96% OF COSMOS PUZZLES ASTRONOMERS

Forums: Science And Math
Email this Topic • Print this Page

Quote:

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Earth, moon, sun and all visible stars in the sky make up less than one percent of the universe. Almost all the rest is dark matter and dark energy, unknown forces that puzzle astronomers.

Observations in recent years have changed the basic understanding of how the universe evolved and have emphasized for astronomers how little is known about the major forces and substances that shaped our world.....

CNN: 96 percent of cosmos puzzles astronomers

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 2,529 • Replies: 25

No top replies

Quote:

"Dark energy will cause the universe to expanded faster and faster and eventually, over time, we will see less and less of it," Kirshner said. Over millions of years, familiar stars and nearby galaxies will disappear from view and the sky, now choked with stars, will slowly darken.

A little kid went running home to his mother.

"Mommy, mommy, Johnny told me that the earth will destroy itself.

The mother said,

Yes it will happen, but not for a billion years"

To which the child replied,

"I feel much better now. I thought that Johnny said a million years".

Scientists may not know that much about the universe in the scheme of things. If you think about what they knew just a couple of hundred years ago, we have come a long, long way!

0 Replies

One of the best things about being an agnostic in religious matters is that it gives you great practice in being an agnostic in scientific matters.

Slightly off topic: I remember in my youth that scientists and doctors tolds us to eat a healthy breakfast to start the day:

A couple of eggs; some bacon; fried potatoes; a bit of cheese; toast with nutritious butter; and a large glass of cold, creamy milk.

Is there a scientist or doctor anywhere today who would recommend that?

0 Replies

As we acquire new knowledge, often we most modify our concepts to accommodate that knowledge. This process is in constant evolution.

Recent studies have indicated that bacon, eggs, and cheese and butter are ok. It's the bread, fried potatoes and milk that are suspect. Stay tuned!

0 Replies

Phoenix32890 wrote:

As we acquire new knowledge, often we most modify our concepts to accommodate that knowledge. This process is in constant evolution.

Recent studies have indicated that bacon, eggs, and cheese and butter are ok. It's the bread, fried potatoes and milk that are suspect. Stay tuned!

Makes my point even more forcefully!

0 Replies

FrankApisa- I think that today I am really starting to understand you. I infer from what I have read in your posts that you believe that things are constantly in flux, and that you never can be really sure of anything.

I have a problem with that. I believe that human beings are in a state of evolution, and we have not learned many of the ultimate truths. I don't think that we ever will, in our lifetimes. Personally, I don't think that human beings have evolved too far from savages, even now. Real change will take a long, long time, IMO.

I like to look at life a somewhat different way. I make my evaluations based on what I know NOW, and am always open to modification. But I would not want to live in a state of constant agnosticism, using the term in the broadest sense.

My reality is what I know at this time, and is open to change!

0 Replies

100% of the cosmos puzzles me - especially the bit on the third planet out from Sol....

0 Replies

Phoenix32890 wrote:

FrankApisa- I think that today I am really starting to understand you. I infer from what I have read in your posts that you believe that things are constantly in flux, and that you never can be really sure of anything.

I have a problem with that. I believe that human beings are in a state of evolution, and we have not learned many of the ultimate truths. I don't think that we ever will, in our lifetimes. Personally, I don't think that human beings have evolved too far from savages, even now. Real change will take a long, long time, IMO.

I like to look at life a somewhat different way. I make my evaluations based on what I know NOW, and am always open to modification. But I would not want to live in a state of constant agnosticism, using the term in the broadest sense.

My reality is what I know at this time, and is open to change!

Where we definitely diverge, Phoenix, is contained in that innocuous phrase you used in your last sentence -- "My reality is what I KNOW at this time..."

I suspect often you are not talking about what you KNOW -- but what you suppose/estimate/guess/conjecture/hypothecate/etc.

I simply acknowledge that I do not know the things I do not know -- and when dealing with what I often refer to as "Ultimate Questions" I prefer not to guess or estimate.

I am very clear on this.

There are very, very, very few things that I KNOW about reality. I'm not sure what you "KNOW about reality at this time" -- but I suspect that if you look closely at what you suppose you KNOW about it, you also will find a very few things on your list.

If you want to discuss it, we certain can.

0 Replies

'Twould be a semantic discussion, though, wouldn't it Frank - since Phoenix seems to have yielded your point in holding what she "knows" as open to change? I suspect her "know" is a different "know" to the know you know of.

0 Replies

But, of course, I do not really know....

0 Replies

Perhaps we could invent for our language a hard know and a soft cnow?

I know, I am getting silly - 'tis late, and the cosmos bit me again today. Sigh.

0 Replies

dlowan- May I hug the bunny?

0 Replies

FrankApisa

Quote:

I suspect often you are not talking about what you KNOW -- but what you suppose/estimate/guess/conjecture/hypothecate/etc.

Let's just say that I am perfectly satisfied with my educated guesses, so long as I am open to change my concepts when new information presents itself!

0 Replies

Isn't it a price that must be paid in order to be a creature with the capacity to exercise ones own will? If an absolute truth was knowable beyound any question, then obviously no one could question it, and therefore one has no say in the matter. I worry that some agnostics (present company excluded) tout the absence of unquestionable truth in order to promote themselves to a God. If my opinion is as good as any other then whatever I wish to believe becomes a declaration of reality.

0 Replies

Phoenix has stated pretty much my own core belief. Being able to adapt to new knowledge is an essential key to being this way. I respect Frank's viewpoint, but as he knows I will never go along with it.

0 Replies

Mostly we use working hypothesis, most of which is in danger of major revision. I really enjoy speculating way out on unproven foundations. We should mention however that we may be dead wrong and are all but surely at least slightly wrong. Neil

0 Replies

Frank Apisa wrote:

One of the best things about being an agnostic in religious matters is that it gives you great practice in being an agnostic in scientific matters.

Slightly off topic: I remember in my youth that scientists and doctors tolds us to eat a healthy breakfast to start the day:

A couple of eggs; some bacon; fried potatoes; a bit of cheese; toast with nutritious butter; and a large glass of cold, creamy milk.

Is there a scientist or doctor anywhere today who would recommend that?

Probably. The idea that low fat diets are healthy, promulgated by fiat by Senator McGovern in the 70s, has never been verifiable in experiments. In fact, the high carb diets that result when you remove most of the fat from a diet are considered much more dangerous. People on the Atkins Diet who eat huge amounts of fat, are not found to have larger than normal amounts of cholesterol. Margarine, at least in stick form, is now believed to be less healthy than real butter, because of the trans fats it contains.

0 Replies

My point was not that high fat is bad. My point was that science can be wrong.

Remember my comment:

"One of the best things about being an agnostic in religious matters is that it gives you great practice in being an agnostic in scientific matters. "

0 Replies

pulling up a chair cause he feels that something interesting is about to happen
"Acceptance without proof is the basis of modern religion, Rejection without proof is the basis of modern science"

-Dancing Wu Lei Masters

0 Replies

Frank Apisa wrote:

My point was not that high fat is bad. My point was that science can be wrong.

Remember my comment:

"One of the best things about being an agnostic in religious matters is that it gives you great practice in being an agnostic in scientific matters. "

I know, but my point was that any scientist who gave you that advice in your youth would actually have been more or less correct. Anyway, I hate to see that old canard about fat without commenting.

Although science can be wrong, at least it is arrived at through a combination of logic, math, and experiment, which is more than most areas of human endeavor can claim.

0 Replies

96% OF COSMOS PUZZLES ASTRONOMERS

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know