It would be perfectly reasonable to ascribe errors to experimental error since an accurate clock was only developed much later and the standards of weight and length were actually not standard.
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
It would be perfectly reasonable to ascribe errors to experimental error since an accurate clock was only developed much later and the standards of weight and length were actually not standard.Newton was indeed wrong, because he did not take into Relativity into account. Accurate measurements of motion and Newton's equations predictions showed errors even in his time BUT they were ascribed to experimental error and it was felt that the errors would vanish when measuring instrumentation improved. That was not the case and more accurate measurements simply verified the errors.
Indeed it would BUT by the very standards of the scientific method a Theory is disproven as soon as ONE exception is found and verified. But we are dealing with Human Beings here and when a man has spent years on a Theory that produces close results we hang onto it and ascribe the exceptions to human/instrumental errors which are, of course, very real.It would be perfectly reasonable to ascribe errors to experimental error
All experiments produce close results, even calibration of scientific equipment produces close results, if you demand exact results then industry stops. The equipment available in the sixteenth century and the few people in the world who knew what the discussion was actually about cloud the issue. At the time people still believed in biblical creation and even biblical floodsIndeed it would BUT by the very standards of the scientific method a Theory is disproven as soon as ONE exception is found and verified. But we are dealing with Human Beings here and when a man has spent years on a Theory that produces close results we hang onto it and ascribe the exceptions to human/instrumental errors which are, of course, very real.
Scientific history is replete with such universal acceptance of wrong theories because they were close.
I am always fascinated by people discussing "understanding" earthquakes and volcanoes. This is based on a human emotion, understanding must lead us to be able to predict when and where they will occur. Well they occur all over the place it is purely a question of magnitude and local building regulations.
We now understand what causes them (volcanoes are not Vulcan's forges) but it may be a long road to accurate prediction. We are well on the way to predicting where, but not so much when.
Newton was wrong about time. It was Clerk-Maxwell's ideas about electromagnetic radiation (the so called second unification, of electricity and magnetism) that led Einstein towards the concept that time was relative and not absolute. Einstein realised that there was a fundamental contradiction between Newton and Clerk-Maxwell, one he solved with his theory(ies). There is now a contradiction between Einstein's theories and those proposed by quantum mechanics and physics requires another unification.
Unified Field Theory anyone? A doff of the cap to Clerk-Maxwell in the very name. He also sported an absolutely splendid beard, any Victorian gent would have been proud of it
Forecasting volcanoes and earthquakes is not a fruitful activity there is no guarantee in science that we can, and what is required is to forecast activity that will cause fatal structural damage.
Mike, I am not arguing against science and research just saying that forecasting is not a fruitful activity. People have forecast a big earthquake in both California and Japan since I was a child. Actually they have had a few big earth quakes and what difference has it made? Yes buildings are generally better but still in the same place. People want to know about a big earthquake hitting a large population centre, but if they were ever told Tokyo will be hit next year by a 9.0 earthquake what would be done? As with weather forecasts people only remember when it is wrong.
That was my original point, if Tokyo ever got hit by a 10.0 earthquake the of course many people made the wrong choice or decision, until that time measures will be taken to minimise the risk when everyone could live somewhere else but maybe make less money.Forecasting isn't about preventing something from happening, and with natural disasters, generally exact forecasting isn't available, so its about preparation and response rather than prevention.
That was my original point, if Tokyo ever got hit by a 10.0 earthquake the of course many people made the wrong choice or decision, until that time measures will be taken to minimise the risk when everyone could live somewhere else but maybe make less money.
None of the four points you posted have anything to do with prediction. From UK the earliest records are of damaged cathedrals which would lead one to conclude its best not to build huge bell towers. The UK makes a half decent job of predicting weather but they are surrounded by weather, they rarely predict the really serious events and no one would abandon their home or business for months based on their forecast.Yes, and this isn't 'fruitless', quite the opposite in fact.
I worked for a while in Japan and it was noticeable that the normal warning about fire in hotels was replaced by "what to do in an earthquake" good advice because there was a tremor while I was there, it is normal. Many countries have moved their capital cities and many cities have withered, I cant see why a political decision isnt made to move from the dangerous to the safe.Japan has one of the best tsunami warning systems in the world and their population generally takes the risk seriously and acts appropriately when needed. I honestly can't see San Francisco evacuating in anything like sufficient numbers even given sufficient warning. Mainly due to a lack of belief in the consequences. It always surprises me that people would knowingly put themselves and their families in high risk locations yet freak out over manageable and well understood risks like flying.
None of the four points you posted have anything to do with prediction. From UK the earliest records are of damaged cathedrals which would lead one to conclude its best not to build huge bell towers. The UK makes a half decent job of predicting weather but they are surrounded by weather, they rarely predict the really serious events and no one would abandon their home or business for months based on their forecast.
Newton was no more wrong about time than anyone else since there was no accurate means of measuring it and many of his contemporaries considered a day was a constant because God created it.
Wow, the Weather Guys on TV, military, and all those commercial weather forecasters working for outdoor venues are gonna be real sorry to hear that. pbehn, man has been "predicting" the future since Ugh first stepped out of the cave. The ultimate test of any Theory is its ability to predict a future outcome.that forecasting is not a fruitful activity.
I will have you know I hit it the same way every time. Every ball I own has been struck exactly the same way, right into the water "feature".Try hitting a golfball EXACTLY the same way twice in a row!
Really a distinction without a difference. Just as with weather accuracy depends upon the input data, i.e., better data better prediction.I was talking about volanoes and earthquakes.