General Chat (Non-Music-Related)

http://news.yahoo.com/einsteins-gravita ... 35473.html


Wow....Einstein's not a theory any more.

Gravity is measured bending time


.

It was proven in theory, but this is the first time it was ever actually measured.



.

Do you know what a theory is?

Depends on which definition you use. It's an explanation of how things are supposed to work, or how they could work. It may be science, but it's not fact until it's proven. They had theory that accounted for, substantiated, and explained why some planets seemed to move backwards... when the scientific theory was that the earth was flat.



Einstein in 1916 proposed the existence of gravitational waves as an outgrowth of his ground-breaking general theory of relativity, which depicted gravity as a distortion of space and time triggered by the presence of matter. Until now scientists had found only indirect evidence of their existence, beginning in the 1970s.

The scientific method must assume the stability and predictability of the universe, and the axiomatic nature of logic without testing. It also assumes the scientists will report their findings with honesty and objectivity (which doesn't happen in "climate change" for example). And, the scientists must be willing to have their ideas challenged and tested. Each of these areas are underlying aspects that must be in place for the scientific method to be valid, yet the scientific method cannot validate them. They are assumed to be the case.

Thus the word "theory"

Nothing is assumed in science. Every assertion is challenged, rigorously tested and theories are regularly modified to account for new evidence. This is the big difference between science and theology; nothing is taken on faith in science, yet faith is the basis of religion. Faith is the belief in an idea even though evidence is lacking or completely missing.

Regarding global climate change, 97% of all the world's scientists agree that not only is it a real phenomenon, but that mankind is probably to blame for some of it. So I have no idea where you get that idea.

Religion? It is every individual's choice to believe or not believe! You don't believe? Your choice. I believe, my choice.
As for global warming you would be foolish not to believe with all the evidence. Man made? Only mankind would think himself a god! Probably not!
Science and faith should be balanced IMO. Everything in life is about balance. "A negative mind will NEVER give you a positive life" Just sayin.

Nothing is assumed in science. Every assertion is challenged, rigorously tested and theories are regularly modified to account for new evidence. This is the big difference between science and theology; nothing is taken on faith in science, yet faith is the basis of religion. Faith is the belief in an idea even though evidence is lacking or completely missing.

How does science test and quantify morality, love, mercy, justice, compassion, or the transcendent God who exists outside of the universe, etc., all of which are realities that do not reside in the realm of matter and motion?

Scientific method is a philosophy, and when a philosophy is elevated to the level of dogmatism, then truth suffers.

The scientific method presupposes naturalism and/or materialism because it relies on testing and repeatability, things that are necessarily focused only on the material world. Naturalism is the belief that the world can be understood in scientific terms. Materialism is the belief that matter (and energy) is all there is.

By that definition God cannot be known or established by the scientific method. Believers in scientific method promote evolution as the truth of how man got here and you often state that belief in the biblical God is irrational because it can’t be tested by the scientific method. But this is equivalent to wearing a pair of red glasses and proclaiming that green doesn’t exist because all your tests using the red glasses doesn't show green.

Regarding global climate change, 97% of all the world's scientists agree that not only is it a real phenomenon, but that mankind is probably to blame for some of it. So I have no idea where you get that idea.

Honestly, I am really tired of that fat lie.


No, that's not even close to being true, but you have adopted it because of group think from liberal politicians and media who have done a Goebells; "Tell a big lie often enough and it becomes the perceived truth" (paraphrasing)

Nothing is more frustrating than this topic, imo.


I could show you that there is no consensus and the 97% figure is a lie perpetrated on people based on what 68 out of 72 papers (out of over 3,000) agreed, but you would pretend I did not say anything...because your chosen politicians/media didn't say it.

I could show you how the science actually proves that warming (and cooling) are not human induced and have never been for the past 4 billion+ years of the geological record, but I'd be wasting my time.

I could explain to you that a high school chemistry student with a shred of intellectual honesty knows that CO2 does not induce warming, but rather the opposite (as Vostok data also proves) but I would be dismissed off hand with no counter argument.

I could tell you that models used by IPCC are alarmingly inaccurate and the fudge factors used to alter hand selected ground station data do not agree with satellite data, but you would ignore me.

I could point you to all the failed predictions, damning letters written by scientists resigning from IPCC, right out Marxist rhetoric of IPCC bureaucrats, countless scandals and lies, data alterations by likes of Drs. Mann and Hansen, intimidation of dissenting scientists, the fact that all the organizations like AMS that seemingly support IPCC allegations have memberships that on the whole disagree with their organizations' official stance, etc., etc., etc. but you would still insist on remaining blind to reality.

Environmentalism has been hijacked by a radical Marxist element that is busy manipulating people who accept the propaganda without critical analysis.


It is ideologically driven and pure bullshit!!!

Again, 97% of the the scientists on earth believe that man may be partially responsible for the current climate change. That doesn't mean that man is totally responsible, but even tiny changes in the delicate balances that permeate our world have caused global extinction events. Usually the organisms at the top of the chain are the first to die. That would be us Ted.

If you're going insist on scientific accuracy then 68 out of 72 respondent papers (out of over 3,000 scientists) is not 97%