Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 86 (8943 total)
32 online now:
Diomedes, jar, PaulK, Thugpreacha (AdminPhat) (4 members, 28 visitors)
Newest Member: LaLa dawn
Post Volume: Total: 863,957 Year: 18,993/19,786 Month: 1,413/1,705 Week: 219/446 Day: 17/98 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The problems of big bang theory. What are they?
Alfred Maddenstein
Member (Idle past 2257 days)
Posts: 565
Joined: 04-01-2011


Message 346 of 389 (631802)
09-03-2011 10:50 AM
Reply to: Message 343 by ProtoTypical
09-03-2011 10:18 AM


Re: ad populum
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 343 by ProtoTypical, posted 09-03-2011 10:18 AM ProtoTypical has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 353 by ProtoTypical, posted 09-03-2011 12:55 PM Alfred Maddenstein has responded

Alfred Maddenstein
Member (Idle past 2257 days)
Posts: 565
Joined: 04-01-2011


Message 347 of 389 (631812)
09-03-2011 11:44 AM
Reply to: Message 341 by NoNukes
09-02-2011 5:43 PM


Re: ad populum
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 341 by NoNukes, posted 09-02-2011 5:43 PM NoNukes has acknowledged this reply

Percy
Member
Posts: 18878
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 348 of 389 (631813)
09-03-2011 11:50 AM
Reply to: Message 344 by ProtoTypical
09-03-2011 10:24 AM


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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 344 by ProtoTypical, posted 09-03-2011 10:24 AM ProtoTypical has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 349 by hooah212002, posted 09-03-2011 11:59 AM Percy has acknowledged this reply
 Message 352 by ProtoTypical, posted 09-03-2011 12:50 PM Percy has acknowledged this reply

  
hooah212002
Member (Idle past 112 days)
Posts: 3183
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 349 of 389 (631815)
09-03-2011 11:59 AM
Reply to: Message 348 by Percy
09-03-2011 11:50 AM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 348 by Percy, posted 09-03-2011 11:50 AM Percy has acknowledged this reply

  
Alfred Maddenstein
Member (Idle past 2257 days)
Posts: 565
Joined: 04-01-2011


Message 350 of 389 (631818)
09-03-2011 12:15 PM
Reply to: Message 339 by NoNukes
09-02-2011 1:32 PM


Re: Try a little context
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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 339 by NoNukes, posted 09-02-2011 1:32 PM NoNukes has acknowledged this reply

ProtoTypical
Member
Posts: 1792
From: Ontario Canada
Joined: 08-04-2010


Message 351 of 389 (631824)
09-03-2011 12:49 PM
Reply to: Message 345 by cavediver
09-03-2011 10:39 AM


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?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 345 by cavediver, posted 09-03-2011 10:39 AM cavediver has not yet responded

ProtoTypical
Member
Posts: 1792
From: Ontario Canada
Joined: 08-04-2010


Message 352 of 389 (631825)
09-03-2011 12:50 PM
Reply to: Message 348 by Percy
09-03-2011 11:50 AM


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?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 348 by Percy, posted 09-03-2011 11:50 AM Percy has acknowledged this reply

ProtoTypical
Member
Posts: 1792
From: Ontario Canada
Joined: 08-04-2010


Message 353 of 389 (631826)
09-03-2011 12:55 PM
Reply to: Message 346 by Alfred Maddenstein
09-03-2011 10:50 AM


Re: ad populum
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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 346 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 09-03-2011 10:50 AM Alfred Maddenstein has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 354 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 09-03-2011 3:14 PM ProtoTypical has responded

Alfred Maddenstein
Member (Idle past 2257 days)
Posts: 565
Joined: 04-01-2011


Message 354 of 389 (631838)
09-03-2011 3:14 PM
Reply to: Message 353 by ProtoTypical
09-03-2011 12:55 PM


Re: ad populum
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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 353 by ProtoTypical, posted 09-03-2011 12:55 PM ProtoTypical has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 358 by ProtoTypical, posted 09-04-2011 9:26 AM Alfred Maddenstein has responded

Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 24 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 355 of 389 (631856)
09-03-2011 8:58 PM
Reply to: Message 334 by Butterflytyrant
09-02-2011 8:30 AM


Re: looking for information
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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 334 by Butterflytyrant, posted 09-02-2011 8:30 AM Butterflytyrant has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 356 by Butterflytyrant, posted 09-03-2011 9:34 PM Dawn Bertot has responded

  
Butterflytyrant
Member (Idle past 2712 days)
Posts: 415
From: Australia
Joined: 06-28-2011


(1)
Message 356 of 389 (631861)
09-03-2011 9:34 PM
Reply to: Message 355 by Dawn Bertot
09-03-2011 8:58 PM


Re: looking for information
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 306


I 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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 355 by Dawn Bertot, posted 09-03-2011 8:58 PM Dawn Bertot has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 357 by Dawn Bertot, posted 09-03-2011 10:29 PM Butterflytyrant has not yet responded

  
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 24 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 357 of 389 (631866)
09-03-2011 10:29 PM
Reply to: Message 356 by Butterflytyrant
09-03-2011 9:34 PM


Re: looking for information
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 mallethead
Dawn Bertot

Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 356 by Butterflytyrant, posted 09-03-2011 9:34 PM Butterflytyrant has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 378 by Larni, posted 09-09-2011 5:34 AM Dawn Bertot has not yet responded

  
ProtoTypical
Member
Posts: 1792
From: Ontario Canada
Joined: 08-04-2010


Message 358 of 389 (631901)
09-04-2011 9:26 AM
Reply to: Message 354 by Alfred Maddenstein
09-03-2011 3:14 PM


Re: ad populum
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?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 354 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 09-03-2011 3:14 PM Alfred Maddenstein has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 361 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 09-04-2011 11:55 AM ProtoTypical has responded

Alfred Maddenstein
Member (Idle past 2257 days)
Posts: 565
Joined: 04-01-2011


Message 359 of 389 (631903)
09-04-2011 10:27 AM
Reply to: Message 337 by Pressie
09-02-2011 8:49 AM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 337 by Pressie, posted 09-02-2011 8:49 AM Pressie has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 364 by Pressie, posted 09-05-2011 1:17 AM Alfred Maddenstein has not yet responded

Alfred Maddenstein
Member (Idle past 2257 days)
Posts: 565
Joined: 04-01-2011


Message 360 of 389 (631905)
09-04-2011 10:57 AM
Reply to: Message 332 by Butterflytyrant
09-02-2011 8:19 AM


Re: looking for information
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 332 by Butterflytyrant, posted 09-02-2011 8:19 AM Butterflytyrant 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 © 2019