You can login if you already have an account or register by clicking the button below.
Registering is free and all you need is a username and password. We never ask you for your e-mail.
This is what I don't get.. People can't seem to discern empirical science with theoretical science. There's a lot of things science can't prove.. like the distance to stars for example, we surely can guess but there's no way to empirically prove it unless you were to travel many lightyears and measure it.
If you question this fact suddenly people start slamming you calling you anti-science and a fundamental creationist and all this other crap just because you point out a fact.
I'll be told "This is how the moon formed, billions and billions of years ago x amount of force of rock smashed into x amount of mass" then I'll say "Okay that's interesting, prove it" then they start flinging shit like "WHAT, YOU DON'T BELIEVE IN GRAVITY, YOU THINK IS THE EARTH FLAT TOO??" as if I'm supposed to just gobble up what they say and not question a thing.
There is a HUGE difference between empirical science that helps us create electronic circuit boards and indirect interpreted science that can't actually be proven.
Now, granted, I am not an astrophysicist or anything like that. I'm just a humble engineering student. But I am almost positive that we can prove exactly how far away stars in our universe are and how fast they are moving and in what direction. Correct me if I'm wrong, because I might be, but I have never been made aware that it cannot be measured.
There's no way to confirm or deny the assumptions, and that's besides that the two furthest away points Earth travels still makes triangulating their distance like guessing when two parallel lines will intersect. The numbers given for star distances are assumptions which cannot be empirically verified.. far from absolute fact.
view the rest of the comments →
[–] frankenham ago
This is what I don't get.. People can't seem to discern empirical science with theoretical science. There's a lot of things science can't prove.. like the distance to stars for example, we surely can guess but there's no way to empirically prove it unless you were to travel many lightyears and measure it.
If you question this fact suddenly people start slamming you calling you anti-science and a fundamental creationist and all this other crap just because you point out a fact.
I'll be told "This is how the moon formed, billions and billions of years ago x amount of force of rock smashed into x amount of mass" then I'll say "Okay that's interesting, prove it" then they start flinging shit like "WHAT, YOU DON'T BELIEVE IN GRAVITY, YOU THINK IS THE EARTH FLAT TOO??" as if I'm supposed to just gobble up what they say and not question a thing.
There is a HUGE difference between empirical science that helps us create electronic circuit boards and indirect interpreted science that can't actually be proven.
[–] CapinBoredface 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
Wait.
Now, granted, I am not an astrophysicist or anything like that. I'm just a humble engineering student. But I am almost positive that we can prove exactly how far away stars in our universe are and how fast they are moving and in what direction. Correct me if I'm wrong, because I might be, but I have never been made aware that it cannot be measured.
[–] frankenham ago
There's no way to confirm or deny the assumptions, and that's besides that the two furthest away points Earth travels still makes triangulating their distance like guessing when two parallel lines will intersect. The numbers given for star distances are assumptions which cannot be empirically verified.. far from absolute fact.
[–] sleepwalken ago
Try putting your questions to an actual scientist.