TheVegabond101 t1_jbadlb0 wrote
Reply to comment by ACoolKoala in TIL the largest moon in our solar system, Ganymede, is larger than the planet of Mercury by Jugales
All these are still mathematical guesses at the end then... 🤷♂️
ACoolKoala t1_jbaftd6 wrote
http://scienceline.ucsb.edu/getkey.php?key=115#:~:text=Yes.,objects%20at%20distance%20r%20away.
This might be helpful to you but no it's pretty exact. NASA wouldn't be putting it out as a measurement if it wasn't exact. Also if you don't go through the math of it how do you personally know if it's a guess or not?
This is also from Quora somewhere: To calculate a planet's density, you will need to know its mass and volume. The density of a planet can be calculated using the formula:
Density = Mass / Volume
The mass of a planet can be determined through various methods, such as measuring the gravitational pull on nearby objects or by studying the orbits of its moons. The volume of a planet can be determined by measuring its size and shape, which can be done through observations or by studying the planet's gravity field. Once you have the mass and volume, you can plug them into the density formula to calculate the planet's density.
But also note that density of a planet can definitely change so exact meaning at this point in time.
TheVegabond101 t1_jbaxxt4 wrote
If u r not doing all this calculation without being present there...it still be considered as theoretical. Not exact. Even no scientist can exactly explain the secrets of Pyramid building....let alone earth....and mercury.....just sayin
NouveauNewb t1_jbb4g4j wrote
You'd get more benefit from studying epistemology in a Philosophy 101 class rather than arguing the validity of the scientific method.
TheVegabond101 t1_jbb545u wrote
U don't know what u r talking about....plus i never argued validity of any method....i said its theoretical at the end of the day....not exact. Its your fault that ur brain interpret my message wrong. Now don't start Brain Vs Mind topic....cause it will be philosophy 101
NouveauNewb t1_jbb9fzq wrote
Science is theory. Seriously though, start with Descartes if college is out of reach. Becoming more well-rounded will help you prove your point because the way you say stuff now contradicts itself.
ACoolKoala t1_jbb9kxl wrote
Saying you as a human being have to physically be on the planet to measure the density of it is questioning the validity of the method we use to measure density of planets. We use accurate satellites and you deny their information as not accurate enough because a human being wasn't there. Do you see the logical fallacy in that? Do you realize we don't need physical human beings on the planet to do actual accurate science? Do you deny any of the info you learn from mars rovers because it wasn't gathered in person by a human being? Once again it's 2023 and that's not logical.
ACoolKoala t1_jbb8e01 wrote
Or math is more exact and it's not 1850 where we have to make theoretical guesses because we can send literal fucking probes and satellites to other planets to calculate the mass of a planet to an exact measurement. Theory in the context of science is not simply a guess—it is an explanation based on extensive and repeated experimentation.
You also don't need to be on the planet to calculate density if you bothered to read my last response. You clearly didn't. You can calculate the mass of a planet, standing on our planet, by looking at the gravitational effects on moons or other things around it. Notice how we live in 2023 and have sent satellites and probes to every planet in our system therefore don't need to make guesses as we've had decades to orbit them and measure with said satellites. You're being kinda anti intellectual with your reasoning right now.
TheVegabond101 t1_jbballl wrote
Anti intellectual...? I just said its all theoretical at the end of the day....is my statement wrong ? No longer 5 to 6 decade ago...Scientist thought sun was stationary...now its moving in orbit around milky way galaxy....that's fine example of one of your theory...Science is not absolute Truth....its constantly changing with discovery and technology...
ACoolKoala t1_jbbdvlv wrote
Yes your statement is wrong. Theoretical as a term in the science universe is more like a calculated measurement. Think about the Theory of Gravity. We can measure it, we can measure it's effect on matter in the universe. Do we know why it exists? How? Nope still a lot of science to do in that aspect that involves quantum mechanics, but we can still get VERY EXACT MEASUREMENTS of how it affects everything around us. From measuring the terminal velocity of your body flying through this planet to measuring the amount of pull our moon has on our planet (reasons tides exist). To the amount of pull Jupiters moons have on it (without ever physically visiting there aside from satellites).
These are all things people have studied and measured and pondered about for hundreds of years and we have technology to get continually more precise with those measurements. Hypothesis (scientific term for uneducated guess or question needing to be answered) don't get to be theory unless they are tested and proven rigorously nowadays.
Also that's the beauty of science is that it's allowed to change, and still be the closest thing we have to absolute truth. You should really delve into it sometime and that will make sense to you but nothing I have said to you is wrong.
Absolute truth is only something we can shoot for, and be happy with how close we get. It's not something you can sit here and weaponize against people who actually put the work in to give you a representation of the world around you that is measured and observed. If you dont put the work into learning about something, and doing the work to make theories or observations or measurements yourself, you kinda don't get the right to criticize.
TheVegabond101 t1_jbbfe4c wrote
Theory of Gravity. Our teacher used to taught us its pulling force.....now scientist say its pushing force...einstein happen.. I guess. My statement is not wrong....while i acknowledge that field of science is evolved to grt measures but still its not absolute or near to absolute Truth. We just discover another secret corridor in egyptian Pyramid even after having so many scientific tools. My statement still hold the truth....its just a theory....just like big bang....u can't prove it.
ACoolKoala t1_jbbgaak wrote
It is the closest thing to absolute truth that humanity will ever have and I'll leave this convo at that.
Going back in time to figure out the Egyptian pyramids is harder than measuring planets with satellites that don't change for hundreds to thousands of years. As well as I never said science has figured everything in the universe out. We have mapped more of our night skies than the oceans of our planet for example. The wonder of science is that there's always more to do and learn and find explanations for. None of what you said is a gotcha lmao. You're kinda just forcing your bias into this convo by going towards the big bang. The big bang is more provable than any religious beliefs around the world I'm sorry to say. Science is the method we will use to find explanations for everything in the universe if we ever get to ( I don't think we will since there's that many variables to our universe and humanity is limited to the time our species exists which is nothing on the scale of time in the universe).
Also yeah this is all just anti intellectual shit. Sorry. You are wrong. As much as these things can't be proven, people like you make even more unprovable claims. Prove to me that a deity created the universe. You can't aside from what your belief tells you. You can't prove that with absolute truth. Send a satellite to heaven and show me pictures of it if you're so confident. Like these are the kinds of things you're throwing out there. You are being disrespectful to people who put a lot more work into this shit than just making up stories about a sky figure creating the universe.
Reread this paragraph and internalize it..
Absolute truth is only something we can shoot for, and be happy with how close we get. It's not something you can sit here and weaponize against people who actually put the work in to give you a representation of the world around you that is measured and observed. If you dont put the work into learning about something, and doing the work to make theories or observations or measurements yourself, you kinda don't get the right to criticize.
TheVegabond101 t1_jbbhr6s wrote
Some Shitty Atheistic scientist theories that Universe came from nothing...!!! Biggest false claim ever. Nothing is conceptual term....just like infinity...it means absent of everything...i.e. atoms. electron, proton and neutron etc. The more scientist will be truthful with themselves the more they will realise that their is the Creator. And to Him belongs the Absolute truth rest all are just mere guesses...This atheistic Scientist are even confuse between genders (by the way there are only 2 ) let alone universe.....
ACoolKoala t1_jbbjw9v wrote
Actually coming from a singular point is different than coming from nothing. Sounds like you lack the understanding of how the big bang theory actually functions therefore I'll discard whatever insults you're hurling at people who believe it. I have to go to my job at the moment so don't have time to get into philosophical debates about religion but yeah, science is awesome and you should respect it instead of using illogical fallacies to try and pwn people who use it as the tool that it is. It's not a religion, its a way of thinking. That's also coming from someone who understands how religion works and grew up in a religious household. Learn to be skeptical of everything not just shit you don't believe. Be skeptical about your own beliefs because I am. I didn't say big bang was even guaranteed how the universe started. That's just where evidence leads us. Could change tomorrow and I'd be fine with that, that would just require overwhelming evidence to disprove. Beauty of science and critical thinking.
Humans may crave absolute certainty; they may aspire to it; they may pretend, as partisans of certain religions do, to have attained it. But the history of science—by far the most successful claim to knowledge accessible to humans—teaches that the most we can hope for is successive improvement of our understanding, learning from our mistakes, and a asymptotic approach to the Universe, but with the proviso that absolute certainty will always elude us. ~ Carl Sagan
The hard but just rule is that if the ideas don’t work, you must throw them away. Don’t waste neurons on what doesn’t work. Devote those neurons to new ideas that better explain the data~ Also Carl Sagan (Look him up and appreciate him, read a demon haunted world sometime)
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments