A Physics prediction
Michael Paine
Physicists are constructing the TOE, the theory of everything. It will
cover the creation of the Universe, and everything else in Physics. The
theory will be based on observations, experience of earlier theories,
logic, and consist of equations. The equations will be logical.
According to present Physics, the Universe was created through the Big
Bang.
The following is my prediction of how the TOE will be:
The laws of Physics is the logically unavoidable. They caused the Big
Bang to occur.
About the logically unavoidable: Logic is possible and impossible
states of physical things. These states exist independently of anyone
being aware of them. The event of a meteor striking the far side of the
moon, which is invisible from Earth, has possible and impossible
states. The logically unavoidable are possible states.
People are always aware of physical things around them, by having
representations of them in their brains. Mental processes occur in
people's brains which treat different logical questions. What happens
in a brain then is that it analyzes the mental representation of some
physical things, and reaches a conclusion about it.
A person rolls a basketball toward another basketball, and they impact.
The rolled ball can't also be on the opposite side of the other one at
the same time directly after they make contact. The logically
unavoidable is that the basketball that hits the other one has to
remain in one piece. It causes conditions specific to it to exist. The
rolled basketball has its kinetic energy decreased and the other one
obtains kinetic energy, according to those conditions. This must
happen. Different conditions would exist if the rolled ball would also
be on the opposite side of the other one at the same time directly
after they make contact. Then a different kinetic energy event would
happen, but it doesn't. In the same way that the event with the two
basketballs had to occur, the Big Bang, that also was logically
unavoidable, had to occur.
The TOE will be completed within five decades. Mankind will then know
that the logically unavoidable caused the Universe to start to exist,
instead of God which has never existed. The centuries old problem of
God and creation will be solved. For instance the torment of the
infinitely long chain of reasoning "If God created the Universe, then
who created God, and who created the creator of God, and who..." will
be no more. Mankind will know that the TOE is correct in the same way
that one knows that 1+2=3, that is through Logic and Mathematics and
that it will last as long as the Universe exists, which could be
forever.
When the TOE is completed, people will have no need of believing in
religion any more. The basis on which all religions are built is in
principle a concept that can't be logically justified, like God, the
Gods of Hinduism and the ancestral Gods of the Northern European
peoples. When it is found that Mankind knows that the TOE is correct
about all the things that all the religions in the world tried to cover
in their logically unjustifiable ways, then nobody will occupy their
minds with things that they know aren't true, they will no longer be
religious. Love, morals and other good things will always be with
people.
Imagine the sense of achievement that Mankind will feel when the TOE is
completed. The world will be permanently put into a state of mind that
has never before existed. It will be like having the light turned on in
a previously dark room where people groped around: Struggling with
Super Symmetries, GUTs, String Theory and M Theory. People will see
everything in the room: The TOE will cover everything in Physics.
People will be better persons: They'll commit less crimes, wage less
wars etc. The world's view on everything else in Science and Philosophy
and other things will be different, and Mankind will develop those
subjects better than before.
Michael Paine
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
Chip Anderson
<93o414$aqs$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>:
>Hi,
--snip--
>The laws of Physics is the logically unavoidable. They caused the Big
>Bang to occur.
The laws of physics are a product of the "Big Bang", not the other way
around!
>
-snip other stuff--
>
>Michael Paine
>
>
>
>
>Sent via Deja.com
>http://www.deja.com/
>
--
Chip
http://www.tangledweb.dnsq.org
You can always count on Americans to do the right thing -
after they've tried everything else.
- Winston Churchill
Michael Paine
Paul Lutus
news:93o99v$f9s$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > The laws of physics are a product of the "Big Bang", not the other way
> > around!
> Could you please explain what you mean?
Allow me. The Big Bang was the beginning. There was no before, and no
outside. The Big Bang was all of everything. No prior time, space, or laws
of physics.
Don't think of the Big Bang as taking place in a context such as the
universe, or a timeline. Neither existed.
No time, no space, no laws -- no nothing.
--
Paul Lutus
www.arachnoid.com
Doug Stevens
news:k9O76.226065$DG3.5...@news2.giganews.com...
> snip
> The Big Bang was the beginning. There was no before, and no
> outside. The Big Bang was all of everything. No prior time, space, or laws
> of physics.
>
> Don't think of the Big Bang as taking place in a context such as the
> universe, or a timeline. Neither existed.
>
> No time, no space, no laws -- no nothing.
>
> --
> Paul Lutus
> www.arachnoid.com
Paul,
Ever since I saw my first image of a whirlpool galaxy, I have had a vivid
image in my mind that our universe is pulsating -- big bang after big bang,
explosion after implosion, expansion upon contraction, and back again,
repeatedly making and unmaking itself. Is there a reason(s) why this could
not possibly be the case?
Doug
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
Uncle Al
>
> Hi,
>
> Physicists are constructing the TOE, the theory of everything. It will
> cover the creation of the Universe, and everything else in Physics. The
> theory will be based on observations, experience of earlier theories,
> logic, and consist of equations. The equations will be logical.
> According to present Physics, the Universe was created through the Big
> Bang.
>
> The following is my prediction of how the TOE will be:
>
> The laws of Physics is the logically unavoidable. They caused the Big
> Bang to occur.
There is no connection to any, if any there were, physical laws prior
to the Big Bang. It's unclear there was only one set, as opposed to
an infinite nubmer (and it might be the big infinity, not the number
of integers) afterward.
So sad. Have you tried publishing in "Social Text?"
http://www.physics.nyu.edu/faculty/sokal/
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
http://www.ultra.net.au/~wisby/uncleal/
(Toxic URLs! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" The Net!
Paul Lutus
news:3a5fb...@goliath2.newsfeeds.com...
> Ever since I saw my first image of a whirlpool galaxy, I have had a vivid
> image in my mind that our universe is pulsating -- big bang after big
bang,
> explosion after implosion, expansion upon contraction, and back again,
> repeatedly making and unmaking itself. Is there a reason(s) why this
could
> not possibly be the case?
Yes, and for the very reason already set out -- each of the universes is
snipped off from the others by the Big Bang/Crunch. They are not causally
connected universes.
A Bug Crunch really ends it, and a Big Bang starts it. They are not
connected.
Also, all current observational evidence points to a continuous expansion,
no Big Crunch. A separate issue from whether a universe *could* oscillate in
principle.
Most people cannot picture a universe beginning or ending -- instead they
"cheat" and imagine it happening in a meta-space. Try anyway. :)
--
Paul Lutus
www.arachnoid.com
Michael Paine
that Physicists are now beginning to see the conditions before the Big
Bang?
Michael Varney
> Hi,
>
> Physicists are constructing the TOE, the theory of everything
Do they let you do that sort of thing in the mental hospital? I thought
they would dope you up on thorazine as soon as you started twitching.
Uncle Al
>
> Michael Paine <mpa...@hotmail.com> wrote in
> <93o414$aqs$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>:
>
> >Hi,
> --snip--
>
> >The laws of Physics is the logically unavoidable. They caused the Big
> >Bang to occur.
>
> The laws of physics are a product of the "Big Bang", not the other way
> around!
>
> >
> -snip other stuff--
Effects aren't strictly ordered in a relativistic universe. The Laws
of the Universe obviously preceded the creation of their defining
container. See? Easy. Now we have a direct proof of the existence
of God, Whose existence similarly preceded His own creation.
>>When the TOE is completed, people will have no need of believing in
>>religion any more.
Oops. Sorry, fellah. (Quick - somebody get me the Fuller Theological
Seminary. I've got the Answer!)
James Hunter
Paul Lutus wrote:
> "Doug Stevens" <dste...@netforce.com> wrote in message
> news:3a5fb...@goliath2.newsfeeds.com...
>
> Also, all current observational evidence points to a continuous expansion,
> no Big Crunch. A separate issue from whether a universe *could* oscillate in
> principle.
>
> Most people cannot picture a universe beginning or ending -- instead they
> "cheat" and imagine it happening in a meta-space. Try anyway. :)
No people can do that, so it's not a big issue.
James Hunter
Michael Paine wrote:
So that means that since there was a pre-Big Bang, there was no Big
Bang,
which means that the Big Fart Theory of the universe is moving along at
a constant speed of 1 energon-pound per sec^2 per coloumb-fortnight.
Uncle Al
>
> "Paul Lutus" <nos...@nosite.com> wrote in message
> news:k9O76.226065$DG3.5...@news2.giganews.com...
> > snip
> > The Big Bang was the beginning. There was no before, and no
> > outside. The Big Bang was all of everything. No prior time, space, or laws
> > of physics.
> >
> > Don't think of the Big Bang as taking place in a context such as the
> > universe, or a timeline. Neither existed.
> >
> > No time, no space, no laws -- no nothing.
> >
> > --
> > Paul Lutus
> > www.arachnoid.com
>
> Paul,
>
> Ever since I saw my first image of a whirlpool galaxy, I have had a vivid
> image in my mind that our universe is pulsating -- big bang after big bang,
> explosion after implosion, expansion upon contraction, and back again,
> repeatedly making and unmaking itself. Is there a reason(s) why this could
> not possibly be the case?
If it could happen there would be enough mass to create a closed
universe with elliptic geometry (no lines parallel to a given line,
sum of the interior angles of a triangle greater than 180 degrees,
ratio of the circumference of a circle to its diameter less than pi.
The current model has 10% of the visible mass necesary to create what
appears to be a Euclidean (plane) universe - and that only gives you
asymptotic approach to a stop. Not even close to a closed universe.
TILT. No collapse. Never.
Geometry - what a concept. Look at the silly tap dance cosmologists
are sweating over (dark matter *plus* quintessence) and they barely
have the thing without an infinite number of lines parallel to a given
line. Hey... infinity isn't so big (except toward the end).
Robert J. Kolker
Michael Paine wrote:
>
> The laws of Physics is the logically unavoidable. They caused the Big
> Bang to occur.
The Laws of Physics (so-called) are man made artifacts used to
describe and predict the facts of nature. The Kosmos is what
it is and does not need to be dictated to.
Bob Kolker
James Hunter
"Robert J. Kolker" wrote:
Since you have to take dictation from it, you might as well dictate to
it,
since that facts of "nature" and the facts of life are often
in conflict in the Big Fart era.
Virgil
<James....@Jhuapl.edu> wrote:
> >
> > Most people cannot picture a universe beginning or ending -- instead
> > they
> > "cheat" and imagine it happening in a meta-space. Try anyway. :)
>
> No people can do that, so it's not a big issue.
James Hunter is again trying, unsuccessfully, to tell people what they
can and cannot do.
And then he gets so pettish when people go right ahead and do his
don't's and don't his do's.
Paul Lutus
news:3A5FB7FE...@Jhuapl.edu...
> > Most people cannot picture a universe beginning or ending -- instead
they
> > "cheat" and imagine it happening in a meta-space. Try anyway. :)
>
> No people can do that, so it's not a big issue.
Well, absent the ability to picture it, we can at least assert that it makes
no sense. *Someone* might be able to do it. Not me, but someone.
--
Paul Lutus
www.arachnoid.com
Paul Lutus
news:93ocft$hnv$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <k9O76.226065$DG3.5...@news2.giganews.com>,
> "Paul Lutus" <nos...@nosite.com> wrote:
> > "Michael Paine" <mpa...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:93o99v$f9s$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> >
> > > > The laws of physics are a product of the "Big Bang", not the
> other way
> > > > around!
> >
> > > Could you please explain what you mean?
> >
> > Allow me. The Big Bang was the beginning. There was no before, and no
> > outside. The Big Bang was all of everything. No prior time, space, or
> laws
> > of physics.
> >
> > Don't think of the Big Bang as taking place in a context such as the
> > universe, or a timeline. Neither existed.
> >
> > No time, no space, no laws -- no nothing.
> >
Already said all there is to say about it. There is no "before" before a Big
Bang, or "after" after a Big Crunch.
Are you aware
> that Physicists are now beginning to see the conditions before the Big
> Bang?
Nonsense. People may be speculating, but they are not observing. To even
assert such a thing would require overthrow of the notion of a Big Bang, as
it is currently formulated.
--
Paul Lutus
www.arachnoid.com
franz heymann
<Snip>
> A Bug Crunch really ends it, and a Big Bang starts it. They are not
> connected.
Perhaps so, in the context of "classical" GR, but would one necessarily be
able to make such a statement when (if ever?) GR and QM have been made
compatible with each other? I look forward to knowing what QM would have to
say about a true point singularity.
Franz Heymann
franz heymann
James Hunter <James....@Jhuapl.edu> wrote in message
>
<Snip>
>
> So that means that since there was a pre-Big Bang, there was no Big
> Bang,
> which means that the Big Fart Theory of the universe is moving along at
> a constant speed of 1 energon-pound per sec^2 per coloumb-fortnight.
What peccable logic!
Franz Heymann
D.A.Kopf
>
> "Michael Paine" <pixel...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> news:93ocft$hnv$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > In article <k9O76.226065$DG3.5...@news2.giganews.com>,
> > "Paul Lutus" <nos...@nosite.com> wrote:
> > > "Michael Paine" <mpa...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > > news:93o99v$f9s$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > >
> > > > > The laws of physics are a product of the "Big Bang", not the
> > other way
> > > > > around!
> > >
> > > > Could you please explain what you mean?
> > >
> > > Allow me. The Big Bang was the beginning. There was no before, and no
> > > outside. The Big Bang was all of everything. No prior time, space, or
> > laws
> > > of physics.
> > >
> > > Don't think of the Big Bang as taking place in a context such as the
> > > universe, or a timeline. Neither existed.
> > >
> > > No time, no space, no laws -- no nothing.
> > >
> > Would you care to expand on that? (Pardon the pun. Hehe.)
>
> Already said all there is to say about it. There is no "before" before a Big
> Bang, or "after" after a Big Crunch.
Sounds like the early beliefs about falling off the edge of the Earth. After
all, logically, what could be beyond the Edge? The point being, spheres have
no endpoints.
>
> Are you aware
> > that Physicists are now beginning to see the conditions before the Big
> > Bang?
>
> Nonsense. People may be speculating, but they are not observing. To even
> assert such a thing would require overthrow of the notion of a Big Bang, as
> it is currently formulated.
The remote properties of a continuously differentiable function are local
observables. Not sure about functions passing through a singularity, although
a pole residue can have global implications. Such assertions may require a
touching faith in continuity, but don't overthrow any physical notions. One
could argue that they are even more physical than any epistemological
assertions of ne plus ultra.
Dirk Bruere
> Hi,
>
> Physicists are constructing the TOE, the theory of everything. It will
> cover the creation of the Universe, and everything else in Physics. The
> theory will be based on observations, experience of earlier theories,
> logic, and consist of equations. The equations will be logical.
> According to present Physics, the Universe was created through the Big
> Bang.
>
> The following is my prediction of how the TOE will be:
>
> The laws of Physics is the logically unavoidable. They caused the Big
> Bang to occur.
I love that 'caused' bit.
So, will the TOE explain where the 'laws of physics' reside when they are
not creating universes?
Sounds suspiciously like God.
Dirk
Dirk Bruere
> > > The laws of physics are a product of the "Big Bang", not the other way
> > > around!
>
> > Could you please explain what you mean?
>
> Allow me. The Big Bang was the beginning. There was no before, and no
> outside. The Big Bang was all of everything. No prior time, space, or laws
> of physics.
>
> Don't think of the Big Bang as taking place in a context such as the
> universe, or a timeline. Neither existed.
>
> No time, no space, no laws -- no nothing.
What about mathematics?
No e^(ipi)=-1 hanging around in the Platonic Realm?
Dirk
Dirk Bruere
"Uncle Al" <Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
news:3A5FB68F...@hate.spam.net...
> Chip Anderson wrote:
> >
> > Michael Paine <mpa...@hotmail.com> wrote in
> > <93o414$aqs$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>:
> >
> > >Hi,
> > --snip--
> >
> > >The laws of Physics is the logically unavoidable. They caused the Big
> > >Bang to occur.
> >
> > The laws of physics are a product of the "Big Bang", not the other way
> > around!
> >
> > >
> > -snip other stuff--
>
> Effects aren't strictly ordered in a relativistic universe. The Laws
> of the Universe obviously preceded the creation of their defining
> container. See? Easy. Now we have a direct proof of the existence
> of God, Whose existence similarly preceded His own creation.
>
> >>When the TOE is completed, people will have no need of believing in
> >>religion any more.
>
> Oops. Sorry, fellah. (Quick - somebody get me the Fuller Theological
> Seminary. I've got the Answer!)
Some religions have already done away with 'god the creator of the
universe'.
Asatru... ahem, cough cough...:-)
Dirk
Paul Lutus
news:93pgv0$250$2...@lure.pipex.net...
Well, speaking very hypothetically, although QM can effectively blur strict
causality (as can GR in another way), to me the Big Bang spacetime barrier
seems insurmountable.
This topic is especially hypothetical when we consider that we don't know
which aspects of current physical law remain under these exotic conditions,
and which aspects evaporate or radically change form.
My favoring a spacetime barrier between universes is based simply on Occam's
Razor -- it seems to me more plausible than the alternatives.
--
Paul Lutus
www.arachnoid.com
Michael Paine
about it.
Michael Paine
laws of Physics will cause it to travel towards the floor. When the
bigTOE is completed it will get a pedicure and have its name changed to
the AOP: The Axioms Of Physics.
Mark Folsom
I think you're overstating the case a bit. If we use "the Big Bang" to
refer to the well supported theory that the universe evolved to its present
state from a much denser state of ordinary matter and energy in which the
present laws of physics prevailed, then it's possible to productively and
testably speculate about the state of the universe that led to that hot
dense "beginning" state. Alan Guth and others have done just that with a
number of inflationary theories that speculate on quantum fluctuations,
expansion of false vacuum, the freezing out of the Higgs field at a
non-symmetric value, etc. Some of these speculative theories are testable
against the results of particle physics and astronomical observations.
Further, the Big Bang is not directly observable but rather must be surmised
to have happened on the basis of what we currently observe in the universe
and what we believe to be the laws of physics. From the prevalence (or
lack) of magnetic monopoles and the lumpiness of the CMBR and the flatness
of space, different inflationary theories can be discarded. The opacity of
space to light before a certain time is no more an insurmountable barrier to
observation than dust clouds around new stars are a barrier to far infrared
and radio observations of those stars. All physical observation is indirect
and dependent on theory.
Mark Folsom
Quark
> > news:nzO76.20188$n5.3...@news6.giganews.com...
> > <Snip>
>
Occam's
> Razor -- it seems to me more plausible than the alternatives.
> --
> Paul Lutus
> www.arachnoid.com
>
I've observed is that nothing is isolated, and that patterns repeat.
Whatever happens now, be it a snowflake or a hurricane, happened before, and
will likely happen again -- unique forms, albeit with a subset of shared
commonalities.
However, (and this may or may not support Paul's premise), let's take a
snowflake, and compare both our universe and ourselves to the Who's in
Whoville, who all live inside a single flake (and thus based everything
solely upon the matter and forces contained therein). We all know that a
snowflake does not the entire universe make; that it's only a universe
within a universe. Eventually it could melt, as particles divide and go into
separate forms... gas, liquid, solid, or even joined with other molecules or
forces to become something different entirely. However, some of the
particles may rise, condense, freeze, and fall once again in another form of
a snowflake.
For me, this is the simplest conclusion, which remains open to all
possibilities, based on Occam's Razor; that a space-time barrier could
exist for some, while not for others...and that both could be right
(although incomplete, having not accounted for the whole range of
possibilities).
Quark
RC
<mpa...@hotmail.com> writes
>Hi,
>
>Physicists are constructing the TOE, the theory of everything. It will
>cover the creation of the Universe, and everything else in Physics. The
>theory will be based on observations, experience of earlier theories,
>logic, and consist of equations. The equations will be logical.
>According to present Physics, the Universe was created through the Big
>Bang.
>
>The following is my prediction of how the TOE will be:
>
>The laws of Physics is the logically unavoidable. They caused the Big
>Bang to occur.
I can see what you are trying to say. Something was allowed to happen
because it did, indeed, happen. Who knows how so much energy/ mass/
matter could have been caused to "materialise" as Existence?
[...]
--
Reason
http://www.earthpoetry.demon.co.uk
RC
franz heymann
No quibble, if actual point singularities really exist. The trouble is, as
you undoubtedly know, is that ultimately QM might impose a granularity on
space. But, as you say, it is all hypothetical at the moment.
Franz Heymann
>
>
>
>
Quark
"RC" <r...@earthpoetry.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:0kTTxXAU...@earthpoetry.demon.co.uk...snip
> >The following is my prediction of how the TOE will be:
> >
> >The laws of Physics is the logically unavoidable. They caused the Big
> >Bang to occur.
>
> I can see what you are trying to say. Something was allowed to happen
> because it did, indeed, happen. Who knows how so much energy/ mass/
> matter could have been caused to "materialise" as Existence?
>
> [...]
> --
> Reason
> http://www.earthpoetry.demon.co.uk
> RC
I was thinking of an average molecule, and the relative distances from the
neutron to its other orbiting bodies/fields, and how other molecules, which
by relative comparison are even farther apart, and yet can have such
profound effects upon one another. How do we know that a single event in a
universe that is, spacially, hundreds of trillions of light years away, yet
trillions of times more massive or energetic, didn't cause our Big Bang to
"appear-to-appear", and seemingly out of nothingness?
Are there not examples of things we do "here" which cause events "there" to
materialize out seemingly nothing - is this not the case when energy
converts to mass?
Chip Anderson
>"Michael Paine" <mpa...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:93o99v$f9s$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
>
>> > The laws of physics are a product of the "Big Bang", not the other way
>> > around!
>
>> Could you please explain what you mean?
>
>Allow me. The Big Bang was the beginning. There was no before, and no
>outside. The Big Bang was all of everything. No prior time, space, or laws
>of physics.
>
>Don't think of the Big Bang as taking place in a context such as the
>universe, or a timeline. Neither existed.
>
>No time, no space, no laws -- no nothing.
>
>--
>Paul Lutus
>www.arachnoid.com
>
>
>
>
>
Thanks, that looks simple enough for most.
--
Chip
http://www.tangledweb.dnsq.org
You can always count on Americans to do the right thing -
after they've tried everything else.
- Winston Churchill
Chip Anderson
--snip--
References, please. Perhaps even a link to such, if they exist.
Dirk Bruere
Which must reside 'external' to space and time, since they 'cause' the
latter.
So, pre-universe, what is the status of those 'axioms of physics'?
If they come into existence with the universe, they are clearly going to be
useless in explaining its origin.
If they exist seperately, where?
Dirk
James Hunter
Virgil wrote:
Take it as *advice* rather than an order kiss-butt.
I personally don't give a shit how many goobers go to the goober farm.
Paul Lutus
> > Are you aware
> > > that Physicists are now beginning to see the conditions before the
> Big
> > > Bang?
> >
> > Nonsense. People may be speculating, but they are not observing. To
> even
> > assert such a thing would require overthrow of the notion of a Big
> Bang, as
> > it is currently formulated.
> >
> > --
> > Paul Lutus
> > www.arachnoid.com
> >
> >
> It is not nonsense. Consult recent Science publications and you'll read
> about it.
Calling you an uncritical reader is a gross exaggeration. Speculations find
a place in science publications because most scientists know how to
distinguish between speculation and science. But this is not true for all
readers.
You said "Physicists are now beginning to see the conditions before the Big
Bang." This is quite false. They are *speculating* about those conditions,
period. There are no possible observations of the earliest era, much less
time zero, much less what you are going on about.
--
Paul Lutus
www.arachnoid.com
Paul Lutus
news:t617u4r...@corp.supernews.com...
> > Are you aware
> > > that Physicists are now beginning to see the conditions before the Big
> > > Bang?
> >
> > Nonsense. People may be speculating, but they are not observing. To even
> > assert such a thing would require overthrow of the notion of a Big Bang,
> as
> > it is currently formulated.
>
> I think you're overstating the case a bit. If we use "the Big Bang" to
> refer to the well supported theory that the universe evolved to its
present
> state from a much denser state of ordinary matter and energy in which the
> present laws of physics prevailed, then it's possible to productively and
> testably speculate about the state of the universe that led to that hot
> dense "beginning" state.
Translation:
Paul: "No, that is just speculation."
Mark: "No, that is just speculation."
Thanks for the correction.
> The opacity of
> space to light before a certain time is no more an insurmountable barrier
to
> observation than dust clouds around new stars are a barrier to far
infrared
> and radio observations of those stars.
This is a false statement. The two are not comparable. You really can see
through dust using IR, but you really cannot see through the primordial
plasma, assuming the horizon effect didn't also prevent it.
> All physical observation is indirect
> and dependent on theory.
Nonsense. Remember this subthread started on the topic of observation, which
I corrected to speculation.
--
Paul Lutus
www.arachnoid.com
Mark Folsom
> "Mark Folsom" <fols...@redshift.com> wrote in message
> news:t617u4r...@corp.supernews.com...
>
> > > Are you aware
> > > > that Physicists are now beginning to see the conditions before the
Big
> > > > Bang?
> > >
> > > Nonsense. People may be speculating, but they are not observing. To
even
> > > assert such a thing would require overthrow of the notion of a Big
Bang,
> > as
> > > it is currently formulated.
> >
> > I think you're overstating the case a bit. If we use "the Big Bang" to
> > refer to the well supported theory that the universe evolved to its
> present
> > state from a much denser state of ordinary matter and energy in which
the
> > present laws of physics prevailed, then it's possible to productively
and
> > testably speculate about the state of the universe that led to that hot
> > dense "beginning" state.
>
> Translation:
>
> Paul: "No, that is just speculation."
>
> Mark: "No, that is just speculation."
Sorry, there's a difference between "just speculation" and "testable
speculation" whether you choose to ignore it or not.
>
> Thanks for the correction.
>
> > The opacity of
> > space to light before a certain time is no more an insurmountable
barrier
> to
> > observation than dust clouds around new stars are a barrier to far
> infrared
> > and radio observations of those stars.
>
> This is a false statement. The two are not comparable.
Of course they're comparable: One collects photons, forms images with them
and makes conclusions about the emitting objects based partly on theories of
how those photons propagate through dusty space and less dusty space. The
other also collects photons and makes images as well as attempting to find
other particles of particular types, and makes conclusions (so far not very
firm) about conditions at the time and places where the detected particles
were released, also dependent on theories of the formation and subsequent
behavior of the particles. Both sense particles released by objects and
processes remote from the sensors in time and space and both are dependent
on theories of how the sensed particles behave and what the particles say
about conditions at their source.
> You really can see
> through dust using IR, but you really cannot see through the primordial
> plasma, assuming the horizon effect didn't also prevent it.
Can you see the Big Bang? What do you see when you see a map of the angular
variation of brightness in the CMBR? For that matter, what do you see when
you look at a CAT scan of your head? It's not optically imaged, it's
computed based on theories of how x-rays propagate through different
tissues. Can you see the interior of the earth using seismic tomography?
Can you see conditions before the CMBR production by looking at any facts
observable in the present universe? What if you calculate some descriptors
of that condition and have your computer make a graph, can you see it then?
>
> > All physical observation is indirect
> > and dependent on theory.
>
> Nonsense.
Am I directly apprehending the planet Jupiter when I look in my telescope?
Why should I believe that the image I see in the eyepiece really represents
the shape and reflection spectrum of some distant object?
> Remember this subthread started on the topic of observation, which
> I corrected to speculation.
You're always correcting things based on some unexamined belief that you
rigidly hold. How do you know that the image that comes out of a computer
attached to a radio telescope that's pointed at a dust cloud is an image of
an emitting object inside? Tell me in detail.
Mark Folsom
Edward Green
>Michael Paine <mpa...@hotmail.com> wrote in
><93o414$aqs$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>:
>
>>Hi,
>--snip--
>
>>The laws of Physics is the logically unavoidable. They caused the Big
>>Bang to occur.
>
>The laws of physics are a product of the "Big Bang", not the other way
>around!
Yes and no.
We can hypothesize:
LAWS |-> Big Bang |-> Laws
Wherein "Laws" are a particular symmetry broken form of the LAWS.
Edward Green
>"Michael Paine" <mpa...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:93o99v$f9s$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
>
>> > The laws of physics are a product of the "Big Bang", not the other way
>> > around!
>
>> Could you please explain what you mean?
>
>Allow me. The Big Bang was the beginning. There was no before, and no
>outside. The Big Bang was all of everything. No prior time, space, or laws
>of physics.
In the context of a particular model. And even in the context of that
model, a particular space time, it is unnecessary to suppose
we must also add the assumption "there is no possible sense of prior
or outside", which again is self-referential to the model. And so we
are unobliged to conclude that some "laws of physics" can not exist
outside of our prior to the Big Bang universe.
>Don't think of the Big Bang as taking place in a context such as the
>universe, or a timeline. Neither existed.
In the context of that particular model.
>No time, no space, no laws -- no nothing.
In the context of that particular model.
Edward Green
>In article <3A5FB7FE...@Jhuapl.edu>, James Hunter
><James....@Jhuapl.edu> wrote:
>
>> >
>> > Most people cannot picture a universe beginning or ending -- instead
>> > they
>> > "cheat" and imagine it happening in a meta-space. Try anyway. :)
>>
>> No people can do that, so it's not a big issue.
>
>James Hunter is again trying, unsuccessfully, to tell people what they
>can and cannot do.
I realize past animosity colors exchanges, and I allow this to
happen myself, and it must be happening here.
James Hunter's statement was lucid, and was descriptive, not
proscriptive. He also probably doesn't give a damn if I defend him or
not, but in this instance I think he is right on the money. Your
answer is not.
Dirk Bruere
"Edward Green" <e...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:93r4v0$g01$2...@news.panix.com...
Then the big question become, why those LAWS and 'where are they'?
The only reasonable answer which would enable a definitive explanation of
the universe is that there exists some kind of Platonic realm where these
things reside, along with mathematics, possibly.
Dirk
Edward Green
>"James Hunter" <James....@Jhuapl.edu> wrote in message
>news:3A5FB7FE...@Jhuapl.edu...
>
>> > Most people cannot picture a universe beginning or ending -- instead
>they
>> > "cheat" and imagine it happening in a meta-space. Try anyway. :)
>>
>> No people can do that, so it's not a big issue.
>
>Well, absent the ability to picture it, we can at least assert that it makes
>no sense. *Someone* might be able to do it. Not me, but someone.
What an interesting illustration how past outbursts color the
perception of present utterances.
You: "Most people cannot ... <imagine concept A> ... <ancillary statements>"
James Hunter: "No people can do that ..."
Virgil interpreted this innocuous statement of capability to be an order.
You... I can't actually tell what you mean. You implicitly renounce
what you seemed to be saying... _What_ doesn't make sense? _What_
might someone be able to do? Picture it? What strawman argument are
you apostrophizing?
Hunters point is clear: You imply that most people cannot imagine an
isolated Big Bang universe, and any idea that it may be embedded in a
meta-space must stem from this failing. He say, yes, people can
picture your universe. It is a standard strawman argument to imply
that people of differing opinions are "unable to accept", through some
philosophical or intellectual lack, what you can, in your superior
intellect, accept.
Edward Green
>Already said all there is to say about it. There is no "before" before a Big
>Bang, or "after" after a Big Crunch.
In the context of a particular model.
> Are you aware
>> that Physicists are now beginning to see the conditions before the Big
>> Bang?
>
>Nonsense. People may be speculating, but they are not observing. To even
>assert such a thing would require overthrow of the notion of a Big Bang, as
>it is currently formulated.
I don't think so. Embed it in meta-universe, as you said.
Speculating not observing -- like Occam's razor, a tendentious
argument which always tends to favor the side of a dispute the speaker
favors. It's all about highly extrapolated Bayesian confidences, and
we are free to have 'em, and absent a considered Bayesian metaphysics,
maybe not so free to scoff at 'em, when they don't agree with our own.
I did like your typo "Bug Crunch". Intentional or not, it is good.
We will end not with a bang nor a whimper, but with a Bug Crunch.
Edward Green
>The remote properties of a continuously differentiable function are local
>observables. Not sure about functions passing through a singularity, although
>a pole residue can have global implications.
Good!
>Such assertions may require a
>touching faith in continuity, but don't overthrow any physical notions. One
>could argue that they are even more physical than any epistemological
>assertions of ne plus ultra.
Good!
Epistemologically we can, if it amuses us, try to map out the space of
all possible spaces in which our observed space could be embedded, and
also attempt to map their Bayesian likelihood according to debatable
but explicit assumptions.
The problem with metaphysics... or far extrapolation from observation...
is that many, having found some pleasing larger construction in which to
embed local observation, become emotionally attached to it, and begin
"defending" it against alternative constructions by all means at their
disposal. Metaphysics is hard and subtle, but can be conducted
rationally by rational beings.
The habit of trying to map out all possible spaces in which we might
embed our observations is not well established, beyond, according to
current lights, a realm of ordered inquiry. Because inquiry is not
well understood nor systematic it is pray to quackery and sect.
Edward Green
>Calling you an uncritical reader is a gross exaggeration. Speculations find
>a place in science publications because most scientists know how to
>distinguish between speculation and science.
As do many others, as professional scientists do not have a monopoly
on logical thought. What arrogance it would be to suppose they had.
Edward Green
>"Paul Lutus" <nos...@nosite.com> wrote in message
>news:KaU76.200286$IP1.7...@news1.giganews.com...
>> To even
>> assert such a thing would require overthrow of the notion of a Big Bang,
>> as it is currently formulated.
>I think you're overstating the case a bit. If we use "the Big Bang" to
>refer to the well supported theory that the universe evolved to its present
>state from a much denser state of ordinary matter and energy in which the
>present laws of physics prevailed, then it's possible to productively and
>testably speculate about the state of the universe that led to that hot
>dense "beginning" state. Alan Guth and others have done just that with a
>number of inflationary theories that speculate on quantum fluctuations,
>expansion of false vacuum, the freezing out of the Higgs field at a
>non-symmetric value, etc. Some of these speculative theories are testable
>against the results of particle physics and astronomical observations.
>Further, the Big Bang is not directly observable but rather must be surmised
>to have happened on the basis of what we currently observe in the universe
>and what we believe to be the laws of physics. From the prevalence (or
>lack) of magnetic monopoles and the lumpiness of the CMBR and the flatness
>of space, different inflationary theories can be discarded. The opacity of
>space to light before a certain time is no more an insurmountable barrier to
>observation than dust clouds around new stars are a barrier to far infrared
>and radio observations of those stars. All physical observation is indirect
>and dependent on theory.
Well said.
Edward Green
>"Mark Folsom" <fols...@redshift.com> wrote in message
>news:t617u4r...@corp.supernews.com...
>> > Are you aware
>> > > that Physicists are now beginning to see the conditions before the Big
>> > > Bang?
>> >
>> > Nonsense. People may be speculating, but they are not observing. To even
>> > assert such a thing would require overthrow of the notion of a Big Bang,
>> as
>> > it is currently formulated.
>>
>> I think you're overstating the case a bit. If we use "the Big Bang" to
>> refer to the well supported theory that the universe evolved to its
>present
>> state from a much denser state of ordinary matter and energy in which the
>> present laws of physics prevailed, then it's possible to productively and
>> testably speculate about the state of the universe that led to that hot
>> dense "beginning" state.
>
>Translation:
>
>Paul: "No, that is just speculation."
>
>Mark: "No, that is just speculation."
>
>Thanks for the correction.
"Speculation" implies idle chit-chat, empty notions, bar talk. Mark
was talking about something a bit more logically rigorous than that,
as he went on to illustrate. "Just speculation" is a misleadingly
pejorative way to characterize this.
>> The opacity of
>> space to light before a certain time is no more an insurmountable barrier
>to
>> observation than dust clouds around new stars are a barrier to far
>infrared
>> and radio observations of those stars.
>
>This is a false statement. The two are not comparable. You really can see
>through dust using IR, but you really cannot see through the primordial
>plasma, assuming the horizon effect didn't also prevent it.
Think just a tad metaphorically or abstractly, and don't be so literal.
>> All physical observation is indirect
>> and dependent on theory.
>
>Nonsense.
Nonsense.
Which means you are probably not amenable to enlightenment. :|
We could "see" through the primordial plasma, as you put it, with
theory, as Mark put it; with theory which might lead to testable
distinctions on observations conducted now. That is 'indirect
observation dependent on theory'.
Even a direct observation of a nebula with an optical telescope is
'indirect and dependent on theory', just, in this case, dependent on
very well attested theories of optics, enmeshed in a net of other
astronomical reasoning, that lead us to accept that tiny image as
evidence of a distant, ancient and huge cloud of gas.
>Remember this subthread started on the topic of observation, which
>I corrected to speculation.
"Observations" which meet your standards or rigor are simply very well
informed by tested theory. It is reasonable to expect speculation to
ultimately be bound by logic and observation, but it is not reasonable
to ask monotonously and continually, at all stages of intellectual
investigation, can you reduce this to testing by an rigorous experiment.
Unless, of course, you are experimentalist. :)
Edward Green
...
You are philosophically sharp today, or are not choosing to hide your
light under a bushel; whether or not you accept my complement with
good grace or not, or grant me standing to make it.
Edward Green
>"Edward Green" <e...@panix.com> wrote in message
>news:93r4v0$g01$2...@news.panix.com...
>> Chip Anderson <b_anders...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>
>> >Michael Paine <mpa...@hotmail.com> wrote in
>> ><93o414$aqs$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>:
>> >
>> >>Hi,
>> >--snip--
>> >
>> >>The laws of Physics is the logically unavoidable. They caused the Big
>> >>Bang to occur.
>> >
>> >The laws of physics are a product of the "Big Bang", not the other way
>> >around!
>>
>> Yes and no.
>>
>> We can hypothesize:
>>
>> LAWS |-> Big Bang |-> Laws
>>
>> Wherein "Laws" are a particular symmetry broken form of the LAWS.
>
>Then the big question become, why those LAWS and 'where are they'?
A question. I don't know about "the big question".
One thing at a time... I trust your are not going to spring on me the
weak rejection that because an hypothesis produces a further
question this is a strike against the hypothesis... like saying that
suggesting that the origin of life on earth was seeding from space "merely
moves the question of the origin of life off-planet". But it answers
the question of the origin of life on planet.
