Genetic code yields few cures, more complicated than predicted

Einstein's theory of relativity has been proven numerous times yet they still call it the theory of relativity not the law of relativity. You would accept Einstein's theory at face value and without question, yet there must be those out there who still question this proven "theory". I believe that it has been proven quite adequately and beyond question. I do not, unlike yourself, ridicule those who still have questions.

Jim, one reason the theory of relativity is not a law is it has a glitch
when 'space-time' is tried to factor in.
It works quite well on a small scale in our logical-gravity thinking, but if you
get too far outside the box, there has to be a much larger equation.

Parts of the equation of that theory work quite well, but it still needs work,
and that's why it's not Law.
 
  • A scientific theory is an explanation inferred from multiple lines of evidence for some broad aspect of the natural world and is logical, testable, and predictive.
  • As new evidence comes to light, or new interpretations of existing data are proposed, theories may be revised and even change; however, they are not tenuous or speculative.
  • A scientific hypothesis is an inferred explanation of an observation or research finding; while more exploratory in nature than a theory, it is based on existing scientific knowledge.
  • A scientific law is an expression of a mathematical or descriptive relationship observed in nature.

So you might ask, if theories are so well supported, do they eventually become laws? The answer is no – not because they aren’t well-supported, but because theories and laws are two very different things. Laws describe phenomena, often mathematically. Theories, however, explain phenomena.

http://www.visionlearning.com/library/module_viewer.php?mid=177
 
We aren't talking cars. We are talking about genetics which may or may not evolve over time. Just because I have a question does not make me ignorant. It simply means that I am curious about what could happen over time... I understand the science.

you really don't understand the basics behind what you are trying to probe. of course genetics evolve over time... but within an individual lifetime as to have an impact on identification via DNA? that's the dead giveaway right there jim.

Apparently you disallow anyone from positing any question that does not fill your niche.

oh, the oppression strikes again! seriously... it's not that deep or dramatic, you're just venturing into areas of inquiry that you're not equipped for. it's okay, we can't know everything about everything, man. that's why we have auto mechanics, physicians, engineers, et cetera.
 
But you're missing the point. Law says something does something, theory explains HOW it does it. If a theory is "missing a few bits", the theory gets revised. It NEVER becomes law.
 
well, i guess you're gonna pull it out of me brain here.....

Here's my theory on theories.
If a theory is proven (to come full circle so to speak)
then there are laws within it, and possibly newly identifiable laws, if put
in the simplest possible terms.

The process of hypothesis is the equation that proves either law, or theory.

but then complexity is relative though, isn't it.
 
apples and oranges

and this is a cherry?

wja0p3.jpg
 
Jim, one reason the theory of relativity is not a law is it has a glitch
when 'space-time' is tried to factor in.
It works quite well on a small scale in our logical-gravity thinking, but if you
get too far outside the box, there has to be a much larger equation.

Parts of the equation of that theory work quite well, but it still needs work,
and that's why it's not Law.

Erm? I think you have it backwards. Relativity IS the much larger equation. The set of theories for small scale, logical stuff is Newtonian Mechanics.

That's not to say that relativity does not have its flaws (namely, acceleration in the expansion of the universe and the cosmological constant and the fact that it doesn't mesh well with quantum mechanics).

However, theories of physics are considerably different from theories related to biology. The physics equations we are talking about are trying to describe the entire universe, and are significantly limited by our observational and computational abilities. A big obstacle is that the current theories are surpassing the realm of logical and practical interpretation, and approach a philosophical realm. The fundamental rift amongst current theories is the question Is the universe random?. It's physics, it's philosophy, and it's religion. Are there fundamental laws governing exactly what will happen, or is there just a series of probabilities? Does free will exist? We have two models of physics right now - one that says for a given input, there will always be the same output, and one that says for a given input, there are any number of possible outputs, which can be modeled with probability, but cannot be predicted.

However, this isn't as relevant to DNA. We can observe DNA. We have the technology to figure out the molecular structures of it, and model what it will do. We're taking a HUGE amount of data and trying to use accurate observations from it to make a model that can be used to a model of causality. It's not going to have immediate results. Tycho Brahe spent his entire life making detailed and consistent observations of our solar system. He never figured them out, and died with nothing to show for it. A few years later, Johannes Kepler was able to find patterns in the observations and make a detailed mathematical model of the solar system, which, to this day (half a millenia later), we can use to predict the motions of the planets with extreme accuracy. Brahe's contemporaries probably thought he was crazy for spending all his time meticulously amassing "useless" data (he was before the telescope, so he made all of the observations with his naked eye from his home). That data led to theories that made space travel and satellites possible.

It's easy to dismiss ambitious scientific ventures as meaningless if there are no immediate results. But once there are results, the venture becomes a crowning achievement in history. We may complain about taxes and healthcare and the stock market right now, but none of that will matter centuries from now. The scientific advances we make, and the advances that further generations make, will provide a lasting benefit for the remainder of human history. The economy will always fluctuate, but if all this research finds a cure for cancer or AIDS or another disease, it will be permanent. Nobody gives a shit about Polio or Smallpox, because we cured them. Both of those diseases are worse than cancer or AIDS, but we don't worry about them at all, because they are cured. Next on the chopping block are those two. Give it a couple centuries, and Restless Leg Syndrome is going to the worst thing happening to people. They'll live to 150, be free from the major diseases of our time, and look back on the relics of our times, and wonder how we were able to lead such short, primitive, and dangerous lives. The same way we go to the museum to look at medieval artifacts and wonder how miserable it must have been when the average person died in their 30s, and how you could catch an incurable disease like the bubonic plague and just die within weeks, without warning or treatment or cure. It wasn't miserable, it was the norm for them.
 
Erm? I think you have it backwards. Relativity IS the much larger equation. The set of theories for small scale, logical stuff is Newtonian Mechanics.
.

yeah, my dyslexia kicking in I guess.
I guess that's why I confused BoP
 
Einstein's theory of relativity has been proven numerous times yet they still call it the theory of relativity not the law of relativity. You would accept Einstein's theory at face value and without question, yet there must be those out there who still question this proven "theory". I believe that it has been proven quite adequately and beyond question. I do not, unlike yourself, ridicule those who still have questions.

There is evidence against the theory of relativity. I will paraphrase from a book I own:

The Michelson-Morley experiment showed an ether drag effect. Daylon Miller performed the same experiment with similar results. French Nobel prize winner Maurice Allais repeated the same aforementioned experiments with the same results. Miller's results cost Einstein the Nobel Peace Prize for his theory of relativity.
 
There is evidence against the theory of relativity. I will paraphrase from a book I own:

The Michelson-Morley experiment showed an ether drag effect. Daylon Miller performed the same experiment with similar results. French Nobel prize winner Maurice Allais repeated the same aforementioned experiments with the same results. Miller's results cost Einstein the Nobel Peace Prize for his theory of relativity.

The Michaelson-Morely experiment was an attempt to measure luminiferous ether, but it instead found that there is no luminiferous ether.

Morely tried the experiment again with Dayton Miller, and some of the results could be arranged in such a way as to support the claim that luminiferous ether does exist, although not in a convincing way.

However, no one has ever been able to reproduce the results of that second experiment. Most actual scientists regard those results as being experimental error due to inaccuracies in the instruments used.

More recent experiments, done with far more accurate instruments, provide results completely consistent with relativity.

Goth, have you ever used a GPS? Most likely not, because you probably think that Obama is using them to track you down and exterminate you with a death panel. Those were designed to compensate for relativistic effects. If relativity was false, and luminiferous ether existed, no GPS device would work.

I will not go so far to say that relativity is the final resting place of physics. It's not. But it is accurate in almost every application in which we apply it, and it far surpasses the older theories that have been discarded, such as your Morley Miller experiment. We're still waiting on the grand unified theory, for the reasons I briefly outlined in my above post. However, all legitimate experimental data corresponds to the predictions made by relativity.

I know you're a hardcore conspiracy theorist, and probably won't believe me on this one, but there is not a single qualified scientist in the world who believes that luminiferous ether exists and that the results of the Morley Miller experiment were correct where the results of the Michaelson Morley experiment and the hundreds of other experiments that have verified relativity were wrong.

But, hey, maybe the Cuban refugees within the CIA who wanted JFK killed for refusing to attempt to overthrow Castro after the failure of Bay of Pigs ALSO went to the site of every experiment done be every university and research facility that has verified relativity, and manipulated the data to convince us that it is wrong.

Oh. My. God. It all makes sense now. Einstein was the mastermind behind it all. He wrote the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. He deliberately published incorrect theories to mislead us. He built the atomic bomb to end the war, then gave the secrets to a Jewish conspiracy group in Russia. During the 1950s Red Scare, to avoid detection as a Communist, he faked his death. For years, he slipped under the radar, until he surfaced in 1963. You see, it was Albert Einstein, on the Grassy Knoll, with an invisible atomic death ray. Oswald was set up. But his crimes didn't end there. He placed atomic bombs within the World Trade Center during its construction, then sent a message to all of the Jews working there, telling them to leave, and then he detonated the bombs, to try to overthrow our government. And he almost got away with it all.

Or maybe, just maybe, this one time, the generally accepted truth is in fact the actual truth.
 
But you're missing the point. Law says something does something, theory explains HOW it does it. If a theory is "missing a few bits", the theory gets revised. It NEVER becomes law.

By the by, I looked it up and you are totally correct. I concede that portion of the debate to you.
 
Oh, and I did look up some of the Allais (he's an economist, not a scientist, BTW). He's a crazy conspiracy theorist, and the only part of his work that anyone takes seriously is the concept of anisotropic space, which is a quantum mechanical approach. To summarize it in simple terms, it's the idea that space itself (not the particles in it) is fundamentally "bubbly", varying in properties slightly, when looked at very closely. Relativity deals with the idea of an isotropic space, which is exactly the same everywhere. There's some creedence to the idea of anisotropic space, in that it is one of the several areas I previously mentioned where there exists a discontinuity between Relativity and Quantum Mechanics , but it in no way casts any serious doubt onto the fact that the overwhelming majority of accurate experimental data from reputable universities and research facilities validates the THEORY of relativity.

Again, it seems BoP and I can't stress this enough - relativity is a theory. Einstein makes speculations as to the reasoning behind it, which may or may not be correct, but at a most basic level, it is a set of mathematical equations which perfectly model all known data. Our understanding of it may evolve over time, and it may be adjusted as new data is found which it cannot model, and both of these things certainly will happen. We've established that Newtonian Mechanics are only true in inertial reference frames and at low velocities. That doesn't mean the that Newtonian Mechanics are wrong - mathematically, they are a perfect model for all data gathered under these conditions. Our understanding of them has changed, and we've come to realize that they are only an approximation of more complex equations that are valid under specific conditions, but as long as those conditions are met, the basic equations still work fine, and a benchmark of any potential theory of relativity or quantum mechanics is that on a macroscopic level, it yields an identical model to Newtonian Mechanics.
 
The Michaelson-Morely experiment was an attempt to measure luminiferous ether, but it instead found that there is no luminiferous ether.

The book points out that the account that is given in science books is a lie. Their experiments showed "a small anomalous deviation from the expected value".

Morely tried the experiment again with Dayton Miller, and some of the results could be arranged in such a way as to support the claim that luminiferous ether does exist, although not in a convincing way.

Their results consistently showed an ether drag effect, however, their results were not accepted but they could not be refuted.

However, no one has ever been able to reproduce the results of that second experiment. Most actual scientists regard those results as being experimental error due to inaccuracies in the instruments used.

Sounds like denial to me. On the contrary, French Nobel Prize winner Maurice Allais did get the same results by repeating the Michelson-Morley experiment in 1988.

It is interesting to point out that Miller's results did cost Einstein's the Noble Peace Prize for his theory of relativity. There had to be merit there.
 
The book points out that the account that is given in science books is a lie. Their experiments showed "a small anomalous deviation from the expected value".

If that deviation was so significant, why have no more recent experiments, using equipment that is VASTLY more accurate, yielded results contradictory to relativity? If the primitive instruments and experimental methodology of a century ago were able to find this deviation from the theory of relativity, then surely our fancy new instruments which are much better would also be able to find it, right? Oh, wait, they can't.

Their results consistently showed an ether drag effect, however, their results were not accepted but they could not be refuted.

I'll refute them for you right now. Experimental error. Could be inaccuracies in his instruments, specific effects of the conditions he tested under, or a bias towards getting results that prove the theory that he had supported it.

If you have a thousand independent experiments that say "Theory A is valid", and TWO experiments that say "Theory A is not valid", both conducted by people who have a grudge against the scientist who proposed Theory A, the most logical conclusion is that Theory A is valid.

Sounds like denial to me. On the contrary, French Nobel Prize winner Maurice Allais did get the same results by repeating the Michelson-Morley experiment in 1988.

Again, if this is a big deal, why have no scientists other than Morley and Allais found "evidence" refuting relativity? We already know that Morley believed in luminiferous ether and failed on a grand scale while trying to prove it, so do you think maybe, just maybe, he might be a teensie little bit biased against the scientist that ruined his credibility by proposing a far better theory?

[/quote]
It is interesting to point out that Miller's results did cost Einstein's the Noble Peace Prize for his theory of relativity. There had to be merit there.[/QUOTE]

Got any evidence for this at all? FROM A REPUTABLE SOURCE? Last time I checked, Einstein never received any Nobel prizes for his work with relativity. His one and only Nobel prize, in Physics, was awarded for his discovery of the photoelectric effect, which was significant in that it led to a concept of quantized energy, giving birth to quantum mechanics.
 
Back
Top