We Only Understand Four Percent of the Universe

Originally posted by 0mage
we're manipulating energy.. matter is energy. this stuff is like legos. Toys.

y do i laugh at scientists? ill be straight.. im only laughing at a particular sort of scientist.. the ones that claim there is no spiritual nature..

Decent scientists would never make such a claim. They'd say there is no solid evidence. HA! Did you get that?? No solid evidence on the spirit world. Umphhh, I need a nap.

Originally posted by jiggerj

Originally posted by 0mage
we're manipulating energy.. matter is energy. this stuff is like legos. Toys.

y do i laugh at scientists? ill be straight.. im only laughing at a particular sort of scientist.. the ones that claim there is no spiritual nature..

Decent scientists would never make such a claim. They'd say there is no solid evidence. HA! Did you get that?? No solid evidence on the spirit world. Umphhh, I need a nap.

Exactly, No scientist has ever claimed to know where the source of it all came from. Sure some will kinda postulate and give you some theory, but to say we know is outright untrue. It is putting words into peoples mouths, then coming to a conclusion of your own design...

Originally posted by Pinke
In context the person is describing the percentage of components the universe is made of that we understand. I don't think it applies to the whole thingo. 74% + 22% = 96%. 4% left ...

Thanks for making the best post in the thread which I starred, this is a good perspective!

They aren't saying we understand 4% of the universe, they are saying we understand what 4% of the universe is made of: ordinary matter of the kind that you and I and the Earth are made of.

Obviously we still have much to learn about that 4%, so nobody has claimed we fully understand the 4%. All we are saying is we know it's matter.

Originally posted by 1questioner
To me, the fact that science admits how much it doesn't know should make everyone begin to act with a little more tolerance to the views and opinions of others. We don't know everything. In fact, we know very little and I for one find that humbling.

This seems more philosophical than scientific, but if someone else prefers red and I prefer blue I'm very tolerant to that point of view. But when someone claims that gravity doesn't really exist and you can drop something to show that it does, then we have an OBLIGATION to be intolerant of the type of ignorance that contradicts demonstrable evidence such as that. Remember the very basis of your post is scientific observational evidence, so it's hardly logical to say that we should use the observations of science to deny the observations of science, if that's what is being suggested.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by Pinke
In context the person is describing the percentage of components the universe is made of that we understand. I don't think it applies to the whole thingo. 74% + 22% = 96%. 4% left ...

Thanks for making the best post in the thread which I starred, this is a good perspective!

They aren't saying we understand 4% of the universe, they are saying we understand what 4% of the universe is made of: ordinary matter of the kind that you and I and the Earth are made of.

Obviously we still have much to learn about that 4%, so nobody has claimed we fully understand the 4%. All we are saying is we know it's matter.

Originally posted by 1questioner
To me, the fact that science admits how much it doesn't know should make everyone begin to act with a little more tolerance to the views and opinions of others. We don't know everything. In fact, we know very little and I for one find that humbling.

This seems more philosophical than scientific, but if someone else prefers red and I prefer blue I'm very tolerant to that point of view. But when someone claims that gravity doesn't really exist and you can drop something to show that it does, then we have an OBLIGATION to be intolerant of the type of ignorance that contradicts demonstrable evidence such as that. Remember the very basis of your post is scientific observational evidence, so it's hardly logical to say that we should use the observations of science to deny the observations of science, if that's what is being suggested.

What is being suggested is that we know "kind of" what gravity does, but we don't fully understand gravity:

Anomalies and discrepancies

There are some observations that are not adequately accounted for, which may point to the need for better theories of gravity or perhaps be explained in other ways.

Rotation curve of a typical spiral galaxy: predicted (A) and observed (B). The discrepancy between the curves is attributed to dark matter.
Extra fast stars: Stars in galaxies follow a distribution of velocities where stars on the outskirts are moving faster than they should according to the observed distributions of normal matter. Galaxies within galaxy clusters show a similar pattern. Dark matter, which would interact gravitationally but not electromagnetically, would account for the discrepancy. Various modifications to Newtonian dynamics have also been proposed.
Flyby anomaly: Various spacecraft have experienced greater acceleration than expected during gravity assist maneuvers.
Accelerating expansion: The metric expansion of space seems to be speeding up. Dark energy has been proposed to explain this. A recent alternative explanation is that the geometry of space is not homogeneous (due to clusters of galaxies) and that when the data are reinterpreted to take this into account, the expansion is not speeding up after all,[20] however this conclusion is disputed.[21]
Anomalous increase of the astronomical unit: Recent measurements indicate that planetary orbits are widening faster than if this were solely through the sun losing mass by radiating energy.
Extra energetic photons: Photons travelling through galaxy clusters should gain energy and then lose it again on the way out. The accelerating expansion of the universe should stop the photons returning all the energy, but even taking this into account photons from the cosmic microwave background radiation gain twice as much energy as expected. This may indicate that gravity falls off faster than inverse-squared at certain distance scales.[22]
Dark flow: Surveys of galaxy motions have detected a mystery dark flow towards an unseen mass. Such a large mass is too large to have accumulated since the Big Bang using current models and may indicate that gravity falls off slower than inverse-squared at certain distance scales.[22]
Extra massive hydrogen clouds: The spectral lines of the Lyman-alpha forest suggest that hydrogen clouds are more clumped together at certain scales than expected and, like dark flow, may indicate that gravity falls off slower than inverse-squared at certain distance scales

en.wikipedia.org...

As stated in the OP, I think it's wise for everyone to take a deep breath.

reply to post by 1questioner

And yet we understand and can predict gravitational effects well enough to land a probe on Mars with pretty good accuracy, about like hitting a golf ball in LA and getting a hole in one in Scotland!

www.telegraph.co.uk...

To land, the probe required an accuracy compared to hitting a golf ball from Los Angeles to Scotland and scoring a hole in one.

While you're taking a deep breath, I'm pretty impressed by that. I have a hard time hitting a hole in one 100 yards away!

Originally posted by 1questioner
What is being suggested is that we know "kind of" what gravity does, but we don't fully understand gravity:

That quote shows that we've made some observations we don't yet know how to explain. It doesn't show that we don't understand gravity, but instead may show that we have a hard time seeing or otherwise detecting things that are far away, that empty space has properties we fully don't understand which are manifested on cosmological scales, and so on.

But yes, thank goodness many things are still unknown so this gives scientists plenty of things to figure out and understand. Life would be kind of boring if there were no mysteries to solve. So let's not pretend we know more than we do, but at the same time, don't fail to recognize what we do know and can accomplish with our current knowledge.

We Only Understand Four Percent of the Universe

Wouldn't we have to know what the Universe's entire contents are before calculating that number?

I think a more accurate statement would be "We only understand four percent of the KNOWN universe..."

Originally posted by DeReK DaRkLy
I think a more accurate statement would be "We only understand four percent of the KNOWN universe..."

As others have pointed out, that's not accurate, because we don't claim to understand the 4%.

The only claim is, we know what it's made of. That doesn't mean we understand it.

I don't believe that crap for one second, way to make it seem like we don't know ANYTHING.

i'd say more like 40% if anything, close to half if not passed it already. BS to think we only know 4%, laughable.

I am with the great Carl Sagan.

Paraphrasing how he said we don't even fully understand a grain of salt. How are we to understand the Universe?

Yea... I can see that...

reply to post by Arbitrageur

But yes, thank goodness many things are still unknown so this gives scientists plenty of things to figure out and understand. Life would be kind of boring if there were no mysteries to solve. So let's not pretend we know more than we do, but at the same time, don't fail to recognize what we do know and can accomplish with our current knowledge.

A star for you. The point of this thread was to proffer the science fact that ninety-six percent of the universe is not made up of atoms, electrons, neutrons, or any other subatomic particle we know of. And yet there is something else out there controlling the galaxies and the universe. When, and if, we discover that it will be the greatest achievement of human history.

Originally posted by yourmaker
I don't believe that crap for one second, way to make it seem like we don't know ANYTHING.

i'd say more like 40% if anything, close to half if not passed it already. BS to think we only know 4%, laughable.

well u'll have to accept it unfortunately.. considering that science is incapable of making even a single celled living organism from scratch.. everything is robotic, preprogrammed. it doesnt contain its own conscious thought but needs to be instructed.

dont u think we're missing something?

to understand something is to know it. to know it is to have destroyed and rebuilt it demonstrating your mastery of 'It'. of course, it must be destroyed/broken down in a manner that allows for its reconstruction. u mess up with the destruction part and well it's like scrapping a tv remote to try to fix it with no skills.. just investigating and accidentally breaking a piece of solder and have no soldering tools or skills to repair it. worse yet to break it down not even knowing what solder is.. and that such a concept exists and holds everything together. one might assume through trial and error many wrong things. and learn a great deal.. but everyone who takes this path to mastery knows that there is a possibility u can break the object of analysis in such a way that it now not possible given the available tools at your disposal to repair it.

but yeah id agree with the other statement .. "4% of the KNOWN reality". it's still probably alot less even in our known reality.. but i can let that slide.

There are knowns, known unknowns and unknown unknowns everything sort of falls into those slots. We have come a very very long way in human history, and even just over the last 20-30 years.

A great example being the standard model of particle physics. Parts of the theory describe what we see to 1 part in 10^-8 and yet the same theory doesn't predict neutrinos as having mass, or any of the flavour oscillation that we observe. Do we sit there and say "OMG WE KNOW NOTHING AT ALL" no we say... the theory works, but parts need to be changed.

Its the same with dark matter and dark energy. Dark matter isnt simply a fudge factor, numerous beyond the standard model physics predicts a heavy stable particle that only undergoes the weak interaction. These particles are yet to be observed, and are yet to be created in the lab. They might not exist at all. That is what science is about, just trying to work out what is happening and when we look out at the night sky we see the complexity and the beauty, but we dont stop at that, we want to understand, why does that object look like it does, why does it move like it does.

Id say we figured out that 4% in a very short period of time, it is just quite interesting that the general public's attitude towards pushing the boundaries of science are now "How much does it cost, and will it give me shiny consumer goods. Oh and How much again?"

The sick truth was that when the LHC was built and turned on, everyone said "Oh it cost $20billion" and then people talk like scientists are driving around in expensive cars and designer clothes. Truth was that $20billion was over 15 years and paid for by something like 60 counties... oh and that money was spent mostly on research and development and engineering services, which went back into the economy, NOT into the back wallet of the scientists.

3 months later... the banks in the uk where bailed out to the sum of £500billion and the fuss was far far less. to put it in perspective, scientists have to fight and argue to get a sum of about 20million to perform an experiment built from scratch, they have to prove themselves and fight every step of the way.... The UK government ran a project to stop children skipping school, it cost about 2billion per year... oh and it didnt work, numbers of kids skipping school went up rather than down.