Re: Big Bang Baloney....or scientific cult? [ Apparent Red Shift ]
From: Bill Hobba (bhobba_at_rubbish.net.au)
Date: 07/28/04
- Next message: Tom McDonald: "Re: Dr. Jai Maharaj"
- Previous message: Brian Quincy Hutchings: "Re: This Week's Finds in Mathematical Physics (Week 207)"
- In reply to: Ole D. Rughede: "Re: Big Bang Baloney....or scientific cult? [ Apparent Red Shift ]"
- Next in thread: Bill Hobba: "Re: Big Bang Baloney....or scientific cult? [ Apparent Red Shift ]"
- Reply: Bill Hobba: "Re: Big Bang Baloney....or scientific cult? [ Apparent Red Shift ]"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Wed, 28 Jul 2004 00:29:59 GMT
"Ole D. Rughede" <ole.rughede@privat.dk> wrote in message
news:41067446$0$242$edfadb0f@dread11.news.tele.dk...
>
> "Bill Hobba" <bhobba@rubbish.net.au> skrev i en meddelelse
> news:SVhNc.18267$K53.9584@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> >
> > "Ole D. Rughede" <ole.rughede@privat.dk> wrote in message
> > news:4104eeaa$0$229$edfadb0f@dread11.news.tele.dk...
> > >
> > > "Bill Hobba" <bhobba@rubbish.net.au> skrev i en meddelelse
> > > news:JvZMc.16817$K53.2438@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> > > >
> > > > "Ole D. Rughede" <ole.rughede@privat.dk> wrote in message
> > > > news:4103bd4d$0$305$edfadb0f@dread11.news.tele.dk...
> > > > >
> > > > > "Bill Hobba" <bhobba@rubbish.net.au> skrev i en meddelelse
> > > > > news:qwKMc.15672$K53.8089@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "Ralph Hertle" <ralph.hertle@verizon.net> wrote in message
> > > > > > news:4100B8C0.7060504@verizon.net...
> > > > > > > Info Plumber wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > [snip]
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Thanks for the tip, how is this?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Everything is OK.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >>.......
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >>"Ralph Hertle" <ralph.hertle@verizon.net> wrote in message
> > > > > > > >>news:40FCC49D.2050105@verizon.net...
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >><snip>
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> >> The universe is eternal. Every scientific discovery,
> > > > > demonstration,
> > > > > > > >>and proof done in all of history validates the existence of
> the
> > > > > > > >>existents being examined in the observations and
experiments,
> > and
> > > > > taken
> > > > > > > >>together by the use of inductive logic, the fact of
continuity
> > can
> > > > be
> > > > > > > >>inferred and then validated.<<
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I believe that is an unsupportable claim.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Induction is not that popular in our society, however, that is
> the
> > > > > > > process that is used to arrive at the concept that, "The
> universe
> > is
> > > > > > > eternal."
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Run that but me again - how does induction show that the
universe
> is
> > > > > > eternal? Induction only gives us hypothesis - not facts.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > With induction one reasons from many particulars to a single
> > > > > > > unifying concept. * You say that what I say is unsupportable.
I
> > say
> > > > > > > that what I said is a fact that is verifiable.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > That simply does not make sense. I claim the sun rises every
day
> > > > because
> > > > > I
> > > > > > have deduced that from past experience - ie I have used
> induction -
> > > but
> > > > > that
> > > > > > does not guarantee it will rise tomorrow - it is simply a
working
> > > > > hypothesis
> > > > > > I have confidence in. Indeed someone could decide to unleash
> > nuclear
> > > > > > Armageddon and whether you like it or not there is a good chance
> > after
> > > > > such
> > > > > > the earth will be blown to smithereens and the sun defiantly
will
> > not
> > > > rise
> > > > > > tomorrow (at least over the earth)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > One fact is that you can verify with your own sense-perception
> > > > > > > information and powers of cognition is that from the time you
> > first
> > > > > > > posted on this thread and the moment that you posted the
message
> > to
> > > > > > > which I am herewith replying the universe continued to exist.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > But that does not prove it will continue to do so - I certainly
> > > beleive
> > > > it
> > > > > > will - but proof is another matter.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The many such time periods involving numerous identifications
of
> > > > > > > physical entities that you have experienced in your life
should
> > give
> > > > you
> > > > > > > a sufficient quantity of particulars from which you can
> > inductively
> > > > draw
> > > > > > > the conclusion that everything that you have seen or know does
> > > exist.
> > > > > > > Add to that the concepts similarly drawn by others and the
base
> of
> > > > data
> > > > > > > particulars is enormous. Enormous enough to formulate the
> concept
> > > that
> > > > > > > everything is.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Sorry - it can never be enormous enough to prove a hypothesis
> > deduced
> > > by
> > > > > > induction; because to verify it you must observe every
occurrence
> of
> > > it
> > > > > now
> > > > > > and forever; which is clearly impossible.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > That process is implicit in the simplest generalizations
> > > > > > > formed by a child to the sophisticated conclusions involving
> high
> > > > level
> > > > > > > abstract concepts of the universe, say that the functionings
of
> > many
> > > > > > > types of celestial objects (say planets, stars, moon, and
> comets)
> > > are
> > > > > > > different from one another.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > What is implicit is that general statements like Maxwell's
> equations
> > > > > > describe classical electrodynamics are purely provisional - a
new
> > > > > experiment
> > > > > > could be performed tomorrow that invalidates it. That is very
> > > unlikely
> > > > > > given how interconnected it is with all sorts of other things we
> > > know -
> > > > > but
> > > > > > the point is it is not impossible. And we even have examples of
> it
> > > > > > happening in physics eg parity violation. That parity should be
> > > > conserved
> > > > > > is pretty intuitive, so much so that scientists fooled
themselves
> > into
> > > > > > believing the data said it was - in fact it was not.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The conclusion first drawn by any scientist or philosopher
that
> > the
> > > > > > > universe, that is all of existing things, is made of
functioning
> > > > > > > existents, or beings, was made by Aristotle. He called that a
> > Common
> > > > > > > Notion, or axiom, and today philosophers call that concept the
> > > > Identity
> > > > > > > Axiom. Ayn Rand redefined the principle in the context of a
> > > > > > > comprehensive fact-based and logical philosophy called
> > Objectivism,
> > > > and
> > > > > > > her definition is, "Existence is existing," or for short,
> > "Existence
> > > > > > > exists."
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I believe existence exists, but that is a belief on my part - it
> is
> > > not
> > > > > > something I can prove any more than I can prove the sun will
rise
> > > > > tomorrow.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The fact that you existed during the minutes that you took to
> make
> > > > your
> > > > > > > recent post has implicit within it the fact of your continuing
> > > > > > > existence. All the matter and materials or energy that is or
was
> > you
> > > > has
> > > > > > > continued to exist. I hope you are still there, of course. To
> > write
> > > a
> > > > > > > post, you looked at your computer, and you turned it on. The
> > machine
> > > > > > > went into action. The actions that you took have the implicit
> > basis
> > > > that
> > > > > > > you, electricity, programs, and the computer actually exist,
and
> > > that
> > > > > > > they continue to exist. Of course, if you were nuked by a
> > terrorist,
> > > > > > > those things would not exist, however, changed, the atoms of
> same
> > > and
> > > > > > > other constituents would continue to exist.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Would they? How do you know that? Conservation laws ie energy
> can
> > > not
> > > > be
> > > > > > created or destroyed but only converted from one form to
another -
> > is
> > > > that
> > > > > > what your invoking? But how do you known that is true? The
> answer
> > > > > physics
> > > > > > provides is symmetry - but we have broken symmetries and
> > conservation
> > > > laws
> > > > > > we thought were true are not. The fact is in science
everything,
> it
> > > > does
> > > > > > not matter how obvious it is to you, depends on correspondence
> with
> > > > > > experiment - that is all that counts - and that is the
fundamental
> > > > lesson
> > > > > of
> > > > > > science. All these philosophical considerations are gloss and
> dross
> > > > > > compared to the results of experiment.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Every human goes through a similar process of inductive
> > > generalization
> > > > > > > daily, and scientists go through a much more detailed process
of
> > > > > > > induction wherein all the original particular facts are
> carefully
> > > > > > > identified, defined, and measured in advance. The methods of
> > > induction
> > > > > > > are carefully delineated for scientific advancements,
> discoveries,
> > > and
> > > > > > > identifications.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > True - but that in no way deprives them of their provisional
> > > character.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > * Refer to Ayn Rand's book on concept formation, called, "The
> > Theory
> > > > of
> > > > > > > Objectivist Epistemology," that is available from,
> > > > > > > http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer .
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Scientific experiments, demonstrations, and proofs are
deductive
> > > > > > > processes
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Experiments are not deductions - they are questions we ask of
> nature
> > > to
> > > > > see
> > > > > > how she works. They either disprove theories, confirm them or
> > suggest
> > > > new
> > > > > > ones.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > and are not used to arrive at the universal concept of a
> > > > > > > continually existing universe. Deduction cannot be used for
that
> > > > > purpose.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >>[you say:]
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> > My intuition says that anything that is expanding at a
> > > > more-or-less
> > > > > > > >>constant rate (or accelerating rate) must have been a
> > singularity
> > > at
> > > > > > > >>some time in the past. Your statement above seems more like
> > > > > existential
> > > > > > > >>philosophy than hard science. There are few things in
> cosmology
> > > that
> > > > > > > >>have as much hard, scientific validation as the "big bang".<
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >>Intuition is not science, it is projection and wishing, just
> to
> > > > > mention
> > > > > > > >>some of the possible notions.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I was not the first person to mention "intuition" in this
> > thread,
> > > > but
> > > > > I
> > > > > > made
> > > > > > > > it crystal clear (I thought) that my position was based on
> > > science,
> > > > > not
> > > > > > > > intuition.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Sorry, I misread or missed something.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > [snip]
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >>Forget the Euclidean geometric origin point that the
> > > > > > > >>religionist-creationists have foisted upon us.
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >>Instead, ask the real questions: what happens to photons in
> > their
> > > > > > > >>travels through space to cause the lowering of their energy
> > > levels.
> > > > If
> > > > > > > >>collisions or the intercession of other causes are at work,
it
> > may
> > > > be
> > > > > > > >>found that the universe is not at all expanding, that there
> was
> > no
> > > > BB,
> > > > > > > >>that the Apparent Red Shift will have been explained in
terms
> of
> >
> > > > > > > >>physical cause and effect, that the cause of gravity may
also
> be
> > > > > > > >>explained as an integral cause, that the red shift varies
due
> to
> > > the
> > > > > > > >>differences of densities of hydrogen atoms or the different
> flux
> > > > > > > >>densities of radiant gravitons in space, and that the
universe
> > is
> > > > > > > >>considerably smaller than previously estimated.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > wait just a minute, how can a "continually existant"
universe
> be
> > > > > > anything
> > > > > > > > other than infinite in size while at the same time being
> > "smaller
> > > > than
> > > > > > > > previously estimated"?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > That's an excellent question. In the space of these writings
it
> > > > > > > sometimes isn't possible to develop all the points needed for
a
> > > > complete
> > > > > > > exposition.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > A "continually existant" universe made of a plurality of
> discrete
> > > > > > > existents is finite. Finite in that (Aristotelean and not
> > Platonic)
> > > > > > > context would mean that existents are existing in physical
> > actuality
> > > > and
> > > > > > > that they have properties. The plurality continues to exist,
> will
> > > > exist,
> > > > > > > and is known to have existed for some time prior to now. By
> > > induction
> > > > we
> > > > > > > can create the concept of a continuity of everything, and we
> can
> > > > > > > similarly form a concept that isolates the distinguishing
> > > > > > > characteristics and omits all the non-essential properties of
> the
> > > > > > > existents except for the existence of the plurality and its
> > > > continuity;
> > > > > > > and we call that concept, eternal.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The universe is eternal.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Philosophical doublespeak and balderdash. I say the question of
> if
> > > the
> > > > > > universe is eternal is a scientific question whose answer
depends
> on
> > > how
> > > > > > well it fits with observation - the best current thinking is it
> had
> > a
> > > > > > beginning and will have an end.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Being eternal is always an actuality, and it is continually
> > > actualized
> > > > > > > in every moment of existence. The universe is always existing
> > > > > > > instantaneously, and there is always only the now. In the now,
> > there
> > > > is
> > > > > > > no past, and, in the now, there is no future. The
> characteristics
> > of
> > > > > > > future existents are only determined by their currently
existing
> > > > > > properties.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Everything in the universe has substance, the stuff that is,
and
> > > that
> > > > > > > stuff has properties.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Everything in the universe has substance? Do electric fields
have
> > > > > > substance?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Some of those properties are location, amount of
> > > > > > > mass, distance relationships, and dimensional motion, for
> example.
> > > We
> > > > > > > can only know the natures of the existents that we can, and we
> can
> > > > know
> > > > > > > no more. We have no knowledge of whether future discoveries of
> > more
> > > > > > > distant objects, i.e., by means of iron light red shifted down
> > into
> > > > the
> > > > > > > long radio wave lengths, will enable us to see older and more
> > > distant
> > > > > > > objects. We can know know more by such empirical and
verifiable
> > > > > > > observations.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Yet you claim induction tells us truth.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Is the universe infinite of time? No,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > That is the usual definition of eternal - I suggest all your
doing
> > is
> > > > > > playing word games.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > it is only continuous of
> > > > > > > existence. That fact we can verify, and by means of induction
we
> > can
> > > > > > > surmise that existence is eternal. To be eternal is that the
> > > universe
> > > > > > > will continue to continue in the here and now,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Is the universe infinite of size, or mass? No, it is only
> > continuous
> > > > of
> > > > > > > the existence of its parts and its possible functionings.
> > Actually,
> > > We
> > > > > > > only know what we know. If we build more powerful instruments
we
> > can
> > > > see
> > > > > > > farther, and if all that we have seen has similar
> characteristics,
> > > we
> > > > > > > could make a conditional guess that if we saw further we would
> see
> > > > more
> > > > > > > of the same. If we saw older objects, we could conditionally
> guess
> > > > that
> > > > > > > older things were formed or were existing based upon the same
> > > causes.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The universe is always finite. No part of it is infinite.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Infinity is a potentiality only, and it can never be
> demonstrated
> > to
> > > > > > > have any particular existence.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The universe conceivably may be infinite in all directions -
> > > scientists
> > > > > > suspect it is not - but that is a matter of observation - not
> > > something
> > > > > > that must a-priori be.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Nor are there any particular infinite
> > > > > > > objects, for that would be a gross contradiction in terms.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I suggest you acquaint yourself with the works of Cantor.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Refer to several posts that I have written on HPO,
> > > > > > > humanities.philosophy.objectivism , and AA, alt.astronomy,
> > > concerning
> > > > > > > discussions of the concepts of existence, continuity, and
> > infinity.
> > > > > > > Fuller explanations may be found there, and also, on the
> archives
> > > for
> > > > > > > the above mentioned groups on Google.com. Search by
> > > "author:<author's
> > > > > > > email address>" and by subject keywords, existence,
continuity,
> > and
> > > > > > > infinity, for example.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The concepts of the existence and the continuation of entities
> are
> > > > > > > demonstrably finite.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The concept of infinity is a religious concept that is used
> widely
> > > by
> > > > > > > Platonists of all types, and is rarely and only used in
> > comparative
> > > > > > > discussions by those in the Aristotelean tradition. Infinity
> > cannot
> > > be
> > > > > > > actualized in terms of finite existents, extents, sizes, or
> > physical
> > > > > > > substance of any kind.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I have a book sitting here in front of me called 'Introduction
to
> > the
> > > > > Theory
> > > > > > of Infinitesimals' by Stroyan and Luxemburg. It is a book on a
> > > subject
> > > > > > called Non Standard Analysis. It whole basis is that infinity
and
> > > > > > infitesimals (the inverse of infinity) are not only logically
> > > consistent
> > > > > but
> > > > > > have powerful applications to mathematical analysis eg it can be
> > used
> > > to
> > > > > > give rigor to hand wavy arguments used in numerical analysis and
> has
> > > > many
> > > > > > practical application see
> > > > > > http://members.tripod.com/PhilipApps/nonstandard.html. In non
> > > standard
> > > > > > analysis infinitesimals exist and the reciprocal of an
> infinitesimal
> > > is
> > > > > > infinity.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > All that it can possibly mean is: immeasurably
> > > > > > > huge, and that is just about all that can be said about the
> > concept.
> > > > At
> > > > > > > best infinity is not, and can never be, a scientific concept.
> Why?
> > > > > > > Because that which is supposed to be the infinite has no
> > properties,
> > > > no
> > > > > > > identity. Infinity can never be known - and therein is its
great
> > > > appeal
> > > > > > > to the Platonists as well as the modern Kantians in science.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > It can be known as well an any mathematical theory can be
known -
> > > > logical
> > > > > > consistency is all that counts. BTW I think Kant is a crock of
> > crap -
> > > > he
> > > > > > was destroyed not by philosophers but by mathematicians - Gauss,
> > > Riemann
> > > > > and
> > > > > > Hilbert savaged him. To be fair however I have had discussions
> with
> > > > Kant
> > > > > > scholars that disagree.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > with respect to "the flux densities of radiant gravitons in
> > > space",
> > > > > are
> > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > referring to the hypothesized effect of a "Mitchell star" or
> > other
> > > > > > > > significant gravity well, namely the indirect result of
> > > > > uni-directional
> > > > > > > > gravitons causing localized Elysium density increases which
> > result
> > > > in
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > refraction and ultimate red-shifting of photons? this idea
> seems
> > > to
> > > > me
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > have some fatal logical weaknesses, so perhaps he has
> something
> > > else
> > > > > in
> > > > > > > > mind?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > A ""Mitchell star" or other significant gravity well"? I don't
> > know.
> > > > The
> > > > > > > idea, from what you say could be worth looking into. I don't
> know
> > > > enough
> > > > > > > about that aspect of science.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Has he subjected this option to experimentation?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Yes. Lord Rayleigh was a true experimenter-theoretician type
of
> > > > > > > scientist. His experiments are well documented. I for one wish
I
> > had
> > > a
> > > > > > > book that documented all his works.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >>Due to religion the theory that no physicist seems to be
> > advancing
> > > > is
> > > > > > > >>that the universe continually exists as plurality, and that
it
> > is
> > > > made
> > > > > > > >>of a myriad of parts.
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >>Ralph Hertle
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > this is a very interesting theory and one that I have not
seen
> > > > before.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The theory "that the universe continually exists as a
plurality"
> > is
> > > > not
> > > > > > > mine. That is straight from Aristotle, that is, after I did a
> lot
> > of
> > > > > > > mulling to get the ancient concepts working in my gray cells.
> I've
> > > > been
> > > > > > > developing upon and explaining the concepts for our modern
> > purposes.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Or are you referring to Lord Rayleigh's work with light?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The guy we are talking about is:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > John William Strutt Lord Rayleigh
> > > > > > > Born: 12 Nov 1842 in Langford Grove (near Maldon), Essex,
> England
> > > > > > > Won: Nobel Prize, 1904
> > > > > > > Died: 30 June 1919 in Terling Place, Witham, Essex, England
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I will enjoy very much giving this idea some serious
> > > consideration,
> > > > > but
> > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > now just a few questions and comments:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > 1. Where can I obtain more information on Lord Raleigh and
his
> > > work?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Again, I wish that I had a full documentation of abstracts of
> his
> > > > work.
> > > > > > > Use the Internet search engines. Possibly also write to the
> > > Librarians
> > > > > > > at the universities and organizations in GB where he did his
> work.
> > I
> > > > > > > wouldn't doubt that they can give you a little free help,
> however,
> > a
> > > > > > > researcher could possibly be hired.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > 2. Does he extrapolate his findings with estimates of ?
> > > > > > > > a) stellar and intergalactic distances.
> > > > > > > > b) the size of the currently visible portion of the
> universe.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > He made a few comments about the light coming from distance
> places
> > > in
> > > > > > > the universe, and I don't have the details
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > 3. Where does he stand on General Relativity?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I don't know.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Note the years in which he did his work. He published his
work,
> > and
> > > I
> > > > > > > would suspect that his experiments may have been mentioned in
> the
> > > > works
> > > > > > > of Einstein and others in the prior art or reference sections
of
> > the
> > > > > > > papers they wrote. I would be interesting to see how they
> > dispensed
> > > > with
> > > > > > > his ideas,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > 4. What are his positions on dark matter and dark energy?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I don't know.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > 5. What is his position on multiple universes and string
> theory?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I don't know.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > The majority of today's physicists who are atheists are also
> > "Big
> > > > > > Bang"ists,
> > > > > > > > so your final comment does not hold water.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > You caught one of my problems in logic. Thank you.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I should have said that some advocates of the BB are
> religionists
> > > and
> > > > > > > that some are not.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Scientists that advocate the BB do so for a very fundamental
> > reason -
> > > > you
> > > > > > should acquaint yourself with the The Hawking-Penrose
singularity
> > > > theorem
> > > > > > which shows that provided some very reasonable assumptions that
> most
> > > > > > physicists would not choose to doubt are made (see Wald -
Generals
> > > > > > Relativity for the details) then the universe must have been a
> > > > singularity
> > > > > > some time in the past. If you wish to doubt it then it would be
> > > > > reasonable
> > > > > > for you to detail which assumption of the theorem you wish to
> > dispute.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I may have tried to promote the idea that creationists are
> > > > religionists,
> > > > > > > and as you point out, they all are not. I should have added,
as
> a
> > > > > > > parenthetical remark, that many of the religionist
creationists
> > > > latched
> > > > > > > on to the Doppler-Hubble BB theory because it shored up the
> > Biblical
> > > > > > > creationist viewpoint. Nor are all religionists creationists
> > > Biblical
> > > > > > > creationists.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > A poll of the different types of scientists regarding their
> > > religious,
> > > > > > > scientific, and philosophical views would be of interest.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Irrelevant - science is concerned with correspondence with
> > > experiment -
> > > > > that
> > > > > > is all. Other issues are simply gloss and dross ie a beat up by
> > those
> > > > who
> > > > > > wish to make the issue into something it is not.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Steven Speicher, a scientist who posts on HPO, remarked that
> most
> > > > > > > scientists leave their religious views at the door when they
go
> to
> > > > work.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Steven Speicher is a person who at one time posted a lot on
> > > > > > sci.physics.realtivity and is a person I have great respect for.
> On
> > > the
> > > > > > above he is 100% correct.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > From the general tone of your
> > > > > > > > post, I get the distinct impression that you harbor an
> > irrational
> > > > > > hostility
> > > > > > > > towards any theory that would lend credence to the
Creationist
> > > point
> > > > > of
> > > > > > > > view.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > IP
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I am vehemently opposed to any theory that is widely promoted
> and
> > > that
> > > > > > > has so many logical contradictions in it. For example, one
> > > > contradiction
> > > > > > > that is really disreputable is that at the instant of the BB
the
> > > > > > > universe is supposed to have come into existence out of
nothing.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > That is not what the BB theory says - it says that is started as
a
> > > > quantum
> > > > > > fluctuation is a primordial 'quantum soup' that inflated into
the
> > > > universe
> > > > > > we see around us - it did not start from nothing. If you
believe
> > > > > otherwise
> > > > > > please point me to the scientist that claims otherwise.
> > > > > >
> > > > > And from where or what should that 'quantum soup' have been
> > > > > invented, created, cooked and served by whom for inflation?
> > > >
> > > > Its technical name is the false vacuum.
> > >
> > > You avoid answering the question!
> >
> > Not really. Adjectives like 'cooked and served' are emotive terms used
to
> > denigrate a theory and do not require a response other than to show they
> are
> > irrelevant in this context. The fact is any hypothesis in accord with
> > observation is a valid scientific hypothesis - how it was 'invented,
> > created, cooked and served by whom' is an irrelevant issue designed to
> shift
> > the discussion to one of how the person feels about the hypothesis
rather
> > than the only issue - how well it fits observation.
> >
> You still did not answer my question: where the 'quantum soup' of the
> 'false vacuum' should have come from and in which way it should have
> been 'created'? (With the purpose of giving man a subject of unscientific
> beliefs and wild speculations!).
It is a hypothesis of the theory you scenic ignoramus.
> > > >
> > > > > What came first, the hen or the egg,
> > > >
> > > > Blowed if I know - speak to an evolutionary biologist.
> > > >
> > > > > and which went into the soup?
> > > >
> > > > It is assumed to contain something whose technical name is the
'false
> > > > vacuum' See http://nedwww.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/Guth/Guth3.html.
I
> > > > called it a 'quantum soup' to indicate it properties were strongly
> > > governed
> > > > by the laws of QM.
> > > >
> > > > > Which 'fluctuations' caused by what should make the soup inflate?
> > > >
> > > > From the link written by the originator of the theory:
> > >
> > > There is no theory, just wild speculations.
> >
> > Any hypothesis consistent with observation is a valid theory - you wish
to
> > describe it as 'wild speculation' for purposes of your own. Such
tactics
> is
> > not part of legitimate intellectual debate.
> >
> You have logical rules for what may be hypothesized!
> > > >
> > > > 'There are many versions of inflationary theories but generically
they
> > > > assume that some small patch of the early Universe somehow came to
be
> in
> > a
> > > > false vacuum state Various possibilities have been discussed,
> including
> > > > supercooling during a phase transition in the early Universe, or a
> > purely
> > > > random fluctuation of the fields. A chance fluctuation seems
> reasonable
> > > even
> > > > if the probability is low, since the inflating region will enlarge
by
> > many
> > > > orders of magnitude, while the non-inflating regions will remain
> > > > microscopic. Inflation is a wildfire that will inevitably take over
> the
> > > > forest, as long as there is some chance that it will start. '
> > > >
> > > You mean there are many inventors of inflationary theories?
> >
> > There was only one inventor - Alan Gnuth - there are many variants all
of
> > which fits the facts. Thus it is a group of theories - not a single
> theory.
> >
> > > And many speculations about unkown chain-reactions called 'wildfire'?
> >
> > What you wish to denigrate by use of the word 'specualtion' serious
> > scientists call theories. Of course a theory is a speculation but your
> > choice of words and not the usual scientific momercutre, and the desire
to
> > draw a distinction, would seem designed for a particular purpose -
> > denigration of the ideas rather than a reasoned intellectual
examination.
> >
> My assertion is - what you very well know - that people claiming to
> make scientifically valid hypotheses about the creation, mightiness or
> endurance of our one and only Universe, are not 'serious scientists',
> since such subjetcs are outside the reach of human *scientific mind*.
My position, as you very well know, is that science is test, hypothesize,
test, hypothesize over and over. There is nothing is the scientific method
that precludes hypothesis about the creation of the universe.
> > >
> > > > So the answer is it is an assumption of the theory. You know - the
> > > > hypothesize part of the scientific enterprise; that part that says
as
> > long
> > > > as the hypotheses is in accord with observation is it a valid
> hypothesis
> > > > regardless of what the you may think of it. I know such an attitude
> > > towards
> > > > science is foreign to you but it still is what science is all about.
> > > >
> > > I fully agree to call a hypothesis a hypothesis, a theory a theory,
> > > and asssumptions for assumptions, but wild speculations about the
> > > creation of the universe are nothing of that, and definitely not
> science.
> >
> > Then your are simply playing word games and not doing science. However
my
> > obesrvation is that is not new for you.
> >
> > > You know nothing about my attitudes towards science.
> >
> > From what you write I know you are willing to form opinions as if they
> were
> > fact beyond question based on reasoning that at best would be described
as
> > dubious - and probably better described as ramblings eg you claim to
have
> > speculated about M-theory P-pranes decades ago and cited the wrings of
> Dirac
> > (written much earlier) in support.
> >
> You are a liar and distorter of whichever fact you may be given.
> You babble, - and it is far from in a qualtiy of classical sophistry,
> why you are only an unlearned time-killer with all your nonsense.
As before I could easily find the reference where you said that but to be
quite frank about it I have better things to do with my time. All genuine
posters know you for the crank and crackpot you are.
> > > > >
> > > > > Isn't this some sort of 'induced' speculative fairytales strung
> > > > > together on one single perhaps misinterpretated 'observation'
> > > > > of red-shiftet light as a Doppler-evidence of expansion?
> > > >
> > > > Much more evidence than that exists see
> > > > http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni/uni_101bbtest.html
> > > >
> > > I agreee much evidence for physical phenomena could be
> > > strung together to stiffen the wildest speculations about everything
> > > which is totally out of the scientific domaine of physics.
> >
> > Then propose an alternative theory consistent with the facts. Just make
> > sure you show it is consistent with the facts and that demonstration
will
> > stand up to the scrutiny of legitimate scientists like Steve Carlip who
> post
> > around here. So far you have not been able to describe you ideas in any
> > coherent fashion.
>
> So far you have not been willing to understand one single word of
> the Aether Theory and is pathetically unable to disprove its statements.
So far you have not presented anything with enough coherency to be worthy of
consideration. I have given you a link to a genuine aether theory - the
tripe you write is not even in the same ballpark.
>
> You claim to believe in the aether - for a legitimate
> > scientific presentation of an aether theory see
> > http://ilja-schmelzer.de/GET/. When you can present your ideas in a
> similar
> > way then you will be practicing science.
> >
> I know Ilja's hypotheses. I don't believe they may hold.
> I leave it to others to show why. None of my businesses!
> > > > >
> > > > > How can you possibly cling to such phantastic nonsense,
> > > > > given all the truely scientific arguments here from Ralph Hertle?
> > > >
> > > > You mean evidence like:
> > > >
> > > > 'The concept of infinity is a religious concept that is used widely
by
> > > > Platonists of all types, and is rarely and only used in comparative
> > > > discussions by those in the Aristotelean tradition. Infinity cannot
be
> > > > actualized in terms of finite existents, extents, sizes, or physical
> > > > substance of any kind. All that it can possibly mean is:
immeasurably
> > > > huge, and that is just about all that can be said about the concept.
> At
> > > > best infinity is not, and can never be, a scientific concept. Why?
> > > > Because that which is supposed to be the infinite has no properties,
> no
> > > > identity. Infinity can never be known - and therein is its great
> appeal
> > > > to the Platonists as well as the modern Kantians in science.'
> > > >
> > > > Anyone aware of advanced mathematics knows of Cantors transfinite
> > > arithmetic
> > > > and the more recent and very striking Non Standard Analysis that
> > trivially
> > > > disproves such philosophical mumbo jumbo.
> > > >
> > > I do not fully agree to exactly these specific formulations by Ralph
> > > Hertle, and you are right that Cantor's transfinite aritmetic show
> > > ways to cope with the concept of infinities in abstract mathematics.
> > > But that does not prove to be applicable to the philosophical
> > > problem of the immeasurable mightiness of the universe or to
> > > support any speculation about its creation.
> >
> > I have no idea what your trying to say. A theory is a (hopefully)
> logically
> > consistent set of rules about how nature may work that can be tested.
> Those
> > rules may include concepts like infinity and other things you and Ralph
> > Hertle seem to take exception to. But science is not concerted about if
> you
> > like a theory or not, it can only be attacked in one way and one way
only
> > (apart form logical consistency) - how well it fits experiment. And you
> > mention a philosophical problem - philosophy (beyond simple
> considerations),
> > as I have gone to great pains in many of my postings to show, is not
> really
> > that relevant to science.
> >
> Your usual Billy-babble about (hopefullly) logical consistency of
scientific
> theories. You seem to believe that while Archimedes with his sand-counter
> demontrated the possibility of counting and measuring infinities, you
would
> be able to 'theorize' speculative big-bang nonsense
And why is it nonsense? Exactly what observation is it in conflict with?
> about the creation of
> the Universe according to the valid laws of physics, which has not even
> been given but were merely found by man, why people believing in the
> creation and enduring maintnance of the world by God are wiser than you,
So you can demonstrate that people who believe in God are wiser than me?
And such demonstrations are the valid domain of science? You arrogant
ignorant dolt.
> since their belief cannot be disproven and therefore not denied, just
like,
> say the existense of the Aether as a physical concept cannot be denied.
Theories in accord with observation are not nonsense. I do not believe in
an aether yet because we have theories that assume it in accord with
experiment I admit is a valid theory. Yet not once have I heard you non
aether theories are valid - not once. Anyone with a brain can see who is
trying to be balanced and scientific here. Cranks like yourself prey on the
integrity of those genuinely interested in science to claim an aether must
exit knowing because others try to be fair and balanced they will not out
and out say an aether does not exist, despite the fact no generally accepted
theory uses it. As to why scientists by and large do not believe in an
aether see http://www.google.com/groups?selm=3838AA2A.829F46AD%40lucent.com.
The duplicity of your position is evident - you hide behind the scientific
integrity of others to make your claims, then based on the very rejection of
the scientific integrity you count on to spread your tripe about the aether,
claim theories you for some reason do not like, because you regard them as
'speculative big-bang nonsense', are wrong. And yet as to why are they
wrong - not one single piece of experimental evidence in disagreement with
the hypothesis is trotted out and discussed. All it consists of mumbo jumbo
like 'why people believing in the creation and enduring maintenance of the
world by God are wiser than you' asserted in matter of fact way as if it was
beyond question, when, in reality, such considerations have no place in
science.
> You are therefore an intellectual moron trying to sell lies for truth. And
> it
> is that more pathetic when even not gravity was understood or explained in
> any scientific theory according to simple ideas of cause and effect before
> formulation of a Theory of the Aether to avoid physical forces by
distance.
> Nevertheless G was an ingredient of the speculative 'bb-creational soup'.
Again the typical crank rant - they claim theories they do not like do not
explain anything eg they claim we do not have a theory that explains gravity
(when in fact we do - GR explains it as space-time curvature) yet do not
worry one iota that in the aether paradigm we do not have an explanation of
where the aether came from or how it can to possess the rather curious
properties it must have. Of course in science some things are accepted from
which others are explained and I have no more right to criticize aether
theories on those grounds than cranks have to criticize theories on the
grounds they dislike (even if those grounds are incorrect) - I am simply
noting the double standard they adhere to.
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > > They
> > > > > > > imply, and some state outright, that there were no physical
> causes
> > > > > > > existing prior to all of existence.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Bunkum - The quantum 'soup' the universe was supposed to have
> > > inflated
> > > > > from
> > > > > > obeyed laws that are specified in the inflationary big bang
model.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > The implication is that the
> > > > > > > principles of cause and effect, of the plurality of existents
in
> > the
> > > > > > > universe, of the existence of the universe, of the eternal
> nature
> > of
> > > > the
> > > > > > > universe, and of the concepts of specific properties of
> existents,
> > > of
> > > > > > > the knowability of the facts of the universe and of the pre-BB
> > > > universe,
> > > > > > > don't exist and cannot be known.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > In any theory some things are assumed from which others follow -
> the
> > > > > > inflationary BB theory is no different.
> > > > > >
> > > > > Induction?
> > >
> > > Bill, do you agree that your above statement about
> > > so-called BB theory is what we may call scientific induction?
>
> Hmm. No answer!
> Well. One simpleton may ask more than ten wise could
> possibly answer in other ways as of silly fariry-tales to
> satisfy idiots.
Tell me where in the scientific method that hypothesis must a-priori be
formed by induction? Induction is often used but please do explain to me
why it is the only method that can be used to form a hypothesis? That being
the case if Alan Gnuth (or the scientists that originated the BB) arrived at
inflation (or the BB) by induction or not is irrelevant. In fact I do not
know if they did or not. But it is probably beyond your ken to realize it
is irrelevant.
>
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Only existence is existing.
> > > > >
> > > > > Hmm. Existence or that of existence is existing?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I am not a Creationist, although the original hypotheses of
> Hubble
> > > > using
> > > > > > > the Doppler Effect and the balloon had considerable merit
worth
> > > > > > > checking. It is still true for many local observations.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > Did Hubble ever advocate an interpretation as expansion?
> > > > >
> > > Bill! My question is in fact seriously meant, and you probably (as an
> > > admirer of the BB-speculations) would know more about it than I do.
> > > So have you any idea of Hubble's inclination to interpret the
red-shifts
> > > as evidence of a universal expansion?
> >
> > First of all I am no expert on the BB. I gave you a link that examines
> the
> > issues http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni/uni_101bbtest.html. Why not
peruse
> it
> > is tell me what you do not agree with? If I can not answer your concern
> > there are those who post here that can. Just couch your questions not
in
> > terms of I must be correct and you are all fools for not seeing it but
in
> > terms of can you help me to understand. That will get you a much better
> > outcome.
> >
> Dear Billy Boy, in what are you an expert?
After responding to cranks on sci.physics.relativity I am becoming an expert
on how they act.
> My presumption was that you
> perhaps knew a little bit more about bb-speculations than I and NASA do.
You put your knowledge of the BB on the same par as the scientists at
NASA? - the arrogance.
> My destiny is not to teach you or help you understand anything. If you
> can possibly understand what I tell you, that's fine. But if you will not,
> why
> should I bother?
Indeed why cranks bother is beyond me.
> I would leave it to the good God to help your doubts,
> knowing that more qualified people understand the few hints I have given
> to these news groups as to what a Theory of the Aether might be about.
>
> You don't believe me, so why don't you study Ilja's mechanichs or the
> LeSage ideas of Mingst, who are sharp, learned and polite people to
> discuss with, and from whom you maybe could learn something you
> wish to learn?
Barry Mingst sharp, learned and polite? - a perusal of the following
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/ImmortalFumbles.html casts
serious doubt on that assertion. BTW on the occasions Ilja posts he is
treated with the respect of a genuine scientist who has proposed a valid
theory he wishes published in a respectable journal. He published the
reasons it was rejected (it may have been accepted by one now for all I
know). I in fact believe it should be published. In short he participates
in he scientific process and is able to back his position with reasoned
argument. Because of that he receives, from me and other who post regularly
to science forums, a totally different reception than you do. It goes
without saying I do not agree with him but that he holds (as far as GLET is
concerned - I do not agree with his views of the experimental refutation of
Bohm - but even here he is able to back his reasoning up - I think it was
successfully refuted by Bilge but that is another story) what I consider a
valid scientific position I also believe.
> You cannot expect to learn anything from crackpots and
> cranks whom you have been thrown upon by your beloved president
> with all the weights of half-rotten straw- and heymen. Can't you?
I again ask you who is my president and why you believe I would belove him
so? I have told you before I live in a county that does not have a
president. I suggest you increase your meds.
Further crank crap mercifully snipped
Bill
- Next message: Tom McDonald: "Re: Dr. Jai Maharaj"
- Previous message: Brian Quincy Hutchings: "Re: This Week's Finds in Mathematical Physics (Week 207)"
- In reply to: Ole D. Rughede: "Re: Big Bang Baloney....or scientific cult? [ Apparent Red Shift ]"
- Next in thread: Bill Hobba: "Re: Big Bang Baloney....or scientific cult? [ Apparent Red Shift ]"
- Reply: Bill Hobba: "Re: Big Bang Baloney....or scientific cult? [ Apparent Red Shift ]"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
