Hi guys,

I just wanted to have a rant about mainstream 'science' and the science community, who are really just a bunch of primitive egotists who think that they've discovered all that there is to discover and know about the world.

The reason why I wanted to talk about it is because this mainstream 'science' is making people like ourselves look stupid because we can't 'scientifically' back up what we believe (whatever our beliefs be eg. that Atlantis existed, that primitives had access to advanced technology, that aliens created us etc).

Mainstream science has concluded that evolution is fact and that's the end of the arguement. We even teach it in schools!
Mainstream science has concluded that we are the cause behind global warming.
Mainstream science says that the universe is 'this far across' and 'this far wide' and that it can be measured.

Are these really true? As we know back in the day....

Mainstream science concluded that the world was flat.
Mainstream science said the universe revolves around Earth.
Mainstream science said God lived on a cloud.
Mainstream science said that cloning was impossible.
Mainstream science said that the speed of light was a constant that couldn't ever be broken.

What I'm saying is that science is always changing, new discoveries are being found and sometimes huge revolutions happen where all of the old books are thrown out and rewritten.

There are scientists out there who are challenging the idiotic ideas of mainstream science....

Global warming IS NOT caused by humanity - check out 'The Great Global Warming Swindle' to counter all the lies you've seen in 'An Inconveiniant Truth'.
Evolution is NOT a fact - it is a theory. There are many theories out there, and I support 'Intelligent Design' theory, where we were created by advanced people.
The universe cannot be measured it is infinite - see the theories of Cambridge University mathematical physicist Neil Turok.
There are people out there who don't care about the blind mainstream - people who have discovered the truth and are loudly proclaiming it, instead of worrying about getting 'grants' from simple minded idiots who peddle this false scientific dogma about - check out Bruce Lipton and Craig Venter.
Cloning is an everyday reality.
The speed of light can be sped up and slowed down.

Soon we will make discoveries that will change everything we ever thought about the universe - but will people listen? Not likely!

-Josh

Actually, in my experience that's not true. Most people I know who subscribe to 'mainstream science' do so because it's the best explanation that's currently out there...that doesn't mean they're not open to alternative explanations, as long as they have equal or better evidence to support them.

I think all that little rant did was prove you're unfamiliar with exactly what science is and how it works, and appear just to define science as merely the counterposition to all the things you like to believe. Still, if demonizing it makes you feel better and smarter, then by all means, do so. Bet you've got a similar one about History in the works, too, since it doesn't jive with your Raelian stance.

But for all that, you still (clearly) use the computer built up from precepts given to us by that nasty-bad science. Sort takes the sting out of your attack.

--Jaylemurph

"Mainstream 'science' make us look stupid!"

No, bad grammar make you look stupid.

Before commenting on everything else, I want to comment on this:



Oh yeah? Where? When? What?

Evolution is a fact! We're smart monkeys, called humans! Instead of mastering the trees, we master intelligence!

Anyone that disagrees is a Non-believer and therefore shall be put to death in the name of Science!!!

Because the evidence supporting the tested theory is well recieved amonst all the scientific community and those who use common sense.

The scientific community is still split on this. Unfortunatly it has become political and not so scientific anymore. And now there are study's showing that the earth is starting a cooling trend.

Oh I'd love to see where you got this from, since the universe is not constant is ever expanding and increasing in speed, how can one measure it? We have a notion on how far away we can expect to see the birth of the first stars, but its not something that is an absolute and can be determined.

This is an old wives tale, almost all that were educated were aware that the earth was most likely a sphere from just looking at the curvature of the horizon. The unknown was what was beyond the horizon.

again wrong, it was the catholic church that insisted that the earth was the center and even when proven wrong, they refused to let the truth out for a long time.

Again I would love to see this citing. This is just stupid to even claim.


It can't be broken with anything that contains mass, if it did, then that object would become infinate mass, which would become the universe. There are ways around this that are purely hypothetical, but that speed is a constant that can not be overcome in standard acceleration in space.

Absolutely true, it wouldn't be science if it wasn't.


There are those out there that are trying to change the way people think about certain ideals or theory's or proven laws of the universe. But in order for them to be taken seriously, they need to have serious evidence, data and scientific observances in order to gain the interest of the scientific community.

This is a misquote if I've ever seen one. The speed of light can not be sped up and slowed down, but a photon can be sped up and slowed down. VERY big differance.

and the words of despitism, soon. What, how why, when, where. Are you referring to psuedo-science of making claims, or saying that they created theory's when they have not even gathered evidence to support such theories?


Get some substance before ranting nonsense on stuff that you only have half-truths about.
And you don't need the help of the scientific community to make your points look stupid, spewing nonsense does it for itself.

