human teleportation

[Yas786]

Problem is that if we accept that hypothesis as true, it is no longer a Hypothesis but a Fact. The very proving of a hypothetical question changes the nature of the hypothesis, so it is no longer a hypothesis, hence you cannot prove a hypothesis.

But I see no point in further explaining that scientific hypotheses precede a scientific theory as you are obviously never going to accept that you are indeed mistaken.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang_Theory



I think you need to look up some of these terms you are bandying about.

So I say again I agree to disagree and lets leave it at that. Ok?

Hey Castiel mind if i ask you how does it feel repeatedly hitting your head against a brick wall when it comes to the all knowing bhavv??

 

[bhavv]

Problem is that if we accept that hypothesis as true, it is no longer a Hypothesis but a Fact.

Thats what the idea was, you form a hypothesis and then test it. If its true, it can now be considered a fact.

Not all hypothesis are a null hypothesis.

Aim - How does moisturising cream work if skin is waterproof?

Theory - Scientific info on skin and moisturisers

Hypothesis - Moisturising cream increases the amount of moisture in the skin.

Null Hypothesis - Moisturing cream does not affect the amount of moisture in the cream

Method - test skin for moisture levels before and after using cream

Results - Prove or disprove whichever hypothesis you wrote.

Conclusion - Moisturing cream did / did not improve the moisture level in the skin, and some scientific reasoning behind why.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang_Theory

I've already read that. The big bang theory does state that the Universe began from a centre and expanded outwards, but there is no testable hypothesis that can prove whether or not it did.

 

[RDM]

I am also going to add my voice to the "hypothesis first then theory" on the vague hope that bhavv may eventually realise that with so many people arguing the opposite to him that he may be a little incorrect.

 

[Semiskimmed]

nope.

 

[bhavv]

You have merely proven that the piece of broccoli you tested had antioxidants. Whilst you could generalise your results and show that it is likely that all broccoli contains antioxidants, you can never prove that every single piece of broccoli contains antioxidants. The only way you can truly prove a hypothesis is if you forfeit the ability to generalise, i.e, 'this piece of broccoli contains antioxidants'.

When the experiment is repeated hundreds of times over, and each finds antioxidants in the broccoli, it becomes a fact that broccoli contains antioxidants.

This does not form a Scientific Theory.

 

[Tefal]

Thats what the idea was, you form a hypothesis and then test it. If its true, it can now be considered a fact.

Not all hypothesis are a null hypothesis.

Aim - How does moisturising cream work if skin is waterproof?

Theory - Scientific info on skin and moisturisers

Hypothesis - Moisturising cream increases the amount of moisture in the skin.

Null Hypothesis - Moisturing cream does not affect the amount of moisture in the cream

Method - test skin for moisture levels before and after using cream

Results - Prove or disprove whichever hypothesis you wrote.

Conclusion - Moisturing cream did / did not improve the moisture level in the skin, and some scientific reasoning behind why.



I've already read that. The big bang theory does state that the Universe began from a centre and expanded outwards, but there is no testable hypothesis that can prove whether or not it did.

That test doesn't answer your aim though, it simply tells you that the skin is more moisturised not the process by which it happens which is what the Aim asked.


Your aim and hypothesis are radically different.


Also as it's a biological/chemical process you'll never be able to prove it as fact as we aren't 100% sure how a lot of things work exactly so it will always be based on what we currently think happens or more likely what we know doesn't happen but gets equally good results for less effort.

 

[bhavv]

I am also going to add my voice to the "hypothesis first then theory" on the vague hope that bhavv may eventually realise that with so many people arguing the opposite to him that he may be a little incorrect.

As an example of the use of assumptions to formulate a theory, consider how Albert Einstein put forth his Special Theory of Relativity. He took two phenomena that had been observed — that the "addition of velocities" is valid (Galilean transformation), and that light did not appear to have an "addition of velocities" (Michelson-Morley experiment). He assumed both observations to be correct, and formulated his theory, based on these assumptions

No scientific hypothesis used there before Einstein's Theory or Relativity.

The defining characteristic of a scientific theory is that it makes falsifiable or testable predictions. The relevance and specificity of those predictions determine how potentially useful the theory is. A would-be theory that makes no predictions that can be observed is not a useful theory. Predictions not sufficiently specific to be tested are similarly not useful. In both cases, the term "theory" is hardly applicable.

You make the theory first, and then use the hypothesis to test for, or falsify it.

That test doesn't answer your aim though, it simply tells you that the skin is more moisturised not the process by which it happens which is what the Aim asked.


Your aim and hypothesis are radically different.

Ooops, thats what happens when you come up with something off the top off your head.

 

[lord filbuster]

When the experiment is repeated hundreds of times over, and each finds antioxidants in the broccoli, it becomes a fact that broccoli contains antioxidants.

This does not form a Scientific Theory.

It most certainly does not become fact, no matter how many times you do it. the hypothesis does become more likely to be true, but it would only take one piece without antioxidants to prove it wrong. You would have to test every single piece of broccoli in the universe to truly prove the hypothesis, which is clearly impossible.

 

[Castiel]

I am also going to add my voice to the "hypothesis first then theory" on the vague hope that bhavv may eventually realise that with so many people arguing the opposite to him that he may be a little incorrect.

I don't think there is much hope of that. This is why I am out, he either accepts it or not.

I am concerned over the quality of his science degree however.

I think he is simply confusing the word theory with the concept of Scientific Theory though. He thinks the Question is the Theory.

 

[Castiel]

It most certainly does not become fact, no matter how many times you do it. the hypothesis does become more likely to be true, but it would only take one piece without antioxidants to prove it wrong. You would have to test every single piece of broccoli in the universe to truly prove the hypothesis, which is clearly impossible.

exactly. Even if that were possible, then the hypothesis would no longer be a hypothesis anyway.

 

[Tefal]

It most certainly does not become fact, no matter how many times you do it. the hypothesis does become more likely to be true, but it would only take one piece without antioxidants to prove it wrong. You would have to test every single piece of broccoli in the universe to truly prove the hypothesis, which is clearly impossible.

That depends if the anti oxidants are required for some process in the broccoli then any piece that did not contain any could be classified as something other than broccoli

 

[bhavv]

but it would only take one piece without antioxidants to prove it wrong.

No it wouldnt because you would use a statistical test to determine whether this could be due to error or anomoly.

If the statistical test over many repeated readings suggest that a significant amount of the data collected proves a hypothesis, then it is true.

It most certainly does not become fact, no matter how many times you do it.

Well, sorry to prove you completely wrong, but this is exactly how the fact that broccoli contains antioxidants came to be made.

 

[LordSplodge]

Not without unpleasant consequences Would be nice to teleport from here to Europa by Jupiter in a matter of nanoseconds though

Probably best not to go to Europa.

"All these worlds are yours except Europa. Attempt no landings there"

 

[Deadbeat]

No scientific hypothesis used there before Einstein's Theory or Relativity.

Jesus christ, are you sure you went to a real university? Einstein took two existing concepts and extrapolated general relativity from assuming both to be true. The original hypothesis was the end result of a logical progression starting with the assumption that both processes were true, the method was the mathematical proof and the theory is the resultant of those calculations. Just because you've quoted a bite-size segment that goes into no detail at all about the processes by which Einstein produced his theory doesn't mean you've unearthed indisputable evidence.

Tell me this - why is it called the theory of general relativity, and not the hypothesis of general relativity? Same for mavity, evolution and the big bang - why are they called theories, and not hypotheses?

 

[bhavv]

I am concerned over the quality of his science degree however.

I think he is simply confusing the word theory with the concept of Scientific Theory though. He thinks the Question is the Theory.

Well, according to you, relativity and evolution are not Scientific Theories.

Tell me this - why is it called the theory of general relativity, and not the hypothesis of general relativity? Same for mavity, evolution and the big bang - why are they called theories, and not hypotheses?

Because the theory can come before any testable hypothesis, and until proven false they live on. There is actually no evidence for what much of Evolution claims, it is simply very logical thought and accepted as a scientific theory because it hasnt been disproven.

Tell me this - why is it called the theory of general relativity, and not the hypothesis of general relativity? Same for mavity, evolution and the big bang - why are they called theories, and not hypotheses?

Because a scientific theory comes before a hypothesis based on logical scientific understanding, and allows testable or falsifiable hypothesis to be made from it. Simple.

 

[Castiel]

Well, accoding to you, relativity and evolution are not Scientific Theories.

I have never said that. There you go making stuff up or interpreting something I have said incorrectly.

The fact here is that the hypothesis comes before the theory and not the reverse as you contend.

Contend alone I might add.

 

[bhavv]

Jesus christ, are you sure you went to a real university? Einstein took two existing concepts and extrapolated general relativity from assuming both to be true.

Here is the full thing about what I wrote:

Assumptions to formulate a theory

This is a view shared by Isaac Asimov. In Understanding Physics, Asimov spoke of theories as "arguments" where one deduces a "scheme" or model. Arguments or theories always begin with some premises—"arbitrary elements" as Hawking calls them (see above)—which are here described as "assumptions". An assumption according to Asimov is...

...something accepted without proof, and it is incorrect to speak of an assumption as either true or false, since there is no way of proving it to be either (If there were, it would no longer be an assumption). It is better to consider assumptions as either useful or useless, depending on whether deductions made from them corresponded to reality. ... On the other hand, it seems obvious that assumptions are the weak points in any argument, as they have to be accepted on faith in a philosophy of science that prides itself on its rationalism. Since we must start somewhere, we must have assumptions, but at least let us have as few assumptions as possible.
[edit]
Example: Special Theory of Relativity

As an example of the use of assumptions to formulate a theory, consider how Albert Einstein put forth his Special Theory of Relativity. He took two phenomena that had been observed — that the "addition of velocities" is valid (Galilean transformation), and that light did not appear to have an "addition of velocities" (Michelson-Morley experiment). He assumed both observations to be correct, and formulated his theory, based on these assumptions, by simply altering the Galilean transformation to accommodate the lack of addition of velocities with regard to the speed of light. The model created in his theory is, therefore, based on the assumption that light maintains a constant velocity (or more commonly: the speed of light is a constant).

I have never said that. There you go making stuff up or interpreting something I have said incorrectly.

No, but you imply it when you think that all scientific theories must have a hypothesis before them. There has never been a testable hypothesis to show whether or not humans and chimps evolved from the same ancestor however scientific logic and understanding assumes this phenomenon to be likely.

 

[Castiel]

Bhavv, those assumptions Asimov is referring to ARE hypothesis. You can base your hypothesis upon assumptions prior to building your theory.

 

[bhavv]

Bhavv, those assumptions Asimov is referring to ARE hypothesis. You can base your hypothesis upon assumptions prior to building your theory.

And you can base a theory without any hypothesis.

 

[bhavv]

Although procedures vary from one field of inquiry to another, identifiable features distinguish scientific inquiry from other methods of obtaining knowledge. Scientific researchers propose hypotheses as explanations of phenomena, and design experimental studies to test these hypotheses. These steps must be repeatable, to predict future results. Theories that encompass wider domains of inquiry may bind many independently derived hypotheses together in a coherent, supportive structure. Theories, in turn, may help form new hypotheses or place groups of hypotheses into context.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method