A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Astronomy and Astrophysics » Amateur Astronomy
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Neil DeGrasse Tyson headed down same loony road as Carl Sagan?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #341  
Old October 18th 18, 06:15 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Martin Brown[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 158
Default Neil DeGrasse Tyson headed down same loony road as Carl Sagan?

On 18/10/2018 15:00, Gary Harnagel wrote:
On Thursday, October 18, 2018 at 12:13:12 AM UTC-6, Paul Schlyter wrote:
....
Also, an extraterrestrial civilization more advanced than ours is not
a God, they didn't create the universe.


Unsubstantiated assertion which may well be dead wrong.


But if it is wrong then monotheists are completely wrong too. There
would be many billions of these God like ETs around in your scenario.

They are subject to the same natural laws as we are.


Sure, but they would know more "natural laws" than we do. We may be just
peeking into some of those. As I said before, I'm partial to the Ekpyrotic
universe theory wherein something similar to the Big Bang was the result
of our brane colliding with an adjacent brane. It gets around two
difficulties that the standard theory has: it doesn't require that the
universe start from a point and it doesn't need inflation to explain
the uniformity of the early universe.


As I have said before it is possible that we live in some higher beings
simulation of a universe. But if that is the case then they are so far
beyond our reach as to be outside the universe and spacetime.

They are hardly likely to be pulling stunts for a few desert tribesmen.

It also allows that a VERY ancient civilization (from a previous genesis)
could have encouraged the event to have happened so, in fact, they could
have indeed created this universe.


Spontaneous universe-antiuniverse pairs may be able to appear and
eventually disappear in much the same way as virtual particles do in our
universe by borrowing energy from the vacuum for a suitably short time.

Our knowledge of the laws of physics break down when you get too close
to t=0 (although they all work very well) from t=1ps onwards.

GUTs are reckoned to be good back to about 10^-36s and beyond that is
the Plank epoch when our theories are pushed beyond breaking point.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chrono...early_universe

--
Regards,
Martin Brown
Ads
  #342  
Old October 18th 18, 07:14 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Gerald Kelleher
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,374
Default Neil DeGrasse Tyson headed down same loony road as Carl Sagan?

The more contemporaries make fools of themselves, the more I appreciate the old societies and their understanding of the cycles of the moon, planets and stars.

The oldest astronomical interpretation is also one of the most important as it shows why the moon is lost to the glare of the Sun for a number of days each month such as the 5200 year old Knowth calendar stone in the Boyne Valley -

http://www.carrowkeel.com/sites/boyn...endarstone.jpg

The seasonal cycle where stars come into view after a period lost to the Sun's glare is lost to celestial sphere enthusiasts who disregard the foundations of the calendar cycle, its annual marker and why the first appearance of a star represents a close approximation of rotations to an orbital circuit. The same desert people mocked here give an ungrateful society today the foundations of human timekeeping -

" Canst thou bind the sweet influences of Pleiades, or loose the bands of Orion?. Canst thou bring forth Mazzaroth in his season? or canst thou guide Arcturus with his sons? Knowest thou the ordinances of heaven? canst thou set the dominion thereof in the earth?"

Can any of you make sense of the motion of Venus when it too is lost to the glare of the Sun as it travels in two different directions over its orbit ? -

https://www.popastro.com/images/plan...ary%202012.jpg


There are no theories/theorems here, just the greatness of humanity mirroring the greatness of creation. People who can't manage to connect the individual to the Universal via physical interpretations are prohibited from the inspirational medium between person and God however that individual experiences something greater than themselves.

The more ancient societies are mocked or ignored the more people show desperation in themselves that they sold out for nothing other than pseudo-intellectual tinsel. Nobody curses you - you curse yourselves.



  #343  
Old October 18th 18, 08:38 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Gary Harnagel
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 645
Default Neil DeGrasse Tyson headed down same loony road as Carl Sagan?

On Thursday, October 18, 2018 at 11:14:28 AM UTC-6, Martin Brown wrote:

On 18/10/2018 13:54, Gary Harnagel wrote:

Isn't it interesting that we decide what is real based upon our world
view? Perhaps we should pay more attention to Bayesian statistics.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayesian_statistics


To use Bayesian statistics on these questions is scientific but you are
then stuck with the problem of dealing with maximally uninformative
"improper" prior probability distributions that are not normalisable.

P(N, the number of deities in the universe) = 1/N


We should be based on the probability that there is one ancient civilization
that is God; i.e., N = 1.

(the same prior applies to any scale factor)

P(x, does God exist 0=no, 1=yes) = 1/(x(1-x))


??? So P(x) = infinity if x = 0 or x = 1? How can you have probabilities
greater than unity? Even x = 0.5 gives P(x) = 4.

(the same prior applies to any binary question)

These are the maximally uninformative prior probability distributions in
the absence of any evidence - before you have any data. It is like
reality too. Very few people have been burned at the stake for believing
that P(God exists) = 1/2 but many people are sat at the two extremes.

Laplace first used the method to weight Saturn although he gave it the
inauspicious title of principle of insufficient reason (in French).

--
Regards,
Martin Brown


Also, an extraterrestrial civilization more advanced than ours is not
a God, they didn't create the universe.


Unsubstantiated assertion which may well be dead wrong.


But if it is wrong then monotheists are completely wrong too.


We've already dispensed with the belief that Christians and Jews are
monotheistic.

There would be many billions of these God like ETs around in your scenario.


Well no, not if their were one monolithic civilization/God.
  #344  
Old October 19th 18, 04:00 AM posted to sci.astro.amateur
palsing[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,733
Default Neil DeGrasse Tyson headed down same loony road as Carl Sagan?

On Thursday, October 18, 2018 at 5:54:42 AM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
On Wednesday, October 17, 2018 at 10:57:59 PM UTC-6, palsing wrote:

On Wednesday, October 17, 2018 at 12:10:54 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:

On Tuesday, October 16, 2018 at 11:33:30 PM UTC-6, palsing wrote:

Of course it's disgusting, it's about scumbag televangalists!

Who are scumbags because they make a lot of money huckstering according to
you. So what about those who claim some divine revelation but make no
money and, in fact, are persecuted for it and die ignominiously broke?
Should you not embrace their claims?


Well, you are the guy who has promoted the word 'huckster', and it could not
be more appropriate. As per Webster...

: HAWKER, PEDDLER
especially : one who sells or advertises something in an aggressive,
dishonest, or annoying way

Do you really think that a religious huckster could be considered anything
but a scumbag? I don't either... and regarding those who claim divine
revelation without compensation? I suppose they just don't have the proper
huckster chops.


So they're not hucksters, and you didn't answer the question :-)


Not everyone who chooses a vocation is successful at it, Gary, some folks just need to pick a different life path. Some need to audition several paths before finding the right one... and some are perpetually lost at sea. It sucks, but that's life.

Not all of it did, but this family is beyond rich these days...

https://www.idolnetworth.com/todd-bu...t-worth-189111

... I would say that $42 million is certainly a nice return for a fantasy
yarn. As always, Gary... "Follow the Money"! By the way, here is a well-
thought-out expose about Burpo that you should read...

https://nathandickey.wordpress.com/2...n-is-for-real/

It's obvious that Dickey doesn't have an open mind. All of his "objections"
amount to speculation and parochial thinking. When you fold in the Akiane
story it gets MUCH more difficult to explain.


Much like Burpo's story is just speculation and parochial thinking. Not much
substance there, in my view... and I doubt that I am alone in this thinking.
It seems to me that you very much *want* to believe this stuff, while I, on
the other hand, demand evidence as defined by the scientific method, that is,
repeatable experiments and/or observations. Do you happen to have any of thse?


People experience lots of things in this world that cannot be explained.
Denial of their existence limits one's viewpoint and is not logical.

Follow the money, Gary, and all will become clear.


That hucksters exist is not proof that everyone is a huckster. In fact,
each of us know lots more people that aren't hucksters than are.

... you might even modify your thinking about all of this.

Actually, I've modified my thinking about YOU. Since you have previously
claimed to be an agnostic, it's refreshing to see that you have come out
of THAT closet.


There is a fine line between an atheist and an agnostic.


I don't agree. An agnostic is honest and humble but an atheist is arrogant
and may also be dishonest or a sycophant.


Nonsense. A 'true believer' is equally as arrogant as any atheist. Each is betting 'all in' that their way it the only way. Give me an example of a 'dishonest atheist' and I will claim that it also applies to a True Believer.

If the concept of a god could be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, like
all good scientists, I would change my evil ways... but the odds are very
long that this will ever happen.


"I believe God himself will someday debate with and answer every objection
arrogant men can come up with against him" -- Criss Jami


Killosopher? The designer of Killosopher Apparel? Really? This is someone you admire? This fellow also said...

“Religion, like science, is only noteworthy when it emphasizes a matter of what is true rather than whose belief is greater or lesser or which deity works for whom. Sincere religion and tested science are similar in that their assertions can be argued logically and objectively; otherwise, we get false cults and babble.”

This makes sense to you? I don't think that religion can be argued logically and objectively. How can it, with zero evidence to present?

Each of us has had experiences that aren't scientific (because they aren't
repeatable) but color our viewpoints. Demanding scientific evidence (i.e..,
repeatable under laboratory conditions) of these things is not logical.

For example, telepathy is not scientifically confirmed but I know that
it exists because I have experienced it -- once. Not repeatable but I
cannot deny my own experience.


I think that there is an alternative explanation for your experience. From Wiki...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telepathy

"There is no convincing evidence that telepathy exists, and the topic is generally considered by the scientific community to be pseudoscience."

I'll side with the scientific community rather than certain psychologists.

Well, here I disagree completely. I think your #1 is self-explanatory,
and it is pretty dang straightforward, to me.

I understand that your mileage may vary.

You've tried desperately to deny all the evidence about early
civilizations, so it's pretty dang clear that you fall close to this
category:


Uh, just which early civilizations am I supposed to have desperately
denied? I don't recall ever doing such a thing... please refresh my
memory.


An early civilization that is statistically probable.


Which early civilization would that be, Gary? Perhaps I've missed something along the way...

“we think everything in this universe has to conform to our paradigm
of what makes sense. Do you have any idea how arrogant that view
is and on how little of this universe we base it?” ― Robert Buettner


Nice quote from a military science fiction author, but how is it relevant?

“I can see how it might be possible for a man to look down upon the
earth and be an atheist, but I cannot conceive how he could look up
into the heavens and say there is no God.” – Abraham Lincoln


Lincoln was no scientist, so he can be forgiven for saying what he said..


He WAS a human being, and a vary smart one, too. Being a "scientist"
isn't necessarily a virtue.

Just because *he* couldn't conceive of such a thing does not mean that
others cannot. Lincoln did say... "if I were two-faced, would I be
wearing this one?", and that I can believe!


:-)

BTW, I read Ruppelt's "The Report on Unidentified Flying Objects" in
the fifties and came away allowing that there might well be some
substance to UFOs. A few years ago, I read a 2nd edition of it which
had two extra chapters, the last one pointing out that all instances
where photos of radarscopes were taken, the "unknowns" were explained..
That caused me to being a "nonbeliever." Then THIS happened:

https://video.search.yahoo.com/searc...f&action=click

So that refutes Ruppelt's claim. Maybe they ARE here after all :-)


However, maybe some flyboys thought they would stir the pot, just for
laughs. It is definitely within the realm of possibility and has been
done before umpteen times. Who knows? I sure don't, and neither do you.


So now you have become a conspiracy theorist :-)


No, I'm just a healthy skeptic, and a skeptic I shall remain.

“Who is more humble? The scientist who looks at the universe with an open mind and accepts whatever the universe has to teach us, or somebody who says everything in this book must be considered the literal truth and never mind the fallibility of all the human beings involved?”
― Carl Sagan

I am too much of a skeptic to fall for a single claimed incident.
If the 'observation' is singular and has never been repeated, I say
'beware', and so should you!


Beware is good, denial is not.

The current thinking


Yeah, the current thinking of a civilization just emerging from the
Dark Ages.

is that the distances are just too far to be considered realistic


By a civilization just emerging from the Dark Ages.

and that no other beings could have possibly ever been here, and this
is what a vast majority of scientists say today, and that is good enough
for me, at this point in time.

Remember these guys?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barney_and_Betty_Hill

A whole lot of folks still believe this is god's truth. How about you?


I don't really know. There have been a lot of "Taken" experiences, but
they are all hostile to my world view. I'm with you on this.

Isn't it interesting that we decide what is real based upon our world
view? Perhaps we should pay more attention to Bayesian statistics.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayesian_statistics


“Probability is orderly opinion and inference from data is nothing other than the revision of such opinion in the light of relevant new information.”
― Eliezer S. Yudkowsky

  #345  
Old October 19th 18, 11:01 AM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Paul Schlyter[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,265
Default Neil DeGrasse Tyson headed down same loony road as Carl Sagan?

On Thu, 18 Oct 2018 03:31:03 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
wrote:
On Thursday, October 18, 2018 at 12:36:43 AM UTC-6, Paul Schlyter

wrote:

And if Constantine hadn't done that, Christianity would today be

an
extinct sect, much like gnostiscism...


So there you have it' after the initial idealistic phase a

religion
either becomes extinct or else it becomes powerful and corrupt.
Because with power comes corruption, it is hard to avoid that.


But that's an argument for not following any of the powerful and

corrupt
religions. It isn't an argument against the existence of God.


So people could be Deists, or spend time looking for an authentic

revelation
somewhere.


True, and while doing so they could found a new religion. That's
probably what e.g. Muhammed, or Joseph Smith, did.

However a theist rarely stay content by just concluding that there is
some God. He also is very likely a follower of a religion and he
wants others to follow the same religion. So the conclusion that
religions are corrupt and therefore should not be followed is
therefore an argument against a majority of the theists.
  #346  
Old October 19th 18, 11:05 AM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Paul Schlyter[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,265
Default Neil DeGrasse Tyson headed down same loony road as Carl Sagan?

On Thu, 18 Oct 2018 05:54:40 -0700 (PDT), Gary Harnagel
wrote:
People experience lots of things in this world that cannot be

explained.
Denial of their existence limits one's viewpoint and is not logical.


People also imagine a lot of things that does not exist. Acceptance
of all this severely limits your sanity.

It is of course good to be open minded, but not to the point where
your brain falls out.
  #347  
Old October 19th 18, 11:08 AM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Paul Schlyter[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,265
Default Neil DeGrasse Tyson headed down same loony road as Carl Sagan?

On Thu, 18 Oct 2018 12:38:48 -0700 (PDT), Gary Harnagel
wrote:
We've already dispensed with the belief that Christians and Jews are
monotheistic.


Are you claiming that Christians and Jews need not follow the First
Commandment?
  #348  
Old October 19th 18, 12:08 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Martin Brown[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 158
Default Neil DeGrasse Tyson headed down same loony road as Carl Sagan?

On 18/10/2018 20:38, Gary Harnagel wrote:
On Thursday, October 18, 2018 at 11:14:28 AM UTC-6, Martin Brown wrote:

On 18/10/2018 13:54, Gary Harnagel wrote:

Isn't it interesting that we decide what is real based upon our world
view? Perhaps we should pay more attention to Bayesian statistics.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayesian_statistics


To use Bayesian statistics on these questions is scientific but you are
then stuck with the problem of dealing with maximally uninformative
"improper" prior probability distributions that are not normalisable.

P(N, the number of deities in the universe) = 1/N


We should be based on the probability that there is one ancient civilization
that is God; i.e., N = 1.


You are a complete charlatan with no understanding of statistics
whatsoever. Your pathetic attempts at sophistry are at an end.

(the same prior applies to any scale factor)

P(x, does God exist 0=no, 1=yes) = 1/(x(1-x))


??? So P(x) = infinity if x = 0 or x = 1? How can you have probabilities
greater than unity? Even x = 0.5 gives P(x) = 4.


That is what makes un-normalisable prior probabilities so tricky. They
allow Bayes theorem to give the right answers when there is adequate
data but they are complete nonsense on their own. Their shape is all
that matters and if you compare belief in a deity in the population with
that function you will see that it is correct. It can be derived several
different ways but the most convincing is from group symmetry.

(the same prior applies to any binary question)

These are the maximally uninformative prior probability distributions in
the absence of any evidence - before you have any data. It is like
reality too. Very few people have been burned at the stake for believing
that P(God exists) = 1/2 but many people are sat at the two extremes.

Laplace first used the method to weight Saturn although he gave it the
inauspicious title of principle of insufficient reason (in French).

--
Regards,
Martin Brown


Also, an extraterrestrial civilization more advanced than ours is not
a God, they didn't create the universe.

Unsubstantiated assertion which may well be dead wrong.


But if it is wrong then monotheists are completely wrong too.


We've already dispensed with the belief that Christians and Jews are
monotheistic.

There would be many billions of these God like ETs around in your scenario.


Well no, not if their were one monolithic civilization/God.


You assume the answer to suit your purpose and then shift the goal posts
every time you are found wanting.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown
  #349  
Old October 19th 18, 04:38 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Gary Harnagel
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 645
Default Neil DeGrasse Tyson headed down same loony road as Carl Sagan?

On Friday, October 19, 2018 at 5:09:03 AM UTC-6, Martin Brown wrote:

On 18/10/2018 20:38, Gary Harnagel wrote:

On Thursday, October 18, 2018 at 11:14:28 AM UTC-6, Martin Brown wrote:

To use Bayesian statistics on these questions is scientific but you
are then stuck with the problem of dealing with maximally
uninformative "improper" prior probability distributions that are
not normalisable.

P(N, the number of deities in the universe) = 1/N


We should be based on the probability that there is one ancient
civilization that is God; i.e., N = 1.


You are a complete charlatan


No, I am not a charlatan. You are engaged in smearing.

with no understanding of statistics whatsoever.


And again you are wrong. I'm not an expert in statistics but I have
published papers in laser diode lifetesting and lifetime. You seem to
be venting out of some kind of frustration.

Your pathetic attempts at sophistry are at an end.


Just because I disagreed with you? You are being quite petty.

(the same prior applies to any scale factor)

P(x, does God exist 0=no, 1=yes) = 1/(x(1-x))


??? So P(x) = infinity if x = 0 or x = 1? How can you have
probabilities greater than unity? Even x = 0.5 gives P(x) = 4.


That is what makes un-normalisable prior probabilities so tricky.


It's no trick to see that 1/[x(1 - x)] is greater that one for ALL x
between 0 and 1. And I fail to see the meaning of your P(x) equation.
  #350  
Old October 19th 18, 04:45 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Gerald Kelleher
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,374
Default Neil DeGrasse Tyson headed down same loony road as Carl Sagan?

It is not just that Royal Society empiricism is based on a wrong assumption, it the level at which is is wrong that seems inconceivable.

It must be fine talking of science and religion however first correlate one day/night cycle with the Sun at the centre of this experience with one rotation of the planet.

Better to be an unbeliever and be wrong than play a pseudo-Christian and still be incorrect.

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Denial of Neil deGrasse Tyson's Science Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 3 April 24th 17 06:58 PM
NEIL DEGRASSE TYSON DISHONEST OR JUST SILLY? Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 3 August 6th 15 12:14 PM
Neil (EGO) Degrasse Tyson STEALS directly from Sagan RichA[_6_] Amateur Astronomy 4 April 17th 15 09:38 AM
NEIL DEGRASSE TYSON : CONSPIRACY OF THE HIGHEST ORDER Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 2 July 14th 14 04:32 PM
'My Favorite Universe' (Neil deGrasse Tyson) M Dombek UK Astronomy 1 December 29th 05 01:01 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:10 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2018 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.