By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions. We in turn value your personal details in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
Yes of course there is lots they dont know, but to say we don't have an understanding of the universe is simply not true. I'm just a layman with a passing interest but I could convey an understanding of many aspects of the universe as could many.
The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
We understand it as well as we can. Dogs cant understand calculus. It follows that humans have intellectual limits. What if understanding the universe entirely is beyond our capabilties? Thats all I was pondering.
0
Why do we assume... on 14:23 - Jul 19 with 1815 views
Sad to inform some of you, but "science" is not now, and never has been, infallible. Nor, to be blunt, will it ever be. There are two major mega-problems with science/academia, especially in regard to "knowing the universe":
1. There's no way to double-check, let alone confirm, many of their theories and conclusions, yet they pass them off as irrefutable facts.
2. [I'm telling you this from personal experience] The worlds of science and higher education [in more ways than one, they are one and the same] are rife with cliques and power structures which give their blessings to certain theories and do not allow publication -- or even discussion -- of anything even mildly contradictory. If you believe that you can believe them, you're mad.
p.s. The only poster[s] who can offer a valid opinion on point #2 are those who are in the world of science and/or academia. The rest of you won't know enough to opine. Roster. Oops, "Sorry."
Sad to inform some of you, but "science" is not now, and never has been, infallible. Nor, to be blunt, will it ever be. There are two major mega-problems with science/academia, especially in regard to "knowing the universe":
1. There's no way to double-check, let alone confirm, many of their theories and conclusions, yet they pass them off as irrefutable facts.
2. [I'm telling you this from personal experience] The worlds of science and higher education [in more ways than one, they are one and the same] are rife with cliques and power structures which give their blessings to certain theories and do not allow publication -- or even discussion -- of anything even mildly contradictory. If you believe that you can believe them, you're mad.
p.s. The only poster[s] who can offer a valid opinion on point #2 are those who are in the world of science and/or academia. The rest of you won't know enough to opine. Roster. Oops, "Sorry."
1. Of course there is its called the scientific method, its been in use since Newton was getting hit on the bonce with apples.
2. Which is more likely? There is a global conspiracy where all scientists are suppressing everything that contradicts the scientific consensus or the majority of contradictory theories to the consensus fail because they cant stand up to testing by the scientific method?
If man evolved from monkeys why do we still have monkeys?
0
Why do we assume... on 15:34 - Jul 19 with 1778 views
So basically you want to know why we don't know about things we don't know about?
Maybe we need to get our IQs up to 1000 or so so we can do the necessary maths. Evolution may do much to humans in a billion years(if we don't blow ourselves up before we get there)
0
Why do we assume... on 15:43 - Jul 19 with 1767 views
Sad to inform some of you, but "science" is not now, and never has been, infallible. Nor, to be blunt, will it ever be. There are two major mega-problems with science/academia, especially in regard to "knowing the universe":
1. There's no way to double-check, let alone confirm, many of their theories and conclusions, yet they pass them off as irrefutable facts.
2. [I'm telling you this from personal experience] The worlds of science and higher education [in more ways than one, they are one and the same] are rife with cliques and power structures which give their blessings to certain theories and do not allow publication -- or even discussion -- of anything even mildly contradictory. If you believe that you can believe them, you're mad.
p.s. The only poster[s] who can offer a valid opinion on point #2 are those who are in the world of science and/or academia. The rest of you won't know enough to opine. Roster. Oops, "Sorry."
Dav completely agree with you on point 2, and the cliques and power structures I believe are in complete control of the global warming/climate change agenda. All studies to the contrary are swept swiftly under the rug and dismissed as crackpot science.
I don't however agree on your first point. I read a quote recently but I can't remember who the life of me said it, it was something along the lines of "A good scientist spends the first 30 years of his life trying to prove his hypothesis is correct, then when that is achieved he spends the rest of his life trying to prove it's incorrect". The way to double check is to apply the theory to everything and always get the same conclusion. In the case of Einstein's work 100 years later it is still the best theory we have that fits with 3 of the 4 fundemental forces of the universe and applying his theory has always led to the same conclusion. Thus it is considered scientific fact, until it can be disproved, and thousands of academics use it everyday with the same result.
The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
Dav completely agree with you on point 2, and the cliques and power structures I believe are in complete control of the global warming/climate change agenda. All studies to the contrary are swept swiftly under the rug and dismissed as crackpot science.
I don't however agree on your first point. I read a quote recently but I can't remember who the life of me said it, it was something along the lines of "A good scientist spends the first 30 years of his life trying to prove his hypothesis is correct, then when that is achieved he spends the rest of his life trying to prove it's incorrect". The way to double check is to apply the theory to everything and always get the same conclusion. In the case of Einstein's work 100 years later it is still the best theory we have that fits with 3 of the 4 fundemental forces of the universe and applying his theory has always led to the same conclusion. Thus it is considered scientific fact, until it can be disproved, and thousands of academics use it everyday with the same result.
Well perhaps they're considered crackpot because it is? I've yet to see one other line of research to either discredit the current view of climate change and the reasons for this, or provide another reason.
And in terms of scientific progression, this was born out of humanity 's natural curiosity. Why would people give their lives to the pursuit of science if T here were nothing gained? The scientist who has fascinated me most was Nicolas Tesla, who pioneered major scientific breakthroughs but never really wanted the credit, a far as allowing people to steal his technology of it bettered people's lives.
Science is ever evolving, and if theories are disproven, then answers are sought to correct this. Most theories, such as relativity, is an accurate account of actions and force. Newton's law on gravity too still holds, and we are still learning about this enigma. It has such an impact to everything in the universe, yet is one of the weakest forces known! I love science and finding answers me!
And we're Swaaaaanseeeea Ciiiityyyy! Swaaaansseeeaaa Ciiiityyy F C!
We're not necessarily the greatest team in football, the world has ever seen (but we're possibly the most honest and resilient).
- On behalf of The Campaign For Realistic Crowd Chanting
"Well perhaps they're considered crackpot because it is? I've yet to see one other line of research to either discredit the current view of climate change and the reasons for this, or provide another reason. "
That was exactly my point. :) Look into it, there's plenty of research that has the opposite view but it doesn't give Governments the opportunity to tax the living feck out of carbon but that's another thread altogether.
The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
Dav completely agree with you on point 2, and the cliques and power structures I believe are in complete control of the global warming/climate change agenda. All studies to the contrary are swept swiftly under the rug and dismissed as crackpot science.
I don't however agree on your first point. I read a quote recently but I can't remember who the life of me said it, it was something along the lines of "A good scientist spends the first 30 years of his life trying to prove his hypothesis is correct, then when that is achieved he spends the rest of his life trying to prove it's incorrect". The way to double check is to apply the theory to everything and always get the same conclusion. In the case of Einstein's work 100 years later it is still the best theory we have that fits with 3 of the 4 fundemental forces of the universe and applying his theory has always led to the same conclusion. Thus it is considered scientific fact, until it can be disproved, and thousands of academics use it everyday with the same result.
Dammit, I just deleted my entire response. Spit!
Thanks for your lucid post.
Regarding my point #1 and your comment on it. Isn't it more accurate that "A good scientist spends he first years trying to prove his hypothesis, then spends the rest of his life defending it"? That's how I remember it, but it's been a very long time ago.
The first problem with most of the scientific work on absolute imponderables [like the universe] is that scientists who propound the theories have the only instruments that could be used to disprove them. For example, who else has a Large Hadron Collider to disprove the Boson theory [I think they now call it the Boson Principle]?
The other problem, as you say, is that the "clique" controls all of the research, and who's going to go against the people who control everything in the field -- most especially the money, which then controls who gets to work on the research?
I'm very glad to see that you wrote, "In the case of Einstein's work 100 years later it is still the best theory we have that fits with 3 of the 4 fundemental forces of the universe. . . . " It's that fourth one that sticks in the craw.
"Well perhaps they're considered crackpot because it is? I've yet to see one other line of research to either discredit the current view of climate change and the reasons for this, or provide another reason. "
That was exactly my point. :) Look into it, there's plenty of research that has the opposite view but it doesn't give Governments the opportunity to tax the living feck out of carbon but that's another thread altogether.
I agree.
With regard to the post you quoted, in the eyes of many -- including a preponderance of scientists in the field -- climate change has been thoroughly debunked. The poster [unidentified] might be trying to look at the subject through a rose-coloured blindfold.
You are absolutely correct about the government's deep and abiding need to keep it alive in order to tax and control. That and people like Al "I invented the internet" Gore, who has become filthy richer than he was before he made it his signature.
