• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Key Discoveries in the History of Science

1965: Arno Penzias and Robert Woodrow Wilson CMBR Nobel Prize winners.
Confirming that "In the beginning..."
 
Heliocentrism and Newtonian mechanics were great successes, but there was a problem: the stars had no observable parallaxes.

There was an effect that looked like a parallax that was observed in the 18th cy., about 20 arcsec in size, but it was some 90d out of phase, and it turned out to be "aberration" due to light having a finite speed.

Parallaxes were only observed around 1838, and the nearest star to the Solar System, Alpha Centauri, turned out to be some 300,000 times farther from the Sun than the Earth is.

By the early 20th cy., it was evident that the "spiral nebulae" were huge swarms of stars, and that the Milky Way was one of them. For that reason, they were renamed galaxies. The center of our galaxy is some 5,000 times farther from the Solar System as Alpha Centauri is, and the Andromeda Galaxy some 500,000 times farther.

The Andromeda Galaxy is the nearest large galaxy to ours, and numerous others were observed, up to distances well over a thousand times greater.

Using the distance from the travel time of its light, the farthest directly observable effect is some 5,000 times farther away: the cosmic microwave background.

Imprinted on the CMB is an effect even older: primordial density fluctuations. Though not much older: only 400,000 years older than the CMB, itself about 13.3 billion years old.
 
I thought heliocentrism was on the way out.
Oh well, that's the beauty of science.
Always correcting its mistakes :)
 
I agree that developing the ideas and details of cosmology is one of the great sagas in the history of science. (And the saga is still in progress, with Dark Matter and Dark Energy still not understood.)

Parts of the story with philosophical interest are the realizations that the heavens are ruled by the same physical laws as prevail on Earth, and the the universe is huge, with the stars being suns like our own, possibly with their own planets and their own life.

Aristarchus of Samos and perhaps Archimedes were Greeks who understood the huge distance to the stars. Later Europeans who had this insight include Levi ben Gerson (14th century), Nicholas Kryffs Cusanus (15th century), Giordano Bruno (16th century), and Galileo (early 17th century). Religious authorities did not welcome the insights that the Earth might not be unique, and that Heaven was subject to the same physical laws as Earth. Giordano Bruno in particular was severely abused: Has his story been made into a movie?
 
Laws of Hydrostatics and Hydraulics

Another story of great interest and importance is the development of the Laws of Hydrostatics and Hydrodynamics. But I can't tell that story myself: I'd need much study before I could put the developments in context. I think that Archimedes is acknowledged to be the 3rd greatest physicist of all time largely based on his discovery of the Law of Hydrostatics (and also his writings on basic machines like pulley, screw and lever) ... but Blaise Pascal is credited with furthering the field of Hydrodynamics 19 centuries after Archimedes. (Archimedes used his Law to test whether his King's crown was pure gold. The method behind this famous "Eureka" story is grossly misunderstood.)

 Heron's fountain, presumably invented by the ancient Hero of Alexandria, is a marvelous demonstration of Laws of Hydraulics. Even earlier was the  Pythagorean cup, an elegant demonstration of siphoning. (Was it really invented by Pythagoras?) These two devices, which I became aware of only recently, might make great toys! Are such toys available on Amazon?
 
Lion IRC said:
1965: Arno Penzias and Robert Woodrow Wilson CMBR Nobel Prize winners.
Confirming that "In the beginning..."
Click to expand...

In beginning there was chaos and ignorance. From chaos and ignorance Mathematics and Science, hallowed be their names, who sit atop celestial Mount Knowledge dispelled ignorance and chaos and sending them to Hell to be with the evil angel Superstition bringing undersigning.

Superstition tries to seduce into its evil domain of fear and ignorance, countered by the Holy Sacraments of ex[merriment, data, and observation.

One of the greatest discoveries is the CBI Cosmic Background Ignorance. The remnants of the beginnings rooted in in ignorance and superstition. It is theorized that the universe was once a dense mass of ignorance that once exploded. Given the value of a constant in the theory we nay all fall back into a dense soup of ignorance and superstition.

So no, the CMBR is not a proof of a god or the bible.

See how easy it is to weave a mythology? Using something real as metaphor..like the bible.
 
Off topic steve_bank
We're not debating God and the bible here.
 
Nah.
I'm just avoiding the ole bait and switch.
Troll me into a bible debate then accuse ME of derailing the thread.
 
Lion IRC said:
Nah.
I'm just avoiding the ole bait and switch.
Troll me into a bible debate then accuse ME of derailing the thread.
Click to expand...

Didn't you write "1965: Arno Penzias and Robert Woodrow Wilson CMBR Nobel Prize winners.
Confirming that "In the beginning...""?
 
Swammerdami said:
...the universe is huge, with the stars being suns like our own, possibly with their own planets and their own life.

Aristarchus of Samos and perhaps Archimedes were Greeks who understood the huge distance to the stars. Later Europeans who had this insight include Levi ben Gerson (14th century), Nicholas Kryffs Cusanus (15th century), Giordano Bruno (16th century), and Galileo (early 17th century). Religious authorities did not welcome the insights that the Earth might not be unique, and that Heaven was subject to the same physical laws as Earth. Giordano Bruno in particular was severely abused: Has his story been made into a movie?
Click to expand...
The way I heard the story, the religious authorities really didn't mind. You want to say the earth goes around the sun, and all the rest? Go right ahead: it's just a clever mathematical trick for speeding up astronomical calculations -- nobody believes it's really happening. Bruno wasn't executed for any of that. The problem was where the line of reasoning led him...

The Earth goes around the sun? Ridiculous, the stars would be seen to move.
They don't move because they're so far away? Ridiculous, they'd be so far away you couldn't see them.
You can see them because they're really bright? Ridiculous, they'd have to be as bright as the sun.
They really are as bright as the sun? Ridiculous, that would mean they are suns.
They really are suns? Ridiculous, that would mean the sun is a star.
The sun really is a star? Ridiculous, that would mean any star can have its own Earth.
Another star really has its own Earth? Ridiculous, that would mean there are people on other Earths around other stars.
There really are people on other Earths around other stars? Ridiculous, the word of Jesus could never reach them from here, so they'd be doomed to Hell, and God wouldn't do that.
They would hear of Jesus, because each other Earth had its own Jesus? Heretic! We'll burn you at the stake!
 
Bomb#20 said:
Swammerdami said:
... Religious authorities did not welcome the insights that the Earth might not be unique, and that Heaven was subject to the same physical laws as Earth....
Click to expand...
The way I heard the story, the religious authorities really didn't mind. You want to say the earth goes around the sun, and all the rest? Go right ahead: it's just a clever mathematical trick for speeding up astronomical calculations -- nobody believes it's really happening. Bruno wasn't executed for any of that. The problem was where the line of reasoning led him...

The Earth goes around the sun? Ridiculous, the stars would be seen to move.
They don't move because they're so far away? Ridiculous, they'd be so far away you couldn't see them.
You can see them because they're really bright? Ridiculous, they'd have to be as bright as the sun.
They really are as bright as the sun? Ridiculous, that would mean they are suns.
They really are suns? Ridiculous, that would mean the sun is a star.
The sun really is a star? Ridiculous, that would mean any star can have its own Earth.
Another star really has its own Earth? Ridiculous, that would mean there are people on other Earths around other stars.
There really are people on other Earths around other stars? Ridiculous, the word of Jesus could never reach them from here, so they'd be doomed to Hell, and God wouldn't do that.
They would hear of Jesus, because each other Earth had its own Jesus? Heretic! We'll burn you at the stake!
Click to expand...

Based on the clauses I've reddened, I think you're in agreement with my synopsis.
 
Lion IRC said:
Nah.
I'm just avoiding the ole bait and switch.
Troll me into a bible debate then accuse ME of derailing the thread.
Click to expand...

Posting a connection to science as a vague connection to the bible is trolling.

When trolling around sharks be sure to use a heavy fishing line and be careful to not get pulled into the water.
 
Nope.
The scientific evidence for origin - beginning - of the universe is as religiously neutral as you want it to be.

That you want to debate any joining of the dots is between you and the Mods.

Nice try. But I'm not falling for your bait-and-switch.

This thread should stick to the great discoveries of science. Like the coded information we call DNA discovered by James Watson and Francis Crick.

If that coded information was found written somewhere on an object sent into outer space on the Golden Voyager, the eventual recipient would certainly think it was deliberately designed, intelligent code. (As opposed to the random typed gibberish of an infinite number of monkeys.)

#SETI

a2075191490_10.jpg
 
Lion IRC said:
If that coded information was found written somewhere on an object sent into outer space on the Golden Voyager, the eventual recipient would certainly think it was deliberately designed code.
Click to expand...
Why would they assume such a thing? Is it because you used the word "code" rather than "gene sequencing"?
 
Swammerdami said:
rousseau said:
What about the technologies we've developed that have had negative consequences? Could those also be called key discoveries? Key in understanding the actual story of our history, maybe.
Click to expand...

Certainly. Indeed it would be more on-topic than discussion of whether G.W. Bush is a great ape, or some sort of lesser ape. :)
Click to expand...

I'd be interested to know the 22nd or 23rd century perspective on the post-enlightenment era. Right now we worship science, I wonder how that will change.
 
rousseau said:
I'd be interested to know the 22nd or 23rd century perspective on the post-enlightenment era. Right now we worship science, I wonder how that will change.
Click to expand...
Who the heck worships science? Citing the science the half the time it agrees with your ideology but ignoring or misrepresenting the science the half the time it disagrees with your ideology does not count as worshiping science.
 
Bomb#20 said:
rousseau said:
I'd be interested to know the 22nd or 23rd century perspective on the post-enlightenment era. Right now we worship science, I wonder how that will change.
Click to expand...
Who the heck worships science? Citing the science the half the time it agrees with your ideology but ignoring or misrepresenting the science the half the time it disagrees with your ideology does not count as worshiping science.
Click to expand...

What do you suppose worship ever is, if not that?
 
Worshiping in itself is to be irrational.

The rational mind does not worship.

It is highly skeptical.

Better to be too skeptical than too naive.

And everybody that believes in skepticism says they have the proper amount.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom