e-prime sucks and so do you.

[Triple Zero]

Not to mention, doesn't most "hard" science do it's best to remove the observer from the experiment?

sometimes. depends on your style. there's also a line of scientific writing that writes the entire description as "we did this" and "we did that", sometimes even if only one person did the research.

the important thing is to pick a style and stick to it.

this is actually one of the things i find hardest about scientific writing. writing the whole paper in the passive form also becomes unnatural after a while. and i'm not gonna use "we" unless i got co-authors (and even then rather not).
fortunately when i read the papers i reference, i notice a lot of people suck a lot harder at writing proper english, or with writing style in general. though you can clearly see writing style will improve with experience (even if knowledge of the english language doesn't).

Please, don't post quantum physics bullshit at me.  I'm in no mood to explain it, again.

you know i wanted to

[ñͤͣ̄ͦ̌̑͗͊͛͂͗ ̸̨̨̣̺̼̣̜͙͈͕̮̊̈́̈͂͛̽͊ͭ̓͆ͅé ̰̓̓́ͯ́́͞]

Not to mention, doesn't most "hard" science do it's best to remove the observer from the experiment?

Please, don't post quantum physics bullshit at me.  I'm in no mood to explain it, again.

NEEDS MOAR EXPLAINING.

[LMNO]

Ok.

It seems to me that a lot of science wants to say what happens to an object, not what happens to the person observing the object.

Which is why they set up reproduicible experiments, and why they do the experiment  many, many times. 

Also as an example in the theoretical sciences, Einstein's special relativity theory removes the observer from the equation.

[ñͤͣ̄ͦ̌̑͗͊͛͂͗ ̸̨̨̣̺̼̣̜͙͈͕̮̊̈́̈͂͛̽͊ͭ̓͆ͅé ̰̓̓́ͯ́́͞]

Ok.

It seems to me that a lot of science wants to say what happens to an object, not what happens to the person observing the object.

Which is why they set up reproduicible experiments, and why they do the experiment  many, many times. 

Also as an example in the theoretical sciences, Einstein's special relativity theory removes the observer from the equation.

Ok.

What's the issue with 000's take on quantum physics?

Where's that thread where you two were getting on hot and heavy over this?

(Thread roont in 3...2...1)

[LMNO]

I think it had to do with a general misunderstanding of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle.

[Triple Zero]

.. he proposed to my mum, but she said she wasn't sure and needed more time.

it is said this was the only moment in Heisenberg's life when he was painfully aware of both his position and velocity.

[LMNO]

[ñͤͣ̄ͦ̌̑͗͊͛͂͗ ̸̨̨̣̺̼̣̜͙͈͕̮̊̈́̈͂͛̽͊ͭ̓͆ͅé ̰̓̓́ͯ́́͞]

Heh.

Now where were we?

eventually there comes a point where most definitive statements stop working

'is' is a fallacy in most situations


the word carries connotations of static and rigidity - two things that are very uncommon where we live


use it if it works for you
just
dont allow yourself to be fooled


unless you want to fool yourself
which is a different story altogether


science is a great way to observe things
but
the number of variables involved in any particular situation are prolly beyond our comprehension

and if they are not beyond our comprehension - then they are beyond our ability to communicate


still - the scientific process is by far the best (possibly only) approach to take to investigating one's surroundings

before it was even defined - it was prolly the default approach man was already using



its natural

defining it is almost like taking the time to define what triggers a inhale of breath to the lungs

Case closed.

[B_M_W]

i had a semi-rant like BMWs up there waiting to be posted, but i closed the window because i thought it was too much grumpy early morning bitching. suffice to say, i agree with what BMW said.

but i should stick to that general layout more often. it's easier and more thorough than making up a logical structure yourself.

btw, you left out the "future work" section, which is IMO a prime e-prime candidate (heh) because it basically consists of speculations (which you'd love to research but it's been long enough and you're past the deadline already).

