beecee

You miss the point....as usual.The pointless, baseless, banal numerous religious doctrines, claims that the universe/life and everything else was created by some eternal, magical spaghetti monster somewhere up in the sky. Science admits at this stage, we do not know the mechanism that brought forth space, time and the universe [although it has reasonable speculative confidence, based on current limited knowledge...https://www.astrosociety.org/publication/a-universe-from-nothing/] ....along with the exact mechanism of Abiogenisis. It's called the "god of the gaps" myth.

I'm more concerned with the pointless banal unsupported claims often made by god botherers and others on a science forum, with absolutely no evidence to support their myth. Unlike religious nonsense, science and scientists are the first to admit they do not as yet know it all. Not sure how many times you and your ilk have been informed of that, but its rather dishonest and insidious to use the blanks in scientific knowledge to attempt to deride all of it. Your god of the gaps argument is sunk. As sure as any scientific theory can be, yes. And of course as you have already been informed, the edict of the Catholic church in finding the evolution of life as acceptable and compatible with the Catholic doctrine, actually makes the bible a laughing stock. Considering the 10 billion years it has had with favourable conditions, its far easier to accept and understand then any magical spaghetti monster.

So? Do you need to see everything to believe it? What caused the trace? Does the trace align with what is known of the electron? Does it align with other data on the electron? Do you accept magnetic field lines which also can't be seen? Has it added to our scientific knowledge and explanations of other particle zoo observations? Do you now see how stupid some of your inferred philosophical nonsense and claims can be? Can you see why your continued invalid inferences, denigrating science and scientific knowledge in general, can only be explained by an agenda? Does it? How about.... "There is no statement so absurd that no philosopher will make it".:Cicero, Marcus Tullius (106-43 BCE) Roman statesman

A blip on a radar screen is an invalid analogy to the verified electron. Do you accept the existence of magnetic fields? Obviously you can not answer to any true degree that will align with your poor predisposition of science as well as philosophy, so you will ignore. Guess what? Ignoring it will not make it go away, nor validate the general nonsense you post.

The lame and inadequate tag you put on the forces of evolution are simply due to the brain washing you received in your younger years. You prefer a ridiculous myth encompassing some magical being to explain the natural forces which not only gave way to evolution, but also abiogenesis. Religion is no evolutionary trait, rather a lame explanation to explain that which ancient man could not explain. Claiming religion being an evolutionary trait is certainly made up nonsense, while the emotional 99.999999999999999999% you claim that cant be tested is simply false and a made up number due justifying your emotional post. Again, an emotional outburst, a result of fanatical belief in that which is nothing more then unsupported myth. Your fanatical posting of nonsense ensures the general opinion of your scientific ignorance... Being once a good Catholic boy and also a member of the Altar boys union until I was caught drinking the altar wine, the belief in the evolution of life and also the BB, has been deemed not to contradict Catholicism...which strangely makes a mockery of the bible. The world is full of fools that may chose to believe such nonsense as you have mentioned above

You actually have an terrible understanding of what people are telling you...knowledge is science...we gain knowledge through observation, experiment and experience...truth and/or reality is what may be beyond our grasp, and obviously as has been shown to you, is not the object specifically of any scientific model or theory...if it falls into our lap, all well and good. Again electrons like magnetic fields are certainly real, irrespective of how one observes or understands it.

That is actually more cynicism then any critical review. Again, it is impossible for most people to say verify the discovery of gravitational waves. So your saying for me to accept that, is religious? Again, that's going from the sublime to the ridiculous. Obviously, at least to me, it appears you are grabbing at straws to support what you yourself believe. I'm referring to the fact that all scientific experts are not all competent to rule or judge on all scientific disciplines. Horses for courses so to speak. If I want expert support in a debate on evolution say, I don't normally go to a cosmologist.

All models/theories were at one time just hypotheticals. Some, yes are entirely speculative, but that is not denied, nor is any speculation put as fact, unless its some u tube discovery/history channel nonsense. Sometimes a certain line of speculation is all that is open to scientists...eg:https://www.astrosociety.org/publication/a-universe-from-nothing/ ignoring the unscientific supernatural/paranormal myths. And as far as scrutiny goes, who is doing the scrutinising...you? Not necessarily, as I previously said, sometimes even without evidence, only one possibility is evident...such options certainly are considered. Abiogenesis is another. I have no qualms with anyone that is into religious beliefs...I have lived with one for 42 years now. It is only when they chose obtuseness, unfounded scientific criticism and conducting evangelistic crusades that I load my gun. Scientists are people also, and sometimes something dear to one's self maybe hard to let go. But as always, science is a discipline in continued progress, hence the continued testing of GR and the search for a QGT. Do you also remember the BICEP2 experiment? Remember the premature announcement that gravitational waves had been discovered? Remember that it was other scientists on another experiment that found the result was most likely due to dust contamination. The individuals, the reputations they obtain, and scientific authority in general, are schooled in the scientific method and in general abide by it..there are always exceptions though, for whatever reasons.. Do you go to your butcher if you are having a heart attack?

You don't believe that is true? Do you have some logical reason why, or evidence to support your doubt? I recall in one thread giving you a peer review reference which you as usaul, when backed into a corner, ignored. And now ladies and gentlemen the usual cop out, or back down. In other words no matter how many references anyone gives invalidating your unsupported stance, peer reviewed or not, it makes no difference. More rhetorical excuses instead of manning up and admitting you are wrong.

It is far more of a concern that someone simply out to practise his 3, 4, 5 years of philosophical study on a science forums, continually ignores all evidence and situations given that falsify that ridiculous philosophical stance by both scientists and other far more attuned philosophers..

In general it is adhered to. Can you cite some area or aspect where it is not adhered to? As far as letting go of a cherished idea, what you need to remember is that if suddenly one bit of supposed evidence comes forward say for example that indicates that "c" is not the universal speed limit, it is approached by the other end of the balance scale with loads of evidence supporting it as the speed limit.eg: The experiment a few years ago, which supposedly invalidated that postulate. It was later found that a fault in the equipment was to blame. So please, unless you are able to site a definite example where science is obviously being incalcitrant, your inferences are baseless. The ball's in your court. true, but again, many supposed critics wouldn't really know what they are talking about, plus of course that which we see often here and other scientific forums, an agenda is afoot.

It's about appreciation of science, scientific theory and the scientific method, of which climate science is a part of. Stop being so naive.

yep agreed. Did you read it all? here's some more...... " The theory behind climate change is also grounded in observation and reason. It all started with a puzzle: By the early 1800s, physicists realized that an earth-sized rock orbiting the sun at a distance of 93 million miles should be frozen according to the known laws of physics. French physicist Joseph Fourier proposed that the atmosphere keeps the planet warm. Others tested this theory in laboratory experiments, sending a simulated version of sunlight through various gases. They found that oxygen and nitrogen had no effect on the light, but carbon dioxide did. In repeated experiments, carbon dioxide absorbed and re-radiated infrared waves, which on a planetary scale would prevent some of the sun’s energy from escaping to space. But now climate science has something even stronger on its side, said atmospheric physicist Lee Harrison of the State University of New York, Albany. The premise is all predicted by a powerful theory in physics known as quantum mechanics, which describes in detail the behavior of light and matter on the scale of molecules, atoms and subatomic particles. Like Einstein’s theory, quantum mechanics is bolstered by hundreds of experiments. Quantum mechanics predicts how infrared radiation coming up from the earth will be affected by carbon dioxide and other gases. “What the public doesn’t understand is the extreme interconnectedness of physical reality,” Harrison said. “If someone proposes that carbon dioxide is not a greenhouse gas, this requires ripping up essentially all of modern physics … Now you aren’t just arguing with those measurements of carbon dioxide; you are arguing with the whole body of molecular quantum mechanics and all confirming measurements.”

The holy grail of physics is for one day to have a working validated QGT. You are indeed Nobel material if you have two! Do you understand what a QGT entails? Except it doesn't quantise gravity. Again, forget your ego and listen. Stop telling qualified people what to do, when you absolutely misunderstand the whole aspect of a QGT and what it entails, as well as of course the subject of virtual particles in general and as distinct from real particles. https://profmattstrassler.com/2012/10/15/why-the-higgs-and-gravity-are-unrelated/ Why the Higgs and Gravity are Unrelated One of the questions I get most often from my readers is this: Since gravity pulls on things proportional to their mass, and since the Higgs field is responsible for giving everything its mass, there obviously must be a deep connection between the Higgs and gravity… right? It’s a very reasonable guess, but — it turns out to be completely wrong. The problem is that this statement combines a 17th century notion of gravity, long ago revised, with an overly simplified version of a late-20th century notion of where masses of various particles comes from. I’ve finally produced the Higgs FAQ version 2.0, intended for non-experts with little background in the subject, and as part of that, I’ve answered this question. But since the question is so common, I thought I’d also put the answer in a post of its own. As preface, let me bring out my professorial training and correct the question above with a red pen: Since gravity pulls on things proportional to their mass to a combination of their energy and momentum, and since the Higgs field is responsible of giving everything not everything, just the known elementary particles excepting the Higgs particle itself its mass, there obviously must be a deep connection between the Higgs and gravity… right? wrong. Now let me explain these corrections one by one. see link if you have decided to learn......https://profmattstrassler.com/2012/10/15/why-the-higgs-and-gravity-are-unrelated/

Have you yet admitted to the fact that many times over more then one thread, that you have been shown to be wrong? Listening again does not seem to be a part of your make up.

"There is no statement so absurd that no philosopher will make it": Cicero, Marcus Tullius : Now that I have that out of the way......The problem as I see it with regards to our philosophical inebriated friends, is twofold, in that they see the years spent at Uni studying philosophy, as slipping into oblivion when compared to the practical institution of science. This in my opinion has prompted this seemingly derision of science and the scientific method by one in particular. The other problem of course is underlying agendas despite denials. As a non philosopher and a non scientist, I believe I can approach this continuing saga with some even handiness. Despite the many derisive quotes re philosophy I have posted in reply to the many examples of philosophical ramblings that have taken place of late, philosophy is certainly an underlying part of the foundation of science and the scientific method. It forms most of the framework in fact with regards to the practical discipline of science. But as Laurence Krauss' adequately explained, it now seems to have had its day. Even some of the great philosophers of bygone eras have alluded to that observation, and whose quotes I have used in reply to some of the philosophical ramblings that have occurred. The more amateurish philosophers that we have seen on this forum and whose outlandish claims and thoughts are sprinkled through threads [some closed for obvious reasons] continue with ramblings of invalid and limited analogies, metaphors, and supposed similes, that go on and on and on and on......all dealing with the hairy fairy, or the pedantic, or invalid attempts to somehow misconstrue science. Science will continue unabated. It will continue with the search for explanations of the universe around us......It has advanced now to such a stage, that it now legitimately broaches and asks and has explanations to questions that were at one time, just philosophical....questions like how did the universe arise from nothing....or what is this nothing? https://www.astrosociety.org/publication/a-universe-from-nothing/ Certainly science as yet has no evidence or knowledge to answer these questions with any real degree of confidence, but what answers are we left with ignoring of course the unscientific mythical ID explanations. I see somewhere [can't find it now, possibly another thread] some comment about scientific realism and the existence of electrons, compared to other scientists who prefer to see electrons simply as an explanation on the observed. This in my opinion is "splitting hairs" and pedantic in the extreme...Do electrons actually exist? Does a magnetic field actually exist? Is space real? Is time real? is spacetime real? Myself I as a lay person say yes, they all exist...they all are needed to explain what we see...we don't really need to touch, or feel something to be real....it does not need to be physical. Am I in conflict with some other scientists that prefer looking at such, as merely explanations? I say no. To use an analogy much as our philosophical friends often like to use...some say tomato, some say tomato, if you get my drift. Science at any one time, is as close to any supposed truth that we can get...We go to reputable science books for knowledge re a particular scientific subject...we don't go to some rambling philosopher, or go to the fairy tale section of a children's library...or pick up some mythical obscure book by some obscure person in an obscure age. I must now finish off as this is getting to be more like a philosophical ramble similar to those so called philosophers that I am actually criticising. While I have offered many quotes critical of philosophy, I have yet to offer any quotes that are praise worthy of the scientific discipline. Let me now change that.... "There are in fact two things, science and opinion; the former begets knowledge, the latter ignorance": Hippocrates: "Shall I refuse my dinner because I do not fully understand the process of digestion?": Oliver Heaviside "Science is organized knowledge".Herbert Spencer (1820-1903) English philosopher. Education. "Science is facts; just as houses are made of stone, so is science made of facts; but a pile of stones is not a house, and a collection of facts is not necessarily science". Jules Henri Poincaré "Science is the great antidote to the poison of enthusiasm and superstition".Adam Smith (1723-90) Scottish economist. A poor analogy and obviously false. Can we verify the Earth is round? Not sure how any philosophy can be actually interpreted to mean what you say...absurd again comes to mind. I accept science, because I accept logic, evidence, facts, and the scientific method.

No its not irrelevant to point out that a large percentage of people pushing for a supposed deeper truth that probably does not exist, may possibly have an agenda that blinds him to the relevancy and validity of science and knowledge as opposed to searching for fairies at the bottom of the garden. The only truth that matters is scientific truth, or that "truth" where scientific knowledge can be formed into theories and models that make successful predictions, can be reproduced and systematically and continually verified at any particular time and era. That scientific truth can be added to, modified, changed as observations and technological advancements take place. No deeper truth makes any sense within science, and the baggage that this supposed deeper truth contains, makes it an unscientific endeavour anyway. Science is the discipline of acquiring knowledge and is without doubt the best method that we have or can ever have using the scientific method as its foundations. If I want to know how humans evolved, or how our solar system formed, or how the universe evolved, I don’t go to a philosopher, or any religious text.....I check it out in an appropriate science book with scientific truth and the relevant knowledge. That is knowledge...that is the only truth.

The squiggly lines are simply representations....The virtual particles are evidenced through experiments and observation, as you have been told numerous times....the Casimir effect for one. Do you doubt a magnetic field exists? All you can see as with virtual particles is the effects it causes. Or getting back to one of your own links which tells you the way it probably is......https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/are-virtual-particles-rea/ Sometimes people that are searching for more in depth information on a subject, need to read more reputable research and listen to more reputable people. The Higgs mechanism was also hypothesised in the early sixties and fairly well publicised as well. I remember a book called "The God Particle" by Leon Lederman.

As I have stated before, along with the other far more knowledgable members of this forum, the theory of evolution is as certain as any theory can be and beyond any reasonable doubt. To state or claim otherwise, almost certainly reflects an agenda of sorts and probably religion or ID. "The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless childish." Albert Einstein, in a 1954 letter to philosopher Eric Gutkind". Well as someone who knows next to nothing about philosophy, even I am able to make reasonable sense of that. It actually gets back to what many of the more reputable scientifically inclined members have told you here with regards to the truth/reality [if it at all exists] is not the prime goal of science. There are some reasonably good philosophers and really bad philosophers. Philosophy mainly delving into what we don't know, and hairy fairy applications and thought, sees philosophers invariably at loggerheads with each other, over the most abstract matters. Or as I have put to you before... Or just as your usual rambling post actually suggests...much ado about nothing.

Philosophers are always maintaining something or other, including that all other philosophers are jackasses [to use the terminology of another philoospher] An example of an absurdity as I see it. Everyone of us needs to at times gather or check on knowledge, and all that is required is that we check reputable sources. For example, to compare a book called the bible, against the writings/recordings etc of a reputable science book is dumb. The writings and myths of the bible, written in an obscure manner, by obscure men, in an obscure age, is not comparable with the writings/claims etc of a reputable scientific journal, whose claims can mostly be repeated and verified if necessary. One can be put down to unsupported myth and story telling....the other is verifiable.

While you have been given some really good answers, I would like to add something with regards to the MW galaxy and most other galaxies. The SMBH would certainly keep the stars in the very inner part of the galaxy in orbit, and the gravity of those stars will keep other stars further out in orbit, and they in turn keep those stars in our region of the MW, including the Sun, in orbit. In other words it is the total gravitational effects of all the stars, on each other that keep them in orbit....Then of course we have DM! Remove the SMBH at the core, and the orbital parameters of the stars would generally remain as is....remove the stars that orbit closer to the core then the Sun, and we would probably fly off into inter-galactic space...remove all the DM, and likewise, we would again probably go flying off into oblivion. The galactic orbital motions of all the stars in the galaxy is complicated, each affected by another, and far different then the orbital reason for the orbital parameters of our solar system, where the Sun is indeed the dominant player whose mass exceeds all the planets and asteroids together.

Gotcha! Had me worried for a minute.

Eloquently, beautifully and admirably put by both parties! A joy to behold!!

When I was a hairy arsed young teenage in the late fifties, there were three competing models...the BB, Steady State, and Oscillating. Are you implying this somehow aligns with SS? It actually reminds me of this GP-B Question and Answer site by Sten Odenwald and the following question.... https://einstein.stanford.edu/content/relativity/a11332.html Can space exist by itself without matter or energy around? "No. Experiments continue to show that there is no 'space' that stands apart from space-time itself...no arena in which matter, energy and gravity operate which is not affected by matter, energy and gravity. General relativity tells us that what we call space is just another feature of the gravitational field of the universe, so space and space-time do not exist apart from the matter and energy that creates the gravitational field. This is not speculation, but sound observation." NB: The above answer has been corrected by me after I E-Mailed Sten re the original confusing answer with regards to the highlighted part as follows...He confirmed it as a typographical error. No. Experiments continue to show that there is no 'space' that stands apart from space-time itself...no arena in which matter, energy and gravity operate which is not affected by matter, energy and gravity. General relativity tells us that what we call space is just another feature of the gravitational field of the universe, so space and space-time can and do not exist apart from the matter and energy that creates the gravitational field. This is not speculation, but sound observation.

The same way as gravity acts on a bird flying, or on a plane.