Exploring the Physical Characteristics of the Universe - What is Physical Science? [sciencetechnology-center.blogspot.com]

Exploring the Physical Characteristics of the Universe - What is Physical Science? [sciencetechnology-center.blogspot.com]

Salut à tous c'est la S7art et on se retrouve pour l'introducing d'un nouveaux membre apparent au S7art,RGK voici une création réalisez par lui même afin de vous donnez une idée de ce nouveaux membres. Sa chaine : www.youtube.com Description de l'auteur : Final Image : image.noelshack.com N'oublies pas le pouce bleu et le commentaire pour pas changer :D -RGK -Sereni7yArt

Speed Art introducing - CoDQG Science By RGK S7

Physical science is one of the so called "hard" sciences. This simply means that it is one of the foundational sciences that can be studied using the scientific method and that can produce theories that are reproducible. Physical science is often referred to as physics, and it is the study of the physical properties, processes and phenomenon of the physical world.

Motion

One of the science concepts that is studied in physical science is motion. Motion is important to study because it involves a number of remarkable physical processes in order to take place. When studying motion you will need to learn how to measure the motion in order to describe it. Some of the measurements that can be used include speed and velocity.

Energy

Energy is another science concept that is studied in physical science. The study of energy is going to cover many things including the various types of energy, how energy is transformed from one form to anothe r and how energy is transmitted from one place to another. Energy studies can also examine different sources of energy such as solar energy, wind energy and geothermal energy. This topic is also going to deal with energy sources of the future like fusion energy.

Matter

Matter is the physical manifestation of something that takes up space. When studying matter students will use descriptive qualities to explain the matter that they are studying. They will use measurements of weight, mass and dimensions in order to describe matter.

Heat

Heat is one of the most interesting concepts to learn about in physics. Heat is unique in that it is a form of energy that can give off light and that has a palpable presence. Heat energy can be used to transition matter from ice to liquid to gas. Heat can also be transitioned to mechanical energy to operate machines and to generate electricity.

Electricity and Magnetism

While many topics within physics are addressed individually, electricity and magnetism are usually covered together. This is because they are related to one another. For example, a magnetic field is motion can create an electric current, just as an electric current can create a magnetic field. This is important to remember when studying electricity and magnetism.

Force

Force is a physical science concept that relates to the ability to do work or to accelerate an object in space. Force is measured in Newtons. Force is studied in many professional fields including physics, engineering and architecture.

Waves

Waves are more complex than students first realize. Waves come in many different forms and each wave type responds differently to their environments. When discussing waves terms like frequency, amplitude, wavelength, troughs and crests are used. Some of the different types of waves in the universe include sound waves, electromagnetic waves, light waves and radiation waves. Other subjects that are commonly discussed when studying waves include: lenses, color, refraction, prisms, interference, diffraction, lasers and resonance.

Conclusion

Physical science is the science of the physical world. It is a necessary and important part of a comprehensive science education. High school students that are interested in attending a good college will need to take at least one year of physics in high school.

Recommend Exploring the Physical Characteristics of the Universe - What is Physical Science? Topics

Question by carl: How does science presupposing absolute truth relate to absolute moral truth? If science doesn't assume there are absolute laws or truths in the universe that can be known then what could one hope to learn from science, since we couldn't know anything with certainty? Likewise, if morality did not presuppose any absolute truths then how could one know what is moral? Since without any absolute moral truths one is left to wade in a sea of opinion without consensus. How useful would that model be in science? Not very. Then why is it accepted by moral relativists? If people or societies do not agree on morality does that mean morality is relative? Just because not everyone agrees on morality does not mean there is no absolute morality. That would be like saying just because there may be competing scietific theories that there is no accurate theory possible. The result would be scientific chaos. Similarily, moral relativism leads to moral chaos. @Sybil: "Yes. Morality is relative. What's your stand on Euthanasia, Abortion, Homosexuality, etc? Does that make it the "True Right" just because you say so?" Just like science morality can be determined as something that is logically consistent with a basic premise of absolute truth. Just like one can weigh competing theories of science to get at the most true theory so can one weigh competing moralities. Take Abortion for instance. If emotions are set aside the morality of abortion is rather easy to determine. If a pre-born baby is a human person then killing it is by definition murder. Thus if morality is to be consistent then a pre-born baby has the same rights as a born baby. The arguments used to justify abortion of pre-born babies could be equally applicable to already born babies. In science, to be consistent we would assume gravity applies on Jupiter as it does on earth. Similarity, if morality is to be logically consistent then morality app @Spam Mohan: "Science doesn't claim to know anything with a 100% certainty" But, it does claim that something can be known. It does claim that the universe is logical and therefore is determinable. That is an absolute claim. If the universe is not logical then we could not predict anything. If one day the sun popped into existence and the other day turn into a banana we could not do science since we could make no prediction. Just because we do not claim to have a 100% accurate theory of reality does not mean we do not claim that there is an absolute reality that is in the process of being determined. Just because the theory of gravity was developing does not mean ever mean that we denied the absolute truth of gravity. When I drop something it always fell to the floor. Gravity is a law, an absolute truth. The theory of gravity describes this absolute. Just like science uses logic and reason to determine a theory (That is it assumes that we can use logic and reason to describe an observation like say gravity), so morality uses logic and reason to determine morality. For instance, one can use reason to weigh the pros and cons of murder in society and come up with the conclusion that murder is wrong and that this statement is more logically consistent with morality than a theory that says murder is not wrong. But, in order to do so we have to assume that we can use reason and logic in order to determine morality. And, to do that we have to assume that morality itself is logical and reasonable. Thus, a morality that is not logical or reasonable can be ruled out. And, the morality that is most logically consistent and reasonable is the model that we use. This model approximates absolute morality just as a scientific model approximates physical reality. By ruling out inferior models of morality does this not imply that there is an absolute morality? Since one can not rule out an inferior model without implying that it is in fact inferior and that something else is superior. Taking this idea to its logical end implies that there is a morality that is most superior to all others and that it is logically determinable. And, eventually in theory, this model is improved until it reaches perfection and rules out all other models and is equivalent with an absolute morality. Since there is no other morality that is superior to it. Such a morality, like science, is determined by logic and reason and not opinion polls. Science would not be science if it were done by popular vote. Best answer for How does science presupposing absolute truth relate to absolute moral truth?:

