Why We Trust in Science

[PeterM]

Just saw this on FB, love it and had to share. Well there ya go dun and dusted in less than a minute, no iffs no butts no maybes! Brilliant.

https://www.facebook.com/ScienceDoesntCare/videos/1194499744028087/

[xelasnave]

Love it...build a Moon rocket with plans from the scriptures I say.

The arguement in the link is no arguement for the cry I encounter at another site...but science cant explain everything therefore there is a God.

[Paul Haese]

Science it works, *****es.

[RickS]

Yes, it's a great argument :thumbsup:

[julianh72]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O3v2m4_NHhA

[doppler]

Science works, it is a tool that allows us to make use of what is here but has no way of explaining why here is here.

[Wilso]

I think here is here because we are in the right place at the right time for life to evolve. The Goldilocks zone , if we don't evolve and adapt to the environment we'll go the way of the dinosaurs. Unless we trust and use science to our advantage in time life as we know it will cease to exist. Where here because we are here!

[xelasnave]

There was a guy Timothy Leary if thats how it is spelt who futurised a concept of hollowing out azteriods set the up like Earth but in layers so a Fifty layer one may give you the surface area of the Earth in 100 klm diameter.
I cant remember where wanted to take them ...and although we say its crazy now will there be a time where maybe do that cause Earth, the Moon and Mars is over run with humans the only surviving life form other than whatever plants to produce what we need..
Alex

[doppler]

I think that it's not just the "Goldilocks zone" but the"Goldilocks universe"

It turns out that, for life to be possible, the numbers in basic physics – for example, the strength of gravity, or the mass of the electron – must have values falling in a certain range. And that range is an incredibly narrow slice of all the possible values those numbers can have. It is therefore incredibly unlikely that a universe like ours would have the kind of numbers compatible with the existence of life. But, against all the odds, our Universe does.

By using the equations of physics, such as Newton’s law of gravity, we can predict what’s going to happen with great precision. It is this predictive capacity that has enabled us to manipulate the natural world in extraordinary ways, leading to the technological revolution that has transformed our planet. We are now living through a period of history in which people are so blown away by the success of physical science, so moved by the wonders of technology, that they feel strongly inclined to think that the mathematical models of physics capture the whole of reality. But this is simply not the job of physics. Physics is in the business of predicting the behaviour of matter, not revealing its intrinsic nature.

[OICURMT]

I think that it's not just the "Goldilocks universe" but the"Goldilocks multi-universe"

I think if we constrain our ideas of life to our understanding of our set of physicial laws then we curtail any possibility of life elsewhere even though it may exist.

Life may exist in every universe, based on physics that is unlike our own...

OIC!
Would hate for interdimensional travelers to laugh at us for thinking that "our" maths are the only maths... ;)

[doppler]

Science seems to downplay the virtually impossible and incredible uniqueness that we call life.

Life isn't based on physics. Life is an unknown energy force that manipulates simple atoms, to group theses atoms (and molecules) into forms that we call life. And then there is consciousness, atoms aren't conscious so somewhere in between them is there that as well.
This is an interesting read about consciousness. http://www.collective-evolution.com/2017/01/14/quantum-theory-sheds-light-on-life-after-death/

[pmrid]

Is the asteroid hollowing Timothy Leary the same one who made fame as the father of LSD and other hallucinogenic breakfast snacks?

I know which one the Moody Blues were singing about:

Timothy Leary's dead
No, no, he's outside looking in
He'll fly his astral plane
Takes you trips around the bay
Brings you back the same day
Timothy Leary, Timothy Leary

and if so, is there a connection?

Peter

[xelasnave]

Hi Peter
Its the same guy, I did not want to mention his private public life as folk may dismiss his idea before considering it.
Alex

[Tropo-Bob]

That is excellent.

[deanm]

Rick:
"Life isn't based on physics."
It certainly is, otherwise it wouldn't work!
Dean

[xelasnave]

There is obviously a problem for some who think science threatens their religious views...and so they protest science cant explain everything or there is more to things than just science.

Firstly for those folk it would probably best that instead of using the word science they substitute the following..."well established and reliable knowledge provided by the best brains in humanity after many years of research, observation, testing and proofs"...and to substitue such a phrase or terminology for "science" as this may remind them that their casual dismisal of science overlooks that it is a massive body of reliable hard acquired knowledge.
And secondly they should realise that belief is a mere opinion with little in the way of proof or reliable observation at least the type that we find in science and to say belief orverides science is to transport oneself back to the dark ages.
Speculation past what is proven does not mean science is lacking ...what is lacking is understanding that it is science that delivers everything and leaves little ambiguity on any matter it covers...
Alex

[doppler]

So our conscious self's are actually just highly advanced forms of artificial intelligence, just a lot of electrical signals nothing special at all. It's all just chemistry and physics and a lot of atoms. I'm not religious just confused how simple atoms can arrange themselves into self replicating self conscious lifeforms. Everything seems "real" to me but I'm actually just a chemical reaction that will finish in the next 30 years. :shrug:

[Tropo-Bob]

Do U find it upsetting that U may be nothing special?

I am sure that U are to your family, friends and work colleges.

[xelasnave]

Hi Rick,

Well there are many things we dont know at a personal level.

There are many things science has not worked out..dark matter and dark energy are addmissions by science they dont have a specific answer...dark usually is an indicator that we are still in the dark and "dark" used as a placeholder whilst more research continues.

The problem for so many humans is when they dont know the answer they explain their mystery by referencing an entity that they know even less about and then cite a plan of that entity. They also have no idea as to that plans validity or reality and yet then will regard science as lacking because it has not worked everything yet...With science the quest for knowledge continues way past superstitious writings supposedly inspired by a mystical entity.

Science research gets published and others can review such and find fault which of course is not a principle we find in any religion. Change is not welcomed by any religion and that clearly inhibits growth in knowledge and understanding of our world.


And yet then there are those who we can only call anti science who proclaim that their mystery is the answer to everything and become convinced that their opinion is correct and has no requirement of evidence or validation when their opinion is labled faith.. these folk take us backwards to times when folk opperated under superstition and myth...science takes us forward and does not make stuff up or speculate and that keeps us pretty close to reality...thankfully.

I wonder about many things and have ideas as to how this or that may work and certainly life is so interesting.

But I never feel compelled to say...How mysterious therefore everything must be designed by some super inteligence...why even thing such...why not tell the truth..."I dont know"...ask folk and they will make up all sorts of stuff but not often do we have someone admit the truth...I dont know.

I find it facinating folk must have an answer even if its a made up one.


anti science = stupid and superstitious.

alex

[xelasnave]

Life is great so there must be more to it is not even an arguement...it is a hopeless wish.
The key would be... to be so happy that you live...that you exist at all even... if for such a very very short time and although the Universe is such a big place that you had the priveldge to be here for a mere blink in time.

Live for this life rather than indulge a fancy of something more and you wont be disappointed.
alex

[doppler]

Not upset at all, I just find it interesting how impossibly complicated life is from a physics point of view. The fact that my existence will end but all the atoms that made me will still be there and the energy that was me will go somewhere but will still exist.

[doppler]

Life has been great for me, but so many people just survive it and don't really get to live and fully enjoy it.

The universe is not really very big and has only existed for a blink in time as well when you think in terms of eternity and infinity.

[Tropo-Bob]

The carbon atoms in You, I and everybody else where part of a star once. That star has probably ceased to exist a long time ago.

When I cease to exist, my atoms will still be around, but they will be cremated into different compounds. The essence that was me will cease to exist. As no new food can be intaken, the energy that my body produces will have also ceased production.

Once, I was 7,14,21 years old. My body produced energy then (still does, fortunately), but that old energy is not lingering in any conscious form.

I have family who have passed. I can remember them, I can see them in photos, and I miss them. However, they are gone, and no amount of creative thinking of mine can bring them back. And alas, so it will be with me later this century.

[doppler]

And if we go back before the "big bang" apparently nothing existed, to me that's just weird.

I think that everything is at a first time state and nothing has been recycled yet, the universe is 13.8 billion years old and our sun along with many others was formed 4.5 billion years ago and will burn for another 5 billion years.

The deeper science goes especially into the quantum world the more stranger reality becomes, I just think we should enjoy life but still keep an open mind, after all the universe shouldn't exist according to current scientific theory.

