Valid hypothesis

Quote: Originally posted by Zombie

If it can not be tested it is Theory.

Quote: Originally posted by Yttrium2

Also, How can I get access to the Whimsy sub forum, I wanted to post there.

Quote: Originally posted by Nicodem

Quote: Originally posted by Zombie   If it can not be tested it is Theory. Not at all! If a hypothesis was tested, then it can become part of a theory. A theory is an explanation supported by experimental data. In its essence, a theory is the summary of numerous experiments. It is not possible to have a theory without doing any experimental work (unlike in street slang where the word "theoretical" is erroneously used instead of "hypothetical"). A hypothesis is an assumption based on current knowledge aimed at designing an experiment that will be able to (dis)prove it. So, suspecting something without "evidence" is not considered a hypothesis (it might just as well be a delusion). You need to check how your assumption fits against the current theories (references) and most importantly how you will be able to experimentally evaluate it (experimental design). Only then can it be considered a hypothesis. Quote: Originally posted by Yttrium2   Also, How can I get access to the Whimsy sub forum, I wanted to post there. 27 posts and you still did not read the subtitle of the Whimsy section? Quote: Whimsy Everything under the sun. If you want access, please contact Polverone or woelen.

Quote: Originally posted by aga

Correct. It's just vague wondering about something with absolutely no basis in fact at all. First off, the Volume and Height of the contrails left by planes has a massive impact on the position, and dosage that would be experienced on the ground, if they were, in fact so-called 'chemtrails'. Guassian Plume Dispersion Theory was developed around 1936 to model what happens to the smoke from factory chimneys : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_dispersion_modeling From the equations given, you can predict where the 'stuff' goes in an atomospheric system, although large weather events make all that random. The sheer height at which any 'chemicals' were dropped would cause the effects at ground level to be close to zero at any one given point, unless several thousand tonnes were dropped all at once. Not that your government is not out to get you, it'd just be cheaper and more effective to add stuff to your water supply, coke drinks, burgers, gasoline etc. Planes do burn fuel, so they do dump chemical waste products into the air, just 5 miles up, and in such relatively small quantities that the winds disperse them almost instantly. Chemtrails are a myth, a pretty feeble conspiracy 'theory', and best ignored altogether. [Edited on 21-2-2015 by aga]

As far as I understand "Chemtrails", the purpose is to shift climates. Creating drought over a continent is a bit larger scale.

http://climateviewer.com/geoengineering/

http://www.geoengineeringwatch.org/

http://www.globalresearch.ca/atmospheric-geoengineering-weat...

I'm not 100% up to speed on this but it appears to be the main "Theory"?

Quote: Originally posted by Zombie

Respectfully Mr. Nicodem, I read the definition in the exact opposite terms as you stated. You form a theory that the sun is hot but it remains theory until a hypothesis is created with some manor of experiment to either prove or disprove the theory. That is at least the way I interpret it.

Quote: Originally posted by Molecular Manipulations

A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world. -Wikipedia You interpreted it wrong. Quote: "Scientists generally base scientific hypotheses on previous observations that cannot satisfactorily be explained with the available scientific theories." What this means is that if you discover a new piece of evidence that does not fit the current theory, you then formulate a new hypothesis. After much testing, if your new hypothesis fits the data, it can become the new theory. This is how the scientific method works. Nothing is set in stone, because new data is constantly discovered, so theories constantly change. [Edited on 21-2-2015 by Molecular Manipulations]

Ok, so you need an existing theory in order to create a new hypothesis that in turn may or may not lead to a new theroy?

I wish I never saw this thread!

Quote: Originally posted by aga

Chemtrails are wild nonsense, so please don't start Thumping on about them. A few bits of glass from ebay will show real data on Thumpers = do-able. To prove/disprove Chemtrails i'd have to order a World Engine from ebay.alpha.centurii.com, which would cost literally the Earth, and take decades to arrive 2nd class stellar post. http://dccinematicuniverse.wikia.com/wiki/World_Engine

I'm following you big guy. No worries here.

Quote: Originally posted by blogfast25

Quote: Originally posted by Zombie   Respectfully Mr. Nicodem, I read the definition in the exact opposite terms as you stated. You form a theory that the sun is hot but it remains theory until a hypothesis is created with some manor of experiment to either prove or disprove the theory. That is at least the way I interpret it. You are WILDLY misreading and need to study the subject much more to understand it. For one, I think you mistake 'theory' with 'truth'. Theory, although usually based on BOTH verified experiments AND pure Reason, remains based on certain basic axioms that have to be accepted. A theory thus provides a Reason and Empiricism based explanation of certain phenomena. But not ABSOLUTE truth, which in all likelihood doesn't exist or cannot be obtained. A hypothesis, e.g. x = 14.0 m, is an assumption or something someone postulates. Usually experiments are used to confirm or infirm the hypothesis. It's very important you understand this whole bit. [Edited on 21-2-2015 by blogfast25]

Quote: Originally posted by Zombie

Ok, so you need an existing theory in order to create a new hypothesis that in turn may or may not lead to a new theroy?

