The Universe: Cosmology, Nature etc.

Page 3 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Apr 16, 2016
1,291
0
0
Re:

aphronesis said:
There's no contradiction, except that most physicists--not all, the better ones are busy-and their acolytes are ill eqipped to mediate the discussion and the anthropogenic bias.
I agree. Meanwhile the general public seems to regard these "discoveries" as a reaffirming blanket of certainty, let's call it hubris. Scientism is another expression of our cultural need for knowing via belief.
 
Aug 4, 2011
3,647
0
0
Alex Simmons/RST said:
ray j willings said:
"That however does not mean such things are the result of visits by extraterrestrial aliens. Belief that extraterrestrials is the explanation for such observations (be they real or imagined) is, well, delusional"

I agree the are perfectly rational explanation for a lot of cases and some of those abduction story's are by lunatics
. But there are a lot of strong claims backed by factual evidence and eye witness account of the highest calibre including top military chefs ,senators, prime ministers. heads of defence. scientists . Air traffic controllers , etc etc .
These case's cannot be explained away. Go and check the disclosure conference and see the witness's and there credibility cannot be denied. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X7_tjaBA79w

Out of interest this is very interesting
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0XjietgsBDY
And before I even bother, have you done a thorough examination of these claims, or just been suckered into believing stuff? This is founded by Citizens against UFO Secrecy. These are seriously deluded people.

These are people who believe, for example, the Germans landed on the Moon in 1942 and that it has an atmosphere and water that is supporting vegetation and there have been bases there ever since. They also believe there are ~40,000 people living there.

They also believe in free energy devices, that you know, break the first law of thermodynamics.

Oh, and they also believe in time travel. They say they have actually transported people in time and have devices that can do this. They had limitations though. In 1995, they said they couldn't get past the year 2012, but were able to "go around 2012" and that all life on Earth was destroyed by 2013. That worked out well.

It's worse than bad science fiction.
Seriously? Did I mention time travel or Nazi's on the moon? Why do people like you do this every time.
it's just sheer ignorance and your desperation to pigeon hole people. I find it quite sad.


Look at the links I posted or don't. its simple . That's all we are talking about.

Maybe this will spike your opinion/ view on free energy or maybe not because you most likely to scared to look at it all the way through . It gets very interesting in the last 20 minutes.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=htgV7fNO-2k
 
Aug 4, 2011
3,647
0
0
Re:

Alex Simmons/RST said:
If it breaks the laws of thermodynamics then go away and try again.

UFOs are just that. Unidentified. What they are not are visits by extraterrestrial life forms.
You can take a look at the links. Comments and testimony by people more qualified than you or you can ignore them and live in a world of your own ignorance.
You seem very angry " go away"

I leave it with you. It would be nice if you took a look at the links and then gave an opinion based on the facts.
I would appreciate that but obviously its your choice. If you decide not to look at the links then there is no point on commenting on something you have not looked at and making offensive and child like comments/assumptions

Cheers Ray J
 
Dec 7, 2010
8,771
3
0
Re:

Alex Simmons/RST said:
If it breaks the laws of thermodynamics then go away and try again.

UFOs are just that. Unidentified. What they are not are visits by extraterrestrial life forms.
I can't agree with you on that. You can't just discount UFO sightings as not extraterrestrials. In my opinion.
 
Aug 4, 2011
3,647
0
0
Apr 16, 2016
1,291
0
0
Re: Re:

ray j willings said:
Starstruck said:
Their was no "scientific method" to the Higgs Boson. It was only suspected because it fits the theory's of what we know and yet now we know it exists as we evolve our ability with technology to produce real results.
You just cannot dismiss ideas because you don't agree with the process of that idea.
There's no way you listened to that podcast. I have no idea how they verified the Higgs Boson and neither do you. I really don't care either. Why not go back to the aether? Apparently theories can't be falsified.
 
Jul 5, 2009
2,440
3
0
Re: Re:

ray j willings said:
Starstruck said:
Their was no "scientific method" to the Higgs Boson. It was only suspected because it fits the theory's of what we know and yet now we know it exists as we evolve our ability with technology to produce real results.
You just cannot dismiss ideas because you don't agree with the process of that idea.
Finding the Higgs was so full of "scientific method", it was leaking science all over the place. Science overflow. Seriously. Grab a mop - there's science all over the floors. One of the easiest ways to explain certain things in particle physics (some particles have mass, short range of the Weak force, etc) is if there exists a boson with zero spin, even parity, no charge, no colour, arises from a scalar field, etc. Higgs was first to describe this HIggs field and the particle it would create. So people went looking for it. It's hard to create and quick to decay, so it's difficult to find.

After many years the correct tool for the job was finally built and very soon afterwards, a particle was found right in the neighbourhood (of energies) that people thought it would be. Lots of work is being done to get more data and verify all the properties of the particle to make sure there's nothing to surprise us such as mixture of particles with the nearly the same properties or other cool things that would wreck our current understanding.

This has scientific method written all over it. Lots of observations were made by smashing atoms and after a lot of years and studying the data, nothing made sense unless this other thing was also true. That hypothesis was put to the test and it came back as correct! Yay, science.

But there were a whole bunch of people secretly hoping that the hypothesis was wrong because it would have opened up the door to some truly crazy new hypotheses to test out. But nope. the door is shut.

John Swanson
 
Apr 16, 2016
1,291
0
0
Re: Re:

ScienceIsCool said:
ray j willings said:
Starstruck said:
Their was no "scientific method" to the Higgs Boson. It was only suspected because it fits the theory's of what we know and yet now we know it exists as we evolve our ability with technology to produce real results.
You just cannot dismiss ideas because you don't agree with the process of that idea.
Finding the Higgs was so full of "scientific method", it was leaking science all over the place. Science overflow. Seriously. Grab a mop - there's science all over the floors. One of the easiest ways to explain certain things in particle physics (some particles have mass, short range of the Weak force, etc) is if there exists a boson with zero spin, even parity, no charge, no colour, arises from a scalar field, etc. Higgs was first to describe this HIggs field and the particle it would create. So people went looking for it. It's hard to create and quick to decay, so it's difficult to find.

After many years the correct tool for the job was finally built and very soon afterwards, a particle was found right in the neighbourhood (of energies) that people thought it would be. Lots of work is being done to get more data and verify all the properties of the particle to make sure there's nothing to surprise us such as mixture of particles with the nearly the same properties or other cool things that would wreck our current understanding.

This has scientific method written all over it. Lots of observations were made by smashing atoms and after a lot of years and studying the data, nothing made sense unless this other thing was also true. That hypothesis was put to the test and it came back as correct! Yay, science.

But there were a whole bunch of people secretly hoping that the hypothesis was wrong because it would have opened up the door to some truly crazy new hypotheses to test out. But nope. the door is shut.

John Swanson
Apparently you haven't heard: there's no scientific method. The CERN group should publish their data for scrutiny.
 
Jul 5, 2009
2,440
3
0
Or here's another example: Let's say you enter a tall building. On each floor you lean out the window and drop a penny - measuring how long it takes to hit the ground. Later you compile all your data and realize that there is a constant acceleration. Neat! so you put together an equation that describes gravity. That's your theory. But it only makes sense if the acceleration is independent of mass. Hmmm.

So the next day you take a bucket of golf balls back to the building and repeat the experiment. Okay. Your theory checks out. Yay, science.

But other curious folk decided to drop objects from higher buildings and find that above a certain height the data doesn't fit the equation any more. New discovery! Terminal velocity. The only way that makes sense is if there's air resistance, so you get together some more people and run tests to verify your air resistance hypothesis.

And so on. and on and on...

That is *exactly* the scientific method.

John Swanson
 
Jul 5, 2009
2,440
3
0
Re: Re:

Starstruck said:
ScienceIsCool said:
ray j willings said:
Starstruck said:
Their was no "scientific method" to the Higgs Boson. It was only suspected because it fits the theory's of what we know and yet now we know it exists as we evolve our ability with technology to produce real results.
You just cannot dismiss ideas because you don't agree with the process of that idea.
Finding the Higgs was so full of "scientific method", it was leaking science all over the place. Science overflow. Seriously. Grab a mop - there's science all over the floors. One of the easiest ways to explain certain things in particle physics (some particles have mass, short range of the Weak force, etc) is if there exists a boson with zero spin, even parity, no charge, no colour, arises from a scalar field, etc. Higgs was first to describe this HIggs field and the particle it would create. So people went looking for it. It's hard to create and quick to decay, so it's difficult to find.

After many years the correct tool for the job was finally built and very soon afterwards, a particle was found right in the neighbourhood (of energies) that people thought it would be. Lots of work is being done to get more data and verify all the properties of the particle to make sure there's nothing to surprise us such as mixture of particles with the nearly the same properties or other cool things that would wreck our current understanding.

This has scientific method written all over it. Lots of observations were made by smashing atoms and after a lot of years and studying the data, nothing made sense unless this other thing was also true. That hypothesis was put to the test and it came back as correct! Yay, science.

But there were a whole bunch of people secretly hoping that the hypothesis was wrong because it would have opened up the door to some truly crazy new hypotheses to test out. But nope. the door is shut.

John Swanson
Apparently you haven't heard: there's no scientific method. The CERN group should publish their data for scrutiny.
Ta da! http://opendata.cern.ch/?ln=en

John Swanson
 
Apr 16, 2016
1,291
0
0
Re: Re:

That's great. I wonder what controversies will arise. Will Unzicker be satisfied, I have no idea. It seems to me the critics aren't against science at all but they're certainly skeptical of all this esoteric speculation and the possibly dubious proofs. We're only human after all and if you want to pronounce truth about the universe or the very small it all gets very murky. Cheerleading is great fun but what does it mean? I'm certainly not qualified to comment and I doubt you are either. There've always been true believers and skeptics and it seems to me the truth is more like poetry.
 
Apr 16, 2016
1,291
0
0
Re:

ScienceIsCool said:
Or here's another example: Let's say you enter a tall building. On each floor you lean out the window and drop a penny - measuring how long it takes to hit the ground. Later you compile all your data and realize that there is a constant acceleration. Neat! so you put together an equation that describes gravity. That's your theory. But it only makes sense if the acceleration is independent of mass. Hmmm.

So the next day you take a bucket of golf balls back to the building and repeat the experiment. Okay. Your theory checks out. Yay, science.

But other curious folk decided to drop objects from higher buildings and find that above a certain height the data doesn't fit the equation any more. New discovery! Terminal velocity. The only way that makes sense is if there's air resistance, so you get together some more people and run tests to verify your air resistance hypothesis.

And so on. and on and on...

That is *exactly* the scientific method.

John Swanson
Except we're not talking about things on a human scale. Nobody doubts the veracity of your claims about buildings and pennies or golf balls. That is science. What the hell the rest of it is is the question and people waaay smarter than me or you wonder.
 
Jul 5, 2009
2,440
3
0
Re: Re:

Starstruck said:
That's great. I wonder what controversies will arise. Will Unzicker be satisfied, I have no idea. It seems to me the critics aren't against science at all but they're certainly skeptical of all this esoteric speculation and the possibly dubious proofs. We're only human after all and if you want to pronounce truth about the universe or the very small it all gets very murky. Cheerleading is great fun but what does it mean? I'm certainly not qualified to comment and I doubt you are either. There've always been true believers and skeptics and it seems to me the truth is more like poetry.
I don't think it's esoteric speculation at all. CERN went looking for a particle and CERN found a particle. The main thrust of skepticism and criticism should revolve around whether this particle has *all* the predicted properties with no surprises such as one time in a million the particle exhibits charge or decays in some impossible way or something. Another thing would be finding another particle at a different energy but still with all the same properties as a Higgs boson though I think there are theories that cover that scenario.

John Swanson
 
Apr 16, 2016
1,291
0
0
Re: Re:

ScienceIsCool said:
Starstruck said:
That's great. I wonder what controversies will arise. Will Unzicker be satisfied, I have no idea. It seems to me the critics aren't against science at all but they're certainly skeptical of all this esoteric speculation and the possibly dubious proofs. We're only human after all and if you want to pronounce truth about the universe or the very small it all gets very murky. Cheerleading is great fun but what does it mean? I'm certainly not qualified to comment and I doubt you are either. There've always been true believers and skeptics and it seems to me the truth is more like poetry.
I don't think it's esoteric speculation at all. CERN went looking for a particle and CERN found a particle. The main thrust of skepticism and criticism should revolve around whether this particle has *all* the predicted properties with no surprises such as one time in a million the particle exhibits charge or decays in some impossible way or something. Another thing would be finding another particle at a different energy but still with all the same properties as a Higgs boson though I think there are theories that cover that scenario.

John Swanson
...and apparently the mass was far larger than predicted but that was written off as a failure of primitive technology. I don't know and I really don't care. I read about this stuff from time to time but it's really just a mindfuck. Even reading your initial response to this thread, the most honest statement in your whole contribution was: (kind of).
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

Latest posts