Does Space have a secret?

[Bizarro]

I. The scientific method has four steps

1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.

2. Formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena. In physics, the hypothesis often takes the form of a causal mechanism or a mathematical relation.

3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations.

4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments.

If the experiments bear out the hypothesis it may come to be regarded as a theory or law of nature (more on the concepts of hypothesis, model, theory and law below). If the experiments do not bear out the hypothesis, it must be rejected or modified. What is key in the description of the scientific method just given is the predictive power (the ability to get more out of the theory than you put in; see Barrow, 1991) of the hypothesis or theory, as tested by experiment. It is often said in science that theories can never be proved, only disproved. There is always the possibility that a new observation or a new experiment will conflict with a long-standing theory.

in other words, Homer, the question comes before the experiments

[Homer]

DS,

By that statement, it makes me even more accurate, because it means the questions are not the same as the experiments, which is what I have been saying from the start. So by that statement, asking the right questions would only be a step in answering the mysteries of space.

[Sidhe]

Homer, it is obvious you like to construct logical arguments. But you are still arguing like a Modernist, and this is the post-postmodern era now. Familiarize yourself with some ideas that were new in the 1920s, particularly Godel's "incompleteness theorem," the high strangeness that is Quantum Mechanics, and General Relativity, and get back to us. I think you'll see your "position" doesn't really exist.

It's ironic that you are making your position "true" by thinking it so, yet you are arguing against thought having anything to do with what we percieve..

[Homer]

Sidhe,

You post as if you haven’t read anything that has been written before. I had already stated that with j6p we had a miscommunication, and in fact we both agree on this. DS has posted twice confirming my ‘position’(as you like to call it), and I am quite familiar with quantum mechanics and have posted about those theories more than anyone on this board.

You seem to be the only one now who doesn’t get it, and yet you want me to familiarize myself with other theories and get back to you. How convenient.

Instead, why don’t you humor the forum and let me know where I’m wrong.

[Bizarro]

Homer, you are logical snake that slithers in and around things without ever admitting you are wrong. it is possible that you are wrong from time to time though as witnessed by this statement on page one:

j6p, asking the right question doesn't guarantee the right answer. For example, my question is:How many atoms are there in our sun? That could be considered a secret(or a mystery, as I have explained earlier about more appropriate words to describe it). Nobody knows this answer, and nobody will ever know this answer, and by your argument, it's because we didn't ask the right question. What about my question? Why wouldn't that be the right question for the information I'm wanting?

I guess I don't understand what you mean by the 'right question'  

now, you are correct that asking the right question doesnt GUARANTEE the right answer, but in my post of the scientific method above, asking the RIGHT question is imperative to finding truth. someone may just know the answer to your question about the sun if they come up with the correct hypothesis and it is proven to be a law. that will not happen until someone asks the right question

as for your statements on page 2 of this, i just ignored them because you went way off on some philosophical tangent(perception doesn't equal reality stuff) when i was simply making points on your original argument. i admire your logic but sometimes it convolutes your common sense

[Homer]

DS,

That ‘tangent’ you are referring to was in response to only Sidhe, who talked about “The philosophy called phenomenalism”. You did good to ignore that, since it had no basis for this discussion. I was simply responding to, and not bringing something up.

What you fail to come to terms with DS, is that you and j6p and myself agree on this, so there is no need to debate any further with me. We agree that the mysteries of space(or anything else for that matter) can’t be answered without first asking the right questions. But that is just one step, and according to the scientific method that you posted, that is not the only step. By j6p’s definition, they are all considered the ‘question’. Since that is nothing more than a difference of terminology, I won’t go any further with that.

Of course I can be wrong from time to time, I have been wrong plenty of times, and I have admitted my mistakes as I see them. But I’m not wrong here, and since we both agree on this, you are not wrong either. That quote of mine you posted is not an example of me being wrong, as you have implied, but instead it only reinforces my point that questions alone can’t solve the mysteries of space.

So I fail to understand the purpose of your post. Our view on this is the same, as with j6p’s. Perhaps it’s because of my arrogance. Our views are the same, but my arrogance is getting to you, isn’t it? I’m only arrogant because I simply can’t be proven wrong on this by anyone at anytime.

[Sidhe]

Homer,

You may be the most learned person I've ever encountered, but your posts in this thread don't show the evidence, and you leave me in the dark on that score.

But you asked me a question and I oblige.

On page one you said:

"How many atoms are there in our sun? That could be considered a secret(or a mystery, as I have explained earlier about more appropriate words to describe it). Nobody knows this answer, and nobody will ever know this answer, and by your argument, it's because we didn't ask the right question."

Your question assumes that there is a number of atoms to be discovered; that there is "an" answer. I suggested that according to some principles of science and philosophy, there may not be "an" answer until someone goes to the trouble of looking for one.

You answered this charge by falling back on "solipsism" -- the belief that everything emanates from the self. Conflating solipsism with phenomenalism exposes a flaw in thinking, but I didn't want to drag it out and beat you with it. The philosophy of phenomenalism is as strong as any other philosophy, and as full of holes as any other too -- a critical point when evaluating philosophies (a reference to Godel's "incompleteness theorem") but that doesn't make any of them "wrong". Solipsism, on the other hand, cannot be "disproved", but that is only because one can always say, "I willed it thus" no matter what happens. That makes it something like a tautology, and most philosophers stop thinking about it right about there.

You make an example of mathematics,

"In our 3 dimensional spacial universe, 2+2 will always equal 4. Always. It doesn't matter what you call the values, 2 will always be 2 until it isn't 2 anymore. That being said, if someone perceived the sum of the value of 2, added with the value of another 2, as being something other than value of 4, than they are wrong. Their perception doesn't make it real."

That's some clear thinking, but you don't acknowledge that you are talking about "ideas" that exist somewhat separately from the physical world. With reference to geometry, we used to think there was only one geometry and the rules applied universaly. Now we know that isn't the case. In non-euclidean geometries, a right triangle does not have to have the same properties it does in euclidean geometry.

What I question is not your own theory, but your absolute intolerance of another possibility. Godel's theorem tells us that no "complete logical structure" will ever be able to say everything there is to say about reality. By the same token, General Relativity teaches us that our ideas of causality are an illusion caused by our perceptions "relative" to our spacial positions. One need only have a mind made for wonder to extrapolate a little; indeed, that's where the post modern age was born.

As for examples of expectation affecting experiment, I've already given you the realm of quantum mechanics. I'll only direct you to look at the experiments that deal with splitting light out of its "superposition" and perhaps that will shake your faith. If it doesn't, there are also the experiments done recently by a skeptic and a believer (both scientists) that attempted to evaluated whether people could perceive that someone was watching them. The skeptical scientist returned results that showed there was no apparent effect, while the believer returned positive results. They both got what they expected! It's important to understand, the purpose of the double experiment was precisely to see whether the predispositions of the scientists could have an effect on the experimental results. It did appear that they had..

Anyway, the answer to the question of atoms in the sun is "zero..ish" For until you go looking for them, for the particles that make them up exist in superposition unil they are observed.

So, as I said, I don't think you are familiar enough with these ideas, especially for one who wants to appear to be an authority, to really take this question head on. I wouldn't have been so blunt, but you haven't minded being snide with myself and others, so you will have to take your lumps here as you find them.

[Bizarro]

your arrogance doesn't bother me anymore, Homer. im quite used to it and i actually respect your opinions quite a bit because of it.

your logic just zips right over my head, i guess.

[Homer]

Sidhe,

I understand you are new here, and probably haven’t had time to review the various posts that relate to science. But if you would review, you would find that I have a very open mind and that I believe anything is possible.

You still seem to misunderstand, and you are the only one who does. Perhaps there may be someone else here that can explain the obvious better than I can.

That question I asked regarding the number of atoms in the sun wasn’t meant to be answered, nor can it be answered. I asked it as an example of a mystery that can’t be solved merely by asking the ‘right question’. I was absolutely correct, by my terminology of the word ‘question’. Upon j6p explaining his meaning of ‘the right question’, it is apparent that j6p and myself are both correct, just utilizing different termilogy.

BTW, the answer isn’t ‘zero-ish’, but it is ever changing. Hydrogen atoms are fused together to form helium atoms etc etc, but that isn’t the issue.

I’m not the authority, but I am familiar with your ideas enough to take this head on. You stated: “What I question is not your own theory, but your absolute intolerance of another possibility.”

For one thing, I don’t have any theories of my own, as you seem to think I have. Another thing, I haven’t shown any intolerance towards any other possibility. What I have stated, and it is a fact, that some of the mysteries of space can’t be answered simply by ‘asking the right questions’, except, possibly, in the case where there is a different terminology of the word ‘question’.

You seem to be alone in your thinking, and yet you concentrate your attention only on me. I would be flattered except for the lack of competition. And you can be as blunt as you like, because DS, j6p and myself are still correct.

[Sidhe]

I don’t have any theories of my own, as you seem to think I have

Your speech is riddled with theory, sir, you are too modest.

I see what is what now. Thank you for bringing me "into the light".

[schadeaux]

No, Sidhe! No! Don't go into the light! The light is EVIL!

[Homer]

Sidhe,

You have exposed yourself as a liar. Nowhere on this thread have I posted a theory of mine, and the reason why I didn't is because I don't have a thoery on this.

But you are welcome for bringing you into the light. All I did was expose your flawed posts and backed it up with some good ol' common sense.

[Sidhe]

That you think your theories are facts doesn't keep them from being theories. You've theorized the physical reality of reality, against the prevailing scientific thought of the day. And you actually think you are "right"!

You are behaving like a rude and stupid man. You don't even realize the many ways you've shown yourself to be a nincompoop in this thread! Well, here's to hoping life gives you the medicine you are in need of.

