Astrophysicists were getting pretty cynical in recent years on ever being able to detect dark matter, this is besides what they see in its gravitational effects. Detection by any other means, such as what they see in the cosmic dawn, could potentially lead to an understanding of what dark matter actually is. It remains a mystery. Some suppose dark matter is composed of anions, but this theory remains untestable at the moment. Therefore, this new signal from the cosmic dawn is very big news because of where it may lead. It's a major breakthrough that is going to get many Ph.D. students upset. Imagine your entire thesis becoming obsolete with this news! Hah!
Add this discovery to the list of the biggest discoveries in physics in recent years:
1) detection of gravity waves 2) confirmation of an expanding universe that will never collapse on itself 3) confirmation of the Higgs field
Makes me wonder who told them that they were big enough to grasp the full truth about the physical universe? Where did they get the idea that a little man in the 21st century could possibly grasp and understand the full truth?
Humanity is infantile at this point in its development. I suppose hubris is a possibly useful driver that inspires mankind to reach beyond his ability to comprehend.
However, I believe info downloads faster if the ego is switched off.
I'll tell you a secret. Every one of those "giants" was/is but a little human person, with a very finite brain case, who only saw a small part of the elephant, and often misunderstood even that. Only thru quantum consciousness can a finite human drop the ego and begin to comprehend oneness or the absolute. Until humanity does this, until humanity moves beyond the plodding sequence of linear thought, it will never be able to comprehend the actuality of the mysterium tremendum. To believe otherwise is hubris.
I do not agree I owe my existence to scientists. The life process is my creator. I am an eternal and infinite being, not merely a mortal having one short life on a carnal world. But I did not intend to knock science or scientists, I like their hits (altho their misses are problematic, to say the least). I merely meant to point out the fatal flaw of depending on intellect alone in seeking to understand the infinite cosmos. And to remind us all that we are small, and should be humbled by the universe.
Hello's statement "However, I believe info downloads faster if the ego is switched off" is almost always true, perhaps an axiom to live by.
However, it is hello's inference that those in the scientific community always have their ego switch turned on that gets my blood boiling. We have all met arrogant people and occasionally we are one of them. It is important not to generalize.
To hello: I apologize for getting upset so easily. Perhaps this was not your intent. I appreciate most feedback on this site from posters as it is necessary for a healthy discussion. My intellect is fed equally on this site from both the educated and uneducated alike. I do not discriminate as I have a deep love for people and seek to understanding first. Even the young 14-year-old posters can have the most profound insight that we all can learn from. Once again, you have my apologies. Cheers.
"However, it is hello's inference that those in the scientific community always have their ego switch turned on that gets my blood boiling. We have all met arrogant people and occasionally we are one of them. It is important not to generalize."
This may be the source of our misunderstanding. When I use the term, "ego", I do not mean the loaded version of the definition of ego that implies unbalanced, negative personality traits (arrogance, etc.). I simply mean in the pure psychological sense, ego as manifested in the stream of verbal thought constructs. Thought stream as opposed to the thought free state, also known as void consciousness. Ego is the basic psychological state of almost all human beings.
It is the finite thought stream that can lead your Ph.D. students to despair when their pet theory, to which they have devoted so much effort, turns out to be wrong. Scholars who float in constant equanimity, and who allow their consciousness to balance in inner quietude, will not mourn their now useless papers. In this way they remain open to further inspiration.
O and no worries about apology, it's cool. Personal attacks are not cool tho, and there is way too much name-calling on this board, I guess some posters are blessed by admin to be able to name call. Or else, I'm too slack about being called names, I don't report them. I just like to be able to defend myself, which is very hard here.
It's mainly a practical matter. PhD students in the physical sciences go through a years-long process in order to earn their degrees. They live on stipends that are barely enough to support a mouse. Asking them to extend their thesis projects would indeed be very discouraging.
The sussing out and testing of what scientists thing they have found is a fascinating venture, and calls for one of the hardest things men have to do: let go of beloved theories.
So it's possible to suppose that not 'believing' in anything that remains unproven is a very useful scientific trait.
As opposed to man's belief in ghawds, religions and other assorted beloved quakeries. Apparently science doesn't rely on 'testimonies'.