Observations and assumptions

[RetiredGySgt]

How scientific is it to observe something in a very localized area and the extrapolate that this observation is true throughout an entire planet or Universe?

For instance, if I note that the wind is blowing where I am can I now extrapolate that the wind is blowing everywhere on the planet? Is that scientific?

If I note what I consider is expansion occurring around my planet can I then extrapolate from that, that expansion is occurring through out the Universe? Is that scientific?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

At the very least, since we have established on this planet what we call directions, North South East and West, we can note the direction the wind is blowing where we are.

In the case of the Universe we do not know where the supposed beginning point, if there even is one, is. We can note movement around our planet but with no refrence to start and end how does one establish that that movement is expansion away from some starting point? No known starting point, no known ending point,no ability to observe outside our solar system and yet we claim we know that the universe is expanding.

 

[eagleseven]

If every grand celestial formation we can observe is moving away from every other grand celestial formation, in a starburst-like pattern, you can infer that, at one time in the past, everything was very close together.

Granted, you cannot be 100% certain unless you go back in time and observe...but that isn't possible, so we make do with what we have.

Additionally, there is no guarantee that the entire universe follows the laws we observe around us. Any area of universe that does not follow the laws of physics will be unobservable like us, and thus the borders of such lawless regions will form the borders of the universe, as we know it.

Of course, since we cannot test a region that is unobservable by nature, this is nothing but clever speculation on the part of Steven Hawking.

 

[editec]

How scientific is it to observe something in a very localized area and the extrapolate that this observation is true throughout an entire planet or Universe?

That isn't what happened.

In fact, science once thought that the milky way was the entire universe and science thought that the universe was static.

It is very scientific to extrapolate theories based on what is known at the time, that turn out to be wrong.

And it is also very scientific to revise those theories as additionall information manifests.

If I note what I consider is expansion occurring around my planet can I then extrapolate from that, that expansion is occurring through out the Universe? Is that scientific?

Yes it is.

Assuming you're humble enough to recognize that you might have to rethink your theory in light of additional data.

It's called scientific method and its served us fairly well.

You got a better system?

Oh yeah, that's right...you've decided to take your cosmology theories from the musings of pre-iron-age shepherds.

Very enlightened.

 

[JBeukema]

How scientific is it to observe something in a very localized area and the extrapolate that this observation is true throughout an entire planet or Universe?

For instance, if I note that the wind is blowing where I am can I now extrapolate that the wind is blowing everywhere on the planet? Is that scientific?

If I note what I consider is expansion occurring around my planet can I then extrapolate from that, that expansion is occurring through out the Universe? Is that scientific?

strawman + red herring + evasion + cowardice = RGS = a lying bitch who's still hiding from JB because he cannot refute any of the evidence that makes RGS feel like the idiot he is for clinging to his delusions and lie

 

[del]

How scientific is it to observe something in a very localized area and the extrapolate that this observation is true throughout an entire planet or Universe?

For instance, if I note that the wind is blowing where I am can I now extrapolate that the wind is blowing everywhere on the planet? Is that scientific?

If I note what I consider is expansion occurring around my planet can I then extrapolate from that, that expansion is occurring through out the Universe? Is that scientific?

i have a tiny penis.

fixed that for ya ,JB.

rock on.

 

[JBeukema]

Once again Del demonstrates the might of his intelligence by offering... q refutation? No. A rebuttal? Of course not? Personal attacks and evasions? Of course! That's what idiots do when they have no refutation and they're shown to be an uneducated twit



My points remain unrefuted

 

[RetiredGySgt]

So before we could check things around the world asuming cause it was raining at my house meant it was raining everywhere and cause the wind was blowing I knew the wind was blowing everywhere. Thanks for clarifying that.

We NOW know those assumptions are patently false but will use them in regards the Universe anyway? So much for science and learning.