When I see a snake, I usually hop 'round it.

Hop.

[Bizarro]

oh Lord. please, don't start insulting each other. just bite your pride, agree to disagree, shake hands, and walk away.

You are behaving like a rude and stupid man. You don't even realize the many ways you've shown yourself to be a nincompoop in this thread! Well, here's to hoping life gives you the medicine you are in need of.

this is really, really bad Sidhe. i think you should apologize.

Sidhe,

You have exposed yourself as a liar. Nowhere on this thread have I posted a theory of mine, and the reason why I didn't is because I don't have a thoery on this.

But you are welcome for bringing you into the light. All I did was expose your flawed posts and backed it up with some good ol' common sense.

Homer, this was asking for it. you should apologize.

just remember that apologizing doesn't mean accepting the other's point of view, its just something you have to do to maintain a bit of civility. i think we all value that, right?

[Space Moose]

Wow.

This thread has been interesting, I have quite enjoied reading it. It has taken a downturn as of late, but that is to be expected when people get passionate about things.

From my background in politics, I know how defensive people can get of their thoughts and beliefs, especially when they are talking to somone who does not share that same though or belief. It could be said that this has taken part recently and things have started to boil over a bit.

As someone (MentalCase I believe) said earlier, this thread does not have any basis in anything, but yet we have a good discussion coming out of it none the less. That is good, and sometimes posting a vague thing can work quite well in pulling out a variety of opinions.

While I do believe this has happened here, it is obvious that this is no place for playground name calling. I believe that both Homer and Sidhe have used strong language in refrence to eachother and I would urge that they withdraw their statements and appologise.

[Homer]

DS,

You stated I should apologize due to the quote you posted. Not only was there no name calling, but they were accurate statements. What specifically did I say that was inaccurate? What did I say that was name calling?

SMoose,

Specifically, what strong language that I have said are you refering to? You mentioned name calling, and where specifically did I do that?

If anyone considers my saying he is a liar to be name calling, I would disagree and say it is an accurate statement backed up multiple times by fact. Everyone that has read this thread should understand this.

I have stayed clear of this topic all day to avoid further confrontation, and have even sent Gareth a message indicating my participation in this is over.

You will get no aplogies from me, and I certainly will not withdraw accurate statements.

Homer

[Bizarro]

well, calling someone a liar is not nice- especially on matters of opinion. you may see 'the facts' differently from Sidhe. most people don't take kindly to being told, "youre welcome for bringing you to the light" either- again especially on matters of opinion. we all value our own opinions highest of all and are usually only converted through respect of a better one, not criticism of a very harsh nature.

im just saying the spirit of the postings turned negative, not necessarily insulting, but negative. i know you, Homer. you like to push people's buttons on things, which is not a mean spirited act on your part, but some people (myself included) cannot resist letting a playful insult fly when pushed to the limits. that's obviously what happened here.

i just thought an apology would be a nice gesture for both of you. remember when you were a kid and your parents would sort of take you aside and force you to apologize to that neighbor kid after some nonsense occurred? maybe you saw nothing wrong with whatever it was you did(and he often felt the same), but the fact remained that you lived next door to each other and you were both going to apologize and shake hands. sometimes you just have to do that kind of thing. believe me, i know about this...

[Magikman]

(fighting back the comment)

[Homer]

I bet you do know about those things DS

Lets not misunderstand what I said, though. I said that my statements of Sidhe being a liar are accurate and that they are backed up by facts. There is no 'opinion' on this.

Sidhe has stated on more than one occasion that my statements are based on my own theories. He even said: "You've theorized the physical reality of reality, against the prevailing scientific thought of the day."

I have stated correctly, on more than one occasion, that I have not posted any theories of mine. You only have to read the thread to come to the conclusion that he is a liar. I said my statements are accurate and backed up by facts and I meant it. If you can show where I did post a theory of mine, then it would be I who has lied by saying I didn't, and I would then apologize.

I shouldn't have had to say this much. When someone posts false statements against someone, on multiple occasions, in front of everyone, why do you not understand that needs to be confronted? I have said it before, and I'm saying it now, if I see someone posting crap, I will confront it and expose it. I would have expected others to do the same. Obviously I was mistaken.

[Space Moose]

Homer,

I have not directly implicated that any single poster has called any other poster an inflamatory name, I only said that both you and Sidhe used strong language towards eachother.

Having said this, I firmly believe that calling someone a "liar" is a use of strong language. Various Rules of Order support his claim, most notably Beauchesne. While this fourm is by no means governed by this particular set of rules, it has been expressed that calling another a "liar" is beyond what is acceptable. While the particular flavour of your statement is not in question, I believe that softer and more appropriate language should have been used.

Do you have to? No, of course not. I can't make you do it nor can anyone else. If you choose to stand by your comments, that is fine with me, I will still be able to sleep at night. But it is a gesture that would be well recieved.

[Magikman]

Seems to me that the relevance and purpose of this thread has pretty much been lost, so guess what?