NationStates Jolt Archive

Scientists, mostly astronomers, tell us that the universe is a couple billion(or was that trillion) years old. My question:
How the hell do they know this? How can they possibly know that a 35 billion year old object is both 35 billion years old and 35 billion light years away? How can they know that their guess(no, it's not 100% proven) is accurate?

Another question:
For you sciency people: Do you ever question what science tells you? What I mean is: Do you ever question what scientists tell you to be true? Do you ever think that they might be way off?

Scientists, mostly astronomers, tell us that the universe is a couple billion(or was that trillion) years old. My question:
How the hell do they know this? How can they possibly know that a 35 billion year old object is both 35 billion years old and 35 billion light years away? How can they know that their guess(no, it's not 100% proven) is accurate?

Another question:
For you sciency people: Do you ever question what science tells you? What I mean is: Do you ever question what scientists tell you to be true? Do you ever think that they might be way off?
1)

By the rate that the universe is expanding, taking into account the rate at which the universe is expanding changes, plus the rate at which that rate changes, plus e=mc^2 has some effect.

2)

All a scientific 'trueth' is is something we are currently unable to prove wrong.

triangulation. By measuring the angle between two observation points viewing the same distant object, it is possible to determine how far away the object is. This is basic mathematics. For instance,

By determining a precise line of sight between Hubble and a very distant galaxy now, and again six months later, and comparing those lines of sight, one can calculate that the distant galaxy is millions of light years away.

:)

Scientists, mostly astronomers, tell us that the universe is a couple billion(or was that trillion) years old. My question:
How the hell do they know this? How can they possibly know that a 35 billion year old object is both 35 billion years old and 35 billion light years away? How can they know that their guess(no, it's not 100% proven) is accurate?
A couple different ways, mainly they look at the light since c is a constant (adjusting for various quirks in gravity that pulls the light slightly of kilter). They also look at radio waves and other background radiation with the same idea in mind. You can find a good description and the forumal used just about anywhere.

Another question:
For you sciency people: Do you ever question what science tells you? What I mean is: Do you ever question what scientists tell you to be true? Do you ever think that they might be way off?
Yes, that's what science is about after all, questioning. You NEVER take it as an article of faith just because someone said so, you have to look at the evidence and work it out from there.

The difference is that what scientists say is NEVER given as the final answer, the 100% truth, and it is always backed up by actual qualitative data as opposed to "It was written in (insert religious text here)". They also adjust when new data comes along.

1) radiative dating

http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20010210/fob3.asp


2) What is sciency?

To your questions: Yes, yes and sometimes.

For you sciency people: Do you ever question what science tells you? What I mean is: Do you ever question what scientists tell you to be true? Do you ever think that they might be way off?
The good thing about science is that it always admits it might be wrong, and theories are accepted only if they:
1) Fit the facts
2) Allow to predict new events
3) Are falsifiable, or, simply, there can potentially exist facts not fitting them.

1) radiative dating

http://www.dieselsweeties.com/shirts/carbon-14-700-front.gif

The good thing about science is that it always admits it might be wrong, and theories are accepted only if they:
1) Fit the facts
2) Allow to predict new events
3) Are falsifiable, or, simply, there can potentially exist facts not fitting them.

Any good scientist occasionally questions himself. That's part of good science.

Scientists, mostly astronomers, tell us that the universe is a couple billion(or was that trillion) years old. My question:
How the hell do they know this? How can they possibly know that a 35 billion year old object is both 35 billion years old and 35 billion light years away?

If an object is 35 billion lightyears away any radiation from it we can see must have taken 35 billion years to get here. Which means the object had to be around 35 billion years ago, otherwise there would have been nothing that could radiate.

For you sciency people: Do you ever question what science tells you?

Well... yes. That is the whole point of science.

What I mean is: Do you ever question what scientists tell you to be true? Do you ever think that they might be way off?

Science works by testing and disproving hypotheses. The hypotheses that remain are therefor the ones that are able to survive many tests and at least very hard to disprove. Does not mean they are right of course, but they obviously are a pretty good approximation.

Scientists, mostly astronomers, tell us that the universe is a couple billion(or was that trillion) years old. My question:
How the hell do they know this? How can they possibly know that a 35 billion year old object is both 35 billion years old and 35 billion light years away? How can they know that their guess(no, it's not 100% proven) is accurate?

Another question:
For you sciency people: Do you ever question what science tells you? What I mean is: Do you ever question what scientists tell you to be true? Do you ever think that they might be way off?
It's ~14 billion years old, not 35 billion. At least quote some semi-accurate figures. They get that data from a number of things, such as background microwave radiation (that's right, just cook a burrito with Big Bang leftovers), red shift, and estimations of star lifecycles.

Yes, I have questioned what science tells me before. But most of the time, I can just look at the data they present, and I tend to draw similar conclusions, at least in fields where I understand things (that's mostly psychology, sociology, and physics. Molecular biology kills me).

Also, I can generally count on the fact that other scientists who are eminently qualified have looked at the research and given it a thumbs up. I know that sounds naive of me, but it's true-- peer-reviewed journals are called peer-reviewed because they are.

Other than that, the whole point of science is questioning. Questioning has been shown, time and time again, to be the best method of gaining knowledge.

Scientists, mostly astronomers, tell us that the universe is a couple billion(or was that trillion) years old. My question:
How the hell do they know this? How can they possibly know that a 35 billion year old object is both 35 billion years old and 35 billion light years away? How can they know that their guess(no, it's not 100% proven) is accurate?
By estimating the average lives of stars, getting data on the cosmic "background radiation" thought to be left over from the Big Bang, redshift, and simply by searching for those stars at the far ends of the galaxy, we can piece together a picture of how the universe might have begun.

Another question:
For you sciency people: Do you ever question what science tells you? What I mean is: Do you ever question what scientists tell you to be true? Do you ever think that they might be way off?
Hell yes we do. That's the whole point of science: to question what we see, what we know, and disprove and prove. Not that anything is ever 100% certain, but that's the whole point. As they say, it's a learning process.

Scientists, mostly astronomers, tell us that the universe is a couple billion(or was that trillion) years old. My question:
How the hell do they know this? How can they possibly know that a 35 billion year old object is both 35 billion years old and 35 billion light years away? How can they know that their guess(no, it's not 100% proven) is accurate?


When they take a telescope in space and look in any direction at all they find the same kind of light (EMR really but lets keep it simple) at 14 billion light years away. Thay can detect nothing at any greater distance. As if we are at the exact center of a sphere which has a surface made of a certain type of ligfht. Faced with this astonishing fact they rechecked their findings and it always turned out the same, like a giant sphere with us in the center. Nobody really entertained the thought that we were the center of the universe for long, so there had to be another explanation, because the light was real and so was it's distance away from us. The best theory anyone can come up with is that time itself is only 14 billion years old. We cant see anything farther than 14 billion light years away because nothing existed to make any light before 14 billion years ago, From there they decided time and space are only 14 billion years old.

Scientists, mostly astronomers, tell us that the universe is a couple billion(or was that trillion) years old. My question:
How the hell do they know this? How can they possibly know that a 35 billion year old object is both 35 billion years old and 35 billion light years away? How can they know that their guess(no, it's not 100% proven) is accurate?
Well that's based on how far we can see into space, the color of things, lots of math. There is some debate about the big bang having been one of many but I haven't been following it very closly.

Another question:
For you sciency people: Do you ever question what science tells you? What I mean is: Do you ever question what scientists tell you to be true? Do you ever think that they might be way off?
Oh absolutely! There are laws (what has been proven), theories (what has proof backing but still has some bugs), and hypothesis (ideas of what might be). Laws have been proven. Theories can and should be questioned to find and fix any flaws. Hypotheses are just ideas of what might be. Many people often confuse the last 2.

http://www.dieselsweeties.com/shirts/carbon-14-700-front.gif

But carbon-dating isn't accurate... :eek:

http://www.dieselsweeties.com/shirts/carbon-14-700-front.gif

Ew! I might have to pick one of those up! :D

http://www.dieselsweeties.com/shirts/carbon-14-700-front.gif

That proves it's own point

For you sciency people: Do you ever question what science tells you? What I mean is: Do you ever question what scientists tell you to be true? Do you ever think that they might be way off?

All throughout Primary and Secondary school we're being taught inaccurate science, but as we get older new information is made available to us and we adjust our views accordingly, real-life science is the same... I think.

That proves it's own point



All throughout Primary and Secondary school we're being taught inaccurate science, but as we get older new information is made available to us and we adjust our views accordingly, real-life science is the same... I think.

Hmm?

What for example?

All throughout Primary and Secondary school we're being taught inaccurate science, but as we get older new information is made available to us and we adjust our views accordingly, real-life science is the same... I think.While this may be true in history (I cannot even count the times my history teacher has had to refute some myth pounded into our heads in elementary school), I can't think of an example of inaccurate science being taught in primary or seconday school. Less in-depth science, perhaps, but not inaccurate. (Except for my biology teacher claiming that dinosaurs and humans coexisted. That was a bit inaccurate, but also not on the curriculum, so I digress.) So yeah, not sure what you mean by that.

While this may be true in history (I cannot even count the times my history teacher has had to refute some myth pounded into our heads in elementary school), I can't think of an example of inaccurate science being taught in primary or seconday school. Less in-depth science, perhaps, but not inaccurate. (Except for my biology teacher claiming that dinosaurs and humans coexisted. That was a bit inaccurate, but also not on the curriculum, so I digress.) So yeah, not sure what you mean by that.

hmm, I guess you're right. I must have been forming my own logical conclusions during primary school, which later were proved false once I learnt more in-depth stuff. Although in a way this is still similar to the scientific process.

But carbon-dating isn't accurate... :eek:

Those lying bastards at AiG aside, C-14 dating is perfectly accurate, up to around 60,000 years, or about 10 half-lives. Nothing is good after 10 half-lives, because there isn't enough left to accurately measure.

Those lying bastards at AiG aside, C-14 dating is perfectly accurate, up to around 60,000 years, or about 10 half-lives. Nothing is good after 10 half-lives, because there isn't enough left to accurately measure.

I was going to reply to that myself, but you've hit it on the head.

For older objects, different isotopes are used.

Those lying bastards at AiG aside, C-14 dating is perfectly accurate, up to around 60,000 years, or about 10 half-lives. Nothing is good after 10 half-lives, because there isn't enough left to accurately measure.

How accurate are they approximately?

How accurate are they approximately?

Extremely accurate. With C-14, you'll get variations in decades.

While this may be true in history (I cannot even count the times my history teacher has had to refute some myth pounded into our heads in elementary school), I can't think of an example of inaccurate science being taught in primary or seconday school. Less in-depth science, perhaps, but not inaccurate. (Except for my biology teacher claiming that dinosaurs and humans coexisted. That was a bit inaccurate, but also not on the curriculum, so I digress.) So yeah, not sure what you mean by that.

I was taught that Pluto was a planet. Views changed and now what I was taught then is inaccurate now. Theres your example.

I was taught that Pluto was a planet. Views changed and now what I was taught then is inaccurate now. Theres your example.True. But I wouldn't say that changing the definition of a planet counts as being taught inaccurate science "all throughout primary and secondary school." Plus when such things are taught, it's not out of a desire to teach science inaccurately (for the sake of agenda or simplification or whatever), but merely because science changes. Although I'm not sure if intent was implied in the original statement, so whatever.

But of course you're right in that when scientific theories are revised (or, in your example, definitions are changed), what was taught originally becomes inaccurate.

Extremely accurate. With C-14, you'll get variations in decades.

That's good enough for me :D

I was taught that Pluto was a planet. Views changed and now what I was taught then is inaccurate now. Theres your example.

That example is almost acceptable, but it doesn't prove my particular argument. It is good for showing how science works though.

A couple different ways, mainly they look at the light since c is a constant (adjusting for various quirks in gravity that pulls the light slightly of kilter). They also look at radio waves and other background radiation with the same idea in mind. You can find a good description and the forumal used just about anywhere.



does red-shift also play a role here?

does red-shift also play a role here?Red shift and blue shift give an indication of how fast an object is moving (relative to you)
I think red shift is when it's moving away, and blue shift when it's approaching.

http://www.dieselsweeties.com/shirts/carbon-14-700-front.gif
Best. Picture. Ever.

Red shift and blue shift give an indication of how fast an object is moving (relative to you)
I think red shift is when it's moving away, and blue shift when it's approaching.

That's correct.

Red shift and blue shift give an indication of how fast an object is moving (relative to you)
I think red shift is when it's moving away, and blue shift when it's approaching.

that's what i thought, but i thought there might also be more to it.
so its just a tool for measuring expansion. cool :)

If the usual pattern is correct shouldn't there have been something from the original poster by now saying how the bible proves the earth was created on a tuesday morning 6000 years ago, followed by ignorantly claiming that evolution and the big bang are the same thing, and repeated use of the word abiogenesis.

Or have I got too cynical?

Or have I got too cynical?Nah, if you were cynical, you'd guess the poster would claim bible proves the earth was create 3500 years ago. (Proving both ignorance of science and the scripture)

triangulation. By measuring the angle between two observation points viewing the same distant object, it is possible to determine how far away the object is. This is basic mathematics. For instance,

By determining a precise line of sight between Hubble and a very distant galaxy now, and again six months later, and comparing those lines of sight, one can calculate that the distant galaxy is millions of light years away.

:)

Goes like this:

http://www.ast.cam.ac.uk/~mjp/calc_parallax.html

Six months between measurements gives you a 300 million km baseline, = earth orbit diameter:

Then there's this as well:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cepheid_variable

Summarized:
http://instruct1.cit.cornell.edu/courses/astro101/lectures/lec14.htm:

(Ever heard of "Google", Avika?)

That's good enough for me :D



That example is almost acceptable, but it doesn't prove my particular argument. It is good for showing how science works though.

I wasnt aware I had to prove your argument but I tend towards believing it so I'll give it another go.
Howzabout this then.

Evolution theory used to be (and may still be) taught in the lower grades with a misleading cause and effect relationship which had no basis in what had been observed. They taight that species evolve to survive changing conditions in their environment. This depicts the relationship to be that of environment change being the cause and changes in species to be the effect. This is misleading at best and more closely resembles untruth.

Individual members of a species have mutations and changes due to many factors and random accidents which happen when reconbining DNA. Some good some not so good. A single species in a single environment without change can become multiple species if divided into two gene pools.
A changing environment kills off different sets of species mutations as it changes and therfore makes changes more easily spotted by a biologist, however it does not cause change it merely makes the older models of a species extinct.

A false cause/effect relationship of environment to evolution was probably taught to me in third grade because a more correct relationship is a much harder concept to impart upon the minds of third graders. It is not however merely an incomplete explanation, it is an incorrect explanation of evolution.

Scientists, mostly astronomers, tell us that the universe is a couple billion(or was that trillion) years old. My question:
How the hell do they know this? How can they possibly know that a 35 billion year old object is both 35 billion years old and 35 billion light years away? How can they know that their guess(no, it's not 100% proven) is accurate?

Another question:
For you sciency people: Do you ever question what science tells you? What I mean is: Do you ever question what scientists tell you to be true? Do you ever think that they might be way off?

i always thought that the whole concept of science is that it is constantly questioned. the minute you stop questioning it you become religious.

Scientists, mostly astronomers, tell us that the universe is a couple billion(or was that trillion) years old. My question:
How the hell do they know this? How can they possibly know that a 35 billion year old object is both 35 billion years old and 35 billion light years away? How can they know that their guess(no, it's not 100% proven) is accurate?

Another question:
For you sciency people: Do you ever question what science tells you? What I mean is: Do you ever question what scientists tell you to be true? Do you ever think that they might be way off?

1) By measuring the velocity of the matter and its distance away, they can tell when it was at the same point (pre-Big Bang), at least ITO.

2) Who doesn't (especially with medical studies)? give me the evidece and I'll believe you more.

Or have someone else do the experiment.

A false cause/effect relationship of environment to evolution was probably taught to me in third grade because a more correct relationship is a much harder concept to impart upon the minds of third graders. It is not however merely an incomplete explanation, it is an incorrect explanation of evolution.
You're talking about Lies-Told-To-Children bit. We start off by telling them a rainbow is rays of light refracting through rain drops, and then later on we say, well, no, it's not rays it's electromagnetic waves. In college we go, actually, it's not waves at all, it's quantum wave-packet photons, but still later we ask them to think again...

It's not so much telling it wrongly, but trying to simplify it down so that a child can get the overall theory.

But, sometimes, we simplify TOO much or or never get around to going back and correcting/expand the previous information when we should.

Scientists, mostly astronomers, tell us that the universe is a couple billion(or was that trillion) years old. My question:
How the hell do they know this? How can they possibly know that a 35 billion year old object is both 35 billion years old and 35 billion light years away? How can they know that their guess(no, it's not 100% proven) is accurate?
Another question:
For you sciency people: Do you ever question what science tells you? What I mean is: Do you ever question what scientists tell you to be true? Do you ever think that they might be way off?

We call it an educated guess.
Things like this are very complicated, and have whole books writen on the subject. I'm not even going to try summing it up here, theoretical physics isn't my field (and enough people have described what they were taught anyway). I trust that the scientists who came up with the ideas, and the many other scientists and university students who have studied these theories (and quite likely tested them out) are correct. Of course I believe these things to be true, but I'll change my mind in an instant if these theories are updated or even scrapped altogether (which very rarely happens). I don't think any of the current theories are way off, but I keep an open mind. As long as a magical being that defies the laws of physics isn't involved. ;)

You're talking about Lies-Told-To-Children bit. We start off by telling them a rainbow is rays of light refracting through rain drops, and then later on we say, well, no, it's not rays it's electromagnetic waves. In college we go, actually, it's not waves at all, it's quantum wave-packet photons, but still later we ask them to think again...

It's not so much telling it wrongly, but trying to simplify it down so that a child can get the overall theory.

But, sometimes, we simplify TOO much or or never get around to going back and correcting/expand the previous information when we should.


As often as not we dont really know. We have a working knowlege of much and full understanding of little if any. It is just a hella lot more comfortable to be able to call things undeniably true when indeed we base our truths on our best imaginary scenarios explaining our observations, and our faith that at some level things are sensible. Despite the flaws it still seems more practical to adopt and trust this school of thought if we want to ever get anything accomplished.

Magic. It's all magic.

Magic. It's all magic.

Yep it is all smoke and mirrors. Mostly smoke though. even the mirrors are smoked.

A scientifical theory is not valid just if it can't be proven as false. It also needs to be reasonable.

Example. Let's say I've got a theory about Pluto (no spacecraft yet landed on it, so no geological data) being made 50% of gorgonzola cheese. It cannot be proven false by an experiment (yet). But it is not reasonable, because I should explain also:
1.Were so much milk has come from
2.How did it transform into gorgonzola cheese
Since it is not reasonable to think of space cows being milked for millennia, and their milk being transformed into cheese by a space farmer, there you are with an unreasonable postulate to my theory. So I have to drop it.

The same goes for the so-called "intelligent design" thing, because it involves a sort of "magical" or supernatural intervention. If you admit that as reasonable, then also the gorgonzola theory about Pluto is reasonable. So leave God in the "faith" area, and keep it separated from the "science" area. Science is about measures and reasonable theories. You cannot measure God (if any God exists) or comprehend God by reasoning (Immanuel Kant docet).

And no, I don't have to question what scientists tell me, because I'm a physicist. I directly ask Nature by the means of an experiment when I've got a question.

Example. Let's say I've got a theory about Pluto (no spacecraft yet landed on it, so no geological data) being made 50% of gorgonzola cheese. It cannot be proven false by an experiment (yet).
Um... wouldn't you be able to tell from the spectrum of reflected light off of Pluto if it was made from gorgonzola cheese (and does gorgonzola cheese reflect light anyway)?

Um... wouldn't you be able to tell from the spectrum of reflected light off of Pluto if it was made from gorgonzola cheese (and does gorgonzola cheese reflect light anyway)?

everyone knows the moon is made of cheese. cos it says so in the Bible.

everyone knows the moon is made of cheese. cos it says so in the Bible.
No it doesn't, but Google Moon shows without a doubt that it is made of cheese. Of course this is just because Google Moon is too polite to show pictures of the honey side of the Moon due to all the newlyweds there (and if you get THAT reference I'll grant you a chocolate taiyaki).

hmm, I guess you're right. I must have been forming my own logical conclusions during primary school, which later were proved false once I learnt more in-depth stuff. Although in a way this is still similar to the scientific process.

I don't know... at my school they spent a long time teaching us about 'valency' in Chemistry... which turned out to be a crock. They explained to us, in simple terms, about the types of chemicals that could and couldn't bond with each other... which also turned out to be a crock. They explained about how electrons are 'given' and 'taken' from different elements to form bonds... and that was another massive over-simplification. We spent weeks drawing circles joined by little hooks and stuff... sketching in one element kindly donating an electron to another... and then, when you get to the next stage, you discovered an entirely different world of electron orbits.

We were told what an electron was... which later turned out to be an oversimplification so huge as to be fairly accurately described as a lie.

The problem is - school teaches you things... it doesn't like to say 'this is what we think' or... 'hey, this isn't true, but the math works almost as if it was...'

So - to peddle the basics of elemental bonding, they HAVE TO lie.

The problem is - school teaches you things... it doesn't like to say 'this is what we think' or... 'hey, this isn't true, but the math works almost as if it was...'

What I loved was spending all that time learning Newtonian physics, and then having to turn around and say, "well, as long as you're not moving very fast, and as long as you're not in the presence of a supermassive object, and as long as you're not really tiny, say, like an electron..."

What I loved was spending all that time learning Newtonian physics, and then having to turn around and say, "well, as long as you're not moving very fast, and as long as you're not in the presence of a supermassive object, and as long as you're not really tiny, say, like an electron..."

That's it. They teach a sort of 'kiddy-friendly' version, I guess. The problem with that, of course, is that some 'kiddies' have a far greater capacity for being 'friendly' with science... so, in effect you completely waste several years of their lives with the simplified models.

The problem is not with the models... but with the fact that education is treated as something we 'just have to do'... and not geared in any way to the actual ability of students. And, this situation is currently being made worse, in the US at least, by this idea that you can 'educate' everyone 'up' to some arbitrary level.

That's it. They teach a sort of 'kiddy-friendly' version, I guess. The problem with that, of course, is that some 'kiddies' have a far greater capacity for being 'friendly' with science... so, in effect you completely waste several years of their lives with the simplified models.

The problem is not with the models... but with the fact that education is treated as something we 'just have to do'... and not geared in any way to the actual ability of students. And, this situation is currently being made worse, in the US at least, by this idea that you can 'educate' everyone 'up' to some arbitrary level.

What I think the problem is that somewhere, someone thinks that "they won't understand quantum physics if we don't teach them the stuff in the order it happened in history".

And, this situation is currently being made worse, in the US at least, by this idea that you can 'educate' everyone 'up' to some arbitrary level.
That's actually both the strength and the weakness of the US system. We have to educate EVERYONE so we educate EVERYONE. Which sounds incredably stupid and wasteful until you consider the attempts at tracking students or shoving non-worthy students in the background had a remarkable track record of sidelining the wrong students.

It also is a function of US socety's ideal that everyone is equal and deserves a chance, which comes in handy later on for many people who find out that what was a good idea at the time to not go for higher education or compleate high school suddenly doesn't look so good in the cold light of 3 kids and a house payment. Actually, the US has (one of if not the) highest level of non-traditional students and about half of the US population has attended some form of higher ed, which is extraordinary when you look at the numbers.

What I think the problem is that somewhere, someone thinks that "they won't understand quantum physics if we don't teach them the stuff in the order it happened in history".

Which is, of course, insane. We don't teach history by going through the hundreds of different beliefs people have had about certain events, or the 'discipline' itself. We don't discuss the dinosaurs by referring back through the (fairly comical) earliest constructions of fossil remains. We don't illustrate the mammoth, by discussing how the original belief held that they were giant men who died on exposure to sunlight.

Children have a much greater capacity to learn than they are generally given credit for... and make intuitive leaps that are astounding. For example: My little girl has been conversant with concepts like parallax and perspective since she was three - because she once asked me why her shadow 'jumped' when we went under a streetlamp. At five, she was asking me why, if black is the absorption of all visible light, why is my leather jacket 'shiny'?

Um... wouldn't you be able to tell from the spectrum of reflected light off of Pluto if it was made from gorgonzola cheese (and does gorgonzola cheese reflect light anyway)?

Aha, you're thinking you're smart, uh? The gorgonzola is obviously coated by ordinary rock. I told partly made of gorgonzola, not entirely. :D

Anyway yes, you could be right, given that:
1.there is light enough on Pluto for us to use a spectrometer on Earth
2.you should remember that it would be difficult to tell if it is gorgonzola or some carbon-based rock, because gorgonzola, as most cheese,
is made mostly of water, lipids and proteins. Water is no problem, but lipids and proteins are quite complex, so their spectra are extremely difficult to tell by analysing the reflection of ordinary, non-monochrome light. You could tell there's a lot of H, N, C, O, O2, H20 etc but detecting more complex compounds is a more complicated thing.

Another question:
For you sciency people: Do you ever question what science tells you?If it sounds illogical, then yeah.
What I mean is: Do you ever question what scientists tell you to be true?I recently got asked why I hate my resources and environment professor. Apparently, some people thought that verbal disagreement with him in class was wrong :p
Do you ever think that they might be way off?Maybe, maybe not. Well-founded scientific work is harder to refute than conspiracy theories, though.

Aha, you're thinking you're smart, uh? The gorgonzola is obviously coated by ordinary rock. I told partly made of gorgonzola, not entirely. :D

Anyway yes, you could be right, given that:
1.there is light enough on Pluto for us to use a spectrometer on Earth
2.I would be difficult to tell if it is gorgonzola or some carbon-based rock, because gorgonzola, as most cheese,
is made mostly of water, lipids and proteins. Water is no problem, but lipids and proteins are quite complex, so their spectra are extremely difficult to tell by analysing the reflection of ordinary, non-monochrome light. You could tell there's a lot of H, N, C, O, O2, H20 etc but detecting more complex compounds is a more complicated thing.
Rock coated cheese? Well, that could explain Pluto's weird orbit. ;)

Never did get an answer on if gorgonzola cheese reflects light though.

For you sciency people: Do you ever question what science tells you?

It is impossible to "do science" without questioning science. You cannot be a scientist without questioning what other scientists tell you. You cannot be a scientist without questioning what your own data is telling you.


What I mean is: Do you ever question what scientists tell you to be true? Do you ever think that they might be way off?
Scientists have been "way off" before, and I'm sure it will happen again. Sometimes this is due to a lack of information. Sometimes it is due to sloppy methods. Sometimes people reach the wrong conclusions even though they did everything right with the information they had, and sometimes people reach incorrect conclusions because they fucked up or deliberately messed with their data. Science is only as honest and successful as the scientists who practice it.

http://www.dieselsweeties.com/shirts/carbon-14-700-front.gif

Love the quote. :D

Red shift and blue shift give an indication of how fast an object is moving (relative to you)
I think red shift is when it's moving away, and blue shift when it's approaching.

You win a cookie. :)

Rock coated cheese? Well, that could explain Pluto's weird orbit. ;)

Never did get an answer on if gorgonzola cheese reflects light though.

If you can see it, it reflects light.

Goes like this:

http://www.ast.cam.ac.uk/~mjp/calc_parallax.html

Six months between measurements gives you a 300 million km baseline, = earth orbit diameter:

Then there's this as well:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cepheid_variable

Summarized:
http://instruct1.cit.cornell.edu/courses/astro101/lectures/lec14.htm:

(Ever heard of "Google", Avika?)


Well, okay. Not exactly 'basic'. I was trying to keep it simple. :p

If you can see it, it reflects light.

Or emits it. :)

Or emits it. :)

Or doesn't do either and you can see the difference between it and the area around it(that's how the see black holes isn't it?)

What I think the problem is that somewhere, someone thinks that "they won't understand quantum physics if we don't teach them the stuff in the order it happened in history".

Exactly the same here in the UK, even had one teacher say that when we get to university someone will explain why what we were learning "wasn't quite true". Irritated the hell out of me.
Your point about teaching science in historical order is so true. Now I find history of science fascinating and useful, but it is an entirely separate subject.

Or doesn't do either and you can see the difference between it and the area around it(that's how the see black holes isn't it?)

A lack of detection can be a form of detection, but you aren't seeing it.

A lack of detection can be a form of detection, but you aren't seeing it.

Yeah, should be 'seeing'. I'd use finger quotes, but I'm in the middle of a chemistry lecture.

No. You don't see the black hole. Indeed, that's kind of the point. You don't see it, where you should see something. Voila... black hole.

Yeah, got that now.

Or doesn't do either and you can see the difference between it and the area around it(that's how the see black holes isn't it?)

No. You don't see the black hole. Indeed, that's kind of the point. You don't see it, where you should see something. Voila... black hole.

A scientifical theory is not valid just if it can't be proven as false.

Indeed. If an idea is unfalsifiable, it isn't a scientific theory at all. While we may not ever find evidence that would disprove a given scientific theory (especially if it is, in actuality, correct), the possibility must be there.

It also needs to be reasonable.

True. I think you could describe this better by saying that it has to be based in observed data. In your Pluto example, one would need some sort of data to suggest the presence of cheese before one would posit it as a scientific hypothesis. One would then test said hypothesis through various means - essentially trying to disprove the cheese idea. If you didn't, you might eventually accept as theory that Pluto was 50% cheese.

As for ID, supernatural intervention cannot be included in a scientific theory precisely because it is unfalsifiable. The scientific method only works within the natural - and cannot be used to investigate the supernatural. As such, any claims of supernatural intervention can never be disproven, even if they are false. This means that science simply cannot include them. It really isn't a matter of how "reasonable" such a claim would be - many conclusions that science has led to seemed "unreasonable" at the time. It is a matter of testability and falsifiability.

I don't know... at my school they spent a long time teaching us about 'valency' in Chemistry... which turned out to be a crock. They explained to us, in simple terms, about the types of chemicals that could and couldn't bond with each other... which also turned out to be a crock.
We were told what an electron was... which later turned out to be an oversimplification so huge as to be fairly accurately described as a lie.

Surely. That it's a gross problem of schools. Well, there -is- some point in mixing up science with a bit of history - it teaches one that everything can be wrong. But schools are greatly overdoing it. It could be done in a year in the elementary, but instead it takes the best years to learn. Kids are treated like idiots, trying not to make even the worst of them feel undercapable - and therefore removing the incentive to improve.

I must say I was lucky to have a few good teachers who explained us more complicated models as well, mostly qualitatively, and these classes were the most interesting of all. Moreover, almost everyone understood all of this, and we already knew what is wrong with the models we were studying, what corrections apply, and even what is wrong with better models.
And later at the university I was surprised about how many people could not understand such simple things and thought about everything in the school way.

Surely. That it's a gross problem of schools. Well, there -is- some point in mixing up science with a bit of history - it teaches one that everything can be wrong. But schools are greatly overdoing it. It could be done in a year in the elementary, but instead it takes the best years to learn. Kids are treated like idiots, trying not to make even the worst of them feel undercapable - and therefore removing the incentive to improve.

I must say I was lucky to have a few good teachers who explained us more complicated models as well, mostly qualitatively, and these classes were the most interesting of all. Moreover, almost everyone understood all of this, and we already knew what is wrong with the models we were studying, what corrections apply, and even what is wrong with better models.
And later at the university I was surprised about how many people could not understand such simple things and thought about everything in the school way.


That's the thing - we are wasting the best years we have. You'll never learn as fast or as thoroughly as you do in those formative years, so why are we treating children like they are somehow 'immune' to knowledge?

Of course - not every child is going to be gifted in every field, but to just assume no child can learn anything, is insane.

Scientists, mostly astronomers, tell us that the universe is a couple billion(or was that trillion) years old. My question:
How the hell do they know this? How can they possibly know that a 35 billion year old object is both 35 billion years old and 35 billion light years away? How can they know that their guess(no, it's not 100% proven) is accurate?

Another question:
For you sciency people: Do you ever question what science tells you? What I mean is: Do you ever question what scientists tell you to be true? Do you ever think that they might be way off?

When you learn to answer those math questions like "train A is traveling south at 70 mph and train b is traveling north at 80 mph, when will they both meet?" you'll be able to understand the fairly simple math question of "Quasar A is traveling that way at nearly the speed of light. Quasar B is traveling that way at nearly the speed of light. How long ago were they in the same place.

Then check that for a few hundred million other objects and get pretty much the same answer every time.

Then you see that everything was in the same place at the same time. And that time was about 13 billion years ago.

Or doesn't do either and you can see the difference between it and the area around it(that's how the see black holes isn't it?)

No. I'm pretty sure we see black holes by their gravitational effect on their neighbors. Like how sailors see submerged rocks by observing how he waves break differently over them.