Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9036 total)
94 online now:
DrJones*, harpo, kjsimons (3 members, 91 visitors)
Newest Member: harpo
Post Volume: Total: 885,635 Year: 3,281/14,102 Month: 222/724 Week: 71/93 Day: 10/18 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Does the universe have total net energy of zero?
Aware Wolf
Member (Idle past 316 days)
Posts: 156
From: New Hampshire, USA
Joined: 02-13-2009


Message 196 of 404 (644917)
12-21-2011 2:36 PM
Reply to: Message 195 by vimesey
12-21-2011 10:50 AM


Re: Parable
Nice! That's what I've been trying to say, to no avail.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 195 by vimesey, posted 12-21-2011 10:50 AM vimesey has not yet responded

  
Larni
Member
Posts: 3999
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 197 of 404 (644935)
12-21-2011 4:32 PM
Reply to: Message 195 by vimesey
12-21-2011 10:50 AM


Re: Parable
Pretty much sums up Designtheorist, to a tee.

Full marks and welcome to EvC.


The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53

Moreover that view is a blatantly anti-relativistic one. I'm rather inclined to think that space being relative to time and time relative to location should make such a naive hankering to pin-point an ultimate origin of anything, an aspiration that is not even wrong.

Well, Larni, let's say I much better know what I don't want to say than how exactly say what I do.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 195 by vimesey, posted 12-21-2011 10:50 AM vimesey has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 198 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-21-2011 4:38 PM Larni has responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 198 of 404 (644938)
12-21-2011 4:38 PM
Reply to: Message 197 by Larni
12-21-2011 4:32 PM


Designtheorist
Pretty much sums up Designtheorist, to a tee.

I agree. I wonder what/where/how DT thinks he differs...

What do you think? Psychoanalyst powers activate!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 197 by Larni, posted 12-21-2011 4:32 PM Larni has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 199 by Larni, posted 12-21-2011 4:48 PM New Cat's Eye has responded
 Message 203 by Aware Wolf, posted 12-22-2011 8:04 AM New Cat's Eye has responded

  
Larni
Member
Posts: 3999
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 199 of 404 (644941)
12-21-2011 4:48 PM
Reply to: Message 198 by New Cat's Eye
12-21-2011 4:38 PM


Re: Designtheorist
Were I to use my powers for evil I would not be allowed back into the Avenger's mansion. I'd have to go hang with bloody Ant-Man

The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53

Moreover that view is a blatantly anti-relativistic one. I'm rather inclined to think that space being relative to time and time relative to location should make such a naive hankering to pin-point an ultimate origin of anything, an aspiration that is not even wrong.

Well, Larni, let's say I much better know what I don't want to say than how exactly say what I do.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 198 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-21-2011 4:38 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 200 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-21-2011 4:50 PM Larni has responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 200 of 404 (644942)
12-21-2011 4:50 PM
Reply to: Message 199 by Larni
12-21-2011 4:48 PM


Re: Designtheorist
Oh, just use them for fun then

But don't get yourself kicked outta the mansions, its prolly cozy in there.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 199 by Larni, posted 12-21-2011 4:48 PM Larni has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 201 by Larni, posted 12-21-2011 5:08 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

  
Larni
Member
Posts: 3999
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 201 of 404 (644945)
12-21-2011 5:08 PM
Reply to: Message 200 by New Cat's Eye
12-21-2011 4:50 PM


Re: Designtheorist
If I was pushed I would say he is patriarchal and maybe running his own business (he is his own boss). If he has kids he mainly has girls.

He has a study which no one else really goes into. The dominant colour of his airy house is beach.

His car is old but lovingly maintained: in fact, I'm getting engineer vibes, but maybe more architectural, perhaps an artist? Not a grease monkey.

He also knows (or has known) somebody called Arthur, David or James. Christian is in there somewhere, too.

I'm guessing his name is Tom or Jon.

My powers grow weak....I must rest....

Edited by Larni, : Spellink

Edited by Larni, : Formatting


The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53

Moreover that view is a blatantly anti-relativistic one. I'm rather inclined to think that space being relative to time and time relative to location should make such a naive hankering to pin-point an ultimate origin of anything, an aspiration that is not even wrong.

