- #36
DaveC426913
Gold Member
- 22,510
- 6,177
I hope you don't mean by example!WW_III_ANGRY said:Just did. You taught me the world is filled to the brims with crackpots
I hope you don't mean by example!WW_III_ANGRY said:Just did. You taught me the world is filled to the brims with crackpots
russ_watters said:You need to read your own citations better. "agreeing with fact" doesn't mean anything more than those words say. It doesn't say the Big Bang is fact. You need to understand the difference between the theory and the facts the theory is based on (the data):
The universe is expanding: fact
The universe used to be a lot smaller (perhaps even a single point): theory, based on the fact and agreeing with the fact.
This line of discussion is pretty rediculous. You really need to drop the chip on your shoulder and start learning about what science really is if you want to have an opinion about it. For a start, go look into the definition of "theory" (both in the dictionary and by googling the scientific method).
DaveC426913 said:I hope you don't mean by example!
russ_watters said:You need to read your own citations better. "agreeing with fact" doesn't mean anything more than those words say. It doesn't say the Big Bang is fact. You need to understand the difference between the theory and the facts the theory is based on (the data):
The universe is expanding: fact
The universe used to be a lot smaller (perhaps even a single point): theory, based on the fact and agreeing with the fact.
This line of discussion is pretty rediculous. You really need to drop the chip on your shoulder and start learning about what science really is if you want to have an opinion about it. For a start, go look into the definition of "theory" (both in the dictionary and by googling the scientific method).
Noi, theories are based off observations. Sometimes observations can be interpreted in new ways.WW_III_ANGRY said:Theories are based off facts, but how could there be such a thing if scientists don't claim knowledge as stated previously in this thread?
It isn't, in the strict sense that you're asking. The redshifting of light, and about a zillion other observations that corroborate it, give us confidence beyond virtually any amount of doubt that the explanation for our observations are that the universe is expanding. It is as factual as it is possible to be without actually having an armspan of several billion light years.WW_III_ANGRY said:Either way how can the universe expanding be a fact?
DaveC426913 said:It isn't, in the strict sense that you're asking. The redshifting of light, and about a zillion other observations that corroborate it, give us confidence beyond virtually any amount of doubt that the explanation for our observations are that the universe is expanding. It is as factual as it is possible to be without actually having an armspan of several billion light years.
How do we know the sun is a ball of fusing hydrogen? Are you prepared to stay at square one, being unable to build an understanding of the cosmos because you're not willing to accept the the sun is powered by fusion?
WW_III_ANGRY said:When mathematics is used to prove physical theories, I see a fundamental flaw that is overlooked in our eagerness to "know",
...
... it is our minds that have the boundry. If the universe is expanding then what is it expanding into, nothing?
...
WW_III_ANGRY said:Its possibly a mass of fusing hydrogen that more than likely heats up our planet :)
Kittel Knight said:I am with you!
They say universe is expandig. So, it is bounded.
Well, if the universe had a boundry, what would exist outside ?
So, this empty space would be part of the universe,too.
So the universe can not have a boundry!
So, it is not expanding.
Who are they trying to fool?
I understand you perfectly!
Is an expanding balloon seen as bounded by the ants that walk around on its surface?Kittel Knight said:They say universe is expandig. So, it is bounded.
Well, if the universe had a boundry, what would exist outside ?
So, this empty space would be part of the universe,too.
So the universe can not have a boundry!
So, it is not expanding.
Yes, in the same way that's possibly a tree that more than likely will stop my car quite suddenly.WW_III_ANGRY said:Its possibly a mass of fusing hydrogen that more than likely heats up our planet :)
WW_III_ANGRY said:Either way how can the universe expanding be a fact?
DaveC426913 said:Is an expanding balloon seen as bounded by the ants that walk around on its surface?
Kittel Knight said:Hi Dave,
I think a better example would be "criatures made of shadow", or criatures who has only 2 dimensions, like shadows.
They live on the ball's surface - a 2d world - and, of course, they can not understand a 3 dimensional space.
The consequences?
Well, if one of them goes always straight (c'mon he is a shadow, and he will be on the surface along all the trip), he will be back after some period of time.
Although he has made a curve in a 3d space (our space, as we understand it), he has no idea of that. It is completely impossible to him this understanding.
So, if his universe (the ball's surface) is expanding (the ball's radius is increasing) , then the trip will be longer.
Of course, objects (shadows again) displaced on the ball's surface ("celestial bodies" in his universe), would be getting apart from each other.
And he could notice that.
Maybe this can help WW...
You're still using words you don't seem to understand. You'll need to clear up your understanding of the word "knowlege" now too. Here it is:WW_III_ANGRY said:Theories are based off facts, but how could there be such a thing if scientists don't claim knowledge as stated previously in this thread?
So all "knowledge" implies is that someone has done an experiment and gathered some data. That's it. That's perfectly in line with the scientific method. You seem to think that the word "knowledge" implies some absoluteness/certainty (and this is a key to your misunderstanding of all of these scientific principles). It doesn't.acquaintance with facts, truths, or principles, as from study or investigation; general erudition: knowledge of many things.
Further up on the page, I stated that all data has an error margin associated with it. I said such things are "factual in nature" and the associated margin for error is part of the "fact". So when it comes to the expansion of the universe, the statement would look something like this:WW_III_ANGRY said:Either way how can the universe expanding be a fact?