Competing cosmologies

Study matter and its motion through spacetime...

Moderators: Calilasseia, ADParker

Re: Competing cosmologies

#21  Postby Destroyer » Jan 28, 2020 4:10 pm

Cito di Pense wrote:
Destroyer wrote:
There is no need for any deistic god with the big bang theory. I am not in agreement with Scot Mayers about that. However, modelling finite mass with infinitely propagating waves into a single formula will be the only determining factor as regards to compatibility.


Destroyer, you seem to recognize the words finite/infinite, propagating, mass, waves, factor, determining, and compaitibility, but you need to put them together in a sentence that other people can parse. What you have there has meaning only for you.


Does it? I may not be able to do the maths, Cito, but what I have to offer is so much more.
Destroyer
 
Name: Patrick Mills
Posts: 1838
Age: 61
Male

Country: England
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Competing cosmologies

#22  Postby Cito di Pense » Jan 28, 2020 4:15 pm

Destroyer wrote:
Cito di Pense wrote:
Destroyer wrote:
There is no need for any deistic god with the big bang theory. I am not in agreement with Scot Mayers about that. However, modelling finite mass with infinitely propagating waves into a single formula will be the only determining factor as regards to compatibility.


Destroyer, you seem to recognize the words finite/infinite, propagating, mass, waves, factor, determining, and compaitibility, but you need to put them together in a sentence that other people can parse. What you have there has meaning only for you.


Does it? I may not be able to do the maths, Cito, but what I have to offer is so much more.


More than what? Maths? What do you call what you have to offer? In what way is it "more"?
Хлопнут без некролога. -- Серге́й Па́влович Королёв

Translation by Elbert Hubbard: Do not take life too seriously. You're not going to get out of it alive.
User avatar
Cito di Pense
 
Name: Al Forno, LLD,LDL,PPM
Posts: 29554
Age: 23
Male

Country: The Heartland
Mongolia (mn)
Print view this post

Re: Competing cosmologies

#23  Postby Destroyer » Jan 28, 2020 4:24 pm

Cito di Pense wrote:
Destroyer wrote:
Cito di Pense wrote:
Destroyer wrote:
There is no need for any deistic god with the big bang theory. I am not in agreement with Scot Mayers about that. However, modelling finite mass with infinitely propagating waves into a single formula will be the only determining factor as regards to compatibility.


Destroyer, you seem to recognize the words finite/infinite, propagating, mass, waves, factor, determining, and compaitibility, but you need to put them together in a sentence that other people can parse. What you have there has meaning only for you.


Does it? I may not be able to do the maths, Cito, but what I have to offer is so much more.


More than what? Maths? What do you call what you have to offer? In what way is it "more"?


What I have to offer is a description of Nature that has factual support. Unfortunately the description is of a paradoxical universe; meaning that the homogenous and apparently unified system that is our habitat disagrees with me, but not the facts.

Edit: spelling
Last edited by Destroyer on Jan 28, 2020 5:10 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Destroyer
 
Name: Patrick Mills
Posts: 1838
Age: 61
Male

Country: England
Print view this post

Re: Competing cosmologies

#24  Postby Cito di Pense » Jan 28, 2020 4:25 pm

Destroyer wrote:
Cito di Pense wrote:
Destroyer wrote:
Cito di Pense wrote:

Destroyer, you seem to recognize the words finite/infinite, propagating, mass, waves, factor, determining, and compaitibility, but you need to put them together in a sentence that other people can parse. What you have there has meaning only for you.


Does it? I may not be able to do the maths, Cito, but what I have to offer is so much more.


More than what? Maths? What do you call what you have to offer? In what way is it "more"?


What I have to offer is a description of Nature than has factual support. Unfortunately the description is of a paradoxical universe; meaning that the homogenous and apparently unified system that is our habitat disagrees with me, but not the facts.


wisdomofchopra, Destroyer. Somebody's been there before you.

canned wisdom

"Nature comprehends unparalleled fulfillment"

"Freedom is the continuity of the progressive expansion of chaos"
Last edited by Cito di Pense on Jan 28, 2020 4:30 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Хлопнут без некролога. -- Серге́й Па́влович Королёв

Translation by Elbert Hubbard: Do not take life too seriously. You're not going to get out of it alive.
User avatar
Cito di Pense
 
Name: Al Forno, LLD,LDL,PPM
Posts: 29554
Age: 23
Male

Country: The Heartland
Mongolia (mn)
Print view this post

Re: Competing cosmologies

#25  Postby Destroyer » Jan 28, 2020 4:29 pm

Cito di Pense wrote:
Destroyer wrote:
Cito di Pense wrote:
Destroyer wrote:

Does it? I may not be able to do the maths, Cito, but what I have to offer is so much more.


