I don’t know what you mean by ‘truth’ - it seems to suggest that there is 100% absolute certainty in science. If this is what you think then you have a misunderstanding of science. Scientific theories are explanations.
So, right now, the best explanation of a given law, fact, phenomenon is X. Does that mean scientists are 100 percent certain of it?
No.
I suggest you read “The Relativity of Wrong”. It’s short and will give you a better understanding of science.
I’m not sure how you got this.
It seems to me that you don’t have a strong grasp of what was being talked about. That’s fine, it’s a complicated topic - I don’t have a strong grasp on it. That said, there are other posters who do have a much better grasp. Your attempt at a ‘gotcha’ was misplaced.
I don’t always remember things about other posters, but I think I recall some general things about both posters in question; kanicbird is a religious nutter who brings the most bizarre, offensive religious pronouncements to innocuous threads, and if I recall correctly, Stranger on a Train is someone who is not very adept at the human side of the equation (by his own admission). I would expect a “just the fact, ma’am” post from Stranger, and that’s what we usually get; I don’t recall him being insulting to anyone just for the yuks.
Just chiming in to join the dog-unpiling. There are a number of people here whose individual departure would bring this place very close to the brink of uselessness, and Stranger is one of them.
I don’t really consider his reponse rude. Nonetheless, I must say I do believe that a thorough and accurate answer to an objective question is a thing of value and you do not quibble if it was delivered insensitively.
Just look how quickly the OP was swayed by group think against me, though he initially saw a injustice against me (even sending me 2 PM’s of support). He was convinced by the masses to give up his independent observations and conclusions and accepted what others wanted him to think.
This is a major problem across all lines, scientific, religious, political. People who try to think for them self are often pier pressured to conform to the established thinking pattern, even those who initially see a injustice are quick to be swayed. Those who stand firm are labeled a nutjub of some sort.
I did appreciate the other posters in the GQ thread who did contribute honestly and I enjoyed taking it further based on their reply, such as countering drag by proposing these ‘gravity waves’ may move at the speed of light and therefor have no relativistic speed difference so no drag.
In many ways the SDMB is a great way to observe human behavior, with ‘experts’ and laypersons across many disciplines forming a society here.
But as we saw in that thread, scientists had already thought of this idea. By not being educated in science, you are simply wasting time on old previously rejected ideas. Scientists are some of the most creative people on the planet. I can gauramtee, an idea that a scientifically uneducated person such as yourself can come up with, has been already considered by scientists. The people working on these problems are some of the smartest people in the world. Yet you are so arrogant to believe that with no real science background at all, you can think of something that they can’t. It’s not science that needs to learn to think freely, it’s you.
Since he’s unlikely to be pitted anywhere else, let me just add:
Just get up and introduce yourself to the other passengers! Nobody likes a dark and shadowy figure hanging out in the background mumbling “Alfred” this and “criss-cross” that. You’re making everyone nervous. Fuckwit.
He was given evidence of prior actions on your part and it was also brought to his attention that you were simply trying to go for a gotcha.
It’s kind of ironic that you are complaining about his free thinking here when it seems as though he appraised the evidence and changed his mind accordingly.
Would you have preferred he just agree with your point of view, damn his opinion of the evidence?
Perhaps, but I think it’s a bit of a stretch here. Certainly people have been martyred in the name of free thinking (bruno comes to mind), but come on, you seemed to have one thing in your mind that you wanted to accomplish with that thread despite what anyone said. I find it a bit hypocritical that you are complaining about the lack of free thinking.
The thread was okay and then you unloaded this:
"You do realize that postulating a particle may be impossible to find because no one has evidence of one, is pretty darn close to … well lets just say it sounds very self serving. It’s very hard to find, doubtful that even your grandchildren generation will find a single one, but believe us it exists. So that’s why we haven’t found it yet, because it’s hard to find, and we know that. I have to say that arguments about the scientific evidence of proof of God come to mind on this one.
I did think we found micro wormholes and have seen quantum tunneling. "
How on earth is this a fair comparison? It makes the entire thread seem to be a set up to say ‘well you can’t prove X, just like I can’t prove God, therefore they are on equal footing’.
Sorry. We’ll try to do better and stop pissing about all the time.
You have a reputation of not doing this. You have a reputation of warping any discussion to fit your preconceptions of religion, which are pretty odd, by the way.
Yup. In this case, it was just like a one prof leaning over to the other prof and saying “That’s the guy that drags every conversation over to abortion/Jesus/9-11/other monomania. He’ll act like he’s interested in what he’s asking about, but he’s not - usually he’s just wasting your time. I just thought you should know”.
Everyone plays Mornington Crescent in their own way. Some play for real.
As for what some of you call the ‘gotcha’ that I was accused of, it was really a reply to the gotcha that Stranger on a Train gave.
A common tactic used to shut down non-conforming thinking is stating we already have our answer, in this case the theory of relativity and the like, no need for your input. Basically that is the method used by SoaT, and very anti-free thinking - stuff like this has kept science in the dark ages and has kept organized religion in power btw.
I countered with your theory also depends on a almost mythical particle, that is defined in such a way that it is acceptable that it may never be found, this is what is holding that theory together. And yes I did related it to belief in God as that is what I am familiar with and saw a correlation, though it was a response, not a intent.
So we are not suppose to ask questions? and if a pattern is seen not suppose to ask why this pattern will not hold? We are suppose to just accept what they say blindly? and just assume that they already though of everything I could ever came up with?
Kanicbird is a proponent of “free-thinking”-free of evidence, free of logic, free of reason, free of the scientific method, and free of intellectual honesty.
[naive mode]I think that’s great. The more members of the lay public that take an interest in the grand theories of how the universe works at its most basic levels, the more respected the enterprise of theoretical physics becomes. We should encourage these kind of threads, they’re all about becoming more aware of the universe. Stranger on a Train’s response seems a bit mean. He must be a big grouch.
Er, okay, that seems quite… commendable. Excuse me a second, one of my detectors has just started beeping. Huh, weird, it’s the ‘kook’ one and it’s on amber. Maybe it needs new batteries.
Yikes, it’s flashing red and gone to the ‘fire alarm’ level!
And now it’s not working at all, but… there seems to be a burning smell.
