|
|
Post by omnipleasant on Feb 3, 2009 17:41:59 GMT
"Sorry Omni. But that isn't true."
Bloody hell Tarrant. One one thread you've managed to say that Dawkins is wrong about Darwin, and now this bloke. You must be one hell of an intellect.
Alan Harvey Guth (born February 27, 1947) is a theoretical physicist and cosmologist. Guth has researched elementary particle theory (and how particle theory is applicable to the early universe).
He graduated from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in 1968 in physics and stayed to receive a master's and a doctorate, also in physics.
As a junior particle physicist, Guth first developed the idea of cosmic inflation in 1979 at Cornell after attending a Big Bang lecture by Robert Dicke, and gave his first seminar on the subject in January 1980.[1] Moving on to Stanford University Guth formally proposed the idea of cosmic inflation in 1981, the idea that the nascent universe passed through a phase of exponential expansion that was driven by a positive vacuum energy density (negative vacuum pressure). The results of the WMAP mission in 2006 made the case for cosmic inflation very compelling.
|
|
|
|
Post by flatandy on Feb 3, 2009 17:43:04 GMT
It was the implication of what you said - at seems to be a commonly held belief in the British public. That you can determine which scientif theory is correct by having a phone-in vote on Sky One. That you must treat each theory equally because they're all theories. It's "democracy" gone mad. And bad. And it's something that drives me mad.
|
|
VikingHumpingWitch
New Member
"My philosophy in life is keep dry and keep away from children. I got it from a matchbox."
Posts: 8,018
|
Post by VikingHumpingWitch on Feb 3, 2009 17:43:22 GMT
Bloody hell Tarrant. One one thread you've managed to say that Dawkins is wrong about Darwin, and now this bloke. You must be one hell of an intellect. That really made me laugh, cheers. |
|
feral
New Member
Posts: 8,237
|
Post by feral on Feb 3, 2009 17:43:49 GMT
I didnt say they were but I'll add that I'm not at all sure that scientific theory is enough .
|
|
yord
New Member
Posts: 14,352 
|
Post by yord on Feb 3, 2009 17:45:00 GMT
so the 4% of the observable matter that has been accounted for and the 96% of matter that hasnt , is at best fecking guess work
|
|
|
|
Post by omnipleasant on Feb 3, 2009 17:45:07 GMT
"I'm not at all sure that scientific theory is enough ."
It's not just scientific theory. It's scientific theory with testable predictions backed up with experiments.
|
|
feral
New Member
Posts: 8,237
|
Post by feral on Feb 3, 2009 17:47:25 GMT
It was the implication of what you said - at seems to be a commonly held belief in the British public. That you can determine which scientif theory is correct by having a phone-in vote on Sky One. That you must treat each theory equally because they're all theories. It's "democracy" gone mad. And bad. And it's something that drives me mad. I wasnt trying to imply anything of the sort .I have absolutely no idea which scientific theory is correct ( and there appears to be quite a few conflicting ones ...some more " compelling " than others ) I'll vote for which one is correct when I see the pictorial proof  |
|
yord
New Member
Posts: 14,352
|
Post by yord on Feb 3, 2009 17:47:49 GMT
"It's scientific theory with testable predictions backed up with experiments" much the same as the Indian rope trick
|
|
feral
New Member
Posts: 8,237
|
Post by feral on Feb 3, 2009 17:51:12 GMT
Oh dont be so pedantic ..that was way too much for me to type out .
I aint saying they're wrong and I know better.I dont .BUT I dont close my mind to the fact that you MAY just need a bit more than scientific theory ( etc etc ) to ever understand where the hell we all came from ..and if there is a why
|
|
|
|
Post by omnipleasant on Feb 3, 2009 17:53:41 GMT
There is a very, very big difference though Feral.
A theory is just a theory.
A theory supported by experiments is probably the truth.
|
|
|
|
Post by tarrant on Feb 3, 2009 17:55:13 GMT
"Sorry Omni. But that isn't true." Bloody hell Tarrant. One one thread you've managed to say that Dawkins is wrong about Darwin, and now this bloke. You must be one hell of an intellect. Alan Harvey Guth (born February 27, 1947) is a theoretical physicist and cosmologist. Guth has researched elementary I didn't say that guy was wrong. I never mentioned him. I said you are wrong in your claim that: That is not true. Firstly because most of the matter in the universe hasn't been accounted for at all. Secondly, no-one has ever measured gravity. No-one has ever even maned to say exactly what it is. The best that has been achieved is to define its effects. Moreover, I have provided a link to back my point. Which you have not. Perhaps you might consider the resons for your hostility. If my criticism of Richard Dawkins has upset you so much then possibly you have replaced your worship of one entitiy with another. |
|
feral
New Member
Posts: 8,237
|
Post by feral on Feb 3, 2009 17:55:49 GMT
Ach I dunno .I just find it highly conceited that someone comes along and says " I can explain and prove this all better cos I know about quantum mechanics"
What if you dont actually need quantum mechanics to understand it ? Just a different perception
|
|
|
|
Post by tarrant on Feb 3, 2009 17:56:01 GMT
"Sorry Omni. But that isn't true." Bloody hell Tarrant. One one thread you've managed to say that Dawkins is wrong about Darwin, and now this bloke. You must be one hell of an intellect. Alan Harvey Guth (born February 27, 1947) is a theoretical physicist and cosmologist. Guth has researched elementary I didn't say that guy was wrong. I never mentioned him. I said you are wrong in your claim that: That is not true. Firstly because most of the matter in the universe hasn't been accounted for at all. Secondly, no-one has ever measured gravity. No-one has ever even managed to say exactly what it is. The best that has been achieved is to define its effects. Moreover, I have provided a link to back my point. Which you have not. Perhaps you might consider the resons for your hostility. If my criticism of Richard Dawkins has upset you so much then possibly you have replaced your worship of one entitiy with another. |
|
VikingHumpingWitch
New Member
"My philosophy in life is keep dry and keep away from children. I got it from a matchbox."
Posts: 8,018
|
Post by VikingHumpingWitch on Feb 3, 2009 17:56:14 GMT
There's no why. I can't prove this with science, I just sincerely believe we only want a why because we're so vain and egocentric and think we simply MUST be important in some way we haven't yet figured out.
|
|
feral
New Member
Posts: 8,237
|
Post by feral on Feb 3, 2009 17:57:39 GMT
It's that probably in there that bothers me .
I'll probably be 53 next year
|
|
|
|
Post by omnipleasant on Feb 3, 2009 17:58:55 GMT
It wasn't my claim, Tarrant. It was a direct C&P from an article by the bloke.
|
|
feral
New Member
Posts: 8,237
|
Post by feral on Feb 3, 2009 17:59:11 GMT
There's no why. I can't prove this with science, I just sincerely believe we only want a why because we're so vain and egocentric and think we simply MUST be important in some way we haven't yet figured out. Personally ,I dont think there's a why either.However I am willing to admit that I could quite possibly be wrong |
|
feral
New Member
Posts: 8,237
|
Post by feral on Feb 3, 2009 18:00:37 GMT
Plus the " why " could be that we're someones new PC game ...which would make us even less important than we think we are
|
|
yord
New Member
Posts: 14,352
|
Post by yord on Feb 3, 2009 18:03:51 GMT
"Personally ,I dont think there's a why either.However I am willing to admit that I could quite possibly be wrong"
hell of a chance to take
|
|
|
|
Post by omnipleasant on Feb 3, 2009 18:04:23 GMT
"the " why " could be that we're someones new PC game"
Funnily enough, this is entirely possible too, though much more speculative than Guth's stuff.
Did you read that book I recommended (I think it was you?).
The Never Ending Days of Being Dead - Marcus Chown.
|
|