More than what? Maths? What do you call what you have to offer? In what way is it "more"?


What I have to offer is a description of Nature than has factual support. Unfortunately the description is of a paradoxical universe; meaning that the homogenous and apparently unified system that is our habitat disagrees with me, but not the facts.


wisdomofchopra, Destroyer. Somebody's been there before you.

[url=http://wisdomofchopra.com/]canned
wisdom[/url]


If you say so, Cito.
Destroyer
 
Name: Patrick Mills
Posts: 1838
Age: 61
Male

Country: England
Print view this post

Re: Competing cosmologies

#26  Postby Scott Mayers » Jan 28, 2020 5:10 pm

Spearthrower wrote:
Who is saying science doesn't work? I sure as hell didn't.


I agree to Hawking but feel that his own reparations miss the point that the Big Bang itself is more likely wrong.


If it's 'wrong' then it doesn't work. So yeah, you did say that science doesn't work - and you promoted yourself and an undefined methodology you call 'logic' as superior to it.

Are you really that troubled and confused? !!

Science of some specific area is not dependent upon ALL and EVERYTHING within Science as a whole and nor does it require having FAITH in the famous scientist's positions either. The linked article itself says "Physicists Debate..." which assures you this is not SHARED equally among all physicists. But even if it were, it still wouldn't be a fault to disagree with the theories in question that physicists do apart from belonging to some institution.

Your tone is telling me that you aren't interested in rational discussion with me. But I'll look at the follow up posts I saw you continue in to be sure. ...
Scott Mayers
 
Name: Scott Mayers
Posts: 74

Country: Canada
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: Competing cosmologies

#27  Postby Spearthrower » Jan 28, 2020 5:12 pm

Destroyer wrote:
Spearthrower wrote:
Hawking's position is an attempt to appear 'novel' within the context of the Big Bang theory due to the politics involved.


The politics involved.

HA!

Not the evidence, the scientific discourse, the years of research... no, it's political - but only because you want to politicize it so you can pretend it's not scientific.


I think that you are doing Scott Mayers a disservice here, Spearthrower. What he is saying is precisely as science stands today: observation tells us that the universe is expanding i.e., from a very specific point in time. This is the inflation model of the universe based upon observation, the big bang model. However, the maths in quantum physics leads to an infinite universe i.e., the steady state model. Both are based upon observation, but they do not agree.



Admittedly, this isn't just based on the posts in this thread but on the preceding posts Scott made on this subject and many others before.
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 27960
Age: 44
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Competing cosmologies

#28  Postby Destroyer » Jan 28, 2020 5:13 pm

Spearthrower wrote:
Destroyer wrote:
Spearthrower wrote:
Hawking's position is an attempt to appear 'novel' within the context of the Big Bang theory due to the politics involved.


The politics involved.

HA!

Not the evidence, the scientific discourse, the years of research... no, it's political - but only because you want to politicize it so you can pretend it's not scientific.


I think that you are doing Scott Mayers a disservice here, Spearthrower. What he is saying is precisely as science stands today: observation tells us that the universe is expanding i.e., from a very specific point in time. This is the inflation model of the universe based upon observation, the big bang model. However, the maths in quantum physics leads to an infinite universe i.e., the steady state model. Both are based upon observation, but they do not agree.



Admittedly, this isn't just based on the posts in this thread but on the preceding posts Scott made on this subject and many others before.


Ok.
Destroyer
 
Name: Patrick Mills
Posts: 1838
Age: 61
Male

Country: England
Print view this post

Re: Competing cosmologies

#29  Postby Scott Mayers » Jan 28, 2020 5:17 pm

Spearthrower wrote:
"Equations, proofs, evidence etc?" is begging without need here.


