| Why do we assume... on 02:38 - Jul 20 with 1452 views | ApeShit |
| Why do we assume... on 14:10 - Jul 19 by TheFranchise |
Has anyone ever watched Ancient Aliens on the History channel? |
Yea, interesting stuff but mainly bollocks... there is never a definite conclusion.
It is mad some of the stuff that was done thousands of years ago. |  | |  |
| Why do we assume... on 02:43 - Jul 20 with 1451 views | Feynmans_Bongos |
| Why do we assume... on 02:07 - Jul 20 by Highjack |
"A good scientist spends he first years trying to prove his hypothesis, then spends the rest of his life defending it"
Yes, or to put it another way, a proper scientist would try to find flaws in his hypothesis, because the more times he tries different ways to disprove it and comes out with the same result, the more he strengthens his argument.
"The first problem with most of the scientific work on absolute imponderables [like the universe] is that scientists who propound the theories have the only instruments that could be used to disprove them. For example, who else has a Large Hadron Collider to disprove the Boson theory [I think they now call it the Boson Principle]? "
Completely agree with that. In fact, Einstein found major flaws in Newtons Theory of Gravity. Does that make him a better scientist? Not neccesarily, If Newton had the same 20th century technology Einstein would he have worked out the flaws for himself? Without being brought up with Newton's knowledge would Einstein have made such an impact? Circumstance limits genius. Who knows what indvidual will come along in the future who could count themselves alongside those two with groundbreaking ideas of his or her own? Scientific fact is limited by the technology of the day absolutely, but the information we have still fits with what we observe in the universe every time so that's why it's considered fact until proven otherwise.
"The other problem, as you say, is that the "clique" controls all of the research, and who's going to go against the people who control everything in the field -- most especially the money, which then controls who gets to work on the research? "
I would hope that the big universities would support them and not bow to external influence. Newton was supported by Cambridge I believe, in a time when science was largely marginalised. Stephen Hawking has been supported by Oxford through his illness for a good 30 years, hopefully the great minds can continue work free of government influence. Who knows? I can't answer this question as succintly as I'd like as I don't fall under the class A academia you mentioned in your original point 2, I am merely a layman with a passing interest.
"I'm very glad to see that you wrote, "In the case of Einstein's work 100 years later it is still the best theory we have that fits with 3 of the 4 fundemental forces of the universe. . . . " It's that fourth one that sticks in the craw."
Again, I'm certainly not an expert, but from reading various books, watching documentaries and reading information via the internet it is my understanding that modern science believes Einstein's theory to be correct on gravity, but cannot yet prove it under the current model because of a specific particle that's missing from the formula. That particle is thought to be the Higgs Boson and if found they will be able to link all four forces together under the same theory. That's my understanding of it, but I am willing to accept I am completely barking up the wrong tree. |
The Higgs Boson has been discovered in the last two years, and more and more evidence supporting the theory of it is being found, and I don't think that is the problem with gravity, the problem we have is that Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity have constantly agreed with our predictions and are solid theories, but they're incompatible with one another and a lot of scientists are trying to find a way to connect them together, I believe (Not certain) that this is partly or maybe wholely what string theory is about, and possibly (and it would make sense I suppose) Quantum Gravity. The problem is general relativity requires smooth continuous space-time, while Quantum Mechanics is ruled by uncertainty and probabilities.
Saying this, I too mostly learnt all this from documentaries and articles on the internet, and to be honest I think I've learnt more concepts from them than from my Theoretical Physics degree I'm about to finish the master's level in at the University, makes you wonder doesn't it haha |  | | |
| Why do we assume... on 02:57 - Jul 20 with 1442 views | ApeShit |
| Why do we assume... on 07:19 - Jul 19 by Catullus |
I once tried thinking about the magnititude of it. I got to a point where it just, for want of a better phrase "span me out" and it still does.
As Buzz Lightyear said "To infinity and beyond" which is an awesome and incredible thought. That even if you were immortal, you could keep going forever and never find the end!!
And that is just thinking about the distances involved, never mind the actual mechanics.
If mankind survives long enough, the moon will one day move far enough away to stop affecting the tides. Eventually it will spin off into space.
This is when life on this planet will start to die. No more tides, stagnation will set in, the sea will die.......and so will we.
Of course we may have wiped ourselves out by then. We don't know the long term effects of climate change, GM farming or over medicating ourselves.
Nor do we know if a global extinction event is near. All sorts of outcomes are possible, even if an NEO doesn't hit us, if it gets close enough it could cause chaos.
There is enough to worry about in our own little worlds. I'll leave outer space and it's mysteries to the experts. Although the wonders of the universe always captivate me when tv comes up with a good series.