Well, Larni, let's say I much better know what I don't want to say than how exactly say what I do.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 200 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-21-2011 4:50 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 202 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-21-2011 5:47 PM Larni has not yet responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 202 of 404 (644949)
12-21-2011 5:47 PM
Reply to: Message 201 by Larni
12-21-2011 5:08 PM


Re: Designtheorist
Interesting enough, but I was wondering how DT might think hisself differs from the customer in the parable...

I suppose he thinks that he does "understand carburetors", or that he is not misunderstanding that "the fuel and air mixing" thingy is simply a carburetor...


This message is a reply to:
 Message 201 by Larni, posted 12-21-2011 5:08 PM Larni has not yet responded

  
Aware Wolf
Member (Idle past 316 days)
Posts: 156
From: New Hampshire, USA
Joined: 02-13-2009


Message 203 of 404 (644995)
12-22-2011 8:04 AM
Reply to: Message 198 by New Cat's Eye
12-21-2011 4:38 PM


Re: Designtheorist
My guess is that if he responds to the parable, he will focus on how the analogy breaks down, not with DT and the customer, but with the auto mechanic and cosmologists. Auto mechanics actually do know what they're talking about; cosmologists don't. There are no controversies about how a carburetor works; there are controversies about how the universe works. We won't hear a peep out of him about the actual point to the post.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 198 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-21-2011 4:38 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 204 by NoNukes, posted 12-22-2011 9:14 AM Aware Wolf has not yet responded
 Message 207 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-22-2011 11:58 AM Aware Wolf has not yet responded

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 204 of 404 (645001)
12-22-2011 9:14 AM
Reply to: Message 203 by Aware Wolf
12-22-2011 8:04 AM


Re: Designtheorist
My guess is that if he responds to the parable, he will focus on how the analogy breaks down, not with DT and the customer, but with the auto mechanic and cosmologists.

Except that DT claims to understand what cosmologists are saying and that he can tell that what they are saying is wrong. What's clear to me, however, is that DT cannot know whether cosmologists are wrong because he doesn't understand their work.

It might actually be possible to show that General Relativity is wrong using ordinary arithmetic. For example, I might be able to convince the mechanic that he cannot tune my engine to reach some target energy efficiency by comparing the gasoline engine to an ideal Carnot cycle. Such an argument would require very little knowledge of throttle valves or other internal combustion engine parts.

But so far DT has not managed to articulate such an argument. Hopefully the last bit of physics that was presented has him thinking a bit. After all, it is about the physics, right?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 203 by Aware Wolf, posted 12-22-2011 8:04 AM Aware Wolf has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 205 by Percy, posted 12-22-2011 9:41 AM NoNukes has responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 20105
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.3


Message 205 of 404 (645003)
12-22-2011 9:41 AM
Reply to: Message 204 by NoNukes
12-22-2011 9:14 AM


Re: Designtheorist
NoNukes writes:

But so far DT has not managed to articulate such an argument. Hopefully the last bit of physics that was presented has him thinking a bit. After all, it is about the physics, right?

I don't think it's about the physics for DT, but about the opinions of physicists. About views he doesn't like he'll say something like this:

designtheorist writes:

I happen to be a big fan of Feynman, but that does not mean I think he is infallible.

Feynmann isn't infallible, therefore DT feels justified in relegating the view to suspect status. And about a view he likes he might say:

I particularly like this comment from the paper...

These are accompanied by comments about physics that seem superficial but unchallengeable to unknowledgeable people like myself, and incredibly wrongheaded to informed people like Cavediver and NoNukes. I cannot myself tell if DT's views are backed by knowledge and evidence, hopefully mostly from a lack of understanding that could be remedied by the investment of time I do not have.

I would have liked to have seen an explanation about what DesignTheorist meant in his response to Cavediver in Message 161, and if it's wrong why it's wrong, but Cavediver hasn't responded yet.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 204 by NoNukes, posted 12-22-2011 9:14 AM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 206 by NoNukes, posted 12-22-2011 10:22 AM Percy has acknowledged this reply

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 206 of 404 (645007)
12-22-2011 10:22 AM
Reply to: Message 205 by Percy
12-22-2011 9:41 AM


Re: Designtheorist
Are you sure you meant message 161?

That message contains questions based on designtheorist failure to understand a very simple thought experiment. Others have already handled the question as far as it can or should be handled. This isn't something I'd want the busy cavediver to bother with.

I don't think it's about the physics for DT.

Well, it ought to be.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 205 by Percy, posted 12-22-2011 9:41 AM Percy has acknowledged this reply

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 207 of 404 (645021)
12-22-2011 11:58 AM
Reply to: Message 203 by Aware Wolf
12-22-2011 8:04 AM


Re: Designtheorist
My guess is that if he responds to the parable, he will focus on how the analogy breaks down,

Dontcha hate that!

not with DT and the customer, but with the auto mechanic and cosmologists. Auto mechanics actually do know what they're talking about; cosmologists don't. There are no controversies about how a carburetor works; there are controversies about how the universe works.

I hadn't thought of that one.

In order to maintain the analogous nature, you'd have to assume that either there really isn't a controvery in cosmology, or that there is a controversy in carburetors. Either way, the point of the analogy isn't lost.

We won't hear a peep out of him about the actual point to the post.

What a shame...


This message is a reply to:
 Message 203 by Aware Wolf, posted 12-22-2011 8:04 AM Aware Wolf has not yet responded

  
designtheorist
Member (Idle past 2729 days)
Posts: 390
From: Irvine, CA, United States
Joined: 09-15-2011


Message 208 of 404 (645196)
12-24-2011 7:58 AM
Reply to: Message 195 by vimesey
12-21-2011 10:50 AM


Not a Bad Parable - I Fixed It
One day a man pushed his car into a repair shop because it would not start. He watched the mechanic at work on his car, interested to see him dismantling pieces of it and examining them in some detail.

After a time, the mechanic came to the man and said that he was afraid that the throttle valve in the carburetor had cracked, and that he would need to order some new parts to fix his car.

Knowing his rights under the law, the man asked if to see the broken parts. The following conversation ensued:

"May I see the carburetor's broken throttle valve?"
"Why would you want to see that? You won't know what your looking at."
"I will if you explain it to me."
"You still won't understand it. I'm a trained mechanic. Trust me."
"I know my rights under California law. I wish to see the parts."
"Other people don't ask to see the parts."
"I'm not other people. Please show me where it is broken."
"I can't."
"You are right that you can't. My car doesn't have a carburetor. It has fuel injection."
"If you knew that, why did you ask to see the parts?"
"I wanted to know how far you would take this farce and if you were dishonest enough to show me a carburetor off another car. Now put the car back in the condition it was in when I brought it or I will sue."

As the car was being put back together, the man did some research and found a reputable repair shop down the street. He pushed his car there and asked them to take a look. Within a few short minutes, the mechanic found the problem. The coil wire had become detached. He pressed the coil wire back in place and the man drove down the street with a smile on his face.

P.S. I left off the bit about the dishonest mechanic being surrounded by dark energy. It seemed a bit over the top.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 195 by vimesey, posted 12-21-2011 10:50 AM vimesey has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 209 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-24-2011 8:44 AM designtheorist has not yet responded
 Message 210 by Panda, posted 12-24-2011 9:05 AM designtheorist has not yet responded
 Message 211 by Percy, posted 12-24-2011 9:15 AM designtheorist has responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 209 of 404 (645198)
12-24-2011 8:44 AM
Reply to: Message 208 by designtheorist
12-24-2011 7:58 AM


Re: Not a Bad Parable - I Fixed It
I'm missing the bit in your allegory which corresponds to you knowing jack shit and being wrong about everything.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 208 by designtheorist, posted 12-24-2011 7:58 AM designtheorist has not yet responded

  
Panda
Member (Idle past 2609 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 210 of 404 (645201)
12-24-2011 9:05 AM
Reply to: Message 208 by designtheorist
12-24-2011 7:58 AM


Re: Not a Bad Parable - I Fixed It
Yeah, The Parable of the Dishonest Mechanic.

Anyway - back to vimesey's Parable of the Honest Mechanic...
Did you understand it?
Did you learn anything from it?


If I were you
And I wish that I were you
All the things I'd do
To make myself turn blue

This message is a reply to:
 Message 208 by designtheorist, posted 12-24-2011 7:58 AM designtheorist has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2021