Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,585 Year: 2,842/9,624 Month: 687/1,588 Week: 93/229 Day: 4/61 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Big Bang is NOT Scientific
bob_gray
Member (Idle past 5004 days)
Posts: 243
From: Virginia
Joined: 05-03-2004


Message 256 of 301 (301015)
04-04-2006 11:41 PM
Reply to: Message 241 by Chiroptera
04-04-2006 9:31 AM


Latex to HTML
There are a number of converters. The one I have seen used the most often is latex2html. You can find that one and some others here:
http://heather.cs.ucdavis.edu/~matloff/latex.html#convert
Here is another one:
Page not found | Computer Science and Engineering
I haven't used these myself because I usually just post in PDF if I need to make it publicly available.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 241 by Chiroptera, posted 04-04-2006 9:31 AM Chiroptera has not replied

Modulous
Member
Posts: 7799
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 257 of 301 (301028)
04-05-2006 1:48 AM
Reply to: Message 254 by NosyNed
04-04-2006 8:31 PM


Re: not displaying correctly.....
To be honest (and its such an odd direction for the thread to have spiralled towards), but I think I missed something in the formatting. I haven't examined it in detail, but it might require a cascading style sheet to format it properly since it looks fine here.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 254 by NosyNed, posted 04-04-2006 8:31 PM NosyNed has not replied

Modulous
Member
Posts: 7799
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 258 of 301 (301029)
04-05-2006 3:12 AM
Reply to: Message 251 by Buzsaw
04-04-2006 7:46 PM


Re: Time To Watch
I think it's time for Mr Logic who talks common sense in plain English to become a bystanding spectator and watch the lubbers of the mysterious things beyond comprehension finish the thread discussing which complicated relative path back to the supposed BB is the least speculative. It seems that the more problems which come up, the greater the need to complicate the math and obscure the language.
I'm quite surprised by your attitude buz! Ignoring the seeming arrogance inherent in the self descriptive moniker that is Mr Logic, it looks (relative to this observer) like you are simply giving up because the subject gets complicated and doesn't make clear sense to you.
Fortunately for myself I was given a lesson in physics humility once. I was studying fluid dynamics and everything that I was learning seemed to betray common sense and any logic and I simply didn't accept what my physics teachers were trying to teach me. I even applied my version of how fluids surely work in a multiple choice test and got zero marks, worse than those that guessed the difficult questions.
You hold plain English in high esteem, but I'm not sure that is justified. I'm fairly sure plain English is an oxymoron to start with. It's a great language, but it carries connotations and ambiguity like old friends. When you get down to the 'nitty gritty' (I really love English, me), we have to be careful with our language. Hence why the caution about using the word 'before' in discussions of the big bang. Indeed, 'before' gets problematic when you start looking beyond local affairs because of other relativistic concerns.
Should we be surprised to find that English - a bastard language of Greek, Latin, German and Celt (and more!) - is a woefully dangerous ally to rely on when we are trying to discuss things which the language was never intended to describe? No, new words have to be fashioned, words which have difficult definitions; words which are not usually described as 'plain'. What seems illogical might not actually be the case; when one man's before is another man's after.
It seems that the more problems which come up, the greater the need to complicate the math and obscure the language.
It seems this isn't a new problem people have with the Big Bang, but I find that the language stops being obscure and becomes frighteningly specific and requires patience and thought to understand it. For example, the concept of a 4-manifold has come up, I'm currently reading about manifolds and topology in an attempt to understand them. It's my understanding that an good understanding of non-trivial topology ideas is pretty important to understanding cosmology (I recently got my head around the concept of two dimensional topologies in 3 dimensional space (eg a donut), and it was a really rewarding understanding process).
Do I see this as obscuring the language? Absolutely, no! Its specifying it to a degree beyond which I can currently comprehend. Do I see this as complicating the math? Of course! This is a subject that is seemingly dominated by mathematicians . The wonderful thing is that mathematics has explicit rules about what can and cannot be done - so if there is any mathemagics going on, somebody will be able to spot it.
I can understand backing away from threads where the language becomes unusual or the mathematics difficult to comprehend, but I am confused by your seeming disdain about such a thing happening. I'm just hoping you are not implying that cosmologists are a secretive group of mathemagicians who cook up confusing language and difficult math-like gobbledegook in the hopes that nobody who speaks plain english or Mr Logic won't spot the flaws in their treasured philosophy/theory. Because that would be crazy.

abe: I realise that you weren't identifying yourself as Mr Logic btw...but the implication seems to be that you are associating yourself with 'him'.
This message has been edited by Modulous, Wed, 05-April-2006 11:50 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 251 by Buzsaw, posted 04-04-2006 7:46 PM Buzsaw has not replied

cavediver
Member (Idle past 3634 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 259 of 301 (301090)
04-05-2006 10:54 AM
Reply to: Message 251 by Buzsaw
04-04-2006 7:46 PM


Re: Time To Watch
I think it's time for Mr Logic who talks common sense in plain English to become a bystanding spectator
If Mr Logic has the gall to think that the universe should somehow bow down to his concept of "common sense" and plain English, then I'm afraid Mr Logic will only ever be a bystanding spectator. I'm reminded of the Englishman abroad... "If I speak very slowly and very loudly then these damn foreigners will finally understand me"
If you want to converse with the universe, you have to learn to speak its language. It is not going to learn yours...
which complicated relative path back to the supposed BB is the least speculative
The Big Bang is a prediction of the most successful theory mankind has ever developed. Every prediction of General Relativity we have tested so far is observed excactly. So why is the Big Bang merely speculative?
the greater the need to complicate the math and obscure the language
The maths of the Big Bang is unbelievably simple compared to real complexities like turbulent viscous flow, vital for aircraft and watercraft design. The wonder is that the maths is so simple... so what's the problem?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 251 by Buzsaw, posted 04-04-2006 7:46 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 262 by Buzsaw, posted 04-06-2006 11:50 AM cavediver has replied

Codegate
Member (Idle past 808 days)
Posts: 84
From: The Great White North
Joined: 03-15-2006


Message 260 of 301 (301168)
04-05-2006 1:35 PM
Reply to: Message 255 by Chiroptera
04-04-2006 8:59 PM


Re: Stirring It Up
The formulas appear to be making use of a windows specific fontset, hence it won't work on MacOS or Linux - I'm grabbing a bunch of new font sets for my Linux box right now to see if they help.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 255 by Chiroptera, posted 04-04-2006 8:59 PM Chiroptera has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 261 by AdminJar, posted 04-05-2006 1:39 PM Codegate has not replied

AdminJar
Inactive Member


Message 261 of 301 (301173)
04-05-2006 1:39 PM
Reply to: Message 260 by Codegate
04-05-2006 1:35 PM


Welcome to EvC
Glad you stopped by the campfire. Pull up a stump and set a spell and if you keep your feet to the fire, the smoke never gets in your eyes.
At the end of this message you'll find links to several threads with tips and tricks and info that may make your stay here more enjoyable.

Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:
  • General discussion of moderation procedures
  • Thread Reopen Requests
  • Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum
    New Members: to get an understanding of what makes great posts, check out:
  • "Post of the Month" Forum
  • "Columnist's Corner" Forum
    See also Forum Guidelines, Style Guides for EvC, and Assistance w/ Forum Formatting


  • This message is a reply to:
     Message 260 by Codegate, posted 04-05-2006 1:35 PM Codegate has not replied

    Buzsaw
    Inactive Member


    Message 262 of 301 (301536)
    04-06-2006 11:50 AM
    Reply to: Message 259 by cavediver
    04-05-2006 10:54 AM


    Re: Time To Watch
    cavediver writes:
    So why is the Big Bang merely speculative?
    The maths of the Big Bang is unbelievably simple compared to real complexities like turbulent viscous flow, vital for aircraft and watercraft design. The wonder is that the maths is so simple... so what's the problem?
    For you and Modulous who seem to imply that I reject all science, I've gone back a couple of pages and pulled some quotes reflecting what I had in mind relative to my comments which pertained to the science of the BB as per this thread
    thread quotes writes:
    242 SG Of course the universe mightn't actually be a 4-manifold, that is more a non-speculative way of refering to the fact that we have the "base space" first and then a metric field is added to induce clocks and rulers.
    Whether the base space is actually a 4-manifold or not I don't know, but we at least know it is excellently approximated by one which is why I used it.
    Chiro 243 If you mean that time and distance are very well modelled as fields and this probably will not change, then I will agree with you. Whether time and space are fields I'm not so sure about -- perhaps Kant is correct and time and space do not even exist except as mental constructions to organize the perceptions that we experience.
    SG 244 In essence:
    We have thing and we know dudes look at it and look at it differently, but the looking isn't part of the thing.
    (I hope this made even an iota of sense.)
    1,61803 222There seems to be a some confusion as to what constitutes a "beginning" and what the word: "orgin" means in this discussion. If there was no space prior to T=0 then there was no time. Now how does one reconcile that space and time existed always if the Big Bang is the point where our physics ends and begins. General Relativity, String, Matrix, M, or any other theoretical phyisics can not begin to have meaningful answers to a event that began our cosmological clock ticking.
    cavediver 235 Although this classical Big Bang model is quite possibly (even quite likely) NOT the real picture, it is very important to understand the validity of this picture before trying to move further into theoretical cosmology. The concepts it teaches are exceptionally important. And it is just so damn aesthetic that it could just be true
    Modulous 239 I'd kind of like to see some of this, despite the fact that my A-level maths will mean precisely nothing for the level of maths I'd need to fully comprehend it (or perhaps even partially understand it(my missus has a BSc in Physics, though in a different area entirely (accoustics) she had to deal with the start of the obscene maths of the quantum world...). Still, something deep within me would like to see some of the maths, with some discussion (and a nearby guru) - I might not understand it but it would give me a sense of satisifaction to know that somebody out there understands it, and that if I really wanted to I could give a shot at coming to grips with it all.
    Phat quoting Chirop (somewhere on page 7) What the Big Bang does not do is describe the actual beginning of the universe, if it does indeed have a beginning. As I have stated in other threads, our present laws of physics are not adequate to describe the universe before a certain time after the creation. Right now scientists are trying to improve our understanding of the laws of physics so that we can understand the universe at these earlier times, but for now any discussion of the origin of the universe can only be speculation.
    (Embolding mine for emphasis)

    BUZSAW B 4 U 2 Z Y BUZ SAW

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 259 by cavediver, posted 04-05-2006 10:54 AM cavediver has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 263 by Admin, posted 04-06-2006 12:55 PM Buzsaw has replied
     Message 264 by cavediver, posted 04-06-2006 5:01 PM Buzsaw has replied

    Admin
    Director
    Posts: 12993
    From: EvC Forum
    Joined: 06-14-2002
    Member Rating: 2.1


    Message 263 of 301 (301563)
    04-06-2006 12:55 PM
    Reply to: Message 262 by Buzsaw
    04-06-2006 11:50 AM


    Re: Time To Watch
    Hi Buzsaw,
    Are the points in your list of excerpts things you agree with? Disagree with? Think contradict each other? It isn't clear, so I think it would be helpful to your potential respondents if you could clarify a little.
    To all,
    I'd like to keep this thread focused on the topic and not on people or side-issues. It would be difficult to rule out explanations of the details of the Big Bang and the nature of space as off-topic because might be necessary background, but keep in mind that that's not what this topic is mostly about. It's about whether modern views of cosmological origins have a scientific foundation.

    --Percy
    EvC Forum Director

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 262 by Buzsaw, posted 04-06-2006 11:50 AM Buzsaw has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 265 by Buzsaw, posted 04-06-2006 9:17 PM Admin has not replied

    cavediver
    Member (Idle past 3634 days)
    Posts: 4129
    From: UK
    Joined: 06-16-2005


    Message 264 of 301 (301693)
    04-06-2006 5:01 PM
    Reply to: Message 262 by Buzsaw
    04-06-2006 11:50 AM


    Re: Time To Watch
    Buzz, I think you are saying that the Big Bang is merely a piece of mathematics and the idea that it is real is highly speculatibe especially given the "illogic" and "lack of common sense" involved. Is that close?
    Ok, my simple reply is that this very same piece of mathematics has made many many predictions. Every single one that has been tested has been "ilogical" and "lacking in common sense" and also found to be in exact agreement with our universe. Given past performance, to dismiss the Big Bang as merely speculative would be at best highly naive... wouldn't you agree?

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 262 by Buzsaw, posted 04-06-2006 11:50 AM Buzsaw has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 266 by Buzsaw, posted 04-06-2006 9:38 PM cavediver has replied

    Buzsaw
    Inactive Member


    Message 265 of 301 (301782)
    04-06-2006 9:17 PM
    Reply to: Message 263 by Admin
    04-06-2006 12:55 PM


    Re: Time To Watch
    I don't know how close you've followed the last few pages, but since whenever I make comments or raise questions regarding the question of whether there was a "before" the BB singularity et al, I get vague responses to the effect that what I'm saying and asking in plain English can't be addressed in language and terms which the laymen can comprehend. So I opted to become a spectator and let the rest go on with the relativity, et al. Well, having done that, both Modulous and Cavediver in messages 258 and 259 chide me for my attitude and for leaving off posting.
    My quote list was in response mostly to cavediver in answer to his questions which I copied and pasted on that message. Note that in my message Cavediver asks why I think the BB is speculative. In the quotes terms with the word speculation are cited et al.
    He also asks, "The wonder is that the maths is so simple... so what's the problem." So in the quotes there's terms to the effect that the math is indeed too complicated for a lot of folks. The purpose was to review to both Modulous and Cavediver statements that they and others had made in the last couple of pages alone, indicative of some problems I had cited regarding the topic, The Big Bang Is Not Scientific. In these quotes are terms denoting speculation, ambiguity, et al, like, "perhaps Kant is correct and time and space do not even exist except as mental constructions to organize the perceptions that we experience." Then there's this, "for now any discussion of the origin of the universe can only be speculation."

    BUZSAW B 4 U 2 Z Y BUZ SAW

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 263 by Admin, posted 04-06-2006 12:55 PM Admin has not replied

    Buzsaw
    Inactive Member


    Message 266 of 301 (301788)
    04-06-2006 9:38 PM
    Reply to: Message 264 by cavediver
    04-06-2006 5:01 PM


    Re: Time To Watch
    cavediver writes:
    Buzz, I think you are saying that the Big Bang is merely a piece of mathematics and the idea that it is real is highly speculatibe especially given the "illogic" and "lack of common sense" involved. Is that close?
    No. I didn't say it's merely math. If you reread all of my stuff you'll find that not to be the case. Note that it's some of my counterparts who've used terms like speculation and who have impied that it is both illogical and lacks common sense. To that I agree.
    cavediver writes:
    Ok, my simple reply is that this very same piece of mathematics has made many many predictions. Every single one that has been tested has been "ilogical" and "lacking in common sense" and also found to be in exact agreement with our universe. Given past performance, to dismiss the Big Bang as merely speculative would be at best highly naive... wouldn't you agree?
    I didn't say everything is speculation. Give me credit due. Having cited some things which are only what I found in the last couple of pages regarding speculative aspects, I'm arguing that there's enough speculative stuff to question the sience of the BB, stuff like the space properties debate, the no outside of and the before, et al. Some of these questionables are being debated by scientists who are a whole lot more educated and apprised than I, as the www attests.

