Sometimes science, exciting as it may be, is confusing and one must be constantly updating material reading up since school to shift and relearn things - hypothesis thats are now theories, planets that are now rocks (pluto), moons that are maybe planets (Europa), string theories and blackholes gone all wrong. But who updates Science Laws? You know what I'm talking about... things like "One of most basic laws of science - Law of the Conservation of Energy: Energy cannot be created or destroyed; it can only be changed from one form to another." But this video about how we evolved says once upon a time there was NO time, and NO energy. So energy was in fact,....created....at some point.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_KjJ234XPC4&list=PLD0A39ADD948FECE4&feature=share&index=9

So is this video wrong, or should there not be a science law that states energy cannot be created or destroyed, only shifted? Who reviews science laws now that we have no Einstein...

---

i a n n a
Hoping intelligent life is found elsewhere & that they've got something better than wine to make sense of this

Nature does its own thing regardless of whatever 'laws' we might dream up.

The test and proof of any descriptions we dream up in science and philosophy is 'how well does whatever idea describe or explain our reality?'.


So far, what we have been able to observe of our reality is such that energy is neither created nor destroyed but merely converted, always. We have no observations that suggest otherwise.

That idea and description is repeatedly tested every day. So far, there continue to be no earth-shattering 'surprises'.

No 'Einstein' needed.


Perpetual motion anyone? ;-)

Keep search in'
Martin

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)

ML1 thanks for your reply. My point is that if I am trying to learn science to help with kids homework or otherwise, they ask you a question, you go online to search for an 'update' reply and you find 'those' kinds of "Best of Science" youtube videos, which you ASSUME are truthful. So they go debunking a science law as their opinion (go to 10:09 into the video link above). SO who do you ask to get the respected opinion? Is there a Science Committee that you can quote science from then, or do we just live in a controlled chaos of science theory vs. law when the supposed authority contradicts it's very own laws? If we get confused, then a child will be as good as the videos the science teacher likes.

See a problem?

---

i a n n a
Hoping intelligent life is found elsewhere & that they've got something better than wine to make sense of this

ML1 thanks for your reply. My point is that if I am trying to learn science to help with kids homework or otherwise, they ask you a question, you go online to search for an 'update' reply and you find 'those' kinds of "Best of Science" youtube videos, which you ASSUME are truthful.

That video is horribly rushed and shallow, but at least it gives a reasonably honest bullet-point list of science ideas as taught a few years ago.

(Science moves on. There are various archeological investigations ongoing that may have to expand upon the idea that we are all physically descended from 'one woman'. Myself, I favour the idea of more than one physical source singular creature but followed by homogenization due to cross breeding... For example... I don't know and can't know for sure until physical/research evidence is put together to support that idea. That is Science.)

So they go debunking a science law as their opinion (go to 10:09 into the video link above). SO who do you ask to get the respected opinion? Is there a Science Committee that you can quote science from then, or do we just live in a controlled chaos of science theory vs. law when the supposed authority contradicts it's very own laws? If we get confused, then a child will be as good as the videos the science teacher likes.

See a problem?

There is no "Science Committee" or "authority". The first law in Science is that nothing is "certain". There are no "absolutes". And everything is open to question.


What there is is a philosophical quest to better understand what is around us by physical observation, thinking, and proving all assumptions made, such that we can ever more accurately describe and understand and predict the world around.

For that, there are groups of people who fanatically assume nothing to research our reality. They are called Scientists. Scientific ideas (and the scientists themselves) gain merit by how well and how accurately OTHER Scientists can reproduce and verify those ideas.

The important note there is that unlike religions that have "Authorities" and "Dogma" and often an "Unchanging Bible", Science has none of that. Newly gained evidence/research can strengthen or weaken whatever scientific ideas such that Scientists can 'change their minds' and come to a new realization. Winston Churchill I think once exclaimed in exasperation about having any Scientists on committees/meetings that they were hopeless for setting out political policy because you gave Scientists new information and they may well change their minds!

What there is in Science are 'respected views/opinion' that follow what a majority of Scientists consider to be most accurate and truthful. Good sources for that are the leading journals and reputable universities. Wikipedia is also good in that anything too inaccurate usually gets edited out.

For your Big Bang example, the first good readable source I've found is:

Origins of the Universe

However, beware bias... Although that article reads accurately enough, the approach and wording suggests that the author believes in or sympathizes with Creationism. Has the article been reworded due to American Creationism complaints?...


