FE: Not science? or impossible to test?

I personally believe that, until dark matter is proven to exist, there is possibly something else than may explain the motion at galactic level.

Wow.  It's almost as if some people think that astronomers say "Hmm... galaxies don't seem to rotate like they should so let's fudge the numbers with dark matter and call it a day."  This is simply not the case.  If anything, this has kicked off a lot of new research into dark matter.  For example. gravitational lensing has been used to prove the existence, and even map the distribution, of dark matter. 
http://www.lsst.org/lsst/science/scientist_dark_matter

The big question is "what is dark matter composed of?"  We know that there are particles like neutrinos that only interact via the weak force but have very little mass.  Some speculate that dark matter could be (at least in part) more massive particles that, like neutrinos, interact only via the weak force.

Quote from: Cartesian on September 29, 2013, 07:40:37 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on September 29, 2013, 07:31:15 AM

Quote from: Cartesian on September 29, 2013, 07:28:09 AM

sceptimatic,

This thread is about whether scientific method can be used to prove FE or not. So stay scientific, or else, you prove that OP is right.

Read the title. I'm bordering on the impossible to test, which is what most round earth science is. It may be a dig at FE but I'm using it against round earth, because that's the way it is and the way you people do it. So whinge and whine all you want or go and tell the teacher.

What do you want to test scepti? What do you know in science? You cannot even answer a simple question in physics.

Don't worry about me, I'm happy with what I know. You concentrate on the lifetime of bull crap you have adhered to about your earth and space, because that kind of physics/science, I don't want to know about. If I want to read fiction books, I'll buy a good fictional story.

I want to keep your post by quoting it before you go into deleting spree again. This just confirm how you dislike physics/science. I have nothing more to add.

Quote from: Cartesian on September 29, 2013, 02:22:27 AM

I personally believe that, until dark matter is proven to exist, there is possibly something else than may explain the motion at galactic level.

Wow.  It's almost as if some people think that astronomers say "Hmm... galaxies don't seem to rotate like they should so let's fudge the numbers with dark matter and call it a day."  This is simply not the case.  If anything, this has kicked off a lot of new research into dark matter.  For example. gravitational lensing has been used to prove the existence, and even map the distribution, of dark matter. 
http://www.lsst.org/lsst/science/scientist_dark_matter

The big question is "what is dark matter composed of?"  We know that there are particles like neutrinos that only interact via the weak force but have very little mass.  Some speculate that dark matter could be (at least in part) more massive particles that, like neutrinos, interact only via the weak force.

I just know that there must be some logical explanation for the star motion at galactic scale but I haven't subscribed to the idea of dark matter yet. Maybe I am just too lazy to learn about it now, or, maybe I prefer to wait until someone says yay we found it.

Quote from: Cartesian on September 29, 2013, 02:22:27 AM

I personally believe that, until dark matter is proven to exist, there is possibly something else than may explain the motion at galactic level.

Wow.  It's almost as if some people think that astronomers say "Hmm... galaxies don't seem to rotate like they should so let's fudge the numbers with dark matter and call it a day."  This is simply not the case.  If anything, this has kicked off a lot of new research into dark matter.  For example. gravitational lensing has been used to prove the existence, and even map the distribution, of dark matter. 
http://www.lsst.org/lsst/science/scientist_dark_matter

The big question is "what is dark matter composed of?"  We know that there are particles like neutrinos that only interact via the weak force but have very little mass.  Some speculate that dark matter could be (at least in part) more massive particles that, like neutrinos, interact only via the weak force.

Completely agree. The use of Dark Matter in science is no admission of flaws for gravity on the Macroscale at all. There are sufficiently valid reasons for the hypothesis.

I just know that there must be some logical explanation for the star motion at galactic scale but I haven't subscribed to the idea of dark matter yet. Maybe I am just too lazy to learn about it now, or, maybe I prefer to wait until someone says yay we found it.

Sorry, but I don't generally find arguments from ignorance and/or laziness very compelling.

Quote from: Cartesian on September 29, 2013, 07:56:35 AM

I just know that there must be some logical explanation for the star motion at galactic scale but I haven't subscribed to the idea of dark matter yet. Maybe I am just too lazy to learn about it now, or, maybe I prefer to wait until someone says yay we found it.

Sorry, but I don't generally find arguments from ignorance and/or laziness very compelling.

Sorry but I am someone who only subscribes to a theory once it has predictive power. I am probably what you call late adopter. Obviously I believe in Newton/Einsten theories which work well at their intended scale and have accurate predictive power.

The Scientific method provides the tools in which FE theory receives validation as well.  However, the key point to this proposition lies in departing from falsely preconceived notions.  Notions which stem from the purported existence of technology that blindside everyone into a state of false belief.

Just select experiments which the average man possesses the power to perform.  Pick experiments devoid of complex instruments and tools that the vast majority can validate.

Its just that simple.  Science needs contact with the common man and the common tongue.  It requires language not just consisting of Latin loan words which cloud the mind and make specialization difficult.

No more false auras of complexity with invented terminologies and debates.  In essence, they hold no basis or connection to reality.

FE'ers stand for this principle and utilize the Zetetic Method to pursue a less aloof form of scientific advantage.  An advantage which leads to true self-esteem, humility, thought, and unmistakable accuracy.

The Scientific method provides the tools in which FE theory receives validation as well.  However, the key point to this proposition lies in departing from falsely preconceived notions.  Notions which stem from the purported existence of technology that blindside everyone into a state of false belief.

Just select experiments which the average man possesses the power to perform.  Pick experiments devoid of complex instruments and tools that the vast majority can validate.

Its just that simple.  Science needs contact with the common man and the common tongue.  It requires language not just consisting of Latin loan words which cloud the mind and make specialization difficult.

No more false auras of complexity with invented terminologies and debates.  In essence, they hold no basis or connection to reality.

FE'ers stand for this principle and utilize the Zetetic Method to pursue a less aloof form of scientific advantage.  An advantage which leads to true self-esteem, humility, thought, and unmistakable accuracy.

Not all science can be simple.

Who says science and simplicity cannot be meshed together?  I speak of FE receiving validation from proper methods.  Moving from quantitative to qualitative analysis holds the key to FE being proven once and for all.

With a few simple experiments, some simple explanations for anomalies, and exact calculations, all problems with FE theory dissipate into nothingness.

A lot of these equations appear suspicious and lack applications in the real world.

Who says science and simplicity cannot be meshed together?  I speak of FE receiving validation from proper methods.  Moving from quantitative to qualitative analysis holds the key to FE being proven once and for all.

With a few simple experiments, some simple explanations for anomalies, and exact calculations, all problems with FE theory dissipate into nothingness.

A lot of these equations appear suspicious and lack applications in the real world.

You know, if science just "kept things simple" we wouldn't be talking on this forum right now.

Yes because binary is such a complex thing isn't it. You just build up from there. However I would be surprised if a 0 and a 1 confused some of you.

Yes because binary is such a complex thing isn't it. You just build up from there. However I would be surprised if a 0 and a 1 confused some of you.

You deny my statement? Maybe religion could have prayed technology into existence.

You mentioned keeping things simple to not religion.

Computer engineers and programmers didn't keep things simple. They built on top of those 0's and 1's to make something much more complicated. This is analogous to evolution or even the entire Universe. Some simple origin gets developed into something highly complex.

Computer engineers and programmers didn't keep things simple. They built on top of those 0's and 1's to make something much more complicated. This is analogous to evolution or even the entire Universe. Some simple origin gets developed into something highly complex.

No, its not analogous to evolution. Even the most simple creature is an immensely complicated gathering of amino acids. If you start with a simple 0 or 1 in these terms, that animal cannot reproduce. The problem with evolution as a theory is that you have to start with something quite complex that can feed itself and multiply.
At this point dumbfounded 'scientists' will make a claim about grains of sand on a beach or the stars in the heavens and insist it is all just an odds defying fluke. No evidence, no explanation, just dogma.

Quote from: rottingroom on September 29, 2013, 05:57:45 PM

Computer engineers and programmers didn't keep things simple. They built on top of those 0's and 1's to make something much more complicated. This is analogous to evolution or even the entire Universe. Some simple origin gets developed into something highly complex.

No, its not analogous to evolution. Even the most simple creature is an immensely complicated gathering of amino acids. If you start with a simple 0 or 1 in these terms, that animal cannot reproduce. The problem with evolution as a theory is that you have to start with something quite complex that can feed itself and multiply.
At this point dumbfounded 'scientists' will make a claim about grains of sand on a beach or the stars in the heavens and insist it is all just an odds defying fluke. No evidence, no explanation, just dogma.

the origin of the theory of evolution is far from complex.

Computer engineers and programmers didn't keep things simple. They built on top of those 0's and 1's to make something much more complicated. This is analogous to evolution or even the entire Universe. Some simple origin gets developed into something highly complex.

Computing is extremely simple really if you understand how it actually works.

The origin of evolution is very complex. You just been told why.

Quote from: rottingroom on September 29, 2013, 05:57:45 PM

Computer engineers and programmers didn't keep things simple. They built on top of those 0's and 1's to make something much more complicated. This is analogous to evolution or even the entire Universe. Some simple origin gets developed into something highly complex.

Computing is extremely simple really if you understand how it actually works.

The origin of evolution is very complex. You just been told why.

Aeven is simply wrong and I know full well how computing works. I have spent 2 years working on a major in computer science before running out of funds and joining the Navy. I understand that at the binary level it is simple but improvements in computers happen because they become more complex. Same with evolution, it starts with a single cell organism and then over billions of years exceedingly complex. Same with the big bang, it starts with a singularity then onto a few elements and after 13.9 billion years, you have everything you know about the universe. This is a simple concept. All of these examples go from simple to complex.

Yeah cells are pretty basic....



Oh and id love to know what those first few elements are. Or are you making things or or following other made up stuff? Did you even google it this time.

Yeah cells are pretty basic....



Oh and id love to know what those first few elements are. Or are you making things or or following other made up stuff? Did you even google it this time.

Squevimatic, you only look foolish if you support the idea that a single cell is as complex as a trillion cells functioning together as a single organism. I hope you see that.

As for computing being simple; if you think creating a semi-conductor was a simple task then you are gravely mistaken.

Aevan's argument is ridiculous for a couple of reasons: he is asserting that an Amoeba is as complex as a whale and he calls out scientists for not giving explanations they don't have. I read it and felt the hot air on my face. It smelled like ale.

It's simply amazing that you are even trying to argue that a single cell is just as complex as an human being.

It's astounding that you are trying to argue that some original transistor is just as complex as trillions of 1's and 0's connected to a network with billions of others computers that also have trillions of 1's and 0's.

Who are you talking to?

Who are you talking to?

Not you. Why would I argue against someone that often makes more sense than I do?

What doesnt make sense here is that you come here every day trying to prove to people the earth is round lol. No matter what you post you are making a fool of yourself, but anyway I digress.
My point is that when broken down it is simple. you said that you couldnt be typing on a forum if science wasnt complex. But you are wrong, it might be complex to you but it isnt, its just code.
Yet you are still arguing about it.

Yeah cells are pretty basic....

Well, they can be...

Relatively basic to other cells, but its still a complex thing on such a scale.

Relatively basic to other cells, but its still a complex thing on such a scale.

Complex compared to what? Were talking about evolution so the comparison to be made is to the end of the evolutionary chain. A human being.

Break that down and you got a bunch of cells... But anyway I was responding to another one of your comments. If you paid attention that would of been obvious.

Break that down and you got a bunch of cells... But anyway I was responding to another one of your comments. If you paid attention that would of been obvious.

You don't have to be so sensitively snide scepti.

That's what it means to be more complex. It makes it just just like the analogy I started with. You can "break down" a computer into just a bunch 1's and 0's.

Lets put it into pictures for you. It should be better for your reading level.





Basic blocks building something bigger. This forum is code and is basic. You do not need complex science to make a forum. Sheesh a whole page just to get a point across. And I used to wonder why the term perma noob was so abundant here.