|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Question About the Universe | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 312 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Don't you think you should have found out something about science before lecturing other people on it in public?
I think maybe you should. Because, y'know, when you just guess what it is, there's practically no chance that you're going to be right. (You also shouldn't try to guess what I think. You should ask me instead.) Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Colbard Member (Idle past 3419 days) Posts: 300 From: Australia Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22502 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9
|
Colbard writes: 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 scientific theory is not a process of guessing. For a very simply example, we determine the acceleration of gravity at sea level by gathering evidence of objects falling in a vacuum, not by guessing. For a more complex example, we determine the existence of the Higgs Boson by gathering terabytes of data for analysis through a huge experiment, not by guessing. We determine the rate of expansion of the universe through observation and analysis, not by guessing. This is not to say guesswork is completely absent from science. Given that science is conducted by humans, the full range of human nature cannot help but play some kind a role on the path to knowledge, but theories are not guesswork. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 312 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Well if you totally agree with common science then common science it is what you think This is gibberish again.
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 comes close to the truth. In science, facts trump opinions.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Astrophile Member (Idle past 156 days) Posts: 92 From: United Kingdom Joined:
|
Since I heard of evolution, the time periods for the beginning of our world and the universe have been increasing at an exponential rate When did you first hear of evolution, and what were the scientifically accepted ages of the earth and the universe at that time? Patterson obtained an age of 455050 million years for the solar system (including the earth) in about 1955, and Sandage obtained an age for the universe of about 14 billion years (within a factor of two) in 1958. Although these ages have been refined since then, they were remarkably close to the modern values. The earth is now thought to be 454020 million years; the oldest material in the solar system is 4568 million years; and the age of the universe is 13.8 billion years. This isn't an exponential increase, so presumably you first heard about evolution before the 1950s. Edited by Astrophile, : I omitted a question about the ages of the earth and the universe that was relevant to Colbard's original post.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9197 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.2 |
So to be able to contribute, you must have done your own research.
Please present your research. Are you saying that we should not learn anything from others? That experts in their field do not possess any more knowledge on the subject than any yahoo? Interesting. You do your own medical care? Raise your own food? Build your own car?Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts "God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1.61803 Member (Idle past 1532 days) Posts: 2928 From: Lone Star State USA Joined: |
Colbard writes: 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. Are you are saying that because math is used to understand the standard model the theory is debunked? Are you saying because there are gaps in the understanding of various cosmology theories they all are of no value? To sum up, it is your premise that since math is used in physics and our knowledge is incomplete we as a species should shit can all theories that use maths and are not complete.Is that what you are saying? Because if that is your position then you would in essence be advocating complete ignorance or your trolling. "You were not there for the beginning. You will not be there for the end. Your knowledge of what is going on can only be superficial and relative" William S. Burroughs
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Colbard Member (Idle past 3419 days) Posts: 300 From: Australia Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Colbard Member (Idle past 3419 days) Posts: 300 From: Australia Joined: |
1946
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Colbard Member (Idle past 3419 days) Posts: 300 From: Australia Joined: |
good points you've made
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Colbard Member (Idle past 3419 days) Posts: 300 From: Australia Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22502 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
The math in any work that has found acceptance within the scientific community has already received a great deal of attention and not been found wanting. We're all familiar with garbage-in/garbage-out, but you can't just say, "He might not be applying the math correctly." You have to identify the error that those in the scientific community missed and explain how it is wrong.
--Percy Edited by Percy, : Grammar - missing "not".
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1.61803 Member (Idle past 1532 days) Posts: 2928 From: Lone Star State USA Joined: |
Colbard writes: Sure anyone can use math to cook their books. 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.If this is your point then it is a well known; hence the existence of auditors. Just as any established theory must be scrutinized. That does not mean we dismiss them outright. It is virtually impossible to personally fact check and verify every bit of knowledge. That's what scientist are for. "You were not there for the beginning. You will not be there for the end. Your knowledge of what is going on can only be superficial and relative" William S. Burroughs
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Astrophile Member (Idle past 156 days) Posts: 92 From: United Kingdom Joined: |
1946 Interesting; that was the year before I was born. I won't ask how old you were when you first heard of evolution, but you have certainly had a long time to study it. Fortunately I have some books published in the 1940s that give estimates of the ages of the universe and the earth. One of my astronomy books, 'The size of the universe' by F.J. Hargreaves (published 1948), gives the age of the universe as 'about 2,000,000,000 years'. A geology book, 'Geology in the service of man' by W.G. Fearnsides and O.M.B. Bulman (published 1945), gives the age of the earth as about 2000 million years, thus making the earth and the universe essentially the same age(!). I agree that the scientifically accepted ages have increased since these books were published, but the terrestrial age of 455050 Myr obtained by Patterson and the cosmic age of about 14 billion years (to within a factor of two) obtained by Sandage date from only twelve years after you first heard of evolution, so you can hardly say that these ages have increased exponentially ever since that time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Colbard Member (Idle past 3419 days) Posts: 300 From: Australia Joined: |
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.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024