flat assembler
Message board for the users of flat assembler.

Index > Heap > Is the Earth expanding?

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Author
Thread Post new topic Reply to topic
Borsuc



Joined: 29 Dec 2005
Posts: 2466
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Borsuc
revolution wrote:
There are no other known mechanisms can make the Earth increase in size. If someone wants to invoke fairies and gods and supernatural stuff then so be it, but be prepared to prove it.
You think the meteors are a better bet than a white hole at the center? Razz

how do you prove the meteor-thing? (something that I can do myself, remember?).

also I thought that small meteors are converted to energy due to the atmosphere?
Post 18 Apr 2008, 13:52
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
vid
Verbosity in development


Joined: 05 Sep 2003
Posts: 7105
Location: Slovakia
vid
revolution: Where did you learn "100 tons a day" value? Can you source this claim please?

I, of course, agree that earth is expanding by catching some matter from space, but I am not sure whether rate of this expansion is noticeable at least.

Quote:
also I thought that small meteors are converted to energy due to the atmosphere?

In such case, earth is warming :]

By the way, isn't there some energy (=matter) that earth radiates back to space?
Post 18 Apr 2008, 13:55
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address MSN Messenger ICQ Number Reply with quote
Borsuc



Joined: 29 Dec 2005
Posts: 2466
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Borsuc
also, vid:
vid wrote:
Science does have it's limits, but so far it is THE way of gaining knowledge. Humanity doesn't have anything other even remotely close to science, in terms of knowledge learnt.
Well this is your opinion first.

Second, suppose you were an astronaut and went into space and entered a black hole, which teleported you back 50 years (doesn't matter).. now, that is knowledge you have but the so-called science won't accept it because you can't, oh-so, prove it...

does it matter that people don't believe you? It still is knowledge. So science in this case would not accept knowledge (because it is inherently impossible to prove).

I don't like the term humanity as it speaks of the generalized population, which not every human agrees, even though it may seem logical to you (or the one using the word).

Person A is person A. Person B is person B. Don't draw conclusions about Person A from Person's B experience/life. At least, not without using IMO Smile
Post 18 Apr 2008, 13:57
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
revolution
When all else fails, read the source


Joined: 24 Aug 2004
Posts: 17287
Location: In your JS exploiting you and your system
revolution
vid wrote:
revolution: Where did you learn "100 tons a day" value? Can you source this claim please?
Quote:
The Earth accumulates about 100 tons of extraterrestrial material every day (Taylor, 1992;Love and Brownlee, 1993). Most of this material enters the Earth’s atmosphere as tiny dust particles, which burn up to form visible streaks of light (meteors or “shooting stars”). Larger fragments produce larger and brighter ‘fireballs’ as they are frictionally heated and broken up by the atmosphere. These typically land as meteorites.


Last edited by revolution on 18 Apr 2008, 14:05; edited 1 time in total
Post 18 Apr 2008, 14:04
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
vid
Verbosity in development


Joined: 05 Sep 2003
Posts: 7105
Location: Slovakia
vid
Quote:
Well this is your opinion first.

If there are other systems which gained comparable amount of knowledge, name them. Also, it's quite curious to don't see any product from knowledge they gained: Did they only collect practicaly useless knowledge?

As for the time travel: Yes, science refuses to accept claims which can't be tested. Otherwise, it would have to accept similar claims from anyone, and thus it would collect false knowledge. So refusing this astronaut is perfectly valid. This mechanism protects science from acquiring false knowledge. It sure has some drawbacks (like your astronaut example) where good knowledge is ignored, but these are very rare. Kinda like spam filter catching valid email time-by-time.

If you know about some better mechanism, which would accept knowledge from real astronaut, but refuse false knowledge from all astronaut-pretenders, describe it.
Post 18 Apr 2008, 14:05
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address MSN Messenger ICQ Number Reply with quote
revolution
When all else fails, read the source


Joined: 24 Aug 2004
Posts: 17287
Location: In your JS exploiting you and your system
revolution
Note: "burning up" does not destroy the matter, it just oxidises it before it falls.
Post 18 Apr 2008, 14:07
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
Borsuc



Joined: 29 Dec 2005
Posts: 2466
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Borsuc
vid wrote:
If there are other systems which gained comparable amount of knowledge, name them. Also, it's quite curious to don't see any product from knowledge they gained: Did they only collect practicaly useless knowledge?
The 'product' is in your (or the people) minds. Very Happy

or are you telling me, (this is an example only) that abstract mathematics (e.g: 9D worlds, or 'perfect' circles) don't represent knowledge because they don't have products? Shocked

Reliability on products for knowledge is really not a strong point, and I consider it something along the lines of religion Confused but that's just IMO!!

vid wrote:
As for the time travel: Yes, science refuses to accept claims which can't be tested. Otherwise, it would have to accept similar claims from anyone, and thus it would collect false knowledge. So refusing this astronaut is perfectly valid. This mechanism protects science from acquiring false knowledge. It sure has some drawbacks (like your astronaut example) where good knowledge is ignored, but these are very rare. Kinda like spam filter catching valid email time-by-time.
How do you know how rare these are if you don't even accept or understand them? I'd actually say they are pretty 'common' situations (and you'll have to be in such a case to amount it to even better, 80% or so).

Also: "refusing this astronaut is perfectly valid" is valid from 'what' point of view? From knowledge? What does 'invalid' mean? Yes of course, from practical point of view, it can be valid (e.g not to have false information), but from knowledge point of view, hmm...

again, don't mix practical stuff with knowledge Exclamation

vid wrote:
If you know about some better mechanism, which would accept knowledge from real astronaut, but refuse false knowledge from all astronaut-pretenders, describe it.
The mechanism doesn't matter at all for knowledge, it may matter for science however.

also I can't describe it with 'scientific' words, so you'll probably not understand it (seriously).

revolution wrote:
Note: "burning up" does not destroy the matter, it just oxidises it before it falls.
But doesn't that push the atmosphere outside (or whatever). Also, I never said it destroys it, but it is converted to heat. Question
Post 18 Apr 2008, 14:14
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
vid
Verbosity in development


Joined: 05 Sep 2003
Posts: 7105
Location: Slovakia
vid
The_Grey_Beast wrote:
or are you telling me, (this is an example only) that abstract mathematics (e.g: 9D worlds, or 'perfect' circles) don't represent knowledge because they don't have products?

Okay, some areas of math are a good example of practicaly unusuable knowledge - didn't think of it, thanks.

Quote:
Reliability on products for knowledge is really not a strong point, and I consider it something along the lines of religion Confused but that's just IMO!!

I still think that vast majority of knowledge can be practicaly used. If some groups claims to have lot of knowledge (comparable to science), and it didn't create one practical application of it, then it is suspicious at least.

Quote:
How do you know how rare these are if you don't even accept or understand them? I'd actually say they are pretty 'common' situations (and you'll have to be in such a case to amount it to even better, 80% or so).

Even if such situations weren't rare, knowledge gained this way is unreliable. Science is mostly after reliable knowledge. Quality is way more important than quantity in science, so untestable claims are refused (even if they can be true).

Quote:
Also: "refusing this astronaut is perfectly valid" is valid from 'what' point of view? From knowledge?

From point of not accepting any false knowledge.

Quote:
The mechanism doesn't matter at all for knowledge, it may matter for science however.

Do you mean we should accept any such "astronaut's" knowlede as true, even though we can't test it? This would lead to tons of false knowledge. I think "no false claims" status is better than "lot of unsure claims".

Nice historical example are early christians - they tended to believe to any wanderer who "heard of jesus", and provided him shelter and food for free. Of course many people took advantage of this and made up lot of bullshit, to which they believed. Writer Lucian made fun of them for this, and later they made "manual for christianity" which condemned this practice. Before refusing this method, they ended up believing to such crap as that Judases head blowed to size bigger than cart, his eyes were overgrown by meat, and place where he died stinks so bad that after 100 years no one still goes there... This is just an example of where accepting nontestable knowledge can lead.
Post 18 Apr 2008, 14:32
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address MSN Messenger ICQ Number Reply with quote
Borsuc



Joined: 29 Dec 2005
Posts: 2466
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Borsuc
vid wrote:
Okay, some areas of math are a good example of practicaly unusuable knowledge - didn't think of it, thanks.
no prob Wink
I'm glad at least that we understand each other Smile

vid wrote:
I still think that vast majority of knowledge can be practicaly used. If some groups claims to have lot of knowledge (comparable to science), and it didn't create one practical application of it, then it is suspicious at least.
I wouldn't necessarily find it suspicious, so it depends on the person.

also those that enjoy to think or philosophize usually like abstract math Smile

vid wrote:
Even if such situations weren't rare, knowledge gained this way is unreliable. Science is mostly after reliable knowledge. Quality is way more important than quantity in science, so untestable claims are refused (even if they can be true).
Ok, but reliability is subjective -- actually, science says that a given thing is repeatable by scientists, then it is reliable -- but that doesn't necessarily mean it's the best thing to do (like the previous "trust in scientists" religious attitude).

Hence the possible conspiracies.

vid wrote:
From point of not accepting any false knowledge.
But you do accept knowledge, from let's say, scientists (also NASA), or not? Isn't that false knowledge too?

vid wrote:
Do you mean we should accept any such "astronaut's" knowlede as true, even though we can't test it? This would lead to tons of false knowledge. I think "no false claims" status is better than "lot of unsure claims".

Nice historical example are early christians - they tended to believe to any wanderer who "heard of jesus", and provided him shelter and food for free. Of course many people took advantage of this and made up lot of bullshit, to which they believed. Writer Lucian made fun of them for this, and later they made "manual for christianity" which condemned this practice. Before refusing this method, they ended up believing to such crap as that Judases head blowed to size bigger than cart, his eyes were overgrown by meat, and place where he died stinks so bad that after 100 years no one still goes there... This is just an example of where accepting nontestable knowledge can lead.
Of course I never said it would be a good idea to believe any astronaut. For that matter, heck, I say even believing in scientists is not 'knowledge' so I am more skeptic in this than you are (also when I do believe in them, I flat-out admit it).

Also just because the above thing is impractical (believing any astronaut that is) has nothing to do with knowledge. Nor does believing the astronaut.

Knowledge is simply not in direct relationship to science, because science gears towards practical stuff.. big difference

best knowledge is your experience Very Happy
Post 18 Apr 2008, 14:43
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
vid
Verbosity in development


Joined: 05 Sep 2003
Posts: 7105
Location: Slovakia
vid
Quote:
Ok, but reliability is subjective -- actually, science says that a given thing is repeatable by scientists, then it is reliable -- but that doesn't necessarily mean it's the best thing to do (like the previous "trust in scientists" religious attitude).

When you talk about "science conspiracy", then better formulation would be "if it's repeatable". There is demand for test to be repeatable by only members of scientific community. Outsiders are free (and welcomed) to test too.

Quote:
But you do accept knowledge, from let's say, scientists (also NASA), or not? Isn't that false knowledge too?

Don't mix persons accepting knowledge with science (as a whole system) accepting knowledge. Those are different things, and don't make a good analogy. Person can "rely on authority", but science can't. Person can rely on system (such as science) to produce good results, and "believe" them.

Quote:
Of course I never said it would be a good idea to believe any astronaut. For that matter, heck, I say even believing in scientists is not 'knowledge' so I am more skeptic in this than you are (also when I do believe in them, I flat-out admit it).

But since you can't test everything yourself (life is too short), you have to believe someone. My way was to let the groups confront (like arguments on internet between creationists and scientists), and see how they tested each other. From my experiences doing this, science always had best results, so i choosed to "believe" scientists, because they are the ones who give me chance to test their claims, and they withstanded all tests i tried. I can be wrong, but science had by far best odds from my random bits i inquired about.

Quote:
best knowledge is your experience

No, it isn't. Experience is often one-sided, or even faulty. Experience of one single individual are not reliable at all. As we say in slovakia: "more heads, more lettuce" :]
Post 18 Apr 2008, 14:53
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address MSN Messenger ICQ Number Reply with quote
Borsuc



Joined: 29 Dec 2005
Posts: 2466
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Borsuc
vid wrote:
When you talk about "science conspiracy", then better formulation would be "if it's repeatable". There is demand for test to be repeatable by only members of scientific community. Outsiders are free (and welcomed) to test too.
If it's a conspiracy they wouldn't be so welcome Shocked

vid wrote:
Person can "rely on authority", but science can't.
You still use 'science' as if it's a kind of personality (let's say a God, for example). Who decides what science accepts? Nature? Supernatural beings? The Universe?

nope, the answer is humans decide what 'science' accepts, because science has no personality. (humans aka the authority)

i hope you get what I mean.

vid wrote:
No, it isn't. Experience is often one-sided, or even faulty. Experience of one single individual are not reliable at all. As we say in slovakia: "more heads, more lettuce" :]
First off, this is subjective (and I'm fine with that).

Secondly, and what's more important, is that it was a puzzle for you -- even 'reading' a paper written by scientists or someone else means "experience", so yep experience still owns Wink
Post 18 Apr 2008, 14:59
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
vid
Verbosity in development


Joined: 05 Sep 2003
Posts: 7105
Location: Slovakia
vid
Quote:
If it's a conspiracy they wouldn't be so welcome

And yet, they are - science publishes (gives to public, outsiders) all information it gathered, and documents all tests carefully, makes double-blind test (impossible to bias even by scientist himself), etc. This hints (not proves, but greatly increases odds) that science is not conspirancy. After you learn specifics, I bet you will come to conclusion that science-wide conspirancy is pretty much impossible.

Quote:
You still use 'science' as if it's a kind of personality (let's say a God, for example). Who decides what science accepts? Nature? Supernatural beings? The Universe?

Science is well-defined system that uses humans as tool - kinda like society, or like our body uses cells. There is very little subjectivity in science, strict rules are given and scientists obey them.

about experience being unreliable: There are many people with many different contradicting experiences. That means most of them are wrong. Very simple and elegant "logical proof" that experience is unreliable.

Of course, some things, like passing information through paper, usually work pretty well. You can misread, but mostly idea gets transfered to you quite well, so there is not much need to apply scepticism here, and not in things which fail way more often.
Post 18 Apr 2008, 15:06
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address MSN Messenger ICQ Number Reply with quote
Borsuc



Joined: 29 Dec 2005
Posts: 2466
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Borsuc
vid wrote:
And yet, they are - science publishes (gives to public, outsiders) all information it gathered, and documents all tests carefully, makes double-blind test (impossible to bias even by scientist himself), etc. This hints (not proves, but greatly increases odds) that science is not conspirancy. After you learn specifics, I bet you will come to conclusion that science-wide conspirancy is pretty much impossible.
First, the publishes do not necessarily mean the 'correct' information. Neal Adams also published his gathered information, but you don't believe it -- get what I mean? Wink

Also, about the chances, I honestly don't have a calculator to compute the chances, and in fact it would be pretty much subjective (i.e the chances outcome) so I will not attempt to give a shot at my opinion (e.g 99.9999% but it's not mine, it was an example).

vid wrote:
Science is well-defined system that uses humans as tool - kinda like society, or like our body uses cells. There is very little subjectivity in science, strict rules are given and scientists obey them.
Well, the rules are also created by scientists/humans. Also, I think it's the other way around -- humans use science as a tool, or more precisely, science is not sentient therefore, the humans decide for it, or should I say, the scientists in authority decide it.

The 'system' you're referring to by science is actually not alive by itself -- it is alive by the authorities. When someone says "science accepts blabla" or "science rejected blabla" they mean, in fact, that the scientists with authority (who decide what science accepts or not) make the respective things.
Post 18 Apr 2008, 15:16
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
vid
Verbosity in development


Joined: 05 Sep 2003
Posts: 7105
Location: Slovakia
vid
Quote:
Well, the rules are also created by scientists/humans. Also, I think it's the other way around -- humans use science as a tool, or more precisely, science is not sentient therefore, the humans decide for it, or should I say, the scientists in authority decide it.

The 'system' you're referring to by science is actually not alive by itself -- it is alive by the authorities. When someone says "science accepts blabla" or "science rejected blabla" they mean, in fact, that the scientists with authority (who decide what science accepts or not) make the respective things.

This is where you are wrong. Of course science was created by humans, after years of learning which methods produce good knowledge and which bad. But science is not mutual agreement of few people. It is pretty much precisely defined system, in which humans are the tool. Even if you was scientist and wanted to push some bullshit into science, you wouldn't be able, thanks to those rules.

Each experiment / test must be described well enough to be repeatable, and eventually each experiment must be independently repeated. This description of course must be published and accessible to everyone. Experiments must be double-blind

Even extreme case - that someone wanted to falsify results of experiment - happened, but they were pretty quickly discovered. It's enough for anyone unreleated to repeat the experiment, or review experiment's methodology if it was tainted to produce biased result.

If you argue for conspiracy in science, you can pretty much argue for 9/11 conspiracy, moon landing conspiracy, jewish conspiracy to take over the world, etc... Those are way more probable and possible.
Post 19 Apr 2008, 08:04
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address MSN Messenger ICQ Number Reply with quote
sinsi



Joined: 10 Aug 2007
Posts: 693
Location: Adelaide
sinsi
Is the Earth expanding?