Quote: Originally posted by Yttrium2

I thought theories were true hypothesis, followed by laws

Quote: Originally posted by Yttrium2

Where does it say theories are not/cannot be tested?

(The Dragons of Eden. Carl Sagan. Ballantine Publishing Group. 1977 p.190)

On the other extreme, 'conspiracy theories' often take on a nihilism about knowledge remarkably similar to Omphalos Creationism. My roommate, for example, sincerely believes that all media are under constant, man-in-the-middle attack by "them'. There were no planes crashing into the World Trade Center, for example - that was holograms, explosives, and on-the-fly CGI.

In the middle are most conspiracy theories, which are often characterized by fixating on perceived anomalies. The theory may work well relative to this dataset, but it also is extremely prone to confirmation bias and overfitting.

'Chemtrails' are in this last category. Once your attention is called to persistent contrails, you notice them more, you remember them when you didn't in the past...
I firmly believe this is the central process. Once it begins, other facts start to line up: A news report about anomalously high metal concentrations, right after a session of long-lasting contrails. But- not all 'facts' are facts. Not all newscasters know the difference between milligrams and micrograms.

The science of contrails is actually pretty interesting, and once you look at it, things make more sense in general, not just in regards to airplanes. Here's a great general resource:

Contrail Science.

Coincidentally, Ken Caldeira, a scientist whose research specialty is the geoengineering alleged by conspiracists, had an article on the subject on his blog this morning:

Conspiracy trails...

[Edited on 21-2-2015 by mayko]

Quote: Originally posted by morganbw

Damn it guys, you make the definition of a simple hypothesis seem so complex. Some of us are mortals, keep it simple enough to understand please.

Quote: Originally posted by mayko

Quote: Originally posted by Yttrium2   I thought theories were true hypothesis, followed by laws This is how 'The Scientific Method' is often taught in school, but it's not like laws are grown-up hypotheses, and theories are teenagers. As has been said, a hypothesis is an informed attempt to edit- PREDICT an observation. H1: Ethyl salicylate will smell similar to wintergreen. Note that in order to be well-informed, hypotheses are generated in the context of a lot of background information. H1 hasn't been picked out of the air like "Et-Sal smells like skunks" or "Et-Sal will kill in minuscule quantities". It it based on what I know of methyl salicylate, chemical reactivity, the nature of smell, etc: this is accounted for by by a broad theory called chemistry. Theories are interpretive frameworks which explain observations in their domain and make predictions. They are often informed by hypotheses which have been repeatedly tested. Their domain of explanation. These domains are often broad, since the goal of a theory is generally to find unifying principles behind a diverse range of phenomena. For example: The Theory of Gravity handles phenomena like The nature of falling bricks, in regards to whether they're tied together the trajectories of bottle rockets the motion of celestial bodies The Theory of Evolution looks at questions like Why are there no rabbit fossils in precambrian rock? Why and how do DDT and methicillin become less effective with time ? Why do people get sick from swine flu, but not tobacco mosaic virus? Quantum Theory: Why do electron emissions from metals change according to the frequency of light shining on them? (The Photoelectric Effect) Why is the universe relatively cool, and not white-hot? (The Ultraviolet Catastrophe) Laws are succinct statements, usually expressed mathematically. L1: F=m*a (Newton's 2nd) L2: V=IR (Ohm's) Although they're good rules of thumb, they're not 'super-true', like the Physics Police will come beat up anyone caught breaking them. Classical understanding of L1, in which mass is independent of velocity, is incompatible with relativistic speeds. L2 doesn't hold for graphite rods or zener diodes. What do we call such items? Non-Ohmic resistors. This actually raises an interesting point: We can divide the world into L-ic and non-L-ic cases regardless of the nature of the proposed law L! What's so special about L2 that we feel comfortable going around saying "L2, except when L2 doesn't hold"? Quote: Originally posted by Yttrium2   Where does it say theories are not/cannot be tested? They can! But, the questions asked, experiment design, and the interpretation of the results takes place in the context of other, interlinked theories. Thus, the pattern detection involved in coming to solid conclusions can be non-trivial. As far as chemtrails, they exist! When airplaines burn jet fuel and oxygen, they produce carbon dioxide and water vapor, two chemicals if I ever saw them. 'Chemtrails' is a 'conspiracy theory', meaning that its central hypothesis is the planning and organization of a scheme by multiple covert agents. Conspiracy theories range a great deal in their legitimacy. On the one hand, Carl Sagan relates this account: Quote: "In paranoid thinking a person believes he has detected a conspiracy- that is, a hidden (and malevolent) pattern in the behavior of friends, associates or governments- where in fact no such pattern exists. If there is such a conspiracy, the subject may be profoundly anxious, but his thinking is not necessarily paranoid. A famous case involves James Forrestal, the first U.S. Secretary of Defense. At the end of World War II, Forrestal was convinced that Israeli secret agents were following him everywhere. His physicians, equally convinced of the absurdity of this idee fixe, diagnosed him as paranoid and confined him to an upper story of Walter Reed Army Hospital, from which he plunged to his death, partly because of inadequate supervision by hospital personnel, overly deferential to one of his exalted rank. Later it was discovered that Forrestal was indeed being followed by Israeli agents who were worried that he might reach a secret understanding with representatives of Arab nations. Forrestal had other problems, but having his valid perception labeled paranoid did not help his condition. In times of rapid social change there are bound to be conspiracies, both by those in favor of change and by those defending the status quo, the latter more than the former in recent American political history. Detecting conspiracies when there are no conspiracies is a symptom of paranoia; detecting them when they exist is a sign of metal health. An acquaintance of mine says, 'In America today, if you're not a little paranoid you're out of your mind.' The remark, however, has global applicability." (The Dragons of Eden. Carl Sagan. Ballantine Publishing Group. 1977 p.190) On the other extreme, 'conspiracy theories' often take on a nihilism about knowledge remarkably similar to Omphalos Creationism. My roommate, for example, sincerely believes that all media are under constant, man-in-the-middle attack by "them'. There were no planes crashing into the World Trade Center, for example - that was holograms, explosives, and on-the-fly CGI. In the middle are most conspiracy theories, which are often characterized by fixating on perceived anomalies. The theory may work well relative to this dataset, but it also is extremely prone to confirmation bias and overfitting. 'Chemtrails' are in this last category. Once your attention is called to persistent contrails, you notice them more, you remember them when you didn't in the past... I firmly believe this is the central process. Once it begins, other facts start to line up: A news report about anomalously high metal concentrations, right after a session of long-lasting contrails. But- not all 'facts' are facts. Not all newscasters know the difference between milligrams and micrograms. The science of contrails is actually pretty interesting, and once you look at it, things make more sense in general, not just in regards to airplanes. Here's a great general resource: Contrail Science. Coincidentally, Ken Caldeira, a scientist whose research specialty is the geoengineering alleged by conspiracists, had an article on the subject on his blog this morning: Conspiracy trails... [Edited on 21-2-2015 by mayko]

That is Too convincing.

You're one of "them", aren't you?

Quote: Originally posted by Zombie

Quote: Originally posted by mayko   Quote: Originally posted by Yttrium2   I thought theories were true hypothesis, followed by laws This is how 'The Scientific Method' is often taught in school, but it's not like laws are grown-up hypotheses, and theories are teenagers. As has been said, a hypothesis is an informed attempt to edit- PREDICT an observation. H1: Ethyl salicylate will smell similar to wintergreen. Note that in order to be well-informed, hypotheses are generated in the context of a lot of background information. H1 hasn't been picked out of the air like "Et-Sal smells like skunks" or "Et-Sal will kill in minuscule quantities". It it based on what I know of methyl salicylate, chemical reactivity, the nature of smell, etc: this is accounted for by by a broad theory called chemistry. Theories are interpretive frameworks which explain observations in their domain and make predictions. They are often informed by hypotheses which have been repeatedly tested. Their domain of explanation. These domains are often broad, since the goal of a theory is generally to find unifying principles behind a diverse range of phenomena. For example: The Theory of Gravity handles phenomena like The nature of falling bricks, in regards to whether they're tied together the trajectories of bottle rockets the motion of celestial bodies The Theory of Evolution looks at questions like Why are there no rabbit fossils in precambrian rock? Why and how do DDT and methicillin become less effective with time ? Why do people get sick from swine flu, but not tobacco mosaic virus? Quantum Theory: Why do electron emissions from metals change according to the frequency of light shining on them? (The Photoelectric Effect) Why is the universe relatively cool, and not white-hot? (The Ultraviolet Catastrophe) Laws are succinct statements, usually expressed mathematically. L1: F=m*a (Newton's 2nd) L2: V=IR (Ohm's) Although they're good rules of thumb, they're not 'super-true', like the Physics Police will come beat up anyone caught breaking them. Classical understanding of L1, in which mass is independent of velocity, is incompatible with relativistic speeds. L2 doesn't hold for graphite rods or zener diodes. What do we call such items? Non-Ohmic resistors. This actually raises an interesting point: We can divide the world into L-ic and non-L-ic cases regardless of the nature of the proposed law L! What's so special about L2 that we feel comfortable going around saying "L2, except when L2 doesn't hold"? Quote: Originally posted by Yttrium2   Where does it say theories are not/cannot be tested? They can! But, the questions asked, experiment design, and the interpretation of the results takes place in the context of other, interlinked theories. Thus, the pattern detection involved in coming to solid conclusions can be non-trivial. As far as chemtrails, they exist! When airplaines burn jet fuel and oxygen, they produce carbon dioxide and water vapor, two chemicals if I ever saw them. 'Chemtrails' is a 'conspiracy theory', meaning that its central hypothesis is the planning and organization of a scheme by multiple covert agents. Conspiracy theories range a great deal in their legitimacy. On the one hand, Carl Sagan relates this account: Quote: "In paranoid thinking a person believes he has detected a conspiracy- that is, a hidden (and malevolent) pattern in the behavior of friends, associates or governments- where in fact no such pattern exists. If there is such a conspiracy, the subject may be profoundly anxious, but his thinking is not necessarily paranoid. A famous case involves James Forrestal, the first U.S. Secretary of Defense. At the end of World War II, Forrestal was convinced that Israeli secret agents were following him everywhere. His physicians, equally convinced of the absurdity of this idee fixe, diagnosed him as paranoid and confined him to an upper story of Walter Reed Army Hospital, from which he plunged to his death, partly because of inadequate supervision by hospital personnel, overly deferential to one of his exalted rank. Later it was discovered that Forrestal was indeed being followed by Israeli agents who were worried that he might reach a secret understanding with representatives of Arab nations. Forrestal had other problems, but having his valid perception labeled paranoid did not help his condition. In times of rapid social change there are bound to be conspiracies, both by those in favor of change and by those defending the status quo, the latter more than the former in recent American political history. Detecting conspiracies when there are no conspiracies is a symptom of paranoia; detecting them when they exist is a sign of metal health. An acquaintance of mine says, 'In America today, if you're not a little paranoid you're out of your mind.' The remark, however, has global applicability." (The Dragons of Eden. Carl Sagan. Ballantine Publishing Group. 1977 p.190) On the other extreme, 'conspiracy theories' often take on a nihilism about knowledge remarkably similar to Omphalos Creationism. My roommate, for example, sincerely believes that all media are under constant, man-in-the-middle attack by "them'. There were no planes crashing into the World Trade Center, for example - that was holograms, explosives, and on-the-fly CGI. In the middle are most conspiracy theories, which are often characterized by fixating on perceived anomalies. The theory may work well relative to this dataset, but it also is extremely prone to confirmation bias and overfitting. 'Chemtrails' are in this last category. Once your attention is called to persistent contrails, you notice them more, you remember them when you didn't in the past... I firmly believe this is the central process. Once it begins, other facts start to line up: A news report about anomalously high metal concentrations, right after a session of long-lasting contrails. But- not all 'facts' are facts. Not all newscasters know the difference between milligrams and micrograms. The science of contrails is actually pretty interesting, and once you look at it, things make more sense in general, not just in regards to airplanes. Here's a great general resource: Contrail Science. Coincidentally, Ken Caldeira, a scientist whose research specialty is the geoengineering alleged by conspiracists, had an article on the subject on his blog this morning: Conspiracy trails... [Edited on 21-2-2015 by mayko] That is Too convincing. You're one of "them", aren't you?

Did you really have to quote that entire post just to say that? That's very hypocritical of you.
Thanks for that mayko, very interesting.

Quote: Originally posted by Zombie

You're one of "them", aren't you?

Quote: Originally posted by aga

Yeah. I have a Hypothesis that some users quote the entire conversation simply to stretch their post. The experimental data (posts following this one) can be analysed for Length versus New Content in order to test the veracity of my Hypothesis.

What?

Quote: Originally posted by Zombie

Quote: Originally posted by aga   Yeah. I have a Hypothesis that some users quote the entire conversation simply to stretch their post. The experimental data (posts following this one) can be analysed for Length versus New Content in order to test the veracity of my Hypothesis. What?

Quote: Originally posted by Yttrium2

So daltons atomic theory, this wasn't tested by dalton was it he could not see atoms, was it a hypothesis that evolved unto atomic theory

Quote: Originally posted by Yttrium2

Bump