Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 81 (8962 total)
32 online now:
dwise1, jar, Percy (Admin) (3 members, 29 visitors)
Newest Member: Mikee
Post Volume: Total: 869,350 Year: 1,098/23,288 Month: 1,098/1,851 Week: 222/320 Day: 81/56 Hour: 0/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   No Big Bang--Just gentle whisper
Percy
Member
Posts: 19240
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 76 of 100 (364712)
11-19-2006 10:43 AM
Reply to: Message 75 by nwr
11-19-2006 10:27 AM


Re: BB skepticism
nwr writes:

I think cavedriver is not as troubled by my skepticism as you are. No doubt he disagrees with me, but he doesn't see great reason for concern.

Perhaps true, and if so then I can understand why you would prefer Cavediver's yardstick to mine.

To me your skepticism is rooted in one of the primary fallacies used by creationists, namely that you just don't find the evidence sufficiently persuasive to accept the provided explanation. If you're correct that your skepticism is of a different nature than this might best emerge from an examination of the evidence for the Big Bang with Cavediver.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by nwr, posted 11-19-2006 10:27 AM nwr has acknowledged this reply

  
Son Goku
Member
Posts: 1153
From: Ireland
Joined: 07-16-2005


Message 77 of 100 (364846)
11-20-2006 7:46 AM
Reply to: Message 75 by nwr
11-19-2006 10:27 AM


Aether and gravity
A scientific theory brings with it empirical methodology, which may include methods for making testable predictions. It also brings an explanation. My skepticism is only toward the explanation component. For maybe 200 years, the luminiferous ether was the accepted explanation for light. This had been thoroughly tested, and was better confirmed that BB cosmology. Yet we have now rejected the luminiferous ether as non-existent and part of a flawed explanation. Newton's theory of gravity reigned supreme for even longer, and was more thoroughly confirmed. Yet we have rejected the Newtonian explanation in favor of GR. In both cases (the ether, and Newtonian gravitation) we continue to use much of the empirical methodology, but we no longer accept the explanations.

This might be slightly off topic, but there are a few very big differences between the Aether and Newton's gravity. For instance the aether was never experimentally verified, to my knowledge. In fact it was never really tested until Mitchelson and Morely.
Secondly the luminiferous aether was never thought to be definitively correct by most physicists, it was simply considered as the most likely way to come to terms with Maxwell's equations.
Before this statements about the aether were confined to very vague one offs like "Maybe light is some kind of disturbance in some kind of medium".

As for the "truth" of Newton's gravity, I work with what you might call a notion of appropriate truth or "truth on that level". However that discussion is probably best kept for another thread.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by nwr, posted 11-19-2006 10:27 AM nwr has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by nwr, posted 11-20-2006 6:03 PM Son Goku has responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 19240
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 78 of 100 (364883)
11-20-2006 10:56 AM
Reply to: Message 75 by nwr
11-19-2006 10:27 AM


Re: BB skepticism
Hi Nwr,

In my original response to this post I didn't address any the issues you raised in the hope that they might be addressed in discussion with Cavediver. But since you've indicated (in the Admin forum) that you see the differences in viewpoint insufficiently significant to be worth discussing, I'll address a couple points you made now to hopefully make more clear why I disagree.

For maybe 200 years, the luminiferous ether was the accepted explanation for light. This had been thoroughly tested, and was better confirmed that BB cosmology.

This is dead wrong, as Son Goku has also noted. The reason your position on the Big Bang seems so similar to the creationist stance on evolution is because it seems based more on ignorance than knowledge. It isn't a case of, "I've looked into this very deeply and have concluded the evidence is insufficient to justify the conclusions." It's more like, "I don't know much about it, and I'm not interested in discussing it further, but I'm sticking with my conclusions anyway, and I'll continue popping up occasionally with my opinions on this matter while continuing to avoid discussion of them."

Sorry to be so blunt, but I find I cannot in good conscience allow anyone a free ride just because they happen to agree with me on most other things.

I have a higher threshold than you for adopting explanations.

In science, acceptance of any theoretical framework of understanding (i.e., an explanation) is always tentative. Accepting a theory means nothing more than that you accept that it explains the evidence and makes accurate predictions.

Another reason why I think discussion with Cavediver would be a good idea is that he is somewhat of a fellow traveler with you. In QED he accepts only what the math tells him, and he steadfastly refuses to accept explanations that attempt to represent what is happening in lay terms. This isn't precisely the same as what you're doing with the Big Bang, but it is somewhat similar. Where Cavediver's stance differs is that he notes ways in which the lay level descriptions can be misleading, for instance by leading people to believe that QED experiments imply that causality can be violated. But I don't believe you have any equivalent objections to the Big Bang.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by nwr, posted 11-19-2006 10:27 AM nwr has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by nwr, posted 11-20-2006 6:38 PM Percy has responded

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 5590
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005


Message 79 of 100 (364979)
11-20-2006 6:03 PM
Reply to: Message 77 by Son Goku
11-20-2006 7:46 AM


Re: Aether and gravity
For instance the aether was never experimentally verified, to my knowledge. In fact it was never really tested until Mitchelson and Morely.

That's not a difference. That's a similarity. The claimed recessional velocities (measured as rate of change of distance) of distant galaxies has never been experimentally verified.

Secondly the luminiferous aether was never thought to be definitively correct by most physicists, it was simply considered as the most likely way to come to terms with Maxwell's equations.

There seems to be something wrong about that. The idea of aether waves apparently goes back to Christiaan Huygens. Maxwell's equations began the downfall of the ether, for they suggested you could have waves without a medium.


Just say no to McCain 2008; he abandoned principle when he caved on habeus corpus

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by Son Goku, posted 11-20-2006 7:46 AM Son Goku has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by Son Goku, posted 11-20-2006 7:10 PM nwr has responded

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 5590
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005


Message 80 of 100 (364990)
11-20-2006 6:38 PM
Reply to: Message 78 by Percy
11-20-2006 10:56 AM


Re: BB skepticism
This is dead wrong, as Son Goku has also noted.

There are problems with Son Goku's response, as I have pointed out in Message 79.

The reason your position on the Big Bang seems so similar to the creationist stance on evolution is because it seems based more on ignorance than knowledge.

"Seems based on" is part of an expression of opinion. Maybe the problem is in your opinion.

It's more like, "I don't know much about it, and I'm not interested in discussing it further, but I'm sticking with my conclusions anyway, and I'll continue popping up occasionally with my opinions on this matter while continuing to avoid discussion of them."

That comes pretty close to a violation of rule 10, and I do resent it.

I'm a relatively humble person. I don't go around boasting of my knowledge, particularly when I am aware of how much I don't know. However, your characterization of me is quite wrong.

In science, acceptance of any theoretical framework of understanding (i.e., an explanation) is always tentative. Accepting a theory means nothing more than that you accept that it explains the evidence and makes accurate predictions.

Then what is this discussion all about? I have no disagreement at that level, and I seem to recall having posted as much in another thread. My objection to BB is that it also "explains" a lot that has not been tested, and makes predictions that have not been tested. That's why I think acceptance is premature.

Another reason why I think discussion with Cavediver would be a good idea ...

I have no objection to discussions with cavediver. But I don't have an opening question/statement, so it would be up to him to start it. This subject has come up in other threads, and cavediver has not felt any need to challenge my view (unlike the way he challenges RAZD). I really don't think we have all that much to discuss.


Just say no to McCain 2008; he abandoned principle when he caved on habeus corpus

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by Percy, posted 11-20-2006 10:56 AM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by Percy, posted 11-20-2006 7:19 PM nwr has responded

  
Son Goku
Member
Posts: 1153
From: Ireland
Joined: 07-16-2005


Message 81 of 100 (365000)
11-20-2006 7:10 PM
Reply to: Message 79 by nwr
11-20-2006 6:03 PM


Re: Aether and gravity
That's not a difference. That's a similarity. The claimed recessional velocities (measured as rate of change of distance) of distant galaxies has never been experimentally verified.

I was only talking about differences between the aether and Newton's gravity. Differences between the aether and the Big Bang theory would be harder to assess, for me personally, because one is a dynamic research system where as the other was a fairly static idea.

There seems to be something wrong about that. The idea of aether waves apparently goes back to Christiaan Huygens. Maxwell's equations began the downfall of the ether, for they suggested you could have waves without a medium.

That's what I'm saying. The aether was confined to a few one off sentences by the great physicists of the pre-Boltzmann era. There was no real working theory of light in which to quantify those kind of statements about light, all that was really definitive was stuff like Snell's law. However it was Maxwell's contradiction of the medium notion in general that really stirred up the idea, hence leading to Mitchelson and Morely testing it.

Edited by Son Goku, : Yikes, assess not asses!

Edited by Son Goku, : Minor correction


This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by nwr, posted 11-20-2006 6:03 PM nwr has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by Michael, posted 11-20-2006 7:37 PM Son Goku has not yet responded
 Message 87 by nwr, posted 11-20-2006 9:05 PM Son Goku has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 19240
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 82 of 100 (365003)
11-20-2006 7:19 PM
Reply to: Message 80 by nwr
11-20-2006 6:38 PM


Re: BB skepticism
Then what is this discussion all about? I have no disagreement at that level, and I seem to recall having posted as much in another thread. My objection to BB is that it also "explains" a lot that has not been tested, and makes predictions that have not been tested. That's why I think acceptance is premature.

Sure you have a disagreement at this level. For example, in Message 32 you said:

The evidence that the cosmos is expanding, however, is far from satisfying.

I'd like to see you defend this position in a discussion with Cavediver. I could try and do it myself, but it would be a very slow discussion as I'm not full of spare time these days.

The reason I've been contrasting your approach thus far to creationists is because it sounds just like a creationist talking about evolution, just plug in different words: "The evidence that evolution is responsible for the diversity of life, however, is far from satisfying." I'd challenge the creationist who said this about so well supported a theory, and so when you say the same thing about aspects of the Big Bang, which is at least as well supported, integrity demands challenging this, too, no matter the source.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by nwr, posted 11-20-2006 6:38 PM nwr has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by nwr, posted 11-20-2006 7:42 PM Percy has responded

  
Michael
Member (Idle past 3021 days)
Posts: 199
From: USA
Joined: 05-14-2005


Message 83 of 100 (365010)
11-20-2006 7:37 PM
Reply to: Message 81 by Son Goku
11-20-2006 7:10 PM


Re: Aether and gravity
... hence leading to Mitchelson and Morely testing it.

Apologies for the pedantry, but I believe you mean Michelson and Morley.

Cheers.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by Son Goku, posted 11-20-2006 7:10 PM Son Goku has not yet responded

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 5590
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005


Message 84 of 100 (365011)
11-20-2006 7:42 PM
Reply to: Message 82 by Percy
11-20-2006 7:19 PM


Re: BB skepticism
Sure you have a disagreement at this level. For example, in Message 32 you said:

The evidence that the cosmos is expanding, however, is far from satisfying.

To say that the cosmos is expanding, is to say that the distance across it is greater today than it was yesterday. When has this measurement been carried out?


Just say no to McCain 2008; he abandoned principle when he caved on habeus corpus

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by Percy, posted 11-20-2006 7:19 PM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by Percy, posted 11-20-2006 8:20 PM nwr has responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 19240
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 85 of 100 (365025)
11-20-2006 8:20 PM
Reply to: Message 84 by nwr
11-20-2006 7:42 PM


Re: BB skepticism
nwr writes:

To say that the cosmos is expanding, is to say that the distance across it is greater today than it was yesterday. When has this measurement been carried out?

This is to be the level of discussion? How is this any different from, "Have you ever seen a fish evolve into an amphibian?"

Pick it up a notch.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by nwr, posted 11-20-2006 7:42 PM nwr has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by nwr, posted 11-20-2006 8:57 PM Percy has responded

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 5590
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005


Message 86 of 100 (365033)
11-20-2006 8:57 PM
Reply to: Message 85 by Percy
11-20-2006 8:20 PM


Re: BB skepticism
This is to be the level of discussion? How is this any different from, "Have you ever seen a fish evolve into an amphibian?"

No, it isn't the same thing at all. There is plenty of evidence of evolving. There is zero evidence that the size of the cosmos has measurably increased during the time man has been measuring it.

I'll be blunt. You keep accusing me of ignorance. However, it is your ignorance that prevents you from recognizing that my disagreement is a serious one.

In Message 78 you wrote:

It's more like, "I don't know much about it, and I'm not interested in discussing it further, but I'm sticking with my conclusions anyway, and I'll continue popping up occasionally with my opinions on this matter while continuing to avoid discussion of them."

Need I remind you that the topic is being discussed here because you requested it. It was not a matter of me popping up, I would prefer not to have had this discussion. It isn't as if I am pushing my views on other people. I have made thousands of usenet postings over the years, including some on sci.physics. I'll bet you won't be able to find any evidence that I have been popping up with criticism of BB.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by Percy, posted 11-20-2006 8:20 PM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by Percy, posted 11-20-2006 9:49 PM nwr has responded

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 5590
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005


Message 87 of 100 (365034)
11-20-2006 9:05 PM
Reply to: Message 81 by Son Goku
11-20-2006 7:10 PM


Re: Aether and gravity
I was only talking about differences between the aether and Newton's gravity.

Okay, I missed that, probably because I was not trying to suggest they were similar. I was simply providing two examples where we have since rejected what was accepted explanation, though we continue to use much of the associated empirical methodology.

I'll grant that previous acceptance of the aether was never more than casual.


Just say no to McCain 2008; he abandoned principle when he caved on habeus corpus

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by Son Goku, posted 11-20-2006 7:10 PM Son Goku has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 19240
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 88 of 100 (365041)
11-20-2006 9:49 PM
Reply to: Message 86 by nwr
11-20-2006 8:57 PM


Re: BB skepticism
nwr writes:

There is zero evidence that the size of the cosmos has measurably increased during the time man has been measuring it.

This is identical to creationist objections that we can only know what we can directly observe.

I'll be blunt. You keep accusing me of ignorance. However, it is your ignorance that prevents you from recognizing that my disagreement is a serious one.

On the contrary, you demonstrate your ignorance at every turn. Your inability to raise a single scientifically valid objection makes it clear that you're as qualified to have an opinion about the Big Bang as many creationists are to have an opinion about evolution.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by nwr, posted 11-20-2006 8:57 PM nwr has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 89 by nwr, posted 11-20-2006 11:13 PM Percy has responded

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 5590
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005


Message 89 of 100 (365050)
11-20-2006 11:13 PM
Reply to: Message 88 by Percy
11-20-2006 9:49 PM


Re: BB skepticism
quote:
nwr writes:

There is zero evidence that the size of the cosmos has measurably increased during the time man has been measuring it.

This is identical to creationist objections that we can only know what we can directly observe.



No, it is not at all similar.

You have made it very clear that you do not understand my objection. I'm done explaining it. This has already taken too many hours of my time.

quote:
On the contrary, you demonstrate your ignorance at every turn. Your inability to raise a single scientifically valid objection makes it clear that you're as qualified to have a private opinion about the Big Bang as many creationists are to have an opinion about evolution.

I think you are totally out of line here.

I'll remind you yet again, that we are having this discussion only because you solicited it. I have been very clear that I am not making a public case against BB. I have been clear that I am not calling on scientists, or anybody, to reject BB.

You have been delving into my mind to probe my private thinking. It was wrong of you to do that, but I obliged you anyway. And for that I receive repeated insults.

If my private reason for not accepting BB is that I don't like the color of your avatar, that would be reason enough. I don't need to provide a public justification for my private decision. You have no right whatsoever to tell me what to think or how to think. You say "you're as qualified to have an opinion about the Big Bang as many creationists are to have an opinion about evolution". Sure. And I am as qualified to have an opinion about BB as you are to have an opinion about what color socks to wear in the morning. I am fully qualified to have an opinion, because it is my opinion. I am qualified to have a private opinion because all humans are qualified to have private opinions.

I won't be responding to you further on this issue. I have had more than enough verbal abuse.


Just say no to McCain 2008; he abandoned principle when he caved on habeus corpus

This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by Percy, posted 11-20-2006 9:49 PM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 92 by Percy, posted 11-22-2006 8:11 AM nwr has acknowledged this reply

  
Son Goku
Member
Posts: 1153
From: Ireland
Joined: 07-16-2005


Message 90 of 100 (365116)
11-21-2006 9:28 AM


WMAP
Michael writes:

Apologies for the pedantry, but I believe you mean Michelson and Morley.

Cheers.


I always make that mistake, thanks for the correction.

nwr writes:

Okay, I missed that, probably because I was not trying to suggest they were similar. I was simply providing two examples where we have since rejected what was accepted explanation, though we continue to use much of the associated empirical methodology.


To be fair it was an off-topic comment on my part, so it doesn't really effect your main argument.

Anyway perhaps a good general piece of evidence for the expansion is the WMAP in general (as has already been said) and some of its fallout analysis such as:
A paper going into some observational details.
Might be good to see how the experimental side works.

A paper on what the WMAP mean for expansion theories.
Basically puts a constraint on certain models.

I apologize that I can't get any non-technical references, although the first paper isn’t too bad.

Edited by Son Goku, : Tag correction.


Replies to this message:
 Message 91 by baloneydetector#zero, posted 11-21-2006 11:39 AM Son Goku has responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2020