Just so it's clear for everybody, I should mention the video's speaker is Neil deGrasse Tyson:
Worth of note, one his main (although unsurprising) influences is Carl Sagan, another science popularizer and author:
Often well-known if only for his "Pale Blue Dot"
[ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pale_Blue_Dot:_A_Vision_of_the_... ]
"Cyril" pronounced "see real". I code stuff.
"To study and not think is a waste. To think and not study is dangerous." -- Confucius
And just in case anyone wonders, I personally prefer to refrain from trying to give any religious interpretation to what is, for me, "only" a science popularization exposé, albeit a nicely made one, I can agree.
I have already posted on the troubling, and not-so-optimistically moving frontiers of human knowledge, science, and the incompleteness issue:
(Hence the aforementioned preference. Thanks.)
Thanks for posting the video. Its an inspiration to those of us who desire reconnecting science with spirit...
Emancipate yourselves from mental slavery; none but ourselves can free our minds. - Bob Marley
we travel between countries now! Oh what a feeling that would be!
"It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere".
It's hard not to be a menace to society when half the population is happy on their knees. - unknown
"The universe is in us."
He believes(ahem!) that our atoms are "traceable" to the stars, but that requires many layers of speculation(based on the religious philosophy of naturalism and uniformitarianism).
"Guts made of carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, and all the fundamental ingredients of life itself. These ingredients become part of gas clouds that condense, collapse, form the next generation of solar systems, stars with orbiting planets, and those planets now have the ingredients for life itself."
1) "My atoms came from those stars."
2) Stars contain "all the fundamental ingredients of life itself."
3) Gas clouds "condense, collapse, form the next generation of solar systems"
That's not science. These things have, to my knowledge, never been observed or proven. Now can you tell which is fact and which is theory?
Man is made of the dust of the ground.(Gen 2:7) That's been proven.
The dust of the ground comes from enriched star guts? That's a theory.
Hear, O Israel: YHUH our God YHUH one. And thou shalt love YHUH thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might.
The beauty in what is being said in this clip still stands but for the debate going on here it should be noted that the total knowledge of all the data that exists to make anything happen or something to "be" is outside of our full visibility. Although we are probably generally correct in a lot of our assumed "facts", it is still impossible to rule out how the unknown data really impacts the outcome of what we are looking into.
It's what we don't know that we don't know that should keep us all open to possibility.
But be open and not closed to all of these ideas even if you feel more for one than the other.
The truth is that the speaker in the video, as beautiful as his general point is, is ambiguous and misuses the term "facts". jruss133 does a good job at pointing this out. There are no necessarily scientific facts presented in the video but general facts for all to see, behold, and agree...
"Yes, we are part of this universe, we are in this universe, but perhaps more important than both of those facts is that the universe is in us."
Anyone not finding beauty in that fact might just coldly claim that the speaker has merely gotten emotional over the definition of "universe". :D
I personally sympathize with the speakers sentiment. I do though, as does jruss133, fall short from recognizing the speaker's scientific model as fact. The speaker does claim as fact that we are made of remnants from collapsing stars. I personally adhere to an alternative scientific model regarding the nature of stars. Despite the fact that I generally disagree with the inconsistent regard to what the speaker in the video refers to as "fact", I remain in agreement with that which is claimed most astoundingly in the headline of the original post at large. :)
Consciousness(I am) is the standard of truth. If one finds that truth unreliable, they will find all truth unreliable, and all proofs insufficient.
Rules of evidence require at least 2 witnesses to be taken seriously. So you take the evidence, compare to the standard of consciousness, and you can read the measure of its truthiness. :-)
at the mouth of two witnesses, or at the mouth of three witnesses, shall the matter be established. Deuteronomy 19:15
that since you don't know what you don't know you can only create the appearance of truth. It is possible that it is correct without knowing all the data that you are unaware of but it is also possible that it isn't.
So our belief is that any "truth" is based on what we know about it at this point in time. Being open to other possible truths does not mean you have to make life decisions as if those other possibilities are real. But you should be able to take them in and try them on every now and then. Some of them may fit you better now than the last time you got them out of the drawer.
It's all a hologram man. It all takes place in your head anyway. :) But go with whatever best serves you. Its what everyone will always do.
That is the most "truth" in any comment here, IMO. :)
Just open the box and see
Of the three assumptions you list, the only assumptive word in there is "all", and that is arguable on a religious or philosophical level.
The rest are indeed, observable fact. These things take a really long time. The universe is big enough, and old enough to see this process, even if it is one slice at a time. There are enough systems in different states of this process to see whats happening.
Think of the pretty animations as a flip book, each showing a different star system somewhere (and some when) in the universe.
Cyclotrons are scientific instruments used to create heavy particles, among other things. That takes A LOT of energy. Math tells us that the needed energy to make the heavy elements which are found in the earth and elsewhere is produced by stars. Perhaps its also produced somewhere else in this vast universe.
Observation tells us that sometimes stars explode, distributing the massive elements they have created.
Observation also tells us that sometimes, new stars and planets coalesces out of interstellar dust.
If man was indeed "made from the dust of the ground" how does that negate the "guts" coming from a star? If the earth comes from star stuff, its dust does too.
One very basic assumption you didn't list is that physics behaves the way we observe it to, everywhere in the universe.
is not a well-known scientist ... but he should be. Why is it that people like Schrodinger and Tesla are not known by the general population? I am not a scientist, but reading Schrodinger's work is mind-changing even for non-scientists.
I wonder if you have seen any of the stuff Haramein is doing. He comes essentially to the same conclusion that ES did "all is one mind" but has done so bucking the scientific community at large. He has detractors, of course -- but that is not unusual where someone challenges the status quo. And has spent some time under ridicule, but his latest paper has caused a bit of a change in his reception, as I understand it.
I offer this b/c my understanding is that his latest paper/theory suggests a new understanding for how the universe "creates" mass.
I only recently became aware of his work. The charge radius of the proton is one of the pivotal numbers used in theoretical and practical work. His work which derived it very accurately, followed by new experimental evidence refining its observable accuracy (both match) is highly provocative, even if main stream science wants to try to discount him. Maybe it's because he looks like a hippie? Establishment Science doesn't like the phrase "peace out" ;)
I have skimmed his paper. The math is beyond me, for sure, but his logic is sound. His work deserves further study, IMO, and I will continue to monitor his progress. :)
And you mention Tesela. The foremost expert in applied physics the world has ever known. He is responsible for most of our 21st century technology. He invented AC current, among many other things. Unfortunately, much of his best work was seized by the government soon after his death. He understood harmonics in a similar way to Haramein, IMO.
If you were to build a dream team of physics, Haramein as theorist, and Tesela as experimenter, Physics might be solved tomorrow.
As to Schrodinger, I lured him into my box. I haven't looked yet. ;)
came from those stars" is assumptive. You just said that "Perhaps its also produced somewhere else in this vast universe."
So that's number 1.
Secondly, you are also correct about the word "all." It is assumptive and reveals a deeper religious point of view.
Third is the assumption that new stars are being born from dust clouds. I will simply refer you to the discussion below about this topic. I think we covered it pretty well. I'll add that you are correct that we have seen many stars explode, but we have never seen a single one being born. So it's still an assumption. Let's just hold off on promoting this theory to fact until all the evidence is in.
Also, I'm not saying the dust of the ground did not come from the stars. It might have. I don't know. But again, that's assuming facts not in evidence.
And finally, I agree with your last sentence. :-)
A star is born (at least, being born).
And yes, perhaps there is another source of energy that is powerful enough to create elements. And, perhaps, they even do contribute to the interstellar dust. A possible, as yet unseen, source of cosmic dust hardly mitigates the role that stars play in the process. Perhaps your atoms (and mine) came from a quasar that sprayed its cone of energy over the area of our solar system. A quasar is still a star. Technically, a black hole is still a star, just a really heavy one.
Some atoms in dust might even come from the evaporation of black holes, as shown by Stephen Hawking (the evaporation, not the dust thing).
Science is far from perfect, nor does it have all the answers, but it is a living, growing thing. Science can and should be questioned and investigated endlessly.
The bible is a book of collected writings, composed more than 2000 years ago, and translated several times over the years. Isn't it the "King James Version" that's so often quoted? Its relevance to scientific matters is limited, IMO.
