Total Posts:111|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Accelerating universe? Not so fast

slo1
Posts: 4,314
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/20/2015 12:14:28 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
A great example of how the pursuit of scientific knowledge causes theory to be questioned and refined as knowledge is gained.

One of the assumptions with generating the rate of expansion was that all supernova were identical. This new finding shows that there are two different types and a certain type is more likely extremely far away versus closer which may have lead to an error in calculating the rate of expansion.

Still expanding, but just may be slower than what current thought is, which in turn requires less dark energy in mathematical models.

Excert below.
http://www.sciencedaily.com...

"Since nobody realized that before, all these supernovae were thrown in the same barrel. But if you were to look at 10 of them nearby, those 10 are going to be redder on average than a sample of 10 faraway supernovae."

The authors conclude that some of the reported acceleration of the universe can be explained by color differences between the two groups of supernovae, leaving less acceleration than initially reported. This would, in turn, require less dark energy than currently assumed.

"We're proposing that our data suggest there might be less dark energy than textbook knowledge, but we can't put a number on it," Milne said. "Until our paper, the two populations of supernovae were treated as the same population. To get that final answer, you need to do all that work again, separately for the red and for the blue population."
Skynet
Posts: 674
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/20/2015 7:13:21 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I always thought dark matter and dark energy were just phlogiston to make up for bad arithmetic. But, you know, if you don't publish a paper on it, you're not allowed to doubt it.
One perk to being a dad is you get to watch cartoons again without explaining yourself.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2015 12:17:21 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/20/2015 7:13:21 PM, Skynet wrote:
I always thought dark matter and dark energy were just phlogiston to make up for bad arithmetic. But, you know, if you don't publish a paper on it, you're not allowed to doubt it.

It's actually going to cause REAL problems!

The combination of measurements for dark energy and dark matter combined with real matter used to yeild an energy density of 0 for the universe, This means that the two measurements of the energy in the universe (spacial curvature as measured by the CMBR and energy from mass, dark matter, and dark energy) now yeild differing results!

This is actually really interesting!!!!
slo1
Posts: 4,314
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2015 10:10:04 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/20/2015 7:13:21 PM, Skynet wrote:
I always thought dark matter and dark energy were just phlogiston to make up for bad arithmetic. But, you know, if you don't publish a paper on it, you're not allowed to doubt it.

You are welcome to doubt dark matter, but the entire premise of dark mater has come from real observations. The milky way galaxy would fly apart if one only uses visible mater and calculates the gravitational forces.

Therefore if you doubt dark matter and want to be taken serious you have to have an alternative explanation/theory as to why galaxy's don't fly apart as they spin or alternative data showing the current understanding of the speed of the outer areas of the galaxy is wrong. Seeing how we use the same principle/technology to measure the speed of cars as we do with measuring the speed of a galaxy spinning, the later is going to be extremely challenging.
Skynet
Posts: 674
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2015 7:34:07 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/21/2015 10:10:04 AM, slo1 wrote:
At 4/20/2015 7:13:21 PM, Skynet wrote:
I always thought dark matter and dark energy were just phlogiston to make up for bad arithmetic. But, you know, if you don't publish a paper on it, you're not allowed to doubt it.

You are welcome to doubt dark matter, but the entire premise of dark mater has come from real observations. The milky way galaxy would fly apart if one only uses visible mater and calculates the gravitational forces.

Therefore if you doubt dark matter and want to be taken serious you have to have an alternative explanation/theory as to why galaxy's don't fly apart as they spin or alternative data showing the current understanding of the speed of the outer areas of the galaxy is wrong. Seeing how we use the same principle/technology to measure the speed of cars as we do with measuring the speed of a galaxy spinning, the later is going to be extremely challenging.

I understand. It's not like the Colossus of the Academy has singled me out for personal destruction and threatened to excommunicate me. They barely know I exist. I'm just saying "you forgot to carry the one, so I don't know how you can be so confident about your theory."

Astronomers calculate the mass of everything they see.
The number is too low to account for how things move.
There must be something we can't detect. Let's call it dark matter.


Seems less likely to be true than:


Astronomers calculate the mass of everything they see.
The number is too low to account for how things move.
Our calculations about the mass of everything we see must be wrong.


I say that because I know math errors exist. I am less certain that invisible, undetectable matter exists.

I've got my own hypothesis about why galaxies spin the way they do without dark matter, and I'd like an open minded critic to take a look, but I've got to run at this moment.
One perk to being a dad is you get to watch cartoons again without explaining yourself.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2015 8:26:20 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/21/2015 7:34:07 PM, Skynet wrote:
At 4/21/2015 10:10:04 AM, slo1 wrote:
At 4/20/2015 7:13:21 PM, Skynet wrote:
I always thought dark matter and dark energy were just phlogiston to make up for bad arithmetic. But, you know, if you don't publish a paper on it, you're not allowed to doubt it.

You are welcome to doubt dark matter, but the entire premise of dark mater has come from real observations. The milky way galaxy would fly apart if one only uses visible mater and calculates the gravitational forces.

Therefore if you doubt dark matter and want to be taken serious you have to have an alternative explanation/theory as to why galaxy's don't fly apart as they spin or alternative data showing the current understanding of the speed of the outer areas of the galaxy is wrong. Seeing how we use the same principle/technology to measure the speed of cars as we do with measuring the speed of a galaxy spinning, the later is going to be extremely challenging.

I understand. It's not like the Colossus of the Academy has singled me out for personal destruction and threatened to excommunicate me. They barely know I exist. I'm just saying "you forgot to carry the one, so I don't know how you can be so confident about your theory."

Astronomers calculate the mass of everything they see.
The number is too low to account for how things move.
There must be something we can't detect. Let's call it dark matter.


Seems less likely to be true than:


Astronomers calculate the mass of everything they see.
The number is too low to account for how things move.
Our calculations about the mass of everything we see must be wrong.


I say that because I know math errors exist. I am less certain that invisible, undetectable matter exists.

I've got my own hypothesis about why galaxies spin the way they do without dark matter, and I'd like an open minded critic to take a look, but I've got to run at this moment.

I think the main problem is that you are under the impression that Cosmologists just pull stuff out of their arse; they don't.

Now, rather than actually trying to work out how the mass of galaxies is actually measured; you make a probability claim that it's wrong.

I would suggest before you claim that scientists are making a mistake in their gravitational calculations; I would suggest you actually google it to understand how these measurements are made.

Because really, using basic newtonian physics to calculate mass inside the radius of an orbiting body given it's rotational speed; is based on laws that work so unbelievably well, you can't simply thrown them away on a whim. What you see from this is a very different pattern and distribution of mass than the distribution of observable stars; with the number of unobservable types of stars and matter we know exist would need to be so numerous to make up the difference it would be impossible to explain their existance.

Such rotational measurements of Dark Matter correlate with measurements including gravitational lensing and other mechanisms of inferring mass; based on well tested theories.

So Dark matter, when you actually understand how the measurements are made is either a choice between assuming that more mass exists than is observable; or you basically assume that Newtonian and Relativistic gravity apply and give the right answers in almost all scenarios, but stop working for no appreciable reason in a couple of otherwise simple cases. That's why Dark Matter is assumed to exist.