So in other words, you don't have anything scientifically relevant at all on which you base your opinion.

I know.

Okay, if you are going to continue with me, you've just opened the door to ask who you are to have such wisdom over me? What's your name, qualifications and proof of degrees in science? You don't have any. ....

...I know. :smug:
Scott Mayers
 
Name: Scott Mayers
Posts: 74

Country: Canada
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: Competing cosmologies

#30  Postby Spearthrower » Jan 28, 2020 5:25 pm

Scott Mayers wrote:
Are you really that troubled and confused? !!


I don't know - maybe you should emote some adjectives at me and we can see which flatters my nubile curves the most.


Scott Mayers wrote:Science of some specific area is not dependent upon ALL and EVERYTHING within Science as a whole and nor does it require having FAITH in the famous scientist's positions either.


I see, so 'troubled and confused' was projection then. That is the most information free sentence I've had the misfortune to read this week. Perhaps you want to spend a few moments collecting your thoughts and then try again?


Scott Mayers wrote: The linked article itself says "Physicists Debate..." which assures you this is not SHARED equally among all physicists.


WHAT is not shared equally among physicists aside from random capitalization? Only, you didn't say.


Scott Mayers wrote: But even if it were, it still wouldn't be a fault to disagree with the theories in question that physicists do apart from belonging to some institution.


Disagreeing with theories in physics takes more than emoting at them Scott - that's the problem you have. You have made a slew of assertions across your handful of posts on this forum and you have never once offered any support for any of your claims. In fact, you refuse to do so... really, that's a tacit admission that you have nothing. You've explained before how self-certain you are based on your personal learning which is suspiciously coupled with a disdain for education. You pretend you're interested in science, mastered it in fact, but you "logic" at science failing to realize that you need to put something substantive up rather than just writing sentences. You also said that you've been doing this across multiple fora and you inevitably get the same response, albeit you frame it in terms of how they're all colluding in orthodoxy to obstruct your self-evidently brilliant expositions. You're not representing anything useful or clear, you're not different than an Expanding Earther, or any of the other internet wannabes who rock around fora pretending they're the latest Einstein.


Scott Mayers wrote:Your tone is telling me that you aren't interested in rational discussion with me. But I'll look at the follow up posts I saw you continue in to be sure. ...


My tone is telling you that rational discussion is terminally implausible with you because you believe you can define everything to suit you - you can read back through our interactions to find the moment when I came to that realization.
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 27960
Age: 44
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: Competing cosmologies

#31  Postby Spearthrower » Jan 28, 2020 5:27 pm

Scott Mayers wrote:
Spearthrower wrote:
"Equations, proofs, evidence etc?" is begging without need here.


So in other words, you don't have anything scientifically relevant at all on which you base your opinion.

I know.


Okay, if you are going to continue with me, you've just opened the door to ask who you are to have such wisdom over me? What's your name, qualifications and proof of degrees in science? You don't have any. ....

...I know. :smug:


What an empty response. You have nothing at all - you never offer a single citation our source in support of any of your claims. Trying to muddy that is not effective.

Why do I need to give you my details? Explain why that's relevant to the fact that you repeatedly fail to substantiate anything you ever claim, and perhaps I will.
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 27960
Age: 44
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: Competing cosmologies

#32  Postby Macdoc » Jan 28, 2020 5:35 pm

Remember our deluded wannabe cosmologist is entirely reliant on "logic" to discern reality...Jamest writ again....now he's trying to argue from authority - claiming you don't have any which I find ironic...that might just bite his assumptions big time.

Waste of time tho.

Lull yourself to sleep Mayers ....some evidence to deal with....how illogical. :what: :roll:
Travel photos > https://500px.com/macdoc/galleries
EO Wilson in On Human Nature wrote:
We are not compelled to believe in biological uniformity in order to affirm human freedom and dignity.
User avatar
Macdoc
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 17156
Age: 73
Male

Country: Canada/Australia
Australia (au)
Print view this post

Re: Competing cosmologies

#33  Postby Spearthrower » Jan 28, 2020 5:36 pm

Destroyer: have a read of this... although really don't feel obliged to finish it as it doesn't say an awful lot comparative to the number of words in it:

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/gener ... l#p2721487

That will give you some idea of what this chap is up to.