I remember reading a non-fiction book by Asimov(?) where he said that if the earth was smaller (or if the atmosphere was denser, can't remember which) then we wouldn't be able to see the stars, but could see over the horizon.

So if the earth was smaller in days gone by, we wouldn't have seen Orion (but if it was the atmosphere thing then I'm talking out of my arse...)


If you can measure it repeatedly then it's science. Faith is a different thing because you can't measure it (it's digital - on/off).


heh heh after seeing the word 'science' so many times it looks,,wrong somehow.



Post fuelled by 8 beers...
Post 19 Apr 2008, 08:25
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
bitRAKE



Joined: 21 Jul 2003
Posts: 2915
Location: [RSP+8*5]
bitRAKE
The_Grey_Beast wrote:
@bitRAKE: perhaps the 'conspiracy' is exactly that: business. Because of some hidden business Laughing (I know it sounds funny but i'm trying to be serious).
Then let us not wrap it up in such a loaded word. Business does not stay hidden long - there is always a money trail scaling up to the large effects being implied here. Therefore not really a 'conspiracy'. Maybe no one is looking in the right direction to understand the hidden process taking place (not likely); or rather people intend to profit off of the process and being vocal about the negative impact isn't in their best interest (very likely).

When we can describe a systemic problem like this we can begin to think of ways to modify the processes - making (blatantly) public the parties involved as well as removing the investment opportunities of the social scum feeding off the demise of others.
revolution wrote:
If someone wants to invoke fairies and gods and supernatural stuff then so be it, but be prepared to prove it.
If someone is trying to imply the earth was a lopsided planet in such recent past then I think they should have to prove it with some rather substantial evidence as well.

(vid's link is very good, but I haven't had the change to read much there - maybe later tonight...)

_________________
¯\(°_o)/¯ unlicense.org
Post 20 Apr 2008, 01:44
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
revolution
When all else fails, read the source


Joined: 24 Aug 2004
Posts: 17287
Location: In your JS exploiting you and your system
revolution
bitRAKE wrote:
If someone is trying to imply the earth was a lopsided planet in such recent past then I think they should have to prove it with some rather substantial evidence as well.
I don't have a problem with the "lopsided planet" thing. The size of the planet compared to the height of the land is a very large difference. I have seen people compare the land/sea Earth surface with that of a billiard ball, that is, the Earth is actually very smooth, it is just that we are small that the height of the land seems large. So a few bits of land all sticking out all on the same side and merging is not much of a stretch to see how it can happen.
Post 20 Apr 2008, 03:01
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
bitRAKE



Joined: 21 Jul 2003
Posts: 2915
Location: [RSP+8*5]
bitRAKE
Yeah, a little hyperbole with the 'lopsided' bit, but we shouldn't ignore the effects of such a situation. I'm not implying the magnitude is parallel to an expanding earth - which is orders of magnitude greater.

_________________
¯\(°_o)/¯ unlicense.org
Post 20 Apr 2008, 03:34
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
revolution
When all else fails, read the source


Joined: 24 Aug 2004
Posts: 17287
Location: In your JS exploiting you and your system
revolution
We pretty much have the "lopsided" planet thing now. If you have Google Earth handy, centre your view on the middle of the Pacific Ocean. Do you see any major piece of land? Almost all the land is on the other side of the Pacific.
Post 20 Apr 2008, 03:40
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
bitRAKE



Joined: 21 Jul 2003
Posts: 2915
Location: [RSP+8*5]
bitRAKE
Oh, please. How does that even compare to having a single mass of land 285-195 million years ago?:
Image
You cannot see how there is a rather large difference? It's almost the complete opposite - put a big island in the middle of the pacific ocean and remove all the other land on the planet.

http://www.britannica.com/eb/topic?idxStructId=441211&typeId=21
http://www.searchanddiscovery.net/documents/97019/index.htm

_________________
¯\(°_o)/¯ unlicense.org


Last edited by bitRAKE on 20 Apr 2008, 05:29; edited 1 time in total
Post 20 Apr 2008, 05:11
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
Display posts from previous:
Post new topic Reply to topic

Jump to:  
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

< Last Thread | Next Thread >
Forum Rules:
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You can attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


Copyright © 1999-2020, Tomasz Grysztar. Also on YouTube, Twitter.

Website powered by rwasa.