 

[del]

Once again Del demonstrates the might of his intelligence by offering... q refutation? No. A rebuttal? Of course not? Personal attacks and evasions? Of course! That's what idiots do when they have no refutation and they're shown to be an uneducated twit



My points remain unrefuted

what evasion would that be, tiny?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Once again Del demonstrates the might of his intelligence by offering... q refutation? No. A rebuttal? Of course not? Personal attacks and evasions? Of course! That's what idiots do when they have no refutation and they're shown to be an uneducated twit



My points remain unrefuted

Already answered your dumb ass "points" in the other thread and its brother thread. And your only response was to name call, talk about unanswered.

 

[JBeukema]

You rebutted nothing; all you did was repeat the same bullshit I had refuted

 

[eagleseven]

So before we could check things around the world asuming cause it was raining at my house meant it was raining everywhere and cause the wind was blowing I knew the wind was blowing everywhere. Thanks for clarifying that.

We NOW know those assumptions are patently false but will use them in regards the Universe anyway? So much for science and learning.

No, the key is distinguishing between local phenomena and universal laws.

Rain patterns are a local phenomenon. If it is raining at your house, that isn't proof that it is raining everywhere.

On the other hand, the fact that rain falls due to gravity is a law. No matter what continent you travel to, rain falls because of gravity. Thus, we can extrapolate that rain on other planets falls due to gravity, too. Actually, this is a simple way of explaining the universality of the Theory of Gravity.

This is science and learning.

 

[eagleseven]

Once again Del demonstrates the might of his intelligence by offering... q refutation? No. A rebuttal? Of course not? Personal attacks and evasions? Of course! That's what idiots do when they have no refutation and they're shown to be an uneducated twit



My points remain unrefuted

Your points are, and I quote,

strawman + red herring + evasion + cowardice = RGS = a lying bitch who's still hiding from JB because he cannot refute any of the evidence that makes RGS feel like the idiot he is for clinging to his delusions and lie

Should RGS refute that he is a coward, or a lying bitch? It looks to me that JB posted a personal attack in lieu of addressing the OP...classy.

 

[Big Black Dog]

On the other hand, the fact that rain falls due to gravity is a law. No matter what continent you travel to, rain falls because of gravity. Thus, we can extrapolate that rain on other planets falls due to gravity, too. Actually, this is a simple way of explaining the universality of the Theory of Gravity.

So, how can you prove that it even rains on other planets? Maybe rain is only an "Earth" kind of thing. Just because it rains here doesn't particularly mean that it rains on other planets. While it's true that we suspect there was once water on some of the other planets, we cannot say that water came from rain.

 

[eagleseven]

On the other hand, the fact that rain falls due to gravity is a law. No matter what continent you travel to, rain falls because of gravity. Thus, we can extrapolate that rain on other planets falls due to gravity, too. Actually, this is a simple way of explaining the universality of the Theory of Gravity.

So, how can you prove that it even rains on other planets? Maybe rain is only an "Earth" kind of thing. Just because it rains here doesn't particularly mean that it rains on other planets. While it's true that we suspect there was once water on some of the other planets, we cannot say that water came from rain.

But if rain does fall elsewhere, we know it will be pulled by gravity. This is the simple universal law that scientists deduce from complex systems.

 

[JBeukema]

My points were all the evidence for evolution; if you don't know what's being discussed, don't interrupt

 

[del]

My points were all the evidence for evolution; if you don't know what's being discussed, don't interrupt

piss off, tiny.

 

[JBeukema]

Del's getting mad because neither he nor anyone else can refute the evidence against his and RGS' ignorance and lies

 

[eagleseven]

Del's getting mad because neither he nor anyone else can refute the evidence against his and RGS' ignorance and lies

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=orGJlfzrEVc&feature=related]YouTube - YTMND - Why you stuck up, half witted, Scruffy looking, nerf[/ame]

 

[editec]

So before we could check things around the world asuming cause it was raining at my house meant it was raining everywhere and cause the wind was blowing I knew the wind was blowing everywhere. Thanks for clarifying that.

What an imbecile.