AIBU to question the popular belief that there are more stars in the sky than grains of sand on earth?

[Tryingtryingandtrying]

How can this possibly be true? Tbh I'd question if there were more stars than grains of sand on my local beach? I've read a bit around it and still is impossible for me to comprehend. Any other facts or theories that just don't make sense to you?

I don't detect any 'anger' in any of the posts.
Words don't even accurately convey emotion.

On this thread we have a great example of a common mentality. “I don’t understand, therefore I can’t accept it”

Sometimes if enough people say the same thing, and they’re either cleverer than me, more educated than me, or have more experience than me, or often all 3, then I believe them.

Sometimes if enough people say the same thing, and they’re either cleverer than me, more educated than me, or have more experience than me, or often all 3, then I believe them.

Generally so do I. But this is one of the great unsolved mysteries of the human experience, not the weather forecast. We don’t know whether the universe is infinite. None of these posters know. Scientists don’t know. Einstein didn’t know. I feel entirely justified in saying I don’t know.

Space may or may not be expanding, but this thread is.

@SleepingStandingUp

you might be interested in the work Alan Turing was doing in biology before his death. He discovered a mechanism which explains how complex patterns arise from simple rules

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turing_pattern

Ugh

It’s really interesting that people can’t process the idea of ordinary scepticism to the extent that they convince themselves of ulterior motives on the part of the sceptic. It’s not as if any of this is scientifically proven. It’s all theory. People disagree on it. So why should I believe it uncritically?

This must be what it felt like in the 15th century, saying, “I’m not sure about that flat earth thing.”

Bizarre.

Anyway, got to go now as I am actually working!

@AStudyinPink

It’s really interesting that people can’t process the idea of ordinary scepticism to the extent that they convince themselves of ulterior motives on the part of the sceptic. It’s not as if any of this is scientifically proven. It’s all theory. People disagree on it. So why should I believe it uncritically?

This must be what it felt like in the 15th century, saying, “I’m not sure about that flat earth thing.”

Bizarre.

Anyway, got to go now as I am actually working!

No, it’s like saying now “I’m still not sure about this round Earth thing.”

Sceptical is just such a dumb word to use to describe your position.

It suggests you have some good reason to doubt scientific enquiry and progress, though your reasoning is only based on the fact that you don’t understand the maths, and can’t grasp the concepts when explained to you in English.

It’s absolutely fine to say, as scientists do, “our work doesn’t yet definitely prove our theory, though this, this and this piece point to this conclusion.”

You’re saying “Durr, I don’t think so, guys! Something is infinite and expanding. That’s unpossible!”

AStudyinPink, while I understand perfectly that you're allowed to post here wherever you like and whatever you like; within Talk Guidelines, you are massively derailing this interesting thread for posters like me, who doesn't have a science background beyond a biology O Level.

Unless Maths is describing something real, that can be articulated to an intelligent human, I’m not sure about it. It could be anything and make no sense at all. So I’ll be convinced when scientists begin to make sense.

Many intelligent humans understand maths. Learn maths.

No, it’s like saying now “I’m still not sure about this round Earth thing.”

Bear in mind that's official BBC policy where they can get away with it.

For "balance" you see.

It’s absolutely fine to say, as scientists do, “our work doesn’t yet definitely prove our theory, though this, this and this piece point to this conclusion.”

And it is absolutely fine, where scientists say this, to call the theory ‘unproven’, and express doubt. Which is what I’m doing.

And if you grasp the concept in English, feel free to explain it, because I bet you can’t make it make sense either.

@AStudyinPink

burfordbrown

It’s ‘past’ not ‘passed’.

Ok, whatever

I haven’t ‘flounced’. That (again) suggests being annoyed. I’m bemused, not annoyed.

[quote DGRossetti]Space may or may not be expanding, but this thread is.

@SleepingStandingUp

you might be interested in the work Alan Turing was doing in biology before his death. He discovered a mechanism which explains how complex patterns arise from simple rules

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turing_pattern[/quote]
Thing is I understand the science part, in theory. I just can't comprehend, having grown 3 babies from two eggs, one with more chromosomes than he ought to have, how it actually falls into place. Much like animals born on a beach that spend a life at sea know years later to come back to the same beach. Or the flamingoes that only return to one site under certain conditions but travel thousands of miles at exactly the right time to do so. The enormity of what is ingrained is beyond belief and it's no wonder people some an intelligent God must be behind it

Also floods. I don't understand floods 🤣🤣

It suggests you have some good reason to doubt scientific enquiry and progress,

And I have an excellent reason to doubt ‘enquiry’ - enquiry is not proof.

I’m not sure how that makes me ‘dumb’, and think that’s inappropriate.

you are massively derailing this interesting thread for posters like me, who doesn't have a science background beyond a biology O Level.

I’m sorry. Maybe you could also speak to those people harassing me for my perfectly reasonable opinion?

Chargebeam

Again, sorry.

I love reading about space and to a certain tiny point, understand it, then it goes beyond me.

I watched the two slit experiment and tried to understand what was going on at the end, tried my best to really follow it, tried to work out what was going on with the atoms once we’d been sneaky and unplugged the cctv, that’s when I was confused and I wish my brain was big enough not to be but there we go

Also the discovery of atoms if we can’t see them. What makes someone’s brain so, that they figure they existed in the first place. That’s what blows my mind. How do we see atoms?

www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/w3cswk2g

@JanieLane we can 'see' atoms using transmission electron microscopy or TEM. If you want to look at something, you match up the size of the object with the size of the thing doing the looking. The TEM fires out a beam of electrons (smaller than an atom) at a sample of atoms. The information from the interaction between the sample and the beam lets you build up a picture. It's based on a property all things have called wave-particle duality i.e. that an object behaves as a wave or a particle depending on the situation, and doesn't have to choose to be one or the other. This is how the double slit experiment mentioned upthread works too. Even humans have wave-particle duality!