Wednesday, February 18, 2009

New Model of Early Universe

Before I go on, here is the link to the article I'm talking about.

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/090217-st-cosmic-dawn.html

The following are excerpts from the discussion forum regarding this article. It's actually much easier to just post this than rewrite everything. My points are still the same.

-------------------------------------------------------------

So, let's get this right, we have an article about the simulation of a theory that, as of today, is completely unproven. Might as well just draw a cartoon and you'll get just as accurate results.

TJM wrote: Well, which is more likely? More than 85% of the universe is made up of stuff that we can't detect by any known technology; or our equations and models (which are holy and sacrosanct) are incomplete?

Amen! When broken equations are only solvable by inventing variables, it's all over.

Richter wrote: I don't see how anyone could reasonably just "deny" dark matter.

And I cannot fathom why anyone would just accept that Dark Matter exists either. Oh, and there was an article published on space.com back on January 5th where they've revised the mass of the galaxy because they measured the speed wrong the first time. Here's the article.

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/090105-aas-milky-way-mass.html

The more we refine our measurements of the basics, the more we'll realize all of this hocus pocus made up stuff is just that...made up stuff. However, if I am wrong, I will gladly admit it, because for me this is not about being personally right, but about being universally accurate.

SpazzyMcGee wrote: And is it just me or is this forum full of people doing nothing but raging on modern cosmology?

Is it me, or is this forum full of people who worship the current cosmological model like a religion? I find that there are more of you than there are of us, but then again, that's always the case when you buck the system. It's all good. Through all this debate the real truth will eventually be learned.

AdmiralQuality wrote: What are you again, a welder or something? This is akin to a dairy farmer thinking everything in the universe is caused by cows. Sorry, but you're (Solrey) just nowhere near smart enough to realize how wrong you are and I really wish you'd stop spamming this board with your EU "theories".

WOW you're an arrogant...never mind. I know Solrey isn't just a welder, but even if he was, are you saying that it's impossible for someone of a basic background to ponder and maybe even solve difficult theories of the universe? What, only highly educated mathematical geniuses are capable? I find it interesting how we never insult you, just disagree and offer alternative explanations, but you constantly find the need to be rude, arrogant and condescending. Why?

SpazzyMcGee wrote: I don't care how much science you have taught yourself, you have to have at least a PhD in my book if your going to tell me the sky is green.

Given that PhD's are all educated in the same "system", with little thought to real independent thinking, I would be concerned that you're more interested in following a dogmatic norm than being a free thinking individual on your own. I am going to get my PhD in Astrophysics, but that doesn't mean I'm going to just accept everything "they" teach me. Questioning everything is the truest sign of an expanding mind.

Also, and you must acknowledge this to be true, that once a particular point of view is pushed to be main stream, it's very difficult for alternative ideals to garner support. This is true in politics, religion, and also science. Those with the power wish to maintain and control it. Those with the dominating theory are just the same.

The, "sum total of millions of hours of research," is a byproduct of a system that pushes one point of view while disregarding others. Of course the gravity based cosmological models have more substance behind them, because they are the ones getting the funding and propagating the theory.

Also, I myself find huge faults in the whole EU theology bit. Saturn used to fill our night sky bigger than the sun. Venus was a comet that scarred Mars and the ancients witnessed it first hand. Kind of hard to swallow any of that. But to use THAT as a sole focus for ridiculing the serious science part of the theory is disingenuous.

And that's another point, Solrey frequently gives links to non-EU websites to prove his points. It's not like he always goes to one page on one website, as if pounding a droning drum in the same pitch all the time. You get links to news articles from major papers, science journals, and research documents, all supporting his comments. Yet many of you still revert to insults, scolding and admonishment. Ridiculous.

-------------------------------------------------------------

Aren't these forum debates fun? :)

8 comments:

Monsal Varga said...

Sometimes people at space.com get themselves too serious about things. It's like defending your thesis before an academic jury :D

+he WYZ^RD projec+ said...

The ants still cannot figure out how big the Earth is and are now arguing about which theory is right? Hell, might as well bring "God" back into the equation while we're at it. lol

Personally, I would like to suggest an "agnostic" approach to scientific theories of the universe. Since the bottom line is we simply don't know--because we don't have the technological capability and possibly the intellectual capacity to understand such concepts--perhaps everyone involved should first admit that they are little more than a relatively advanced, yet still clueless monkey before picking sides in any such ultimate debate.

What if the universe is the equivalent of a super-advanced game of Second Life--where the characters are designed to be self-evolving and self-programming instead of pre-built and directly controlled by a "higher power"?

What if the concept of an all-knowing force exists, but is completely passive and simply monitors the progress of life as it progressively designs itself?

How many Software Engineers does it take to change a light bulb?

None. It's a hardware problem.

What if space ultimately turns out to be the same type of comical scenario except reversed? To be honest, I don't trust the Big Bang theory because it defies what I perceive to be logical in the same way the Bible suddenly just begins all at once. When it comes to things as epic as the concept of space and the size and function of the universe, I don't trust the capability of man's technology to do anything but enhance perception of things. Relatively thinking, it wasn't all that long ago the Earth was flat for Christ's sake, so, all things considered, there is a chance all these theories are completely irrelevant in the grand scheme of things because we are simply just not advanced enough to remotely understand what we are dealing with yet.

As we understand it, nothing can go on forever, and so until we can find a provable explanation of that concept, I believe we simply aren't nearly as advanced as we often think we are.

It never hurts to try though, and space exploration is good in that sense, although I think philosophy (the "software" part of the equation) may one day become part of our/the quest to conquer space and time.

Ant-brain over-heating...I'm going to go dunk it in some TMZ nonsense to cool off. lol

Hi Doug!

Douglas Mallette said...

Hands down, one of the best comments ever posted on my blog. Thanks WYZ^RD.

Anonymous said...

It's painfully obvious that WYZ^RD = Douglas Mallette. Sad.

Douglas Mallette said...

Anonymous - Not only are you dead wrong, but it's also obvious that you don't have the courage to use your real name to be identified with for an accusation like that. How quaint.

Fransico Mancebo said...

Quaint? In the words of Inigo Montoya...You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Douglas Mallette said...

Quaint:
1. obsolete : expert , skilled

2a: marked by skillful design

2b: marked by beauty or elegance

3a: unusual or different in character or appearance : odd

3b: pleasingly or strikingly old-fashioned or unfamiliar

I refer to 3a, ODD. As in, how odd that someone would choose to make such an accusation online without identifying themselves. Of course, this is said with heavy sarcasm.

And I conclude with this. Me, wrong on a definition of a word? Inconceivable! :)

jdeaux said...

For all of the negative comments:
TWO EYES
TWO EARS
ONE MOUTH
Seems to fit!