Re: Zetetic Method Vs Scientific Method Notes
« Reply #20 on: January 14, 2017, 07:30:45 PM »

color mixing has nothing to do with how astronomers deduce the chemical composition of the sun.  i may not have explained myself very well.

your guy says, "...the colours seen through [a prism], red, orange, yellow, blue, are said to be the result of the various metals contained in the sun in a state of fusion..."  this is not at all correct.  the colors seen through a prism are said to be the result of the fact that the sun is hot.  that's it.

any hot, dense object will emit light across the entire visible spectrum (there are caveats, but none of import here).  it has nothing to do with fusion, only the temperature of the object.  when you use a prism to break the light up into a rainbow, that rainbow is called a "continuous" spectrum.

if there is a cooler gas between the light from the hot object, and the prism, then the rainbow you get will be missing some specific wavelengths of light.  if there is a cloud of cool hydrogen between a light bulb and a prism, then the gas may absorb all the photons with a wavelength of 410nm, for example.  the rainbow produced by the prism will be missing that one wavelength of light.  like this:



the point here is the location of these absorption features is only a function of the composition of the cool gas through which the light passes.  astronomers do not use spectral analysis to explain fusion in the core; they use it to deduce the chemical composition of the sun.  winship's spectra do not indicate that light bulbs involve fusion; they indicate that light bulb filaments are hot.
« Last Edit: January 15, 2017, 02:03:31 AM by Tom Bishop »
Go FLIP yourself in a MUTHAFLIPPIN SACK

Re: Zetetic Method Vs Scientific Method Notes
« Reply #21 on: January 15, 2017, 03:38:33 PM »
why was my post edited? nbd, just curious. was the image i linked doing something funky?
Go FLIP yourself in a MUTHAFLIPPIN SACK

Offline Flatout

  • *
  • Posts: 100
    • View Profile
Re: Zetetic Method Vs Scientific Method Notes
« Reply #22 on: January 21, 2017, 07:49:11 AM »
It's quite possible to draw wrong conclusions from an observation.   This is why the conclusion needs to be tested via experimentation, prediction, and further testing.  The conclusion one draws is a hypothesis.  To say that zetetic conclusion is more pure is simply silly.   That conclusion is a hypothesis until fully tested, evaluated, and peer reviewed.  In the end the only scientific things that ultimately have value are ones that can be used to create predictions for use.   Ultimately people use science that has predictive capabilities to build, create, and invent solutions to problems.  A hypothesis that never undergoes the scrutiny of predictive testing is useless to mankind.  It only fills discussion boards with rubbish.     
« Last Edit: January 21, 2017, 07:50:52 AM by Flatout »