wayneL
VIVA LA LIBERTAD, CARAJO!
- Joined
- 9 July 2004
- Posts
- 25,951
- Reactions
- 13,244
M,
Re theory vs faith (with regards to science)
Faith ==>> what they believe
Theory ==>> what you believe
I was reading the other day (sorry can't remember the site), that there is a space explorer moving out of our solar system and into the galaxy, of which was being pulled back by the apparent gravity of the sun. Obviously, as the explorer gets further away, the pull of gravity will ease and the explorer will be able to pick up speed, the further it got away, no speed was gained. One arguement beyond faith (unless something else explains this phenomena), for the electric universe.
Then again, skim read it, so probably missed a few points.
Does this sound right?
I was reading the other day (sorry can't remember the site), that there is a space explorer moving out of our solar system and into the galaxy, of which was being pulled back by the apparent gravity of the sun. Obviously, as the explorer gets further away, the pull of gravity will ease and the explorer will be able to pick up speed, the further it got away, no speed was gained. One arguement beyond faith (unless something else explains this phenomena), for the electric universe.
Then again, skim read it, so probably missed a few points.
Does this sound right?
I was reading the other day (sorry can't remember the site), that there is a space explorer moving out of our solar system and into the galaxy, of which was being pulled back by the apparent gravity of the sun. Obviously, as the explorer gets further away, the pull of gravity will ease and the explorer will be able to pick up speed, the further it got away, no speed was gained. One arguement beyond faith (unless something else explains this phenomena), for the electric universe.
Yes we all know fundamentalists do that. Let's not bother with them.Pioneer 10 & 11 are heading out of the solar system and both appear to be slowing down more than expected. Scientists are trying to find out why. This is where science differs from fundamentalist religion - the fundamentalist believes the Bible, Quran, or whatever is correct, any evidence to the contrary is just ignored or passed off with "It must be wrong."
Scientists do experiments to test their theories, the results of which may mean the theories have to be adjusted. There's no faith involved. A scientist may say "I have faith that this experiment will give such-and-such a result" because he believes a theory is correct. But if the result is different from expectations the theory will be adjusted to take account of the new data. The fundamentalist just says "Whatever happens, it's all part of God's plan"/"We can't presume to know God's mind"/"God moves in mysterious ways" and other such bull****!
Yes we all know fundamentalists do that. Let's not bother with them.
My issue is i the "adjusting" of theories to suit new data. Sometimes adjustments are valid and an improvement of theory.
Sometimes they are are to rescue a theory.
Come on!! We've seen over centuries that scientists stick doggedly to theories well past their use by date. This cannot be denied.
Don't get me wrong, I am not bagging out science. But science is run by fallible humans who are inclined towards faith and cognitive bias, whether that faith is directed towards some musty old book, or a pet theory. Scientists can be as resolutely close-minded as fundamentalists.
They are both naked apes.
Sorry for the cynicism, but my point is consistently observable and therefore irrevocable... not an article of faith at all.
This is one reason I wonder how much the scientists know about the effect of a black hole, if they can infact, create one. What will happen? How do they know they can confine it?
Hey dudes, just arrived home after visiting a favourite holiday destination with my friends Fleagle, Bingo and Drooper.Had a ball in the dune buggy until Drooper crashed into a rock (one of the many I might add) but he came out unscathed though a little red faced.
Managed to take some shots from the balcony of our apartment.Hope y`all like them.
Glad to be home. Your friend, Snorky.
Yes we all know fundamentalists do that. Let's not bother with them.
My issue is i the "adjusting" of theories to suit new data. Sometimes adjustments are valid and an improvement of theory.
Sometimes they are are to rescue a theory.
Come on!! We've seen over centuries that scientists stick doggedly to theories well past their use by date. This cannot be denied.
Don't get me wrong, I am not bagging out science. But science is run by fallible humans who are inclined towards faith and cognitive bias, whether that faith is directed towards some musty old book, or a pet theory. Scientists can be as resolutely close-minded as fundamentalists.
They are both naked apes.
Sorry for the cynicism, but my point is consistently observable and therefore irrevocable... not an article of faith at all.
Mars is actually class K.geez Mars looks like a hole
The newly confirmed planet, Kepler-22b, is the smallest yet found to orbit in the middle of the habitable zone of a star similar to our sun. The planet is about 2.4 times the radius of Earth. Scientists don't yet know if Kepler-22b has a predominantly rocky, gaseous or liquid composition, but its discovery is a step closer to finding Earth-like planets.
Kepler-22b is located 600 light-years away. While the planet is larger than Earth, its orbit of 290 days around a sun-like star resembles that of our world. The planet's host star belongs to the same class as our sun, called G-type, although it is slightly smaller and cooler.
One of these will do the trick, with the exception of bottom middle.Kepler 22b a bit of noise and highly unlikely to be anything more than wishful thinking. Being 600 light years (600 * 9,460,730,472,580.8 kms) away, no one is going to go there either.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?