19
   

Why are we here?

 
 
FBM
 
  2  
Reply Sat 21 Feb, 2015 11:02 pm
@Herald,
Look it up. I'm not your teacher.

What can your god/alien/ILF-of-the-gaps explain? Zip. Nada.

http://i206.photobucket.com/albums/bb192/DinahFyre/planck-composite-all-sky.jpg
FBM
 
  1  
Reply Sat 21 Feb, 2015 11:05 pm
http://i206.photobucket.com/albums/bb192/DinahFyre/Denialism.jpg
argome321
 
  1  
Reply Sun 22 Feb, 2015 08:38 am
@Herald,
I'm here because I got off at the wrong bus stop. I fell asleep on the bus and the driver asked me politely to de-bus his bus. It was the last stop he said.
I didn't have the carfare for a return trip.

So now I'm stuck here with no way or idea on how to get back to where I started from. I'll just have to wander and explore these streets and junctions and strange neighborhoods and hope to find my way. But in the meantime I'll think I will make the best of the situation.
0 Replies
 
Olivier5
 
  1  
Reply Sun 22 Feb, 2015 08:48 am
@FBM,
What's the 'equator' line about???
Rickoshay75
 
  1  
Reply Sun 22 Feb, 2015 11:07 am
@FBM,
FBM wrote:

http://i206.photobucket.com/albums/bb192/DinahFyre/Denialism.jpg


True scientists don't care what the public thinks about them, don't need praise or approval, just labs to prove or disprove their discoveries.
0 Replies
 
glitterbag
 
  1  
Reply Sun 22 Feb, 2015 03:28 pm
Why are we here? I don't know, where do you want to be?
0 Replies
 
FBM
 
  2  
Reply Sun 22 Feb, 2015 03:36 pm
@Olivier5,
Olivier5 wrote:

What's the 'equator' line about???


The Milky Way. http://www.esa.int/spaceinimages/Missions/Planck/(class)/image
0 Replies
 
Herald
 
  0  
Reply Sun 22 Feb, 2015 10:07 pm
@FBM,
FBM wrote:
Look it up. I'm not your teacher.
     Me too. If you haven't paid attention to the title, this blog is about 'Why we are here?', and is not about 'Why do you believe in the Big Bang "theory" ?'.
     Before writing any comment on any blog a not entirely bad idea is to take a look at the title ... of the theme.
FBM
 
  2  
Reply Sun 22 Feb, 2015 10:15 pm
@Herald,
Neither the Big Bang theory nor the Standard Model require belief. They only require understanding. Both are clearly relevant to the discussion of why we are here. More relevant than claims of ancient alien intelligences somehow communicating instructions telepathically to somebody or something in the present, that's for sure. Laughing
Herald
 
  1  
Reply Sun 22 Feb, 2015 10:29 pm
@FBM,
FBM wrote:
RE: 'Irrational Thinking' hinders 'Scientific Progress', 'Harms the Planet' and 'Threatens our Lives'
     This claim is made in connection with the denialism of climate change. I am not denying the climate change - actually I am on the other side.
     So and so you have taken stochastically a quote made in connection with something else and on very different problem, why don't you prove that all these statements are directly and unconditionally applicable to the verification & validation of the Big Bang 'theory'.
     The verification and validation tests of whatever are not denialism - denialism is when you don't like the results and are twisting them to fit your own twisted understanding of the world. In this sense in terms of the origin of the Universe you are much greater denialist than I ever will be able to be.
     2. You will have to prove that the request for making physical interpretation of math results from theoretical physics is 'irrational thinking' and that the tautology logic of the Big Bang 'theory' is the real 'rational thinking' ... or perhaps the contradiction of the Big Bang theory with the law for preservation of energy and the second law of thermodynamics of physics is the jewel in the crown of the 'rational thinking'.
     3. What about the 'scientific progress'. The main idea of the scientific progress is to contribute to the quality of life - healthcare, employment, comfort of living (healthy food, clean water, air-conditioning), etc. Can you explain how exactly a 'scientific progress' of the fossil fuels industry that causes extreme temperatures of +50 deg. C and -50 deg.C and extreme rainfall/snowfall (>50 mm/hour) with the climate change is covering the concept of 'progress', no matter whether scientific or industrial. You neither know already into which climate zone you are living, nor why.
     From where automatically follows that the incorrect quoting and the misrepresentation of the original statements 'Harms the Planet' and 'Threatens our Lives'.
FBM
 
  1  
Reply Sun 22 Feb, 2015 11:01 pm
@Herald,
You have stochastically made strange stochastic denials regarding modern medical science, so you have stochastically placed yourself under suspicion of stochastically siding with alternative medicines, which injure and even kill people.

In order to be a stochastic denialist, you have to be presented with facts, then stochastically reject them without logical or evidential reason in favor of a stochastically preferred stochastic conclusion. Stochastically employing pseudo-intellectual and pseudo-scientific jargon (stochastic!!! Laughing ), you stochastically deny the Standard Model, Big Bang theory, the scientific method, modern medical science, etc, stochastically in favor of your stochastic "personal 45% god/alien/ILF-of-the-stochastic-gaps," despite stochastically having no evidence to support it, and despite having been confronted with enormous volumes of such evidence for the scientific model. Stochastic denialism to the stochastic bone. (Stochastic.)
argome321
 
  1  
Reply Mon 23 Feb, 2015 05:27 am
@FBM,
Quote:
In order to be a stochastic denialist, you have to be presented with facts, then stochastically reject them without logical or evidential reason in favor of a stochastically preferred stochastic conclusion. Stochastically employing pseudo-intellectual and pseudo-scientific jargon (stochastic!!! Laughing ), you stochastically deny the Standard Model, Big Bang theory, the scientific method, modern medical science, etc, stochastically in favor of your stochastic "personal 45% god/alien/ILF-of-the-stochastic-gaps," despite stochastically having no evidence to support it, and despite having been confronted with enormous volumes of such evidence for the scientific model. Stochastic denialism to the stochastic bone. (Stochastic.)


Did some learn a new word. Only kidding guy, I know sarcasm when I read it LOL Wink
FBM
 
  2  
Reply Mon 23 Feb, 2015 05:33 am
@argome321,
http://i206.photobucket.com/albums/bb192/DinahFyre/grin.gif This guy absolutely adores that word in all its permutations. He tries to sprinkle it liberally throughout all his posts. I guess he thinks it makes him sound intelligent. And then he goes on a rant about god/alien/ILFs telepathically communicating the structure of the universe to the present or something, doesn't even know that the international science community has been using the metric system for a few decades now, and that not every species that survives natural selection isn't a predator. Long story. But a funny one. http://i206.photobucket.com/albums/bb192/DinahFyre/hehe.gif
0 Replies
 
argome321
 
  2  
Reply Mon 23 Feb, 2015 06:13 am
@Herald,
Quote:
What about the 'scientific progress'. The main idea of the scientific progress is to contribute to the quality of life - healthcare, employment, comfort of living (healthy food, clean water, air-conditioning), etc.


This is not entirely true and could be misleading.

From the Sanford encyclopedia of Philosophy

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/scientific-progress/

what we learn through science is not the same as what we do with that knowledge. science is a tool, a way of gaining knowledge about the world we live in.

A hammer is a tool specifically design to do specific jobs, but how often is that tool use to murder?

0 Replies
 
Herald
 
  0  
Reply Mon 23 Feb, 2015 01:23 pm
@FBM,
FBM wrote:
... you stochastically deny the Standard Model, Big Bang theory, the scientific method, modern medical science, etc.
     ... and where is that stochastic conclusion about 'modern medical science' coming from? BTW I have always thought that you are the top designer of the Big Bang 'theory' ... and 'all of a sudden' and 'out of nowhere' it turns out that you are an expert in 'modern medical science' as well - how does that happen?
0 Replies
 
Herald
 
  1  
Reply Mon 23 Feb, 2015 01:33 pm
@FBM,
FBM wrote:
... you stochastically deny the Standard Model, Big Bang theory
     I am not denying it, and the question is not whether it is stochastically or deterministically - the 'standard model' simply collapses under the infinite weight of its own inconsistency - but this is different.
FBM wrote:
"personal 45% god/alien/ILF-of-the-stochastic-gaps,"
     You are a liar - if you put '45%-God-of-the-Gaps' in quotation marks this should mean that I have said that in exactly that form - which is not true. You are putting in 'my' quotation marks your personal top design straw-man ... and this is the masterpiece of all medical deviations for any age.
Rickoshay75
 
  1  
Reply Mon 23 Feb, 2015 03:15 pm
@FBM,
FBM wrote:

Neither the Big Bang theory nor the Standard Model require belief. They only require understanding.


How can one understand a theory that has never been seen, proved or demonstrated?

“When we remember we are all mad, the mysteries disappear and life stands explained.” Mark Twain
0 Replies
 
FBM
 
  1  
Reply Mon 23 Feb, 2015 05:15 pm
@Herald,
Enough red herrings, do you have any positive evidence to support your '45% gos/alien/ILF-of-the-gaps' claim? Science denialism isn't evidence for it; that's been explained to you in great detail, though you seem incapable of comprehending it. Yet you constinue the empty rhetoric, sans evidence. Thus:

4:0
0 Replies
 
FBM
 
  1  
Reply Mon 23 Feb, 2015 05:17 pm
http://www-donut.fnal.gov/web_pages/standardmodelpg/TheStandardModel.html

Quote:
The Standard Model
Introduction:


Human nature is to question. Just ask any pre-schooler what their favorite word is and you'll probably receive the response, "Why?" followed by "what", "how" and "when". Eventually these children move on from their post-toddler obsession with monosyllabic words and develop into adults, yet they always retain some of that curiosity that is so intrinsic to human nature. Physicists, on the other hand, can't stop asking those questions and are the people who never grew up. One puzzle that philosophers and physicists have pondered for centuries is the riddle, "What is matter?" The Greek philosopher Democritus was the first to propose that matter is comprised of tiny "indivisibles" which he called "atoms".

By convention there is color,
By convention sweetness,

By convention bitterness,

But in reality there are atoms and space"

-Democritus (circa 400 BCE)

Democritus was on the right path, and far ahead of his time. Today we know that atoms are not the smallest building blocks of matter; rather, there exists a whole world of particles more fundamental than atoms. Although less poetic than Democritus, we would say, "there are quarks, leptons, gluons and space". Physicists, through experimentation and theory, have created the Standard Model of particle physics, which outlines what they believe to be the most basic building blocks of matter.

History:

The history of physics is a long and involving tale, which will not be told here. This is simply a brief history of particle physics pertinent to the development of the standard model. For more information on the history of physics, please visit the American Physical Society's A Century of Physics timeline.

-Pre 1800 Up until 1800 not much work is done involving the theory of matter. The majority of the exploration falls under chemistry through the identification of elements

-1802 Dalton revives the study of matter with his Atomic theory, which states that atoms are the fundamental building blocks of nature and can only combine in whole number ratios

-1898 J. J. Thompson discovers that cathode rays are electrons, a fundamental particle

-1905 Einstein publishes his theory of the wave-particle duality of light. This forms a foundation for quantum mechanics

-1911 Rutherford discovers that the atom has a concentrated positive nucleus

-1913 Bohr furthers Rutherford's model of the atom to include electron orbits at discrete radii to account for distinct atomic spectra emission lines

-1919 The bending of starlight due to the curvature of space-time is observed, confirming Einstein's general relativity

-1923 Louis de Broglie proposes the wave-particle duality of matter

-1925 Heisenberg creates his uncertainty principle, which puts limits on the precision of experimentation

-1925-26 Schrodinger rescues the wave-particle duality of nature from confusion with the wave equation

-March 1926 Quantum mechanics is formulated

-1932 James Chadwick announces discovery of neutron

-1956-57 Tsung-Dao Lee and Chen Ning Yang propose parity non-conservation in certain sub-atomic processes, which is confirmed by experimentalist Chien-Shiung Wu

-1962 The first experimental observation of the muon neutrino occurs

-1967 Raymond Davis creates the first solar neutrino detector, finding only half of the predicted solar neutrino flux

-1967 Steven Weinberg, Sheldon Glashow (collaboration) and Abdus Salam (independent) create the electro-weak theory, unifying the electromagnetic and weak nuclear force (they win Nobel prizes in 1979)

-1964 Quarks are proposed by Murray Gell-Mann and George Zweig

-1969 Jerome Friedman, Henry Kendall, and Richard Taylor find the first evidence of quarks

-1970-73 Standard model of particle physics is developed

-1974 The charmed quark is observed

-1975 Evidence of the tau lepton is found

-1977 Experimenters find proof of the bottom quark

-1983 Carlo Rubbia discovers the W and Z bosons, mediators of the weak-force

-1994 Planning for LHC (Large Hadron Collider) at CERN begins

-1995 Evidence for the top quark, the final undiscovered quark, is found at Fermilab

-2000 The tau neutrino, the last piece to the standard model, (with the exceptopm of the higgs particle) is observed at Fermilab



Components of the Standard Model:



The standard model is divided into three sections: quarks, leptons and force carriers. The quarks and leptons, which in turn are divided into three generations, are members of a family of particles called fermions (particles with half integer spins). Both the quarks and leptons come in pairs. For example, quarks are grouped up and down, charm and strange, and top and bottom (And yes, those are their real names). Experimental evidence for the top quark was recently found here at Fermilab in 1995. Scientists have proven that quarks combine in triplets to form baryons or quark-antiquark pairs to form mesons, both types of elementary particles.

Leptons, which belong to a class of particles called fermions, also come in pairs. The electron, muon and tau particles each have an associated low mass, charge-less neutrino. The electron, like the proton and the neutron, is a stable particle and is present in almost all matter. The muon and tau particles are unstable and are found primarily in decay processes.

The intermediate vector bosons, or force carriers, make up the third section of the standard model. They transmit three of the four fundamental forces through which matter interacts. The gluon, like its namesake, is responsible for the most powerful force, the strong force, which binds together quarks inside protons and neutrons, and holds together particles inside an atomic nucleus. The photon is the electromagnetic force carrier that governs electron orbits and chemical processes. Lastly, the W and Z bosons are attributed to the weak force, playing a role in radioactive decay. The weak force is very important in observing neutrino reactions, because the neutrinos are impervious to the electromagnetic force (due to their lack of charge) and unaffected by the strong (which governs nuclear interactions), leaving only the weak force to characterize the neutrino.

The standard model is not a complete theory; in fact it is far from being so. Detectors at Fermilab and eventually at the LHC at CERN are looking for the elusive Higgs particle, which, if found, will either explain the standard model or force us to readjust our conception of matter. Also the standard model does not have a place for gravity, the fourth force, which does not play a significant part in atomic and subatomic processes because it is so weak on those scales. Physicists are searching for a grand unified theory that would unite all four of the forces, currently only those included in the standard model are united. The next twenty years should prove very exciting for this field of physics.
0 Replies
 
FBM
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 Feb, 2015 09:56 pm
@Herald,
Herald wrote:

...and this is the masterpiece of all medical deviations for any age.


What "medical deviations" are you talking about? Or is that just another wingnut phrase you pulled out of your ass?
 

Related Topics

What made you smile today? - Discussion by nimh
How do i figure out what I want? - Question by ylyam1
Why Does Life Exist - Question by Poseidon384
Happiness within - Question by luismtzzz
Is "God" just our conscience? - Question by Groomers123
Your philosophy in life - Question by Procrustes
Advice for a graduate? - Discussion by The Pentacle Queen
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Why are we here?
  3. » Page 17
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.07 seconds on 11/22/2024 at 04:00:42