I'll wait till cosmetologist LaTeisha explains it
- Thread starter Dogtown
- Start date
I'll wait till cosmetologist LaTeisha explains it
I missed the part that tells me where to find some Retumbo in the universe.
Pay attention! You're looking in the wrong universe... there's more than one!
Your statement is correct. Infinity is not a number, it's a concept. Generally, things that can be measured are quite concrete. Time, which you mention above, is one such concrete example. I strongly resist the temptation to move into philosophical conversations on these matters because things get squishy real quick. If anyone has a problem thinking time is anything but some thing hard and fast, just consider feet per second. If you are being shot at those seconds could really care less what you think and it is a matter of time before you get capped. In this case it's body tissue that get squishy. The unit of measurement (seconds) might be arbitrary, but time definitely exists. Thinking like this keeps me from diving into the deep end of the pool on philosophizing on matters of physics. Same goes for bounded and unbounded domains, kids in math class tackle this one every day.
I might be repeating something Dogtown said, but all matter is mostly just empty space. The clothes you are wearing, assuming you're wearing any, has far more empty space than it does matter (instead of the word matter, we might just say clothing particles). And that space is quantifiable.
Ok, I'm well into the bourbon and am losing focus here... what the fuck were we talking about...?
Or is it? The fact of the matter is that we may not know. What we perceive as empty space is possibly not empty at all. But yes this is as stated by our perception of the understanding of the concept of empty. I know, it's paradoxical and syntax. If you want to see empty space you have to look at the massive distances on the sub atomic scale, for example the distance between and electron and a neutron. I believe this is what you and Dog are getting at and I'm just spinning it again.
The more we know the more we realize we don't know. And perhaps there are quantum universes within universes in what we think is empty space. It's truly mind blowing. It makes one realize how insignificant we really are.
Last edited:
Guess I missed the mark with this one, eh, EH? Next time, if there ever is a next time, I promise to resist the temptation to even raise an eyebrow at some of the stuff that populates the 'Science' channel.
Just, just..., never mind...
Just, just..., never mind...
Last edited:
What I find puzzling is the negative or mocking reaction to science by those who are most immediately and medically in need of everything it has to offer.
I'm ok with there being concepts and theories beyond my educational and intellectual ability to grasp. I know just because I don't get it it doesn't mean it's bullshit. I'm grateful to these people as more than anything else they are the hope of our future. I would take theories that are peer reviewed and attacked over arbitrary superstitions and humbug any day.
I'm ok with there being concepts and theories beyond my educational and intellectual ability to grasp. I know just because I don't get it it doesn't mean it's bullshit. I'm grateful to these people as more than anything else they are the hope of our future. I would take theories that are peer reviewed and attacked over arbitrary superstitions and humbug any day.
Belittling others' opinions is necessary for some, distasteful to others; but no big deal, I'll wear the D-cap.
All I really ventured to say is that where some drink the Contemporary Cosmological Kool-aide, some don't, and I'm among the latter. The pill's just a bit big to swallow these days.
I don't know how old you are EH, but I'm gettin' there, and I've seen cosmology go from the Milky Way being the whole ball of wax to things that sound like they're being mouthed by folks with more than one screw loose, and peer review being reduced to something resembling cheering sections. No offense, but it reminds me of the story of the Emperor's parade.
When people start talking to me about mathematical proofs of dimensions numbering in the double digits, dark energy, dark matter, and expanding universes; I want to hear it in terms I can explain to my (college age) granddaughter. That's not what I'm seeing, I just keep hearing the 'trust me' catch phrase, and for me, I want more than that. When I see renowned physicists dissolving into shrugs and frowns when asked to explain the Higgs Boson, I begin to suspect there could be some basis for skepticism; but then again, maybe that's just little old me...
When I express disbelief (but in a kind way...), it kind of fucking pisses me off when the first response is a suggestion that I'm falling right off the rim of reality. Forgive me if I sense a wee bit of jeering hostility.
So how's your day going, EH?
Greg
All I really ventured to say is that where some drink the Contemporary Cosmological Kool-aide, some don't, and I'm among the latter. The pill's just a bit big to swallow these days.
I don't know how old you are EH, but I'm gettin' there, and I've seen cosmology go from the Milky Way being the whole ball of wax to things that sound like they're being mouthed by folks with more than one screw loose, and peer review being reduced to something resembling cheering sections. No offense, but it reminds me of the story of the Emperor's parade.
When people start talking to me about mathematical proofs of dimensions numbering in the double digits, dark energy, dark matter, and expanding universes; I want to hear it in terms I can explain to my (college age) granddaughter. That's not what I'm seeing, I just keep hearing the 'trust me' catch phrase, and for me, I want more than that. When I see renowned physicists dissolving into shrugs and frowns when asked to explain the Higgs Boson, I begin to suspect there could be some basis for skepticism; but then again, maybe that's just little old me...
When I express disbelief (but in a kind way...), it kind of fucking pisses me off when the first response is a suggestion that I'm falling right off the rim of reality. Forgive me if I sense a wee bit of jeering hostility.
So how's your day going, EH?
Greg
Last edited:
Greg, the thing is there is no "just trust us" about science, otherwise it wouldn't be science in the first place. One of the key rules is that you have to lay out all of your data and methods so it can be checked, verified and confirmed - that's why peer review is essential. The fact that extremely difficult scientific concepts often can't be simplified for the masses shouldn't make you skeptical; it should make you want to understand them. Unfortunately communicating science to an increasingly science-illiterate population is a very difficult endeavour and few are gifted enough to be successful at it. And the fact that you've been around long enough to see the evolution of our understanding of the Universe shouldn't make it or the process suspect; it should make you appreciate the self-correcting refinement process that science relies on. Our understanding may change over time, but that also means that we continue to move forward in understanding reality.
Once again, here we have a science post that rapidly devolves into a debate over the validity of science in general. What's the bizarre correlation between the shooting community and its hostility to science? You'd think that a group of guys who rely so heavily on applied ballistic and mechanical sciences would support the process instead of be so highly opinionated of it?
Once again, here we have a science post that rapidly devolves into a debate over the validity of science in general. What's the bizarre correlation between the shooting community and its hostility to science? You'd think that a group of guys who rely so heavily on applied ballistic and mechanical sciences would support the process instead of be so highly opinionated of it?
Day's been great. Boys played at the park, went swimming, chick-fil-a then off to the range with a buddy and his dad.
Had a great WA Syrah with some salami and Roquefort.
Read your own posts and you tell me who has the jeering hostility.
There's no rational benchmark that says truth must be simple. So what if you can't explain it to a college grad. Perhaps it's your failing rather than the content. There are many brilliant liberal arts graduates who are befuddled by the workings of a toaster and I'm sure there are science grads who get stumped by Shakespeare's allusions. To your thought both are 'Kool-aid'... Falsehoods cooked up to justify a stipend of funding.
Had a great WA Syrah with some salami and Roquefort.
Read your own posts and you tell me who has the jeering hostility.
There's no rational benchmark that says truth must be simple. So what if you can't explain it to a college grad. Perhaps it's your failing rather than the content. There are many brilliant liberal arts graduates who are befuddled by the workings of a toaster and I'm sure there are science grads who get stumped by Shakespeare's allusions. To your thought both are 'Kool-aid'... Falsehoods cooked up to justify a stipend of funding.
Well, the validity of Scientists being questioned is really the fault of the Scientists (some) themselves. Funding mechanisms in place today encourage headline seekers and outright fraud, all in an effort for more headlines and more funding, mostly at the government teet. I work with actual scientists, my company actually pays them, and pays them well, we also fund a lot of research in Universities as well as University scholarships in various disciplines. I know what real scientists do, I am lucky enough to have seen them in action, they are a pragmatic disciplined bunch in general. The problem arises when you get a group of so called scientists that have an agenda to push, they get peer reviews from people with the same agenda and dismiss anyone that does not agree with their conclusions as unqualified. The major one that sticks out to me is the dreaded Global Warming subject, then there are the fad science report of the week i.e. coffee bad for you, gluten bad for you, salt bad for you, DDT is too dangerous to use, etc etc, I could go on but the DDT subject needs special mention, that campaign has killed millions in Africa, S American and poor Pacific countries. Global warming peer reviews have been fully discredited yet the "Scientists" keep on trucking and pushing the same discredited unsupported conclusion as if they were proven fact. I personally find the cosmos fascinating and I hope they keep the work going in that area at government expense, I hope my great great great grand kids carry light sabers, shoot ray guns, and get to travel faster than the speed of light. Bottom line is that science has been politicized by the scientists themselves, causing the loss of their credibility, and that my friend, is a shame.
Wikipedia:Scientific peer review/Global Warming - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
DDT - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Wikipedia:Scientific peer review/Global Warming - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
DDT - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
How dare you post something so though provoking that our local forum luddites quake and moan. Teach you to do that again I bet.
Like I said, I'm still pissed that Noah didn't let on some T-Rex and a few Brontos. Can you imagine the BBQ!
OK, I get it; go against the popular viewpoint, get labeled Luddite. Or worse.
Understand that disbelief has a valuable purpose. Taking matters at face value is something I have traditionally refused to do. Asking the questions, and doing the independent research is largely what has led so many among you to trust what I have to say on the subjects we all hold dear. Those of you who actually pay attention to the things I'm usually trying to convey will also recognize that I freely admit my mistakes. The purpose behind showing the pebbles among the gems is that it may allow others to avoid unnecessary waste of time and other valuable resources.
Consider this; there can be little true advance of knowledge until the unenlightened become properly convinced, to their own satisfaction. Hounding and belittling them seems alien to the scientific method in my personal opinion. Requiring that they recant while unconvinced is simply dominance and oppression; things I thought we gun owners were supposed to resist. Otherwise the Inquisition lives on, alive and well in the 21st Century.
Science is not being assaulted, but rather the hype that has traditionally surrounded the heralding of new concepts. A lot of them a have been badly flawed in the past, and more will certainly be in the future; a simple fact that consequently leads me to assess all such new announcements with something somewhat less than absolute and unquestioning acceptance.
By the same token, science is flawed, has always been flawed, and for as long as it is going to be performed by fallible human beings, will be flawed. To say otherwise is hopelessly Utopian. If you don't cast a questioning eye on science, maybe you should.
Or are we insisting that we all must look back with complete satisfaction, and that every facet of what is currently being, and will always be bandied about in popular entertainment as science is 'ex cathedra' and thus infallible?
By such standards, we'd be living in orbit on a massive scale, have interplanetary transit depots within everyone's reach, and the Mars Colony would be into its second generation of expansion. We were supposed to be doing archeological excavation on the Moon fourteen years ago. HAL would have killed the crew well within a dozen yearsItafter. Yes it's speculative fiction. I was widely believed to be nearly prophetic at the time. Remember that word, "speculative"...
In contrast, I suggest that the more scientifically smug among us do a little research about just how solid the belief in a constant speed of light has been affected by the recent discovery that there is a difference in the actual velocities of high energy photons and low energy photons. When foundations so basic as this one are called into serious question, those 'principles' we build upon them each become successively unstable. Add to this the idea that light does not travel in a straight line, but is following a constant and complex series of curves dependent of the actual curvature of space time, and more scientifically historic milestones start to tremble a bit. Gravitational lensing is supposed to have a basis on both the energy and mass of the photon, but does the photon have actual mass? The best we can come up with is a definite 'maybe'.
Yet matters as infallibly accepted as accelerating Universal expansion get based on factors like red shift, immutable light velocity, and matters as questionable as whether or not the stars we see are actually in the direction we think we're seeing them, or actually skewed by lensing into a quite distorted map of space and time. I am asked to accept that the three dimensional depictions of the known universe are accurate because the computer programs have told us they are.
Hey, I made a lot of my living programming and operating computers. Computers and their programs are not infallible. Programmers argue often. A large proportion of Mars Landers burn up because of computer hardware, programming, and data failures. The Hubble counted on computers and ended up needing corrective lenses. The Hubble, I remind you. Not like its outputs are crucial to any of these questions...; oh, wait... No person in their right mains actually expects computers to be infallible. That's because they are not.
If I wanted to derail a country's economy, military, and infrastructure, I would release a popular new operating system whose object code had been subtly corrupted so that random computational errors occurred on a naggingly rare frequency. Yeah, right, like that's never gonna happen. Oh, wait...
Remember the Millennium Bug hullaballoo? I do, because I was assigned to review the code on each and every computer program in "The Telephone Company's" mechanized billing and collection system and verify that the bug was not present. There were no such bugs; I know because I reviewed every single line of code. But I found bugs, lots of them, and fixed all I found. They just weren't related to the Millennium Bug. If we hadn't been checking for the bug, how many of us would have reason to be so trustful of our telephone bills. Should we be? I'm not infallible, either.
My viewpoint parallels Reagan's; trust, but verify. Peer review is supposed to take care of that, but peers? Knowing I can trust them is not something I take for granted. I made a lot of my living as a systems troubleshooter. To do this, the first step is to trust nothing. Those who trust everything are always wrong.
This topic starts by suggesting that we may begin to have a chance at gaining a handle on how gravity works, and that therein lies the seed of a possible reconciliation between Quantum and Einsteinian physics. A theory of everything is heralded as looming within our grasp. I say, hold you horses, Pal; we still don't understand why the orbital speeds of stars circling galactic black holes is so unexplainably similar despite the major discrepancies between computed and observed results. Will this discovery change our understanding of this? I doubt it, and I think I have a right to.
This Universe within which we live is not only stranger than you imagine, but stranger than any among us can imagine.
It is this array of serious and significant 'strangeness' that prompts the questioning of any assurances that such certainty actually exits in such measure as so many here are insisting. When somebody tries to tell me that they, and they alone, have certain grasp upon cosmological fact; I'm sorry, but the alarm bells start ringing within my meager intellect. What's certain today essentially and inevitably becomes a 'Yes, but...' . The one thing I am certain with about science is that it will change, and that certainty is not certain in any true respect of the word where science is concerned. History bears me out.
I read the preceding cartoon, and I keep hitting things that I was taught to be impossible. Like the universe expanding at a rate that is faster than light. Is this an implication that the speed of light is not the universal cosmological speed limit? To me these matters must compute, and they don't.
I keep seeing the word 'theory'. If so much of this is based on theory, I am minded that another word for 'Theory' is 'Speculation'.
To me, this means that these proofs are essentially based within a mass of speculation. When pressed, more and weirder speculations are cited to support the former speculation. A lot of it is based on mass and energy, yet nobody can even explain why there are black holes at the cores of pretty much every galaxy, or even how or when they got there; before or after the galaxy formed. Are they logically associated with the formation of the Universe? Are they in anyway a correlation between the missing mass and energy and the huge annihilation of matter and antimatter that is said to have occurred before any galaxies could possibly begin forming. I don't think anyone has the answers to those questions and that until such questions get answered, speculation about subjects like speculated accelerating expansion, dark matter and energy are highly premature.
At least this questioner has the conscience to speak his mind while remaining open to the possibility he can be wrong. What I'm saying is that I remain unconvinced but open to enlightenment, while I do make steady headway at grasping and understanding different facets of this area's knowledge. I just prefer to reserve judgment and speak my piece when questions arise in my own mind.
As for the more deliberate goading and distain which remains an omnipresent part of The 'Hide; it's easy to recognize the differences between those who argue for the purpose of enlightenment, and those who simply seize upon the nearest opportunity to vent their bile.
Again, I appreciate the efforts of those who are attempting to assist me in understanding these issues. The others... take your shots, they are inevitable and logical consequences of much that I try to say around here. I could respond in kind, but that is inappropriate.
I remind you that I am the Resident Elder Fart around here. I prefer caution, and counsel others to be sure of their ground before they embark upon their vast and excitingly new leaps of faith.
So keep frackin' with my viewpoints. The one thing that's certain is that I'll stand by them for as long as it takes to convince me otherwise, and the next thing that's certain is that I'll admit it when I am convinced.
As for those of you who insist on making this into a war of wills, I pity you; you still don't understand what The 'Hide has always been all about.
Greg
Understand that disbelief has a valuable purpose. Taking matters at face value is something I have traditionally refused to do. Asking the questions, and doing the independent research is largely what has led so many among you to trust what I have to say on the subjects we all hold dear. Those of you who actually pay attention to the things I'm usually trying to convey will also recognize that I freely admit my mistakes. The purpose behind showing the pebbles among the gems is that it may allow others to avoid unnecessary waste of time and other valuable resources.
Consider this; there can be little true advance of knowledge until the unenlightened become properly convinced, to their own satisfaction. Hounding and belittling them seems alien to the scientific method in my personal opinion. Requiring that they recant while unconvinced is simply dominance and oppression; things I thought we gun owners were supposed to resist. Otherwise the Inquisition lives on, alive and well in the 21st Century.
Science is not being assaulted, but rather the hype that has traditionally surrounded the heralding of new concepts. A lot of them a have been badly flawed in the past, and more will certainly be in the future; a simple fact that consequently leads me to assess all such new announcements with something somewhat less than absolute and unquestioning acceptance.
By the same token, science is flawed, has always been flawed, and for as long as it is going to be performed by fallible human beings, will be flawed. To say otherwise is hopelessly Utopian. If you don't cast a questioning eye on science, maybe you should.
Or are we insisting that we all must look back with complete satisfaction, and that every facet of what is currently being, and will always be bandied about in popular entertainment as science is 'ex cathedra' and thus infallible?
By such standards, we'd be living in orbit on a massive scale, have interplanetary transit depots within everyone's reach, and the Mars Colony would be into its second generation of expansion. We were supposed to be doing archeological excavation on the Moon fourteen years ago. HAL would have killed the crew well within a dozen yearsItafter. Yes it's speculative fiction. I was widely believed to be nearly prophetic at the time. Remember that word, "speculative"...
In contrast, I suggest that the more scientifically smug among us do a little research about just how solid the belief in a constant speed of light has been affected by the recent discovery that there is a difference in the actual velocities of high energy photons and low energy photons. When foundations so basic as this one are called into serious question, those 'principles' we build upon them each become successively unstable. Add to this the idea that light does not travel in a straight line, but is following a constant and complex series of curves dependent of the actual curvature of space time, and more scientifically historic milestones start to tremble a bit. Gravitational lensing is supposed to have a basis on both the energy and mass of the photon, but does the photon have actual mass? The best we can come up with is a definite 'maybe'.
Yet matters as infallibly accepted as accelerating Universal expansion get based on factors like red shift, immutable light velocity, and matters as questionable as whether or not the stars we see are actually in the direction we think we're seeing them, or actually skewed by lensing into a quite distorted map of space and time. I am asked to accept that the three dimensional depictions of the known universe are accurate because the computer programs have told us they are.
Hey, I made a lot of my living programming and operating computers. Computers and their programs are not infallible. Programmers argue often. A large proportion of Mars Landers burn up because of computer hardware, programming, and data failures. The Hubble counted on computers and ended up needing corrective lenses. The Hubble, I remind you. Not like its outputs are crucial to any of these questions...; oh, wait... No person in their right mains actually expects computers to be infallible. That's because they are not.
If I wanted to derail a country's economy, military, and infrastructure, I would release a popular new operating system whose object code had been subtly corrupted so that random computational errors occurred on a naggingly rare frequency. Yeah, right, like that's never gonna happen. Oh, wait...
Remember the Millennium Bug hullaballoo? I do, because I was assigned to review the code on each and every computer program in "The Telephone Company's" mechanized billing and collection system and verify that the bug was not present. There were no such bugs; I know because I reviewed every single line of code. But I found bugs, lots of them, and fixed all I found. They just weren't related to the Millennium Bug. If we hadn't been checking for the bug, how many of us would have reason to be so trustful of our telephone bills. Should we be? I'm not infallible, either.
My viewpoint parallels Reagan's; trust, but verify. Peer review is supposed to take care of that, but peers? Knowing I can trust them is not something I take for granted. I made a lot of my living as a systems troubleshooter. To do this, the first step is to trust nothing. Those who trust everything are always wrong.
This topic starts by suggesting that we may begin to have a chance at gaining a handle on how gravity works, and that therein lies the seed of a possible reconciliation between Quantum and Einsteinian physics. A theory of everything is heralded as looming within our grasp. I say, hold you horses, Pal; we still don't understand why the orbital speeds of stars circling galactic black holes is so unexplainably similar despite the major discrepancies between computed and observed results. Will this discovery change our understanding of this? I doubt it, and I think I have a right to.
This Universe within which we live is not only stranger than you imagine, but stranger than any among us can imagine.
It is this array of serious and significant 'strangeness' that prompts the questioning of any assurances that such certainty actually exits in such measure as so many here are insisting. When somebody tries to tell me that they, and they alone, have certain grasp upon cosmological fact; I'm sorry, but the alarm bells start ringing within my meager intellect. What's certain today essentially and inevitably becomes a 'Yes, but...' . The one thing I am certain with about science is that it will change, and that certainty is not certain in any true respect of the word where science is concerned. History bears me out.
I read the preceding cartoon, and I keep hitting things that I was taught to be impossible. Like the universe expanding at a rate that is faster than light. Is this an implication that the speed of light is not the universal cosmological speed limit? To me these matters must compute, and they don't.
I keep seeing the word 'theory'. If so much of this is based on theory, I am minded that another word for 'Theory' is 'Speculation'.
To me, this means that these proofs are essentially based within a mass of speculation. When pressed, more and weirder speculations are cited to support the former speculation. A lot of it is based on mass and energy, yet nobody can even explain why there are black holes at the cores of pretty much every galaxy, or even how or when they got there; before or after the galaxy formed. Are they logically associated with the formation of the Universe? Are they in anyway a correlation between the missing mass and energy and the huge annihilation of matter and antimatter that is said to have occurred before any galaxies could possibly begin forming. I don't think anyone has the answers to those questions and that until such questions get answered, speculation about subjects like speculated accelerating expansion, dark matter and energy are highly premature.
At least this questioner has the conscience to speak his mind while remaining open to the possibility he can be wrong. What I'm saying is that I remain unconvinced but open to enlightenment, while I do make steady headway at grasping and understanding different facets of this area's knowledge. I just prefer to reserve judgment and speak my piece when questions arise in my own mind.
As for the more deliberate goading and distain which remains an omnipresent part of The 'Hide; it's easy to recognize the differences between those who argue for the purpose of enlightenment, and those who simply seize upon the nearest opportunity to vent their bile.
Again, I appreciate the efforts of those who are attempting to assist me in understanding these issues. The others... take your shots, they are inevitable and logical consequences of much that I try to say around here. I could respond in kind, but that is inappropriate.
I remind you that I am the Resident Elder Fart around here. I prefer caution, and counsel others to be sure of their ground before they embark upon their vast and excitingly new leaps of faith.
So keep frackin' with my viewpoints. The one thing that's certain is that I'll stand by them for as long as it takes to convince me otherwise, and the next thing that's certain is that I'll admit it when I am convinced.
As for those of you who insist on making this into a war of wills, I pity you; you still don't understand what The 'Hide has always been all about.
Greg
Last edited:
The cousin that will survive on his skills when the power goes out while the Sheldons of the world will be food for escaped zoo animals while trying to extract energy from sea water to power laptops so they can connect to the internet and post theories about what happened and no one will agree and a few thousand millennia from now a Sheldon from the future will prove them all wrong and all future physicists will disagree....
Therein lies the problem. Like Bill Clinton..."it depends on what the definition of the word 'is' is". What I realize is that when something factual is discovered, nothing has changed except man's knowledge. The 7 physical laws, at one point WERE theories to man, even though they were in place for the entirety of at least recorded history. You, like so many others, have accepted the alteration and blending of the terms "Philosophy" and "Science".
A theory is really just a way of saying someone has this idea. When theories are created to support other theories, that is building on sand, not a foundation. One can then use the scientific method to test that theory, but some assumptions will still be included. Yes, there is hierarchy. The 7 physical laws don't change, but the workings in theory do.
There are actually 4 major implications to the discoveries (they are not breakthroughs at all, merely man gaining in the understanding of the Universe in which we find ourselves) and I agree they are important. Philosophers like to ignore parts of the 7 physical laws, a Scientist will compare his theories against them. Now when the two major models in Physics can be merged into one consistent model, that will be a breakthrough in our understanding.
@ Greg Langelious...Bravo. Researchers, Philosophers and Scientists must be challenged at every assertion. This both sharpens the focus as well as weeds out the flawed logic and philosophical bias of the person doing the work. The BICEP2 discoveries are important, but they do not prove our origin. They are more like looking in the rear view mirror while driving through Chicago and saying "we must have come from Cleveland".
Greg,
I'm with you on this. I usually want to punch someone in the neck who answers one of my inquiries with something like "I can't really get into because it's complicated". There is no shortage of subjects about which we may hear it. Scientists, lawyers, and people who talk about external ballistics all have a guilty parties in their ranks. Unfortunately, they give the rest a bad rap, especially the lawyers.
The ones who are secure in themselves and their profession usually don't do this. Some doctors are megalomaniacs and some are salt of the earth. If you thumb through the PDR (Physicians Desk Reference) for a close look at all the drugs we are being prescribed, often demanded by the consumer, you will discover that almost 1 in 5 have no positively known mechanism of action. That is to say that all we know is that if under certain conditions a person takes this chemical then we will usually see a particular range of results, but we don't known how exactly they work. Some of the science we have had shoved into our mouths for decades is not exactly understood. So how exact do think we understand the cosmos.... not very. And that's ok. And I don't care that I don't understand it all.
MTT
I do care that I don't understand. I still, at the age of 68, make a serious effort to improve on that. I just isn't in my nature to take things on a basis that I don't need to understand. I don't mind being slow, but I mind both being stuck, and also being talked down to. At least some genuinely try to help.
Greg
Greg
Last edited:
I don't intend to wade into this discussion and appear as if I'm trying to throw my weight around, there's very little weight indeed. But I would add that the theorizing on theory (that is to say speculating about conclusions that haven't been proven) is a natural practice in the search for truth and should not be seen as similar to building on sand. Put another way, the scientific method requires hypothesis, testing, observation, repeat. At the end of observation, we don't magically arrive at a proof. So why should thought and speculation be limited to the next incremental step beyond proven law or fact? These very large topics are by their nature "squishy" for some of the reasons Greg cited above, and any good cosmologist knows that. But that should not stop them from standing on the firmest ground they have and searching for the next supportive spot.
So a couple of specifics; Greg, what black'hole orbital velocity predicted vs. observed discrepancies? Also, there's no limit on the speed of 'space' that I'm aware of. I understood the inflationary period to be the expansion of space itself, 'c' is a change in spacial position relative to another in time. If space / time was expanding it's entirely possible (again we're at bounded vs unbounded) that there was no speed limit violations. (though I too was startled by the implications of faster than light particles last year, i'm choosing not to think about it right now)
I''m really glad that the development of civilization (agriculture, writing, division of labor, leisure time, etc) lets some of my tax dollars can go to searching beyond my personal horizons. Anti-intellectualism is like, totally bad and stuff.
ETA: The pitfall that must be avoided (peer review, skepticism) is the following illustrated by one of those gifted folks.
So a couple of specifics; Greg, what black'hole orbital velocity predicted vs. observed discrepancies? Also, there's no limit on the speed of 'space' that I'm aware of. I understood the inflationary period to be the expansion of space itself, 'c' is a change in spacial position relative to another in time. If space / time was expanding it's entirely possible (again we're at bounded vs unbounded) that there was no speed limit violations. (though I too was startled by the implications of faster than light particles last year, i'm choosing not to think about it right now)
I''m really glad that the development of civilization (agriculture, writing, division of labor, leisure time, etc) lets some of my tax dollars can go to searching beyond my personal horizons. Anti-intellectualism is like, totally bad and stuff.
ETA: The pitfall that must be avoided (peer review, skepticism) is the following illustrated by one of those gifted folks.
Last edited:
Galaxy rotation curve
While this actually served as the basis for the search for dark matter, it neither confirms the presence of dark matter, nor rules out any other explanation, where I believe far too may cosmologist are making a serious error by discounting such possibilities.
I even have one of my own, derived from, of all things, the Sagan link you show above.
