Scientific Discovery

[Neatras]

News article

I'd like to see this discussed on this forum. Without holding me accountable for the language of my post, or for my excitement, I'd like to see how the rest of the forum reacts to a scientific break-through concerning a predicted model of an inflationary universe being ratified through extensive observation.

Oh, and 5 Sigma confidence is supposedly a scientific jargon for 'near-absolute certainty of reasonable results.'

[heavensgate]

[Replying to post 10 by Divine Insight]

Do you want to answer my question or have I cut too close to the bone?
How is this an answer? I was merely asking what new info has come out of the debate or from the science to date.
I really am just saying, that as per my post previously, a wait and see attitude is best when new pronouncements come out.
I have not followed too closely the latest information so I was kind of hoping that there would be some definitive news about inflation (multiverse) theory. That is all. Sorry if I was too buoyant.

[fstopper]

[Replying to Neatras]

Which study are you referring to ?The latest one that i am aware of (BICEP2 i think it's called has been shown to be wrong because of data that wasn't considered.

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to Neatras]

Which study are you referring to ?The latest one that i am aware of (BICEP2 i think it's called has been shown to be wrong because of data that wasn't considered.

It wasn't shown to be wrong the confidence level was dropped as the results needed to be refined due to the new data that could account for a similar wave pattern from dust in the Milky Way. Bicep 3 will further refine the results.

[bluedog]

[Replying to Goat]

If "confirmed".....would that not make it a Scientific Fact instead of a speculative theory that does not possess the demonstrable evidence of, observable, repeatable conformation required to be a fact of Science? Just how is any theory confirmed by Science? It is not....or it would no longer be a subjective speculation...but a demonstrate fact of scientific law/physical law.

Define theory how you will.....but its no closer to being confirmed than the night is subject to being called day. Consensus agreement does not make a fact of science. It was the consensus agreement among the leading men of science...ONCE, that the earth was the center of the universe and the sun revolved around it. But real Physical science has since proven that premise to but a mere "IDEA" based upon philosophy rather than fact.

[Ancient of Years]

[Replying to Goat]

If "confirmed".....would that not make it a Scientific Fact instead of a speculative theory that does not possess the demonstrable evidence of, observable, repeatable conformation required to be a fact of Science? Just how is any theory confirmed by Science? It is not....or it would no longer be a subjective speculation...but a demonstrate fact of scientific law/physical law.

Define theory how you will.....but its no closer to being confirmed than the night is subject to being called day. Consensus agreement does not make a fact of science. It was the consensus agreement among the leading men of science...ONCE, that the earth was the center of the universe and the sun revolved around it. But real Physical science has since proven that premise to but a mere "IDEA" based upon philosophy rather than fact.

In science a ‘fact’ is simply an observation. The term ‘fact’ is not used with respect to hypotheses or even well supported theories, which are called Theories. Theories are not ‘confirmed’. It is observations that are confirmed by being repeated by others. Speculations without much confirmation to support them but are not ruled out by observations either are called conjectures. A conjecture that is developed enough (a) to provide candidate answers to all questions in its domain, (b) have a comprehensive predictive mechanism, (c) have many predictions well confirmed by repeated observations without clear failures, and (d) do all this substantially better than its competitors, is on its way to being a Theory with a capital T. (Satisfying (a) and (b) and at least some (c) rates being called a hypothesis.)

A Theory is accepted as the best explanation to date. Until the next set of data comes along to upset the apple cart or a better Theory comes along and does it all even better.

The geocentric model made pretty good sense in terms of the observations made by Ptolemy and other ancients. It was science as it existed in those days, not philosophy. But epicycles – circular motions around the center line of an orbital path – were needed to explain retrograde motion. Copernicus offered a heliocentric alternative, partly on mystical grounds, but the epicycle requirements did not go away as he thought and became even worse. The Tychonian model – planets go around the Sun, Sun goes around the Earth - had the potential at least to eliminate epicycles. But Kepler provided the missing clue – orbits are elliptical not circular. To reach this point required extensive precision observations not technologically possible before that era. This led Newton to understand how gravity worked and finally allowed a coherent model of the solar system. Even then a major, even critical, prediction of the heliocentric model (stellar parallax) was not confirmed by observation until the 19th century.

Science does not ‘prove’ things. It offers explanations for what we observe and makes predictions about what we will observe. Theories are the frameworks for these explanations and predictions. New observations sometimes require new Theories.

[paarsurrey1]

News article

I'd like to see this discussed on this forum. Without holding me accountable for the language of my post, or for my excitement, I'd like to see how the rest of the forum reacts to a scientific break-through concerning a predicted model of an inflationary universe being ratified through extensive observation.

Oh, and 5 Sigma confidence is supposedly a scientific jargon for 'near-absolute certainty of reasonable results.'

inflationary universe being ratified through extensive observation

The truthful Revelation also mentions it:
[51:47]AND IT IS We who have built the universe with [Our creative] power; and, verily, it is We who are steadily expanding it.
http://www.islamawakened.com/quran/51/st20.htm#47

The Word-of-God and the Work-of-God support one another if understood correctly.
Regards