Overclock.net › Forums › Industry News › Technology and Science News › [New Scientist] Multiverse gets real with glimpse of big bang ripples
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

[New Scientist] Multiverse gets real with glimpse of big bang ripples - Page 5

post #41 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tsumi View Post

Naysayers are fine, but you also have to provide some sort of alternative and proof for your alternative. Otherwise, you're just questioning for no reason.

He doesn't name the "competing" believes...

Since he quoted in bold the burning bush, maybe he is referring to religions?
Well, modern science doesn't compete with religions, simply because there is no basis for competition, only infinite, once sided regression and/or digression, with the inevitable adherence to certain questions that science is impossible to know - but so is humanity in general, unless we plea to direct divine inspiration. E.g. "why"...

Why is the universe fine tuned for us?

The fact that a question can be asked, doesn't make the premise valid: people who ask those questions, do believe that the universe is fine tuned for us glorifying the anthropic principle and comfortably forgetting that humans (anthropos = man) cannot survive in 75% of this very planet's surface, a planet that is not even 0.0003% of our solar system's mass, with not a "spec of dust" of inhabitable celestial body probably for light years away from us...yet trillions of stars were made just for "Us" to be here...

Why is there life?

We don't know exactly, but I guess if the hypothesis of life slowing down entropy in a system isn't the answer that they would be seeking...
They are after "the goal of evolution", and that those gazillions of metric tons of mono-cellular biomass around the globe, conspired so that humans will come to walk the earth and parasite on them.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tsumi View Post

Science doesn't prove the existence of something. It can only prove the non-existence or provide support for the existence.

We cannot prove the non-existence of anything, as someone could demand us looking "closer", or further away.
The famous space teapot paradox, or unicorns, Santa and flying spaghetti monsters. None can be positively dis-proven.

Only existence can be positively proven.

In case of religions, science cannot "disprove" the existence of a deity or a personal God.

But it can characterize actions that claim to be the infallible Word of a God, to be improbable, immoral, inconsistent or blatantly false according to what the sum of current knowledge and our logic commands: E.g. even if "God said so", you should not commit genocide - including all children but young virgin girls which should work fine as sexual slaves, or there couldn't be that the messiah died and got raised in two different days, or that God made the plants before he made the sun, or that 8 people managed to survive on a man-made boat with a pair of all the surviving today animals and birds for 350+ days.

You owe to realize that people that put men on the Moon, even if those individuals are religious, doesn't compete or are aspired to compete with this kind of "beliefs" and dogmas.
The fact that cosmological sciences clash with primitive/childish ideas about the world, ideas that the "one-eyed-shaman" was using to control the "blind-in-its-ignorance" flock, never meant their work as a vehicle for preaching atheism. The fact that his makes those who put too many of their chips on the wrong number and no - along with you - "don't feel comfortable" with their findings, so be it.

You won't be missed, I guarantee it.
Edited by pcfoo - 3/20/14 at 9:07pm
FooBox
(20 items)
 
 
Camera Gear
(10 items)
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Xeon E5-1650 V3 3.5GHz Dell C610 Quadro K4200 4GB 32GB PC-2133 DDR4 
Hard DriveCoolingOSMonitor
Crucial M550 256GB Dell Windows 7 Professional Dell U2412M 
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
Dell U2412M Dell KB-212-B Dell 850W 80+ Gold T5810 
Mouse
Logitech G700 
CPUGraphicsGraphicsGraphics
Canon EOS 6D  EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II USM  EF 16-35mm f/4L IS USM EF 70-200mm f/4L IS USM 
GraphicsOptical DriveOptical DriveOptical Drive
EF 35mm f/2 IS USM Manfrotto 190XPROB Tripod Manfrotto 685B NeoTec Monopod Manfrotto 410 Junior Geared Head 
Optical DriveCase
Manfrotto 496 Ball Head Lowepro Mini Trekker AW 
  hide details  
Reply
FooBox
(20 items)
 