We really don't know conditions that exist on the far side of the Event Horizon. For instance, is the interior constrained to fit within the visible radius of the Event Horizon? I don't know, and neither does anybody else.
I postulate/speculate that the gravitic distortion of space and time continues to correspond to the magnitude of mass included within that Event Horizon. I believe that the effective center of mass extends deeper into the region of the black hole than its visible radius. By extending this effective mean radius of the orbital distance to a projected point relative to the mass's possible distortion of space time, the mean effective orbital radius is vastly extended.
This does a few things to the orbital equation.
First, the effective orbital radius of all the stars becomes a lot more similar, potentially explaining their velocity similarities.
Next, by forcing the central mass to be proportional to the magnified orbital radius, that mass needs to be bigger, a lot bigger. This, in turn, increase the overall mass of the known universe, perhaps invalidating the need to 'invent" dark matter and dark energy.
Nobody has ever seen a black hole form. Nobody has ever seen astronomical universe sized masses of matter and antimatter annihilate each other. Since nobody can explain the formation of galactic black holes, I suggest that all of these conditions are strongly related. For instance, does the annihilation of matter/antimatter have the potential to form a back hole? Does such a mélange actually disappear, or might it form a singularity? If so, then maybe we have found a basis for considering that the known Universe actually contains far more mass than is currently believed, without any fluky imaginations creating mysterious dark energy or dark matter.
It would be interesting to hear the members of this forum refute this postulate. It would could even be interesting for them to find believable supporting evidence for their arguments.
I have absolutely no idea whether this postulate has ever been considered elsewhere, I have only ever mentioned it here. Nobody, at the time, tried to refute it.
I do know that it's fair to consider that it is a logical extension, built upon the more definitely known attributes of the known Universe, as was constrained in the immediately previous post.
Did you ever hear the one about the Atheist, the Clergyman, and the Communist who were all put together in a dark room and told there was a black cat in there with them?
The Atheist declared he could not believe there was a cat.
The Clergyman declared that the cat was real, and he was going to catch it.
The Communist immediately declared that there not only was a cat, but that he already had it under his arm.
Does it really even matter whether there was a cat in there at all?
Greg
PS Yep, I'm just a Luddite dullard with no real grasp on cosmology at all....
While this actually served as the basis for the search for dark matter, it neither confirms the presence of dark matter, nor rules out any other explanation, where I believe far too may cosmologist are making a serious error by discounting such possibilities.
I even have one of my own, derived from, of all things, the Sagan link you show above.
We really don't know conditions that exist on the far side of the Event Horizon. For instance, is the interior constrained to fit within the visible radius of the Event Horizon? I don't know, and neither does anybody else.
I postulate/speculate that the gravitic distortion of space and time continues to correspond to the magnitude of mass included within that Event Horizon. I believe that the effective center of mass extends deeper into the region of the black hole than its visible radius. By extending this effective mean radius of the orbital distance to a projected point relative to the mass's possible distortion of space time, the mean effective orbital radius is vastly extended.
This does a few things to the orbital equation.
First, the effective orbital radius of all the stars becomes a lot more similar, potentially explaining their velocity similarities.
Next, by forcing the central mass to be proportional to the magnified orbital radius, that mass needs to be bigger, a lot bigger. This, in turn, increase the overall mass of the known universe, perhaps invalidating the need to 'invent" dark matter and dark energy.
Nobody has ever seen a black hole form. Nobody has ever seen astronomical universe sized masses of matter and antimatter annihilate each other. Since nobody can explain the formation of galactic black holes, I suggest that all of these conditions are strongly related. For instance, does the annihilation of matter/antimatter have the potential to form a back hole? Does such a mélange actually disappear, or might it form a singularity? If so, then maybe we have found a basis for considering that the known Universe actually contains far more mass than is currently believed, without any fluky imaginations creating mysterious dark energy or dark matter.
It would be interesting to hear the members of this forum refute this postulate. It would could even be interesting for them to find believable supporting evidence for their arguments.
I have absolutely no idea whether this postulate has ever been considered elsewhere, I have only ever mentioned it here. Nobody, at the time, tried to refute it.
I do know that it's fair to consider that it is a logical extension, built upon the more definitely known attributes of the known Universe, as was constrained in the immediately previous post.
Did you ever hear the one about the Atheist, the Clergyman, and the Communist who were all put together in a dark room and told there was a black cat in there with them?
The Atheist declared he could not believe there was a cat.
The Clergyman declared that the cat was real, and he was going to catch it.
The Communist immediately declared that there not only was a cat, but that he already had it under his arm.
Does it really even matter whether there was a cat in there at all?
Greg
PS Yep, I'm just a Luddite dullard with no real grasp on cosmology at all....
Last edited:
This is to complicated. Or is it too complicated? Ah, fuck it, Kentucky/Wichita State is on, maybe I'll checkout the links after the game.
Commercial break. Plenty of theories being studied, some just garner more attention than others. At this point it makes no real difference in most people's lives,other than the scientists in the field, may result in improved technology "someday".
To me it's just another theory to peruse in my spare time. The leaders in the field don't know "for sure" how it works, I'm not likely to either. I'll let the Hawk and the Plumber and all their contemporaries argue it out in their group of peers, and on the Science Channel.
Commercial break. Plenty of theories being studied, some just garner more attention than others. At this point it makes no real difference in most people's lives,other than the scientists in the field, may result in improved technology "someday".
To me it's just another theory to peruse in my spare time. The leaders in the field don't know "for sure" how it works, I'm not likely to either. I'll let the Hawk and the Plumber and all their contemporaries argue it out in their group of peers, and on the Science Channel.
Last edited:
Thanks for the link. Interesting theory (MOND) by Milgrom, and others, but they smack of special pleading. There are (apparently) some quantum gravity theories that existed before the alleged data from BICEP2 that are said to deal well with the problem of flat rotational curves, clusters, and the dark matter issue as a whole. Bottom line here is I've no idea, but I don't see the problem with "dark matter" as an explanation. If your complaint is that it's arm-wavy or unsubstantiated, what's the difference between that and anything else? It's been an effective place-holder so far. Maybe the new data that started this thread will make it unnecessary.
Speaking of special pleading; I like the concept of an "extended radius" for black-holes, but that's just as theoretical given (as you mentioned) that no one has "seen" a black-hole. And I'm not sure about the validity of the mechanics of such a thing. Not saying you're wrong only that I don't have all the data or a srtong enough grasp of the math to check it. Wouldn't a "longer" radius extend somewhere? Into a worm hole, or perhaps another universe. All more speculative in my mind than simply saying "there's stuff there we cant see". How does an "extended radius" explain the well matched near portion of the curve? Simple is better. Another thing is that it wouldn't necessarily explain the gravitational lensing observed and attributed to the presence of "dark" stuff would it? Asking there. It''s a good idea though.
It totally matters! I hate cats. If there was a scientist in there (s)he may have asked, "are any of us allergic to cats?" An atheist would say "I don't believe the cat's in here", it's an agnostic that would say he could not (for lack of evidence I presume). A dyslexic clergyman would scream that he just stepped on one and it really hurt.
Speaking of special pleading; I like the concept of an "extended radius" for black-holes, but that's just as theoretical given (as you mentioned) that no one has "seen" a black-hole. And I'm not sure about the validity of the mechanics of such a thing. Not saying you're wrong only that I don't have all the data or a srtong enough grasp of the math to check it. Wouldn't a "longer" radius extend somewhere? Into a worm hole, or perhaps another universe. All more speculative in my mind than simply saying "there's stuff there we cant see". How does an "extended radius" explain the well matched near portion of the curve? Simple is better. Another thing is that it wouldn't necessarily explain the gravitational lensing observed and attributed to the presence of "dark" stuff would it? Asking there. It''s a good idea though.
It totally matters! I hate cats. If there was a scientist in there (s)he may have asked, "are any of us allergic to cats?" An atheist would say "I don't believe the cat's in here", it's an agnostic that would say he could not (for lack of evidence I presume). A dyslexic clergyman would scream that he just stepped on one and it really hurt.
Last edited:
Greg, it's very difficult to read your post because it comes across as very confused. When talking about black holes, there are a lot of unknowns, especially beyond the Event Horizon, but that's purely a boundary and we know quite well that the actual radius of the black hole is significantly smaller. The issue of missing mass in the Universe has been covered for decades ad naseum and the dark matter model not only fits the data best but there is plenty of indirect evidence. The focus these days is to try to determine the characteristics of dark matter and how it would fit into the Standard Model of Particle Physics. If there was more mass tucked away in black holes then it would reveal itself through gravitational lensing and how it affected the orbits of nearby matter (gas, stars, etc). To say otherwise would contradict so many well understood facets of astrophysics, that none of our probes we sent to other planets, asteroids and comets would have been successful.
On supermassive black holes we find at the center of galaxies, our best understanding is that they are the result of mergers, which is something we not only see in various stages of happening, but also simulation work has revealed it to be a very plausible explanation. Yes, I know that doesn't PROVE it, but there is no 100% proof in science, there is only levels of validity and the idea with the most evidence, direct or indirect, is more valid than the one with none.
And wow, how do you go from matter/anti-matter annihilation to black hole formation? We understand that annihilation quite well - it happens all the time in our upper atmosphere and yet, no black holes. To form a black hole you need mass compressed smaller than its Schwarzchild Radius - that simple. The math shows that quite successfully.
On supermassive black holes we find at the center of galaxies, our best understanding is that they are the result of mergers, which is something we not only see in various stages of happening, but also simulation work has revealed it to be a very plausible explanation. Yes, I know that doesn't PROVE it, but there is no 100% proof in science, there is only levels of validity and the idea with the most evidence, direct or indirect, is more valid than the one with none.
And wow, how do you go from matter/anti-matter annihilation to black hole formation? We understand that annihilation quite well - it happens all the time in our upper atmosphere and yet, no black holes. To form a black hole you need mass compressed smaller than its Schwarzchild Radius - that simple. The math shows that quite successfully.
And MOND has an interesting way of solving ONE problem, but creating several new ones. If you try to replace General Relativity (or any scientific theory for that matter) with a potentially better one, not only does it have to solve new problems, but it also has to solve all of the old ones the previous theory explains. It's like trying to figure out the proper size for a garment: you may have one that fits perfectly except around the neck, but it would be foolish to replace it with one that fit the neck perfectly but was now short in the arms and too tight around the chest.
They broke this down at Starts with a Bang a while back
Why the Universe needs Dark Matter (and not MOND) in one graph ? Starts With A Bang
They broke this down at Starts with a Bang a while back
Why the Universe needs Dark Matter (and not MOND) in one graph ? Starts With A Bang
As I said, interesting, but I don't see the problem with the (at this time) widely accepted explanation. I count myself a skeptic of the first order, but that includes of my own abilities. I'm not a surgeon, though I am an EMT, I don't have many (read any) opinions on the proper methods of repair for a ruptured spleen. I'll take their word for it, as long as 99 out of 100 surgeons agree, I'm cool with it. I have better things to do than force myself to be a polymath, aint gonna happen anyway. Hey Dog, what do you think of the 400 Mega-Watt claims made by REL?
D-Town, I'm genuinely sorry you're having so much trouble understanding my post. Sorry, I explained the concept the best I could.
My understanding of the definition of a singularity is that the 'regular' laws of physics do not exist there. So if we insist on applying them anyway, results are likely to be unpredictable, which is not so far away from what we have now, a whole lot of uncertainty backed by a whole lot of unproved speculation. The closest we can come to determining the presence of dark matter is by inference, when the Wiki link I presented already tells us that the extra mass must be located somewhere within the galactic hub. The galactic black holes are right smack dab dead center of that hub. So now who's ignoring the obvious?
As for the postulated extra mass inside a black hole, if it were acting at a greater effective distance, its effects on lensing could well be indistinguishable from those of a lesser mass acting at a smaller distance. If you are absolutely insisting the possibility that such extensive radii could not be possible, then you are attributing to black holes properties that cannot be shown in evidence. At least your speculation is no more secure than mine should be on that point.
As for black holes not being attributable to the huge magnitudes of mass/energy attendant with the condensation and annihilation of matter/antimatter in the early stages of the universe's formation, please explain to me how you know this is so. You say it's well known, so maybe you can explain it to me in terms I might be able to pass on to my Granddaughter. If you insist it's beyond the understanding of myself and the rest of this forum, then I'm throwing the bullshit flag again.
Actually, unless you can explain the Galaxy rotation curve better than I'm seeing on Wiki, it's precisely what could well be explaining what you're trying to tell me couldn't be so in the disparity between observed and predicted stellar orbital velocities.
And that's pure bullshit. Or maybe there's a black hole tucked away somewhere close enough to our solar system that's it capable of generating such errors as you say must be present if my suggestions might be even likely?
Stop trying to dazzle the forum with such bullshit, it's beneath you.
I actually go to the trouble of reading and trying to understand your posts. Maybe you could do me the same courtesy instead of insisting I'm being confusing and incoherent.
Greg
My understanding of the definition of a singularity is that the 'regular' laws of physics do not exist there. So if we insist on applying them anyway, results are likely to be unpredictable, which is not so far away from what we have now, a whole lot of uncertainty backed by a whole lot of unproved speculation. The closest we can come to determining the presence of dark matter is by inference, when the Wiki link I presented already tells us that the extra mass must be located somewhere within the galactic hub. The galactic black holes are right smack dab dead center of that hub. So now who's ignoring the obvious?
As for the postulated extra mass inside a black hole, if it were acting at a greater effective distance, its effects on lensing could well be indistinguishable from those of a lesser mass acting at a smaller distance. If you are absolutely insisting the possibility that such extensive radii could not be possible, then you are attributing to black holes properties that cannot be shown in evidence. At least your speculation is no more secure than mine should be on that point.
As for black holes not being attributable to the huge magnitudes of mass/energy attendant with the condensation and annihilation of matter/antimatter in the early stages of the universe's formation, please explain to me how you know this is so. You say it's well known, so maybe you can explain it to me in terms I might be able to pass on to my Granddaughter. If you insist it's beyond the understanding of myself and the rest of this forum, then I'm throwing the bullshit flag again.
