The State Of Our Knowledge

Discussion in 'Science and Technology' started by pywakit, Dec 20, 2009.

  1. pywakit
    Offline

    pywakit Rookie

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2009
    Messages:
    39
    Thanks Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    1
    Ratings:
    +7
    An objective, rational examination of all current scientific knowledge ( math, physics, chemistry, paleontology, experiments, observations, SETI, etc. ) tells us that .....


    1. The human form is very special. 'We' are not.

    2. There is an astronomically small likelihood that molecular combinations other than DNA produce life.

    3. Radio-capable life is extremely rare in the visible/local universe.

    4. There is a very high probability that the only radio-capable life is identical in form to us.

    5. The ACTUAL universe is infinite.

    6. The ACTUAL universe is eternal.

    7. The 'big bang' was not a unique event in the universe.

    8. The 'big bang' is actually a black hole ( ultra-dense star ) having achieved critical mass.

    9. The amount of mass necessary FOR a 'big bang' is equal to the mass that came FROM the 'big bang'.

    10. The process is a 'closed loop'. No atom escapes.

    11. The process has gone on since 'the beginning of time' .... And will continue forever.

    12. The properties of space preclude such events from overlapping.

    13. An infinite number of 'big bangs' are occuring as I write this.

    14. The observed properties of matter preclude 'infinite' smallness.

    15. The observed properties of matter preclude 'infinite' denseness.

    16. The observed properties of matter preclude 'infinitely large'.

    17. 'Materializing' sub-Planck particles 'borrow' energy from the fabric of space and last about a billionth of a second.

    18. Matter above Planck size does not materialize at all ... anywhere within the visible/local universe.

    19. Black holes ... and their main effect ( creation of matter/finite universe ) ... are borrowed energy from 'infinite' space.

    20. There is no evidence of 'dark matter'. Purely hypothetical.

    21. There is no evidence of 'dark energy'. Purely hypothetical.

    22. The observed properties of infinite space, and matter preclude 'other' universes from operating under completely different physics.

    23. There is an extremely high probability that all 'finite' universes ... infinite in number ... function in exactly the same manner as 'our' universe.

    24. Time and space did not begin with the arrival of 'our' universe. ( redundant )

    25. Super-physics/super-technology do not exist. Not here. Not anywhere. ( FTL travel )

    26. A worm hole harnessed to enable biological species to leap light years is not possible in the physical universe. ( mathematical probability/certainty does not equate to actually existing in the physical universe )

    27. Meta-physics do not exist here. Or anywhere. ( alternate dimensions, telepathy, telekinesis, elemental transmutations ... such as turning straw into gold ... super-natural events and occurences, etc. )

    28. Time travel is not possible due to the physical constraints ( laws ) of space.

    29. The same materials ( atoms ) that comprise 'our' end of the universe comprise the 'other' end too.

    30. The visible/local universe is not 'teeming' with life.

    31. The current generally accepted theoretical cosmological model of the universe ( THE ONE AND ONLY 'big bang' ) has critical and insurmountable flaws.

    32. A variety of circumstances and beliefs are in play that force 'mainstream' science to ignore observations and experimental evidence that contradict the accepted theory.

    33. Each new contradictory discovery that can not be ignored by 'mainstream' science is explained 'after the fact' through the use of manufactured 'hypotheticals'.

    34. The current 'big bang' model relies ( in part ) on the extremely unlikely future creation of purely speculative 'new' physics.

    35. The current 'big bang' model has failed to make a substantive, accurate prediction. Ever.

    36. My model solves all the 'problems' inherent in the current model using proven, existing physics.

    Recapping ... These rational, logical conclusions are based on every bit of scientific evidence currently available.

    They are devoid of dreams, opinions, wishes, agendas, hopes, beliefs, supernatural entities, or any other unproven, or purely speculative, or hypothetical possibility.

    This is the state of our knowledge to date.
     
  2. Big Black Dog
    Offline

    Big Black Dog Gold Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2009
    Messages:
    22,920
    Thanks Received:
    5,112
    Trophy Points:
    260
    Ratings:
    +5,726
    If I sit down and memorize all of this stuff, is there anything else I need to know to be a complete human life form?
     
  3. pywakit
    Offline

    pywakit Rookie

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2009
    Messages:
    39
    Thanks Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    1
    Ratings:
    +7
    Nope. Lol.
     
  4. rdean
    Offline

    rdean rddean

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2009
    Messages:
    60,152
    Thanks Received:
    6,899
    Trophy Points:
    1,840
    Location:
    chicago
    Ratings:
    +15,001
    1. The human form is very special. 'We' are not.

    2. There is an astronomically small likelihood that molecular combinations other than DNA produce life.

    3. Radio-capable life is extremely rare in the visible/local universe.

    4. There is a very high probability that the only radio-capable life is identical in form to us.

    Not very well thought out. We are special. Why would you think we aren't? NOTE: Fossils indicated that some dinosaurs might already have been filling the "niche" we currently inhabit. Standing upright, large brain, opposable thumb.

    Some scientist have wondered why silicone based life wouldn't work as well as carbon. Something to consider.

    The universe is billions of years old. Radio capable life might be very common,. It's just that when one civilization ends, another doesn't rise for a million years and they have lost that opportunity for communication like strangers in the night. Two lovers passing.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  5. blu
    Offline

    blu Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2009
    Messages:
    6,836
    Thanks Received:
    774
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +774
    20 got proved wrong today. 21 will be proved wrong soon. 28 is wrong. 35 is wrong
     
  6. pywakit
    Offline

    pywakit Rookie

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2009
    Messages:
    39
    Thanks Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    1
    Ratings:
    +7
    I'm thinking you can't grasp the actual size of our galaxy, let alone the number of stars within 8 billion light years. If radio life was common, as you suggest, then SETI would have had an earful from the moment it was switched on. Oddly, the scientists at SETI made the same hypothesises you have, and they were pretty darn certain we would catch a signal FORTY FIVE TO FIFTY YEARS AGO.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
    Last edited: Dec 22, 2009
  7. pywakit
    Offline

    pywakit Rookie

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2009
    Messages:
    39
    Thanks Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    1
    Ratings:
    +7
    Proved is a rather strong word. There are many reasons for astrophysicists to want to make such a claim. This evidence is not 'conclusive' regardless of how much they want to believe it. There are still many other possible reasons for the results. Including reasons they simply haven't thought of yet.

    That said, the new evidence certainly lends credence to the theory. So let's put a strongly worded disclaimer on #20. Ok?

    I must disagree with you on #21. Please provide your evidence. I can find none.

    Are you aware that time travel ( #28 ) is also FTL travel, and to do so you must calculate the exact location in time AND the corresponding point in space you wish to travel to?

    This from another forum ... Yes, I wrote it.

    Time travel is impossible.

    It is irrelevant whether or not the physics suggests it is possible.

    Here's the most critical reason why.

    The sun is moving THROUGH space relative to the galactic arm at around 20 kilometers per second.

    Our galactic spiral arm is moving THROUGH space at about 220 kilometers per second relative to the center of the galaxy.

    Earth is moving THROUGH space relative to the sun at about 30 kilometers per second.

    Earth is spinning at about .5 kilometer per second at the equator.

    We do not 'take' space along with us. We move THROUGH it.

    If you were to travel back in time just 1 second in the past, you would find yourself at a completely different location.

    Perhaps a couple hundred kilometers underground. Or out in space.

    10 minutes in the past puts you a hell of a long way from Earth.

    Not only does your machine have to transport you through time, but it must move you physically to another location.

    500 years in the past? 34,689,600,000 kilometers from your starting location.

    Hmmmm. Wonder what the energy requirements are to move 200 pounds about 35 billion kilometers instantaneously?

    Better make sure your airbag is functional, and buckle your seatbelt. Tight.

    Good luck!

    Darn it. I made another error. Multiply that 35 billion by 550 kps. That's the speed of the Milky Way galaxy, relative to the cosmic backround radiation.

    Hmmm. Let's see. That would be about 19,250,000,000,000 kilometers from your original location in space on that 500 year journey into the past.

    I'm going to say that is about 20 lightyears. Instantaneously. My math is probably not very accurate. But you get the point.

    Interesting, isn't it that time travel is also faster-than-light travel.

    Hope the other end of your worm hole has GPS.

    Not looking very promising .....

    Mathematical probability/certainty does not equate to ACTUAL reality.

    As far as #35 goes the adjective is 'substantive'. Why do you think they are freaking out over supermassive black holes? Even if Hawking's hypothesis ( untested still, after 30 plus years ) were true, there are a host of other problems with it. And where exactly did they say the BB got it's mass?


    Would you care to provide a 'substantive prediction' correctly made by the current BB model? I don't think it predicted isotropic/homogenous space. I don't think it predicted supermassive black holes. I don't think it predicted CMBR. I don't think it predicted hydrogen/helium levels. I don't think it predicted merging black holes.
     
    Last edited: Dec 23, 2009
  8. midcan5
    Offline

    midcan5 liberal / progressive

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2007
    Messages:
    10,793
    Thanks Received:
    2,367
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Location:
    Philly, PA
    Ratings:
    +3,306
    What we know now.

    We think we know.
    We live a short time.
    We are alive now.
    We breath.
    We age and change.
    We learn.
    We don't learn.
    We believe something.
    We don't believe something.
    We like pleasure.
    We don't like pain.
    We eat.
    We defecate.
    We pollute.
    We get sick.
    We sleep.
    We dream.
    We have sex.
    We enjoy children.
    We love certain things.
    We hate certain things.
    We see change.
    We will die.
    The earth is small.
    The universe large.
    The sun will die.
    We think we know.
     
  9. uscitizen
    Offline

    uscitizen Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2007
    Messages:
    45,941
    Thanks Received:
    4,791
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    My Shack
    Ratings:
    +4,807
    Everything you know is wrong!
     
  10. ☭proletarian☭
    Online

    ☭proletarian☭ Guest

    Ratings:
    +0
    How so?
    No? I happen to think our techonolgy, science, and philosophy is quite special.

    How do you figure?
    clarify
    how do you figure?
    Where'd you hear that?
    perhaps, but that's a theory and not an uncontested one

    According to who?
    That's one theory
    Maybe the mass necessary for a big bang like our own. You are aware that, according to Lambda-Colt theory, the sum total of the universe is 0, right?
    Again, that's not uncontested
    Multiverse theory has yet to be 'proven'
    \
    That it's yet to be seen doesn't mean it's impossible
    :eusa_eh:

    Source?
    Not quite. Google it.

    Theoretical, not hypothetical
    How do you figure?
    Probability is meaningless in an infinite set of samples- everything has a 100% chance of occurring.
    Metaphysics is philosophy and does not 'exist' or 'not exist'
    Some very educated and highly intelligent scientists disagree

    What other end?
    Such as?
    :eusa_eh:
    It's official. You have no idea what you're speaking about: Google BCBR and Red Shift
    I highly doubt that; if that were true, it's be published in BAS and not on USMB
    That was almost funny
     

Share This Page