Cosmos: A Spacetime Odyssey - Page 4 - MensTennisForums.com

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
post #46 of 81 (permalink) Old 04-05-2014, 06:52 PM
Registered User
 
Nunyabeezwax's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,587
                     
Re: Cosmos: A Spacetime Odyssey

Also, dinosaurs were never real because no one ever saw them.

So now you'd better stop and rebuild all your ruins...
For peace and trust can win the day despite of all your losing.



Nunyabeezwax is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #47 of 81 (permalink) Old 04-05-2014, 07:04 PM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 4,524
                     
Re: Cosmos: A Spacetime Odyssey

Cosmologists cannot explain why the universe behaves the way it does, so they had to invent dark matter, energy, etc to make the mathematical models fit the observations. If you're a brilliant mathematician and you get to make up stuff that has never been observed, you can come up with a structure that mathematically agrees with reality, but it's unlikely to be an accurate description of what's really going on.
Mjau! is offline  
post #48 of 81 (permalink) Old 04-05-2014, 07:07 PM
Registered User
 
Nunyabeezwax's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,587
                     
Re: Cosmos: A Spacetime Odyssey

Cosmologists invented energy? Oh this is getting good.

So now you'd better stop and rebuild all your ruins...
For peace and trust can win the day despite of all your losing.



Nunyabeezwax is offline  
post #49 of 81 (permalink) Old 04-05-2014, 07:10 PM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 4,524
                     
Re: Cosmos: A Spacetime Odyssey

They invented dark energy along with a whole slew of other purely hypothetical entities.
Mjau! is offline  
post #50 of 81 (permalink) Old 04-05-2014, 07:11 PM
Rankings Master
 
Slasher1985's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Age: 30
Posts: 12,864
                     
Re: Cosmos: A Spacetime Odyssey

But in the past, all theories that have mathematically described reality have been correct.

Mathematicians in ancient times have predicted the Earth was not flat and even that the Earth revolved around the Sun with eliptical orbits, but their work was never believed, their equations never trusted because religion reigned supreme. Most of their work was then destroyed along with the Library of Alexandria. Something survived which was passed down as obscure philosophy and was clandestinely accessed in the Renaissance. Those works led to beliefs that what the church was saying was wrong, and mathematicians turned to solve the puzzle once and for all. This time, religion was not strong enough anymore to stop it.
Slasher1985 is offline  
post #51 of 81 (permalink) Old 04-05-2014, 07:15 PM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 4,524
                     
Re: Cosmos: A Spacetime Odyssey

No, they haven't. Ptolemaic epicycles for instance. Very similar situation to modern cosmology.
Mjau! is offline  
post #52 of 81 (permalink) Old 04-05-2014, 07:18 PM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 4,524
                     
Re: Cosmos: A Spacetime Odyssey

You are confusing observations of how the planets and stars move with hypotheses for why stars and planets move the way they do. The problem of modern cosmology lies in the why.
Mjau! is offline  
post #53 of 81 (permalink) Old 04-05-2014, 07:22 PM
Registered User
 
Nunyabeezwax's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,587
                     
Re: Cosmos: A Spacetime Odyssey

Btw, I have never met or read the work of any theoretical physicist or cosmologist who claimed their theories as absolute truth. Stephen Hawking, just to point at a well known example, is constantly poking holes in his own theories.

So now you'd better stop and rebuild all your ruins...
For peace and trust can win the day despite of all your losing.



Nunyabeezwax is offline  
post #54 of 81 (permalink) Old 04-05-2014, 07:23 PM
Rankings Master
 
Slasher1985's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Age: 30
Posts: 12,864
                     
Re: Cosmos: A Spacetime Odyssey

Wow, are we criticizing Ptolemy now?

He predicted the Earth was round and that there was planetary motion involved.

But let's go back to the basics. How about Archimedes' Sand Reckoner, in which the Earth revolves around the Sun? Completely wrong, huh? He was even close when he tried to calculate the distance to the Sun. While Ptolemy's theory had no mathematics at all, just circles in the sand, Archimedes provided the numbers too. He even tried to predict the number of grains of sand in the universe. And how about this:

Quote:
The total number of nucleons in the observable universe of roughly the Hubble radius is the Eddington number, currently estimated at 10^80. Archimedes' 10^63 grains of sand contain 10^80 nucleons, which means that Archimedes' number equals Eddington's number
Slasher1985 is offline  
post #55 of 81 (permalink) Old 04-05-2014, 07:25 PM
Rankings Master
 
Slasher1985's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Age: 30
Posts: 12,864
                     
Re: Cosmos: A Spacetime Odyssey

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nunyabeezwax View Post
Btw, I have never met or read the work of any theoretical physicist or cosmologist who claimed their theories as absolute truth. Stephen Hawking, just to point at a well known example, is constantly poking holes in his own theories.
So true. The reigning idea within cosmology is (as in this documentary) "QUESTION EVERYTHING"
Slasher1985 is offline  
post #56 of 81 (permalink) Old 04-05-2014, 07:29 PM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 4,524
                     
Re: Cosmos: A Spacetime Odyssey

Quote:
Originally Posted by Slasher1985 View Post
So true. The reigning idea within cosmology is (as in this documentary) "QUESTION EVERYTHING"
No, it isn't. That's the scientific ideal that no one really adheres to. It's a myth.
Mjau! is offline  
post #57 of 81 (permalink) Old 04-05-2014, 07:31 PM
Rankings Master
 
Slasher1985's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Age: 30
Posts: 12,864
                     
Re: Cosmos: A Spacetime Odyssey

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mjau! View Post
No, it isn't. That's the scientific ideal that no one really adheres to. It's a myth.
Do you have proof of this?
Slasher1985 is offline  
post #58 of 81 (permalink) Old 04-05-2014, 07:33 PM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 4,524
                     
Re: Cosmos: A Spacetime Odyssey

Quote:
Originally Posted by Slasher1985 View Post
Do you have proof of this?
Yes, the fact that alternatives to the standard theory aren't explored even though it relies on fudges and is frequently caught off guard by observations no one predicted.
Mjau! is offline  
post #59 of 81 (permalink) Old 04-05-2014, 07:33 PM
Registered User
 
Nunyabeezwax's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,587
                     
Re: Cosmos: A Spacetime Odyssey

Really though, what's the alternative to mathematical equations and their explanatory power? Should these things not be studied? Should physics be dropped from college curricula? Should we just say "meh, that comet will come whenever it wants?"

"Meh" isn't a satisfactory answer to the human spirit.

So now you'd better stop and rebuild all your ruins...
For peace and trust can win the day despite of all your losing.



Nunyabeezwax is offline  
post #60 of 81 (permalink) Old 04-05-2014, 07:34 PM
Moderator
 
Pratik's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Germany
Posts: 18,024
                     
Re: Cosmos: A Spacetime Odyssey

I don't agree with everything Mjau! has said, but he does have some valid points. And to some of you, stop making this into a science vs. religion thing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Slasher1985 View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mjau! View Post
You cannot compare the theory of electromagnetism to the hypotheses of dark energy, dark matter, black holes, neutron stars, accretion theory, inflation and other entirely hypothetical entities. Electromagnetism can be studied experimentally.
Why not? You said the basics were not infallible. How basic do you get? EM Theory is the basic currently applied at the Large Hadron Collider. Inflation is based on observations that have EM theory at its base.

So again, which are those basic theories that are not infallible. Name them, so we can know which books we must burn.
Simply because one is a widely accepted as a fact, and the other is a commonly accepted as the hypothesis which is most likely to be proven. Just because it is a commonly believed hypothesis doesn't make it true. While it can be proven to be true later on, based on today's understanding that can not be said.
Pratik is offline  
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the MensTennisForums.com forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in









Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page



Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome