KrakPot Theory Time: Now? No Now.

[Wooster]

Nope, I prefer waffle fries.

[mrsticky005]

Originally Posted by Wooster

Nope, I prefer waffle fries.

The food of the genius.

[Jutsu Junkie]

The Planck time is theorized to be the smallest unit of time. This is an outgrowth of Max Planck's study of quantum theory. A Planck time unit is incredibly small, such that any hope of actually observing phenomena at that time scale is correspondingly minute, thus the probable illusion that time is indivisible. The shortest length of time observed in experiments is 20 attoseconds.

[mrsticky005]

Originally Posted by Jutsu Junkie

The Planck time is theorized to be the smallest unit of time. This is an outgrowth of Max Planck's study of quantum theory. A Planck time unit is incredibly small, such that any hope of actually observing phenomena at that time scale is correspondingly minute, thus the probable illusion that time is indivisible. The shortest length of time observed in experiments is 20 attoseconds.

key word.

who knows they might find a smaller unit of time measurement than that.

[Jutsu Junkie]

Just because it's called a theory doesn't mean that there is anything better going. Further, the "theory" is capable of predicting experimental results to the highest degree of resolution and certainty yet seen in science. It also solves otherwise insoluble problems. For instance, without the Planck constant, and its derivatives, calculating the energy within an oven at a given temperature becomes impossible; without the Planck constant it actually results in infinity when you try. A lot of things you probably take for granted are explained by "theories." Calling it a theory does not make a position shaky.

[mrsticky005]

Originally Posted by Jutsu Junkie

Just because it's called a theory doesn't mean that there is anything better going. Further, the "theory" is capable of predicting experimental results to the highest degree of resolution and certainty yet seen in science. It also solves otherwise insoluble problems. For instance, without the Planck constant, and its derivatives, calculating the energy within an oven at a given temperature becomes impossible; without the Planck constant it actually results in infinity when you try. A lot of things you probably take for granted are explained by "theories." Calling it a theory does not make a position shaky.

I don't consider theories absolute fact.
It may be very highly likely to be true.
But that's not the same as it actually being true.

A theory is at best 99.9999999999...% accurate.

While that may seem incredibly high there's still a .000000000000001%
chance that it's not accurate (keep in mind the numbers are probably
off as I'm too lazy. You should get the point anyways.)

I'm not saying the Planck Theory is wrong. It could be right.

I just don't consider it an absolute.

[Jutsu Junkie]

Well, come to that, nothing is then absolute. George Berkeley proved that you can't know anything for a certainty. But if you ignore the best theory going, you still fail in any purpose which would otherwise take it into account. I defy you to calculate the finite energy inside an oven without taking Planck's discoveries into account, for instance. Or predict the rate at which an apple falls to the earth without consulting Newtonian physics.

The entire point of counting something as implausible is that we don't give it much weight, nor are we compelled in that direction. The burden of proof is actually on those who do not believe Planck at this point.

[Wooster]

Originally Posted by Jutsu Junkie

Well, come to that, nothing is then absolute. George Berkeley proved that you can't know anything for a certainty. But if you ignore the best theory going, you still fail in any purpose which would otherwise take it into account. I defy you to calculate the finite energy inside an oven without taking Planck's discoveries into account, for instance. Or predict the rate at which an apple falls to the earth without consulting Newtonian physics.

The entire point of counting something as implausible is that we don't give it much weight, nor are we compelled in that direction. The burden of proof is actually on those who do not believe Planck at this point.

The flaw with that argument is that using theories to calculate and determine actual physical phenomenon is not the same as them being true.

You use gravitation, which works to my advantage. It is nearly only an empirical formula. No one knows what the hell causes gravitation. Really besides the wacky string theorist and unification theory nutters, it is just some mysterious action at a distance.

[mrsticky005]

Originally Posted by Jutsu Junkie

Well, come to that, nothing is then absolute. George Berkeley proved that you can't know anything for a certainty. But if you ignore the best theory going, you still fail in any purpose which would otherwise take it into account. I defy you to calculate the finite energy inside an oven without taking Planck's discoveries into account, for instance. Or predict the rate at which an apple falls to the earth without consulting Newtonian physics.

The entire point of counting something as implausible is that we don't give it much weight, nor are we compelled in that direction. The burden of proof is actually on those who do not believe Planck at this point.

I just find it silly to accept the best theory going because
it is the best theory going. If we all just said well it's a
theory so it must be true then science would have no purpose.

The Planck Theory could very well be true.

It's not so much I don't believe it but rather I don't know enough
of it to say without a shadow of a doubt that it is true.

Would I use it if I ever care to find the finite energy inside the oven?

Sure, why not. It's after all the best thing going.

Is it possible that my answer would then be wrong? Yes.

Originally Posted by Wooster

The flaw with that argument is that using theories to calculate and determine actual physical phenomenon is not the same as them being true.

You use gravitation, which works to my advantage. It is nearly only an empirical formula. No one knows what the hell causes gravitation. Really besides the wacky string theorist and unification theory nutters, it is just some mysterious action at a distance.

Yep, that's what I think.

Gravitation is caused by more gravitation.

how are string theorists nutty?

[Jutsu Junkie]

Originally Posted by Wooster

The flaw with that argument is that using theories to calculate and determine actual physical phenomenon is not the same as them being true.

And what is the difference between a thing being true and a thing working as predicted? For all practical purposes, they are identical. Unless the application of Planck's theories show a variance with observation, how could you tell the difference between the results and your supposed truth?

The answer is you can't.

And it's the best theory going because it works, not simply because it is the best of many poor solutions.

[Wooster]

Is it still no now?

[Kreegah!!!]

Now, now, "Now" is nowHERE; nowhere is now more relevant than now, right now.

Now then, I'll be leaving now.

[mrsticky005]

Originally Posted by Kreegah!

Now, now, "Now" is nowHERE; nowhere is now more relevant than now, right now.

Now then, I'll be leaving now.

What now?

[Kreegah!!!]

How now, Brown Cao?