New discovery is so awesome it destroys scientists' theories about the universe


#1

This is just more proof that arrogant scientists who seem to think they have all the answers, have very few. Check this out!

Largest structure in universe discovered - Technology & science - Space - Space.com | NBC News

“The Heavens proclaim thy greatness, O God!”


#2

And yet it was “arrogant scientists” who made this discovery, reported it to their peers and the world, and will continue looking for the truth whatever it may turn out to be. It is the nature of science to have new discoveries modify existing hypotheses.
One of the things I like about real science (as opposed to pop science and “political” science) is that the facts and understandings MUST always stand up to testing. Just one proven contrary example invalidates a hypothesis.


#3

Really? Explain then how the theory of evolution has passed the test? Explain why it is taught as a scientific fact in elementary and high schools? (Please don’t misinterpret this as an argument for creationism…) As a science teacher, I’ve always taught that **empirical evidence always trumps theory. **Most scientists today aren’t looking for the truth. They are looking for evidence to support their pet theories. A scientist, by his/her very position should never look for evidence to support their pet theory, but the TRUTH concerning it.


#4

It’s taught as theory in school. Just like relativity theory is taught. Just as string theory is taught etc. most scientists agree that evolution is a valid theory at this time. If you or other teachers are treating it as fact then that’s on you or the other teachers. It’s a THEORY. Not a law


#5

This structure was created by two galaxies colliding. It breaks no laws of physics or proves science wrong, as far as I or anyone else can see.

EDIT: Ah, nevermind. Thought we were talking about something else. In any case, it certainly doesn’t make the scientists that discovered it arrogant. It might change some models about universe and galaxy formation.

And I can’t believe ClassicalTeacher is a science educator and simultaneously doesn’t understand what “theory” means.


#6

You’re a science teacher and don’t know the meaning of the word “theory” as it is used in a scientific context?

Edit: I see Trekky beat me to it! lol


#7

The link above? WOW

ZING! That’s an excellent point.


#8

the·o·ry
[thee-uh-ree, theer-ee]

noun, plural the·o·ries.
1.
a coherent group of tested general propositions, commonly regarded as correct, that can be used as principles of explanation and prediction for a class of phenomena: Einstein’s theory of relativity. Synonyms: principle, law, doctrine.

a proposed explanation whose status is and still conjectural subject to experimentation, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact. Synonyms: idea, notion hypothesis, postulate. Antonyms: practice, verification, corroboration, substantiation.

Mathematics . a body of principles, theorems, or the like, belonging to one subject: number theory.

the branch of a science or art that deals with its principles or methods, as distinguished from its practice: music theory.


#9

I would suggest that someone who teaches science would understand the difference between dictionary definitions and what a THEORY is in SCIENCE. Wiki does a better job.

"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."[1][2] Scientists create scientific theories from hypotheses that have been corroborated through the scientific method, then gather evidence to test their accuracy. As with all forms of scientific knowledge, scientific theories are inductive in nature and do not make apodictic propositions; instead, they aim for predictive and explanatory force.[3][4]

The strength of a scientific theory is related to the diversity of phenomena it can explain, which is measured by its ability to make falsifiable predictions with respect to those phenomena. Theories are improved as more evidence is gathered, so that accuracy in prediction improves over time. Scientists use theories as a foundation to gain further scientific knowledge, as well as to accomplish goals such as inventing technology or curing disease.

Scientific theories are the most reliable, rigorous, and comprehensive form of scientific knowledge.[3] This is significantly different from the word “theory” in common usage, which implies that something is unproven or speculative.[5]
1.National Academy of Sciences, 1999
2. AAAS Evolution Resources
3. Schafersman, Steven D… “An Introduction to Science”.
4. American Association for the Advancement of Science, Project 2061
5.National Academy of Sciences, 2008.


The United States National Academy of Sciences defines scientific theories as follows:

**The formal scientific definition of theory is quite different from the everyday meaning of the word. **It refers to **a comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence**. Many scientific theories are so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter them substantially. For example, no new evidence will demonstrate that the Earth does not orbit around the sun (heliocentric theory), or that living things are not made of cells (cell theory), that matter is not composed of atoms, or that the surface of the Earth is not divided into solid plates that have moved over geological timescales (the theory of plate tectonics)...One of the most useful properties of scientific theories is that they can be used to make predictions about natural events or phenomena that have not yet been observed.

#10

Cam: I respectfully withdraw from further comments on this subject. It saddens me that I cannot argue the point further, but I simply cannot. You and the others here can think what you want of me as a teacher and/or as a person. I have tried to make a few points, and perhaps I do it very poorly. I am sorry for that. I respect all of your opinions and others here. You and the others are clearly more qualified than I to make these determinations. I probably brought this on myself for making a disparaging remark about “arrogant” scientist. Perhaps I’ve been the one with the arrogant attitude. All I wanted to do is to share what I found as an amazing discovery. Perhaps it would have been better if I just refrained from commentary. Sorry I’ve been such a poor contributor.


#11

In any case, why base the strength of an idea on the definition of the word “theory”? Why not judge evolution on its own merits and evidence?


#12

[quote=“Trekky0623, post:11, topic:37794”]
In any case, why base the strength of an idea on the definition of the word “theory”? Why not judge evolution on its own merits and evidence?
[/quote]I have to laugh, here you are criticizing someone for lack of knowledge with your well known history of false claims of such. Cam must have been burned by CT so he jumps in to troll.


#13

Thanks Sam. I don’t think I burned Cam–at least, I’m not aware of it. I think I have to accept responsibility for this one. I know what a theory is and what it is not. Sometimes I think the urge to prove a point leads us to play a game of semantics to the point where the original idea can become so convoluted as to not make sense anymore. Although science can be incredibly complex, there is also a simplicity about it that is absolute purity. We can’t possibly know everything there is to the universe. The fact of the universe’s incredible immensity certainly should bring that fact home. I guess when I referred to “arrogant” scientists, I was referring to the attitude that some scientists have that we have the ability to understand everything in the universe. In these cases where discoveries shake well-accepted concepts should strike us humble. The world is more than we will ever know. Star-Trek is just a fantasy–at least now. When I look at the absolute truth of science (what we currently know), I am awed by the incredible power and perfection of it all. Of course, for me, it is a reflection of the Creator and His awesomeness. I don’t expect anyone else to agree with that. And I don’t believe that I have ever pressed that issue here except as my own personal convictions. However, the point is that as we learn more and more incredible things about our universe, even if we do not believe in God, it should humble us in some way. When we look upon the micro universe and the fact that inside the nucleus of evey cell lies the unique and individual blueprint for each and every unique and individual human being that if stretched out in a single line, could be stretched for miles (I don’t remember the exact length right now–but it was far!), and then go in the opposite direction into the macro universe, I sit in absolute, silent awe.

The fact that I am unable to argue the “proper” or currently acceptable definition of theory or any other term does bother me to some degree. I wish I could. But, that does not mean that I am not a good science teacher or that I don’t know of what I speak. There are hundreds of thousands of differing ideas about scientific issues floating around. But, there is only one truth. We don’t know all of the truth and never will. I was involved with another site arguing intelligent design vs. evolution and it quickly became a philosophical argument of issues which were to me like trying to read ancient Egyptian hieroglyphics. I had to leave because the philosophical arguments were so complex and so outside of my knowledge (even though I’ve had a number of philosophy classes) that I could not possibly compete. It was interesting and I learned a lot, but what’s the point if I cannot offer any input?

So, for now, I will simply add any scientific articles that I find interesting without commentary. I think that is best. But again, thanks for the kind words, Sam.


#14

[quote=“ClassicalTeacher, post:13, topic:37794”]
Thanks Sam. I don’t think I burned Cam–at least, I’m not aware of it. I think I have to accept responsibility for this one. I know what a theory is and what it is not. Sometimes I think the urge to prove a point leads us to play a game of semantics to the point where the original idea can become so convoluted as to not make sense anymore. Although science can be incredibly complex, there is also a simplicity about it that is absolute purity. We can’t possibly know everything there is to the universe. The fact of the universe’s incredible immensity certainly should bring that fact home. I guess when I referred to “arrogant” scientists, I was referring to the attitude that some scientists have that we have the ability to understand everything in the universe. In these cases where discoveries shake well-accepted concepts should strike us humble. The world is more than we will ever know. Star-Trek is just a fantasy–at least now. When I look at the absolute truth of science (what we currently know), I am awed by the incredible power and perfection of it all. Of course, for me, it is a reflection of the Creator and His awesomeness. I don’t expect anyone else to agree with that. And I don’t believe that I have ever pressed that issue here except as my own personal convictions. However, the point is that as we learn more and more incredible things about our universe, even if we do not believe in God, it should humble us in some way. When we look upon the micro universe and the fact that inside the nucleus of evey cell lies the unique and individual blueprint for each and every unique and individual human being that if stretched out in a single line, could be stretched for miles (I don’t remember the exact length right now–but it was far!), and then go in the opposite direction into the macro universe, I sit in absolute, silent awe.

The fact that I am unable to argue the “proper” or currently acceptable definition of theory or any other term does bother me to some degree. I wish I could. But, that does not mean that I am not a good science teacher or that I don’t know of what I speak. There are hundreds of thousands of differing ideas about scientific issues floating around. But, there is only one truth. We don’t know all of the truth and never will. I was involved with another site arguing intelligent design vs. evolution and it quickly became a philosophical argument of issues which were to me like trying to read ancient Egyptian hieroglyphics. I had to leave because the philosophical arguments were so complex and so outside of my knowledge (even though I’ve had a number of philosophy classes) that I could not possibly compete. It was interesting and I learned a lot, but what’s the point if I cannot offer any input?

So, for now, I will simply add any scientific articles that I find interesting without commentary. I think that is best. But again, thanks for the kind words, Sam.
[/quote]Bottom line when trekky makes claims one can be assured it is wrong. He is like wrong way smith. Old charactor I saw on TV years ago.


#15

Please point out some lies I’ve told. I can think of a few you have told.


#16

CT I really liked your post about being humbled by the greatness of it all


#17

[quote=“ClassicalTeacher, post:13, topic:37794”]
Thanks Sam. I don’t think I burned Cam–at least, I’m not aware of it. I think I have to accept responsibility for this one. I know what a theory is and what it is not. Sometimes I think the urge to prove a point leads us to play a game of semantics to the point where the original idea can become so convoluted as to not make sense anymore. Although science can be incredibly complex, there is also a simplicity about it that is absolute purity. We can’t possibly know everything there is to the universe. The fact of the universe’s incredible immensity certainly should bring that fact home. I guess when I referred to “arrogant” scientists, I was referring to the attitude that some scientists have that we have the ability to understand everything in the universe. In these cases where discoveries shake well-accepted concepts should strike us humble. The world is more than we will ever know. Star-Trek is just a fantasy–at least now. When I look at the absolute truth of science (what we currently know), I am awed by the incredible power and perfection of it all. Of course, for me, it is a reflection of the Creator and His awesomeness. I don’t expect anyone else to agree with that. And I don’t believe that I have ever pressed that issue here except as my own personal convictions. However, the point is that as we learn more and more incredible things about our universe, even if we do not believe in God, it should humble us in some way. When we look upon the micro universe and the fact that inside the nucleus of evey cell lies the unique and individual blueprint for each and every unique and individual human being that if stretched out in a single line, could be stretched for miles (I don’t remember the exact length right now–but it was far!), and then go in the opposite direction into the macro universe, I sit in absolute, silent awe.

The fact that I am unable to argue the “proper” or currently acceptable definition of theory or any other term does bother me to some degree. I wish I could. But, that does not mean that I am not a good science teacher or that I don’t know of what I speak. There are hundreds of thousands of differing ideas about scientific issues floating around. But, there is only one truth. We don’t know all of the truth and never will. I was involved with another site arguing intelligent design vs. evolution and it quickly became a philosophical argument of issues which were to me like trying to read ancient Egyptian hieroglyphics. I had to leave because the philosophical arguments were so complex and so outside of my knowledge (even though I’ve had a number of philosophy classes) that I could not possibly compete. It was interesting and I learned a lot, but what’s the point if I cannot offer any input?

So, for now, I will simply add any scientific articles that I find interesting without commentary. I think that is best. But again, thanks for the kind words, Sam.
[/quote]Don’t let the eggheads intimidate or discourage you. I have found that those who believe science has all the answers, are usually mostly devoid of common sense. My Father in law worked for JPL(Jet Propulsion Labs). He was so intelligent, he was stupid. He could do anything you wanted in a lab, but was kept at his front door, by a woman, whose cohorts burglarized his house at the same time. I have known more, just like him.
Not saying every egghead is that stupid, but there is a reason for the stereotype. Their attacks on you, are not because of your shortcomings, but because of their own insecurities. It helps them feel superior. A truly intelligent person is aware that others may not be as smart, and would never disparage those of lesser skill. This is why book smarts do not impress me. Putting 7 kids through school, I had my share of run ins with arrogant intellectuals. I usually just laugh at them, and go on about my business.
Now, that I have slighted those who must take courses to learn what many of us know, naturally, they’ll leave you alone, and come after me. Doesn’t matter to me, because I am good at what I do, and what I do helps my family and friends, way more than knowing what a theory is, helps theirs. They want to believe they are smarter than me due to my lack if intellect, but I know things, of practical use, that they won’t.
I’ll bet you they can analyze the fertilizers I use, but could not tell me which will make my Silver Queen corn sweeter, and more prolific.
At any rate, don’t hold back. Many of us are truly interested in what you have to say, and those who insult you, are just diminishing themselves.
Have a blessed day, since you are absolutely blessed.


#18

Tiny: Thank you so much for your encouraging words. I don’t believe for a minute that you have a “lack of intellect”. Your comments and reasoning on this forum are concise and accurate. You are clearly a very intelligent man and I have great respect for you–and all you do for your children.

I suppose that some (not necessarily on this forum, but in general) extreme intellectuals lose their patience with people such as me. And, your statement: “He was so intelligent, he was stupid.” is so apropos because when people with that kind of mental capacity speak, it is like hearing a foreign language. Like I said, I was participating on another forum on intelligent design vs. evolution. The discussion got so complex (not in terms of scientific arguments for or against) that it no longer was a scientific discussion, but one of philosophy. It was WAAAAY over my little head. I finally just excused myself because I just didn’t grasp most of what they were discussing. (And when I attempted to respond, I got laughed out of the discussion topic! :awkward:)

I am happy to be here and try to offer some insights into various topics. I love science and that is why I have posted various articles relating to the progression of scientific discovery on this board. I don’t presume to have all the answers. I provided the dictionary definition to “theory” because I knew that if I were to provide just my own definition, I would get called out for it not providing a more accurate definition. But, it wound up biting me back nonetheless. You’re damned if you do, and damned if you don’t, I guess! Anyway, I still enjoy being here and reading your responses. Thanks again, Tiny!


#19

[quote=“ClassicalTeacher, post:18, topic:37794”]
Tiny: Thank you so much for your encouraging words. I don’t believe for a minute that you have a “lack of intellect”. Your comments and reasoning on this forum are concise and accurate. You are clearly a very intelligent man and I have great respect for you–and all you do for your children.

I suppose that some (not necessarily on this forum, but in general) extreme intellectuals lose their patience with people such as me. And, your statement: “He was so intelligent, he was stupid.” is so apropos because when people with that kind of mental capacity speak, it is like hearing a foreign language. Like I said, I was participating on another forum on intelligent design vs. evolution. The discussion got so complex (not in terms of scientific arguments for or against) that it no longer was a scientific discussion, but one of philosophy. It was WAAAAY over my little head. I finally just excused myself because I just didn’t grasp most of what they were discussing. (And when I attempted to respond, I got laughed out of the discussion topic! :awkward:)

I am happy to be here and try to offer some insights into various topics. I love science and that is why I have posted various articles relating to the progression of scientific discovery on this board. I don’t presume to have all the answers. I provided the dictionary definition to “theory” because I knew that if I were to provide just my own definition, I would get called out for it not providing a more accurate definition. But, it wound up biting me back nonetheless. You’re damned if you do, and damned if you don’t, I guess! Anyway, I still enjoy being here and reading your responses. Thanks again, Tiny!
[/quote]I think, just from the short discussions we’ve had, that you would have been preferable to almost all my kids teachers. You just seem “real”, and I got pretty sick, of the plastic, synthetic personalities, I had to deal with.
Yanno, I can find out anything I want, with just a small effort, so facts, theories and figures are fine, but reason and understanding beget wisdom. Books hold the knowledge, but cannot provide judgement, curiosity, or discernment, all qualities that comprise wisdom, and wisdom is key to growth and happiness. Ever see many happy intellectuals. They are often, depressingly concerned about this or that.
Don’t worry, be happy.


#20

I’m not going to coddle your arguments like some of the others here are doing. I’m going to tell this to you straight. Playing the martyr roll like this is just weak and I don’t think it suits you. Stop it.

What’s the point? You answered the question yourself! You LEARNED A LOT!! Look, we all have to step out of our comfort zone to move forward, because if all we ever do is stay we are are nice and comfy, then nothing ever gets freaking DONE. Just because we will might not ever know all of the truth of the universe, doesn’t mean we should sit on our butts where we are nice and comfy and just accept that. Always push forward, always keep learning!

Dude, if you’re going to make a statement like this, you should really back it up. This is just a blatant character attack and the fact that you couldn’t be arsed to back it up reflects poorly on the attack in my own personal opinion.