We understand it as well as we can. Dogs cant understand calculus. It follows that humans have intellectual limits. What if understanding the universe entirely is beyond our capabilties? Thats all I was pondering.
Sorry to sprag your ponderings ..... "dogs can't understand calculus" ........
My dog mixes socially with other dogs well enough ....... I would call that 'integration' ....... and she will eat beef but not rabbit ...... differentiation? ...... I'm not sure how deep it's realisation is but lots of humans have learned the requisite techniques without developing a true understanding of the Calculus
0
Why do we assume... on 22:29 - Jul 19 with 1561 views
Why do we assume... on 22:24 - Jul 19 by grampajack
Sorry to sprag your ponderings ..... "dogs can't understand calculus" ........
My dog mixes socially with other dogs well enough ....... I would call that 'integration' ....... and she will eat beef but not rabbit ...... differentiation? ...... I'm not sure how deep it's realisation is but lots of humans have learned the requisite techniques without developing a true understanding of the Calculus
Who said Planetswans wasn't a cultural place? Maths jokes. I've seen it all now. On a par with Oldgrey and his biscuit related physics theorems. On reflection I think your post may actually be worthy of a
[Post edited 19 Jul 2014 22:32]
0
Why do we assume... on 22:42 - Jul 19 with 1541 views
The magnitude of the universe is truly mind blowing, if peeps actually try to comprehend it really does fill you with wonder. Sydney is 10800 miles away. What time is it on the moon or other planets? Time is just a human creation. The universes just evolves, as to what is out there I doubt man with ever know, we are to busy destroying earth!
I bet most have never hear of makemake.
0
Why do we assume... on 22:43 - Jul 19 with 1541 views
Who said Planetswans wasn't a cultural place? Maths jokes. I've seen it all now. On a par with Oldgrey and his biscuit related physics theorems. On reflection I think your post may actually be worthy of a
[Post edited 19 Jul 2014 22:32]
0
Why do we assume... on 23:24 - Jul 19 with 1528 views
The magnitude of the universe is truly mind blowing, if peeps actually try to comprehend it really does fill you with wonder. Sydney is 10800 miles away. What time is it on the moon or other planets? Time is just a human creation. The universes just evolves, as to what is out there I doubt man with ever know, we are to busy destroying earth!
I bet most have never hear of makemake.
Technically Space and time are one and the same thing, Spacetime, and time does not flow at the same rate everywhere. With regards to the original post, there are just some questions we will never be able to answer, and we have to accept that, but there are so many fascinating phenomena that occur that most people are ignorant of, especially in Quantum mechanics, and just finding out as much as possible is enough for me
This is the first time I've seen anything Physics related posted on here so I jumped on the opportunity to become active haha
1
Why do we assume... on 23:44 - Jul 19 with 1516 views
Regarding my point #1 and your comment on it. Isn't it more accurate that "A good scientist spends he first years trying to prove his hypothesis, then spends the rest of his life defending it"? That's how I remember it, but it's been a very long time ago.
The first problem with most of the scientific work on absolute imponderables [like the universe] is that scientists who propound the theories have the only instruments that could be used to disprove them. For example, who else has a Large Hadron Collider to disprove the Boson theory [I think they now call it the Boson Principle]?
The other problem, as you say, is that the "clique" controls all of the research, and who's going to go against the people who control everything in the field -- most especially the money, which then controls who gets to work on the research?
I'm very glad to see that you wrote, "In the case of Einstein's work 100 years later it is still the best theory we have that fits with 3 of the 4 fundemental forces of the universe. . . . " It's that fourth one that sticks in the craw.
If man evolved from monkeys why do we still have monkeys?
0
Why do we assume... on 23:46 - Jul 19 with 1515 views
Technically Space and time are one and the same thing, Spacetime, and time does not flow at the same rate everywhere. With regards to the original post, there are just some questions we will never be able to answer, and we have to accept that, but there are so many fascinating phenomena that occur that most people are ignorant of, especially in Quantum mechanics, and just finding out as much as possible is enough for me
This is the first time I've seen anything Physics related posted on here so I jumped on the opportunity to become active haha
There is the occasional physics thread on here but usually ends with Davillin having a strop saying that it can never be proved so therefore all physics is junk. Or words to that effect.
If man evolved from monkeys why do we still have monkeys?