If you are to engage in Arm chair science; you need to drill down to understand the issues, and the details of what is known, and what is not; rather than halt after a basic superficial analysis of the bye lines. Most science that seems weird actually makes sense when you actually take the time to try and understand it because information such as this is revealed even with a rudimentary google search.
Skyangel
Posts: 8,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2015 9:48:47 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/21/2015 7:34:07 PM, Skynet wrote:
At 4/21/2015 10:10:04 AM, slo1 wrote:
At 4/20/2015 7:13:21 PM, Skynet wrote:
I always thought dark matter and dark energy were just phlogiston to make up for bad arithmetic. But, you know, if you don't publish a paper on it, you're not allowed to doubt it.

You are welcome to doubt dark matter, but the entire premise of dark mater has come from real observations. The milky way galaxy would fly apart if one only uses visible mater and calculates the gravitational forces.

Therefore if you doubt dark matter and want to be taken serious you have to have an alternative explanation/theory as to why galaxy's don't fly apart as they spin or alternative data showing the current understanding of the speed of the outer areas of the galaxy is wrong. Seeing how we use the same principle/technology to measure the speed of cars as we do with measuring the speed of a galaxy spinning, the later is going to be extremely challenging.

I understand. It's not like the Colossus of the Academy has singled me out for personal destruction and threatened to excommunicate me. They barely know I exist. I'm just saying "you forgot to carry the one, so I don't know how you can be so confident about your theory."

Astronomers calculate the mass of everything they see.
The number is too low to account for how things move.
There must be something we can't detect. Let's call it dark matter.


Seems less likely to be true than:


Astronomers calculate the mass of everything they see.
The number is too low to account for how things move.
Our calculations about the mass of everything we see must be wrong.


I say that because I know math errors exist. I am less certain that invisible, undetectable matter exists.

I've got my own hypothesis about why galaxies spin the way they do without dark matter, and I'd like an open minded critic to take a look, but I've got to run at this moment.

I am curious enough to read what you think.
Skynet
Posts: 674
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2015 10:02:13 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/21/2015 8:26:20 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 4/21/2015 7:34:07 PM, Skynet wrote:
At 4/21/2015 10:10:04 AM, slo1 wrote:
At 4/20/2015 7:13:21 PM, Skynet wrote:
I always thought dark matter and dark energy were just phlogiston to make up for bad arithmetic. But, you know, if you don't publish a paper on it, you're not allowed to doubt it.

You are welcome to doubt dark matter, but the entire premise of dark mater has come from real observations. The milky way galaxy would fly apart if one only uses visible mater and calculates the gravitational forces.

Therefore if you doubt dark matter and want to be taken serious you have to have an alternative explanation/theory as to why galaxy's don't fly apart as they spin or alternative data showing the current understanding of the speed of the outer areas of the galaxy is wrong. Seeing how we use the same principle/technology to measure the speed of cars as we do with measuring the speed of a galaxy spinning, the later is going to be extremely challenging.

I understand. It's not like the Colossus of the Academy has singled me out for personal destruction and threatened to excommunicate me. They barely know I exist. I'm just saying "you forgot to carry the one, so I don't know how you can be so confident about your theory."

Astronomers calculate the mass of everything they see.
The number is too low to account for how things move.
There must be something we can't detect. Let's call it dark matter.


Seems less likely to be true than:


Astronomers calculate the mass of everything they see.
The number is too low to account for how things move.
Our calculations about the mass of everything we see must be wrong.


I say that because I know math errors exist. I am less certain that invisible, undetectable matter exists.

I've got my own hypothesis about why galaxies spin the way they do without dark matter, and I'd like an open minded critic to take a look, but I've got to run at this moment.

I think the main problem is that you are under the impression that Cosmologists just pull stuff out of their arse; they don't.

Now, rather than actually trying to work out how the mass of galaxies is actually measured; you make a probability claim that it's wrong.

I would suggest before you claim that scientists are making a mistake in their gravitational calculations; I would suggest you actually google it to understand how these measurements are made.

Because really, using basic newtonian physics to calculate mass inside the radius of an orbiting body given it's rotational speed; is based on laws that work so unbelievably well, you can't simply thrown them away on a whim. What you see from this is a very different pattern and distribution of mass than the distribution of observable stars; with the number of unobservable types of stars and matter we know exist would need to be so numerous to make up the difference it would be impossible to explain their existance.

Such rotational measurements of Dark Matter correlate with measurements including gravitational lensing and other mechanisms of inferring mass; based on well tested theories.

So Dark matter, when you actually understand how the measurements are made is either a choice between assuming that more mass exists than is observable; or you basically assume that Newtonian and Relativistic gravity apply and give the right answers in almost all scenarios, but stop working for no appreciable reason in a couple of otherwise simple cases. That's why Dark Matter is assumed to exist.

If you are to engage in Arm chair science; you need to drill down to understand the issues, and the details of what is known, and what is not; rather than halt after a basic superficial analysis of the bye lines. Most science that seems weird actually makes sense when you actually take the time to try and understand it because information such as this is revealed even with a rudimentary google search.

Good advice, and I did so. I confess, after years of standardized tests putting emphasis on haste rather than understanding, and seeing so many of my classmates ace tests and classes, only to fail to understand the fundamentals of the material immediately after the test, but still receive scholarships, I have a very low opinion of the Academy. I've got some stories that still make me want to rip my hair out. I've seen classmates that should have been in a special education class held back 1 year then pushed through with the rest of us. One was a neighbor. He's pretty low functioning, and will probably never get a job. But he graduated. My brother's class valedictorian could barely read. No exaggeration. She must have read at 15 words a minute, max. And this system NEVER has enough money. I could go on...

I understand dark matter a bit better now and the reason for using it in equations. My father-in-law is a well respected professor at a well known university, and I live in a town full of professionals and academics. But seeing them in action and the arrogance knowledge often brings makes me doubt most things I'm told. I'm a practical man. I test machines for a living. If they work, I run with it. If they fail, I adjust my theory and methods. I have little trust for engineers who don't know how a roots-type vacuum pump works, or people with telescopes who want to tell me what happened 15 billion years ago. Until I get practical results, they can theorize and talk all they want. I'll gladly read the research when I can find the time. But when people scoff at me for doubting their theory on paper, that's what bothers me.

Remember, NASA laughed at the EM drive, then when it worked, they attributed it to pushing on the "quantum vacuum," which according to NASA, may not exist. Such arrogance. They could just defer to the inventor's theory (you know, the guy who made it work) until they come up with a better explanation that works.

I'm just irritated with the people who run a system that turns out mechanical engineers who know nothing of the machines that use the mechanics they were taught.
One perk to being a dad is you get to watch cartoons again without explaining yourself.
Skynet
Posts: 674
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2015 10:20:27 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/21/2015 9:48:47 PM, Skyangel wrote:


I am curious enough to read what you think.

Let's see if I can remember my hypothesis:

If I understand the problem right, a wheel spins faster on the edge because it's fixed by degree by the spoke.
A solar system spins slower on the edge because gravity is weaker, and higher speed will free the satellite.
But the galaxy spins fastest in the center, and slower on the edge and middle, which doesn't make sense.

I think that it may have something to do with gravity distorting time. In the middle, there is much mass, and low speed. So much mass there may be a gigantic black hole. As you get closer to the center, gravity increases, and time slows relative to the rest of the universe. So much so that it nearly stops at the black hole's event horizon. this accounts for the slow movement in the center. It's not that the stars are moving slower, it's that the h in mph is stretched out so it appears they are moving slower. (They ARE, relative to us, but relative to time in that area of space, they are moving at the correct speed.)
Stars on the edge are moving slower because they are farther from center and would have escaped if they were going faster. But being farther from the center in a lower gravity area, time may be moving faster, so perhaps they appear to be moving faster than we would expect.

