|
|
|
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Jack_Ian
Big Endian
|
 Posted: Fri Jun 23, 2006 2:31 am Post subject: 241 |
 |
|
Ahh! Thanks 
Nice analogy.
I wonder, if the waves were parallel, would the perceived velocity be zero or infinite? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
raekuul
Lives under a bridge & tells stories.
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 23, 2006 12:14 pm Post subject: 242 |
|
|
That would depend on the observer, so I am guessing no detected movement.
Lepton, you gave me pretty much a decisive answer for now. The only line that bugs me now is: "The truth is that there is no truth in science, only a series of working hypotheses that build upon each other."
Let me get this straight. I can send you meaningless information over some network of cords and cables, and you can read it, and the only way to prove it ever happened is my word, your word, and the scientific hypothesis (hypotheses?) that support the means of it being able to happen. I could send the message on paper, which while being slower, has an extra set of proof: The paper it was written on. Am I correct in stating that science is based on observations made and accepted by people who are way smarter than me? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Samadhi
+1
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 23, 2006 12:41 pm Post subject: 243 |
|
|
You're right, but you are really, really discounting repeated observation by experts.
As for the latter "smarter than" statement...bah. I know that I'm with out a doubt 99% + in math, English, whatever than the general population.
But, I'd say I'm ~maybe~ 50% here at the GL. And if you're talking about acknowledged philosophers or physicists like Descartes or Newton or Fermi or Nietzsche, please. Even the gods of the GL are mere contenders compared to them.
Does that mean you shouldn’t question? Yes! Obey me, slave!! *cough*…umm *cough* nm
shut up
NO
Never be afraid to question. And while you’re at that, never be afraid to accept.
_________________
And he lived happily ever after. Except for the dieing at the end and the heartbreak in between. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
groza528
No Place Like Home
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 23, 2006 4:06 pm Post subject: 244 |
|
|
| raekuul wrote: |
| You guys are making this too easy. Assumptions. Observations. Inferences. The phrase "science has been disproven repeatedly. Especially when it's based entirely upon observation." You're handing your debate opponent weapons. Gödel observed a very powerful situation when he synthesized the First Incompleteness Theorem. Note that I used "Synthesized". He improvised using observations and inferences about them to come up with an explanation. That is science at it's most basic level. |
Err... did I miss something here? I said that scientific theories are based on inferences and observations... You said the same thing and then claimed we were debating. You need to clarify this for me, because it *sounds* like you're attacking the entire premise of science, which seems... well, it's a ludicrous battle. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Chuck
Daedalian Member
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 04, 2006 11:58 pm Post subject: 245 |
|
|
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Chuck
Daedalian Member
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 13, 2006 3:42 am Post subject: 246 |
|
|
Venus Might Have Had A Moon
| Quote: |
| On Monday at the American Astronomical Society's Division of Planetary Sciences meeting in Pasadena, California, Caltech undergraduate Alex Alemi presented models created with David Stevenson of Caltech that suggest Venus was not only slammed with a rock large enough to form the Moon, the event happened at least twice. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Lepton*
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 13, 2006 10:44 pm Post subject: 247 |
|
|
| Sounds like some n-body simulations that incidentally resulted in Venus having the (odd) spin that it does today. Seems pretty immature to infer the existence of moons from a single partially successful model. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jack_Ian
Big Endian
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 12, 2007 1:08 pm Post subject: 248 |
|
|
Perceived wisdom states that the universe is expanding.
Is it possible that instead this is just a perception brought about by "matter" shrinking?.
Is there a difference? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Chuck
Daedalian Member
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 12, 2007 2:26 pm Post subject: 249 |
|
|
| If matter were shrinking wouldn't the sun seem to be getting farther away over the millennia? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jack_Ian
Big Endian
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 12, 2007 5:14 pm Post subject: 250 |
|
|
I expect that such local effects would be negligible.
However, distant stars would have to appear larger, so I guess the universe is expanding after all. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Chuck
Daedalian Member
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 30, 2007 5:13 pm Post subject: 251 |
|
|
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jack_Ian
Big Endian
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 03, 2007 4:02 pm Post subject: 252 |
|
|
| This Article wrote: |
Human observation of dark energy may shorten the life span of the universe
Could humanity's observation of dark energy have shortened the life span of the universe? The answer is "yes" according to the author of a new scientific paper that has recently come to light. Featured in the latest edition of New Scientist magazine, the subscriber-only story, "Has observing the universe hastened its end?", discusses the paper and its claims. |
Seems like nonsense to me.
I assumed that observing, in the sense of the quantum Zeno effect, meant more than just seeing and that rather it meant "focusing" something into an observable phenomenon and thus fixing it in that state for that time period.
Am I wrong? Is what the above article states even remotely feasible? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Chuck
Daedalian Member
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 03, 2007 4:36 pm Post subject: 253 |
|
|
| What if our theories are wrong and there is no dark energy? Are we lengthening the life of the universe by looking for the wrong thing? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JohnP
Icarian Member
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 04, 2007 4:48 am Post subject: 254 |
|
|
| That's okay. By the principle of symmetry we can always create dark energy by investigating the life of the universe. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jack_Ian
Big Endian
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 10, 2007 1:47 pm Post subject: 255 |
|
|
| Jack_Ian wrote: |
| This Article wrote: |
Human observation of dark energy may shorten the life span of the universe
... |
|
Got some further imformation from here.
| The Author of the paper, Lawrence Krauss, wrote: |
| Hi. I wanted to chime in with an apology of sorts regarding the confusion in the press regarding our work. Our paper was in fact about late-decaying false vacuum decay and its possible cosmological implications. Needless to say, the explosion of press interest, prompted by the final two sentences of the paper, misrepresented the work, which was not intended to imply causality, but rather to ask the question of whether by cosmological measurements we constrain the nature of the quantum state in which we find ourselves, inferring perhaps that we are not in the late-decaying tail. However, I do take responsibility in part for the flood, as I was undoubtedly glib in talking to the new scientist reporter who read the paper on the arxiv. I have learned that one must be extra careful in order not to cause such misrepresentations in the press, and I should know better. In any case, the last two sentences of the paper have been revised so that it should be clear to the press that causality will not be implied. mea culpa |
He changed the last sentence in the paper’s abstract from this:
| Quote: |
| Several interesting open questions are raised, including whether observing the cosmological configuration of our universe may ultimately alter its mean lifetime. |
to this:
| Quote: |
| Several interesting open questions are raised, including whether observing the cosmological configuration of a metastable universe can constrain its inferred lifetime. |
Note how ‘alter’ becomes ‘constrain’. And, he changed the last two sentences in their paper to this:
| Quote: |
| Have we ensured, by measuring the existence dark energy [sic] in our own universe, that the quantum mechanical configuration of the universe is such that late time decay is not relevant? Put another way, what can internal observations of the state of a metastable universe say about its longevity? |
I can live with that.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Lepton*
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 18, 2007 8:31 am Post subject: 256 |
|
|
| I find it strange that Krauss made such a blunder; he's one of the most-experienced public astrophysicists currently alive. Regardless, I think that he is misrepresenting a generally-solved problem in quantum theory... the old Copenhagen Interpretation (that observation actually does something physical to a quantum state) can't have much credence anymore, can it? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Chuck
Daedalian Member
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 30, 2008 6:56 pm Post subject: 257 |
|
|
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
extro...*
Guest
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Coyote
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 26, 2008 12:49 am Post subject: 259 |
|
|
I thought this would be better placed here than in the YouTube thread over in OT.
For years I've heard YEC* proponents attack the idea that the speed of light was a valid argument in favor of a universe far older than 6000 years. The YEC's claim is that the speed of light may have been much faster in the past, so much faster that even light from objects apparently billions of light-years away could have reached us in the 6000 years since creation.
This claim has always irritated me, not so much because there is never a logical mechanism given for it (though that's cause enough for irritation right there), but because there didn't seem to be any way of falsifying the claim. How do you measure what the speed of light was in the past? Without a time machine, it would be impossible.
Or so I thought. Here is a succinct, layman-accessible rebuttal to the YEC argument.
No doubt it's old news to some of the astronomy wizards here, but it was a real eye-opener to me, and I hope others here will find it interesting as well.
*YEC=Young Earth Creationist, that is, those who believe the earth was literally created about 6000 years ago. I've always thought the use of 'Earth' was a bit of a misnomer, since YECs typically believe it was the entire Universe that was created then, rather than just the earth. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jack_Ian
Big Endian
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 17, 2008 11:05 am Post subject: 260 |
|
|
While pondering something silly at the bank this morning, I wondered ...
Are any forces being exerted on our atmosphere due to our rotation/orbit?
Is there any friction where our atmosphere and "space" meet?
I guess I'm asking, would our atmosphere rotate in sync with us if there was no sun (and our atmosphere remained gaseous)? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Lepton*
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 18, 2008 12:53 am Post subject: 261 |
|
|
| Yes, No, and Yep. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Zag
Unintentionally offensive old coot
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MTGAP
Daedalian Member
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 18, 2008 10:47 pm Post subject: 263 |
|
|
| Will wrote: |
| Can you prove that there is no God with out using any terms of evolution? |
God has absolutely nothing to do with evolution.
It is not logically possible to disprove a Christian-type god, because there is no evidence whatsoever. Therefore, following Occam's Razor, we will assume that god does not exist.