More truthfully worded ("truthful" as in more accurately representing current science thinking) is:

Wikipedia: Big Bang

That gives a good description and explanation.

And PHEW!!! Reading the introduction to that article reads like it has withered an onslaught of dissent from whatever religions. Note how all terms/descriptions are carefully explained. (Note that there are multiple religions that are very sensitive about how our world is supposed to have begun...)

And peer review has kept it honest for what it is describing for what Scientists have found. No personal opinions or beliefs or fairy stories. All the information and description there is from what you yourself can go out and see for yourself. That is Science.

And WOW! Just to read the 'disclaimer' that has had to be added to the NASA website detailing the science project that has directly measured various aspects of our Universe:

Cosmology: The Study of the Universe

Is American Creationism so blindingly rife as to try to rewrite the very world about them?

Sorry, but as a scientist and an engineer, the need for such disclaimers to 'excuse' science as nothing more than 'some sort of whimsical theory' suggests an American education system that has gone very religiously very badly wrong and divorced from reality...


Beware the many blogs! And especially beware the ever increasing multitude of propaganda blogs and websites!! Check carefully who is creating the website or article. If there is not a clear connection to reputable academia, be circumspect.


Welcome to Science.

The 'first law' is to ask questions!

And for any genuine question, all questions are good.


Keep searchin',
Martin

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)

Big Bang:

OK... So what clever TV exec goes and calls a TV show the "Big Bang"!!! TV brilliance or what?! Hope that doesn't re-educate too much of America! ;-)


Jest and fun aside... There does seem to be more of the TV show on YouTube than anything as 'boring' as Science... :-(

Has TV not heard that Science is really fantastic fun?! How else can you blow things up and freeze things into shattered fragments or create ghostly spooky mists of cold from liquid nitrogen, or travel the stars: And get paid for it?!! :-)


This is the first good hit I found on YouTube for explaining the Big Bang and how that is all viewed:

What Caused the Big Bang?



And this is beautifully good typical 'deadpan' science:

Religious and philosophical interpretations


Have fun!

Keep searchin',
Martin

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)

Shouldn't this be over in the Science board.

By now it should be obvious that not much of what we proclaim to be absolute in science really is. As we discover more of what the universe is about the scientific community re-evaluates what are considered laws and modifies them to suit the latest best data. Sometimes it is a long process and those proposing changes or new laws suffer a lot of ridicule but in the end valid data wins the day and new laws are established.

---

Bob DeWoody

My motto: Never do today what you can put off until tomorrow as it may not be required. This no longer applies in light of current events.

Welcome to Science. The 'first law' is to ask questions! And for any genuine question, all questions are good.

Thank you soooo much for the welcome and for the very, very helpful answers/articles!!

I have a lot to read/learn so truly and sincerely appreciate your taking the time to reply.

(hugs)
Ianna

---

i a n n a
Hoping intelligent life is found elsewhere & that they've got something better than wine to make sense of this

Shouldn't this be over in the Science board.

By now it should be obvious that not much of what we proclaim to be absolute in science really is. As we discover more of what the universe is about the scientific community re-evaluates what are considered laws and modifies them to suit the latest best data. Sometimes it is a long process and those proposing changes or new laws suffer a lot of ridicule but in the end valid data wins the day and new laws are established.

Yes it should and science is a word invented by men, discoveries is also a word but we truly know what it mean and what it encompasses. Science is so broad...

---

rOZZ
Music
Pictures

Bob DeWoody: Mods just moved this to SCIENCE and it's now "threaded correctly". Thanks for pointing it out! Sorry about that!

Julie you're so right, but I find in such a structured and rigid system the lack of a 'Science Committee' seems just outright ludicrous because someone needs to keep track of the new changes since there are so many updates shouldn't be a guessing game to find accurate updated SCIENCE information....

I went to represent the DR in the UN 'Cloning' Topic Committee (which was insane considering I don't have a degree in science but at least read SCIAM) and at that meeting I realized the disparity and became aware there is a wider gap in science news and awareness for established and blooming countries than a the need to bridge an actual technological gap within third world countries. This link is like a map of wealth when it's current global BOINC activity in GigaFLOPS:

http://boinc.netsoft-online.com/e107_plugins/boinc/bp_home.php

Anyhow. Thank you again for all you kind advise and willingness to teach and help!

---

i a n n a
Hoping intelligent life is found elsewhere & that they've got something better than wine to make sense of this