Do these discoveries change your view of the universe?

[Spiral Out]

Spiral, this is not at all true. You do NOT need to know an object's properties, when such objects are merely a part of the sea of metaphors, to understand that object. The same way we use stars to triangulate the distance... The Universe creates itself, in different forms, on different scales. As long as we earn enough understanding for metaphor A, we may be able to use metaphor A to understand metaphor B, in spite of having nothing to work with metaphor B; there will still be a similar function between the two that allows us to understand the nature of metaphor B via metaphor A. Therefore you're highly under-estimating science, here.

There's absolutely no true reasoning behind all of that gibberish. What does that all mean? The "Universe" creates itself? The capitalization of "Universe" and the "creates itself" wording shows that you may think the universe is conscious? Why should I give such a concept a second thought?

If you do not know the dimensional limits of the universe then you cannot plot any point within that universe. Common sense.

Better yet, show precisely how my analysis is flawed instead of simply submitting poetic nonsense.

[Subatomic God]

There's absolutely no true reasoning behind all of that gibberish. What does that all mean? The "Universe" creates itself? The capitalization of "Universe" and the "creates itself" wording shows that you may think the universe is conscious? Why should I give such a concept a second thought?

If you do not know the dimensional limits of the universe then you cannot plot any point within that universe. Common sense.

Better yet, show precisely how my analysis is flawed instead of simply submitting poetic nonsense.

The Universe projects itself under different guises, on different scales. It's not at all difficult discovering distinctions between these metaphors and using such distinctions to come to a conclusion for a metaphor that isn't as simple to understand when it's being observed by itself. As I have said before: The Universe is a very simple complex of organisms and forces that seemingly take on countless forms; we, the animals, the objects of our world are all consisted of that complex. The ONLY possible way for us to understand as much as we do of this world, is by cross-referencing different correlations to come to a logical assessment. As we observe the world, as it is, and for what we're perceiving of it, the objects/subjects in form and apparent form are all leading back to the "totality".

[Philosophy Explorer]

In order to know whether something is expanding, contracting or otherwise changing shape, one must first know the shape and limits of such a phenomenon. In terms of the universe, there must literally be a universal reference against which all can be measured. There is no such reference.

I beg to differ. As already discussed on another thread, the speed of light is such a reference

2) The speed of light is a yardstick by which the size (not dimensions) of the universe can be measured. Have you ever heard of a light-year e.g.?

(MM had presumed just the opposite, that the speed of light would vary - better check your facts SO).

So is the speed of light a constant or is it variable? If it's variable then it cannot be a universal reference.

Regardless of all this unproductive back and forth, you still have yet to show the error in my initial analysis of the scientific method or of my assessment of the accuracy of the assumptions made in the absence of a universal reference, of which such a reference is fundamentally required.

Apparently you're not familiar with the history of the Michelson-Morley experiment. They assumed they were going to prove the speed of light was a variable, instead their experiment proved the speed of light was a constant making it a universal reference. Would you like a reference to a website with further details?

PhilX

[Spiral Out]

They assumed they were going to prove the speed of light was a variable, instead their experiment proved the speed of light was a constant making it a universal reference.

A currently assumed constant is not a universal reference with which to determine all aspects of the universe. You will at least admit that nothing is static within the realm of scientific theory?

Currently, it is presumed that the speed of light is a constant. Constants cannot be used as a universal reference in relation to calculating the absolute nature of the universe, especially when there are so many pieces of the puzzle missing. Until there can be provided a unified proof of universal functions then any subpart of the whole cannot be logically said to be at all accurate.

Would you like a reference to a website with further details?

No thank you. I think the first article you referenced did enough to contradict itself and that of your own propositions quite adequately.

>>>

The Universe projects itself under different guises, on different scales. It's not at all difficult discovering distinctions between these metaphors and using such distinctions to come to a conclusion for a metaphor that isn't as simple to understand when it's being observed by itself.

Utterly meaningless.

[Subatomic God]

Utterly meaningless.

Philosophy is meaningless, yet it's the father of science. Perhaps you're not realizing that there never was such a thing as "literal", and that all the things we understand now, is based on imaginary milestones called "axioms"? You insist that there be "more", but what is "more", if you, yourself, cannot imagine that? There will be a time when you understand that there isn't a "more". And the more we assess, the less the Universe is compared to what we imagined it as. The Universe can never be "known", but "understood. The ONLY reason why this is possible, is because: The Universe is "nothing, as it appears, and "everything" as it "is". Philosophy is the father of science, and religion. One requiring minds; the other requiring hands. Therefore metaphysical/physical practice defines us -- starting with the metaphysical. I do not believe you understand how far "meaninglessness" can proceed, nor do I believe you understand how "science" works and the amount of meaninglessness which lead to it. Much like language; even without meaning, it is of greatest value.

[Philosophy Explorer]

SO said:

"A currently assumed constant is not a universal reference with which to determine all aspects of the universe. You will at least admit that nothing is static within the realm of scientific theory?"

The speed of light isn't assumed to be a constant. It has been measured and tested and proven to be a constant in our universe (subsequent to the Big Bang). Can you prove otherwise? (so far you haven't provided a shred of evidence).

As an aside. How do you know that nothing is static/constant within the realm of scientific theory? Where's your proof to this claim?

PhilX

[Radar]

To say first, this has been all over the news. Secondly this supports the Big Bang Theory. Next this ties into inflation. Fourth other theories about how the universe came to be have been weakened. Confirmation from other groups of scientists is forthcoming and there may be a Nobel Prize in it for the scientists at the South Pole who made these discoveries.

Here's an article: http://time.com/24894/gravity-waves-expanding-universe/

PhilX

I can't imagine how it can.

[Philosophy Explorer]

To say first, this has been all over the news. Secondly this supports the Big Bang Theory. Next this ties into inflation. Fourth other theories about how the universe came to be have been weakened. Confirmation from other groups of scientists is forthcoming and there may be a Nobel Prize in it for the scientists at the South Pole who made these discoveries.

Here's an article: http://time.com/24894/gravity-waves-expanding-universe/

PhilX

I can't imagine how it can.

My suggestion is to read the links. Then if you have any specific questions, post them in here.

PhilX

[Bohm2]

Philosophy is meaningless, yet it's the father of science.

I love philosophy but the sciences are "first philosophy". It is changes/revolution in sciences that usually lead to a reorganization and reinterpretation of metaphysics. As Friedman writes quoting Kant:

[T]he philosophers of the modern tradition from Descartes are not best understood as attempting to stand outside the new science so as to show, from some mysterious point outside of sciences itself that our scientific knowledge somehow mirrors an independently existing reality. Rather, they start from the fact of modern scientific knowledge as a fixed point, as it were. Their problem is not so much to justify this knowledge from some 'higher' standpoint so as to articulate the new philosophical conceptions that are forced upon us by the new science. In Kant's words, mathematics and the science of nature stand in no need of philosophical inquiry for themselves, but for the sake of another science: metaphysics.

[Subatomic God]

In Kant's words, mathematics and the science of nature stand in no need of philosophical inquiry for themselves, but for the sake of another science: metaphysics.

Yes, I agree. However, as the things stand without philosophical inquiry, we still require such to stand with those things, in relation.

[Bohm2]

The conference is now up as a downloadable mp4 file:

http://www.cfa.harvard.edu/pao/Bicep2_news_con.mp4

[Sy Borg]

To say first, this has been all over the news. Secondly this supports the Big Bang Theory. Next this ties into inflation. Fourth other theories about how the universe came to be have been weakened. Confirmation from other groups of scientists is forthcoming and there may be a Nobel Prize in it for the scientists at the South Pole who made these discoveries.

Here's an article: http://time.com/24894/gravity-waves-expanding-universe/

PhilX

My view of the Universe remains unchanged. The models we have - relativity and QM - have been hugely successful and done much to improve our lives, suggesting that theory matches reality.

Perhaps learning more about dark matter and energy, and the nature of the singularity within black holes could be game changers.

[Radar]

(Nested quote removed.)

I can't imagine how it can.

My suggestion is to read the links. Then if you have any specific questions, post them in here.

PhilX

I did, even before you started this thread.

[Spiral Out]

It has been measured and tested and proven to be a constant in our universe (subsequent to the Big Bang). Can you prove otherwise? (so far you haven't provided a shred of evidence).

As measured by current manmade instrumentation. I'll refer you back to Post #3.

How do you know that nothing is static/constant within the realm of scientific theory? Where's your proof to this claim?

Does the Sun still go around the Earth? Are there any other scientific "laws/beliefs/theories" that are no longer "true"? Might the "limit of the speed of light" someday be one of those defunct theories? Yes, of course.

[Philosophy Explorer]

It has been measured and tested and proven to be a constant in our universe (subsequent to the Big Bang). Can you prove otherwise? (so far you haven't provided a shred of evidence).

As measured by current manmade instrumentation. I'll refer you back to Post #3.

How do you know that nothing is static/constant within the realm of scientific theory? Where's your proof to this claim?

Does the Sun still go around the Earth? Are there any other scientific "laws/beliefs/theories" that are no longer "true"? Might the "limit of the speed of light" someday be one of those defunct theories? Yes, of course.

The consensus among scientists is that the speed of light is a constant and can be used as a yardstick. Can you show any scientists who doesn't believe this? In regards to the instruments, there's no improvements expected that would say that the speed of light isn't a constant. Can you produce evidence to the contrary? Saying that science is fluid isn't enough. You must give evidence relevant to the issue that the speed of light is a constant which you haven't produced. I know plenty of scientists who have shown the speed of light is a constant. So how can you deny the facts?