SSM Plebiscite

[PaulP]

OK then perhaps you'll help us by explaining it to everyone, hopefully in plain language?

Avoid the highfalutin stuff if you can, but make it relevant to the everything, you know cosmology, and not a closed system!

In fact I'm happy for your to talk about any of the laws of thermodynamics, can we start by declaring how many there are, 3 or 4 it's a 50/50?

PaulP, the deeper you go the bigger the goose you make of yourself, not to everyone because not everyone cares or wants to discuss it. But you obviously do, so if you want to do so at least make an effort to get the basics right.

This is the point of the debate when most give up, you've made a spurious claim exposing your ignorance on the subject matter. Rees and Dawkins don't, they continue to dig deeper and if you persist they actually hope they can push you in the sensible direction, they won't give up on you because even if they can't save you from yourself PaulP, they can use the experience as a learning curve to save others! ;D

So do I take that as an answer to my earlier question, there are apparently material scientists and "others?"

Oh that is funny, coming from the guy who made a Hitler/Sheldrake comparison.

You cannot, and will not, explain anything simply because it will mean people might actually understand you, and therefore work out you have nothing to say.

[LP]

Oh that is funny, coming from the guy who made a Hitler/Sheldrake comparison.

You cannot, and will not, explain anything simply because it will mean people might actually understand you, and therefore work out you have nothing to say.

So you aren't helping us with the laws of thermodynamics then?

If you offer it as a proof you have to defend it, that is part of the scientific method, you can use the mirroring tactics I won't be offended.

[PaulP]

So you aren't helping us with the laws of thermodynamics then?

If you offer it as a proof you have to defend it, that is part of the scientific method.

How's that dark energy / dark matter proof going ? Nearly 100 years, tick tock, tick tock.

[LP]

How's that dark energy / dark matter proof going ? Nearly 100 years, tick tock, tick tock.

You keep making the same mistake, the evidence and data is the proof, the explanation is the part that is lacking.

We do not need all the answers of how and why to know something is real, but we do need some evidence to start!

Afterwards,we can make a hypothesis of why and then look for further proof, like the prediction of the existence of Einstein Rings and their ultimate detection.

Further if we look in wavelengths invisible to our eyes, we can see things like the bullet cluster, and how the interaction between normal visible and dark matter has changed the flow of dust and gas. Wikipedia gives an excellent plain language explanation as to why.

It might even help you with that earlier point No.1!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullet_Clu...ark_matter

Of course if you do not trust wikipedia, it's very good to be sceptical, then have a browse on the Arxiv for any number of hundreds of in depth papers including published data on the matter. Pun intended!

[PaulP]

You keep making the same mistake, the evidence and data is the proof, the explanation is the part that is lacking.

We do not need all the answers of how and why to know something is real, but we do need some evidence to start!

Afterwards,we can make a hypothesis of why and then look for further proof, like the prediction of the existence of Einstein Rings and their ultimate detection.

Further if we look in wavelengths invisible to our eyes, we can see things like the bullet cluster, and how the interaction between normal visible and dark matter has changed the flow of dust and gas. Wikipedia gives an excellent plain language explanation as to why.

It might even help you with that earlier point No.1!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullet_Clu...ark_matter

Of course if you do not trust wikipedia, it's very good to be sceptical, then have a browse on the Arxiv for any number of hundreds of in depth papers including published data on the matter. Pun intended!

No, there's no mistake. There's lots of speculation, there's lots of hypothesizing, lots of theorizing, lots of calculations, but not anything of substance. Just a big merry go round of nothingness. The only reason they speculate on things that cannot be seen or measured or known in any way is that they insist that gravity is the only way to explain mathematical anomalies, and must therefore get things to fit a pre existing theory. Why else would you go searching for something completely out of thin air ? Why make life enormously complicated for yourself, why tie yourself in knots, unless you have a theory or model to maintain ?

[northernblue]

If 90% of what we know fits a given model isn’t it a good place to start by trying to incorporate what you don’t understand into that model ?
Ultimately if it doesn’t fit, it won’t and a new model will be needed that allows for what we observe...
We can observe things that we can’t see directly, we can see how they interact with other things, to say that they don’t exist is just denialism.
Science is saying, “I see what you’re doing so I know that you’re there, I just need to find a way to see you”

[LP]

No, there's no mistake. There's lots of speculation, there's lots of hypothesizing, lots of theorizing, lots of calculations, but not anything of substance. Just a big merry go round of nothingness. The only reason they speculate on things that cannot be seen or measured or known in any way is that they insist that gravity is the only way to explain mathematical anomalies, and must therefore get things to fit a pre existing theory. Why else would you go searching for something completely out of thin air ? Why make life enormously complicated for yourself, why tie yourself in knots, unless you have a theory or model to maintain ?

Sorry PaulP that is gibberish.

If you want to discuss it discuss it and I'm happy to, we can talk about the data, how it's captured and mapped, what 8σ means, the chance a measurement is wrong.

But I won't do this in a New Age framework, those people have already done enough damage discouraging vaccinations with pseudo-scientific claims of infant harm. Many of those New Age opinions are not worth pissing on!

If you want New Age join a forum where they clap dead fish to repair ACLs, go see if it can help Doc, at this stage I'm happy to try anything!

[dodge]

My sister has a phd in theoretical physics, dad has one in something to do with physical chemistry (still not sure what that is!).  Dinner time got boring, so sorry LP and Paul, going back to the thread!

So SSM has been in for 12 months with relatively few SS couples tying the knot (~5% - may be spurious stats).

There is now a greater push re binary and non binary genders, the Tassie stuff about leaving gender off birth certificates, still strong debate about Safe Schools and anti LGBTQI discrimination (teachers and students) in religious schools.

These are not related to marriage, but seem to hold some strength in the non-hetero world.  Couple of questions:

1) Have these gathered strength as they are the next thing on the list
2) What % of the population are we talking about that aren't hetero.

They are sort of curiosities of mine - haven't really formed views how well society is progressing with the polarising opinion that is offered on both sides of the debate.

[northernblue]

I just think that unless invited in by consenting adults we should stay the hell away from other people’s bedrooms.
Some gay people have gotten married and the sun still comes up each morning... who woulda thunk that ?

[PaulP]

If 90% of what we know fits a given model isn’t it a good place to start by trying to incorporate what you don’t understand into that model ?
Ultimately if it doesn’t fit, it won’t and a new model will be needed that allows for what we observe...
We can observe things that we can’t see directly, we can see how they interact with other things, to say that they don’t exist is just denialism.
Science is saying, “I see what you’re doing so I know that you’re there, I just need to find a way to see you”

Science can say whatever it likes. Despite the number of decades that have passed, the number of scientists, computers, calculations etc., there has in fact been very little progress made in the discovery of dark matter and energy - a bit of lensing here, some Hubble something or other there, a Bullet Cluster somewhere else, there's very little to go on. A whole lot of filler, and very little meat.

You may think it's just a matter of time, and such discoveries are a historical inevitability, and maybe it is, but some of us aren't convinced by what amounts to shadows, inferred existence and the like.