Great video Michael. Thank you. I enjoyed watching this while I was sat eating a sandwich at the top of Mount Everest, I was gonna take a selfie but my battery run out, I was there though, it's a fact!👍😊
@@efilism You know something, a funny thing happened on my journey up that Mount Everest, it's very big and high, On my journey up there, I did pass a stationary shop, I grabbed an emergency white board and pen, you never know when you are gonna need them. So, as I said, my phone died when I was at the top, so pulled out my emergency white board to capture the proof, and you will never guess what, when I pulled out my pen, from my back trouser pocket, I'd grabbed it by its lid and it slipped out and fell down the mountain. But all was not lost, I always carry an emergency pen with me for situations like this. Problem was, Id carried my emergency pen around with me for years, never really had many situations where my emergency pen had come in to effect, well the fu¢kin thing was bone dry! Thwarted I was. Lesson learned though, now I always carry an emergency pencil, and sharpener. 👍😂
@@efilism "Here's a detailed explanation: You see, this gunk smashes into that gunk *draws arrows all over the place* and obviously it can be at a sort of skewed angle and hit off over this way *draws another arow* so this part gets more force *circles globs of dots* and it's just all so obvious, isn't it? I'm the only smart person. I had everything figured out at age 7."
Scientific models based on intuition only can lead to disastrous results. Our senses are not accurate enough alone that's why we need measuring devices. Not just our subjective viewpoint.
@@disparslab326 Yes, saying FACT over and over in his video, and then writing FACT on his white board, with a double underline is all the evidence Draft Intuition needs. If that does not convince us, we are all evil 🤣
You can't measure gravity. Objects attract each other but there is nothing between them. Which is why Einstein came up with the idea that it's the space-time itself that is bent. There are some things we might never understand. Which is why some cavemen cling to the "stuff" that they can touch, smell and possibly eat. Makes them feel safe I guess. But the core of reality seems anything but solid and easy to understand.
First, it's important to note that these can somewhat overlap. A scientific law is a descriptive statement about some kind of phenomena based on patterns that are widely seen in observations. For example, the ideal gas law describes how the pressure, volume, amount (of moles n), and temperature of a low density gas are related (PV = nRT) (and R is the ideal gas constant). This was developed through patterns identified by multiple scientists. For example, Boyle's law noted that if the temperature and amount of a gas are held constant, PV (pressure x volume) is always constant. Note that Boyle's law is a special case of the more general ideal gas law. A model is anything that can be used as a representation of some kind of physical system. The idea is that the model might make the system easier to visualize, quantify, and ideally make predictions about how the actual physical system will behave. This could be a literal physical model (like a model solar system or a model molecule that you can visualize and tinker with), or a conceptual model (like describing a system with a flowchart), or a mathematical model (potentially linking together multiple laws to describe a system). In a lot of these videos, I like to talk about what models are being used to predict the outcome of some experiment, and how we can develop and test those models, partly because the word has less baggage than law or theory in everyday use. A scientific theory is an explanation of (ideally) a wide set of observations with as few principles as possible. In order to be considered a theory (rather than a hypothesis), it must already have survived repeated testing, and ideally, predicted new phenomenon that have also been tested and verified (for example, the big bang theory predicted that there should be some extremely redshifted light left over from the big bang, only a few degrees above absolute zero, that should be nearly evenly spread across the sky, and this cosmic microwave background was detected in the 1960s.) It tries to get deeper into the "why" a system works the way it does, where a law ends at "here's the pattern we observe". For example, atomic theory is basically the idea that matter is made up of atoms. If we treat, say, the atoms in a low density gas as rigid billiard balls, we can actually derive the ideal gas law and show that temperature is directly related to the average kinetic energy of the gas. The ideal gas law describes how the gas acts, but atomic theory explains why the ideal gas law is what it is. It also explains why, in chemical reactions, elements tend to combine in simple whole number ratios, why mass is conserved in those reactions, aspects of Brownian motion, etc.
@@wotteo702 I wonder how flexible the nomenclature can be and how much history influences the terms scientists use.... see for example the standard *model* of particle physics, einstein's *theory* of general relativity, and newton's *law* of gravity maybe over time scientists become more and more reluctant to frame a theory as if its validity was absolute?