Having set up this paradigm of revised history where university education is inherently flawed, Scott then constructs the idea of a 'foundational thinker' which doesn't need to conform to all those petty demands for evidence, facts, data, or empirical support for their claims - they just think hard at the problem and thereby produce true statements.

But who could possibly be such an eminent thinker of such high repute in our midst?

Well lo and behold...

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/gener ... l#p2721811

Scott Meyers wrote:I'm a foundational thinker


Scott's here solely to rub himself off in public - nothing more. If you read back through his posts, you will see he acted a total fucking arse to a lot of people, made sweeping negative generalizations about people to bolster his own apparent worth, and basically reads as someone who is all mouth and no trousers.

So fair enough, I may not be giving Scott's posts in this thread a charitable reading - I admit that - but then I don't really see as he deserves it given the wider context.
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 27960
Age: 44
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: Competing cosmologies

#34  Postby Spearthrower » Jan 28, 2020 5:39 pm

Scott Mayers wrote:
Spearthrower wrote:
"Equations, proofs, evidence etc?" is begging without need here.


So in other words, you don't have anything scientifically relevant at all on which you base your opinion.

I know.

Okay, if you are going to continue with me, you've just opened the door to ask who you are to have such wisdom over me? What's your name, qualifications and proof of degrees in science? You don't have any. ....

...I know. :smug:



Oh and wait... we did this little dance before:

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/post2 ... y#p2721308

Read that post again Scott and wake up to yourself.
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 27960
Age: 44
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: Competing cosmologies

#35  Postby Scott Mayers » Jan 28, 2020 5:57 pm

Animavore wrote:
I really don't see a need for any deistic god with the Big Bang theory, I don't know where the leap to this assertion comes from. And I don't think the Steady State theory, as it was in its day, is plausible given it required extra matter from no where to keep forming new galaxies in the gaps between galaxies as they spread apart, nor do I think it's a necessary fit for an infinite universe. Maybe some other version of Steady State can be rescued in a multiverse theory, but certainly not the one of Hoyle.

Given the assumption of a SUDDEN introduction of all matter/energy is presumed of the Big Bang theory and this 'miraculous' concept is itself unable to be tested locally. If the Steady State is argued against for it having matter seeming to be created everywhere unbiased to time and location, I think this would be much less far reaching than the special and biased defense of a sudden pop of all matter and energy everywhere to be in a fixed quantity from one unique point in space and time.

There is also the fact that matter and most energy is just forms of space in time that curves [General Relativity]. Thus it can be dependent upon space existing but is not defined without. Yet in both theories SPACE itself 'pops into existence' as what we refer to as expansion.

The functioning arguments against the Steady State theory of the past was about the Big Bang presuming a prior state of existence and infinitely dense and hot place from time zero (the singularity). This is because the Steady State presumed a default to trust only interpretations of reality based upon our senses that have logical consistency while the Big Bang theorists believed you CAN infer something is miraculously at odds to local time and space. That is, physics 'evolved' from a different form in the past to today. The Steady State assumes that space looks the same not only in space but throughout all times. This, to the Big Bang supporters, meant they needed something to prove that the past was hot. [Something beyond this discussion to raise elsewhere or later if it fits in with this discussion.]

Since we also have oddities like 'Dark Energy' and 'Dark Matter', I'm not sure how one could not notice where the arguments for a sudden existence of matter and energy lack the same fitness to one that requires constant material formation in and OF space itself. (?)

To the point about the BB having room for the 'Diest' is just a minimal fitness to the traditional majority of religious beliefs that is almost universally shared among different religions. While the Steady State model would no doubt have potential room for religious beliefs somewhere, it would be at odds most definitively with the traditional religions today. Thus my suspicion of the politics that have to not offend MOST people's religions as what led to a strong desire for validating the Big Bang model and permit retrofitting explanations post hoc, like 'Inflation Theory' for instance.
Scott Mayers
 
Name: Scott Mayers
Posts: 74

Country: Canada
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Competing cosmologies

#36  Postby Spearthrower » Jan 28, 2020 6:00 pm

Scott Mayers wrote:
Note that I place quotes around the word, "science", because I'm referring to the meaning of it as understood by practice, not that I am against the concept and validity of it. That is, "science" comes from meaning "to see", and is only in used in contrast to mere "logic", which used to mean "to look" but has evolved to be separated from the act of observing and relegated to the "analysis" of what we see more specifically.



We've done this twice before: you were mistaken then, and you have not amended your mistake.

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/post2 ... e#p2721292

And to source it:

https://www.etymonline.com/word/science

... from Latin scientia "knowledge, a knowing; expertness," from sciens (genitive scientis) "intelligent, skilled," present participle of scire "to know," probably originally "to separate one thing from another, to distinguish," related to scindere "to cut, divide," from PIE root *skei- "to cut, split" (source also of Greek skhizein "to split, rend, cleave,"


At its most basic, the etymological origin of the word is to make distinctions and thereby to know.

Similarly, logic does not mean 'to look'.

https://www.etymonline.com/word/logic#e ... ne_v_12393

... from fem. of logikos "pertaining to speaking or reasoning" (also "of or pertaining to speech"), from logos "reason, idea, word"


At its most basic, the etymological origin of the word logic is concerned with speech, the labeling of things, and specifically of discourse.

Not that either of these matter, because as I pointed out to you before, appealing to a word's original meaning in another language to define it is fallacious. The words mean something different now because of the intervening generations of experience and usage.

Today, the term science means both a body of empirically acquired knowledge and a methodology for acquiring that form of knowledge, while logic, at its most basic, is the philosophical exercise of distinguishing between true and false reasoning.
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 27960
Age: 44
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: Competing cosmologies

#37  Postby Spearthrower » Jan 28, 2020 6:01 pm

Yet in both theories SPACE itself 'pops into existence' as what we refer to as expansion.


That's reifying space: I am not sure that's consistent with foundational thinking.
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 27960
Age: 44
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: Competing cosmologies

#38  Postby Spearthrower » Jan 28, 2020 6:02 pm

To the point about the BB having room for the 'Diest' is just a minimal fitness to the traditional majority of religious beliefs that is almost universally shared among different religions. While the Steady State model would no doubt have potential room for religious beliefs somewhere, it would be at odds most definitively with the traditional religions today. Thus my suspicion of the politics that have to not offend MOST people's religions as what led to a strong desire for validating the Big Bang model and permit retrofitting explanations post hoc, like 'Inflation Theory' for instance.



I think it's hilarious that you think inflationary models are PC.
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 27960
Age: 44
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: Competing cosmologies

#39  Postby Spearthrower » Jan 28, 2020 6:03 pm

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diest

Diest (Dutch pronunciation: [dist]) is a city and municipality located in the Belgian province of Flemish Brabant. Situated in the northeast of the Hageland region, Diest neighbours the provinces of Antwerp to its North, and Limburg to the East and is situated around 60 km from Brussels.
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 27960
Age: 44
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: Competing cosmologies

#40  Postby Destroyer » Jan 28, 2020 6:05 pm

Spearthrower wrote:Destroyer: have a read of this... although really don't feel obliged to finish it as it doesn't say an awful lot comparative to the number of words in it:

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/gener ... l#p2721487

That will give you some idea of what this chap is up to.

Having set up this paradigm of revised history where university education is inherently flawed, Scott then constructs the idea of a 'foundational thinker' which doesn't need to conform to all those petty demands for evidence, facts, data, or empirical support for their claims - they just think hard at the problem and thereby produce true statements.

But who could possibly be such an eminent thinker of such high repute in our midst?

Well lo and behold...

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/gener ... l#p2721811

Scott Meyers wrote:I'm a foundational thinker


Scott's here solely to rub himself off in public - nothing more. If you read back through his posts, you will see he acted a total fucking arse to a lot of people, made sweeping negative generalizations about people to bolster his own apparent worth, and basically reads as someone who is all mouth and no trousers.

So fair enough, I may not be giving Scott's posts in this thread a charitable reading - I admit that - but then I don't really see as he deserves it given the wider context.


Yes, Spearthrower, I do recollect who Scott is, now. I previously didn't; but now I do understand your stance.
Destroyer
 
Name: Patrick Mills
Posts: 1838
Age: 61
Male

Country: England
Print view this post

PreviousNext

Return to Physics

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest