Satanic Rants Against Science

[Klaplunk]

No offesnse intended; however, when someone has an idea that disagrees with science, it's not wrong, it's wrong according to science. So that person shouldn't be treated as dumb/uneducated, because our guess, experiementing on our lifes, equates to different results.

 

I believe personally, that the earth is an unborn star; and I guess that most scientists will dismiss that. How did I come to that conclusion? Well here's my evidence:

 

Elements

Resources

 

Gold isn't a resource, I don't see any application; apart from human made application, that gold has on the world. Exactly the same with diamonds or other resources that are said to have worth.

 

Oil is a resource, and what does it do exactly? It burns, to create energy; and we are using it until it dries out. If we didn't use the Oil then it would still be underneath the earth, or spurting out at various locations. Would it be wrong to say that syphoning this Oil, prevents certain 'natural events' from occuring?

 

Water, is the opposite of Oil; not fire - I would say, using personal experiences, that the opposite of fire/heat is cold - not water. Ice would be the 'heat touched' water, and Fire would be the 'heat touched' Oil.

 

So whats to say that over time the water was meant to deplete before the Oil, and then the Oil was meant to ignite, creating a huge explosion/implosion turning the planet into a massive ball of flame/ a.k.a star.

 

That doesn't agree with sceince.

Is it a dumb theory?

[Sisyphus]

That doesn't agree with sceince.

Is it a dumb theory?

 

What answer are you looking for? I could tell you why it's wrong, but then you'd just say "it just disagrees with science, that doesn't mean it's wrong!" Am I just supposed to make something up? Ok.

 

It's wrong because oil is actually dragon blood. Dragons live underground and we stab them with drills and suck out their blood. We do this because we need the fuel, but we shouldn't because it makes the dragons angry, and when they're angry they bite the giant turtle that the world is resting on, and when the turtle winces in pain it causes earthquakes. Instead, we should use coconut milk, which is the real opposite of oil, and makes things cool instead of hot, which is just as good and doesn't cause earthquakes.

[iNow]

Do you think that anything less than knowing something as an absolute personal truth is a "guess" with all the same merits of any other guess?

 

Nothing is known for sure, however it seems kinda strange to me to "believe" rapid geomagnetic reversal is a threat then, humans weren't even aware of the concept until it was studied scientifically. Striations in deep seabed rock and such that had shifting polarity in their iron components if I recall correctly was how it was originally studied.

 

But sure - hijack a concept discovered by geologists, "guess" it could be dramatically catastrophic and then declare your guess as having just as much merit as the people who have exhaustively studied the process.

This comment reminds me of some recent discussions on economics in the Politics forum.

[Mr Skeptic]

What I don't get is, how you sit there in complete glibness and assume that only you're opinion is correct.

 

Because your opinion gives wrong predictions. Go on, predict how quickly the polarity of magnetized rocks or sediments shifts. We're not talking about guessing the future, we're talking about testing predictions based on stuff that's already happened. And one opinion is not as good as any other, because one can simply look and tell which is right and which is wrong.

[swansont]

What I don't get is, how you sit there in complete glibness and assume that only you're opinion is correct. You're making a judgement, on personal preference - remember, you're you; and we're us. If you believe your opinion is correct, then do so; but it doesn't give you the right to ridicule another because you don't except that it could go wrong. You always bring up 'lack of evidence', when all your evidence of time is guesses. "600 million years ago, they were here," "This star is 28 million light years away," All the while you haven't experimented on it. I imagine that if it was close enough to be tested, we would; what exactly would you expect to find? Something contructed differently to every other star? or every other planet? And you think in your minds, yes, there has to be other stuff; still with no evidence. Things take years to study properly when you're close up, and you can mess with it daily; you have had no imput with stars, some planets, even a 'light year'; you've never experienced one, yet it exists.

 

'Dark matter' 'Antimatter' - both unproven.

 

You have no evidence, to say it exists. You have 'scientific evidence' which 'suggests' it exists. Well I'm sorry sir, you look at life through a human view, as if we're the center of it; rather than the universes perspective. You treat the universe as a host, rather than a organism. Maybe you should look at the universe, from its perspective.

 

How do you think one gets such numbers without "having experimented on it?"

 

Antimatter is unproven? Really?

 

I have never understood the phenomenon of wearing one's ignorance as a badge of honor.

[Mr Skeptic]

That doesn't agree with sceince.

Is it a dumb theory?

 

Only if you then try to use that to predict something about the real world whether in the past, present, or future.

[AlphaSheeppig]

Science is wrong anyway... It's all based on mathematics anyway, and you don't see the universe sitting there with its pocket calculator trying to work out what everything does...

 

The reason scientists view science as "right", and pseudoscience as "wrong" is only because science has been used for a couple of hundred years to make predictions, and these predictions have come true. More than that, they've been used to design things, and these things work - extremely complicated things like aeroplanes and nuclear reactors...

 

The reason science is accepted and pseudoscience is rejected is because science is made up of very few principles, but has been extremely successful at making accurate predictions in the past. Sure, pseudoscience has occasionally given correct results in the past, but most of the time, it's predictions have been wrong.

 

 

Don't forget a little over a hundred years ago, there was a guy who said practically all of science was wrong, and that solid objects changed size and shape as they moved differently, and time flowed differently for different observers. Back then, that could have been considered pseudoscience...

[Phi for All]

No offesnse intended; however, when someone has an idea that disagrees with science, it's not wrong, it's wrong according to science.

With science being the best studied, least tainted, best understood idea. Science may not always be right, but it has the best chance of being right, and it has a methodology that continues to test its veracity continually.

 

I believe personally, that the earth is an unborn star; and I guess that most scientists will dismiss that. How did I come to that conclusion? Well here's my evidence:

 

Elements

Resources

 

Gold isn't a resource, I don't see any application; apart from human made application, that gold has on the world. Exactly the same with diamonds or other resources that are said to have worth.

Everything we consider to be a "resource" is based on human application. Gold resists tarnishing and rust, it's an excellent electrical conductor and it has a very pleasing color and weight. Diamonds have many industrial applications due to their hardness in addition to their appeal when faceted and polished.

 

Oil is a resource, and what does it do exactly? It burns, to create energy; and we are using it until it dries out.

How is it a resource without man to use it? Why is oil a resource but not gold or diamonds?

 

If we didn't use the Oil then it would still be underneath the earth, or spurting out at various locations. Would it be wrong to say that syphoning this Oil, prevents certain 'natural events' from occuring?

What natural events involving oil are you predicting?

 

Water, is the opposite of Oil; not fire - I would say, using personal experiences, that the opposite of fire/heat is cold - not water. Ice would be the 'heat touched' water, and Fire would be the 'heat touched' Oil.

"Opposite" in this instance is too generalized a term. Opposite in what regard? With water, in regards to its wetness? Its capabilities as a solvent? I'm unsure of what you're trying to say here.

 

So whats to say that over time the water was meant to deplete before the Oil, and then the Oil was meant to ignite, creating a huge explosion/implosion turning the planet into a massive ball of flame/ a.k.a star.

Without being refined (by man), simple crude oil doesn't burn nearly hot enough for the nuclear fusion reaction a star would require. Even on a planetary scale, the reaction isn't going to be strong enough.

 

That doesn't agree with sceince.

Is it a dumb theory?

It's a demonstrably false idea. Like the majority of ideas, it can be shown to be false. Only when an idea can pass the rigors of scientific methodology on a repeated basis over time does it start to be thought of as a theory. That's when it's considered to be "science" in the way you're saying, "That doesn't agree with science".

[Klaplunk]

With science being the best studied, least tainted, best understood idea. Science may not always be right, but it has the best chance of being right, and it has a methodology that continues to test its veracity continually.

 

Everything we consider to be a "resource" is based on human application. Gold resists tarnishing and rust, it's an excellent electrical conductor and it has a very pleasing color and weight. Diamonds have many industrial applications due to their hardness in addition to their appeal when faceted and polished.

 

How is it a resource without man to use it? Why is oil a resource but not gold or diamonds?

 

What natural events involving oil are you predicting?

 

"Opposite" in this instance is too generalized a term. Opposite in what regard? With water, in regards to its wetness? Its capabilities as a solvent? I'm unsure of what you're trying to say here.

 

Without being refined (by man), simple crude oil doesn't burn nearly hot enough for the nuclear fusion reaction a star would require. Even on a planetary scale, the reaction isn't going to be strong enough.

 

It's a demonstrably false idea. Like the majority of ideas, it can be shown to be false. Only when an idea can pass the rigors of scientific methodology on a repeated basis over time does it start to be thought of as a theory. That's when it's considered to be "science" in the way you're saying, "That doesn't agree with science".

 

Are you saying that the needed spark/energy to create a flame with oil would not exist if HUMANS didn't exist?

 

Also, I'm not going to be able to reply to everyone at once, so I'll just place some questions for all of you.

 

You've made predictions that have come correct in the near future; over the space of 10 - 100 years, however long science has been around. Why does that give you the right to believe what will come true in millions of years? And how do you know there aren't certain 'hot spots' of time so to speak, holding events that may occur in the future.

 

For 1, the galactic alignment; this is a huge step, a HUGE point in time; and it was always going to appear. It's not like one day the universe decided to make the galactic alignment possible - it was always going to happen. The earth was always going to align in this way. Does that not make you think that the universe is some kind of time mechinism, with points that designate certain phenominons.

 

I was told that if I was standing on a planet far enough from earth, with a strong enough telescope, I could look back in time. If I could travel at the speed of light to what I was looking at, I could travel back in time. This a scientific fact; that has yet to be proven. Just a solid guess based on the evidence you have at hand. It's fair, I'm not saying it isn't.

 

But before you start making assumptions on things outside of life/humanity, why don't you focus on just that souly. Once you can explain life, then you would move on to what life contains. You made the jump, skipping the most important factors and taking guesses. You could make a more suitable guess if you could explain life/living/existence, however you cant, so what you're guessing can never be 100% correct, and that's with ANYTHING you assume you've proven. No matter if its 99.9999r%, it's still not CORRECT, it's just probably correct according to science.

 

I live by science, and I agree with science. I don't agree with some of sciences rules.

[AlphaSheeppig]

For the record, 99% correct is more 99 times more reliable than 1% correct. And we can look at how things were a million years ago, apply science, and see how they should be today, and they turn out to be correct.

 

 

And, no, he's not saying that humans need to start the fire. He's saying that the flames from burning oil aren't hot enough to be a star. I'm not sure what temperature oil burns at, but I'm pretty sure its somewhere around 1000°C or 1800°F, give or take a third. A star burns at a few million degrees at it's core, but oil can only burn on it's surface (there's no oxygen at the core). Even on it's surface (which we can see and measure), the sun is way hotter than that...

 

Anyway, stars don't burn. They produce energy through a sustained fusion reaction which comes off as heat.

[Klaplunk]

99% correct according to science. Again you've missed the point.

Also, if all the Oil ignited at once, you dont think there would be an increase in temperature, no?

[vordhosbn]

According to me - no!

[AlphaSheeppig]

Also, if all the Oil ignited at once, you dont think there would be an increase in temperature, no?

No, it would burn at pretty much the same temperature, but I'd have to base my reasoning on science...

[Klaplunk]

Personally, I think... All the oil burning at once, where it orginated, would cause immense heat underground, causing eruptions, maybe setting the earth itself alight. Remember, we're not just talking about a huge sea of oil; were talking about the earth, as it is, with no humans. If all the Oil was to burn at once, do you not think the earths temperature would increase??? not even a little bit?

 

Also, on topic, the OP didn't mention the possibility off WW3; surely that has a big chance of occuring over the next few years.

[swansont]

Don't forget a little over a hundred years ago, there was a guy who said practically all of science was wrong, and that solid objects changed size and shape as they moved differently, and time flowed differently for different observers. Back then, that could have been considered pseudoscience...

 

I disagree. It was based on accepted science principles, made testable predictions and as a result got published in a reputable journal. Now, some people didn't like the idea, but there were objective ways of testing and possibly falsifying it.

[AlphaSheeppig]

A little bit, yes, but not by more than a few hundred degrees...

 

WW3, now that's a completely different story.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

I disagree. It was based on accepted science principles, made testable predictions and as a result got published in a reputable journal. Now, some people didn't like the idea, but there were objective ways of testing and possibly falsifying it.

 

Yes, exactly, it only became accepted as science because it could make predictions that could be tested and were experimentally verified. It just went against what science at the time said.

[Klaplunk]

What temperature is the Earths core? And what temperature would the Earth be if it was just a ball of flames?

[AlphaSheeppig]

5,430 °C... And if the earth was just a ball of flames, that might rise to maybe 7,000 °C (at a guess) which is way short of the 15,000,000 °C that the sun's core has been estimated to be at. Don't forget that only about 0.05% of the earth can burn and release heat. The rest will just melt or boil and absorb heat.

[Klaplunk]

If all the oil ignited at once, would the earth turn into a ball of flames?

[Sisyphus]

If all the oil ignited at once, would the earth turn into a ball of flames?

 

Certainly not.

 

First of all, the amount of oil in the ground compared with the size of the Earth as a whole is extremely tiny. There is only oil in pockets in the crust, which is itself tiny portion of the whole Earth.

 

Second, things don't just "turn into flames." They burn. Fire is a chemical reaction in which molecules of fuel (like oil) and oxydizer (like oxygen) combine into something else (like carbon dioxide) and give off heat in the process. Flame is just air that that heat has made hot enough to glow.

 

The sun, on the other hand, is not burning. There is no fire on the sun. Its heat comes from a different process, called fusion, in which hydrogen atoms under extreme pressure is forced to combine into helium atoms.

 

So anyway, in order to get all the oil to burn, first you have to get it to the surface. It can't burn underground because there is no oxygen for it to combine with. If you brought it all to the surface and lit it all on fire at once, you would get a lot of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, and perhaps a little less oxygen. I don't know whether the fire itself would be big enough to noticeably heat up the whole atmosphere, but it wouldn't have any effect on anything else, definitely not the whole Earth.

[Klaplunk]

Ok cool. What about lava though?

[Mr Skeptic]

Ok cool. What about lava though?

 

Apart from it not being cool, in my opinion lava is a conspiracy by scientists and journalists so people are afraid of going deep in the earth, so that they can hide the alien base that gave the US all its power and technology. Now don't go telling me my opinion is worse than yours.

[Klaplunk]

I must admit, you should be a comedian.

The funny thing is, I believe in the illuminati, so judging me as a conspiracy believer is a good and accurate judgement. However, on terms of wit and originality, I'll give you a 0/10. I may be esoteric compared to you, but I assure you I'm just as smart, if not smarter, than you are.

 

Funny guy though, seriously, get a youtube show cause YOU ROCK.

 

Seriously though, Lava?

[insane_alien]

just hot molten rock. nothing much to it really.

 

you can make some in your back garden if you want.

[padren]

Personally, I think... All the oil burning at once, where it orginated, would cause immense heat underground, causing eruptions, maybe setting the earth itself alight. Remember, we're not just talking about a huge sea of oil; were talking about the earth, as it is, with no humans. If all the Oil was to burn at once, do you not think the earths temperature would increase??? not even a little bit?

 

Also, on topic, the OP didn't mention the possibility off WW3; surely that has a big chance of occuring over the next few years.

 

For the Earth to burn like a star, or become one it might help for you to discuss what you think a star is. Do you mean the Earth would become like the sun, or a very small version of it?

 

Based on what we know of the sun, it is very massive and burns hydrogen by nuclear fusion creating helium, as a result of the massive gravity compressing it's mass and creating enough heat to begin the reaction.

 

For the Earth to be a star, (not simply burn like an oil soaked torch) you would have to have some sort of similar process. It does not have the mass to create the gravitational implosion needed to kickstart fusion if it had the hydrogen to burn - not even Jupiter does. The temperature reached by burning oil would not be sufficient either.

 

In addition to that, even if you had all the oil burn, and found a far higher density of oil than currently known, we have a very thin atmosphere of oxygen to react.

If you took a basketball and soaked it in water and pulled it out, the thickness of the film of water on the wet ball is about to scale for the thickness of air on the Earth. From that visual, you can see how little air there is for the oil to burn with.

 

 

Now, all that is "science talk" about mass, fusion, combustion, gravity, etc and it could be wrong. However, what is wrong becomes a key unspoken part of the conversation.

 

1) Mass of the Sun and Earth:

If you wanted to contend these values are not accurate, it would mean that Newton's laws are not accurate. These laws are used with formulas that tell us everything from the time it takes the Earth and all the other planets to orbit the sun at their relative distances, to what altitude geosynchronous satellites need to be in order to operate.

 

F = G(m1m2/r^2)

 

So if you wanted to contend these values are guesses, you'd have to explain why they appear to be right to the extent that we have been able to use them so effectively.

 

2) Temperatures and fuels for fusion:

You could contend that we haven't really tested fusion reactions as they occur in the sun. We actually have created nuclear fusion reactions, but you could argue we are guessing about the ones that occur in the sun, since they are not directly witnessed.

 

However, our understanding of fusion/fission would be entirely thrown out of whack. The famous E=mc^2 equation demonstrates the energy released by annihilating matter and we went on to make the first nuclear bombs.

Since then, our understanding of nuclear reactions give us everything from nuclear submarines to power plants and atomic clocks, and without understanding these principles our safety systems would be wholly inadequate.

 

Again, if you contended these principles and calculations were just guesses, you'd have to try to explain how we've managed to actually achieve these reactions without blowing ourselves up.

 

 

3) Perhaps you feel the Earth can survive as a star without fusion.

 

In that case, you'd have to understand the concept of the limit of a chemical reaction per mass to produce energy, and why it varies so greatly from the nuclear energy released relative to mass.

There is a huge body of science covering this, and it governs among other things, why batteries have certain limits without going nuclear.

 

4) Perhaps the mass of the Earth would change?

 

If the Earth ballooned to the size of the Sun, through some unknown process, it would break the laws of thermodynamics and the conservation of mass/energy. It would take a huge amount of energy to create that amount of mass.

 

 

The reason I go to all the trouble of making the above points - we wouldn't live in the world we do today if these scientific principles were just guesses and entirely unreliable, or even if they were kinda reliable but weakly drafted enough to accommodate the Earth turning into a star.

 

 

 

Out of curiosity what sparked this idea that the Earth would use Oil to become a star at some point?

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Ok cool. What about lava though?

 

You could think of it this way: the Earth would resemble a slightly cooler version of Mercury, more than it would resemble a star.

 

It isn't likely to be enough oxygen and oil to entirely melt the Earth's crust - I don't have exact calculations but I believe it would be in the orders of magnitude below the fuel requirement.

 

It also has a larger surface area and would radiate that heat, loosing it as infrared (and some visible light) radiation, since the fuel would be gone rather quickly.

 

 

It's also worth noting: For all the oil to "ignite at once" it would literally have to be infused with oxygen as some sort of mist. Lighting a pool of oil only burns the top, since only the top is in contact with oxygen. You'd need oxygen bubbles passing through it, and in small enough sizes that they don't leave unburnt oxygen, and at a frequency density that all the oil has surface area exposed to to it. Since "oil" is technically really small, that's a lot of tiny bubbles very densely packed.

 

I am not even sure if fluid dynamics would allow this to occur, since bubbles would rise and join, and you'd need bubbles near the top and bottom at the time of the reaction.