|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: The problems of big bang theory. What are they? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Alfred Maddenstein Member (Idle past 3967 days) Posts: 565 Joined: |
I am sorry but cynics like yours truly do not believe in any need for any conspiracy in such matters. There is never any possibility of conspiracy to humanity as the sum of clashing conscious wills is a blind force.
And no - the Big Bang idea has never passed the sceptical scrutiny with flying colours as you wish to believe. The whole edifice disappears in a few puffs of my logic yet it persists on the ground and there are very good reasons for that and those reasons again have got none to do with any conspiracies whatsoever.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Alfred Maddenstein Member (Idle past 3967 days) Posts: 565 Joined: |
Well, of course, the public gets all it wants too as it craves certainty as much as the mathemagicians themselves do. The priests themselves are always much more naive than it is assumed. So after all, the public does not part with their money for nothing. The priests too fondly believe that they do know something and the public fondly believes that although it itself may know nothing much, there are at least the priests who do know, and who do it with a vengeance since unlike what was the case with all former priests, the modern ones got the truth about the nature of the Universe and existence revealed through the wonderful and infallible scientific method. That gives a marvelous feeling of living in a special age. That's worth all the money parted with. That's certainty by proxy and after all the figures are impressive and speak for themselves. What are poxy 6000 thousand years gotten from a dubious text next to 13.7 billion extracted straight from WMAP and the colliders? Worth every penny per satisfaction derived.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22394 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
These are as close as I could find:
All physical theories, their mathematical expressions notwithstanding, ought to lend themselves to so simple a description that even a child could understand them.
Attributed to Einstein by Louis de Broglie in Nouvelles perspectives en microphysique (trans. New York: Basic Books, 1962), 184. Also in Clark, Einstein, 344 Physics is essentially an intuitive and concrete science. Mathematics is only a means for expressing the laws that govern phenomena.Quoted by Maurice Solovine in "Introduction" to Letters to Solovine, 7-8 These are from the book The Expanded Quotable Einsein. If Einstein had said something so quotably pithy I think it would be in there, but it's not, so my guess is that Michio Kaku misremembered something he had heard or read that Einstein had said. Every occurrence of the quote I found on the web credited Michio Kaku or didn't provide a source. A surprising number of people cut-n-pasted the quote word-for-word not only without attribution but as if the words were their own. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
hooah212002 Member (Idle past 802 days) Posts: 3193 Joined: |
Isn't it just a convoluted way of saying something along the lines of: "if you can't explain it to a child, you don't understand it" which, if I recall, is something Feynman said?
"Why don't you call upon your God to strike me? Oh, I forgot it's because he's fake like Thor, so bite me" -Greydon Square
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Alfred Maddenstein Member (Idle past 3967 days) Posts: 565 Joined: |
Neither the repugnant and preposterous idea of an ultimate beginning to the Universe is a small trifle. The idea was a blunder it still remains, I am sorry to inform you about that. For, it is an observable fact that any finite entity in existence may have a beginning. Yet extrapolating that observation on the ultimate sum of all entities in existence which is the Universe by definition is a logical error.
Such extrapolation contradicts another observation that any beginning of any finite entity is always an end of something else with both being observed smack in the middle of a process to which neither end nor beginning is in sight. Edited by Alfred Maddenstein, : grammar
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dogmafood Member (Idle past 349 days) Posts: 1815 From: Ontario Canada Joined: |
Einstein said; Thus, in a certain sense, I take it to be true that pure thought can grasp the real, as the ancients had dreamed. Did he mean by this that ‘pure thought’ is thinking in mathematics?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dogmafood Member (Idle past 349 days) Posts: 1815 From: Ontario Canada Joined: |
Einstein said; All physical theories, their mathematical expressions notwithstanding, ought to lend themselves to so simple a description that even a child could understand them. This seems fairly close in meaning although not as far reaching. Would you agree with that statement? Jar said in one of these threads that (paraphrase) ‘Reality need not be logical.’ I was thinking that I did not agree with this. If our perception of reality and our understanding of logic do not mesh doesn’t one of them need to change?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dogmafood Member (Idle past 349 days) Posts: 1815 From: Ontario Canada Joined: |
The whole edifice disappears in a few puffs of my logic yet it persists on the ground and there are very good reasons for that and those reasons again have got none to do with any conspiracies whatsoever. Well, what are those reasons? I thought that you were saying the reasons are the selfish interests of the physicists. Out to protect their funding streams. Sounds conspiratorial to me.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Alfred Maddenstein Member (Idle past 3967 days) Posts: 565 Joined: |
There is a minimal need to conspire in order to be protecting the interests of a group one is belonging to. Also that fight for funding goes much deeper, for although the funding as such may be important in itself, getting it is taken as an indication that one is on the right track of research. That is a deep-seated human need for an absolute certitude as sharing the funds with the proponents of rival ideas would cast too much doubt and confusion. Doubt is pain just like simple hunger is so is to be avoided at all costs and since the physicists are not exactly starving to begin with, that avoidance may be the primary motivation. No conspiracy, I am afraid.
