Genius Gone Insane
http://www.¯\(°_o)/¯.com
Ok so I think I see what you are saying, but I don't understand where in the universe that problem is. How does this have to do with dark matter?
Sun has been emitting unknown particles, carbon dating may be completely off
- Thread starter 006
- Start date
GGI, the fundamental problem is still that you have an inaccurate impression of how the theory came about, how absurdly well it explains a number of things, and how practically nobody in the physical sciences has the energy to do such stupid bullshit as suppress physical ideas *that they want to know about anyway*.
I don't normally say this sort of thing without having had significantly more to drink, but I'll make an exception based on your blatant unwillingness to seek out better sources than what you cited above (which was, as mentioned earlier, questionable not only for posting what it did but also for posting it years ago and not having anything more to say for itself) while several of us have been willing to guide you through far more reliable sources of information. The sort of thing I have in mind comes in two pieces.
The first piece is as follows: I have, based upon recommendations from some very clever physicists and physics educators, started to read Penrose's book The Road To Reality. As I'm coming in with some mathematical knowledge but not much 'physical intuition', as they call it, I'm getting something out of just about everything about this book that isn't just explaining pure mathematics that I knew already. I don't know anyone who would be overwhelmed by this book, apart from the sort of people who still need to sound out all of the words as they read them, so I suspect that - since I'm getting something out of it - everyone who has uncertainty about modern physics, as I certainly do, will be much better off for having read it. I not only recommend that you obtain this book but invite you to do the following: send me a private message, get my personal email address or telephone number or ICQ number or whatever is convenient for you, set a schedule for how much you'd like to have read by certain times, and we'll have an in-depth chat about everything that's gone on in the last few chapters. That's a blanket invitation to everyone who wants to be at least as physicsable as I am, but it's specifically pointed at you so that you can see what kind of real effort goes into completely subverting the kinds of nonissues you've pointed out in the past. There's no real imposition on me, as I'll be getting at least as much out of it as you will, so it just comes down to your motivation. I'm a well-experienced teacher and a stubborn pain in the ass, so from either perspective I'll be able to work through the same kinds of problems that you're having, and this will sort out much of the obvious gap between misleading 'pop science' (if 'pop' meant 'non' in some bizarro version of the universe sitting slightly to the rear of ours) and real science as it's done by real scientists. All said and done, I could sell bibles to Buddha but I couldn't possibly convince him to believe in even the chapter headings, so if you want to really kill off the language barrier and see the real meat of physics I'll definitely go along the way with you - and I'll do it in a way that takes some of the analytical acrobatics out of your way, at least as much as helps your progress and doesn't leave you unprepared for later work.
The second piece is this: if there were a special sort of gun that instilled in its target the same feelings of regret, uncertainty, despair, sadness, loneliness, and loss that are experienced by a young child first experiencing the death of a family member, friend, or pet, I would absolutely love to use it on people who were given an opportunity like the one given above and didn't follow through. If you make empty talk about what 'seems' uncomfortable about one of the most inherently deep and complex areas of modern thought that could possibly have occurred by this point in human development, I will enjoy your suffering to the sort of extent normally only achievable while pantsless and tightly bound in chains, leather, and latex. If you take this as a chance to do the hell out of some science education, even better for both of us. Ball's in your court.
Jef
I don't normally say this sort of thing without having had significantly more to drink, but I'll make an exception based on your blatant unwillingness to seek out better sources than what you cited above (which was, as mentioned earlier, questionable not only for posting what it did but also for posting it years ago and not having anything more to say for itself) while several of us have been willing to guide you through far more reliable sources of information. The sort of thing I have in mind comes in two pieces.
The first piece is as follows: I have, based upon recommendations from some very clever physicists and physics educators, started to read Penrose's book The Road To Reality. As I'm coming in with some mathematical knowledge but not much 'physical intuition', as they call it, I'm getting something out of just about everything about this book that isn't just explaining pure mathematics that I knew already. I don't know anyone who would be overwhelmed by this book, apart from the sort of people who still need to sound out all of the words as they read them, so I suspect that - since I'm getting something out of it - everyone who has uncertainty about modern physics, as I certainly do, will be much better off for having read it. I not only recommend that you obtain this book but invite you to do the following: send me a private message, get my personal email address or telephone number or ICQ number or whatever is convenient for you, set a schedule for how much you'd like to have read by certain times, and we'll have an in-depth chat about everything that's gone on in the last few chapters. That's a blanket invitation to everyone who wants to be at least as physicsable as I am, but it's specifically pointed at you so that you can see what kind of real effort goes into completely subverting the kinds of nonissues you've pointed out in the past. There's no real imposition on me, as I'll be getting at least as much out of it as you will, so it just comes down to your motivation. I'm a well-experienced teacher and a stubborn pain in the ass, so from either perspective I'll be able to work through the same kinds of problems that you're having, and this will sort out much of the obvious gap between misleading 'pop science' (if 'pop' meant 'non' in some bizarro version of the universe sitting slightly to the rear of ours) and real science as it's done by real scientists. All said and done, I could sell bibles to Buddha but I couldn't possibly convince him to believe in even the chapter headings, so if you want to really kill off the language barrier and see the real meat of physics I'll definitely go along the way with you - and I'll do it in a way that takes some of the analytical acrobatics out of your way, at least as much as helps your progress and doesn't leave you unprepared for later work.
The second piece is this: if there were a special sort of gun that instilled in its target the same feelings of regret, uncertainty, despair, sadness, loneliness, and loss that are experienced by a young child first experiencing the death of a family member, friend, or pet, I would absolutely love to use it on people who were given an opportunity like the one given above and didn't follow through. If you make empty talk about what 'seems' uncomfortable about one of the most inherently deep and complex areas of modern thought that could possibly have occurred by this point in human development, I will enjoy your suffering to the sort of extent normally only achievable while pantsless and tightly bound in chains, leather, and latex. If you take this as a chance to do the hell out of some science education, even better for both of us. Ball's in your court.
Jef
drew_drummer
Dancefap
There is a difference between being open minded and skeptical, and just being a complete fool and a twat.
GGI should probably learn the difference.
GGI should probably learn the difference.
i'd you suggest you to check out www.khanacademy.org GGI if you truly are interested in physics. That site will give you a good grasp how things work.
Genius Gone Insane
http://www.¯\(°_o)/¯.com
Instead of following your suggestion and reading up about physics and learning what science is, I decided it would be more beneficial to take a 2 month LSD bender. Alas, I am back. First thing I saw today is progress:
Pioneer Anomaly Solved?
Mind you, this is the second time in a year the Pioneer Anomaly has been solved. And it’s a decades old problem that’s been “solved” several times.
Anyway, I’m not going to beat a dead horse on this tired, pathetic, recurring issue. However, what I will say is that this particular iteration is less pathetic than the last one because it suggests that Pioneer did not miraculously slow down. Rather, our observations sped up (photons moved faster than they normally would).
How kick ass is that?! “There is something wrong with our observations! Who’da thunk it?!” It’s like gold to my ears.
The only thing is I fear our scientist friends got their reasoning wrong. They made yet another assumption based on an assumption. They are blaming the “speeding up” of photons on the unproven assumption that the universe is expanding (hold on while I get an umbrella and raincoat to protect from your eggs and tomatoes) …
OK, yes, it looks like the universe is expanding, I’ll give you that. But there are simply too many unexplained observations in the universe to be sure of it. I really am dubious of attributing this 30 year old Pioneer Anomaly on the expanding universe theory. It’s simply too much “what came first, the chicken or the egg?”
The Pioneer Anomaly is our best clue as to what is really going on. Yet it seems we do everything we can to throw it away.
How come no one has asked THIS PERFECTLY LEGITIMATE QUESTION: “What if the reason Pioneer appears to be slowing down because time is moving at a different rate there than it is here?” It’s actually very similar to what this article is claiming, just less narrow minded, and not quick to land the blame on the latest big theory (expansion of universe). But no, GGI is a damn LSD addict acid loving fool and doesn’t know anything because he likes to think outside the box and break rules. Damn Christians! Go read a science book GGI! You fucken loser!! And for god’s sake man, go get some pussy!!
At any rate, this is a positive sign I am seeing: scientists questioning their observation. We are moving in the right direction.
Pioneer Anomaly Solved?
Mind you, this is the second time in a year the Pioneer Anomaly has been solved. And it’s a decades old problem that’s been “solved” several times.
Anyway, I’m not going to beat a dead horse on this tired, pathetic, recurring issue. However, what I will say is that this particular iteration is less pathetic than the last one because it suggests that Pioneer did not miraculously slow down. Rather, our observations sped up (photons moved faster than they normally would).
How kick ass is that?! “There is something wrong with our observations! Who’da thunk it?!” It’s like gold to my ears.
The only thing is I fear our scientist friends got their reasoning wrong. They made yet another assumption based on an assumption. They are blaming the “speeding up” of photons on the unproven assumption that the universe is expanding (hold on while I get an umbrella and raincoat to protect from your eggs and tomatoes) …
OK, yes, it looks like the universe is expanding, I’ll give you that. But there are simply too many unexplained observations in the universe to be sure of it. I really am dubious of attributing this 30 year old Pioneer Anomaly on the expanding universe theory. It’s simply too much “what came first, the chicken or the egg?”
The Pioneer Anomaly is our best clue as to what is really going on. Yet it seems we do everything we can to throw it away.
How come no one has asked THIS PERFECTLY LEGITIMATE QUESTION: “What if the reason Pioneer appears to be slowing down because time is moving at a different rate there than it is here?” It’s actually very similar to what this article is claiming, just less narrow minded, and not quick to land the blame on the latest big theory (expansion of universe). But no, GGI is a damn LSD addict acid loving fool and doesn’t know anything because he likes to think outside the box and break rules. Damn Christians! Go read a science book GGI! You fucken loser!! And for god’s sake man, go get some pussy!!
At any rate, this is a positive sign I am seeing: scientists questioning their observation. We are moving in the right direction.
monoxide_child
New Metal Member
- Jul 30, 2008
- 6,210
- 4
- 0
seriously
is there any one here that is seriously going to say that humans interacted with living dinosaurs??
LeSedna
Mat or Mateo
You're a lost soul
Wake up, that's what has generally been happening since when church and science have been separated effectively. That's also what is happening on a daily basis everywhere in the world, what you fail to admit by filtering information to suit your own view of the scientific world, which is quite ironic considering that is one of the things you criticize yourself by implying scientists only base their work on assumption validated by assumptions (which is, mind you, a false statement by itself if you understood science in its core).
Also, there will be mistakes along the road. That's part of the game, induced by the human factor, not taking into consideration an unknown valuable variable, and etc.
Wake up, that's what has generally been happening since when church and science have been separated effectively. That's also what is happening on a daily basis everywhere in the world, what you fail to admit by filtering information to suit your own view of the scientific world, which is quite ironic considering that is one of the things you criticize yourself by implying scientists only base their work on assumption validated by assumptions (which is, mind you, a false statement by itself if you understood science in its core).
Also, there will be mistakes along the road. That's part of the game, induced by the human factor, not taking into consideration an unknown valuable variable, and etc.
LeSedna
Mat or Mateo
You're a lost soul
Wake up, that's what has generally been happening since when church and science have been separated effectively. That's also what is happening on a daily basis everywhere in the world, what you fail to admit by filtering information to suit your own view of the scientific world, which is quite ironic considering that is one of the things you criticize yourself by implying scientists only base their work on assumption validated by assumptions (which is, mind you, a false statement by itself if you understood science in its core).
Also, there will be mistakes along the road. That's part of the game, induced by the human factor, not taking into consideration an unkown valuable variable, and etc.
Wake up, that's what has generally been happening since when church and science have been separated effectively. That's also what is happening on a daily basis everywhere in the world, what you fail to admit by filtering information to suit your own view of the scientific world, which is quite ironic considering that is one of the things you criticize yourself by implying scientists only base their work on assumption validated by assumptions (which is, mind you, a false statement by itself if you understood science in its core).
Also, there will be mistakes along the road. That's part of the game, induced by the human factor, not taking into consideration an unkown valuable variable, and etc.
Genius Gone Insane
http://www.¯\(°_o)/¯.com
Perhaps
No of course they do not only base their work on assumption. But they are in this case.
LeSedna
Mat or Mateo
Then why do you use a specific "this case" to declare globally "At any rate, this is a positive sign I am seeing: scientists questioning their observation. We are moving in the right direction".
Not to mention, questioning observations is a science in itself. I was even given a full course on "measurements" over 3 months. It's not like Science is about modeling things to make it appear like "I am right".
If you're implying universe expansion is not proven nor eligible to any explanation, and if you're implying it's best to attribute the deltas to differences of speed of time (if I got you right which tbh is not easy) then what would you do about redshift, and how do you explain how time can flow at different times depending on the place, and what do you do about linking those different speeds of time together when you think about linearity of space and time (it's not like there will be a gap of time when you pass through a door from room A to room B). If you want to be considered a "genius" you need to build up your theory and get it proven, because mind you, there must have been thousands of people declaring one day "y'know, maybe Earth is not flat" and they are were not geniuses either. I don't declare myself genius for having the idea as a 8ish yo kid that I could imagine earth moving under my feet instead of me walking around it which Newton would have found interesting
Finally, I'm pretty sure you're not the first one to think about time instead of universe expansion. It is not because you have a limited access to scientific information (I think the only way to get a decent access to this kind of information is to actually work and interact in those specific fields) that you must assume you're new in town with a good idea. Many, many people have been working on those since a century ago if not two, and every one of them spent much more time on that matter than you'll ever spend scratching its surface. And all you do is assume they are total fools and driven by obnubilation, depicting them as BSing themselves with "unproven" material. To be published, there is a very strict protocol and it can take time. It's not the middle age anymore, and that is why now we fly, go to space, and design and build electro-magnetism-quantics components for computers twice as fast every other year so that GGI can come here and put himself on a pedestal.
Also, about humans having parties with dinosaurs, shit bricks : http://creationmuseum.org/
Not to mention, questioning observations is a science in itself. I was even given a full course on "measurements" over 3 months. It's not like Science is about modeling things to make it appear like "I am right".
If you're implying universe expansion is not proven nor eligible to any explanation, and if you're implying it's best to attribute the deltas to differences of speed of time (if I got you right which tbh is not easy) then what would you do about redshift, and how do you explain how time can flow at different times depending on the place, and what do you do about linking those different speeds of time together when you think about linearity of space and time (it's not like there will be a gap of time when you pass through a door from room A to room B). If you want to be considered a "genius" you need to build up your theory and get it proven, because mind you, there must have been thousands of people declaring one day "y'know, maybe Earth is not flat" and they are were not geniuses either. I don't declare myself genius for having the idea as a 8ish yo kid that I could imagine earth moving under my feet instead of me walking around it which Newton would have found interesting
Finally, I'm pretty sure you're not the first one to think about time instead of universe expansion. It is not because you have a limited access to scientific information (I think the only way to get a decent access to this kind of information is to actually work and interact in those specific fields) that you must assume you're new in town with a good idea. Many, many people have been working on those since a century ago if not two, and every one of them spent much more time on that matter than you'll ever spend scratching its surface. And all you do is assume they are total fools and driven by obnubilation, depicting them as BSing themselves with "unproven" material. To be published, there is a very strict protocol and it can take time. It's not the middle age anymore, and that is why now we fly, go to space, and design and build electro-magnetism-quantics components for computers twice as fast every other year so that GGI can come here and put himself on a pedestal.
Also, about humans having parties with dinosaurs, shit bricks : http://creationmuseum.org/
LeSedna
Mat or Mateo
Then why do you use a specific "this case" to declare globally "At any rate, this is a positive sign I am seeing: scientists questioning their observation. We are moving in the right direction".
Not to mention, questioning observations is a science in itself. I was even given a full course on "measurements" over 3 months. It's not like Science is about modeling things to make it appear like "I am right".
If you're implying universe expansion is not proven nor eligible to any explanation, and if you're implying it's best to attribute the deltas to differences of speed of time (if I got you right which tbh is not easy) then what would you do about redshift, and how do you explain how time can flow at different times depending on the place, and what do you do about linking those different speeds of time together when you think about linearity of space and time (it's not like there will be a gap of time when you pass through a door from room A to room B). If you want to be considered a "genius" you need to build up your theory and get it proven, because mind you, there must have been thousands of people declaring one day "y'know, maybe Earth is not flat" and they are were not geniuses either. I don't declare myself genius for having the idea as a 8ish yo kid that I could imagine earth moving under my feet instead of me walking around it which Newton would have found interesting
Finally, I'm pretty sure you're not the first one to think about time instead of universe expansion. It is not because you have a limited access to scientific information (I think the only way to get a decent access to this kind of information is to actually work and interact in those specific fields) that you must assume you're new in town with a good idea. Many, many people have been working on those since a century ago if not two, and every one of them spent much more time on that matter than you'll ever spend scratching its surface. And all you do is assume they are total fools and driven by obnubilation, depicting them as BSing themselves with "unproven" material. To be published, there is a very strict protocol and it can take time. It's not the middle age anymore, and that is why now we fly, go to space, and design and build electro-magnetism-quantics components for computers twice as fast every other year so that GGI can come here and put himself on a pedestal.
Also, about humans having parties with dinosaurs, shit bricks : http://creationmuseum.org/
Not to mention, questioning observations is a science in itself. I was even given a full course on "measurements" over 3 months. It's not like Science is about modeling things to make it appear like "I am right".
If you're implying universe expansion is not proven nor eligible to any explanation, and if you're implying it's best to attribute the deltas to differences of speed of time (if I got you right which tbh is not easy) then what would you do about redshift, and how do you explain how time can flow at different times depending on the place, and what do you do about linking those different speeds of time together when you think about linearity of space and time (it's not like there will be a gap of time when you pass through a door from room A to room B). If you want to be considered a "genius" you need to build up your theory and get it proven, because mind you, there must have been thousands of people declaring one day "y'know, maybe Earth is not flat" and they are were not geniuses either. I don't declare myself genius for having the idea as a 8ish yo kid that I could imagine earth moving under my feet instead of me walking around it which Newton would have found interesting
Finally, I'm pretty sure you're not the first one to think about time instead of universe expansion. It is not because you have a limited access to scientific information (I think the only way to get a decent access to this kind of information is to actually work and interact in those specific fields) that you must assume you're new in town with a good idea. Many, many people have been working on those since a century ago if not two, and every one of them spent much more time on that matter than you'll ever spend scratching its surface. And all you do is assume they are total fools and driven by obnubilation, depicting them as BSing themselves with "unproven" material. To be published, there is a very strict protocol and it can take time. It's not the middle age anymore, and that is why now we fly, go to space, and design and build electro-magnetism-quantics components for computers twice as fast every other year so that GGI can come here and put himself on a pedestal.
Also, about humans having parties with dinosaurs, shit bricks : http://creationmuseum.org/
Genius Gone Insane
http://www.¯\(°_o)/¯.com
You are asking questions that I thought I had addressed. And you are touching on my points but misinterpreting them. So I think I need to go back and reexplain shit in a better way. I'm not claiming to be a genius. Not at all.
For instance, it's pretty obvious that I am not the only person to ponder these theories. What I am trying to say is that people toss these ideas out the window because they are busy with other theories. Yet, if you look at history, we are really in a spot we've been many times before. And each time we stick to our current theories far too long. I mean, even Einstein got shit for his cosmological constant, yet 100 years later, it's back again. That's 100 years wasted. Why? Too much trust in our observations.
The discovery of errors in our observations is a recurring theme in astronomy/cosmology (like death and taxes). Why do we assume that our observations are correct? That is always the mistake we make.
Also, regarding red shift, I do not have an exact answer for you. But if you look earlier in the thread you'll see a link suggesting that redshift might be caused by change in time. I'm not subscribing to that but I'll support it simply because it's outside the box.
For instance, it's pretty obvious that I am not the only person to ponder these theories. What I am trying to say is that people toss these ideas out the window because they are busy with other theories. Yet, if you look at history, we are really in a spot we've been many times before. And each time we stick to our current theories far too long. I mean, even Einstein got shit for his cosmological constant, yet 100 years later, it's back again. That's 100 years wasted. Why? Too much trust in our observations.
The discovery of errors in our observations is a recurring theme in astronomy/cosmology (like death and taxes). Why do we assume that our observations are correct? That is always the mistake we make.
Also, regarding red shift, I do not have an exact answer for you. But if you look earlier in the thread you'll see a link suggesting that redshift might be caused by change in time. I'm not subscribing to that but I'll support it simply because it's outside the box.
XxSicRokerxX
Gabriel R.
LeSedna
Mat or Mateo
How can you not "believe" carbon datation ? It's not about believing, if it is used it is because it stays within an acceptable range of precision to be used, and it has been used with success over the years. There are many things which have a precisely defined age (like human rests that have been identified and therefore timed) which helped/help calibrate the measurement. Then, there are errors, because it's not a mathematical process only, sure and of course. You guys are nuts or just don't want to face the reality of things. It's not like science dictates what is good or what is wrong, you guys really have to realize that. No one is taking "for granted" things. In fact, scientists themselves are the first to adapt to the current set of rules (when they don't wanna disprove them) and all of them would agree than in 50 years they would look back and think "how blind were we". I don't know why people think those guys are following some kind of religion which make them go in a single direction, failing to see they are not being productive. And mind you, doing mistakes and going backwards is going forwards, because that's how science is, trial and errors. If you look only at the little steps without looking at the bigger picture, you'll miss the whole point. "We were wrong" is very common in scientific publications, and those who "were wrong" still get credits to continue there research, because that's a natural process. Isn't it better to be wrong than to continue thinking you're right ? Isn't that going forward to go back to a previous paradigm, for you discover the previous heading you were keeping is not where the solution is and therefore you can withdraw it and go on another direction ?
When I read some people think the earth is only 5000 years old or something like that, that carbon dating is a joke, who declare that geology is pure fallacy (all right then explain why continents blend so nicely in a Pangea shape and why there have been evidence collected from either sides of seas), I wanna do a Falcon-punch in their face. And yes you will hear "we thought that piece was 30 000 yo, in fact last carbon dating only date it 20 000 yo" and things like that, but saying carbon dating is not worthy is being ignorant. If at some point no one says "ok I'm gonna use the date it gives me to give credit to my research" then what is the point. Until someone finds a better method, that's the one that will be used. Not to mention it is rarely used alone and usually in combination with geology, chemistry, previous records, etc, to affine the result. No one puts a sensor in the ground, waits for a bip, and then declares "ok guys, this is 2 million years old".
Plendakor, you are thinking exactly the same way as our ancestors did. You think we are not able to grasp the essence of things and all. You cannot claim there is no "beginning". It is NOT because we don't have the answer to explain the beginning, that there is NO beginning or NO explanation of beginning. This is a logical fallacy used way too often by religious people . It's funny how people declare that because we don't have the answer, that there is no answer to be given. There is way too many examples of old paradigm of knowledge where people would put a creator where in fact we found an answer later on. That is just why people put a "god" in every thing they don't understand, or as you say, they don't "comprehend". Example : thunder = god, because at some time, it was something we couldn't "comprehend", until... we did. I respect people who think in a God granted they don't throw BS on evidences collected over the centuries. It's all a matter of time, energy, research, chance. So far no one has ever hit a wall in science advancement, so why assume there should be one just because there is a dark unknown before us ? Not saying there is no wall, but the need to declare there is one is the reason why at some point in our history people thought burning redheads or left handed was a good thing, because in fact they had no clue and thought it was a better idea to put "god" or satan or whatever in there. So maybe finding the answers to our question is something worth a million years of research and we will disappear before, but maybe not, so until people have a good reason to declare there is no explanation or until a god himself comes by and says hello, there will be people searching for evidence, and I'd say hopefully.
I don't have a problem with infinity either. It is just a concept created for mathematics to put a number (irrational) where it is more convenient than talking iteration. No need to go far to find infinity, take a length, divide it, divide it, divide it... infinitely, and you will virtually not find any limit to the process (to be fair, it's directly impossible to declare since the plank length constant is theoretically the shortest length measurable considering the order of size of the tiniest particles that would be used in the process of measuring a length). In a nutshell, infinity or not is not relevant since it is a human created concept, to make something un-understood, understandable in a precise set of rules.
Lack of any beginning... well, no one knows, so here again, this is not because no one knows that one can declare for sure there is no beginning. And well to me if we just cannot find any object older than X years, then there is a lower limit, therefore why not a beginning ? It's either there is one, or the beginning created "time" as we know it and therefore maybe there are things "older" than the beginning if you adapt the concept of time to its characteristics... In any case I don't see why we should declare there is none, just because it looks like it from our blind eyes. People have been doing that for centuries and milleniums and they have been proven wrong, why not again ?
When I read some people think the earth is only 5000 years old or something like that, that carbon dating is a joke, who declare that geology is pure fallacy (all right then explain why continents blend so nicely in a Pangea shape and why there have been evidence collected from either sides of seas), I wanna do a Falcon-punch in their face. And yes you will hear "we thought that piece was 30 000 yo, in fact last carbon dating only date it 20 000 yo" and things like that, but saying carbon dating is not worthy is being ignorant. If at some point no one says "ok I'm gonna use the date it gives me to give credit to my research" then what is the point. Until someone finds a better method, that's the one that will be used. Not to mention it is rarely used alone and usually in combination with geology, chemistry, previous records, etc, to affine the result. No one puts a sensor in the ground, waits for a bip, and then declares "ok guys, this is 2 million years old".
Plendakor, you are thinking exactly the same way as our ancestors did. You think we are not able to grasp the essence of things and all. You cannot claim there is no "beginning". It is NOT because we don't have the answer to explain the beginning, that there is NO beginning or NO explanation of beginning. This is a logical fallacy used way too often by religious people . It's funny how people declare that because we don't have the answer, that there is no answer to be given. There is way too many examples of old paradigm of knowledge where people would put a creator where in fact we found an answer later on. That is just why people put a "god" in every thing they don't understand, or as you say, they don't "comprehend". Example : thunder = god, because at some time, it was something we couldn't "comprehend", until... we did. I respect people who think in a God granted they don't throw BS on evidences collected over the centuries. It's all a matter of time, energy, research, chance. So far no one has ever hit a wall in science advancement, so why assume there should be one just because there is a dark unknown before us ? Not saying there is no wall, but the need to declare there is one is the reason why at some point in our history people thought burning redheads or left handed was a good thing, because in fact they had no clue and thought it was a better idea to put "god" or satan or whatever in there. So maybe finding the answers to our question is something worth a million years of research and we will disappear before, but maybe not, so until people have a good reason to declare there is no explanation or until a god himself comes by and says hello, there will be people searching for evidence, and I'd say hopefully.
I don't have a problem with infinity either. It is just a concept created for mathematics to put a number (irrational) where it is more convenient than talking iteration. No need to go far to find infinity, take a length, divide it, divide it, divide it... infinitely, and you will virtually not find any limit to the process (to be fair, it's directly impossible to declare since the plank length constant is theoretically the shortest length measurable considering the order of size of the tiniest particles that would be used in the process of measuring a length). In a nutshell, infinity or not is not relevant since it is a human created concept, to make something un-understood, understandable in a precise set of rules.
Lack of any beginning... well, no one knows, so here again, this is not because no one knows that one can declare for sure there is no beginning. And well to me if we just cannot find any object older than X years, then there is a lower limit, therefore why not a beginning ? It's either there is one, or the beginning created "time" as we know it and therefore maybe there are things "older" than the beginning if you adapt the concept of time to its characteristics... In any case I don't see why we should declare there is none, just because it looks like it from our blind eyes. People have been doing that for centuries and milleniums and they have been proven wrong, why not again ?
Atheist
Who'r u calling a Junior?
Genius Gone Insane
http://www.¯\(°_o)/¯.com
Ya there's a guy out in Spain saying that the redshift is not necessarily doppler effect, that it is sort of a time distortion, something like that. He's saying time is slowing down everywhere which is the reason nearly everything in the universe is redshifted. If he's right, then the Pioneer anomaly still remains unanswered. There is a link earlier in this thread.
LeSedna
Mat or Mateo
Manifesto
Martín
XxSicRokerxX
Gabriel R.
This. The great thing about science is that, scientists are constantly attacking one another; they want to disprove their own theories. To sit there and say, "This is truth, this is the way it is, its never going to change" is not being scientific at all. All a theory is, is a hypothesis that has been tested over and over and remains constant. My professors dislike using terms like "fact" "truth" "proof" because they feel that there is only explanation and evidence which can change over time. Its kind of like, the more evidence there is for something wins. For a long time, we believed that this universe is infinite, but now there are scientists who believe that it is actually finite, and not only that, that there are many multiverses. Science is fun and absurd at the same time. The first day of my geology class my professor told us that science is built on assumption and uniformitarianism, he said, we cannot prove that 1 mil years ago the gravity on earth weighed the same as it weights today, but we assume that it has, the same can be said about the laws of physics. All these things make it fun in my opinion.
Genius Gone Insane
http://www.¯\(°_o)/¯.com
Wahhh...who'da thunk it....
New Chemical Reaction Could Explain How Stars Form, Evolve, and Eventually Die
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/12/121207174415.htm
Science apparently works a little differently out there than it does here. Blasphemy!! Darn magnetic fields are screwing everything up!
Seriously though, it's good to see people thinking outside the box a bit. Hopefully this will kick scientists in their gnards and make them realize this is just the tip of the iceberg.
New Chemical Reaction Could Explain How Stars Form, Evolve, and Eventually Die
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/12/121207174415.htm
Science apparently works a little differently out there than it does here. Blasphemy!! Darn magnetic fields are screwing everything up!
Seriously though, it's good to see people thinking outside the box a bit. Hopefully this will kick scientists in their gnards and make them realize this is just the tip of the iceberg.