Stellar i believe he is correct

complete article at livescience.com - Scientists Slow down and Speed Up Light

Josh,

Dont be a nerd to hold on to the 'earth was flat and now earth is round' thingy.
Our astronauts and satellties have of course been out there in space and have looked back at earth. They didnt see it in the sape of a 'donut' or a 'ie-cream sundae' but in a spherical shape!!
Science is evolving. But basic models of science will be still there.
No scientists say that the model is final. They are still researching, discovering, learning new things. It is us the laymen who stupidly lay an ultimatum on science.
Ok, Einstein said that there can be nothing faster than the speed of light. If he were alive, if he had seen the dicsvoery of the scientists of today, he would admit his mistake and try to lean more.
What does the fundamentalists do. they wont budge.

Instead of death how about a dunce hat? Don't like dumb people dying, cause I love watching my Jerry Springer!!

Mainstream science doesn't make people look stupid. However, exposing ones ignorance worldwide on a message board....

Things can be a Fact and a Theory you know. Fact: Evolution occurs and has done so for billions of years, Theory: how it works. Intelligent design is purely bad science.




We probably are. It's best to act on it as if we are responsible for it rather than act as if we aren't. If you're going to take your information from a smear film, well go ahead but the Inconvenient Truth didn't invent global warming, and you'll have to also disprove the work of countless scientists.




It cant be measured exactly, but you can estimate the width. We know it's very big from what we've seen through Hubble and our other telescopes. The universe can't be infinite. The Big Bang is the widely accepted theory on how the universe formed, and it says that the universe is finite but constantly expanding. As far as I know there's no observations made yet that disagree with the theory.




Eratosthenes discovered that the world was round and might have correctly estimated its circumference back in the first century BC. Since modern science has inherited alot from the ancient greeks




When the telescope came around that idea was quickly dismissed, but people like Copernicus had been thinking about it for a while.




The speed of light in a vacuum is a constant, but it slows down when it passes through certain things. A beam of light was successfully slowed to 17 meters a second using Superfluid, but that's just a single beam, the speed of light in a vacuum remains a constant.




If new discoveries are brought through reason and logic, why wouldn't people listen?

oh yeah, and by the way....

welcome to UM.


(be careful how you rant)

Here are some links showing that you could slow light.
Slow Light
Lene Hau

Anyway. I agree with the posters, maintstream science is one way to explain things.

These are why "facts" are so important, If wrong scientific theories (even laws) can be corrected if confronted by a conflicting "fact"
like it or not science is the best way to find the truth ... if you are looking for the truth

No, you make you look stupid, by childishly ranting against what is actually some of mankinds greatest achievements because they ignore your unfounded, pseudo-sci fi beliefs.

And for god's sake, research and reference.



There has never been a scientist that has ever thought or said this, at least since the beginning of the 1900s. One of the strengths of modern sciences is that they have to be flexible to new discoveries. This the foundation of what a "theory" is.

Unless you want to back this up with a quote, you're just going to sound bitter and pathetically out of touch.



That isn't science's fault. Thats yours.

People are allowed to believe whatever they wish, and the blurring of the boundaries between faith and science is, I believe, a fatal mistake. Try to scientifically prove your faith, and you're absolving yourself of the need for faith in the first place.

If you believe something, fine. But unlike you, science does not have an agenda. Dont throw your toys out of the pram because there simply is no evidence for what you believe, and tons of evidence against it.



Evolution is both a theory and a fact, like gravity. The fact that somethign falls to the ground is a fact, just like the fact that changes in species are selected for their advantages over others, and become dominant. These are undeniable facts.

Our theory is what we use to explain it to the best of our current understanding. Evolution has changed unrecognisably since Darwin - he was wrong on a lot of counts.

And you're damn right we teach it in schools. Give me one reason why we should teach your beliefs? You don't even have a theory to explain the fact, let alone the fact on its own.



Nope, mainstream media has. Science is still very muich split, recognising that the earth has been through many phases like this in its history whem humans weren't around. It just seems to be happening quicker this time, and in line with industrial growth and population expansion. Coincidental, eh?



At a guess yes, down to some pretty complex maths and conclusions made from observations, something you guys know nothing about.

Science has never concluded this, and certainly not in modern times. This is an urban myth. Even Pythagoras knew this in 500BC. The idea that people thought the earth was flat was a popular myth from the 19th century and has no foundation.



Nope, religion said this. Aristotle believed this, and his theories were taken up by the Catholic church in the middle ages. There have been no modern scientists who have believed the earth to be at the centre of the universe.



No, again, this was religion.



So? In the year 1900, someone said that everything that could be invented, had been. People make mistakes, and science develops. But what you believe is so wildly at odds with everything we know about reality, we'd have to go back hundreds, maybe thousands of years to find a "scientfic" reference frame that satisfied you.



It can't, and since Einstein its never been claimed that it could be broken.



"Old books"? What the hell are you talking about? This hasn't happened since the advent of evolution, which, as it happens, was fundamentally correct. Unless you have any evidence to the contrary, and no, the wafflings of a derranged middle aged french man do not count as evidence.



Again, it is childish to say they are idiotic because they don't support your view. If your view was right, they would, and it really is as simple as that.



This may well be true. But again, toys, pram, etc.



As I have shown, it is both a fact and a theory. Unlike ID, which is not a theory, as it is not testable.



Again, this may be true, but it is not worth wetting yourself over.



Yawn.



"Everyday"???? Yep, and intelligent androids are simply pedestrian, dah-ling!!



This is an outright lie. Photons can be slowed down. The speed of light cannot be. The fact that you don't get this proves that you simply don't understand most of the stuff you claim to be campaigning against, which is pretty pathetic to be honest.



I don't know. You don't listen, do you?

I think the theory is that evolution might actually be a hypothesis(?)...

Ref.

Evolution is most definately a theory based on observable fact.

Glad you cleared that up Emma. Cause methinks the dude that defined the two in the Encarta® World English Dictionary, North American Edition musta been on drugs or something at the time...

hypothesis
theory

Actually i like the way Wiki clarifies it lol! ''It follows from this that for scientists "theory" and "fact" do not necessarily stand in opposition.''

''do not necessarily'' <-- kinda helps to cover all their bases i guess

See my above comment on gravity. That it happens is a fact, but the reason why is a theory. Like *sigh* evolution.

Evolution can be, and has been, observed to happen. Right in front of your eyes. Of course, you have to look.

Science has reached no such conclusion on global warming. Al Gore has, though.

Science has never submitted any factual statement on the actual size of the universe. Just theories, which vary.
The size of the observable universe is probably what you once long ago heard something about and then proceeded to twist and warp in your own mind to fit your needs.


Can't get much stupider than to blame science for ideas that were proposed before science was even invented!


Got a citation on the cloning?

Science has never claimed that the speed of light is a constant. They have assumed it based on observations. This is the basis for the Special Theory of Relativity, which has never failed a single test. Never, ever to any measurable degree anyway - regardless of how many decimal spaces you wish to include.


Here's an example of a theory concerning Cosmology - the study of the Universe as a set.



If you read the article - you'll see that they're talking about the phase velocity. This is different and has nothing to do with the constancy of the speed of light.


Listen to who? You? Well, if that's what you mean, then you're right, "not likely."

Harte

Got them all going, good and proper there......... ....(with the exception of a couple of posters)





I think some 'scientific types' do try and make people look stupid....for exploring ideas
that aren't mainstream.........but I suspect that there is some very advanced scientific 'exploration'
being done behind firmly closed doors that would blow all of our minds. And is WAY beyond the
mainstream.


I hope you enjoyed your rant....I enjoyed the kerfuffle it generated.....

Photons are light. Photons can not be sped up or slowed down either though.

Da Vermin... to quote the article you linked me to:
"By tweaking the relationship between phase velocities, it's possible to adjust the group velocity and create the illusion that parts of the pulse are traveling faster than the speed of light."

Not quite... Yes and no. What you speak of has no relevance to what the OP was referring to. Ill get back to this in a second...



Pay careful attention to the words they use. They say they slow down the "effective" velocity of light, or the "apparent" speed of light.

Light/EM waves travel at c (the speed of light), regardless of whether it is through a vaccuum or through any sort of medium. In that link, when they mention the effective velocity of light has been slowed down, they refer to the speed of propogation of the light. What happens when light (photons) pass through a medium is that they are absorbed by the atoms of the medium, and then reemitted soon after. The reason you often hear people say that light can be "slowed down" by passing through a medium is because the absorption and reemission of photons in that medium takes time. The photons continue to travel at c.

Picture it this way:

You roll a ball at 1 m per minute. Ordinarily, it would take 1 minute for that ball to roll a meter. Now, every, say, 10 seconds, you pick up the ball, hold it for a minute, and then roll the ball again at 1 m per minute at the same position that you picked it up from. You picking up the ball is similar to atoms absorbing photons. The photons have a constant velocity, just as the ball rolls at 1 single velocity, but it takes more time for that ball to roll 1 m than a simple calculation would indicate.

If any of this was true would there not be evidence? Instead of having a temper tantrum prove your claims scientifically and end the doubt.


Evolution is fact, it has been observed in the natural world for example the flu virus evolves all the time to adapt to new vaccines.


Because we are or at least contribute to it anyway.... Do you think that pumping billions of extra greenhouse gases a year into the thin atmosphere at an increasing rate will have no effect.



The universe can be measured, just because you can't comprehend the methods used to achieve the results doesn't mean anything



Back in the day was not today where we can create black holes and accelerate matter near the speed of light either. Most of these claims also never came from science they cam from authorities whom at the time based these conclusions so as it would not interfere with their faith.



1: People just assumed this.
2: The religious claimed this.
3: The religious claimed/claim this.
4: Who said this? Source please?
5: Has it been broken, even the most powerful particle accelerators in the world can only accelerate matter infinitely close to the speed of light.



True however once something is proven true there is no changing it. For example evolution has been observed and proven, The Earth has been viewed from afar and shown to be round.



Yeah but they are the minority...


This idea is put fourth by oil cronies to ensure they keep making money off of oil.


The evidence does not support your theory and since evolution is an observable event why should anyone think differently.


There is no evidence to support this either. The universe can be and has been measured to some degree by astrophysicists who base their conclusions on what they observe.



Money makes the world go round, especially if the equipment you need to do your research with costs millions of dollars.


Tell me something I don't know



There are different types of light, light coming from natural sources for example stars is pretty linear in regards to speed.



I will listen if there is empirical data to go along with the theories/discovery.

Wow, Im actually shocked by how many people *think* they know what they're talking about.



There are different wavelengths of light, regardless of that, all light and all EM waves (whatever term you want to use) travel at c.

But here's the important question.. is it a wave or a particle !!

Just type 'speeding up and slowing down the speed of light' into google and you'll see what I mean.
Also, in regards to cloning, type in 'cloning humans is easier than animals' and you'll see that it seems that we were designed to be cloned (in order to live forever).

Well, what can I say to you all - I had no idea that my sh**ty little rant (yes, I know, many spelling mistakes and many 'words' out of place) would get so many posts back!

For a post that took me 2 minutes to write, in a stream of consciouness-style, I've enjoyed reading what you all thought.
It seems that we all disagree on what 'science' is. Some of you state that I'm wrong, some of you state that I'm right, and I can see that some of you have argued between yourselves.

Thanks for the interesting reads, but I've got very limited internet access, so I can't always write an essay like you suggest (including references and such). I agree that this would help my arguement, but I was finished with University years ago. I'm quite happy to write without having to back it all up.

-Josh

You got to this before I did. And explained it quite well. That's the problem with popular science writing sometimes. They use kind of sensationalist titles for their articles and people don't actually get what the experiments showed. EM energy propogates at c. Period. It does in this experiment and the people who conducted would quickly clarify that if asked. They used interference of certain phase frequencies to give the illusion that light was slowing down.

Now the speed of light slowing down as a whole over the history of the universe? That has some proponents with good arguments. Not any kind of vast slow down, but minutely.

Read my posts and youll see what I mean.

who, precisely, is "Us"?
-and you seem to have confused religious dogma with early scientific theory.

what is "mainstream" science? quantum physics? environmental studies? psychology? parapsychology? define the term please..and apply it to any new field.

oh...and the same people who touted a "flat earth" also waxed lyrical about a creator being and creationalism...

perhaps 'tis time to learn from something other than youtube.

Yes, but (and correct me if I'm wrong here) wouldn't that require some minimum amount of (gasp!) effort?

Harte

The meme that "science says" anything must be dropped. Science is a process, capable only of showing that an idea is wrong, never that one is conclusively right. Ideally, it has no authorities and is free of politics, though in reality it would be foolish to pretend that it doesn't and that it is. Are all of the things we believe to be true today going to be borne out by the facts when all is said and done (pretending for a moment that there will be such a time)? Not likely. Ideas come and go, fads pop up and die out, as with all human endeavors.

There's a quintessential difficulty in conveying scientific ideas to people unfamiliar with them; yes, it's easy to call those who aren't well-acquainted with such ideas ignorant but there's undoubtedly a point where those of us who know the accepted answer to a question examine our own knowledge. What balance do we strike between what's written in the textbooks and the ideas being toyed with now that tweak those "facts"? All wavelengths of light always travel at c, true enough. But certain variants of doubly special relativity (a class of ideas that sprang up over the past decade to amend special relativity--and account for certain anomalous experimental facts--by adding a second invariant scale to the theory) do predict a frequency-dependence for the speed of light. Speculative stuff, no doubt, but it highlights the point that nothing is written in stone.

For my own part, I'll admit I've become increasingly disillusioned with the tendency of modern physics to get caught in certain ways of thinking with little attention paid to alternatives. For example, modified gravity theories get short thrift in favor of the dark matter hypothesis. The evidence is good that some sort of dark matter does exist but until a dark matter particle is directly detected it doesn't hurt to examine the possibilities; that sort of complacency is anathema to the spirit of scientific progress. This is even truer of the almost single-minded focus on string theory that consumes much of physics. But that's going off on a tangent.

I suppose the moral is that both the detractors and the champions of science can get a bit overenthusiastic and lose touch with the realities.

Correct, big bang is a THEORY



You just said big bang is a theory. Now you’re saying a component of that theory is fact. The big bang theory is not fact, so your statement “the universe can’t be infinite” cannot be fact either.



I think you’ll find a theory can become a fact. However, once it has become a fact it is no longer a theory.



We can all safely assume it is very big, even if it is not infinite.

Despite many discoveries the human race still has a very limited understanding of the universe. It’s debatable whether the human mind is even capable of comprehending concepts like infinity and eternity, so fully understanding the workings of the universe is a very long way off to say the least. Big bang is just a theory and, in my opinion, not a very good one. It certainly is not fact.

Not really. We now know that the species that became human was a primate that was invaded by a virus that wiped out the original DNA master genes and the virus itself became the master genes of the new creature man.

That is a pretty big change from any belief in Darwin's time.

...???????????

Hi - more info on the universe being infinite: www.fractaluniverse.org Its worth watching the slide show and the conclusion is the best : "The universe appears to be fractal, cyclic and self- regenerating. Implied is that it is eternal and infinite."

But the Big Bang likely is a fact (and a theory, it can be both at once). Fact = something that occured, Theory = how and why it occured. There are problems in the theory, but that doesn't mean that the Big Bang gets thrown out because of the limits of our knowledge. Firstly we've never encountered dark matter or energy here on Earth that we know of, so we can only figure out it's properties through observation of distant galaxies.

How can you say we have very a limited understanding of the universe? Quite the contrary, we have a gigantic amount of knowledge and understanding about the universe, but it's incomplete, and there may be alot more we dont know, yet at the same time we might actually be close to a complete understanding of the universe, you'll never know unless we go out and find the limits of knowledge.




That's not really what our astrophysicists and cosmologists have discovered. Everything suggests that our current model of the universe is accurate, that it began with the big bang and will continue expanding faster and faster into infinity and eternity but reaching neither. The universe could be a billion times bigger but it's width would still be as far away from infinity as the number 1. Of course, many billions of years into the future the universe is either going to freeze or the matter will be ripped apart by the speed of the expanding universe, after that well it doesn't matter how long the universe goes on because only basic elementary particles will exist.

Yeh, thats also what they thought in the 60`s and 70`s.

You can slow the speed of light to zero (when I say light, I mean what makes it up, photons), when I say this I mean make photons stop, not stop the maximum speed limit
You can speed the travel of photons faster then the cosmic speed limit with something called the Casimir vacuum http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faster-than-l..._for_FTL_travel.

Hi - that's cool that you believe what you want to believe, but you've helped me to make the point I was 'rambling' about in the first place. You say that 'our' astrophysicists and cosmologists have NOT discovered that the universe is infinite and that 'everything suggests' that 'our' current model of the universe it accurate.....

The very fact that we are debating this proves that 'our' scientists really don't know what they're talking about because it's not unanomous - we still have one group on one side of the fence and other on the other side. One of them has to be right (or both of them could be wrong).

Science is a changing and progressive thing - what we used to think was concrete is soon to be proven otherwise. The only reason I say all this is because I'm a Raelian and I believe in what the Elohim have taught Rael (our extra-terrestrial creators who are 25,000 years in scientific advance to us). So when something contradicts what the Elohim have said to Rael, I discount it because I know that sooner or later, our scientists will find that the Elohim are right.

Forget whether Rael made up this 'silly' story about aliens in order to start his 'cult' or whatever accusations people make - let's think about this. Why would someone make such ridiculous claims about scientific discoveries if they new that they could be proven otherwise?

Rael has been taught by the Elohim (a selection of some relevant ones), in 1973 that:

Cloning is a reality.
The speed of light is not a constant.
That the universe is infinite.
That the Elohim's planet is less than a light year away.
That our atoms contain galaxies with planets and people on them, that also have galaxies inside of them....ad infinitum.
That our perception of our universe is kept inside a giant atom that we are a part of that is a part of something that is alive...
The first human (homo sapien) was created 13,000 years ago.
Life was created on Earth 22,000 years ago.

Tell me, in 1973, did the scientific community laugh at the idea that cloning was possible? Did the scientists of the day think that it was a scientific unlikeliness? Nevertheless, it came tre.

Einstien said that the speed of light is constant and that it couldn't be sped up.....we know that this isn't true.

