Who Thinks the Earth is Flat?

[double u]

Originally Posted by Polux

Didn't thought about that. Yes, that is a case of fast successful evolution of a primitive organism even so we are talking about years for that evolution to happen on a life form with a very short life span.

& I seem to recall there were some mozzies adapting to life in a japanese (or so) subway system

[TreblePlink]

I was very surprised to read that about 1900, Slocum encountered a head of state who was certain the earth was flat.

[CatNewBee]

Well - it is kinda flat - isn't it?

The horizon is most of the time even end very seldom vertical.

you can claim the earth is infinite. you can travel straight ahead, always flat and arrive where you started - no matter in what direction you go. so the earths surface is a 2-dimensional area. if you add a dimension - you would leave the surface.

If you fly in a plane - are you technically on earth?

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by CatNewBee

Well - it is kinda flat - isn't it?

The horizon is most of the time even end very seldom vertical.

you can claim the earth is infinite. you can travel straight ahead, always flat and arrive where you started - no matter in what direction you go. so the earths surface is a 2-dimensional area. if you add a dimension - you would leave the surface.

If you fly in a plane - are you technically on earth?

no you are not you are on a plane on a different plane.

[cyan]

Originally Posted by GordMay

As to the "Big Bang", CERN scientists are experimenting with certain aspects of the theory ,hoping the Large Hadron Collider can approach, on a tiny scale, what happened in the first split seconds after the Big Bang.

Ah, good. Finally- some experiments.
Here's the rub.
The Big Bang Theory only attempts to explain what happened right AFTER the actual bang itself. If you do the expansion math, then it must of happened around 14 billion years ago. It must have been hot and dense. Sure, ok.

However, none of our accepted laws of physics can describe what happened AT and BEFORE the bang. Our concept of time may even not apply there.

We seem to be quick to accept reasonable guesses, as long as enough scientists agree. This blind faith is also practiced in our concept of dark matter. There are literally tons of stuff missing in the math of expansion, thus we accept that it is just there. Somewhere. We can't see it. We can't explain WHY we can't see it. However, we can "measure" its effect, so (magically) it exists.

This is the currently accepted science.
It may be the biggest fudge factor in the history of the universe.
Literally.

[CatNewBee]

Love the big bang theory. Its soo slick, 14 billion years ago at noon a bang cracks and a whole hot universe appears out of thin air.

Well if we continue with the global warming with the calculated increase / pace for another 14 billion of years, maybe we can create a new one experimentally? That would be a hot story.

[petrified]

Yea... Big bang....... Earth was created before the sun...

[goat]

Originally Posted by cyan

We can't see it. We can't explain WHY we can't see it. However, we can "measure" its effect, so (magically) it exists.

This is the currently accepted science.
It may be the biggest fudge factor in the history of the universe.
Literally.

Some people still believe in gravity. Not me.

goat

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by Wotname

Freudian slip Mike????

It is only a short step from unearthed to underearth...

I was just trying to keep things on topic .

The Big Bang, like evolution, General Relatively or quantum mechanics are scientific theories which continue to provide the best explanations for their respective areas of investigation. No scientist worth the moniker would ever state these are the final stops in our investigation of this thing we call the Universe. Only philosophers and priests have the arrogance to claim they know it all, or that we’ve reached the "end of science."

The fact that these theories produce unknowns at their edges is proof that there is still much to know. And that’s a good thing .

[thinwater]

Why does it bother so many people to accept that the cosmos is complicated and we don't understand it, any more than a bacteria understands 2 + 2 = 4? We try, we've reasoned and tested much of it out, but there will always be limits to human comprehension and the accuracy of our models. That said, general relativity, big bang, evolution and others predict most of what we need on a practical level. The earth is round. The planet is warming, the known universe is expanding, space is curved, and nature selects.

As I type on this computer, I am quite sure that no one person understands even 5% of what is inside. There are software, alloys, chips, plastics, and stuff I can't describe. And yet I understand the broad sweep enough to use it. And I am at peace not undertaking the minutia.

[cyan]

Originally Posted by thinwater

Why does it bother so many people to accept that the cosmos is complicated and we don't understand it, any more than a bacteria understands 2 + 2 = 4? We try, we've reasoned and tested much of it out, but there will always be limits to human comprehension and the accuracy of our models. That said, general relativity, big bang, evolution and others predict most of what we need on a practical level. The earth is round. The planet is warming, the known universe is expanding, space is curved, and nature selects.

As I type on this computer, I am quite sure that no one person understands even 5% of what is inside. There are software, alloys, chips, plastics, and stuff I can't describe. And yet I understand the broad sweep enough to use it. And I am at peace not undertaking the minutia.

It bothers me that people often accept what they hear a scientist say, and believe it as doctrine without any critical thought of their own.

The Greek astronomers convinced people that the earth was the center of the universe. We look back and say they weren't REALLY scientists. Last century, scientists convinced us that the Big Bang was just like an explosion that Newton would understand, with everything slowing down, eventually to a stop, and probably imploding one day. Now we find that everything is actually ACCELERATING, obeying some mysterious magic rule we don't understand yet.

My point is that the next time you hear about an accepted scientific theory, don't accept it blindly. Think for yourself. This mistake happens over and over by humans and sheep alike.

Oh, and I do understand about 99.9% of what happens inside your computer, like many other embedded systems designers. Pretty sure.

[weavis]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

I was just trying to keep things on topic .

The Big Bang, like evolution, General Relatively or quantum mechanics are scientific theories which continue to provide the best explanations for their respective areas of investigation. No scientist worth the moniker would ever state these are the final stops in our investigation of this thing we call the Universe. Only philosophers and priests have the arrogance to claim they know it all, or that we’ve reached the "end of science."

The fact that these theories produce unknowns at their edges is proof that there is still much to know. And that’s a good thing .

Isnt that the problem though Mike? They are speculative theories and in all likelihood, like Einsteins theory of relativity turn out to be incorrect? Why would anyone place trust in a theoretical science or scientist?

Models are to try and frame known actions and reactions, but generally in due course are replaced by other models.

I have a dictum that I apply in all cases.

It has been my rule through life never to accept anything as true, unless it came as near mathematical proof as possible in its domain of science; and, in the other hand, never to reject anything as false, unless there was stronger proof of its falsity.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by weavis

I have a dictum that I apply in all cases.

It has been my rule through life never to accept anything as true, unless it came as near mathematical proof as possible in its domain of science; and, in the other hand, never to reject anything as false, unless there was stronger proof of its falsity.

Sounds like another way of describing healthy skepticism. The problem is that many if not most don't seem comfortable accepting a world filled with so much complex "grey area" when they can just follow along with simpler "black & white" ways of explaining things.

[Sulaire]

Please take the time to understand what the phrase “scientific theory” actually means, there is theory and there is scientific theory, two very different things, evolution is a scientific theory, not theoretical science, ie it is based on factual real life observations.

Hitchens razor says flat earhers must prove their theory.... like alot of other silly ideas....

[robert sailor]

Originally Posted by cyan

It bothers me that people often accept what they hear a scientist say, and believe it as doctrine without any critical thought of their own.

The Greek astronomers convinced people that the earth was the center of the universe. We look back and say they weren't REALLY scientists. Last century, scientists convinced us that the Big Bang was just like an explosion that Newton would understand, with everything slowing down, eventually to a stop, and probably imploding one day. Now we find that everything is actually ACCELERATING, obeying some mysterious magic rule we don't understand yet.

My point is that the next time you hear about an accepted scientific theory, don't accept it blindly. Think for yourself. This mistake happens over and over by humans and sheep alike.

Oh, and I do understand about 99.9% of what happens inside your computer, like many other embedded systems designers. Pretty sure.

I'm not so sure that "thinking for yourself" and becoming a skeptic is a well thought out plan when you have 75% of the world's population that believe in flying horses,sky gods,angels and devils. Now you want to take something as complex as science and expect people to inform themselves, probably isn't going to fly