TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Chill Out Room
-- A universe from nothing... (for space/science nerds)
Pages (6): « 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 »

something else you guys might like (too big to post in the window), great print out for your office or room:

http://img195.**************/img195/...0c2b6c4dd2o.jpg

that is REALLY cool

this sums up my beliefs about people who believe in science, but aren't scientists..

quote:

Originally posted by EgosXII this sums up my beliefs about people who believe in science, but aren't scientists..

you're a moron

i suggest you pray to jesus the next time you see a abnormal lump appear on your leg instead of visiting a doctor.

quote:

Originally posted by Nrg2Nfinit you're a moron i suggest you pray to jesus the next time you see a abnormal lump appear on your leg instead of visiting a doctor.

Watch it again, Karim, that's not the point.

quote:

Originally posted by Lira Watch it again, Karim, that's not the point.

I'm pretty sure that was the point referring to his comment.

quote:

Originally posted by Nrg2Nfinit I'm pretty sure that was the point referring to his comment.

Read his post before MrJiveBoJingles said Feyerabend was retarded, I think that may give you a better picture of what Egos (and, for that matter, John Safran) is talking about.

quote:

Originally posted by EgosXII this sums up my beliefs about people who believe in science, but aren't scientists..

Whoever believes "in" something is not a scientist by definition. That's why science is superior at explaining the natural world... it never claims to "know" the absolute truth about anything, it only has a "best current estimation" of the processes that cause observable phenomena at any given time. These explanations evolve and become more accurate continuously.

Religion on the other hand...

I understand that science should always be taken with skepticism. But shouldn't (by the same token) relgion and mythology?

Its one thing to stand by evidence based theories which have hundreds of journal articles verified by the scientific community versus evolved mythology based on simple ideas in which introcate details described are illogical.

To make the argument that simply because you do not major in science that you cannot take tested conclusions in the field as acceptable and for the most part reliable is pretty dumb isnt it?

Can someone answer me a question please?

I have always thought of space as being a two-dimensional plane, so if you want to travel from Earth to Mars it would be much like travelling from point to point on a completely flat plain in a desert. I�ve always heard it described and drawn this way too, such as below:



So what happens if you go �up� or �down�? Surely these directions are as infinite as going �forward� or �back�, as the universe extends in all directions. Or do these concepts not have any relevance to space?

If the answer is that solar systems and galaxies tend to form as flat discs like coins, then this seems strange to me. Gravity works in all directions, and shouldn�t solar systems and galaxies form as spheres instead? Why not?

quote:

Originally posted by EgosXII Anyway, religious conservatives get horrible flack, but i feel like, as the guy suggested above, these ppl as blindly follow the scientific dogma (sometimes), adding irony to their hypocrisy...

nail on the head here lira.

Here he is comparing the evolution of archaic mythology to science

If science is to be taken with a grain of salt (i disagree here but i agree that it should be constantly questioned for advancement). Then religion should be taken with a torch and a can of gasoline.

One does not follow science blindly Not everyone needs to derive einsteins theories of special relativity or even re invent the wheel. Thats just nonsense. The word blind is used out of context here since there is actual tangable evidence (For the most part) to support scientific claims wheras religion is BLIND faith which usually has completely moronic interpretations to try and provide logic for its literalism.

i dont think i need concrete examples for this do i?

quote:

Originally posted by Nrg2Nfinit I understand that science should always be taken with skepticism. But shouldn't (by the same token) relgion and mythology?

Yes, they should.

quote:

Originally posted by Nrg2Nfinit Its one thing to stand by evidence based theories which have hundreds of journal articles verified by the scientific community versus evolved mythology based on simple ideas in which introcate details described are illogical. To make the argument that simply because you do not major in science that you cannot take tested conclusions in the field as acceptable and for the most part reliable is pretty dumb isnt it?

What both Egos and John Safran are saying, I believe, is that you're making a religion out of science if you don't understand what scientist say and take it as the ultimate truth. It's infinitely more important to understand how scientists know than memorise what they know. If you don't know, for example, what the big bang is all about, but you think you're smarter because you believe in it rather than in the genesis, you're deluded. This is the point they're getting at.

And you don't need to major in science to learn this kind of stuff, there's nothing wrong with self-study to begin with. But, unless you do that, you're still being led to believe in ideas by hearsay - that is the point.

quote:

Originally posted by Domesticated

quote:

Scientists think that the solar system formed out of a spinning cloud of hydrogen and helium gas. Because the cloud was spinning, it flattened into a frisbee shape, just like a ball of pizza dough becomes flat when a chef spins it in the air. The planets and the sun started to form after the cloud of gas became a flat disk. As the cloud flattened, the gaseous material inside was forced to begin changing into solid form. These little particles of solid material were soft and sticky, and further clumped together to form larger balls of solid material whenever they touched each other, somewhat the way "silly putty" does. Eventually only a few large clumps of this material remained in the forming solar system, and they became the core of "protoplanets".

http://www.windows.ucar.edu/tour/li...volution_2.html

quote:

Originally posted by Nrg2Nfinit If science is to be taken with a grain of salt (i disagree here but i agree that it should be constantly questioned for advancement). Then religion should be taken with a torch and a can of gasoline.

I love this

(and I think my previous post should answer the rest of your comments)

quote:

Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles http://www.windows.ucar.edu/tour/li...volution_2.html

Thanks.

So are all the solar systems arrayed in the galaxy in 3-D, or is the galaxy essentially a frisbee/coin shape?

Are the galaxies arrayed in a 3-D shape, or is the universe one giant disc?

So what happens if you go 'up' or 'down'? Are there no galaxies out there, just emptiness?

quote:

Originally posted by Lira Yes, they should. What both Egos and John Safran are saying, I believe, is that you're making a religion out of science if you don't understand what scientist say and take it as the ultimate truth. It's infinitely more important to understand how scientists know than memorise what they know. If you don't know, for example, what the big bang is all about, but you think you're smarter because you believe in it rather than in the genesis, you're deluded. This is the point they're getting at. And you don't need to major in science to learn this kind of stuff, there's nothing wrong with self-study to begin with. But, unless you do that, you're still being led to believe in ideas by hearsay - that is the point.

lol there is a difference between "hearsay" and peer reviewed articles.

One does not need to understand the introcate workings of the big bang in order to give it precedence over genesis.

Does a lawyer understand DNA tests when presenting them in front of a court? or analysis of a breathalizer? Hardly. But they are "smart" enough to use evidence gathered by other people to prove their point.


End of story. If your iq is 150 and you believe in genesis literally whereas some jim bob jones thinks that ohh big bang and everything started with an iq of 50. He is still smarter (relative to the subject of creation) then the 150 iq guy since there is more evidence to support his claim compared to the genesis believer.

quote:

Originally posted by Domesticated So are all the solar systems arrayed in the galaxy in 3-D, or is the galaxy essentially a frisbee/coin shape?

Our particular galaxy is disc / spiral shaped, others are not. I don't think we know much about the alignment of planets in other solar systems. As far as I know we can usually catch sight of only one or two planets in a system, since they're so far away and any smaller ones are blocked out by the light of their suns.

quote:

Are the galaxies arrayed in a 3-D shape, or is the universe one giant disc?

3-D, you can see them in every direction. There is no "vertical" or "horizontal" on the intergalactic scale.

quote:

Originally posted by Nrg2Nfinit lol there is a difference between "hearsay" and peer reviewed articles.

Not everyone reads peer reviewed articles, this is the point.

quote:

Originally posted by Nrg2Nfinit One does not need to understand the introcate workings of the big bang in order to give it precedence over genesis.

Yeah, but one need to understand why it was posed in the first place, what are the arguments for (and possibly against) the big bang theory, among other things, to make the choice not purely arbitrary.

quote:

Originally posted by Nrg2Nfinit Does a lawyer understand DNA tests when presenting them in front of a court? or analysis of a breathalizer? Hardly. But they are "smart" enough to use evidence gathered by other people to prove their point.

Hell, if they don't understand the basics of DNA tests before presenting them in front of a court, then I sure as hell would rather have my mother defend me

A lawyer needs to know what these DNA tests are about, what they claim to do and prove, how they're applied, among other things, to use them skilfully. It doesn't mean he needs to be a biologist or a physician, but I truly expect him to know the basics in order to do a good job.

quote:

Originally posted by Nrg2Nfinit End of story. If your iq is 150 and you believe in genesis literally whereas some jim bob jones thinks that ohh big bang and everything started with an iq of 50. He is still smarter (relative to the subject of creation) then the 150 iq guy since there is more evidence to support his claim compared to the genesis believer.

However, if he doesn't know what the evidence is, how can he even support his claim? That's what we're talking about here. Listening to a different set of people (without grasping what they're saying) doesn't make a difference. In this case, we just tend to believe that those who listen to scientists are in better hands - but shouldn't they do their homework before adopting a view?

quote:

Originally posted by Lira Yes, they should. What both Egos and John Safran are saying, I believe, is that you're making a religion out of science if you don't understand what scientist say and take it as the ultimate truth. It's infinitely more important to understand how scientists know than memorise what they know. If you don't know, for example, what the big bang is all about, but you think you're smarter because you believe in it rather than in the genesis, you're deluded. This is the point they're getting at. And you don't need to major in science to learn this kind of stuff, there's nothing wrong with self-study to begin with. But, unless you do that, you're still being led to believe in ideas by hearsay - that is the point.

this. i was not attacking science, nor defending religion, but attacking people who don't know anything about the things they preach!

as i said previously, religious people doing this has been EXTREMELY well-documented, but just because science is the paradigm of thinking at the moment it's opponents are often flayed just for qustioning it (as atheists were hundreds of years ago)...

i was pointing out the irony that science intrinsically bases itself ON self-questioning (falsifiability etc), and yet so many people claim science is the be-all-end-all of research and knowledge...

i just think it's ironic that science can be EXTREMELY similar to a religion.

the 10% of scientists etc who understand the theory are fine, then the 90% of people who boast about it, but don't understand it, and could never prove it are pretty similar to religious extremists imo...

quote:

Originally posted by Nrg2Nfinit 1. One does not need to understand the introcate workings of the big bang in order to give it precedence over genesis. 2. End of story. If your iq is 150 and you believe in genesis literally whereas some jim bob jones thinks that ohh big bang and everything started with an iq of 50. He is still smarter (relative to the subject of creation) then the 150 iq guy since there is more evidence to support his claim compared to the genesis believer.

1. LOL: so, you're basing your belief on the big bang on FAITH! your argument is the same as 'i don't have to prove god exists!'
2. this is just silly. how do we know things? do you simply believe what everybody else tells you? of course not. is it the majority is right then? i hope not!

i'm simply saying the entire point of science is to be critical and not take things for granted. there must be research to prove the PROBABLE reality. it takes education to be able to critique advanced scientific theories. if you don't have the basic understanding of scientific workings then how the hell are you going to understand their theories??

saying the big bang happened, but not knowing how is similar to saying god exists, but i don't know why. in my opinion of course

quote:

Originally posted by EgosXII Great talk, thanks for posting! loved his side note about scientists having a sense of humility as well. can't fucking stand 'scientists' who claim to know everything, or even claim to know anything for sure. Irritating as hell.

That still doesn't beat people who AREN'T scientists but still pretend to know everythiing.

quote:

Originally posted by EgosXII saying the big bang happened, but not knowing how is similar to saying god exists, but i don't know why.

You probably mean either of them are justified beliefs - whether you're a theist or an atheist in this case makes no difference, as you're ignorant about your stance in every possible way

quote:

Originally posted by Lira You probably mean either of them are justified beliefs - whether you're a theist or an atheist in this case makes no difference, as you're ignorant about your stance in every possible way

haha yeah, thanks for explaining what i meant as well, always fall down with ideas when it comes to explaining them to others

quote:

Originally posted by infinity HiGH That still doesn't beat people who AREN'T scientists but still pretend to know everythiing.

haha no doubt! they are far worse!

quote:

Originally posted by jupiterone something else you guys might like (too big to post in the window), great print out for your office or room: http://img195.**************/img195/...0c2b6c4dd2o.jpg

neatest graph ever, thanks

quote:

Originally posted by Domesticated If the answer is that solar systems and galaxies tend to form as flat discs like coins, then this seems strange to me. Gravity works in all directions, and shouldn�t solar systems and galaxies form as spheres instead? Why not?

I think it's because the mass at the center of solar systems and spiral galaxies is rotating. You know that space itself is distorted and bent by mass, but mass has another effect too.. If a heavy object is spinning in a certain direction, it actually twists and "drags" space around it in the same direction.. This is why you don't see some planets going clockwise and others counterclockwise around our sun. They are all caught in the wake of the same gravitational spin radiating out from the sun, which makes their orbits all go in the same direction. The same applies to galaxies.. The black holes at the center of spiral galaxies are not static and unmoving.. They are likely rotating at incredible speeds like massive cosmic tornados. This drags surrounding suns into the same circular orbit over time..leading to the spiral appearance.

So to answer your question..When the sun caught the first planets in it's gravitational field, they probably were flying around randomly in different directions including "up" and "down"...but over time the gravitational drag from the sun's spin led to a more "flat" orbit of the planets..and that same effect leads to a relatively flat orbit of suns around supermassive black holes in spiral galaxies.

Read MrJiveBoJingles' post further up. Complete planets aren't flying around randomly in space waiting to be caught up in a solar system.

quote:

Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles http://www.windows.ucar.edu/tour/li...volution_2.html

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.