GlockTalk.com
Home Forums Classifieds Blogs Today's Posts Search Social Groups



  
SIGN-UP
Notices

Glock Talk
Welcome To The Glock Talk Forums.
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 01-28-2013, 06:06   #76
Cavalry Doc
Silver Membership
MAJ (USA Ret.)
 
Cavalry Doc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Republic of Texas
Posts: 41,184


Quote:
Originally Posted by Syclone538 View Post
Didn't we just go through this a couple days ago? Can you point to a specific post?
I'll PM you the links.
Cavalry Doc is offline  
Old 02-02-2013, 20:07   #77
Tedge
Senior Member
 
Tedge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: SC
Posts: 169
Religious Issues

Yeah, atheists. How comes?
Tedge is online now  
Old 02-03-2013, 13:39   #78
juggy4711
Nimrod Son
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Galveston County, TX
Posts: 3,807
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc View Post
Science is a very good system. The things that have been tested and proven, are very useful in determining what is. Not so sure about the why though. Big Bang vs. Big Chill is a good example. The universe is expanding. We may not be really sure why...
That's actually a good point. It may very well be possible to accurately describe the observed state of the universe with both a bang and a chill approach. Which just goes to show how unimportant either language model is. It doesn't matter why the universe is expanding, its only important the we know that it is and understand the characteristics of said expansion.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc View Post
...The big bang (or big chill now), evolution, quantum mechanics, none of it really tells us if there was or was not a deity. Many look at scientific evidence, and claim it means what they want it to mean, so that it matches their faith.
You really like pointing out the Big Chill thing as if it means something. It doesn't. Anyway I again sort of agree. A lot of atheists go to far in attributing science as a discredit of a deity/s.

However while science can not be used to prove or disprove whether there are deities, it can show religions to be falsifiable.

I break with most atheists on the first issue and with fellow believers on the second. While I believe in God, I do not believe in any religion as they are demonstrably false.
juggy4711 is offline  
Old 02-03-2013, 15:14   #79
Cavalry Doc
Silver Membership
MAJ (USA Ret.)
 
Cavalry Doc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Republic of Texas
Posts: 41,184


Quote:
Originally Posted by juggy4711 View Post
That's actually a good point. It may very well be possible to accurately describe the observed state of the universe with both a bang and a chill approach. Which just goes to show how unimportant either language model is. It doesn't matter why the universe is expanding, its only important the we know that it is and understand the characteristics of said expansion.



You really like pointing out the Big Chill thing as if it means something. It doesn't. Anyway I again sort of agree. A lot of atheists go to far in attributing science as a discredit of a deity/s.

However while science can not be used to prove or disprove whether there are deities, it can show religions to be falsifiable.

I break with most atheists on the first issue and with fellow believers on the second. While I believe in God, I do not believe in any religion as they are demonstrably false.
The big chill is just the latest in a string. I was told in school, that a new ice age was coming, then it was global warming, then MAN MADE global warming, PEOPLE were demonized for driving SUV's and for burning coal, while protesters burning tires and natural volcanoes were given a pass..... and the data shows that global warming stopped about a decade or so ago, KAPOW! so some guys tried to shut the real data up, but were somehow found innocent of scientific malfeasance.

It's all really chaotic when you really look at it objectively.

Science is great. Humans aren't great by default. Stuff is bound to go wrong. Still, even though humankind has effed a bunch of stuff up, we've done a lot of things right too.

Herding cats. Get used to it.
Cavalry Doc is offline  
Old 02-03-2013, 15:21   #80
itstime
Senior Member
 
itstime's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 6,542
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kentak View Post
God also planned for obsolescence. In several billion years, the sun will enter a red giant stage, incinerating the Earth, and eventually dying to a cold remnant. Of course, mankind will be long gone by then--either having become extinct or moved on to greener pastures.
Our deficit won't allow greener pastures.

I just read billions of years. Long time.

Trillions is sooooo much bigger.
itstime is offline  
Old 02-03-2013, 15:47   #81
juggy4711
Nimrod Son
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Galveston County, TX
Posts: 3,807
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc View Post
The big chill is just the latest in a string. I was told in school, that a new ice age was coming, then it was global warming, then MAN MADE global warming, PEOPLE were demonized for driving SUV's and for burning coal, while protesters burning tires and natural volcanoes were given a pass..... and the data shows that global warming stopped about a decade or so ago, KAPOW! so some guys tried to shut the real data up, but were somehow found innocent of scientific malfeasance.

It's all really chaotic when you really look at it objectively.

Science is great. Humans aren't great by default. Stuff is bound to go wrong. Still, even though humankind has effed a bunch of stuff up, we've done a lot of things right too.

Herding cats. Get used to it.
A string of what? Other than the hot/cool thing, what does global warming/cooling have to do with whether there was a bang or a chill? And what relevance does humans not being great have? Science isn't dependent on people's morality.

I'm not sure how any of your post has anything to do with mine?
juggy4711 is offline  
Old 02-04-2013, 11:01   #82
void *
Dereference Me!
 
void *'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: #define NULL ((void *)0)
Posts: 10,239
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc View Post
The big chill is just the latest in a string.
If I understand correctly, the 'Big Chill' doesn't even invalidate the 'Big Bang'. So *if* they find experimental evidence that indicates this 'Big Chill' model is on to something, the result is a more complete model (i.e., a model that explains things that the big bang model does not), *not* a completely different model. The whole 'Big Chill' bit appears to be based on a water analogy where the critical point of the analogy is *fracturing*, not temperature. (which, likewise, the name 'Big Bang' often gives people the wrong impression, as it implies explosion into something, where it's really about space expanding).

The scientists proposing the 'Big Chill' seem to be very careful in saying things like "in theory we should be able to detect these effects", and talking about what it would mean if their model were experimentally verified. So I think your presentation of this as some new thing where it completely throws out the old is inaccurate at best. If they do experimentally verify it, it sounds like it will be more along the lines of relativity replacing newtonian physics - all the old math still works for what it applies to, the new math explains more. Heck, in the articles I've seen the scientists proposing it describe it as being 'more complete' and not a complete toss-out of BBT.

You should not be surprised at new explanations being proposed for areas where current thinking does not fully explain something. It's how science works.
__________________
"The human mind is seldom satisfied, and is not justifiable by any natural process whatsoever, as regards geometry, our universe differs only slightly from a long-term, bi-directional, single trait selection experiment." -- Maxwell/Einstein/Johansson

Last edited by void *; 02-04-2013 at 11:04..
void * is offline  
Old 02-04-2013, 12:58   #83
Cavalry Doc
Silver Membership
MAJ (USA Ret.)
 
Cavalry Doc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Republic of Texas
Posts: 41,184


Quote:
Originally Posted by void * View Post
If I understand correctly, the 'Big Chill' doesn't even invalidate the 'Big Bang'. So *if* they find experimental evidence that indicates this 'Big Chill' model is on to something, the result is a more complete model (i.e., a model that explains things that the big bang model does not), *not* a completely different model. The whole 'Big Chill' bit appears to be based on a water analogy where the critical point of the analogy is *fracturing*, not temperature. (which, likewise, the name 'Big Bang' often gives people the wrong impression, as it implies explosion into something, where it's really about space expanding).

The scientists proposing the 'Big Chill' seem to be very careful in saying things like "in theory we should be able to detect these effects", and talking about what it would mean if their model were experimentally verified. So I think your presentation of this as some new thing where it completely throws out the old is inaccurate at best. If they do experimentally verify it, it sounds like it will be more along the lines of relativity replacing newtonian physics - all the old math still works for what it applies to, the new math explains more. Heck, in the articles I've seen the scientists proposing it describe it as being 'more complete' and not a complete toss-out of BBT.