[gaseous]

Well said sir, well said indeed.:thumbsup:

[Tropo-Bob]

Things that were living are recycling everyday. I eat meat, vegetables etc, that were alive and now provides energy, muscle and unfortunately fat for my body. Trees take in CO2 from the air, turn it into wood. Fires burn the wood (or coal) into CO2 , which goes back into the air, which in turn can be recaptured into more wood or leaves by photosynthesis. The list of recyclables is almost endless.

There is a difference between an open mind and a disciplined mind that can build on shoulders of giants that have before them. Curiosity plus disciplined research and action allowed people to go to the Moon, build computers etc. Sadly, there are people that entertain the notion that it was all a hoax.

Good science, does not pretend to know everything. That is part of the excitement of science. When a new hypothesis is suggested, it is not taken a fact. It is only by repeatable observation or experimentation by independent others is it accepted as an improvement on current theory.

Strangely though, some people have it back to front. They suggest a idea and want it to be considered as probable unless scientists can prove them wrong. Its just an idea, not even a hypothesis if it is not built on current science. Off course, current science theories can be overthrown, but the burden of proof needs to be upon the person who is making the claims and to do so through scientific methods.

[doppler]

With first time state I meant the big picture, the universe is not old enough to have stars burn out or go super nova and get reborn again,(maybe some early stars have expired but they still wouldn't have had time to form back into new suns yet).
That's the interesting part everything we see (in space) has never happened in this universe before.

[AstroStudentUSQ]

Many people always reduce the whole nature of existence puzzle to a worldview that is either that of a militant styled materialist atheist OR a proponent of religious dogma, without seeing that there actually IS a third window. What happens is religious people continue to bury their heads in the sand and shout out to the idea of an intervening personal styled god complete with a customary set of religious dogma which is nothing more than archaic, arbitrary cultural artifacts. Meanwhile the hardcore materialists prefer to glaze over the elephant in the room in terms of philosophical implications of the strange quantum world (goodbye our safe, deterministic 'mechanical' worldview of the foundations of nature), the fine tuning of the universe (multiverse?), and of course in terms of consciousness, the nature of subjective experience (qualia).
This third window is the choice to recognize that dogmatic religion does not extend beyond being cultural artifacts; that science is a valuable pursuit and has provided (and will continue to provide) insights more profound than religious dogma; however there are inherent limits to scientific knowledge and one should also be open to the possibility that there IS some kind of conscious (or Proto-conscious?) entity at the origin of the universe (multiverse?!?) which is either beyond our current scientific understanding OR for which science cannot in itself, exclusively explain.
This early on with our knowledge of the universe and existence barely scratching the surface, it is premature and arrogant to say "I know 100 percent that there IS or IS NOT any kind of consciousness we would interpret as God.
Further, consciousness itself may be a unique property in the universe and existence and may be exploiting quantum physics to operate fundamentally as there are ways to prevent de-cohesion (see: Quantum consciousness, Penrose and Hameroff.) At this stage still extremely controversial. So was Plate Tectonics in it's time of introduction.
To talk for a minute on indulgence, it is my view that self aware consciousness (complete with qualia) is a core facet of a potential multiverse and that evolution of biological diversity in this regard has 'grown' Proto-consciousness which permeates the multiverse into advanced forms of self aware consciousness (Humans being one 'flavour'). It is my view that the Soul exists but is in the context of quantum information and thus I belong to the camp of physicists (I am studying to become one) which has a spiritual appreciation of the universe and has no problem combining science and spirituality, while recognizing the inherent limits to science and avoiding archaic cultural dogma.
I look forward to working in Orch-OR and similar quantum models of mind in the future after I finish the astrophysics themed degrees.

[AstroStudentUSQ]

Yes it's a bit of an archaic view that "nothing" existed before the big bang.
There are physicists now working on a model called "Eternal inflation" which is a multiverse model, with bubble universes coming into existence.

So in this model the question "what existed before the big bang" would have the answer of other universes coming into existence, since "before the big bang" would mean only before the foundation of this one particular universe (and not all of existence). Other universes with their own space/times would have been and continue to come into existence.

The goal posts then move to ask what is the nature of this model multiverse itself and is the notion of an origin of the multiverse a valid question to ask? I think it is but it is conjecture at this point.

On the point of "recycling" - if no elements had been recycled, only type 3 stars would exist. This universe has had an enormous amount of subsequent generations of star formation. So indeed the cosmic elements are recycled again and again. If this was not the case, metals would not exist to form rocky planets.

(Metals in astronomy (not chemistry) is any element heavier than helium)

Cheers,
Mark

[pmrid]

Along the same line as "we're made of stardust" theme, I rather like the idea that our atoms remain and get recycled endlessly. It means I am made up of little bits of some pretty cool people. I'm part Copernicus and Kepler, Newton and Darwin, Einstein and Capt. Cook - and not to be choosy and sexist about this - I am also a little bit Cleopatrta, Madam Bovary, Marie Curie and so on. It may not explain much about who I am or why. But I like it.

Peter.

[Tropo-Bob]

I wish U well with your studies and your future career. Sir Issac Newton was a deeply religious man and that did not adversely affect his scientific output. Quantum physics can be used in a quasi-religious way. If that gives U inspiration and strength, then so be it. However, let Newton be ur guide on how to conduct research in the physical world and do not let seductive spiritual ideas impede this.

[Tropo-Bob]

That's an interesting and harmless way at looking at life.

However, such ideas have been taken more spiritually with Communion in mainstream, Christian Churches being about the ingestion of the body and blood of Christ.

Then there was cannibalism, with beliefs that if you ate your opponent, you gained his strength. However, in PNG, the only thing that was proven was cannibalism could cause brain disease. So eventually, a win for science (in the form of health research) over spiritual beliefs on what is beneficial for one.

[doppler]

I didn't realize that super giant stars only have lifespans of only a few million years and not billions of years like our own sun, so yes that explains a lot of recycling and new star formation.

And :thumbsup: for Marks post (28)

[xelasnave]

Hi Mark

I enjoyed reading your post but I have to comment on a few points.
I dont want to seem grumpy and disagreeable because I am not really so please dont let me put you off because you may interprete my style as abrasive.
You said..


I suggest there is no elephant in the room.

The quantum world may seem strange to us but that strangeness comes about from our efforts to read it and not necessarily from some feature of that world that really makes it strange.

I do think the strangeness of the quantum world is a perception arising to a large degree from the necessity to employ probability in the science we call quantum physics.

Also I really think the alledged strangeness is promoted by science journalists to make their reporting "exciting"


But the game is very deterministict...and that is the point. This alledged strangeness should not be seen as providing an environment that in effect makes anything posible...I see folk suggest this but really there is no basis for this approach...in my view.



You present your thoughts nicely however you do realise that you are speculating with no foundation.

If you wish to invent posibilities you must appreciate that one takes the path of make believe and basless speculation.

Let me try ...should we eliminate the posibility that we are in someone elses dream and that ice cream grows hair on a bald head..any speculation crazy or seemingly sound is after all mere speculation....and although it is perhaps arogant to say ~I know 100 percent that there is or is not any kind of consciousness we interpret as God~ perhaps no as arogant to assert that any speculation is somehow better than fact and reality.
The is no foundational evidence for religion and so it is no better or worse than any other speculation but one should never forget it is mere speculation with out supporting evidence...


This is more than speculation...it is wild speculation seeking to link science with a hope that a certain philosophy may have a claim to fame using jounalists sensationalism of the quantum world. It is obvious why the Penrose and Hameroff stuff is contraversial...it is dishonest really. And to link such wild speculation to Plate Tectonics because they share an element of being seen as contraversial is simply wrong...Plate tectonics started with observations and a scientific approach and the stuff you suggest is neither scientific or starts from a base of observation...you need to be careful using parrallels that are wrong.
.

You will never become a scientist if you start with arriving at conclusions predetermined as to the make up of the universe and spirituality.
Can not be done..
Such an approach will colour every observation and everything you do because you really start from a position of proving a [point...the point that there is more to the universe..your philosophy precludes you from being a real scientist...sorry but explain where I could be wrong here..

I dont like the big bang theory for the simple reason the idea came from a priest who had adopted the pagon idea that the universe came from a cosmic egg...sure he has the maths etc but I strongly feel that he set out to provide a framework to accommodate his core beliefs...Of course one is labled a crank to reject the big bang theory but I note that I do not reject itas it is the current model...do I think that model will change...I most certainly do...however my point is although I hold views against it I am happy to work with the model ...not that I need to as it does not feature in my day to day life at all....Remeber cosmology is after al an attempt by humans to explain the creation of the Universe to a large degree...I would prefer to call cosmology philosophy supported by science than science that supports philosophy...

You mention the soul...there is nothing to suggest there is a soul and it is not scientific I hope you realise that...

A question...does your view extend to the concept of there must be an inteligent designer behind the complexity of the Universe?

Again nice post and I wish you well in your studies.

alex

[xelasnave]

Hi Mark
I expect that you have read Kal Popper which covers the philosophy of science.
If not I highly recommend that you read up ..if nothing else use wiki as that will be a reasonable introduction.
Alex

[AstroStudentUSQ]

Hi Alex,

The level of abstraction I am talking about in relation to a perceived ultimate nature of existence itself may be beyond the inherent limitations of science as we understand it, to exclusively explain. One can study that which falls within the domain of science such as studying stars, planets, etc, while also recognizing that different questions exist at a different level of abstraction which may fall outside of what the scientific method in itself can be applied to.

Again, I would like to make a clear distinction between dogmatic religion and being open minded to the possibility of a spiritual connection, a distinction made and enjoyed by many historical scientists, Einstein included.

In regards to the soul, we are going to have to just agree to disagree here.
I used to be an exclusive hardcore materialist until certain events happened in my life which opened my mind to the concept of consciousness continuing to exist following bodily death, via an alternate mechanism.
I understand and accept that I cannot *prove* such events, any more than you can *prove* to me right now in scientific terms that you love X person. Thus I come back to such things being outside the domain of what can be achieved with science, which itself is a Human endeavor with a strict set of parameters.

Cheers,
Mark

[xelasnave]

The soul is an interesting concept.
It goes back a long way, I think the Eygptians conceived it and may be it goes back further.

I find it facinating that humans have this need or interest in spiritual matters. I mean that sincerely and I am not having a dig.

I wonder what started it all off... My feeling is perhaps at first maybe tribal elders invented their Gods and spirits to help guide their communities knowing that the young folk would not really obey the elders when out of eye contact but the prospect of a God or spirit being around all the time may have been more effective...

For example the elders may realise that to cut trees on the mountain behind the village could only end in land slides and invented the mountain spirit who would destroy you if you walked on that mountain or cut down trees...that sort of thing.

That is a speculation driven I guess by the need to offer an answer even though I have absolutely no idea...but I certainly wonder why the need for spirituality and the invention of the soul concept.

I am open minded but there are things I reject outright..I doubt that there is a God although I would conceed anything is possible ..what I reject outright is the way humans believe they are privey to what, if there is any entity or force or whatever, that they could possibly know its purpose or any attributes what so ever.


You sound at least a very reasonable man but I am sure you know we have some strange folk out there who become somewhat convinced their view is the only one that is correct.... and of course if their view disagrees with mine then clearly they are wrong:D... It is not easy being right all the time like me as you feel guilty about being so fortunate and guilty that whilst you avoid your responsibility of ruling the world that humanity will only suffer without ones guidence:D.

If only folk could follow my morality and life principles the world would be perfect...:D

And although I joke I would say I may find there are folk who really do think that way...I would not of course as I am far too humble.

alex

[AstroStudentUSQ]

Hi Alex,

Oh yes, I agree with you entirely about Humanity not being in a 'privileged' position in terms of an exclusive ownership of self aware consciousness. There are of course other life forms on THIS planet that have a high degree of consciousness (I'm thinking Dolphins as one example), and of course there simply must be other advanced life throughout the universe which has obtained consciousness. Thus when I talk of Humanity, Source, Soul etc I am speaking in the context of Humans being only one 'flavour' of that, and in no way having an exclusive anthropocentric dominance of it as propagated by dogmatic religion.

I sympathize with you being right all the time, it must be an incredible weight on your shoulders. :rofl::thumbsup:

Cheers,
Mark

[doppler]

I think science is just scrapping the tip of the iceberg in its understanding of the universe, the deeper we go the more unanswered questions arise needing new theories to be formulated and a lot of mysteries that might never be solved.

An interesting read on the soul.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/biocentrism/201112/does-the-soul-exist-evidence-says-yes

"Although the current scientific paradigm is based on the belief that the world has an objective observer-independent existence, real experiments suggest just the opposite. We think life is just the activity of atoms and particles, which spin around for a while and then dissipate into nothingness. But if we add life to the equation, we can explain some of the major puzzles of modern science, including the uncertainty principle, entanglement and the fine-tuning of the laws that shape the universe."


Entanglement
"In quantum physics, entangled particles remain connected so that actions performed on one affect the other, even when separated by great distances. The phenomenon so riled Albert Einstein he called it "spooky action at a distance."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_entanglement

[xelasnave]

Re unanswered questions...there probably will always be unanswered questions that is reasonable but it is unreasonable to invent answers.
Think of it this way ... it is though we are in a large dark room and science is the light...what it illuminates we can take as fairly reliable but what may be in the dark we dont know so there is little point in guessing what hides in the darkness.
Science does not have all the answers but it has more than a y other approach by a country mile.

Alex

[pmrid]

I have found a couple of books helpful in deciphering the origins of the belief in the soul and the need for (or realisation of) matters spiritual.

Robert Graves' " The White Goddess " is a brilliant history of mythology and primitive belief systems;

Sir James Gordon Frazer's "The Golden Bough". An equally brilliant study of mythology and religion.

I think both of these authors have grasped a central starting point in the rise of primitive sharman (sharmen Pl) in tribal societies - commanding power and its accoutrements by being the sole possessor of the mysteries of celestial events and being able to interpret omens and the like. They emerged in their tribal groups by virtue of being in possession of a few more working synapses than the rest of the herd. This was a way of establishing dominance and asserting power that has changed little since those times except in the regalia and incantations worn and uttered by the latter-day equivalents.

I think they have it right. Religions are an extension of the regimes of dominance and control that have been part of us since we chewed raw meat and hid when there was a comet in the sky.

Peter

[blindman]

http://www.iceinspace.com.au/forum/showthread.php?t=164774

That is why we DO NOT believe "science"

[doppler]

But if we use the scientific principle that things need to be proven to be considered fact, doesn't that in itself cancel out a lot of science. Physics itself falls apart at the so called big bang so science is just guessing. The origin of life has not been found so that is also guessing and as far as the possibility of alien life is concerned ,we haven't found any so that also is just guessing.

Isn't science the search for all answers not just the physics ones. Science does a great job, but there are a lot of scientists looking for answers to the hard questions "outside the square", which is where mainstream physics started in the first place.

[AstroStudentUSQ]

It's also important to recognize that there is always an ultimate distinction between nature 'as it is' and our understanding of it. In science we are constructing models and refining those models until a given model is capable of reproducing with high accuracy the phenomena we are seeking to understand. The process is never finalised however, and it is crucial to understand this. Future models may explain everything the current ones do plus go further in explaining currently unknown segments of our investigations. This is scientific progress.
Key point in philosophy of science: there is always a distinction between the phenomena itself and our model based scientific understanding of it.

Cheers,
Mark

[xelasnave]

A Hi Rick
There is some stuff that folk see as science which frankly I do not.
That puts me in the crank pot box but so be it.
For example although I recognise the big bang is our best scientific model so far I very much doubt it really describes reality.

The big bang theory was ready for the scrap heap beause of the percieved problem of how did everything register in effect the same...the solution seized upon was the theory of inflation which as far as I know has no evidence via observation other than I think maybe the slight variation in the background radiation...however it was desparate times for the big bang theory so inflation was grabbed with both hands and nothing better has been presented since.

Now remember I am not a scientist and as Karl Popper says if one questions a scientific theory you probably dont understand the problem it seeks to fix. ..however the inflation theory says that the universe grew from the size of a grape fruit or basket ball, in , as Neil Degrasse says...in a zillionth of a zillionth of a zillonth of a second. ..grew from that to pretty much the size of the observable universe...now I dont care how the sums work out that just sounds beyond all possibility. So I will be accused of argument from incredulity? .

Supporters of big bang happily accept the theory of inflation because it saved the theory from the scrap heap.

BUT I think it must be wrong however I cant really comment because I cant provide a better theory. ..thats the way of it.

But it is cosmology and as I said earlier in my view cosmology is philosophy backed by science.

The big bang got momentum because of observations that the universe was expanding well before this tack on theory of inflation.

Also the idea of a cosmic egg existed before any observation and given big bang hints at a creation point and accepted as not inconsistent with the catholic church, the pope said so, says to me science was probably cherry picked to establish predetermined cosmology.

Now that is opinion...opinion the word that describes faith...

However most science proceeds somewhat differently to cosmology...and remember we are into astronomy not cosmology so dont feel I am questioning what we do...we look at and say its there..cosmologists look and explain why its there. ..and to confirm tbe big bang theory no other.

So we get folk proposing multiverses which comes out of inflation theory or what may have been before their big bang but its mere speculation...reasonable but speculation.. .my view that is not science.

At this point Steven usually comes along to point out why I am wrong but I am speculating and if science is happy with inflation thats ok as it is part of the best model we have to date.

My view of science is that one looks at data, and makes a prediction which will support the theory.

Also remember that the model showing the Earth at the center of the solar system is a good scientific model simply because of its ptedictive ability...we know it does not describe reality but if you want to say where Saturn will be this time next year that model will tell you...hence a good scientific model...does not reflect reality or truth.

Now given that science still leaves us not where we would like to be to but rely upon anything less will just make the situation worse.

I have worked out the origin of life and hopefully someone will present a theory supporting my opinion.

A water droplet was the first egg its properties are considerable but it provides separation from the environment via charge and for whatever reason forces particles to its center and I think the surface may interact with CO 2 to pre date the egg shell...there is more but its a idea in progress...we are relatively new to all this...its only one hundred years since GR and less still since we thought the universe was contained in the Milky Way...

All I am saying is the only things worth zip is stuff reasonably established by science...or would you like science to say..that idea of Alex re the water droplet sounds cool lets go with that...and when we step outside science we have mere supposition which is nice for chats but dangerous because when folk chat they believe by talking about it things become real.
.
Look at religion..its real beause we talk about it..rushing way past any point where the idea was more than a neat idea...now look its worse than an invasion of cane toads...and these business dont pay tax...unbelievable but thats a run away fantasy for you.

If you have a hard question simply dont make up an answer which is really the way I see the inflation theory.

Its about eliminating any possibilty of being wrong...how easy to say ..yes thats a big question and I do not have an answer. ..or should we guess ...a guess is usless until proved correct.. .and if a guess there is reason for the propo ne t to cherry pick data to prove his guess was correct...which is what I believe happe ed with the cosmic egg guess.
Alex

Alex

[xelasnave]

What a pity religions do not approach things the way you do...they never reject they just add more excuses.
Alex

[xelasnave]

Absolutely .

Alex

[AstroStudentUSQ]

I'm throwing a grenade in the mix here, but look at the whole dark matter scenario. Yes it may exist and it may be any of a number of things which haven't been agreed on in the scientific community yet, but it is also possible that dark matter does not exist and it may be our existing model of gravity that need's tweaking and/or is incomplete. This isn't looked on favorably by the 'Cult of Einstein' in the scientific community, who have built their careers on their much loved general relativity. This raises another point in science, in that, at the end of the day these are still Humans *doing* science. Humans with their own hopes, preferences, and bias in terms of time and energy investment spent in their careers and holding on to their cherished particular theories.

Cheers,
Mark

[xelasnave]

I agree.
GR is a multi billion dollar business there is no question about that.

Why it is presented as the cutting edge of science is beyond me..after a hundred years we get ...GR proved right again and again and again...and the hunt for gravity waves I find concerning. The search for gravity waves threatens funding to other stuff...already being presented as the future of research...a d why... cause it is proving GR is right. ... .I am cynical but....

I find the speculation of what is beyond the event horizon unbelievable...to me its like arguing how many angels can dance on a pin....even speculation with sound math is speculation...

As to dark matter...if there is so much of it get me a trailer load.

I still believe gravity works like a pressure...I see a mechanical explaination but advocates of GR reject such...there is no machinery it seems and GR wont have a bar of it...but what mechanism goes on other than their magic...Le Sage gravity was set aside by GR and so advocates of GR hate it...it is my belief if gravity has a mechanism what we interpret as attraction simply does not exist...dark matter would not be necessary if things work via an external pressure and the rotational curves of galaxies would seem consistent with extenal pressure...and even dark energy may be no more than another manifestation of that pressure.
But GR rules and given the mouths it feeds wont change soon.
Look how they hate the idea of a graviton...

But those are my mere ideas and no more than speculation.

I am starting to believe the aspect of prediction is a double edge sword. ..much like the guess mechanism I mentioned earlier..your theory needs to have its prediction so I think that lends itself to...I told you so...with no further investigation as to the observation. Are we observing gravity waves could they e evidence of something else...what answer do you think you will get.

Back ground radiation..
Could it be something else? Lets think about it...no no no ..thats what the theory predicted case closed...that seems wrong to me...

Is the universe really expanding in the first place...would any counter observations be accepted?

I doubt it.

And yet I still believe our current science is better tban making stuff up...

Alex

[blindman]

Ha, if you didn't know, big bang theory was presented by priest (can you believe Catholic)!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gXflufzrd2w

enjoy

[xelasnave]

Thank you for the vid.
I know where the big bang came from I said so above.
A priest who liked the idea of a cosmic egg.
If you like an idea I think building science to establish that idea is open to what should be obvious problems.
Certainly the big bang only deals with the evolution of the universe a moment after what would seem the moment of creation...A religious person may like the big bang for that reason..it would be for some religious folk having science support creation...the Pope says as much..I still like the general prospect of an eternal universe but certainly that model was shot down because of the BB theory prediction of background radiation. But steady state leaves no room for a creator so think who you will have lining up to oppose it...Jews, Muslims and Christians and all the variations of those groups.
They all despite their differences must have a creation point or else they dont get off the ground...
Steady state universe died because it had no point of creation I suspect so those above would e haply to see it trashed...

The observation of background radiation fits the prediction so BB claimed victory...thats the way it goes...however as far as I know we can't go past the background radiation, it is the limit of our observation..we certainly can not observe the BB or anything between the BB and the background radiation.
So it would be nice to have ealier observations but it seems we cant have such.
BB certainly will make religious folk happy and that is one of the reasons that I dont trust it...
I find it disturbing that folk talk about the BB as a fact when the reality is we can never know but to me when someone becomes dogmatic I become concerned...although as the years go by I expect something may turn up...but probably thousands of years...maybe if religion dies out others will come back to steady state.
As I said I think the idea of inflation is just too hard to swallow...I dont think folk realise that the universe supposedly grew from a grape fruit to the observable universe in a split second..I dont care what the math says I simply dont buy it...
And of course the inflation theory allows multiple universes ...so that would be a heck of a lot of activity in that first split second.
But I am a mug without the inteligence to understand i flation.
The original observed expansion by Hubble is nothing compared to the inflationary period...anyways I will not lose sleep over it but I do think the cosmology is more philosophy than most will admit.
It wont change soon.
Lets face it if folk will believe all that is laid out by religion believing the current cosmology which is supported by good science is a reasonable expectation.

I would say BB is not going to get rolled...heck if you cant roll the church that offers no proof what chance do you have to roll the BB when it is supported by "science" particularly GR. ..not a chance.

I did not really watch the vid fully cause it seemed a little too long and clearly had an axe to grind.
If you read my posts fully you probably realise I am not a big fan of the big bang because of the reasons that I laid out however I am not ready to go over to the flat Earth ever.
And as I said although not happy with the big bang I can live with the fact that it is the prevailing model.
My personal view is as laid out which brands me as a crack pot but it is my view.
The vid is just to long for my short attention span so I ask what did you get from it...
Alex

[blindman]

I was little bit shocked, I must say, do not know if it is true or not, but quite shocking for me.

[blindman]

So far it is clear, no aliens in so called space, no macro evolution, still searching for Truth.

[xelasnave]

I did a major edit so you may have missed that before you posted your last two.

Look the reality is there is so much we dont know that we know we dont know but more importantly there is stuff we dont know we dont know so I doubt we will ever know the truth of what is really going on...I think the key is not to arrogantly believe we have arrived.
Sure we are a very clever species but I expect there may be others in the universe more advanced than us...I would hope there are at least.
We should be happy that we can at least come up with ideas like BB and steady state rather than a made up notion that some entity created everything...its better.
But it is a concern that really we have not noved much past the pagan notion of a cosmic egg.
Alex