swansont Posted February 10, 2015 Share Posted February 10, 2015 No, it is almost the exact opposite of faith: you don't have to take it at face value because you CAN test it. For example: http://leapsecond.com/great2005/ Of course, it helps to have a fair amount of disposable income if you want to personally test it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xyzt Posted February 10, 2015 Share Posted February 10, 2015 Of course, it helps to have a fair amount of disposable income if you want to personally test it. Nah, I have a collection of Swiss chronometers (Longines,Omega, IWC, Patek Philippe) dating back to the mid-1800's that one can use Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted February 10, 2015 Share Posted February 10, 2015 Of course, it helps to have a fair amount of disposable income if you want to personally test it. Yes, I was hoping to find something that the amateur could do at home. That was the nearest I could find. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mordred Posted February 10, 2015 Share Posted February 10, 2015 Bignose posted this excellent article in another thread. Has an extensive coverage of various tests of GR. http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2014-4/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bignose Posted February 10, 2015 Share Posted February 10, 2015 Bignose posted this excellent article in another thread. Has an extensive coverage of various tests of GR. http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2014-4/ This thread too! I was ignored all the way back on post #92 . 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mordred Posted February 10, 2015 Share Posted February 10, 2015 This thread too! I was ignored all the way back on post #92 . Lol yeah it was a gentle nudge hehe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hypervalent_iodine Posted February 11, 2015 Share Posted February 11, 2015 ! Moderator Note I've split a number of posts from this thread into a new one, found here. Please keep this on topic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scotty99 Posted February 12, 2015 Author Share Posted February 12, 2015 Wow I just read this: http://www.dailydot.com/geek/big-bang-theory-universe-may-have-existed-forever/ Weird timing, Wow! Im just curious, what is the process exactly on how a theory like this would gain mainstream acceptance? Not saying this one will, ive just always wondered what that process involves and how long it takes. Im still reading up on all the relativity tests, its been interesting to say the least. Sometimes hard to understand because i need to go to a different tab to look up a word ive never heard before lol. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted February 12, 2015 Share Posted February 12, 2015 Wow I just read this: http://www.dailydot.com/geek/big-bang-theory-universe-may-have-existed-forever/ Weird timing, Wow! Im just curious, what is the process exactly on how a theory like this would gain mainstream acceptance? By making predictions that are closely matched by experimental results, and can be distinguished from existing theories. Just like all the rest of science. But I don't see the connection to geocentrism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted February 12, 2015 Share Posted February 12, 2015 (edited) Im just curious, what is the process exactly on how a theory like this would gain mainstream acceptance? Not saying this one will, ive just always wondered what that process involves and how long it takes. The maths will be reworked in more detail. Others will check and work with it. Eventually someone will pull out some results that can be tested (which may prove the idea is consistent with reality and existing theories). Ideally, there would be tests which can distinguish this from other theories and hence show that this (or something like it) is an improvement on existing theories. Or they will find an error in the maths. Or the predictions will not match observations. And then it is back to the drawing board. Something like this, that takes quantum effects into account, appears to be necessary and will eventually be developed to the level of an accepted theory. Wow I just read this: http://www.dailydot.com/geek/big-bang-theory-universe-may-have-existed-forever/ Note that the title and opening paragraph of that article are highly misleading, if not completely wrong. Mordred posted a couple of really good articles about this in another thread. Here is a decent coverage of it https://medium.com/starts-with-a-bang/the-two-big-bangs-1493194f5cd9 https://plus.google.com/100479352836033641546/posts/3wW3fNH7GMV Both articles cut through the pop media hype on Those papers The second one is short and to the point. Edited February 12, 2015 by Strange Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ajb Posted February 12, 2015 Share Posted February 12, 2015 Im just curious, what is the process exactly on how a theory like this would gain mainstream acceptance? Not saying this one will, ive just always wondered what that process involves and how long it takes. The original paper is quite short, 4 pages. It has now been published (Phys.Lett. B741 (2015) 276). Publication is only the first part of the 'acceptance'. It seems to me that this paper is quite speculative by adding quantum corrections to the Friedmann equation. The question has to be if these corrections are still valid in a full quantum theory. The authors expect so, but we have to wait and see. It is expected that a quantum theory of gravity would regulate the initial singularity, but without a proper theory it is hard to be more specific. To be a real candidate for explaining the Big Bang, we need some evidence that rules out other theories. This is the hard bit. All theories would need to quickly evolve to the Lambda CDM model + small corrections. One would hope that the fingerprint of these small corrections can be observed, in say the CMBR or maybe in gravitational waves from the early Universe. Today the best we can do is rule out some specific models of inflation, but many generic models still fit the data. We are nowhere near being able to rule out theories that are 'older' than the inflationary epoch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scotty99 Posted February 12, 2015 Author Share Posted February 12, 2015 By making predictions that are closely matched by experimental results, and can be distinguished from existing theories. Just like all the rest of science. But I don't see the connection to geocentrism. Well you could easily see the supporters of geocentrism calling this a "first step" is i guess i was getting at. Thanks for those links strange i need to familiarize myself with more websites that arent so sensational and tell it how it is, sadly most of my news i get from favoriting the science section on yahoo right now. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted February 12, 2015 Share Posted February 12, 2015 Im just curious, what is the process exactly on how a theory like this would gain mainstream acceptance? Not saying this one will, ive just always wondered what that process involves and how long it takes. Swansont put this well in one of his blog posts: Once the weight of experimental result hits a certain critical mass, the expectations swing away from needing data to confirm a theory to needing exceptional data to disprove it. http://blogs.scienceforums.net/swansont/archives/14667 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StringJunky Posted February 12, 2015 Share Posted February 12, 2015 .... i need to familiarize myself with more websites that arent so sensational and tell it how it is, sadly most of my news i get from favoriting the science section on yahoo right now. These two are pretty mainstream. Bear in mind, all the news about the conventional research projects are just 'snapshots' of the current state of things and may later turn out to be inaccurate but you do get a general feeling, after a while reading, where things are heading. http://www.sciencedaily.com/news/ http://phys.org/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted February 12, 2015 Share Posted February 12, 2015 Also remember that even the very best popularizations and news stories are based on simplifications and analogies - often very crude analogies. So don't take any of it too literally. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scotty99 Posted July 19, 2015 Author Share Posted July 19, 2015 Hey guys, its been 5 months since i posted and i figured id give an update. When i first created this thread i was simply curious about the idea of geocentrism and why it wasnt talked about more in mainstream science because as far as i could figure it was never fully debunked and the only reasons it was never given a real shot was because of the religious implications tied to it. I am now fairly sure we are an intelligently designed species, i dont have any real proof for this just a gut feeling. There is evidence this way and that way showing for and against us being created, but for some reason i just feel it to be true. Moderators please dont relegate this thread to the trash bin, that would hurt my feelings. Besides, even tho i do feel this way i still have issues with it. My main problem here is say the bible is right, we have known for centuries that we are the center of the universe and that it was created for us. As crazy as that sounds, to me that is the most logical in my head. Where do we go from here If we know everything, that god created us and everything around us is here FOR us what do we do? Do dreams go away? Do we stop exploring the universe? What questions are left? I am in a crappy spot right now, i cant lie to myself but i am also depressed at the thought of knowing everything there is to know and this is probably why science is where we are at today, because a world in where we know everything isnt a very fulfilling one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted July 19, 2015 Share Posted July 19, 2015 Hey guys, its been 5 months since i posted and i figured id give an update. When i first created this thread i was simply curious about the idea of geocentrism and why it wasnt talked about more in mainstream science because as far as i could figure it was never fully debunked and the only reasons it was never given a real shot was because of the religious implications tied to it. That is not the reason at all. As others have said in this thread: there is nothing to debunk. You can consider the Earth to be the centre of the universe (just as you can consider the Moon or Alpha Centauri to be the centre of the universe). And, occasionally, that is done: planning the orbits of satellites, for example. But in general it is not a particular convenient model. And there is absolutely no reason to consider it as being special or true. I am now fairly sure we are an intelligently designed species, i dont have any real proof for this just a gut feeling. You are, of course, free to believe whatever you want. However, there is not evidence for that (if you want to discuss that, you should start a new thread in the appropriate part of the forum). And there are some incredibly stupid design decisions in the human body (and all other organisms) which seem to argue against "intelligent" design. On the other hand, there is a mountain of evidence for evolution; and this also explains the many bizarre "design decisions". My main problem here is say the bible is right, we have known for centuries that we are the center of the universe and that it was created for us. As crazy as that sounds, to me that is the most logical in my head. Science doesn't really care about what "seems logical". The whole point of the scientific method is to bypass these personal beliefs and preferences, and focus on the evidence. Where do we go from here If we know everything, that god created us and everything around us is here FOR us what do we do? Do dreams go away? Do we stop exploring the universe? What questions are left? That is one problem with your belief system. It destroys all enquiry: "god" becomes the answer to all questions. Life becomes pretty futile. "Why does the universe exist?" God did it. "How do we explain quantum effects?" God does it. "Do black holes exist?" If God wants them to. "Why do people die of cancer?" Because God wants them to. "Should I make my children wear a seatbelt?" Don't bother; if God wants to take them he will. I am in a crappy spot right now, i cant lie to myself but i am also depressed at the thought of knowing everything there is to know and this is probably why science is where we are at today, because a world in where we know everything isnt a very fulfilling one. If you give up believing that everything in the Bible is literally true and that the answer to all questions is "God" then you will realise how little we know, how much there is to discover, what a truly awesome universe this is. (Whether it was created by God or not) and how exciting science is as a way of learning more. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scotty99 Posted July 19, 2015 Author Share Posted July 19, 2015 Hey man i remember you, appreciate the reply. Let me try and clarify a little bit. First and foremost let me touch on this: That is one problem with your belief system. It destroys all enquiry: "god" becomes the answer to all questions. Life becomes pretty futile. I know its been a while since i posted but let me make clear again that i am not a religious person, ive never read the bible nor do i give god credit for everything. That said i do believe that we were created, and next ill get to the intelligent design point you made above. You are, of course, free to believe whatever you want. However, there is not evidence for that (if you want to discuss that, you should start a new thread in the appropriate part of the forum). And there are some incredibly stupid design decisions in the human body (and all other organisms) which seem to argue against "intelligent" design. I 100% agree with this. I didnt mean intelligent design as in the traditional way, i just mean that we are created. One example i have thought about since i was a little kid was was are testicles on the outside of our bodies? I literally cannot think of one thing that benefits us being on the outside. (i know weird thing to think about, but something ive thought on for a long time) If you give up believing that everything in the Bible is literally true and that the answer to all questions is "God" then you will realise how little we know, how much there is to discover, what a truly awesome universe this is. (Whether it was created by God or not) and how exciting science is as a way of learning more. Again i dont believe nearly anything in the bible, ive never read through all of it. The only thing i am fairly certain on is geocentrism, and if geocentrism is correct that means there is a god (Creator). This is of course leads to other problems, i know the bible has a lot of crazy shit in there and if i believe one thing from it does that mean i need to take everything else in there at face value as well? Right now i am 34 years old and i need to figure some shit out. 1. I know (for me, i know) that we are created and some sort of a god exists. 2. Even tho i got the idea of geocentrism from the bible i am not convinced that jesus christ is our god. Where does that leave me? I feel some of the bible is correct, most of it is propaganda. I feel ive found a truth with geocentrism, i feel i need to share it with people but it sounds ridiculous from someone who does not live by the teachings of the bible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StringJunky Posted July 19, 2015 Share Posted July 19, 2015 Hey man i remember you, appreciate the reply. Let me try and clarify a little bit. First and foremost let me touch on this: I know its been a while since i posted but let me make clear again that i am not a religious person, ive never read the bible nor do i give god credit for everything. That said i do believe that we were created, and next ill get to the intelligent design point you made above. I 100% agree with this. I didnt mean intelligent design as in the traditional way, i just mean that we are created. One example i have thought about since i was a little kid was was are testicles on the outside of our bodies? I literally cannot think of one thing that benefits us being on the outside. (i know weird thing to think about, but something ive thought on for a long time) Again i dont believe nearly anything in the bible, ive never read through all of it. The only thing i am fairly certain on is geocentrism, and if geocentrism is correct that means there is a god (Creator). This is of course leads to other problems, i know the bible has a lot of crazy shit in there and if i believe one thing from it does that mean i need to take everything else in there at face value as well? Right now i am 34 years old and i need to figure some shit out. 1. I know (for me, i know) that we are created and some sort of a god exists. 2. Even tho i got the idea of geocentrism from the bible i am not convinced that jesus christ is our god. Where does that leave me? I feel some of the bible is correct, most of it is propaganda. I feel ive found a truth with geocentrism, i feel i need to share it with people but it sounds ridiculous from someone who does not live by the teachings of the bible. Why cherry-pick all the bits you like from an existing religion, why not make your own up from scratch? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scotty99 Posted July 19, 2015 Author Share Posted July 19, 2015 Why cherry-pick all the bits you like from an existing religion, why not make your own up from scratch? Its literally one thing, geocentrism. If i had heard this theory from somewhere else i would have the same thoughts on it, it just happens to be what the church was teaching as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted July 19, 2015 Share Posted July 19, 2015 (edited) I know its been a while since i posted but let me make clear again that i am not a religious person, ive never read the bible nor do i give god credit for everything. That said i do believe that we were created, and next ill get to the intelligent design point you made above. If you think we were created by something other than God, again that needs a new thread. Not sure where such an idea would fit... I 100% agree with this. I didnt mean intelligent design as in the traditional way, i just mean that we are created. One example i have thought about since i was a little kid was was are testicles on the outside of our bodies? I literally cannot think of one thing that benefits us being on the outside. (i know weird thing to think about, but something ive thought on for a long time) So why would an "intelligent" designer do something that has, as you say, no benefit? However, the fact that sperm require a lower temperature than that inside the body, fits perfectly with the evolution of mammals. Note that some organisms have evolved different mechanisms such as keeping the testes internal and providing a cooling mechanism. Does this "intelligent creator" use trial and error? Or roll dice to decide what to do (just to annoy Einstein)? And then makes it look identical to evolution just to confuse us. Bad creator! if geocentrism is correct that means there is a god (Creator). That makes no sense. That is like saying that if dogs have four legs, then there is life on Pluto. It is a complete non-sequitur. This is of course leads to other problems, i know the bible has a lot of crazy shit in there and if i believe one thing from it does that mean i need to take everything else in there at face value as well? I don't see why. All religions pick and choose which bits of their holy texts they take as literally true, which are just metaphors or enlightning stories, and so on. That is one reason there are so many varieties of Christianity, for example. Some of those don't even accept that Jesus was divine. So take your pick. Everyone else does. 1. I know (for me, i know) that we are created and some sort of a god exists. Fine. But try and keep that separate from science. Where does that leave me? I feel some of the bible is correct, most of it is propaganda. I feel ive found a truth with geocentrism, i feel i need to share it with people but it sounds ridiculous from someone who does not live by the teachings of the bible. I'm sure other cultures have come up with the idea of geocentrism; it seems a fairly obvious conclusion from a naive view of the universe. But why GEOcentrism? Why not choose the seventeenth planet around a K class star in the Andromeda galaxy? It is just as arbitrary. Thinking that the universe revolves around you is a little .... arrogant? Edited July 19, 2015 by Strange Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted July 19, 2015 Share Posted July 19, 2015 Moderators please dont relegate this thread to the trash bin, that would hurt my feelings. ! Moderator Note That's not a criterion by which this is decided. If you want to keep this discussion going then you must follow the rules and present evidence to support your position. "Gut feelings" and citing religious text don't count. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ajb Posted July 20, 2015 Share Posted July 20, 2015 But why GEOcentrism? Why not choose the seventeenth planet around a K class star in the Andromeda galaxy? It is just as arbitrary. Thinking that the universe revolves around you is a little .... arrogant? And any little green men there would happily view their planet as the centre of the Universe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StringJunky Posted July 20, 2015 Share Posted July 20, 2015 Perhaps geocentrism naturally evolved from egocentrism which we are all born with to start. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billiards Posted July 20, 2015 Share Posted July 20, 2015 Perhaps off tangent slightly but the geocentric approach is also, more generally, a way to do science (cf. the ab initio approach). In trying to understand the origin and structure of the Earth, one can take the geocentric approach or the ab initio approach. In the former, one describes the Earth and attempts to work backward in time. For the latter, one attempts to track the evolu- tion of the solar nebula through collapse, cool- ing, condensation and accretion, hoping that one ends up with something resembling the Earth and other planets. https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=KB3KsIPa94sC&pg=PA3&lpg=PA3&dq=geocentric+vs+ab+initio&source=bl&ots=2UtcXH4tyP&sig=HPGWYVhMu54nuksT_najuVpBh0c&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CBkQ6AEwAWoVChMIzvzyhNXpxgIVQdcUCh2lUQ37#v=onepage&q=geocentric%20vs%20ab%20initio&f=false Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts