it is dead anyone into astrophysics? no <^glory^> sometimes we're just a speck in space. we dont even know what we're floating in i'm into astrophysics <^glory^> monki, have you read or heard of the book "Galaxies" by Timothy Ferris? dont think so what is it about? <^glory^> astrophysics how do physicists know they are interpreting their observations correctly? like they see red shift in stars and say the universe is expanding <^glory^> Astronomy 101 includes stuff like that <^glory^> have you taken an intro course yet? never taken courses but have read some books taken physics , of course , including relativity and quantum monkiboy: science does not strive for proofs, they go for best guestimate. i'm starting to view science as just another religion <^glory^> some strive for a sense of certainty, some have a higher tolerance for ambiguity Monky, science is like sex ?? science does not strive to present truth, rather, it attempts to refute claims and make reasonable guess about reality. In that regard it differs greatly from religions. freight is weird a BIT it tries to make a reasonable guess about reality, yes, but in the end it seems the conclusions it draws are just as good as other religions Monkiboy: one word baby...technology sure it works technology: the love child of science freight is not that stupid after all the same insights science give us to produce technology also tell us wierd things about space and time how do we know it's right? even mathematicians have proven math to be incomplete yeah, and they are also born out by experiment <^glory^> hypothesis testing doesn't lead necessarily to "knowing it's right" Monkiboy: do not comfuse the incompleteness theorem twith some imagined "totaly ignorant theorem". <^glory^> heheh, good way to put it, fr8 well, we see a redshift in all observable light sources in the universe. not only that but the amount of redshift is proportional to the distance. for that scientists conclude the universe is expanding. expanding in 4d space as a matter of fact... not all light sources are red shifted, some are blue. if everthing is moving away from us that puts us at the center of the universe no fr8.. it's all red shifted Monki: no, there are bodies in the milky way that are not red shifted. they are closer to us redshift proportional to distance.. i'm talking light from other galaxies Monkiboy: well, we see a redshift in all observable light sources in the universe. be more precise i did say that do any of you know astronomers Grindlay or Noyes? nope they also say light loses energy when traveling thru a gravitational field, resulting in lower frequency and longer wavelengths.. how do we know redshift is not caused by this? and the supposed "dark matter" that they say MUST exist in order for the observed celestial motions to exist. the equations we have dont seem to account for dark matter now.. Monkiboy: by looking at the trajectories and the shapes of the spectral lines in the light they observe. dark matter is not anything. it is a catch phrase for stuff that is not understood. it is the stuff we cannot observe that nevertheless exerts gravitational forces Monkiboy: no, its a catch phrase and yes.. we dont understand it.. that's my point.. to me when they do find out i think it will be equally believable as some supernatural being just started it all physics does not adress the question of first cause it tries they do search for the initial conditions of the big bang that is not first cause well, that sounds like an cop-out anyways :P i mean, i'm all for science and all, i hope to make a living out of it.. just seems more i learn the more i realize how much we dont know.. monkiboy: sure, but that does not invalidate what we do know what we know is based on what we've observed.. and for most purposes that is good enough. who is to say there isnt a "bigger picture" Monkiboy: no one, but irrelevant <^glory^> "the more I learn, the more I realize how much we do not know" -- that's really very important <^glory^> "what is this good for" or "how can I proceed without certainty" is in a sense a technological question <^glory^> it looks to me as if you're looking in two directions from where you are -- on one hand, you see the appeal of the scientific perspective (and the religious, for that matter) where understanding is vitally important in and of itself; at the same time, looking in a different direction, you want to do something with it, make something with it, which is a different value. <^glory^> and the tension & uncertainty you feel is more about the pull of those (seemingly contradictory) values than about the internal disquiet of not knowing all truth all at once -- that can be tolerated, after all: curiosity is an exciting thing that doesn't necessarily lead one to discomfort or panic i'm just saying science has made technology possible which is a plus for it becuase believing in a god wont really get you a palm pilot or anything.. ignorance requires a certain degree of inner strength but yes.. what you said is true <^glory^> it's comparable to a journey -- prior to reaching your destination, you don't abandon the trip purely because you're not there yet. <^glory^> though a sense that the destination doesn't exist can certainly erode ones sense that there's any point in traveling toward it <^glory^> there's a necessity for more value out of the journey than merely the destination or a sense you're not going in the right direction.. <^glory^> yeah, that's a big one -- because if the direction itself is in question, the thought that any further travel might be in the wrong direction makes it hard to continue -- hence, rest stops :) <^glory^> going back to what you said before: part of the appeal of science, for you, is in technology (what can be made from it -- the palm pilot or whatever) <^glory^> and this implies (if you place science & religion in opposition to one another) that if religion is to remain in the race, it has to have its equivalent of science's technology <^glory^> am I keeping up, so far? <^glory^> it has to be good for something <^glory^> it has to lead to something more-- it's not enough that it have value in and of itself? <^glory^> I like abstract discussions ;) <^glory^> I'm a real sucker for them :P <^glory^> if part of where you're coming from includes the idea that religion has nothing to offer, anyway, then this part wont be interesting to you <^glory^> for people to whom the scientific perspective is congenial, hypothesis testing makes religion more interesting it explains the unexpainable.. as does science also tries to do.. anyways.. i think i gotta sleep.. i dont know if i'm being abstract or lame now hehe <^glory^> I think you're right -- at root, science and religion started in the same place <^glory^> the "WTF makes all this work" place i'm tired.. :P cya all laters