Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[WhitiusOpus]

The sci-fi story was just to illustrate the point that we currently do not have the necessary information to conclude anything about the creation or inevitable destruction of our galaxy, beyond speculation. I wasn't citing it as a source of good information, just to help reinforce my point that everything is relative. We have the scientific laws we do because of what we observe and test, finding constants that could be different elsewhere. We're also limited by technology, and not able to test other theories due to constraints. Also, Really? I've only cited the article. Yes it has some flaws. But it covers it's topic decently well, and brings up some interesting points. I would like you to point me to some sources of you're own, if you're going to argue that not a single law of science has been disproven within the last 200 years.

If this is going to become a discussion on metaphysics I suggest we move it to the discussion thread <.<

[GreatWyrmGold]

The sci-fi story was just to illustrate the point that we currently do not have the necessary information to conclude anything about the creation or inevitable destruction of our galaxy, beyond speculation. I wasn't citing it as a source of good information, just to help reinforce my point that everything is relative.

Good Lord, you're starting to sound like a Creationist! "Everything is relative"? No, it really isn't. You can believe that the moon is made of cheese all you want, but eating it is still going to give you problems. You can believe that humans were born from fish-wombs and that you can breathe water, but then natural selection would take care of you sooner or later and we'd be left with air-breathers. And no matter how much you try to build a perpetual motion machine, the Laws of Thermodynamics will always apply.

We have the scientific laws we do because of what we observe and test, finding constants that could be different elsewhere. We're also limited by technology, and not able to test other theories due to constraints.

It's hypothetically possible that the Apollo astronauts discovered that the moon really is made of grayish cheese, and were just afraid to talk about it. I find this much, much more likely than any given scientific theory is totally, completely wrong. In need of alteration? Perhaps (e.g, the replacement of Newtonian with Einsteinian gravitational theory), but saying that a scientific theory could be proven wrong as if that means anything is stupid. It's also possible that Putin will give Crimea to the Ukraine with a chunk of Russian territory as a gift, but I don't think either of us thinks that's likely either.

Also, Really? I've only cited the article. Yes it has some flaws. But it covers it's topic decently well, and brings up some interesting points.

"Interesting points" that fall apart with a few seconds' thought. E.g. the "redshift violates the laws of thermodynamics!" thing. If you think about it five seconds, you'd realize that any energy lost to redshifting in the back would be gained by blueshifting in the front.

I would like you to point me to some sources of you're own, if you're going to argue that not a single law of science has been disproven within the last 200 years.

So, you want me to bring up every well-tested law of science that could have been disproven and show that each one has been shown to be more or less correct.
I'm starting to question if you even understand the topic we're discussing.

If this is going to become a discussion on metaphysics I suggest we move it to the discussion thread <.<

This isn't exactly the IC thread.

On that note, is this ever going to update?

[Sarrak]

On that note, is this ever going to update?

I think Hanslanda wasn't (actually) here from the second of April. When he will get a hold on forum - we'd receive our update.