Multiverses

[SamBridge]

"Sorry to break it to you, but an actually accurate model is probably beyond you lifetime away."

 

you are correct.i believe our disagreement may be due to my consideration of popular vote within the community of science.

since i do not have all the answers, i use a sort of statistical approach to attack the problem.

the way i see it the dice of probability lay in my favor because i use popular vote (only from professionals of the community).

i may be wrong, but i have effectively reduced the likelihood.

of course this has no bearing on you, but i urge you to consider the things you don't yet know.

you will laugh about it later on.

 

yeah, who am i kidding. carry on the good fight.

There is no "statistical appraoch" to choosing to believe a given model. A model appears to best suite the approximations for what we currently see in experiments and data, so people choose to believe it, regardless of how accurate the model actually is for its resemblance in what takes place in reality. It's this exactly principal that is why the community of science has gone through many huge changes throughout history. You should never be eager to settle on a given model, you should always be looking for something better and always question other models which ultimately makes them better by forcing them to try and reconcile gaps.

Edited April 7, 2014 by SamBridge

[davidivad]

my man, you would argue the ear off of corn.

[SamBridge]

my man, you would argue the ear off of corn.

And yet scientific understanding continues to change. It's pretty much the old saying: The only thing that stays the same is change.

Edited April 7, 2014 by SamBridge

[Schneibster]

Sam, I'm sorry, I think you're trolling for a reaction and you have confirmed my opinion by denying the Big Bang.

[SamBridge]

Sam, I'm sorry, I think you're trolling for a reaction and you have confirmed my opinion by denying the Big Bang.

I confirmed you're trolling by the fact that you said I was "denying" the big bang. Either that or you entirely missed the point of every single thing I said which I don't see how you could given my over-emphasis on being open minded to different possibilities. We don't know for sure a big bang even happened, even with some evidence, there's still gaps to fill in about ANY model that uses a big bang or any model without the bang bang or really just any model about the universe at all, and that's completely different than saying "the big bang could never have ever happened." Why would I even waste my time "trolling for a reaction?" Reaction for what? I don't want you to just "react", I want you to actually use your head and see a different view. What you call "common sense" is merely an illusion created by taking causes for fundamental properties for granted, causes which many scientists and mathematicians are trying to investigate which you can easily see in number theory where 1+1=2 is 3 pages more complicated than you expected.

Edited April 7, 2014 by SamBridge

[davidivad]

let me retry this.

 

i want to convey the importance of first building a public image with the community before expecting the said community to accept your views.

you have to build a reputation for being right before others will consider your ideas.

 

if you are hard headed like me, then you are going to bump a few shoulders.

go ahead.

just make sure you get a few of those rep points along the way.

[SamBridge]

 

i want to convey the importance of first building a public image with the community before expecting the said community to accept your views.

 

Which is meaningless to science.

 

 

you have to build a reputation for being right before others will consider your ideas.

Which is somewhat how children perceive people.

 

 

if you are hard headed like me, then you are going to bump a few shoulders.

go ahead.

If I was anything like you then I'd be frightened into a corner from expressing different views so that I could pretend like I knew something, that's why I don't care if people give -1 for me calling out the bs of other people and why I've literally never upped or downed a single post.

 

 

just make sure you get a few of those rep points along the way.

Rep points have nothing to do with science, I have no regard for them.

Edited April 7, 2014 by SamBridge

[hypervalent_iodine]

!

Moderator Note

SamBridge, I would think by now you were pretty well aware of our rules regarding civility, though you apparently need reminding. Keep the personal remarks out of it.

And for the record, you have in fact given rep points in the past.

[SamBridge]

And for the record, you have in fact given rep points in the past.

Actually, I had a different staff member tell me otherwise to make sure of it. The only way it could have happened is by accident in recent times. In fact, you tell me which posts I rated in which ways and I'll go undo them.

Edited April 7, 2014 by SamBridge

[davidivad]

@ hypervalent_iodine

 

i will try to be more literal with my devices.

he does not realize that you do not have to argue to have effective communication

but you do need to be able to argue your point

which is my motivation.

i will quit.

Edited April 7, 2014 by davidivad

[SamBridge]

 

he does not realize that you do not have to argue to have effective communication

I do when you ignore my point after I repeat it countless times.

Edited April 7, 2014 by SamBridge

[davidivad]

@sam

i guess that what i am trying to convey to you is that while argument is a vital tool for the progression of science, it is pointless to argue if you cannot reach a consensus. this is my contribution to you.

you still win though.

and there is nothing you can do about it.

at that level, i will discontinue answering this thread.

good luck.

[SamBridge]

@sam

i guess that what i am trying to convey to you is that while argument is a vital tool for the progression of science, it is pointless to argue if you cannot reach a consensus. this is my contribution to you.

you still win though.

and there is nothing you can do about it.

at that level, i will discontinue answering this thread.

good luck.

Most of what I said multiple times is "we don't know everything, don't assume dark energy is 100% correct, don't assume we know the nature of the big bang" does that honestly sound irrational to you? Because if you agree with that statement I quoted, you had no reason to argue with me.