How did the universe come into existence?

[Dillon Levenque]

Correct. It's a theory.

[Charolotte Caxton]

---

Dillon Levenque wrote:

Correct. It's a theory.

---

Theoretically, yes.

[Madelaine McMasters]

---

Charolotte Caxton wrote:

---

Madelaine McMasters wrote:

---

Charolotte Caxton wrote:

Why would water be outside of the scope of that equation?

---

I limited the scope to numbers, addition and math. You expanded the scope into the physical world, where much more must be defined. Are you talking about pure water or tap water with typical impurities, some of which may undergo radioactive decay or chemical reactions? Are you talking about visible drops? Mass? Numbers of atoms (will change if a radiocative impurity decays)? Numbers of molecules (will change if impurities in the drops react chemically)? Are you allowing for evaporation and/or condensation?

You can work up a set of definitions and a scope for your proposition that prove it true, but if you dig deep enough, you'll eventually have to content yourself with a theory.

---

Aha. So can anything be proven to be true?

Or is everything we consider to be true just a really good theory based on what we think we know?

---

With the definitions and within the scope I set out for 1+1=2, that IS true. So the answer to your question is yes.

But if you keep expanding the scope, eventually (and perhaps quickly) you run to the edge of your knowledge and you must theorize while waiting to be proved wrong, if it happens.

Fortunately, one can have a happy and productive life without knowing very much. I offer myself as proof that's true.

[Charolotte Caxton]

---

Madelaine McMasters wrote:

---

Charolotte Caxton wrote:

---

Madelaine McMasters wrote:

---

Charolotte Caxton wrote:

Why would water be outside of the scope of that equation?

---

I limited the scope to numbers, addition and math. You expanded the scope into the physical world, where much more must be defined. Are you talking about pure water or tap water with typical impurities, some of which may undergo radioactive decay or chemical reactions? Are you talking about visible drops? Mass? Numbers of atoms (will change if a radiocative impurity decays)? Numbers of molecules (will change if impurities in the drops react chemically)? Are you allowing for evaporation and/or condensation?

You can work up a set of definitions and a scope for your proposition that prove it true, but if you dig deep enough, you'll eventually have to content yourself with a theory.

---

Aha. So can anything be proven to be true?

Or is everything we consider to be true just a really good theory based on what we think we know?

---

With the definitions and within the scope I set out for 1+1=2, that IS true. So the answer to your question is yes.

But if you keep expanding the scope, eventually (and perhaps quickly) you run to the edge of your knowledge and you must theorize while waiting to be proved wrong, if it happens.

Fortunately, one can have a happy and productive life without knowing very much. I offer myself as proof that's true.

---

You must live in a constant state of bliss.

Does that make math the only real true thing, or are there other examples of truth?

[Madelaine McMasters]

---

Charolotte Caxton wrote:

---

Madelaine McMasters wrote:

---

Charolotte Caxton wrote:

---

Madelaine McMasters wrote:

---

Charolotte Caxton wrote:

Why would water be outside of the scope of that equation?

---

I limited the scope to numbers, addition and math. You expanded the scope into the physical world, where much more must be defined. Are you talking about pure water or tap water with typical impurities, some of which may undergo radioactive decay or chemical reactions? Are you talking about visible drops? Mass? Numbers of atoms (will change if a radiocative impurity decays)? Numbers of molecules (will change if impurities in the drops react chemically)? Are you allowing for evaporation and/or condensation?

You can work up a set of definitions and a scope for your proposition that prove it true, but if you dig deep enough, you'll eventually have to content yourself with a theory.

---

Aha. So can anything be proven to be true?

Or is everything we consider to be true just a really good theory based on what we think we know?

---

With the definitions and within the scope I set out for 1+1=2, that IS true. So the answer to your question is yes.

But if you keep expanding the scope, eventually (and perhaps quickly) you run to the edge of your knowledge and you must theorize while waiting to be proved wrong, if it happens.

Fortunately, one can have a happy and productive life without knowing very much. I offer myself as proof that's true.

---

You must live in a constant state of bliss.

Does that make math the only real true thing, or are there other examples of truth?

---

Not content with the proof you've already offered?

Yes, there are many other examples of truth. We landed a man on the Moon. The scope of that achievement was very large in comparison to our daily lives. Within that scope, a great deal had to be true in order to have success. We automatically and naturally limit scope in conversation. That I am sitting in a chair right now is true, and you might accept that without any proof other than my word on it, because you limit the scope to that which you find comfortable for the acceptance of the truth.

