Well we've got the "I can do science" thread, so I thought it would be good if people could post things in a similar vain but make the posts relate to where they believe there are flaws in science.
I'll start.
This one is more related to mathematics, but because most scientific theories are only "proven" viamathematical means, it's still science in my book. 😉
A simple bit of algebra:
x = 0.9999999999.... (recurring)
10x = 9.9999999999.... (recurring)
10x - x = 9.9999999999... (recurring) - 0.9999999999... (recurring)
So the left hand side of this is the same as:
10x - x = 9x
And the right hand side works out to be:
9.9999999999... (recurring) - 0.9999999999... (recurring) = 9
Therefore:
9x = 9
x = 9/9
x = 1.
But hang on! Wasn't x = 0.9999999999.... (recurring)
This is the reason that mathematicians say that something like 0.9999999999.... (recurring) is just as good sa saying it's 1.
Note: This isn't a trick maths puzzle, it's proper mathematical proof for saying that 0.9999999999.... (recurring) = 1.
Now that's a flaw as far as I'm concerned. [&:]
Love and Reiki Hugs
RE: Flawed Science
could you repeat that Energylz[sm=speechless-smiley-008.gif]:)
RE: Flawed Science
I don't think science has any particular claim that it is not "flawed". But, before you candefine "flaws" you need todefine truth or consistency, whichopens a can of worms.
The example you have given is not actually a valid proof, although it is widely quoted as one. The mathematical operations +, -, x, / etc. are actually very specifically defined and do not strictly apply to recurring numbers (which are not actually numbers but shorthand for number series). The mathematical concept of what is known as "the limit of a series" explains how to handle such a "proof".
Having said that, there is actually a mathematical proof that shows that mathematics is not consistent! If you look up Godel Theorem (have fun!) you can find a mathematicaldiscourse on consistency.
[link= http://www.miskatonic.org/godel.html ]http://www.miskatonic.org/godel.html[/link]
RE: Flawed Science
ORIGINAL: wayfarer
recurring numbers (which are not actually numbers but shorthand for number series).
So are you saying that,for example,1/3 (i.e. 0.33333... recurring) is not a number?
Sure as hell was the last time I looked. 😉
RE: Flawed Science
ORIGINAL: Energylz
ORIGINAL: wayfarer
recurring numbers (which are not actually numbers but shorthand for number series).So are you saying that,for example,1/3 (i.e. 0.33333... recurring) is not a number?
Sure as hell was the last time I looked. 😉
In informal mathematics it is used as a number. In formal mathematics they donot. Have you studied formal mathematics? They say - "the limit as n tendsto infinity of the series3/10 + 3/100 + 3/1000 + 3/10000 + 3/(10^n)" instead. The limit is a number and is equal to 1/3, but the series is not a number.