|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 5409 days) Posts: 67 From: Scottsdale, Az, USA Joined: |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The Big Bang is NOT Scientific | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
Thanks, cavediver. Maybe late I'll pick your brains for a good cosmology text. Maybe quantum field theory, too, if that is up your alley. No need to give any recommendations now, though, since they might be out-dated by the time I get to them.
quote: Heh. No bowling balls sitting on rubber sheets, eh? "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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Son Goku Inactive Member |
Maybe quantum field theory,
Peskin and Schroeder, in my opinion is the best modern text.Most others have little bit of a tendency to skip QCD and prefer either the canonical or path-integral approach. Martin and Shaw may be the best to begin with, but it only covers standard topics in QED. After that your into the vast landscape of topics that QFT covers and subdivides into. (One of my old professors actually had a flow chart of the different sub-areas of QFT.)
since they might be out-dated by the time I get to them.
Don't worry too much about that. Introductory material to any subject remains the same over a long period of time. It's only sub-areas that suffer. So a book on QFT will still be as good as it was ten years ago, but a book on Topological QFT might date very quickly. This message has been edited by Son Goku, 04-07-2006 11:27 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
cavediver writes: 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. .......and others, imo, have given too little thought to the logical and sensible aspects of BB science, relying instead, on the mysterious, the complicated, the relative and the institutional accademically correct concepts concerning events billions of years past.
cavediver writes: 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? Perhaps some listen to too few opinions, being so programmed and indoctrinated into the scientific academic establishment that they rule out any other possibilities.
cavediver writes: 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. There yet remains this controversy of exactly what the properties of space are. It has not been conclusively and empirically proven that particles and other energetic elements are indeed properties of space. I still maintain that things in space are just that -- in space and not space perse. Space is, imo, the boundless static void in which all that exists does exist in. This solves nicely the problem of outside of space. Logically and sensibly simple.....there is none.
cavediver writes: 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... 1. Smile, my friend. Your above statements and all else you've posted is on the www. So is a whole stache of other stuff you consider to be great. The nice thing about it, unlike the books you like is that the www tells all sides and viewpoints. We, ahem, logical and sensible types, can then assess all and come to a more enlightened conclusion as to all the facts rather than those of the establisment. This is not only true regarding the cosmos, et al, but with the medical, the religious and all other matters of interest. 2. At my age and being a sole proprietor not yet able to retire, I simply don't have time to read tech books on science. I must rely on what I can learn here and elsewhere. Btw, many thanks to you, Silas, Eta, Percy and a host of others who've been instrumental in teaching me the other side of the story The www is WONDERFUL for undegreed ole farts like me!
cavediver writes: 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. I can appreciate that. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------This message is a reply to: Message 266 by buzsaw, posted 04-06-2006 09:38 PM --------------------------------------------------------------------------------Replies to this message: Message 268 by Chiroptera, posted 04-07-2006 08:11 AM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- BUZSAW B 4 U 2 Z Y BUZ SAW
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
tanzanos Inactive Member |
Lost Apathy, you seem to have confused space and time. Actually they are one and the same. Spacetime is a dimension and not two seperate entities as you mention. By warping space you influence time. Extreme gravity fields (such as found in Black Holes) have the ability to warp spacetime to the point where time becomes zero. You should read The Elegant Universe by Brian Green and or A Brief History of Time bt Steven Hawckins. Both are renowned worldwide for their experise in their field.
You may also try your luck at expressing your ideas in the following forum: http://forum.physorg.com/index.php? This message has been edited by tanzanos, 04-07-2006 12:57 PM Mighty is the sword that draws blood! Mightier is the Pen that draws ink! Mightiest is the tongue that draws ears! (Yiannis Mantheakis)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3634 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined: |
and others, imo, have given too little thought to the logical and sensible aspects of BB science Too little thought Buzz???? I devoted my life to this. You could not insult me more if you tried.
Perhaps some listen to too few opinions, being so programmed and indoctrinated into the scientific academic establishment that they rule out any other possibilities. Ahh, I was wrong. You could insult me more... I don't know what to say to your post, Buzz. I just feel I have wasted a good deal of my time with someone who had no intention of listening; someone who feels that they are in a position to critcise the work of thousands of scientists around the world and to claim that their view on the world is somehow logical and sensible and every scientist is just stupid/deluded/indoctrinated... The arrogance is simply astounding. I have nothing more to say.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3634 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined: |
Ryder is my favourite of the intro texts.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 12993 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
cavediver writes: buzsaw writes: Perhaps some listen to too few opinions, being so programmed and indoctrinated into the scientific academic establishment that they rule out any other possibilities. Ahh, I was wrong. You could insult me more... Yeah, I know, that bothered me, too, but recall that we basically say the same thing about creation science. I do have a couple problems with this approach, no matter which side uses it:
For this reason, when in the future someone argues that someone is wrong because creation science isn't real science, or because scientists just sit in their ivory towers and make unsupported pronouncements, I'm going to encourage moderators to rule the argument out of order. Anyone who wants to discuss the fundamental reasons why creation science or traditional science is inherently wrong or biased or whatever should propose a thread, and it would probably get assigned to the [forum=-11] forum.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3634 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined: |
Thanks Admin, I agree 100%.
