Seemingly trivial things that intrigue you

earthearth Posts: 934
edited 25 October in The cake stop
The sun and the moon.

During a solar eclipse the moon appears from your vantage point on the earth to exactly the same diameter as the sun. Any smaller or further away and the moon would be a spot surrounded by the sun. Any larger or closer and the sun would be a dot behind the moon, completely obscured. Instead the moon is precisely the right size and distance from earth appear to be exactly the same size as the sun, thus there is a corona around the moon.
«13456742

Posts

  • Robert88Robert88 Posts: 2,722
    Why do people think there is a god?
  • chris_basschris_bass Posts: 4,801
    Robert88 wrote:
    Why do people think there is a god?

    because people like to have answers for things they can't explain and are comforted by the thought of some caring being looking over them!

    to me, it is nonsense though!
    www.conjunctivitis.com - a site for sore eyes
  • LagrangeLagrange Posts: 652
    Robert88 wrote:
    Why do people think there is a god?

    I think that it is faith or belief. Some people think there is no god.
  • sungodsungod Posts: 11,705
    Lagrange wrote:
    I think that it is faith or belief. Some people think there is no god.
    god == imaginary friend

    there's no supporting evidence, they are the same delusion

    to say "Some people think there is no god." is the equivalent of " Some people think there is no flying spaghetti monster."

    people who say these things are evidence based, they are not delusional
    my bike - faster than god's and twice as shiny
  • prosspross Posts: 21,181
    Robert88 wrote:
    Why do people think there is a god?

    Lack of plausible / understandable scientific explanation for the existence of the Universe?
  • Wayne PlungerWayne Plunger Posts: 462
    Where is my left glove?
  • rjsterryrjsterry Posts: 15,090
    sungod wrote:
    Lagrange wrote:
    I think that it is faith or belief. Some people think there is no god.
    god == imaginary friend

    there's no supporting evidence, they are the same delusion

    to say "Some people think there is no god." is the equivalent of " Some people think there is no flying spaghetti monster."

    people who say these things are evidence based, they are not delusional

    How does a delusion differ from the partial and subjective interpretations of sensory stimuli?
    1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
    1980s BSA 10sp

    Liberal metropolitan, remoaner, traitor, "sympathiser", etc.
  • rjsterryrjsterry Posts: 15,090
    That facial expressions are instinctual and universal rather than learnt. How is a smile encoded in DNA?
    1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
    1980s BSA 10sp

    Liberal metropolitan, remoaner, traitor, "sympathiser", etc.
  • prosspross Posts: 21,181
    That a Subway can run out of bread, all types not just one, by lunchtime. It's not like it is a minor item in their stock.
  • earthearth Posts: 934
    sungod wrote:
    Lagrange wrote:
    I think that it is faith or belief. Some people think there is no god.
    god == imaginary friend

    there's no supporting evidence, they are the same delusion

    to say "Some people think there is no god." is the equivalent of " Some people think there is no flying spaghetti monster."

    people who say these things are evidence based, they are not delusional

    I'm not arguing that there is a god but I am going to argue that people in the science arena operate on faith without evidence as well.

    Einsteins relativity theories predict there should be far more matter in the universe than we have evidence for. We can only see 5% of what the theory predicts. So rather than take the view that the theory is wrong because reality does not support it, instead the theory of dark matter was created. But there is still no evidence for dark matter yet people still believe the theories. So there you have a perfect example of people of science believing something they have no evidence for and cannot prove.
  • webboowebboo Posts: 2,069
    earth wrote:
    sungod wrote:
    Lagrange wrote:
    I think that it is faith or belief. Some people think there is no god.
    god == imaginary friend

    there's no supporting evidence, they are the same delusion

    to say "Some people think there is no god." is the equivalent of " Some people think there is no flying spaghetti monster."

    people who say these things are evidence based, they are not delusional

    I'm not arguing that there is a god but I am going to argue that people in the science arena operate on faith without evidence as well.

    Einsteins relativity theories predict there should be far more matter in the universe than we have evidence for. We can only see 5% of what the theory predicts. So rather than take the view that the theory is wrong because reality does not support it, instead the theory of dark matter was created. But there is still no evidence for dark matter yet people still believe the theories. So there you have a perfect example of people of science believing something they have no evidence for and cannot prove.
    Yet I have yet to see buildings with spire/ domes or the like built in the worship of Einstein with men wearing dresses leading th worshippers.
  • TheBlueBeanTheBlueBean Posts: 8,260
    Whether another Newton / Einstein will be born, and if they are, will they be able to have a similar impact.
  • rjsterryrjsterry Posts: 15,090
    webboo wrote:
    earth wrote:
    sungod wrote:
    Lagrange wrote:
    I think that it is faith or belief. Some people think there is no god.
    god == imaginary friend

    there's no supporting evidence, they are the same delusion

    to say "Some people think there is no god." is the equivalent of " Some people think there is no flying spaghetti monster."

    people who say these things are evidence based, they are not delusional

    I'm not arguing that there is a god but I am going to argue that people in the science arena operate on faith without evidence as well.

    Einsteins relativity theories predict there should be far more matter in the universe than we have evidence for. We can only see 5% of what the theory predicts. So rather than take the view that the theory is wrong because reality does not support it, instead the theory of dark matter was created. But there is still no evidence for dark matter yet people still believe the theories. So there you have a perfect example of people of science believing something they have no evidence for and cannot prove.
    Yet I have yet to see buildings with spire/ domes or the like built in the worship of Einstein with men wearing dresses leading th worshippers.

    I think you misunderstood earth's point.
    1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
    1980s BSA 10sp

    Liberal metropolitan, remoaner, traitor, "sympathiser", etc.
  • bonk kingbonk king Posts: 158
    When scientists can't get their heads round something that is way way above their understanding and so try and come up with solutions, and then because they've come up with said solution we are all led to believe it's fact, because the clever scientists come up with the idea. Big bang theory!!! I mean, why don't they just hold their hands up and say, "hmmm, haven't got a scooby about that one, next question".
  • sungodsungod Posts: 11,705
    earth wrote:
    sungod wrote:
    Lagrange wrote:
    I think that it is faith or belief. Some people think there is no god.
    god == imaginary friend

    there's no supporting evidence, they are the same delusion

    to say "Some people think there is no god." is the equivalent of " Some people think there is no flying spaghetti monster."

    people who say these things are evidence based, they are not delusional

    I'm not arguing that there is a god but I am going to argue that people in the science arena operate on faith without evidence as well.

    Einsteins relativity theories predict there should be far more matter in the universe than we have evidence for. We can only see 5% of what the theory predicts. So rather than take the view that the theory is wrong because reality does not support it, instead the theory of dark matter was created. But there is still no evidence for dark matter yet people still believe the theories. So there you have a perfect example of people of science believing something they have no evidence for and cannot prove.
    that's a misunderstanding of how science works and the role of theory

    the theory of general relativity is known to be an incomplete description of how things are, i.e. it's 'wrong'

    scientists know this, but for many purposes it is the best theory we have, for others it is no use, if we are ever smart/lucky enough to come up with a better theory then gr will be discarded - or perhaps retained for some uses if it's simpler, just as we continue to teach and apply classical mechanics for the majority of human activity, even though it's clearly 'wrong'

    scientists do not 'believe' theories, they use them as a basis to proceed on, that's how science advances, theories are formed, tested as the ability to do so develops, and either confirmed or disproved, but even wrong theories can still be useful (i.e. classical mechanics)

    when gell-mann and ne'eman (independently) predicted there would be a particle of strangeness -3 with a certain rest mass, that was based upon theory, the theory was tested, hey presto omega minus, if there had been no match then the theory would have been found wrong and we'd move on to repair it or try something different
    my bike - faster than god's and twice as shiny
  • chris_basschris_bass Posts: 4,801
    bonk king wrote:
    When scientists can't get their heads round something that is way way above their understanding and so try and come up with solutions, and then because they've come up with said solution we are all led to believe it's fact, because the clever scientists come up with the idea. Big bang theory!!! I mean, why don't they just hold their hands up and say, "hmmm, haven't got a scooby about that one, next question".

    that sort of is what they say!

    what is your understanding of what the big bang theory actually is?
    www.conjunctivitis.com - a site for sore eyes
  • TheBlueBeanTheBlueBean Posts: 8,260
    rjsterry wrote:
    That facial expressions are instinctual and universal rather than learnt. How is a smile encoded in DNA?

    Vaguely related - that everyone looks different and can be distinguished by the human eye despite there being billions of people.
  • rjsterryrjsterry Posts: 15,090
    TheBigBean wrote:
    rjsterry wrote:
    That facial expressions are instinctual and universal rather than learnt. How is a smile encoded in DNA?

    Vaguely related - that everyone looks different and can be distinguished by the human eye despite there being billions of people.

    And pareidolia, too.

    And to link in with the god conversation, that humans have such vivid imaginations. How could you establish whether other animals have imagination?
    1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
    1980s BSA 10sp

    Liberal metropolitan, remoaner, traitor, "sympathiser", etc.
  • chris_basschris_bass Posts: 4,801
    rjsterry wrote:
    TheBigBean wrote:
    rjsterry wrote:
    That facial expressions are instinctual and universal rather than learnt. How is a smile encoded in DNA?

    Vaguely related - that everyone looks different and can be distinguished by the human eye despite there being billions of people.

    And pareidolia, too.

    And to link in with the god conversation, that humans have such vivid imaginations. How could you establish whether other animals have imagination?

    You can see dogs dreaming (or moving as if they are while asleep) so I guess that must mean they have imaginations, maybe?
    www.conjunctivitis.com - a site for sore eyes
  • rjsterryrjsterry Posts: 15,090
    Chris Bass wrote:
    rjsterry wrote:
    TheBigBean wrote:
    rjsterry wrote:
    That facial expressions are instinctual and universal rather than learnt. How is a smile encoded in DNA?

    Vaguely related - that everyone looks different and can be distinguished by the human eye despite there being billions of people.

    And pareidolia, too.

    And to link in with the god conversation, that humans have such vivid imaginations. How could you establish whether other animals have imagination?

    You can see dogs dreaming (or moving as if they are while asleep) so I guess that must mean they have imaginations, maybe?

    I meant consciously conceiving of things that don't exist, but quite a lot of traits that we thought were uniquely human have turned out not to be so exclusive so who knows.
    1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
    1980s BSA 10sp

    Liberal metropolitan, remoaner, traitor, "sympathiser", etc.
  • bonk kingbonk king Posts: 158
    Chris Bass wrote:
    bonk king wrote:
    When scientists can't get their heads round something that is way way above their understanding and so try and come up with solutions, and then because they've come up with said solution we are all led to believe it's fact, because the clever scientists come up with the idea. Big bang theory!!! I mean, why don't they just hold their hands up and say, "hmmm, haven't got a scooby about that one, next question".

    that sort of is what they say!

    what is your understanding of what the big bang theory actually is?

    Well, they say that the universe is expanding at a very fast rate, which they've proved, I get that, seen documentaries on it. So because it's growing then that means at some point in its past it must have been small, so small in fact that there was nothing there whatsoever. So they come up with the singularity explanation and that everything just went bang, out of nothing!

    I'd rather they "we can't explain that, maybe it was there all the time, now let us scientists concentrate on this cure for cancer instead of dwelling on stuff we can't explain".
  • rjsterryrjsterry Posts: 15,090
    bonk king wrote:
    Chris Bass wrote:
    bonk king wrote:
    When scientists can't get their heads round something that is way way above their understanding and so try and come up with solutions, and then because they've come up with said solution we are all led to believe it's fact, because the clever scientists come up with the idea. Big bang theory!!! I mean, why don't they just hold their hands up and say, "hmmm, haven't got a scooby about that one, next question".

    that sort of is what they say!

    what is your understanding of what the big bang theory actually is?

    Well, they say that the universe is expanding at a very fast rate, which they've proved, I get that, seen documentaries on it. So because it's growing then that means at some point in its past it must have been small, so small in fact that there was nothing there whatsoever. So they come up with the singularity explanation and that everything just went bang, out of nothing!

    I'd rather they "we can't explain that, maybe it was there all the time, now let us scientists concentrate on this cure for cancer instead of dwelling on stuff we can't explain".

    From my limited understanding, the big bang theory does not suggest that all the contents of the universe came from nothing.
    1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
    1980s BSA 10sp

    Liberal metropolitan, remoaner, traitor, "sympathiser", etc.
  • bonk kingbonk king Posts: 158
    rjsterry wrote:
    bonk king wrote:
    Chris Bass wrote:
    bonk king wrote:
    When scientists can't get their heads round something that is way way above their understanding and so try and come up with solutions, and then because they've come up with said solution we are all led to believe it's fact, because the clever scientists come up with the idea. Big bang theory!!! I mean, why don't they just hold their hands up and say, "hmmm, haven't got a scooby about that one, next question".

    that sort of is what they say!

    what is your understanding of what the big bang theory actually is?

    Well, they say that the universe is expanding at a very fast rate, which they've proved, I get that, seen documentaries on it. So because it's growing then that means at some point in its past it must have been small, so small in fact that there was nothing there whatsoever. So they come up with the singularity explanation and that everything just went bang, out of nothing!

    I'd rather they "we can't explain that, maybe it was there all the time, now let us scientists concentrate on this cure for cancer instead of dwelling on stuff we can't explain".

    From my limited understanding, the big bang theory does not suggest that all the contents of the universe came from nothing.

    Stephen hawking once said that any theories BEFORE the singularity went bang are totally useless, not even worth discussing, simply because there is no observational consequences of anything before the big bang because nothing existed. However, once the singularity went pop, then the scientists say everything that has happened since can be observed and measured.

    Simply put. Once there was nothing, then there was a bang and all of a sudden there was something. And almost 14 billion years later here we are. That suggests to me that everything came from this big bang theory/nonsense (put in which word you want there).

    All this type of stuff does intrigue me and I get why scientists want to understand and come up with solutions for said stuff. But theories about the beginning of the universe are on a par with theories about what happens when we die or are we alone in the universe. You can discuss and argue and flog the subject to death but you'll be none the wiser.
  • rick_chaseyrick_chasey Posts: 44,179 Lives Here
    bonk king wrote:
    rjsterry wrote:
    bonk king wrote:
    Chris Bass wrote:
    bonk king wrote:
    When scientists can't get their heads round something that is way way above their understanding and so try and come up with solutions, and then because they've come up with said solution we are all led to believe it's fact, because the clever scientists come up with the idea. Big bang theory!!! I mean, why don't they just hold their hands up and say, "hmmm, haven't got a scooby about that one, next question".

    that sort of is what they say!

    what is your understanding of what the big bang theory actually is?

    Well, they say that the universe is expanding at a very fast rate, which they've proved, I get that, seen documentaries on it. So because it's growing then that means at some point in its past it must have been small, so small in fact that there was nothing there whatsoever. So they come up with the singularity explanation and that everything just went bang, out of nothing!

    I'd rather they "we can't explain that, maybe it was there all the time, now let us scientists concentrate on this cure for cancer instead of dwelling on stuff we can't explain".

    From my limited understanding, the big bang theory does not suggest that all the contents of the universe came from nothing.

    Stephen hawking once said that any theories BEFORE the singularity went bang are totally useless, not even worth discussing, simply because there is no observational consequences of anything before the big bang because nothing existed. However, once the singularity went pop, then the scientists say everything that has happened since can be observed and measured.

    Simply put. Once there was nothing, then there was a bang and all of a sudden there was something. And almost 14 billion years later here we are. That suggests to me that everything came from this big bang theory/nonsense (put in which word you want there).

    All this type of stuff does intrigue me and I get why scientists want to understand and come up with solutions for said stuff. But theories about the beginning of the universe are on a par with theories about what happens when we die or are we alone in the universe. You can discuss and argue and flog the subject to death but you'll be none the wiser.

    I think a lot of people forget that a lot of the theories physicists come up with are derivatives of the maths which they then backtrest with evidence.
  • chris_basschris_bass Posts: 4,801
    bonk king wrote:
    rjsterry wrote:
    bonk king wrote:
    Chris Bass wrote:
    bonk king wrote:
    When scientists can't get their heads round something that is way way above their understanding and so try and come up with solutions, and then because they've come up with said solution we are all led to believe it's fact, because the clever scientists come up with the idea. Big bang theory!!! I mean, why don't they just hold their hands up and say, "hmmm, haven't got a scooby about that one, next question".

    that sort of is what they say!

    what is your understanding of what the big bang theory actually is?

    Well, they say that the universe is expanding at a very fast rate, which they've proved, I get that, seen documentaries on it. So because it's growing then that means at some point in its past it must have been small, so small in fact that there was nothing there whatsoever. So they come up with the singularity explanation and that everything just went bang, out of nothing!

    I'd rather they "we can't explain that, maybe it was there all the time, now let us scientists concentrate on this cure for cancer instead of dwelling on stuff we can't explain".

    From my limited understanding, the big bang theory does not suggest that all the contents of the universe came from nothing.

    Stephen hawking once said that any theories BEFORE the singularity went bang are totally useless, not even worth discussing, simply because there is no observational consequences of anything before the big bang because nothing existed. However, once the singularity went pop, then the scientists say everything that has happened since can be observed and measured.

    Simply put. Once there was nothing, then there was a bang and all of a sudden there was something. And almost 14 billion years later here we are. That suggests to me that everything came from this big bang theory/nonsense (put in which word you want there).

    All this type of stuff does intrigue me and I get why scientists want to understand and come up with solutions for said stuff. But theories about the beginning of the universe are on a par with theories about what happens when we die or are we alone in the universe. You can discuss and argue and flog the subject to death but you'll be none the wiser.

    I don't think you really understand it entirely properly.

    The science holds up until you get to t=0 then everything tends towards infinity which is more than a little problematic.

    The big bang theory is just when time (as we know it) began, what happened before (if you can even have "before" without time?) This is still very much up for debate. Maybe the universe always existed in one form or another, maybe it expands and contracts and expands again, maybe there are multiple universes, maybe we'll find out maybe we won't but I'm glad there are people far far cleverer than me looking into these things. Saying good did it (which I'm not saying is what you are claiming) and ending the discussion isn't useful for anything.
    www.conjunctivitis.com - a site for sore eyes
  • sungodsungod Posts: 11,705
    bonk king wrote:
    Stephen hawking once said that any theories BEFORE the singularity went bang are totally useless, not even worth discussing, simply because there is no observational consequences of anything before the big bang because nothing existed. However, once the singularity went pop, then the scientists say everything that has happened since can be observed and measured.

    Simply put. Once there was nothing, then there was a bang and all of a sudden there was something. And almost 14 billion years later here we are. That suggests to me that everything came from this big bang theory/nonsense (put in which word you want there).

    All this type of stuff does intrigue me and I get why scientists want to understand and come up with solutions for said stuff. But theories about the beginning of the universe are on a par with theories about what happens when we die or are we alone in the universe. You can discuss and argue and flog the subject to death but you'll be none the wiser.
    there are theories of universe formation with observable consequences from beyond/before, for instance if we're in a bubble universe then we might detect the traces of a 'collision' with another bubble, were we to find them then there's a view 'outside'

    yes it's enormously speculative, but there's a choice, we can either theorise and attempt to expand what we know (or think we know), or we can give up and spend the rest of time recapitulating

    advances in our fundamental understanding of what we think of as reality begin when we find our theories fail to predict what we observe, that's the sign of new physics, it's a good thing! we can't explain some observation, so we concoct new theories and ways to test them, the one(s) that fit are selected and we progress

    it may feel like a pointless exercise, but it's this pursuit of 'why' that drives progress and benefits us in wider ways - medical imaging cat/mri/pet/scint etc,, radiotherapy: x-ray, radio isotopes, proton beam therapy, lasers gps, etc. etc., born from fundamental research and the need to find ways to understand what underlies our perceived reality

    who knows, perhaps we'll one day find out what we call 'dark matter' and 'dark energy' really are, maybe it'll be just a nice to know, maybe it'll have practical application for the benefit of humanity, both outcomes are good
    my bike - faster than god's and twice as shiny
  • earthearth Posts: 934
    bonk king wrote:
    rjsterry wrote:
    bonk king wrote:
    Chris Bass wrote:
    bonk king wrote:
    When scientists can't get their heads round something that is way way above their understanding and so try and come up with solutions, and then because they've come up with said solution we are all led to believe it's fact, because the clever scientists come up with the idea. Big bang theory!!! I mean, why don't they just hold their hands up and say, "hmmm, haven't got a scooby about that one, next question".

    that sort of is what they say!

    what is your understanding of what the big bang theory actually is?

    Well, they say that the universe is expanding at a very fast rate, which they've proved, I get that, seen documentaries on it. So because it's growing then that means at some point in its past it must have been small, so small in fact that there was nothing there whatsoever. So they come up with the singularity explanation and that everything just went bang, out of nothing!

    I'd rather they "we can't explain that, maybe it was there all the time, now let us scientists concentrate on this cure for cancer instead of dwelling on stuff we can't explain".

    From my limited understanding, the big bang theory does not suggest that all the contents of the universe came from nothing.

    Stephen hawking once said that any theories BEFORE the singularity went bang are totally useless, not even worth discussing, simply because there is no observational consequences of anything before the big bang because nothing existed. However, once the singularity went pop, then the scientists say everything that has happened since can be observed and measured.

    Simply put. Once there was nothing, then there was a bang and all of a sudden there was something. And almost 14 billion years later here we are. That suggests to me that everything came from this big bang theory/nonsense (put in which word you want there).

    All this type of stuff does intrigue me and I get why scientists want to understand and come up with solutions for said stuff. But theories about the beginning of the universe are on a par with theories about what happens when we die or are we alone in the universe. You can discuss and argue and flog the subject to death but you'll be none the wiser.

    I think a lot of people forget that a lot of the theories physicists come up with are derivatives of the maths which they then backtrest with evidence.

    But that's the problem, there is missing evidence and it has been looked for. I get that it is the best theory we have for now. But if we ever know the truth of it without doubt then what does that do for us?
  • Shirley BassoShirley Basso Posts: 3,132
    rjsterry wrote:
    Chris Bass wrote:
    rjsterry wrote:
    TheBigBean wrote:
    rjsterry wrote:
    That facial expressions are instinctual and universal rather than learnt. How is a smile encoded in DNA?

    Vaguely related - that everyone looks different and can be distinguished by the human eye despite there being billions of people.

    And pareidolia, too.

    And to link in with the god conversation, that humans have such vivid imaginations. How could you establish whether other animals have imagination?

    You can see dogs dreaming (or moving as if they are while asleep) so I guess that must mean they have imaginations, maybe?

    I meant consciously conceiving of things that don't exist, but quite a lot of traits that we thought were uniquely human have turned out not to be so exclusive so who knows.

    This is covered in Sapiens a bit. Is why humankind is so powerful. Because we are capable of belief and imagination to tie different tribes together (religion, companies, football supporters) as well as the concept of foregoing something today to get more of it tomorrow. No animal does that (maybe squirrels)
  • david7mdavid7m Posts: 533
    "Maybe squirrels" :lol: :lol:
  • pinnopinno Posts: 37,025
    God's creation of the world has been replaced by... a Big Bang; another creation theory.
    Western theories of the Universe have a beginning, a middle and an end. Mirroring Christian beliefs.
    Far Eastern/Asian theories of the Universe are cyclical. Mirroring...

    X Galaxies are in the Blue shift and Y Galaxies are in the Red shift and therefore the Universe is expanding!
    Jesus was voted as the son of God by a council with a slim majority.

    Most theories with any validity are based on one hypothetical. The Big Bang theory is based on multiple hypotheticals.

    There are these [email protected] who think we can colonise other completely inaccessible and uninhabitable orbs. There are other mathematicians, physicists, scientists, astrologers who ply so much time to the trivial pursuit of answering the unanswerable question of 'how did we get here?' whilst the world rots, burns, gets flooded, melts, gets polluted, savaged, raped and filled with CO2.

    It's a crock of bollox. There is a far more pressing need for the academic community to try and find solutions to the problems of what would be a perfect orb to exist on.

    lego-hawking-640.jpg
    S - The Brazilian beach volleyball team
    W - Wiggle Honda
    "This year will be harder than last year. But that is good news; this year will be easier than next year."
Sign In or Register to comment.