• We hope all of you have a great holiday season and an incredible New Year. Thanks so much for being part of the Space community!

Pseudo-Scientific Nonsense

Status
Not open for further replies.
C

contracommando

Guest
1) <b>Consumption of space-time </b>- sounds scientific, but really isn’t. <br /><br />It’s just a way for someone to say something without ever really explaining what they’re talking about. How about “contraction” or “expansion” of space-time, instead. <br /><br />2) <b><font color="yellow">Overuse and misuse of the word “Singularity.”</font>/b> <br /><br />Singularities are regions of space (center of a black hole and the Big Bang) where some property is infinite (such as temperature, density, or curvature). Tossing around the word “singularity” every other post in order to describe the universe is not correct. The universe is not curved infinity - in fact, it is probably flat as indicated by inflation theory, - the universe is not infinity dense - if it were then it would have re-collapsed after the Big Bang,- and the universe is obviously not infinitely hot. <br /><br />Furthermore, there are some indications that string theory may eventually provide a way to avoid singularities altogether. “There is evidence that string theory once again may set a lower limit to physically accessible distance scales and, in a remarkably novel way, proclaims that the universe cannot be squeezed to a size shorter than the Planck length in any of its spatial dimensions,” Brian Greene, <i>the elegant universe</i>, page 236. (This has to do with winding number, vibration number and multiply connected spaces - spaces in which a lasso cannot be shrunk to point). “This means that as the…dimension tries to collapse through the Planck length and head toward ever smaller size, its attempts are made futile by string theory, which turns the tables on geometry. String theory shows that this evolution can be rephrased - exactly reinterpreted - as the dimension shrinking down to the Plank length and then proceeding to expand…..attempts to shrink further actually result in expansion.” 239 <br /><br />3) <b>Overuse of “space-time”</b> - although a correct term, using it every two wo</b>
 
Y

yevaud

Guest
"SuperLuminal" does it for me. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis:  </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>
 
C

contracommando

Guest
I like number 13 myself:<br /><br />“Drink heavily while posting.”
 
T

tplank

Guest
In the tolerance game, I have found few folks as intolerant as the anti-theists. There are extremists of every stripe and belief. This is not eliminated through education: apparently it is human nature to assume that any rational thinking person would agree with your personal conclusions. And of course the corollary: that anyone who does not is either ignorant or stupid and is certainly dangerous. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>The Disenfranchised Curmudgeon</p><p>http://tonyplank.blogspot.com/ </p> </div>
 
T

tplank

Guest
Agreed. Science is science with all its benefits and limitations. It just always amuses me when I see the anti-theists who get just as self-righteous as the most zealous theist. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>The Disenfranchised Curmudgeon</p><p>http://tonyplank.blogspot.com/ </p> </div>
 
U

unlearningthemistakes

Guest
welcome back eric. longtime-not-around eh?<br /><br />about contra commando's post, I agree with him definitely. those folks throwing around immaterial reasoning like ET's and ID's always and consistently, should consider the section where they are posting. those things are quite welcome in the phenomena section but not on science sections for the board's sake. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>pain is inevitable</p><p>suffering is optional </p> </div>
 
T

tplank

Guest
With each side equally oblivious of their own intolerant attitude toward the other. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>The Disenfranchised Curmudgeon</p><p>http://tonyplank.blogspot.com/ </p> </div>
 
C

contracommando

Guest
<font color="yellow">But I.D and Creationism are ideas and opinions of others. They may not be correct but you cannot prove that. So basically your statement against it is also an opinion. Everyone is entitled to one.</font><br /><br />Alright, I’ll agree with that. <br /><br /><font color="yellow">Your tone in your version of the Garden of Eden really explains your personality. You don't believe in God and you want others to agree with you.</font><br /><br />Yes, just like some Christians believe in a particular God and want to “save” others - convert them to their position. <br /><br /><font color="yellow">But regardless that still does not mean there can't be an impersonal God.</font><br /><br />What’s the point? All the evil that any one person has ever experienced or even heard of or read about isn’t even a drop in the collective bucket of evil/misfortune present in human history. If there is an impersonal God that refuses to do anything about it, then he might as well not even exist. <br /><br /><font color="yellow">I think your atheist attitude is also a meme and should be eliminated. But that is just my opinion.</font><br /><br />I have a different opinion.
 
C

contracommando

Guest
<font color="yellow">In the tolerance game, I have found few folks as intolerant as the anti-theists.</font><br /><br />Please, what about those MILLIONS of people burned at the stake by the Catholic church in the middle ages?
 
C

contracommando

Guest
<font color="yellow">I am thinking by him posting his Anti-religious thoughts last in his post tells a lot. </font><br /><br />I’m thinking that by posting your “Noah’s ark was real” thoughts tell a lot about your personality.<br /><br />I think that since you refuse to post evidence for the “water turning into wine” theory you're are wasting space with these posts (filler).<br /><br /><font color="yellow">It was probably what he really wanted to say, so he used most of the post as filler material to get to his opinion. </font><br /><br />Nonsense, I put that in at the last minute. <br /><br />P.S. feel free to disprove anything that I’ve said in posts 1-4. <br />
 
T

tplank

Guest
Thanks for the reply Contra.<br /><br />First I will say that a "seperate" "religious" forum suggestion is a good illustration of my thesis. I can seperate my Christian world view from astronomy no more than another might seperate jurisprudence from violence. Acknowledging that science and theism have areas that do not clearly overlap is fine. Asking me to seperate my worldview as if it is of a different quality is another matter altogether.<br /><br />On the intolerance of the past adherents to beliefs nominally identified as Christian, I am utterly unconcerned. That Christian practice and principal have been perverted both in the past and present is totally unremarkable, entirely predicted by Christ himself, and utterly irrelevant to my own worldview.<br /><br />I find the historical repression by the Church of the past as repugnant as do you. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>The Disenfranchised Curmudgeon</p><p>http://tonyplank.blogspot.com/ </p> </div>
 
C

contracommando

Guest
<font color="yellow">I could say that for a person to believe a universe appeared out of thin air with all the conditions for life just coincidentally being met. With inorganic material accidentally finding amazingly complex gene sequences and then turning into organic matter. This all keeps accidentally happening until I arrive here typing this message. For someone to think that is an idiot.</font><br /><br />String theory provides either an explanation or a hint at an explanation for all of that. I think that for some people to make up things simply because they can’t explain everything is ridiculous<br /><br />6) <font color="yellow">“The universe came from nothing, which is impossible”</font>- No, QM mechanics and String theory provide explanations for this via means of quantum tunneling, the uncertainty principle and false vacuums.<br /><br /><font color="yellow">“The matter content of the universe, including all the stars, planets, and galaxies, is huge and positive. However, the energy stored within gravity may be negative. If you add the positive energy due to matter and the negative energy due to gravity, the sum may be close to zero! In some sense, <b>such universes are free.</b> They can spring out of the vacuum almost effortlessly. (If the universe is closed, then the total energy content of the universe must be zero).”</font><br /> Michio Kaku, Parallel Worlds page 94.<br /><br />Further more, QM establishes the notion of “wave functions” (likely hood of something being somewhere or having a particular energy) and the notion of an uncertainty principle: that is, something similar to the statement that the exact energy/position of a particle will always have some degree of uncertainty ( “Deep Down Things: the Breathtaking Beauty of Particle Physics” Bruce A. Schumm, professor of physics at the University of California at Santa Cruz ). Steven Hawking has extended this to the entire universe as a whole in his “wave function of
 
Y

yevaud

Guest
<i>Maybe we should have a separate religious forum?</i><br /><br />It's called a "Church."<br /><br />*Vaguely muttering about how <i>we</i> don't insist on science discussions in Churches. Apparently it doesn't work the other way around...* <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis:  </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>
 
T

tplank

Guest
"To myself, religion has no standing in the intelligence of human kind."<br /><br />Interesting point.<br /><br />I'd ask the question what exactly *is* religion? I’ve pondered this a bit and it seems to me to come down to the totality of one’s worldview. At the core of science is, in fact, faith. Faith in the ability of the human mind to grasp Truth. Truth, in the materialist perspective, is that which is real and can be observed.<br /><br />I’m not sniping at all but rather pointing out that while it sounds good to boil it down to “se your mind instead, and show others what is seen and known, not what is thought”, there is still an underlying faith that makes the enterprise a useful endeavor. We all have presuppositions that we bring to the table. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>The Disenfranchised Curmudgeon</p><p>http://tonyplank.blogspot.com/ </p> </div>
 
N

nacnud

Guest
<font color="yellow">At the core of science is, in fact, faith.<br /><br /><font color="white">That's arse backwards, the core of science is doubt, not in a religious sense but in a practical hands on 'I'm going to test that' sense. Oh and a healthy dose of curiosity <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /></font></font>
 
T

tplank

Guest
I'm not disagreeing that doubt is an element of Science. I'd use the term skepticism. But any intellectually honest person will take the approach of skeptical inquiry toward their own worldview. Those that boil it down to “just believe” are intellectually vacuous whether they be theists, atheists or anti-theists. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>The Disenfranchised Curmudgeon</p><p>http://tonyplank.blogspot.com/ </p> </div>
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts