The scary, the strange, the paranormal...

[John Fenna]

Just restating for emphasis
An open mind is better than Dogma - be it scientific or religious.
Coz some respected Greek philosipher said "flies have 4 legs" it was a "scientific truth" until someone learned to count and observe.
Much science has only lead to correcting itself over the years as new evidence arises and new aparatus is invented to observe the universe.
Perhaps they will one day find the empiricle evidence to prove that which at the moment is only witness evidence.

 

[santaman2000]

Because it makes no sense.

I despair sometimes. How has science got such a bad rep??? It is religion that has the dogma, the closed mind, has done the killing, the damning and the banning etc.

Yes, today's theories will change (unlike the dogma of the church!!!!!!!). This is the beauty of the scientific method! In the meantime, no scientist I know is ever saying they have the absolute truth!!!!!! Science is the opposite of claiming absolute knowledge!!!!!! Breathe.

Some valid points but not completely true. Yes there have been abuses in religion. Notice I don't focus on a single church; you seem to be coming back to one in particular. I do that for 2 reasons: 1st because such abuse has occurred in most religions at one time or another, and 2nd such abuse is neither caused by a religion being invalid nor would it be prevented by one being valid. I know of no religion that teaches humans are perfect (striving for perfection perhaps, but not perfect) and therefore will commit atrocities.

Examples of scientists committing atrocities do in fact exist. Look into Nazi Germany. Experiments on Jews freezing on the ice. Euthanizetion of the disabled or handicapped to preserve the gene pool. Extreme examples? Yes, but so what? Abuses are by nature extremes.

 

[santaman2000]

Basically, the observed rate of expansion of the Universe is greater -- and accelerating faster -- than would be supposed from the amount of gravity in the Universe, therefore there must be some factor causing this expansion. At the moment we're calling this "dark energy" but there's no direct evidence of an actual force involved, so it may be that something else is in play. One theory is that our local bit of the Universe is in a lens-like bubble which causes galaxies outside the bubble to appear to have a higher red shift than they would otherwise have. It's all at the cutting edge of astrophysics at the moment and a hugely interesting subject...

I have heard this theory now that you expand the presentation.

 

[santaman2000]

...Oops, I didn't actually answer your question! It's variously called "heat death" or "state of zero thermodynamic free energy". Luckily, we're nearer the very, very beginning of the Universe than its cold, dark end. We're still in the era of star and galaxy formation, and have trillions of years ahead of us.

Thanks. I had heard the first part of the theory but not this part as an alternate to the big crunch.

 

[Manacles]

Ok point taken cocnino, science said the world was round, the church and nanny state said it was flat. Maybe they also said the universe revolved around Earth until Galileo showed them otherwise.

But you get my point don't you?

Just because someone or some "official" organisation says something is so, shouldn't be so set into stone that it becomes dogma and therefore taboo to think otherwise.

You got me wondering about the zip comment too now. Maybe Naploeon had flies in his Emperor's uniform... I'm sure he had fleas though, he always depicted scratching his left armpit. LOL!

Have you not seen the cartoon where Napoleon is holding his ..ahem..large equipment inside his coat? In his day they had buttons by the way - sorry to hijack

 

[santaman2000]

Another point of fact, Einstein imposed a cosmological constant in order to avoid the conclusion that the Universe was expanding, as he believed in a static Universe. True, his General Theory of Relativity predicts either an expanding or contracting universe, but Einstein himself didn't believe in either. It was only when Edwin Hubble (after whom the space telescope is named) proved that the Universe was expanding that Einstein admitted his error, saying that it was "the greatest blunder of my life". It was this discovery which led to theories about the Big Bang (a name coined by Fred Hoyle, intending to disparage the theory).

We may be splitting hairs here. Einstein did not WANT to believe in the expanding universe concept. I don't remember his exact quote but it was something to the nature of, "How can this be?" or "what have I uncovered?" As I said though, I think we're getting a bit to caught up on the fine points Of exactly what he said. The main thing is that the whole theory is relatively (no pun intended) recent.

 

[Bushwhacker]

Life's too short to be worrying about all that.

 

[Manacles]

Exactly wrong. The point of science is that it is repeatable and peer reviewed so that the same results can be found by anyone doing the same experiment. You do not have to take anyone's word for it.

Sorry but got to join in here -yes it is, but science is as guilty as any church by looking at what it as a whole perceives to be generally right. Case in point is thatEinstein's theory of relativity was greeted very coldly by astronomers who believed there was another planet in the solar system between us and the sun. This was a Newtonian belief that was accepted as science fact for 300 years, we now know through space telescopes that Newton was wrong and Einstein right on this matter, however for a very long time to question Newtonian physics was treated in a similar manner to the way the medieval church treated "heretics". Also worth noting is that Einstein said that his theory was only right until it could be disproved and in so doing opened it up to peer review.

The way we view faith and science today is prejudiced by our place in time and at any other time, past or future the viewpoint may well be different.

 

[ex member coconino]

I haven't heard that theory. The Big Crunch (I hadn't heard a name given to this theory either) is the one still being taught as most likely in university. However even there it is far from being completely understood and I don't dispute the possibillity of the over expansion you mention; what would we call such a theory? Disipation? When you say "Heat death" do you mean matter will disintegrate into heat? Or heat will disapate and molecular motion stop? Either prospect defies Newtonian physics but that's not really very important; The whole big bang concept does that already.

Further to my earlier reply, and to address your Big Crunch question, the expanding universe has been known since the 1930s when the aforementioned Hubble's observations led to a law which states that distant galaxies recede from us with a velocity which is proportional to their distance. The problem arises to know what that distance is, because different values give different ends to the universe, a low value causing the universe to eventually crunch in on itself and a high value leading to an ever-expanding universe. What has followed is a quest to measure exactly that distance and put a value on the Hubble Constant. This was the primary purpose of the Hubble Space Telescope (the pretty pictures being the icing on the cake). Findings over the past decade are pointing to a value for H which is closer to the value needed for an ever-expanding universe.

 

[Manacles]

We may be splitting hairs here. Einstein did not WANT to believe in the expanding universe concept. I don't remember his exact quote but it was something to the nature of, "How can this be?" or "what have I uncovered?" As I said though, I think we're getting a bit to caught up on the fine points Of exactly what he said. The main thing is that the whole theory is relatively (no pun intended) recent.

He used both, and as you say was deeply unhappy about it for a long time.

 

[Andy BB]

Lots of good "shifting the burden of proof" stuff here! And to me, that really emphasises the difference between Science and religion. (not specifying a specific religion, as there have been tens of thousands of them over the millennia, all "knowing" they were right and everyone else was misguided). (and as evidence of that, look up Pastafarianism on the net - it'll make you smile if nothing else )

Science takes a theory, tests it, submits the results to the review of his peers, and if all the test evidence agrees with the hypothesis and appears to fully cover the issue, it becomes accepted as a "fact" until such time as new evidence comes to light, at which point it is replaced with something better fitting the evidence now available. Many hypotheses are incapable of absolute verification via testing at a point in time, and remain as hypotheses until either eventually verified or rebutted. The burden of proof falls on the proposer of the theory, not on anyone else. If I claim that electricity isn't actually caused by electron movement, but by liquefied blue cheese space-hopping along wires, I would probably be expected to prove it empirically, rather than claiming I saw it in a vision.............(but it is true, you know - electricity really is caused by liquefied blue cheese on space-hoppers......... )

Religion turns that around. It says - "You can't prove there isn't a God, (or Flying Spaghetti Monster, or Easter Bunny) so it must exist". "Where's your evidence for the non-existence of God?" etc. Fact is, I don't need to prove anything - I'm not the one claiming godhood for a seagull, or roll of paracord! You claim it, you prove it!

 

[ex member coconino]

We may be splitting hairs here. Einstein did not WANT to believe in the expanding universe concept. I don't remember his exact quote but it was something to the nature of, "How can this be?" or "what have I uncovered?" As I said though, I think we're getting a bit to caught up on the fine points Of exactly what he said. The main thing is that the whole theory is relatively (no pun intended) recent.

It's not splitting hairs. You claimed that Einstein theorised that the universe wasn't static, and I said that no, until Hubble convinced him otherwise, Einstein believed it was static. Nevertheless, you're quite correct in your broader point that it wasn't stated with any scientific certainty until relatively recently that the universe is expanding. (This doesn't mean I agree with your other points implying that without a god there can be no objective morality, but I'm trying not to get drawn into that patch of nettles!)

 

[Manacles]

Lots of good "shifting the burden of proof" stuff here! And to me, that really emphasises the difference between Science and religion. (not specifying a specific religion, as there have been tens of thousands of them over the millennia, all "knowing" they were right and everyone else was misguided). (and as evidence of that, look up Pastafarianism on the net - it'll make you smile if nothing else )

Science takes a theory, tests it, submits the results to the review of his peers, and if all the test evidence agrees with the hypothesis and appears to fully cover the issue, it becomes accepted as a "fact" until such time as new evidence comes to light, at which point it is replaced with something better fitting the evidence now available. Many hypotheses are incapable of absolute verification via testing at a point in time, and remain as hypotheses until either eventually verified or rebutted. The burden of proof falls on the proposer of the theory, not on anyone else. If I claim that electricity isn't actually caused by electron movement, but by liquefied blue cheese space-hopping along wires, I would probably be expected to prove it empirically, rather than claiming I saw it in a vision.............(but it is true, you know - electricity really is caused by liquefied blue cheese on space-hoppers......... )

Religion turns that around. It says - "You can't prove there isn't a God, (or Flying Spaghetti Monster, or Easter Bunny) so it must exist". "Where's your evidence for the non-existence of God?" etc. Fact is, I don't need to prove anything - I'm not the one claiming godhood for a seagull, or roll of paracord! You claim it, you prove it!

To be fair Andy this comes up whenever religion and science are mentioned in the same breath. What science doesn't allow for is an element of faith. I have a science background but can also see the benefit of faith. I don't feel that something should necessarily be proven to be believed. for example in a court of law the jury makes a judgement by concensus. That concensus being that more believe the accused did (or didn't do it) than the other way round.

I've have yet to be given a satisfying answer to what was in place before the big bang. The current hypothesis of "there was matter and there was anti-matter" simply does not cut it with me. I call whatever was before God and will do until science or something else shows me different. This still allows an acceptance, and if you like faith in science, it just means that for me I am not claiming science is the be all and end all of explaining what goes on.

I recently had a similar discussion with a friend re "love" which he scientifically dismissed as a variety of hormonal and chemical goings on, he was not best pleased when I pointed out that the valentine's day dinner he'd taken his missus on was a sham because of his own theories, so it cuts both ways

PS Pastafrianism is cool!

 

[ex member coconino]

...
I've have yet to be given a satisfying answer to what was in place before the big bang. ...

That's because there isn't one yet. But many bright minds are working on it. One of the things I like most about science is that saying "we don't know" is allowed, it's what makes it fun.

 

[santaman2000]

To be fair Andy this comes up whenever religion and science are mentioned in the same breath. What science doesn't allow for is an element of faith...

I agree with most of your points but to be fair (in your own words) Lets not say "...science doesn't allow..." Instead I think it is more accurate to say, "...some scientists (proffessional and armchair scientists) don't allow..." Otherwise we lump science and all scientists together the way all religion and people of faith are often lumped together. I agree with your conclusion however.

 

[santaman2000]

That's because there isn't one yet. But many bright minds are working on it. One of the things I like most about science is that saying "we don't know" is allowed, it's what makes it fun.

I agree but as I said earlier, the answer will only open a new question of what was before that...and before that...on back to infinity. Nothing wrong with that; just brings back the questio of why is that more acceptable than a deity? More logical or illogical? More rational or irrational?

And in fact religion does allow questioning (although obviously some points are taken on faith); some people are more intollerant than others but that's more human nature (and sometimes mob nature) than the actual religious tenants. Not to say that the abuses and intolerance don't take over the official religious institutions; they definitely do. Witness the Inquisition. The same can be said of any institution (religious, scientific or political) though. Political might be a bad example though because when you think about it, politics is probably more the cause than one of the victoms.

 

[rik_uk3]

Some have bigger ones than others. All opinions are not equiprobable though. Just because we disagree on a matter does not mean the truth is in between. There is such a thing as being plain wrong.

Prove me wrong, you can't, so in this case I will bow down to 'Yours is bigger than mine'

 

[ex member coconino]

I agree but as I said earlier, the answer will only open a new question of what was before that...and before that...on back to infinity. Nothing wrong with that; just brings back the questio of why is that more acceptable than a deity? More logical or illogical? More rational or irrational? ...

It's more acceptable than a deity because science is asking a question and answering it with a theory which can be tested. Just because there isn't an answer yet doesn't mean the question is invalid. Saying that it's God (or whatever other deity) is like answering "just because" and abandoning the question.

Science builds our knowledge of the universe through universal truths which are validated by proof and underpinned by theories which are tested until they are understood in exquisite and astonishing detail. When Newton formulated his law of universal gravitation, he meant exactly that it was universal, he knew that as far as one travels in the universe his law would still hold true. This wasn't a matter of faith, it was (and is) a provable, verifiable fact. We know now from Einstein that relativity and the curvature of space-time are also facts, but that doesn't invalidate Newton, only adds a finesse (Newton was all we needed to get to the moon, for instance). The reason we needed Einstein in this case was to solve a problem arising from observations of the orbit of Mercury, and the point of this ramble is that science didn't say "oh, we don't know why Mercury isn't behaving as predicted so it must be down to God", science said "we don't know, but we'll find out and meanwhile it's an open question". What happened before the Big Bang (if there was one, and assuming it's a meaningful question in the first place) is an open question, and answering it with a deity is merely using a God as a magical placeholder for something we don't understand yet.

 

[Andy BB]

Hi John. A nice line there "An open mind is better than dogma - be it scientific or religious."

What you're actually implying there is that religion and science are equal and opposites (and both tarnished by dogma). A bit like calling atheists "fundamentalists"!

Dogma has everything to do with religion, and nothing to do with scientific method. Religion says - for no logical reason - "you must stand on your left leg with one sock removed and howl if you see a mossie. Because god says you must if you want to avoid Hell". Science says "We reckon the speed of light is about 186,000 miles/sec according to our observations and test results - check it out and see if you agree with our calculations and measurements."

 

[_mark_]

What is Stephen Hawking's opinion on all this?