Competing cosmologies

Study matter and its motion through spacetime...

Moderators: Calilasseia, ADParker

Re: Competing cosmologies

#61  Postby Hermit » Jan 29, 2020 11:31 pm

Scott Mayers wrote:
Hmmm.....tell me what you see below:
Image

You didn't ask me, but I like doing Rorschach tests, so here goes: Two people sitting on one-legged milking stools. They face each other and are about to kiss each other on the mouth while simultaneously playing pattycake. Both wear identical late 17th century style wigs.

Image



Scott Mayers wrote:Definition of "Troll": one who tries to do whatever it takes to prevent another to pass some point without some extorted demands.

Interesting definition. I prefer the conventional one for the simple reason that it has more currency.
In Internet slang, a troll is a person who starts quarrels or upsets people on the Internet to distract and sow discord by posting inflammatory and digressive, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) with the intent of provoking readers into displaying emotional responses and normalizing tangential discussion, whether for the troll's amusement or a specific gain.
God is the mysterious veil under which we hide our ignorance of the cause. - Léo Errera


God created the universe
God just exists
User avatar
Hermit
 
Name: Cantankerous grump
Posts: 4389
Age: 67
Male

Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Competing cosmologies

#62  Postby Hermit » Jan 29, 2020 11:35 pm

Scott Mayers wrote:
campermon wrote:
Scott Mayers wrote:
And stating 'no evidence' on the Steady State model exists is odd considering even Einstein was working one of his own before he died.

Can you cite Einstein's evidence please.

:thumbup:

I won't be wasting too much time on this given the 'love' here. But see: Einstein's Lost Theory Uncovered

From your link:
Einstein soon abandoned the idea

24 years before he died. :lol:

Also from that link:
The manuscript was probably “a rough draft commenced with excitement over a neat idea and soon abandoned as the author realized he was fooling himself”, says cosmologist James Peebles of Princeton University in New Jersey. There seems to be no record of Einstein ever mentioning these calculations again.
God is the mysterious veil under which we hide our ignorance of the cause. - Léo Errera


God created the universe
God just exists
User avatar
Hermit
 
Name: Cantankerous grump
Posts: 4389
Age: 67
Male

Print view this post

Re: Competing cosmologies

#63  Postby Macdoc » Jan 30, 2020 1:00 am

A gaily painted Klingon vessel. ...but Hermit's is okay as well. :coffee:
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

#64  Postby Scott Mayers » Jan 30, 2020 1:24 am

Hermit wrote:
Scott Mayers wrote:
campermon wrote:
Scott Mayers wrote:
And stating 'no evidence' on the Steady State model exists is odd considering even Einstein was working one of his own before he died.

Can you cite Einstein's evidence please.

:thumbup:

I won't be wasting too much time on this given the 'love' here. But see: Einstein's Lost Theory Uncovered

From your link:
Einstein soon abandoned the idea

24 years before he died. :lol:

The paper was buried and labeled differently. It was discovered in relatively recent terms (after his death) and he appeared to have pre-thought of it before the others. But the statement "abandoned the idea" doesn't tell you what was in his mind regarding the paper. He was apparently reeling from his prior faith in the "Static" Universe and as the article also noted:

“This finding confirms that Hoyle was not a crank,” says study co-author Simon Mitton, a science historian at the University of Cambridge, UK, who wrote the 2005 biography Fred Hoyle: A Life in Science. The mere fact that Einstein had toyed with a steady-state model could have lent Hoyle more credibility as he engaged the physics community in a debate on the subject. “If only Hoyle had known, he would certainly have used it to punch his opponents,” O’Raifeartaigh says.


I already know that I'm in the minority on this. And nor do I think it matters who thought of it. I happen to agree with it for many logical reasons. But I also suspect politics as playing a role as I have said. I even thought at times that maybe this should be maintained for the same reflections on the political impact.

Whatever the case is, I think it can still be expressed without insulting people's religious beliefs in this day. And I will continue to argue my views on this regardless.


Also from that link:
The manuscript was probably “a rough draft commenced with excitement over a neat idea and soon abandoned as the author realized he was fooling himself”, says cosmologist James Peebles of Princeton University in New Jersey. There seems to be no record of Einstein ever mentioning these calculations again.

