Geekzone: technology news, blogs, forums
Guest
Welcome Guest.
You haven't logged in yet. If you don't have an account you can register now.
View this topic in a long page with up to 500 replies per page Create new topic
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | ... | 19
144 posts

Master Geek
+1 received by user: 32
Inactive user


  Reply # 1620460 31-Aug-2016 22:10
Send private message

Also TwoSeven, you might want to check the observations from the Planck satellite and the explanation re background radiation from which photons have been detected that they claim to be able to date to around 370 million years after the big bang, so they are are saying that they are observing the effects of the big bang some 13 billion light years ago.


Mad Scientist
19011 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2469

Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  Reply # 1620477 31-Aug-2016 22:39
Send private message

Seakiwi:

 

Also TwoSeven, you might want to check the observations from the Planck satellite and the explanation re background radiation from which photons have been detected that they claim to be able to date to around 370 million years after the big bang, so they are are saying that they are observing the effects of the big bang some 13 billion light years ago.

 

 

TwoSeven: As pointed out, we cant and dont see light that has already passed us, we only see the stuff that has not yet arrived.  Most of this light (if not all of it) did not eminate from the big bang, but from other events that occured after it, for example galaxies and stars.

 

Umm I can't think of a scenario where one can see light that hasn't arrived ... well ... umm ... no. What you see is what's arrived.


4450 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 843

Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  Reply # 1620482 31-Aug-2016 23:03
Send private message

@Rikkitic:

 

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/are-virtual-particles-rea/

 

http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2011/02/02/can-you-get-something-for-noth/

 

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/Nave-html/faithpathh/hawkingpres2.html

 

 

 

 

Science - it has to be based on observation. Scientists put forward many theories and this changes all the time based on observation and knowledge at the time. In fact, science is not a certain thing - unlike mathematics which have certainty. If something can be created out of nothing, why there are no new 'creation' suddenly appear in our universe? New organism? Today, most people will accept whatever ideas put forward by the so-called 'scientist' and this is actually a new form of "Priesthood". As long as this scientist said this and that, we will accept it even though they themselves are not able to prove their theory. Stephen Hawking has changed his view on the universe multiple times.

 

If I take an empty box - leave there for 10 years, will there be a universe inside it?

 

 

 

Don't get me wrong, my job is to utilize science at the cellular biological level.

 

And don't get me started on evolution theory. I accept the second part of the theory (ie adaptation), but do we really share a common ancestor with the monkeys? Most believe that evolution theory is all about monkey evolving into the human being - this is an incorrect understanding.






4450 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 843

Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  Reply # 1620483 31-Aug-2016 23:13
Send private message

@joker97:

 

While he digs for the answer let me point you to what science is......

 

 

Science can explain How and What - but it is unable to explain Why.

 

My friend baked a cake and gave it to me today. Science can explain

 

1. How the cake is made

 

2. What is the ingredients she used

 

3. How she transported the cake

 

etc

 

Can science explains Why she made me the cake?

 

 

 

Most see 'science' as Holy (unquestionable) - and to me this is exactly like what happen to Europe in the middle age. It is a new form of "Priesthood" as people now stop questioning things around them. You have got to be able to make the same observation of what the scientist claim if it is true. We have to be able to justify and understand them.






Glurp
8225 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3784

Subscriber

  Reply # 1620484 31-Aug-2016 23:22
Send private message

Pray to god, maybe you get a miracle, maybe not.

 

Use your smart phone and it just works. If it doesn't, it can be diagnosed and fixed. I refer to put my faith in science.

 

 





I reject your reality and substitute my own. - Adam Savage
 


4450 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 843

Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  Reply # 1620488 31-Aug-2016 23:39
Send private message

@Rikkitic:

 

Pray to god, maybe you get a miracle, maybe not.

 

Use your smart phone and it just works. If it doesn't, it can be diagnosed and fixed. I refer to put my faith in science. 

 

 

I have no problem with "science". But I do like to put my logic, ability to judge and Occam's Razor prior to accept whatever is being put forward to me.

 

Maybe a mobile phone will be assembled in front of you automagically tonight- if you put together some oil, sand and vegetables or maybe nothing.

 

Btw Prof Lawrence Krauss said exactly what you have said there - we can believe in science because 'it works'. I disagree with him, remember phlogiston theory? It works but later we found out that this incorrect - no such fire-like element exist. 

 

 

 

Gud night :-)

 

 






7373 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3853


  Reply # 1620491 1-Sep-2016 00:00
Send private message

nakedmolerat:

 

 

 

Science - it has to be based on observation.

 

 

 

 

Einstein did pretty well then - considering that most of his theories weren't based on observation at all, and at the time he formulated them he knew there was no way to confirm them by observation.

 

A remarkable feat for someone, who like you and I, shared a common ancestor with monkeys, that substantiated by observation at the cellular level, something you surely aren't disputing?


Mad Scientist
19011 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2469

Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  Reply # 1620494 1-Sep-2016 00:23
Send private message

Fred99:

nakedmolerat:


 


Science - it has to be based on observation.



 


Einstein did pretty well then - considering that most of his theories weren't based on observation at all, and at the time he formulated them he knew there was no way to confirm them by observation.


A remarkable feat for someone, who like you and I, shared a common ancestor with monkeys, that substantiated by observation at the cellular level, something you surely aren't disputing?



Me like some others are stubborn, and have issues with just about anything presented to me.

So human dna vs
Human 99.5
Chimp 98.8
Cat 90
Mouse 75
Banana 50

Someone see a problem?

And apparently pigs are more similar to human than chimpanzee but no-one would publish the exact percentage ... Hmmm ...

I think when we know more genome sequences of a diverse range of things we can then analyse the numbers and come up with some way to compare that one number of totality to mean something.

Glurp
8225 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3784

Subscriber

  Reply # 1620495 1-Sep-2016 00:25
Send private message

nakedmolerat:

 

 

 

Btw Prof Lawrence Krauss said exactly what you have said there - we can believe in science because 'it works'. I disagree with him, remember phlogiston theory? It works but later we found out that this incorrect - no such fire-like element exist. 

 

 

The point is we found out. Yay for science. 

 

Where is the progression in religion? After thousands of years of talking about god, we still don't know anything new.

 

 





I reject your reality and substitute my own. - Adam Savage
 


4450 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 843

Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  Reply # 1620496 1-Sep-2016 00:25
Send private message

@Fred99

 

Einstein did pretty well then - considering that most of his theories weren't based on observation at all, and at the time he formulated them he knew there was no way to confirm them by observation.

 

Sorry - I don't really know how many theories he has came out with. His theory of general relativity starts with observing the speed of light in the vacuum and it follows the universal law of cause and effect. Just like Einstein and his mate, Kurt Freidrich Godel - they both believe in grand design. 

 

 

A remarkable feat for someone, who like you and I, shared a common ancestor with monkeys, that substantiated by observation at the cellular level, something you surely aren't disputing?

 

 

If you can give an observable evidence, with regards to Darwinian Evolution, not adaptation, not speciation, but change of kinds - I am sure you can claim the next Nobel prize :-)






Mad Scientist
19011 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2469

Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  Reply # 1620497 1-Sep-2016 00:26
Send private message

Rikkitic:

nakedmolerat:


 


Btw Prof Lawrence Krauss said exactly what you have said there - we can believe in science because 'it works'. I disagree with him, remember phlogiston theory? It works but later we found out that this incorrect - no such fire-like element exist. 



The point is we found out. Yay for science. 


Where is the progression in religion? After thousands of years of talking about god, we still don't know anything new.


 



Religion and god is not the same thing in my books. Religion is created by man to oppress/control. Thanks to Google we know plenty about that! I can't say science has killed god. In fact the opposite. But that's my opinion.

Mad Scientist
19011 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2469

Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  Reply # 1620498 1-Sep-2016 00:31
One person supports this post
Send private message

Rikkitic:

Pray to god, maybe you get a miracle, maybe not.


Use your smart phone and it just works. If it doesn't, it can be diagnosed and fixed. I refer to put my faith in science.


 



Pray to your smartphone, definitely no miracle i can guarantee that!

3772 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1222


  Reply # 1620499 1-Sep-2016 00:37
Send private message

nakedmolerat:

 

Don't get me wrong, my job is to utilize science at the cellular biological level.

 

And don't get me started on evolution theory. I accept the second part of the theory (ie adaptation), but do we really share a common ancestor with the monkeys? Most believe that evolution theory is all about monkey evolving into the human being - this is an incorrect understanding.

 

 

You probably shouldn't have started on evolutionary theory as it is off topic. But you did and I am now curious as you make some rather outlandish claims. 

 

So, what is your correct understanding of the origin of man? I'm guessing you are going on a religious angle, or possibly the 'aliens' put us here story. 

 

Personally, the evidence suggests this is more likely...

 

http://www.sci-news.com/othersciences/anthropology/science-homo-pan-last-common-ancestor-03220.html

 

Given the planet earth was once a flaming ball of fire with no life, even humans must have evolved from the original spark of life... and we look more like monkeys than anything else so it is a reasonable theory. 

 

 


Mad Scientist
19011 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2469

Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  Reply # 1620500 1-Sep-2016 00:38
Send private message

nakedmolerat:

@Fred99


Einstein did pretty well then - considering that most of his theories weren't based on observation at all, and at the time he formulated them he knew there was no way to confirm them by observation.


Sorry - I don't really know how many theories he has came out with. His theory of general relativity starts with observing the speed of light in the vacuum and it follows the universal law of cause and effect. Just like Einstein and his mate, Kurt Freidrich Godel - they both believe in grand design. 



A remarkable feat for someone, who like you and I, shared a common ancestor with monkeys, that substantiated by observation at the cellular level, something you surely aren't disputing?



If you can give an observable evidence, with regards to Darwinian Evolution, not adaptation, not speciation, but change of kinds - I am sure you can claim the next Nobel prize :-)



Look i said I'm stubborn, i take no sides, what about the lung fish? Anyway i find it hard to rock up to a chimp and give him a hug and say hey how's great gran? But as i don't have to do it to fishes and crocodiles, the lung fish fascinates me. Chimp not so much.

3772 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1222


  Reply # 1620501 1-Sep-2016 00:38
Send private message

Rikkitic:

 

Pray to god, maybe you get a miracle, maybe not.

 

Use your smart phone and it just works. If it doesn't, it can be diagnosed and fixed. I refer to put my faith in science.

 

 

 

 

Yep, funny how a jet plane doesn't just fall from the sky. 


1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | ... | 19
View this topic in a long page with up to 500 replies per page Create new topic

Twitter »

Follow us to receive Twitter updates when new discussions are posted in our forums:



Follow us to receive Twitter updates when news items and blogs are posted in our frontpage:



Follow us to receive Twitter updates when tech item prices are listed in our price comparison site:



Geekzone Live »

Try automatic live updates from Geekzone directly in your browser, without refreshing the page, with Geekzone Live now.



Are you subscribed to our RSS feed? You can download the latest headlines and summaries from our stories directly to your computer or smartphone by using a feed reader.

Alternatively, you can receive a daily email with Geekzone updates.