Weegle777 78 Posted June 20, 2014 Share Posted June 20, 2014 Interesting....... http://news.yahoo.com/big-bang-breakthrough-team-allows-may-wrong-114835743.html Big Bang breakthrough team allows they may be wrong Washington (AFP) - American astrophysicists who announced just months ago what they deemed a breakthrough in confirming how the universe was born now admit they may have got it wrong. The team said it had identified gravitational waves that apparently rippled through space right after the Big Bang. If proven to be correctly identified, these waves -- predicted in Albert Einstein's theory of relativity -- would confirm the rapid and violent growth spurt of the universe in the first fraction of a second marking its existence, 13.8 billion years ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Proud Tiger 4,261 Posted June 20, 2014 Share Posted June 20, 2014 If these guys can make a mistake don't you think the AGW extremists could also? At least these guys admit they MAY have made a mistake. The difference is these guys aren't getting fed money/ grants to prove something. http://news.yahoo.com/big-bang-breakthrough-team-allows-may-wrong-114835743.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUDub 11,426 Posted June 20, 2014 Share Posted June 20, 2014 ...The difference is these guys aren't getting fed money/ grants to prove something. They are getting federal money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUDub 11,426 Posted June 20, 2014 Share Posted June 20, 2014 They're not saying the Big Bang theory is wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tigermike 3,427 Posted June 21, 2014 Share Posted June 21, 2014 They're not saying the Big Bang theory is wrong. No they are saying their theory of their findings could be wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homersapien 11,812 Posted June 21, 2014 Share Posted June 21, 2014 Interesting....... http://news.yahoo.co...-114835743.html Big Bang breakthrough team allows they may be wrong Washington (AFP) - American astrophysicists who announced just months ago what they deemed a breakthrough in confirming how the universe was born now admit they may have got it wrong. The team said it had identified gravitational waves that apparently rippled through space right after the Big Bang. If proven to be correctly identified, these waves -- predicted in Albert Einstein's theory of relativity -- would confirm the rapid and violent growth spurt of the universe in the first fraction of a second marking its existence, 13.8 billion years ago. Sorry Weegle but I don't think you understand. What they said is their discovery of a phenomenon that would add support to the big bang theory may have been wrong. That is a far cry from indicating the big bang theory itself is wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homersapien 11,812 Posted June 21, 2014 Share Posted June 21, 2014 If these guys can make a mistake don't you think the AGW extremists could also? At least these guys admit they MAY have made a mistake. The difference is these guys aren't getting fed money/ grants to prove something. http://news.yahoo.co...-114835743.html Sorry to be blunt, but that post reveals you don't understand how science works at all. There are no doubt thousands of experiments or research projects in the field of AGW that have failed to produce results or otherwise contained errors. Occasionally, one may get published. But if it's false or weak no one else will be able to replicate or otherwise confirm it. Apparently (I haven't read the details) these guys found a weakness in their work and announced it themselves (for obvious reasons). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homersapien 11,812 Posted June 21, 2014 Share Posted June 21, 2014 They're not saying the Big Bang theory is wrong. No they are saying their theory of their findings could be wrong. "Theory of their findings"? Not to nitpick, but what they are saying is they measured the effect contributed by an uncontrolled source of variation. In other words, their experiment was flawed. This has nothing to do with the theory - or more accurately the hypothesis - behind the purpose of the experiment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tigermike 3,427 Posted June 21, 2014 Share Posted June 21, 2014 Why is it when someone says "Not to nitpick.", that's exactly what they do? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Proud Tiger 4,261 Posted June 21, 2014 Share Posted June 21, 2014 Science is the belief of the ignorance of the experts--Richard Feynman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homersapien 11,812 Posted June 21, 2014 Share Posted June 21, 2014 Why is it when someone says "Not to nitpick.", that's exactly what they do? To be polite? I suppose I could have said something like, "well that's a really dumb misunderstanding of the issue" but I'm going for more of a kinder and gentler style. How am I doing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homersapien 11,812 Posted June 21, 2014 Share Posted June 21, 2014 Science is the belief of the ignorance of the experts--Richard Feynman Well, not to be picky, but it's .... belief in (not "of") the ignorance.... But - assuming he was referring to the need for multiple confirmation of any claim - he's correct. Science ceases to operate as soon as scientists accept claims as a matter of faith. That's exactly why the researchers in question raised the possibility they might have been wrong just as soon as they discovered their experimental error. They knew someone else would have discovered it sooner or later. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weegle777 78 Posted June 21, 2014 Author Share Posted June 21, 2014 1 Corinthians 1:27 27 But God chose the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AURaptor 1,137 Posted June 21, 2014 Share Posted June 21, 2014 ' not to nit pick ' is akin to sayin' something like ... " I'm not callin' your sister ugly, but... " . Your sister is ugly. So, once again, science is self correcting, or if it turns out, self reinforcing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tigermike 3,427 Posted June 21, 2014 Share Posted June 21, 2014 Why is it when someone says "Not to nitpick.", that's exactly what they do? To be polite? I suppose I could have said something like, "well that's a really dumb misunderstanding of the issue" but I'm going for more of a kinder and gentler style. How am I doing? Why do libs lie about everything? Never mind I know, I know you just want to be like Barry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tigermike 3,427 Posted June 21, 2014 Share Posted June 21, 2014 "Science ceases to operate as soon as scientists accept claims as a matter of faith." Thank you, that is exactly why so many doubt the claims of the ALGORE Alarmist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homersapien 11,812 Posted June 21, 2014 Share Posted June 21, 2014 Why is it when someone says "Not to nitpick.", that's exactly what they do? To be polite? I suppose I could have said something like, "well that's a really dumb misunderstanding of the issue" but I'm going for more of a kinder and gentler style. How am I doing? Why do libs lie about everything? Never mind I know, I know you just want to be like Barry. Thanks for your thoughtful contribution. (Everyone needs to recall this the next time there's an argument about who is most guilty of gratuitous incivility.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homersapien 11,812 Posted June 21, 2014 Share Posted June 21, 2014 "Science ceases to operate as soon as scientists accept claims as a matter of faith." Thank you, that is exactly why so many doubt the claims of the ALGORE Alarmist. Hate to break this to you TM, but Al Gore has nothing to do with actual science of AGW. But then, you aren't concerned with the science, are you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weegle777 78 Posted June 21, 2014 Author Share Posted June 21, 2014 I love how when scientists think that they have finally proven that God doesn't exist, and that creation didn't happen, God places something in their path that confounds these wise thinkers. It is entertaining to watch. It just rings true that the search isn't for truth, it is about proving that their precious theories are true, while ignoring how creation shouts God's glory everyday. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tigermike 3,427 Posted June 21, 2014 Share Posted June 21, 2014 "Science ceases to operate as soon as scientists accept claims as a matter of faith." Thank you, that is exactly why so many doubt the claims of the ALGORE Alarmist. Hate to break this to you TM, but Al Gore has nothing to do with actual science of AGW. But then, you aren't concerned with the science, are you? Hate to break it to you but ALGORE is the High Priest of your cult. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tigermike 3,427 Posted June 21, 2014 Share Posted June 21, 2014 "It isn't what we don't know that gives us trouble, it's what we know that ain't so." Will Rogers knew the global warming alarmists were coming. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homersapien 11,812 Posted June 21, 2014 Share Posted June 21, 2014 I love how when scientists think that they have finally proven that God doesn't exist, and that creation didn't happen, God places something in their path that confounds these wise thinkers. It is entertaining to watch. It just rings true that the search isn't for truth, it is about proving that their precious theories are true, while ignoring how creation shouts God's glory everyday. You "love how when scientists think they have finally proven that God doesn't exist"? Weegle, you have yet to come to terms with the idea that science doesn't attack your faith. If anything, science reveals your God's handiwork in the form of those "precious theories". We've discussed this many times. You need to open your mind and rejoice in science instead of denying it. Denying science is denying nature. And denying nature is denying God. Why is this so hard for you to get? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quietfan 233 Posted June 21, 2014 Share Posted June 21, 2014 Science does not even concern itself with the existence of God, to either prove or disprove "It/Him/Her". "God" is by definition something beyond the realm of scientific study. A magical being that is omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient could never be proven or disproven by the scientific method, so science does not even try. (As in all walks of life, scientists themselves may have personal convictions ranging from atheism to fundamentalist Christianity or even primitive shamanism and their personal beliefs may encroach on their professional objectivity, but they're not doing "good science" if so.) Science concerns itself with how the universe and the laws of nature work--those things can be examined through the scientific method. But once someone makes the claim "Then a miracle occurred!" they have left the realm of scientific inquiry. That does not necessarily mean the miracle did not occur, simply that science does not have the tools to investigate actual miracles (if they exist) nor does it care to. Science does, however, investigate whether there are alternative, scientifically explainable reasons for said occurrence that don't require the invocation of miracles or a miracle worker. All these scientists did, as good scientists always do, was acknowledge that there were previously undiscovered flaws in their experiment. That in no way implies there is something wrong with the Big Bang Theory. Nor does it imply that the evidence they were seeking does not exist. It simply means the experiment will have to be repeated with corrections for those flaws to discover any such evidence. And it may be that their particular experiment cannot be modified to eliminate the background problems caused by interstellar dust. Even if an experiment somehow demonstrated no gravity waves from the expansion period of the universe's early life (And it's pretty hard to prove a negative!), that would not imply the Big Bang did not occur. The other evidence for the Big Bang, like the Cosmic Red Shift and the Cosmic Background Radiation, is so strong that I suspect scientists would most likely look for flaws and modifications in the theory predicting and describing these primordial gravity waves rather than abandon the Big Bang Theory itself. [Even Einstein is not beyond reproach in science!] Syntax or grammar aside, Richard Feynman's quote is simply reflecting an arch rule of science: "Authority" or past claims mean nothing in science, only evidence matters. Science is always open to correction and change as new evidence is discovered. That's what separates it from religion, which instead rejects challenges to authority or established dogma. That does not make either path to understanding necessarily better or worse than the other, just different. Nor does this realization by these scientists that their experiment was flawed imply anything about AGW--there's not even any connection between the two subjects. For now, the preponderance of the evidence points in favor of AGW. Produce equally strong evidence refuting AGW and any scientist worthy of the name will be quite happy to acknowledge that! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quietfan 233 Posted June 21, 2014 Share Posted June 21, 2014 "Science ceases to operate as soon as scientists accept claims as a matter of faith." Thank you, that is exactly why so many doubt the claims of the ALGORE Alarmist. Hate to break this to you TM, but Al Gore has nothing to do with actual science of AGW. But then, you aren't concerned with the science, are you? Hate to break it to you but ALGORE is the High Priest of your cult. Actually, it's been 10 years since his movie "An Inconvenient Truth" came out and he's been relatively quiet, or missing from the front page, more recently. I hardly ever hear his name mentioned among the AGW crowd anymore. He remains a favorite straw man or symbol for the anti-AGW crowd however, so maybe he remains the "Chief Satan" of that "cult".(Or maybe I've been reading different "front pages") Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cooltigger21 0 Posted June 21, 2014 Share Posted June 21, 2014 I would suggest that you check Dr. Roy Spencer. http://www.drroyspencer.com/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.