Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Medium)   When you make an assumption, you make an ass out of you and "umption." Also, that's how science progresses   (medium.com) divider line 25
    More: Interesting, conservation of energy, Niels Bohr, Quantum Fluctuation, neutrinos, precession, Rochester Institute of Technology, Marie Curie, Simon Newcomb  
•       •       •

1241 clicks; posted to Geek » on 26 Aug 2014 at 5:42 PM (21 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



25 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2014-08-26 04:22:07 PM  
When you are correct, you publish and ask for more funding. When you are wrong, you just ask for more funding. If you are nice, you'll tell people what you had thought and why it's wrong., and ask for more funding.
 
2014-08-26 05:48:46 PM  

wildcardjack: When you are correct, you publish and ask for more funding. When you are wrong, you just ask for more funding. If you are nice, you'll tell people what you had thought and why it's wrong., and ask for more funding.


Funny how subby left out all that "testing your assumption to see if you should continue operating with it or find a new assumption to explain what you're seeing, and then testing that new assumption out" part of scientific research.
 
2014-08-26 05:55:03 PM  
You make an ass out of you and "mption"

FTFY
 
2014-08-26 05:57:37 PM  
In our house, assuming makes an ass out of you and Yumi, some poor Japanese girl whose day just constantly gets shiattier.
 
2014-08-26 06:00:32 PM  
That's a sweet ass-umption.
 
2014-08-26 06:01:34 PM  
"You're an ASS and the UMP will SHUN you"
 
2014-08-26 06:10:19 PM  
Not clicking. I've yet to click on a medium.com link that was worth the waste of electrons, and I'm not clicking again.
 
2014-08-26 06:13:30 PM  
Ok ill do science then.

I assume there is a god and will assume so until someone disproves it to me.
 
2014-08-26 06:16:40 PM  
 
2014-08-26 06:25:05 PM  
Generally the word we use for a scientific assumption is "hypothesis".  Take the sum of your knowledge, use it to make a guess, then see where that takes you (or if it doesn't work).

Well, simplifying hypotheses (e.g. "I wonder how close the model will get if we assume x") are maybe a subset, but the general principle is just the hypothesis part of the method.
 
2014-08-26 06:56:55 PM  

czetie: Not clicking. I've yet to click on a medium.com link that was worth the waste of electrons, and I'm not clicking again.


I wasn't that bad (though I didn't read the part on neutrinos). It was about how Newton assumed an integral power, 2, in his law of gravitation rather than saying something near 2 - in fact the problem of Mercury's precession can be handled with a power of 2.0000001574 .

Jim_Callahan: Generally the word we use for a scientific assumption is "hypothesis". Take the sum of your knowledge, use it to make a guess, then see where that takes you (or if it doesn't work).


No, assumptions can be different than hypothesies - assuming simple explanations such as the constants are natural numbers, rather than possibly negative, rational, real, complex, quaternionic, etc.

Of course theories developed with natural numbers may or may not have interesting generalizations to less simple numbers.
 
2014-08-26 07:13:36 PM  

HairBolus: No, assumptions can be different than hypothesies - assuming simple explanations such as the constants are natural numbers, rather than possibly negative, rational, real, complex, quaternionic, etc.


You can use assumptions to form hypotheses so long as you eventually go back and confirm your assumptions.
 
2014-08-26 07:16:13 PM  

Bob Down: You make an ass out of you and "mption"

FTFY


Ass out of ump and tion
 
2014-08-26 07:20:18 PM  

HairBolus: I wasn't that bad (though I didn't read the part on neutrinos). It was about how Newton assumed an integral power, 2, in his law of gravitation rather than saying something near 2 - in fact the problem of Mercury's precession can be handled with a power of 2.0000001574 .


The thing with this article, though, is that Mercury's precession being inaccurately predicted by Newton isn't due to the inverse square law actually being a power very near but not quite 2, but rather that time dilation plus the (assumed) light-speed limitation of gravity is causing this - effects that cannot be adjusted for universally by Universal Gravitation.

Using a power of 2.0000001574  is only accurate for Mercury; using it for Jupiter is wrong, because Jupiter isn't experiencing nearly as much time dilation due to be farther from the Sun's gravity well.
 
2014-08-26 07:57:17 PM  
pronounced with an umpty?
 
2014-08-26 09:15:48 PM  
They call this website Medium because it isn't well done.

/with all due respect to Waldorf and Stattler
 
2014-08-26 09:36:39 PM  

drumhellar: Using a power of 2.0000001574  is only accurate for Mercury; using it for Jupiter is wrong, because Jupiter isn't experiencing nearly as much time dilation due to be farther from the Sun's gravity well.


LOL.

I guess you can have a constant frame of reference, but different physics for everything in the universe...

or...

you can have a constant set of physics for everything in the universe, but no universal frame.

I never thought of it that way before.
 
2014-08-26 10:03:25 PM  
http://m.xkcd.com/1339/

/oblig
//on the mobile so can't readily imbed
 
2014-08-26 11:30:52 PM  

HairBolus: It was about how Newton assumed an integral power, 2, in his law of gravitation rather than saying something near 2


If you assume gravity as uniformly distributed, its total energy will be equal at all sphere's at all distances. But it's power will be energy/surface area. As it happens, the surface area of a sphere is exactly proportional to the square of the distance.
 
2014-08-26 11:35:25 PM  

drumhellar: The thing with this article, though, is that Mercury's precession being inaccurately predicted by Newton isn't due to the inverse square law actually being a power very near but not quite 2, but rather that time dilation plus the (assumed) light-speed limitation of gravity is causing this - effects that cannot be adjusted for universally by Universal Gravitation.

Using a power of 2.0000001574  is only accurate for Mercury; using it for Jupiter is wrong, because Jupiter isn't experiencing nearly as much time dilation due to be farther from the Sun's gravity well.


Yep, and going to my answer above, Newton assumed time and space were constant, if they weren't then that assumption fails for things like density and power. But the effects of relativity were so small, that they were below the error of measurements of the time.
 
2014-08-27 12:18:44 AM  

impaler: HairBolus: It was about how Newton assumed an integral power, 2, in his law of gravitation rather than saying something near 2

If you assume gravity as uniformly distributed, its total energy will be equal at all sphere's at all distances. But it's power will be energy/surface area. As it happens, the surface area of a sphere is exactly proportional to the square of the distance.


Not necessarily talking to you specifically, but there's a great book by Asimov called "On Chemistry" which sort of winds through some of the early dudes' thinking about the physical world. It offers great insight on why we think things are the way we think we are, and how we got to thunking them. Kind of like you just said.
 
2014-08-27 12:28:00 AM  

sxacho: impaler: HairBolus: It was about how Newton assumed an integral power, 2, in his law of gravitation rather than saying something near 2

If you assume gravity as uniformly distributed, its total energy will be equal at all sphere's at all distances. But it's power will be energy/surface area. As it happens, the surface area of a sphere is exactly proportional to the square of the distance.

Not necessarily talking to you specifically, but there's a great book by Asimov called "On Chemistry" which sort of winds through some of the early dudes' thinking about the physical world. It offers great insight on why we think things are the way we think we are, and how we got to thunking them. Kind of like you just said.

 
2014-08-27 12:29:11 AM  
Whoops.

Meant to add to my last post above: "Just searched kindle, no results. Sad"

I'll find it. Sounds like a good read.
 
2014-08-27 03:54:35 AM  

impaler: Yep, and going to my answer above, Newton assumed time and space were constant, if they weren't then that assumption fails for things like density and power. But the effects of relativity were so small, that they were below the error of measurements of the time.


You'd be surprised at how accurate measurements were back then. Hipparchus discovered the Earth's axial precession at around 150 BC using  detailed measurements recorded by Babylonian astronomers.

It didn't take long to realize that Mercury's orbit didn't fit Newton's predictions as well as the other planets, as there had been centuries or detailed accounting of it's orbit for astronomers to compare with, but Newton's methods were vastly more accurate at predicting the location of Mercury in the future that it didn't really matter.
 
2014-08-27 10:05:11 AM  
There are some areas that some people call science that fail to test their assumptions looking for errors or discrepancies and they tell you that THEIR science is `settled` unlike EVERY other area of science.

Things like that can make people doubt the scientific process is being followed in certain cases.

Not looking for errors and not accepting when errors are pointed out makes the science less solid and less valid as a result.
 
Displayed 25 of 25 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report