Originally posted by @sonhouse Are you generalizing here or thinking of a specific effect or something? When Nobel was making his explosives, if he tried some formula and set off the explosion it is a one time event, he can't do that exact experiment again. Or like Humy said, a supernova can't be repeated since all the atoms are being spread far and wide but others happen so you can sti ...[text shortened]... and of them are studied, all of them gone when the trigger is pulled, you still learn from them.
He was able to repeat the explosives. I'm not sure if exact is required as long as you can achieve the same result from a recipe. If you can repeat the recipe and it works, then it is science.
If a super nova explodes and you can measure the result, does that mean it is the only thing that can create that result? If we limit it to what we've seen then yes, but is there possibly something that could produce very similar results that we have not seen?
Originally posted by @eladar He was able to repeat the explosives. I'm not sure if exact is required as long as you can achieve the same result from a recipe. If you can repeat the recipe and it works, then it is science.
If a super nova explodes and you can measure the result, does that mean it is the only thing that can create that result? If we limit it to what we've seen then ...[text shortened]... , but is there possibly something that could produce very similar results that we have not seen?
All you have to do is gargle supernova and you will find they are very rare, about 1 in 100 years in a single galaxy. But what does that tell you? There are billions of galaxies. So they evolved extremely wide field of view cameras that will capture a lot of space and they are in fact seeing supernova's from different causes, which they can tell from the spectrums. One way is a white dwarf, a squished up sun something like our sun's mass, 2E30 Kg, or so, maybe half but sitting next to a red giant. The gravitational field of the white dwarf is very deep and if it is close to the giant it pulls off outer layers of stuff from the giant which impacts the surface of the dwarf. If enough helium builds up, gravity is so extreme it leads to a fairly minor thermonuclear explosion but that is like the fuze that lights up a REAL explosion, much much brighter that can convert the mass of the whole star to energy, billions of times more energy output in a few days than the sun does in a billion years. So we see it billions of light years away. That is only one type but enough of them have happened they can characterize such stars and the turn out to be so close in energy when they go boom they can be used as the "standard candle' which means since they all go bang with about the same energy, then just measuring the brightness as seen from Earth, using inverse square law they can tell how far away it is and therefore how far the host galaxy is so they can glean a lot of information from studying a number of these explosions. So if you are interested in learning past my 50 cent tour, just gargle supernovae and find out for yourself.
If a super nova explodes and you can measure the result, does that mean it is the only thing that can create that result?
lets just suppose no other thing can create that result. Then, according to your logic, it isn't science and it is all just assumption because we cannot repeat it. But it is science and not assumption because we have measure it. Actually we cannot ever create that exact same result in the sense that that particular star has gone out of existence so that particular star cannot ever explode again. So, according to your logic, it is stupid to think it happen because that is religion not science. And yet we can observe that star just isn't there anymore in that point in the sky and we still know it did happen; that isn't religion.
Originally posted by @humy interestingly, there is a hypothesized existence of a (brief) white hole but so far this has not been verified because difficult to verify
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GRB_060614
"...it was hypothesised that the burst was a white hole appearing for 102 seconds..."
!t's impossible to say that all those billions of holes in the night are all stars and 'gas' .
Originally posted by @humy lets just suppose no other thing can create that result. Then, according to your logic, it isn't science and it is all just assumption because we cannot repeat it. But it is science and not assumption because we have measure it. Actually we cannot ever create that exact same result in the sense that that particular star has gone out of existence so that ...[text shortened]... n't there anymore in that point in the sky and we still know it did happen; that isn't religion.
Funny how your let's suppose fits your religious beliefs. So yes, if your unproven beliefs are true, then your beliefs are correct.
Originally posted by @eladar Funny how your let's suppose fits your religious beliefs. So yes, if your unproven beliefs are true, then your beliefs are correct.
so you are saying that if we observe a star explode so it is a proven empirical fact that it exploded then it is just religion for us to believe it exploded because it is an unproven belief that it is true; got that.
Originally posted by @karoly-aczel The whole universe, all information is connected in some way. Sometimes in ways in which our current scientific understanding cant understand.
That's a holistic view! I like that! But I don't understand it...
Do we *know* that this is actually the case - or is it just a beautiful dream?
It's funny how eladar thinks his religion is science and that real science is just religion if happens to coincide with his very own views.
He frequent the Science Forum and tries intensely to turn us over to his religion.
But he is nothing more than a science wannabe... Unteachable... Unwilling to learn...
(...or a troll.)
Originally posted by @fabianfnas It's funny how eladar thinks his religion is science and that real science is just religion if happens to coincide with his very own views.
He frequent the Science Forum and tries intensely to turn us over to his religion.
But he is nothing more than a science wannabe... Unteachable... Unwilling to learn...
(...or a troll.)
Perhaps the difference is truth.
Does science which cannot be directly tested, observed and repeated result in truth? Can it be used to demonstrate that the world and this Universe were not actually created by God?
The answer to this question is obviously no. If you believe yes, then you have made a religion out of scientific theories. You are basing your belief on a proof by recursion believing you've proven the initial statement true, when it is simply assumed.
Originally posted by @humy so you are saying that if we observe a star explode so it is a proven empirical fact that it exploded then it is just religion for us to believe it exploded because it is an unproven belief that it is true; got that.
Originally posted by @eladar No, that is not what I am saying at all.
first I said
lets just suppose no other thing can create that result. Then, according to your logic, it isn't science and it is all just assumption because we cannot repeat it. But it is science and not assumption because we have measure it. Actually we cannot ever create that exact same result in the sense that that particular star has gone out of existence so that particular star cannot ever explode again. So, according to your logic, it is stupid to think it happen because that is religion not science. And yet we can observe that star just isn't there anymore in that point in the sky and we still know it did happen; that isn't religion.
then you responded
Funny how your let's suppose fits your religious beliefs. So yes, if your unproven beliefs are true, then your beliefs are correct.
What possible alternative interpretation of what you just said is there?
lets just suppose no other thing can create that result. Then, according to your logic, it isn't science and it is all just assumption because we cannot repeat it. But it is science and not assumption because we have measure it. Actually we cannot ever create that exact same result in the sense that that particular star has gone out of ...[text shortened]... re correct.
What possible alternative interpretation of what you just said is there?
That unless we obseve it first hand, we are just guessing.
Originally posted by @fabianfnas It's funny how eladar thinks his religion is science and that real science is just religion if happens to coincide with his very own views.
He frequent the Science Forum and tries intensely to turn us over to his religion.
But he is nothing more than a science wannabe... Unteachable... Unwilling to learn...
(...or a troll.)
To whom are you speaking?
Or are you channeling Duchy?
Originally posted by @eladar Perhaps the difference is truth.
Does science which cannot be directly tested, observed and repeated result in truth? Can it be used to demonstrate that the world and this Universe were not actually created by God?
The answer to this question is obviously no. If you believe yes, then you have made a religion out of scientific theories. You are basing ...[text shortened]... roof by recursion believing you've proven the initial statement true, when it is simply assumed.
That's all well and good but you have only opinion on your side, no science involved in saying goddidit. So far you are safe since there are only theories about how the universe got here so nobody will chide you for believing goddidit. Maybe a few hundred years from now that will not be true.
Age of the earth
05 Oct '17 18:44
Back to Top