into science.

-------------
Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 10, 2005 9:07 AM

JASONZZZ

hmmm... That's pretty much the definition of what is a scientific theory - that you can prove that it is consistent with a set of facts thru experiementation and live data gather. No theory ever becomes a fact, there's just no such thing. In the science world, you come up with some sort of hypothesis, gather some data, you construct a model that is hopefully somewhat self consistent, then you go off, publish it, have it peer reviewed, experiments proposed to gather data and prove the model to be correct and consistent with physical data. When those experiments can be shown to be rigorous and repeatable, and the data collected can be explained best by the model. Then maybe people will start calling it a theory.

Theories are the best operating models scientists have to describe the physical universe around us and supported by facts and data. Theories *do not* become facts. Theories can be consistently modified and improved as we understand our universe more though...

Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity (STR) is not completely consistent either, there are still lots of experiments to do for us to understand it better. It is also well known that it's not consistent at the quantum level; thus the big search for the GUT/TOE/String theory, etc. in attempts to unify our understanding of them both.

Sounds in space, you bet, especially if there is a huge explosion ejecting a large amount of gases and debris and you are in the path of it...

Quote:
Originally posted by YT:
Quote:
Originally posted by bikisdad:
Einstein's "theory" of general relatively (ie. gravity), on the other hand has been proven correct time and time again and is, hence, fact. Even such simple observations as the orbit of Mercury around the sun show the "Theory" of relativity to be a proven fact of physical existence.

I believe it was Einstein who said that no amount of experimentation could prove him right, but it would take only one experiment* to prove him wrong.
* by which is meant: one experiment with results contrary to prediction
Relativity is a theory that has, so far, not been disproven.

Even if it is, in future, disproven, it may still be useful, just as Newtonian mechanics is still useful, despite its failure to predict the orbit of Mercury.

Keep the Shiny Side Up . . . (wutzon) Dark Star Orchestra, "Estimated Prophet", from "Thunder & Lightnin' "

Like Fireflyfans.net?
Haken needs a new development system. Donate.
http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=5&t=3283

Given the freedom to do so, anarchy will result in an organic organization unto itself.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 10, 2005 11:41 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:

Relativity is a theory, not a fact. This desire to label theories as “facts” simply because they are successful is unfortunate. Science is not an authoritarian philosophy. We do not elevate concepts to absolutes simply because they appear to work; likewise we should not dismiss concepts simply because they don’t appear to work. That’s a practice better left to religions. Clearly, Newtonian physics appeared to work for many years, until Relativity demonstrated that there was more to the story. This doesn’t mean that Newtonian physics is necessarily wrong, nor does it mean that relativity is necessarily right. This is simply the way theories work; they evolve to suit the evidence, unlike facts which must be true in order to exist. A theory therefore cannot be a fact, and to insist that it is is to interject a rigid authoritarianism into science.

Yes, I know that according to the scientific method, "No theory can be proven, only disproven."

OK, then let's look at the horse. Millenia ago, horses were dog-sized quadripeds with five toes. The fossil record clearly shows that horses, over many millenia, EVOLVED into the large, one-toed animal we see today.

So, is the "Theory" of evolution not a proven fact? It happened (and horses are one of boatloads of documented examples), didn't it? To ignore the obvious proof and say it's only a possible theory seems like a pretty stupid way to handle the situation. No wonder the "creationists" are making headway at getting their completely unsupported dogma taught as an equal "theory" in the schools.

Einstein was right. Newton was wrong. The universe is a logical place (except for the human race). Einstein's solution is so sublime, so logical, that it has to be right. Newton's solution tried to fit a square peg in a round hole. Now that works fine as long as the peg is small enough to fit in the wrong-shaped hole, which it often is, but it's ultimately wrong. Einstein's solution doesn't have that problem.

So, E=mc(squared), just a theory? Tell that to the people who experienced that theory at Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Apathy on the Rise. No One Cares.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 10, 2005 12:22 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
The question of whether there is or is not an “ether” is more complicated then simply citing the hundred year old Michelson-Morley experiment.

You know, that had occurred to me ;)

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 10, 2005 12:44 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by bikisdad:
Yes, I know that according to the scientific method, "No theory can be proven, only disproven."

I’m not so sure that’s necessarily the case either.

Quote:
Originally posted by bikisdad:
OK, then let's look at the horse. Millenia ago, horses were dog-sized quadripeds with five toes. The fossil record clearly shows that horses, over many millenia, EVOLVED into the large, one-toed animal we see today.

Actually the fossil record shows that various animals increasingly similar to a horse may have existed in sequential periods of time. That may be a fact. That this means that the horse evolved from a previous ancestor is an assumption.

Quote:
Originally posted by bikisdad:
So, is the "Theory" of evolution not a proven fact? It happened (and horses are one of boatloads of documented examples), didn't it? To ignore the obvious proof and say it's only a possible theory seems like a pretty stupid way to handle the situation. No wonder the "creationists" are making headway at getting their completely unsupported dogma taught as an equal "theory" in the schools.

The Theory of Evolution is not a “proven fact.” It is an assumption based on factual evidence from the fossil record, among other sources. Evolution is a theory.

A theory cannot be a fact. They are two different things.

Incidentally, “proven fact” is superfluous. A fact is by definition proven.

Quote:
Originally posted by bikisdad:
So, E=mc(squared), just a theory? Tell that to the people who experienced that theory at Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Yes, it is a theory. Those people experienced a nuclear explosion; that’s probably a fact, which is consistent with the principle of mass-energy equivalence. But no one has ever done an experiment that has ever proven that Einstein’s mass-energy equivalence principle is a fact. Sorry.

Quote:
Originally posted by Grounded:
Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
The question of whether there is or is not an “ether” is more complicated then simply citing the hundred year old Michelson-Morley experiment.

You know, that had occurred to me ;)

I’m glad to hear that.

-------------
Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 10, 2005 1:05 PM

I have to admit, I love your way of thinking. In your version of the universe, it's still possible (despite some anecdotal evidence to the contrary) that the earth is flat and we will be eaten by monsters when we sail over the edge. What a fun world to live in.

Apathy on the Rise. No One Cares.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 10, 2005 1:11 PM

PERFESSERGEE

It's true that during the Miocene horse-like ungulates had 5 toes, and it's also true that one can follow the reduction and loss of those toes in an elegant series of fossils culminating with the modern one-toed horse. These are facts, and they clearly show that horses evolved over the last 40 millioin years or so. Those fossils and modern horses share so many anatomical features that by far the most parismonious conclusion is that they are part of the same evolutionary lineage. Only the truly ignorant (and willfully so) can deny this. Not that that form of ignorance is uncommon; it makes up about half the US population. But, evolution by natural selection (the theory most clearly articulated by Darwin and Wallace but not entirely unique to them) is a theory and will remain so because it is an explanation of *how* horses came to look the way they currently do. That is, as an adaptation enabling horses to run fast and far ove open grassland habitats (note that this latter statement is a conclusion, neither theory nor fact). Note also that it's not the only way to do this - cloven-hoofed ungulates do it with 2 hooves instead of one. The explanation (the theory) is entirely consistent with the very large range of facts used to test it, and it has held up very well over the last 150 years. It has held up so well that virtually all biologists (not just evolutionary ones like me) hold it to be correct. And none of us deny the facts that underlie the theory; we leave that up to creationists, "intelligent design theorists" and others in the willfully ignorant faction. That it is a theory does not mean that it is untrue or incorrect. After all, gravitation is also a theory (one less fully understood than evolution) but few people want to test it by jumping off a building. Hmmmmmm, maybe we could get the ignorant to test it for us...................!

PS, it's not that Newton was wrong, his explanation worked just fine given the facts then at hand and the then-current state of ability to measure things. And it still works just fine as long as things aren't too big (or too small) and aren't moving too fast. Violate those conditions and you need relativity and/or quantum mechanics to explain things.

perfessergee

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 10, 2005 1:12 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by bikisdad:
I have to admit, I love your way of thinking. In your version of the universe, it's still possible (despite some anecdotal evidence to the contrary) that the earth is flat and we will be eaten by monsters when we sail over the edge. What a fun world to live in.

Well, one wishes to keep an open mind about such things.

-------------
Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 10, 2005 1:58 PM

Perfesser:

Actually, Newton's gravitational solutions are ALWAYS wrong. However, as you said, in most of our day to day experience the size of the error is so insignificant that it has no practical impact. However, the error does show up in something so innocuous as the orbit of Mercury, which orbits 40 million miles from the sun, or just less than half as far from it as the earth. To me, that's pretty significant.

I think my problem with the scientific use of the word "Theory" is that the ignorant (as you correctly call them) imbue the word with a different meaning. Basically, they say that since Evolution is "just a theory", it is no more valid than their "theory" of creationism. Using that argument, they have made inroads, most recently in (I think) Kansas, where they've succeeded in getting the two "theories" taught as equal possibilities in some school systems. What I'm saying is that the scientific community needs to develop a different lexicon to describe it's highly proven "theories" because the general public tends to equate the term "theory" with a state of being unproved. Does that seem right to you?

Apathy on the Rise. No One Cares.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 10, 2005 5:46 PM

JASONZZZ

The problem isn't just words and vocabulary. It's the entire set of basic scientific concepts, processes, and the critical thinking that goes with the study of science. Most of these folks failed science or failed to grasp it properly to begin with - I'm not denigrating them for it, far from that. An aside: The scientific community and the education process failed most of them - at the same time, some folks are just too damn "stupid" to understand it (look, statistically speaking, some people will just *never* get it). The education process really need to start thinking about bringing a lot of these general principals and making it understandable to everyday average people - eventhough they've flunked their basic science classes in high school. Critical thinking and analysis *is* a skill that can be taught and learned.

Back to the original thought, I don't really know if changing the vocabulary is going to help. The entire concept of developing a hypothesis, then gathering data to support a working model and then finally fleshing it out from *all* of the facts and seeing what theory can best fit the observations; all of these steps taken together is a scientific process of learning and finding facts to support particular ideas. The idea is that at any given point "your" theory might be honestly able to explain the data gathered, but it might not explain the entire universe of behaviours for that case - that further data collection might force you to either improve your theory or create an entirely new one that better fits what's going on.

Most regular everyday people do not go thru these processes; they start off the day making wild ass assumptions and jump right to the conclusion "knowing" that they have found the universal truth, the end-be-all-end fact, and cling to it like it's the piece of grilled cheese with the virgin mary on it.

It's a changing of the mindset that people have to learn and go through, and that's what the scientific community is really sorely lacking right now - people who can tell a compelling story about the scientific process and the theories that regular people can understand. I thought that Brian Greene fellow was doing a fairly ok job at it with his PBS program last year. I also liked that old Connections program from the BBC.

In any case, every field has its specialized lexicon that might or might not overlap with normal everyday words. Changing the words and dodging won't help, it will just be yet another set of words that people still don't understand.

and ID is the first 2 letters in IDiots.

Quote:
Originally posted by bikisdad:
Perfesser:

Actually, Newton's gravitational solutions are ALWAYS wrong. However, as you said, in most of our day to day experience the size of the error is so insignificant that it has no practical impact. However, the error does show up in something so innocuous as the orbit of Mercury, which orbits 40 million miles from the sun, or just less than half as far from it as the earth. To me, that's pretty significant.

I think my problem with the scientific use of the word "Theory" is that the ignorant (as you correctly call them) imbue the word with a different meaning. Basically, they say that since Evolution is "just a theory", it is no more valid than their "theory" of creationism. Using that argument, they have made inroads, most recently in (I think) Kansas, where they've succeeded in getting the two "theories" taught as equal possibilities in some school systems. What I'm saying is that the scientific community needs to develop a different lexicon to describe it's highly proven "theories" because the general public tends to equate the term "theory" with a state of being unproved. Does that seem right to you?

Apathy on the Rise. No One Cares.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, June 11, 2005 7:22 AM

JASONZZZ

Here are some really great things going on as far as
pushing some mathematic ideas out into the everyday world:

The Simpsons and Futurama cartoonists, apparently including Matt Groening himself, regularly visits math clubs to get ideas to incorporate into their show.
http://www.mathsci.appstate.edu/~sjg/SimpsonsFuturamamath/MathClub/

Like Fireflyfans.net?
Haken needs a new development system. Donate.
http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=5&t=3283

Given the freedom to do so, anarchy will result in an organic organization unto itself.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, June 11, 2005 8:11 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by bikisdad:
I think my problem with the scientific use of the word "Theory" is that the ignorant (as you correctly call them) imbue the word with a different meaning. Basically, they say that since Evolution is "just a theory", it is no more valid than their "theory" of creationism. Using that argument, they have made inroads, most recently in (I think) Kansas, where they've succeeded in getting the two "theories" taught as equal possibilities in some school systems. What I'm saying is that the scientific community needs to develop a different lexicon to describe it's highly proven "theories" because the general public tends to equate the term "theory" with a state of being unproved. Does that seem right to you?

Frankly, I don’t see a difference between creationists insisting that a theory is “just a theory” in order to lend support to an authoritarian idea and you insisting that an accepted theory be regarded as “proven fact.” In both cases, the idea is to assert the infallibility of a certain idea. The solution is not for science to create its own set of authoritarian ideas. You’re not going to change the minds of creationists by holding up the “Proven Fact” of Evolution. The only effect that will have will be to arrest the growth of Evolution Theory by suppressing critical analysis. We need our evolutionary biologist to be open to new ideas not even more closed then they already are.

Jasonzzz explained it pretty well, I think. Interest in science among the public is still very limited.

We need another Carl Sagan.

Cubert: That's impossible! You can't go faster than the speed of light.
Prof.: Of course not! That's why scientists increased the speed of light in 2208!

Prof.: And what makes my engines truly remarkable is the afterburner, which delivers 200 percent fuel efficency.
Cubert: That's especially impossible.
Prof.: Not at all! It's very simple!
Cubert: Then explain it!
Prof.: Now that's impossible! It came to me in a dream, and I forgot it in another dream.

-------------
Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, June 11, 2005 9:24 AM

Two particularly sparkly Sagan quotes:

"In science it often happens that scientists say, 'You know that's a really good argument; my position is mistaken,' and then they actually change their minds and you never hear that old view from them again. They really do it. It doesn't happen as often as it should, because scientists are human and change is sometimes painful. But it happens every day. I cannot recall the last time something like that happened in politics or religion."

"It is of interest to note that while some dolphins are reported to have learned English -- up to fifty words used in correct context -- no human being has been reported to have learned dolphinese."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 13, 2005 11:25 PM

KIZZIECSTARS

http://www.overcomeproblems.com/believe_in_evolution.htm

this, although i personaly believe creationism is a load of pish, is interesting and certainly made me wonder about darwins theory.
however i'm not a biologist, at all, so maybe someone else can think on it a while.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 14, 2005 12:52 AM

Yikes. These two quotes tell you all you need to know about this article:

"Despite the fact that no facts have ever been produced making the "Theory of Evolution" the "Fact of Evolution", many people still blindly cling to it since they do not believe in creation and feel it is the best and only thing they have to go on."

"Once the theory of evolution is ruled out as being a possibility based on scientific facts observed, the only thing left that makes any sense is creation."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 14, 2005 4:00 PM