Main Menu

Science is Drokking Fantastic Because...

Started by The Legendary Shark, 21 July, 2011, 11:05:57 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Definitely Not Mister Pops

Quote from: Mikey on 10 September, 2012, 09:45:36 PM
...And yes,I should have said hypothesis...

M

Sorry if I came across a bit snooty and condescending there. Wasn't intentional. I JUST DROKKING LOVE SCIENCE
You may quote me on that.

Mikey

To tell the truth, you can all get screwed.

Jim_Campbell

Quote from: pops1983 on 10 September, 2012, 10:26:51 PM
Sorry if I came across a bit snooty and condescending there. Wasn't intentional. I JUST DROKKING LOVE SCIENCE

Yeah, it did a bit, although I accept you didn't intend it to.

I understand gravitational lensing, I understand -- very broadly -- Einsteinian relativity, string theory, and theories of quantum gravity. I love concepts, and I'm very, very good with them.

(Concepts, however, are easy and I understand that, for example, I understand how a car works, but not in the way that a mechanic understands how a car works; I understand how a computer works but not in the way that either a software or a hardware engineer does. I understand less, but it doesn't mean I don't understand at all.)

My point is that when your current models derive from a theory that doesn't fit with the observable evidence to the extent that you have to add 80% extra undetectable matter to the evidence, perhaps you should be taking a long, hard look at the theory. You suggest that there are people doing so, but imply that they're on the fringe of scientific thought, which saddens me. I shall investigate further.

Cheers

Jim
Stupidly Busy Letterer: Samples. | Blog
Less-Awesome-Artist: Scribbles.

JPMaybe

 I'm still not quite sure I understand your objection- when a theory works well under a given set of conditions, hypothesising some hitherto undetectable phenomenon to modify it to an extended range of conditions has always been part of the scientific method. I'm not sure why you think very weakly interacting matter is a priori silly. As an analogy, the trillions of neutrinos streaming through your body this instant were hypothesised first to account for disparities in an existing theory, then later confirmed to exist experimentally. 
Quote from: Butch on 17 January, 2015, 04:47:33 PM
Judge Death is a serial killer who got turned into a zombie when he met two witches in the woods one day...Judge Death is his real name.
-Butch on Judge Death's powers of helmet generation

Jim_Campbell

Quote from: JPMaybe on 11 September, 2012, 11:43:17 AM
I'm still not quite sure I understand your objection- when a theory works well under a given set of conditions, hypothesising some hitherto undetectable phenomenon to modify it to an extended range of conditions has always been part of the scientific method.

I understand that. My objection is that the theory requires there to 70-80% more of everything than we can detect to make the numbers work. That strikes me as more than just a little fine-tuning. As clearly acknowledged earlier, however, I'm not a scientist and I may not have grasped some of the subtler points of the argument.

Cheers

Jim
Stupidly Busy Letterer: Samples. | Blog
Less-Awesome-Artist: Scribbles.

JPMaybe

More like 400% more (sorry, minor mathematical quibble). So it's specifically the amount hypothesised concept that bothers you? I'm a medical physicist so can't claim anything more than very basic professional expertise, but scientists don't just make this stuff up. Your objection just sounds like a gut reaction to be honest.
Quote from: Butch on 17 January, 2015, 04:47:33 PM
Judge Death is a serial killer who got turned into a zombie when he met two witches in the woods one day...Judge Death is his real name.
-Butch on Judge Death's powers of helmet generation

Jim_Campbell

Quote from: JPMaybe on 11 September, 2012, 12:04:16 PM
More like 400% more (sorry, minor mathematical quibble).

Yes, I couldn't be arsed to work out the percentage from the other end.

QuoteSo it's specifically the amount hypothesised concept that bothers you?

Yes, it really is. It doesn't sound like fine-tuning to me, it sounds like a gaping hole in the numbers, but I've already acknowledged that this might just be a by-product of my limited, broad-strokes understanding of the subject.

(At the same time, I find it hard to discount the possibility that some scientists are idiots. The various frettings over the cosmological constant, for example, are breathtakingly stupid. "But it seems to be fine-tuned so that we can exist"?! Of course it fucking isn't. This is cretinously ego-centric anthropomorphism that relies on the same logic as 'Intelligent Design'.)

Cheers

Jim
Stupidly Busy Letterer: Samples. | Blog
Less-Awesome-Artist: Scribbles.

Definitely Not Mister Pops

#322
Quote from: Jim_Campbell on 11 September, 2012, 12:48:55 PM
QuoteSo it's specifically the amount hypothesised concept that bothers you?

Yes, it really is. It doesn't sound like fine-tuning to me, it sounds like a gaping hole in the numbers...

Well, yes there is a gaping hole in the numbers, but there are also gaping holes of apparent nothingness in the observable universe. I don't think that just because we can't see anything, we should just assume there's nothing interesting there.

Quote...The various frettings over the cosmological constant, are breathtakingly stupid. "But it seems to be
fine-tuned so that we can exist"?! Of course it fucking isn't

Cheers

Jim
You may quote me on that.

Jim_Campbell

Quote from: pops1983 on 11 September, 2012, 01:31:49 PM
there are also gaping holes of apparent nothingness in the observable universe.

Dust on the lens. :-)

Cheers

Jim
Stupidly Busy Letterer: Samples. | Blog
Less-Awesome-Artist: Scribbles.

Definitely Not Mister Pops

My damned so called 'smart' telephone just lost half my response.

In short, I totally agree with your last point. If the universe is fine tuned to support life, then how come we haven't found any? We can't comment on how suitable the universe is for life until the sample group extends beyond just the one planet
You may quote me on that.

TordelBack

Quote from: pops1983 on 11 September, 2012, 01:49:26 PMIf the universe is fine tuned to support life, then how come we haven't found any?

-waves-  :wave:

Quote from: pops1983 on 11 September, 2012, 01:49:26 PM
We can't comment on how suitable the universe is for life until the sample group extends beyond just the one planet

'Course we can.  We assume life requires long-chain molecules derived from elements beyond hydrogen and helium, we can suggest that a universe without a mechanism for making such elements isn't suitable for life. We can assume that some form of quasi-stable planetary environment is required, which depends on gravitational constant and distribution of matter.  We can assume a universe has to last long enough to allow for the emergence of life, further for the evolution of complex forms.  All sorts of things that depend on very exact values for constants.

The weak anthropic principle has always seemed axiomatic to me.  The observed universe is the one which supports the presence of observers.

Definitely Not Mister Pops

Quote from: Jim_Campbell on 11 September, 2012, 01:44:08 PM
Quote from: pops1983 on 11 September, 2012, 01:31:49 PM
there are also gaping holes of apparent nothingness in the observable universe.

Dust on the lens. :-)

Cheers

Jim

Heh. Wouldn't it be really funny if a cleaner won a noble prize for solving the dark matter problem through vigorous application of windex*

*other glass cleaning products are available
You may quote me on that.

Definitely Not Mister Pops

#327
Quote from: TordelBack on 11 September, 2012, 03:51:17 PM
Quote from: pops1983 on 11 September, 2012, 01:49:26 PMIf the universe is fine tuned to support life, then how come we haven't found any?

-waves-  :wave:

Quote from: pops1983 on 11 September, 2012, 01:49:26 PM
We can't comment on how suitable the universe is for life until the sample group extends beyond just the one planet

'Course we can.  We assume life requires long-chain molecules derived from elements beyond hydrogen and helium, we can suggest that a universe without a mechanism for making such elements isn't suitable for life. We can assume that some form of quasi-stable planetary environment is required, which depends on gravitational constant and distribution of matter.  We can assume a universe has to last long enough to allow for the emergence of life, further for the evolution of complex forms.  All sorts of things that depend on very exact values for constants.

The weak anthropic principle has always seemed axiomatic to me.  The observed universe is the one which supports the presence of observers.

Good point, and I don't have a problem with the weak anthropic principle, but what I (and I suspect Mr. Campbell) was referring to, was the Strong anthropic principle; the assertion that life exists because the laws of nature actively conspire to create it. If that were the case, if natural laws were in some way fine tuned to be perfect for creating life, then the universe should be abundant with life and finding E.T would be easier.

TELEOLOGICAL. That's the word I couldn't remember
You may quote me on that.

vzzbux

There is alot of emptiness in the vastness of space and we can only monitor a fraction of it. There is no doubt life out there. It doesn't have to be intelligent. If we do spy it most likely it will be by accident. We may already have but our concept of life may differ to other forms of life.
We as a race are very limited to our own experiences and are only just starting our journey.





V
Drokking since 1972

Peace is a lie, there's only passion.
Through passion, I gain strength.
Through strength I gain power.
Through power, I gain victory.
Through victory, my chains are broken.

NapalmKev

This probably sounds a bit mental but if space can be 'bent' by gravity would it suggest that space itself has a form of tangibility, I mean other than just being empty nothingness.  I'm not saying you can 'touch' space or anything like that but if it can be distorted does it suggest a certain kind of physical nature which we merely perceive as 'nothing'?

Any help would be greatly appreciated.
"Where once you fought to stop the trap from closing...Now you lay the bait!"