Re: [FRC BLOG] Bride of 2017 Updates
 

The gender, race, and orientation inclusion is really something to be proud of :D

Re: [FRC BLOG] Bride of 2017 Updates
 

In academia, a good working definition of a scientific theory is something that is "a broad, natural explanation for a wide range of phenomena. Theories are concise, coherent, systematic, predictive, and broadly applicable, often integrating and generalizing many hypotheses."

A scientific law is a tool that display a casual and repeatable relation among many scientific phenomena. These are often conveyed as mathematical equations.

Here is an example of how laws and theories can work together to further scientific conquest:

Newton, who I assume most of you may know of, devised many scientific laws that might be of some use to you. The law of universal gravitation is commonly shown as F=G((m1*m2)/r^2). Through large amounts of empirical data and inductive reasoning, Isaac Newton determined that a particle attracts all other particles in the known universe with a force directly proportional to the product of two masses and inversely proportional to the distance between them. Thankfully, we mostly just have to focus on the formula.

Isaac Newton discovered this law in the 17th century, and this discovery helped the scientific community understand how two bodies act between each other in the universe. This law helped put man on the moon. Unfortunately, the law does not help make concrete how the magic G in the formula (gravity/the gravitational constant) even works.

In the 20th century, Albert Einstein formed the Theory of Relativity. The project, which included multiple falsifiable hypotheses tested out by Einstein and other scientists, helped develop the theory. The Theory of Relativity transformed theoretical physics and essentially created and justified modern astronomy. The law of universal gravitation was a tool used in putting a man on the moon, but the theories developed by Einstein showed us how we could use that formula to do the great things aerospace engineers have done and will continue to do.

There is no Law of Evolution because such a relationship has not been distilled from the Theory of Evolution, nor has any law of evolution been concocted in a way that is divergent from or tangential to the existing theory. This does not change the fact that the Theory of Evolution is one that had falsifiable hypotheses carried out through controlled experiments.

----

I hope this post was unlike most of my posts, XaulZan11, in that it did contribute something.

Re: [FRC BLOG] Bride of 2017 Updates
 

Yah, I'll even give you a free pitchfork for your witch-hunt.

---E

Re: [FRC BLOG] Bride of 2017 Updates
 

Can I get a torch too its pretty dark here.

Re: [FRC BLOG] Bride of 2017 Updates
 

Apparently it's dark enough for posts to keep disappearing into the abyss.

Re: [FRC BLOG] Bride of 2017 Updates
 

The fire emoji doesn't work on CD, but assume this is one

Re: [FRC BLOG] Bride of 2017 Updates
 

People: Moderating should be more transparent
Mods: Let's delete just enough posts from this thread to make it completely incomprehensible to anybody who just got here (e.g. me)



Darwin was a great scientist, whether or not evolution is compatible with the stories many people are taught*. Science doesn't get to back down to religious beliefs, and neither should FIRST.

*It doesn't even matter if evolution is right or wrong. Darwin did great scientific work, there's no disputing that.

Re: [FRC BLOG] Bride of 2017 Updates
 

While I agree there was some inappropriate moderation earlier in the thread I tried to be very clear about why I deleted posts.

Bobwolf1 (anonymous troll account) made a wildly inappropriate racist post, which was deleted. He then proceeded to bully another user. His offending posts were deleted and those which quoted his posts were also deleted so that the content was no longer visible.

Re: [FRC BLOG] Bride of 2017 Updates
 

I saw the posts before you deleted them, you were absolutely correct in removing them. They were out of line and unacceptable, and your reasons for deleting them were clear and easy to follow. It's a shame other mods can't follow your example and that some are only in it for themselves.

Re: [FRC BLOG] Bride of 2017 Updates
 

This thread is becoming one of my all-time favorites. It's also a shining example of why I no longer suggest my students do research on chiefdelphi.

Sorry for the interjection; Back to your regularly scheduled derailing.

Re: [FRC BLOG] Bride of 2017 Updates
 

Can we please get back to the important stuff, this:

Re: [FRC BLOG] Bride of 2017 Updates
 

As an English teacher, I'm offended that no science fiction authors were chosen as names for fields. Asimov pretty much predicted the field of robotics.

/snark

Re: [FRC BLOG] Bride of 2017 Updates
 

Given that the division names do not affect the competition itself in any noticable way, I don't really care what division names they chose. I just don't see how it really matters.

Re: [FRC BLOG] Bride of 2017 Updates
 

I don't know why there has to be two Einstein divisions. Maybe they could rename one Asimov.

Re: [FRC BLOG] Bride of 2017 Updates
 

Maybe its one Einstein division and the winners of North and South will be invited to duke it out on Dean Kamen's helipad?