Resend my activation email : Register : Log in 
BCF: Bike Chat Forums


Do you believe in astronomy

Reply to topic
Bike Chat Forums Index -> Random Banter Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
View previous topic : View next topic  
Author Message

pinkyfloyd
Super Spammer



Joined: 20 Jul 2010
Karma :

PostPosted: 08:35 - 07 Jul 2015    Post subject: Reply with quote

I used to be a firm believer in astronomy I even had a tool that astronomists use and once or twice I looked up to the skies through this tube thing with glass inside. I held it up and looked though the small end but all I saw was a blurry wobbling light.

A friend suggested another tool to use along side the one I had, he called it a tripod, Apparently this tripod thing makes the lights at the end of the tube less wobbly.

I personally did not want to get involved in something that kept costing me money so I turned my back on Astronomy and started believing in photography instead. Things move less when I look through the photography items and I press a button and capture what I am looking at inside my "camera".
____________________
illuminateTHEmind wrote: I am just more evolved than most of you guys... this allows me to pick of things quickly which would have normally taken the common man years to master
Hockeystorm65:.well there are childish arguments...there are very childish arguments.....there are really stupid childish arguments and now there are......Pinkfloyd arguments!
Teflon-Mike:I think I agree with just about all Pinky has said.
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website You must be logged in to rate posts

chickenstrip
Super Spammer



Joined: 06 Dec 2013
Karma :

PostPosted: 09:15 - 07 Jul 2015    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ariel Badger wrote:
thx1138 wrote:
I'll wager OP has been listening to the Infinite Monkey cage today.

Indeed I did.


So tell us about this "Infinite Monkey Cage" thing, and perhaps it will inform the debate here a bit more?

Islander wrote:
Rogerborg wrote:


A spiral galaxy walks into a pub. The landlord says "Get out, you're barred."




Why isn't there a 'groan' rating? Laughing


= Crying or Very sad ??
____________________
Chickenystripgeezer's Biking Life (Latest update 19/10/18) Belgium, France, Italy, Austria tour 2016 Picos de Europa, Pyrenees and French Alps tour 2017 Scotland Trip 1, now with BONUS FEATURE edit, 5/10/19, on page 2 Scotland Trip 2 Luxembourg, Black Forest, Switzerland, Vosges Trip 2017
THERE'S MILLIONS OF CHICKENSTRIPS OUT THERE!
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail You must be logged in to rate posts

RhynoCZ
Super Spammer



Joined: 09 Mar 2012
Karma :

PostPosted: 09:42 - 07 Jul 2015    Post subject: Reply with quote

Did you just sniff the strawberry markers again, Badger? Wink
____________________
'87 Honda XBR 500, '96 Kawasaki ZX7R P1, '90 Honda CB-1, '88 Kawasaki GPz550, MZ 150 ETZ
'95 Mercedes-Benz w202 C200 CGI, '98 Mercedes-Benz w210 E200 Kompressor
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message You must be logged in to rate posts

dodgydog
World Chat Champion



Joined: 10 Sep 2009
Karma :

PostPosted: 10:11 - 07 Jul 2015    Post subject: Reply with quote

Llama-Farmer wrote:
How can you not... it's science.




Well millions don't, and they're ready to cut your head off to prove their point.
____________________
I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realise that what you heard is not exactly what I meant
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail You must be logged in to rate posts
Dr. Quack This post is not being displayed because it has a low rating (Spam). Unhide this post / all posts.
- This post is not being displayed because the poster has bad karma. Unhide this post / all posts.

DrSnoosnoo
World Chat Champion



Joined: 28 Mar 2012
Karma :

PostPosted: 11:32 - 07 Jul 2015    Post subject: Reply with quote

Going wrote:
That's because it's not proven science, only theory Smile


Do you even science? Relativity is a theory, gravity is a theory - this is a scientific based conversation so use the words correctly (have discussed the misuse of this term in the past)

I "believe" in Astronomy as much as the conclusions and theories have been made from research which has been peer reviewed and published.

As for the rest of unpublished, peer reviewed ideas, they are simply hypotheses that need testing.
____________________
I'm Sam; Northern, Ginger, Lover
Did have: '95 ZZR600 '83 CG125 '97 ZZR1100 '15 Hypermotard 821 SP Do Have: '10 ZX10R
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail You must be logged in to rate posts

DrSnoosnoo
World Chat Champion



Joined: 28 Mar 2012
Karma :

PostPosted: 11:36 - 07 Jul 2015    Post subject: Reply with quote

Dr. Quack wrote:
Pulls out a little chart of a carbon atom -
6 protons, 6 neutrons, 6 electrons.

Each red ball represents an oxygen atom, while the grey sticks represent hydrogen atoms.
There are two hydrogens for each oxygen, so the chemical formula is H2O.
https://s1091.photobucket.com/user/AbAeterno123/media/icelattice2_zps3939e1db.jpg.html

Celestial worshiping of 666 has taken place for thousands of years (The God of this world)
https://www.666man.net/666religionhistoryoverview.html

Why do snow crystals have six arms?
https://www.metafysica.nl/ontology/little_book_5.jpg

Why do Giant's causeway rock formations have six sides?
https://0.tqn.com/d/gouk/1/0/G/I/-/-/giantscauseway.jpg

Why does Saturn's hexagonal north pole have six sides?
https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-ObhffAwhFyQ/TzGx38zjvAI/AAAAAAAAAdI/JEZ4s1dLP3Q/s1600/saturns-hexagon.jpg

removed biblical guff


Why do you talk about Carbon specifically? There are a whole bunch of other elements that the natural world is composed of. I'd have thought with respect to us being "special" we would look to Iron which without it, we wouldn't have a firmament on which we stand.

Iron has 26 protons and 30 neutrons the electrons differ with regard to its varying oxidation state, lets just use 26 to make the Iron element neutral.

Why then should water be compared?

You also forgot to include, why do bees make hexagonal shapes in their hives?

Do you understand the reason for these conformations being favoured or are you just trying to chuck in a number invented by the Catholics to somehow make a connection with a super being?
____________________
I'm Sam; Northern, Ginger, Lover
Did have: '95 ZZR600 '83 CG125 '97 ZZR1100 '15 Hypermotard 821 SP Do Have: '10 ZX10R
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail You must be logged in to rate posts

chickenstrip
Super Spammer



Joined: 06 Dec 2013
Karma :

PostPosted: 12:00 - 07 Jul 2015    Post subject: Reply with quote

snoosnoo wrote:
Going wrote:
That's because it's not proven science, only theory Smile


Do you even science? Relativity is a theory, gravity is a theory - this is a scientific based conversation so use the words correctly (have discussed the misuse of this term in the past)

I "believe" in Astronomy as much as the conclusions and theories have been made from research which has been peer reviewed and published.

As for the rest of unpublished, peer reviewed ideas, they are simply hypotheses that need testing.


I think you have to be careful not to trust everything that is deemed to be proven in science. Newton's laws turned out to be wrong, as shown by Einstein and others. We've stuck to using them, because mostly on an Earth scale, they work for us, and are more easily accessible to the majority of non-scientific minds.

Lord Kelvin turned out to be wrong about the age of the Earth, as Rutherford showed. But his were the most popular and believed theories/hypotheses/whatever you want to call them*, for some time.

Do we know what an atom actually looks like? Or do we just use a model that explains the behaviour of the world around us? Much in science is not proven, and with the limitations to our access of the wider universe, I would say that astrophysics is at the outer edge of this.