As far as I know, future work is usually listed as part of discussion or conclusion. Also, while you shouldn't use we unless you are working with a team, you should still use third person in scientific style. And passive tense; although this may seem like poor english its proper for science writing. Maybe the styles are different in different fields but in biology this is the setup and format that is communally respective.

[Iron Sulfide]

i take issue with the removal of the observer from scientific language.

aside from the obvious subjectivity of the observer,
the person observing has bias, inflection, suspicion,
obligation to monetary backers, and the such.

to remove the observer is to break the continuity of
any given system (not to say it won't produce reproducable
results.) and inasmuch, any system you encounter in
math or physics, etc, will be affected by any and all other juxtaposed
systems, including the observer in itself.

there's a reason republicans always see godless heathens
destroying the moral fabric of society/family values/ the economy, etc...
regardless of the evidence, and other factors.
(not to confuse republicans with scientists.)

[LMNO]

Dude.


You asked for it.


Einstein insists that the laws of motion must not depend upon ourselves.

Einstein insisted that Newton's Second Law be altered to account for the independence of lightspeed from the steady motion of a moving reference frame. This program of special relativity ("special" because the reference frame speed must be constant, not accelerating) swept through all the theories of particle motion and gave them a new and simpler form.

Einstein's vision, however, went far deeper than simply reconciling the new features of Maxwell's formulas with the old Newtonian mechanics. He believed that the rules governing the dance of atoms should be entirely free of any merely contingent features. In particular, he believed the rules should not depend upon where or when or from what perspective they happen to be observed.

This is not so easy to arrange. A surveyor will typically express distances and times relative to arbitrary points of reference, like the prime meridian, or Greenwich mean time. These choices clearly depend upon who draws the maps. Einstein wanted the rules of motion to depend only upon relative distances, which we might call "separations," and relative times or durations.

Similarly, motions are usually measured with respect to a platform the observer defines to be stationary, such as the (daily rotating!) surface of the planet earth. So Einstein wanted the rules to depend only on relative velocities, as well as relative distances and times. This is why the whole program is called the theory of relativity. It is a systematic effort to eliminate the point of view of the observer completely from the laws of motion. The special theory of relativity managed to adjust the laws of motion known at the time ,Äì Newton's and Maxwell's ,Äì to be independent of the position, orientation, historical moment of time, and any constant speed, of the observer.

But an observer could be moving with a non-constant speed, jumping up and down for example, or accelerating in some other complicated way like the deck of a tossing ship. And this causes trouble in the theory. Newton's law is a rule specifically about accelerations. Unlike uniform motion, which we cannot detect, we can always "feel" accelerations (except ,Äì and this is a clue ,Äì when we are falling). That is the basic experience the Second Law itself summarizes. How can we separate "real" forces from the merely apparent forces inflicted by our own personal, arbitrary, motion?

These apparent forces are familiar. As an automobile (frame of reference) speeds around a curve, the passengers sense a force pulling them to the outside of the curve. They call it centrifugal force, but there is nothing there to pull them. They are only feeling the effect of the First Law of Motion, which declares the tendency of bodies (theirs) to move in a straight line. As the auto's path is curving, the passengers' straight trajectories would pass right through its side if they were not pulled along with the auto by friction against the seat and by the seat belts. We attribute the pressure of the belts upon our bodies to a fictitious "centrifugal force."

Distinguishing real from apparent forces seems hopeless so long as we express the Rules of the Dance in terms of the observed acceleration. According to Einstein's program, therefore, some other formulation of the Second Law of Motion must be found that does not refer to accelerations. This seems an absurdly radical idea, given that the whole point of Newton's Law is to relate accelerations to forces. Einstein persisted because he was convinced that the deep truths of nature do not depend in any way upon how we choose to view them.

-JHMIII

[East Coast Hustle]

that is the single best explanation of the theory of relativity that I have ever read.

[LMNO]

I learn from the best.

[Triple Zero]

is that from your dad's book, LMNO?

[LMNO]

Yupper.  Page 24.