 
Camera Gear
(10 items)
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Xeon E5-1650 V3 3.5GHz Dell C610 Quadro K4200 4GB 32GB PC-2133 DDR4 
Hard DriveCoolingOSMonitor
Crucial M550 256GB Dell Windows 7 Professional Dell U2412M 
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
Dell U2412M Dell KB-212-B Dell 850W 80+ Gold T5810 
Mouse
Logitech G700 
CPUGraphicsGraphicsGraphics
Canon EOS 6D  EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II USM  EF 16-35mm f/4L IS USM EF 70-200mm f/4L IS USM 
GraphicsOptical DriveOptical DriveOptical Drive
EF 35mm f/2 IS USM Manfrotto 190XPROB Tripod Manfrotto 685B NeoTec Monopod Manfrotto 410 Junior Geared Head 
Optical DriveCase
Manfrotto 496 Ball Head Lowepro Mini Trekker AW 
  hide details  
Reply
post #42 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tsumi View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by ILoveHighDPI View Post

Tisk tisk, is that a pot shot at competing beliefs?


The system that produces modern "knowledge" like the subject of this thread is still fundamentally built on far too much speculation (hypothesis) for me to be comfortable with.
Sure, no-body's perfect, and no system is perfect, but that's half my point. There will always be a reasonable alternative.
At the very least people in true scientific spirit should welcome a few nay-sayers.

Naysayers are fine, but you also have to provide some sort of alternative and proof for your alternative. Otherwise, you're just questioning for no reason.

Science doesn't prove the existence of something. It can only prove the non-existence or provide support for the existence.

We're in the unfortunate situation that continuing further down this road does not fit within the guidelines of the forum.

I guess there's a lot of historical animosity. Maybe we can all get along some day.
post #43 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by ILoveHighDPI View Post

We're in the unfortunate situation that continuing further down this road does not fit within the guidelines of the forum.

I guess there's a lot of historical animosity. Maybe we can all get along some day.

Sure, I apologize.

The fact remains tho, that although each one is entitled to his opinion and believes, we cannot all have "our own" reality, no matter how hard we want it to be so.
FooBox
(20 items)
 
 
Camera Gear
(10 items)
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Xeon E5-1650 V3 3.5GHz Dell C610 Quadro K4200 4GB 32GB PC-2133 DDR4 
Hard DriveCoolingOSMonitor
Crucial M550 256GB Dell Windows 7 Professional Dell U2412M 
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
Dell U2412M Dell KB-212-B Dell 850W 80+ Gold T5810 
Mouse
Logitech G700 
CPUGraphicsGraphicsGraphics
Canon EOS 6D  EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II USM  EF 16-35mm f/4L IS USM EF 70-200mm f/4L IS USM 
GraphicsOptical DriveOptical DriveOptical Drive
EF 35mm f/2 IS USM Manfrotto 190XPROB Tripod Manfrotto 685B NeoTec Monopod Manfrotto 410 Junior Geared Head 
Optical DriveCase
Manfrotto 496 Ball Head Lowepro Mini Trekker AW 
  hide details  
Reply
FooBox
(20 items)
 
 
Camera Gear
(10 items)
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Xeon E5-1650 V3 3.5GHz Dell C610 Quadro K4200 4GB 32GB PC-2133 DDR4 
Hard DriveCoolingOSMonitor
Crucial M550 256GB Dell Windows 7 Professional Dell U2412M 
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
Dell U2412M Dell KB-212-B Dell 850W 80+ Gold T5810 
Mouse
Logitech G700 
CPUGraphicsGraphicsGraphics
Canon EOS 6D  EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II USM  EF 16-35mm f/4L IS USM EF 70-200mm f/4L IS USM 
GraphicsOptical DriveOptical DriveOptical Drive
EF 35mm f/2 IS USM Manfrotto 190XPROB Tripod Manfrotto 685B NeoTec Monopod Manfrotto 410 Junior Geared Head 
Optical DriveCase
Manfrotto 496 Ball Head Lowepro Mini Trekker AW 
  hide details  
Reply
post #44 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by jdstock76 View Post

I still can't wrap my head around the fact that there could actually be a "big bang". An actual start to the universe. Let for a second say there was a "big bang", what was there before it? Empty space? All matter had to come from some where. Time never existing and starting with the "big bang"? Seems like most of these theories solidify certain religious beliefs. Not trying to get that conversation started btw. Just an observation. Why is it so hard to believe that the universe was just here, that what we see is just expansion and contraction of the universe. Why did it have to start from nothingness?

Man you just blew my mind. I think about this stuff a lot, too much even lol and i have honestly never contemplated the idea of the world, space, earth, sun everything just being here. Try and wrap your head around that. Forever and ever and ever, nothing "happened" it was all just here. The natural question is "yeah but what about before ..." and nope just always here. It's a scary thought to me.

I guess at some point no matter what you believe something had to "just always be there". If you believe the big bang theory then whatever created it had to just always be there right? And without getting religious even if.you believe god created the big bang theory or whatever your saying god was "just always there". Point is you eventually reach a starting point and it was always there. I don't think it's such a crazy theory, backed up with zero evidence by myself of course lol.
Edited by mboner1 - 3/21/14 at 10:59am
I'm back baby!!!
(23 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i5 4670k Asus sabertooth z97 mark 2 sapphire tri x r9 290 corsair ripjaws x 1600 (16gb) 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveHard Drive
samsung evo 120gb ssd seagate 1tb hdd 1tb external hdd seagate 2tb hdd 
Optical DriveCoolingOSMonitor
samsung cd drive coolermaster vortex plus windows 7 ultimate Sony W800B (50 inch) 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
Corsair vengeance k65 Corsair rm1000 Fractal Design node 605 Razer Naga left hand edition 
Mouse PadAudioOtherOther
Razer kabuto creative gigaworks t40 series ii logitech g930 wireless headset Logitech wireless touchpad 
Other
Vantec 310S3 Hard drive enclosure x2 
  hide details  
Reply
I'm back baby!!!
(23 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i5 4670k Asus sabertooth z97 mark 2 sapphire tri x r9 290 corsair ripjaws x 1600 (16gb) 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveHard Drive
samsung evo 120gb ssd seagate 1tb hdd 1tb external hdd seagate 2tb hdd 
Optical DriveCoolingOSMonitor
samsung cd drive coolermaster vortex plus windows 7 ultimate Sony W800B (50 inch) 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
Corsair vengeance k65 Corsair rm1000 Fractal Design node 605 Razer Naga left hand edition 
Mouse PadAudioOtherOther
Razer kabuto creative gigaworks t40 series ii logitech g930 wireless headset Logitech wireless touchpad 
Other
Vantec 310S3 Hard drive enclosure x2 
  hide details  
Reply
post #45 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by pcfoo View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by ILoveHighDPI View Post

We're in the unfortunate situation that continuing further down this road does not fit within the guidelines of the forum.

I guess there's a lot of historical animosity. Maybe we can all get along some day.

Sure, I apologize.

The fact remains tho, that although each one is entitled to his opinion and believes, we cannot all have "our own" reality, no matter how hard we want it to be so.

Thanks, I appreciate that.

I also entirely agree that "what you believe has no effect on reality". It happens to be one of my favourite quotes.
post #46 of 55
actually the the part of the universe we are in is in a black hole right now and the expansion is really origin getting smaller and the part they see is time stretching off. big part of a college theory we were studying. if you cant understand it you have to know how time works...

and

"what you believe has no effect on reality"

only if you keep it to yourself, if you tell someone you influence their reality and if they act upon it they alter reality, very weak and flawed.
Edited by eAT5 - 3/21/14 at 11:22am
post #47 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by ILoveHighDPI View Post

The system that produces modern "knowledge" like the subject of this thread is still fundamentally built on far too much speculation (hypothesis) for me to be comfortable with.
Sure, no-body's perfect, and no system is perfect, but that's half my point. There will always be a reasonable alternative.
At the very least people in true scientific spirit should welcome a few nay-sayers.

I find the idea that we can't trust science because scientists make theories incredibly tiresome. No, scientists do not claim to know, for sure, the outcome before they do the experiment. They come up with an idea first, and because they're not sure it's right or not yet they call it a hypothesis. But there's a big, big difference between a hypothesis that is untested and a hypothesis that is tested. The important part of this report is that the testing of the hypothesis has happened, and the results of the test point to one hypothesis over the others. This is not a "nobody's perfect" situation, and there are not "reasonable alternatives."

It's not enough to be a reasonable alternative to just have another untested hypothesis if you're trying to be an alternative to a hypothesis that has been tested. They're not the same at all.

A reasonable alternative is only reasonable if it's based on reason.
post #48 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by eAT5 View Post

"what you believe has no effect on reality"

only if you keep it to yourself, if you tell someone you influence their reality and if they act upon it they alter reality, very weak and flawed.

Well, I guess that's true for subjective realities in small scale social / public spaces and ecosystems. If I act upon my believes, the rest of the world I might "realize" things that hint to them.

I might believe in Orks and Warlocks and Hobbits...I can right a book about it and affect human culture. My book and its aftermath is real, the inspiration remains pure fiction, even if 50 years later fans will speak Orcish/Elvish as I've taught it through my works and believe they can see the future though "the "Eye" cannot affect Reality, only their perception (or illusion) of it.

But at any scenario, my action/words/work is what transcends to something, not my believes directly.

Even then, believes can inform science if we are talking social sciences, not cosmology, not math, not physics i.e. not "Reality" in positive science.
Edited by pcfoo - 3/21/14 at 1:34pm
FooBox
(20 items)
 
 
Camera Gear
(10 items)
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Xeon E5-1650 V3 3.5GHz Dell C610 Quadro K4200 4GB 32GB PC-2133 DDR4 
Hard DriveCoolingOSMonitor
Crucial M550 256GB Dell Windows 7 Professional Dell U2412M 
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
Dell U2412M Dell KB-212-B Dell 850W 80+ Gold T5810 
Mouse
Logitech G700 
CPUGraphicsGraphicsGraphics
Canon EOS 6D  EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II USM  EF 16-35mm f/4L IS USM EF 70-200mm f/4L IS USM 
GraphicsOptical DriveOptical DriveOptical Drive
EF 35mm f/2 IS USM Manfrotto 190XPROB Tripod Manfrotto 685B NeoTec Monopod Manfrotto 410 Junior Geared Head 
Optical DriveCase
Manfrotto 496 Ball Head Lowepro Mini Trekker AW 
  hide details  
Reply
FooBox
(20 items)
 
 
Camera Gear
(10 items)
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Xeon E5-1650 V3 3.5GHz Dell C610 Quadro K4200 4GB 32GB PC-2133 DDR4 
Hard DriveCoolingOSMonitor
Crucial M550 256GB Dell Windows 7 Professional Dell U2412M 
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
Dell U2412M Dell KB-212-B Dell 850W 80+ Gold T5810 
Mouse
Logitech G700 
CPUGraphicsGraphicsGraphics
Canon EOS 6D  EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II USM  EF 16-35mm f/4L IS USM EF 70-200mm f/4L IS USM 
GraphicsOptical DriveOptical DriveOptical Drive
EF 35mm f/2 IS USM Manfrotto 190XPROB Tripod Manfrotto 685B NeoTec Monopod Manfrotto 410 Junior Geared Head 
Optical DriveCase
Manfrotto 496 Ball Head Lowepro Mini Trekker AW 
  hide details  
Reply
post #49 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by pcfoo View Post

Well, I guess that's true for subjective realities in small scale social / public spaces and ecosystems. If I act upon my believes, the rest of the world I might "realize" things that hint to them.

I might believe in Orks and Warlocks and Hobbits...I can right a book about it and affect human culture. My book and its aftermath is real, the inspiration remains pure fiction, even if 50 years later fans will speak Orcish/Elvish as I've taught it through my works and believe they can see the future though "the "Eye" cannot affect Reality, only their perception (or illusion) of it.

But at any scenario, my action/words/work is what transcends to something, not my believes directly.

Even then, believes can inform science if we are talking social sciences, not cosmology, not math, not physics i.e. not "Reality" in positive science.

Shhhh your effecting reality.... you caused me to type again...

cool theories, they study what i was talking about seriously. on the other hand ill ask my professor if orc's are involved for you....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theoretical_physics
post #50 of 55
time can only exist in a situation like a fractal or black holes which are same thing on a grander scale... hard to see when you exist in them... why you cant go back in time only forward...
Edited by eAT5 - 3/23/14 at 1:53am
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Technology and Science News
Overclock.net › Forums › Industry News › Technology and Science News › [New Scientist] Multiverse gets real with glimpse of big bang ripples