The Science Video Thread

[Dildo Faggins]

Originally Posted by Tuco

Now you just have the problem of determining which mathematical proofs are fuzzy, and which are sound.

I answered that, already.

I'm very excited to see how the whole CERN thing turns out

Cern is a good cause. It may produce some results which allow scientists to actually start justifying one of the different theories. But just as easily it could make every string theorist on the planet look incredibly stupid, and create a whole new hip theory. The only bad part about the project is that there are many scientists there who have already decided on how they want the universe built, so their going to look at the results through the skew that they want.

Originally Posted by tea on tuesday

Zuuljin what you have to realize is that the 10th dimension webite in NO way reflects anything begining to resemble actual science.

dont know what website your talking about, but everything ive ever read trying to explain or justify dimensions above 4 is pretty much just rabid bulshit. String theory also requires these dimensions to work. Nobody can agree on what exactly these dimensions would be.

[Celebrindal]

Okay... There's no point to debate it anymore. Move on and post something. Or discuss the first 10 videos I put up, or the Stephen Hawking shit.

Michael Shermer on TEDtalks - Why People Believe Weird Things


Carl Sagan - Origins of the Universe Part 1 & 2

[AngryGerbil]

Excellent thread.

Dildo, did you watch more of these videos than I did? I watched the entire 1:48:06 of the first one and saw only one passing (and by his own admission not entirely founded) mention of String Theory in the first 5-10 minutes and then never again. I plan to watch more (if not all) of these so perhaps your 'Rage Against The String Machine' is just in terms of what this thread presents.

I'm liken to you in that respect. String theory (to my understanding) is a wildly 'out-there' hypothesis that seems to me to be based in the idea that our Big Bang was not unique. Now, while I can (and currently do) accept the likelyhood that our Bang was not unique, I do not immediately accept string theory as fact.

Talk to me about multiverses that encompass the possibility that there are in fact billions or trillions of big bangs all over the place and that our 'known universe' is only 'known' because we yet lack the ability to comprehend exactly how big it is as even a singular entity yet alone an all encompassing one, and that regardless of its size or age, it may not be unique...fine. Talk to me about 10th dimensional strings vibrating to create a manner of plasma consistent of multiple multi-verses, and you've essentially lost not only my scope of comprehension, by my attention.

Science is allowed to postulate and speculate all it wants in regards to the "next level" of understanding, including a bit of fudged math. In fact it is exactly this sort of speculation that has lead to many of our discoveries by aiming our reasearch (and our math) in the right direction.

Sometimes we get ahead of ourselves, luminiferous ether and such, and now string theory perhaps.

I dunno, if your argument is against the logic behind string theory, I cannot and do not inherently disgaree. If your logic is behind something else, than I either do not know what that might be or am intellectually unable to understand your point as presented to me using the medium of language.

Apologies.

If I am wrong please point me in the right direction, I'd be glad to read up and educate myself.

[Lord Thanos]

Thanks for the links to The Elegant Universe, been searching for a torrent of the DVD, but no dice, guess these are good enough for my iPod

[Eduardo]

DF was getting to some of the basic underlying assumptions in the hard sciences, and I agree with his fundamental point. His point is exemplified when analyzing the differences between big bang cosmology and plasma cosmology. Plasma cosmology takes a more empirical approach, a union of empirical and theoretical methods is necessary to fully grasp nature. Ignorance of one aspect over another can over-bias assumptions, and when building theories on top of fundamentally wrong assumptions, you usually get a fundamentally wrong theory. Redshift and the theoretical version of Hubble's law, as opposed to it's empirical version, is a perfect example.

Anyhow, I need to go so I'm reserving this spot to come back next week and expand more, perhaps. Perhaps not, because I have found in the past that if someone doesn't see it for themselves, it can be very difficult to teach them.

[Dildo Faggins]

Originally Posted by Eduardo

DF was getting to some of the basic underlying assumptions in the hard science... ...if someone doesn't see it for themselves, it can be very difficult to teach them.

yes.

Some people take what they learn in school as truth, without bothering to research the logic or reasoning behind it. One example of a theory that is fairly poorly laid out, but extremely pervasive, is 'the big bang.' There are books and books on theoretical math of HOW the big bang could possibly occur, which basically ignore the fact that there is very little evidence to support the fact that something like that ever did occur. And on top of it, they had to create special rules of physics for big bang only type events, because physics normally just makes such a situation entirely impossible. So the laws of physics changed sometime during the big bang? They might as well just say "GOD MADE IT CHANGE!", because it makes about as much sense as the theories they've come up with.

The problem with these theories on the creation of the universe is a scientist comes up with an idea, then creates theories to defend the idea from problems. Science should be used as a model for prediction resulting from observation. When you use it to defend an artistic idea, you are abusing its purpose, and turning it into a religion. My problem with this is exactly the same as my problem with theories such as global warming. Science is not meant to be used like that, and i disagree completely with the assertation that science used like that has accomplished anything, ever, or allowed for any advances in technology.

[Tuco]

Originally Posted by Dildo Faggins

yes.