>The only reasonable answer which would enable a definitive explanation of
>the universe is that there exists some kind of Platonic realm where these
>things reside, along with mathematics, possibly.
An answer. I don't know about "the only reasonable answer".
In close analogy to the panspermia hypothesis (or whatever it is
called) I mainly suggested an origin of the form of physical law
in the observed universe... a symmetry broken form of laws present
at the beginning of our universe; a part of the local geography.
I don't know why we observe laws at all, but the universe does seem
to be very like a game of life.
Chip Anderson
How about this:
UNKNOWABLE |-> Big Bang? |-> Laws
--
Chip
http://www.tangledweb.dnsq.org
And all who heard should see them there,
And all should cry, Beware! Beware!
His flashing eyes, his floating hair!
Weave a circle round him thrice,
And close your eyes with holy dread,
For he on honey-dew hath fed.
"Kubla Khan" by Samuel Taylor Coleridge
Edward Green
>e...@panix.com (Edward Green) wrote in <93r4v0$g01$2...@news.panix.com>:
>>Chip Anderson <b_anders...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>>The laws of physics are a product of the "Big Bang", not the other way
>>>around!
>>
>>Yes and no.
>>
>>We can hypothesize:
>>
>>LAWS |-> Big Bang |-> Laws
>>
>>Wherein "Laws" are a particular symmetry broken form of the LAWS.
>>
>
>How about this:
>
>UNKNOWABLE |-> Big Bang? |-> Laws
I was presenting a modification of your idea above, and one not just
based on cute use of capitals, but on the idea that some of what we
see as "physical law" may represent a particular falling of the chips,
and idea which seemed to be adumbrated in your statement.
As for "unknowable" I think this is unwarranted. They may be
unknowable, but we are not yet in a position to know that. The "Big
Bang" is a physical model, and it is a standard and oft repeated error
to suppose that since a physical model covers the data in some regime,
that we may with full confidence extrapolate to other regimes, and
also to apply the full weight of the evidence to ancillary aspects of
the model; in this case, that nothing outside the model is defined.
Of course not. That is a common feature of models.
We also have a cultural phenomenon, seen in connection
with QM and probabilities for example, wherein some aspect of the
model becomes attached with dogmatic fervor by a sect, and we are
accused of naivete for even talking about it.
Your dogmatic assertion of "unknowable" leads me to believe I gave
you too much credit to tart with, when I supposed you were making
something like the point modified; in reality you were apparently
being a dogmatist.
Edward Green
Dirk Bruere <art...@kbnet.co.uk> wrote:
>Which must reside 'external' to space and time, since they 'cause' the
>latter.
_Our_ space and time. Or more particularly, the spacetime of the Big
Bang model, extrapolated backwards from the present.
Which in your view, sounds suspiciously like "absolute space and time",
since anything which exists outside of it must be in the Platonic
realm of forms.
Why? How do you know the constraints of existence?
Paul Lutus
> Sorry, there's a difference between "just speculation" and "testable
> speculation" whether you choose to ignore it or not.
"Testable speculation" was not the original issue. The original claim was
"Physicists are now beginning to see the conditions before the Big Bang."
This is false. Utterly false, both in a practical and a theoretical sense.
> > > The opacity of
> > > space to light before a certain time is no more an insurmountable
> barrier
> > to
> > > observation than dust clouds around new stars are a barrier to far
> > infrared
> > > and radio observations of those stars.
> >
> > This is a false statement. The two are not comparable.
>
> Of course they're comparable
Nonsense. In one case, am image can be formed. In the other, an image cannot
be formed. The primordial plasma is opaque, period, all other issues aside.
> > > All physical observation is indirect
> > > and dependent on theory.
> >
> > Nonsense.
>
> Am I directly apprehending the planet Jupiter when I look in my telescope?
You claimed such an observation was dependent on theory. This is nonsense.
> > Remember this subthread started on the topic of observation, which
> > I corrected to speculation.
>
> You're always correcting things based on some unexamined belief that you
> rigidly hold.
Correcting a brainless assertion that "Physicists are now beginning to see
the conditions before the Big Bang" requires none of these things. It is
utterly false in the context of current theory.
--
Paul Lutus
www.arachnoid.com
Paul Lutus
> >Translation:
> >
> >Paul: "No, that is just speculation."
> >
> >Mark: "No, that is just speculation."
> >
> >Thanks for the correction.
>
> "Speculation" implies idle chit-chat, empty notions, bar talk.
No, this is not what speculation means to a scientist. Please look it up
before continuing.
--
Paul Lutus
www.arachnoid.com
Edward Green
>"Mark Folsom" <fols...@redshift.com> wrote in message
>news:t623apd...@corp.supernews.com...
>
>> Sorry, there's a difference between "just speculation" and "testable
>> speculation" whether you choose to ignore it or not.
>
>"Testable speculation" was not the original issue. The original claim was
>"Physicists are now beginning to see the conditions before the Big Bang."
>This is false. Utterly false, both in a practical and a theoretical sense.
Journalistic hype?
Like the transgenic monkey. Turns out (1) technique has been used to
produce transgenic mice for 25 years (2) inserted gene not expressed.
Other than that we have a really monstrous step in genetic engineering.
SNL labeled the experiment "evil" in their "news" segment, but got the
part about expression wrong. Smart ass comics.
Edward Green
You are not a scientist?
That's the way you were using it, particularly in "just speculation".
I understand what speculation is, both on a colloquial and scientific
level, thank you... I don't need a dictionary definition.
Speculation to me means "Huh, by some unconscious or semi-conscious
process I have a hunch that something like the following might be
true. Wouldn't it be interesting to check it out, and do you have any
input on the matter"?
I was reacting to your apparent use of the term as a put-down.
Over the years I've toned down my efforts here... less fundamental
discussions of QM, more chit-chat on siphons, because the return
signal was so disappointing on the fundamentals of QM.
People are fond of describing deductive structures, less fond of
induction... which includes the creative arm of speculation... tapping
the unconscious analogical and pattern recognition engine to prompt us
towards new deductive structures.
Most people are weak on the experimental verification of deductive
structures, which we see here. Because a continuous theory fits a
large range of observations it does not follow it is "probable" that
the theory may be extrapolated all the way to a distant pole. A pole
in a continuous theory is generally evidence that something
interesting is going on which may have global residues, as Kopf mentions.
Behavior local to the pole is almost incidental for global consequences.
Also, because a given model does not describe things outside the model
it does not follow that there must be nothing we can talk about
outside of what is mapped to the model.
When on earth are they going to start teaching a unified course on
models to scientists? In the misconceptions of students we see
projections of the lack of a unified model of models among their
teachers. "The System" is excellent at teaching difficult and subtle
models... like GR and QFT, and skill in manipulating them. The System
is not so good, apparently, at teaching how to think about models,
evidence, and speculation in general.
Chip Anderson
>Chip Anderson <b_anders...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>>e...@panix.com (Edward Green) wrote in <93r4v0$g01$2...@news.panix.com>:
>
>>>Chip Anderson <b_anders...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>>>>The laws of physics are a product of the "Big Bang", not the other way
>>>>around!
>>>
>>>Yes and no.
>>>
>>>We can hypothesize:
>>>
>>>LAWS |-> Big Bang |-> Laws
>>>
>>>Wherein "Laws" are a particular symmetry broken form of the LAWS.
>>>
>>
>>How about this:
>>
>>UNKNOWABLE |-> Big Bang? |-> Laws
>
>I was presenting a modification of your idea above, and one not just
>based on cute use of capitals, but on the idea that some of what we
>see as "physical law" may represent a particular falling of the chips,
>and idea which seemed to be adumbrated in your statement.
You read more into my statement than is warranted. Hence, my reply.
>
>As for "unknowable" I think this is unwarranted. They may be
>unknowable, but we are not yet in a position to know that. The "Big
>Bang" is a physical model, and it is a standard and oft repeated error
>to suppose that since a physical model covers the data in some regime,
>that we may with full confidence extrapolate to other regimes, and
>also to apply the full weight of the evidence to ancillary aspects of
>the model; in this case, that nothing outside the model is defined.
>
>Of course not. That is a common feature of models.
While, I hope, we all know the model is not the thing, they are very
useful. The more we learn, the more we refine our models. It seems you
are making the very error you warn against.
>
>We also have a cultural phenomenon, seen in connection
>with QM and probabilities for example, wherein some aspect of the
>model becomes attached with dogmatic fervor by a sect, and we are
>accused of naivete for even talking about it.
>
Quantum mechanics is a very useful model. The very machine I'm using to
compile this message is a direct result of the application of that model.
>Your dogmatic assertion of "unknowable" leads me to believe I gave
>you too much credit to tart with, when I supposed you were making
>something like the point modified; in reality you were apparently
>being a dogmatist.
>
Why is my hypothesis that we can gather no information in regards to what
was before the universe dogmatic? I fail to discern how your assertion
that some super-set of laws filtered though the big bang into the current
state bears any more weight than mine.
While it may be great fun, I think any assertions in regards to what was
before the big bang can only be unfounded speculation.
Who knows, maybe someone will find a way to somehow show what ???? was like
before the universe began. Now, there's a statement you can read a lot out
of.
RC
<nos...@nospam.com> writes
>
>"RC" <r...@earthpoetry.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:0kTTxXAU...@earthpoetry.demon.co.uk...
>> In article <93o414$aqs$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, Michael Paine
>> <mpa...@hotmail.com> writes
>> >Hi,
>snip
>> >The following is my prediction of how the TOE will be:
>> >
>> >Bang to occur.
>>
>> because it did, indeed, happen. Who knows how so much energy/ mass/
>> matter could have been caused to "materialise" as Existence?
>>
>> [...]
>I was thinking of an average molecule, and the relative distances from the
>neutron to its other orbiting bodies/fields, and how other molecules, which
>by relative comparison are even farther apart, and yet can have such
>profound effects upon one another. How do we know that a single event in a
>universe that is, spacially, hundreds of trillions of light years away, yet
>trillions of times more massive or energetic, didn't cause our Big Bang to
>"appear-to-appear", and seemingly out of nothingness?
>
>Are there not examples of things we do "here" which cause events "there" to
>materialize out seemingly nothing - is this not the case when energy
>converts to mass?
Extremely well put. We have two alternatives:
1, this is the only Universe, and
2, this is not the only Universe.
For alternative 1, I would speculate that somehow a certain type of
Existence came into being - a sort of ultimate super-particle/ state not
bound by our conventional physical laws. (It contains our physical laws
as part of its make-up.) The expansion of this "thing" (whatever it was)
then became the entity which we call the Universe. Important note: time
does not exist in this scenario. The Universe has always been and will
always be in an "Absolute-Now" state. (Don't worry; Relativity theory is
fully compatible with this. In fact, I think Relativity theory supports
the Absolute Now argument.)
[ I see flames. ;) ]
For alternative 2, all the above applies but it is preceded by other
Universes or other states of Existence made of, I don't what. This
involves further speculation as to - what other types of Existence does
Reality allow? If we pursue the previous-Universe scenario, we still
need to ask - how did that other Universe come into being? We go back to
the speculation in alternative 1 for this, along with a consideration of
other types of *physical* Existence which we may not know anything
about.
--
Reason
http://www.earthpoetry.demon.co.uk
RC
Dirk Bruere
> In article <HA386.5117$Ed4.1...@news2-win.server.ntlworld.com>,
>
> >Which must reside 'external' to space and time, since they 'cause' the
> >latter.
>
> _Our_ space and time. Or more particularly, the spacetime of the Big
> Bang model, extrapolated backwards from the present.
>
> Which in your view, sounds suspiciously like "absolute space and time",
> since anything which exists outside of it must be in the Platonic
> realm of forms.
>
> Why? How do you know the constraints of existence?
Well, ultimately I expect the only constraint to be the fact that we exist.
The rest I suspect to be utterly random, with no 'laws' at all. No reason
for anything to happen, no reason why not.
What we see being the result of that boundary condition.
Dirk
Dirk Bruere
> >> We can hypothesize:
> >>
> >> LAWS |-> Big Bang |-> Laws
> >>
> >> Wherein "Laws" are a particular symmetry broken form of the LAWS.
> >
> >Then the big question become, why those LAWS and 'where are they'?
>
> A question. I don't know about "the big question".
> One thing at a time... I trust your are not going to spring on me the
> weak rejection that because an hypothesis produces a further
> question this is a strike against the hypothesis... like saying that
It is a strike against the hypothesis that his TOE will answer every
question, given his premises as to what a TOE will be like.
Dirk
Paul Lutus
> >No, this is not what speculation means to a scientist. Please look it up
> >before continuing.
>
...
>
> That's the way you were using it, particularly in "just speculation".
False. I already told you to look it up. Look it up.
--
Paul Lutus
www.arachnoid.com
Mark Folsom
> "Mark Folsom" <fols...@redshift.com> wrote in message
> news:t623apd...@corp.supernews.com...
>
> > Sorry, there's a difference between "just speculation" and "testable
> > speculation" whether you choose to ignore it or not.
>
> "Testable speculation" was not the original issue. The original claim was
> "Physicists are now beginning to see the conditions before the Big Bang."
> This is false. Utterly false, both in a practical and a theoretical sense.
I defined what I meant by the big bang and I defined what I meant by before
the big bang and I offered some examples of theories about events leading up
to the big bang that were being tested against observable conditions in the
present universe. You haven't addressed any of the specifics of what I
wrote. Rather you have continued to rant on your original assertion without
any argument to back it up.
>
> > > > The opacity of
> > > > space to light before a certain time is no more an insurmountable
> > barrier
> > > to
> > > > observation than dust clouds around new stars are a barrier to far
> > > infrared
> > > > and radio observations of those stars.
> > >
> > > This is a false statement. The two are not comparable.
> >
> > Of course they're comparable
>
> Nonsense. In one case, am image can be formed. In the other, an image
cannot
> be formed. The primordial plasma is opaque, period, all other issues
aside.
>
> > > > All physical observation is indirect
> > > > and dependent on theory.
> > >
> > > Nonsense.
> >
> > Am I directly apprehending the planet Jupiter when I look in my
telescope?
>
> You claimed such an observation was dependent on theory. This is nonsense.
The theory I refer to in this case is called "optics." All sensible persons
among us agree that it is a *very* good approximation to the way that nature
actually behaves, but it's a theory nonetheless. And my belief in the
accuracy of an image I see in my SCT as a representation of the shape and
color of a distant planet depends on the theory of optics. I even have
names, from the theory, for the fuzziness and fluctuations I see in the
image. I think I know what causes the image imperfections and I hope to
drive out to Chews Ridge with my scope to correct some of them. But if the
theory were wrong, I would be mistaken in my beliefs about what the
telescope shows me.
[snip]
Mark Folsom
Paul Lutus
> "Paul Lutus" <nos...@nosite.com> wrote in message
> news:Mvb86.232456$DG3.5...@news2.giganews.com...
> > "Mark Folsom" <fols...@redshift.com> wrote in message
> > news:t623apd...@corp.supernews.com...
> >
> > > Sorry, there's a difference between "just speculation" and "testable
> > > speculation" whether you choose to ignore it or not.
> >
> > "Testable speculation" was not the original issue. The original claim
was
> > "Physicists are now beginning to see the conditions before the Big
Bang."
> > This is false. Utterly false, both in a practical and a theoretical
sense.
>
> I defined what I meant by the big bang and I defined what I meant by
before
> the big bang and I offered some examples of theories about events leading
up
"Before the Big Bang?" "Events leading up to the Big Bang?" You clearly do
not understand current cosmological theory. You would do well to learn it
before trying to participate in a discussion like this one.
> > > Am I directly apprehending the planet Jupiter when I look in my
> telescope?
> >
> > You claimed such an observation was dependent on theory. This is
nonsense.
>
> The theory I refer to in this case is called "optics." All sensible
persons
> among us agree that it is a *very* good approximation to the way that
nature
> actually behaves, but it's a theory nonetheless.
You claimed that the observation was dependent on theory. This is trivially
false. The fact that theory exists or does not exist is irrelevant to the
fact of the observation. Were this not true, no one would have been able to
construct a telescope or see Jupiter prior to the shaping of a theory.
What you fail to grasp is that theory follows observation as often as the
reverse.
--
Paul Lutus
www.arachnoid.com
Mark Folsom
> "Mark Folsom" <fols...@redshift.com> wrote in message
> news:t63tpoo...@corp.supernews.com...
> > "Paul Lutus" <nos...@nosite.com> wrote in message
> > news:Mvb86.232456$DG3.5...@news2.giganews.com...
> > > "Mark Folsom" <fols...@redshift.com> wrote in message
> > > news:t623apd...@corp.supernews.com...
> > >
> > > > Sorry, there's a difference between "just speculation" and
"testable
> > > > speculation" whether you choose to ignore it or not.
> > >
> > > "Testable speculation" was not the original issue. The original claim
> was
> > > "Physicists are now beginning to see the conditions before the Big
> Bang."
> > > This is false. Utterly false, both in a practical and a theoretical
> sense.
> >
> > I defined what I meant by the big bang and I defined what I meant by
> before
> > the big bang and I offered some examples of theories about events
leading
> up
> > to the big bang ...
>
> "Before the Big Bang?" "Events leading up to the Big Bang?" You clearly do
> not understand current cosmological theory. You would do well to learn it
> before trying to participate in a discussion like this one.
I defined the Big Bang in a previous post in a way which no one has
disagreed with. If you define it in a way that precludes testing any
conjectures about states leading up to it, please spell out your definition
and tell me why it constitutes an impenetrable barrier to inference from
currently observable facts.
>
> > > > Am I directly apprehending the planet Jupiter when I look in my
> > telescope?
> > >
> > > You claimed such an observation was dependent on theory. This is
> nonsense.
> >
> > The theory I refer to in this case is called "optics." All sensible
> persons
> > among us agree that it is a *very* good approximation to the way that
> nature
> > actually behaves, but it's a theory nonetheless.
>
> You claimed that the observation was dependent on theory. This is
trivially
> false. The fact that theory exists or does not exist is irrelevant to the
> fact of the observation. Were this not true, no one would have been able
to
> construct a telescope or see Jupiter prior to the shaping of a theory.
>
> What you fail to grasp is that theory follows observation as often as the
> reverse.
All you *observe* are your immediate sense perceptions. As soon as you
decide that your sense perceptions correspond to something outside your
head, that's a theory. The theory applied by Galileo to what he saw in his
scope wasn't as accurate or complete as modern physical optics, but it was
implicitly a theory nonetheless.
You even apply a theory about how your eyeballs work. By saying that you
observe something, you are implicitly saying that your sense perceptions
correspond in a particular reliable way to things outside yourself. It's
trivial and it's usually true, but other people hold other opinions and it
isn't logically necessary.
Mark Folsom
Paul Lutus
> I defined the Big Bang in a previous post in a way which no one has
> disagreed with.
Hey, no one has disagreed with your ramblings. Rent a tux -- your Nobel
awaits.
In a newsgroup with the name "sci.physics," the term "Big Bang" has a
specific meaning. If you want to deviate from that, label your comments
"speculation." That was my original point, the first of several you failed
to grasp.
> > What you fail to grasp is that theory follows observation as often as
the
> > reverse.
>
> All you *observe* are your immediate sense perceptions. As soon as you
> decide that your sense perceptions correspond to something outside your
> head, that's a theory.
1. That is not a theory. Another word whose meaning is lost to you.
2. This is off the original topic, which is that you were entirely wrong in
your original claim. Admit it.
> The theory applied by Galileo to what he saw in his
> scope wasn't as accurate or complete as modern physical optics, but it was
> implicitly a theory nonetheless.
That was not a theory, that was an observation. You apparently don't know
the difference.
--
Paul Lutus
www.arachnoid.com
Mark Folsom
> "Mark Folsom" <fols...@redshift.com> wrote in message
> news:t6471bq...@corp.supernews.com...
>
> > I defined the Big Bang in a previous post in a way which no one has
> > disagreed with.
>
> Hey, no one has disagreed with your ramblings. Rent a tux -- your Nobel
> awaits.
Eat shit. You specifically didn't disagree with it, you just ignored it.
>
> In a newsgroup with the name "sci.physics," the term "Big Bang" has a
> specific meaning.
But you don't have the balls to spell out what it means to you, because when
you do, you'll get your head handed to you, either for a silly definition
you offer or for the dogmatic nonsense you're so pigheadedly defending.
> If you want to deviate from that, label your comments
> "speculation." That was my original point, the first of several you failed
> to grasp.
Several of my comments are based on Weinberg's and Guth's speculations.
Maybe, like many other things *you* pontificate about, you don't know as
much about this subject as you think you do.
>
> > > What you fail to grasp is that theory follows observation as often as
> the
> > > reverse.
> >
> > All you *observe* are your immediate sense perceptions. As soon as you
> > decide that your sense perceptions correspond to something outside your
> > head, that's a theory.
>
> 1. That is not a theory. Another word whose meaning is lost to you.
What you leave out is *why* that isn't a theory, most likely because you
would be vulnerable to refutation. A bald unsupported assertion only needs
to be repeated, I suppose.
>
> 2. This is off the original topic, which is that you were entirely wrong
in
> your original claim. Admit it.
You haven't advanced your case one whit. All you offer is a series of
assertions without as much as a definition or an argument or a scrap of
evidence to support them.
>
> > The theory applied by Galileo to what he saw in his
> > scope wasn't as accurate or complete as modern physical optics, but it
was
> > implicitly a theory nonetheless.
>
> That was not a theory, that was an observation. You apparently don't know
> the difference.
You're mistaken and obviously determined to remain so. Good luck.
Mark Folsom
Michael Varney
> "Paul Lutus" <nos...@nosite.com> wrote in message
> news:LQp86.206004$IP1.7...@news1.giganews.com...
> > "Mark Folsom" <fols...@redshift.com> wrote in message
> > news:t6471bq...@corp.supernews.com...
> >
> > > I defined the Big Bang in a previous post in a way which no one has
> > > disagreed with.
> >
> > Hey, no one has disagreed with your ramblings. Rent a tux -- your Nobel
> > awaits.
>
> Eat shit. You specifically didn't disagree with it, you just ignored it.
Wow! Did Lutus hit a nerve?
> > In a newsgroup with the name "sci.physics," the term "Big Bang" has a
> > specific meaning.
>
> But you don't have the balls to spell out what it means to you, because
when
> you do, you'll get your head handed to you, either for a silly definition
> you offer or for the dogmatic nonsense you're so pigheadedly defending.
Lutus must have hit a nerve.
Paul Lutus
> "Paul Lutus" <nos...@nosite.com> wrote in message
> news:LQp86.206004$IP1.7...@news1.giganews.com...
> > "Mark Folsom" <fols...@redshift.com> wrote in message
> > news:t6471bq...@corp.supernews.com...
> >
> > > I defined the Big Bang in a previous post in a way which no one has
> > > disagreed with.
> >
> > Hey, no one has disagreed with your ramblings. Rent a tux -- your Nobel
> > awaits.
>
> Eat shit. You specifically didn't disagree with it, you just ignored it.
Look, asshole, start posting on topic or leave. Those are your choices. Note
the newsgroup name. Act accordingly.
> You haven't advanced your case one whit.
"My" case? When did your congenital stupidity become my case? You have yet
to post anything remotely resembling physics.
--
Paul Lutus
www.arachnoid.com
Edward Green
>"Mark Folsom" <fols...@redshift.com> wrote in message
>news:t6471bq...@corp.supernews.com...
>> I defined the Big Bang in a previous post in a way which no one has
>> disagreed with.
...
>In a newsgroup with the name "sci.physics," the term "Big Bang" has a
>specific meaning. If you want to deviate from that, label your comments
>"speculation." That was my original point, the first of several you failed
>to grasp.
Logical consistency check fails.
You seem to alternatively consider "speculation" (1) a normal and
essential part of the scientific process, (2) empty ramblings, and
here, (3) an excursion into non-standard semantics.
>> > What you fail to grasp is that theory follows observation as often as
>the
>> > reverse.
>>
>> All you *observe* are your immediate sense perceptions. As soon as you
>> decide that your sense perceptions correspond to something outside your
>> head, that's a theory.
>
>1. That is not a theory. Another word whose meaning is lost to you.
It's a model. Observations are interpreted via and suggested by
models; in fact a chain of models. What we "see" is normally in
terms of the a hierarchy of well-tested models, while what we "look
for" is normally suggested by a next order of model, under construction.
In seeing a moon, Galileo already had a host of models of optics,
planetary bodies, orbits, and so forth, which enabled him to
interpret an unexpected blip of light as a satellite of another
heavenly body. Without these prerequisites, an observer would
mainly see an unremarkable speck of light.
Rutherford's famous comment about a naval shell hitting a piece of
tissue paper and bouncing back is only comprehensible in terms of a
last layer of model which made such a result surprising -- otherwise
why should we be surprised at any scattering angle -- while the
"observation" itself, of a scattering angle of alpha particles, was
only made possible by a host of prior relatively well-established
models about alpha particles, scattering, detection of alpha
particles, and so forth. Without these concepts, given the
experimental set-up, we might again "see" meaningless blips of light,
and furthermore, would not have been in a position to create the
set-up in the first place.
And neither would Galileo in his case, for that matter. What out some
theory/ies which gave him a clue of the kind of data he might collect
and how he might look for it, what would have possessed him to assemble
those funny polished glass shapes in tubes, and peer through them at
the night sky? He would have been like a madman assembling
meaningless "equipment" and making equally meaningless "observations"
at the sanitarium.
We live in a nested web of Bayesian prior confidences in models...
some levels apparently innately available and even shared with animals,
some levels available to a person with a decent high school education,
and progressively more abstract and difficult layers requiring more
specialized thought. And without models, our sensory input is the
"blooming buzzing confusion" of the newborn.
>> The theory applied by Galileo to what he saw in his
>> scope wasn't as accurate or complete as modern physical optics, but it was
>> implicitly a theory nonetheless.
>
>That was not a theory, that was an observation. You apparently don't know
>the difference.
I happen to think Mark Folsom is dead on here.
Edward Green
>"Mark Folsom" <fols...@redshift.com> wrote in message
>news:t63tpoo...@corp.supernews.com...
MF > > Am I directly apprehending the planet Jupiter when I look in my
>> telescope?
>> >
>> > You claimed such an observation was dependent on theory. This is
>nonsense.
>>
>> The theory I refer to in this case is called "optics." All sensible
>persons
>> among us agree that it is a *very* good approximation to the way that
>nature
>> actually behaves, but it's a theory nonetheless.
>
>You claimed that the observation was dependent on theory. This is trivially
>false. The fact that theory exists or does not exist is irrelevant to the
>fact of the observation.
It is irrelevant to the fact of the raw sensory impression. All other
level of interpretation depend on _some_ model.
>Were this not true, no one would have been able to
>construct a telescope or see Jupiter prior to the shaping of a theory.
This statement is in fact correct... theories or models of what
telescopes were and what they were good for, what astronomical bodies
are, and so forth, had to exist before constructing a telescope and
pointing it at Jupiter would mean anything, and just how much this
"observation" meant depended on the goodness of the web of models
which supported it.
If you mean that the telescope would physically work, and we could
physically perceive a point of light, were we a savage and had
received the instrument from space aliens... yes, of course. Any fool
knows that. This is not the point.
>What you fail to grasp is that theory follows observation as often as the
>reverse.
I am sure he grasps that in the sense you mean it; you don't grasp his
argument.
Edward Green
>"Edward Green" <e...@panix.com> wrote in message
>news:93rj1l$kg3$1...@news.panix.com...
>
>> >No, this is not what speculation means to a scientist. Please look it up
>> >before continuing.
>>
>...
>>
>> That's the way you were using it, particularly in "just speculation".
>
>False.
Much as it pains me to agree with you in anything, I did take the
trouble to look up your posts in which "speculation" first appeared,
and I agree that your remarks could first be interpreted to mean
"speculation" in a sane sense. I disagree with many things you
have to say subsequently, but I concede your first remarks on the
subject could be interpreted that way.
I was not the only person who was misled by your tone.
>I already told you to look it up. Look it up.
No thank you. I took the trouble to look up your posts, I know what
speculation means, and I think that most literate people would concur
that the phrase "just speculation" has or can have the connotations I
suggested. I am not going to look up the word in the dictionary like
a school child.
Edward Green
Edward Green
>Well, ultimately I expect the only constraint to be the fact that we exist.
>The rest I suspect to be utterly random, with no 'laws' at all. No reason
>for anything to happen, no reason why not.
>What we see being the result of that boundary condition.
Odd. Because that sounds a lot to me like the OP's conception of
logical necessity of a "TOE", kind of bootstrapping the universe into
existence. Well, you say it the other way around... the universe's
existence more or less bootstraps a TOE into existence!
Dirk Bruere
It's completely different.
If one accepts that such a 'substrate' is totally random and lawless, as
well as timeless, everything and nothing 'exists'. That would include God.
The only post-hoc determinant is the necessity for consciousness.
Dirk
Paul Lutus
> >In a newsgroup with the name "sci.physics," the term "Big Bang" has a
> >specific meaning. If you want to deviate from that, label your comments
> >"speculation." That was my original point, the first of several you
failed
> >to grasp.
>
> Logical consistency check fails.
>
> You seem to alternatively consider "speculation" (1) a normal and
> essential part of the scientific process, (2) empty ramblings, and
> here, (3) an excursion into non-standard semantics.
Nonsense. Either prove that I asserted that speculation was "empty
ramblings" or retract it. I didn't say it. I agree to some extent with (1)
and (3) with reservations.
> >> All you *observe* are your immediate sense perceptions. As soon as you
> >> decide that your sense perceptions correspond to something outside your
> >> head, that's a theory.
> >
> >1. That is not a theory. Another word whose meaning is lost to you.
>
> It's a model.
No, a theory is not a model. Please look it up. A model without evidence is
a hypothesis. It becomes a theory when and if observational evidence
supports it, and when the theory reasonably conforms to the system of which
it is a part.
> >That was not a theory, that was an observation. You apparently don't know
> >the difference.
>
> I happen to think Mark Folsom is dead on here.
So? At the moment you don't know the difference between a theory and a
model.
--
Paul Lutus
www.arachnoid.com
Paul Lutus
> >You claimed that the observation was dependent on theory. This is
trivially
> >false. The fact that theory exists or does not exist is irrelevant to the
> >fact of the observation.
>
> It is irrelevant to the fact of the raw sensory impression. All other
> level of interpretation depend on _some_ model.
You are using "theory" and "model" interchangeably. You clearly do not know
what goes into a scientific theory. You do not differentiate between a
speculation, a hypothesis, and a theory.
> >Were this not true, no one would have been able to
> >construct a telescope or see Jupiter prior to the shaping of a theory.
>
> This statement is in fact correct... theories or models of what
> telescopes were and what they were good for, what astronomical bodies
> are, and so forth, had to exist before constructing a telescope and
> pointing it at Jupiter would mean anything, and just how much this
> "observation" meant depended on the goodness of the web of models
> which supported it.
This is entirely false, in every detail. Telescopes were built and used
before there was a theory that explained them, and observations of the
heavens were certainly made prior to any meaningful theory about that.
And theory is not a "web of models."
Okay, tell me. What single critical property separates scientific theories
from models, hypotheses, and speculations? Do you even know? And not
evidence, although that is certainly critical. I am after something more
basic.
You *could* cheat and look up the many past discussions of this topic in
deja.com.
> >What you fail to grasp is that theory follows observation as often as the
> >reverse.
>
> I am sure he grasps that in the sense you mean it; you don't grasp his
> argument.
I certainly grasp his argument. He is wrong. Neither of you understands what
a scientific theory is.
--
Paul Lutus
www.arachnoid.com
Edward Green
>Occam's Razor is so highly subjective,
You have that right.
>because one of the simplest things
>I've observed is that nothing is isolated, and that patterns repeat.
>Whatever happens now, be it a snowflake or a hurricane, happened before, and
>will likely happen again -- unique forms, albeit with a subset of shared
>commonalities.
Or here is another one... that a law or pattern may be extrapolated
indefinitely, or at least to a pet degree of extension, is sometimes
defended with Occam's razor... it's the simplest thing. But I have
observed that most laws or patterns eventually have a termination.
>For me, this is the simplest conclusion, which remains open to all
>possibilities, based on Occam's Razor; that a space-time barrier could
>exist for some, while not for others...and that both could be right
>(although incomplete, having not accounted for the whole range of
>possibilities).
Aye, there's the rub... what is the full range of possibilities, and
how do we assign rational priors to 'em. Often one possibility is
identified, and through familiarity seems the simplest, and the author
runs out to enlist Occam's razor in its defense.
Edward Green
>"Edward Green" <e...@panix.com> wrote in message
>news:93tgpk$ico$1...@news.panix.com...
>
>> >In a newsgroup with the name "sci.physics," the term "Big Bang" has a
>> >specific meaning. If you want to deviate from that, label your comments
>> >"speculation." That was my original point, the first of several you
>> >failed to grasp.
>> You seem to alternatively consider "speculation" (1) a normal and
>> essential part of the scientific process, (2) empty ramblings, and
>> here, (3) an excursion into non-standard semantics.
>Nonsense. Either prove that I asserted that speculation was "empty
>ramblings" or retract it. I didn't say it. I agree to some extent with (1)
>and (3) with reservations.
Alright... I will meet you halfway on this one. On reviewing what
you wrote, I agree that "empty ramblings was my inference from the
context of "speculations", and not necessarily your implication.
>> >> All you *observe* are your immediate sense perceptions. As soon as you
>> >> decide that your sense perceptions correspond to something outside your
>> >> head, that's a theory.
>> >
>> >1. That is not a theory. Another word whose meaning is lost to you.
>>
>> It's a model.
>
>No, a theory is not a model.
Ok... I happen to prefer the word "model", and I agree with just about
everything Mark Folsom said with that substitution. If you want to
reserve "theory" to some more particular class of models, that's fine
with me. I'm not sure that I would label the hypothesis "there is
something outside your head" either theory or model, but model is the
more general term.
Semantics is important, but I'm not sure we have to let some dead
lexographer dictate to us! You didn't tell me which dictionary.
>Please look it up. A model without evidence is
>a hypothesis. It becomes a theory when and if observational evidence
>supports it, and when the theory reasonably conforms to the system of which
>it is a part.
Now, this is not a rhetorical question: Where did you get that
definition? It seems to reasonably fit what is meant by "theory" in
common use, but I don't recall seeing something like that in freshman
physics or Introduction to Western Civilization, or anyplace such a
fundamental concept might be reasonably introduced.
>> >That was not a theory, that was an observation. You apparently don't know
>> >the difference.
>>
>> I happen to think Mark Folsom is dead on here.
>
>So? At the moment you don't know the difference between a theory and a
>model.
Sigh. There is good semantics and there is bad semantics, as I always
say. Good semantics elucidates how we might be using words
differently, and hence talking past each other, but implying that my
opinions are worthless because I use words differently than you, or
don't find a particular semantic distinction important to my argument,
is bad semantics. See again (3) above which you partially concur with.
In the context of this sub-discussion... the informing of observation
by "theory", or in general by models, I am not particularly concerned
with the semantic distinction between models in general and theories
in particular, nor do I think it is very important to Mark's argument.
They are all models, and we invest 'em with varying degrees of
subjective confidence, and that's our world.
Without 'em, we can't make observations, not even to observe what
color socks we wore today.
Edward Green
>"Edward Green" <e...@panix.com> wrote in message
>news:93thrt$ico$2...@news.panix.com...
>
>> >You claimed that the observation was dependent on theory. This is
>trivially
>> >false. The fact that theory exists or does not exist is irrelevant to the
>> >fact of the observation.
>>
>> It is irrelevant to the fact of the raw sensory impression. All other
>> level of interpretation depend on _some_ model.
>
>You are using "theory" and "model" interchangeably.
That is pretty much true... though it is more accurate to say that I
sequed into the word "model" from Mark's "theory", because I think it
is more appropriate to his argument, and that I am not too concerned
with drawing a distinction between the terms here, because it is not
important to his argument.
>You clearly do not know
>what goes into a scientific theory. You do not differentiate between a
>speculation, a hypothesis, and a theory.
That conclusion is a pile of horse caca, Paul. A big fat pile.
>> >Were this not true, no one would have been able to
>> >construct a telescope or see Jupiter prior to the shaping of a theory.
>>
>> This statement is in fact correct... theories or models of what
>> telescopes were and what they were good for, what astronomical bodies
>> are, and so forth, had to exist before constructing a telescope and
>> pointing it at Jupiter would mean anything, and just how much this
>> "observation" meant depended on the goodness of the web of models
>> which supported it.
>
>This is entirely false, in every detail. Telescopes were built and used
>before there was a theory that explained them, and observations of the
>heavens were certainly made prior to any meaningful theory about that.
There was _some_ model ... I'm just going to stick to that term,
because you reported elsewhere that "theories" are a particular
class of model and I don't care to dispute the distinction with
you here ... informing the operation of a telescope. It could have
been as simple as "makes object over there look bigger". No further
model of telescopes is necessary, but that much at least is needed.
You are a bad semantician, Paul, since rather than trying to pierce
the web of words to expose the common understanding, you use words as
a wall between understanding... making wild generalizations like
"entirely false in every detail" along the way. That's really a
laughable accusation. Presumably what I write is nonsense also...
which would mean it didn't have a truth value!
>And theory is not a "web of models."
If I accidently strung words together to make that statement, it was
accidental. Our _model_ of the world is itself a web of models.
>Okay, tell me. What single critical property separates scientific theories
>from models, hypotheses, and speculations? Do you even know?
This is typical redneck thinking -- I'm not saying you are a redneck,
just characterizing an aspect of your thinking. You don't understand
me, there are semantic difficulties, so it must be my ignorance.
Perhaps you feel your senior scientist status qualifies you to
indiscriminately dismiss all that you do not immediately follow as
the rantings of children? Beats the heck out of me.
>> >What you fail to grasp is that theory follows observation as often as the
>> >reverse.
>>
>> I am sure he grasps that in the sense you mean it; you don't grasp his
>> argument.
>
>I certainly grasp his argument. He is wrong. Neither of you understands what
>a scientific theory is.
What complete and utter dogmatic BS!
Chip Anderson
>Paul Lutus <nos...@nosite.com> wrote:
>
>>"Edward Green" <e...@panix.com> wrote in message
>>news:93thrt$ico$2...@news.panix.com...
>>
--snip--
>>
>>I certainly grasp his argument. He is wrong. Neither of you understands
>>what a scientific theory is.
>
>What complete and utter dogmatic BS!
Give it up Paul. I suspect Edward's an NYU student who's taking his first
philosophy class to heart.
Quark
"Edward Green" <e...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:93tsl0$ls8$3...@news.panix.com...
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
Paul Lutus
> >No, a theory is not a model.
>
> Ok... I happen to prefer the word "model", and I agree with just about
> everything Mark Folsom said with that substitution. If you want to
> reserve "theory" to some more particular class of models, that's fine
> with me.
You cannot substitute these words this way. Theory has a particular meaning.
Model has a particular meaning. They are not the same meaning.
> >> >That was not a theory, that was an observation. You apparently don't
know
> >> >the difference.
> >>
> >> I happen to think Mark Folsom is dead on here.
> >
> >So? At the moment you don't know the difference between a theory and a
> >model.
>
> Sigh. There is good semantics and there is bad semantics, as I always
> say. Good semantics elucidates how we might be using words
> differently, and hence talking past each other, but implying that my
> opinions are worthless because I use words differently than you, or
> don't find a particular semantic distinction important to my argument,
> is bad semantics.
Translation: "Yes, you are absolutely right, I have no clue what a
scientific theory is, or how it is distinguished from a model."
--
Paul Lutus
www.arachnoid.com
Paul Lutus
> Paul Lutus <nos...@nosite.com> wrote:
>
> >"Edward Green" <e...@panix.com> wrote in message
> >news:93thrt$ico$2...@news.panix.com...
> >
> >> >You claimed that the observation was dependent on theory. This is
> >trivially
> >> >false. The fact that theory exists or does not exist is irrelevant to
the
> >> >fact of the observation.
> >>
> >> It is irrelevant to the fact of the raw sensory impression. All other
> >> level of interpretation depend on _some_ model.
> >
> >You are using "theory" and "model" interchangeably.
>
> That is pretty much true... though it is more accurate to say that I
> sequed into the word "model" from Mark's "theory", because I think it
> is more appropriate to his argument, and that I am not too concerned
> with drawing a distinction between the terms here, because it is not
> important to his argument.
Since his argument is false, I agree. His argument cannot contain water and
it therefore doesn't rely on correct definitions of terms.
> >You clearly do not know
> >what goes into a scientific theory. You do not differentiate between a
> >speculation, a hypothesis, and a theory.
>
> That conclusion is a pile of horse caca, Paul. A big fat pile.
Translation: "You are absolutely right. If you were wrong, I would have
proven you wrong by posting the definition. But, since I have no idea what
the differences are between these terms, I will resort to toilet language to
cover my considerable embarrassment."
> There was _some_ model ... I'm just going to stick to that term,
> because you reported elsewhere that "theories" are a particular
> class of model
THIS IS A BOLD-FACED LIE. You are now openly lying. You have left ignorant,
empty prose and have lapsed into outright lies. I NEVER said that theories
are a class of model. Only morons make statements like that, or believe
them.
> You are a bad semantician, Paul ...
WHAT? The first step in semantics is to establish the common meaning of
words. To do that, you would first have to stop lying. You are now lying to
cover your ignorance.
> >And theory is not a "web of models."
>
> If I accidently strung words together to make that statement ...
Translation: "From now on, anything I say that turns out to be ridiculous
will be labeled an "'accident' ex post facto." This is your idea of "good
semantics?"
And please spell it "accidentally."
> >Okay, tell me. What single critical property separates scientific
theories
> >from models, hypotheses, and speculations? Do you even know?
>
> This is typical redneck thinking -- I'm not saying you are a redneck,
> just characterizing an aspect of your thinking. You don't understand
> me, there are semantic difficulties, so it must be my ignorance.
ANSWER THE QUESTION. The topic already is your unbelievable ignorance, it
doesn't have to be slipped in.
> Perhaps you feel your senior scientist status qualifies you to
> indiscriminately dismiss all that you do not immediately follow as
> the rantings of children? Beats the heck out of me.
ANSWER THE QUESTION.
> >I certainly grasp his argument. He is wrong. Neither of you understands
what
> >a scientific theory is.
>
> What complete and utter dogmatic BS!
ANSWER THE QUESTION. IF YOU DO NOT, IT IS NOT BS, IT IS SIMPLE TRUTH.
EVERY undergraduate hears this definition (the distinction between
scientific theory and model/hypothesis/speculation) as the first important
thing they learn about science.
--
Paul Lutus
www.arachnoid.com
Paul Lutus
news:Xns9029E948B2305ba...@205.152.0.144...
> e...@panix.com (Edward Green) wrote in <93tur5$nbu$1...@news.panix.com>:
>
> >Paul Lutus <nos...@nosite.com> wrote:
> >
> >>"Edward Green" <e...@panix.com> wrote in message
> >>news:93thrt$ico$2...@news.panix.com...
> >>
> --snip--
> >>
> >>I certainly grasp his argument. He is wrong. Neither of you understands
> >>what a scientific theory is.
> >
> >What complete and utter dogmatic BS!
>
>
> Give it up Paul. I suspect Edward's an NYU student who's taking his first
> philosophy class to heart.
Yes, this possibility has crossed my mind. I keep hearing about the
grotesque failures of modern education, but it is such a shock to experience
it firsthand.
--
Paul Lutus
www.arachnoid.com
Joe Rongen
> Paul Lutus <nos...@nosite.com> wrote:
>
> >"Mark Folsom" <fols...@redshift.com> wrote in message
> >news:t6471bq...@corp.supernews.com...
>
> >> I defined the Big Bang in a previous post in a way which no one
> >>has disagreed with.
>
> ...
>
> >In a newsgroup with the name "sci.physics," the term "Big Bang" has
> >a specific meaning. If you want to deviate from that, label your
> >comments
> >"speculation." That was my original point, the first of several you
> > failed to grasp.
>
> Logical consistency check fails.
See: "Science" 17 Nov 2000, vol 290, no 5495
They printed a small item regarding:
"Primordial Beryllium?"
This article suggests that a new mechanism for
primordial formation of Be may be needed and
that the nucleosynthetic process of the Big Bang
may need to be updated.
They gave astro-ph/0009482 as reference.
In that same "Science" mag. is another
interesting news item:
"Astronomers Spot Their First Carbon Bomb"
---------
Regards Joe
j...@alpha.to
Mark Folsom
This from the same pompous twit who used the same tone in defending the
assertion that one could focus all the light from all the stars to a point?
Some sophisticated scientist you are.
Mark Folsom
Edward Green
>"Edward Green" <e...@panix.com> wrote in message
>news:93ttn9$mod$1...@news.panix.com...
>
>> >No, a theory is not a model.
>>
>> Ok... I happen to prefer the word "model", and I agree with just about
>> everything Mark Folsom said with that substitution. If you want to
>> reserve "theory" to some more particular class of models, that's fine
>> with me.
>
>You cannot substitute these words this way. Theory has a particular meaning.
>Model has a particular meaning. They are not the same meaning.
One is a subset of the other, a "theory" perhaps being a particularly
complete and prolific class of models (a class of models is also
a model). I happen to think that Mark Folsom's point is better
served by the more general term "model", especially since you make
such an issue of the semantic difference, but I understood him
perfectly well the other way; and when we understand each other,
when there is communication, there is no need to jump down each
other's throats about semantic distinctions. At worst he used
"theory" loosely, in your lights. So what?
>> >> >That was not a theory, that was an observation. You apparently don't
>know
>> >> >the difference.
>> >>
>> >> I happen to think Mark Folsom is dead on here.
>> >
>> >So? At the moment you don't know the difference between a theory and a
>> >model.
>>
>> Sigh. There is good semantics and there is bad semantics, as I always
>> say. Good semantics elucidates how we might be using words
>> differently, and hence talking past each other, but implying that my
>> opinions are worthless because I use words differently than you, or
>> don't find a particular semantic distinction important to my argument,
>> is bad semantics.
>
>Translation: "Yes, you are absolutely right, I have no clue what a
>scientific theory is, or how it is distinguished from a model."
More utterly dogmatic and pedantic bullshit; your apparent natural
reaction to anything which is not immediately transparent to you!
I have no doubt that when you characterize my speech as nonsense it
is because you hear nonsense; but it does not follow that my speech is
nonsense; it follows that my speech, when passed through Paul Lutus'
semantic filter, comes out parsed as nonsense.
Folsom is right about you; you ignore what is inconvenient in
opposing arguments to focus on semantic trivia, or else you are so rigid
in your use of language that you can only perceive meaning when
uttered by somebody with exactly the same sense of semantics as Paul
Lutus. If Folsom did not mean to imply that, he should have.
Instead of dismissing anything which parsed by Paul Lutus' compiler
comes out as nonsense you might try to understand whatever point is
being made, and if necessary suggest an alternative phrasing more to
your liking. Mark Folsom's point, in which he colloquially used the
word "theory" in a sense not agreeing with Paul Lutus' strict
understanding of the word, strikes you as nonsense. I suggest
substituting the more general term "model", and you are still fixated
by the fact that he used "theory" in a way you do not approve of.
Your behavior is becoming increasingly rigid and bizarre; you attack
people who obvious have a fairly good grasp of what they are saying,
and instead of trying to resolve and clarify, you treat them all
indifferently as sophomoric tyros.
Edward Green
>"Paul Lutus" <nos...@nosite.com> wrote in message
>news:%tw86.210177$IP1.7...@news1.giganews.com...
>> "Chip Anderson" <b_anders...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
>> news:Xns9029E948B2305ba...@205.152.0.144...
>> > e...@panix.com (Edward Green) wrote in <93tur5$nbu$1...@news.panix.com>:
>> >
>> > >Paul Lutus <nos...@nosite.com> wrote:
>> > >>I certainly grasp his argument. He is wrong. Neither of you
>understands
>> > >>what a scientific theory is.
>> > >
>> > >What complete and utter dogmatic BS!
>> >
>> >
>> > Give it up Paul. I suspect Edward's an NYU student who's taking his
>first
>> > philosophy class to heart.
>>
>> Yes, this possibility has crossed my mind. I keep hearing about the
>> grotesque failures of modern education, but it is such a shock to
>experience
>> it firsthand.
This supports my model... you treat all who you do not immediately
follow as sophomoric tyros indiscriminantly. And now, we see that in
managing your ego you also find it convenient to imagine them as
belonging to that class literally.
No, I believe the sophomoric tyros in NYU philosophy classes would sound
pretty much like you, and your fellow rigid semanticist, Anderson.
Against "failure of education" we have conceptual sclerosis.
Paul Lutus
> Paul Lutus <nos...@nosite.com> wrote:
>
> >"Edward Green" <e...@panix.com> wrote in message
> >news:93ttn9$mod$1...@news.panix.com...
> >
> >> >No, a theory is not a model.
> >>
> >> Ok... I happen to prefer the word "model", and I agree with just about
> >> everything Mark Folsom said with that substitution. If you want to
> >> reserve "theory" to some more particular class of models, that's fine
> >> with me.
> >
> >You cannot substitute these words this way. Theory has a particular
meaning.
> >Model has a particular meaning. They are not the same meaning.
>
Stop lying in this newsgroup to cover your ignorance. One is NOT a subset of
the other.
> , a "theory" perhaps being a particularly
> complete and prolific class of models
A lie.
> I happen to think that Mark Folsom's point is better
> served by the more general term "model", ...
It sure is, because if he uses the word "theory," his argument falls apart.
He DID use the word "theory," and therefore his argument did fall apart.
> especially since you make
> such an issue of the semantic difference,
The difference is not semantic, it is substantive. They are different words
with different meanings. The reason you think the distinction is semantic is
because you are ignorant of science.
> >Translation: "Yes, you are absolutely right, I have no clue what a
> >scientific theory is, or how it is distinguished from a model."
>
> More utterly dogmatic and pedantic bullshit; your apparent natural
> reaction to anything which is not immediately transparent to you!
Translation: "I have no idea how to pose a coherent argument, and I am
totally ignorant of science. So I'll babble until you killfile me."
> Your behavior is becoming increasingly rigid and bizarre; you attack
> people who obvious have a fairly good grasp of what they are saying,
And who would that be? With regard to science, you are a total idiot.
PROVE ME WRONG. POST YOUR DEFINITION OF A SCIENTIFIC THEORY. PUT THIS THREAD
BACK ON A COHERENT FOOTING.
> ... instead of trying to resolve and clarify, you treat them all
> indifferently as sophomoric tyros.
No, as a matter of fact, I only do that to sophomoric tyros.
You don't know the first thing about science. This is literally true,
because the first thing people learn about science is the distinction
between theory and speculation, and what key element sets a scientific
theory apart.
> I have no doubt that when you characterize my speech as nonsense it
> is because you hear nonsense; but it does not follow that my speech is
> nonsense; it follows that my speech, when passed through Paul Lutus'
> semantic filter, comes out parsed as nonsense.
Post-modern bullshit. The reason your speech is characterized as nonsense
(and not just by me) is because it is.
--
Paul Lutus
www.arachnoid.com
Paul Lutus
> > Yes, this possibility has crossed my mind. I keep hearing about the
> > grotesque failures of modern education, but it is such a shock to
> experience
> > it firsthand.
>
> This from the same pompous twit who used the same tone in defending the
> assertion that one could focus all the light from all the stars to a
point?
This is a lie, you are lying, the statement was never made, and you will
retract this lie or reap the whirlwind. If you ignore this post, you will
lose your Internet access.
And while you are at it, provide the first thing undergraduates learn about
science -- what is the key difference between a scientific theory and
speculation? Prove that you are not an idiot.
--
Paul Lutus
www.arachnoid.com
Edward Green
...
Lutus, you are a miserable pedant and also a miserable philosopher.
You hide your intransigent irrationality behind pseudo-academic
rhetoric until you achieve your evident primary goal... to provoke
a frank response, like my characterization of your pedantry as a
pile of horse caca, so you can play the obvious card open to rigid
idiots like you everywhere... that I cannot "refute" your arguments
so I resort to toilet language, as you put it.
The reason your arguments cannot be "refuted" is that you stopped
thinking years ago and became a rigid mass of opinionated and largely
logic deaf rhetoric. No one can be "refuted" who is deaf to logic,
and if you keep offering ridiculous characterizations of
counter-arguments as "wrong to the last detail", simply because you do
not follow them, then if the worst comparison you suffer is having
your "syllogisms" likened to a pile of horse caca, you may consider
yourself fortunate!
If you do not like having your arguments characterized as horse dung,
you might adopt a slightly more humble tone in your rhetoric, as well
befits even the most talented teacher in addressing even and
especially his inferiors; which title however you have little
claim to from what I can see. I am not alone in thinking your net
persona is that of a particularly stubborn and unlovely jackass.
Folsom is right, you have insufficient philosophical subtlety about
you to even understand what he was saying, much less intelligently
refute him. You are a lost cause.
Paul Lutus
> >> Yes, this possibility has crossed my mind. I keep hearing about the
> >> grotesque failures of modern education, but it is such a shock to
> >experience
> >> it firsthand.
>
> This supports my model... you treat all who you do not immediately
> follow as sophomoric tyros indiscriminantly.
No, as a matter of fact, you have been chosen for this honor using the
highest standards of logic. You know nothing about science, you attempt to
argue without knowing the first thing about that, and you cannot even spell
common English words like "indiscriminately."
Your presence in this category is no accident. You really worked to be
granted this honor, and everyone noticed your conspicuous, valiant, very
public efforts.
Congratulations.
--
Paul Lutus
www.arachnoid.com
Paul Lutus
[ post-modern trash deleted ]
Answer the question or leave this newsgroup. Contrary to what you apparently
believe, this is not alt.new.age.onanism.
Your early posts were unscientific with a gloss of tech-speak, but that
couldn't last. Your ignorance is now a public fact.
Post on topic or don't post.
> If you do not like having your arguments characterized as horse dung,
> you might adopt a slightly more humble tone in your rhetoric ...
What? You are in no position to advise anyone on the topic of humility. If
you were forcibly injected with a child-size dose of humility right now, it
would kill you -- immediate CPR would be a futile gesture. Months of
acclimation would be required for your to bear to see humility in the
distance, and years before you could sit in the same room. As to your ever
possessing a level of humility appropriate to your intellectual abilities --
well, perish the thought.
> Folsom is right, you have insufficient philosophical subtlety about
> you to even understand what he was saying, much less intelligently
> refute him.
I understood him perfectly. It was Folsom who didn't understand Folsom.
Everyone else understood him perfectly. He said, "Are you aware that
Physicists are now beginning to see the conditions before the Big Bang?",
which, apart from being totally false, reveals an intellectual poverty that
is striking to behold. Modestly talented 12-year-olds would have a hard time
not laughing on hearing this pseudo-scientific howler.
> I am not alone in thinking your net
> persona is that of a particularly stubborn and unlovely jackass.
Prove it -- answer the question that any undergraduate can answer -- or shut
the fuck up.
--
Paul Lutus
www.arachnoid.com
Mark Folsom
This is a lie, you are lying, the statement was never made (by me), and you
will retract this lie or reap the whirlwind. If you ignore this post, you
will lose your Internet access.
> which, apart from being totally false, reveals an intellectual poverty
that
> is striking to behold. Modestly talented 12-year-olds would have a hard
time
> not laughing on hearing this pseudo-scientific howler.
>
> > I am not alone in thinking your net
> > persona is that of a particularly stubborn and unlovely jackass.
>
> Prove it -- answer the question that any undergraduate can answer -- or
shut
> the fuck up.
>
Mark Folsom
Mark Folsom
> "Mark Folsom" <fols...@redshift.com> wrote in message
> news:t656j0f...@corp.supernews.com...
>
> > > Yes, this possibility has crossed my mind. I keep hearing about the
> > > grotesque failures of modern education, but it is such a shock to
> > experience
> > > it firsthand.
> >
> > This from the same pompous twit who used the same tone in defending the
> > assertion that one could focus all the light from all the stars to a
> point?
>
> This is a lie, you are lying, the statement was never made, and you will
> retract this lie or reap the whirlwind. If you ignore this post, you will
> lose your Internet access.
>
I'm just sitting here shaking with fear. I will admit to exaggerating a
little, but not much. Though you didn't say that it could be literally
focused to a geometric point, you did say this:
[begin quote]
Edward Green <e...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:8r3dim$347$1...@news.panix.com...
> Paul Lutus <nos...@nosite.com> wrote:
>
> <...>
>
> >The limitation on energy density is wavelength, period.
>
> <...>
>
> I still don't see, as somebody else suggested (in terms of photons),
> what prevents you from exciting, say, a 1 cm radio mode to any desired
> degree of energy density.
No, this is a misreading of my point, for which I am responsible. I meant a
limitation in spatial size, into which some energy might be deposited, is
controlled only by wavelength and classical optical laws.
Let's say we have a spot size that has been established through some
valiant, expensive project. The system has a diffraction-limited spot size
and some energy density d.
You roll another identical apparatus up next to the first and direct its
spot on top of the first. Same spot size, twice the energy density.
Then (because of some imaginary generous taxpayers) you create 16 of them.
All 16 are geometrically arranged to deposit their images in the same target
area. Result? An energy density of 16d, and the same spot size.
My point is the spot size is unrelated to anything but wavelength. The
argument that the angular size of the source limits spot size is easily
refuted -- why then would people build telescopes of ever-increasing size,
naively expecting to achieve better performance (higher energy density,
equal or smaller spot size)? Why would they optically couple them together
with the same expectation?
[end quote]
and this:
[begin quote]
Mark Folsom <fols...@redshift.com> wrote in message
news:sta1fmb...@corp.supernews.com...
> > Were this not true, Congress would be
> > really pissed when the most recent super-laser facility at Lawrence
> > Livermore fails to focus because of the sheer number of lasers involved.
>
> Can you tell the difference between a laser and a star?
Can you? I already identified wavelength as *the* issue. Phase coherence is
not the issue. Source angular size is not the issue.
In principle, one could build an exotic, very expensive, method to
concentrate vast amounts of sunlight, using the same methods that are used
on these laser ignition projects. Given wavelength limitations (already
covered), you would be able to produce a very small spot, something that in
3D would resemble the classic 2D case of a diffraction limit.
Ask yourself this. If the increasing angle subtended by the source limits
optical performance, then why do larger telescopes produce smaller spots?
Remember that, especially for low f/numbers, the number of approach angles
increases dramatically as the aperture size increases. And yet -- the spot
size continues to fall.
[end quote]
and this:
[begin quote]
Mark Folsom <fols...@redshift.com> wrote in message
news:stana58...@corp.supernews.com...
> > > > In principle, one could build an exotic, very expensive, method to
> > > > concentrate vast amounts of sunlight, using the same methods that
are
> > used
> > > > on these laser ignition projects.
> > >
> > > Bullshit. Take a 1 meter black ball and focus *all* the thermal
> radiation
> > > it emits onto a 1 cm black ball inside an evacuated glass enclosure.
> The
> > > small ball will get hotter than the big one, QED.
> >
> > Maybe you left out a key word? Your "QED" violates a basic premise of
> > thermodynamics. Maxwell's little friend will stop you.
>
> No shit. That's one of the reasons you can't do what you say you can do.
> You can't focus all the output radiation from the big sphere onto the
little
> sphere because it would enable you to violate the second law of
> thermodynamics, dipshit. The QED means that I demonstrated that you are
> mistaken.
A totally nonsensical argument. It also argues against the big-budget
telescope projects, saying they cannot produce better results as the
diameters of the mirrors keep increasing, and as the solid angle around the
target area also does.
Saying one cannot violate thermodynamics is orthogonal to the argument that
wavelength is the limitation on spot size. There is no relation whatsoever.
[end quote]
> And while you are at it, provide the first thing undergraduates learn
about
> science -- what is the key difference between a scientific theory and
> speculation? Prove that you are not an idiot.
You were doing your pompous-and-abusive-while-clueless routine, then as now.
Would you like me to find another howler of your and replay it for the
group?
Mark Folsom
Michael Varney
Cut, Scene:
The local yokels are sitting around the bar stool swilling the booze and
listening to the tonker hammering the keys of the beat up piano.
All of a sudden, the doors swing open and in comes Lutus and Folsom, eyeing
each other wearily.
The room immediately clears.
There's a trouble a brewing!
Paul Lutus
> I will admit to exaggerating a
> little, but not much.
Why bother including this? You provided your claim about what I said:
> This from the same pompous twit who used the same tone in defending the
> assertion that one could focus all the light from all the stars to a
point?
And you included what I in fact said:
> Let's say we have a spot size that has been established through some
> valiant, expensive project. The system has a diffraction-limited spot size
> and some energy density d.
> You roll another identical apparatus up next to the first and direct its
> spot on top of the first. Same spot size, twice the energy density.
> Then (because of some imaginary generous taxpayers) you create 16 of them.
> All 16 are geometrically arranged to deposit their images in the same
target
> area. Result? An energy density of 16d, and the same spot size.
> My point is the spot size is unrelated to anything but wavelength.
My actual remarks are (1) unrecognizable in your claim, and (2) correct --
spot size *is* determined solely by wavelength in the described geometry. As
you increase optical system aperture, for a given wavelength you come to a
point of diminishing returns as to spot size, but the power level continues
to increase. This is why it makes sense to build giant astronomical
telescopes, whose apertures can no longer produce any more details (limited
by design wavelength and limitations created by the atmosphere), but the
payoff is the ability to detect dim objects. This is why these scopes are
often referred to as "light buckets." They aren't expected to resolve more
details than smaller scopes, but successfully collect light from very dim
objects.
But, and returning to my original point, if you decrease the operating
wavelength, the spot size decreases (the Airy disk size, for those who know
the terminology). This is not practical on the surface of Earth, but given
access to space and very accurate mirror technology, one can imagine
resolving images in the ultraviolet that are not feasible in the infrared.
Do you remember the Shiva laser project at LLNL? It used the arrangement I
describe (multiple optical systems all focused on a single point) to
increase the pressure and temperature in efforts to laser-ignite target
pellets in a very ambitious, expensive fusion project (one that is
continuing in a new form). The method for increasing the power levels is
just what I describe.
The key points, ones I clearly make above, are that that peak power level
increases linearly with the number of sources, and that spot size varies
solely with wavelength.
So you managed to (1) misquote me, and (2) suggest that I was wrong. Both
are false. It is not a case of "exaggerating a little." Your
characterization was totally false.
And thanks for posting the original exchange. People might have gotten
confused by your egregious lie.
> > And while you are at it, provide the first thing undergraduates learn
> about
> > science -- what is the key difference between a scientific theory and
> > speculation? Prove that you are not an idiot.
> You were doing your pompous-and-abusive-while-clueless routine, then as
now.
> Would you like me to find another howler of your and replay it for the
> group?
You have yet to find even one. Answer the question.
--
Paul Lutus
www.arachnoid.com
Paul Lutus
> > I understood him perfectly. It was Folsom who didn't understand Folsom.
> > Everyone else understood him perfectly. He said, "Are you aware that
> > Physicists are now beginning to see the conditions before the Big
Bang?",
>
> This is a lie, you are lying, the statement was never made (by me), and
you
> will retract this lie or reap the whirlwind.
Yes, you are right, Michael Paine said it. My apologies. I confused two
clueless individuals.
Now answer the question. Here it is, to refresh your memory:
> Okay, tell me. What single critical property separates scientific theories
> from models, hypotheses, and speculations? Do you even know? And not
> evidence, although that is certainly critical. I am after something more
> basic.
This, after all, *is* the topic that brought us to this point.
--
Paul Lutus
www.arachnoid.com