beecee

That will probably go way over his head!

Off topic Reggy, but really, you should stop pretending. Both those gentlemen are scientists speaking on philosophy which long ago laid the foundation work for science, but now and as exampled in this thread, appears to have had its day. Obviously both are far more qualified to speak on metascientific or philosphical matters, then either you or Zosimos do on science, so we see plenty of irony there. We have many examples of that in this thread. Not sure why you chose to wear your red negative marks on your sleeve for. The vast majority with large numbers are off the planet in more ways then one. [Or is this more of the famous Reggy pretentious bravado?]

Says the member who has started around 4 or 5 threads now on the subject and keeps acting like a spoilt little brat instead of logically debating the issue..

I would really quit while you are behind Zosimus. If Hawking Radiation exists, it would be to faint to detect. Evaporation of a SMBH by this method would take over the life time of the universe...hundreds of billions and trillions of years. You want some authority confirmation on that? If you believe BH's do not exist then start a thread to discuss it in speculations. Havn't you? I'm too lazy to check but anyway that's good...it means you accept it as near certain. He certainly is not Philosophy! He may preach that of the old philosophers which may make him a philosopher. What truth are you referring to? Science generates models/theories that describe as accurately as possible, what we observe. You need not worry about that. That explains a lot.

They are only theories afterall!!!!! Oh the pain of it all!!Theories in science is as good as it gets. Some are more certain then others...some are certain or at least 99.9999% certain as per evolution. If DM and DE are shown to be invalid then science will move on. It will not affect me one iota...that's science. Where have you been hiding? But the science at this time, and the knowledge that goes with it, show both DM and DE to be very likely. BH's have been observed, albeit indirectly...but we are now of topic

Ignorance personified..at least as far as science is concerned.It says nothing about BH's not existing. Is this your critical analysis of a noted scientist because he rightly criticises philosophy? . Firstly, Hawking Radiation simply explains why even BH's have a use by date and will evaporate...This has to do with virtual particle pairs which is another subject, secondly of course, theories and models in science are never referred to in light of proof...that is common knowledge, and obviously why science and the associated knowledge, is always advancing and getting closer and closer to any deeper truth, if that deeper truth actually exists. Try again. You're the one that raised hawking, and could not even get the spelling of his name correct, and further ignorance with relation to what Hawking Radiation is. Then went on casting some doubt on evolution as being as close to certain as we [at least working scientists could wish] but like another philosopher on this thread, cannot support your doubt...or is that outright denial. Why not come out of the closet? No the subject is science truth and knowledge. And obviously science is knowledge and can, though not necessarily lead closer to some probable truth, if it exists. The definition of scientific truth though stands as previously detailed. And of course your unsupported nonsense is just that. If science did not modify its stance, made further observations, gained more and more knowledge, and improved our lot, you and I could still be swinging in the trees. Science evolves..Philosophy is stagnant. I'm desperately doing nothing my friend, except perhaps improve your knowledge on science, along with disputing your wise cracks attempting to denigrate science and the knowledge that goes with it...which includes the near certainty of evolution. Philosophy as much as you resent the fact, is also under the auspices on this forum of the scientific methodology and will need to undergo critical review and examination, particularly in the face of at least two poor philosophers that are ignorant of science, the knowledge that it entails and the fact that truth is not necessarily the goal of any scientific model. That's your uneducated opinion, but both names will live forever in the annals of science, while your name will, well let's not delve into that. The model was prevailed upon and certainly religiously bound. I never said anything about Ptolemy or Aristotle or who formulated it. But there again we see you trying to get out from under, and change the subject which you ironically accuse me of. The truth be known all you are doing is crusading for recognition of the philosophy discipline, your chosen discipline, and doing it rather poorly, as my quotes previously from other renowned philosophers have shown. Again science, is knowledge and the advancement of that knowledge. It will always change and improve on that knowledge and be in continued progression.

