Wait, what? What about... virtually any subject tackled by philosophy? What can I know? What am I? What is consciousness? 'Do I have a soul' falls under those. Not to say science hasn't done away with several superstitions but it goes very far to say the only thing left for which we need a 'god' explanation if ultimate origin.
You think that philosophy is the domain of god and superstition? That would explain why it's largely become useless ever since the scientific method became widely accepted. :P
Obviously I'm not saying science has explained everything, hence my usage of the term "almost everything" and why I said "there's no reason to think this particular matter will be any different". The point is that there is a non-supernatural alternative to almost any question about reality, and it's preferable to the supernatural because it's based on evidence and logic instead of superstition, never mind the fact that there is not a single miracle that has been proven. It's easy for you to say science can't answer philosophical questions such as "who am I?" But neither can philosophy. All it can do is offer idle speculation until science comes in to offer us the real answer, provided one exists.
Ultimate origins is different because it's pretty much the pinnacle of unfalsifiable questions, but it's 2013, and it too has many nonsupernatural alternatives.
Just because there are going to be major advances in neurology doesn't mean that we will finally get evidence of a soul. Pretty much everything that used to be the domain of god & superstition has been explained away by science, and apart from wishful thinking, there's no reason to think this particular matter will be any different. It's 2013, and the track record is pretty overwhelming. The only place the god of the gaps has to hide now is in the last vestige of human ignorance: ultimate origins.
This guy touting his particular field as the best & ultimate solution to everything is not only arrogant but kind of insulting to the physicists who are actually working on a theory of everything, a far more complicated affair than this simplistic notion of "god did it". Looking at the reception section pretty much lets you know everything you need to know about this hypothesis. It's an unfalsifiable opinion, and that's why there are no studies about it. Somebody could just as well invent a concept called "physicentrism" or "chemicentrism" and it would be just as, if not more, valid than this, which basically boils down to rehashed creationist arguments which have already been refuted multiple times. There's really nothing new to see here, just another creationist trying to cherrypick evidence for his pre-determined conclusion that god exists, instead of coming to conclusions based on evidence. This raises the question of why we don't just revive the religion thread instead of continuing to post not-so-subtle atheistic/religious innuendo links in this thread. But hey, whatever. :P
This is all part of Gods design. The world was not made in a Big Bang, God only tried to make it look like that to test our faith. You are a gullible fool.
Your links are terrible sources, many of those people you are praising haven't even read the holy text and have no love.
Of coarse I wont debate this facts, because they are FACTS. If you choose not to believe, you are choosing to spend eternity in damnation. The mere fact that you read that shit shows you are a uneducated whore, who's priorities are fucked up.
If this is the type of content on this site, it is unacceptable for my brother to partake in this.
You must be some theist's/atheist's smurf account.
All I know conclusively is that there is a devil-worshipping oligarchy that aspires to control the world, who call themselves the "Enlightened Ones" and are hoarding the world's knowledge.
I do not believe that we humans evolved from primates. If we humans truly evolved from primates we would have inherent their primate strength. A primate bone density is denser their natural physical strength is stronger than ours. I would agree with evolution as the cause for humans to come from apes but the primate have attributes that we dont and naturally we should have these attribute inside us because of the evolution process.
My personal theory is that primates are stronger because they have to be, climbing around in tree-tops and all that. When we evolved from primates, we stopped swinging around in trees and descended to the plains.
Quote:
What you will never hear a evolutionist do is talk about human evolution and bring conclusive evidence that humans evolved from apes because no definite prof exist.
Except our 99% identical DNA with chimps. Or our vestigial organs. Or the fact that we've found pretty much all the intermediates in the fossil record: homo habilis, homo erectus, homo cepranensis, homo rhodesiensis, neanderthal, etc. You can go to a museum and see their bones. If that's not proof I don't know what is.
To get back to the point though: Quote from Wikipedia:
The scientific method (or simply scientific method) is a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge. To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning.
Seeing as you linked the wikipedia article, I'm going to assume you agree with it. Now riddle me this:
What's empirical, measurable evidence? Is it like the wiki says "information acquired by means of observation or experimentation"? In that case, an elephant is larger than the moon. I witnessed an elephant the other day and it was huge - if I look at the moon it's tiny. There, information acquired by means of observation or experimentation.
Part of the scientific method is "acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge". If we didn't know better, your theory that an elephant is bigger than the moon would be the prevailing one, until someone looked into a telescope.
My problem with the graph is that, with a smaller earth you don't have, say, an exposed outer core...instead, what would be the outer core is now the surface. Is this graph applicable to other, smaller planets? If not, that is my point. Either way, I will say no more.
Expanding Earth theory works under the assumption that all this mass came by after planetary accretion. So the outer core is already made and that graph is a perfect representation of what you'd expect.
Ah! Granted. But the correlation of mass to gravity is still present, such that hypothetically dumping a billion tons of rocks on a given planet will never reduce its gravity.
A billion tons is still a pathetic fragment of the earth's crust, which itself is a pathetic fragment of the Earth's overall mass. The idea that gravity somehow changed in a few million years by any noticeable margin because of some ancillary space dust is an absurdity of the highest degree of magnitude. And Jupiter keeps most asteroids out of our solar neighborhood, not that even that would make much difference.
Even if we're to believe that 50% of the earth's volume (the mantle & crust) was gathered after the dinosaurs died or even after planetary accretion was complete (an absolute absurdity), the surface gravity still would not change. That's how utterly hopeless this theory is. Hookah's video also does a great job at dismantling this pseudoscience. Don't want to put you on the defensive here, but as FD said, can we stick to posting actual science in this thread?
Says here says I weigh less on smaller planets, and more on bigger planets, with the exception of some of the gas giants. Nevertheless, on all the smaller ones (of which Earth is much more structurally similar) I weigh less.
No. You can weigh more on a smaller planet than on a larger one depending on the density. For example, in your link, you weigh more on Mercury than you do on Mars, even though Mars has twice the mass of Mercury.
While it's true that the Earth probably intakes more cosmic dust than we give it credit for, the science behind expanding earth theory is totally bunk.
Expanding Earth Theory explains the mystery of how the dinosaurs in all their massiveness could have possibly operated under 9.8 m/s² gravity. In short, they didn't. Smaller earth means less gravity, with the earth we know today having been quietly collecting space rocks and dust over the billions of years.
In my layman's opinion, I see no reason not to take the theory to its foregone conclusion: a tiny earth being host to gigantic insects! Then, bigger, hairer, beefier monster spiders ruled the world...until finally, reptiles. Do you not feel the woeful lament of the tiny house spider who silently pines for the "good ol' days?"
Fun fact: surface gravity increases as the inverse square to the distance to the center of the attracting body, and it also depends on the density, not just mass. So even though the mantle has more mass, the surface gravity would still be pretty much the same at the outer core if you removed the mantle & crust. The crust (0.5% of the earth's mass) and anything else it has gathered is irrelevant.
It's the same concept as an astronaut experiencing near-zero gravity despite being only 60 miles above the earth's surface.
Quote:
In 1987 I realized that the dinosaurs' large size could be explained by a reduced gravity and then soon realized that the most likely cause of a reduced gravity was a smaller diameter, less massive, Earth.
So...yeah, if the earth had a smaller diameter, gravity would have increased, not decreased...
I love how the large-scale structure of the universe looks like brain neurons. The large spots are filaments and the black spots are called voids, vast stretches of mostly empty space: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Void_%28astronomy%29
But without a discussion on how science relates to the human condition, science threads have no relevance.
Science is a glorious manifestation of our humanity. It has lifted us above the petty toils of day-to-day survival and given us the capacity to think and make educated decisions not only about the universe, but morals as well. It allows us to pursue things such as art, literature, and create something that will help future generations, something more than just ensuring that we survive till the next day - a wretched and empty existence if you ask me. As Newton said "If I have seen further, it is by standing on the shoulders of giants." People died in droves before modern antibiotics & surgery. Science has improved the quality of life for countless people. I daresay it has been worth it, even considering that it's a double-edged sword.
It's extremely exciting because if they can achieve success then they've got existence proof, which is the tipping point when it comes to actually getting the technology put into practice. At 10 c, we'd be able to get to Gliese in like 2 years.
You think that philosophy is the domain of god and superstition? That would explain why it's largely become useless ever since the scientific method became widely accepted. :P
Obviously I'm not saying science has explained everything, hence my usage of the term "almost everything" and why I said "there's no reason to think this particular matter will be any different". The point is that there is a non-supernatural alternative to almost any question about reality, and it's preferable to the supernatural because it's based on evidence and logic instead of superstition, never mind the fact that there is not a single miracle that has been proven. It's easy for you to say science can't answer philosophical questions such as "who am I?" But neither can philosophy. All it can do is offer idle speculation until science comes in to offer us the real answer, provided one exists.
Ultimate origins is different because it's pretty much the pinnacle of unfalsifiable questions, but it's 2013, and it too has many nonsupernatural alternatives.
Just because there are going to be major advances in neurology doesn't mean that we will finally get evidence of a soul. Pretty much everything that used to be the domain of god & superstition has been explained away by science, and apart from wishful thinking, there's no reason to think this particular matter will be any different. It's 2013, and the track record is pretty overwhelming. The only place the god of the gaps has to hide now is in the last vestige of human ignorance: ultimate origins.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biocentrism_%28theory_of_everything%29
This guy touting his particular field as the best & ultimate solution to everything is not only arrogant but kind of insulting to the physicists who are actually working on a theory of everything, a far more complicated affair than this simplistic notion of "god did it". Looking at the reception section pretty much lets you know everything you need to know about this hypothesis. It's an unfalsifiable opinion, and that's why there are no studies about it. Somebody could just as well invent a concept called "physicentrism" or "chemicentrism" and it would be just as, if not more, valid than this, which basically boils down to rehashed creationist arguments which have already been refuted multiple times. There's really nothing new to see here, just another creationist trying to cherrypick evidence for his pre-determined conclusion that god exists, instead of coming to conclusions based on evidence. This raises the question of why we don't just revive the religion thread instead of continuing to post not-so-subtle atheistic/religious innuendo links in this thread. But hey, whatever. :P
You must be some theist's/atheist's smurf account.
Son of a biotch! Turns out it's nothing important, just a "misunderstanding": http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2012/11/27/nasa_mars_discovery_misunderstanding_mission_leader_excited_about_entire.html
Way to get everyone's hopes up. :(
Here's a good explanation for this: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/03/090330200829.htm
My personal theory is that primates are stronger because they have to be, climbing around in tree-tops and all that. When we evolved from primates, we stopped swinging around in trees and descended to the plains.
Except our 99% identical DNA with chimps. Or our vestigial organs. Or the fact that we've found pretty much all the intermediates in the fossil record: homo habilis, homo erectus, homo cepranensis, homo rhodesiensis, neanderthal, etc. You can go to a museum and see their bones. If that's not proof I don't know what is.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/49904984/ns/technology_and_science-space/
I hope it's life and not something mediocre that we already know exists in space, like amino acids.
Part of the scientific method is "acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge". If we didn't know better, your theory that an elephant is bigger than the moon would be the prevailing one, until someone looked into a telescope.
Expanding Earth theory works under the assumption that all this mass came by after planetary accretion. So the outer core is already made and that graph is a perfect representation of what you'd expect.
A billion tons is still a pathetic fragment of the earth's crust, which itself is a pathetic fragment of the Earth's overall mass. The idea that gravity somehow changed in a few million years by any noticeable margin because of some ancillary space dust is an absurdity of the highest degree of magnitude. And Jupiter keeps most asteroids out of our solar neighborhood, not that even that would make much difference.
Again, I point you to the graph I posted:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/86/EarthGravityPREM.jpg
Even if we're to believe that 50% of the earth's volume (the mantle & crust) was gathered after the dinosaurs died or even after planetary accretion was complete (an absolute absurdity), the surface gravity still would not change. That's how utterly hopeless this theory is. Hookah's video also does a great job at dismantling this pseudoscience. Don't want to put you on the defensive here, but as FD said, can we stick to posting actual science in this thread?
No. You can weigh more on a smaller planet than on a larger one depending on the density. For example, in your link, you weigh more on Mercury than you do on Mars, even though Mars has twice the mass of Mercury.
While it's true that the Earth probably intakes more cosmic dust than we give it credit for, the science behind expanding earth theory is totally bunk.
Well it is a computer simulation. :P
Fun fact: surface gravity increases as the inverse square to the distance to the center of the attracting body, and it also depends on the density, not just mass. So even though the mantle has more mass, the surface gravity would still be pretty much the same at the outer core if you removed the mantle & crust. The crust (0.5% of the earth's mass) and anything else it has gathered is irrelevant.
It's the same concept as an astronaut experiencing near-zero gravity despite being only 60 miles above the earth's surface.
So...yeah, if the earth had a smaller diameter, gravity would have increased, not decreased...
If you don't believe me, you can try out the numbers yourself: http://www.ericjamesstone.com/blog/home/gravity-calculator-for-astronomical-bodies-based-on-radius-and-density/
As usual, talk origins also does a good job of debunking this pseudo-science:
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/2007_08.html
The cosmic web:
I love how the large-scale structure of the universe looks like brain neurons. The large spots are filaments and the black spots are called voids, vast stretches of mostly empty space: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Void_%28astronomy%29
Simulation of distribution of dark energy in a galactic supercluster: http://www-news.uchicago.edu/releases/03/darkmatter0903.jpg
Bright spots represent a galaxy.
One of my favorite sites, showing us the scale of the universe: http://www.atlasoftheuniverse.com/
This page shows the Milky Way's satellite galaxies: http://www.atlasoftheuniverse.com/sattelit.html
The closest one is the Canis Major dwarf, which is just 25000 light years away: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canis_Major_Dwarf_Galaxy
Science is a glorious manifestation of our humanity. It has lifted us above the petty toils of day-to-day survival and given us the capacity to think and make educated decisions not only about the universe, but morals as well. It allows us to pursue things such as art, literature, and create something that will help future generations, something more than just ensuring that we survive till the next day - a wretched and empty existence if you ask me. As Newton said "If I have seen further, it is by standing on the shoulders of giants." People died in droves before modern antibiotics & surgery. Science has improved the quality of life for countless people. I daresay it has been worth it, even considering that it's a double-edged sword.
Anything that warps space-time enough to push the ship. I heard that it needs to use something with negative mass: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_mass
Which, unfortunately, is only hypothetical. They require 500 kilograms of it, which is way beyond our present capability. But the cool thing is that they've already started testing this on a microscopic level, in which they use plasma:
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20110015936_2011016932.pdf
It's extremely exciting because if they can achieve success then they've got existence proof, which is the tipping point when it comes to actually getting the technology put into practice. At 10 c, we'd be able to get to Gliese in like 2 years.
This is really cool:
http://state.chemistrydaily.com/chemistry/Timeline_of_the_Universe
It's what will actually happen if our universe just goes on forever.