Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,585 Year: 2,842/9,624 Month: 687/1,588 Week: 93/229 Day: 4/61 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Question About the Universe
Colbard
Member (Idle past 3381 days)
Posts: 300
From: Australia
Joined: 08-31-2014


Message 86 of 373 (739536)
10-24-2014 9:16 PM


Guessing about guesses
Any guess or theory as a more formal way of saying it, is as good as anyone else's.
Since I heard of evolution, the time periods for the beginning of our world and the universe have been increasing at an exponential rate, and the theories of how it all began have also, changed and expanded and become more complex, until now, when everything is being questioned, and dismissed, one at a time.
It won't be long before all those who hold on to today's theories will be old fashioned, delusional and so wrong.
But for the time being they KNOW, they really do, they KNOW how it all happened, and everyone else is so wrong and so deluded.

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by Percy, posted 10-25-2014 7:33 AM Colbard has not replied
 Message 88 by Theodoric, posted 10-25-2014 10:18 AM Colbard has not replied
 Message 89 by NoNukes, posted 10-25-2014 12:52 PM Colbard has not replied
 Message 93 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-25-2014 9:46 PM Colbard has not replied
 Message 110 by Astrophile, posted 10-28-2014 9:11 AM Colbard has replied

  
Colbard
Member (Idle past 3381 days)
Posts: 300
From: Australia
Joined: 08-31-2014


Message 90 of 373 (739605)
10-25-2014 7:28 PM


The attitude of science itself proclaims to be progressive in it's conclusions, along with the rate of discovery, so it really does not need "righteous defenders of the faith"who call others ignorant and delusional.
A true scientific mind does not reject something on face value but asks, how and why it may be so.
There is nothing wrong with guessing, it is the part of reasoning which uses trial and error, and a theory is just such a process. A theory may have certain gain and headway, but if we can see it is working it does not make "theory" suddenly become an indispensable truth or even a method of truth. It always is just guessing - methodical or not.
Once science stops guessing and proclaims to know it all, then we can be certain that the road to discovery has come to a dead end.
The fact about human thought is, and if you have not recognized this you are positively immature, that we can think we are on a right and workable track, which at some time comes to an end we are not prepared for.
If this happens in reality, then even the accumulative and agreeable thoughts of humanity cannot be an ultimate criterion for truth, as history proves.
Does this mean that whatever we discover has no basis in reality whatsoever?
No not at all, but every reality has to have a greater context than itself.
The flat earth is a reality, we don't build houses on a rounded slab, but it has a greater context, the earth is a sphere.
Any greater context, may not be applicable to what it includes, it may not even be able to be discovered, and yet it is there.
The very fact that knowledge has no limits, indicates that the universe has greater contexts than we can fathom.
In regards to the theories of the state of the universe, these can all be null and void through a simple context. Yet if such a context is discovered it should and will verify what has been conjectured, and sort out what was applicable or not.

Replies to this message:
 Message 91 by Coyote, posted 10-25-2014 7:45 PM Colbard has not replied
 Message 92 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-25-2014 9:42 PM Colbard has replied
 Message 108 by Percy, posted 10-26-2014 10:30 AM Colbard has replied

  
Colbard
Member (Idle past 3381 days)
Posts: 300
From: Australia
Joined: 08-31-2014


Message 94 of 373 (739614)
10-25-2014 10:15 PM
Reply to: Message 92 by Dr Adequate
10-25-2014 9:42 PM


So the topic has invited some clarification or insight into the nature of the universe.
So to be able to contribute, you must have done your own research.
However, if you have not and are just reflecting the thoughts and opinions of others, the popular material that's already out there, then you have nothing to say except whatever is fashionable and accepted.
I am fairly certain that "anything outside the box is delusional" is not really science, but I could be wrong. maybe it is a cult that needs trumpet blowers, warning of the invasion of thoughts outside the fortress.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-25-2014 9:42 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 95 by Coyote, posted 10-25-2014 10:24 PM Colbard has replied
 Message 96 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-25-2014 10:30 PM Colbard has replied
 Message 111 by Theodoric, posted 10-28-2014 9:24 AM Colbard has replied

  
Colbard
Member (Idle past 3381 days)
Posts: 300
From: Australia
Joined: 08-31-2014


Message 97 of 373 (739622)
10-25-2014 10:57 PM
Reply to: Message 96 by Dr Adequate
10-25-2014 10:30 PM


"god damned liar and a fool" are religious terms, and not science, the very thing you claim to uphold?
Are we talking in a scientific community or in a cult?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-25-2014 10:30 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 99 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-25-2014 11:05 PM Colbard has not replied

