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.
So I urge all to go back to the idea, that if you are looking for "explanation" science is not the place to start. Its a model, not the real universe. It predicts what it is normally observed to do Not what it is , or why it is.
It is not a belief. It is a hypothesis.
Often we have to wait for the tools to falsify the hypothesis. The hypothesis of the existence of atoms had to wait 2500 years for the tools to find.
Of course, scientific knowledge is incomplete. I'm sure it always will be. But that's what makes it so exciting. There will always be gaps to fill in, and new discoveries to make. The thrill of science is not so much in the destination as it is in the journey.
This is also what makes good science superior to religious belief. Religious doctrine is static. It doesn't change and it will never (or hardly ever) admit it was wrong. Good science will readily concede that all knowledge is tentative. And it will self-correct when the evidence demands it.
Science models the universe as it really is. Religion models the universe as it hopes it is.
But that does not make the model the universe.
Physics is a suit of clothes on a body. It is not the body. And in places, (like armpits) , it doesnt fit very well!
Science models the universe as it really is. Religion models the universe as it hopes it is.
I have a good friend who is one of those. Conducting a symphony orchestra is his part time job. Running the library computer network at a major university is his day job.
No, He is from (originally) Cincinnati.I think I've met him. He's from Germania, isn't he?
No, He is from (originally) Cincinnati.
The point of the thread is to wholly CONTRADICT your phrase
" it models what the universe IS" It most surely does not!
It abstracts only what it is seen to do. It cannot know what it IS.
It seems you need to study definitions.
A hypothesis has to be testable.
So far all you have is cosmology equations that don't work - for which one conjecture is dark matter - a sticking plaster so big it is way bigger than the body of observable matter.
It is just conjecture for those who are not sure, and Pure belief for those who assume it is true. It is also the only game in town, but that doesn't make it the solution.
Until there is a specific form for dark matter that can be tested it isn't a hypothesis. All you have is a hole in the theory of cosmology, not yet a valid hypothesis. Most conjectured forms cause violations of other physics, so just finding a dark matter model that could exist with rest of physics has so far evaded physics,
( Or that was the case last time I looked at it-maybe something has changed)
Except your example backs the OP.This is not Manhattan:
View attachment 245186
It's a street map of Manhattan. It's a graphic representation that's useful for predicting a location. If you want to find Trump Tower, which is on 5th Avenue, south of 57th St., this will accurately show you where to go.
Am I missing the point? Seems to me this thread is just stating the obvious.
Except your example backs the OP.
That map is woefully inadequate in describing the reality as neighborhoods change. Buildings demolished and new ones built.
It is but a poor substitute of the reality which contains living creatures, cars and constant change.
The model is not the reality....
So you keep saying, yet in 80 years of null result after null result after null result, the pseudo scientists refuse to give up their Fairie Dust Dark Matter. But I do agree with you, “good” science corrects itself, while dogmatic adherents refuse to give up their “bad” pseudoscience.Of course. That's why maps are updated to account for changes. Which also happens in science. As I said, good science admits when it's inaccurate and will correct itself when new findings demand it. As opposed to religious dogma which will never admit to error, no matter how much change occurs.
Except it fits all observations......Agreed. And the religiously informed model is far, far more removed from reality than the scientific one.
Billions of years old based upon what assumption????I really am not sure what the point of this thread is???
As near as I can tell, the main point is simply that science does not describe the reality of the universe with 100% accuracy.
OK. Agreed, the universe is billions of years old, mankind's science is only a few thousand years old so we have some catching up to do.
However, the real question is? Is science useful? And if so, how useful?
And I would argue that science is very useful and responsible for our species' domination of this planet.
The next point I want to discuss is the disdain those in this thread feel towards cosmology and the inaccuracies of cosmology...
I am willing to give cosmology all the leeway in the world because cosmology uses science, scientific principles, and scientific methodology in its pursuit of truth... Obviously there are limits to the experiments that can be done and the observations that can be made, but with time we will develop better tools enabling said experiments... But in the mean time, I have no problem "trusting" cosmology. But why? Why trust and believe in all that Farie Dust?
Simple. Science has earned that trust.
Take a look around you. No, literally look around you. See that pencil? See that pen? See that paper clip? See that plastic bag, that Smart Phone, that adjustable chair, that television... We are surrounded, nay, inundated with millions if not billions of man-hours of scientific research and development. Every single thing in our lives is in some way, shape, or form linked to science.
So it has earned my trust, especially since science is self correcting and has very little problem admitting when it is wrong in the face of a better model or evidence or data...
SO does science get the universe 100% right 100% of the time in 100% of all circumstances? No, not even close.
However, that isn't the proper question.
--The proper question is "Is Science Useful and if so how useful?"
Your attempt to refute the accepted scientific theory the the universe is billions of years old is impressive, throw around some psuedo science and terms like CMB and quantum electrodynamics and mechanics and yeah, sounds like you know what you are talking about but you don't.Billions of years old based upon what assumption????
An initial hot dense state accelerated outwards (in which clocks and decay rates slow)? So would have been faster in the past, not the slow rate of today which is used to calculate age?
The red and blue shift of the CMB? Yet no radiation beyond our local cluster shows any blue shift at all, but is instead systematically shifted to the red end of the spectrum. Showing that the CMB is a local event, since only local radiation is ever blue shifted due to our motion.
They were simply unaware of the deceleration of the solar wind at the heliosphere when they proposed the CMB. A deceleration according to quantum electrodynamics and quantum mechanics which would be in the microwave region and would show both blue and redshift due to our motion.
And science is only useful if it accepts the observations and corrects itself.....
Ignoring an observation that becomes more and more evident with each new and better data sample the theory is wrong isn't useful at all.
The (Cosmological) Axis of Evil
Nor is continuing with claims of Dark Matter despite 15 null results because it's a cash cow for easy money.....
Your attempt to refute the accepted scientific theory the the universe is billions of years old is impressive, throw around some psuedo science and terms like CMB and quantum electrodynamics and mechanics and yeah, sounds like you know what you are talking about but you don't.
I'm a few decades away from when I was in quantum mechanics, thermodynamics, and EM theory so I will not be able to do a point by point breakdown untangling the cherry picked science you list as refutation that the universe is billions of years old???
The atomic processes as we understand them today do align with hypotheses that the universe is billions of years old. Looking at the formation of various elements as well as their decay rates....
*sigh* I'll just stop there. I don't want to counter your pseudo science babbling with that of my own when i'm not prepared to get into a scholarly debate about the age of the universe. What I will say is that when I was well versed in science, cramming for upper level physics finals, etc, I recall quite vividly that everything seems to align.
Given the apparent size of the universe, what we can observe, rates of acceleration and deceleration, star formation and destruction, etc etc I feel very comfortable with the estimate that the universe is billions of years old. Then couple with our understanding of radiology and radioactive decay, geology, and yes evolution... again things seem to align.
It is a lot of alignment from separate independent scientific fields that support the case that the universe is very old. Thus, with every "alignment" i feel that our collective degree of confidence can rightfully grow.
Sure, maybe we are wrong, but it really doesn't appear to be so.
Our science and technology is a giant house of cards. If we were fundamentally wrong about our core sciences, then shouldn't our technological progression have been impossible?
Instead, we constantly see the reverse happening. We constantly discover new things that come about from old scientific principles.. that is, we keep reaffirming that "this constant" has this value or can be derived from yet another equation that describes yet another process in nature...
So sorry, I really do have a hard time believing in arguments that our entire scientific understanding of the universe and things therein is "wrong". Sure, we have a lot of holes in theories and sure, science is far from complete and perfect... but to say "Meh, the universe isn't billions of years old and the science that says it is is a sham..." sorry, I can't buy that argument.
It was there because when we defined "field " and "permeability" it was just a consequence of our definitions. no more or less. Nothing to do with the universe. Which is why you dont need to measure ANYTHING at all, to calculate the permeability of free space.
The problem is, it is the model that is elegant, not nature!
Quite; just as we'd expect, given that the model is based on, and refined using, our observations of nature.Well, nature fits the elegant model extremely well (that's not quite so true outside physics).
....
And why do people always ask shouldn’t our technological advancement be impossible?
Just what does expanding nothing, the CMB or Fairie Dust Dark Matter have to do with scientific advancement? In fact, what do they have to do with computers, cars, food processing, medical advancements, or any “science” at all?
Answer: absolutely nothing...... such a straw man you all always resort to because you can’t defend your Fairie Dust with real science..... your avoidance of why the CMB would show blue shift when no other source of radiation beyond the local group does so simply shows how flawed your theories are.... and that you know it.....
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?