Started By
Message
re: Remarkable New Evidence for Human Activity in North America 130,000 Years Ago
Posted on 9/18/17 at 4:34 pm to Commander Data
Posted on 9/18/17 at 4:34 pm to Commander Data
While no one knows the cause for GRBs, it seems fairly certain that they are associated with supernovas in some way. It may be the size of the supernova that's relevant. Giant ones that result in blackholes or neutron stars are the most likely candidates.
The closest star to us that is due to go supernova is Betelgeuse. At only approximately 600 light years away from us, it may have exploded in the 14th century or yesterday. Or it could be another 100,000 years, the life span of a star as big as Betelgeuse after it becomes a supermassive red giant. We can only know when the radiation reaches us, unfortunately.
We will directly experience the effects of a Betelgeuse supernova. Debate rages about whether a gamma ray burst so close by will extinguish life on earth. Some say that our unique atmosphere and magnetic field can withstand a GRB at that distance. Others say it could blow off our atmosphere and kill everything.
This is sometimes postulated to be what caused the Permian-Triassic Great Extinction 252 million years ago. 95% of all life was killed, the most of any extinction event by far.
Our solar system has circled the center of the Milky Way exactly once since then and it is impossible to pinpoint the neutron star or blackhole that resulted.
The closest star to us that is due to go supernova is Betelgeuse. At only approximately 600 light years away from us, it may have exploded in the 14th century or yesterday. Or it could be another 100,000 years, the life span of a star as big as Betelgeuse after it becomes a supermassive red giant. We can only know when the radiation reaches us, unfortunately.
We will directly experience the effects of a Betelgeuse supernova. Debate rages about whether a gamma ray burst so close by will extinguish life on earth. Some say that our unique atmosphere and magnetic field can withstand a GRB at that distance. Others say it could blow off our atmosphere and kill everything.
This is sometimes postulated to be what caused the Permian-Triassic Great Extinction 252 million years ago. 95% of all life was killed, the most of any extinction event by far.
Our solar system has circled the center of the Milky Way exactly once since then and it is impossible to pinpoint the neutron star or blackhole that resulted.
0
Posted on 9/24/17 at 3:44 pm to Kentucker
quote:an unfortunate discussion because the two are not mutually exclusive
religion vs. science tussle
Posted on 9/24/17 at 3:53 pm to CrimsonTideMD
quote:that story reminds me of
CrimsonTideMD
this one
our scientific notions are constantly being challenged. i find it amusing when people say they only believe in what can be scientifically known.
Posted on 9/24/17 at 7:53 pm to bfniii
quote:
our scientific notions are constantly being challenged.
Well, they're a bit more solid than notions. There are no absolutes in science. That's anathema to research. I like this description of science: The answer to one question generates many other questions.
quote:
i find it amusing when people say they only believe in what can be scientifically known.
The word "believe" doesn't apply to science because it means to accept without evidence. It's more apropos to religion.
Posted on 9/24/17 at 9:35 pm to Kentucker
What about the lizard like people from space? Why is no one acknowledging them?
Posted on 9/25/17 at 5:12 pm to Kentucker
quote:you're missing the point. it's silly when people say they're only going to believe whatever is empirical/scientific, for the reasons you just outlined. methodological naturalism is not a complete or sufficient worldview/belief system.
The answer to one question generates many other questions.
quote:sure it does. popper pointed out that all observation is theory laden. this is one of the biggest misconceptions about science; people mistakenly assume that science and scientists are objective. no one comes to the scientific enterprise a tabula rasa.
The word "believe" doesn't apply to science because it means to accept without evidence
Posted on 9/25/17 at 5:30 pm to bfniii
quote:
it's silly when people say they're only going to believe whatever is empirical/scientific, for the reasons you just outlined. methodological naturalism is not a complete or sufficient worldview/belief system.
A person doesn't need a "belief system" and having a "worldview" is psychobabble. I don't have room in my life for beliefs. They take time and energy that is better spent learning about the physical realities of nature.
quote:
popper pointed out that all observation is theory laden.
I don't know who popper is but, yes, observation and theory are related. I think that you and I use different connotations for theory, however. I use the scientific connotation exclusively: A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world.
quote:
this is one of the biggest misconceptions about science; people mistakenly assume that science and scientists are objective
You're the one with the misconception about science. Science is certainly objective. It's nature without bias.
quote:
no one comes to the scientific enterprise a tabula rasa.
You seem to think of science as a human construct. It exists independent of people and any other sentient being. Science is the same anywhere in the Universe. It's discovered by sentient beings, not constructed by them.
Posted on 9/25/17 at 7:46 pm to Kentucker
quote:every person has one.