Please don't think I'm trying to attack the bible, I have read it. I find the teachings of Jesus to be straight forward, easy to understand, and very compelling. I suspect Jesus was a closet libertarian. ;)
"Some atoms in dust might even come from the evaporation of black holes, as shown by Stephen Hawking (the evaporation, not the dust thing)."
Hawking has shown no such thing.
"Science is far from perfect, nor does it have all the answers, but it is a living, growing thing. Science can and should be questioned and investigated endlessly."
Science is not a body of knowledge but a method of inquiry. What it is we consider "fact" is what continually needs to be questioned, not "science" as such. "Science" is itself our means of questioning.
and the body of knowledge gained by that tool. Some knowledge depends on exactly how the tool is used, they are inseparable, IMO.
By question science(the tool and the information), I'm sure not suggesting we toss the tool altogether, but, perhaps use or make a better one for the task.
If someone says "an atom is 'x' big", but they used a microscope, well, that's a bit suspect. Now, if they used an electron microscope, that's different. It does beg the questions, "what is an electron microscope and how does it work? Can it measure an atom? How?"
Technology is the application of that body of knowledge.
The methodology of science is how it follows strict guidelines to be acceptable and reproducible, but even a scientists methodology needs to be analyzed.
You missed the "Hawking Radiation"? That was like 40 years ago, so it's hardly surprising. It's quite fascinating.
The term "evaporation" may be a bit of an extrapolation (not mine), but its an easier interpretation than the math. And, since Hawking is a theorist, "shown" will only ever mean, mathematically.
These folks claim to have shown it, non mathematically. Obviously, this would be subject to verification, inspection of the tools they used, their methodology and duplication before its acceptable.
There are certainly some issues with Hawking's equations, and not all theorists are fully on board. I'm happy to debate some of the points of his theory, the controversy seems centered on how he dealt with the shorter than the plank length wavelength of a photon. As you know, when you get that small, all bets are off. ;)
I can't say I fully agree with all of Hawking's conclusions, but possible experimental evidence is certainly interesting. Took them long enough. ;)
and I still don't! :D
I observed two distinctly different groupings like 40 years ago, those of scientists engaging science and theorists engaging theory. Certainly there is overlap. Science often involves theory, and theory sometimes involves science. My familiarization with Hawking in the 1970s was centerpiece to my coming conscious of such distinctions. Hawking's theories have yet to aid me in observing [or predicting the observation of] anything. To date I have missed Hawking Radiation [and Black Holes for that matter] exactly as many times as I have missed Bigfoot and the Loch Ness monster. ;)
or believe in it, then why even comment on it?
That's one to keep an eye on.
"But neither first core candidate is rock-solid, and the astronomer who predicted the existence of the first core more than 40 years ago is not yet convinced that his prediction has been borne out. "It's a bit premature to be gratified, because these are not definitive discoveries," says Richard Larson, a Yale astronomer whose numerical simulations of star formation in 1969 predicted the existence of the short-lived first core. "In both cases they are suggestive but not conclusive."
Personally, I've learned more science from the scripture than perhaps any other book. You can check the link in my signature below for a small sample. Most importantly, it contains the fundamental axiom of existence, the base of all science. If you are looking for science from that book, I would suggest starting there.
The fear of the YaHUaH is the beginning of wisdom; all who follow his precepts have good understanding. To him belongs eternal praise. ~ Psalm 111:10
Also, see "key of knowledge," Luke 11:52. Science is knowledge, and there is a key to science. The starting point, the greatest command(law), is found at Deuteronomy 6:4-5 and Mark 12:29-30.
"Science can and should be questioned and investigated endlessly."
Prove all things; hold fast that which is good. 1 Thessalonians 5:21
of one form or another. Science requires a certain kind of faith too.
When I was a kid, I was infuriated by my parents response of "because I said so", or "that's just the way it is".
I seek an understanding of the physical principals by which the universe is expressed.
I don't use the Bible since its not specific enough. "Because it's The Word of God" or, "God made man from dust" isn't enough for me. I don't intend blasphemy toward you or God, but, that's my view. Of course, some sects would suggest I go to hell for that view. So be it.
I want to know how things work, exactly. If I find the rules of the universe, does that mean that God is somehow bound by them?
Have you really shaken off the mindset from which you infuriated as a child? Are not Stephen Hawking and company telling us "because I said so" and "that's just the way it is". Take recessional redshift for example. Is there really such a thing as a black hole, or a moment from which the universe sprang forth?
"I want to know how things work, exactly" -Me too!
If you are looking to find "the rules of the universe" then you are not necessarily looking to find "how things work" or perhaps the nature of the universe. As strange as it may seem, it is possible that the universe is not working from a set of rules. Our near deification of scientific laws and rules are perhaps remnants of our religious indoctrination from childhood.
I am looking for "how things work", the nature of the universe, the rules of the universe, whatever phrase works. Semantics.
Yes, the universe does obey "rules" of some description. Gravity is a rule, don't try to defy that one, you'll get hurt. ;)
You can see simply because a photon obeys certain rules. I am physically sitting here because protons and neutrons obey rules. The electron has some known rules. Of course, it doesn't have to hold that these are ALL the rules for these things.
Much of the foundation of science can be reproduced in your own back yard. That is the cornerstone of science actually. More than one person has done the experiment that shows a specific fact. If others can't do it, the "fact" is of course, suspect.
A quick peek under the hood (sub-atomic physics) will show that the underlying reality is VERY different than what we perceive.
When science tells me (it actually has) that anti-gravity is impossible, I don't just accept it. That is an interpretation of facts in evidence, not a "rule". I certainly don't think science has uncovered all the facts, nor do I think all of their interpretations are fully correct.
However, there are some known facts. Its hard to dispute these facts in a computer based forum. That seems ironic to me. ;)
Also, remember, Hawking is a theorist. Theorists speak math, the language of the universe. Their descriptions are converted to human, so others can understand. But, what they say, they say with math.
Just because the math works in their description, doesn't mean its a fact either. At most, they can say "my logic has an internal consistency, and doesn't violate any known rules, or explains why that rule wasn't ever true"
http://resonance.is/ Haramein has a different interpretation than main stream, and he did it without breaking a single known "rule".
"Man is made of the dust of the ground.(Gen 2:7) That's been proven."
Really? I have never "observed" a man being made from "dust of the ground". Just how has that proven by your standards?
of the human body. http://chemistry.about.com/od/chemicalcomposition/a/Chemical...
Then we test the soil and compare the two.
So why do you trust the science that determined those chemical composition but not astronomical science? They've use chemical properties to determine most of what they know about astronomy.
"These things have, to my knowledge, never been observed or proven."
Perhaps the most convincing line of evidence supporting this theory are observations of the same process currently happening elsewhere in our Galaxy. It would be strange if our Solar System formed in a different way to every other system in the Galaxy, since physics is supposed to work the same way everywhere. We see stars forming in the depths of giant clouds of gas and dust, and we even see young stars with disks of debris around them, which look just like the debris disk we think the planets formed from.
"We see stars forming in the depths of giant clouds of gas and dust"
Have we seen that? I don't think so. Maybe you can point those out to me.
Also, this is complete bunk:
" Observations of the solar system itself support the theory too. In fact it was these observations which lead to the proposal of the theory in the first place.
1. All the planets orbit the Sun in the same direction. Most of their moons also orbit in that direction, and the planets (and the Sun) rotate in the same direction. This would be expected if they all formed from a disk of debris around the proto-Sun. "
That's just not true. Some of the planets and moons rotate in different directions.
Anyway, there is plenty of "the theory" "we think" "current simulations" in your link. That's quite a bit different from testing soil(repeatable) and testing human bodies(also repeatable).
I was mainly linking to that for the part about observations.
"That's just not true. Some of the planets and moons rotate in different directions."
It says they orbit the sun in the same direction, and that is true. Rotation is different than orbit.
"Have we seen that? I don't think so. Maybe you can point those out to me."
Ok and you show me a man being "made from dust on the ground".
Anyway I didn't want to get into a long discussion, I just wondered what you were getting at.
"the planets (and the Sun) rotate in the same direction."
That's what they said.
It doesn't really matter to me what these scientist believe. They are certainly entitled to their opinions. That said, I would appreciate a separation of their opinions and the facts.
So that's what I'm getting at... :-)
Yes an orbit is a rotation, but that is different from a planet or sun's rotation on it's axis. One rotation of Earth around it's orbit is a year, one rotation of Earth on it's axis is a day. They did say rotation but after they established they were talking about orbital rotation.
Want DP delivered to your inbox daily? Subscribe here: