Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
We don't know. Current hypotheses generally involve 'dark energy', that is, a hitherto unknown quantity of energy counteracting gravity's attraction, but is otherwise undetectable - or 'dark'.Why is the universe expanding at a faster rate than it was in the past?
I did not! Just goes to show you that we rockDid you know WC, that the UK has 1% of the global population, yet produces 12% of the world's scientists?
To say the least... I've heard that idea before, and it kinda misses the point. His analogy of 'if it were sideways, people would point it out' is good, but still, waaaaay off the mark sunshineI got an email from a friend of mine who is interested, but not very well versed, in science. He's a creationist - alas, but that's the way it goes with excessive influence from the wrong groups across the pond.
Regardless, the message was a question about relativity, and I thought the site he quoted was so *ahem* "interesting" I thought I'd post it here.
First off, his quote from the site in question:
The site: 21st Century Ideas
What do you think? I think it's.. Errr... A little tin-foil-hat-ish. To be kind.
That you do indeed, by Jove eh! Rule BritanniaI did not! Just goes to show you that we rock
And your point being? I ask this because you have betrayed a total lack of understanding on how science works. Now since you are so keen on passing judgement on something you have no knowledge of then perhaps we should refer to Islam to explain Christianity for us?Seems when discussing or arguing any field of science, there is always a limit on how far the conversation can proceed without reaching the limit of that said field or being passed over to some other field of science.
Science is very compartmentalized. For instance Evolution, A Evolutionist will say well we can tell you how things evolve but not tell you from what everything evolved from and at what point did non life become life and how did that happen.
Big Bang same thing, science can explain the expansion but not the origin of the "little ball of energy" or what it exploded into.
This trend continues into every subject and field. So my question is, is there a field of science that works on connecting all the dots and filling in the blanks from one theory to the next?
It always cracks me up when a geologist here will tell me about physics, a physicist will tell me about biology, and a biologist will tell me about geology.Seems when discussing or arguing any field of science, there is always a limit on how far the conversation can proceed without reaching the limit of that said field or being passed over to some other field of science.
It always cracks me up when a geologist here will tell me about physics, a physicist will tell me about biology, and a biologist will tell me about geology.
And your point being? I ask this because you have betrayed a total lack of understanding on how science works. Now since you are so keen on passing judgement on something you have no knowledge of then perhaps we should refer to Islam to explain Christianity for us?
Indeed. When discussing the fundamental properties of biochemical molecules, you invariably cross over from chemistry into physics.Seems when discussing or arguing any field of science, there is always a limit on how far the conversation can proceed without reaching the limit of that said field or being passed over to some other field of science.
Not entirely. The theory of common descent posits the existence of a single organism that lived about 3.5 billion years ago, from which all modern life is ultimately descended (hence, 'universal common ancestor'). The evidence for evolution is primarily concerned with a) demonstrating common ancestry, and b) the proposed mechanics of evolution.Science is very compartmentalized. For instance Evolution, A Evolutionist will say well we can tell you how things evolve but not tell you from what everything evolved from and at what point did non life become life and how did that happen.
Correct. The evidence is enough for us to be sufficiently certain the singularity existed, but there is, as yet, little evidence or theory to tell us where that singularity came from.Big Bang same thing, science can explain the expansion but not the origin of the "little ball of energy" or what it exploded into.
A new theory which connects two dots generally makes reference to hitherto established knowledge - abiogenesis, for instance, makes reference to the established conditions of prebiotic Earth and the conditions of post-biotic Earth. There isn't one single field that works on connecting the dots, but rather, gaps in scientific knowledge are worked on by scientists from every field - psychologists work on closing gaps in our knowledge of the mind, etc.This trend continues into every subject and field. So my question is, is there a field of science that works on connecting all the dots and filling in the blanks from one theory to the next?
It always cracks me up when a geologist here will tell me about physics, a physicist will tell me about biology, and a biologist will tell me about geology.
It's the great Baton Race of ScienceIt always cracks me up when a geologist here will tell me about physics, a physicist will tell me about biology, and a biologist will tell me about geology.
It always cracks me up when a geologist here will tell me about physics, a physicist will tell me about biology, and a biologist will tell me about geology.
Or that you're richI did not! Just goes to show you that we rock
That every theory has its specific applicability is just how the world works. Within any explanatory framework, there are sub-explanations for sub-problems*. However, theories don't exist in isolation, they all connect to a larger whole. Science (as a body of ideas) is a bit like this**:Seems when discussing or arguing any field of science, there is always a limit on how far the conversation can proceed without reaching the limit of that said field or being passed over to some other field of science.
Science is very compartmentalized. [...]
This trend continues into every subject and field. So my question is, is there a field of science that works on connecting all the dots and filling in the blanks from one theory to the next?
God...So I've got a probablity question.
A:
Suppose you play a game of dice, the idea is that you roll 1 20sided die and 1 30sided die, adding the results together to get a score. Then 2 30sided dice are rolled and its result is compared to yours. If you draw or score lower you lose.
What are the chances of winning this game and how would that be calculated?
B:
Same game, only now you get to roll 1 100sided die against 2 50sided dice. Do your chances improve and why?
Bear with me while I do the sums...So I've got a probablity question.
A:
Suppose you play a game of dice, the idea is that you roll 1 20sided die and 1 30sided die, adding the results together to get a score. Then 2 30sided dice are rolled and its result is compared to yours. If you draw or score lower you lose.
What are the chances of winning this game and how would that be calculated?
B:
Same game, only now you get to roll 1 100sided die against 2 50sided dice. Do your chances improve and why?
Bear with me while I do the sums...
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?