I had conversations like this with my philosophy professor in college. I got the distinct impression (which is not a truth) that he believed my practical approach to scope was somehow missing the point. He got the impression (which was the truth) that I thought his need for that point was pointless.

[Charolotte Caxton]

---

Madelaine McMasters wrote:

Not content with the proof you've already offered?

Yes, there are many other examples of truth. We landed a man on the Moon. The scope of that achievement was very large in comparison to our daily lives. Within that scope, a great deal had to be true in order to have success. We automatically and naturally limit scope in conversation. That I am sitting in a chair right now is true, and you might accept that without any proof other than my word on it, because you limit the scope to that which you find comfortable for the acceptance of the truth.

I had conversations like this with my philosophy professor in college. I got the distinct impression (which is not a truth) that he believed my practical approach to scope was somehow missing the point. He got the impression (which was the truth) that I thought his need for that point was pointless.

---

I hope I never grow content with the proof that is offered.

If we limit scope in conversation, and accept things as truths for the sake of ease and progression, could it be that we have inadvertently created a false reality about us, if what we accept and believe as truths are lies?

I suppose the answer is yes, so why even ask that question.

There are some that believe the moon landing was a hoax.

If we put a man on the moon that put a flag on the moon that is held up by a wire (because there is no wind) why can't we see it from here? 

[Madelaine McMasters]

---

Charolotte Caxton wrote:

If we put a man on the moon that put a flag on the moon that is held up by a wire (because there is no wind) why can't we see it from here? 

---

The ability of a telescope to resolve detail is limited by optical diffraction (an effect of the wave nature of light and a consequence of Heisenberg's uncertainty principle). There are numerous explanations on the web, a quick Googling provides this...

http://www.rocketroberts.com/astro/flag_on_moon.htm

In short, if not for atmospheric distortions (which give stars (not planets) their twinkle) could see the flag if we built a telescope nearly four miles in diameter. It would be far less expensive to fly a few disbelievers to the moon to see the flag in person than to construct such a telescope.

ETA: we (and the Russians) did leave many retroreflectors on the moon's surface, which are routinely used to bounce back laser beams directed at them from Earth. We time the round trip to accurately measure the distance between Earth and Moon. That's more than enough proof to many that we actually put stuff up there, but less than enough proof to those who believe nothing but their own eyes, which of course are as trustworthy as the critical thinking behind them.

[Charolotte Caxton]

---

Madelaine McMasters wrote:

---

Charolotte Caxton wrote:

If we put a man on the moon that put a flag on the moon that is held up by a wire (because there is no wind) why can't we see it from here? 

---

The ability of a telescope to resolve detail is limited by optical diffraction (an effect of the wave nature of light and a consequence of Heisenberg's uncertainty principle). There are numerous explanations on the web, a quick Googling provides this...

http://www.rocketroberts.com/astro/flag_on_moon.htm

In short, if not for atmospheric distortions (which give stars (not planets) their twinkle) could see the flag if we built a telescope nearly four miles in diameter. It would be far less expensive to fly a few disbelievers to the moon to see the flag in person than to construct such a telescope.

ETA: we (and the Russians) did leave many retroreflectors on the moon's surface, which are routinely used to bounce back laser beams directed at them from Earth. We time the round trip to accurately measure the distance between Earth and Moon. That's more than enough proof to many that we actually put stuff up there, but less than enough proof to those who believe nothing but their own eyes, which of course are as trustworthy as the critical thinking behind them.

---

Cool, but why can we build stuff that can see way out into space, like Jupiter or Saturn, but not the surface of the moon?

If we can't even see a bright red object on the moon, how are we to believe anything about how big and expanding our universe is, or that there are all these other solar systems and such, if we cannot even develop the technology to observe our own satellite with precision?

 

[Madelaine McMasters]

---

Charolotte Caxton wrote:

---

Madelaine McMasters wrote:

---

Charolotte Caxton wrote:

If we put a man on the moon that put a flag on the moon that is held up by a wire (because there is no wind) why can't we see it from here? 

---

The ability of a telescope to resolve detail is limited by optical diffraction (an effect of the wave nature of light and a consequence of Heisenberg's uncertainty principle). There are numerous explanations on the web, a quick Googling provides this...

http://www.rocketroberts.com/astro/flag_on_moon.htm

In short, if not for atmospheric distortions (which give stars (not planets) their twinkle) could see the flag if we built a telescope nearly four miles in diameter. It would be far less expensive to fly a few disbelievers to the moon to see the flag in person than to construct such a telescope.

ETA: we (and the Russians) did leave many retroreflectors on the moon's surface, which are routinely used to bounce back laser beams directed at them from Earth. We time the round trip to accurately measure the distance between Earth and Moon. That's more than enough proof to many that we actually put stuff up there, but less than enough proof to those who believe nothing but their own eyes, which of course are as trustworthy as the critical thinking behind them.

---

Cool, but why can we build stuff that can see way out into space, like Jupiter or Saturn, but not the surface of the moon?

If we can't even see a bright red object on the moon, how are we to believe anything about how big and expanding our universe is, or that there are all these other solar systems and such, if we cannot even develop the technology to observe our own satellite with precision?

 

---

We can see the lunar landers from satellites in orbit around the moon, so your statement that we cannot comes from a commonly held false belief ;-)

http://www.space.com/12835-nasa-apollo-moon-landing-sites-photos-lro.html

The detailed images we have of Saturn's rings come not from Hubble, but from orbiting satellites. It is far less espensive to throw telescopes into orbit around distant planets than to engineer telescopes to achieve that view from here.

As to why we don't try to take clear photographs of our flag on the moon, why would we? Scientists are interested in learning new things, not appeasing conspiracy theorists.

Seeing our satellites isn't of much value to scientists, seeing with them is.

ETA: I hope I'm not starting to sound harsh here. I have the benefit of being in a profession that exposes me to a great deal of this kind of thing. I sometimes ask questions to make points that can feel intimidating. That's not my goal. My goal is to encourage the same sort of healthy skepticism that was encouraged in me.

[Charolotte Caxton]

---

Madelaine McMasters wrote:

---

Charolotte Caxton wrote:

---

Madelaine McMasters wrote:

---

Charolotte Caxton wrote:

If we put a man on the moon that put a flag on the moon that is held up by a wire (because there is no wind) why can't we see it from here? 

---

The ability of a telescope to resolve detail is limited by optical diffraction (an effect of the wave nature of light and a consequence of Heisenberg's uncertainty principle). There are numerous explanations on the web, a quick Googling provides this...

http://www.rocketroberts.com/astro/flag_on_moon.htm

In short, if not for atmospheric distortions (which give stars (not planets) their twinkle) could see the flag if we built a telescope nearly four miles in diameter. It would be far less expensive to fly a few disbelievers to the moon to see the flag in person than to construct such a telescope.

ETA: we (and the Russians) did leave many retroreflectors on the moon's surface, which are routinely used to bounce back laser beams directed at them from Earth. We time the round trip to accurately measure the distance between Earth and Moon. That's more than enough proof to many that we actually put stuff up there, but less than enough proof to those who believe nothing but their own eyes, which of course are as trustworthy as the critical thinking behind them.

---

Cool, but why can we build stuff that can see way out into space, like Jupiter or Saturn, but not the surface of the moon?

If we can't even see a bright red object on the moon, how are we to believe anything about how big and expanding our universe is, or that there are all these other solar systems and such, if we cannot even develop the technology to observe our own satellite with precision?

 

---

We can see the lunar landers from satellites in orbit around the moon, so your statement that we cannot is false.

http://www.space.com/12835-nasa-apollo-moon-landing-sites-photos-lro.html

The detailed images we have of Saturn's rings come not from Hubble, but from orbiting satellites. It is far less espensive to throw telescopes into orbit around distant planets than to engineer telescopes to achieve that view from here.

As to why we don't try to take clear photographs of our flag on the moon, why would we? Scientists are interested in learning new things, not appeasing conspiracy theorists.

Seeing our satellites isn't of much value to scientists, seeing

with

them is.

 

---

So... the only way we can see things in space clearly is from other stuff in space.. wow, I guess the disbelievers don't have to look far to get their doubts, do they? 

[Madelaine McMasters]

---

Charolotte Caxton wrote:

---

Madelaine McMasters wrote:

---

Charolotte Caxton wrote:

---

Madelaine McMasters wrote:

---

Charolotte Caxton wrote:

If we put a man on the moon that put a flag on the moon that is held up by a wire (because there is no wind) why can't we see it from here? 

---

The ability of a telescope to resolve detail is limited by optical diffraction (an effect of the wave nature of light and a consequence of Heisenberg's uncertainty principle). There are numerous explanations on the web, a quick Googling provides this...

http://www.rocketroberts.com/astro/flag_on_moon.htm

In short, if not for atmospheric distortions (which give stars (not planets) their twinkle) could see the flag if we built a telescope nearly four miles in diameter. It would be far less expensive to fly a few disbelievers to the moon to see the flag in person than to construct such a telescope.

ETA: we (and the Russians) did leave many retroreflectors on the moon's surface, which are routinely used to bounce back laser beams directed at them from Earth. We time the round trip to accurately measure the distance between Earth and Moon. That's more than enough proof to many that we actually put stuff up there, but less than enough proof to those who believe nothing but their own eyes, which of course are as trustworthy as the critical thinking behind them.

---

Cool, but why can we build stuff that can see way out into space, like Jupiter or Saturn, but not the surface of the moon?

If we can't even see a bright red object on the moon, how are we to believe anything about how big and expanding our universe is, or that there are all these other solar systems and such, if we cannot even develop the technology to observe our own satellite with precision?

 

---

We can see the lunar landers from satellites in orbit around the moon, so your statement that we cannot is false.

http://www.space.com/12835-nasa-apollo-moon-landing-sites-photos-lro.html

The detailed images we have of Saturn's rings come not from Hubble, but from orbiting satellites. It is far less espensive to throw telescopes into orbit around distant planets than to engineer telescopes to achieve that view from here.

As to why we don't try to take clear photographs of our flag on the moon, why would we? Scientists are interested in learning new things, not appeasing conspiracy theorists.

Seeing our satellites isn't of much value to scientists, seeing

with

them is.

 

---

So... the only way we can see things in space clearly is from other stuff in space.. wow, I guess the disbelievers don't have to look far to get their doubts, do they? 

---

Right. We can and do devise clever ways to resolve greater detail at a distance, such as measuring the Doppler shift in the light of stars very far away, to deduce they are wobbling due to the gravitational pull of planets around them. This has allowed us to "prove" the existence of planets we can not see by conventional means. I think the conspiracy theorists simply underestimate the cleverness of others. Most high school graduates are far less fluent in mathematics than the architects of things like Stonehenge and the Great Pyramids.

Arthur Clarke said (paraphrased) that sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. It's helpful to understand that, at birth, we are all completely technically naive. If we do not educate ourselves, if we do not explore, we will constantly live in a world of magic, won't we?

ETA: You said something a li'l profound here, I think... "wow, I guess the disbelievers don't have to look far to get their doubts, do they? "

When you doubt(believe), you can dig deeper, with the understanding that the truth may not agree with you.

Or, you can hold tight to your doubt(belief) and choose to see only what agrees with you. You not only don't look far, you often don't look at all.

[161488303349]

---

Charolotte Caxton wrote:

---

Maelstrom Janus wrote:

I have a new theory - I think back in the mists of time the Gods started a thread on a forum about how they came into being...eventually the thread became so long and tedious it collapsed under its own density and triggered the big bang..............

 

 

 

 

 

BAZINGA !!!!

---

That might explain why Mr Gorky wears a bag over his head, we are not able to look upon the face of God.

---

(:

[161488303349]

i know. but it is my fate that i am unable to tell you (:

[Phil Deakins]

---

Charolotte Caxton wrote:

I was being absolutely serious, not that it makes your proof any less valid

Are you saying that because drop is a measurement then we can say that two drops of water are equal to two drops of water no mater how they are combined, like if we put two cups of milk in a pint we still have two cups of milk?

Yes, that makes sense.

Why would water be outside of the scope of that equation?

---

1 + 1 = 2 means 1 unit + 1 unit = 2 units.

1 drop of water (1 unit) + 1 drop of water (1 unit) = 2 drops of water (2 seperate units).

But...

1 unit (1 drop of water) and 1 unit (1 drop of water) combine to make 1 unit (1 drop of water) of a larger size..

[Charolotte Caxton]

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

---

Charolotte Caxton wrote:

I was being absolutely serious, not that it makes your proof any less valid

Are you saying that because drop is a measurement then we can say that two drops of water are equal to two drops of water no mater how they are combined, like if we put two cups of milk in a pint we still have two cups of milk?

Yes, that makes sense.

Why would water be outside of the scope of that equation?

---

1 + 1 = 2 means 1 unit + 1 unit = 2 units.

1 drop of water (1 unit) + 1 drop of water (1 unit) = 2 drops of water (2 seperate units).

But...

