The Universe: Do We Really Know What's Out There? - Comments

I agree that we can't be 100% certain about any of that stuff, but I think you should have done some more research.

@Insanity's Artist, actually, Scientists DO go around GUESSING. The THEORY of evolution is a guess, I admit it's almost definitely fact but its still a theoretical guess.

Scientists don't just go around guessing things. It doesn't work like that. There is a lot of technology and research that goes into their theories.

I love this. We share about the same opinion.

Great ideas, rocky execution. You became too personally-involved in the article, and its wording.

Scientists do have proof, but it's worth noting that scientists are usually pretty good about submitting theories and findings passively, as a way of implication. It's usually second-hand sources that state it differently.

But, there is undeniable, scientific fact... it should comfort you, though, knowing that science develops. When new data is discovered, the old (incorrect) becomes obsolete. Science is cool like that.

I think you should have researched and planned this article more.

Don't get me wrong, I love the idea, the content, and I'm completely on your side. But for someone who'd not, I don't believe there was enough strong points or evidence to convince them or make them think of anything.

But really, I do love the idea and content. =]

But we have data from black holes and red dwarfs that we can see through light shifts. They don't just make it up for fun, there is actually evidence.

Your egg analogy didn't really work. Things change all the time. Technology and scientific understanding allow developments in research that wasn't possible before.

Also, the introduction was a bit long considering it had nothing to do with the article. I get what you were going for, but it didn't really work.

Your article didn't really seem to be much of an article. All I got was that it was lots of questions that you were wondering. It could have been better if you strived to answer some of the questions.

We know that our heat source comes from the sun. We know that there is more out there than just our planet and the moon. We don't just have images, we have probes orbiting and landing on mars and other planets collecting data and samples of atmosphere.

Your main argument here is that we can't know everything, so how do we know this? Which I think is a little... silly to assume. We don't know lots of things, but we also DO know lots of things.

You are rather incorrect on a number of issues within this article.

Firstly, the introduction dragged on too long considering the body of the article is too minute. It seemed to be half about eggs and half about stars.

Secondly, there is a lot of debate as to whether man did land on the moon.

Thirdly, telescopes do not merely collect images. They collect light information: frequency, wavelength, energy levels. From this data, any proficient student in the field of astrophysics can do the rather simple mathematics to determine how far away these celestial bodies are and what elements they are comprised of, thus finding out the likelihood of alien lifeforms. It isn't difficult if you have a basic grasp of maths and you do it in high school.

Fourthly, whilst a lot of this is held in regards as theory, there are only eleven statements in the entire spectrum of Physics that are considered relatively infallible. The rest is theory. But there sure is a hell lot more evidence that has been analysed statistically for the existence of such things that going against it is far more of a line of philosophical (and therefore, relatively untestable) theory.

But honestly? There was so much you could have done with this article. It was too short and lacking in evidence one way or the other that it was a little of an own goal.

Okay, if you're not convinced by evidence, what's the alternative? And are you able to prove that? Scientists are right in figuring these things out because they are qualified and intelligent.

Also, this is not an article in any way shape or form. It's a rant that belongs in the journals.

there are definitely a lot of things we don't know. astronomy and cosmology and stuff like that, most of those scientists have no idea what they're talking about. it's a very, very esoteric field. like the person before me said, most of the pictures that telescopes take aren't actually like people generally believe. the pictures that they [i]do[/i] take aren't even how they actually appear, it's falsely colored into what the particular astronomer thinks will be aesthetically pleasing.

for example, this picture:
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/ContentMedia/dmr_2.gif
most people would ask "what the hell is that?"

that's a typical example of data that astronomers and cosmologists have to base their theories on. this particular picture is of the cosmic microwave background, radiation that is left over from the big bang and permeates the universe. the [i]theory[/i] goes like this. when the universe was born, there was no light, everything was to close together. then, as it expanded and allowed things to actually form and electrons to jump orbitals, all across the young universe, everything was the same, so the universe was filled with high radiation light. as it expanded more and more, the light got dimmer and dimmer, now it peaks in the microwave spectrum, that's why it can't be seen with the naked eye.

another ridiculously far fetched thing we see is gravitational lensing. here's an example.
http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/207624main_double_einstein_full.jpg

what that picture actually is is a galaxy that's behind a black hole. what is a black hole? well, if you agree that the sun burns, you can also agree that one day, it will eventually run out of fuel. when this happens to ordinary stars, like ours, a supernova results. we think the sun works like this: right now, gravity is pushing inwards and the heat from the nuclear reaction is pushing outwards. right now, they are pushing at the same amount, leaving the star stable. when the reactions stop and the heat runs out, gravity pushes the layers of the sun in at tremendous speeds. eventually, the outer layers of the sun hit the center but have nowhere to go, so they bounce back in an explosion. in average sized stars, supernovae leave nothing but the cores of the stars and gas behind, that's where neutron stars, pulsars, and nebulae come from, we think. in massive stars, the gravity is so powerful that the layers dont bounce back. gravity pushes all of the mass of the sun into a single, radius-less point, and keeeeeeeps pushing. that's what a black hole is. black holes dont suck things up, things fall into them. because black holes, [i]if[/i] they exist, have so much gravity, the very light from distant galaxies gets warped around the hole and magnified which allows us to see them. we can't see these actual things, BUT we see the effects.

but, all of these images could be shopped, i suppose... oh well. xD

[i]A study in January 2011 resulted in a Scientific breakthrough, eggs have NO cholesterol in them.[/i]
Actually the study said that the number of eggs you eat ever week doesn't have as significant an effect on your blood cholesterol levels as the amount of saturated fats you eat. Cholesterol [i]is[/i] found in egg yolks.

[i] Maybe there's an atmosphere around our planet and moon, which just sends back distorted images? Maybe outside that atmosphere, there is nothing? Maybe the heat from the sun is coming from a different source?[/i]
You do know that we've sent space probes much farther away than the moon, right? Voyager 1 is currently 17.242 billion km away from the Sun and still transmitting radio signals. Also, the farthest back we've managed to look in space is 13 billion years (since light has to travel through space, that's 13 billion years away in time too). Telescopes and space probes do a lot more than just take pictures - they record all kinds of scientific data like radiation levels, but we only see the pretty pictures because they're what the general public is interested in and can understand. But most pictures Hubble takes are not like that.

Modern scientists never say their theories are facts because there's a long history of scientific theories being proven false, but I have a hard time not believing scientists when there's no evidence supporting the alternative.