• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Are all scientists this stupid?

since9

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 14, 2010
Messages
6,964
Location
Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
I don't want to start an argument. I just want to clear up something.

When I read the quoted post, I initially thought I misunderstood the word atheist.

So, I looked it up. The dictionary definition is a little different than Tawnos represents here. The common usage (this is how a word gets in the dictionary) of the word atheist is one who disbelieves in god(s) or denies the existence of god(s).

This is a little different from one who lacks a belief either way.

Tawnos seems to be confusing atheist and agnostic.

Do I have something sideways?

Nope! You're right on target.

The big bang theory does not demand a belief in the impossible or shatter any "hard laws" of science. The big bang theory also doesn't attempt to explain how all things began, just how our ever expanding space came to be the way it is. As a working theory it is far more useful than how Einstein believed in a static universe and how his explanation of gravity keeping everything moving. Einstein was not as correct in his theories on gravity as we once believed.

Actually, he was (and is). It's just that as he was forumlating his theories for both general and special relativity, he was unaware at the time of the effect of frame dragging and more than half a dozen similar effects which we know know would render his view of a static universe as relegated to forever slowing down, collapsing into black holes, and dying a never-to-be-resurrected death.

His theories were sound. It's just that despite the accuracy of his theories, he lacked both experiential and experimental knowledge of just how far-reaching his theories really were.*

The Big Bang remains the best working theory we have to date, but there are some conundrums about it which cannot be explained away by "we just don't yet have the physics for it." It is for this reason that several branches of physics including strings and m-branes have gained steady and strong acceptance throughout academia in an attempt to understand the how/why behind the conundrums which are currently unacceptable with the only slightly more traditional path of modern physics.

* The other forum at which I spend much of my time is one dealing primarily in advanced and theoretical partical physics and astrophysics. :)

The other thing I want to talk about is the idea of scientific "laws". The law of gravity is only a law in our local environment, the earth. The laws we follow in earths atmosphere change drastically in different areas of space. Extraordinarily dense objects warp everything around them and change how we must calculate their forces, applying our laws of science to things that don't abide by them is ridiculous. The idea of hard laws of science is antiquated.

I hope this makes some sense.

It does make sense. However, we hold that various laws are immutible, that is, they apply at all times, even when their effects are diminished by other, much more powerful forces. Thus, Newton's "law of gravity" is no longer a law. Rather, it's referred to as a "classical law," meaning that it held true at the time of its creation, as well as for a substantial period beyond that, commensurate with observational error of the day. If we were to use it to calculate orbits of our GPS satellites, however, it would take only minutes before we'd be well beyond the accuracy tolerances expected of the system.

Thus, something as simple as calculating a Hohmann transfer orbit, while good for an undergraduate class exercise, is woefully inadequate in this day and age, and has been since before the first Apollo launch. Even during the Apollo program, however, while some attempt was made to correct for the lesser effects, most particularly time delays of ground-based telemetry, it would up being somewhat of a fly by the seat of one's pants operation, as constricted as it was by the most advanced computers and processing of the day.
 
Last edited:

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
Like the little child that keeps asking why until you get to the point that you either say "Because I said so" or "I really have no freaking idea". What was here before the big bang, what is on the other side of the universe..... Was God here before the big bang or was God created during the big bang? Wash, rise, repeat...... and when the boss is wrong see rule number 1. I don't know.

Consider your axioms.

Time is a facet of our universe. Without our universe, time does not necessarily exist. It is possible that there was no "before the Big Bang."

Space is a facet of our universe. Apart from our universe, space does not necessarily exist. "Sides" are an expression of space. If you mean other side of the boundary of our universe, that would be not a part of our universe, and therefore space and sides would have no meaning.

Furthermore, it is possible for our universe not to have a boundary for anything to be on the other side. Scientists believe they know the size of the universe, which would imply a boundary. However, it is possible for something to be finite in size, yet infinite in scope.

On a circle, you can travel forever, without reaching a boundary. Circles have a clearly finite size.

When we examine our axioms, some questions become meaningless and other questions gain added meaning.

One more thing on "before the Big Bang": Here in Montgomery, Wheel of Fortune is before Big Bang.
 

Venator

Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter
Joined
Jan 10, 2007
Messages
6,462
Location
Lansing area, Michigan, USA
Since the Bible and Christianity keep coming up, I feel I have to raise the question of religious age. Abrahamic religions, Christianity, Judaism, and Islam, are roughly 4000 years old. Hinduism is the oldest known religion with a written history, and it is at least 6000 years old. If Hinduism is 2000 years older than the Abrahamic religions, why is it not the true belief? It's the oldest and has a creator. If it's creator is different than other creators, does that mean we could all be the pawns and playthings of theses gods? If Hinduism's creator is the original, why did we ever need all these different creators?

Our ancient ancestors didn't have a way of explaining their existence, so they tried to find a reason. They logically thought their must have been a beginning and they postulated that some being created them and everything. It's easy to do if you have little science to go on.

I look at religion like this: Every religion I know of has followers and leaders, these followers and leaders repeatedly destroy, murder and abuse other people. Yet almost every religion specifically says that doing so is a terrible thing. Religion has visited more evil upon this planet than anything else I can think of. If science were like a religion and held the cure for cancer, but only for it's members, would that not be evil? Science doesn't do that, because it has no need to be the one and only religion. Science brings us a longer healthier life than ever before and a greater understanding of our world. What does religion bring? War, hatred, bigotry?

There are religious leaders in Africa that actually told their followers to stop accepting Polio vaccinations because it showed a lack of faith in God and now Polio is on the rise in those areas. Did the children who are now denied the polio vaccine choose this? The answer is no, a ridiculous religious belief has ruined their life and they had no choice in it. It was essentially raping them of their right to any chance of a quality life. This I can not stand for. It sickens me that this happens and yet once a month someone comes to my door to convert me or get me to give them money to spread the word of their faith. They then feel angry when I tell the to kick rocks and challenge what they are doing.

If someone wants to believe in a religion, then so be it, but be prepared to accept the consequences. The tolerance for religious freedom when it causes harm to those who had no choice in the matter is disturbing. If your excuse is: "That's just their religion" then as far as I'm concerned you are part of the problem. If I stole shipments of the polio vaccine that were going to be given to children in the USA, people would want me arrested and jailed, yet when religion is the cause there is an excuse. How absurd is this?

I saw a shirt once that said it best: "Atheists don't fly planes into buildings"

Guess that was a bit of a rant.
I like this quote....
“I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.” Stephen Roberts
 

Venator

Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter
Joined
Jan 10, 2007
Messages
6,462
Location
Lansing area, Michigan, USA
Keep telling yourself that, sparky. You'll still be wrong. Atheism is simply not believing in a god. You can be atheistic towards one god, towards many gods, or towards all gods.

Atheism is saying the following: "no evidence has been presented to me that would convince me a god exists, so I currently accept the null hypothesis and do not espouse the belief in a god." It is not saying that you have faith one does not exist, simply that you do not have faith one does exist.

"It is always better to have no ideas than false ones; to believe nothing, than to believe what is wrong."
-Thomas Jefferson

No, atheism is believing that there is definitely no God, they offer no proof. Believers say there is a God, they offer no proof. Agnostics realize that so far neither side is providing any proof, therefore an agnostic can CHOOSE to believe or NOT believe in god.
 

Tawnos

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 4, 2008
Messages
2,542
Location
Washington
No, atheism is believing that there is definitely no God, they offer no proof. Believers say there is a God, they offer no proof. Agnostics realize that so far neither side is providing any proof, therefore an agnostic can CHOOSE to believe or NOT believe in god.

Wrong. Agnostic and atheist are on different scales, and you can base this just on knowledge of language and its origins. The prefix "a-" means "not" or "not a", the root "the" means "god" or "gods", and the root "gnostos" means "knowable", the postfix "ist" means "believer". So, from that, you can see that a "theist" is a "the-ist", or a god(s)-believer. An "atheist" is an "a-the-ist", or "not a-god-believer". A "gnostic" is someone who thinks something to be "knowable", and an "agnostic" or "a-gnostic" is one who thinks something is "not-knowable".

The two schools of thought are not mutually incompatible. For example, Descartes might be described as a "gnostic theist", because he believes in god and believes he can prove god's existence. Kierkegaard would be an "agnostic theist", because he believes in god, but does not find the concept provable; his philosophy was based on that idea and that a "leap of faith" is required to believe. I am, personally (generally), an agnostic atheist - I believe it is possible to define god in such a way that I could not disprove that being's existence. In other ways, though, I am a gnostic atheist - if you define a particular god as having certain characteristics, I think that examination of the properties of those characteristics can resolve that being as logically non-existent. For a more popular example of agnostic and gnostic atheists, I'd contend Stephen F. Roberts is an agnostic atheist due to his philosophy of NOMA, and Richard Dawkins is more of a gnostic atheist, due to his writings on "the god hypothesis."

Another way to see it is "strong and weak", as this picture shows:
imgff.gif
 

Coded-Dude

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 18, 2010
Messages
317
Location
Roseville
wow I haven't been to this thread in a while and it seems to have turned into an origin debate.......

*flame guards up*

Read this today, thought it was interesting:

Earth-sized planets may be more common than we thought

Almost one in four stars like the Sun could harbour an Earth-mass planet, according to US researchers. Their finding questions conventional models of planetary formation, which suggest that it is rare to find low-mass planets close to their parent stars, implying that solar systems like ours could be more common than we thought. The result also suggests that NASA's Kepler mission, currently hunting for Earth-like planets, could discover more than 250 "plausibly terrestrial worlds".
The population of known alien worlds, a total of almost 500 discovered since the mid-1990s, is currently skewed towards the more easily detectable Jupiter-mass planets that orbit close to their host stars. It is only recent advances in technology that have allowed the search for planets with similar masses to the Earth. Yet existing models of solar-system formation predict a "planetary desert" close to the star: a lack of planets with 1–30 times the mass of Earth and an orbital period of less than 50 days. Now, a team of astronomers, including Geoff Marcy at the University of California at Berkeley, is challenging this received wisdom.

"This is the first time anyone has measured the fraction of stars that have smaller planets," Marcy, often credited as the most prolific planet hunter of all time, told physicsworld.com. His team used data from the Keck telescope in Hawaii relating to 166 stars between 0.54 and 1.28 solar masses, all within 80 light-years of Earth. Doppler shifts in the starlight, the result of the star wobbling under the gravitational influence of an orbiting exo-planet, revealed a total of 33 planets around 22 of the stars.

Don't forget the missed planets

Marcy's team also made an attempt to account for any planets that might have been missed due to limitations in the sensitivity of their equipment. "We asked what would be the maximum planet mass that could hide in our data. If there were a more massive planet than that we would have seen it," Marcy explained. This statistical sampling analysis enabled them to infer the "missed" planets that sit alongside the confirmed planets.

This information, from both the confirmed and inferred cases, was used to model the likelihood of close-by planets as a function of a planet's mass. It turned out that a power law was the best fit to the data, one that implied that the smaller the mass of the planet, the more likely it was to exist. This suggests the "planetary desert" is far from the desolate wasteland previously envisioned. "Our observations don't agree with theoretical predictions. We now know that the universe has more Earth-mass planets than Jupiter-mass planets," said Marcy. His power law predicts the chances of a Sun-like star having a one Earth-mass planet to be 23% – almost one in four. The findings are published in Science.

However, the research was limited, by current technology, to only modelling planets orbiting at less than one quarter of the Sun–Earth distance. So Marcy's finding could still be promising in the hunt for Earth's "twin": a one Earth-mass planet orbiting at an Earth–Sun distance. "Current models suggest most planets form far away from their stars; you should find more planets at longer orbital periods," Coel Hellier, an exo-planet researcher at Keele University, told physicsworld.com. "This research predicts a 23% chance of finding short period Earth-mass planets, so there should be even more further out; perhaps then nearly all solar-type stars have an Earth-mass planet," he added.

Searching for a second Earth

However, just because a planet has near Earth-mass, doesn't necessarily mean it is Earth-like. "Planets with a few Earth masses may be qualitatively different from one Earth-mass planets. They might be much larger, more like mini-Neptunes, with a lot more water and a lot less rock," Marcy warned.
But early results from NASA's Kepler space telescope, which measures a planet's radius rather than its mass, are promising. "Many of Kepler's planet candidates appear to have small radii, which is consistent with our research; they could be Earth-like after all," said Marcy. The team predicts that Kepler could find 120–260 "plausibly terrestrial worlds". "We are starting to see suspicious signs that Earths are out there in large numbers," he added.

Meanwhile, a pair of researchers based in the US and Switzerland has begun to study a contender Earth in more detail. Kevin Heng at ETH Zurich and Steven Vogt at the University of California have simulated atmospheric circulation on Gliese 581g, a "super Earth" discovered in 2009. Publishing their findings in a paper submitted to the arXiv preprint server, the researchers argue that the specific locations for habitability depend on whether the planet is tidally locked and how fast radiative cooling occurs on a global scale.
PhysicsWorld
 

rodbender

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 23, 2008
Messages
2,519
Location
Navasota, Texas, USA
This article is full of COULD BEs and MAY BEs. Very few FACTS to support his HYPOTHESIS. Could be one in four, could be one in two, could be one in a thousand or could be simply one or none. I'm certain that his guess is probably closer than mine would be, but he doesn't know. The fact that he has prominence in the field will make this a fact within a few years and all without concrete proof, just like evolution.

Marcy's team also made an attempt to account for any planets that might have been missed due to limitations in the sensitivity of their equipment.

There's that fudge factor.
 
Last edited:

Coded-Dude

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 18, 2010
Messages
317
Location
Roseville
it has to be full of would be's and could be's....because we don't know. which is why they are further researching to find more factual information. its still to early to tell what, if anything they will find, but that doesn't mean its not worth looking into.
 

rodbender

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 23, 2008
Messages
2,519
Location
Navasota, Texas, USA
Did I say it wasn't worth looking into.....Duh, no. All I 'm saying is that until they know they need to keep their trap shut as to how many they will find....or could find or maybe find. When they speculate in public, they put pressure on themselves to prove their theory. That's when they start using huge fudge factors to prove it, which proves nothing.

Remember the emails that were released about global warming? Lots of manipulation going on there.
 

Coded-Dude

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 18, 2010
Messages
317
Location
Roseville
I suppose that could happen(fudging to prove a theory). however, speculation amongst peers is the best way to decipher the truth. strength in numbers. Anywho, here is an interesting little applet that gives us some scope on the size of the universe(As we know it).

http://htwins.net/scale/
 

Tawnos

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 4, 2008
Messages
2,542
Location
Washington
Did I say it wasn't worth looking into.....Duh, no. All I 'm saying is that until they know they need to keep their trap shut as to how many they will find....or could find or maybe find. When they speculate in public, they put pressure on themselves to prove their theory. That's when they start using huge fudge factors to prove it, which proves nothing.

Remember the emails that were released about global warming? Lots of manipulation going on there.

Yeah, I'm sure you're right, nobody should ever speculate or put forth a scientific hypothesis, else they might try to find evidence to support it. :rolleyes:
 

Coded-Dude

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 18, 2010
Messages
317
Location
Roseville
I think the biggest problem with science is funding. If you fund a scientist to find the truth, you may very well find it(it might not be the answer you wanted, but its the truth). However, when you fund a scientist to prove something the process is already broken. Case in point global warming. If either side of the equation gave up and said we were wrong, they would lose their funding. Granted funds might be diverted to solving any issues that may arise due to said "discovery," but as long as there are people out there that want to force their opinions on others, you will continue to get misguided scientific studies to back up wild allegations and absurd beliefs.
 

rodbender

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 23, 2008
Messages
2,519
Location
Navasota, Texas, USA
I would like to hear about them if you are comfortable telling.