  
Colbard
Member (Idle past 3381 days)
Posts: 300
From: Australia
Joined: 08-31-2014


Message 98 of 373 (739623)
10-25-2014 11:00 PM
Reply to: Message 95 by Coyote
10-25-2014 10:24 PM


"Fossils" in your own belief system are not significant when it comes to the age of the universe.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by Coyote, posted 10-25-2014 10:24 PM Coyote has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 100 by Coyote, posted 10-25-2014 11:09 PM Colbard has replied

  
Colbard
Member (Idle past 3381 days)
Posts: 300
From: Australia
Joined: 08-31-2014


Message 101 of 373 (739628)
10-25-2014 11:13 PM
Reply to: Message 100 by Coyote
10-25-2014 11:09 PM


The thread topic in part deals with the age or beginnings of the universe, in your realm of thought fossils would have been very rare at the time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by Coyote, posted 10-25-2014 11:09 PM Coyote has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 102 by Coyote, posted 10-25-2014 11:16 PM Colbard has not replied
 Message 103 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-25-2014 11:18 PM Colbard has not replied

  
Colbard
Member (Idle past 3381 days)
Posts: 300
From: Australia
Joined: 08-31-2014


Message 104 of 373 (739633)
10-25-2014 11:46 PM


I know what you don't consider stupid, it's what you have been exposed to, and not by a small measure either.
The amount of info that we have personally found to confirm or add to modern theories is practically zero, it has all been handed down to us, from childhood.
So "stupid" is anything outside of these perimeters. The evidence for modern theories comes from having a system of thought and attitude, one which requires intellectual codependency, all subject to some peer reviewed material handed down to us. Who are these peers anyway? Are they superior in intellect?
A system of thought can have all its teachings backed up to each other so that nothing can squeeze in, and yet the entire thing could be false without anybody seeing it. Religions work like that. It is not that there are no obvious flaws, but that any opposition to it is rejected by the adherents.
It works like this, - topic "A" has a problem. But it can't be wrong because B and C support it.
Then what if B has a problem? - but it has already been established by A and C so that B is not wrong.
What if A B and C are wrong? - its not possible, because it has taken us centuries to reach these conclusions and how could the majority be wrong after all this time and research?

  
Colbard
Member (Idle past 3381 days)
Posts: 300
From: Australia
Joined: 08-31-2014


Message 105 of 373 (739634)
10-26-2014 12:00 AM


Maths can be used to describe or make a model of anything. Say for instance a toilet roll, it can even account for its printed patterns using fractals.
Mathematics is like clay, it can be molded.
In describing the universe and the BB, things are squeezed, compressed, expanded, warped, inverted, diminished, exploded, segregated. Every process takes place, and all of these processes can be derived mathematically, but it does not prove the case at all, rather it just shows that if you have notion, and work hard with maths ans physics, and theories, then you can achieve a model that will convince many.
But somewhere in this tower is a brick that does not fit, a brick in a crucial place that renders the whole structure false.
It will stand for a while until someone finds the flaw.
And in modern science, the very founders of certain theories have had to go back on their word, even while the world continues to believe and work with the theory.

Replies to this message:
 Message 112 by 1.61803, posted 10-28-2014 10:10 AM Colbard has replied

  
Colbard
Member (Idle past 3381 days)
Posts: 300
From: Australia
Joined: 08-31-2014


Message 107 of 373 (739638)
10-26-2014 3:27 AM
Reply to: Message 106 by Dr Adequate
10-26-2014 12:04 AM


Well if you totally agree with common science then common science it is what you think.
Besides the meanings of terms Fox gave so generously helped me to understand that your opinion doesn't matter when it comes to science, unless everything you say can be verified by peer reviewed articles in a peer reviewed publication.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-26-2014 12:04 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 109 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-26-2014 1:36 PM Colbard has not replied

  
Colbard
Member (Idle past 3381 days)
Posts: 300
From: Australia
Joined: 08-31-2014


Message 113 of 373 (739962)
10-30-2014 8:18 AM
Reply to: Message 108 by Percy
10-26-2014 10:30 AM


I don't disagree with gathering info, that's not my point, but the conclusions drawn from those observations due to the tendencies to believe in certain philosophies developed from earlier conclusions.
Having a watertight network of answers does not make it truer than a bank robber's cover up story.
You can have good methods of analysis, even with a false premise.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by Percy, posted 10-26-2014 10:30 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 122 by Percy, posted 10-31-2014 7:02 AM Colbard has not replied

