Easy to make things up in science

dad said:

This is what would happen if the tooth fairy clobbered an ant with a toothpick....ho hum.

Click to expand...

What?

TX_Matt said:

Click to expand...

Irony overload from my perspective, particularly since he is claiming to know how the whole universe began down to the last less than a second in time and who claims to understand it's composition down to the last couple of percentage points. Wow! What gall.

dad said:

"Find yourself in a black hole? Not to worry, says Stephen Hawking: you won’t split into particles or cease to exist. Instead, you’ll wind up in an alternative universe"

http://www.rt.com/news/313427-hawking-black-holes-universe/

Since no one can ever check, guess the guy is a genius!

Click to expand...

Yea, you'll die and end up in a new place called the after life.

Michael said:

Irony overload from my perspective, particularly since he is claiming to know how the whole universe began down to the last less than a second in time. Wow! What gall.

Click to expand...

Some things science understand, and some it doesn't. Heard of dark matter? It makes up the majority of the mass in the universe and scientists have no idea what it is.

Archaeopteryx said:

Yes, because that's all that matters in the end in the Christian worldview. That's all any of us are to be judged for: whether we believe.

Click to expand...

You would expect people to be judged for denying what is true, wouldn't you? After all, its the denial of truth that gets a lot people into trouble, especially denying truth over a long period of time.

TX_Matt said:

Some things science understand, and some it doesn't. Heard of dark matter? It makes up the majority of the mass in the universe and scientists have no idea what it is.

Click to expand...

I have an idea of what dark matter is, but it would probably make too much sense to be considered true.

dad said:

One must know distances and aprox mass sizes to do that. They don't. They create a universe in their minds based on earth realities and concepts.

Click to expand...

Distances is mostly determined by statistical methods and by cross-referencing many different methods of distance measurements. Usually galaxies are used as references due to their size, and generally standard sizes as per makeup.

Distance measurement by Parallax across opposite ends of the Earth's orbit around the Sun gives concrete evidence of distances, but cannot be used beyond our stellar neighborhood. However, Parallax distance measurement gave us invaluable data needed for statistical analysis of more distant stars, even stars in other galaxies since again (which can be also used to measure distance of a galaxy), stars tend to have have standardized parameters based on their makeup.

We actually have fairly good idea of the distances, unless, the space between galaxies bend light to a significant degree somehow and that will throw off any estimates. It happens in "gravitational lensing" but significant gravitational lensing tend to occur only in clusters of galaxies. Otherwise, there is no proof of the contrary that space is warped to a degree to make any estimates pointless. Try not to be too pessimistic with the unknown, because if everyone did, we'd be worse than apes!

Show us how simply and in your own words?

Click to expand...

If you can compress an object, say 1 gram, to a zero volume (infinite density), a perfect, infinitely tiny point in space....

....The Schwarzschild Radius (SR) is the maximum distance from that point at which the object's gravitational forces can exceed the escape velocity of light.

Of course, for a 1 gram black hole, the SR would be exceedingly tiny to be seen even with a microscope.

On the other hand, for black holes millions of times more massive than our sun, the calculated SR could be as big the orbits of the inner planets in our solar system.


Of course no one has experimentally verified this.. But we have real data of light curving under the influence of gravity as calculated.

But frankly, I have very little reason to outright dismiss these theories. Since, the turn of the 20th century and with the advent of computers, we have made pretty accurate extrapolations when compared later to real life results based on computer-driven statistical analysis of available data. These "guesstimates" have actually helped considerably in the rapid advance of our knowledge and technology well into the 21st century.

TX_Matt said:

Some things science understand, and some it doesn't. Heard of dark matter? It makes up the majority of the mass in the universe and scientists have no idea what it is.

Click to expand...

The fact they even claim to know it exists at all is the amazingly arrogant part. His particular belief system requires not just one, not just two, not just three, but *four* supernatural constructs for his theory to work, and he's certain that there is scientific validity to each and every single one of those supernatural constructs. Meanwhile he cannot physically demonstrate a single one of those supernatural entities has any tangible effect on a single photon in a lab, yet he arrogantly dismisses the concept of God, apparently because it only requires *one* supernatural construct at worst case, and none if you believe that God is nature.

Chriliman said:

I have an idea of what dark matter is, but it would probably make too much sense to be considered true.

Click to expand...

http://thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=15850

Care to explain why it makes any sense at all since every lab test performed has falsified one or more of their models, and their galaxy mass estimates have been shown to be horrifically and fatally flawed?

timewerx said:

Distances is mostly determined by statistical methods and by cross-referencing many different methods of distance measurements. Usually galaxies are used as references due to their size, and generally standard sizes as per makeup.

Distance measurement by Parallax across opposite ends of the Earth's orbit around the Sun gives concrete evidence of distances, but cannot be used beyond our stellar neighborhood. However, Parallax distance measurement gave us invaluable data needed for statistical analysis of more distant stars, even stars in other galaxies since again (which can be also used to measure distance of a galaxy), stars tend to have have standardized parameters based on their makeup.

We actually have fairly good idea of the distances, unless, the space between galaxies bend light to a significant degree somehow and that will throw off any estimates.

Click to expand...

FYI, I would agree with everything you said until you talked about the distances between galaxies. We're using a redshift formula based on the 'expanding space" concept rather than say a static universe/tired light concept. It would change the distances between galaxies if the real cause of redshift is inelastic scattering instead of expanding/accelerating space.

We're in general agreement with respect to gravitational lensing by the way, but it gets a little messy there too if the real cause of redshift is inelastic scattering.

But frankly, I have very little reason to outright dismiss these theories. Since, the turn of the 20th century and with the advent of computers, we have made pretty accurate extrapolations when compared later to real life results based on computer-driven statistical analysis of available data. These "guesstimates" have actually helped considerably in the rapid advance of our knowledge and technology well into the 21st century.

Click to expand...

You might take a gander at that Thunderbolts link sometime, and you'll get an earful of reasons to outright dismiss a lot of their claims with respect to dark matter and dark energy.

http://thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=15850

Chriliman said:

I have an idea of what dark matter is, but it would probably make too much sense to be considered true.

Click to expand...

No one does.

TX_Matt said:

No one does.

Click to expand...

There's no empirical need for it to exist in the first place. It's only even necessary in *one* particularly ugly, and mostly supernatural construct theory of the universe. There are alternative cosmology theories that do not even require such constructs in the first place, and the standard particle physics model is the *the* single most tested and successful physics models in existence today.

Michael said:

The fact they even claim to know it exists at all is the amazingly arrogant part.

Click to expand...

We know something has to be there because of gravity. The sun moves at the same speed around the milky way as stars further in and stars further out when those on the outside should move slower and those inside move faster, just like the solar system. However, there seems to be something there that is having a gravitational effect on star system.

QUOTE="Michael, post: 68528580, member: 627"]His particular belief system requires not just one, not just two, not just three, but *four* supernatural constructs for his theory to work, and he's certain that there is scientific validity to each and every single one of those supernatural constructs. Meanwhile he cannot physically demonstrate a single one of those supernatural entities has any tangible effect on a single photon in a lab, yet he arrogantly dismisses the concept of God, apparently because it only requires *one* supernatural construct at worst case, and none if you believe that God is nature.[/QUOTE]

What does Neil DeGrasse Tyson's beliefs have anything to do with the existence of dark matter? Which for the record, is considered more hypothetical than factual.

TX_Matt said:

Some things science understand, and some it doesn't. Heard of dark matter? It makes up the majority of the mass in the universe and scientists have no idea what it is.

Click to expand...

Interesting that they never considered that they might just be off on what they think they know of matter and energy. Instead, proposing something completely unseen and undetectable.
Irony.

TX_Matt said:

We know something has to be there because of gravity.

Click to expand...

If you read that thunderbolts link, you'll see that their 2006 baryonic galaxy mass estimates were off by between a whopping factor of between 3 and 20 depending on the size of the star and the type of galaxy. I'm sure they missed a whole lot of ordinary baryonic matter in that horrifically flawed 2006 lensing study, but I know for a fact that most of it was ordinary baryonic material based on later studies of their galaxy mass estimate techniques.

The sun moves at the same speed around the milky way as stars further in and stars further out when those on the outside should move slower and those inside move faster, just like the solar system. However, there seems to be something there that is having a gravitational effect on star system.

Click to expand...

Hubble actually rejected that claim by the way. He attributed the redshift relationship to "tired light"/inelastic scattering (in plasma) rather than expansion. If you don't *assume* expansion is the "cause" of redhshift, you can't assume much about distances either.

http://www.sci-news.com/astronomy/science-universe-not-expanding-01940.html

Mainstream theory also failed the surface brightness test at larger redshifts. Oooops?

What does Neil DeGrasse Tyson's beliefs have anything to do with the existence of dark matter? Which for the record, is considered more hypothetical than factual.

Click to expand...

It's simply that he represents everything that is wrong with science and physics today, namely the shunning of empirical physics, in favor of supernatural constructs galore. It is hypocritical for him to sit there and profess that science doesn't have all the answers since he keeps claiming to have them with respect to cosmology theory, and knowledge about the age of the universe which he simply does not actually possess.

Crowns&Laurels said:

Interesting that they never considered that they might just be off on what they think they know of matter and energy. Instead, proposing something completely unseen and undetectable.
Irony.

Click to expand...

There's either a type(s) of matter and energy we haven't detected yet or everything we've known about gravity, energy, and motion since Newton is wrong.

TX_Matt said:

There's either a type(s) of matter and energy we haven't detected yet

Click to expand...

They did detect a whole lot of it in ordinary baryonic mass when they figured out the various problems in the stellar mass estimation techniques. They were off by a whopping factor of between 3 and 20 depending on the size of the star and the type of galaxies that were inside those clusters. We've since discovered that their baryonic mass estimates from 2006 were not worth the paper they were printed on!

or everything we've known about gravity, energy, and motion since Newton is wrong.

Click to expand...

Nah. GR does not require any supernatural constructs like "dark energy" in order for it to work correctly and perfectly. Only one *specific* cosmology theory even needs dark energy, but it was based upon the premise that all SN1A events are the same, and that has also since been shown to be false.

I'm not a big fan of dark matter & energy. I rather like to think there is simply something fundamental in the laws of the universe that just hasn't been grasped yet.