Quote: "Astronauts in orbit of Earth, unless moving very fast should experience events slightly faster than their counterparts on Earth, due to space-time being more warped on the surface, however the difference is very insignificant so you'd need an atomic clock to easily see the difference. The same can be done if you place a clock on a mountain peak and one at sea level, after a while you will notice a difference."
I can't seem to grasp that. We perceive time, because 'things have happened' and 'there are things that are yet to happen' and even if I consider determinism and causality, where one thing causes another thing to happen and there is really no choice and that it is an illusion (it seems a determinist would argue that a moral action would be 'made' because of the different causes leading up to the decision, such as things taught, emotions involved etc.) then what suggests that time physically exists and that it's not some analogy to explain what we've done and what we're going to do?
Of course the Atomic clock may point in the direction that time exists, but could it not also be argued that energy is effected by gravity? If the energy flowing in the clock making it work is slower than it would be with more gravity.
Quote: "You could observe their mass, velocity and position, with this you can predict what they have done and will do with some degree of accuracy. And you could see that one gets thrown off, much like asteroids and such get thrown around planets like Jupiter, and that the remaining 2 cannot escape their gravity, so will eventually collide/merge/fight."
Maybe, perhaps the scientist wasn't very clear on their reasons - "As you can see here" [shows unclear image of 3 bright dots]. There was probably more to it than that, perhaps I was being foolish - but with what I saw, nothing suggested the sort.
Quote: "Everything you consider to be absolutely 'true' is just a theory which hasn't been disproven and is generally accepted. It is still a theory though."
Indeed, I could agree with that, I usually coin the expression "interpretation of reality is subjective", but if something scientific is put forth, shouldn't there be enough evidence before suggesting otherwise. A theory is a theory, yes, but I've received the impression (no matter how right or wrong) that these scientists interviewed that they take them as a conclusion - as opposed something to hypothesise and test. Though I suppose it seems fairly obvious with things like the particle accelerator being built that certain theories are attempting to provide such evidence. Perhaps I'm either misinterpreting the scientists, or the scientists being interviewed are misrepresenting the theories.
Quote: "
Quote: "'Science' is a lot of bullcrap cause they have to cover up for how little they really know"
Science don't have to cover up anything It's just trying to understand how things around us work... why would you need to cover anything up when you're just just building theories on subjects you exaclty know what is yet"
I think you'll find Agent Dink was cracking a joke.
Quote: "Many documentations are there to "entertain" and don't contain all workings where they found their conclusions. A scientist rarely states "theories" as solid fact and are quite happy to debate and change their minds if you can come up with a sound scientific theory that makes sense."
I wouldn't say some of the ones I watch have that 'entertainment' factor, I hate those - they mostly seem to be there to teach you things about a topic, it could be a flaw in the documentaries and the scientists couldn't explain things properly and chose simplistic versions, but my response was mostly 'how does that explain what you just said?' I suppose being part of the questioning heuristic sort isn't being a part of their target audience.
Though not understanding what they say, I'd hope they'd explain it enough to make sense.
In that case, any recommendations to resources that clearly explain the sciences?
Perhaps I should become more educated on the matter?
"Experience never provides its judgments with true or strict universality; but only (through induction) with assumed and comparative universality." - Immanuel Kant