Answer by Alexis
"If science doesn't assume there are absolute laws or truths in the universe that can be known then what could one hope to learn from science, since we couldn't know anything with certainty?" Where on Earth did you get *this* impression? Absolute zero. The speed of light. The mass of an electron. These are all absolute truths. Let's not even get into logical absolutes such as the Law of Identity. "If people or societies do not agree on morality does that mean morality is relative? " And this is the reason for one of my most recent articles: "The reason *I* do not rape, torture, and murder is because I am a decent human being. Ignoring for the moment the fact that my moral code is *logically* based on harm, derived from the Objective Logical Moral Default, I possess empathy and compassion. I understand what it feels like to be hurt, and there is a part of my psyche, the part that *I* would define as making me a decent human being, that compels me from the innermost core of my being to refrain from causing harm to others. The very notion of willfully and unnecessarily causing others to suffer is something I find so intrinsically revolting as to approach the level of making me physically ill. Even *if* God existed, and *did* decree rape, torture, and murder to be sins, it is first and foremost my nature as a person who does not enjoy causing harm to others that would cause me to behave morally. I would have absolutely no reason whatsoever to ask *others* why they do not rape, torture, and murder, and anyone wh o *does* ask others what stops them from doing so has revealed that it is they themselves who are an inherently amoral if not downright *immoral* person who, if they were to discover that God *doesn’t* exist, would have no compunction about committing such atrocities. If you do not understand the reason for behaving morally, refraining from causing others to suffer, and being a decent person merely and solely for their *own* sake, there is something *seriously* wrong with you." --From: "Atheism and Morality: Being Good Without God": https://sites.google.com/site/alexisbrookex/atheism-and-morality-being-good-without-god

Answer by Spam Mohan
Science doesn't claim to know anything with a 100% certainty .It draws conclusions from the evidence presented and so far , it has worked and defeated any other philosophy.

Answer by humanistheart
"Likewise, if morality did not presuppose any absolute truths then how could one know what is moral?" Logic and harm based ethics. "Similarily, moral relativism leads to moral chaos." Perhaps, it certianly did with the relative morals of the abrahamic religions like christianity anyway.

Answer by Ha ha ha!
"Since without any absolute moral truths one is left to wade in a sea of opinion without consensus" And yet there is consensus. Often uneasy consensus, but consensus nonetheless. "Then why is it accepted by moral relativists?" Again, localized consensus. I am sure your moral absolutes are in conflict with those of the typical fundamentalist Muslim. A moral relativist just calls moral absolutes what they are, opinions and preferences. "If people or societies do not agree on morality does that mean morality is relative? Just because not everyone agrees on morality does not mean there is no absolute morality." You are correct, but we have no reason to presuppose the existence of absolute morality. "That would be like saying just because there may be competing scietific theories that there is no accurate theory possible. The result would be scientific chaos. Similarily, moral relativism leads to moral chaos." Yet there are plenty of "accurate theories" of what is most preferable for a person to do, given their goals, if there are clear and reasonable cause-effect relationships that can be considered for them to achieve those goals in the best way possible. For example, we know that if we prefer not to have lung cancer, then it is "right" to avoid smoking cigarettes. It is more ambiguous where the best course of action can't be determined from considering the circumstances (what shall we do with space aliens?).

Answer by christopher
I think you made some good points. But I think society has come to use science to reason with what could be considered immoral and controversial beliefs.

Answer by Sybil
Yes. Morality is relative. What's your stand on Euthanasia, Abortion, Homosexuality, etc? Does that make it the "True Right" just because you say so? That's how it is now, and yes, there is Chaos, there are disagreements on these issues, it even gets to rallies and dramas, people get hurt, people get killed, people start to hate other people, so yes. Morality is relative and it does lead to Moral Chaos. I'm surprised you didn't see that.

Answer by Gail Jenkins
Science is about being able to predict aspects of nature and sometimes thereby controlling same - its success is obvious to most rational people. Science does not of course presuppose absolute anything, including "truth" whatever that is. Morality is often confused with ethics - just like it seems you've done. What is moral is what is acceptable to a particular group at a particular time. Again a fact that is obvious just by observing human behavior. When different groups mix then "moral chaos" of sorts can ensue until some sort of equilibrium is established. Ethics is more fundamental and can be studied and debated - things like societies trying to minimize suffering and maximize happiness can be studied. Laws evolve from such concepts so that relative peace can be kept for example.

Answer by Annsan_In_Him
Just as science depends upon absolute measurements to develop mathematical equations that prove things, and that even predict things that later can be proven scientifically, so humans need to depend upon God's absolute moral standards to steer a safe course through the chaos of an immoral world. Your point is supported by this quote from a theologian: "God is holy in character and is righteous in all His ways. An absolute standard is affirmed. There is no 'situation ethic' with God; no bending back of integrity to fit what we may deem to be convenient; no compromise. In fact, the entire thesis of the Bible stands or falls at this very point. If the moral confusions of a pluralistic, multi-faith, consumerist society may be validated by adapting principles, willy nilly, to every wandering star of fashion, then surely the Bible has nothing but its own pennyworth of suggestion to throw into the kitty of daft ideas!"

â€" [Science]

Posted in: