Home | Community | Message Board
You are not signed in.
Sign In New Account
Forum Index Search Posts Trusted Vendors Highlights Galleries FAQ User List Chat Store Random Growery

Kratom Eye
This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.

General Interest > Philosophy, Sociology & Psychology
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: North Spore Cultivation Supplies, North Spore Mushroom Grow Kits & Cultivation Supplies   Sporeworks.EU Spores for European Microscopy   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order

Jump to first unread post Pages: 1 | 2 |  [ show all ]
(Some) Physicists are as bad as religious fundamentalists
    #9583377 -

Gee, using our current model of the Big Bang we discover that the Universe could not have form as predicted.

OK, let's add this thing called Inflation with zero evidence to make our formulae work.

Yeah, that sounds good, but you know what?

What?

There is not enough matter to explain galactic gravitation.

Hmmm, that is a tough one. Wait! I got it! There is invisible, undetectable matter with mass that holds it all together because our calculations could not possibly be wrong.

You know - that might just work. Now if we could sell it to the public and get lots of funding to find these non-existent particles...


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: (Some) Physicists are as bad as religious fundamentalists [Re: OrgoneConclusion]
    #9583382 -

Are you denying the cosmological constant?

Heresy!  :rabble:


--------------------
We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: (Some) Physicists are as bad as religious fundamentalists [Re: OrgoneConclusion]
    #9583395 -

Talk about deja vu.... :wtf:


--------------------
:redpanda:
If I should die this very moment
I wouldn't fear
For I've never known completeness
Like being here
Wrapped in the warmth of you
Loving every breath of you
:heartpump: :bunnyhug: :yinyang:

:yinyang: :levitate: :earth: :levitate: :yinyang:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: (Some) Physicists are as bad as religious fundamentalists [Re: fireworks_god]
    #9583449 -

Are you saying that fresh, new subjects exist? Winter reruns is all.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: (Some) Physicists are as bad as religious fundamentalists [Re: OrgoneConclusion]
    #9583531 -

:lol:

I'll bite on that one, two, three wait, let's not get carried away.

Some complain at the lack of fresh material in here.  You know, as I know, nearly all, if not all, philosophical and/or religious arguments are done to death.  The only thing that changes are the combatants.

I sometimes think  :beatadeadhorse: was created for this forum.

I like the bump thing.  When do we get to grind? 

I'm only posting here due to boredom.  No one is finding mushrooms and I'm too lazy to start a new thread.  :lol:


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: (Some) Physicists are as bad as religious fundamentalists [Re: OrgoneConclusion]
    #9584646 -

I dont think you know what youre talking about.  :tongue:


Guess I should elaborate a little more.  Sure the title of your thread is right, after all some physicists are religious fundamentalists.  But what are you saying in the post, you dont like dark matter?  Dark matter is just an unknown, a place holder for that which is causing the behavior that doesnt fit the model.  There are people looking for it to try to fit the model and there are also people working on the model to try to make it fit the data.  Its too early to tell who will be able to rectify the discrepancy (if possible).  This is how physics works, what specifically about it is 'as bad as religious fundamentalists' (which I interpret as faith w/out evidence)?

Edited by Qubit (01/10/09 07:37 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: (Some) Physicists are as bad as religious fundamentalists [Re: DieCommie]
    #9584981 -

Quote:
I dont think you know what youre talking about.


Yep, an idiot who was a pioneer in the AI field and large contributor to spread-spectrum satellite communications, but I digress...

Quote:
Dark matter is just an unknown, a place holder for that which is causing the behavior that doesnt fit the model. 


How is this any different than any other 'God of the Gaps'? This is backwards 'science'. The data is supposed to be gathered FIRST, then hypotheses are tested. This is the normal flow.

I have never liked Dark Matter and have won one large 10 year-bet ($5000) so far on the non-existence of such. I will extend the same bet to you for another 10 years if you like.

As to Inflation, there is also ZERO EVIDENCE other than a flaw in the current theory so a prominent physicist makes up a fable in order to make the model 'work'.

Are you familiar with the Ptolemaic Model of planetary motion? When it didn't fit, more and more assumptions were added to make it 'work'. Guess that was also real science.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: (Some) Physicists are as bad as religious fundamentalists [Re: OrgoneConclusion]
    #9585102 -

Quote:
Guess that was also real science.


Yea, it was.  Making better models that better fit is real science.


Quote:
The data is supposed to be gathered FIRST, then hypotheses are tested.


Yea, that is what dark matter is.  A hypothesis, born out of data, that is being tested (or at least attempting to be tested). 

I dont really mind if theorists go ahead of experimentalists, it can be fun and it can be useful.  But that is not what is happening here (maybe string theory would be a better candidate).

Edited by Qubit (01/10/09 08:43 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: (Some) Physicists are as bad as religious fundamentalists [Re: DieCommie]
    #9585142 -

Now you are disagreeing with yourself.

More and more unobserved assumptions were added to the Ptolemaic model just like the current model - and we know how well that turned out.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: (Some) Physicists are as bad as religious fundamentalists [Re: OrgoneConclusion]
    #9585182 -

Ptolemaic model turned out pretty good for what it was worth.  It had amazing predictive ability, and was able to describe the observed motions of the planets very accurately for hundreds of years.  This was a vast improvement over previous models, and a progression of science.  Errors were found, the model was updated and this continues to this day.  Thats what science is.  There is no time where the current model is proclaimed to be the 'true' and 'correct' one, they all simply have various levels of agreement with observation. 

The observation of galaxys rotations does not fit with the current model.  There are twos ways to fix this, one is add mass to the mix or two is change the model.  Each of these is being investigated and worked on, there is no consensus yet on how to resolve this.  This is real science, just like the Ptolemy models - making better theory to fit observation, sometimes by slight adjustments and sometimes by paradigm shifts.

(and I cannot see where I am disagreeing with myself :confused:)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: (Some) Physicists are as bad as religious fundamentalists [Re: DieCommie]
    #9594358 -

Understanding gravity is so simple I am amazed no one has figured it out yet. But I believe I understand why. Look at this example. There is a corral full of rabbits. All of them are white, except for one solitary pink rabbit. All you have to do is find the pink rabbit. Simple right? The pink rabbit should stand out like a sore thumb, right?

Now suppose that during your life experience in every instance where you thought of pink you saw inside your head the color white. For every pink thing you have discovered in life you considered it white and no one ever corrected you. In fact you sway others to believe that pink is white with enough logical proof that they themselves begin to believe it. So now everyone is convinced that white and pink are interchangeable.

Now look at the corral of rabbits. You will be so busy proving that they are all pink that the pink rabbit doesn't even attract your notice. And even if you did notice it, it would be so outside your life experience that instead of discovering the true meaning of pink, you create theories as to why in all those pink rabbits one "appears" to be a different color. You might not be able to prove those theories, but as long as your reference to pink is white you will maintain them to uphold a false belief.

Now lets look at the belief that space is normally uncurved and only curves in the presence of mass because of a gravitational field. According to this belief, the curvature of space is a direct product of the gravitational field of the mass. If there was no mass present, and therefore no gravitational field, space would not be curved.

What if the curvature of space is a natural condition? What if space would normally be super curved like a black hole, yet it expands because of the presence of mass. What if the "gravitational field" of the mass IS the expansion of curved space? Would looking at it this way change anything about what we have physically proven already?

If we believe that space only curves in the presence of the gravitational field of mass, then this leaves us wondering just what the "gravitational field" really is. However, if we believe that space is normally super curved and is only expanded because of the presence of mass, then this constantly expanding curved space becomes the gravitational field we are looking for.

In fact, if we look at the big bang theory from this point of view, then at one time both space and mass were singularities. In some method that I don't propose to explain the singularities found themselves combined. Space would immediately begin to expand from the force of the presence of mass. If we follow this scenario to it's end it results in the big bang and the shattering of both singularities into the mix of smaller singularities that makes up our universe.

Since gravity then becomes a spatial rather than a mass effect, one can begin to understand how a black hole has gravity. A black hole is simply an expanding curvature of space. We would not need any mass present to create a gravitational effect. "Dark matter" then becomes an unnecessary filler. Large black holes will do the trick. And we already know black holes exist.

Consider this, we already know that the gravitational force around a black hole will cause a ray of light to bend. As light penetrates deeper into the curved space of a black hole it reaches a point where the curvature of space is so great that the ray of light must follow the curvature of the space to move through it. In effect the light ray doesn't truly bend, from it's point of view it followed a straight trajectory. Yet space curved so greatly that the ray had to follow the space it moved through, hence to an outside observer the ray of light bends.

So if a ray of light, moving at the highest physical velocity must bend to follow highly curved space, what then happens to a larger and slower mass as it passes through curved space? It must follow the curvature of space. We have no way to detect the curvature of space yet it makes its presence known. How then will the mass alter it's trajectory to follow curved space? The mass experiences another velocity at an angle to its original velocity which alters its trajectory in a way to match the curvature of space it moves through. This new velocity caused by the curvature of space is quite simply the gravitational force.

That is it in a nutshell, so to speak. Figuring out the universe? That is easy. Figuring out women? Now that my friends is truly difficult!

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: (Some) Physicists are as bad as religious fundamentalists [Re: Newton Reborn]
    #9594634 -

Great first post, welcome to the shroomery.

This post though, is explained in laymans terms which always has the ring of speculation. And is based on perspective, be it ours (like the rabbit example) or simulated neutral (space individualised). Speculation aside, i understand it, and its a fresh description that i like.
Not being able to detect something certainly makes things difficult, especially when its presence is made known. Makes for confusion for the layman when time is added to the equation concerning curvature and velocity.
Though the description is good, descriptions don't always equate to understanding, which seems true even to top physicists - making up units and names for things to balance equations, or make fit with their model without proof of its existence, yet they search for it. It seems we are still way off from 'understanding'

Edited by flangenips (01/12/09 02:57 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: (Some) Physicists are as bad as religious fundamentalists [Re: OrgoneConclusion]
    #9596165 -

OrgoneConclusion said:
Gee, using our current model of the Big Bang we discover that the Universe could not have form as predicted.

OK, let's add this thing called Inflation with zero evidence to make our formulae work.

Yeah, that sounds good, but you know what?

What?

There is not enough matter to explain galactic gravitation.

Hmmm, that is a tough one. Wait! I got it! There is invisible, undetectable matter with mass that holds it all together because our calculations could not possibly be wrong.

You know - that might just work. Now if we could sell it to the public and get lots of funding to find these non-existent particles...


This reminds me of what Mckenna said, "it is as if science said give us one miracle, and from that, everything flows causally and deterministically."


--------------------
No trees were harmed in the writing of this signature; however, millions of electrons were mildly inconvenienced.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: (Some) Physicists are as bad as religious fundamentalists [Re: AnxietyDrive]
    #9596706 -

I dont get what that means...  Is he saying that science should show the universe is deterministic?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: (Some) Physicists are as bad as religious fundamentalists [Re: DieCommie]
    #9596761 -

Sorry Diecommie, i left part of it out.

He is referring to the Big Bang with that comment.

The Big Bang almost seems like the scientific version of God. All the sudden everything was created from a dense singularity, and after everything was created, all of the universe works deterministically and is governed by the laws of cause and effect. He is describing the Big Bang as an inherent contradiction in science.

Edit: meaning that the Big Bang looks like a scientific theory masquerading as a religious cosmology. 


--------------------
No trees were harmed in the writing of this signature; however, millions of electrons were mildly inconvenienced.

Edited by AnxietyDrive (01/12/09 08:08 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: (Some) Physicists are as bad as religious fundamentalists [Re: AnxietyDrive]
    #9596780 -

Who thinks the universe is deterministic?  Mckenna?  Because scientists dont, and havent for almost a hundred years right?  Well, I guess that depends on the details of what 'deterministic' means...  Does it play by a set of rules?  The science shows yes.  Are these rules deterministic?  No.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: (Some) Physicists are as bad as religious fundamentalists [Re: DieCommie]
    #9596805 -

On the macrocosmic level things are a lot more deterministic though, no?

Small deviations may occur on the microcosmic level but these invariably conform to a larger set of principles.


--------------------
We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: (Some) Physicists are as bad as religious fundamentalists [Re: DieCommie]
    #9596823 -

I agree for the most part, but it is known that if some scientists step outside the drawn lines of what they can say, then repercussions will ensue. Politics still govern what can and cannot be said in the world of science.

I do know that most physicists do not agree with Mckenna's statements, but then again, you still have rigid individuals like Stephan Hawking, who act more like preachers, than scientists.

What i mean by "deterministically," is that we still have a very mechanistic and lifeless view of nature and reality, in which the physical laws of cause and effect still run unperturbed.


--------------------
No trees were harmed in the writing of this signature; however, millions of electrons were mildly inconvenienced.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: (Some) Physicists are as bad as religious fundamentalists [Re: OrgoneConclusion]
    #9596866 -

Quote:
There is invisible, undetectable matter with mass that holds it all together because our calculations could not possibly be wrong.



I'm pretty sure they also refer to this as "dark energy". And Die Commie is right, they hypothesis of dark matter/energy occured AFTER gathering data.

When data doesn't support your hypothesis, and is tested over and over, and still your hypothesis is proven wrong....well you must make a new hypothesis.

Right now...that hypothesis is "There is matter and energy in the universe that is undetectable by our equipment."

And so...we are gathering more data now to verify whether or not that is, in fact, correct.

If you ask a scientists "Does dark matter/energy undeniably exist?", a good scientist would answer NO...because we haven't verified it.


--------------------
Word to your mom.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: (Some) Physicists are as bad as religious fundamentalists [Re: deCypher]
    #9596871 -

deCypher said:
On the macrocosmic level things are a lot more deterministic though, no?



"A lot more"?  Sure.  But you cant really get determinism out of an ensemble of probabilities can you?  Well, not unless your ensemble approaches infinity.  In our everyday experience the ensemble does approach infinity so the phenomenon we observe does approach determinism.  But of course, the root of it all is not determinism, it is probabilistic (much to the dismay of some).

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: 1 | 2 |  [ show all ]

Shop: North Spore Cultivation Supplies, North Spore Mushroom Grow Kits & Cultivation Supplies   Sporeworks.EU Spores for European Microscopy   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order

General Interest > Philosophy, Sociology & Psychology
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Quiz: Religious Fundamentalists Zahid 718 8 11/02/03 11:00 AM
by Annapurna1
* How can you not be a fundamentalist? SpecialEd 914 9 12/29/03 02:48 PM
by Anonymous
* Is existence deterministic?
( 1 2 all )		 urite4594 3,614 29 08/24/05 05:06 AM
by BlueCoyote
* Calling all Skeptics, Agnostics, Determinists... lucid 1,071 14 11/19/03 03:11 AM
by ZenGecko
* Pick the psychotic from religious and drug experiences enotake2 1,391 12 02/26/03 04:05 AM
by Grav
* Islamic Fundamentalists
( 1 2 all )		 BlueOrb 2,486 24 09/17/04 09:39 AM
by BanJankri
* which religious figure is the toughest?
( 1 2 3 all )		 atomikfunksoldier 3,637 50 04/25/03 04:48 AM
by atomikfunksoldier
* selling mushrooms=bad??
( 1 2 3 all )		 flow 6,890 55 02/13/03 04:50 PM
by MarkostheGnostic

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Middleman, DividedQuantum
2,676 topic views. 0 members, 25 guests and 49 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2026 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.041 seconds spending 0.007 seconds on 18 queries.