The universe is infinite - well, we're still talking about that one

The Elohim's planet is less than a light year away - scientists say that the nearest star is 4 light years away. But now knowing what we know about the speed of light, does this sound so silly now?

Atoms contain universes inside of them - not proven, YET. We know that atoms are 'empty'....perhaps there's something so small inside that we can't detect? Surely something has to be made of something. Doesn't this answer this question? Universes supporting the framework of atoms, supporting the framework of cells, supporting the framework of things, supporting the framework of planets, supporting the framework of galaxies, supporting the framework of a giant atom supporting the framework of a giant cell.....ad infinitum?

The Elohim have said that a big mistake that our scientists are making is that they measure one thing and then count that measurement as a constant. They don't allow for things to be sped up or slowed down. Couldn't this mean that our measurements of when the first human was made and when life appeared on earth be wrong?

Please answer my questions in this post - I'm really interested to see what debates we can have.

Thanks again!

-Josh

How can you say we have a gigantic amount of knowledge and understanding about the universe?

Can you not even begin to conceptualise what the universe is? Can you even begin conceptualise our infinitesimal role in the universe? How about you explain all the short comings of your religion of science before claiming a ‘gigantic amount of knowledge and understanding about the universe’? How about cure cancer first? I would respect your scientific claim of ‘gigantic amount of knowledge and understanding of the universe’ a lot more if scientists could at least do that. I would imagine curing cancer is a simple task for a group of demigod scientists with a ‘gigantic amount of knowledge and understanding of the universe’? Hold on, you’ve had 50 years and still haven’t done it. How about something a little more simple like curing AIDS? Now that must be really easy for a group of folk with a ‘gigantic knowledge and understanding of the universe’ to sort out. I’m waiting… OK too difficult for you too. How about simple schizophrenia? We don’t expect you to cure it, just explain it us. Surely demigod human scientists with ‘gigantic amount of knowledge and understanding of the universe’ can at least do that? NO, YOU STILL FAIL.

Pathetic really. You claim a gigantic amount of knowledge and understanding of the universe yet you still can’t cure simple maladies on earth? Do you really suppose we should believe you have a ‘gigantic amount of knowledge and understanding of the universe’? Think about it. You are expecting us to believe that science has a ‘gigantic amount of knowledge and understanding of the universe’ when it isn’t even capable of curing simple maladies on Earth like stammering, schizophrenia or tourettes syndrome. The truth is your scientific understanding of the universe is equivalent to your pet dog’s comprehension of nuclear fission. Nowhere close to understanding and not even capable.

This is what you should ask yourself: Are we already all-knowing of the universe and it’s workings? Or is it more likely we’re just an infinitesimally minuscule species existing on an infinitesimally minuscule planet in an infinitesimally minuscule corner of an infinitesimally minuscule galaxy in a vast beyond-human-comprehension infeasibly complex, interacting and interlinked universe? Think about that for a minute, and when you do, using the best of your human intelligence, realise how ridiculous your assumptions are, and how we can not possibly know gigantic amounts of the universe, or it’s vastness & complexity.

The difference between me and you is that I make no assumptions regarding my intelligence and ability to grasp my infinitesimal small role in this vast universe. I know I’m a very tiny part of a huge but perfectly evolving system that I cannot possibly explain or understand whereas your brazen ignorance leads you to believe you are already all-knowing. You will complain this is not true, but it is true or else you would not be making the ridiculous claims you are making! I would compare you to a mosquito fooling itself into believing it understands the intricacies of the eco-structure of the vast jungle it lives in if it were not such a woefully inadequate comparison. Unfortunately no such example exists on earth that will draw a sufficient comparison.

Have some humility - you are only a human.

What you have to realize is that truth is not democratic. The Big Bang model is incredibly detailed and explains just about everything we see out in space. The data is there, the universe is expanding, and at one point about 13.7 billion years ago everything was together in one spot, there's a cosmic microwave background radiation throughout the entire sky which is a remnant of that first period of expansion. Of course, some scientists reject it, but that doesn't mean the facts are wrong, it just means that our interpretation of them are. Fred Hoyle and Einstein are two examples, they rejected the expanding universe because it suggested that there was a beginning(and that suggested divine intervention to them, Einstein was a pantheist and Hoyle a staunch atheist). Hoyle tried to figure out the problem for his entire life, but Einstein was brought around by Hubbles observations of distant galaxies.




The founding of Raelism sounds remarkably like the founding of Mormonism. One guy, saw something that no one else witnessed, and then they came back with all these wacky ideas. The claims made by Joseph Smith totally fall apart under even the lightest of scrutiny, why would Rael be any different?




That's been known for ages. The speed of light in a vaccuum is a constant, but light slows down when it passes through anything, including air. I cant think of any way that the speed of light could be sped up, care to enlighten me?



Contradictory to all of our discoveries.



Where? Give us coordinates and we can send SETI to look for it, it is their job after all. Which star are they orbitting? The nearest one is 4.22 light years away and it's a bit too small to have planets. Are you suggesting that they aren't orbitting a star or that they're orbitting our own Sun at a great distance?



That's interesting and all but there's nothing to suggest that it's true. Yes, atoms are made almost entirely of empty space. But they're also made up from Protons, Neutrons and Electrons, there's nothing else inside the atom. Protons and Neutrons are in turn made up of Quarks, which appear to be the elementary particles of the universe. Quarks could contain universes, yes, but that would mean that the smallest particle in the universe holds in itself the energy of an entire other universe. As I said it is an interesting way to think about things, but we cant know whether it's true or not yet.



Dinosaurs?



Actually a chinese scientist had already cloned a Carp ten years earlier than that. People thought it was possible, there is just a great deal of ethical red tape around the process.



So you're suggesting that the atomic decay of chemical elements can speed up and slow down? Radiometric dating has shown to be accurate in everything we've applied it to, if it could be sped up or slowed down we'd get different ages from even the most basic carbon dating techniques. There are such things as constants you know.

Wow, aren't we aggressive today. Why, sir, do you feel the need to diminish the entire body of astronomy, physics and cosmology into something small? We've had three hundred and fifty years of work in the field, from Galileo, to Newton, to Einstein, Hubble and Hawking, not to mention how close the ancient greeks were on certain things too. The knowledge in those fields alone is outstanding, but when you combine it our picture of the universe is unbelievably deep. Incomplete, yes, but we still know alot, even if it is only 1% of all that can be known in those fields, that doesn't diminish the amount of knowledge we have here.

I really have no idea why you're going on about different fields. I'm talking about the physical universe, not medicine or psychology. Our medical science is incredibly advanced too, if you consider the mortality rates of certain illnesses at the turn of the 20th century. Just because there are some illnesses we cant 'cure' doesn't mean it's not an advanced science. We cant cure the common cold, but we can manage it. We cant cure all types of cancer straight off, but we can cure some kinds through operations(developed through science), chemotherapy(developed through science) and ratiotherapy(also developed through science). Not to mention that even if you have an incurable and inoperable form of cancer, your life can still be prolonged through medicines(inveted by medical scientists). There may never be a 'cure' for cancer, ie one that kills all forms of cancer and doesn't kill the patient at the same time, but that doesn't stop our medical researchers from tirelessly searching for it.

The same goes for AIDS and HIV, there might not be a cure to these diseases, but they are still managable with medicines, and HIV positive people can still live long and full lives. Unfortunately, HIV isn't just a medical problem, it's a sociological one. Due to inaction and misinformation during the 80s the disease spread at an alarming rate. Even if we cant find a cure to HIV, we could seriously cripple or destroy it through education and the use of condoms and clean needles.

You must be young though, to launch into such a long and angry rant at one of my sentences. Just because we cant cure something now doesn't mean we are not advanced, to suggest otherwise is to ignore the great progress made by dedicated scientists in all fields. If not for them we would still have families losing 3/4ths of their children to illness before they reach the age of two. We can cure alot of illnesses, we've even wiped a few viruses out.




Actually I dont claim any great deal of knowledge for myself. By 'we' I mean the human race, which, at least when it comes to our science, I'm proud to be a part of. I'm unable to 'cure simple maladies on earth" because I'm not interested in medicine, and I dont have a strong grasp of it. My interest is in Astronomy, even though I'm not formally studying it. Schizophrenia, stammering and Tourettes are NOT simple maladies. Our knowledge about the inner workings of the brain is infact quite incomplete. The brain is a very complicated thing, and mental illnesses can be quite difficult to handle because of it. That said with drugs and therapy alot of mental illnesses can be handled.

I dont have a dog, but if I did I'd hope he'd be smart enough to know that "gigantic amount of knowledge and understanding about the universe" is refering to our understanding of the universe in the fields of Astronomy, Physics and Cosmology.




I have never said humans are all-knowing. And yes, we are an insignificant species in a world with a million vareities of life, on a tiny blue planet floating an easily forgettable star in a galaxy that there's nothing special about. But the laws that hold the universe together apply EVERYWHERE, including here on Planet Earth and in our solar system. The physics that we figured out here before we were even sure that the Earth went around the Sun could be applied on an alien world a billion lightyears away from us. Einsteins theory of relativity, if it's correct and all indictaions suggest that is is, applies everywhere in the universe, not just here. How do we know the laws are the same? Because galaxies take on the same few shapes no matter where they are, from Andromeda, the closest, to the most distant little discs in the Hubble Ultra Deep Field.




You sure are making some wild assumptions. I have no idea exactly how smart I am, and I wouldn't want to know if I could. I never said I was all knowing, I've said many times that our knowledge IS incomplete, but that DOES NOT reduce what we know already to nothing. How do you know that the universe is a perfectly evolving system? I'd say that YOU are the one who's making assumptions about your intelligence. Much of the universe is either too hot, too cold or too radioactive. The first few billion years of stellar evolution was incredibly violent, with massive stars dying in spectacular supernovae and gamma ray bursts which flooded the regions around them with deadly radiation. If life can only arise in third generation stars (ie second generation stars still dont have enough metals to form planets), then this is an incredible amount of energy wasted in the first few billion years. That doesn't sound like a perfect system to me.

I know humanity is insignificant on a large scale, but we dont live on a large scale, we live on a human sized scale. We can peek out into the large and very large scales, and even grasp the working of the heavens, but we still exist on this scale, and humanity is still important to us. Go to the library, and just look at how many books there are in all the fields of science, then tell me that our knowledge on these subjects is not gigantic.




Yes I am, I am humble too. I also am proud to be a human that has figured out the how and why of a great deal of things within the universe, I dont feel the need to diminish our collective library of knowledge with the fact that we're very small. On the flipside we're also very big compared to most of the life on the planet.

HAH ! I was carefuly reading through this post, all the way up to the revelation about Raelism and the Elohim.

What's this doing in the Science and Technology section ?

One of the many benefits of our "mainstream science" is that it has led to the development of tin-foil !

And these Eolhim are on a planet less than a light-year away ? Orbiting what star, pray do tell ?

Sheesh.

Meow Purr.

Hi again,

No doubt there was a big bang at some point, but life/the universe/and everything didn't come out of it. Yes, it does look like everything is expanding - this is the natural movement of the part of the universe that we live in. Again, this is only our scientists perception. I look at the sun and see that it's moving across the sky, but we know that it's really us moving. Perceptions are difficult things that don't always represent the truth.

Yep, the founding of Raelism is the same as Mormonism - that's how the Elohim work. They give information to one person and its up to them to spread the info around. Again, with Mormonism, much of the original beliefs have been distorted/changed/forgotten by the current church. The Elohim contacted by Joseph Smith and Rael.

To speed up the speed of light? I don't know the specifics, just google it (yes, that's my answer to everything), but I have read the articles that present the research into the speeding up of light.

The universe is infinite, you say, "Contradictory to all of our discoveries". Well, let's say that we discover more and more of the universe, it still won't prove that it's infinite. It will prove that it's big, but it won't prove that it's infinite. Give it another 1000 years, we will discover evern more universe - still you won't believe that it's infinite. You'd just say that it's much bigger than we thought. Give it another 1 million years, we'll see EVEN MORE universe! Again, this doesn't prove that it's infinite. So you're right, it is contradictory to all our our discoveries.

The location of the ELohim's planet is unknown because they don't want us to locate it. SETI are useless - no one will make contact with humanity until we become peaceful. It would scare us. They don't respond because they don't want us to know the location of their planet and they use technology that we can't pick up, even if they did respond. To answer your question about their planet and their sun, they've given Rael some info:

Their planet is 30,000,000 parasangs away from the earth (parasang is distance that light can travel in one second - 300,000 kms).
So it's nine thousands billion kilometres away - just a little less than a light year.

Their planet is 236,000 parasangs from their sun - a very big star, or seventy billion, eight hundred million km. (Earth is 150 million km from sun when it’s at its closest - so their sun must be huge!).


You've said: "Quarks could contain universes, yes, but that would mean that the smallest particle in the universe holds in itself the energy of an entire other universe. As I said it is an interesting way to think about things, but we cant know whether it's true or not yet."

THANKYOU! You've said that it's possible. Does this mean that you are inclined to think it may be true? Yes, the smallest particle in the universe holds the energy of an entire universe. Is this why, when we split an atom, that so much power is released?


Please tell me about the Chinese scientist who had cloned a carp in 1963......


Thanks!

-Josh

Umm... Id say no, because the first cloned animal was a tadpole in 1952... And then in 1972 they cloned a single gene...



Who knows that isnt true? It isnt true according to who?



No.... A lightyear is a lightyear. It's based on the value of c, and is constant.



As I said... no.

Geez!!! You would think that most everyone on this site is a scientist. There is nothing wrong with opinions! Read it and go on. Agree or disagree with that person, or whatever. Facts change everyday, opinions change every second.