But think about it too deeply and us mere mortals will only end up spaced out!! |
You've spun me out now... I can't contemplate that the universe is ever expanding... INTO WHAT??
I won't sleep tonight now, this is why I don't fear death. | | | |
| Why do we assume... on 03:12 - Jul 20 with 1437 views | Feynmans_Bongos |
Has anyone watched any of the Through The Wormhole With Morgan Freeman TV series? Nothing has ever blown my mind as much as that series, and I'm only on season 2. Some of it I'm very wary of as if they've deliberately gone out to find the wackiest theories to make good TV, but some of it is incredible, I'd recommend it to anyone with even the slightest interest in science in general | | | |
| Why do we assume... on 03:15 - Jul 20 with 1433 views | ApeShit |
| Why do we assume... on 03:12 - Jul 20 by Feynmans_Bongos |
Has anyone watched any of the Through The Wormhole With Morgan Freeman TV series? Nothing has ever blown my mind as much as that series, and I'm only on season 2. Some of it I'm very wary of as if they've deliberately gone out to find the wackiest theories to make good TV, but some of it is incredible, I'd recommend it to anyone with even the slightest interest in science in general |
I've got them all recorded, I watched the first one with a hangover... but you need a clear head for them.
I've also recorded Cosmos A Space Time Odyssey | | | |
| Why do we assume... on 09:05 - Jul 20 with 1417 views | Drizzle |
| Why do we assume... on 03:12 - Jul 20 by Feynmans_Bongos |
Has anyone watched any of the Through The Wormhole With Morgan Freeman TV series? Nothing has ever blown my mind as much as that series, and I'm only on season 2. Some of it I'm very wary of as if they've deliberately gone out to find the wackiest theories to make good TV, but some of it is incredible, I'd recommend it to anyone with even the slightest interest in science in general |
Thank you so much for mentioning this program. I had never even heard of it. Watched two already. Good stuff. |  | | |
| Why do we assume... on 13:43 - Jul 20 with 1406 views | Feynmans_Bongos |
| Why do we assume... on 09:05 - Jul 20 by Drizzle |
Thank you so much for mentioning this program. I had never even heard of it. Watched two already. Good stuff. |
No problem, watch out for the one where they discuss the universe being a hologram, that one made my head hurt haha | | | |
| Why do we assume... on 13:50 - Jul 20 with 1404 views | Davillin |
| Why do we assume... on 02:57 - Jul 20 by ApeShit |
You've spun me out now... I can't contemplate that the universe is ever expanding... INTO WHAT??
I won't sleep tonight now, this is why I don't fear death. |
In my opinion, you have pointed out one of the ultimate conundrums: "I can't contemplate that the universe is ever expanding… INTO WHAT??
And some people don't like my favourite "origin of the universe" question: "And where did that come from?"
Both are a real handful to the thinking person. Whence? Whereto? |  |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Why do we assume... on 13:56 - Jul 20 with 1401 views | ApeShit |
| Why do we assume... on 13:50 - Jul 20 by Davillin |
In my opinion, you have pointed out one of the ultimate conundrums: "I can't contemplate that the universe is ever expanding… INTO WHAT??
And some people don't like my favourite "origin of the universe" question: "And where did that come from?"
Both are a real handful to the thinking person. Whence? Whereto? |
There is no answer to that question...
I know your getting at religion, I don't believe in God but I do question myself now and again.
Even if you believe in the big bang theory, you still have to ask yourself ... where did the elements that created that come from?
How can anyone comprehend a never ending universe? | | | |
| Why do we assume... on 14:04 - Jul 20 with 1398 views | Davillin |
| Why do we assume... on 02:07 - Jul 20 by Highjack |
"A good scientist spends he first years trying to prove his hypothesis, then spends the rest of his life defending it"
Yes, or to put it another way, a proper scientist would try to find flaws in his hypothesis, because the more times he tries different ways to disprove it and comes out with the same result, the more he strengthens his argument.
"The first problem with most of the scientific work on absolute imponderables [like the universe] is that scientists who propound the theories have the only instruments that could be used to disprove them. For example, who else has a Large Hadron Collider to disprove the Boson theory [I think they now call it the Boson Principle]? "
Completely agree with that. In fact, Einstein found major flaws in Newtons Theory of Gravity. Does that make him a better scientist? Not neccesarily, If Newton had the same 20th century technology Einstein would he have worked out the flaws for himself? Without being brought up with Newton's knowledge would Einstein have made such an impact? Circumstance limits genius. Who knows what indvidual will come along in the future who could count themselves alongside those two with groundbreaking ideas of his or her own? Scientific fact is limited by the technology of the day absolutely, but the information we have still fits with what we observe in the universe every time so that's why it's considered fact until proven otherwise.
"The other problem, as you say, is that the "clique" controls all of the research, and who's going to go against the people who control everything in the field -- most especially the money, which then controls who gets to work on the research? "
I would hope that the big universities would support them and not bow to external influence. Newton was supported by Cambridge I believe, in a time when science was largely marginalised. Stephen Hawking has been supported by Oxford through his illness for a good 30 years, hopefully the great minds can continue work free of government influence. Who knows? I can't answer this question as succintly as I'd like as I don't fall under the class A academia you mentioned in your original point 2, I am merely a layman with a passing interest.
"I'm very glad to see that you wrote, "In the case of Einstein's work 100 years later it is still the best theory we have that fits with 3 of the 4 fundemental forces of the universe. . . . " It's that fourth one that sticks in the craw."
Again, I'm certainly not an expert, but from reading various books, watching documentaries and reading information via the internet it is my understanding that modern science believes Einstein's theory to be correct on gravity, but cannot yet prove it under the current model because of a specific particle that's missing from the formula. That particle is thought to be the Higgs Boson and if found they will be able to link all four forces together under the same theory. That's my understanding of it, but I am willing to accept I am completely barking up the wrong tree. |
Just one minor point to a good post, regarding your "I would hope that the big universities would support them and not bow to external influence. "
The source of university money is in large part from gifs, but of far more importance to the issue at hand are grants. [I don't know to a certainty that the same is true in the U.K. as in the States, but I believe it to be so.]
Grant money is given by individuals, governments, businesses, and various educational trust funds, and it is given to a specific individual at a university, or to a specific department, and almost always for specific research, and sometimes to create what is called "a chair." "A chair" is a specific, named, professorship which the grant funds -- The Davillin Trust Chair in Philosophy," for example.
In any case, the money is merely funneled to the grantee through the university, which exercises no further real control. The grant money is where the control comes from. Wrong results, grant ends, although the grantor knows beforehand where the "study" will go and where it will end.. | |
| |
| Why do we assume... on 14:20 - Jul 20 with 1392 views | Drizzle |
| Why do we assume... on 13:50 - Jul 20 by Davillin |
In my opinion, you have pointed out one of the ultimate conundrums: "I can't contemplate that the universe is ever expanding… INTO WHAT??
And some people don't like my favourite "origin of the universe" question: "And where did that come from?"
Both are a real handful to the thinking person. Whence? Whereto? |
Time? The way 'through the worm hole' explained was that the universe was like the surface of a balloon thats expanding into time as it is 'blown up'. | | | |
| Why do we assume... on 14:55 - Jul 20 with 1375 views | Davillin |
| Why do we assume... on 14:20 - Jul 20 by Drizzle |
Time? The way 'through the worm hole' explained was that the universe was like the surface of a balloon thats expanding into time as it is 'blown up'. |
We need a new thread on "Time."
It is my firm belief that there is no such thing as Time in any sense that it can be located or identified.
It's a system of measurement only. To refer briefly to your post, how can something expand into something that doesn't exist?
Let's look at some similar units of measurement.
Miles, leagues, acres, feet, yards. Where will I find any of them?
Kilograms, grams, ounces, pounds? Does the universe expand into miles or kilometers?
Hot, cold, luke warm, or more specifically zero degrees Celsius, or 32 degrees Fahrenheit?
Hours, minutes, days, years?
[I'll start a new thread.] | |
| |
| Why do we assume... on 18:52 - Jul 20 with 1345 views | Swanzay |
Also we don't actually know in reality which was up the world actually is. UK etc is always displayed on 'top', whilst Oz etc is always at the bottom on atlases etc. We just do not know and it could be the other way around. Just goes to show the size and awe of the universe. [Post edited 20 Jul 2014 18:54]
|  | | |
| Why do we assume... on 21:14 - Jul 20 with 1326 views | Feynmans_Bongos |
| Why do we assume... on 18:52 - Jul 20 by Swanzay |
Also we don't actually know in reality which was up the world actually is. UK etc is always displayed on 'top', whilst Oz etc is always at the bottom on atlases etc. We just do not know and it could be the other way around. Just goes to show the size and awe of the universe. [Post edited 20 Jul 2014 18:54]
|
Well "up" is a thing humans have come up with as the opposite of "towards the Earth" or down. In space there is no up or down really. | | | |
| Why do we assume... on 23:05 - Jul 20 with 1309 views | swansRus |
we need to understand the universe or we, and all life, will become extinct =
I believe that the earth and life there on has had one purpose (without getting into the stimulus for the appearance of first life) - through evolution to develop a life form capable of leaving this planet and becoming the seeds that will spread life throughout the universe.