Anyway, it's just a thought, I don't stake my reputation on it, and I've stayed up way too late just to explain it in summary, and I don't have the time or resources to seriously flesh it out. I would like to hear your thoughts. Thanks for listening. :)
One perk to being a dad is you get to watch cartoons again without explaining yourself.
UndeniableReality
Posts: 1,897
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2015 12:22:11 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/21/2015 10:20:27 PM, Skynet wrote:
At 4/21/2015 9:48:47 PM, Skyangel wrote:


I am curious enough to read what you think.

Let's see if I can remember my hypothesis:

If I understand the problem right, a wheel spins faster on the edge because it's fixed by degree by the spoke.
A solar system spins slower on the edge because gravity is weaker, and higher speed will free the satellite.
But the galaxy spins fastest in the center, and slower on the edge and middle, which doesn't make sense.

I think that it may have something to do with gravity distorting time. In the middle, there is much mass, and low speed. So much mass there may be a gigantic black hole. As you get closer to the center, gravity increases, and time slows relative to the rest of the universe. So much so that it nearly stops at the black hole's event horizon. this accounts for the slow movement in the center. It's not that the stars are moving slower, it's that the h in mph is stretched out so it appears they are moving slower. (They ARE, relative to us, but relative to time in that area of space, they are moving at the correct speed.)
Stars on the edge are moving slower because they are farther from center and would have escaped if they were going faster. But being farther from the center in a lower gravity area, time may be moving faster, so perhaps they appear to be moving faster than we would expect.

Anyway, it's just a thought, I don't stake my reputation on it, and I've stayed up way too late just to explain it in summary, and I don't have the time or resources to seriously flesh it out. I would like to hear your thoughts. Thanks for listening. :)

If you have calculations which show that this temporal distortion caused by gravity explains precisely the apparent rotational velocity the galaxy with respect to distance from the centre, then you can call it a hypothesis.
Skyangel
Posts: 8,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2015 2:14:29 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/21/2015 10:20:27 PM, Skynet wrote:
At 4/21/2015 9:48:47 PM, Skyangel wrote:


I am curious enough to read what you think.

Let's see if I can remember my hypothesis:

If I understand the problem right, a wheel spins faster on the edge because it's fixed by degree by the spoke.
A solar system spins slower on the edge because gravity is weaker, and higher speed will free the satellite.
But the galaxy spins fastest in the center, and slower on the edge and middle, which doesn't make sense.

Why doesn't it make sense? Did someone tell you that a solar system should work the same as wheel with satellites connected to its spokes?

I think that it may have something to do with gravity distorting time. In the middle, there is much mass, and low speed. So much mass there may be a gigantic black hole. As you get closer to the center, gravity increases, and time slows relative to the rest of the universe. So much so that it nearly stops at the black hole's event horizon. this accounts for the slow movement in the center. It's not that the stars are moving slower, it's that the h in mph is stretched out so it appears they are moving slower. (They ARE, relative to us, but relative to time in that area of space, they are moving at the correct speed.)
Stars on the edge are moving slower because they are farther from center and would have escaped if they were going faster. But being farther from the center in a lower gravity area, time may be moving faster, so perhaps they appear to be moving faster than we would expect.

Anyway, it's just a thought, I don't stake my reputation on it, and I've stayed up way too late just to explain it in summary, and I don't have the time or resources to seriously flesh it out. I would like to hear your thoughts. Thanks for listening. :)

I am no scientist as I mentioned before.Therefore my mind is not brainwashed or tainted by scientific thinking or concepts. That makes me ignorant and stupid in the judgement of many scientifically minded people. However, I honestly cannot understand how it would be possible for any gravity to distort time since gravity is a physical force and time is merely an abstract word which describes the human perception of movement and change. Time is not a physical force or anything else physical which can be distorted by something physical. Time according to Einstein is just an illusion. How can gravity distort an illusion?

Time does not slow down or speed up at all. Some things in the universe obviously just seem to move faster or slower than others creating the illusions we see. Time is relative to human perception and measurements as are all things we judge and measure with man made measuring instruments to which we compare the things we measure.

I think you need to concentrate on this part of your own statement..... "....it APPEARS they are moving slower.....etc ..... they APPEAR to be moving faster than we would expect."

Remember that APPEARANCES can be deceiving and not all things are what they APPEAR to be.
The sun APPEARS to move around the Earth but in reality it does not do what it APPEARS to do at all.

Those are the thoughts of an ordinary average person who is regarded as an ignorant idiot by many idiots who judge only according to what they see on outward APPEARANCES and come to false conclusions by misinterpreting what they observe.
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,580
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2015 11:25:34 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/22/2015 2:14:29 AM, Skyangel wrote:

I am no scientist as I mentioned before.

And yet, you're perfectly willing to dismiss scientific theories notwithstanding.

Therefore my mind is not brainwashed or tainted by scientific thinking or concepts.

In other words, you have no idea what you're talking about when it comes to anything scientific.

That makes me ignorant and stupid in the judgement of many scientifically minded people.

Exactly.

However, I honestly cannot understand how it would be possible for any gravity to distort time since gravity is a physical force and time is merely an abstract word which describes the human perception of movement and change. Time is not a physical force or anything else physical which can be distorted by something physical.

Yes, that is the fallacy of Argument from Incredulity, you don't understand something, therefore it can't be true.

Time according to Einstein is just an illusion. How can gravity distort an illusion?

Because Einsteins Theory of Relativity shows time to be interwoven into space, hence the term "space time", so far whatever reason Einstein said that, he knew only too well that time is indeed something that is part of our universe and can be affected by gravity.

Time does not slow down or speed up at all.

Yes, it does, under high velocities and near gravity wells.

Some things in the universe obviously just seem to move faster or slower than others creating the illusions we see.

That is pure bs.

Time is relative to human perception and measurements as are all things we judge and measure with man made measuring instruments to which we compare the things we measure.

I think you need to concentrate on this part of your own statement..... "....it APPEARS they are moving slower.....etc ..... they APPEAR to be moving faster than we would expect."

Remember that APPEARANCES can be deceiving and not all things are what they APPEAR to be.
The sun APPEARS to move around the Earth but in reality it does not do what it APPEARS to do at all.

Strawman.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
Skynet
Posts: 674
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2015 6:43:42 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/22/2015 2:14:29 AM, Skyangel wrote:
At 4/21/2015 10:20:27 PM, Skynet wrote:
At 4/21/2015 9:48:47 PM, Skyangel wrote:


I am curious enough to read what you think.

Let's see if I can remember my hypothesis:

If I understand the problem right, a wheel spins faster on the edge because it's fixed by degree by the spoke.
A solar system spins slower on the edge because gravity is weaker, and higher speed will free the satellite.
But the galaxy spins fastest in the center, and slower on the edge and middle, which doesn't make sense.

Why doesn't it make sense? Did someone tell you that a solar system should work the same as wheel with satellites connected to its spokes?


No one told me that. I was just contrasting the different types of commonly observed rotating systems with the unexplained action of spiral galaxies: A solid wheel that rotates faster on the edge, and an orbital system that spins fastest in the middle and slowest on the edge are both well understood.
The rotation of the galaxy doesn't yet add up.