As someone who has "rationally" discussed with Randman possible ways that both science and YEC views could be made consistent, I am not only insulted but mightily perplexed by Buzzsaw's accusation. I'm sufficiently off-the-wall that Eta thought I was John D Barrow
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Son Goku Inactive Member |
I've heard it's very good for emphasising the importance of groups, unfortunately I've never read.
Does it lean more toward the canonical or path integral approach? Have you read Weinberg's three volumes?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3634 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined: |
It's heavily PI and hence makes an interesting counterpoint to M&S. As you say, very group heavy, and so lots of guage theory, and hence the emphasis on PI (ever tried canonical methods with guage theory?)
In the middle you have the incredibly dense Itzak & Zhuber on Wiley Press: very thorough. My text recommendation was alway all three! Like QM, you can never have too many texts ABE: almost forgot. Given that Weinberg doesn't believe in black holes, I don't have a huge amount of time for his books! This message has been edited by cavediver, 04-07-2006 04:37 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
Hi Tanzanos.
1. When you respond to a message, please hit the reply button at the bottom of the message you're responding to so all can know exactly to whom you are responding. I assume you were responding to me. 2. My comments pertained to properties of space. My understanding of space does not allow it to be one and the same as time. That's strictly BB speak. However for the sake of spacetimists, I suppose I could apply my comment to spacetime. I believe it would be very questionable that energetic matter such as particles are actually properties of spacetime. BUZSAW B 4 U 2 Z Y BUZ SAW
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22359 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.8 |
buzsaw writes: Hi Tanzanos...I assume you were responding to me. Tanzanos provides an obscure clue about who he's responding to at the very beginning of his message where he says, "Lost Apathy,..." --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
cavediver writes: Too little thought Buzz???? I devoted my life to this. You could not insult me more if you tried. Too little thought yourself, Cavediver. You're creating a strawman insult, seemingly so as to make me look meanspirited which I am not. 1. Note that I did not name names, but made a generalized statement applicable to whomever the shoe fits. 2. Read carefully and think about my wording. You know full well that I regard logic as useful in arriving at conclusions in science. This is not to say that I think all one needs is logic, but that logic must take a greater role than what you consider as tolerable. My statement was to that effect, that logically some of what you believe is beyond the perameters that I would have.
cavediver writes: Ahh, I was wrong. You could insult me more... I don't know what to say to your post, Buzz. I just feel I have wasted a good deal of my time with someone who had no intention of listening; someone who feels that they are in a position to critcise the work of thousands of scientists around the world and to claim that their view on the world is somehow logical and sensible and every scientist is just stupid/deluded/indoctrinated... The arrogance is simply astounding. I have nothing more to say. 1. There you go again, getting sore over the insult strawman you created and getting personal about buzsaw being arrogant. Again, you know full well that the statements reflect the opinion I and many other folks, some scientists who do not ascribe to the BB theory have. I and they believe you and yours have some problems with the BB science and that you and yours need to respect the fact that sound and intelligent minds don't all necessarily buy all aspects of your arguments. 2. It is a fact that children in school from grade school on up through phd are indoctrinated into one science ideology. Thus my comments on the scientific academic establishment. There's nothing personal in this statement. 3. This thread is about whether the BB is scientific. You're acting as though the answer to that question is to be limited to reflect your point of view. 4. Unlike you, I have not acted like my POV is empirical as you appear to be implying to yours. I have simply questioned some aspects of the science of your POV and made generalized comments about mainline science. Having said the above, I invite Admin to critique the above. If Admin thinks it's time for buz to buz off this thread, I'll do so with no animosity. BUZSAW B 4 U 2 Z Y BUZ SAW
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
Percy writes: Tanzanos provides an obscure clue about who he's responding to at the very beginning of his message where he says, "Lost Apathy,..." I had no clue whatsoever who/what "Lost Apathy" was -- A new brand of soap or maybe a newby member??? BUZSAW B 4 U 2 Z Y BUZ SAW
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
cavediver writes: ABE: almost forgot. Given that Weinberg doesn't believe in black holes, I don't have a huge amount of time for his books! You make my point about questionable aspects of space/spacetime and things pertaining to the cosmos as well as it's origin. Intelligent minds don't all agree on many of the aspects of it. This is not to say you're wrong, but that folks a whole lot more educated and apprised than I also take issue with some of what you ascribe to. BUZSAW B 4 U 2 Z Y BUZ SAW
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024