Edited by Alfred Maddenstein, : spelling
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member Posts: 3571 Joined: |
I suppose I will just give up on IamJoseph. I will wait for one more reponse before giving up on Dawn Bertot as well. I set something out so simply that I think he may get it. Of course giving up and not responding will also allow you to avoid answering my questions that I have been asking you correct. I think the closest youve come is to say, "I see what you are saying". Surely you can do better than that, correct? BTW, quit sucking up to the head admin guy, its not appealing and he doesnt save it for later Dawn Bertot Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Butterflytyrant Member (Idle past 4422 days) Posts: 415 From: Australia Joined:
|
Dawn Bertot,
Of course giving up and not responding will also allow you to avoid answering my questions that I have been asking you correct. I am not online 24 hours a day. This message where you are accusing me of avoiding answering your questions was sent less than 1 hour after you replied to my last message. It is quire likely that I was doing one of several things. The three most likely would be sleeping, studying or working. At the time you sent that message, I may have actually been in a plane flying home. Sorry I am too busy to try to correct your mistakes as quickly as you make them.
I think the closest youve come is to say, "I see what you are saying". Surely you can do better than that, correct? Nice quote mine. You even put a full stop on the end to make it look like that was the full sentence. Here is the full sentence -
my comment - "I can see what you are saying. I can also see the fucking huge blindingly obvious error you are making." I did do better than that. I supplied a range of questions to try to illustrate your basic error. Answering all of the questions in your post would be pointless because they are all based on the exact same error. I would have had to provide the exact same comment for each on of your questions. You dont understand the difference between respond and communicate. It would seem a bit silly to cut and paste this same comment after each one of your questions. This is the error you are making from the start. This needs to be dealt with before we can get anywhere. I will respond to your message now as I have only just come online to read it. for others who have no idea what we are talking about - Message 306I could agree with you, but then we would both be wrong Butterfly, AKA, mallethead - Dawn Bertot "Superstitions and nonsense from the past should not prevent us from making progress. If we hold ourselves back, we admit that our fears are more powerful than our abilities." Hunters of Dune Herbert & Anderson
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member Posts: 3571 Joined: |
I am not online 24 hours a day. This message where you are accusing me of avoiding answering your questions was sent less than 1 hour after you replied to my last message. It is quire likely that I was doing one of several things. The three most likely would be sleeping, studying or working. At the time you sent that message, I may have actually been in a plane flying home. Mallethead, my point was that you have never answered my questions. I wasnt refering tothe last hour or day They actually have planes in Australia that fly and you flew on it? I thought that was a third world, jerk water country, ha ha We had better get off this thread before we get into trouble see you over there malletheadDawn Bertot Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given. Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dogmafood Member (Idle past 349 days) Posts: 1815 From: Ontario Canada Joined: |
There is a minimal need to conspire in order to be protecting the interests of a group one is belonging to. So, even worse than a conspiracy. All the tens of thousands of physicists the world over are just naturally lacking in personal integrity. Even the ones who have no need for funding. All the students and lay people who study physics just hop on the bus of deception in order to preserve some facade of false knowledge? All of the theorists pouring over their equations for months and years in an effort to prove something that they know in the back of their minds to be false? Doubt and uncertainty are the engines of science. There may be many dishonest and conniving scientists in the world but I suspect that most of them work for the pharmaceutical industry. You can hide the side effects of some drug for a while but it is pretty difficult to bullshit your way through a moon launch or a global positioning system. So there must be some point of divergence between the verifiable real world implications of the BBT and the bullshit part. Can you indicate exactly where that is?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Alfred Maddenstein Member (Idle past 3967 days) Posts: 565 Joined: |
Okay, the style of Hemingway is called telegraphic. Simple, bare bones sentences. Unlike Faulkner's who was prone to make a sentence half a page long. I don't find one easier to understand than the other, by the way. Not really. All depends on the actual content and context and so on.
Otherwise, you confuse the cosmologists and the rest of specialists. No other specialist is making any general claims as to the ultimate nature of existence as a whole. Traditionally such claims are made only by priests and philosophers which is firmly placing cosmologists in either of these groups. Now, the only way to distinguish between the two groups is that the philosophers on the whole tend to offer natural explanations to the ultimate nature of existence. They are mostly on the side of the physical and logical necessity whereas the priests on the whole plump for magic. Otherwise both are equally self-assertive and dogmatic. Now since the modern cosmologists in their explanations invoke a lot of magic such as space in proper motion, the whole of existence popping out of nothing to expand into nowhere, the laws of necessity possibly breaking at a certain point and in certain conditions, etc. that firmly places them in the category of priests. Simple.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Alfred Maddenstein Member (Idle past 3967 days) Posts: 565 Joined: |
Here we go with the dirty pot calling kettle hellishly black. Of course, the hypothesis presented in Genesis may appear rather naive and absurd, yet since the underlying principles of that myth and of what is offered by the Big Bang idea are exactly the same, such tirades as yours read as highly ironic.
Moreover, when the two versions are compared in a detached fashion, the original biblical one may be found to be much more logically consistent and therefore vastly superior from purely scientific point of view. In other words the Big Bang idea is the Genesis absurdity squared, drawn and cubed. For if the existence is a tango to start dancing the Universe needs a partner which the person of God is providing in a logically consistent way while the idea of singularity does not do that unless the singularity is dancing with itself which is making the process described not a tango by definition. That's all IamJoseph is telling you whether he is realising it himself or not. But you would not listen to him comfortably ensconced in your learned arrogance.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024