Why does this disappoint you? Science is a process of learning. If nothing in our understanding of the universe changed, then that would mean we were learning nothing.swainy wrote:You see News, that a proton is not as they say it is, And in the next breath expect me to believe the facts about a 12 billion light year quasar.
rstevenson wrote:Why does this disappoint you? Science is a process of learning. If nothing in our understanding of the universe changed, then that would mean we were learning nothing.
Well, that's kind of the definition of news, isn't it?swainy wrote:I have read breaking news in cosmology for years, This is why i am so skeptic. Breaking news is tomorrow's old news.
The proton story is about new science. It's odd, unexpected, and largely unverified. It may turn out to be important, or it may fall by the wayside as some sort of instrumental or analytical error. It's interesting, but skepticism is in order.You see News, that a proton is not as they say it is, And in the next breath expect me to believe the facts about a 12 billion light year quasar.
Chris Peterson wrote:This story is very different. No new science, no new theory, nothing to stop being correct tomorrow. This is just an observation. It has a simple, widely accepted explanation based on solid theory that is very unlikely to change (or change significantly). It is pretty certain that the explanation for this image will be the same 1000 years from now.
We'll see. But I doubt it. General Relativity is here to stay. And the history of science teaches us that theories get better, closer to the truth, and last longer as time passes.swainy wrote:Incorrect. in 20 years time, your story will be embarrassing. You Know I Know?
Chris: I have seen things, I can not explain. I am as rational as you. I see something I question it. But these things I have seen, I was not on my own, the folks I was with also saw these things I can not explain. I saw these things with my own eyes. And as I consider myself an amateur scientist I must try debunk these things I saw. But I can't. These things were right in front of me. Not 12 billion light years away. You tell me its Gravity lensing, When you have no understanding of Gravity. You must agree, to the fact there is a lot more to the universe than we can consider. We have no idea of the questions let alone the great possible answers.Chris Peterson wrote:We'll see. But I doubt it. General Relativity is here to stay. And the history of science teaches us that theories get better, closer to the truth, and last longer as time passes.swainy wrote:Incorrect. in 20 years time, your story will be embarrassing. You Know I Know?
The likelihood of a new theory explaining gravitational lensing appearing in 20 years is extremely small (as is the likelihood of such a theory ever appearing).
I think I have quite a good understanding of gravity. The observation of gravitational lenses is one of the (many) things that support our theory of gravity.swainy wrote:You tell me its Gravity lensing, When you have no understanding of Gravity. You must agree, to the fact there is a lot more to the universe than we can consider. We have no idea of the questions let alone the great possible answers.
Question 1: Why has there been 28 billion dollars spent on the LHC?Chris Peterson wrote:I think I have quite a good understanding of gravity. The observation of gravitational lenses is one of the (many) things that support our theory of gravity.swainy wrote:You tell me its Gravity lensing, When you have no understanding of Gravity. You must agree, to the fact there is a lot more to the universe than we can consider. We have no idea of the questions let alone the great possible answers.
I don't think there is more to the Universe than we can consider. I think the Universe is a fairly simple thing, and that we are capable of understanding it at a deep level. In fact, I think we've made a lot of progress towards that understanding. The fact that we haven't figured out all of it, or that some very important pieces are still missing, doesn't mean we have reason to doubt the parts that we have figured out.
Because with higher energies, we can probe more elusive particles.swainy wrote:Question 1: Why has there been 28 billion dollars spent on the LHC?
The question is meaningless. Mass is simply a property of energy in certain forms.Question 2: What Created Mass?
Another meaningless question.Question 3: What is 95% of the universe made of?
I don't know, does there? The questions you are asking don't seem to be very well constructed. Proper scientific questions should have a form that is both answerable, and when answered increases knowledge.Question 4: Does there need to be a Question 4 ?
Incorrect: check this Out:Chris Peterson wrote:Because with higher energies, we can probe more elusive particles.swainy wrote:Question 1: Why has there been 28 billion dollars spent on the LHC?
The question is meaningless. Mass is simply a property of energy in certain forms.Question 2: What Created Mass?
Another meaningless question.Question 3: What is 95% of the universe made of?
I don't know, does there? The questions you are asking don't seem to be very well constructed. Proper scientific questions should have a form that is both answerable, and when answered increases knowledge.Question 4: Does there need to be a Question 4 ?
No, Mark, I'll stick by my answers. Not a single one of the questions you asked is answered in the reference you provided. In fact, none of the questions you asked are even addressed by the reference.swainy wrote:Incorrect: check this Out:
http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2006/Kri ... rson.shtml
The answer you was looking for was, I have no Idea Mark
Your point? There's nothing new there.swainy wrote:There you go Chris:
What Is The LHC Looking For?
http://science.howstuffworks.com/large- ... lider1.htm
For me there is only one question -- why does anything exist?bystander wrote:Yeah, what is your point, and what does it have to do with quasars or gravitational lenses?
Here is something on what they hope to find at the LHC.
Which is a perfectly fine question, but it is mainly a question for philosophers, not scientists.beyond wrote:For me there is only one question -- why does anything exist?
The Universe is far from simple.Chris Peterson wrote:I don't think there is more to the Universe than we can consider. I think the Universe is a fairly simple thing, and that we are capable of understanding it at a deep level. In fact, I think we've made a lot of progress towards that understanding. The fact that we haven't figured out all of it, or that some very important pieces are still missing, doesn't mean we have reason to doubt the parts that we have figured out.
Perhaps. But it seems to me that the more we learn, the simpler and more elegant our models become. Perhaps the Universe is very complex, but I think it is ultimately described by a simple set of theories, well within our understanding.swainy wrote:The Universe is far from simple.
That's good of you to say that Chris. The Universe is very complex, for most people. But we are ALL learning. And this will never change.Chris Peterson wrote:Perhaps the Universe is very complex, but I think it is ultimately described by a simple set of theories, well within our understanding.
There is a big difference between "the Universe is complex" and "the Universe is complex for most people". General Relativity involves some very difficult mathematical manipulation, but most physicists would nevertheless consider GR to be a simple and elegant theory. Just because most people will never master tensor calculus does not mean that GR is fundamentally complex. The same can be said for other theories, as well.swainy wrote:The Universe is very complex, for most people. But we are ALL learning. And this will never change.
