The main thing from this is that even though there may be a universe full of it it WILL run out eventually (unless it can renew itself).

The universe is infinite, anything which takes up 90% of the mass of an infinite...er, construct is going to be infinite if my maths is correct. don't worry about it running out. I think the real problem is that if we use it the gravitational effects could be disastrous. I'm thinking shifting orbits, increased entropy, the end of the universe man! Run for the hills!

The universe is infinite,

Er frookie, it is not proven the universe is infinite. . Because of the limitation due to the speed of light , we can only see a certain portion of the universe, the observable universe..

As for the rest of you arguing semantics about "theory" , "hypthothesis", let's just say you guys should do a bit more reading about the philisophy of the scientific method first before shooting your mouth off.

For what's it worth, because the issue is largely definitional , and scientists themselves don't really think too much about this stuff (only armchair philisophers and guys attacking evolution worry about this), you guys can argue until you are blue in the face, and no one can be proven right.

At best you can say your definition is more widely accepted. But more widely accepted by who?

Besides as I said, most practising scientists don't really worry too much about these semantic debates, and many philisophers who do worry about them, don't really agree (as usual for philisophers), so who can say what definition is more widely accepted?

Let me add some points.

Firstly the word theory can be used in several different ways, even if we are talking about "Scientific theories".

In fairness, gravity got "disproved". Einsteinian gravity replaced newtonian gravity (although it doesn't make much of a difference) proving that even laws can be changed, or at least somewhat altered.

One thing you notice is that after the scientists got a black eye with newton "laws" being disproved, they refrained from calling Einstein's successor theory a law. Also 20th century scientists were highly influenced by Karl Popper, hence they were aware that in principle scientific theories are merely the best approximation of truth we have, and can be falsified in the future in theory.

From a pre kuhnian point of view, Facts and observations generally don't change , but our theories, or conceptual models of the universe do to provide a closer fit to our observations. In any one time, no scientific theories explains *all* our observations, the best ones are very very succuessful though, hence our belief in them. For others observations that we cannot fit into the theory, sometimes it is due to experimental error, or it may be an area where the theory can be extended with slight modifications , it is hard to tell the difference.

Of course some are total annomilies that lead to paradigm shifts....

Not all scientific theories are equal of course, some are a much better fit to our observations, some are less so. Some are 'confirmed' more and woven tightly into the fabric of science by a thousand different observations each of which the theory provides an 'inference to the best explaination'. In other words, if the theory weren't true, it would be hard to explain all these observations. And some are newer theories 'dreamed up' fairly recently to explain specific annomlies observed.

On the continium of such matters, the existence of dark matter is on one end, and say Quantum theory on the other. Darwin's theory of evolution is in between.

One thing about science is that there is what is known as "under-determination of theory by facts",

eally? Okay how about this then? Its a simplified version of the ontological argument: Wow! so god exists and here is the proof, heh heh, so by this rationale the 90% mass of the universe is god because there can be no greater thing than god. Aren't proofs great?

Obviously the ontological argument is not a scientific theory given that if the argument is true, it is true for all possible worlds, hence it is a mathematical proof.

Oh, and black holes aren't a theory. We can "see" them in decaying binary systems. Its what in all they can do that we din't know.

Heh, the distinction between "fact"/"observation" and "theory" is not as clear cut as most people think. In your statement above, you already hint at the problems involved, by using the word "See" in quotes.

Do atoms exist? Do electric fields exist? Are they scientific fact? But we can't "see" them directly.

Our instruments lead us to believe they exist, but aren't our instruments subject to theories either?

Also, no one disputes the "theory" of gravity, because gravity is not a theory! The cause of gravity is a theory, in fact there have been several theories on it, but gravity itself is a real and testable force.

This entire "gravity is a theory" stuff was pulled out of macro-evolutionists backsides while arguing with creationists, in order to try to give more "scientific weight" behind them. The problem with that is it promotes bad science in a dishonest attempt to strengthen their arguement. Plus, it's an arguement where the other side is really talking theology and not science. Reply • Quo

I think you miss the point. It is possible to dispute the theory of gravity just as it is possible to dispute darwinian theory in principle. It would be foolish to deny that.

The evolutionists point is that there is a big difference between a theory in the sense of "I have a theory that he doesn't like me because he looked at me funny" and a scientific theory which has being tested a million ways, or in reverse which explains thousands of facts which make no sense if the theory wasn't true.

Also I notice that you stated this "gravity itself is a real and testable force".
I could quibble with this and point out that, this is not a 100% factual statement/ observations but incorporates theory assumptions and preconceptions by using loaded words like "force", "gravity".

Something vaguely topical: A thought experiment.

How long does it take light to travel from the sun to Earth? About nine minutes?

If Earth's trajectory through space right now is centered on a point within the visible position of the sun, then 'gravity' travels at the speed of light. But that would screw with the math we use for stable orbits.

If Earth's trajectory through space right now is centered on a point nine minutes 'forward' of that focal point near the sun's center, then 'gravity' either travels much faster than the speed of light in a vacuum, or it does not travel at all.

Do we have the technology to measure the difference in Earth's orbit? (pulsar timings come to mind). Or maybe measure the angle of light rays arriving from the sun?

As for the rest of you arguing semantics about "theory" , "hypthothesis", let's just say you guys should do a bit more reading about the philisophy of the scientific method first before shooting your mouth off.

Consider me suitably chastised.... My god richrf you've been doing some serious reading.

Obviously the ontological argument is not a scientific theory given that if the argument is true, it is true for all possible worlds, hence it is a mathematical proof.

Dude they were backing me into a corner, and like any wild animal i fought back the only way I know how....

Angelwyrm, can you elaborate a bit/lot cos I don't think you've put enough information up for us to get some grip on your thought experiment.

About the topic of seeding life:

Panspermia is the hypothesis that the seeds of life are ubiquitous in the Universe, that they may have delivered life to Earth, and that they may deliver or have delivered life to other habitable bodies; also the process of such delivery.

Exogenesis is a related, but less radical, hypothesis that simply proposes life originated elsewhere in the Universe and was transferred to Earth, with no prediction about how widespread life is. The term "panspermia" is more well-known, however, and tends to be used in reference to what would properly be called exogenesis, too.

The idea is that organic moloecules detected in interstellar molecular clouds are picked up and possibly delivered to planets not that actual microbes make the transit. Although in the last shuttle crash small microbial organisims been taken into orbit for micro-gee testing in only a lightly shielded container managed to survive the re-entry and crash and i dunno if youve seen the footage but it was pretty bad so i have confidence that its entirely possible that they could survive a cometary impact. I personally think that life here on earth originated here.



Gravity supposedly "travels" if you could call it that through a theoretical NB (non bosonic) particle called a gravitron. Gravitrons either have a finite speed (still at least millions of times the speed of light, high enough to make testing it with local body motion impractical) or affect everything in the universe simultaneously depending on which theory you adhere to. The math involved is completely insane and the one time I tried to bring it up with my cosmology lecturer he told me to leave it and maybe ask after i got my degree.
the other thing which makes it obscenely hard to measure this is the suns motion along the galactic plane and the galaxys motion through the cluster etc etc etc.



Ah that would be a very bad example for the point you were trying to make. For one thing newtons laws were not disproved and they are still used today for many calculations. Einstein didnt so much replace them as upgrade them. The same is true for nearly all "physical laws" in use today.

[EDIT] Okay for some reason my quotes arent working.

Oh and the universe is definitely finite. Our observable universe is a sphere with a radius of ~13.6 billion light years and it is estimated to make up about 10% of the total universe.

This is all really, really interesting. Honestly, I'm enthralled. What is you americans call it? Oh, yeah..Highbrow stuff ..

Okay somebody must know this one then...What is outside the universe? Is it nothing ness? less than vacuum? And if the universe is expanding and nothing is outside it, then the universe may be expanding at an extremely high velocity. Higher than c?

Also, if the universe is expanding and every thing is moving apart and so forth. the gravitational 'force'(effect} between bodies is decreasing, so why do people reckon that there will be a big crunch?

And the asteroid belt...Do you reckon it took a bullet for us?

The idea is that organic moloecules detected in interstellar molecular clouds are picked up and possibly delivered to planets not that actual microbes make the transit.

Yeah, i know, but I was busy pulling the rug from under their feet and a little exaggeration goes a long way .. The previous paragraphs(s) is/are very pretty sounding, but, but I'm still not buying into the comet idea?

One thing you notice is that after the scientists got a black eye with newton "laws" being disproved, they refrained from calling Einstein's successor theory a law. Ah that would be a very bad example for the point you were trying to make. For one thing newtons laws were not disproved and they are still used today for many calculations. Einstein didnt so much replace them as upgrade them. The same is true for nearly all "physical laws" in use today.

It is true that Newton's laws can be seen as a subset of Einstein's under certain special conditions (V/C << 1), however don't be fooled, Einstein's theory is completely different from Newton's. The fact that Einstein's theories maps into Newton's under some conditions,merely *explains* why Newton's laws appears to work and fits experimental data that we see, but it does not mean that Einstein's laws are simply a extension of Newton or that Newton wasn't disproved*.

Do not be confused, the fact that Newton's laws are easier to use, and the approximations are close enough not to matter in most cases, does not mean Newton's isn't disproved! It's a pragmatic decions to use Newton's and as nothing to do with whether Newton is disproved or not.

Einstein theories lead to a completely new paradigm that was completely destructive and incompatiable to Newton's. They had totally different metaphysical posultates (relative space versus absolute space), different definitions of the same terms (look up the *huge* difference in the terms 'Mass' as used by Newton and Einstein!). In a certain sense , the ontology of the physics world pre einstein and post einstein was absolutely changed, such that they could be said to be living in different worlds.

Let me try to illusrate with a hypothethical situation.

Say , scientists discover a 5th fundamental force.

The first theory proposed that the 5th force was a result of small invisible clowns dancing around (a fanciful example no doubt). It seemed to work, and explained all
the experimental tests we happen to subject it to, as time goes by, the "Clown theory" becomes a 'law'.

50 years later, this scientist (who is no doubt something of a clown) comes along with his theory that explains the 5th force as a result of "dogs". It turns out there are no "clowns" at all! The "dog theory" is able to explain why the "clown theory" seems to work, and proves that under conditions experimented up to so far, working as if there are "clowns" (when ther actually isn't) , will give you *predictions* that will match (to an accurate enough degree that it seems to make no difference) what is seen. However, under other conditions, it will not match and when tested it is proved that the Dog theory matches the tests but not the clown theory.

Would you then say that the "Dog" theory is merely an extension of the "clown" theory? Of course not, since there are not actually clowns (if there were, it would always work and not work merely under some conditions)! It was just 'luck' that pretending there were clowns led to observations that fitted the observations

The newton/einstien paradigms are similar.


*AFter all Newton's laws were not tagged with a conditional "only works if V/c <<1)!

Okay, why are people using one disproven theory (Einstein's) to argue about another disproven theory (Newton's)? Einstein's Theory of Relativity itself was disproven when his basic equation was modified to allow for negative numbers. This, in turn, eventually led to the discovery of antimatter. And yet, ever since then, everyone talks about Einstein and uses his theory as a base.

Well, here's my theory: No one in science knows more than guesses they can back up with mathematics, mathematics that depend on the universe being a certain way. In other words, science in relation to space is all based on a massive assumption with no evidence to back it, and every day there's plenty of evidence that suggests science needs to go back to the drawing board. For example, we've got stars confirmed to be in the 12-15 billion year old range in a universe that, the last time I checked, was only 10 billion years old. Add to that the fact we have, through observation of light travelling through intersteller gases, proven the laws of physics either changed in the past or are not universally stable to begin with.

So, here's my theory about dark matter: Science, as usual, has no clue what's going on. This is something entirely out of their expertise and they're taking potshots in the dark, providing math, and praying no one notices they based all of it on an assumption they don't even have evidence to back up, with that assumption being that they can observe everything affecting the universe and that the laws of physics are uniform.

Now, then, how would I explain "dark matter?" Simple. It's something basic, probably an energy, that's already there and fits a simple, five-variable equation. And it's probably some variation of an equation we already have.

Now, then, how would I explain "dark matter?" Simple. Try to stop comming up with new math and start altering the math that exists. If adding negative numbers to Einstein's equation can discover something as big as antimatter, what can adding another variable do?

You are talking about modified Newtonian dynamics here. (MOND for short)While it is possible and is pushed by several well known and respected cosmologists I personally think its just as bad as simplpy sticking dark matter in to explain excess mass.

For example, we've got stars confirmed to be in the 12-15 billion year old range in a universe that, the last time I checked, was only 10 billion years old. Add to that the fact we have, through observation of light travelling through intersteller gases, proven the laws of physics either changed in the past or are not universally stable to begin with.

the universe is ~14.6 billion years old. The oldest star ever detected is ~13 billion years old. Due to the "slow" speed of light we can see the first stars being born and thus its pretty easy to figure out how old they are.. It is true however that the basic laws of physics can change but so far this has only occured at one point. Shortly after the big bang when the average temperature in the universe was >10^43 Kelvin. At energies like that the four fundamental forces recombine into a "superforce" and our current theories become all but worthless. However its not really something we have to worry about as even our most powerful accelerators only generate energies of something like 10^18 (im not sure about the exact numbers here so dont jump all over me if im wrong)

No, I'm not trying to suggest that religion is better than science. What I am saying is every day, science becomes more and more like religion in that you have to take more and more on faith and pray their assumptions are correct. And before you bother to ask, I happen to like science, but that's lasting only until something better comes along to replace it.

Its true that modern science is built on a series of Reasoned assumptions. What separates it from religion is what happens when evidence comes to light that contradicts something instead of burying their heads in the sand and mumbling about faith scientists begin to search for more data to either confirm or deny that evidence. As to something better coming along to replace it... All the fields of science are continuously evolving as our understanding of the universe gets better and better so i have a hard time imagining anything replacing it.

And the asteroid belt...Do you reckon it took a bullet for us?

nah it just never got a chance to combine into a planet because of jupiters enormous gravity. Jupiter however has protected the inner solar system from cometary impacts by herding comets away and is probably the reason complex multicellular life had enough time to evolve on the earth. I personally think that while panspermia is possible its extremely unlikely and that life on earth here dragged itself up out of teh primordial soup.

@ FROOKIE Im not an american... shame on you for lumping me in with them!

Huh... won't let me edit my post... I was about to delete that worthless rant and post something different... Had some time to review it and decide I should lay off the coffee. I actually edit a lot of my posts, usually before posting them. I have the people skills of a land mine.

Okay, here's what I was going to post in it's place:

Okay, all of this arguing about paradigms is nice, but what about the original subject? Assuming dark matter exists, assuming science is right on this one, and assuming it can be harnessed for weaponry, isn't it possible you would end up with graviton weapons that cannot be detected? You would end up with a super weapon that other races couldn't find without looking for dark matter.

Now, try to think of an appropriate shielding for it...

Its true that modern science is built on a series of Reasoned assumptions. What separates it from religion is what happens when evidence comes to light that contradicts something instead of burying their heads in the sand and mumbling about faith scientists begin to search for more data to either confirm or deny that evidence. As to something better coming along to replace it... All the fields of science are continuously evolving as our understanding of the universe gets better and better so i have a hard time imagining anything replacing it.

Like I said, last time I checked it was modified to 10 billion... and that was after the stars in that range were discovered. It all depends.

Actually, it is something to worry about... the most powerful gravity generators in nature tend to generate gravity waves in excess of the amount needed to nullify physics. Gravity directly affects time, and time directly affects how physics work. Part of why a lot of FTL theories involve going to another plane of existance or warping space/time.

I had a retort for the second, but I realized it would be pointless. If you want to continue the convo, let me know and I will post my reply. But, let's just say it is more along the lines of "science is more faith than science" and leave it at that.

Amensotep, if science had no clue what was going on then you certainly wouldn't be typing a reply to a forum post by using a computer. In fact, way back when, I had to take a physics class called "Circuits" where we learned about how simple and (near the end of the class) more complex circuits worked, in other words "the physics of circuits". So it was science and scientific theories and equations that allowed us to build the circuits in the computer that you are using right now to read this post.

I happen to take offence when seemingly intelligent people say that science really had no idea what it is doing. You (and probably most of us) would not be here today if it weren't for science (biology in particular), we would have died from disease or our ancestors would have died long ago.

As I said before:

The beauty of science is that most of the time the theories are incorrect, which will then lead to new theories. With every wrong brings the world one step closer to what is correct. Except for one thing, nothing is ever "pulled out of someone’s backside". The things that real scientist come up with always has some basis, whether it is observational data or somehow caused by a theory or combination of theories (As told to me by my modern physics professor Glen A. Rebka, look him up he did some cool stuff dealing with gravitational redshift)

There are plenty of examples of science being correct in it's theories (which are based off of observational data, or follow from another theory or combination of theories). The neutrino for example, it was originally used to account for mathematical discrepancies when scientists said "there must be something else out there that is causing this to happen" (observation). Neutrinos were later discovered to be real. (looks like they did know what they were talking about after all)

Einstin's theory is the base, and I'm sure you'd know that if you have ever taken a course in modern physics. General Relativity explains the world of the large (like planets and stars). Most of the stuff that was predicted by general relativity has been proven (like gravity warping space-time and time going slower as you approach c). Quantum Mechanics describes the world of the small (atomic and subatomic) and some of it's predictions have also been shown to be true.

A quick wikipedia seach of general relativity will not tell you enough to go head to head with someone who has been working with this stuff for years. I have this kind of argument with a buddy of mine (happens to be an English grad student) that says that math is useless and science (physics in particular, because that is what I am) does nothing for us and is usually wrong. The stuff I have said to you is the stuff that usually causes him to realize that he is incorrect.

Actually, if you stop and check, I never said it wasn't. Einstein's theory and Newton's theory are both bases... and both have to be modified to operate properly in modern physics. Newton's laws don't work over a certain number, and Einstein's Theory of Relativity fails to account for antimatter. We have British physicist Paul Dirac to thank for modifying Einstein's theory enough to account for particles with negative mass properties, and in fact Einstein's theory can't allow for the existance of them with accepting the modified theory of E=(+ or -)mc^2. That's Dirac's version of the equation. And if you want to continue to contend that Einstein's theory does work as much as you are trying, go have a chat with a positron as to why it shouldn't exist. Now, if you want further flubs of science, try in Superstring Theory where they have the Big Bang being caused by universes bouncing off each other. Try the fact they still can't explain what gravity is, despite now knowing it follows the same emittance rules as radiation. Or, better yet, the constant claims by several scientists that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light, despite the fact that the theory they are basing it on says nothing can travel at the speed of light and it follows a bell curve for what happens to energy and mass when properly mapped at pre-light to post-light speeds. Or, better yet, accept that some people do actually know what they're talking about and have real bases for their challenges of science. Now, my main argument about science not knowing what it's doing applies mainly to the areas where it honestly doesn't. Dark matter? That can be explained by pointing out the universe is a closed-system entropy device. In fact, I was just about to post the following on here in relation to that:

While working on a piece of science fiction, I noticed something. I've been trying to design a closed-system entrop device. So far, the problems I run into is that a cascading entropy effect eventually exceeds the container's capacity to keep it contained and forces the container to expand at an ever-increasing rate. Eventually, the container simply bursts like a balloon, unleashing what could be called the world's largest "nuclear" explosion. Then, I realized where I had seen something similar to this before: The universe. The ever-increasing entropy would not have a noticeable affect on matter as of yet, except in that it is causing the universe's spread to constantly increase. In time, it probably will begin to have an effect, causing the bonds between atoms to break down. Thus, it could be that galaxies exist as matter that is being held together by an equal amount of pressure provided by entropic energy.

There. Someone who actually bothered to pay attention comes up with a simple answer that works, that can be modelled, and with a modification to include all of the data can explain the whole mess. And, get this, it's a force we've know about for some time. Edit: It mashes together the first three paragraphs...

Okay, why are people using one disproven theory (Einstein's) to argue about another disproven theory (Newton's)? Einstein's Theory of Relativity itself was disproven when his basic equation was modified to allow for negative numbers. This, in turn, eventually led to the discovery of antimatter. And yet, ever since then, everyone talks about Einstein and uses his theory as a base.

In this case, I would say Einstein's theory was extended not disproved. As i understand it, The general equations for relativitiy has several different forms, and needs to be interpreted .

The same thing applies to Newton's laws, they had to develop several mathematical tools before they could fit the motions of the moon to come inline with newton's concept of gravity. All this was done without rejecting newton's.

Actually, if you stop and check, I never said it wasn't. Einstein's theory and Newton's theory are both bases... and both have to be modified to operate properly in modern physics. Newton's laws don't work over a certain number, and Einstein's Theory of Relativity fails to account for antimatter

Exactly. All this is part of normal science. The way you talk, you seem to think that paradigms are like mandates from heaven, that once they are discovered, it provides the answers to everything. In reality, once a paradigm is accepted, there is still a lot of work that needs to be done to make the paradigm fit better with reality. Often it is not straight forward to see how to apply them to other applications.

Of course, you can continue making ad-hoc changes to theories to make them fit, but beyond a certain point it becomes a big mess and someone comes up with a newer cleaner theory without all that ad-hoc changes.

In this case, I would say Einstein's theory was extended not disproved. As i understand it, The general equations for relativitiy has several different forms, and needs to be interpreted . The same thing applies to Newton's laws, they had to develop several mathematical tools before they could fit the motions of the moon to come inline with newton's concept of gravity. All this was done without rejecting newton's.

Okay, that's going in the "Einstein = extension of Newton" argument. I'll not go there.

And, besides, check it again. Einstein's theory wasn't extended... It was pretty much radically altered. And that happened around the time it was come up with. As it stands, antimatter cannot be modelled under Einstein's equation. It can under Dirac's.

Exactly. All this is part of normal science. The way you talk, you seem to think that paradigms are like mandates from heaven, that once they are discovered, it provides the answers to everything. In reality, once a paradigm is accepted, there is still a lot of work that needs to be done to make the paradigm fit better with reality. Often it is not straight forward to see how to apply them to other applications.

I never said that. A lot of people assume. Part of what makes these discussions fun is letting them keep their assumptions. People like to read more into a post than is actually there, and I'm sadistic enough to play with their perceptions.

One thing I have noticed is a lot of these paradigms are originally come up with as patchwork items. For example, they can't adequately explain time under the concept only this universe exists without managing to contradict themselves. Then, there's Superstring theory... I mean, come on! Universes colliding? How are you going to prove that? That's stepping into areas even the most whacked-out of belief systems has the sense not to step into. Science is supposed to be about comming up with items that can be tested and proven, and yet relies so much on basic assumptions that can't and every day manages to come up with some new, bizarre item that makes "God did it" seem sensible. And my favorite part is now we have factions of science sticking to their theories with more ardor than the Crusades could manage. Science in theory leads to enlightenment... Let me know when the theory becomes a law.

Of course, you can continue making ad-hoc changes to theories to make them fit, but beyond a certain point it becomes a big mess and someone comes up with a newer cleaner theory without all that ad-hoc changes.

And then that, too, becomes an ad-hoc mess and someone else comes up with a new theory. Repeat as necessary, but no matter how many times, you're still getting nowhere in the repetition. For every question we answer, we open up three that we can't answer, or which we simply choose to ignore because answering it would seriously damage the ego of those who are the big names of the moment.

No, I'm not trying to suggest that religion is better than science. What I am saying is every day, science becomes more and more like religion in that you have to take more and more on faith and pray their assumptions are correct.

I would say that the scientific method does depend on a small select number of principles that would be what Kant would call "synthetic a prior" principles. These would be principles that altough we cannot justify by any experiment, would be logically necessary for science to work.

Beyond that, everything in science is up for grabs.

Try the fact they still can't explain what gravity is, despite now knowing it follows the same emittance rules as radiation.

Depends on what you mean by "explain what gravity is".

When Newton proposed his laws of gravity, there was great suspicion because he could n't explain what gravity was. Science at that time was recovering from a period where people used 'scientific explainations' like this.

Q: Why does this drug cause people to sleep?

A: Because the drug has 'sleep inducing' powers.


Of course such explainations are merely descriptive and explain nothing, Newton's gravity was similar. Saying that gravity caused the apple to fall, explains little after all you might as well say apple falls because gravity has fall inducing power.

And yet, Newton's theories were so useful, they were accepted, in time scientists gave up trying to explain gravity and took it as a given.

Then Einstein came along.....

Of course you can poke holes at Einstein's explainations on what gravity is too, but this is infinite regression, you can keep on asking "why" ..... At what point do you stop and say "This is how the universe is!" ?

I think that's the problem that theorist run into when they try for a theory of everything. Superstring theory reads a lot sometimes like methaphysics particularly when they start talking about multiple universes and trying to justify why the inital conditions of the universe are as they are, because they are pushing against the limits of what is knowable.

I doubt however questions of Dark Matter fall into the same category. It might point to the need for a new paradigm, but more likely I think it can be accomodated within our current framework, given the sketchness of experimental observations so far.

I would say that the scientific method does depend on a small select number of principles that would be what Kant would call "synthetic a prior" principles. These would be principles that altough we cannot justify by any experiment, would be logically necessary for science to work. Beyond that, everything in science is up for grabs.

I was speaking more on the origin of life on Earth, some of the causes of the Big Bang, the whole heat death of the universe thing... Each reasonable, but each requires faith to actually believe. If you have no faith in science, they won't make sense to you.

I think that's the problem that theorist run into when they try for a theory of everything. Superstring theory reads a lot sometimes like methaphysics particularly when they start talking about multiple universes and trying to justify why the inital conditions of the universe are as they are, because they are pushing against the limits of what is knowable.

Um, theorizing about universes colliding is shooting through the limits of what is knowable and landing directly in "God did it" territory. We'd never know, because the only way they could be proven right would also kill them before they'd even have a chance to know they are right. So, it's really in their best interests to not be proven right while they are alive.

I doubt however questions of Dark Matter fall into the same category. It might point to the need for a new paradigm, but more likely I think it can be accomodated within our current framework, given the sketchness of experimental observations so far.

Go up to my suggestion that entropy does it. There's something that is an already-existing paradigm and which can be modelled and, in time, tested.

Speaking of string theory, I believe M-theory is the latest adaptation of that concept. It adds a another dimension to the strings to make them 2 dimensional like planes. The assumption leads to an infinite number of parallel universes and provides an explanation for the singularity of the big bang. Pretty wild stuff, but does resolve the "grandfather paradox" of time travel. Travel back in time and you jump into a different universe that follows a different course. Might also create a big bang in another universe in the process.

I took an applied theoretical mathematics course in college and got into some real assumption based math so I know how crazy this stuff can get (almost to the point of ridiculous), but I think it's fascinating none the less.

I was speaking more on the origin of life on Earth, some of the causes of the Big Bang, the whole heat death of the universe thing... Each reasonable, but each requires faith to actually believe. If you have no faith in science, they won't make sense to you

The origins of life on Earth is still up for grabs in certain respects yes.

Ditto for the 'cause of big bang'.

I don't think there is any need to be all skeptical on science just because currently there are areas where science is still somewhat shaky. That will always be the case since science is not infalliable.

Um, theorizing about universes colliding is shooting through the limits of what is knowable and landing directly in "God did it" territory. We'd never know,

There's a reason why M-theory and superstring theory is not fully accepted by every scientist you know.

I never said that. A lot of people assume. Part of what makes these discussions fun is letting them keep their assumptions. People like to read more into a post than is actually there, and I'm sadistic enough to play with their perceptions.

You never said that. LOL, except you go on to imply that in the very next paragraph.

One thing I have noticed is a lot of these paradigms are originally come up with as patchwork items.

Again, you fail to realise that paradigms as powerful as they are, always leaves questions open for other scientists to work on. No paradigm ever solves 100% of
all problems right off, some of the annomilies that don't fit either turn out to be experimental errors, or can be fitted with some work. You can call this 'faith' that these problems will dispear if you like, but In almost all cases, their faith has being repaid.

Then, there's Superstring theory... I mean, come on! Universes colliding? How are you going to prove that? That's stepping into areas even the most whacked-out of belief systems has the sense not to step into.

Your critisms of super string theory are well founded but not new and they are exactly the reason why despite the elegent of superstring theory it is hardly close to being an accepted paradigm for the whole scientific community.

Besides If you want to bash on the theories on the frontiers of science, obviously the answers are more tentative.

And then that, too, becomes an ad-hoc mess and someone else comes up with a new theory. Repeat as necessary, but no matter how many times, you're still getting nowhere in the repetition.

Are we getting nowhere? There are two ways to answer this.

The pragamtic aspect would point out that, compared to Newton we certainly do understand the universe better. As already pointed out, the operation of the electronic computer which you are happily typing on, gives false testomy to your statement we are getting nowhere.

The metaphysical aspect is interesting enough to discuss (are we iterating to ever closer approximations of the 'truth' and will there ever be a stop to this?) , but I won't discuss it with you.

For every question we answer, we open up three that we can't answer,

Your problem is that you seem to think this is a problem. This is how science works, at every moment particularly when working at the frontiers of science, there will always be some particular problem that needs to be worked on.

You make things worse by pointing to the most tenative theories that we have like superstring theory, detection of dark matter (in some respects) etc and use that to bash all of science.

You point to history, where theories have being modified or overthrown by new paradigms as if there is a weakness in science fact you merely highlight it's strength. After all despite the danmge it would do to the "egos of those who are big names of the moment" it still occurs!

Is science failable? But course it is. You seem to be looking for theology and perfect knowledge.


I must agree with other posters who detect a strong antiscience slant in your posting, despite your protests


If you merely said you had doubts about the explaination of the dark matter, or doubt superstring theory, I would have agreed, since these theories are still relatively tentative, particularly superstring theory.

But with comments like "Science as usual, has no clue what's going on" , it's hard to avoid the conclusion that you dislike science for some (religious?) reason.

Here are more of your statements.

Science, as usual, has no clue what's going on No one in science knows more than guesses they can back up with mathematics, mathematics that depend on the universe being a certain way If you have no faith in science, they won't make sense to you. For every question we answer, we open up three that we can't answer, or which we simply choose to ignore because answering it would seriously damage the ego of those who are the big names of the moment.

I could add more quotes where you mention God, Crusades and whatnot to try to make science sound as irrational as religion......

Heres some info: 90% of the universe is unknown, and undetected. this is thought to be the results of Dark Matter and Dark Energy. 20% of the universe is thought to be Dark Matter, while 70% of the universe is thought to be Dark Energy. nobody is sure what it is, or what it does. it emits no forms of radiation (Infra-red, visible spectrum, ultra violet, microwave, or X-ray) that can be detected. however, it is beleived that its gravitational effects can be dected in the movement of stars, galaxies, nebulas, planets and galactic clusters. of course, if we add dark matter, then please, add Black Holes, neutron stars, pulsars, super novas, gas cloads and all the likes! (actually these would be cool things to add in my view!)

by the way, according to Super-String theory, there are eleven dimensions to the universe: the three primary spacial dimensions we are familiar with, time, and several other spacial dimensions (im still trying to figure out what they are!).

The origins of life on Earth is still up for grabs in certain respects yes. Ditto for the 'cause of big bang'. I don't think there is any need to be all skeptical on science just because currently there are areas where science is still somewhat shaky. That will always be the case since science is not infalliable.

Actually, with observations that show that Alpha, one of the universal constants, actually was different in that past than it is now, even the nearly-proven concepts of science are now on shaky ground. Part of the danger of making theories that involve space is finding something that provides credence for those who want to challenge your standing at home.

There's a reason why M-theory and superstring theory is not fully accepted by every scientist you know.

Yes. I think they are the same ones who throw their hands up in frustration every time the universe decides to make them feel stupid.

You never said that. LOL, except you go on to imply that in the very next paragraph.

That's because people read too much into my posts. I have the people skills of an antipersonel land mine. You get used to taking what I say entirely at face value.

Again, you fail to realise that paradigms as powerful as they are, always leaves questions open for other scientists to work on. No paradigm ever solves 100% of all problems right off, some of the annomilies that don't fit either turn out to be experimental errors, or can be fitted with some work. You can call this 'faith' that these problems will dispear if you like, but In almost all cases, their faith has being repaid.

Yes, it is. And, in some cases, their faith leads them to only more problems. But, that is the risk that must be taken. The criticism is of the ability to explain science, not of the actual science. One of the major problems science has is trying to explain its discoveries to the common masses, which is what results in a lot of misinterpretations and even results in the occasional piece the people do understand that comes to cause trouble for science for several years. Add to that a lot of arrogance on the part of some scientists and you begin to understand why some people take a special joy in challenging it. The problem, as always, is the people.

Are we getting nowhere? There are two ways to answer this. The pragamtic aspect would point out that, compared to Newton we certainly do understand the universe better. As already pointed out, the operation of the electronic computer which you are happily typing on, gives false testomy to your statement we are getting nowhere. The metaphysical aspect is interesting enough to discuss (are we iterating to ever closer approximations of the 'truth' and will there ever be a stop to this?) , but I won't discuss it with you.

Actually, there's a simpler pragmatic answer. I just don't feel like having that argument. It's a massive headache that leads to nowhere except cynicism and headaches.

You make things worse by pointing to the most tenative theories that we have like superstring theory, detection of dark matter (in some respects) etc and use that to bash all of science.

Finally, someone who cuts to the quick instead of dancing around the issue. Yes, that's exactly what I'm doing. Why I'm doing it I'll explain a bit later.

You point to history, where theories have being modified or overthrown by new paradigms as if there is a weakness in science fact you merely highlight it's strength. After all despite the danmge it would do to the "egos of those who are big names of the moment" it still occurs!

Actually, both still occur. They have in the past and will in the future. Of course, you also make a mistake, a mistake in which you assume there is a difference between the strength and the weakness. I find that, often, the greatest strength is also the greatest weakness. Those ultra-inpenetrable walls of some fortresses also mean the inhabitants can't get out while you're being unable to get in.

Want an example? Take a look at the global warming issue. You have the big names that are pushing that humanity is doing it. You also have a Scientific American article that points out the Earth has been losing oxygen for millions of years combined with evidence the Earth is comming out of a micro ice age and the fact the poles are shifting. The second set of items are all independent of each other and have nothing to do with each other, yet combined they explain everything happening and set up the scarier scenario that leaves us being unable to do anything about it. I'm no scientist, but I wonder why that second set of items isn't at least given some consideration and some experimentation with as a possible cause instead of being dismissed outright. At the same time, I see the point of the global warming people. We certainly can't hurt anything by reducing our pollution output.

My main issue isn't with science as the item that produces advancements. In fact, as has been repeatedly pointed out, I'm using something that has helped daily life quite a bit for several people and allows me to have this discussion. My main issue is with the ego a lot of scientists have.

Is science failable? But course it is. You seem to be looking for theology and perfect knowledge. I must agree with other posters who detect a strong antiscience slant in your posting, despite your protests

Of course there's a slant in my posts. Can't argue the antiscience side for a bit without having one. I said I am a fan of science. I never said I'm not arguing the antiscience side.

But with comments like "Science as usual, has no clue what's going on" , it's hard to avoid the conclusion that you dislike science for some (religious?) reason.

Actually, that comment wasn't meant as a criticism. It was meant to cut through the theories and get down to the simple truth. Science often has no clue what's going on. They make theories, test them, and keep doing so until they get a clue. Then, they run with that clue until they get another, and so on until they put all of the clues together and get the truth. We see it with Galileo and his talking about cannon balls, then Newton and gravity, and then Einstein and Relativity. Each discovered a clue that someone later used in discovering a greater clue. My criticism over the issue is that scientists make the public appearance of not liking to admit they have no clue. If they admitted more often that they don't know but that this is their best guess, they would probably cut off a lot of the problems. A lot of challenges to science come from a view that scientists are arrogant, and so far scientists have failed to do anything to prevent the spread of that view. Part of why Intelligent Design has gained so much ground.

Oh, as for my comparing science to a religion: Religion can be devotion to discovering truth as well, whether through meditation and reflection on religious texts or staring up at the stars. Scientists just make it a point to drag everyone else along for the ride. Often to the benefit of everyone else.