@@PhysicistMichael You mentioned _treating them as though they were rigid billard balls,_ BUT for the Van de Waals equation molecular size is important. The billard balls used with PV=nRT have no assumed size or even interactions between each other (because they are so far apart). You can use classical statistical mechanics (Maxwell: PV=NkT) or quantum mechanics to derive the equation, and there may also be other ways involving chemical potential equations. _None_ of these require _particle size_ or _self interactions; only confinement in a box,_ therefore they are _really_ assumed to be _unphysical point particles._ I'd say that if you can derive a _law of one phenomenon_ _from other physical phenomena,_ then you have a _theory._
Generally this happens fairly incrementally in individual scientific papers (unless it's a huge collaboration data release, like the first direct detection of gravitational waves, or a small paper that proposes something that they very quickly can't back up, there was a paper this summer claiming a new high temperature superconductor, but their data was extremely poor, and others quickly tested and disproved the claim). At the forefront of research, there are generally a variety of models that are making predictions, and each of those models will generally have certain parameters that enter into the model. If there are a lot of parameters that can be fit to the data, it can be hard to disprove the model (and the model therefore has less predictive power). Arguably, this can be said about a lot of models of particle physics that go beyond the standard model (predicting new particles with properties that keep changing to fit the latest data). This is hardly recent, but in some of the next Intro to Astronomy videos I'm posting, I'll be talking about the different lines of evidence for the big bang model. Hubble had detected that there was a pattern that the further away a galaxy was, the greater the observed redshift of the light from those galaxies (suggesting an expanding Universe) and in the video I posted this morning, I go through the general timeline of the early Universe as described by the big bang model. The next couple videos in that series will go through how that timeline predicts when the universe became transparent and at that moment, a lot of light from the big bang could travel through the universe freely. So the model predicts that this afterglow should still be around but VERY redshifted (the cosmic microwave background). The era of nucleosynthesis, where most of the hydrogen and helium in the universe was produced, should have produced specific ratios of H, He, He-3, and a couple other isotopes, and we can observe those in distant gas clouds. The expansion time compared to how fast stars and galaxies should form and evolve match up, the properties of the large scale structure of galaxies, and a couple other points also match the expectations from the big bang model. So that's a historic example of taking a model that makes specific predictions of new phenomena (like the CMB) and then verified those predictions through observation.
I'm glad that BS isn't a real person. He sounds like a real unpleasant character. Thanks for addressing all the 5 minute videos in this comprehensive manner. The videos all present nothing but unevidenced claims, and so require nothing more than you have provided to refuse them.
Interesting video. Unfortunately that fictional person would probably let it go in one ear and out the other. You don't need to listen when you are a fictional genius.
Thank U so much for this important lecture, sir.
Great video Michael.
Thank you.
I enjoyed watching this while I was sat eating a sandwich at the top of Mount Everest, I was gonna take a selfie but my battery run out, I was there though, it's a fact!👍😊
You don't have a whiteboard on hand to sketch what happened? As good as a photo in my book.
@@efilism You know something, a funny thing happened on my journey up that Mount Everest, it's very big and high, On my journey up there, I did pass a stationary shop, I grabbed an emergency white board and pen, you never know when you are gonna need them.
So, as I said, my phone died when I was at the top, so pulled out my emergency white board to capture the proof, and you will never guess what, when I pulled out my pen, from my back trouser pocket, I'd grabbed it by its lid and it slipped out and fell down the mountain.
But all was not lost,
I always carry an emergency pen with me for situations like this.
Problem was, Id carried my emergency pen around with me for years, never really had many situations where my emergency pen had come in to effect, well the fu¢kin thing was bone dry!
Thwarted I was.
Lesson learned though, now I always carry an emergency pencil, and sharpener. 👍😂
@@efilism "Here's a detailed explanation: You see, this gunk smashes into that gunk *draws arrows all over the place* and obviously it can be at a sort of skewed angle and hit off over this way *draws another arow* so this part gets more force *circles globs of dots* and it's just all so obvious, isn't it? I'm the only smart person. I had everything figured out at age 7."
@@michaelfowell223 That's watertight. I have no reason to not believe you. To hell with all those naysayers who doubt you!
What are you talking about?! "Sandwiches" don't exist!
Scientific models based on intuition only can lead to disastrous results.
Our senses are not accurate enough alone that's why we need measuring devices. Not just our subjective viewpoint.
It's a FACT!
@@disparslab326 Yes, saying FACT over and over in his video, and then writing FACT on his white board, with a double underline is all the evidence Draft Intuition needs. If that does not convince us, we are all evil 🤣
You can't measure gravity. Objects attract each other but there is nothing between them. Which is why Einstein came up with the idea that it's the space-time itself that is bent. There are some things we might never understand. Which is why some cavemen cling to the "stuff" that they can touch, smell and possibly eat. Makes them feel safe I guess. But the core of reality seems anything but solid and easy to understand.
DOING A GREAT JOB SIR I REALLY LIKE THE ENTIRE SERIES
related to claims vs evidence, what is the difference between scientific "law", "theory", and "model"?
First, it's important to note that these can somewhat overlap.
A scientific law is a descriptive statement about some kind of phenomena based on patterns that are widely seen in observations. For example, the ideal gas law describes how the pressure, volume, amount (of moles n), and temperature of a low density gas are related (PV = nRT) (and R is the ideal gas constant). This was developed through patterns identified by multiple scientists. For example, Boyle's law noted that if the temperature and amount of a gas are held constant, PV (pressure x volume) is always constant. Note that Boyle's law is a special case of the more general ideal gas law.
A model is anything that can be used as a representation of some kind of physical system. The idea is that the model might make the system easier to visualize, quantify, and ideally make predictions about how the actual physical system will behave. This could be a literal physical model (like a model solar system or a model molecule that you can visualize and tinker with), or a conceptual model (like describing a system with a flowchart), or a mathematical model (potentially linking together multiple laws to describe a system). In a lot of these videos, I like to talk about what models are being used to predict the outcome of some experiment, and how we can develop and test those models, partly because the word has less baggage than law or theory in everyday use.
A scientific theory is an explanation of (ideally) a wide set of observations with as few principles as possible. In order to be considered a theory (rather than a hypothesis), it must already have survived repeated testing, and ideally, predicted new phenomenon that have also been tested and verified (for example, the big bang theory predicted that there should be some extremely redshifted light left over from the big bang, only a few degrees above absolute zero, that should be nearly evenly spread across the sky, and this cosmic microwave background was detected in the 1960s.) It tries to get deeper into the "why" a system works the way it does, where a law ends at "here's the pattern we observe". For example, atomic theory is basically the idea that matter is made up of atoms. If we treat, say, the atoms in a low density gas as rigid billiard balls, we can actually derive the ideal gas law and show that temperature is directly related to the average kinetic energy of the gas. The ideal gas law describes how the gas acts, but atomic theory explains why the ideal gas law is what it is. It also explains why, in chemical reactions, elements tend to combine in simple whole number ratios, why mass is conserved in those reactions, aspects of Brownian motion, etc.
@@wotteo702 I wonder how flexible the nomenclature can be and how much history influences the terms scientists use.... see for example the standard *model* of particle physics, einstein's *theory* of general relativity, and newton's *law* of gravity
maybe over time scientists become more and more reluctant to frame a theory as if its validity was absolute?
@@wotteo702 hmmm where do you think the difference lies between conjecture and hypothesis? i see "conjecture" more often in mathematics literature
@@PhysicistMichael oh its clearer now
@@PhysicistMichael You mentioned _treating them as though they were rigid billard balls,_ BUT for the Van de Waals equation molecular size is important.
The billard balls used with PV=nRT have no assumed size or even interactions between each other (because they are so far apart).
You can use classical statistical mechanics (Maxwell: PV=NkT) or quantum mechanics to derive the equation, and there may also be other ways involving chemical potential equations. _None_ of these require _particle size_ or _self interactions; only confinement in a box,_ therefore they are _really_ assumed to be _unphysical point particles._
I'd say that if you can derive a _law of one phenomenon_
_from other physical phenomena,_ then you have a _theory._
Bob Smith, aka BS, lol.... is an entirely fictional person.
is there a recent example in your scientific field of a claim and the collection of evidence that support/discredit it?
Generally this happens fairly incrementally in individual scientific papers (unless it's a huge collaboration data release, like the first direct detection of gravitational waves, or a small paper that proposes something that they very quickly can't back up, there was a paper this summer claiming a new high temperature superconductor, but their data was extremely poor, and others quickly tested and disproved the claim). At the forefront of research, there are generally a variety of models that are making predictions, and each of those models will generally have certain parameters that enter into the model. If there are a lot of parameters that can be fit to the data, it can be hard to disprove the model (and the model therefore has less predictive power). Arguably, this can be said about a lot of models of particle physics that go beyond the standard model (predicting new particles with properties that keep changing to fit the latest data).
This is hardly recent, but in some of the next Intro to Astronomy videos I'm posting, I'll be talking about the different lines of evidence for the big bang model. Hubble had detected that there was a pattern that the further away a galaxy was, the greater the observed redshift of the light from those galaxies (suggesting an expanding Universe) and in the video I posted this morning, I go through the general timeline of the early Universe as described by the big bang model. The next couple videos in that series will go through how that timeline predicts when the universe became transparent and at that moment, a lot of light from the big bang could travel through the universe freely. So the model predicts that this afterglow should still be around but VERY redshifted (the cosmic microwave background). The era of nucleosynthesis, where most of the hydrogen and helium in the universe was produced, should have produced specific ratios of H, He, He-3, and a couple other isotopes, and we can observe those in distant gas clouds. The expansion time compared to how fast stars and galaxies should form and evolve match up, the properties of the large scale structure of galaxies, and a couple other points also match the expectations from the big bang model. So that's a historic example of taking a model that makes specific predictions of new phenomena (like the CMB) and then verified those predictions through observation.
I'm glad that BS isn't a real person. He sounds like a real unpleasant character.
Thanks for addressing all the 5 minute videos in this comprehensive manner. The videos all present nothing but unevidenced claims, and so require nothing more than you have provided to refuse them.
Interesting video. Unfortunately that fictional person would probably let it go in one ear and out the other. You don't need to listen when you are a fictional genius.
In a nutshell: if you're not sure, try as hard as possible to say "I don't know"
Yes, and ideally follow up the "I don't know" with "here's how I'm going to look for data that will either support or refute this claim"
Idk 🤷
_Beelzebob?_ 😈🤬👱