The Science of Life

All physical scientists, regardless of the field of study (both on the experimental side and on the theory side), rely upon past experiments.  Regardless of how purely theoretical the work of any particular scientist tends to be, the foundation of the theoretical work is solidified in experiment.  I challenge you to present a case where this is not the case which is not philosophy.  Think very carefully about and thoroughly background check any example you come up with before being set in presenting the example; chances are phenomenal (100%, actually) that either it is based on experiment or is philosophy. Since I am a student of science, I wish to understand experiment construction, running, and replication.  I also wish to have everybody else understand the process of experimenting and why it is so important to the process of science. First, we need to understand why experiments are performed.  Everything about any given experiment follows from the reason for experimentatio

Addendum: For those of you who got here through a search related to Environmental Law, I apologize.  This post is regarding the physics Laws of Thermodynamics as related to Climate Change, not Environmental Law. I have a weird hypothesis (see my Theory Blog for the term Hypothesis) regarding a possible additional cause of climate change. This hypothesis does not substantiate or rebute any other proposed cause for the planet changing as it is; it does, however, depend on the Greenhouse Effect theory, which is the theory that certain gases in Earths atmosphere prevent a fraction of energy (as heat) from leaving the Earth into space. It is named for the Greenhouse, a type of building used to emulate tropical conditions for the purpose of gardening. Think on this: Fossil fuels are used to produce energy for many processes. The fast motion of your vehicle to get you to your destination quickly while in air conditioning is a very common example of this kind of process. There ar

I will begin with a conclusion which is... uncomfortable to say the least.  Then I will walk through how this conclusion was reached.  It is something which will have you call bullshit on me off the bat, but please hear me out (or read me out?).  I have written a theoretical ecology paper last summer which shows that the human population will stop growing no later than 2031, and will drop (not plateau) shortly thereafter.  The cause?  Resource depletion.  Please, read me out. Now, how did I come to this conclusion?  By the power of maths! In ecology, there is a situation where, when a major cause of death for a species is removed, the population of that species goes through what is called exponential growth .  This is where the rate of change (percent change) is constant, and since the population today is more than it was yesterday, the greater the net change.  Let's say the percent change is 1% and we started with $100.  Tomorrow, we would have $100+($100x0.01)=$101.  Th

Spoilers: Theory is not what you may think.  Really, what you think the definition is for the word theory is actually closer to the definition for the word hypothesis. I've heard people utilize the word "theory" as if they think it means "a random thought which popped into ones head for no reason."  As if these people honestly believe that a theory is on the same level as the statement "Woah, the platypus is proof that God is a toker bro."  I assure you, this is definitely not the case.  This concept of people saying "Just a Theory" has always bugged me, for as far back as I can remember.  (I'm looking at you, MatPat.) I will now try to get everybody to have a sense for what the word theory really means when applied to science. Let me begin by defining what a scientific hypothesis means to those who develop science.  The word hypothesis is a statement of rudimentary observation with no systematic testing or method of rigorou