MrEightFive said:
It is said that supernova occurred 12 millions years ago and yet we have information that just roughly 309 000 years ago there was no time perception. How do we reconcile this?
Can you please give the reference/source for the statement/information that there was no time perception aprox. 309 000 years ago?
MrEightFive said:
If we think about 'science' - it just represents group of more or less separate theories built upon understanding of local reality. All existing knowledge is obtained on surface of the Earth or in her vicinity (vicinity is even where Voyagers are if we comprehend interstellar distances). And then just projected outward on entire 'Visible Universe' I.e. no one ever 'traveled' into intergalactic space and measured speed of light in 'vacuum' in point between Milky Way and M82 for example. Instruments that we produce are all based on this very knowledge. They are all 'within the System'. Then we have paradoxes. Completely right theory doesn't have paradoxes.
We don't know (publicly) what time is, what gravity is, what mass is, what charge is, what magnetism is... and how on Earth there is so many different subatomic particles that we haven't enough names for them!
It's true that measurements and experiments have been conducted only on Earth and in our solar system. That's what science can do at the moment, at least that's what has been said. Most of things science produced worked well in it's own little domain, the instruments and technology are good example of that.
Apart from theories that are completely off, there are models that correctly describe certain phenomena and under that conditions they give good predictions. Outside of their domains they are not applicable. Existing paradoxes and new data that can not be explained by these models stress the need for better and more general ones. That's the way science works, IMO.
There is no completely right theory of everything, that has been the goal for large number of scientists for very long time. There are only theories, mathematical descriptions, that describe well some things, and for other things are completely useless.
For the good extent we know what are the time, mass, charge, ... at least what to do with those descriptions and numbers and make some good predictions with them. In some other areas we are totally clueless.
Regarding the subatomic particles, according to Standard Model, which works pretty well in its domain so far, there are basically 4 particles, two quarks and two leptons, which come in three groups/generations (our world normally constituted only from first generation) and 4 mediators of forces. The gravity is excluded in that description. The particles you are probably referring to are various different combinations of those 12 basic ones (together with their anti-particles which are basically the same as particles with opposite values of some parameters (quantum numbers) describing them). For analogy, look at how many different chemical elements there are and there are only protons and neutrons that make all these nuclei.
MrEightFive said:
trendsetter37 said:
MrEightFive said:
Well, again it's still in another galaxy, therefore it doesn't matter. Or does it?..
Wellll....What if gravity waves travel faster than light? Significantly. It supposedly takes the sun light approximately 8 minutes to reach us here on earth. However, if gravity had that same delay the orbits of the planets could not maintain their current trajectories. Not even for 20 earth years iirc from the most recent calculation done.
I remember Cs mentioned 'instantaneous effects' (among optical and slower than speed of light), should look up transcript.
Good analogy was given in sott talk radio show #46, The Electric Universe, when W. Thornhill said that gravity could be regarded as pulling the chain and light can be seen as waving that same chain. It takes time for the wave to travel down the chain, while the pull would be almost instantaneously (depending on the "quality" of the chain) felt at the other end.
Cs themselves gave something like 70% accuracy (if I remember correctly) assessment to information received through the board experiment. Well, it could easily be that assessment was corrupted as well. Bottom line being, IMO, we should not take everything the Cs said on a face value, as sacred. Doing so would be replacing "one master", as most laymen see science, with another, without using our own capabilities to research and find the truth. As said numerous times here, the Cs are 10% inspiration, while the rest, 90%, is perspiration.
Regarding the science, physics in particular, I see it like building the house. Theories, models, mathematical descriptions are bricks, they fit in one place, for some other we need to modify them a bit, and for another they just don't fit at all, so there is a need for completely new ones. In addition, it's nice for science, or Cs, or whatever, to provide us with bricks, but wouldn't it be better if we would learn how to make bricks ourselves so not to rely on some "source" outside of us?
Yozilla said:
Well all those "scientists" (corrupted) obviously like to talk big numbers cause it makes them important, for one of reasons. They throw millions&co Ly out there out of sleeve just like somebody really "measured" it. One of possible reasons could be to keep populace lulled - not to suspect that something big could happen in their only and short lives - so they could enjoy their normalcy bias for nothing of that magnitude could happen, not in zillion years on Earth... or just a thousand years - all the same - "we all will be looooog dead" - don't worry play(not be) happy. And then, all the sudden the Chelyabinsk meteorite out of "nowhere"... All big science played three monkeys for some time - they didn't have prepared memes on this case... They waited if "boss" would say something first - so to say
There are probably some scientists who work in that way. IMO, most of scientists are so into their work and jargon that they don't perceive how that comes out to general public. And for most of them to explain something in layman's terms, to be considerate to general public, is simply completely useless effort and they do it only when and if they really have to.
