Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,581 Year: 2,838/9,624 Month: 683/1,588 Week: 89/229 Day: 0/61 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Falsifying a young Universe. (re: Supernova 1987A)
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


(5)
Message 548 of 948 (797759)
01-26-2017 12:10 PM
Reply to: Message 539 by creation
01-26-2017 9:53 AM


A bridge to the stars
time writes:
You canot observe planets unless time exists out there exactly woven with space as it is here though. We absolutely require time to know distance. If the distance to a so called planet is not known, which it is not unless time exists there too, then the object could be almost any size or distance. No way to say it is planet sized at all. None. Total belief based hooey that has been thought of as science til now.
In a sense, you're absolutely right.
Well, you were right, a few hundred (thousand?) years ago.
When science first starting attempting to observe and watch the skies, they understood this issue.
So they recorded whatever they could, without making any assumptions whatsoever. Because, for all they knew, everything "worked different" out there. Time, mass, energy. Everything. Everything and anything could be different.
Then science started to test whatever it could about whatever observations it could make.
Everything made sense. We thought this planet should be over there... if it followed the same rules (Newtonian motion) we follow here... and it was exactly there. We made predictions... in 1 years time, this moon should be here, and this planet should be there. In 1 year's time... those bodies were exactly where predicted.
Then strange things started to happen.
We learned more. We obtained better ways of making observations. We noticed things actually did not line up exactly. But they actually lined up "mostly." This was very weird. Some things didn't really line up at all. Like black holes and satellites orbiting our own planet.
We went back to the drawing board. Newtonian motion didn't account for everything we observed. It was wrong.
Eventually we discovered Relativity. Relativity included Newtonian motion... but it was more specific. Things started to fall into place again. Observations could all be explained. Things moved and reacted and were predictable in the exact sense again.
Which is where we are now.
No one is saying we're done.
No one is saying time is the same everywhere.
No one is saying we know everything.
But we do know the things that line up exactly.
We do know that although time is not the same everywhere... it acts and reacts the same everywhere-we-have-observations-for the same way we observe here.
There are still some weirdness questions out there. A lot less, but still some.
Maybe we'll discover another theory that includes Newtonian motion, and Relativity as well as all the 'weridness' we see.
But even if that happens... it won't destroy the stuff that works now.
Just as Newtonian motion is still used to describe the supports required to build a bridge. Even though Relativity would be more precise... it would be irrelevantly-more-precise (more work, for no gain). If Newtonian motion tells us the bridge needs to have supports 5 feet wide, and Relativity tells us the bridge needs to have supports 4.999999999999 feet wide... it doesn't matter which theory we use because they both give the same, exact answer for the question we're looking for (5'1/16"? 5'0"? 4'15/16"? - both tell use to use a support that is 5'0".)
When the exactness-we-need is verified by all observations, it doesn't matter if there's something else we're missing or don't fully understand. We know we need that 5'0" support. We know how far away distant stars are. We know these things.
It is possible that we don't know everything... but we do know everything-we-need-to-know to understand that the support needs to be 5'0". We also know everything-we-need-to-know to understand how far away distant stars are.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 539 by creation, posted 01-26-2017 9:53 AM creation has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 564 by creation, posted 01-28-2017 1:19 AM Stile has replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


(2)
Message 589 of 948 (797998)
01-30-2017 8:41 AM
Reply to: Message 564 by creation
01-28-2017 1:19 AM


Re: A bridge to the stars
time writes:
Stile writes:
Just as Newtonian motion is still used to describe the supports required to build a bridge. Even though Relativity would be more precise... it would be irrelevantly-more-precise (more work, for no gain). If Newtonian motion tells us the bridge needs to have supports 5 feet wide, and Relativity tells us the bridge needs to have supports 4.999999999999 feet wide... it doesn't matter which theory we use because they both give the same, exact answer for the question we're looking for (5'1/16"? 5'0"? 4'15/16"? - both tell use to use a support that is 5'0".)
When the exactness-we-need is verified by all observations, it doesn't matter if there's something else we're missing or don't fully understand. We know we need that 5'0" support. We know how far away distant stars are. We know these things.
Try to stop patting your science on the back long enough to admit you do not know here.
We know the distance to stars as well as we know how thick a support beam for a bridge must be.
We may not know how thick a support beam must be to some-irrelevant-level-of-precision (say... 0.00000000001 inches). But such a thing isn't necessary to know it needs to be 5'0".
We may not know how far away distant stars are to some-irrelevant-level-of-precision (say... a few miles). But such a thing isn't necessary to know they are billions upon trillions of miles away.
When you say "you do not know here" it is not enough information.
There are many, many things we don't know, in many places. What we need to identify is if the level-of-precision you're talking about is required in order to know the stars are far away from us.
If you could explain what, specifically, it is you think we "don't know" then we can look to see if it's relevant or not.
Take your time to respond, these messages don't disappear, you don't have to reply as fast as possible. Do some thinking and try to put together a meaningful response with some content.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 564 by creation, posted 01-28-2017 1:19 AM creation has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 594 by starman, posted 11-05-2017 2:25 AM Stile has replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 607 of 948 (823188)
11-07-2017 10:18 AM
Reply to: Message 594 by starman
11-05-2017 2:25 AM


Re: A bridge to the stars
starman writes:
To know distances in the universe you need to have time exist there as it does here. Can you demonstrate that it does exist there and exist the same as here?
I don't need any of this.
I'm not trying to know distances in the universe exactly.
I'm only trying to know distances in the universe good enough.
And, for the purposes of knowing that those distances are millions/trillions of miles, time works "close enough" there as it does here for such calculations.
If those calculations were wrong, we would never be able to put satellites into orbit, or track other spacecraft/comets/asteroids as deeply into space as we have.
Since those calculations are correct for the things we can definitively know, it is safe to assume that they are "close enough" for the precision we require in applying those same calculations to far-away stars.
The precision we require is down to "millions/trillions of miles" away. Not down to the nearest inch.
You would only be correct if I were attempting to claim that we know how far stars are away from us down to the nearest inch.
But I'm not doing that, so your issue with my claim that we know stars are millions/trillions of miles away is irrelevant.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 594 by starman, posted 11-05-2017 2:25 AM starman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 613 by starman, posted 11-07-2017 3:56 PM Stile has seen this message but not replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


(1)
Message 608 of 948 (823189)
11-07-2017 10:37 AM
Reply to: Message 602 by starman
11-06-2017 12:54 PM


Re: A bridge to the stars
starman writes:
You can't use anything for distance. Gong! To do so assumes time exists and space equally all the way. Your game fails.
This point of reasoning is navely correct.
It is possible that space and time exist differently at another place in the universe.
As possible as it is that space and time exist differently at your house while you're at work.
But everything we're able to test/measure/check shows that space and time exist pretty much the same at your house and your work regardless of where you are.
As well, everything we're able to test/measure/check shows that space and time exist pretty much the same here as it does at far away stars.
Can it actually be different?
Of course it can.
And the first person to show that it is different, will get a Nobel Prize.
Just as the first person to show that space and time are different between your house and your work depending on where you are will also get a Nobel Prize.
They are equally as likely, equally as verified, and equally as assumed.
You can toss your chips where you like, and the rest of us can continue to make progress.
Progress is made basing our assumptions and tests on our continuing growth of knowledge.
When those tests or measurements show an issue and indicate that something different is going on - that is where we stop until we can understand the differences.
However, when those tests or measurements do not show any issues going on - that is where we continue with our confirmation and verifications so that we can grow and make progress.
We do not, ever, stop and study possible issues just because some guy on the internet writes a few sentences without any tests or measurements to back up their ideas. Such a method would never make progress as there's always some loon thinking they know things about reality that they cannot support. If they are correct, the normal method will identify it well enough (and better than the loon anyway) whenever it runs into it. If they are wrong, they're just a waste a time. Therefore, there is no gain in paying any attention to such loons.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 602 by starman, posted 11-06-2017 12:54 PM starman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 614 by starman, posted 11-07-2017 4:05 PM Stile has replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


(3)
Message 618 of 948 (823254)
11-08-2017 9:00 AM
Reply to: Message 614 by starman
11-07-2017 4:05 PM


Re: A bridge to the stars
starman writes:
I think Jesus will show us one day, and the (Nobel Prize) nonsense will be extinct.
Could be, sure.
And if this does happen, then Science will acknowledge that it happens and adjust accordingly.
However, if it doesn't happen, then Science will make progress where progress will happen and not stutter in the wrong direction.
A win-win situation for Science.
Don't worry about it, you will never be able to find out on your own anyhow.
Their normal is too small to be able to punch thier way out of the fishbowl.
This is what was said about those trying to build computers when they used to take up entire warehouses just to be as powerful as a mostly-useless calculator.
But progress continued despite the foolish notions, and look where we are now! Where will be tomorrow? Best to keep making progress and see.
No progress has been made determining if time exists in the far universe, it has been assumed.
I don't think you understand.
Making assumptions is exactly how progress is made.
1 - Make an assumption.
2 - Carry on as if that assumption is true.
3 - Don't run into any issues? Continue with assumption and make more assumptions and make progress.
4 - Run into an issue? Stop and understand problem, discard faulty assumption, make a different assumption and continue to make progress.
Making assumptions isn't the fault of science, it's the massive horsepower under the hood.
Testing and then discarding or verifying those assumptions is the steering wheel and front wheels.
Together, they assure that progress is made and in the right direction.
If you remove the assumption making... you can still steer but you'll never go anywhere. Stuck in the mud.
If you remove the testing/discarding/verifying... you can move "forward" but you have no idea if you're going the right way. Always end up lost.
Both are required, and they must work together.
Stars being far away uses both, and (currently) it is known that stars are far away as well as it is known that your computer runs software.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 614 by starman, posted 11-07-2017 4:05 PM starman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 619 by RAZD, posted 11-08-2017 9:53 AM Stile has seen this message but not replied
 Message 623 by starman, posted 11-08-2017 8:16 PM Stile has replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


(1)
Message 635 of 948 (823334)
11-09-2017 11:46 AM
Reply to: Message 623 by starman
11-08-2017 8:16 PM


The Win-Win situation for Science
starman writes:
You cannot compare computers to the far past nature on earth, or to unknown deep space. Irrelevant.
Well, I can, actually. I just don't think you understand why. So I'll move on to something different:
Let's talk about the difference between Science beliefs and Religious beliefs.
Here "Science beliefs" are the ideas of Science using the scientific method.
While "Religious beliefs" are the ideas of Religion using the religious fundamental ideas.
Can beliefs change?
There is no such thing as a Scientific belief that cannot change.
Science would throw away any Theory, any Law, any fundamental concept, any idea at all that can be shown to be wrong and replaced with something that is better.
Fundamental Religious beliefs, however, cannot change. If they change, then you no longer believe in the religion.
You cannot have a Christian that does not believe in Christ or God.
You cannot have a Muslim that does not believe in Allah.
There are always fundamental beliefs in religion that are tied to that religion, and if you don't accept them... you are no longer part of that religion.
What does this mean for being right?
Changeable beliefs are either right, or if wrong they can be changed to be right anyway.
Unchangeable beliefs are either right, or wrong.
All of Science's beliefs are changeable. Every. Single. One.
If Science is ever wrong about anything, it's only temporary until it makes progress, changes the belief, and gets back to being right again.
Some of Religion's beliefs are unchangeable. At least a few, sometimes many.
If an unchangeable Religious belief is ever wrong, it's wrong forever.
What's the best case scenario?
The best Religion can ever do, is hope to tie Science about being right.
The best Science can ever do, is be right regardless of what Religion thinks.
What's the worst case scenario?
The worst Religion can ever do, is be wrong forever.
The worst Science can ever do, is tie Religion about being right.
Not all beliefs are the same.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 623 by starman, posted 11-08-2017 8:16 PM starman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 639 by starman, posted 11-09-2017 3:28 PM Stile has replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 644 of 948 (823430)
11-10-2017 10:08 AM
Reply to: Message 639 by starman
11-09-2017 3:28 PM


Re: The Win-Win situation for Science
No. You cannot compare what we see happening today to the far future or past. Not at all.
Sure you can. It's pretty easy.
I bet you could if you really tried to focus your mind. Just take a breath and try to relax a bit first, then give it a try. I believe in you.
To do so is merely to believe that the laws of today will or did apply.
Exactly. And, as we all know, this leads to a wonderful win-win scenario for progress through science.
Onward and upward, science can't lose!
As for the religion of science and the belief set it espouses, you need more than beliefs. Sorry.
For sure. This is why we have this:
What's the best case scenario?
The best Religion can ever do, is hope to tie Science about being right.
The best Science can ever do, is be right regardless of what Religion thinks.
What's the worst case scenario?
The worst Religion can ever do, is be wrong forever.
The worst Science can ever do, is tie Religion about being right.
That doesn't even use the word belief. It's based on the processes and ability to make progress.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 639 by starman, posted 11-09-2017 3:28 PM starman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 645 by starman, posted 11-10-2017 12:07 PM Stile has replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


(1)
Message 647 of 948 (823461)
11-10-2017 12:43 PM
Reply to: Message 645 by starman
11-10-2017 12:07 PM


Re: The Win-Win situation for Science
starman writes:
You admit all you do is believe the forces and laws were the same.
Almost, but you're missing the important part.
What I'm doing is acting as if the forces and laws were the same.
Then, we make progress.
If there are any issues... then the actions will show them. Then, perhaps this idea includes an error. In which case, we adjust the beliefs.
If there are no issues... then perhaps this idea is valid. In which case, we continue to make progress.
Science has been acting on the idea that the stars are far away for hundreds of years.
Much progress has been made.
More progress is ongoing.
No issues have been identified yet.
As long as there are no issues while acting like the stars are far away, science will continue to act as if the stars are far away.
As long as there are no issues while acting like your computer runs software, science will continue to act as if your computer runs software.
How long do you work with something before you simply accept that it's true?
You seem to be able to do this with software running on your computer, but not with stars being far away.
Science has been accepting that stars are far away much longer than science has been accepting that software runs on your computer.
Still no issues.
Perhaps you could be the first to identify an issue, though. Feel free to try.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 645 by starman, posted 11-10-2017 12:07 PM starman has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 648 by Percy, posted 11-10-2017 2:01 PM Stile has replied
 Message 649 by RAZD, posted 11-10-2017 2:05 PM Stile has seen this message but not replied
 Message 664 by creation, posted 01-14-2018 11:13 PM Stile has replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


(3)
Message 650 of 948 (823470)
11-10-2017 2:14 PM
Reply to: Message 648 by Percy
11-10-2017 2:01 PM


Re: The Win-Win situation for Science
Percy writes:
Stile writes:
Science has been accepting that stars are far away...
It's just about the word "accepting."
Ha ha
Yes, Science certainly holds stars being far away as a now-mundane evidentially validated fact as much as software running on a computer is a now-mundane evidentially validated fact.
Same with RAZD's nice expansion on the Scientific Method I previously dumbed down to "running on assumptions."
I was trying to use words that would appeal to starman while also at least touching on "the spirit" of scientific concepts.
Starman wasn't investing any time understanding people's posts. There was no discussion. He was mostly just tossing off one and two sentence content-free responses.
Oh, for sure.
I'm not actually trying to appeal to starman.
More like... using starman's posts as a jumping-off point and then attempting to form some sort of description that would appeal to "someone similar to starman, but looking to learn."
I think there's value in replying to starman's posts.
I don't think there's any value in replying to starman

This message is a reply to:
 Message 648 by Percy, posted 11-10-2017 2:01 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 651 by Percy, posted 11-10-2017 4:58 PM Stile has seen this message but not replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


(1)
Message 684 of 948 (827182)
01-19-2018 1:01 PM
Reply to: Message 664 by creation
01-14-2018 11:13 PM


Re: The Win-Win situation for Science
creation writes:
Kids have no issues acting like Santa will come down the chimney.
And if you want to remain a kid, you can continue having no issues acting like God exists.
Science moves onto ideas that have no issues whatsoever.
Not "no issues if you're a kid."
Not "no issues if you take the Bible literally."
Not "no issues if you don't talk to people who study such things."
Just "no issues."
Because if you're not a kid - then Santa has reality issues.
Because if you don't take the Bible literally - then Christianity has reality issues.
Because if you talk to people who study such things - then God existing has reality issues.
Science only claims to know things if there are no issues. From anyone able to back up their complaints ("reality").
Stars being far away is something science knows and there are no issues with it from anyone who can back up their claims.
Sure, there are complaints (like yours) but nothing in reality backs up your complaint. Therefore, it's proper to ignore your complaint until such time as when you can produce something that actually makes sense in reality.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 664 by creation, posted 01-14-2018 11:13 PM creation 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