You should not be surprised at new explanations being proposed for areas where current thinking does not fully explain something. It's how science works.
I never said it threw out the Big bang, it's just another possible explanation. When I was in grade school, we were going to have another ice age, a few years ago, the ice caps were going to melt and now maybe we are going to have another mini-ice age. Eggs have been good and or bad for you so many times I lost count.

The point being, things that are generally accepted aren't necessarily correct, or only correct in certain circumstances. Trying to explain things that happened billions of years ago before the first humanoid walked upright on earth is an area of speculation that is not going to be exact or complete.
Cavalry Doc is offline  
Old 02-04-2013, 13:03   #84
Cavalry Doc
Silver Membership
MAJ (USA Ret.)
 
Cavalry Doc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Republic of Texas
Posts: 41,184


Quote:
Originally Posted by juggy4711 View Post
A string of what? Other than the hot/cool thing, what does global warming/cooling have to do with whether there was a bang or a chill? And what relevance does humans not being great have? Science isn't dependent on people's morality.

I'm not sure how any of your post has anything to do with mine?
It's the latest in a string of previously widely believed explanations about "what is", and how it got this way being reconsidered. It wasn't that long ago, questioning whether or not there was a big bang was scoffed at. Well, maybe there was, maybe there wasn't. Maybe there is another explanation other than a big bang or big chill for why the universe seems to be expanding.
Cavalry Doc is offline  
Old 02-04-2013, 17:22   #85
void *
Dereference Me!
 
void *'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: #define NULL ((void *)0)
Posts: 10,239
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc View Post
I never said it threw out the Big bang, it's just another possible explanation.
The point I was trying to make was that you appear to be kind of scoffing at science when the whole /point/ of science is that when you get better data, and/or a new model you can actually test, that is what you ought to do.

The BBT is not accepted because some random bunch of dudes decided to accept it. It is accepted because there were testable predictions that could be made from it, and those predictions proved to be true.

Putting the 'Big Chill' out there as something that is on par with the BBT is not currently valid, at all, whatsoever. If it explains everything the BBT explains (which is basically, why the universe appears to be smaller as you look backward in time), plus a little more, *and* has testable predictions that can differentiate it from BBT that are actually tested and affirmed to be true, the BBT *should* be thrown out - but things are not yet anywhere near that point (although that might change quickly depending on how fast they can test it, and whether or not their testing methodology stands up to scrutiny, etc).

But until then treating 'Big Chill' as anything other than a promising idea that can (apparently, based on the statements in the articles I've found) be tested for is not valid. They might test and get results that falsify the 'Big Chill' (which will still be good scientific work, despite the fact that they probably won't get famous for it). They might test and get promising results, too.

Every valid scientific theory will be 'another in a string'. That's how science works. If you're going to object on that basis, what would you propose we do instead? Guess and hope we get the right answer?
__________________
"The human mind is seldom satisfied, and is not justifiable by any natural process whatsoever, as regards geometry, our universe differs only slightly from a long-term, bi-directional, single trait selection experiment." -- Maxwell/Einstein/Johansson

Last edited by void *; 02-04-2013 at 17:32..
void * is offline  
Old 02-04-2013, 18:48   #86
Cavalry Doc
Silver Membership
MAJ (USA Ret.)
 
Cavalry Doc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Republic of Texas
Posts: 41,184


Quote:
Originally Posted by void * View Post
The point I was trying to make was that you appear to be kind of scoffing at science when the whole /point/ of science is that when you get better data, and/or a new model you can actually test, that is what you ought to do.

The BBT is not accepted because some random bunch of dudes decided to accept it. It is accepted because there were testable predictions that could be made from it, and those predictions proved to be true.

Putting the 'Big Chill' out there as something that is on par with the BBT is not currently valid, at all, whatsoever. If it explains everything the BBT explains (which is basically, why the universe appears to be smaller as you look backward in time), plus a little more, *and* has testable predictions that can differentiate it from BBT that are actually tested and affirmed to be true, the BBT *should* be thrown out - but things are not yet anywhere near that point (although that might change quickly depending on how fast they can test it, and whether or not their testing methodology stands up to scrutiny, etc).

But until then treating 'Big Chill' as anything other than a promising idea that can (apparently, based on the statements in the articles I've found) be tested for is not valid. They might test and get results that falsify the 'Big Chill' (which will still be good scientific work, despite the fact that they probably won't get famous for it). They might test and get promising results, too.

Every valid scientific theory will be 'another in a string'. That's how science works. If you're going to object on that basis, what would you propose we do instead? Guess and hope we get the right answer?
The thing is that a whole lot of people are speculating, sometimes with very little actual data, and a lot of extrapolated (imagined) data from present observations. A lot of people, including scientists, seem to be unwilling to admit the things they don't know.

I have a problem with speculation being treated as a fact that is achieved through majority consensus. It's just a bad way about going about discovering the universe.

We have physical samples from how many celestial bodies that have been returned to earth for thorough examination? And yet, some pretend that they know for sure the chemical makeup of stars and planets millions of light years away. Maybe the exterior has a different makeup than the surface. Maybe light refracts, bends or otherwise changes properties over that kind of distance.


There is no reason to claim more than we really know. That's a failing of humans, and it probably will continue.

Last edited by Cavalry Doc; 02-04-2013 at 18:49..
Cavalry Doc is offline  
Old 02-04-2013, 21:40   #87
Animal Mother
Not Enough Gun
 
Animal Mother's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 14,832
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc View Post
The big chill is just the latest in a string. I was told in school, that a new ice age was coming, then it was global warming, then MAN MADE global warming, PEOPLE were demonized for driving SUV's and for burning coal, while protesters burning tires and natural volcanoes were given a pass..... and the data shows that global warming stopped about a decade or so ago, KAPOW! so some guys tried to shut the real data up, but were somehow found innocent of scientific malfeasance.
I believe the last time you brought this topic up you were asked to produce specific examples of this supposed scientific fraud, but failed to do so. With that in mind, why would you bring the same falsehoods up again?
__________________
"Pain, or damage, don't end the world. Or despair. Or beatin's. The world ends when you're dead. Until then, you've got more punishment in store. Stand it like a man, and give some back."
Animal Mother is offline  
Old 02-04-2013, 23:17   #88
juggy4711
Nimrod Son
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Galveston County, TX
Posts: 3,807
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc View Post
It's the latest in a string of previously widely believed explanations about "what is", and how it got this way being reconsidered. It wasn't that long ago, questioning whether or not there was a big bang was scoffed at. Well, maybe there was, maybe there wasn't. Maybe there is another explanation other than a big bang or big chill for why the universe seems to be expanding.
I'm not sure how many times I have to explain it but those are language models attempting to "visualize" what the math indicates and are not to be taken literally. And in deed are not by anyone that actually understands. You're attempt to use them as examples of science being previously incorrect is either ignorance or intellectual dishonesty.

Even if we could prove bang over chill or vice versa it would not change anything. Things would still work the way they do.
I realize this isn't an easy concept to get but jeez. Does it matter if we decide that one should be described/referenced as doober? One plus one is two. The same as doober plus doober is twober.

The words can change but the math does not.
juggy4711 is offline  
Old 02-05-2013, 05:21   #89
Cavalry Doc
Silver Membership
MAJ (USA Ret.)
 
Cavalry Doc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Republic of Texas
Posts: 41,184


Quote:
Originally Posted by Animal Mother View Post
I believe the last time you brought this topic up you were asked to produce specific examples of this supposed scientific fraud, but failed to do so. With that in mind, why would you bring the same falsehoods up again?
Not fraud, just an inability to state that some things are treated as fact when they are actually speculation based on extrapolation. When anyone says the debate is over on a scientific "fact" as flimsy as MMGW was, it's time to be skeptical. Considering the political motivations behind MMGW, it surely needed more looking into and debate.

It happens.
Cavalry Doc is offline  
Old 02-05-2013, 05:29   #90
Cavalry Doc
Silver Membership
MAJ (USA Ret.)
 
Cavalry Doc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Republic of Texas
Posts: 41,184


Quote:
Originally Posted by juggy4711 View Post
I'm not sure how many times I have to explain it but those are language models attempting to "visualize" what the math indicates and are not to be taken literally. And in deed are not by anyone that actually understands. You're attempt to use them as examples of science being previously incorrect is either ignorance or intellectual dishonesty.

Even if we could prove bang over chill or vice versa it would not change anything. Things would still work the way they do.
I realize this isn't an easy concept to get but jeez. Does it matter if we decide that one should be described/referenced as doober? One plus one is two. The same as doober plus doober is twober.

The words can change but the math does not.
You have stated a simple truth, whether it not our imagined explanations for some things are correct or not have no bearing on the universe except in our own perception. It is what it is, like it or not. Math done correctly won't lie, but it can mislead when the results are not correctly analyzed.
Cavalry Doc is offline  
Old 02-05-2013, 07:14   #91
void *
Dereference Me!
 
void *'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: #define NULL ((void *)0)
Posts: 10,239
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc View Post
The thing is that a whole lot of people are speculating, sometimes with very little actual data, and a lot of extrapolated (imagined) data from present observations. A lot of people, including scientists, seem to be unwilling to admit the things they don't know.

I have a problem with speculation being treated as a fact that is achieved through majority consensus. It's just a bad way about going about discovering the universe.
Given that the scientists who are proposing the Big Chill have, as I noted, been very careful to say that they need to test and are obviously not treating their model as fact, and given that the BBT has in fact been tested before it was accepted, please explain *precisely* how there is anything at all like 'speculation being treated as a fact that is achieved through majority consensus' with respect to either BBT or this new 'Big Chill' model.

For instance, for BBT, you might explain *precisely* how saying something like 'Hey, it looks like the universe is getting smaller as we look back through time, maybe if we roll time back far enough there's just one quantum', doing some math and modeling to get some observable predictions, and then accepting the model based on the fact that the observable predictions (such as the existence background radiation) were in fact *verified* is anything at all like 'speculation being treated as a fact that is achieved through majority consensus'.

For the "Big Chill", you might explain *precisely* how it's anything at all like 'speculation being treated as a fact that is achieved through majority consensus' when the scientists proposing the model are not treating it is as fact themselves but as something that needs further testing.

It'll be a neat trick if you do. If you can't, you should probably consider stopping your 'oh, they're switching again' handwaving about every new possibility, especially when the scientists involved are not claiming fact and there is nothing at all like 'speculation being treated as a fact that is achieved through majority consensus' going on.
__________________
"The human mind is seldom satisfied, and is not justifiable by any natural process whatsoever, as regards geometry, our universe differs only slightly from a long-term, bi-directional, single trait selection experiment." -- Maxwell/Einstein/Johansson

Last edited by void *; 02-05-2013 at 07:25..
void * is offline  
Old 02-05-2013, 09:08   #92
Cavalry Doc
Silver Membership
MAJ (USA Ret.)
 
Cavalry Doc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Republic of Texas
Posts: 41,184


Quote:
Originally Posted by void * View Post
Given that the scientists who are proposing the Big Chill have, as I noted, been very careful to say that they need to test and are obviously not treating their model as fact, and given that the BBT has in fact been tested before it was accepted, please explain *precisely* how there is anything at all like 'speculation being treated as a fact that is achieved through majority consensus' with respect to either BBT or this new 'Big Chill' model.

For instance, for BBT, you might explain *precisely* how saying something like 'Hey, it looks like the universe is getting smaller as we look back through time, maybe if we roll time back far enough there's just one quantum', doing some math and modeling to get some observable predictions, and then accepting the model based on the fact that the observable predictions (such as the existence background radiation) were in fact *verified* is anything at all like 'speculation being treated as a fact that is achieved through majority consensus'.

For the "Big Chill", you might explain *precisely* how it's anything at all like 'speculation being treated as a fact that is achieved through majority consensus' when the scientists proposing the model are not treating it is as fact themselves but as something that needs further testing.

It'll be a neat trick if you do. If you can't, you should probably consider stopping your 'oh, they're switching again' handwaving about every new possibility, especially when the scientists involved are not claiming fact and there is nothing at all like 'speculation being treated as a fact that is achieved through majority consensus' going on.
The Big Chill is rather young, BBT was treated as decided fact by many. It's really hard to test that on a real world scale. Has anyone been able to do that? Ir did they have to extrapolate a bit? The point is the fact that the Big Chill is possible, means that the BBT should probably not have been treated as an absolute fact.

Admitting that models are being used to suppose what happened is probably a better way to go, especially with events that happened without witnesses that we have interviewed billions of years ago.
Cavalry Doc is offline  
Old 02-05-2013, 12:19   #93
Geko45
CLM Number 135
Smartass Pilot
 
Geko45's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Short final
Posts: 13,370


Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc View Post
The thing is that a whole lot of people are speculating, sometimes with very little actual data, and a lot of extrapolated (imagined) data from present observations. A lot of people, including scientists, seem to be unwilling to admit the things they don't know.
Do you have any evidence to support your assertion that they are mostly speculating (as opposed to testing theories empirically without bias)? If your answer is yes then are you sure that it is actual evidence and not just personal opinion?

You are dealing in theoritical interpretations, not actual theories. Interpretations are just analogies we use to make the theories seem more sensical to us. The theories themselves are pure, dispassionate math that is either right or wrong. The math makes predictions about the nature of the universe that can either be confirmed or falsified through empirical testing. We perform these empirical tests to collect the data to see if the theory is valid. That is true evidence in its purest form.

For instance, the Standard Model of elementary particle physics predicted a specific mass for the theorized Higgs Boson particle at a given energy level. We built CERN to carry out that actual measurement and sure enough, it was found right where the Standard Model predicted. That is actual evidence and that is how actual science works.

That is not what you are doing. You are throwing around emmotion, opinion and speculation with the complete absence of any evidence. Which is all you have ever done in this forum. You don't think a specific theory is valid? Fine, let's see your data. Because I have actually looked at the data (evidence) in favor of the Lambda CDM model (aka Big Bang) and found it quite compelling.
__________________
CavDoc: "If you have to pretend that a person with a different opinion has an opinion other than his own in order to score points in an argument, you've forfeited any points that you pretended to have."
CavDoc: "You consider yourself as non-religious, and I consider you a religious zealot."

JBnTX: "Freedom of religion doesn't mean you can worship any God, anyway you see fit or not even worship any God if you so choose. [...] Christianity should be the only religion protected under the constitution, and congress shall make no law restricting its practice."

Last edited by Geko45; 02-05-2013 at 12:20..
Geko45 is offline  
Old 02-05-2013, 14:14   #94
void *
Dereference Me!
 
void *'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: #define NULL ((void *)0)
Posts: 10,239
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc View Post
The Big Chill is rather young, BBT was treated as decided fact by many. It's really hard to test that on a real world scale. Has anyone been able to do that? Ir did they have to extrapolate a bit?
You don't necessarily need to make a big bang happen to test it. You can gather data and confirm whether or not the data is consistent, or inconsistent, with the BBT.

The BBT model predicted the existence of the cosmic microwave background before the CMB had ever been measured. Since then, other experiments have gathered more data, it has been refined, etc. The core idea, though - the idea that as time goes on, the universe is expanding, and if you roll back time, the universe gets smaller until you eventually end at a single quantum - has been confirmed by observational evidence. The BBT is what it is not because a bunch of dudes randomly decided it was fact, but because a bunch of dudes thought a whole hell of a lot and tested a bunch of different things, and the results are all consistent with BBT.

Any theory that replaces the BBT is going to have to explain why it looks like the universe gets smaller and smaller and smaller until it looks like a single quantum, just like the BBT does - and it will have to be /at least/ as well tested as the BBT, before it will replace the BBT.

Yet you act as though nobody has ever tested anything about it? Be serious, for once.

It's the best thing we have going right now. If we find something better that explains more and is *also* supported by experimental and observational evidence, it will be thrown out and the new, better model used instead. I asked this before: If you don't think that's acceptable, what do you suggest otherwise?

Do you think people who lived at the same time as Newton should have scoffed at the people who accepted Newtonian physics, in the same way that you are treating the BBT? Or are you fine with the people who used Newtonian physics because they hadn't run into the data that showed there were issues with Newtonian physics, and kept using Newtonian physics because there wasn't yet a model more accurate once the data showing Newtonian physics *did* have problems was found, at least until someone came up with a better model? If you are fine with how Newtonian physics was accepted, even though it turned out to be slightly wrong, please explain how the BBT is currently different than Newtonian physics was then, other than you seem to like to pretend that there's no data supporting it and it's all extrapolation.

The point being that you could make the same argument WRT to Newtonian physics and Einstein back in, say, 1920 that you are making now. 'First it was this Newtonian physics, then it was special relativity, now it's this general relativity ... it's just the latest in a string of previously widely believed explanations about "what is" ...' Well, duh, that's how science works. We knew more in 1916 than we knew in 1905 than we knew in 1880 or 1700. To act as though this is some reason you should get to say the equivalent of 'pfft, it's all just extrapolation' is basically ridiculous, imho.
__________________
"The human mind is seldom satisfied, and is not justifiable by any natural process whatsoever, as regards geometry, our universe differs only slightly from a long-term, bi-directional, single trait selection experiment." -- Maxwell/Einstein/Johansson

Last edited by void *; 02-05-2013 at 14:30..
void * is offline  
Old 02-05-2013, 14:32   #95
Cavalry Doc
Silver Membership
MAJ (USA Ret.)
 
Cavalry Doc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Republic of Texas
Posts: 41,184


Quote:
Originally Posted by Geko45 View Post
Do you have any evidence to support your assertion that they are mostly speculating (as opposed to testing theories empirically without bias)? If your answer is yes then are you sure that it is actual evidence and not just personal opinion?

You are dealing in theoritical interpretations, not actual theories. Interpretations are just analogies we use to make the theories seem more sensical to us. The theories themselves are pure, dispassionate math that is either right or wrong. The math makes predictions about the nature of the universe that can either be confirmed or falsified through empirical testing. We perform these empirical tests to collect the data to see if the theory is valid. That is true evidence in its purest form.

For instance, the Standard Model of elementary particle physics predicted a specific mass for the theorized Higgs Boson particle at a given energy level. We built CERN to carry out that actual measurement and sure enough, it was found right where the Standard Model predicted. That is actual evidence and that is how actual science works.

That is not what you are doing. You are throwing around emmotion,[sic] opinion and speculation with the complete absence of any evidence. Which is all you have ever done in this forum. You don't think a specific theory is valid? Fine, let's see your data. Because I have actually looked at the data (evidence) in favor of the Lambda CDM model (aka Big Bang) and found it quite compelling.
Geko,

We all know your position. You are very strongly pro-atheism. You will promote that, because you believe our freedom depends on it.

Me, I acknowledge what is not known. It's just that simple. I cannot pull pretend facts about evidence that proves no deity has existed out of my backside. You can continue to do that, but that question is still unanswered.

It's OK. We (humanity) is not sure about that, and it's still OK.
Cavalry Doc is offline  
Old 02-05-2013, 14:35   #96
Cavalry Doc
Silver Membership
MAJ (USA Ret.)
 
Cavalry Doc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Republic of Texas
Posts: 41,184


Quote:
Originally Posted by void * View Post
You don't necessarily need to make a big bang happen to test it. You can gather data and confirm whether or not the data is consistent, or inconsistent, with the BBT.

...



.
And, really, is that an extrapolation, or a direct experiment that shows a cause and effect relationship.

When you make an assumption about an experiment done on the micro scale, and apply it to an unreproducible macro scale, it requires imagination.

Imagination isn't as exact as some would hope.
Cavalry Doc is offline  
Old 02-05-2013, 14:55   #97
hooligan74
Senior Member
 
hooligan74's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Charlotte, NC
Posts: 2,345
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc View Post
Geko,

We all know your position. You are very strongly pro-atheism. You will promote that, because you believe our freedom depends on it.

Me, I acknowledge what is not known. It's just that simple. I cannot pull pretend facts about evidence that proves no deity has existed out of my backside. You can continue to do that, but that question is still unanswered.

It's OK. We (humanity) is not sure about that, and it's still OK.
I haven't seen Gecko do any of the bolded above. Perhaps I've missed it? Links?
hooligan74 is offline  
Old 02-05-2013, 14:56   #98
Geko45
CLM Number 135
Smartass Pilot
 
Geko45's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Short final
Posts: 13,370


Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc View Post
Geko,

We all know your position. You are very strongly pro-atheism. You will promote that, because you believe our freedom depends on it.

Me, I acknowledge what is not known. It's just that simple. I cannot pull pretend facts about evidence that proves no deity has existed out of my backside. You can continue to do that, but that question is still unanswered.

It's OK. We (humanity) is not sure about that, and it's still OK.
See, you moved the goal posts again. I was responding to your point about Big Bang and/or/vs Big Chill and whether one or both were backed by evidence and you responded as if I was claiming evidence that no deity existed. That's called a strawman. Typical CavDoc style, if you don't like the question posed to you then respond to one you prefer and pretend as if it were the original.
__________________
CavDoc: "If you have to pretend that a person with a different opinion has an opinion other than his own in order to score points in an argument, you've forfeited any points that you pretended to have."
CavDoc: "You consider yourself as non-religious, and I consider you a religious zealot."

JBnTX: "Freedom of religion doesn't mean you can worship any God, anyway you see fit or not even worship any God if you so choose. [...] Christianity should be the only religion protected under the constitution, and congress shall make no law restricting its practice."

Last edited by Geko45; 02-05-2013 at 14:57..
Geko45 is offline  
Old 02-05-2013, 15:07   #99
Cavalry Doc
Silver Membership
MAJ (USA Ret.)
 
Cavalry Doc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Republic of Texas
Posts: 41,184


Have you not stated that science supports atheism?

Show where it does, or state that science does not support atheism.

Both are fine for me.

Last edited by Cavalry Doc; 02-05-2013 at 15:07..
Cavalry Doc is offline  
Old 02-05-2013, 15:09   #100
Cavalry Doc
Silver Membership
MAJ (USA Ret.)
 
Cavalry Doc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Republic of Texas
Posts: 41,184


Quote:
Originally Posted by hooligan74 View Post
I haven't seen Gecko do any of the bolded above. Perhaps I've missed it? Links?
I'm noticing that the site search function is not working as well as it probably should.

Google "Geko45 glocktalk inductive".

There will be a bit of reading, but it's illustrative.
Cavalry Doc is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not 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 On

Forum Jump




All times are GMT -6. The time now is 20:47.



Homepage
FAQ
Forums
Calendar
Advertise
Gallery
GT Wiki
GT Blogs
Social Groups
Classifieds


Users Currently Online: 1,453
438 Members
1,015 Guests

Most users ever online: 2,244
Nov 11, 2013 at 11:42