Two New Planetary Systems Found

[buster]

http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.php?release=2013-142

Quote:
PASADENA, Calif. -- NASA's Kepler mission has discovered two new planetary systems that include three super-Earth-size planets in the "habitable zone," the range of distance from a star where the surface temperature of an orbiting planet might be suitable for liquid water.


In the 70's, many said we'd never find planets other planets. Kepler has identified hundreds so far.

Quote:
"The Kepler spacecraft has certainly turned out to be a rock star of science," said John Grunsfeld, associate administrator of the Science Mission Directorate at NASA Headquarters in Washington. "The discovery of these rocky planets in the habitable zone brings us a bit closer to finding a place like home. It is only a matter of time before we know if the galaxy is home to a multitude of planets like Earth, or if we are a rarity."

 

[Doog]

I want a job where I can make stuff up and nobody can verify if it is true.

 

[buster]

^ Great post thanks.

It's called science!

 

[buster]

LOL!!!!

 

[aquariuscsm]

As to the topic,science is facinating! The thought of habitable planets is beyond awesome!!

 

[Mullick2001]

Originally Posted By: Doog
I want a job where I can make stuff up and nobody can verify if it is true.


The best part about science... It's true whether or not you believe in it.

- Some science guy

 

[MolaKule]

Quote:
The best part about science... It's true whether or not you believe in it.


I assume that was tongue-in-cheek?



Truth is an absolute in which there is no change.

Scientific theories change all the time.

Therefore, science cannot be truth.

Science is simply gaining knowledge and speculating (hypothesizing) about our universe.

 

[Shannow]

Probably better phrased that observable facts are observable facts, whether you believe in a particular interpretation of them or not.

To have people deny the existance of observable facts, because it doesn't fit their interpretation of the universe...to punish and imprison them in some cases...they someday might need a Copernican Revelation.

 

[buster]

Originally Posted By: MolaKule
Quote:
The best part about science... It's true whether or not you believe in it.


I assume that was tongue-in-cheek?



Truth is an absolute in which there is no change.

Scientific theories change all the time.

Therefore, science cannot be truth.

Science is simply gaining knowledge and speculating (hypothesizing) about our universe.



Science can not be truth? Whaaaaat? Are you ok Molekule?

 

[buster]

Originally Posted By: Shannow
To have people deny the existance of observable facts, because it doesn't fit their interpretation of the universe...to punish and imprison them in some cases...they someday might need a Copernican Revelation.


Unfortunately this happens much too often.


“Ignorance is a virus. Once it starts spreading, it can only be cured by reason. For the sake of humanity, we must be that cure.”


- Neil deGrasse Tyson

 

[MolaKule]

Quote:
Science can not be truth? Whaaaaat? Are you ok Molekule?


"Science cannot be truth" is exactly what I said and meant. Did you read the Logical statement at all?

Science is just another form of knowledge.

To simply make a statement that science is true whether you believe it not is a logical fallacy.

Quote:
Science is the observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.


So we observe, experiment, probe, and then develop a hypothesis about what is happening. We may take physical laws and insert them into a mathematical model and simulate. We may observe during an experiment that our hypothesis needs a modification, a change, because our initial assumptions may be incorrect. But in no way is this truth. This is simply the way science operates.

I am really suprized (well not really) that a scientitist such as Tyson would commit a logical fallicy such as Petitio Principii, or "begging the question."

He sneaks the conclusion into the premise. That is, the desired answer is being given before any reasoning is being done.

Ignorance is when logical reasoning is not exercised.

 

[buster]

Quote:
The thing about scientific "truth" is that it is not what we often consider truth at all (something timeless and unchangeable and correct). Scientific truths are best guesses about the state of the universe, and as such they can be found to be wrong - in fact, the falsifiability of scientific truth is considered by Popperians to be definitive of it. In other words, if it can't be proven wrong, then it isn't scientific.
Additionally, statements such as "there are no black swans" can actually change their truth values over time, as, for example, over a long period of time black swans at first do not exist, then evolve, then go extinct. Scientific truth is bound to both space (our universe) and time.
This is a very different thing from mathematical and logical truths which are universal and timeless. Where scientific truth is defined by having a strong correspondence with reality, mathematical and logical truths need only be coherent with their starting axioms.


Science is an aspect of truth.

Quote:
Science is the king of current metaphysical thought. If it is proven by science, then it is true. And if something is true, that something becomes the basis of all other truth, whether proven or opined. We may disregard this study or that, but the method of science is honored above all truth. And it has its significant place. The scientific method is a way of discerning between truths by careful observation. It is the finest of all human philosophies, and the main discoverer of the world around us.

What is science? What is the methodology which we honor above all? It is the proving of truth through repeatable experimentation. The scientist—no matter what age or social class or economic backing—performs an experiment with an expected outcome. Perhaps the outcome occurs, or something unexpected occurs, so either truth is affirmed or it is discovered. Even if there is a variety of outcomes, then a chart is made, indicating probability. You can’t lose with science.


Subjective truth, Deductive truth, Inductive truth.

 

[Mystic]

The best part about science-it is true depending on who is in power in the scientific community at the time. When those people are gone something else is true.

A famous scientist, I can't remember who it was, said that science advances one death at a time.

Just to give some examples, the entire history of the Americas may have to be changed someday because of numerous discoveries that many in the scientific community resisted. There is evidence that copper was mined a very long time ago in North America and shipped to other parts of the world. There is evidence that there were Japanese in certain parts of South America a long time ago. The Chinese may have sailed to the Americas. There is evidence that the Irish were in America before the Vikings even got here. There is evidence that some people from Europe were in the American Southwest centuries before European explorers supposedly got there. Just a few examples. Get ready for changes in your history books.

 

[buster]

Originally Posted By: MolaKule
Quote:
Science can not be truth? Whaaaaat? Are you ok Molekule?


"Science cannot be truth" is exactly what I said and meant. Did you read the Logical statement at all?

Science is just another form of knowledge.

To simply make a statement that science is true whether you believe it not is a logical fallacy.

Quote:
Science is the observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.


So we observe, experiment, probe, and then develop a hypothesis about what is happening. We may take physical laws and insert them into a mathematical model and simulate. We may observe during an experiment that our hypothesis needs a modification, a change, because our initial assumptions may be incorrect. But in no way is this truth. This is simply the way science operates.

I am really suprized (well not really) that a scientitist such as Tyson would commit a logical fallicy such as Petitio Principii, or "begging the question."

He sneaks the conclusion into the premise. That is, the desired answer is being given before any reasoning is being done.

Ignorance is when logical reasoning is not exercised.





I disagree. Science can be the truth.

Begging the question is most often found with religions. But we can't discuss that here.

So what will it take to get humans into deep space?

 

[buster]

http://www.technewsworld.com/story/76699.html

This article suggests nuclear power, as of now, is the only way we could potentially explore the solar system.

 

[GenSan]

Scientific theory and scientific law(rarely refuted) are universally accepted factual truth amongst scientific experts within their field of discipline. Both may be proven to be false and refuted by scientists using scientific method.

 

[Mystic]

It is actually not impossible to reach the speed of light and explore the Universe. Some people have come up with some ways it could be done, such as using anti-matter fuel to heat up more abundant matter. But we can today only create small amounts of anti-matter.

The really hard part will probably be protecting the spacecraft once it is travelling near the speed of light. Because a minute particle of dust would destroy the spacecraft.

It is no longer really impossible however. It is very, very, very difficult. But there were some people not so long ago who basically said it would never be done. It is dangerous to say that something will never be done.

 

[Mystic]

There is a show on TV on the History Channel now where a Geologist is likely eventually to rewrite a lot of the history books. Somebody must have really made that guy angry. He is overturning a lot of the old beliefs. All it takes is somebody willing to do actual field research and maybe somebody who has been made very angry by know-it-alls somewhere who defend their beliefs and discoveries come high water or angry new investigators.

Eventually there is enough new evidence that people have to be willing to example the new evidence whether they want to or not. That is the way science actually advances. Somebody gets angry and does real field research, the people in the power positions are replaced by other people, and the evidence piles up until it cannot be ignored.

The people who had the original incorrect theories defend their theories as much as they can. Other young new people want to make their own marks.

There was a time when most scientists were totally unwilling to accept the concept of plates on the Earth's surface moving around. Well, the evidence piled up and now the concept of ocean floor spreading and continental plates moving about the surface of the Earth is accepted by most.

You always have to have a few rebels that nobody likes and a few angry young investigators who have been told they don't know anything. The more angry they can be made to be the better.

 

[simple_gifts]

Quote:

I disagree. Science can be the truth.



Whether it is, or isn't is functionally irrelevant. Science has produced mathematical representations that describe billions of phenomena. If a situation is found to violate the representation, the representation is modified or the phenomenon represented is modified. This doesn't invalidate science, it is part of what reinforces it.

Man has split atoms, sent probes outside the solar system, landed rovers on surfaces 42 million miles away, built building 1000 ft high; if the equations that allowed us such feats can be violated with particular circumstances, these circumstance have not been reliably identified to the point where progress is significantly hindered due to our current understanding.

 

[MolaKule]

Quote:
Begging the question is most often found with religions. But we can't discuss that here.


Begging the question is one of the fallacies discussed in a Philosophy of Science course called, "Logic and Language," which is taught in most secular universities.

Buster, you severely lack knowledge of the real world and how science really functions, and when you can't make a logical argument or debate properly, you try some silly back door ad hominem tactic, resort to totally irrelevant inferences, and then think that arguing from argumentum ad verecundiam means anything.

I am never impressed by some PhD who is a television celebrity and who is so arrogant to think he hold holds the truth.

So have fun in your fantasy world.