Originally posted by mnemeth1
Let us take the statement "God is responsible for the movement of galaxies and stars" - This argument is simpler than saying black holes are responsible, thus Occam's razor says God is the correct answer.

Actually a natural phenomenon (a black hole) is infinitely more simple than a being that can move galaxies. God represents ultimate complexity and thus loses every time when Occam's razor is applied.

[edit on 7-4-2010 by rhinoceros]

To me....you gave the expression 'to open up a can of worms' a new meaning.

What I consider stupid about some sciences is that scientific communities can hold on to a certain theory for decades while back in their head they know it is wrong.

Good luck with this thread...

Originally posted by buddhasystem

You realize, I hope, that most of the list can not be studied in a lab, as your statement seem to imply... but some can. Here's a recent study at RHIC:

We report the observation of antihypertritons—comprised of an antiproton, antineutron, and antilambda hyperon—produced by colliding gold nuclei at high energy. Our analysis yields 70 ± 17 antihypertritons (Formula) and 157 ± 30 hypertritons (Formula).

That's strange matter for you right there.

There is ample evidence for gravitational lensing etc. I totally understand that you never had a proper physics education and feel intimidated by the subject (as many people are), and try to gain security by denouncing the whole field... Oh well, others spoke amply on that thread.

Based on a hypothetical model.

Again, anything can be proven when the models in question are not constrained by the known laws of physics.

Indeed, the research paper in question "proving" the existence of "strange matter" even acknowledges this to some degree by noting the several hypothetical models that meet observations.

The 3H lifetime measurements to date (25–31) are not sufficiently accurate to distinguish between models, as depicted by Fig. 4B. The present measurement is consistent with a calculation using a phenomenological 3H wave function (14), and is also consistent with a more recent three-body calculation (15) using a more modern description of the baryon-baryon force. The present result is also comparable to the lifetime of free  particles within the uncertainties, and is statistically competitive with the earlier experimental measurements. Coalescence calculations: The coalescence model makes specific predictions

Reading the paper, there are also lots of assumptions within the models they are comparing the results to.

They aren't producing anything useful. It is nothing more than slamming a 747 into the ground and then trying to deduce what makes it work by looking at the pieces.

You can't tell anything useful about the 747 after its been blown up.

Also, the "strange matter" in question existed for all of a few nano-seconds.

Again, the island of stability has not been broken. When scientists can create "strange matter" and keep it around long enough to do something useful with it, I'll change my tune.

In the paper they make the claim that in a neutron star, the strange matter would not instantly disappear because of local "energy constraints" - again, a totally baseless assumption based on hypothetical theory that has no grounding in any laboratory proven physics.






[edit on 7-4-2010 by mnemeth1]

Originally posted by mnemeth1
Indeed, the research paper in question "proving" the existence of "strange matter" even acknowledges this to some degree by noting the several hypothetical models that meet observations.

The 3H lifetime measurements to date (25–31) are not sufficiently accurate to distinguish between models, as depicted by Fig. 4B. The present measurement is consistent with a calculation using a phenomenological 3H wave function (14), and is also consistent with a more recent three-body calculation (15) using a more modern description of the baryon-baryon force. The present result is also comparable to the lifetime of free  particles within the uncertainties, and is statistically competitive with the earlier experimental measurements. Coalescence calculations: The coalescence model makes specific predictions

Reading the paper, there are also lots of assumptions within the models they are comparing the results to.

Oh please, any study is based on certain assumptions (such as what you see is not a hologram projected into your brain by aliens from Zeta Reticuli, for example). Any study is based on assumptions and when those are seen as consistent and linked in a logical chain, they become a theory. Such as one that can produce working things, like a nuke or a computer you typing on.

They aren't producing anything useful. It is nothing more than slamming a 747 into the ground and then trying to deduce what makes it work by looking at the pieces.

In that case, we don't have my choice. Radioactivity was discovered in a similar manner, really. It doesn't make it a less significant phenomenon.

Also, the "strange matter" in question existed for all of a few nano-seconds.

Yes it did. Your point?

According to you, anything that is not palpable to you personally, like a warm hamburger, is fiction. You really seem to be living in a very, very poor and boring Universe. Principles of laser operation are also fictitious, right? I suggest you dump your computer because it's construction is based on shameless lies.

"All science begins as a theory"

WRONG...this is central to the problem with science. Postulation and hypothesis both precede an idea even becoming a theory. Once it's a theory, you can justify more research money since it's "valid." This is how it used to be.

Now someone says a 0.0001% increase in a gas that makes up 0.037% of our atmosphere will cause cataclysmic global change or even global temperature change. Now it has been postulated. Global Warming should have been stopped before the hypothesis became a theory. But so few people understand science anymore.

Originally posted by ibiubu
"All science begins as a theory"

WRONG...this is central to the problem with science. Postulation and hypothesis both precede an idea even becoming a theory. Once it's a theory, you can justify more research money since it's "valid." This is how it used to be.

True, but your splitting hairs now...and besides, theory is easier to type out that hypothesis. Laymans terms of the bit before someone spending money is theory..a hypothesis is a speculative theory to begin with...the moment you start speculating on something and form it into anything beyond "stonertalk" becomes a theory, just not a traditional scientific definition of process.

Postulation and casual theory are verbally interchangable so long as your not getting a paycheck to state the difference.

Seriously dude, stick to topic and dont get caught up in semantics..."winning" a irrelevant point on the internet is pointless.

I'm going to have to side with OP on a few points. Science is supposed to deal in facts and results. In other words, proof. It is convienent when a scientist completely disregards God, however, is okay with all of these "theories". I'm just using God as an example. There are many ideas, or, "theories" that scientist won't touch. Yet, most modern science is based on just that, "theories". They talk out both sides of their mouth. What really pisses me off, is when science doesn't have an explanation for something, they throw out some random BS. BS that they can't back up. Just a bunch of arrogance. Science has gotten way ahead of itself, trying to move too far too fast. Big bang, is Big BS. Another example of scientist not understand how something came to be, and coming up with a ridiculous "theory".

I'll believe it when you post a source and you change your thread title.

I'm slightly surprised no one has commented on the OP's criticism of plate tectonics. There is a lot to chew on in this thread, but this part I really don't understand. The OP states that for plate tectonic theory to hold up, the plates must be sliding into something more dense than granite. Yes, that is exactly the idea behind plate tectonics. Ocean floor is created at mid-ocean ridges, producing very dense iron/magnesium silicates directly from the mantle (4-6 g/cm^3). These rocks cool and move outward from the rift, eventually hitting the continental granitic rocks (density about 2.5 g/cm^3) near the shore, colliding, and being pushed back into the mantle at subduction zones, producing prodigious forces of rock smashing into rock. So, yes, the ocean floors are being added to the Earth from within, then swallowed at continental margins, preserving the size and mass balance of the planet. That IS plate tectonic theory, so do you agree or not? It does not have anything to do with centripetal force really. It's simple density differences. I think the question is what causes the mid-ocean ridges to open up in the first place.

And for the fossils, they are found mostly in low density anoxic marine sediments that have been plastered against the continental crust when the dense basalts of the ocean floor sunk back down. That's the ocean floor, not the sediments sitting on top of it. There aren't fossils in the true ocean floor for the same reason there aren't fossils in fresh lava flows. So, is plate tectonics a lie or did the OP just support it by being critical of it?