ITT: Armchair theoretical astrophysicists debunk the flaws in a noble worthy study from life long groups of scientists.
Very good post! Your viewpoint of science in regards to the Cosmos, and the Big Bang Theory are spot on! To make a definitive statement that this happened or this occurred billions of years ago is absurd in my opinion. Even when I hear of the size's and distance's of objects in the universe, I take it with a grain of salt. As I get older, the only thing that I'm sure of, is that I know very little, but I'm at peace with that. ....... ....... .......
hahah, don't feel bad...even the daily show is too srs for me these days. I've reached a very intellectually lazy point in my life, ...bookz? just wanna watch kroll show reruns in my spare time. however, i AM watching cosmos, which i have really enjoyed thus far, and i wonder if NDT will incorporate these new findings into later episodes. pretty mind boggling advance in understanding our history. but ya know, no matter how many times i attempt to read "string theory for dummies" i feel like i can never quite wrap my mind around quantum mechanics. i don't think my brain is that advanced. or maybe it's the weed, who knows.
LOL...I think Socrates was probably trying to be humble when he said that , I on the other hand am merely trying to.... Spoiler ....... ....... .......
God as in how we define God(s) in various religions. There might very well be God(s) that created the universe.
From your past posts in the D&D and in this thread, I think it's clear where y'all stand regarding solipsism and logical positivism. However, being so hostile to other forms of philosophy or a person's POV doesn't help your case. I believe in the scientific method and would consider myself a science nerd. I also believe that objective and subjective realities may be two completely different things with some overlap, and choosing one over the other is a false dilemma aka phenomenology. It's sad that in a thread where astroparticle physics plays a large role, that we have the usual puerile bickering between various sides like on Reddit. Anyone who delves into higher mathematics, philosophy, and physics sheds the conventional preconceptions of thought and cloaks himself with humility and more open-mindedness than some posters here. With the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, observing the thing changes it. That's not the same thing as better weather predictions of course, but it's certainly not supercomputers in the future predicting the exact weather as other people believe.
I don't think there is a single mind that has ever existed on this earth that is able to fathom the realms of the universe(s).
Can you imagine Hubble's excitement when he realized that the Milky Way wasn't the entire universe? I think one of the great discoveries of the 21st century will be learning that our entire universe is only one small part of a multiverse. There is already indirect evidence -- I believe it's hot spots in the background radiation that indicate our universe may be 'bumping' into another universe.
Exactly on Hubble, but I'm not sure on multiverses, in terms of really finding convincing proof. And are you saying we are having a side hug with another universe?
Literally they have seen 'hotspots' and the primary suspect is our universe making contact with another -- but i'm a big proponent of the 'bubbling froth' of universes popping into and out of existence so perhaps I have a bias. Edit: a word
Oh I know what you meant; I've really been following the Planck data, and I thought it was more of a relatively cold spot. I never know how seriously to take the "other universes" explanation because it really feels like handwaving. But it is definitely fascinating. This is the data we're talking about everybody: it's the relative temperature of the deepest darkest background of space (minus stars and all that). It's very even but when you look down at variations of one part in about one million, you find truly inexplicable difference patterns, including a relatively warm band, and this little cold belly button type thing.
"In most of the models of inflation, if inflation is there, then the multiverse is there," Stanford University theoretical physicist Andrei Linde, who wasn't involved in the new study, said at the same news conference. "It's possible to invent models of inflation that do not allow [a] multiverse, but it's difficult. Every experiment that brings better credence to inflationary theory brings us much closer to hints that the multiverse is real." http://news.yahoo.com/universe-may-...c-inflation-discovery-suggests-140210836.html
Yeah, I think you're right the cold spots are more significant than the hot spots -- I need to read more about it to try and wrap my brain around it.
Amazing isn't it...? That's HeyP for you... His claims are dubious at best, considering he places the process of religious beliefs on equal footing with the process of science.... This is something out of the realm of logical thinking.... a basic requirement for a scientific mind... You simply cannot indulge individuals with such dangerously twisted perspectives... it's repugnantly offensive beyond comprehension... For scientists to still hold onto religious beliefs despite their field of expertise... or acquiesce to the possibility of a god based on lack of evidence to the contrary is one thing.... For a scientist to say both processes and respective conclusions of each are equal.... is another matter altogether that I have an enormousproblem with.... and can't simply tolerate...
