pauluzzz1981 said: ... That isn't true. I like the truth. So if i follow something or assume it's right i like too know that it's true.

Why isn't it true?

Soleron said: pauluzzz1981 said: ... That isn't true. I like the truth. So if i follow something or assume it's right i like too know that it's true.  Why isn't it true?

Your assumption that it's because of my religion.

pauluzzz1981 said: ... maybe, but einstein had some crazy ideas for his time. We will see. What is in your opinion the biggest assumption in science that is sometimes stated as a fact?

The Riemann Hypothesis.

Unproven mathematical conjecture that a lot of papers in the field assume to be true before writing anything.

Soleron said: pauluzzz1981 said: ... maybe, but einstein had some crazy ideas for his time. We will see. What is in your opinion the biggest assumption in science that is sometimes stated as a fact? The Riemann Hypothesis. Unproven mathematical conjecture that a lot of papers in the field assume to be true before writing anything.

thx.i'm going to read that.

BMaker11 said: Soleron said: BMaker11 said: Soleron said: BMaker11 said: ... This gets a little semantical here. Light can't go "less than the speed of light" because it, itself, is light. A light photon can't move slower than itself. However, light can move slower than c, the speed of light in a vacuum, if you change the medium that light is going through. Gelatin, for example No. Photons never move slower than c, 300,000,000m/s I can bet you a Steam game over this if you want. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refractive_index Show me proof from that article that photons travel at less than c Dude...it's right in the first paragraph "For example, the refractive index of water is 1.33, meaning that light travels 1.33 times slower in water than it does in vacuum." Unless you're trying to say photons aren't light?

Best explanation I could google:

http://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=899393&postcount=4

Soleron said: pauluzzz1981 said: ... maybe, but einstein had some crazy ideas for his time. We will see. What is in your opinion the biggest assumption in science that is sometimes stated as a fact? The Riemann Hypothesis. Unproven mathematical conjecture that a lot of papers in the field assume to be true before writing anything.

 

In Dr. Libby’s original work, he noted that the atmosphere did not appear to be in equilibrium. This was a troubling idea for Dr. Libby since he believed the world was billions of years old and enough time had passed to achieve equilibrium. Dr. Libby’s calculations showed that if the earth started with no 14C in the atmosphere, it would take up to 30,000 years to build up to a steady state (equilibrium).

If the cosmic radiation has remained at its present intensity for 20,000 or 30,000 years, and if the carbon reservoir has not changed appreciably in this time, then there exists at the present time a complete balance between the rate of disintegration of radiocarbon atoms and the rate of assimilation of new radiocarbon atoms for all material in the life-cycle.2

Dr. Libby chose to ignore this discrepancy (nonequilibrium state), and he attributed it to experimental error. However, the discrepancy has turned out to be very real. The ratio of 14C /12C is not constant.

The Specific Production Rate (SPR) of C-14 is known to be 18.8 atoms per gram of total carbon per minute. The Specific Decay Rate (SDR) is known to be only 16.1 disintegrations per gram per minute.3

What is your theory about this? And does the carbondating needs the assumption that the universe is billions of years old to be accurate?

pauluzzz1981 said: DarkWraith said: show me where it says assume in the scientific method. only assumption is that it works which is demonstrably true by applied science - medicine works, computers compute, planes fly. 1. Observe 2. Hypothesize 3. Test 4. Results 5. Conclusions any assumption is negated by TEST, you can assume contrary to the results but the results are not subject to your whims only subject to nature it Nice fact. But you know well as i do that science is making assumptions and state them as near truths. Like the big bang theory.

bbt isnt an assumption. I think your issue is you dont understand hypothesis (speculation/guess/assumption whatever) from theory (supported by facts and evidence).

examples of theories you do regard as fact:

germ theory
heliocentric theory
atomic theory
gravitational theory

some theories have better support than others. dont let the word theory confuse you. science will never claim a theory is a fact because science only offers probabilities because it relies on induction rather than deduction.

DarkWraith said: pauluzzz1981 said: DarkWraith said: show me where it says assume in the scientific method. only assumption is that it works which is demonstrably true by applied science - medicine works, computers compute, planes fly. 1. Observe 2. Hypothesize 3. Test 4. Results 5. Conclusions any assumption is negated by TEST, you can assume contrary to the results but the results are not subject to your whims only subject to nature it Nice fact. But you know well as i do that science is making assumptions and state them as near truths. Like the big bang theory.  bbt isnt an assumption. I think your issue is you dont understand hypothesis (speculation/guess/assumption whatever) from theory (supported by facts and evidence). examples of theories you do regard as fact: germ theory heliocentric theory atomic theory gravitational theory some theories have better support than others. dont let the word theory confuse you. science will never claim a theory is a fact because science only offers probabilities because it relies on induction rather than deduction.

thx. not sarcastic.

The thing is scientists are normal human beings, so many science hypothesis are just wishful thinking with no real sense on reality. But imagination is also an important part of science.

pauluzzz1981 said: ... ... What is your theory about this? And does the carbondating needs the assumption that the universe is billions of years old to be accurate?

Well, I think it mischaracterises his work. He never assumed the environmental ratio was constant. Only that the decay rate is. Volcanoes, solar wind, and more recently nuclear testing all change it. The method therefore needs calibration from lots of samples and cross-checking with other methods, and as I said no contradictions have been found that invalidate the method.

No, carbon dating doesn't rely on the universe being billions of years old. And it doesn't prove that alone either. We have plenty of other evidence for it that's more reliable than carbon. Such as uranium/lead dating, that isn't affected by volcanoes etc.