*sorry, science interests me, but not sure you could say I had a particularly scientific mind!
____________________
Chickenystripgeezer's Biking Life (Latest update 19/10/18) Belgium, France, Italy, Austria tour 2016 Picos de Europa, Pyrenees and French Alps tour 2017 Scotland Trip 1, now with BONUS FEATURE edit, 5/10/19, on page 2 Scotland Trip 2 Luxembourg, Black Forest, Switzerland, Vosges Trip 2017
THERE'S MILLIONS OF CHICKENSTRIPS OUT THERE!
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail You must be logged in to rate posts

The Shaggy D.A.
Super Spammer



Joined: 12 Sep 2008
Karma :

PostPosted: 12:10 - 07 Jul 2015    Post subject: Reply with quote

chickenstrip wrote:
So tell us about this "Infinite Monkey Cage" thing, and perhaps it will inform the debate here a bit more?


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Infinite_Monkey_Cage
____________________
Chances are quite high you are not in my Monkeysphere, and I don't care about you. Don't take it personally.
Currently : Royal Enfield 350 Meteor
Previously : CB100N > CB250RS > XJ900F > GT550 > GPZ750R/1000RX > AJS M16 > R100RT > Bullet 500 > CB500 > LS650P > Bullet Electra X & YBR125 > Bullet 350 "Superstar" & YBR125 Custom > Royal Enfield Classic 500 Despatch Limited Edition (28 of 200) & CB Two-Fifty Nighthawk > ER5
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message You must be logged in to rate posts

Rogerborg
nimbA



Joined: 26 Oct 2010
Karma :

PostPosted: 12:18 - 07 Jul 2015    Post subject: Reply with quote

chickenstrip wrote:
Much in science is not proven

That's why we use words like "hypothesis" for conjectures that haven't been tested yet, and "theory" for those that haven't been disproven - yet.

No true Scotsman scientist would assert facts, just the best working theory.
____________________
Biking is 1/20th as dangerous as horse riding.
GONE: HN125-8, LF-250B, GPz 305, GPZ 500S, Burgman 400 // RIDING: F650GS (800 twin), Royal Enfield Bullet Electra 500 AVL, Ninja 250R because racebike
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message You must be logged in to rate posts

DrSnoosnoo
World Chat Champion



Joined: 28 Mar 2012
Karma :

PostPosted: 12:22 - 07 Jul 2015    Post subject: Reply with quote

chickenstrip wrote:

I think you have to be careful not to trust everything that is deemed to be proven in science. Newton's laws turned out to be wrong, as shown by Einstein and others. We've stuck to using them, because mostly on an Earth scale, they work for us, and are more easily accessible to the majority of non-scientific minds.

Lord Kelvin turned out to be wrong about the age of the Earth, as Rutherford showed. But his were the most popular and believed theories/hypotheses/whatever you want to call them*, for some time.

Do we know what an atom actually looks like? Or do we just use a model that explains the behaviour of the world around us? Much in science is not proven, and with the limitations to our access of the wider universe, I would say that astrophysics is at the outer edge of this.

*sorry, science interests me, but not sure you could say I had a particularly scientific mind!


The value of the scientific method though, CS is that it (our understanding) constantly changes. The models we have in place now best describe all the behaviour we witness. When we find different behaviour that cannot be described the model will be altered to absorb that information also.

To say that we believed it all and now we know we were wrong isn't quite correct. It was accepted as describing what we knew. It is constantly evolving.

Do we know what an atom looks like? No. Why? An atom is 99.9999% empty space*. We have X-Ray crystallography which can show us "atoms" spheres and how they are spaced throughout a crystal's structure.

So, I implore you to "trust" current science as that is the cutting edge of knowledge, nobody has ever known as much and in as much detail as we do now. To publish a body of work in a reputable Journal isn't an easy task. The work gets sent to some of the leading minds of that field to ensure no "mistakes" have been made with the theoretical discussion and others repeat the experiments to reproduce results.

*possibly exaggerating but at least 99.9%

Edit to add -

When it is stated that much of science isn't proven, I always ask, what do you consider proof? Repeated experiments which keep showing the expected behaviour is scientific proof and that's how I got taught Chemistry. When we do a reaction with these reagents, this will happen like this. How do we know that though? Repeated experimentation and investigation to identify intermediates and the like.

I would say much of science is proven.
____________________
I'm Sam; Northern, Ginger, Lover
Did have: '95 ZZR600 '83 CG125 '97 ZZR1100 '15 Hypermotard 821 SP Do Have: '10 ZX10R


Last edited by DrSnoosnoo on 12:30 - 07 Jul 2015; edited 1 time in total
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail You must be logged in to rate posts

chickenstrip
Super Spammer



Joined: 06 Dec 2013
Karma :

PostPosted: 12:29 - 07 Jul 2015    Post subject: Reply with quote

Rogerborg wrote:
chickenstrip wrote:
Much in science is not proven

That's why we use words like "hypothesis" for conjectures that haven't been tested yet, and "theory" for those that haven't been disproven - yet.



Yes, sorry, I do get lazy about my English now and again.
____________________
Chickenystripgeezer's Biking Life (Latest update 19/10/18) Belgium, France, Italy, Austria tour 2016 Picos de Europa, Pyrenees and French Alps tour 2017 Scotland Trip 1, now with BONUS FEATURE edit, 5/10/19, on page 2 Scotland Trip 2 Luxembourg, Black Forest, Switzerland, Vosges Trip 2017
THERE'S MILLIONS OF CHICKENSTRIPS OUT THERE!
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail You must be logged in to rate posts

chickenstrip
Super Spammer



Joined: 06 Dec 2013
Karma :

PostPosted: 12:54 - 07 Jul 2015    Post subject: Reply with quote

snoosnoo wrote:
[
When it is stated that much of science isn't proven, I always ask, what do you consider proof? Repeated experiments which keep showing the expected behaviour is scientific proof and that's how I got taught Chemistry. When we do a reaction with these reagents, this will happen like this. How do we know that though? Repeated experimentation and investigation to identify intermediates and the like.

I would say much of science is proven.


But Newton's laws were considered to be proven? We virtually built the modern world on them, and they work, generally speaking. But when we advanced to further consideration and study of the universe, we discovered that actually, on macro scales, they don't work. There was something fundamentally different going on. I don't know if there are similar examples out there, as I am not a student of science, but this particular example was considered to be pretty much absolute, wasn't it? It was shown to be so in the best science laboratories, with all the testing, retesting and scrutiny you describe.

I am generally in agreement with you, and I take the latest scientific theories I read about and judge, in my limited experience, and if my limited mental capacity allows as much, and if the majority of scientific minds also accept; I judge whether or not I think they seem to work. I just always bear in mind that, as you say, later research and observations may require adjustment of those theories, or even their ultimate rejection for something that is later shown to be more accurate.
____________________
Chickenystripgeezer's Biking Life (Latest update 19/10/18) Belgium, France, Italy, Austria tour 2016 Picos de Europa, Pyrenees and French Alps tour 2017 Scotland Trip 1, now with BONUS FEATURE edit, 5/10/19, on page 2 Scotland Trip 2 Luxembourg, Black Forest, Switzerland, Vosges Trip 2017
THERE'S MILLIONS OF CHICKENSTRIPS OUT THERE!
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail You must be logged in to rate posts

Rogerborg
nimbA



Joined: 26 Oct 2010
Karma :

PostPosted: 12:58 - 07 Jul 2015    Post subject: Reply with quote

snoosnoo wrote:
I would say much of science is proven.

Proof is an imprecise word, which is rather ironic considering the contexts in which it's used.

Thing is, it comes from the Latin probare, which is what them Greek types liked to do to the pretty boys. The actual meaning is to test, and that's all the meaning that should be inferred, particularly when applying it to physical sciences.

Proving a hypothesis just means testing it. If the test agrees with the hypothesis then you go on to call it a theory (others may disagree with your test, or come up with different results).

In that sense, all theories are "proven". They've been probed, tested. But that's all that it means. You can keep probaring them by the back door until they prolapse and are rejected, or relegated to "for spherical cows in a vaccum" pragmatic purposes.

Unlike in mathematics or logic, there's no claim that any amount of testing turns a theory into a fact. Let's leave that to salesmen.
____________________
Biking is 1/20th as dangerous as horse riding.
GONE: HN125-8, LF-250B, GPz 305, GPZ 500S, Burgman 400 // RIDING: F650GS (800 twin), Royal Enfield Bullet Electra 500 AVL, Ninja 250R because racebike
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message You must be logged in to rate posts

DrSnoosnoo
World Chat Champion



Joined: 28 Mar 2012
Karma :

PostPosted: 13:07 - 07 Jul 2015    Post subject: Reply with quote

Rogerborg wrote:
Proof is an imprecise word, which is rather ironic considering the contexts in which it's used.

Thing is, it comes from the Latin probare, which is what them Greek types liked to do to the pretty boys. The actual meaning is to test, and that's all the meaning that should be inferred, particularly when applying it to physical sciences.

Proving a hypothesis just means testing it. If the test agrees with the hypothesis then you go on to call it a theory (others may disagree with your test, or come up with different results).

In that sense, all theories are "proven". They've been probed, tested. But that's all that it means. You can keep probaring them by the back door until they prolapse and are rejected, or relegated to "for spherical cows in a vaccum" pragmatic purposes.

Unlike in mathematics or logic, there's no claim that any amount of testing turns a theory into a fact. Let's leave that to salesmen.


Which is what I was getting at with the comments regarding repeated experimentation.

CS, I know what you're talking about but Laws aren't as strict as what you might think. For example there are fluids described as non-Newtonian, corn starch and water, when you compress it, it solidifies, you can do that in your kitchen, quite fun. There are non-ideal gases.

But as laymen (me included in all but one topic that I researched) we have to trust the processes that have been put in place. Unless we can repeat every experiment that is described in the literature, we can't check the validity for ourselves.

Like you say, what we know today could be adjusted or rejected BUT that will be in light of new evidence that we don't have right now. Our models, laws, theories, whatever explain all the behaviour we witness now. We cannot say which "thing" we know now will be wrong in the future because that doesn't make sense. We can best explain the properties we can measure. I'm happy with that.
____________________
I'm Sam; Northern, Ginger, Lover
Did have: '95 ZZR600 '83 CG125 '97 ZZR1100 '15 Hypermotard 821 SP Do Have: '10 ZX10R
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail You must be logged in to rate posts

pinkyfloyd
Super Spammer



Joined: 20 Jul 2010
Karma :

PostPosted: 13:36 - 07 Jul 2015    Post subject: Reply with quote

This thread has gotten too deep for me. I no longer believe in it. Goodbye.
____________________
illuminateTHEmind wrote: I am just more evolved than most of you guys... this allows me to pick of things quickly which would have normally taken the common man years to master
Hockeystorm65:.well there are childish arguments...there are very childish arguments.....there are really stupid childish arguments and now there are......Pinkfloyd arguments!
Teflon-Mike:I think I agree with just about all Pinky has said.
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website You must be logged in to rate posts

Chuffin Nora
World Chat Champion



Joined: 02 Sep 2013
Karma :

PostPosted: 13:39 - 07 Jul 2015    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ariel Badger wrote:
duhawkz wrote:
You mean astrology?


Shit! Yes! I did mean astrology. What a pillock!
Oh, well --- better run with it . . .

Ahem.


if I had meant astrology I would have said Astrology, just as if I had asked "do you believe in Gnomes", I am talking things in the night ( and presumably
day sky) (not bats, we all believe in bats).


Nice get-out! Thumbs Up
____________________
There's a fine line between integrity
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message You must be logged in to rate posts

recman
World Chat Champion



Joined: 26 Mar 2012
Karma :

PostPosted: 14:05 - 07 Jul 2015    Post subject: Reply with quote

I shall be making use of my telescope at the next available opportunity.
I believe I'll enjoy it.
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail You must be logged in to rate posts

oldpink
World Chat Champion



Joined: 02 Aug 2006
Karma :

PostPosted: 15:30 - 07 Jul 2015    Post subject: Reply with quote

recman wrote:
I shall be making use of my telescope at the next available opportunity.
I believe I'll enjoy it.


same here I really hate cloudy days & nights when I can't get out with the telescopes
had a good week last week imaging Venus & Jupiter when they were close together
didn't get them at their closest on the Tues & Wed due to pesky clouds
but I imaged both as well as saturn and a couple of M's, IC's and NGC targets for good measure Thumbs Up

don't see how you can't believe in Astronomy even if the theory's are not yet complete
the planets, stars and galaxy's are real Thumbs Up
____________________
I have become comfortably numb

Theory & hazard 24-may 2016, CBT 8th June 2016, MOD 1 2nd Aug 2016 Mod 2 2nd-Nov 2016 - Current bike CBR 600 RR
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website You must be logged in to rate posts
Dr. Quack This post is not being displayed because it has a low rating (Spam). Unhide this post / all posts.

Chuffin Nora
World Chat Champion



Joined: 02 Sep 2013
Karma :

PostPosted: 19:17 - 07 Jul 2015    Post subject: Reply with quote

Dr. Quack wrote:
Why does Saturn's hexagonal north pole have six sides?


Because it's hexagonal.
____________________
There's a fine line between integrity
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message You must be logged in to rate posts

chickenstrip
Super Spammer



Joined: 06 Dec 2013
Karma :

PostPosted: 19:19 - 07 Jul 2015    Post subject: Reply with quote

Chuffin Nora wrote:
Dr. Quack wrote:
Why does Saturn's hexagonal north pole have six sides?


Because it's hexagonal.



Shhh! Best not to encourage him Wink
____________________
Chickenystripgeezer's Biking Life (Latest update 19/10/18) Belgium, France, Italy, Austria tour 2016 Picos de Europa, Pyrenees and French Alps tour 2017 Scotland Trip 1, now with BONUS FEATURE edit, 5/10/19, on page 2 Scotland Trip 2 Luxembourg, Black Forest, Switzerland, Vosges Trip 2017
THERE'S MILLIONS OF CHICKENSTRIPS OUT THERE!
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail You must be logged in to rate posts

temeluchus
World Chat Champion



Joined: 01 Oct 2008
Karma :

PostPosted: 19:37 - 07 Jul 2015    Post subject: Reply with quote

I used to believe in stuff until someone told me that everyones opinion was valid.

Made me feel better! I just have to say stuff and its true and the fact I am a drug addled ignoramus who can barely read has no effect on the validity of what i think and say!

I've chosen to take the word of unaccountable rambling idiots from millennia ago rather than people who actually go and look at how stuff actually works.

My opinion so its valid, yay!
____________________
Some shite cruiser. Now with guns and FREEDOM!
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website You must be logged in to rate posts

oldpink
World Chat Champion



Joined: 02 Aug 2006
Karma :

PostPosted: 20:03 - 07 Jul 2015    Post subject: Reply with quote

Dr. Quack wrote:
Why does Saturn's hexagonal north pole have six sides?



wind, Ive imaged it would love to post it but its a 140mb image done in timelapse Middle Finger

and its not hexagonal its curved not geometrically a hexagon Thumbs Up
____________________
I have become comfortably numb

Theory & hazard 24-may 2016, CBT 8th June 2016, MOD 1 2nd Aug 2016 Mod 2 2nd-Nov 2016 - Current bike CBR 600 RR
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website You must be logged in to rate posts
Old Thread Alert!

The last post was made 10 years, 195 days ago. Instead of replying here, would creating a new thread be more useful?
  Display posts from previous:   
This page may contain affiliate links, which means we may earn a small commission if a visitor clicks through and makes a purchase. By clicking on an affiliate link, you accept that third-party cookies will be set.

Post new topic   Reply to topic    Bike Chat Forums Index -> Random Banter All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
Page 2 of 3

 
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum

Read the Terms of Use! - Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group
 

Debug Mode: ON - Server: birks (www) - Page Generation Time: 0.14 Sec - Server Load: 0.7 - MySQL Queries: 13 - Page Size: 163.76 Kb