A person doesn't need a "belief system"
quote:again, everyone has one. call it whatever you want
having a "worldview" is psychobabble
quote:
I don't have room in my life for beliefs
that in itself is a belief. you can't be this ignorant quote:honestly, if you don't, you probably should refrain from commenting on science or the scientific method
I don't know who popper is
quote:this is what i'm talking about. if you don't even know who popper is and what he did, you probably shouldn't be telling someone else they are mistaken
You're the one with the misconception about science.
quote:if you think this, then you don't know what science is and you didn't learn anything from popper. well, that makes sense given that you don't even know who he is. do yourself a favor and study the theory ladenness of observation. synopsis: science is not objective. it is an attempt to be objective for sure.
Science is certainly objective. It's nature without bias.
quote:who says it's not?
You seem to think of science as a human construct.
quote:on this matter you are completely wrong. i invite you to study more about science. it is changing all the time. it's clear you've never studied the demarcation problem. you apparently haven't examined scholarly literature on whether science should be constrained by methodological naturalism.
It exists independent of people and any other sentient being. Science is the same anywhere in the Universe. It's discovered by sentient beings, not constructed by them.
it would help if you didn't act like you know things that you don't know
Posted on 9/25/17 at 11:28 pm to bfniii
quote:
every person has one.
Not because you say so.
quote:
again, everyone has one. call it whatever you want
I'll call it what it is, psychobabble. Thanks for allowing me to call it that.
quote:
that in itself is a belief. you can't be this ignorant
Again, not because you say so. Wow, you sure are wound tightly.
quote:
honestly, if you don't, you probably should refrain from commenting on science or the scientific method
Oh, he's a philosopher. Yawn.
quote:
this is what i'm talking about. if you don't even know who popper is and what he did, you probably shouldn't be telling someone else they are mistaken
Well, from someone who thinks science is a human construct, that just doesn't carry much weight.
quote:
if you think this, then you don't know what science is and you didn't learn anything from popper. well, that makes sense given that you don't even know who he is. do yourself a favor and study the theory ladenness of observation. synopsis: science is not objective. it is an attempt to be objective for sure.
Your ignorance about science is astounding. You're stuck in the human box so you see walls on all sides. "Science is not objective." Wow, how ignorant can one be!
quote:
who says it's not?
Just give up while you're behind. Objectivity is beyond your comprehension.
quote:
on this matter you are completely wrong. i invite you to study more about science. it is changing all the time. it's clear you've never studied the demarcation problem. you apparently haven't examined scholarly literature on whether science should be constrained by methodological naturalism.
Science is clearly not what you think it is. You've diluted it with religion and philosophy, which are human constructs. If you must subscribe to a philosophy and are interested in science, I'd encourage you to take up reductionism. It fits best with reality.
quote:
it would help if you didn't act like you know things that you don't know
I'm positive that I've forgotten more than you'll ever know about science. You stick with your theists and philosophers and enjoy your life. I'll keep my lifelong admiration for scientists and their incredible contributions to knowledge about reality.
Posted on 9/26/17 at 2:31 am to Commander Data
quote:
there would never be an earth fit to return to if they ever tried to leave their bunkers.
That's not true. The after-effects of nuclear explosions have been greatly exaggerated. Both Hiroshima and Nagasaki and fully inhabited today as if nothing happened. They're even about to let people resettle some of the test islands in the Pacific.
Posted on 9/26/17 at 10:39 am to Cooter Davenport
quote:
That's not true. The after-effects of nuclear explosions have been greatly exaggerated. Both Hiroshima and Nagasaki and fully inhabited today as if nothing happened. They're even about to let people resettle some of the test islands in the Pacific.
I'm not speaking for Commander Data but I want to mention the scale of a nuclear war. The earth's biosphere can recover from nuclear testing it seems, although there is documentation showing radiation-induced mutations in some of the fauna around test sites.
Nuclear war would have an altogether different affect. Nine countries possess almost 15,000 nuclear warheads. The US and Russia, of course, own most of them.
In the event of a nuclear war, thousands of bombs would be detonated. These would include the biggest and most destructive ever built.
So devastating would be the combined effect of these bombs on the biosphere that a Seventh Great Extinction would occur (we're in the middle of the Sixth Great Extinction now). It's unlikely that any mega-fauna would survive long term, including bunkered humans.
The mutations seen around test sites would be magnified thousands fold. Even plants and microbial life would be affected.
The atmosphere would also be drastically affected. The ozone layer would be depleted. Any surface-dwelling plants and animals that survived the intense radiation from the explosions would be killed by the sun's ultraviolet radiation.
So, for any humans to survive they'd have to have stored supplies, including oxygen, and would need to live underground until the ozone layer regenerated. That could take centuries or even thousands of years depending upon the ability of cyanobacteria to restock the atmosphere with oxygen. It's extremely unlikely that humans could hold out that long.
Posted on 9/26/17 at 4:37 pm to BoarEd
quote:
The South American civilizations are ridiculously misunderstood. The most amazing thing I've ever read is that the entire Amazon River basin may have been PLANTED by humans. Like a big arse garden. And now it's considered the "lungs of the planet".
So much this. Modern agronomists are just finally understanding how ancient civilizations may have created the black soil deposits in the Amazon for agriculture after noticing how once the forest was cut down, the modern farmers really weren’t able to grow very much. The ancients were millenia ahead of their time with soil science.
Posted on 9/26/17 at 6:28 pm to Kentucker
quote:seriously? you "believe" that science is a certain thing so why are you saying you don't have "beliefs?" that's just stupid and wasting everyone's time. your view of science, etc, most definitely constitutes a worldview.
Not because you say so
quote:typical ad hominem - of someone HIGHLY respected by your beloved scientists.
Oh, he's a philosopher. Yawn.
prove what he's saying is wrong. i.e. prove that scientists can be absolutely objective, that the scientific method (devised by humans) is NOT a human construct and that science never has any paradigm shifts (do you even know of any scientific paradigm shifts?). you're not going to be able to do any of that and since they have all happened, you are being obtuse, probably because either you know you're wrong or you just like to argue even when your point is ignorant.
quote:i've done no such thing which shows you don't even understand what you are critiquing. btw, it's ridiculous that you are saying that I am doing this, as if i've made up some novel perspective on science.
You've diluted it with religion and philosophy
quote:so NOW you're going to act like you know something about philosophy of science.
I'd encourage you to take up reductionism
first, do you even know what reductionism is?
second, do you know any reductionists?
third, do you know standard objections to reductionism/scientism?
fourth, what has reductionism/scientism contributed to the scholarly literature on the subject or to life in general?
*waiting for you to return from wikipedia*
quote:says who? how?
It fits best with reality
honestly, your conclusions wayyyyyyyyyyy overreach the knowledge you've been demonstrating. you dodged popper. you haven't addressed the demarcation problem (which basically every scientist acknowledges). maybe you're just being coy but, it seems more likely that you're somewhat ignorant with an agenda to protect.
quote:says the person who didn't know who popper was and apparently doesn't know what the demarcation problem is.
Just give up while you're behind
Posted on 9/26/17 at 9:40 pm to bfniii
quote:
seriously? you "believe" that science is a certain thing so why are you saying you don't have "beliefs?" that's just stupid and wasting everyone's time. your view of science, etc, most definitely constitutes a worldview.
Boy, you sure are full of yourself, or something.
quote:
prove what he's saying is wrong. i.e. prove that scientists can be absolutely objective, that the scientific method (devised by humans) is NOT a human construct and that science never has any paradigm shifts (do you even know of any scientific paradigm shifts?).
Nah.
quote:
you are being obtuse, probably because either you know you're wrong or you just like to argue even when your opponent is ignorant.
FIFY
quote:
i've done no such thing which shows you don't even understand what you are critiquing. btw, it's ridiculous that you are saying that I am doing this, as if i've made up some novel perspective on science
Oh, I would never say that you have a novel perspective about anything. You are a creature of others' thoughts.
quote:
*waiting for you to return from wikipedia*
Hey! Don't knock Wikipedia. It's a great source for references to valid scientific studies.
quote:
maybe you're just being coy but, it seems more likely that you're somewhat ignorant with an agenda to protect.
Maybe I just don't regard you to be all that challenging, you being a theist who knows nothing about science, and all.
Posted on 9/27/17 at 7:46 am to Kentucker
quote:
I totally agree. Anyone born in America is a native. First Americans is more appropriate if a label is needed. Actually, their tribal names seem more honorable. Sioux, Apache, Cherokee, Navajo, Creek and the others denote ethnicity and don't need an umbrella term to distinguish them.
They aren't even first Americans, they are just another group of people that took over the same area and then eventually lost it to another group. They need to deal with it, same thing will probably happen to us if we don't manage to destroy ourselves.
This post was edited on 9/27/17 at 7:47 am
Posted on 9/27/17 at 10:24 am to Dam Guide
quote:
They aren't even first Americans, they are just another group of people that took over the same area and then eventually lost it to another group. They need to deal with it, same thing will probably happen to us if we don't manage to destroy ourselves.
That's an astute observation.
Right now it seems that we might lose it to the invasion coming across our southern border.
Posted on 9/27/17 at 9:38 pm to Commander Data
Evolution is just men trying to figure out Gods creation .God said his day was a thousand time longer than mans , I think he was just giving us a number we might understand , a million to one is probably closer to it ! We didn't come monkeys though !
This post was edited on 10/1/17 at 5:37 pm
Page 3 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News