Actually, unless you can explain the Galaxy rotation curve better than I'm seeing on Wiki, it's precisely what could well be explaining what you're trying to tell me couldn't be so in the disparity between observed and predicted stellar orbital velocities.
And that's pure bullshit. Or maybe there's a black hole tucked away somewhere close enough to our solar system that's it capable of generating such errors as you say must be present if my suggestions might be even likely?
Stop trying to dazzle the forum with such bullshit, it's beneath you.
I actually go to the trouble of reading and trying to understand your posts. Maybe you could do me the same courtesy instead of insisting I'm being confusing and incoherent.
Greg
Last edited:
Singularities represent infinities and yes, what we know of physics breaks down at that infinitesimally small point, but that doesn't suddenly negate everything else we know about black holes. It just says we're not sure what happens beyond the event horizon, otherwise general relativity does an excellent job of explaining what's going on beyond that. In fact, mathematically we just treat black holes the same way we treat stars and planets: as bodies with mass and diameter. And the equations work remarkably well.
Now for the unaccounted mass of the Milky Way, the best understanding is that it's in a halo surrounding not the central hub, but the galaxy itself, extending well beyond it. If it were actually in the supermassive black hole at the center of the galaxy, then as I stated earlier, we'd see different orbital dynamics. By tracking the trajectories of the stars orbiting Sagittarius A we can determine the mass of the black hole. If all of the missing mass in the galaxy were actually hidden there, the trajectories would reveal it to be significantly more massive and that's just not the case.
And matter/anti-matter annihilation creating black holes...I'm not the one making the claim, I'm refuting it. We understand quite well how they form, both mathematically and observationally, and it is not from matter/anti-matter annihilation. Perhaps you're thinking of that theoretical concept of primordial black holes that was all the rage when the LHC was firing up? Is it theoretically possible that if you put enough energy density into a tiny area that you could create a mini-black hole? Theoretically, yes. Practically, no and we know this because energy densities much higher than we could ever create at the LHC happen in our upper atmosphere all the time from high energy proton and positron collisions.
You write all of this stuff as though they're revolutionary ideas that no one's thought about, seemingly forgetting that an entire global community of scientists has been working on these issues for decades. If you really know something that they don't, by all means go through the required process of submitting a paper explaining your position for peer review. Or even easier, why not ask an astronomer or physicist if your ideas have already been considered? Seriously - I think you'll find that when tackling a problem like the missing mass issue, they'll have already plowed through the obvious answers.
Then again, it shouldn't surprise me that a community that's more hostile to science on average would have PC approach to it, where even the average joe with a cursory understanding of a scientific topic has an opinion of seemingly equal merit to the scientific establishment. "Those scientists think they're so smart with their book lernin' when all they had to do was look here for the answer...shyaaa"
Now for the unaccounted mass of the Milky Way, the best understanding is that it's in a halo surrounding not the central hub, but the galaxy itself, extending well beyond it. If it were actually in the supermassive black hole at the center of the galaxy, then as I stated earlier, we'd see different orbital dynamics. By tracking the trajectories of the stars orbiting Sagittarius A we can determine the mass of the black hole. If all of the missing mass in the galaxy were actually hidden there, the trajectories would reveal it to be significantly more massive and that's just not the case.
And matter/anti-matter annihilation creating black holes...I'm not the one making the claim, I'm refuting it. We understand quite well how they form, both mathematically and observationally, and it is not from matter/anti-matter annihilation. Perhaps you're thinking of that theoretical concept of primordial black holes that was all the rage when the LHC was firing up? Is it theoretically possible that if you put enough energy density into a tiny area that you could create a mini-black hole? Theoretically, yes. Practically, no and we know this because energy densities much higher than we could ever create at the LHC happen in our upper atmosphere all the time from high energy proton and positron collisions.
You write all of this stuff as though they're revolutionary ideas that no one's thought about, seemingly forgetting that an entire global community of scientists has been working on these issues for decades. If you really know something that they don't, by all means go through the required process of submitting a paper explaining your position for peer review. Or even easier, why not ask an astronomer or physicist if your ideas have already been considered? Seriously - I think you'll find that when tackling a problem like the missing mass issue, they'll have already plowed through the obvious answers.
Then again, it shouldn't surprise me that a community that's more hostile to science on average would have PC approach to it, where even the average joe with a cursory understanding of a scientific topic has an opinion of seemingly equal merit to the scientific establishment. "Those scientists think they're so smart with their book lernin' when all they had to do was look here for the answer...shyaaa"
Last edited:
Greg, my apologies. Just having a little fun with this exercise. No ill intention meant. We are all entitled to our opinions and that is the beautiful thing about our society. Yes, we can get attacked or harangued in the process but it's not the actual nailing to the cross.
And that said, I agree with the possibility that the universes is so immense that it's observable laws may not apply in all it's corners or permutations. My fathers is a physicist and has always told me from day one "We don't know what we don't' know." As well his best friend who just passed away "Dr. Robert Eckle" who was a theoretical physicist would always tell me how little he realizes he knows.
Party on sir!
I think there is a group out of France that is trying to build a Hawking particle/radiation detector. Problem is there is so much microwave and radio wave interference it masks this Hawking spectrum. If they are successful then that is one step closer to proving the existence. I do like the theory that Black Holes are actually worm holes of sorts. All that energy has to go somewhere.
Roquefort is amazing...
D-Town, I thank you for your patient explanation. I guess I must resign myself to the role of average Joe. My ideas probably fall into the sphere of crackpot conjecture; wouldn't be the first time. I defer to your obvious grasp on areas of knowledge I'll probably end up dying without ever understanding. It's not a great prospect, but at least the world will still continue to spin in greased grooves.
EH, congratulations on your most excellent day, I actually envy you your opportunity to get out and swim with the family; it's 14 degrees F outside right now. It's quite possible my part of the exchange stems largely from 5 months worth of cabin fever.
Sako man, I understand, no harm, no foul. Umm, what party?
I can also see that there's no point for me to continue in this discussion, I have nothing of value to contribute.
Greg
PS Note to self; time to stumble my way back to the lunatic fringe. Actually, I was just reading another topic, and now I'm looking for some crayons..., should be a mind expanding experience.
EH, congratulations on your most excellent day, I actually envy you your opportunity to get out and swim with the family; it's 14 degrees F outside right now. It's quite possible my part of the exchange stems largely from 5 months worth of cabin fever.
Sako man, I understand, no harm, no foul. Umm, what party?
I can also see that there's no point for me to continue in this discussion, I have nothing of value to contribute.
Greg
PS Note to self; time to stumble my way back to the lunatic fringe. Actually, I was just reading another topic, and now I'm looking for some crayons..., should be a mind expanding experience.
Last edited:
Hank at scishow is another global warming shill.
You got that right!
Science does not require belief. Non-belief and skepticism and fine. But ignorance is a sorry basis for disbelief.
500;
You remind me of that Eagles Song:
Kick 'em when they're up
Kick 'em when they're down
Kick 'em when they're up
Kick 'em when they're down
Kick 'em when they're up
Kick 'em when they're down
Kick 'em when they're up
Kick 'em all around
You're real good at creeping in after the dust settles and delivering that gratuitous kick when you think nobody's looking. Every site has at least one, but few do it quite as well as you. I think of you as our resident back shooter. Ghoul, maybe...
You remind me of that Eagles Song:
Kick 'em when they're up
Kick 'em when they're down
Kick 'em when they're up
Kick 'em when they're down
Kick 'em when they're up
Kick 'em when they're down
Kick 'em when they're up
Kick 'em all around
You're real good at creeping in after the dust settles and delivering that gratuitous kick when you think nobody's looking. Every site has at least one, but few do it quite as well as you. I think of you as our resident back shooter. Ghoul, maybe...
Last edited:
And you call me ignorant.
I think you are our resident scumbag troll.
The majority of your posts are truculent and disparaging cheap shots taken at random at our forum members in general, and over time, at myself repeatedly; simple facts which can be confirmed in nearly no time at all by simply reviewing your posting history. You can have no claim to the high ground here.
Eat shit and die. Please.
Greg
I think you are our resident scumbag troll.
The majority of your posts are truculent and disparaging cheap shots taken at random at our forum members in general, and over time, at myself repeatedly; simple facts which can be confirmed in nearly no time at all by simply reviewing your posting history. You can have no claim to the high ground here.
Eat shit and die. Please.
Greg
Last edited:
I've had over 14 years of putting up with gratuitous bullshit like this trash from jerks like this 500grain, while doing my damnedest to lend a hand to folks who actually come to the site looking for help. As far as his posts are concerned this place exists for little else beyond his getting his rocks off fuckin' with the membership.
When I get put on my best behavior and am then constrained to dangle like low hanging fruit for shitheads like him to plink at, there's something seriously wrong with the moderation on this site.
When I get put on my best behavior and am then constrained to dangle like low hanging fruit for shitheads like him to plink at, there's something seriously wrong with the moderation on this site.
Last edited:
GL,
Ignorant merely means uneducated or uninformed about a particular topic.
Example: If you were not ignorant about the definition of ignorant, you would not have become upset about seeing the word in this thread.
So there is no need to go into a tizzy.
Now here is a pleasant photograph so that we can all enjoy the rest of the day:
Ignorant merely means uneducated or uninformed about a particular topic.
Example: If you were not ignorant about the definition of ignorant, you would not have become upset about seeing the word in this thread.
So there is no need to go into a tizzy.
Now here is a pleasant photograph so that we can all enjoy the rest of the day:
[MENTION=20741]500grains[/MENTION], you could not be further from the truth. As someone who has spent countless sleepless nights over the course of years doing what I could do to master what little I did in the sciences I am of the mind to tell you to fuck off and leave it at that. But in the hopes that you have the sort of open mind a fan of the sciences might have I will explain myself, and do so within the context of this thread. I can't speak for anyone else other than to say others certainly have had similar experiences. And the many lines between faith and fact, and ignorance and understanding are so broad and varied that we have large sections of the library filled with the thoughts of some pretty smart people so I will leave you to that on your own.
First off, I had to believe in myself or I would not have undertaken the course of study to begin with. Secondly, I had to believe in my teachers. I had, and still have, no easy way of knowing what they know. I had to trust that they did and said. I had to believe what I was reading in text books. I had no way of knowing it was true except for faith in the system and that one day I would be able to determine the truth on my own. I had tremendous moments of uncertainty and self doubt. If this is sounding a little bit like religion that's because it just might be. When studying the history of the sciences I learned that many of the greatest scientists had never been able to actually see or measure what they had spent their whole lives in pursuit of. And, of course, many of them were wrong. Because they were wrong it is impossible to say that they knew much at all. I would argue that what they had was at least some degree of belief. It is also true, quite sadly, that some in the sciences turned out to be frauds. I still have faith in the scientific community.
Based on the discovery that is the topic of this thread a lot of theories have been flushed down the toilet. There have been lots of versions of inflation theory. What recent observations give us is a winnowing down of possibilities. Another way of looking at this is that a bunch of people who were highly accomplished scientists were wrong. They believed something that just wasn't true. They had faith in their tool kit and their imagination and they missed the mark. And now that record is very public. Mind you, all we now have is a narrowed down theory. It is not a proof and it is not even yet published in a peer reviewed journal. If that is not faith and belief then I do not know what is.
I also want to comment on that shitty pot shot about ignorance. If this is a case for ignorance then I have to genuflect and flagellate myself in front you, oh learned one. I don't care that I don't understand all that came out of BICEP2 and I confess my ignorance. But I will define my position along the ignorance highway. If I cannot do something myself I will generally say I do not understand it. My wife follows recipes all the time that I do not understand. I shoot with a guy who can call wind in a way that I do not understand. There are many things that I have tried but did not come anywhere near understanding. I tried like a mother fucker in the sciences and did pretty well. As a result I have left a record behind me that sure as fuck allows me to yak on about it. But that chapter came to an end because I was better suited for other things.
Conceptually we all understand that we breathe O2 in and CO2 out, but how many of us actually know how this happens? After a year of inorganic chemistry, a year of organic chemistry, biochemistry, a number of physics classes and math up through linear algebra I finally got to physical chemistry. And it is here that I discovered the 2 alpha and 2 beta chains of a hemoglobin molecule, each of which with a porphyrin ring holding that single iron atom in it's alternating high and low spin states as the binding and unbinding of gasses went through its sigmoid shape. Before I learned all about that the total consideration I had given my life to it amounted very close to zero. Conceptually I am sure everyone understands respiration. I expect most people reading this will recognize that the math behind it means very little or nothing to their lives, but some may find it interesting. And that is what this thread is about, a really interesting scientific discovery that few people walking this earth really understand as far as the nitty-gritty bits. For a long time this has been considered the big kahuna of scientific discoveries so it should be of no surprise that a lot of non-scientists are interested in it too. Some of us will try harder than others for a depth of understanding just out of curiosity. And we all have differing bases of scientific training.
Why don't you take a look online at the work required to become an astrophysicist. Make a list of all the courses, first undergrad then graduate school. Then add in a bunch of years of research and consider that at that point in your career what you know about the facts of the big bang is just about dick. Think about this: most all of the scientists who worked on this were absolutely uncertain of it themselves. Alan Guth, one of the founders of inflation theory even abandoned it for a while as he was so uncertain. And you come on here and call someone ignorant???
Personally, I find it invigorating when people become so excited about science.
It is because of this that I really do have to call up a big fuck you.
Last edited:
Moses,
Smart people can make a point in fewer words.
Smart people can make a point in fewer words.
Roger that. But I aint smart.
I posted:
You responded:
That means:
It seems you went out into la-la land Moses.
And I skipped the rest of your post because it did not look like interesting info about guns or physics.
You responded:
That means:
It seems you went out into la-la land Moses.
And I skipped the rest of your post because it did not look like interesting info about guns or physics.
Ah yes, the egregious and pedestrian syllogystic offenses. I was hoping for something better to unleash an unhealthy dose of vitriol. Instead of finding out what I left the sciences for I will spare everyone the lengthy shredding.
Even fools are thought wise if they keep silent, and discerning if they hold their tongues.
Please explain to me what a postulate is and why we need them.
MTT; well said sir.
500; Dinosaurs.
500; Dinosaurs.