Some people take what they learn in school as truth, without bothering to research the logic or reasoning behind it. One example of a theory that is fairly poorly laid out, but extremely pervasive, is 'the big bang.' There are books and books on theoretical math of HOW the big bang could possibly occur, which basically ignore the fact that there is very little evidence to support the fact that something like that ever did occur. And on top of it, they had to create special rules of physics for big bang only type events, because physics normally just makes such a situation entirely impossible. So the laws of physics changed sometime during the big bang? They might as well just say "GOD MADE IT CHANGE!", because it makes about as much sense as the theories they've come up with.

The problem with these theories on the creation of the universe is a scientist comes up with an idea, then creates theories to defend the idea from problems. Science should be used as a model for prediction resulting from observation. When you use it to defend an artistic idea, you are abusing its purpose, and turning it into a religion. My problem with this is exactly the same as my problem with theories such as global warming. Science is not meant to be used like that, and i disagree completely with the assertation that science used like that has accomplished anything, ever, or allowed for any advances in technology.

I think I can agree to that to some extent.

Scientists should treat some areas of study,as theories and not facts, when they truly are theories.

However, in the absence of good methods to observe nature on certain areas, they shouldn't withhold themselves from pursuing truth without observation.

[Dinthug]

Originally Posted by Dildo Faggins

yes.

My problem with this is exactly the same as my problem with theories such as global warming.

How the hell could you possibly compare global warming to the big bang theory?

[AngryGerbil]

I was under the impression (I am no expert) that there is vast sums of evidence to suggest that the universe is expanding, the universe is cooling, and that we can see using microwave telescopes the traces of this expasion that lead back to a "center" of the universe. This all of course suggests a big bang type of event. How that event might have taken place is still a mystery. So what do we do? We hypothesize and stretch ideas. Perhaps the anti-physical properties of the big bang originating material does in fact force us to recalibrate what we previously thought to be true in either math or scientific understanding. Or perhaps I'm just not getting your point. A specific example would be great.

Anyway, was watching the Beyond Belief episodes and at about 1:20 in the third video the panel is discussing how best to awaken the general public on matters of science. One school of thought suggests a 'cushioning' of the blow to 'ease' people away from religion and into rationality. Then there is Dawkins and Harris who of course believe we should just smash it all with a sledge hammer. Dawkins quotes an editor of New Scientist magazine who states the philosophy of the magazine is, "Science is interesting and if you don't agree you can fuck off." Agree or disagree it was pretty funny to hear a stuffy brit like Dawkins say it. =)

[Celebrindal]

BBC Documentary: Space - narrated by Sam Neill
Episode 1 Star Stuff


Episode 2 - Staying Alive


Episode 3 - Black Holes


Episode 4 - Are we Alone?


Episode 5 - New Worlds

Episode 6 - Boldly go

[Celebrindal]

Originally Posted by AngryGerbil

...Anyway, was watching the Beyond Belief episodes and at about 1:20 in the third video the panel is discussing how best to awaken the general public on matters of science. One school of thought suggests a 'cushioning' of the blow to 'ease' people away from religion and into rationality. Then there is Dawkins and Harris who of course believe we should just smash it all with a sledge hammer...

Dan Dennett, if he were at that conference (he suffered a heart attack and couldn't make it =\), would've suggested that we should teach world religion in all schools. That we should teach the Facts. History, creed, text, symbolism, prohibitions. Straight up with no spin. He explains this in his book Breaking the Spell, and he goes over it in the TedTalk of him that is in this thread.

[AngryGerbil]

It is more than likely that over the course of the next fews days and weeks that I will watch all these videos eventually. I look forward to Dennet. (And while ya'll are at it, click the link in my sig )

[EnigmaticParadigm]

One of the coolest threads in almost three years. I love shit like this.

[Himeo]

I'm completely fucking ignorant on this subject, but isn't a prerequisite for becoming a scientist having the balls to say that the people before you were wrong? Isn't that the basic assumption of science? Kind of like: until there are no more "exceptions" to the "rules" then the current rules are, at the very least, bullshit?

...

No, really.

dot dot dot


Anyway, have we found out what gravity “is” yet? Because, and I'm probably wrong here, isn't that the most basic knowledge necessary to unlock the inner-workings of the Universe?

Tittays.

[AngryGerbil]

Originally Posted by Himeo

Anyway, have we found out what gravity “is” yet? Because, and I'm probably wrong here, isn't that the most basic knowledge necessary to unlock the inner-workings of the Universe?

From my understanding, yes.

We still cannot "see" gravity, only its effects. Tyson explains this in the book I'm reading now about the electromagnetic spectrum and how when we discovered it and were then able to "see" microwaves and ultraviolet and radio and how this was one of the most eye-opening (pun) cornucopias of knowledge in recent times if not ever (arguable of course, he sure makes it) in terms of astophysics. And how we can use spectrum to figure out what elements any band of photon originates from.

He also talks about some manner of tool, or 'scope', that is being designed to hopefully be able to "see" gravity. I admit I didn't quite get my mind around it on the first read-through but will likely re-read it when I'm done and look more into it.

Someone with more education on the subject might (and should) correct me here, but my understanding is that we are pretty much positive of what gravity is and how it works, but we still can't "see" it, and that limits us in many ways that, at this point, go over my head.