no probs
I've been doing the same lately, reading about this kind of thing. It's mind blowing.
Worst stuff I've seen so far has been from Horizon on BBC, utter garbage, vague ideas, no logic or reasoning behind it.
(
Firkinfedup last shat on your wife's tits at, Wed 17 Dec 2008, 17:11,
Reply)
when we deal with the inherently unknowable we must be vague
we could theorise any system for the way things work and each would be as valid as the next. Occam's Razor is the most logical way to reason with things of this nature
(
Sonic 2 and Knuckles, Wed 17 Dec 2008, 17:16,
Reply)
*coughs*
I was waiting for the narrow minded prick to try and push their ideas rather than just suggesting them.
You might want to research things before discounting them.
(
Firkinfedup last shat on your wife's tits at, Wed 17 Dec 2008, 17:20,
Reply)
Thats an aggresive response!
I agree with him, we should tend towards the explanation that makes the fewest unevinced assumptions.
He didn't attack this idea specifically, and demonstrated no narrow-mindedness.
This has made you, in my opinion, look like an arse.
(
TheAlmightyBeev, Wed 17 Dec 2008, 22:20,
Reply)
Well....
As long as any theory fits a model it is valid, however the simplest theory is not always the correct one neither is the most complex.
we also need to explore new paths to validate or invalidate other theories or the theory itself, (e.g. The steady state universe or the big bang, we would not come to the big bang theory if it were not for the steady state theory), they are also only theories. Although for the theory the beginning of space & time itself, I am inclined to say 'other' for that, ha! (well one quite close to the big bang theory, as we know that everything is moving away from a point, however that they are also accelerating away, and takes into account cosmic background radiation, inflation, black hole formation etc.) What this theory is to hopefuly also explain consciousness itself (i.e. the experience of self and world), and not self-awareness as I feel this definiton is slightly vague.
I also came across another interesting yet unpopular theory of the Electric Universe (you can find on youtube).
(
g0atchild Is back and has been away since, Wed 17 Dec 2008, 17:28,
Reply)
On that subject of Electric Universe
www.facebook.com/home.php#/topic.php?uid=7233042029&topic=4588
a lengthy discussion with 2 people regarding that theory. I haven't got round to looking at it yet but shall do as it sounds interesting.
Edit: Good point btw, I'm not as diplomatic as you lol! ;)
(
Firkinfedup last shat on your wife's tits at, Wed 17 Dec 2008, 17:39,
Reply)
thanks
I've started to read the discussion, I've only read the first guy's post so far! The first guy is suggesting the Electric universe idea by saying that only observable things should be acknowledged in scientific theory, which he has a good point that dark matter and dark energy are made up scientific ideas to fit the current model of cosmology. To digress, dark matter was "made-up" because it was found that galaxies could not stay together with gravity given the current knowledge of gravity, so to fit the current knowledge of gravity, dark matter suddenly appeared, which needs to be heavy, or a lot of it, because gravity is considered the "weak force". There are also many theories about why gravity is the "weak force" (e.g. Parallel universes etc.) But the Electric Universe theory assumes that it is not gravity, it is electromagnetism.
edit; And all of it seems valid, as long as it fits a theory using *observable* points
(
g0atchild Is back and has been away since, Wed 17 Dec 2008, 17:55,
Reply)
I haven't had time yet to watch or research this link
So I'm not commenting on the ideas held within.
However, the phrase "it's only a theory" really gets to me. "Theory" in a scientific context has a different meaning to "theory" in general useage, which is closer to the scientific "hypothesis".
(
TheAlmightyBeev, Wed 17 Dec 2008, 22:00,
Reply)