Skip to comments.Dinosaur-Bird Flap Ruffles Feathers
Posted on 10/11/2005 4:07:11 AM PDT by mlc9852
click here to read article
With a name like Stochastic who am I to argue.
I do remember from my physic text that Einstein was a difficult sell. But Richard Feynman was the man who put Quantum physics over the top.
Kuhn was mostly right however. IMO.
Predator or Prey?
Somewhere there's also this picture of a samll optimistic just-out-of-kittenhood cat leaping at a huge Japanese Sea Eagle
I haven't read Kuhn in decades, so I'm going on memory. But I don't recall a lot of discussion on quantum theory. I could be wrong.
That said, I thought about the fact of quantum theory being excepted relatively quickly and how it relates to Kuhn's thesis. Kuhn stressed the "priority of the paradigm". He cited as an example the over throw of the geocentric paradigm by Kepler and Galileo's heliocentric paradigm as an example.
But an essential part of his thesis was that a new paradigm would not be established until a superior one was well vetted and excepted. Excepted mainly by the younger scientists who don't have a vested interest in the old paradigm.
Most anyone who has spent a career in engineering and/or science can vouch for this as a fact of human nature. How does the saying go? "You can't teach and old dog new tricks".
As far as quantum theory goes it never replaced existing paradigms. It was a new theory of the subatomic world. Just as Einsteins theory of relatively never replaced Newton's laws of motion, quantum never challenged either, except in special circumstances. I see the theory of relativity as an addendum to Newton. We will still us Newtonian mechanics to get us to the moon.
Although quantum theory was and still is a radical break from Newton it's essentially limited to the micro world although it does have macro world applications.
There was never a fundamental replacement issue, although it did give Einstein heart burn. Remember his famous quote: "
..God doesn't play dice with the universe".
My pleasure. Thanks for the good review. I still haven't told the story of the headless chicken who knew where she was going, or the territory squabble between my wife and a Canada goose.
"I can't top it, but I do have a little story from when I was about the same age as you were. I was kind of a city boy, but my uncle and grandfather were outdoorsmen so I've hunted and cleaned game fowl. One day I invited a friend over for dinner. My grandmother was making roast dove. My friend has never had dove, but I guaranteed he would like it because grandma was such a good cook.
"As soon as the plate was set in front of him, we all instantly knew something was wrong. There was no outward expression, but his eyes betrayed something deep welling up inside him. He excused himself and made a beeline for the bathroom. I don't suppose he had confronted the idea of where food came from, and to his eyes he was looking at nothing but a crispy bird carcass with the head and feet lopped off. Grampa and I spilt his portion (not wanting it to go to waste) while grandma went to go check on him. We cleared the table, and I think grandma boiled him a hot dog.
Did anyone ever think to show him where the material inside a hot dog comes from? Or would that be too mean?
It doesn't really ensure a higher number of chicken deaths though, they'll just serve the next customer the remains of both chickens. Probably make him feel much better though and that is more important than the actual number of dead chickens roaming around in restaurants.
It wasn't my best Sunday.
Maybe not in the eyes of the public, for which it's all mysterious, but it was pretty wrenching for the community that actually had to understand it. As you have noted with the case of Einstein.
Indeed it was. But we will still use newtonian mechanics when we return to the moon.
The computer chips that calculate the Newtonian trajectories will be designed using quantum mechanics.
And indeed, to get to Mars Newtonian mechanics is insufficient. Mars probes have to correct for Einstein. Likewise GPS gives the wrong answers unless you correct for relativistic effects.
We could get to Mars with Newton, perhaps not as directly or efficiently. We could probably do it with vacuum tubes and slide rules, also. It's a matter of decimal places.
I imagine that you'd get to Mars in the end if you course corrected on the way and used more fuel than the most efficient trajectory. If you aim from earth using Newton you'll miss Mars orbit. I have this on authority from Radio Astronomer, whose job it actually is to calculate the orbits.
"High Precision Orbit Propagator (HPOP) has been updated with relativistic accelerations to model the effects of general relativity in accordance with IERS, Technical Note 21, IERS Conventions (1996)."
Side Note: A non-relativistic orbit propagator (Newtonian only) should get you there, however, for VLBI, GPS, timing, high accuracy, etc. relativity is taken into account. :-)
Well...yes. They will fine tune their calculations to be more precise. But they will still use Newtonian Mechanics in their calculations. Newton's laws are still valid in normal circumstances. But sometimes requires tweaking. That was the point I was trying to make.
Newtonian Mechanics are still taught in engineering schools. As opposed to say 'phlogiston theory'.
I guess there is quite a nice analogy here between mechanics and biology. It is possible that the equivalent of general relativity will come along and alter how we see evolutionary theory at the edges and in extreme circumstances. But evolutionary theory is so well verified by millions of real-world observations that our current understanding would continue to be valid under normal circumstances.
Well, newsgatherer sure isn't going to... : )
My bad - he wasn't a museum guide - he was a teacher. Same deal though.
If you think that's outlandish you should see the people who think all that there is and all that one can know can all be explained by one old book mostly written by folks who took 40 years to make a three week hike through the desert.
Your post was fascinating. Thank you.
Ah, but that is not nearly as dumb, no dumb is not a good word, STUPID, ya, stupid is a better and more accurate desciriptive word, as believing that Billlions and billions of years ago in a galaxy far, far away there was nothing....
Ah, no wonder they call them the Darwin Awards!
|GGG managers are SunkenCiv, StayAt HomeMother & Ernest_at_the_Beach|
Why are there flying squirrels? (Yes, you asked about feathered wings, but I will get there via squirrels.)
Because it is safer to glide, tree-to-tree, than to scamper down to the ground and risk death just to get to another tree. When a mutation occurs with a squirrel having skin flaps allowing it to get some lift and glide between trees, that genetic adaptation is passed along to its offspring. All are more likely to survive than a squirrel running a terrestrial gauntlet of predators.
Squirrels haven’t developed wings but they use the extensive skin flaps between foreleg and rear leg, right and left, to glide between trees.
The same survival need probably provided the opportunity for a mutation, which normally would not be of any import, to become the impetus for winged dinosaurs.
There are fossils of winged dinosaurs that used skin, similiar to squirrels, instead of feathers. These creatures were quite large and ungainly on land, but from where the fossils have been found, they flew huge distances across oceans, breeding in one geographical area (fossil remains of nests) and traveling to other continents for feeding, a migratory pattern seen today in many animals.
Mind, you asked about why feathers exist. Feathers seem to be an adaption to cold weather, a mutation of scales (feathers and scales are made from the same material as our fingernails), and functioned as insulation to trap air and maintain body warmth. Later, insulating feathers developed into stiff feathers beneficial to flight, and it may just be luck for those creatures, or the intervention of God, that the adaptation occurred.
Yes, I believe in God. I also believe that the laws governing the functioning of our universe come from God, and that scientists, knowing or unknowing, are discovering those laws.