  
Colbard
Member (Idle past 3381 days)
Posts: 300
From: Australia
Joined: 08-31-2014


Message 114 of 373 (739963)
10-30-2014 8:21 AM
Reply to: Message 110 by Astrophile
10-28-2014 9:11 AM


Re: Guessing about guesses
1946

This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by Astrophile, posted 10-28-2014 9:11 AM Astrophile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 119 by Astrophile, posted 10-30-2014 5:27 PM Colbard has replied

  
Colbard
Member (Idle past 3381 days)
Posts: 300
From: Australia
Joined: 08-31-2014


Message 115 of 373 (739964)
10-30-2014 8:22 AM
Reply to: Message 111 by Theodoric
10-28-2014 9:24 AM


good points you've made

This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by Theodoric, posted 10-28-2014 9:24 AM Theodoric has not replied

  
Colbard
Member (Idle past 3381 days)
Posts: 300
From: Australia
Joined: 08-31-2014


Message 116 of 373 (739965)
10-30-2014 8:27 AM
Reply to: Message 112 by 1.61803
10-28-2014 10:10 AM


I am objecting to the opinion of those who say that if something goes well using Maths, then it must be fact. Maths can be used to describe the perfect lie without Maths ever lying. Maths is factual, and yet only ever a description as well, but because it is reliable does not mean it cannot describe falsehoods with perfection.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by 1.61803, posted 10-28-2014 10:10 AM 1.61803 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 117 by Percy, posted 10-30-2014 9:22 AM Colbard has not replied
 Message 118 by 1.61803, posted 10-30-2014 12:13 PM Colbard has not replied
 Message 131 by NoNukes, posted 10-31-2014 6:44 PM Colbard has not replied

  
Colbard
Member (Idle past 3381 days)
Posts: 300
From: Australia
Joined: 08-31-2014


Message 120 of 373 (740015)
10-30-2014 8:03 PM
Reply to: Message 119 by Astrophile
10-30-2014 5:27 PM


Re: Guessing about guesses
When I first studied evolution, I found out that the horse was older than the earth, courtesy Encyclopedia Britannica, which gave the age of both.
Another example, when I began school, the Australian Aborigines had been in here for 3,000 years, and were discussed in the flora and fauna section of geography. They were still just animals. Very similar to the US and its imported slaves.
Four years later, the Aborigines had been here for 6000 years, later increasing to 10,000, then 20,000, then 30,000, then 40,000 and remained official there for a while, then 60,000 years and so on.
I figured out that at the going rate, by the year 2010, the Aborigines will have been here for well over 3 billion years, which at the time was much older than the solar system.
So for a long time the Aborigines had to survive on star dust, billions of years later the horse came along, but it was difficult to hunt in empty space, until the earth was formed.
But as you said we can't be there for every fact and know it all, so we leave it up to scientists, who have similar habits as us with very similar sized intellects, but we accept their conclusions, even though they are like us without all the knowledge.
Their opinions are fallible.
For example, in the fifties and sixties, some of them claimed that smoking is actually good for you.
They insisted on a high protein diet with lots of meat, milk products and eggs. people still believe that and are dying early.
Asbestos was harmless. DDT was sprayed over people while they were still in the public swimming pools, and meat products were drenched with formaldehyde to keep them fresh. If an atomic explosion occurred, all you had to do is "duck and cover."
That was their domestic advice. I could go on and discuss their scientific theories of the universe.
I have watched the progress of science fairly closely, and nearly every one of their conclusions, far less so in the medical fields, is wrong. Today's conclusions and observations are based on previous falsehoods.
It does not mean that I cannot be wrong, but it is interesting.
For instance, I have never believed the black hole theory, and now they are finally waking up to it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 119 by Astrophile, posted 10-30-2014 5:27 PM Astrophile has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 121 by NoNukes, posted 10-30-2014 8:40 PM Colbard has not replied
 Message 123 by Percy, posted 10-31-2014 8:12 AM Colbard has replied
 Message 124 by nwr, posted 10-31-2014 9:08 AM Colbard has replied

  
Colbard
Member (Idle past 3381 days)
Posts: 300
From: Australia
Joined: 08-31-2014


Message 125 of 373 (740050)
10-31-2014 9:54 AM
Reply to: Message 123 by Percy
10-31-2014 8:12 AM


Re: Guessing about guesses
Percy writes:
No one is waking up to your take on black holes.
The whole point of your post is...?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 123 by Percy, posted 10-31-2014 8:12 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 127 by Percy, posted 10-31-2014 10:21 AM Colbard has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024