Oh Christ, more philosophical metphors analogies and similes. The fact remains that scientific models and knowledge is in eternal progress, based on newer, further, and more advanced observations, and that my friend is why it will never be surpassed.

https://phys.org/news/2018-11-climate-simulations-wetter-windier-hurricanes.html Climate simulations project wetter, windier hurricanesNovember 14, 2018, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory New supercomputer simulations by climate scientists at the Department of Energy's Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley Lab) have shown that climate change intensified the amount of rainfall in recent hurricanes such as Katrina, Irma, and Maria by 5 to 10 percent. They further found that if those hurricanes were to occur in a future world that is warmer than present, those storms would have even more rainfall and stronger winds. Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2018-11-climate-simulations-wetter-windier-hurricanes.html#jCp the paper: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-018-0673-2 Anthropogenic influences on major tropical cyclone events Abstract There is no consensus on whether climate change has yet affected the statistics of tropical cyclones, owing to their large natural variability and the limited period of consistent observations. In addition, projections of future tropical cyclone activity are uncertain, because they often rely on coarse-resolution climate models that parameterize convection and hence have difficulty in directly representing tropical cyclones. Here we used convection-permitting regional climate model simulations to investigate whether and how recent destructive tropical cyclones would change if these events had occurred in pre-industrial and in future climates. We found that, relative to pre-industrial conditions, climate change so far has enhanced the average and extreme rainfall of hurricanes Katrina, Irma and Maria, but did not change tropical cyclone wind-speed intensity. In addition, future anthropogenic warming would robustly increase the wind speed and rainfall of 11 of 13 intense tropical cyclones (of 15 events sampled globally). Additional regional climate model simulations suggest that convective parameterization introduces minimal uncertainty into the sign of projected changes in tropical cyclone intensity and rainfall, which allows us to have confidence in projections from global models with parameterized convection and resolution fine enough to include tropical cyclones.

https://phys.org/news/2018-11-insight-deep-time-evolution-animal-life.html New research offers detail and insight into deep-time evolution of animal life on islands November 14, 2018, University of Kansas Islands have been vital laboratories for advancing evolutionary theory since the pioneering work of Charles Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace in the 19th century. Now, a new paper appearing in PLOS ONE from an international team of investigators describes two new fossil relatives of marsupials that shed light on how a unique island ecosystem evolved some 43 million years ago during the Eocene. Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2018-11-insight-deep-time-evolution-animal-life.html#jCp the paper: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0206181 Eocene metatherians from Anatolia illuminate the assembly of an island fauna during Deep Time: Abstract: Island biotas have disproportionately influenced the history and development of evolutionary biology, but understanding their genesis and evolution across geological timescales has been hindered by a poor fossil record. Here we augment the insular Eocene (~43 Ma) mammalian fauna known from the Pontide terrane of central Anatolia by describing two new metatherian taxa (stem marsupials) from the Lülük Member of the Uzunçarşıdere Formation in the Orhaniye Basin. Geological and paleontological data indicate that the Pontide terrane was an island on the northern margin of Neotethys during the middle Eocene. Reflecting its geodynamic context in a region of active tectonic convergence, the Eocene Pontide terrane hosted a unique combination of Laurasian and Gondwanan mammals, including an anachronistic radiation of pleuraspidotheriids (archaic ungulates) that went extinct on the European mainland ~13 Ma earlier. Most of the mammalian clades occupying the Pontide terrane colonized it by dispersal across marine barriers rather than being stranded there through vicariance. Endemic radiations of pleuraspidotheriid ungulates and polydolopimorphian metatherians on the Pontide terrane reveal that in situ diversification was an important factor contributing to faunal assembly and evolution. The insular fauna that arose on the Pontide terrane is highly analogous to that of modern Sulawesi, which evolved under strikingly similar geological conditions. Illustrating the ephemeral nature of insular biotas across macroevolutionary timescales, the demise of the Pontide fauna coincided with paleogeographic changes enabling more cosmopolitan taxa to reach it for the first time. The high level of endemism shown by the mammalian fauna of the Uzunçarşıdere Formation eliminates the Pontide terrane as a potential early Eocene dispersal corridor between western Europe and India.

https://phys.org/news/2018-11-gravitational-merged-hyper-massive-neutron-star.html For the first time astronomers have detected gravitational waves from a merged, hyper-massive neutron star. The scientists, Maurice van Putten of Sejong University in South Korea, and Massimo della Valle of the Osservatorio Astronomico de Capodimonte in Italy, publish their results in Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society: Letters. Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2018-11-gravitational-merged-hyper-massive-neutron-star.html#jCp the paper: https://academic.oup.com/mnrasl/article/482/1/L46/5090425 Observational evidence for extended emission to GW170817 ABSTRACT The recent LIGO event GW170817 is the merger of a double neutron star system with an associated short GRB170817A with 2.9 ± 0.3 s soft emission over 8–70 keV. This association has a Gaussian equivalent level of confidence of 5.1σ. The merger produced a hypermassive neutron star or stellar mass black hole with prompt or continuous energy output powering GRB170817A. Here, we report on a possible detection of extended emission (EE) in gravitational radiation during GRB170817A: a descending chirp with characteristic time-scale τs=3.01±0.2τs=3.01±0.2 s in a (H1,L1)-spectrogram up to 700 Hz with Gaussian equivalent level of confidence greater than 3.3σ based on causality alone following edge detection applied to (H1,L1)-spectrograms merged by frequency coincidences. Additional confidence derives from the strength of this EE. The observed frequencies below 1 kHz indicate a hypermassive magnetar rather than a black hole, spinning down by magnetic winds and interactions with dynamical mass ejecta. 3 CONCLUSIONS We present observational evidence for a descending chirp for the first five seconds post-merger to GW170817 (Fig. 2). By frequency, it potentially indicates a magnetar as the central engine of GRB170817A, well below the minimum of 2 kHz emission from high density matter about the ISCO of a 3M⊙3M⊙ black hole. The ultimate fate of the magnetar is uncertain, whether it survives as a pulsar with a spin frequency of 49 Hz or collapses to a black hole at a later stage. The physical mechanism by which the magnetar is protected against prompt collapse is not well understood, but lifetimes of 10 s such as observed here have been anticipated for proto-magnetars (Ravi & Lasky 2014). Our observation of an extended lifetime appears particularly reasonable in light of the recent LIGO determination of a relatively low total mass of 2.73+0.04−0.01M⊙2.73−0.01+0.04M⊙ of the progenitor binary (Abbott et al. 2018) that is just 20 per cent above the neutron star mass of 2.27+0.17−0.15M⊙2.27−0.15+0.17M⊙ in PSR J2215+5135 (Linares, Shahbaz & Casares 2018) and on par with the supermassive PSR J1748-2021B (Freire et al. 2008; Özel & Freire 2016). Future observations promise to significantly improve on these initial observations, and to determine to what extend GRB170817A is representative for canonical SGRBs.

The greatest advantage of science, and the knowledge that goes with it, is that it is not incalcitrant and changes and advances as observations improve. To deny that, or argue against that, is weird to say the least... https://www.researchgate.net/post/What_is_a_scientific_truth "Scientific “truth” is simply knowledge that is compiled bit by bit, in the form of theories or “models” to give us meaningful explanations of our universe, including our small chunk of living earth. Although there may be setbacks and corrections along the way, science is nonetheless responsible for the enormous material progress we have seen over the last few centuries..." Scientific truth is a state of minimum discrepancy between theoretical prediction and observed reality. Never absolute, scientific truth improves as theories evolve and/or measurement accuracy increases to improve the correlation between prediction and observation. :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

And highlighting one of my favourite quotes again..you know the one about Philosophers always calling each other jackasses and showing themselves to be jackasses as well...or words to that effect. And admirably highlighted in the second paragraph re Hawking...please note Hawking, not Hawkins. Doubly stupid in actuality as Professor Hawking's credentials and work is there for all to see with some as yet to be positively revealed...that being Hawking radiation of course. Or is this simply another philosopher that has nothing more to add so intentionally goes out of his way to try and create more controversy? Childish? yeah but in this case probably true. Do I really need to? OK, how about ID? quite preposterous and no evidence what so ever.... That maybe what someone who has a habit of being obtuse and misinterpreting philosophical jargon may mean...It certainly is not the view held by science and knowledge and what the scientific method dictates. Again, the theory of evolution is undeniable. Your the one making ridiculous anti science claims and questioning evolution a near positive scientific fact...the onus is on you to show scientifically why or how evolution is not what scientists agree upon. Obviously you can't and more obviously you won't. I won't even attempt any comment on such nonsensical philosophical crap. Really matey, this is primarily a science forum...you need to do a lot better. Your usual useless philosophical clap trap to avoid actual scientific truth and its application is outstanding. Copernicus as a scientist [by any name you wish] studied planetary motion as did Galileo. They along with Brahe moved us out of the geocentric, religiously bound model that previously existed. The scientific truth was hindered in that respect for a period. Yet its worthwhile mentioning that both the old geocentric model, as well as the flat Earth model have been used and are still used in various disciplines even today. So much for your deep philosophical truth as opposed to scientific truth. Please also check out the meanings and definitions of the words in relation to this thread's subject matter...science, knowledge and truth.

And as usual our friend has missed the point. Oh, and here is Gore earlier this year..... https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/apr/27/al-gore-climate-change-impact-black-poor-people-more That's been his problem over a couple of threads so far.

Science is knowledge my friend and that is painfully obvious to anyone not carrying some agenda. You get a point for spelling Brahe correctly...To say Galileo and Copernicus had nothing is really the height of ignorance. [or simply just defending an indefensible position] Wrong again. maths and logic are part and parcel of the scientific methodology while at the same time ensuring the continuing gathering of knowledge. I didn't say that. That is simply you being obtuse. Rhetoric, useless rhetoric. It does not invalidate my claim and fact that science has been practised by mankind for eons. No pretense needed. No absolutely correct...Let me sum it up for you, with relation to the thread subject....Science is knowledge, and any supposed truth may be unobtainable but is not the goal of scientific theory. That just about says it all, not withstanding the usual babble of philosophical ramblings, similes, metaphors and general confusion. Professor Krauss hit the nail fair square on the noggin!

Reg said: "How much knowledge has science produced about the cosmos, the stars, the galaxies, the planets? How much knowledge has science produced about evolution? How much knowledge has science produced about atoms and molecules? How much knowledge has science produced about anatomy, the brain, medicine? ... the denier of truth, on pain of inconsistency, must answer: "Zilch! Zero! Nada! Not a jot! Absolutely none!"." DrP reply really summed up how some philosophers and some philosophical statements are just plain out of this world. I have given definitions of science, knowledge and truth...I stand by them and rebuke the total unnecessary pedant that one or two students of philosophy are raising for nothing more then to be contrary and attempt to reflect some non existent wisdom.

Hey Reg, here are some definitions of science truth and knowledge. The title of this thread is "Science Truth and Knowldege: Science: ttps://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/science Science: 1: the state of knowing : knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding 2a: a department of systematized knowledge as an object of study b: something (such as a sport or technique) that may be studied or learned like systematized knowledge 3a: knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method b: such knowledge or such a system of knowledge concerned with the physical world and its phenomena <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Truth: : the state of knowing : knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding 2a: a department of systematized knowledge as an object of study b: something (such as a sport or technique) that may be studied or learned like systematized knowledge 3a: knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method b: such knowledge or such a system of knowledge concerned with the physical world and its phenomena : NATURAL SCIENCE <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Knowledge: the fact or condition of knowing something with familiarity gained through experience or association (2): acquaintance with or understanding of a science, art, or technique b(1): the fact or condition of being aware of something (2): the range of one's information or understanding answered to the best of my knowledge c: the circumstance or condition of apprehending truth or fact through reasoning : COGNITION 2a: the sum of what is known : the body of truth, information, and principles acquired by humankind I can live with that....Nice.

Who said anything about them being new? as usual it is obvious now and as someone else mentioned that you probably are trolling, or just totally ignorant of the subject at hand, and like many trolls, will not admit when in error. Again are you man enough to admit you were wrong in claiming parts of Australia were not in drought? Do you have any concern at all for Pacific Islanders of Polynesian, Micronesian or Melanesian extraction that reside on low lying Pacific Islanders that will be affected?

What are you on about...This is one of the aspects of climate change...fires floods, droughts etc etc. Your map from where ever does not invalidate my map from the BoM Bureau of Meteorology. Again, how old are you? A great part of Australia is still in drought and has been for two years..FACT!

Don't be so obtuse Reggy! Are you claiming that knowledge can never be updated, added to, renewed, further validated? Or are you simply just interested in defending your silly unsupported philosophical stance.

Can you show me where anyone has denied it...It is common knowledge. The problem is that you in your obvious ignorance, ignore the fact that humanity is adding to the rate and frequency of climate change. I'm not sure if the baby photo is reflective of your age or not. Oh Olin, I understand that you can never concede when you have made a blunder in your ignorance, but your unsupported nonsensical statement re Australia having plenty of rain... http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/drought/

Oh brother! If there is no evidence to support any proposition it will never become a scientific theory and probably lost in oblivion. Correction...What makes any proposition scientifically true is when it has a preponderance of evidence supporting it. You can never be aware or no if you have ever uncovered any possible truth, particularly as most who push this idea actually mean...the mythical ID nonsense.

Knowledge is always knowledge and new knowledge will perhaps logically modify or even supersede it, as per the scientific methodology. Not at all, in fact in reality, the silly contributions to this thread, are those that ignore the science, the knowledge, in favour of some questionable philosophical jargon, to make themselves seem at least part knowledgable. Science is always in eternal progress...that's why it supersedes mythical supernatural and paranormal nonsense and the hairy fairy philosophical interpretations as put by some.

Actually yes, as per my last post, otherwise I am at a loss as to what you are trying to interpret. Like I said, I find their account of what Dawkins said as misinterpreted. But certainly I do agree that it is very near, say around 99.9999% certain. If ssome want to interpret that as true, then so be it.

OK, my apologies on that score...One can only conclude your link in an effort to explain logical fallacy and/or appeal to authority, most certainly misinterpeted Dawkin's view on the theory of evolution. from your link also Claims are only preposterous if and when they have absolutely no evidence to support said claim...On that score they remain simply speculation, hypothesis. eg: ID. Evidence backed claims that make successful prdictions...eg: the BB, GR, are scientific claims and scientific truth in relation to those claims and their zones of applicability. Again truth is neither here nor there and not the goal of scientific theory. Creationists though while denying scientific theories and models, based on observational evidence and the scientific method, then through probable brain washing as a kid, accept without question some unsupported, unevidenced, and superfluous deity of one sort or another. The theory of the evolution of life over the big generally well understood picture would be around 99.99999% certain...the smaller details of the process I'm unable to determine. In other words if the vast bulk of evidence supports a theory, it is safe to accept it as scientific truth. Better still, you show me your workings on why it isn't so.

Huh! How old are you? Crap, ignorant crap. Coral Atolls are generally stable and many lived upon. Some are the result of ancient Volcanoes. There are also other Islands, non atolls, that are low lying, without your tourist resorts but inhabited by local Melanesians, Polynesians and Micronesians. Why are you so insensitive to the people that live in these places? Again, I must ask, how old are you? I simply do not believe the stupidity I am reading. Yes I have been to a few atolls as I was fortunate enough to sail the Pacific from Panama to Sydney over 4 months on a square rigged Barquentine. This is why your ignorance astounds me and why I ask, how old you are. https://www.newscientist.com/article/2146594-eight-low-lying-pacific-islands-swallowed-whole-by-rising-seas/ https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/may/10/five-pacific-islands-lost-rising-seas-climate-change https://www.news.com.au/technology/environment/pacific-island-nations-urge-world-leaders-to-act-as-islands-expected-to-sink/news-story/9416ac1726d1f8 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_climate_change_on_island_nations#Sea_level_rise One of the dominant manifestations of climate change is sea level rise. NOAA estimates that "since 1992, new methods of satellite altimetry (the measurement of elevation or altitude) indicate a rate of rise of 0.12 inches per year".[2] In addition, NASA calculates that average sea level rise is 3.41 mm per year and that sea level rise is directly caused by the expansion of water as it warms and the melting of polar ice caps.[3]Both of these changes are dependent on global warming and thus climate change. Sea level rise is especially threatening to low-lying island nations because seas are encroaching upon limited habitable land and threatening existing cultures. As Stefan Rahmstorf, a professor of Ocean Physics at Potsdam University in Germany notes "even limiting warming to 2 degrees, in my view, will still commit some island nations and coastal cities to drowning." [4] However it is also important to consider recent research which contradicts the claim that rising sea levels will necessarily submerge island nations. Studies done by Paul Kench, a geomorphologist at the University of Auckland, have shown that "reef islands change shape and move around in response to shifting sediments, and that many of them are growing in size, not shrinking, as sea level inches upward". However at the same time Kench states that "for the areas that have been transformed by human development, such as the capitals of Kiribati, Tuvalu, and Maldives, the future is considerably gloomier" because these islands can not adapt to rising sea levels and are therefore greatly threatened.[5] Other effects of climate change[edit] There are many secondary effects of climate change and sea level rise particular to island nations. According to the US Fish and Wildlife Service climate change in the Pacific Islands will cause "continued increases in air and ocean surface temperatures in the Pacific, increased frequency of extreme weather events, and increased rainfall during the summer months and a decrease in rainfall during the winter months".[6] This would entail distinct changes to the small, diverse, and isolated island ecosystems and biospheres present within many of these island nations. As sea level rises island nations are at increased risk of losing coastal arable land to degradation as well as salinification. Once the limited available soil on these islands is salinified it becomes very difficult to produce subsistence crops such as breadfruit. This would severely impact the agricultural and commercial sector in nations such as the Marshall Islands and Kiribati.[7] In addition local fisheries would also be severely affected by higher ocean temperatures and increased ocean acidification. As ocean temperatures rise and the pH of oceans increases, many fish and other marine species would die out or change their habits and range. As well as this, water supplies and local ecosystems such as mangroves, are threatened by global warming. The tourism sector would be particularly threatened by increased occurrences of extreme weather events such as hurricanes and droughts.[