0
Why do we assume... on 00:55 - Jul 20 with 1487 views
With regard to the post you quoted, in the eyes of many -- including a preponderance of scientists in the field -- climate change has been thoroughly debunked. The poster [unidentified] might be trying to look at the subject through a rose-coloured blindfold.
You are absolutely correct about the government's deep and abiding need to keep it alive in order to tax and control. That and people like Al "I invented the internet" Gore, who has become filthy richer than he was before he made it his signature.
[Post edited 19 Jul 2014 21:47]
Thoroughly debunked you say? Interesting that....considering it's my line of work, I've not heard about this! Still, Dav has got to be right or he'll block you so he never again has to see you prove him wrong.
Climate change is happening. What's being discussed though is whether man has created the imbalance, or whether this was a natural cycle. However at present there is 95% certainty within the scientific community that this is the result of synthesis, meaning it is man made.
Davillin, unfortunately, is wrong. But I'd be interested to see his sources to explain the errors.
And we're Swaaaaanseeeea Ciiiityyyy! Swaaaansseeeaaa Ciiiityyy F C!
We're not necessarily the greatest team in football, the world has ever seen (but we're possibly the most honest and resilient).
- On behalf of The Campaign For Realistic Crowd Chanting
Regarding my point #1 and your comment on it. Isn't it more accurate that "A good scientist spends he first years trying to prove his hypothesis, then spends the rest of his life defending it"? That's how I remember it, but it's been a very long time ago.
The first problem with most of the scientific work on absolute imponderables [like the universe] is that scientists who propound the theories have the only instruments that could be used to disprove them. For example, who else has a Large Hadron Collider to disprove the Boson theory [I think they now call it the Boson Principle]?
The other problem, as you say, is that the "clique" controls all of the research, and who's going to go against the people who control everything in the field -- most especially the money, which then controls who gets to work on the research?
I'm very glad to see that you wrote, "In the case of Einstein's work 100 years later it is still the best theory we have that fits with 3 of the 4 fundemental forces of the universe. . . . " It's that fourth one that sticks in the craw.
"A good scientist spends he first years trying to prove his hypothesis, then spends the rest of his life defending it"
Yes, or to put it another way, a proper scientist would try to find flaws in his hypothesis, because the more times he tries different ways to disprove it and comes out with the same result, the more he strengthens his argument.
"The first problem with most of the scientific work on absolute imponderables [like the universe] is that scientists who propound the theories have the only instruments that could be used to disprove them. For example, who else has a Large Hadron Collider to disprove the Boson theory [I think they now call it the Boson Principle]? "
Completely agree with that. In fact, Einstein found major flaws in Newtons Theory of Gravity. Does that make him a better scientist? Not neccesarily, If Newton had the same 20th century technology Einstein would he have worked out the flaws for himself? Without being brought up with Newton's knowledge would Einstein have made such an impact? Circumstance limits genius. Who knows what indvidual will come along in the future who could count themselves alongside those two with groundbreaking ideas of his or her own? Scientific fact is limited by the technology of the day absolutely, but the information we have still fits with what we observe in the universe every time so that's why it's considered fact until proven otherwise.
"The other problem, as you say, is that the "clique" controls all of the research, and who's going to go against the people who control everything in the field -- most especially the money, which then controls who gets to work on the research? "
I would hope that the big universities would support them and not bow to external influence. Newton was supported by Cambridge I believe, in a time when science was largely marginalised. Stephen Hawking has been supported by Oxford through his illness for a good 30 years, hopefully the great minds can continue work free of government influence. Who knows? I can't answer this question as succintly as I'd like as I don't fall under the class A academia you mentioned in your original point 2, I am merely a layman with a passing interest.
"I'm very glad to see that you wrote, "In the case of Einstein's work 100 years later it is still the best theory we have that fits with 3 of the 4 fundemental forces of the universe. . . . " It's that fourth one that sticks in the craw."
Again, I'm certainly not an expert, but from reading various books, watching documentaries and reading information via the internet it is my understanding that modern science believes Einstein's theory to be correct on gravity, but cannot yet prove it under the current model because of a specific particle that's missing from the formula. That particle is thought to be the Higgs Boson and if found they will be able to link all four forces together under the same theory. That's my understanding of it, but I am willing to accept I am completely barking up the wrong tree.
The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