_________________
This statement is false. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Zag
Unintentionally offensive old coot
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 19, 2008 12:04 am Post subject: 264 |
|
|
| OMG. Please don't drag that discussion over here. Whatever it is you are quoting, it isn't on this page. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Chuck
Daedalian Member
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 16, 2008 12:52 am Post subject: 265 |
|
|
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Chuck
Daedalian Member
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 22, 2009 3:08 pm Post subject: 266 |
|
|
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Chuck
Daedalian Member
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 11, 2009 8:50 pm Post subject: 267 |
|
|
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Chuck
Daedalian Member
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 04, 2010 2:44 am Post subject: 268 |
|
|
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Chuck
Daedalian Member
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 05, 2010 3:28 am Post subject: 269 |
|
|
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Samadhi
+1
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 05, 2010 4:34 pm Post subject: 270 |
|
|
Vacuum fluctuations
_________________
And he lived happily ever after. Except for the dieing at the end and the heartbreak in between. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Chuck
Daedalian Member
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 11, 2010 4:01 pm Post subject: 271 |
|
|
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Chuck
Daedalian Member
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 06, 2010 12:59 am Post subject: 272 |
|
|
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jack_Ian
Big Endian
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 01, 2010 10:38 pm Post subject: 273 |
|
|
It's official!!!
| The Times wrote: |
God did not create the Universe
Modern physics leaves no place for God in the creation of the Universe, Stephen Hawking has concluded. Just as Darwinism removed the need for a creator in the sphere of biology, Britain’s most eminent scientist argues that a new series of theories have rendered redundant the role of a creator for the Universe. In his forthcoming book, an extract from which is published exclusively in Eureka, published today with The Times, Professor Hawking sets out to answer the question: “Did the Universe need a creator?” The answer he gives is a resounding “no”. Far from being a once-in-a-million event that could only be accounted for by extraordinary serendipity or a divine hand, the Big Bang was an inevitable consequence of the laws of physics, Hawking says. “Because there is a law such as gravity, the Universe can and will create itself from nothing. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Chaz
Vote: Zag
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 01, 2010 11:12 pm Post subject: 274 |
|
|
| Heh. I still don't understand how someone using Scientific data to prove Science is any different than someone else using The Bible to prove Christianity. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jack_Ian
Big Endian
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 02, 2010 1:10 am Post subject: 275 |
|
|
Well probably the key difference is that scientists admit when they're wrong.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
HyToFry
Drama queen
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 02, 2010 1:24 am Post subject: 276 |
|
|
| *coughcoughglobalwarmingcoughcough* |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Zag
Unintentionally offensive old coot
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 02, 2010 2:58 am Post subject: 277 |
|
|
| Chaz wrote: |
| Heh. I still don't understand how someone using Scientific data to prove Science is any different than someone else using The Bible to prove Christianity. |
It isn't scientific data, it is the Scientific Method that matters. It is the process, the principle of constantly questioning the beliefs of you and others, and trying to construct controlled experiments that test whether or not those beliefs are accurate. Sometimes its practitioners are flawed, and sometimes the data is so complex that different people arrive at different conclusions from it. But the principle is still that you continue to question everything, continue to try to find new evidence, and build the theories to fit the evidence, not the other way around.
Religion, on the other hand, declares what its beliefs are, and tries to quash anyone who presents evidence to the contrary. When it can't force the issue by, say, threatening Galileo with torture, it will instead create ridiculously convoluted theories so that their precious beliefs that aren't allowed to be questioned can stay in place. (Those fossils were put there by Satan to TRICK us into thinking that Earth is more than the 5000 years old that we KNOW it to be.)
Science isn't always perfectly applied, and religious beliefs aren't always painfully defended beyond all reason. But that's the trend. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Chaz
Vote: Zag
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 02, 2010 3:04 am Post subject: 278 |
|
|
I understand the Scientific Method...
I just think it's silly to use scientific data to disprove The Bible--or, more to the point, God.
It would be a bit like using The Bible to disprove the Scientific Method. Silly. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Zag
Unintentionally offensive old coot
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 02, 2010 3:21 am Post subject: 279 |
|
|
| Chaz wrote: |
I just think it's silly to use scientific data to disprove The Bible--or, more to the point, God.
It would be a bit like using The Bible to disprove the Scientific Method. Silly. |
I agree with this. Unfortunately, it has nothing to do with your earlier statement that I quoted above.
However, I will concede that putting ones trust in the Scientific Method is something of a leap of faith. It requires accepting that "truth" (with a lowercase T), which I will define as 'an accurate description of how the universe really behaves,' is worth trying to discover. If, on the other hand, you feel that the "Truth" which I'll define as 'the wisdom and knowledge that was handed down through the generations from a deity,' is more important, then religion clearly makes more sense than the Scientific Method.
To address your earlier point, using Scientific Method to show that "truth" is more important than "Truth" makes no sense at all. If that is what you were trying to say, then I agree with that point, too. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Chaz
Vote: Zag
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 02, 2010 3:29 am Post subject: 280 |
|
|
I would say that trying to disprove the other certainly has more than "nothing" to do with trying to prove itself.
If I define "scientific data" as any data derived from The Scientific Method, then my point stands as is. You can use The Scientific Method to prove Science... that's fine...
However, it's exactly like using The Bible to prove religion.
Either is only true if you have faith in the premise. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
 |
The Grey Labyrinth Forum Index
-> Science, Art, and Culture |
All times are GMT
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 Next
|
| Page 7 of 10 |
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You can reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
