Ok, so the difference boils down to your feelings? Can you give an example of something that is faux science and how it is presented?
Yup, since you live only about 75 year and this happens in billions of years you don't have to worry and if it did happen there is no evidence earth would be affected.
Cool. But, I don't see that in your posts. Your posts aren't so much a matter of independence as of rejecting what is known. I like independence. But, rejecting that we can determine how fast Andromeda approaches isn't independence. It's merely rejecting out of hand something that can be described in detail. If that's the approach, it would seem to lead to rejection of all data that could possibly support the public policy decisions we make. National debt. Population of the US. GDP. Importance of vaccination. Benefit of a wall with Mexico. etc., etc. So, I think you've got more than that sig.
Have you ever considered just passing by nonsense without participating and cooperating in its amplification and dispersal?
Well firstly I'll give an example which sums up NASA's condescension - why is it that they always use the Dan Dare-esque 'space walk' rather than EVA? And 'faux science' is that which is based merely upon speculation and theorizing, whereas all other sciences are legitimized by tangible (note that word?) evaluation, analyses, and results.
See my reply to Etbaeur above? And my thoughts on the wall, in this context. would be a non sequitur?
What, you mean you'd rather that I didn't express opposing views to your own? That would come under 'bigotry' wouldn't it?
None of that is giving me an example. None of that is science used by NASA. And when you say they 'use' dan dare space walks... what do you mean 'use?' What do you mean they don't 'use' eva? Now, since you aren't providing examples of this faux science, do you mean perhaps quantum mechanics?
I really doubt that most Americans know what EVA stands for. Coming from the high tech world, I've had years of people commenting that far too many abbreviations are used and that people would prefer plain language, especially when the plain language is quick and clear. They view that alphabet soup as a barrier raised by the "insiders" who aren't interested in actual communication. As for the second, let's remember that science is a process of developing theory. I certainly agree that science reporting often focuses on extrapolations rather than the result that was actually verified. But, NASA, NOAA, and the rest of actual science organizations aren't doing that. When you see some claim in the news, it's best to go find what's really at the root of the article.
No it wouldn't. And this whole thread is just you complaining that folks talk about things you do not understand.
I mean that the information is totally pointless, not least because by then the human race will have long since become extinct? You don't seriously believe this planet is going to be inhabited - and that's even if it still exists - in 'a few billion years' time' do you? Just because someone fools you into believing they're an expert doesn't mean they're actually knowledgeable in their respective fields; for example, how many times have so-called experts turned out to have been wrong? Answer - more times than they turned out to be right, I shouldn't wonder.
That's why I wrote 'whereas all other sciences'. And when I write 'use' in this context, I mean the routine use of an expression (of rhetoric?). For example, the 'use' of linguistics? v. used, us•ing, n. v.t. To avail oneself of; apply to one's own purposes: to use the facilities. https://www.thefreedictionary.com/use
No scientist is claiming that earth will be inhabited when Andromeda merges with the the Milky Way. I don't see how being in the far distant future invalidates the claim. If two objects are moving toward each other in space then they will continue their motion until they meet. Its pretty simply and obvious logic and doesn't take an expert.
Ok, so, I'm still not clear here. While both 'space walks' and 'evas' are things that NASA does do... neither are words that they use exclusively, and even if they were, what's the difference? More to the point, NASA uses a ton of science, but neither one of those are a science. So I still don't see how we have gotten any closer to your point.
He does not have a point that anyone who uses rational thought would understand, you must abandon logic and reality to embrace his thoughts.....once you do it all makes something akin to sense.
So, not only are you a free thinker, but you also in this free thinking mode cannot see the relevance of two galaxies merging, billions of years in the future? And given there is no relevance, that NASA or anyone in science mentioning this future event is just pissing on your leg? Wasting time, and perhaps using faux science in order to predict the future merging? I love free thinkers, people who question, for that is an important aspect of science. And science has a way of becoming dogmatic, with entrenched beliefs into what the nature of reality is, even if it cannot be backed up with evidence. And yet with you, going by your posts, I am not sure this is actually your state of mind. I sense a debunker mentality, not a questioning skeptic. Am I wrong in this perception? If I am, then I am in your club for I question everything, and I think it goes back to what one of my Profs instilled in me long ago. And he also said, that one must question with intelligence, using logic, rationality, reason. This is something which is absent from the debunker mentality. For that mentality comes with its own set of dogmatic beliefs, not always supported with evidence, but is dependent upon assumption. Sometimes they end up being more guilty of what they accuse the faux science of indulging in. An irony that appears inherit in debunking. The idea that two galaxies are moving towards one another and will merge in a few billion years is not relevant to humanity for we will not see it. At least from the planet. Our ancestors might though, and this is within the realm of possibility, unless you believe every thing in the physics of our universe is already known and understood fully. And if that possibility, a long shot, comes to pass perhaps they will have recorded that an ancient agency, NASA, knew about this future event eons ago, in the history of our species. And perhaps even your post will live on, and they can all have a good chuckle of your idea of relevance. Yes conjecture, but not that much greater than your own conjecture.
I doubt the real scientific point here was limited to figuring out how fast Andromeda is approaching. Measuring what galaxies are doing helps understand what the universe as a whole is doing as well as what it is composed of. It helps figure out how fast space is expanding, identifies where dark matter is, etc. Dark matter, matter we can't directly detect, is seriously interesting, as there is so much more dark matter than regular matter. Plus, it doesn't interact with normal matter in normal ways. If you placed a dark matter pencil on your desk it would just fall through. There is a lot we don't know about our universe. We don't even understand the matter that makes up the vast majority of our universe. And, there are known problems in the models of physics used today. Andromeda? That's just one of a gigantic number of galaxies that have had their velocities measured by cosmologists. It's why we know there IS dark matter.
Why would you need to take a vehicle when an astronaut can do any repair jobs without one? They don't go on space walks for fun and the risk is exactly the same whether they use a vehicle or walk straight out. EVA just means extra cargo to be taken up whereas astronauts are already present
In that case what possible interest can it be to anyone now? It's information which is no more relevant than a brain fart, don't you think?
I've always thought the 'V' of EVA meant the actual vehicle they are in, but need to leave it in order to attend to something which needs a tweak on the outside of it? In other words E-xtra (meaning outside of) V-ehicular (the vehicle they were in, but are now outside of?), and 'A' (activity) the practical reason they needed to leave the vehicle in the first place?
I submit that my post 47 below adequately answers that? But I'll re-affirm my conviction that 'in a few billion years' time' nobody but nobody will be around to know if NASA was right or wrong. And even if there were to be, they won't have the faintest idea what NASA is or was anyway? And they'll probably care even less!