    BUZSAW B 4 U 2 Z Y BUZ SAW

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 264 by cavediver, posted 04-06-2006 5:01 PM cavediver has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 267 by cavediver, posted 04-07-2006 3:37 AM Buzsaw has replied

    cavediver
    Member (Idle past 3634 days)
    Posts: 4129
    From: UK
    Joined: 06-16-2005


    Message 267 of 301 (301819)
    04-07-2006 3:37 AM
    Reply to: Message 266 by Buzsaw
    04-06-2006 9:38 PM


    Re: Time To Watch
    Sorry Buzz, I was just trying to understand what you meant in that post of yours where you quote everyone. Now you've explained it, I understand better.
    I agree that there have been lots of comments here by a number of different posters. These comments do not form a true picture of the Big Bang as many do not have the requisite knowledge.
    I'm arguing that there's enough speculative stuff to question the sience of the BB, stuff like the space properties debate, the no outside of and the before, et al.
    Only becasue you are listening to many different people express their opinions, and it is failing to make a coherent whole. Perhaps a one-on-one would be more fruitful?
    But let me stress, this science of the BB you are questioning is exactly the same science as the rest of GR which has been demonstrated true again and again. It is not just the Big Bang that shows that space can curve, warp, expand, stretch... it is all of the rest of GR that has been observed.
    How do you answer this?
    Some of these questionables are being debated by scientists who are a whole lot more educated and apprised than I, as the www attests.
    No, they are not, unless they are naive or uninformed to GR. The WWW is not the place to find sound sources on this. There is far more garbage written than fact and it is very difficult for the layman to differentiate the wheat from the chaff. I would stick to the recommended books...
    Of course, we debate the underlying concepts of GR, and we look for the deeper theory. But this is no way nullifies our understanding of GR.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 266 by Buzsaw, posted 04-06-2006 9:38 PM Buzsaw has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 268 by Chiroptera, posted 04-07-2006 8:11 AM cavediver has replied
     Message 273 by Buzsaw, posted 04-07-2006 12:09 PM cavediver has replied

    Chiroptera
    Inactive Member


    Message 268 of 301 (301876)
    04-07-2006 8:11 AM
    Reply to: Message 267 by cavediver
    04-07-2006 3:37 AM


    off-topic for a moment -- sorry
    quote:
    I would stick to the recommended books...
    Is Misner, Thorne, and Wheeler a recommended text (for someone who is at the appropriate level, of course) or is it out-dated now? What do you recommend?

    "Religion is the best business to be in. It's the only one where the customers blame themselves for product failure."
    -- Ellis Weiner (quoted on the NAiG message board)

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 267 by cavediver, posted 04-07-2006 3:37 AM cavediver has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 269 by cavediver, posted 04-07-2006 8:38 AM Chiroptera has replied

    cavediver
    Member (Idle past 3634 days)
    Posts: 4129
    From: UK
    Joined: 06-16-2005


    Message 269 of 301 (301884)
    04-07-2006 8:38 AM
    Reply to: Message 268 by Chiroptera
    04-07-2006 8:11 AM


    Re: off-topic for a moment -- sorry
    MTW is simply awesome, the holy book of GR. Admittedly some hate it, but they tend to be those who like Weinberg's Gravitation & Cosmology, which is horrific.
    For something slighlty less likely to break your coffee table, my favourite is D'Inverno's Intro to GR, and SG likes Schutz's book. Nothing is outdated unless you want more up-to-date cosmology stuff, but for that you should go to a cosmology text, not a GR text.
    As a mathematician, I would certainly suggest trying MTW using Track 2 with references to Track 1 if you want some more verbose explanations. If you just want to see the real maths behind it all with little explanation, try Jon Stuart's Advanced Relativity, or Chris Clarke's Relativity on Curved Manifolds.
    ABE: warning for anyone else reading this... these are graduate texts and not layman books!
    This message has been edited by cavediver, 04-07-2006 08:39 AM

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 268 by Chiroptera, posted 04-07-2006 8:11 AM Chiroptera has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 271 by Chiroptera, posted 04-07-2006 9:10 AM cavediver has not replied

    AdminPD
    Inactive Administrator


    Message 270 of 301 (301887)
    04-07-2006 8:52 AM


    EOT in 30 Posts
    Only 30 posts left until End of Thread.
    It is a good time to present summaries or conclusions and wind down to the finale.
    Thanks for debating, carry on.
    Magic Wand

    Newer Topic | Older Topic
    Jump to:


    Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

    ™ Version 4.2
    Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024