Inactive accounts will be deleted 1st November
Jump to the corollary below for a brief overview of the following contents.
What Science Is
Science is simply the art of explanation. Rational science is the process of explaining physical phenomena rationally. In rational science, there is no "observe," "measure," "predict," or "prove," which are subjective; science is objective, and the only objective thing there can be is explanation. Anyone who cannot explain is not a scientist, but a regurgitator of facts and figures.
What Hypotheses and Theories Are
A hypothesis is a set of assumptions to be used for a theory. A theory is an explanation that logically follows from the assumptions of the hypothesis.
ex. Hypothesis: Please assume the existence of two enmeshed gears; Theory: When one gear rotates clockwise, the other is forced by contact to rotate counterclockwise, and vice versa.
What Explanations Entail
The only two subjects that can ever be in science are objects and concepts. There is no conceivable third category: all that can be assumed to exist is an object, and all that's left are the relationships between those objects, which are concepts. Indeed, anything that is not an object can ultimately be resolved to a relationship between objects. Thus, any scientific explanation must involve objects and concepts. Both must also be defined in the hypothesis to clarify and make objective the assumptions.
Definition of Definition
A definition is a clear limitation on the usage of a word when explaining linguistically. Any word whose use is critical in an explanation must be defined precisely. When a word is left ambiguously defined, or not defined at all, it can be abused to give an irrational explanation.
Definition of Explanation and Understanding
It would be wise to demand a definition of explanation if we consider it the basis of science: to explain is to present a mechanism so that a process may be understood. To understand is to fully visualize a rational mechanism. ex. two children sit across from each other and bounce up and down as if by magic, we can explain this by visualizing a previously invisible see-saw beneath them. The see-saw is the mechanism, the bouncing process has been understood. This is so deceptively simple that the children on the proposed see-saw themselves could have explained this to you, indeed even a child could be a real scientist. Truly, physical explanations are merely transliterations of visualized objects.
The "Golden Principle" of Physics: "Physics requires an object. Physics cannot be done without an object." -Guillermo "Bill" Gaede, father of rational science
Definition of Object
Without objects, there is nothing to visualize or to explain. There can not even be concepts left, because concepts are not what "exist," as concepts are only relationships between objects that do exist. Since objects are the bread and butter of rational science, the word ought to be defined as well. The universal objective property that all objects could ever share is shape. All objects have shape, an object is that which has shape. To have shape is for some thing to have a boundary between what it is and what it isn't. Infinite "objects" do not have shape, zero-dimensional "objects" also do not have shape. Both are irrational notions.
The First Rational Definition of "Exist" in Human History
In physics, existence can be taken to mean a physical presence. In this case, an objective definition of "exist" would be to have a location with respect to another object, with location being the overall distance between the object in question and all other extant objects. Of course, the only thing that can have distance (separation between) in the physical sense is an object, thus objects are all that can exist. Also, the minimum number of objects that can exist in a hypothesis is two, this works out because there would be no physics to do with just one object. This leaves us with a powerful couple of criteria to determine existence: 1. Is it an object? (Does it have shape?) 2. Does it have a location?
The following are not strict guidelines or policies, rather they are the criteria of rationality to begin with. If your ideas can't be restated to agree with these points, they cannot explain, they are not scientific!
Define your terms: If your theory hinges on any terms, they must be defined crystal clear and leave no room for guessing. "Energy pushes" can't explain if energy is undefined. Alternatively, if the terms in your hypothesis don't facilitate to resolving the theory to an image or image sequence (conveniently ruling out inconsistent or oxymoronic definitions), your argument is not yet rational.
Know objects, know concepts: Objects have shape, and concepts, as relationships between objects, don't. Your theory is irrational if it uses one as if it were the other: "Energy pushes" does not explain if the definition of energy is the distance between two objects, for example.
Theory follows from the hypothesis only: The explanation must solely follow from the assumptions. You wouldn't explain by making assumptions about "energy" and then using "information" to do the pulling. In general, this criterion is only that an argument should be logically sound.
No Penrose Triangles or Escher Waterfalls allowed! Objects and mechanisms that fail to resolve to an image or image sequence also fail to explain. Classic "impossible objects" are only illusions that have no 3D form, and can only be 2D.
Descriptions are not explanations: Whether it be with words or with equations, simply saying that an object(s) move in one way or another, no matter how precisely, does not explain or lend understanding. When explaining why two objects invariably come together no matter how far they are pulled apart, assigning some number, vector, tensor, etc. to those objects, in effect, only tells you what you already know. Science is to come up with something new to cause the described events!
2014 presentation by Michael "Apollonian Germ" Huttner on the essence of science and the problems with modern 20th century science.
Just testing my webm
there is a difference between branching timelines and parallel timelines.
if you go back in time, and branching timelines is true, then your presence in the past creates a new future that branches out from the past, which your trip has not affected.
if you go back in time and parallel timelines is true, you enter a completely separate timeline, one that was, like the one you came from, premade with all past and future events (including your arrival) already in place.
The first comes from the idea that the future is created by the past, the second holds that a timeline is complete from it's point of iteration, and that time travel simply moves people from one to the other, where their trips through time have already been factored in among the many infinite number of timelines that exist wholly separate from one another.
the only thing thee two models have in common, is that they agree that time travel into the past is allowed for, and that events in the past are identical up to the point where the traveler arrives.
but in one there is one timeline with a single past splitting into many futures.
While in the other, there are many timelines, that span the distance from the beginning of the universe to it's end, and it is merely that some of these have identical pasts until a point where the rest of one timeline is different from another.
if drawn, imagine one side of the page is the beginning of the universe, and the other side it's end.
a branching timeline starts as one line drawn from the beginning towards the end, which then splits into two, and each of these split in two as well, and so on, until there is a branching tree.
a model of the parallel timelines is a bunch of straight lines going directly from the beginning of the universe to the end, never touching or intersecting.
there's another significant difference to these models, one grants a great deal of agency and importance to the time traveller, who literally serves as the catalyst for the creation of a new future.
but in parallel timelines, it may seem the same from the time traveler's perspective, but in fact, he had not served as a catalyst for the creation of anything, he merely moved from one complete timeline to another, and his trip was not even unexpected, as he was essentially fated to leave one timeline at his point of departure, and appear in the other timeline at his point of arrival, he can't even arrive off schedule (though from his perspective, he is a completely free actor).