Science Is Bullshit

http://www.newscientist.com/channel/fundamentals/mg18925423.600.html Heres the most recent one i know of, I thought it sounded quite good as well.

 

or http://arxiv.org/ftp/astro-ph/papers/0503/0503200.pdf the paper in pre-print from last year

 

Tony.. scanned it.

singularities have be shown to exsist "IN EFFECT"
'wobbly stars' to keep the language simple for others.
galactic core events that have NO other explanation.
Current theory FITS within the princple of parsimony.

Chapline suggested..???? That mater is destroyed in the core of a singularity.. thus Dark mater must be involved..
occam suggests 'dark mater' a road to their notoriety'
If he or anyone else has NO idea 'what that core IS'
Then how can ANYONE say what happens in it?
ALL we know is the titanic gavitic effects.
And work backwards from that within the 'understood' framework of stellar mechanics.

Occam

 

Current theory does not fit with parsimony. If black holes exist then QM is at best incomplete, given that black holes violate the first sentence of QM 101, so their existance would mean a substantial rework of the most accurate theory of all time, as the article says people hoped that in time it would get accommodated, well it hasnt so far. In a simplistic kind of way if you try to explain we think of as black holes with GR you get black holes if you do it QM you get this. Quite what effect this has on unifying theories, I have no idea.

 

Tony

Yes it does.

QM is Not macro in human fact.
And cannot be applied to macro in our current undestanding of it. [qm]
QM IS indeed.. incomplete as u well know.
And maybe qm 101 is incomplete or simply a false description.
Uncertainty is indeed uncertain. What 'god' labeled 'x' as qm 101?
if the theory is OPEN it is OPEN. Not FACT.
QM may inteed be fundamantal,,but as we dont really know what it is enought to see any theoretical effects in the macro.. we should not start saying that the most titanic forces in reality are a slave to it..

Singularities can be explained 'to an extent' by einsteinian/newtonian theory. Which seems to hold true in all observation of our universe.

Thus parsimony holds.. for now.

Occam

 

And just to say it again. humans and human science
HAS NO IDEA OF WHAT LIES BELOW THE EVENT HORIZON.

ThUS ALL human science means NOTHING on this question.

Its all speculation... QM, newton and einstien know NOTHING. just like u and me.

This is why occams imagineering lives in the accretion disk.
in reality
NOT below the horizon...where phychosis lives

Occam

 

The macroscopic laws of physics are what you get when the quantum laws are averaged over a large humber of events. Take a neutron star, a macroscopic effect by most measures however, what is it? Essentially a giant ball a neturons, possibly in a superfluid state. Either way they have the structure they do because of the Pauli exclusion principle, most definitely a quantum mechanical effect. In a 'black hole' the gravitational forces will vary significantly over the spatial extent of a wavefunction, so quantum mechanics absolutely must be considered. Quantum mechanics may be incomplete thats always a possibiltiy but if the part about conservation of information is wrong then we're not talking minor editing it all comes crashing down. I think its far more likely that the black hole is one prediction of GR that is a mathematical oddity that has no physical meaning. The standard line is that both are correct and that a unified theory will allow us to see the structure of the inside of a black hole and show the information is not really lost.

 

What? You are kidding no?

Come on..Think of 100 years back and all the SHIT science said could and could not be.
YOU THINK TODAY CAN BE ONLY FACT/TRUTH? Cause U live in it?

Learn from history.. thats what it is for.
Think 1000 years in the future..they will laugh at our assumptions.

THIS IS THE WAY OF IT


Occam

 

Well philosophically its 'interesting' but on a day to day operational level it does pretty well and its biggest everyday problem is its incompatibility with GR. Einstein had a go at QM in another mind experiment with Rosen and Podolsky, in the paper 'Can Quantum-Mechanical Description Of Physical Reality Be Considered Complete?' (definately worth a read) though this mind experiment was found to be wrong when QM turned out to be right. I agree it turns your mind and on first learning it I think every students first response is 'you've got to be kidding me', but it keeps churning out right answers. My own opintion on it is right answer, but probably wrong reason.

 

exactly.

 

Fat tony

Understand where u are comming from but science needs to find
'some' evidence of dark matter and it's possible relation to realmater and QM. Before we build huge theories centered on it.
Otherwise its noting but religion. Someone said god must exist.. And we end up with the labyrinthian morass called catholicism.

Occam

 

I don't believe in science because i've seen and experienced things that most, if not all scientists deemed as false.

Illusions, deception via logical fallacy, "magician" performances, hallucinations- they're all well-documented. Dig beyond "gut reactions" and develop testable hypotheses and you might get to the bottom of it.

It takes a lot of gall to use a technology delivered entirely by the scientific method to argue that the methods used to develop it do not in fact work. Why did you post this on the Internet, couldn't you just ESP it to us?

Sorry to sound mean, but this wacko rightwing nutjob hatred of science has gotten way out of hand in the USA.

 

To me, Richard Dawkins represents a far greater threat to the cause of reason than any religion, by offering those who manipulate religious followers to their own ends a convenient caricature of all the arrogance and anti-humanism that it is so often accused of.

Can you be more specific? I've read a lot of stuff by him, listened to interviews, etc., and I have no idea what you're talking about here. And no, Biblical references don't count.

 

From the mess that is cosmology at the moment we have the concepts of dark energy and dark matter, no one knows what any of these things are, but without them the universe doesnt have enough mass. The alternative is to say that GR is wrong and to go against Einstein which to me sometimes seems a little bit of heresy which think is a shame a person should never be bigger than a theory. I have heard 'Well Einstein said it' as an argument, not by a researcher thankfully, though I guess there is no other reason to throw out GR so it probably is an over reaction on balance. There could of course be another force that only works on such huge distances that we dont see it in any other area of life.

If this theory is correct we have solved the conflict between GR and QM, here at least they're still fundamentally different. Also would very likely give us a very good idea of what 'dark matter' and 'dark energy' actually are. The universe has one less nasty mathematical entity in it. Finally to me it would make some sense after all in a neutron star takes on a superfluid state analogous to that of helium just above absolute zero. Every piece of experimental evidence we have for a black hole could be explained here, as I understand it, so if this situation had been found in QM before the black hole solution to GR was found, how would we know see the centre of a galaxy? I dont mind if we go for black holes if the better fit the evidence but I do mind if they are chosen becaure they are 'cooler' or grab the public imagiantion or were just first to be found theoretically.

 

Tony

Enough mass for what?

Occam

 

Tony

U speak of 'the reversal?'

How do neutron stars.. which are just as interesting if not more so than
collapsars.. fit with this.. sorry occam is confused.
Obviously his generalism has not delved deep enough into this to understand it.

maybe the 'big picture for humanity' does not need 'yet' an end date for the observed universe. The 'use by date' for sol is still 4+ billion years off.
plenty of time to fix an end date for the observed universe.

Occam

 

Enough mass to keep accelertaing in its expansion, as it appears to be doing.

There is evidence that neutron stars may be a superfluid, this is a state that normally occurs at very low temperatures where particles have very small thermal energies are all trying to enter the lowest possible state. As it happens this is in an area strongly related to the arguments used for the black hole alternative, though my point is that just because you are far out in space QM is still very important, it doesnt apply only here on earth. If QM predicts a phase transition under these conditions, it would be good to look for one.

 

Very interesting. You have accurately described me.
One of the few aspects of science which truely is troubling and detrimental to advancement, is lack of imagination.
Science too often falls into a rigid motion of exploration, creating tunnel vision, effectively dismissing any theories which do not have existing scientific grounds.
I wouldn't limit this behaviour specifically to science. Actually it's sociological.
Fundamentally, it's evolutionary.
Scientific faith is just as immovable as religous faith, if not more, since science can be fortified with evidence.

 

lol

 

Science is the only a way to pursue knowledge. But you have to remember reality is relative, and subjective. Which is not what most people would agree with.

Our brains interprety what we sense, the only truths are happening inside our brains. Our perception feeds off light particles.

Reality is relative. Its just that most of us share alot of the same attributes, and ideas of what were perceiving, because its easy and logical.