If we do not leave the Earth we will die. All life remaining behind will die.
We have stopped evolving biologically - it is now technological evolution that will eventually provide the means for our survival - as long as we learn how not to kill each other off in the meantime. | | | |
| Why do we assume... on 01:22 - Jul 21 with 1287 views | JackoBoostardo |
| Why do we assume... on 23:05 - Jul 20 by swansRus |
we need to understand the universe or we, and all life, will become extinct =
I believe that the earth and life there on has had one purpose (without getting into the stimulus for the appearance of first life) - through evolution to develop a life form capable of leaving this planet and becoming the seeds that will spread life throughout the universe.
If we do not leave the Earth we will die. All life remaining behind will die.
We have stopped evolving biologically - it is now technological evolution that will eventually provide the means for our survival - as long as we learn how not to kill each other off in the meantime. |
How can you claim we've stopped evolving when this process takes thousands of years, and is driven by circumstantial and biological stimuli?? |  |
| |
| Why do we assume... on 04:30 - Jul 21 with 1282 views | Catullus |
| Why do we assume... on 01:22 - Jul 21 by JackoBoostardo |
How can you claim we've stopped evolving when this process takes thousands of years, and is driven by circumstantial and biological stimuli?? |
I thought evolution happened in jumps, not smoothly over time?
And on time, obviously it's a human concept. But if time doesn't exist then I cannot age, so I am immortal? Unless ageing and dying really don't happen and our bodies are just biological hosts for a life force that evolves into something else? Like ice becomes water becomes steam but can then become water and ice again? Perhaps we never really die?
And some said something about smooth time. Well time runs differently in space, depending on your speed. If you could travel fast enough, you'd Age less quickly than on earth. Or so I thought. In which case, if you could go fast enough, for long enough, ten years in space could equal one thousand years on earth. I think???? Or maybe I misunderstood that bit?
But on how much we understand, there I'd so much we cannot see, or touch/examine. So how can we understand it?
Ps, who can explain black holes to me? If we know so much, surely someone can. How are they formed and where does stuff go after its sucked in? Why do they keep growing and will they one day all merge and eat the universe? And where will it all go?
Questions, always questions!! [Post edited 21 Jul 2014 4:35]
| |
| |
| Why do we assume... on 10:33 - Jul 21 with 1250 views | swansRus |
| Why do we assume... on 01:22 - Jul 21 by JackoBoostardo |
How can you claim we've stopped evolving when this process takes thousands of years, and is driven by circumstantial and biological stimuli?? |
do you think we have intellectually evolved and become cognitively more advanced than the greeks of 2,500 years ago - or the Phoenicians - 3500 years ago - the first Egyptian dynasties 4000 years
these were making scientific discoveries and inventing mechanical devices that we still use today
the last great evolutionary jump was the emergence of homo sapiens - | | | |
| Why do we assume... on 10:51 - Jul 21 with 1242 views | Cottsy |
| Why do we assume... on 04:30 - Jul 21 by Catullus |
I thought evolution happened in jumps, not smoothly over time?
And on time, obviously it's a human concept. But if time doesn't exist then I cannot age, so I am immortal? Unless ageing and dying really don't happen and our bodies are just biological hosts for a life force that evolves into something else? Like ice becomes water becomes steam but can then become water and ice again? Perhaps we never really die?
And some said something about smooth time. Well time runs differently in space, depending on your speed. If you could travel fast enough, you'd Age less quickly than on earth. Or so I thought. In which case, if you could go fast enough, for long enough, ten years in space could equal one thousand years on earth. I think???? Or maybe I misunderstood that bit?
But on how much we understand, there I'd so much we cannot see, or touch/examine. So how can we understand it?
Ps, who can explain black holes to me? If we know so much, surely someone can. How are they formed and where does stuff go after its sucked in? Why do they keep growing and will they one day all merge and eat the universe? And where will it all go?
Questions, always questions!! [Post edited 21 Jul 2014 4:35]
|
Evolution is basically the slow allele frequency change in DNA over millions/billions of years within populations.
Or in simpler terms apes didn't suddenly turn into humans, rather a population of an ape like species evolved traits that were advantageous for surviving on the plains that would eventually evolve into modern humans and another population of the same species evolved traits that were beneficial for surviving under canopy and eventually became modern chimpanzees.
 |  |
| If man evolved from monkeys why do we still have monkeys? |
| |
| Why do we assume... on 11:53 - Jul 21 with 1239 views | Catullus |
http://evolutionfacts.com/Ev-V2/2evlch15.htm
Well I have seen evolution explained as a series of jumps. But then I read this and it seems evolution isn't actually proven!!
To paraphrase, all we have done is to reveal complexity within complexity. And (taken from the link)
In his book, Darwin never touched on the origin of the species, and the material he gave on the evolution of the species was totally inadequate.
"Not one change of species into another is on record . . we cannot prove that a single species has been changed." —*Charles Darwin, My Life and Letters.
Evolution, it's as clear as mud. | |
| |
| Why do we assume... on 13:00 - Jul 21 with 1229 views | Cottsy |
| Why do we assume... on 11:53 - Jul 21 by Catullus |
http://evolutionfacts.com/Ev-V2/2evlch15.htm
Well I have seen evolution explained as a series of jumps. But then I read this and it seems evolution isn't actually proven!!
To paraphrase, all we have done is to reveal complexity within complexity. And (taken from the link)
In his book, Darwin never touched on the origin of the species, and the material he gave on the evolution of the species was totally inadequate.
"Not one change of species into another is on record . . we cannot prove that a single species has been changed." —*Charles Darwin, My Life and Letters.
Evolution, it's as clear as mud. |
Erm, that's a creationist website that you've linked to.
If you have seen evolution explained as a series of jumps then whoever has been explaining it that way has been explaining it wrong. | |
| If man evolved from monkeys why do we still have monkeys? |
| |
| Why do we assume... on 13:24 - Jul 21 with 1222 views | Cottsy |
| Why do we assume... on 11:53 - Jul 21 by Catullus |
http://evolutionfacts.com/Ev-V2/2evlch15.htm
Well I have seen evolution explained as a series of jumps. But then I read this and it seems evolution isn't actually proven!!
To paraphrase, all we have done is to reveal complexity within complexity. And (taken from the link)
In his book, Darwin never touched on the origin of the species, and the material he gave on the evolution of the species was totally inadequate.
"Not one change of species into another is on record . . we cannot prove that a single species has been changed." —*Charles Darwin, My Life and Letters.
Evolution, it's as clear as mud. |
I've just had a quick browse of http://evolutionfacts.com/ it is hilarious. | |
| If man evolved from monkeys why do we still have monkeys? |
| |
| Why do we assume... on 13:54 - Jul 21 with 1219 views | Davillin |
| Why do we assume... on 11:53 - Jul 21 by Catullus |
http://evolutionfacts.com/Ev-V2/2evlch15.htm
Well I have seen evolution explained as a series of jumps. But then I read this and it seems evolution isn't actually proven!!
To paraphrase, all we have done is to reveal complexity within complexity. And (taken from the link)
In his book, Darwin never touched on the origin of the species, and the material he gave on the evolution of the species was totally inadequate.
"Not one change of species into another is on record . . we cannot prove that a single species has been changed." —*Charles Darwin, My Life and Letters.
Evolution, it's as clear as mud. |
Good post, as usual.
The simple problem as I see it is that, while the theory of evolution can explain how some species have changed over time to adapt to new conditions in their environment, some have tried to force-fit the theory into other unexplained situations.
The theory of evolution cannot explain the origin of life because there has to have been something to "evolve from." Nor can it explain how new species come into being [almost the same thing]. In essence, "evolve" means "change."
It's kinda like using the law of gravity to explain the colour of a dog's fur, or why a frog doesn't have any fur. | |
| |
| Why do we assume... on 14:06 - Jul 21 with 1214 views | Cottsy |
| Why do we assume... on 13:54 - Jul 21 by Davillin |
Good post, as usual.
The simple problem as I see it is that, while the theory of evolution can explain how some species have changed over time to adapt to new conditions in their environment, some have tried to force-fit the theory into other unexplained situations.
The theory of evolution cannot explain the origin of life because there has to have been something to "evolve from." Nor can it explain how new species come into being [almost the same thing]. In essence, "evolve" means "change."
It's kinda like using the law of gravity to explain the colour of a dog's fur, or why a frog doesn't have any fur. |
Could someone explain to Davillin because he's got me blocked that evolution is nothing to do with the origin of life and that speciation is quite simply explained by the theory of evolution.
Far from it being like using the law of gravity to explain the colour of a dog's fur it is more like using the theory of gravitation to explain Newton's law of gravity. | |
| If man evolved from monkeys why do we still have monkeys? |
| |
| Why do we assume... on 16:25 - Jul 21 with 1206 views | Drizzle |
Common ancestry is how evolution was best explained to me. Apes didn't evolve into us. A common ancestor of both us and apes existed at some point in the past. Out of that common ancestor came both apes and humans and maybe other things. | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
