Re: Big Bang or Big Splat? 96 % c in our reality but

"T Wake" <taswakeAt@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:yuSdnXnLEMwLQEffRVnyjg@xxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> "Mr. Knowitall" <ir911@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:FBACe.360$Qi4.93568@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> "T Wake" <taswakeAt@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>> news:zr6dnfwDDMOH_UTfRVnyuQ@xxxxxxxxxxxx
>>> I know you are new here, but well said :-)
>>>
>>
>> I may be "new" to this particular newsgroup, but I'm hardly new to Usenet
>> or
>> the web...going back close to 20 years now. Generally speaking, I suppose
>> I'm somewhat of an "elitist", regardless of the primary topic of
>> discussion
>> for any group. Here's what I mean by that:
>
> My statement was not meant to imply you are new to the world of USENET or
> the internet. I was simply pointing out that in a short period of time you
> had fully evaluated the insanity that is tj Frazir.
>

Understood. No problem.

>> I figure that if anyone wants to express their thoughts or ideas on any
>> subject, they should at the very least have enough care to ensure that
>> the
>> content of their post isn't full of spelling and/or grammatical errors.
>
> I agree
>
>> There's no real excuse for it and anyone who posts such illiterate drivel
>> immediately loses almost all credibility in my eyes. I'm sorry to say
>> that a
>> shockingly large proportion of posters to this group fit that
>> description.
>
> Mostly the cranks.
>

Yes...cranks, trolls, wackos...whatever you want to call them.

>> It took many years for me to give any kind of credibility to AOL'ers.
>> Nowadays it's the Google posters and especially the WebTV'ers that I
>> almost
>> instantly dismiss as useless tits that are either too stupid or too
>> ignorant
>> to learn how to properly post to Usenet. They pretty much invariably
>> exhibit
>> the same characteristics described above and are therefore especially
>> annoying. I must say that I am somewhat astonished to find such a large
>> proportion of posters to this group who also fit that description.
>
> Yep. I agree. I think WebTV is the worst. Google has some bad posters but
> it also has occasional good ones. Same as when Deja let you post. Some
> insane crackpots would misuse it and some half decent people who strangely
> never felt the need to get a newsreader would use it.
>
>> After monitoring the traffic in this group for a couple of weeks now, it
>> has
>> become clear to me that this place isn't even close to what I had
>> anticipated or hoped for. There are indeed some very knowledgeable people
>> here who actually *know* what they're talking about...but for the most
>> part,
>> it seems to be a place where stupid ignorant people incessantly spend
>> their
>> time telling *equally* stupid ignorant people how relatively stupid they
>> are.
>
> Sadly true. I feel the problem is two-fold.
>
> First off, most of the sensible posters here have long since got fed up by
> the fools harassing them and now respond to all initial questions in a
> very negative manner.
>

Yes. I've seen the same thing happen in other newsgroups. The "barbarians"
almost always outnumber and overwhelm the contributors who have any shred of
common courtesy or common sense.

> The big problem is so many people think physics is easy to understand
> (based on classical mechanics) and then they try to apply that to the more
> arcane world of (for example) QM. This is what leads to some of the
> ridiculously long threads on things such as the speed of light being a
> constant, or Hammonds equally crazy "S"POG.
>

Agreed.

> As physics becomes more abstract, and science in general is less taught in
> schools now, people have less ability to discriminate between the absurd
> and the possible. It means this newsgroup gets swamped with crazy posts.
> Occasionally some good ones appear though so it's not all bad.
>

D'accord.

>> I may well have made some obvious scientific blunders in my original post
>> "Stray Thoughts & Provocative Questions", but I am more than willing to
>> admit when I am wrong...such as naively overlooking the concept of the
>> light-cone. I am suitably red-faced and stand corrected.
>
> It is ok. No one is right all the time. Not even the cranks here.
>

Perhaps that is the hallmark of a "crank"...never willing to admit a
mistake...always having to be right in spite of overwhelming evidence to the
contrary.

>> I am a computer programmer by profession. The bulk of the work I do
>> concerns
>> statistical analysis and probability theory. My mind is therefore trained
>> to
>> be highly analytical and I therefore tend to find an objectively logical
>> explanation for everything. An answer to a question is either true or
>> not.
>> However, I am also curious enough and open-minded enough to allow for
>> speculation and "what-if" scenarios when it comes to leading-edge science
>> and modern philosophy. That to me is the wonder and thrill to the
>> scientific
>> exploration of the unknown.
>
> Physics requires a rigourous logical approach, however some of the
> concepts that seem immediately apparent actually arent the case. The
> problem with physics in some ways, is that we stand on the Earth watchin
> the Universe rotate around our "flat planet" and we need to use the logic
> to defy what is "common sense."
>

The problem with the purely logical approach is that it is by necessity, the
child of the apparent dual nature of our reality...good old cause &
effect...the belief that you can't have any specific state of being without
automatically implying the existence of an opposite state of being...both of
which must be caused by the occurrence of something else.

It is this limitation on the human thought process and our faculties of
perception that inevitably leads to the difficulties we have in
understanding the true nature of reality...whatever that may be.

>> One of the current hot topics in physics is so-called "String Theory",
>> which
>> in my opinion is nothing more than pure speculation at this time.
>
> Yep. I agree. It is not an ideal theory and hasn't managed any
> experimental evidence. In some of its "predictions" it is about as
> scientific as the SPOG.
>
> Sadly, I am from a time before the string theory really got going and was
> never properly taught it. This means I find it very hard to come to terms
> with the theory in any depth.
>
> It will be interesting to see if it turns out to hold water though.
>

The math-heads are probably on to *something*...but I feel intuitively
cautious when they have to keep adding more spatial dimensions in order to
satisfy their equations. How many are they up to now...at least 10...maybe
more.

>>>From what
>> little I know or understand about it, I can't help but intuitively feel
>> that
>> it is way too complicated to be a viable explanation of the physical
>> reality
>> that we inhabit. But I digress...that topic more properly belongs in its
>> own
>> thread. Maybe I'll stick around long enough to at least give it a try.
>
> Hope so. I would be interested to see how it turns out.
>

Working on it.





.

Quantcast