| Welcome to The New Coffee Room. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| When galaxies collide; and we're not talking Fords | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Apr 21 2008, 05:00 AM (2,351 Views) | |
| Aqua Letifer | Apr 21 2008, 07:03 AM Post #26 |
|
ZOOOOOM!
|
Indeed. Scientific inquiry is about as funny as a sack of hammers. |
| I cite irreconcilable differences. | |
![]() |
|
| Mikhailoh | Apr 21 2008, 07:06 AM Post #27 |
|
If you want trouble, find yourself a redhead
|
And you are in a position to state what I know or do not know? That is the most arrogant, pompous statement you have made to date, no mean feat. Moonbat, the scent of hubris fairly oozes from your pores. You are so enamored of science and human knowledge, especially your own, so sure of the value of what we have discovered, or think we have discovered, so convinced of your superiority by virtue of your education and intellect. If you can find the logic path to it, it must be so. Such is the way of computers - zero or one. Not so much human beings. You're a smart guy academically, I'll give you that. But it seems to me there are a lot of lessons you have not learned yet, and I hope you will. The sum of man's knowledge cannot describe or explain the human spirit, cannot account for beauty, cannot tell you how to communicate with a given child, cannot account for intuition or foresight, cannot compose a symphony to make one's heart leap, cannot explain why we are angered by a wrong. In each age man has thought he was at the pinncale of knowledge, truly advanced, only to have been serially replaced and often refuted by what came after. We've had the scientific method for what, 300 years now? It lends itself well to the physical world such as we know if at this time. But to think we know quite a lot is relative only to those men who came before us, not to the universe. And that is why I say it is hubris to think we know quite a lot. |
|
Once in his life, every man is entitled to fall madly in love with a gorgeous redhead - Lucille Ball | |
![]() |
|
| Moonbat | Apr 21 2008, 07:08 AM Post #28 |
![]()
Pisa-Carp
|
I just mean more of the universes mass will be part of brains/computers |
| Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem | |
![]() |
|
| Aqua Letifer | Apr 21 2008, 07:12 AM Post #29 |
|
ZOOOOOM!
|
Maybe, but if you ask me, knowing the chemical composition and flow pattern of Europa's underground ocean is an amazing ability, considering that no person has ever seen it or been there. Science is full of cool stuff like that. We can do very much with limited resources. |
| I cite irreconcilable differences. | |
![]() |
|
| Mikhailoh | Apr 21 2008, 07:15 AM Post #30 |
|
If you want trouble, find yourself a redhead
|
I agree, Aqua. Some of the things we have learned are impressive. |
|
Once in his life, every man is entitled to fall madly in love with a gorgeous redhead - Lucille Ball | |
![]() |
|
| Axtremus | Apr 21 2008, 07:15 AM Post #31 |
|
HOLY CARP!!!
|
Oh, I was thinking along the line of Bekenstein bound (it basically conjectures that information is material, that you can store only a limited amount of information for any given space and amount of energy). You're right that it doesn't necessarily have much to do with quantum anything (I screwed up). So, assuming that the # of true statements about the universe is at least proportionate to the size of amount of energy contained in the universe, and that the total amount of energy/mass that makes up humans is infinitesimally small compared to the universe, and the info that can be stored in (and hence known by) humans is limited by the energy/mass that makes up humans, then the fraction of true statements that can be known by at least one human will be infinitesimally small. |
![]() |
|
| Klaus | Apr 21 2008, 07:19 AM Post #32 |
![]()
HOLY CARP!!!
|
"The only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing" - Socrates |
| Trifonov Fleisher Klaus Sokolov Zimmerman | |
![]() |
|
| Aqua Letifer | Apr 21 2008, 07:23 AM Post #33 |
|
ZOOOOOM!
|
He who knows not and knows not he knows not, He is a fool - Shun him. He who knows not and knows he knows not, He is simple - Teach him. He who knows and knows not he knows, he is asleep - Awaken him. He who knows and knows that he knows, He is wise - Follow him. -Bruce |
| I cite irreconcilable differences. | |
![]() |
|
| Mikhailoh | Apr 21 2008, 07:26 AM Post #34 |
|
If you want trouble, find yourself a redhead
|
There you go. |
|
Once in his life, every man is entitled to fall madly in love with a gorgeous redhead - Lucille Ball | |
![]() |
|
| Klaus | Apr 21 2008, 07:28 AM Post #35 |
![]()
HOLY CARP!!!
|
What you are forgetting is that a simple, finite description may yield an infinite number of statements. For example, if I "know" E=mc˛, then I can "instantiate" this formula with arbitrary E and m. Hence you could argue that I "know" this infinite number of statements. The real question is whether "the world" has a finite description in terms of universally quantified sentences such as "E=mc˛", which allows us to deduce all true statements. I for one believe that there is a lot of evidence that this is not the case. |
| Trifonov Fleisher Klaus Sokolov Zimmerman | |
![]() |
|
| Axtremus | Apr 21 2008, 07:29 AM Post #36 |
|
HOLY CARP!!!
|
Socrates can sometimes read like a fortune from a cookie, eh? ![]() Also consider this longer-winded version by a contemporary American thinker:
|
![]() |
|
| Axtremus | Apr 21 2008, 07:41 AM Post #37 |
|
HOLY CARP!!!
|
No disagreement with what you write there, though I don't quite see how that refutes (or support) the statement that the fraction of true statements (out of the universe of all true statements) known by at least one human is infinitesimally small. Can you help me out there? ![]() (Are you saying that we're basically arguing about whether the # of true statements are finite, or that were just looking at infinite subset within an infinite set, or whether those sets/subsets are countable to begin with? )
|
![]() |
|
| Axtremus | Apr 21 2008, 07:42 AM Post #38 |
|
HOLY CARP!!!
|
Bruce!
|
![]() |
|
| Mikhailoh | Apr 21 2008, 07:51 AM Post #39 |
|
If you want trouble, find yourself a redhead
|
A new comedy classic... The 2000's answer to: 'Who's on first?' 'No, What's on first. Who's on second.' |
|
Once in his life, every man is entitled to fall madly in love with a gorgeous redhead - Lucille Ball | |
![]() |
|
| Moonbat | Apr 21 2008, 07:56 AM Post #40 |
![]()
Pisa-Carp
|
So are you claiming that you do infact have a good grasp of what is understood regarding the universe?
Science is just a method, i am enamored by the real world, i think the real world is amazing and i like learning about it and understanding it. I certainly think that knowledge has value. In terms of hubris - the idea that simply claiming that we know quite alot is hubris is silly - i've defended that statement, and as for if i find a path in logic it must be that way - what are you talking about?
There you go again what are you doing talking with certainty about what the sum of man's knowledge does or does not include when you don't know what the sum of man's knowledge is? In terms of your list of topics - we do have an understanding of some of them e.g. intuition/"foresight", anger responses, in terms of how to communicate with a given child well research into aspergers and autism results in knowledge along those lines indeed if we really didn't know anything about that then educational psychologists wouldn't exist. I mean it's blindingly obvious that we don't know the answer to every question, i've never claimed otherwise.
I've never claimed that we know everything, i've never claimed that we are at a pinacle of knowledge. The future will inevtiably know more than we do, of course it will, science is progressive.
Relative to the universe meaning what? I've already explained why i think our knowledge of the laws of physics is non-trivial. |
| Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem | |
![]() |
|
| The 89th Key | Apr 21 2008, 08:01 AM Post #41 |
|
Just trying to avoid the iceberg before it hits this time...
|
![]() |
|
| Axtremus | Apr 21 2008, 08:11 AM Post #42 |
|
HOLY CARP!!!
|
That's premature, IT hasn't enter the fray yet.
|
![]() |
|
| John D'Oh | Apr 21 2008, 08:32 AM Post #43 |
|
MAMIL
|
A sack of hammers is enormously funny if it falls on somebody else's toe or other sensitive body part. As the great sage and philosopherizer Donald Rumsfeld once said, 'There are known knowns. There are things we know we know. We also know There are known unknowns. That is to say We know there are some things We do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns, The ones we don't know We don't know.' |
| What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket? | |
![]() |
|
| Axtremus | Apr 21 2008, 09:00 AM Post #44 |
|
HOLY CARP!!!
|
D'Oh, Pwned. |
![]() |
|
| Aqua Letifer | Apr 21 2008, 09:10 AM Post #45 |
|
ZOOOOOM!
|
:lol: That sounds stupid and ridiculous but he was right. |
| I cite irreconcilable differences. | |
![]() |
|
| Mark | Apr 21 2008, 09:33 AM Post #46 |
|
HOLY CARP!!!
|
Great photo Al! I have always like the merging of galaxies in this shot of M51 that we took a few years ago. ![]() or this shot of NGC 4038 4039 The Antennae Galaxies, where two galaxies collided with each other and who's combined gravitational force is causing them to distort. Note the galactic material in the "arms" that are streaming out from both. This material is most likely stars that were flung out of their galactic orbit during the collision. They are basically spinning or dancing around each other. I posted the large version because the arms of ejected material are easier to see.
|
|
___.___ (_]===* o 0 When I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the future of the human race. H.G. Wells | |
![]() |
|
| Kincaid | Apr 21 2008, 09:48 AM Post #47 |
|
HOLY CARP!!!
|
I never understood how, under the Big Bang Theory, that we'd get galaxy collisions. Didn't everything radiate outward from a single point? Why isn't every galaxy getting farther and farther from each other rather than colliding billions of years later? |
| Kincaid - disgusted Republican Partisan since 2006. | |
![]() |
|
| Mark | Apr 21 2008, 09:50 AM Post #48 |
|
HOLY CARP!!!
|
Gravity |
|
___.___ (_]===* o 0 When I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the future of the human race. H.G. Wells | |
![]() |
|
| Kincaid | Apr 21 2008, 10:13 AM Post #49 |
|
HOLY CARP!!!
|
That doesn't make sense to me - I can understand a humongous volume of material coming out from the big bang, and after billions of years it coalesces to form galaxies. Okay, so then we have to believe that several of these galaxies are close enough to each other that their gravity attracts each of them together. How, after spending billions of years basically side by side, speeding away from the site of the big bang, do the galaxies form separately and completely without pulling together millenia ago, when they were actually closer to each other? If they are far enough apart that when they coalesced as separate and fully formed galaxies, how are they now so close that they begin to come together? Also, is there a big void at the center of the universe because the big bang shot out all matter and it is now speeding away (at an increasing rate, I'm told)? |
| Kincaid - disgusted Republican Partisan since 2006. | |
![]() |
|
| Moonbat | Apr 21 2008, 10:24 AM Post #50 |
![]()
Pisa-Carp
|
I'm very rusty so perhaps Mark will correct me but as far as i recall the big bang is not like a conventional explosion. The metaphor normally used is the surface of an expanding balloon where stars/planets etc. are drawn on the surface of the balloon. If there were no gravity all objects would be moving away from one another (as the balloon expands) but because of gravity you get local clumping together. There is no void in the "centre" because the big bang happened everywhere not at a particular point in space. |
| Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem | |
![]() |
|
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · The New Coffee Room · Next Topic » |












12:29 AM Jul 11