Five fundamental science questions

[jillery]

From my second favorite astrophysicist:

<https://medium.com/starts-with-a-bang/ask-ethan-which-fundamental-science-question-is-the-most-important-a537c63d74b1>

<https://tinyurl.com/y944kpho>

*************************************************
If you could have a complete answer to one of these 5 questions what
would it be?

* Did cosmic inflation happen or was there another process?
* Is earth the only place in the cosmos with life?
* How [can we] merge general relativity and quantum mechanics?
* What is dark energy and dark matter?
* How did life begin on Earth?
*************************************************

Siegel tells his choice and explains why.
Of course, your mileage may vary.

--
I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.

Evelyn Beatrice Hall
Attributed to Voltaire

[John Harshman]

On 1/3/18 7:21 AM, jillery wrote:
> From my second favorite astrophysicist:
>
> <https://medium.com/starts-with-a-bang/ask-ethan-which-fundamental-science-question-is-the-most-important-a537c63d74b1>
>
> <https://tinyurl.com/y944kpho>
>
> *************************************************
> If you could have a complete answer to one of these 5 questions what
> would it be?
>
> * Did cosmic inflation happen or was there another process?
> * Is earth the only place in the cosmos with life?
> * How [can we] merge general relativity and quantum mechanics?
> * What is dark energy and dark matter?
> * How did life begin on Earth?
> *************************************************
>
> Siegel tells his choice and explains why.
> Of course, your mileage may vary.

I came to the same conclusion he did.

[Ernest Major]

My choice would have been merging GR and QM, on the grounds that it
might answer a couple of the other questions as well.

--
alias Ernest Major

[John Harshman]

Then again, understanding dark energy and dark matter might do the same.

[Ray Martinez]

On Wednesday, January 3, 2018 at 7:25:05 AM UTC-8, jillery wrote:
> From my second favorite astrophysicist:
>
> <https://medium.com/starts-with-a-bang/ask-ethan-which-fundamental-science-question-is-the-most-important-a537c63d74b1>
>
> <https://tinyurl.com/y944kpho>
>
> *************************************************
> If you could have a complete answer to one of these 5 questions what
> would it be?
>
> * Did cosmic inflation happen or was there another process?
> * Is earth the only place in the cosmos with life?

Of course not. Other intelligent beings exist throughout the universe. The Bible makes the claim that Adamic life is a **special** creation, not a unique creation. Much evidence exists supporting the existence of extraterrestrial life.

> * How [can we] merge general relativity and quantum mechanics?
> * What is dark energy and dark matter?
> * How did life begin on Earth?

This question indicates that you have zero confidence in abiogenesis. Evolution falsified right here. Life from non-life is impossible. A God must exist and does exist. Mind came first, not matter. Evolution is a false interpretation of evidence. Observation of design dictates that groups within groups was how the Mastermind chose to create and organize biodiversity.

Ray

[jillery]

On Sat, 6 Jan 2018 19:20:30 -0800 (PST), Ray Martinez
<r3p...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Wednesday, January 3, 2018 at 7:25:05 AM UTC-8, jillery wrote:
>> From my second favorite astrophysicist:
>>
>> <https://medium.com/starts-with-a-bang/ask-ethan-which-fundamental-science-question-is-the-most-important-a537c63d74b1>
>>
>> <https://tinyurl.com/y944kpho>
>>
>> *************************************************
>> If you could have a complete answer to one of these 5 questions what
>> would it be?
>>
>> * Did cosmic inflation happen or was there another process?
>> * Is earth the only place in the cosmos with life?
>
>Of course not. Other intelligent beings exist throughout the universe. The Bible makes the claim that Adamic life is a **special** creation, not a unique creation. Much evidence exists supporting the existence of extraterrestrial life.

Such as?

>> * How [can we] merge general relativity and quantum mechanics?
>> * What is dark energy and dark matter?
>> * How did life begin on Earth?
>
>This question indicates that you have zero confidence in abiogenesis.

Of course, it indicates no such thing. I really hope you find a
remedial reading class soon.

[William Morse]

I am going to agree with John on this one, although I understand
Ernest's position, and my choice came down to these two.The deciding
factor for me is that if it turns out that we can't merge general
relativity with quantum mechanics, that answer is not available, whereas
I think we will eventually learn more about dark energy and dark matter.

[T Pagano]

Harshman writes as if dark matter/energy is settled/proven science when
it is nothing more than an ad hoc, unscientific addition to prevent the
collapse of the modern cosmological model.

It is an ad hoc addition which proposes the existence of an entity (dark
matter) comprising 95% of the mass of the universe but has never been
observed and its only proposed feature is to explain the velocity of the
outer edge of galaxies which can't be explained by the current model. In
like fashion dark energy is unobservable with its only feature being to
explain expansion which the current model ended up failing to explain.

And yet proposing unobservables which are untestable and hence
unfalsifiable isn't science. But this isn't about science; its about the
religion of naturalism.

[John Harshman]

Pagano-centrism, as usual. Not everything is about you. Not all of
science is about your personal obsessions.

> It is an ad hoc addition which proposes the existence of an entity (dark
> matter) comprising 95% of the mass of the universe but has never been
> observed and its only proposed feature is to explain the velocity of the
> outer edge of galaxies which can't be explained by the current model. In
> like fashion dark energy is unobservable with its only feature being to
> explain expansion which the current model ended up failing to explain.
>
> And yet proposing unobservables which are untestable and hence
> unfalsifiable isn't science. But this isn't about science; its about the
> religion of naturalism.

I await your alternative explanation of the observations. But then
explanation isn't your thing, is it?

[Bob Casanova]

On Mon, 15 Jan 2018 22:05:41 -0600, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by T Pagano <notmya...@dot.com>:

OK, fine. Let's hear your interpretation of the data which
led to the DM/DE hypotheses. Note that it must explain *all*
of the data, and must make predictions regarding future
observations, like any scientific hypothesis.
--

Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov

[Bob Casanova]

On Tue, 16 Jan 2018 10:49:48 -0700, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>:

[Crickets...]

Yeah, thought so.