Picking up sounds from Saturn

Originally posted by Teeky
reply to post by thrashee

 

Pluto does apply because like in your link it's that space is not quite a complete vaccum. Well I grew up being told by scientist that space is vaccum and that pluto was a planet. Yes I do like how science is presented as a work in progress.

But, we also don't need a group of scientist or a government feeding us information about space without us questioning it. I say don't deny your gut instinct and own analysis of things.

And what exactly should my gut instinct be regarding sound in space? Have you ever been in space? I haven't, so I have no innate "gut feeling" regarding it.

The reason I'm stressing this is because I smell paranoia behind your words. You're linking science and the government together and suggesting that we're being fed false information. While it's a trendy idea here in ATS, it's exhausting watching that paranoia extend from covering up UFOs to more seemingly innocuous things like "planets don't really exist" and "sounds from Saturn couldn't happen, so there must be a cover up!".

Science is in no way shape of form a religion, end of discussion. Science is based on actual tangible discoveries, not anecdotal evidence.

Science can never claim to know everything and you will never hear a good scientist who embraces the scientific method claim it. Unlike a religion that uses the same information again and again, over and over, like some sort of kaleidoscope, science takes in the new and unknown and tries to figure it out, which in turn allows science to become more accurate over time.

There is a reason why you were told that space was a complete vaccum when you were a kid, that's because we thought it was then. However, the nature of science and the advancement of technology has allowed us to refine the theory. It's all there for you to read about in Wikipedia or at your library, you just need to go find it.

Also, not everything becomes science. You can't go around using anecdotes and simple observations by humans alone to make science. It wouldn't survive the peer review process and would be forgotten.Science requires evidence and goes through a rigorous process to make sure it makes sense. Sometimes it doesn't make sense and has to be accepted because the evidence for it is overwhelming.Most things in this universe, especially in quantum physics, don't make sense to the human mind because it didn't evolve to make sense of it, it evolved to simply survive on the planet earth because that's the environment is evolved in.It takes a lot of hard work, long hours in the lab, and incredible scrutiny by your peers to become a good scientist that does good work.

As far as knowing to look for radio waves, he didn't. That's why it's called a discovery. Maxwell predicted they existed because of extensive works in mathematics. When he put his works to test, he found he was right.

Radio waves were first predicted by mathematical work done in 1865 by James Clerk Maxwell. Maxwell noticed wave-like properties of light and similarities in electrical and magnetic observations and proposed equations that described light waves and radio waves as waves of electromagnetism that travel in space.

As for the Pyramids, they definitely had the man power and technology to build them back then. Guess how they did it? With science, that's how. They were smart people, and used what they had to get the job done, and that's lots of people:

Archaeologists believe that the Great Pyramid was built by tens of thousands of skilled and unskilled workers who camped near the pyramids and worked for a salary or as a form of paying taxes until the construction was completed. The worker's cemeteries were discovered in 1990 by archaeologists Zahi Hawass and Mark Lehner. Egyptologist Miroslav Verner posited that the labor was organized into a hierarchy, consisting of two gangs of 100,000 men, divided into five zaa or phyle of 20,000 men each, which may have been further divided according to the skills of the workers.

200,000 men, ramps, stone, and a way to transport them is a completely plausible theory on how they were built. However, since it's impossible for us to travel back in time to that era, we can't say for 100%, but we're always probing deeper and deeper and making more tiny discoveries about it. Science doesn't like accepting something as a final 100% answer, things are always under the microscope, so to speak. I can see why people who are inclined to have religious beliefs would be uncomfortable with that because they might have to change what they think. Good science doesn't have that reservation, and if something is proved to be better, or that some part of a theory doesn't make sense and something else does, it's replaced until we find out more info

[edit on 18-8-2008 by OnionCloud]

I also encourage people to not believe in what you hear, go research it for yourself from reputable sources. If someone tells you that the moon is made of cheese, research it. If someone tells you that aliens come from mars research it, but from a reputable sources.

What makes a source reputable? Real evidence and not stories, even first hand stories.

Observations are statements which are determined by using the senses. Observations aroused by self-defining instruments are often unreliable­¹. Such observations are hard to reproduce because they may vary even with respect to the same stimuli. Therefore they are not of much use in exact sciences like physics which require instruments which do not define themselves. It is therefore often necessary to use various engineered instruments such as spectrometers, oscilloscopes, cameras, telescopes, interferometers, tape recorders, thermometers etc. and tools such as clocks and Tape measures that help in improving the accuracy, quality and utility of the information obtained from an observation. Invariable observation requires uniformity of response to a given stimulus, and devices promoting such observation must not give output that is in any way subjective (as if having "a mind (or opinion) of their own"). In statistics, an observation, whether of a sample

The accuracy and tremendous success of science is primarily attributed to the accuracy and objectivity (i.e. repeatability) of observation of the reality that science explores.

Humans, as a rule of thumb, are not good observers on their own. We forget things, add in things, distort things, mix things together, misinterpret things, etc. That's why the nature of science is rigorous and dependent upon peer review, so it can be correct as possible until we have better technology and observations to go by.

[edit on 18-8-2008 by OnionCloud]

Manasseh:

For someone who is "enlightened", you sure do make a lot of obviously incorrect claims.

reply to post by Manasseh


Your views are directed towards evil being in control and bad times ahead for humanity. You claim to be going on Gods will yet you percieve the world as being run by evil. Any human doing Gods will can only see the light, and the path they take becomes illuminated and ultimately the darkness ceases. We can only except what sounds and feels right to us. Yes, I beleive as well that we all are influenced by good and evil, however we keep making the mistake that it is something external from us, like we have been conditioned by religion/science/society to believe so. This is wrong, all the good and evil comes from within and it is from within that we can strive to go towards the light which is almost always the hardest path, follow the decieving darkness which makes its path look so simple or just live with the balance and keep reincarnating into the same life over and over.

It is sad to read comments by someone like Manasseh.
He is a 'believer,' and so is immune to argument or rational discourse; a sad and troubled soul who really should not be suffered gladly.
First, FAITH is NOT by itself a causative agent; that is to say that when a scientist states that he believes in the theory of Evolution, or Quantum mechanics, etc. he is saying something quite different from a "believer's" saying I believe in God, UFOs, ghosts, etc.
The believer's statement is supposed to exist, a priori, in effect that the very act of believing automatically acts to fulfill the process, whatever it is you wish to claim. A scientist is more accurately saying, "I believe that the mechanisms understood and described as 'evolution' adequately explain most of the natural phenomena we have observed, and as our understanding advances we will either recognize errors in our observations, or make refinements to our theories".
Believers simply are claiming that JUST BELIEVING hard enough is ALL IT TAKES and magically, the details are filled in automatically (by God, aliens, ghosts, etc.).
Frustrating ex: the only known human survivor of rabies in ALL of HISTORY thanked God, not the MDs who used 1000 years of theory and science to save her. Now realize, that for millennia people have prayed, in futility, for God to cure every person infected with rabies, and ONLY NOW, does He finally decide to cure this ONE person - who by the way also happens to be receiving unprecedented, advanced care (gee, coincidence, or God's warped sense of humor?).
This sadly is the ultimate, child-like conceit- that this person alone, in all of history, was the first deserving one, or the one chosen (or whathaveyou, pick anything you like out of thin air).
The ironic thing about science is, you don't have to believe in it - it works just fine without you. Your cell phone, the keypad I'm typing on, the LED screen I'm looking at all are beyond my comprehension, but they all work - applied THEORIES seem to have succeeded quite well.
I believe, unfortunately, that our society at least is nearly done, as it all has fallen to marketing. This website, politics, education - we make crap and convince ourselves it's still gold, and everything falls apart, because nobody knows how to make real things any longer; they just go to Business school and study "Marketing," so they can be sophisticated liars and sell even more crap to ignorant, uncurious masses who, except for the cell phone, are no more enlightened than Neanderthals 200,000 years ago. Less, really, as they wouldn't survive a week outdoors, even with global warming.
This site is just another manifestation, pandering to the blogomaniacs without any filtering process that might weed out gibberish.
If you actually post this, maybe I'll write later, re: a skeptic's manifesto.