Newton - The Last Of The Magicians

[ChristineM]

When it comes to cosmological understanding, modern scientists are just interpretating the observations and as long as there is NO universal consensus of cosmos, mine and yours guesses are just as good.

You think. So the ancients were aware the cosmos contained stars like our own sun, planets, they were aware and had measured the temperature differences of the CMB, how about the Planck epoch in the history of the universe?

There is considerable consensus in cosmology. However it does get fuzzy once you hit that Planck epoch

 

[Polymath257]

When it comes to cosmological understanding, modern scientists are just interpretating the observations and as long as there is NO universal consensus of cosmos, mine and yours guesses are just as good.

Um, no. While there may not be 'universal consensus', there is a great deal of consensus about the topics we are discussing here. And not all ideas are 'just as good'.

 

[Revoltingest]

....Newton was just a curious novice.

I should alter the quote attributed to him.....
"If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of curious novices."[

 

[Native]

On what do you base "when heated up, a central light (Electromagnetic Force) is turned "?

On the base of the Egyptian creation myths where "a fiery light" is created when all elements came together, naming this light Amun-Ra.

 

[Native]

Um, no. While there may not be 'universal consensus', there is a great deal of consensus about the topics we are discussing here. And not all ideas are 'just as good'.

Yes there are a great deal of speculative consensus but NO scientific consensus.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence

Really? I thought it was the other way around. At least that seems to be the norm when it comes to religious beliefs. The more outrageous a claim is the less evidence for it will be given and the 'truthyness' of their claim will be obvious because "you can't prove me wrong".

 

[Revoltingest]

Um, no. While there may not be 'universal consensus', there is a great deal of consensus about the topics we are discussing here. And not all ideas are 'just as good'.

I'm reminded of one "equally valid" idea.....
Back in the 70s, one aerospace engineer I worked with at Northrop was a devout fundie.
But even he was skeptical of some of the teachings of his flavor of Christianity. One
such belief was that there are no stars. The points of light we call "stars" were actually
just reflections of light from somewhere else. He was a pretty good guy.

Now, about the ideas of reflected light v the existence of stars.....
The former isn't supported by any theory or experimentation.
But the existence of stars has vast comportment between theory & data.
I'll wager that over 98% of scientists agree that stars exist, ie, scientific consensus.

 

[Subduction Zone]

When it comes to cosmological understanding, modern scientists are just interpretating the observations and as long as there is NO universal consensus of cosmos, mine and yours guesses are just as good.

Ummmmmmm, no. Just no.

 

[ChristineM]

Im amazed you already have read and studied it, judging it not convinsing. Do you have photographic memory?

I read the accreditation of the authors, that took no time at all

 

[Polymath257]

Yes there are a great deal of speculative consensus but NO scientific consensus.

Quite the contrary. There is scientific consensus that gravity exists, for example. There is scientific consensus about the overall Big Bang picture.

 

[Native]

OK. Fine. Our ancestors knew about the 'Milky Way' as a stretch of stars going across the sky. They had NO concept of it being a galaxy or that it rotated

Of course they did too. Where do you think the ancient spiral symbols on Rock Carvings stems from? Or the Swastika symbols turning each way? Or the churning Ying Yang symbol?

 

[Polymath257]

Of course they did too. Where do you think the ancient spiral symbols on Rock Carvings stems from? Or the Swastika symbols turning each way? Or the churning Ying Yang symbol?

Swirls of water, for example?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Of course they did too. Where do you think the ancient spiral symbols on Rock Carvings stems from? Or the Swastika symbols turning each way? Or the churning Ying Yang symbol?

Cherry picking is not evidence. One cannot choose just the observations that seem to support you. You need to be able to show how all the ' ancient knowledge ' supports your claims without contradiction if you want to claim them as a source.

 

[Native]

Quite the contrary. There is scientific consensus that gravity exists, for example. There is scientific consensus about the overall Big Bang picture.

Yes there are lots of speculative consensus all around. No one knows what gravity is and how it works causally. And as long as a force cannot be explained causally, it really isn´t scientific at all.

And yes, there is also a speculative consensus of the strange and contraintuitive "Big Bang" - compared to the natural and logical knowledge in ancient cultures of an eternal circuit of formation in the Universe.

 

[Native]

Cherry picking is not evidence.

You cherry picked "swirling water" yourself

 

[Subduction Zone]

You cherry picked "swirling water" yourself

Did I?

 

[Native]

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence

You think. So the ancients were aware the cosmos contained stars like our own sun, planets, they were aware and had measured the temperature differences of the CMB, how about the Planck epoch in the history of the universe?

I´m just claiming that our ancestors had an overall better understanding of the formative and human conditions in the local part of the Universe. You cannot of course NOT compare observations with modern technology to the intuitive knowledge of our ancestors.

Our ancestors probably called the CMB for the Primeval Waters and they surely didn´t care of its exact temperatures at all.

 

[Native]

Did I?

Swirls of water, for example?

Didn´t you?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Didn´t you?

You just showed that I did not.

But being conflated with @Polymath257 is quite the compliment. Thank you.

 

[ChristineM]

I´m just claiming that our ancestors had an overall better understanding of the formative and human conditions in the local part of the Universe. You cannot of course NOT compare observations with modern technology to the intuitive knowledge of our ancestors.

Our ancestors probably called the CMB for the Primeval Waters and they surely didn´t care of its exact temperatures at all.

Intuitive knowledge? Ahh guesswork? Yes we can all look at the night sky and understand what is there to the limits of knowledge. With the "magic" of Newton and those to follow him we understand much more and really, quite often, don't have to guess

Probably?