I am a fan of science, but the Big Bang doesn't seem realitstic to me.

a reply to: Dark Ghost

Am I just playing mind games? Am I a fraction closer to opening your mind by a minuscule farther than before? I guess I'll have to wait and see.

You won't have to wait long. If you don't get to the point in your next post I shan't bother to read any more.

a reply to: Astyanax

I think the point is, recited information over direct experience. Suggesting that there is a level of faith involved when it comes to knowing what you know.

a reply to: Astyanax

The planet on which I live has travelled much further than that in my lifetime.

That was not the question.

originally posted by: Astyanax
You won't have to wait long. If you don't get to the point in your next post I shan't bother to read any more.

No need to get defensive. Why the sudden change in temperament?

According to documented scientific research, if the farthest our species has ever been from our home planet Earth, is less than 300,000 miles away, it means every single fact we know about Europa is reliant on either unmanned technology from over 30 years ago that only got within 125,000 miles of Europa itself, OR information derived from manned technology on Earth which is over 380 million miles away.

If you do not dispute any of the facts above, how can you explain "water exists on Europa" is scientifically valid when there has been no way to test it using the scientific method? You nor any scientist has ever been within 100 million miles of Europa, so the only explanation is that you are relying on a piece of technology to tell you something is accurate, according to scientific standards.

But here's the kicker: how can you make the claim that the technology's reading is 100% valid (whether that be from Earth using the LATEST in technology — which is still over 380 million miles away from Europa — or an old 1979 piece of technology that didn't come within even 100,000 miles of Europa), when no piece of equipment in history so far has been deemed 100% accurate, 100% fail safe, 100% error-free, 100% uninterrupted function life even ON Earth, but we are expected to believe both pieces of technology can be trusted because even the older one, which was assumed to be 100% accurate, 100% fail safe, 100% error-free, 100% uninterrupted function life, despite humans never (back then or today) being able to confirm the reliability of technology to produce accurate and reliable results in such unfamiliar conditions (especially climate) they were measured in back then, being accurate according to scientific standards?

Any suggestions, Astyanax?

a reply to: Dark Ghost

how can you explain "water exists on Europa" is scientifically valid when there has been no way to test it using the scientific method?

But there has, and it was. Every step of the way.

But here's the kicker: how can you make the claim that the technology's reading is 100% valid

I never did, and it doesn't have to be.

Any suggestions, Astyanax?

None that would be well received by you, I'm afraid.

originally posted by: Astyanax
But there has, and it was. Every step of the way.

Was the scientific method performed by a scientist himself, or a piece of technology programmed by a scientist to complete such a task?

I never did, and it doesn't have to be.

The technology's reading that water on that Moon exists. Not an exact amount or quantity.

None that would be well received by you, I'm afraid.

If you answer the above two points of contention, I am glad to hear you to try explain this as well.

a reply to: Dark Ghost

Europa is primarily made of silicate rock and has a water-ice crust[11] and probably an iron–nickel core. It has a tenuous atmosphere composed primarily of oxygen.[/ex]

Surface temp. ≈ 50 K[8]102 K (−171.15°C)125 K

What are the odds of that the atmosphere is consisting of tenuous oxygen?

How would they calculate that exactly?

a reply to: Dark Ghost

1. By a scientist. Obviously.

2. I don’t think you realize what the scientists (not the technology) are capable of.

Is this your multimegaton bombshell?

Bit of a squib I fear.

originally posted by: Dark Ghost

originally posted by: Astyanax
But there has, and it was. Every step of the way.

Was the scientific method performed by a scientist himself, or a piece of technology programmed by a scientist to complete such a task?

I never did, and it doesn't have to be.

The technology's reading that water on that Moon exists. Not an exact amount or quantity.

None that would be well received by you, I'm afraid.

If you answer the above two points of contention, I am glad to hear you to try explain this as well.

Everything we measure is from some form of technology. Its what we do build things to help us and of course explore. Simply using a tape measure is using technology its an instrument we built to measure. You have the weirdest circular logic that often just leaves you looking stupid.

originally posted by: dragonridr
Everything we measure is from some form of technology. Its what we do build things to help us and of course explore. Simply using a tape measure is using technology its an instrument we built to measure. You have the weirdest circular logic that often just leaves you looking stupid.

Can we rely on tape measure being sent hundreds of millions of miles away from us to gather important information that we can then transmit back to us?

I am not saying there is a problem with using technology. I am saying there is a problem with using technology to deliver reliable information when NO technology on Earth is 100% reliable and certainly not old 1979 technology that was over 300 million miles away at the time it was in the best position to deliver those results. Yes, it is POSSIBLE...but the odds of it being possible are comparable with a belief such as "There is strong evidence that God exists". Which makes me question whether science is ALWAYS as reliable as many in here claim it is.

I don't care if everyone on planet Earth except myself thinks I am stupid. It doesn't address what I have just raised above.

a reply to: Dark Ghost

Of course it doesn't address it.
It's a logical valid point, unfortunately some just can't see it that way because it raises questions of their beliefs.
It's interesting that there appears to be an inability to comprehend exactly what you're "criticising", much like what happened to me earlier, followed by what is essentially an insult. Probably a sub conscious defence mechanism.


Also this:

1. By a scientist. Obviously.

2. I don’t think you realize what the scientists (not the technology) are capable of.

Is this your multimegaton bombshell?

Bit of a squib I fear.

Exchange the word "scientist" for "God", the similarities are quite evident...

a reply to: Ruiner1978

Feeling neglected?

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: Ruiner1978

Feeling neglected?

Not overly.

How are you feeling?
I'm genuinely interested.

a reply to: Dark Ghost

I am not saying there is a problem with using technology. I am saying there is a problem with using technology to deliver reliable information when NO technology on Earth is 100% reliable and certainly not old 1979 technology that was over 300 million miles away at the time it was in the best position to deliver those results.

What kind of problems do you envisage?

Basically, a deep-space probe is a bunch of cameras that see in different wavelengths. They are mostly automatic in function, but respond to instructions radioed from Earth. The images they capture are digitized and transmitted back the same way. It’s human beings on Earth who study the data and work out what it means and how it fits with what is already known — or contradicts existing ideas. That’s where the scientific method comes in. There, and in designing the experiments the probes carry out in the first place. Each mission is designed to collect and transmit specific data.

Although the technical challenges of protecting these instruments from the harsh environment in which they operate are enormous, and likewise the challenge of ensuring that they are switched on and in the right place, pointed the right way, at the right time, the basic technologies they represent are mature and their operating principles are well understood. Some probes and missions do fail (the ESA seems to have had particularly bad luck), but you’re not talking about failed missions, you’re talking about putatively successful missions that deliver erroneous data. How exactly do you see that happening? Can you provide an example or two?

originally posted by: Astyanax
Basically, a deep-space probe is a bunch of cameras that see in different wavelengths. They are mostly automatic in function, but respond to instructions radioed from Earth. The images they capture are digitized and transmitted back the same way. It’s human beings on Earth who study the data and work out what it means and how it fits with what is already known — or contradicts existing ideas. That’s where the scientific method comes in. There, and in designing the experiments the probes carry out in the first place. Each mission is designed to collect and transmit specific data.

I understand, but how can they be sure the transmission and accuracy of the data holds up to scrutiny (before using the scientific method) as any other scientific fact we know from Earth, such as that the human brain is abundant with neurons? How can you claim both are as scientifically valid as each other?

Although the technical challenges of protecting these instruments from the harsh environment in which they operate are enormous, and likewise the challenge of ensuring that they are switched on and in the right place, pointed the right way, at the right time, the basic technologies they represent are mature and their operating principles are well understood. Some probes and missions do fail (the ESA seems to have had particularly bad luck), but you’re not talking about failed missions, you’re talking about putatively successful missions that deliver erroneous data. How exactly do you see that happening? Can you provide an example or two?

Have any scientific facts been established (in regard to the original goals for sending them out initially) as a result of those "failed missions"? If YES, then please provide me with an example of such a case and I will revisit my question. If NOT, why are you asking me that question?

a reply to: Dark Ghost

how can they be sure the transmission and accuracy of the data holds up to scrutiny (before using the scientific method) as any other scientific fact we know from Earth, such as that the human brain is abundant with neurons?

Why shouldn't they be sure?

Earlier in this conversation I showed you that the distance between the Earth and the Sun can be measured with an error of only 1km in 150,000,000. That is the level of accuracy we can attain with our instruments.

We just flew the Cassini probe, which is 1.2 billion km away and caught inside the complex meshing gravitational fields of Saturn and its moons, through a plume of ice only a few kilometres wide that is spewing from the surface of Enceladus, itself only 504km in diameter.

I really don't see a problem here.

How can you claim both are as scientifically valid as each other?

It would be much harder to count all the neurons in a single brain. In fact I very much doubt that anyone has ever actually done so. We could probably find a way, though, if there was any point to it. Human ingenuity is capable of amazing things.

Have any scientific facts been established (in regard to the original goals for sending them out initially) as a result of those "failed missions"? If YES, then please provide me with an example of such a case and I will revisit my question. If NOT, why are you asking me that question?

Since probes often carry out more than one experiment, some do produce mixed results -- see, for example, the ESA's Rosetta/Philae comet mission. It has returned plenty of good data even though the comet lander failed.

But I think you have misunderstood my question. I was asking what you think could result in false or erroneous data being produced by supposedly succesful space missions. In other words, why you, specifically, regard this data, and the scientific conclusions gleaned from it to be suspect.

A few real-life examples would help your case, by the way. Show us that there is a factual basis for your doubts.

originally posted by: Astyanax
But I think you have misunderstood my question. I was asking what you think could result in false or erroneous data being produced by supposedly succesful space missions. In other words, why you, specifically, regard this data, and the scientific conclusions gleaned from it to be suspect.

Fair enough statement, I very well might have. So in case I did, I will now focus on the above part of your reply.

I don't regard it to be "suspect" anymore than I would regard a brand new thermometer with new batteries suspect. What I would be concerned about is the performance of the equipment (which was assembled on Earth or a space station not significantly far from Earth, in both cases) in returning reliable data when the distance between the equipment and the data is at least 300 million miles apart from when it was constructed to when it drew data. How can we confirm in THAT scenario that the equipment used is returning reliable information?

A few real-life examples would help your case, by the way. Show us that there is a factual basis for your doubts.

I cannot think of a real life example for this particular issue (remember I said earlier that you are welcome to choose your own example of a scientific fact I can refer to or you were allowing me to choose one?) because there is no comparable example in terms of the distance of equipment assembled on Earth (or a space station) and the recording of data derived from a location as far away as in this example that I can think of. You are probably far more likely to be able to think of a comparable example, so if you can please suggest it, although that would probably not be in your interest to do so, for obvious reasons.

a reply to: Dark Ghost

I cannot think of a real life example for this particular issue (remember I said earlier that you are welcome to choose your own example of a scientific fact I can refer to or you were allowing me to choose one?) because there is no comparable example in terms of the distance of equipment assembled on Earth (or a space station) and the recording of data derived from a location as far away as in this example that I can think of.

Why do you think distance matters particularly? What difference does it make whether my measuring instruments are on the workbench in my lab or in orbit round Jupiter?

Let me help. As far as I know (and remember that I am far from an expert in these matters), the technical issues arising from the distance between a space probe and Earth are

• navigational accuracy (the probe has to be at the right location at the right time to obtain data);
  
• tracking accuracy (signals from Earth to the probe and from the probe to Earth must reach their respective destinations);
  
• signal clarity and fidelity (the data mustn’t have dropouts or be corrupted by noise to the point where it’s useless);
  
• signal time lag (which must be accounted for when timing manoeuvres, switching instruments on and off, etc.)

There are numerous ways of eliminating, minimizing or compensating for these potential sources of error. Taken together, they are more than sufficient to assure the reliability of our data.

I cannot think of a real life example for this particular issue... You are probably far more likely to be able to think of a comparable example, so if you can please suggest it, although that would probably not be in your interest to do so, for obvious reasons.

But look. You’re asking me about an issue you perceive. If you can’t provide a specific example of it, rather than speaking in vague generalities, how are you going to convince me, or anyone else, that there really is a problem here?

Besides, to be honest, there really isn’t.

a reply to: Astyanax

Let me try a more "logical" approach this time. This way I can use a process I am more familiar with and one I feel confident you will also be familiar with.


Terminology I use:

Let scientific fact = SF
Let unverified fact = UF
Let n = number indicating quantity of each above descriptions

Let scientific fact n = SF(n)
Let unverified fact n = UF(n)

Example 1: scientific fact 1 = SF1
Example 2: unverified fact 1 = UF1

Information combined with the terminology I use:

SF1: A Human being who is 100% accurate in the capacity to predict, observe, measure and conclude information about physical matter does not exist within the Universe.

SF2: All machinery that can be used to observe and measure information relating to any physical matter has been made by humans.

UF1 (me) or SF3 (you): Water exists on Europa.

The problem before us:

UF1 is not equal to SF (my claim)
UF1 = SF, therefore SF(2+1) = SF3 (your claim)

Why you need to solve the above problem

If SF1 is true and SF2 is true, how can UF1 = SF3?


* * * * * * *

Phew...that was a bit of work, but at least I got my cognitive and creative juices flowing.

I shall wait patiently for your answer. Take as long as you need. I will return later this morning (26/04/2017 @ 12:30am where I am).

Best of luck!

a reply to: Dark Ghost

But here's the kicker: how can you make the claim that the technology's reading is 100% valid (whether that be from Earth using the LATEST in technology — which is still over 380 million miles away from Europa — or an old 1979 piece of technology that didn't come within even 100,000 miles of Europa), when no piece of equipment in history so far has been deemed 100% accurate, 100% fail safe, 100% error-free, 100% uninterrupted function life even ON Earth, but we are expected to believe both pieces of technology can be trusted because even the older one, which was assumed to be 100% accurate, 100% fail safe, 100% error-free, 100% uninterrupted function life, despite humans never (back then or today) being able to confirm the reliability of technology to produce accurate and reliable results in such unfamiliar conditions (especially climate) they were measured in back then, being accurate according to scientific standards?

Any suggestions, Astyanax?

I'm not Astyanax, but I do have a question

Why would you insist science be 100% accurate (ever - especially weird point you're trying so hard to make since science itself factors in fallibility - unlike magic) when you're only relying on your own intuition, and a need to prove - what?

Can you even make your argument without intuition? Or, without admitting you're fallible?

What does your intuition tell you is happening on Europa right now? How is that more accurate than a conclusion based on actual information?

This may be your best chess game ever, but all I see is you trying to say science makes mistakes. Duh

What's the alternative - remote viewing? :-)