I want to say that I have had several experiences that will not seem real to some of you. Some of the folks here will probably feel the need to offer scientific explanations. Feel free to do so.

#1-1985
When my first wife and I separated, she refused to allow me to see the children. No matter what the judge said, he could not make an impression on her to do so.
I decided to move west, way west. I left Houston about 10PM and got as far as Columbus, Tx before I had to stop to sleep. I couldn’t understand why I got so sleepy so quick. It’s only about 90 miles or so from where I was in Houston, and I was off that day and had slept till about noon. Well, I stopped at the rest area in Columbus whether than have an accident. It was around midnight.

I awoke about 5AM and immediate knew there was someone in the truck with me. I turned to the passenger side to see who it was. A man was sitting where my clothes were stacked as if they were not there. It was a ghostly figure without form really, but I knew it was a man. He turned his head to look at me and said 2 words, “Go home”.
Though I was not in faithful form in those days, I knew who it was. As I watched, he simply went away. He faded away that is. At that instant I knew what to do.

Now to explain this next part you need to know that I was in a very old truck that I was in the process of restoring and the speedometer was nowhere near correct. When I was doing about 60 MPH, the speedometer would show about 35MPH.
As I was driving back to the apartment I had rented, I was not paying any attention to the speedometer. A Harris Co. Deputy Sheriff pulled alongside on the left from behind. When I noticed who was there, about 30 seconds later, I waved and realized that I was smiling. He started motioning like he wanted me to look at my speedometer. When I did I saw my speedometer was showing almost 75 MPH. I looked at him and made a motion like it wasn’t working. He motioned for me to slow down, which I did.
I must have been doing something over 100 MPH. How many cops would miss a chance at a 100+MPH ticket. The speed limit was 55MPH.

As soon as 8AM rolled around I called my lawyer and told him I would document with witnesses the times that she would not let the kids go with me, or the times she wasn’t there when I was supposed to pick them up.

This worked, because the first time I took her to court, the judge threatened to throw her in jail for 90 days if she listened to her mother again. Yep, once she admitted that it was her mother that was telling her that she didn’t have to let me see the kids, the judge got plenty pissed.

After that I never had a problem. And my youngest was 2. That's 16 years of total cooperation.

#2-1995
After my now wife and I got married, we started going to a church in Austin, Tx (we had moved to Austin). We went to church one Sunday and the pastor gave a sermon on tithing. When we got home my wife made a statement that we needed to start tithing the 10% we were supposed to be. I replied that I really didn’t know how we could afford to do that because we had both taken a huge cut in pay to get out of Houston, and were barely getting by. She said we just need to start. So I said, “OK”. The next payday had us with $21 in the bank.

When you get a bank statement there are two boxes that I’ve always paid attention to, for whatever reason I don’t know. There’s one that tells you how much you deposited and one that tells you how much you have taken out. Now I’ve occasionally seen the one that tells you how much you’ve taken out be a higher number than the one that tells you how much you deposited. As time went by, I realized that it was this way every month, for 19 straight months. I don’t mean just a dollar or two. I mean lots of money. The least amount was $86 and the high amount was $345. Most (12) were over $100.

We never had a check bounce and the reconciliation was always right on the penny. Checked it several times and couldn’t figure it out. I now tithe 10% of my gross pay or more, without fail. It's the first check I write, also without fail.

#3-2003
I finally bought a used Freightliner and went owner/operator. I got a 1 year 100,000 mile warrantee with it. At about 125,000 and 14 months, it dropped a valve. The estimate was $12,500 for an inframe rebuild. I had not had enough time to put back that much, and had some medical bills to pay to add to it. I had about $4300 in the bank. I was looking for a loan and could not find anyone willing to do it because I had not been in business long enough and the truck was more than 3 years old were the 2 most common reasons.

I called Daimler Chrysler Finance, the lien holder, and asked if they would refinance and supply the needed money. The guy I talked to said “We don’t do that, but hold on a second”. When he came back on the line he gave me a phone number to call and talk to a guy named David. David told me that they don’t handle that end of the business. I asked what part he handled and he said “Warrantees”. I said I don’t understand why he would tell me to call the warrantee end of the company because the truck was definitely out of warrantee .

I called the other guy back and told him this and that David couldn’t help me. He put me on hold again, I waited about a minute or so and hung up. This was when I began to pray. I told god that His truck was broke, I don’t have the money to fix it and it appears that without His help, His truck was going to be repossessed. As clear as if He were standing next to me He said, “Worry not, my son”. Probably 2 minutes later, the guy I had hung up on called me back and said that Freightliner was going to fix the truck under warrantee. HMMM

That’s 3 of my experiences that the Lord directly intervened in. I have many more but I’m tired of typing.
 

Tawnos

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 4, 2008
Messages
2,542
Location
Washington
Wow, so god intervened by having some guy help you fix your truck, making you hallucinate, making your account balance not follow fundamental math, and keeping you from getting a ticket? Amazing.

How about not letting the truck break, changing your ex's mind before you go on a driving bender, giving you a bigger paycheck so your math works out, and making your speedometer work? Too easy or obvious for the big guy?
 

rodbender

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 23, 2008
Messages
2,519
Location
Navasota, Texas, USA
Wow, so god intervened by having some guy help you fix your truck, making you hallucinate, making your account balance not follow fundamental math, and keeping you from getting a ticket? Amazing.

How about not letting the truck break, changing your ex's mind before you go on a driving bender, giving you a bigger paycheck so your math works out, and making your speedometer work? Too easy or obvious for the big guy?

I've never known Him to work that way.
 

rodbender

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 23, 2008
Messages
2,519
Location
Navasota, Texas, USA
Yeah, I'm sure you're right, nobody should ever speculate or put forth a scientific hypothesis, else they might try to find evidence to support it. :rolleyes:

It's not trying to find evidence that is disturbing. The manipulation of evidence to prove the theory is.:banghead:
 

Tawnos

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 4, 2008
Messages
2,542
Location
Washington
I've never known Him to work that way.

Perhaps you should ask yourself some questions. For example, why would an omniscient being need you to pray before seeing your plight and knowing you need help? Why would an omnipotent being need to act through an intermediary rather than just fixing things? Why is it you recall so vividly the times this being came through, but not all of the other times when it sat idly by and did nothing?

My dad claims god healed him from testicular cancer. I wonder why god didn't just prevent the cancer in the first place. Seems much kinder than making someone suffer through chemotherapy.

Three weeks ago, our cat got out and ran away. I saw it once a few days after, and when I tried to get it I couldn't. Numerous times I've left the door open, called for it, left food out, etc trying to get it back. I'm sure my girlfriend, a Christian, has been praying to get the cat back, because it's one of the few things that helps with her depression. Still, the cat's not back, my girlfriend gets sad about it almost every day still, and if god exists, then (s)he's a jerk. This is just one very small example of needless suffering in a world that is supposedly under the guidance and control of a benevolent creator.

In other words, if the way "god works" is indistinguishable from "god doesn't work, but I like to think he does", then what good is the hypothesis? Seems to me that such a being would have no problem showing its existence, especially if it "loves the world" and wants all to be "saved".
 

Tawnos

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 4, 2008
Messages
2,542
Location
Washington
It's not trying to find evidence that is disturbing. The manipulation of evidence to prove the theory is.:banghead:

You're saying they should "they need to keep their trap shut as to how many they will find....or could find or maybe find." I was commenting that doing so would mean making no hypotheses, no testable claims. You know, treat science like a religion.
 
Top