SkopeWouldn't you like to know ;)Join Date: 2016-06-07Member: 218212Members
The real question now, is whether anyone can prove the existence of a planet in real life that is identical to the planet 4546B (Subnautica's planet name for those of you who didn't know.)
The real question now, is whether anyone can prove the existence of a planet in real life that is identical to the planet 4546B (Subnautica's planet name for those of you who didn't know.)
Well if the universe is infinite, then there's a infinite amount of planet 4546B
That also means there's a infinite amount of people who want multiplayer.
The real question now, is whether anyone can prove the existence of a planet in real life that is identical to the planet 4546B (Subnautica's planet name for those of you who didn't know.)
Well if the universe is infinite, then there's a infinite amount of planet 4546B
That also means there's a infinite amount of people who want multiplayer.
I'm like 99% sure thats not how the universe works but ok
Science evolves over time. Some people treat science like religious dogma where refuting certain theories is blasphemy. While science is about survival of the fittest. That is why scientists have to be willing to keep an open mind and accept evidence that disproves their beloved theories. Some theories get discarded due to observations, some theories only work in certain circumstances (Classical Mechanics doesn't apply to relativistic velocities), and some theories evolve.
In a few decades or centuries, some brilliant physicist might come up with a theory that disproves E=mc^2 or at least make it work in only certain situations. After all, it seems to be a bit too simple to work in all situations or explain the complexities of matter and energy. Limiting matter and energy to simple equations and having just negative and positive versions seems like it is just scratching the surface of what matter and energy truly is.
Yes, science does evolve over time. Things once thought correct are later proven incorrect. I said as much already. However, and this is the key thing, until you have a better explanation that is supported by evidence and reproducible testing, the current theory is what we go by because it's the best current explanation. It's why we have the dark matter principle in the first place; it's the best available explanation for the observed effects. Could it be thrown out by additional discoveries? Sure; personally, I'd be surprised if it turned out to be 100% accurate. But science can't just throw its hands up and say "oh, hell, we can't be sure we're right so we can't say anything." That's solipsism, a pretty pointless philosophy that says anything outside of your own mind cannot be proven to exist. As a philosophy, that's fine, but it has no place in science. Science is about best available explanations, supported by evidence, yet predicated on the possibility that future observations may invalidate current models. And that's happened many, many times already, and will continue happening as long as there are humans and the scientific method.
The problem is that we have a lot of evidenciary support for E=mc^2. It underpins everything from nuclear power to stellar dynamics. We've never even seen observations that would suggest it's wrong for its field of application. Yes, the equation breaks down under specific conditions - mainly quantum effects - but that's a whole different kettle of fish. It's also why real scientists are continuing to evaluation General Relativity; it's not a Law (nor will it be, because science doesn't believe in that level of conceit anymore), and it's constantly being challenged. It also has tons of support in the form of evidence, and that's the coin of the realm in science: evidence.
It was an example. I am not claiming that there is such a thing as a French Jell-O nebula, it was an example about how the existence of anything cannot be completely disproven. I repeat, I am NOT SAYING IT DOES EXIST. I wanted a ludicrous example to get my point across, and a "French Jell-O nebula" was the first thing that came into my head.
Just clearing things up.
No, I understand that. But what's slipping the gear here is that "finding evidence that something doesn't exist" is backwards from how science really works. You observe an effect, generate a hypothesis to explain that effect, and test to see if your prediction is accurate. You look for evidence in support or disagreement, but evidence above all.
Basically, you'd need to find an observable instance somewhere in the universe, then create your hypothesis to fit that. The scientific method doesn't work in the opposite direction, creating a hypothesis and then saying "there, disprove me," because "I have an idea without any evidence, prove me wrong" just isn't the scientific method. It's philosophy.
In a real scientific environment, that conversation is really short.
A: "I think this could exist in the universe."
B: "Based on what?"
A: "The universe is infinite; it could be out there."
B: "But you have no evidence showing an instance of it? Even evidence that could be explained by it?"
A: "No."
B: "Find some evidence to support what you're saying, then we'll talk."
A: "But you don't have evidence that says it's wrong."
B: "No, but you have something for both of us to objectively observe. You don't. If you find something, we'll all take a look at it. Until then, sorry."
The real question now, is whether anyone can prove the existence of a planet in real life that is identical to the planet 4546B (Subnautica's planet name for those of you who didn't know.)
Actually, @Skope, you're in luck! We have two candidates. There's Gilese 1214b and Kepler 22b. Now, Gj 1214b is a super-earth, but its spectral signatures and range to host star both point to a high possibility that it's an ocean planet - scientists often refer to it by nickname, "waterworld." (Specifically, spectra received have ruled out a thick hydrogen atmosphere, and the only other atmosphere that fits - by process of elimination - with refraction data is a medium-thickness nitrogen-based atmosphere with substantial water vapor.
Also, Gilese 1214b and 4546B are remarkably similar in name, no?
Kepler 22b (KOI-087.01) may be kinda cold, about -11C, but if there's an earthlike greenhouse effect going on, then that temperature comes up to 22C - much nicer.
So, yes, one day our ancestors might be stranded on a hostile alien oceanworld, punching the crap out of Reapers.
Comments
Well if the universe is infinite, then there's a infinite amount of planet 4546B
That also means there's a infinite amount of people who want multiplayer.
And a infinite amount of Julian's
See, now that chit, Really IS Scary!!!!!!
I'm like 99% sure thats not how the universe works but ok
Yes, science does evolve over time. Things once thought correct are later proven incorrect. I said as much already. However, and this is the key thing, until you have a better explanation that is supported by evidence and reproducible testing, the current theory is what we go by because it's the best current explanation. It's why we have the dark matter principle in the first place; it's the best available explanation for the observed effects. Could it be thrown out by additional discoveries? Sure; personally, I'd be surprised if it turned out to be 100% accurate. But science can't just throw its hands up and say "oh, hell, we can't be sure we're right so we can't say anything." That's solipsism, a pretty pointless philosophy that says anything outside of your own mind cannot be proven to exist. As a philosophy, that's fine, but it has no place in science. Science is about best available explanations, supported by evidence, yet predicated on the possibility that future observations may invalidate current models. And that's happened many, many times already, and will continue happening as long as there are humans and the scientific method.
The problem is that we have a lot of evidenciary support for E=mc^2. It underpins everything from nuclear power to stellar dynamics. We've never even seen observations that would suggest it's wrong for its field of application. Yes, the equation breaks down under specific conditions - mainly quantum effects - but that's a whole different kettle of fish. It's also why real scientists are continuing to evaluation General Relativity; it's not a Law (nor will it be, because science doesn't believe in that level of conceit anymore), and it's constantly being challenged. It also has tons of support in the form of evidence, and that's the coin of the realm in science: evidence.
No, I understand that. But what's slipping the gear here is that "finding evidence that something doesn't exist" is backwards from how science really works. You observe an effect, generate a hypothesis to explain that effect, and test to see if your prediction is accurate. You look for evidence in support or disagreement, but evidence above all.
Basically, you'd need to find an observable instance somewhere in the universe, then create your hypothesis to fit that. The scientific method doesn't work in the opposite direction, creating a hypothesis and then saying "there, disprove me," because "I have an idea without any evidence, prove me wrong" just isn't the scientific method. It's philosophy.
In a real scientific environment, that conversation is really short.
A: "I think this could exist in the universe."
B: "Based on what?"
A: "The universe is infinite; it could be out there."
B: "But you have no evidence showing an instance of it? Even evidence that could be explained by it?"
A: "No."
B: "Find some evidence to support what you're saying, then we'll talk."
A: "But you don't have evidence that says it's wrong."
B: "No, but you have something for both of us to objectively observe. You don't. If you find something, we'll all take a look at it. Until then, sorry."
Actually, @Skope, you're in luck! We have two candidates. There's Gilese 1214b and Kepler 22b. Now, Gj 1214b is a super-earth, but its spectral signatures and range to host star both point to a high possibility that it's an ocean planet - scientists often refer to it by nickname, "waterworld." (Specifically, spectra received have ruled out a thick hydrogen atmosphere, and the only other atmosphere that fits - by process of elimination - with refraction data is a medium-thickness nitrogen-based atmosphere with substantial water vapor.
Also, Gilese 1214b and 4546B are remarkably similar in name, no?
Kepler 22b (KOI-087.01) may be kinda cold, about -11C, but if there's an earthlike greenhouse effect going on, then that temperature comes up to 22C - much nicer.
So, yes, one day our ancestors might be stranded on a hostile alien oceanworld, punching the crap out of Reapers.