I don't think "scientific thought" is bad, but those who SAY they are in charge of science in the US have lost my trust through their arrogance and incompetence on a number of occasions.

Watch this:

I have doubts about man made global warming.

I can hear the inquisitors knocking at the door.
One perk to being a dad is you get to watch cartoons again without explaining yourself.
Skyangel
Posts: 8,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2015 11:11:13 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/22/2015 6:43:42 PM, Skynet wrote:
At 4/22/2015 2:14:29 AM, Skyangel wrote:

No one told me that. I was just contrasting the different types of commonly observed rotating systems with the unexplained action of spiral galaxies: A solid wheel that rotates faster on the edge, and an orbital system that spins fastest in the middle and slowest on the edge are both well understood.
The rotation of the galaxy doesn't yet add up.

Does it matter?

I don't think "scientific thought" is bad, but those who SAY they are in charge of science in the US have lost my trust through their arrogance and incompetence on a number of occasions.

It seems to me from the comments I read, that many people who claim to be well versed in science in this forum are very arrogant. They tend to look down on laymen and treat them and their ideas as ridiculous and worthless while they imply that popular scientific theories should be worshiped as facts.
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2015 8:42:51 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/22/2015 2:14:29 AM, Skyangel wrote:
I am no scientist as I mentioned before.Therefore my mind is not brainwashed or tainted by scientific thinking or concepts. That makes me ignorant and stupid in the judgement of many scientifically minded people. However, I honestly cannot understand how it would be possible for any gravity to distort time since gravity is a physical force and time is merely an abstract word which describes the human perception of movement and change. Time is not a physical force or anything else physical which can be distorted by something physical. Time according to Einstein is just an illusion. How can gravity distort an illusion?

Time does not slow down or speed up at all. Some things in the universe obviously just seem to move faster or slower than others creating the illusions we see. Time is relative to human perception and measurements as are all things we judge and measure with man made measuring instruments to which we compare the things we measure.

I think you need to concentrate on this part of your own statement..... "....it APPEARS they are moving slower.....etc ..... they APPEAR to be moving faster than we would expect."

Remember that APPEARANCES can be deceiving and not all things are what they APPEAR to be.
The sun APPEARS to move around the Earth but in reality it does not do what it APPEARS to do at all.

Those are the thoughts of an ordinary average person who is regarded as an ignorant idiot by many idiots who judge only according to what they see on outward APPEARANCES and come to false conclusions by misinterpreting what they observe.

Time is not a physical force, but it is a physical property.

Also, time dilation has been confirmed via tests to exist. So its not just an appearance of difference in time, it is an actual physical change.
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2015 8:57:55 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/22/2015 11:11:13 PM, Skyangel wrote:
It seems to me from the comments I read, that many people who claim to be well versed in science in this forum are very arrogant. They tend to look down on laymen and treat them and their ideas as ridiculous and worthless while they imply that popular scientific theories should be worshiped as facts.

First off, I think people are appearing arrogant because they actually understand and know what they are talking about, and are essentially teaching you why you are wrong about certain things. Id understand why that would give the appearance of arrogance, but the point about science is that everyone and anyone can learn about it.

As a matter of fact, youve appeared quite arrogant to me a couple times as well. But lets shelf that for another day.

Secondly, no one is looking down on the layman. But the problem is, just because you have an opinion, doesnt mean its not ridiculous or worthless from a scientific standpoint. Id hope that we are all old enough not to have to deal with sugar-coating or being careful not to hurt each others feelings.

Were discussing science here, and that requires a level of thought and understanding. If you lack it, thats fine, but dont expect us to treat your ridiculous ideas as if they were equal to accepted scientific theories that are based on evidence.

Thirdly, no, scientific theories should not be worshipped. Or treated as facts. But theres a reason why they have become scientific theories. They are based and have been supported and continue to be supported by evidence, which is a mainstay of science.

If you dont like it, thats your prerogative. But until you actually provide evidence to the contrary or produce a better theory that somehow better fits all the evidence, it will stay as science.
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,580
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2015 2:26:04 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/22/2015 11:11:13 PM, Skyangel wrote:
At 4/22/2015 6:43:42 PM, Skynet wrote:
At 4/22/2015 2:14:29 AM, Skyangel wrote:

No one told me that. I was just contrasting the different types of commonly observed rotating systems with the unexplained action of spiral galaxies: A solid wheel that rotates faster on the edge, and an orbital system that spins fastest in the middle and slowest on the edge are both well understood.
The rotation of the galaxy doesn't yet add up.

Does it matter?

I don't think "scientific thought" is bad, but those who SAY they are in charge of science in the US have lost my trust through their arrogance and incompetence on a number of occasions.

It seems to me from the comments I read, that many people who claim to be well versed in science in this forum are very arrogant. They tend to look down on laymen and treat them and their ideas as ridiculous and worthless while they imply that popular scientific theories should be worshiped as facts.

LOL. Is that how you see this? Or, is it such that your ideas are indeed ridiculous?
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
UndeniableReality
Posts: 1,897
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2015 6:19:12 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/22/2015 11:11:13 PM, Skyangel wrote:
At 4/22/2015 6:43:42 PM, Skynet wrote:
At 4/22/2015 2:14:29 AM, Skyangel wrote:

No one told me that. I was just contrasting the different types of commonly observed rotating systems with the unexplained action of spiral galaxies: A solid wheel that rotates faster on the edge, and an orbital system that spins fastest in the middle and slowest on the edge are both well understood.
The rotation of the galaxy doesn't yet add up.

Does it matter?

I don't think "scientific thought" is bad, but those who SAY they are in charge of science in the US have lost my trust through their arrogance and incompetence on a number of occasions.

It seems to me from the comments I read, that many people who claim to be well versed in science in this forum are very arrogant. They tend to look down on laymen and treat them and their ideas as ridiculous and worthless while they imply that popular scientific theories should be worshiped as facts.

Scientists are used to arguing with each other every day without sugar-coating anything. We also don't, in principle, see it as shameful to admit that you're wrong, or ignorant, or needing of assistance to understand something that someone else may understand better. My experience with layman is that they find it difficult to admit to being wrong, ignorant, and willing to learn from someone, because society has led them to believe these are signs of weakness. But in reality, what is truly arrogant is presuming that your beliefs and opinions have significant utility in a scientific discussion beyond suggesting possible hypotheses, and presuming that as a layperson you are in the position to debate with those with more expertise on a subject from the position of ignorance.
Skyangel
Posts: 8,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2015 8:13:12 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/23/2015 8:57:55 AM, tkubok wrote:
At 4/22/2015 11:11:13 PM, Skyangel wrote:
It seems to me from the comments I read, that many people who claim to be well versed in science in this forum are very arrogant. They tend to look down on laymen and treat them and their ideas as ridiculous and worthless while they imply that popular scientific theories should be worshiped as facts.

First off, I think people are appearing arrogant because they actually understand and know what they are talking about, and are essentially teaching you why you are wrong about certain things. Id understand why that would give the appearance of arrogance, but the point about science is that everyone and anyone can learn about it.

As a matter of fact, youve appeared quite arrogant to me a couple times as well. But lets shelf that for another day.

All humans are arrogant in some aspects. It is simply human nature. Some mistake confidence for arrogance too. Those who understand it is part of human nature are not offended by it.

Secondly, no one is looking down on the layman. But the problem is, just because you have an opinion, doesnt mean its not ridiculous or worthless from a scientific standpoint. Id hope that we are all old enough not to have to deal with sugar-coating or being careful not to hurt each others feelings.

Maybe not but it still comes across that way regardless of what subject people are talking about. Many tend to treat those who lack understanding of the subject like idiots.
Whether something is worthless or worthwhile is a matter of very subjective human perception. "One mans trash is another mans treasure" applies to ideas as well as material objects.
My feeling are not easily hurt at all so carry on and say whatever you want. I can take it.
I am merely suggesting that scientists should not reject everything that seems stupid or absurd to them because those things which appear stupid and absurd might indeed have more relevance and truth in them than first perceived or believed.

Were discussing science here, and that requires a level of thought and understanding. If you lack it, thats fine, but dont expect us to treat your ridiculous ideas as if they were equal to accepted scientific theories that are based on evidence.

Science is a study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment. Basically it is a study of life.
All humans make observations of the natural world through their lives. Therefore when people share their observations, they ought to be taken into account. There is far more to see in this world than any single person will ever see.
However I understand birds of a feather flock together and some people cannot be bothered with people who they think are intellectually inferior to them.

Thirdly, no, scientific theories should not be worshipped. Or treated as facts. But theres a reason why they have become scientific theories. They are based and have been supported and continue to be supported by evidence, which is a mainstay of science.

Any so called "evidence" is subjective to human perception, determination and judgment. What one considers as valid "evidence" is not necessarily what another considers to be "evidence" at all.
Religion also has its so called "evidence" which is not regarded as "evidence" by those who refuse to believe it and simply reject it out of hand.

If you dont like it, thats your prerogative. But until you actually provide evidence to the contrary or produce a better theory that somehow better fits all the evidence, it will stay as science.

Nothing fits ALL the evidence because opposites exist. A glass full of water is evidence of a glass full of water and an empty glass is evidence of an empty glass. The evidence of the empty glass does not fit the evidence of the full glass. It seems to contradict it but in reality it does not contradict it at all. When you have evidence of the existence of a full glass as well as evidence of the existence of an empty glass you can conclude that a glass can be either full or empty. Both are true. One does not contradict the other or need to be thrown out as nonsense.
Life is filled with opposites in my observation. I like and accept that FACT.
In my observations I have also noticed that some people seem to believe that opposites contradict each other and wish to reject anything that seems to oppose what they believe to be true.
It seems that many wish to believe "the glass" once did not exist and some random phenomenon formed it and then the glass was once empty and then became full due to evolution.
They tend to reject the idea that "the glass" has always existed and has always been full and cannot be emptied in spite of things seemingly disappearing from view. That idea is nonsense to those who want to believe in the nonexistence of Life ...
"Once upon a time... Nothing... then... some Life evolved from nothing."
Skyangel
Posts: 8,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2015 8:19:21 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/23/2015 2:26:04 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 4/22/2015 11:11:13 PM, Skyangel wrote:
At 4/22/2015 6:43:42 PM, Skynet wrote:
At 4/22/2015 2:14:29 AM, Skyangel wrote:

No one told me that. I was just contrasting the different types of commonly observed rotating systems with the unexplained action of spiral galaxies: A solid wheel that rotates faster on the edge, and an orbital system that spins fastest in the middle and slowest on the edge are both well understood.
The rotation of the galaxy doesn't yet add up.

Does it matter?

I don't think "scientific thought" is bad, but those who SAY they are in charge of science in the US have lost my trust through their arrogance and incompetence on a number of occasions.

It seems to me from the comments I read, that many people who claim to be well versed in science in this forum are very arrogant. They tend to look down on laymen and treat them and their ideas as ridiculous and worthless while they imply that popular scientific theories should be worshiped as facts.

LOL. Is that how you see this? Or, is it such that your ideas are indeed ridiculous?

The judgment regarding whether something is ridiculous or not is very subjective.
I find many things in life humorous, ridiculous, illogical, etc. So do all other people. Obviously some have totally opposite perceptions about the very same thing which they both observe. That is part of the nature of human perception and that is why people argue about what is true and false, logical and illogical, etc. What one sees as true another sees as false. That is a fact of life in my observation. Have you observed the same thing or not?
Skyangel
Posts: 8,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2015 8:39:58 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/23/2015 6:19:12 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 4/22/2015 11:11:13 PM, Skyangel wrote:
At 4/22/2015 6:43:42 PM, Skynet wrote:
At 4/22/2015 2:14:29 AM, Skyangel wrote:

No one told me that. I was just contrasting the different types of commonly observed rotating systems with the unexplained action of spiral galaxies: A solid wheel that rotates faster on the edge, and an orbital system that spins fastest in the middle and slowest on the edge are both well understood.
The rotation of the galaxy doesn't yet add up.

Does it matter?

I don't think "scientific thought" is bad, but those who SAY they are in charge of science in the US have lost my trust through their arrogance and incompetence on a number of occasions.

It seems to me from the comments I read, that many people who claim to be well versed in science in this forum are very arrogant. They tend to look down on laymen and treat them and their ideas as ridiculous and worthless while they imply that popular scientific theories should be worshiped as facts.

Scientists are used to arguing with each other every day without sugar-coating anything. We also don't, in principle, see it as shameful to admit that you're wrong, or ignorant, or needing of assistance to understand something that someone else may understand better. My experience with layman is that they find it difficult to admit to being wrong, ignorant, and willing to learn from someone, because society has led them to believe these are signs of weakness. But in reality, what is truly arrogant is presuming that your beliefs and opinions have significant utility in a scientific discussion beyond suggesting possible hypotheses, and presuming that as a layperson you are in the position to debate with those with more expertise on a subject from the position of ignorance.

Do they argue face to face like they do on the net and call their peers idiots and ignorant uneducated fools etc just because they are educated in a different field and see things from a different perspective ?
"Person A" could be perceived and judged as being wrong in the judgement of "Person B" yet they can also be perceived as being correct in the judgment and perception of "person C". Therefore who determines if they are ultimately right or wrong?
In my personal observation it appears that humans can be right and wrong at the very same time depending on who is judging and critiquing them and what the perception of the judge happens to be at the time of judgment.

All people find it difficult to admit they are wrong regardless of whether they are professional or laymen in any field. It seems to be human nature to believe ourselves above all others.
I am arrogant and confidence enough in my own opinions and thoughts to believe they are valuable and should never be thrown out as insignificant.

Since science is more about discovering than KNOWING things, do not all scientists argue from the position of ignorance when they are trying to figure out what they currently do not know or understand?
If so, why consider it arrogance and imply it is a bad thing to argue anything from a position of ignorance?

What is the difference between wisdom and foolishness when one person sees foolishness as wisdom and vice versa?
Skynet
Posts: 674
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2015 9:26:00 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Well, I guess I'll make a new forum post for my hypothesis, considering this is going to turn into a battle, and I'm thread jacking anyway.
One perk to being a dad is you get to watch cartoons again without explaining yourself.
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2015 9:48:53 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/23/2015 8:13:12 PM, Skyangel wrote:

All humans are arrogant in some aspects. It is simply human nature. Some mistake confidence for arrogance too. Those who understand it is part of human nature are not offended by it.

I never said you were offended by it, but you did seem a little butthurt about it.

Maybe not but it still comes across that way regardless of what subject people are talking about. Many tend to treat those who lack understanding of the subject like idiots.
Whether something is worthless or worthwhile is a matter of very subjective human perception. "One mans trash is another mans treasure" applies to ideas as well as material objects.
My feeling are not easily hurt at all so carry on and say whatever you want. I can take it.
I am merely suggesting that scientists should not reject everything that seems stupid or absurd to them because those things which appear stupid and absurd might indeed have more relevance and truth in them than first perceived or believed.

Sure, they may have relevance and truth. And the only way youre going to demonstrate this is with evidence.

But just because something might be true, doesnt mean its plausible, and doesnt mean its not stupid or absurd. And yes, people who understand a discipline, have knowledge enough to understand whether a specific claim is absurd or stupid. Its no different from people who claim we never landed on the moon. Sometimes, there is just a complete and utter lack of understanding and lack of knowledge about the evidence involved, that a claim becomes stupid and absurd to take at face value.

And yes, I would absolutely take the stance that people who think that man never landed on the moon, or that Creationism is true and should be taught in science classrooms at schools, or that the earth is hollow, are necessarily idiotic and absurd ideas because they represent the utter lack of knowledge and understanding regarding these disciplines.

Science is a study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment. Basically it is a study of life.
All humans make observations of the natural world through their lives. Therefore when people share their observations, they ought to be taken into account. There is far more to see in this world than any single person will ever see.
However I understand birds of a feather flock together and some people cannot be bothered with people who they think are intellectually inferior to them.

No, not at all, and i would gladly explain anything to you that you do not understand as long as its in my field of purview. No one here has said they couldnt be bothered with people who dont understand this.

But this claim that when "People share their observations, they ought to be taken into account" is utterly absurd. What matters in science, isnt what someone claimed to have seen or witnessed or experienced, its whether they can repeat it to some measurable degree of success to others. In this case, the sharing of an individuals experiences and observations is meaningless in science. Its why we do not consider a schizophrenic who claims the earth is hollow because the underground gnomes told him so, as scientifically valid.

Any so called "evidence" is subjective to human perception, determination and judgment. What one considers as valid "evidence" is not necessarily what another considers to be "evidence" at all.
Religion also has its so called "evidence" which is not regarded as "evidence" by those who refuse to believe it and simply reject it out of hand.

No, that is an absolutely absurd statement to make.

There are specific criterion that must be accomplished in order to be accepted as "Evidence" by science, that necessarily makes it difficult to the point of near impossibility to be subjective.

The reason why religious "Evidence" does not count in science, is because it fails this criterion.

Nothing fits ALL the evidence because opposites exist. A glass full of water is evidence of a glass full of water and an empty glass is evidence of an empty glass. The evidence of the empty glass does not fit the evidence of the full glass. It seems to contradict it but in reality it does not contradict it at all. When you have evidence of the existence of a full glass as well as evidence of the existence of an empty glass you can conclude that a glass can be either full or empty. Both are true. One does not contradict the other or need to be thrown out as nonsense.

How does having one glass full of water at one point, and the glass being empty at another point in time, contradict each other in the first place? The only scenario that i could possibly conceive of, where someone would think that these two contradict each other, is if they dont understand what the word "Contradict" actually means.

So please explain why you would think that anyone would believe this to be contradictory in the first place?

Life is filled with opposites in my observation. I like and accept that FACT.
In my observations I have also noticed that some people seem to believe that opposites contradict each other and wish to reject anything that seems to oppose what they believe to be true.
It seems that many wish to believe "the glass" once did not exist and some random phenomenon formed it and then the glass was once empty and then became full due to evolution.
They tend to reject the idea that "the glass" has always existed and has always been full and cannot be emptied in spite of things seemingly disappearing from view. That idea is nonsense to those who want to believe in the nonexistence of Life ...

Yes, and do you know why they reject that? Because all the evidence points to the glass as evolving from being empty to being full, and none of the evidence points to it always existing. Thats how science works.

"Once upon a time... Nothing... then... some Life evolved from nothing."

Now this is why people call your ideas, idiotic. That is an extreme oversimplification to the point that its wrong. This offends me, and its not the phrase that offends me, but the fact that people are stupid enough to say this, that offends me, as if im offended on their behalf. I hope that, 10 years from now, you look back at this and say "Wow, i was an idiot for saying this! Thank God im better educated today, thanks to Tkubok!" Infact i hope it happens 10 minutes from when you read this comment.

First off, It wasnt simply nothing that existed before the big bang. A singularity existed before the big bang(or more accurately at the point of the big bang, we dont know what existed before the planck time). The only reason we consider it as "nothing" is because a singularity occupies no space, but its certainly not "Nothing" in the sense that you want it to be.

Secondly, Life didnt evolve from "nothing". Life didnt begin at the big bang. Life evolved from organic matter and residue that existed on a planet called earth.
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2015 10:21:18 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/23/2015 8:39:58 PM, Skyangel wrote:
At 4/23/2015 6:19:12 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 4/22/2015 11:11:13 PM, Skyangel wrote:
At 4/22/2015 6:43:42 PM, Skynet wrote:
At 4/22/2015 2:14:29 AM, Skyangel wrote:

No one told me that. I was just contrasting the different types of commonly observed rotating systems with the unexplained action of spiral galaxies: A solid wheel that rotates faster on the edge, and an orbital system that spins fastest in the middle and slowest on the edge are both well understood.
The rotation of the galaxy doesn't yet add up.

Does it matter?

I don't think "scientific thought" is bad, but those who SAY they are in charge of science in the US have lost my trust through their arrogance and incompetence on a number of occasions.

It seems to me from the comments I read, that many people who claim to be well versed in science in this forum are very arrogant. They tend to look down on laymen and treat them and their ideas as ridiculous and worthless while they imply that popular scientific theories should be worshiped as facts.

Scientists are used to arguing with each other every day without sugar-coating anything. We also don't, in principle, see it as shameful to admit that you're wrong, or ignorant, or needing of assistance to understand something that someone else may understand better. My experience with layman is that they find it difficult to admit to being wrong, ignorant, and willing to learn from someone, because society has led them to believe these are signs of weakness. But in reality, what is truly arrogant is presuming that your beliefs and opinions have significant utility in a scientific discussion beyond suggesting possible hypotheses, and presuming that as a layperson you are in the position to debate with those with more expertise on a subject from the position of ignorance.

Do they argue face to face like they do on the net and call their peers idiots and ignorant uneducated fools etc just because they are educated in a different field and see things from a different perspective ?

If the claim is stupid enough, yes. Absolutely yes.

"Person A" could be perceived and judged as being wrong in the judgement of "Person B" yet they can also be perceived as being correct in the judgment and perception of "person C". Therefore who determines if they are ultimately right or wrong?

Everyone else. Theres more than just 3 people in the scientific community.

In my personal observation it appears that humans can be right and wrong at the very same time depending on who is judging and critiquing them and what the perception of the judge happens to be at the time of judgment.

Sure, which is why science has produced a method that determines with the most possible accuracy, who is right and who is wrong.

I mean, nothing in the history of mankind has even come close to what science has acheived, and its ability to determine fact from fantasy, truth from falsities, etc etc etc.

All people find it difficult to admit they are wrong regardless of whether they are professional or laymen in any field. It seems to be human nature to believe ourselves above all others.
I am arrogant and confidence enough in my own opinions and thoughts to believe they are valuable and should never be thrown out as insignificant.

Since science is more about discovering than KNOWING things, do not all scientists argue from the position of ignorance when they are trying to figure out what they currently do not know or understand?
If so, why consider it arrogance and imply it is a bad thing to argue anything from a position of ignorance?

Theres a difference between being ignorant because you lack the evidence, and being ignorant despite the fact that the evidence exists and is readily available simply by asking someone or studying it yourself.

What is the difference between wisdom and foolishness when one person sees foolishness as wisdom and vice versa?

Only a foolish man thinks he is wise, while a wise man knows he is still a fool.
UndeniableReality
Posts: 1,897
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2015 10:44:02 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/23/2015 8:39:58 PM, Skyangel wrote:
At 4/23/2015 6:19:12 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 4/22/2015 11:11:13 PM, Skyangel wrote:
At 4/22/2015 6:43:42 PM, Skynet wrote:
At 4/22/2015 2:14:29 AM, Skyangel wrote:

No one told me that. I was just contrasting the different types of commonly observed rotating systems with the unexplained action of spiral galaxies: A solid wheel that rotates faster on the edge, and an orbital system that spins fastest in the middle and slowest on the edge are both well understood.
The rotation of the galaxy doesn't yet add up.

Does it matter?

I don't think "scientific thought" is bad, but those who SAY they are in charge of science in the US have lost my trust through their arrogance and incompetence on a number of occasions.

It seems to me from the comments I read, that many people who claim to be well versed in science in this forum are very arrogant. They tend to look down on laymen and treat them and their ideas as ridiculous and worthless while they imply that popular scientific theories should be worshiped as facts.

Scientists are used to arguing with each other every day without sugar-coating anything. We also don't, in principle, see it as shameful to admit that you're wrong, or ignorant, or needing of assistance to understand something that someone else may understand better. My experience with layman is that they find it difficult to admit to being wrong, ignorant, and willing to learn from someone, because society has led them to believe these are signs of weakness. But in reality, what is truly arrogant is presuming that your beliefs and opinions have significant utility in a scientific discussion beyond suggesting possible hypotheses, and presuming that as a layperson you are in the position to debate with those with more expertise on a subject from the position of ignorance.

Do they argue face to face like they do on the net and call their peers idiots and ignorant uneducated fools etc just because they are educated in a different field and see things from a different perspective ?

Scientists usually have the humility among other scientists to know what their expertise is and isn't. If a scientist was being arrogant and ignorant while claiming some kind of authority in a field they have no expertise in, then yes, other scientists would say those things.

"Person A" could be perceived and judged as being wrong in the judgement of "Person B" yet they can also be perceived as being correct in the judgment and perception of "person C". Therefore who determines if they are ultimately right or wrong?

No one makes decisions about whether someone is "ultimately" right or wrong. But if you're saying that it's purely subjective, then that's not true either. In the case of a disagreement which cannot be resolved, usually you team up and work on the problem, or work on it separately. In the case where there are known answers or good answers to questions that one party has, it's usually pretty quickly resolved by that party explaining the science to the other party.

In my personal observation it appears that humans can be right and wrong at the very same time depending on who is judging and critiquing them and what the perception of the judge happens to be at the time of judgment.

I think you mean they can be perceived to be right and wrong simultaneously. You seem to be suggesting that the state of being right and wrong are completely subjective, and so everyone's opinion on the correctness of another person's position is equally true. Or maybe you're just not communicating precisely.

All people find it difficult to admit they are wrong regardless of whether they are professional or laymen in any field. It seems to be human nature to believe ourselves above all others.

Scientists are trained against this, but scientists fail at this too sometimes.

I am arrogant and confidence enough in my own opinions and thoughts to believe they are valuable and should never be thrown out as insignificant.

This is a bit of a strawman. What I said is that they are not necessarily valuable or significant in the context of science.

Since science is more about discovering than KNOWING things, do not all scientists argue from the position of ignorance when they are trying to figure out what they currently do not know or understand?

You're conflating a situation of a layperson talking to an expert about trivial textbook knowledge that the layperson doesn't even understand with a situation of two experts disagreeing about hypotheses which are not yet resolved. There is a difference between two mathematicians arguing about whether P = NP and, hypothetically, you arguing with me about whether the fundamental theorem of calculus is true.

If so, why consider it arrogance and imply it is a bad thing to argue anything from a position of ignorance?

I hope I've answered this sufficiently above.

What is the difference between wisdom and foolishness when one person sees foolishness as wisdom and vice versa?

Impact, consequences, and derivatives, for a start.
Skyangel
Posts: 8,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2015 4:05:45 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/23/2015 9:48:53 PM, tkubok wrote:
At 4/23/2015 8:13:12 PM, Skyangel wrote:

All humans are arrogant in some aspects. It is simply human nature. Some mistake confidence for arrogance too. Those who understand it is part of human nature are not offended by it.

I never said you were offended by it, but you did seem a little butthurt about it.

The would be due to your perception and interpretations of what I write. I am not butthurt about anything. I am not easily offended.
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2015 4:55:37 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/24/2015 4:05:45 AM, Skyangel wrote:
At 4/23/2015 9:48:53 PM, tkubok wrote:
At 4/23/2015 8:13:12 PM, Skyangel wrote:

All humans are arrogant in some aspects. It is simply human nature. Some mistake confidence for arrogance too. Those who understand it is part of human nature are not offended by it.

I never said you were offended by it, but you did seem a little butthurt about it.

The would be due to your perception and interpretations of what I write. I am not butthurt about anything. I am not easily offended.

And yet you go on these off-tangent multiple paragraph rants about how arrogant we scientists are and how we should stop treating your claims as absurd and stupid when they clearly are, and we can demonstrate that they are absurd and based off of your ignorance of science, and then you go off on how theres a bias by us regarding accepted scientific theories.
Skyangel
Posts: 8,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2015 5:24:06 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/23/2015 9:48:53 PM, tkubok wrote:
At 4/23/2015 8:13:12 PM, Skyangel wrote:

Science is a study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment. Basically it is a study of life.
All humans make observations of the natural world through their lives. Therefore when people share their observations, they ought to be taken into account. There is far more to see in this world than any single person will ever see.
However I understand birds of a feather flock together and some people cannot be bothered with people who they think are intellectually inferior to them.

No, not at all, and i would gladly explain anything to you that you do not understand as long as its in my field of purview. No one here has said they couldnt be bothered with people who dont understand this.

Obviously people do not come right out and say it. It just comes across in their writing due to the way they put others down and call them idiots, uneducated etc. Anyway that is off topic. It is just a personal observation and interpretation of that observation.

But this claim that when "People share their observations, they ought to be taken into account" is utterly absurd. What matters in science, isnt what someone claimed to have seen or witnessed or experienced, its whether they can repeat it to some measurable degree of success to others. In this case, the sharing of an individuals experiences and observations is meaningless in science. Its why we do not consider a schizophrenic who claims the earth is hollow because the underground gnomes told him so, as scientifically valid.

Obviously, but no one in this science forum is schizophrenic as far as I am aware, nor are they trying to claim that gnomes or invisible characters exist or that the earth is hollow.

Science or at least many people on the net who claim to be knowledgeable in the science field, do not seem to take human bias and subjective perception into consideration either, especially their own. They do not seem to take into consideration that there are totally opposite ways to perceive anything at all. Human perception and interpretation of observations can be totally off the mark and is always subjective due to being subject to our own senses whether we like it or not. We might want to remain as objective as possible but even our concept and perception of objectivity is subjective. Appearances can be deceiving. What we observe might not be happening in reality at all.

Getting back to the topic of an apparently accelerating universe and adding the subjectivity of human perception into the equation.
Some perceive certain observations as evidence of expansion and some perceive the same observations as evidence of possible contraction. Therefore the very same observation is interpreted in totally opposite ways.
Contraction... http://phys.org...
Expansion and contraction... http://www.dailygalaxy.com...
Illusion... http://www.livescience.com...

There are specific criterion that must be accomplished in order to be accepted as "Evidence" by science, that necessarily makes it difficult to the point of near impossibility to be subjective.

I have given you evidence ( Links) and examples above of human subjectivity when it comes to interpreting any observations as evidence. I have also explained why I do not think humans can be objective due to objectivity itself being subject to human perception.

The reason why religious "Evidence" does not count in science, is because it fails this criterion.

No one is asking science to accept religious evidence.
I am merely pointing out that although a few scientists refuse to accept the invisible supernatural character concept in religion they do not seem to hesitate to make up an invisible unobservable singularity concept themselves and accept it as if it was a fact. What's the difference? Both concepts are imaginary unobservable and unprovable. They need to be believed by blind faith because no one can prove or disprove the claim of their existence.
Skyangel
Posts: 8,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2015 6:00:17 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/23/2015 9:48:53 PM, tkubok wrote:
At 4/23/2015 8:13:12 PM, Skyangel wrote:

"Once upon a time... Nothing... then... some Life evolved from nothing."

Now this is why people call your ideas, idiotic. That is an extreme oversimplification to the point that its wrong. This offends me, and its not the phrase that offends me, but the fact that people are stupid enough to say this, that offends me, as if im offended on their behalf. I hope that, 10 years from now, you look back at this and say "Wow, i was an idiot for saying this! Thank God im better educated today, thanks to Tkubok!" Infact i hope it happens 10 minutes from when you read this comment.

Wish for your miracle all you like but it will never happen.
YES the 'Once upon a time..." statement is an extreme over simplification but that is basically what science is attempting to sell to people. It is attempting to sell them the same as religion sells them. Can't you see that?
Religion... Once upon a time God.... then light "let there be light" ... then the universe...
Science.. Once upon a time A singularity... then big bang... then the universe...

Same story with a different flavor
Just a horse of a different color.
That is why I simply cannot believe it. I perceive both stories as fictions.
In ten years from today I will look back and still believe I am right about my own perception of the two stories being too similar to treat one as fiction and the other as some kind of reality. Either they are both fiction or both true. In my perception they are both fictions.

First off, It wasnt simply nothing that existed before the big bang. A singularity existed before the big bang(or more accurately at the point of the big bang, we dont know what existed before the planck time). The only reason we consider it as "nothing" is because a singularity occupies no space, but its certainly not "Nothing" in the sense that you want it to be.

Sure, whatever you say. You believe you are correct the same I believe I am correct. How do you know a singularity existed? The Truth is You Don't yet you state it as if it was a fact. God also occupies no space yet occupies all of space at the same time. However, personally I do not believe in any invisible supernatural character. I perceive all story book gods as mythical characters who simply personify various aspects of the universe and life in general.
I am just pointing out that the singularity is as mythical and imaginary as any God.

Secondly, Life didnt evolve from "nothing". Life didnt begin at the big bang. Life evolved from organic matter and residue that existed on a planet called earth.

Obviously you are not looking at the overall picture in the same way I am. You are looking at only a small section of the big picture if you wish to place the beginning of life on planet Earth.
If you believe there was an ultimate beginning at a finite point in time then ultimately in the overall picture all things began there. If you believe there are many beginnings and endings in the many cycles of the universe, what makes you conclude there was ultimately only one beginning for the universe itself? Brainwashing? Traditions? Believing the teachings of our forefathers because they told us they know better than we do and we need to pay attention to their self deceptions which they had no clue about themselves?

Life did not evolve from any residue of anything. Life comes only from life itself. Study Biogenesis.
Skyangel
Posts: 8,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2015 6:38:42 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/23/2015 10:21:18 PM, tkubok wrote:
At 4/23/2015 8:39:58 PM, Skyangel wrote:

"Person A" could be perceived and judged as being wrong in the judgement of "Person B" yet they can also be perceived as being correct in the judgment and perception of "person C". Therefore who determines if they are ultimately right or wrong?

Everyone else. Theres more than just 3 people in the scientific community.

What if half of "everyone else" sides with A and the other half side with B ? Do you toss a coin? ;-)
Generally majority vote rules. I gather that is also the case in science and that is how and why theories become popular due to majority rule.
What IF the majority are totally wrong as has been proved through history? They keep ridiculing the minority theories and that is why any significant change takes such a LONG TIME... due to general human stubborness and refusal to seriously look at alternate ideas than what is already popularly accepted and regarded as fact in spite of it still being a theory which has many uncertainties about it.

In my personal observation it appears that humans can be right and wrong at the very same time depending on who is judging and critiquing them and what the perception of the judge happens to be at the time of judgment.

Sure, which is why science has produced a method that determines with the most possible accuracy, who is right and who is wrong.
And the method is? TADA... The scientific method. Which allows scientists to make up new names for anything they think MIGHT be out there or might have once been out there but is not there any more so it cannot be proved or disproved, like a singularity for example. Science is wonderful thing when the creative science writers can convince people that their new inventions of invisible things that might have once existed are a fact and not fiction. Fiction presented as theory becomes Fact to those who believe it. Then everything needs to fit their models of the tiny fictional universe which once upon a time existed but exists no more due to expansion or any new idea is incorrect.

I mean, nothing in the history of mankind has even come close to what science has acheived, and its ability to determine fact from fantasy, truth from falsities, etc etc etc.

Obviously many people in this world still cannot distinguish fact from fiction since many still believe in a character named "Father God" living "out there somewhere" and being in charge of the universe. There are many scientists amongst them in spite of the common belief that most scientists are atheists. Ultimately religion and religious tradition has a great influence on the way humans perceive things even if it only subconscious influence.
http://www.washingtontimes.com...
If 80- 90 % of the world is religious or has some kind of faith in God then it stands to reason that 80-90% of scientists would have a faith. Do you really think their subconscious bias toward God or a single creator of some kind ( singularity) does not affect their perception of everything else around them including any so called evidence they find in scientific observations?

Since science is more about discovering than KNOWING things, do not all scientists argue from the position of ignorance when they are trying to figure out what they currently do not know or understand?
If so, why consider it arrogance and imply it is a bad thing to argue anything from a position of ignorance?

Theres a difference between being ignorant because you lack the evidence, and being ignorant despite the fact that the evidence exists and is readily available simply by asking someone or studying it yourself.

What is the difference between wisdom and foolishness when one person sees foolishness as wisdom and vice versa?

Only a foolish man thinks he is wise, while a wise man knows he is still a fool.

Yet the scientists who think they are so wise call others fools while trying to present themselves as superior to them.
Obviously there are the elite categories of fools who think they are so much wiser and smarter than the underdog categories of fools.
"Stupid is as stupid does."said Forest Gump.

At least I know I am a fool and the elite fools don't let me forget it either as they claim I ought to wise up so I can be as elite as they are. ;-)