1 unit (1 drop of water) and 1 unit (1 drop of water) combine to make 1 unit (1 drop of water) of a larger size..

---

So, pretty much like my 2 cups equals one pint example?

[ROB34466IIIa]

Aherm.

Fluids are measured in volumes. Substitute 'drop of water'  with the unit of volume ( liters in my example ).

1 ml H2O + 1 ml H2O = 2 ml H2O

 

Besides .. your reasoning only works at roomtemperature.

 

Does it still apply when it' s freezing ?

[Madelaine McMasters]

---

ROB34466IIIa wrote:

Aherm.

Fluids are measured in volumes. Substitute 'drop of water'  with the unit of volume ( liters in my example ).

1 ml H2O + 1 ml H2O = 2 ml H2O

 

Besides .. your reasoning only works at roomtemperature.

 

Does it still apply when it' s freezing ?

---

I remember first learning that water was the only non-metallic element that expands when frozen. This is why ice floats. Without this particular oddity of nature, Earth might be much different. Ice in lakes would form on the bottom and lakes could freeze solid as there would be no insulating blanket of ice and snow to prevent evaporative cooling at the surface. The result would be no fish in anything but perhaps the largest bodies of water, if anywhere.

Once again, when you dig, you find stuff!

 

[Dillon Levenque]

---

Madelaine McMasters wrote:

 The result would be no fish in anything but perhaps the largest bodies of water, if anywhere.

 

---

Alternatively, all the fish would be in places like Coastal California, where ice only forms in those little trays we put in the freezer.

[Madelaine McMasters]

---

Charolotte Caxton wrote:

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

---

Charolotte Caxton wrote:

I was being absolutely serious, not that it makes your proof any less valid

Are you saying that because drop is a measurement then we can say that two drops of water are equal to two drops of water no mater how they are combined, like if we put two cups of milk in a pint we still have two cups of milk?

Yes, that makes sense.

Why would water be outside of the scope of that equation?

---

1 + 1 = 2 means 1 unit + 1 unit = 2 units.

1 drop of water (1 unit) + 1 drop of water (1 unit) = 2 drops of water (2 seperate units).

But...

1 unit (1 drop of water) and 1 unit (1 drop of water) combine to make 1 unit (1 drop of water) of a larger size..

---

So, pretty much like my 2 cups equals one pint example?

---

In this instance, you have switched units, so the equation is not what it seems. If we keep the units the same (oz) then we get 2*8(oz/cup)=1*16(oz/pint).

In the ambiguous case of a "drop", you can argue that 1+1=1, but the equation doesn't tell you much, other than that "drop" is ambiguous. I could just as easily say 1+1=150 if cabbages are currently selling for 75 cents each.

This is why definition and scope are so important.

 

[ROB34466IIIa]

---

Madelaine McMasters wrote:

I remember first learning that water was the only non-metallic element that expands when frozen. This is why ice floats. Without this particular oddity of nature, ......

 

---

:robotsurprised:

 

Now.. now..  there now .. no need implying Mother' s a freak ... :robotfrustrated:

[ROB34466IIIa]

---

Madelaine McMasters wrote:

This is why definition and scope are so important.

 

---

ow ..err .. right..

 

.. that ..

 

( .. wow .. :robotsurprised: )

[Madelaine McMasters]

---

Dillon Levenque wrote:

---

Madelaine McMasters wrote:

 The result would be no fish in anything but perhaps the largest bodies of water, if anywhere.

 

---

Alternatively, all the fish would be in places like Coastal California, where ice only forms in those little trays we put in the freezer.

---

You may be onto a solution for global warming there, Dillon. Let's cover the Earth with little trays!

[Madelaine McMasters]

---

ROB34466IIIa wrote:

---

Madelaine McMasters wrote:

This is why definition and scope are so important.

 

---

ow ..err .. right..

 

.. that ..

 

( .. wow .. :robotsurprised: )

---

Turns a well defined ankle while spitting her Scope back into the bathroom sink.

[ROB34466IIIa]

/me watches Maddy go out of his sight and smirks.

[Charolotte Caxton]

---

Madelaine McMasters wrote:

---

ROB34466IIIa wrote:

---

Madelaine McMasters wrote:

This is why definition and scope are so important.

 

---

ow ..err .. right..

 

.. that ..

 

( .. wow .. :robotsurprised: )

---

Turns a well defined ankle while spitting her Scope back into the bathroom sink.

---

What makes your definition of ankle any more true than any other definition of ankle?