Comments by "Engineering the weird guy" (@engineeringtheweirdguy2103) on "Professor Dave Explains" channel.

@antiqueolive3842 that's not how oxymoron's work. Almost is describing that you've come close to something. Exactly, is describing a precise spot or number. Almost exactly describes that you've almost achieved something with high precision. Oxymoron's arent defined as words with differing degree's of vagueness. Oxymorons are things which are definitionally opposite. Such as awefully good. Or bitter sweet or original copy.
6
1.) Science does not presuppose maths. As I will explain later down, math is self determinate. It proves itself to be an observable truth. Science untilizes mathematics to reliably apply theories and hypothesis to accurately assertion results reliably.
6
2.) science cannot predict the future but theories and laws can. Engineers use them every day to make accurate predictions about their designs. While it’s true that something may not work. Previous use tells us it more than likely will. You can reliably press a specific illuminated area of your screen which reliably results in the appropriately selected letter appearing on your screen. Complex digital codes (maths based) which gives input to the processor designed by ventures of science, to turn on specific pixels. I can tell you with relative certainty that if you press on the “k” letter of your keyboard, that it will make a “k” letter appear on the screen. And 99.99% I’ll be right. An engineer at some point has designed your device to do this using science and maths.
5
3.) you don’t need science to conclude anything for it to be true. But science lends credibility to a statement, prediction or interpretation of observations. For example I can tell you with certainty and without science that it’s raining outside right now. But the theories in meteorology which tell us when it is going to rain has been reviewed by the scientific community relentlessly, tested and tested again and examined from its premises to its results. Science then determine that theory to be a a truism beyond reasonable doubt. That’s what science is. It’s a method of removing bias, ambition, intuition from determining truism about the world we live in. Through extensive cross examination, rigorous review by the global community and replication of logical reasoning, experimental process, results, analysis and methodology. Science doesn’t tell us if something IS true. Nor is it a pre-requisite for something to be true. And things can be true regardless of what anyone says about it. Truth lies outside of the reach of ideas or interpretation. Science only tells us certain things which are far more likely and rigorously examined to be true.
5
4.) science to a degree does involve intuition and common sense. It is far more based in logical reasoning however. A lot of what science tells us is counter intuitive but has been proven to be true. Science is limited by our ability to intuitively or otherwise interpret our surroundings. But the scientific method is a process which identifies and removes the bias or faults in ideas or statements. You might have a bias and want something to be true. But if the rest of the scientific community can’t come to a consensus that your idea is correct and sound. Then it won’t pass. You may want to believe that things go from cold to hot but unless you can convince every other scientist or amateur scientists of this fact and provide data and experimental evidence which can both be replicated by the larger community in its method AAND results, but also pass scrutiny in its analysis and conclusion, then it’s not considered true or accurate.
5
5.) other theories which describe chemistry have found that they have limitations. True in some and even many cases but not true in some cases. Whilst atomic theory is found to be experimentally true in all cases and can be used predictively in all cases. Which is why it’s the current theory.
5
6.) theories are beyond reasonably doubt. You seem to be conflating that with them being infallible. Listen to the phrase carefully. Beyond REASONABLE doubt. When we can apply a theory or laws accurately and predictively in a vast range of scenarios including those not even thought about hundreds of years ago, or even decades ago, that makes it reasonably accurate. It is accurate beyond any reasonable level of doubt. For example, Newton’s laws of motion. It is unreasonable to doubt them as they consistently and accurately apply to the world around us and can be used predictively in a vast range of applications.
5
I’d like to give it a go. If I may. Numbered comments below
4
@fizzy4149 I find it easier to explain that a theory explains why something does. And a law explains how something does. Newton’s laws explain how things move. Newton’s theory explains why things move the way they do.
3
no it isnt.
2
the direct translation of the Piccards explanation was that it looked like a "disk with upturned edges". although that is a translation of what the word actually means. in reality you can use the same word to describe a disk with downturned edges. which is exactly what you would expect him to see on a globe. In layman terms. You can use the same word in his language to describe a plate. as well as a frisbee.
2
@fizzy4149 firstly, I’m an qualified and practicing Mechanical Engineer with a masters. I don’t care about your qualification or experience any more than you care about mine. Throwing that about seems very childish and petty. Secondly let me clarify my point as you danced around it. A theory explains why something happens. For example, Newton’s theory is based on the relationship between mass, force and acceleration. Newton’s laws don’t bring anything new to that table. But they explain WHAT will happen. For example anything stationary won’t move unless acted upon. As described by F=ma. Something in constant (a=0) motion will remain as such unless acted upon. I.e. F=ma. Anything undergoing a net force will be subject to a change in velocity (a>0) according to F=ma. And finally any object imparting a force will receive and equal and opposite force. In line with F=ma and it’s relationship to momentum and inertia. Notice how it’s all F=ma? Yet there are 3 laws. They describe what will happen. But the theory describes why it will happen. The two aren’t separate. They are intertwined to the same thing.
2
@fizzy4149 I’m not sure how I didn’t make it clear the first time. You seem to not be understand what I am saying. Which is made evident to me when you seem to be asking me if I deny Newtonian physics. Nothing I’ve said has indicated as much. So I’m an thoroughly confused as to where you got that from. I am trying to communicate at the relation ship describe by F=ma is the theory. The laws whilst based on mathematics, are statements describing how this relationship works. Newton’s first law describes that the relationship describe by F=ma means that if a=0, then F must be zero also. Newton’s second law states that if there is a net force in an object with mass, then a=/=0. Newton’s third law states that force is shared by boundaries. This if you apply a force to something a force is applied back. Which summarises the first two laws to describe relations between two objects. In every instance the laws are descriptions of how the relation F=ma acts. The relation describing why things behave the way they do (because they are following that relationship) and the laws are describing what happens according to that relationship
2
@antiqueolive3842 definitional they’re the same thing. The only difference between the two is if it’s being used as an abjective or and adverb. In other words is it modifying, or adding description. In either case the definitions are the same. Eg: i have the exact same question Vs I have the same question exactly.
1
unfotunately it does hurt people. Flat earthers, along with other conspiracy theorists push the ideas on other. most notably by attempting to seed doubt and mis trust in professionals and Authorities. You may have noticed the regular and sustained attacks from flat earthers on NASA. This will often bleed into other areas of peoples lives. such as mis trust in Engineers as a profession. In real lift this has cost people their lives. in Italy in 2013, 5 years before the event. Engineers came forward saying the Genoa bridge was structurally unsound and will collapse within the decade resulting in loss of life unless the bridge is de-comissioned and re-built. This was bad for the politicians. big spending at the time was unpopular and would cost them votes. so the politicians systematically campaigned against Engineering as a profession to see mistrust. so that people would believe the politicians when they say "no no. the bridge wont collapse. the Engineers are wrong and untrust worthy. you should trust me. I know what I am talking about as politician". and the what happened was people believed it. 5 years later in 2018. after being told relentlessly by Engineers that the bridge was going to fail. The bridge failed. 39 people lost their lives including 3 children. dead. crushed by a bridge. because people seeded mistrust in professionals. the flat earth does the same. so do many conspiracy theories.so yes they are harmful.
1
another thing to consider is that studies have continually shown that once someone is hooked on one conspiracy theory, they are far more likely to consider many other conspiracy theories. you can see that in the flat earth community. how many of them came to flat earth from moon landing hoax conspiracies. and how many flat earthers also subscribe to Anti-vax conspiracies? a disproportionately large number of them. and anti-vax has real world consequences. especially when those people are parents. Hell America had one of the highest portion per population that believed COVID was a hoax or that it was no more deadly or infectious than the flu. Now the US has the highest infection and death rate of any nation. despite measures which have seen the flu have the least infection and death numbers in decades. and exceptionally bad when you consider that many studies are finding long term impacts on cognitive function, heart function and lung performance from those who contract the virus and survive. Life long issues. yes. flat earthers do hurt people.
1
also no part of reality is believe. reality if objective of what you think. I might believe that all tree leaves are blue. but weather im there and believe that or not. Trees will have green leaves regardless of what I believe. I might believe that air conditioners dont work. but the laws of thermodynamics continue to work regardless of what I think. I might believe that things don't fall to the ground when I drop them. But regardless of what I think, things will always fall to the ground.
1
@spicynoodles3325 if they vote. it hurts
1
@herojiro6999 these people have a high percentile in homeschooling their children. thats harmful.
1
@herojiro6999 actually buy in large home schooling is worse. Parents Seldom have the expertise in different areas require to adequately teach their children beyond the first few years of school in most studies conducted on the effectiveness of homeschooling they often look only at a subset of parents who are subscribers to a costly fee's based service which provides curriculums and lesson structures formulated by actual teachers. The subset within this is that participation in data collection was optional. Most portents who agreed to participate were confident in their child's abilities comparatively to public schooled counterparts. which is suggested in that around 59% of the parents approached refused to partake even when offered financial incentives to do so. Im not suggesting they do it for religious purposes but instead they do it because they believe as flat earthers that they're being told lies. Lies about Physics and the world we live in. Thus these kids are doomed to grow up with a faulty understand of physics and science and mathematics, as they are being taught by parents to don't believe in science mathematics or physics and don't have the cognitive ability or willingness to understand them.
1
I guess the Marines dont really attract the brightest people do they? Most military aircraft have ring laser gyroscopes. When stationary they will detect the rotation of the earth. You have to calibrate the ring laser depending on your latitude, to the rotation of the earth. The equation used to calibrate this ring laser is based on a rotating sphere earth. Either you're lying completely about being a pilot or US Marine Core pilots are so stupid they don't understand what their own instruments do, what they tell them or how they work.
1
@fizzy4149 you interpolating a law into a theory. States what will happen if they turned their engines off. How it will move. What Newton’s theory states is why it will do so. It states that the craft will have energy. Without anything to move that kinetic energy or transform it, it will therefore continue. It does so by describing the relationship between force and acceleration.
1
you're clearly not an international airline pilot. otherwise you'd have to calibrate your 3 axis laser compass which uses the sagnac effect to the rotation of the earth before every take off. That in itself proves the earth is a sphere. Bob Knodel ran into the same problem when trying to prove a flat earth.
1