Forum home Road cycling forum The cake stop

Seemingly trivial things that intrigue you

1414244464779

Posts

  • pinnopinno Posts: 39,080
    edited November 2019

    why is it arrogant to try and come up with ways in which the universe could have come about?

    No. The arrogance is the assumption based on numerous hypotheticals. Assumption has little or no scientific value.

    is it arrogant to come up with theories about evolution and gravity too? or anything in science for that matter - science doesn't prove anything true just makes hypothesise and tests it to see if the assumptions hold true - if not change the hypothesis.

    First of all, there's nothing theoretical about gravity. The effects of gravity are well researched and rarely contradicted. An apple falling on one's head is a tangible outcome. It is nigh on impossible to conclude anything concrete from (corrupted?) faint noises emanating from space.
    Secondly, unlike the pontification regarding space, the theory of evolution uses years of tangible evidence. Evidence that we can glean from everything around us. We now have the benefit of DNA and genetics for example and we have the accumulation of knowledge from carbon dating, geology, geography, zoology, meteorology, chemistry, bio-chemistry etc etc.
    Thirdly, I am only referring to the Big Bang Theory. How you can extrapolate my opinion on your random selection of: evolution, gravity and science, is beyond me.

    Where is your evidence that you think I am dismissive of science?!
    I have only expressed doubts about all encompassing theories of the Universe.

    S - https://i.pinimg.com/564x/35/cd/f1/35cdf125f02216d233fc9aa90f8607e6.jpg
    W - (still at Atlantic boulevard)

    "Why are the tractors beeping in the night? I dunno woss goin' on"
    Tricky, 9yo
  • pinnopinno Posts: 39,080
    Why can't I post?!!?!?
    S - https://i.pinimg.com/564x/35/cd/f1/35cdf125f02216d233fc9aa90f8607e6.jpg
    W - (still at Atlantic boulevard)

    "Why are the tractors beeping in the night? I dunno woss goin' on"
    Tricky, 9yo
  • pinnopinno Posts: 39,080
    Okay, try again.

    why is it arrogant to try and come up with ways in which the universe could have come about?

    No. The arrogance is the assumption based on numerous hypotheticals. Assumption has little or no scientific value.

    is it arrogant to come up with theories about evolution and gravity too? or anything in science for that matter - science doesn't prove anything true just makes hypothesise and tests it to see if the assumptions hold true - if not change the hypothesis.

    First of all, there's nothing theoretical about gravity. The effects of gravity are well researched and rarely contradicted. An apple falling on one's head is a tangible outcome. It is nigh on impossible to conclude anything concrete from (corrupted?) faint noises emanating from space.
    Secondly, unlike the pontification regarding space, evolution uses years of tangible evidence. Evidence that we can glean from everything around us. We now have the benefit of DNA and genetics for example and we have the accumulation of knowledge from carbon dating, geology, geography, zoology, meteorology, chemistry, bio-chemistry etc etc.
    Third, I am only referring to the Big Bang Theory. How you can extrapolate my opinion on your random selection of: evolution, gravity and science, is beyond me.

    Where is your evidence that you think I am dismissive of science?!
    I have only expressed doubts about all encompassing theories of the Universe.
    S - https://i.pinimg.com/564x/35/cd/f1/35cdf125f02216d233fc9aa90f8607e6.jpg
    W - (still at Atlantic boulevard)

    "Why are the tractors beeping in the night? I dunno woss goin' on"
    Tricky, 9yo
  • rjsterryrjsterry Posts: 17,738
    pinno said:

    Okay, try again.

    why is it arrogant to try and come up with ways in which the universe could have come about?

    No. The arrogance is the assumption based on numerous hypotheticals. Assumption has little or no scientific value.

    is it arrogant to come up with theories about evolution and gravity too? or anything in science for that matter - science doesn't prove anything true just makes hypothesise and tests it to see if the assumptions hold true - if not change the hypothesis.

    First of all, there's nothing theoretical about gravity. The effects of gravity are well researched and rarely contradicted. An apple falling on one's head is a tangible outcome. It is nigh on impossible to conclude anything concrete from (corrupted?) faint noises emanating from space.
    Secondly, unlike the pontification regarding space, evolution uses years of tangible evidence. Evidence that we can glean from everything around us. We now have the benefit of DNA and genetics for example and we have the accumulation of knowledge from carbon dating, geology, geography, zoology, meteorology, chemistry, bio-chemistry etc etc.
    Third, I am only referring to the Big Bang Theory. How you can extrapolate my opinion on your random selection of: evolution, gravity and science, is beyond me.

    Where is your evidence that you think I am dismissive of science?!
    I have only expressed doubts about all encompassing theories of the Universe.
    When Newton proposed his theory of gravity it was an all encompassing theory of the Universe in that it applied to everything known to mankind at the time. It's turned out that Newton was not entirely right and his theories do not quite describe the full picture.
    1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
    Pinnacle Monzonite

    Liberal metropolitan, remoaner, traitor, "sympathiser", etc.
  • rjsterryrjsterry Posts: 17,738
    And we still don't fully understand how gravity works, either.
    1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
    Pinnacle Monzonite

    Liberal metropolitan, remoaner, traitor, "sympathiser", etc.
  • pinnopinno Posts: 39,080
    I see your point. I also see nitpicking.

    ...though I do agree about Newton's flawed theory of Gravity. But again, my point was that I was countering the claim that I was dismissive of science or the pursuit of knowledge.
    Only silly all encompassing theories about the universe.
    S - https://i.pinimg.com/564x/35/cd/f1/35cdf125f02216d233fc9aa90f8607e6.jpg
    W - (still at Atlantic boulevard)

    "Why are the tractors beeping in the night? I dunno woss goin' on"
    Tricky, 9yo
  • chris_basschris_bass Posts: 4,913
    pinno said:

    Why can't I post?!!?!?

    i don't know - is the letterbox blocked?
    www.conjunctivitis.com - a site for sore eyes
  • LongshotLongshot Posts: 935
    I need to replace some LED lights in my kitchen.. Despite being assured they'd last for 7 years or more they're about 5 years old. OK, much better than a traditional lightbulb.

    However, I have to replace the whole unit on each at about £18 per unit. That's quite a bit more expensive than a traditional lightbulb. I get they're more efficient and I'm saving on the leccy.

    However, I'm intrigued as to how much environmental benefit there is in terms of the environmental cost of manufacturing of a traditional lightbulb compared to a full LED unit.

    Anyone know? I'm sure this has been studied.
    You can fool some of the people all of the time. Concentrate on those people.
  • pinnopinno Posts: 39,080

    why is it arrogant to try and come up with ways in which the universe could have come about?

    No. The arrogance is the assumption based on numerous hypotheticals. Assumption has little or no scientific value.

    is it arrogant to come up with theories about evolution and gravity too? or anything in science for that matter - science doesn't prove anything true just makes hypothesise and tests it to see if the assumptions hold true - if not change the hypothesis.

    First of all, there's nothing theoretical about gravity. The effects of gravity are well researched and rarely contradicted. An apple falling on one's head is a tangible outcome. It is nigh on impossible to conclude anything concrete from (corrupted?) faint noises emanating from space.
    Secondly, unlike the pontification regarding space, evolution uses years of tangible evidence. Evidence that we can glean from everything around us. We now have the benefit of DNA and genetics for example and we have the accumulation of knowledge from carbon dating, geology, geography, zoology, meteorology, chemistry, bio-chemistry etc etc.
    Third, I am only referring to the Big Bang Theory. How you can extrapolate my opinion on your random selection of: evolution, gravity and science, is beyond me.

    Where is your evidence that you think I am dismissive of science?!
    I have only expressed doubts about all encompassing theories of the Universe.
    S - https://i.pinimg.com/564x/35/cd/f1/35cdf125f02216d233fc9aa90f8607e6.jpg
    W - (still at Atlantic boulevard)

    "Why are the tractors beeping in the night? I dunno woss goin' on"
    Tricky, 9yo
  • pinnopinno Posts: 39,080

    why is it arrogant to try and come up with ways in which the universe could have come about?

    No. The arrogance is the assumption based on numerous hypotheticals. Assumption has little or no scientific value.

    is it arrogant to come up with theories about evolution and gravity too? or anything in science for that matter - science doesn't prove anything true just makes hypothesise and tests it to see if the assumptions hold true - if not change the hypothesis.

    First of all, there's nothing theoretical about gravity. The effects of gravity are well researched and rarely contradicted. An apple falling on one's head is a tangible outcome. It is nigh on impossible to conclude anything concrete from (corrupted?) faint noises emanating from space.
    Secondly, unlike the pontification regarding space, evolution uses years of tangible evidence. Evidence that we can glean from everything around us. We now have the benefit of DNA and genetics for example and we have the accumulation of knowledge from carbon dating, geology, geography, zoology, meteorology, chemistry, bio-chemistry etc etc.
    Third, I am only referring to the Big Bang Theory. How you can extrapolate my opinion on your random selection of: evolution, gravity and science, is beyond me.

    Where is your evidence that you think I am dismissive of science?!
    I have only expressed doubts about all encompassing theories of the Universe.
    S - https://i.pinimg.com/564x/35/cd/f1/35cdf125f02216d233fc9aa90f8607e6.jpg
    W - (still at Atlantic boulevard)

    "Why are the tractors beeping in the night? I dunno woss goin' on"
    Tricky, 9yo
  • pinnopinno Posts: 39,080

    why is it arrogant to try and come up with ways in which the universe could have come about?

    No. The arrogance is the assumption based on numerous hypotheticals. Assumption has little or no scientific value.

    is it arrogant to come up with theories about evolution and gravity too? or anything in science for that matter - science doesn't prove anything true just makes hypothesise and tests it to see if the assumptions hold true - if not change the hypothesis.

    First of all, there's nothing theoretical about gravity. The effects of gravity are well researched and rarely contradicted. An apple falling on one's head is a tangible outcome. It is nigh on impossible to conclude anything concrete from (corrupted?) faint noises emanating from space.
    Secondly, unlike the pontification regarding space, evolution uses years of tangible evidence. Evidence that we can glean from everything around us. We now have the benefit of DNA and genetics for example and we have the accumulation of knowledge from carbon dating, geology, geography, zoology, meteorology, chemistry, bio-chemistry etc etc.
    Third, I am only referring to the Big Bang Theory. How you can extrapolate my opinion on your random selection of: evolution, gravity and science, is beyond me.

    Where is your evidence that you think I am dismissive of science?!
    I have only expressed doubts about all encompassing theories of the Universe.
    S - https://i.pinimg.com/564x/35/cd/f1/35cdf125f02216d233fc9aa90f8607e6.jpg
    W - (still at Atlantic boulevard)

    "Why are the tractors beeping in the night? I dunno woss goin' on"
    Tricky, 9yo
  • pinnopinno Posts: 39,080

    why is it arrogant to try and come up with ways in which the universe could have come about?

    No. The arrogance is the assumption based on numerous hypotheticals. Assumption has little or no scientific value.

    is it arrogant to come up with theories about evolution and gravity too? or anything in science for that matter - science doesn't prove anything true just makes hypothesise and tests it to see if the assumptions hold true - if not change the hypothesis.

    First of all, there's nothing theoretical about gravity. The effects of gravity are well researched and rarely contradicted. An apple falling on one's head is a tangible outcome. It is nigh on impossible to conclude anything concrete from (corrupted?) faint noises emanating from space.
    Secondly, unlike the pontification regarding space, evolution uses years of tangible evidence. Evidence that we can glean from everything around us. We now have the benefit of DNA and genetics for example and we have the accumulation of knowledge from carbon dating, geology, geography, zoology, meteorology, chemistry, bio-chemistry etc etc.
    Third, I am only referring to the Big Bang Theory. How you can extrapolate my opinion on your random selection of: evolution, gravity and science, is beyond me.

    Where is your evidence that you think I am dismissive of science?!
    I have only expressed doubts about all encompassing theories of the Universe.
    S - https://i.pinimg.com/564x/35/cd/f1/35cdf125f02216d233fc9aa90f8607e6.jpg
    W - (still at Atlantic boulevard)

    "Why are the tractors beeping in the night? I dunno woss goin' on"
    Tricky, 9yo
  • pinnopinno Posts: 39,080

    why is it arrogant to try and come up with ways in which the universe could have come about?

    No. The arrogance is the assumption based on numerous hypotheticals. Assumption has little or no scientific value.

    is it arrogant to come up with theories about evolution and gravity too? or anything in science for that matter - science doesn't prove anything true just makes hypothesise and tests it to see if the assumptions hold true - if not change the hypothesis.

    First of all, there's nothing theoretical about gravity. The effects of gravity are well researched and rarely contradicted. An apple falling on one's head is a tangible outcome. It is nigh on impossible to conclude anything concrete from (corrupted?) faint noises emanating from space.
    Secondly, unlike the pontification regarding space, evolution uses years of tangible evidence. Evidence that we can glean from everything around us. We now have the benefit of DNA and genetics for example and we have the accumulation of knowledge from carbon dating, geology, geography, zoology, meteorology, chemistry, bio-chemistry etc etc.
    Third, I am only referring to the Big Bang Theory. How you can extrapolate my opinion on your random selection of: evolution, gravity and science, is beyond me.

    Where is your evidence that you think I am dismissive of science?!
    I have only expressed doubts about all encompassing theories of the Universe.
    S - https://i.pinimg.com/564x/35/cd/f1/35cdf125f02216d233fc9aa90f8607e6.jpg
    W - (still at Atlantic boulevard)

    "Why are the tractors beeping in the night? I dunno woss goin' on"
    Tricky, 9yo
  • pinnopinno Posts: 39,080

    why is it arrogant to try and come up with ways in which the universe could have come about?

    No. The arrogance is the assumption based on numerous hypotheticals. Assumption has little or no scientific value.

    is it arrogant to come up with theories about evolution and gravity too? or anything in science for that matter - science doesn't prove anything true just makes hypothesise and tests it to see if the assumptions hold true - if not change the hypothesis.

    First of all, there's nothing theoretical about gravity. The effects of gravity are well researched and rarely contradicted. An apple falling on one's head is a tangible outcome. It is nigh on impossible to conclude anything concrete from (corrupted?) faint noises emanating from space.
    Secondly, unlike the pontification regarding space, evolution uses years of tangible evidence. Evidence that we can glean from everything around us. We now have the benefit of DNA and genetics for example and we have the accumulation of knowledge from carbon dating, geology, geography, zoology, meteorology, chemistry, bio-chemistry etc etc.
    Third, I am only referring to the Big Bang Theory. How you can extrapolate my opinion on your random selection of: evolution, gravity and science, is beyond me.

    Where is your evidence that you think I am dismissive of science?!
    I have only expressed doubts about all encompassing theories of the Universe.
    S - https://i.pinimg.com/564x/35/cd/f1/35cdf125f02216d233fc9aa90f8607e6.jpg
    W - (still at Atlantic boulevard)

    "Why are the tractors beeping in the night? I dunno woss goin' on"
    Tricky, 9yo
  • pinnopinno Posts: 39,080

    why is it arrogant to try and come up with ways in which the universe could have come about?

    No. The arrogance is the assumption based on numerous hypotheticals. Assumption has little or no scientific value.

    is it arrogant to come up with theories about evolution and gravity too? or anything in science for that matter - science doesn't prove anything true just makes hypothesise and tests it to see if the assumptions hold true - if not change the hypothesis.

    First of all, there's nothing theoretical about gravity. The effects of gravity are well researched and rarely contradicted. An apple falling on one's head is a tangible outcome. It is nigh on impossible to conclude anything concrete from (corrupted?) faint noises emanating from space.
    Secondly, unlike the pontification regarding space, evolution uses years of tangible evidence. Evidence that we can glean from everything around us. We now have the benefit of DNA and genetics for example and we have the accumulation of knowledge from carbon dating, geology, geography, zoology, meteorology, chemistry, bio-chemistry etc etc.
    Third, I am only referring to the Big Bang Theory. How you can extrapolate my opinion on your random selection of: evolution, gravity and science, is beyond me.

    Where is your evidence that you think I am dismissive of science?!
    I have only expressed doubts about all encompassing theories of the Universe.
    S - https://i.pinimg.com/564x/35/cd/f1/35cdf125f02216d233fc9aa90f8607e6.jpg
    W - (still at Atlantic boulevard)

    "Why are the tractors beeping in the night? I dunno woss goin' on"
    Tricky, 9yo
  • pinnopinno Posts: 39,080

    why is it arrogant to try and come up with ways in which the universe could have come about?

    No. The arrogance is the assumption based on numerous hypotheticals. Assumption has little or no scientific value.

    is it arrogant to come up with theories about evolution and gravity too? or anything in science for that matter - science doesn't prove anything true just makes hypothesise and tests it to see if the assumptions hold true - if not change the hypothesis.

    First of all, there's nothing theoretical about gravity. The effects of gravity are well researched and rarely contradicted. An apple falling on one's head is a tangible outcome. It is nigh on impossible to conclude anything concrete from (corrupted?) faint noises emanating from space.
    Secondly, unlike the pontification regarding space, evolution uses years of tangible evidence. Evidence that we can glean from everything around us. We now have the benefit of DNA and genetics for example and we have the accumulation of knowledge from carbon dating, geology, geography, zoology, meteorology, chemistry, bio-chemistry etc etc.
    Third, I am only referring to the Big Bang Theory. How you can extrapolate my opinion on your random selection of: evolution, gravity and science, is beyond me.

    Where is your evidence that you think I am dismissive of science?!
    I have only expressed doubts about all encompassing theories of the Universe.
    S - https://i.pinimg.com/564x/35/cd/f1/35cdf125f02216d233fc9aa90f8607e6.jpg
    W - (still at Atlantic boulevard)

    "Why are the tractors beeping in the night? I dunno woss goin' on"
    Tricky, 9yo
  • pinnopinno Posts: 39,080

    why is it arrogant to try and come up with ways in which the universe could have come about?

    No. The arrogance is the assumption based on numerous hypotheticals. Assumption has little or no scientific value.

    is it arrogant to come up with theories about evolution and gravity too? or anything in science for that matter - science doesn't prove anything true just makes hypothesise and tests it to see if the assumptions hold true - if not change the hypothesis.

    First of all, there's nothing theoretical about gravity. The effects of gravity are well researched and rarely contradicted. An apple falling on one's head is a tangible outcome. It is nigh on impossible to conclude anything concrete from (corrupted?) faint noises emanating from space.

    Secondly, unlike the pontification regarding space, evolution uses years of tangible evidence. Evidence that we can glean from everything around us. We now have the benefit of DNA and genetics for example and we have the accumulation of knowledge from carbon dating, geology, geography, zoology, meteorology, chemistry, bio-chemistry etc etc.

    Third, I am only referring to the Big Bang Theory. How you can extrapolate my opinion on your random selection of: evolution, gravity and science, is beyond me.

    Where is your evidence that you think I am dismissive of science?!
    I have only expressed doubts about all encompassing theories of the Universe.
    S - https://i.pinimg.com/564x/35/cd/f1/35cdf125f02216d233fc9aa90f8607e6.jpg
    W - (still at Atlantic boulevard)

    "Why are the tractors beeping in the night? I dunno woss goin' on"
    Tricky, 9yo
  • pinnopinno Posts: 39,080

    why is it arrogant to try and come up with ways in which the universe could have come about?

    No. The arrogance is the assumption based on numerous hypotheticals. Assumption has little or no scientific value.

    is it arrogant to come up with theories about evolution and gravity too? or anything in science for that matter - science doesn't prove anything true just makes hypothesise and tests it to see if the assumptions hold true - if not change the hypothesis.

    First of all, there's nothing theoretical about gravity. The effects of gravity are well researched and rarely contradicted. An apple falling on one's head is a tangible outcome. It is nigh on impossible to conclude anything concrete from (corrupted?) faint noises emanating from space.
    Secondly, unlike the pontification regarding space, evolution uses years of tangible evidence. Evidence that we can glean from everything around us. We now have the benefit of DNA and genetics for example and we have the accumulation of knowledge from carbon dating, geology, geography, zoology, meteorology, chemistry, bio-chemistry etc etc.
    Third, I am only referring to the Big Bang Theory. How you can extrapolate my opinion on your random selection of: evolution, gravity and science, is beyond me.

    Where is your evidence that you think I am dismissive of science?!
    I have only expressed doubts about all encompassing theories of the Universe.
    S - https://i.pinimg.com/564x/35/cd/f1/35cdf125f02216d233fc9aa90f8607e6.jpg
    W - (still at Atlantic boulevard)

    "Why are the tractors beeping in the night? I dunno woss goin' on"
    Tricky, 9yo
  • pinnopinno Posts: 39,080

    why is it arrogant to try and come up with ways in which the universe could have come about?

    No. The arrogance is the assumption based on numerous hypotheticals. Assumption has little or no scientific value.

    is it arrogant to come up with theories about evolution and gravity too? or anything in science for that matter - science doesn't prove anything true just makes hypothesise and tests it to see if the assumptions hold true - if not change the hypothesis.

    First of all, there's nothing theoretical about gravity. The effects of gravity are well researched and rarely contradicted. An apple falling on one's head is a tangible outcome. It is nigh on impossible to conclude anything concrete from (corrupted?) faint noises emanating from space.
    Secondly, unlike the pontification regarding space, evolution uses years of tangible evidence. Evidence that we can glean from everything around us. We now have the benefit of DNA and genetics for example and we have the accumulation of knowledge from carbon dating, geology, geography, zoology, meteorology, chemistry, bio-chemistry etc etc.
    Third, I am only referring to the Big Bang Theory. How you can extrapolate my opinion on your random selection of: evolution, gravity and science, is beyond me.

    Where is your evidence that you think I am dismissive of science?!
    I have only expressed doubts about all encompassing theories of the Universe.
    S - https://i.pinimg.com/564x/35/cd/f1/35cdf125f02216d233fc9aa90f8607e6.jpg
    W - (still at Atlantic boulevard)

    "Why are the tractors beeping in the night? I dunno woss goin' on"
    Tricky, 9yo
  • pinnopinno Posts: 39,080

    why is it arrogant to try and come up with ways in which the universe could have come about?

    No. The arrogance is the assumption based on numerous hypotheticals. Assumption has little or no scientific value.

    is it arrogant to come up with theories about evolution and gravity too? or anything in science for that matter - science doesn't prove anything true just makes hypothesise and tests it to see if the assumptions hold true - if not change the hypothesis.

    First of all, there's nothing theoretical about gravity. The effects of gravity are well researched and rarely contradicted. An apple falling on one's head is a tangible outcome. It is nigh on impossible to conclude anything concrete from (corrupted?) faint noises emanating from space.
    Secondly, unlike the pontification regarding space, evolution uses years of tangible evidence. Evidence that we can glean from everything around us. We now have the benefit of DNA and genetics for example and we have the accumulation of knowledge from carbon dating, geology, geography, zoology, meteorology, chemistry, bio-chemistry etc etc.
    Third, I am only referring to the Big Bang Theory. How you can extrapolate my opinion on your random selection of: evolution, gravity and science, is beyond me.

    Where is your evidence that you think I am dismissive of science?!
    I have only expressed doubts about all encompassing theories of the Universe.
    S - https://i.pinimg.com/564x/35/cd/f1/35cdf125f02216d233fc9aa90f8607e6.jpg
    W - (still at Atlantic boulevard)

    "Why are the tractors beeping in the night? I dunno woss goin' on"
    Tricky, 9yo
  • pinnopinno Posts: 39,080

    why is it arrogant to try and come up with ways in which the universe could have come about?

    No. The arrogance is the assumption based on numerous hypotheticals. Assumption has little or no scientific value.

    is it arrogant to come up with theories about evolution and gravity too? or anything in science for that matter - science doesn't prove anything true just makes hypothesise and tests it to see if the assumptions hold true - if not change the hypothesis.

    First of all, there's nothing theoretical about gravity. The effects of gravity are well researched and rarely contradicted. An apple falling on one's head is a tangible outcome. It is nigh on impossible to conclude anything concrete from (corrupted?) faint noises emanating from space.
    Secondly, unlike the pontification regarding space, evolution uses years of tangible evidence. Evidence that we can glean from everything around us. We now have the benefit of DNA and genetics for example and we have the accumulation of knowledge from carbon dating, geology, geography, zoology, meteorology, chemistry, bio-chemistry etc etc.
    Third, I am only referring to the Big Bang Theory. How you can extrapolate my opinion on your random selection of: evolution, gravity and science, is beyond me.

    Where is your evidence that you think I am dismissive of science?!
    I have only expressed doubts about all encompassing theories of the Universe.
    S - https://i.pinimg.com/564x/35/cd/f1/35cdf125f02216d233fc9aa90f8607e6.jpg
    W - (still at Atlantic boulevard)

    "Why are the tractors beeping in the night? I dunno woss goin' on"
    Tricky, 9yo
  • pinnopinno Posts: 39,080

    why is it arrogant to try and come up with ways in which the universe could have come about?

    No. The arrogance is the assumption based on numerous hypotheticals. Assumption has little or no scientific value.

    is it arrogant to come up with theories about evolution and gravity too? or anything in science for that matter - science doesn't prove anything true just makes hypothesise and tests it to see if the assumptions hold true - if not change the hypothesis.

    First of all, there's nothing theoretical about gravity. The effects of gravity are well researched and rarely contradicted. An apple falling on one's head is a tangible outcome. It is nigh on impossible to conclude anything concrete from (corrupted?) faint noises emanating from space.
    Secondly, unlike the pontification regarding space, evolution uses years of tangible evidence. Evidence that we can glean from everything around us. We now have the benefit of DNA and genetics for example and we have the accumulation of knowledge from carbon dating, geology, geography, zoology, meteorology, chemistry, bio-chemistry etc etc.
    Third, I am only referring to the Big Bang Theory. How you can extrapolate my opinion on your random selection of: evolution, gravity and science, is beyond me.

    Where is your evidence that you think I am dismissive of science?!
    I have only expressed doubts about all encompassing theories of the Universe.
    S - https://i.pinimg.com/564x/35/cd/f1/35cdf125f02216d233fc9aa90f8607e6.jpg
    W - (still at Atlantic boulevard)

    "Why are the tractors beeping in the night? I dunno woss goin' on"
    Tricky, 9yo
  • ProssPross Posts: 23,286
    Well you've certainly made up for not being able to post!
  • bompingtonbompington Posts: 7,209
    I'm slightly concerned that @pinno has fallen through a hole in the space/time/gravity continuum and is stuck in an infinite time travel loop
  • pblakeneypblakeney Posts: 12,126
    Just testing if this thread is infinite?
    The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
    I am not sure. You have no chance.
    veronese68 wrote:
    PB is the most sensible person on here.
  • capt_slogcapt_slog Posts: 3,342
    longshot said:

    I need to replace some LED lights in my kitchen.. Despite being assured they'd last for 7 years or more they're about 5 years old. OK, much better than a traditional lightbulb.

    However, I have to replace the whole unit on each at about £18 per unit. That's quite a bit more expensive than a traditional lightbulb. I get they're more efficient and I'm saving on the leccy.

    However, I'm intrigued as to how much environmental benefit there is in terms of the environmental cost of manufacturing of a traditional lightbulb compared to a full LED unit.

    Anyone know? I'm sure this has been studied.

    Can't answer your question, sorry. If you find out, please share :)

    But I'm guessing the LED units you refer to are either the fully sealed things due to it being in a kitchen, or they are the flat panels? I bought some for the bathroom recently, and was intrigued to find that they were "a unit", no way of replacing just the bulb, although I do like a challenge.



    The older I get, the better I was.

  • LongshotLongshot Posts: 935
    These:


    You can fool some of the people all of the time. Concentrate on those people.
  • rjsterryrjsterry Posts: 17,738
    pinno said:

    I see your point. I also see nitpicking.

    ...though I do agree about Newton's flawed theory of Gravity. But again, my point was that I was countering the claim that I was dismissive of science or the pursuit of knowledge.
    Only silly all encompassing theories about the universe.

    It's no different from what Newton did: make a series of observations and then try to work out what is happening.

    An example. One of the results of proposed by Einstein's Theory of Relativity was that the universe was either expanding or contracting. At the time it was thought that the universe was a fixed size, and indeed Einstein himself initially rejected the idea of an expanding universe. Later, Hubble and separately Lemaître observed that galaxies were actually moving apart from one another and moving away faster the further away from us they were. In other words not only are objects moving through space, but space itself is expanding. This confirmed the conclusion that Einstein had previously rejected, showing his calculations to be correct. Run that expansion backwards to T=0 and you get the Big Bang.

    The other point is that fundamental physical laws apply to all situations across the entire universe (otherwise they are just a special case). So our understanding of gravity or thermodynamics is as much a (silly) all encompassing theory about the universe as the idea of the Big Bang.
    1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
    Pinnacle Monzonite

    Liberal metropolitan, remoaner, traitor, "sympathiser", etc.
  • foreheadforehead Posts: 180

    monkimark said:

    Waterman has invaded my Spotify playlist too!
    Is he trying to start a comeback?


    Spotify's algorithm. I mean what can possibly cause this?



    EHuUGUNW4AIipsU.jpg

    Spotify recommended The Wurzels to me this week.
    Go with it, it'll change your life.
    Cube - Peloton
    Cannondale - CAAD10
  • rjsterryrjsterry Posts: 17,738
    forehead said:

    monkimark said:

    Waterman has invaded my Spotify playlist too!
    Is he trying to start a comeback?


    Spotify's algorithm. I mean what can possibly cause this?



    EHuUGUNW4AIipsU.jpg

    Spotify recommended The Wurzels to me this week.
    Go with it, it'll change your life.
    True.
    1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
    Pinnacle Monzonite

    Liberal metropolitan, remoaner, traitor, "sympathiser", etc.
Sign In or Register to comment.