He also formulated his theories in light of the times to try to respect other's ways of interpreting things rather than fighting them. His fight with the Copenhagen interpretation also would have kept him preoccupied and being dismissed for that defeat and the fact he became famous puts as much pressure on him to conform regardless of potential personal disagreements.

I can't tell what his theory asserted specifically(it's in German, if I recall) but he required remaining consistent to be more precise. You don't begin a theory without having a clear intuition of what and how it could account for all the other knowns BEFORE you test it with math. He likely didn't have a 'complete' theory to risk anything other than in his privacy.

But I happen to share the same concern of logical inconsistencies that make the Big Bang see less likely than the Steady State and certainly less weird. It is still a contending viewpoint that just needs a model and mechanism to explain how matter can come from space itself.
Scott Mayers
 
Name: Scott Mayers
Posts: 74

Country: Canada
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: Competing cosmologies

#65  Postby Macdoc » Jan 30, 2020 2:03 am

Religious = failure to require evidence so why should anyone consider anything you say worth listening to. Thought you were leaving.

That you can't be get by the logic nonsense puts you square in Jamest woo woo world. When you have some evidence ...bring it....otherwise...well.... :yuk:
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

#66  Postby Hermit » Jan 30, 2020 2:42 am

Scott Mayers wrote:
Hermit wrote:
Scott Mayers wrote:
campermon wrote:
Can you cite Einstein's evidence please.

:thumbup:

I won't be wasting too much time on this given the 'love' here. But see: Einstein's Lost Theory Uncovered

From your link:
Einstein soon abandoned the idea

24 years before he died. :lol:

The paper was buried and labeled differently. It was discovered in relatively recent terms (after his death) and he appeared to have pre-thought of it before the others. But the statement "abandoned the idea" doesn't tell you what was in his mind regarding the paper. He was apparently reeling from his prior faith in the "Static" Universe and as the article also noted:

“This finding confirms that Hoyle was not a crank,” says study co-author Simon Mitton, a science historian at the University of Cambridge, UK, who wrote the 2005 biography Fred Hoyle: A Life in Science. The mere fact that Einstein had toyed with a steady-state model could have lent Hoyle more credibility as he engaged the physics community in a debate on the subject. “If only Hoyle had known, he would certainly have used it to punch his opponents,” O’Raifeartaigh says.


I already know that I'm in the minority on this. And nor do I think it matters who thought of it. I happen to agree with it for many logical reasons. But I also suspect politics as playing a role as I have said. I even thought at times that maybe this should be maintained for the same reflections on the political impact.

Whatever the case is, I think it can still be expressed without insulting people's religious beliefs in this day. And I will continue to argue my views on this regardless.


Also from that link:
The manuscript was probably “a rough draft commenced with excitement over a neat idea and soon abandoned as the author realized he was fooling himself”, says cosmologist James Peebles of Princeton University in New Jersey. There seems to be no record of Einstein ever mentioning these calculations again.

He also formulated his theories in light of the times to try to respect other's ways of interpreting things rather than fighting them. His fight with the Copenhagen interpretation also would have kept him preoccupied and being dismissed for that defeat and the fact he became famous puts as much pressure on him to conform regardless of potential personal disagreements.

I can't tell what his theory asserted specifically(it's in German, if I recall) but he required remaining consistent to be more precise. You don't begin a theory without having a clear intuition of what and how it could account for all the other knowns BEFORE you test it with math. He likely didn't have a 'complete' theory to risk anything other than in his privacy.

But I happen to share the same concern of logical inconsistencies that make the Big Bang see less likely than the Steady State and certainly less weird. It is still a contending viewpoint that just needs a model and mechanism to explain how matter can come from space itself.

Scott Mayers, you're gilding the lilly, and you know that you're dishonest about it. This is indicated by your mention that ...even Einstein was working one [Steady State model] of his own before he died. but leaving out the details that he was working on it 24 years before he died, that he did no further work on the Steady State model and that he never even mentioned the paper in those 24 years. You did not leave those details out by mistake, and there's no way you were unaware of their significance.
God is the mysterious veil under which we hide our ignorance of the cause. - Léo Errera


God created the universe
God just exists
User avatar
Hermit
 
Name: Cantankerous grump
Posts: 4389
Age: 67
Male

Print view this post

Re: Competing cosmologies

#67  Postby Spearthrower » Jan 30, 2020 4:56 am

Scott Mayers wrote:
I've been rather fair...


Says you about yourself. Meanwhile...


Scott Mayers wrote:... and can only guess that whatever deluson you ARE trolling me for...


You do like to dish it out, but god you squeak a lot when people start responding in kind.


Scott Mayers wrote: is proving to be reflecting upon your own perception of yourself.


Yeah, you're just copying what I wrote now.


Scott Mayers wrote:I say X and regardless what X is, you seem to see some kind of fraud, deception and conspiratorial threat.


No threat, just a fraud.


Scott Mayers wrote:Hmmm.....tell me what you see below:
a test of reflex.jpg


I see an ignoramus who has deluded himself into believing he's a genius in the absence of valid markers, oh and a butterfly sucking a lollipop.


Scott Mayers wrote:Definition of "Troll": one who tries to do whatever it takes to prevent another to pass some point without some extorted demands.


Ahh yes, Scott Mayer's Foundational Thinking Dictionary?


Scott Mayers wrote:You appear a bit scared of my presence here.


You appear desperate to cling onto self-glorifying notions of your own worth.


Scott Mayers wrote: I must have something you fear might be convincing?


I fear you may need that rorschach test more than me.


Scott Mayers wrote:I mean if you didn't feel I have the capacity to be intellectually competent, why so you seem so threatened?


You mean, why are you projecting this emotion of 'threatened' onto me? Presumably it's all part of that myth you've created for yourself in which you're this gentleman of towering intellect casting pearls before swine... the same one in which you were tossed off of other fora for acting like this. This self-glorifying pure reason expert in everything role is already taken at this forum - we don't need another, thanks! You can play another role here; one that's actually valid compared to your ability.
Last edited by Spearthrower on Jan 30, 2020 5:13 am, edited 1 time in total.
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: 27990
Age: 44
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Competing cosmologies

#68  Postby Spearthrower » Jan 30, 2020 4:57 am

Scott Mayers wrote:
campermon wrote:
Scott Mayers wrote:
And stating 'no evidence' on the Steady State model exists is odd considering even Einstein was working one of his own before he died.

Can you cite Einstein's evidence please.

:thumbup:

I won't be wasting too much time on this given the 'love' here. But see: Einstein's Lost Theory Uncovered


Won't, can't, spin.
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: 27990
Age: 44
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: Competing cosmologies

#69  Postby Spearthrower » Jan 30, 2020 4:58 am

Hermit wrote:
Scott Mayers wrote:Definition of "Troll": one who tries to do whatever it takes to prevent another to pass some point without some extorted demands.

Interesting definition. I prefer the conventional one for the simple reason that it has more currency.
In Internet slang, a troll is a person who starts quarrels or upsets people on the Internet to distract and sow discord by posting inflammatory and digressive, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) with the intent of provoking readers into displaying emotional responses and normalizing tangential discussion, whether for the troll's amusement or a specific gain.


Ahhh yes, that does appear far less self-serving, but still all too applicable.
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: 27990
Age: 44
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: Competing cosmologies

#70  Postby Spearthrower » Jan 30, 2020 5:00 am

I already know that I'm in the minority on this. And nor do I think it matters who thought of it. I happen to agree with it for many logical reasons. But I also suspect politics as playing a role as I have said. I even thought at times that maybe this should be maintained for the same reflections on the political impact.


Yes, you have indeed said 'politics' before, and it appears to be a code word you use to wave away any criticism of an idea you quite fancy, even when that criticism is justified.




Edit: us mere mortals care about spelling
Last edited by Spearthrower on Jan 30, 2020 5:14 am, edited 1 time in total.
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: 27990
Age: 44
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: Competing cosmologies

#71  Postby Spearthrower » Jan 30, 2020 5:03 am

Scott Mayers wrote:You don't begin a theory without having a clear intuition of what and how it could account for all the other knowns BEFORE you test it with math. He likely didn't have a 'complete' theory to risk anything other than in his privacy.


This is based on your long familiarity with developing scientific theories for physics and cosmology, is it?


Scott Mayers wrote:But I happen to share the same concern of logical inconsistencies that make the Big Bang see less likely than the Steady State and certainly less weird. It is still a contending viewpoint that just needs a model and mechanism to explain how matter can come from space itself.


Ahhh you share the same concerns as Einstein.

Did you want a harp playing in the background, or is this self-eulogy in the form of a beat poem?
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: 27990
Age: 44
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: Competing cosmologies

#72  Postby Spearthrower » Jan 30, 2020 5:07 am

Hermit wrote:
Scott Mayers, you're gilding the lilly, and you know that you're dishonest about it. This is indicated by your mention that ...even Einstein was working one [Steady State model] of his own before he died. but leaving out the details that he was working on it 24 years before he died, that he did no further work on the Steady State model and that he never even mentioned the paper in those 24 years. You did not leave those details out by mistake, and there's no way you were unaware of their significance.


C'mon Hermit... he said 'politics' then we heard the noise of scampering feet and a door slamming in the distance. That clarifies everything.
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: 27990
Age: 44
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: Competing cosmologies

#73  Postby newolder » Jan 30, 2020 9:29 am

Scott Mayers wrote:... You don't begin a theory without having a clear intuition of what and how it could account for all the other knowns BEFORE you test it with math.

This is not how anything works. One's "theory" is written in mathematical form such that possible logical errors that could break the model before it is tested against observations and data may be noticed (highlighted in bold below). If it (the theory) survives the first test of observation and data it is further used to make predictions about what one should observe in tests under different circumstances, and so on until the theory fails.

Your source:
Einstein’s unpublished manuscript suggests that, at first, he believed that such a mechanism could arise from his original theory without modification. But then he realized that he had made a mistake in his calculations, O’Raifeartaigh and his team suggest. When he corrected it — crossing out a number with a pen of a different color — he probably decided that the idea would not work and set it aside.

The manuscript was probably “a rough draft commenced with excitement over a neat idea and soon abandoned as the author realized he was fooling himself”, says cosmologist James Peebles of Princeton University in New Jersey. There seems to be no record of Einstein ever mentioning these calculations again.


Everyone makes mistakes. Perpetuation of the same mistake is madness. Steady state ideas in cosmology from the mid C20th are defunct. "It's a dead parrot".
I am, somehow, less interested in the weight and convolutions of Einstein’s brain than in the near certainty that people of equal talent have lived and died in cotton fields and sweatshops. - Stephen J. Gould
User avatar
newolder
 
Name: Albert Ross
Posts: 7321
Age: 1
Male

Country: Feudal Estate number 9
Print view this post

Re: Competing cosmologies

#74  Postby Spearthrower » Jan 30, 2020 9:46 am

To err is human... but sadly so is ignoring your errors and proceeding in full confidence and swagger. Fortunately, for all its frailty, scientific method has checks and balances to weed out megalomaniacal tendencies. It's not surprising why people enamoured of their own certainty don't want anything to do with the established processes of scientific method.
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: 27990
Age: 44
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: Competing cosmologies

#75  Postby Destroyer » Jan 30, 2020 10:26 am

What really needs to be taken into account here is that whilst the steady state model has to be rejected because the evidence clearly supports an expanding and changing universe; reconciling this fact with the apparent infinity and constancy at the fundamental level is where the problem persists. So whilst it is safe to assume that no steady state model is ever likely to replace the big bang theory, I also predict that no big bang theory will ever be reconciled with infinity. In other words, demonstrating that the fundamental force of gravity is compatible with the constancy of the other fundamental forces - whilst seemingly logical because mass is after all just a composite of fundamental interactions, therefore for gravity not to be mediated by the same bosonic principles as the other fundamental forces, would indeed be absurd - will nevertheless prove to be a wild-goose chase.
Destroyer
 
Name: Patrick Mills
Posts: 1838
Age: 61
Male

Country: England
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Competing cosmologies

#76  Postby Cito di Pense » Jan 30, 2020 12:28 pm

Destroyer wrote:What really needs to be taken into account here is that whilst the steady state model has to be rejected because the evidence clearly supports an expanding and changing universe; reconciling this fact with the apparent infinity and constancy at the fundamental level is where the problem persists. So whilst it is safe to assume that no steady state model is ever likely to replace the big bang theory, I also predict that no big bang theory will ever be reconciled with infinity. In other words, demonstrating that the fundamental force of gravity is compatible with the constancy of the other fundamental forces - whilst seemingly logical because mass is after all just a composite of fundamental interactions, therefore for gravity not to be mediated by the same bosonic principles as the other fundamental forces, would indeed be absurd - will nevertheless prove to be a wild-goose chase.


Given that nothing ever gets reconciled with infinity the way you understand it, it's hard to see how you've done any intellectual heavy-lifting, here. Your error is in identifying the infinity and how it appears. You don't know how to do that.

for gravity not to be mediated by the same bosonic principles as the other fundamental forces, would indeed be absurd


You haven't done anything, here. In fact, you're talking nonsense, but show that you know the terms "bosonic" and "other". I know better than to try to say how gravity should be mediated by some set of bosonic principles. But you? You're not embarrassed to try, because you don't know what a good try looks like. You don't even know what a bad try looks like.
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: 29557
Age: 23
Male

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

Re: Competing cosmologies

#77  Postby Destroyer » Jan 30, 2020 1:25 pm

Cito di Pense wrote:
Destroyer wrote:What really needs to be taken into account here is that whilst the steady state model has to be rejected because the evidence clearly supports an expanding and changing universe; reconciling this fact with the apparent infinity and constancy at the fundamental level is where the problem persists. So whilst it is safe to assume that no steady state model is ever likely to replace the big bang theory, I also predict that no big bang theory will ever be reconciled with infinity. In other words, demonstrating that the fundamental force of gravity is compatible with the constancy of the other fundamental forces - whilst seemingly logical because mass is after all just a composite of fundamental interactions, therefore for gravity not to be mediated by the same bosonic principles as the other fundamental forces, would indeed be absurd - will nevertheless prove to be a wild-goose chase.


Given that nothing ever gets reconciled with infinity the way you understand it, it's hard to see how you've done any intellectual heavy-lifting, here. Your error is in identifying the infinity and how it appears. You don't know how to do that.

for gravity not to be mediated by the same bosonic principles as the other fundamental forces, would indeed be absurd


You haven't done anything, here. In fact, you're talking nonsense, but show that you know the terms "bosonic" and "other". I know better than to try to say how gravity should be mediated by some set of bosonic principles. But you? You're not embarrassed to try, because you don't know what a good try looks like. You don't even know what a bad try looks like.


Striving to reconcile that which has constancy with that which changes; that which superposes with that which excludes, that which is ubiquitous with that which is localised, that which is stable with that which decays, that which can be predictably defined with that which is probable; well, erm, you do the maths, Cito.
Destroyer
 
Name: Patrick Mills
Posts: 1838
Age: 61
Male

Country: England
Print view this post

Re: Competing cosmologies

#78  Postby Cito di Pense » Jan 30, 2020 1:33 pm

Destroyer wrote:Striving to reconcile that which has constancy with that which changes;


How's that working out for ya, pal? It all depends on what you do with 'reconcile', besides recite another polysyllabic word you know.

Destroyer wrote:that which superposes with that which excludes,


Ditto.

Destroyer wrote:that which is ubiquitous with that which is localised


You're on a roll, Destroyer. Building momentum!

Destroyer wrote:that which is stable with that which decays


Roll on, buddy.

Destroyer wrote:that which can be predictably defined with that which is probable


Definitions are definitions, Destroyer. I don't know how to predict what can be defined, especially with you in the room.
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: 29557
Age: 23
Male

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

Re: Competing cosmologies

#79  Postby Destroyer » Jan 30, 2020 1:36 pm

Cito di Pense wrote:
Destroyer wrote:Striving to reconcile that which has constancy with that which changes;


How's that working out for ya, pal? It all depends on what you do with 'reconcile', besides recite another polysyllabic word you know.

Destroyer wrote:that which superposes with that which excludes,


Ditto.

Destroyer wrote:that which is ubiquitous with that which is localised


You're on a roll, Destroyer. Building momentum!

Destroyer wrote:that which is stable with that which decays


Roll on, buddy.

Destroyer wrote:that which can be predictably defined with that which is probable


Definitions are definitions, Destroyer. I don't know how to predict what can be defined, especially with you in the room.


Still waiting for the maths, Cito.
Destroyer
 
Name: Patrick Mills
Posts: 1838
Age: 61
Male

Country: England
Print view this post

Re: Competing cosmologies

#80  Postby Cito di Pense » Jan 30, 2020 1:50 pm

Destroyer wrote:

Still waiting for the maths, Cito.


What maths is that, Destroyer? Still want to reconcile constants with variables?

https://www.hotelpensionpantarhei.com/index.php/de/
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: 29557
Age: 23
Male

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

PreviousNext

Return to Physics

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest