Jump to content

Mixing God with Science


Recommended Posts

Aristarchus,

 

I think important also in this discussion is keeping in mind that each of us might be referring to the same truth and reality, but misunderstand the nature of the reference made by the other.

 

What is figurative and what is literal, what is fact(true) and what is conjecture(thinkable and possibly true)?

 

There is a thing about "dogma", that says THIS particular thinkable thing IS TRUE.

 

Science, as far as I have observed it, says only that THIS particular thinkable thing works out to be consistent with reality so far, but we will keep on testing THIS, in every way we can think of.

 

I see no dogma in science. Athough I do continue to look for it, to see if my conjecture, that there is no dogma in science, might be incorrect.

 

On the other hand, if a religious dogma, or a philosophical dogma, has said that THIS is the case, and I personally do not see the reasons why that would need to be the case, I would ask for the conjecturer to provide me with a way to test the conjecture, so I could experience its existence and know for myself that it indeed was fact and true and real, and fit in flawlessly with all else I know to be true.

 

If a conjecture doesn't fit reality. It is wrong and should be, and is, automatically in need of revision or dismissal.

 

If a conjecture does fit reality in ones imagination, but can not be tested against reality, it has no way to be considered fact.

 

Many if not all of us hold conjectures about the nature of reality. We each have to be correct, in that since we all seem to be in the same universe, there is only one "reality" that we are all subject to, and existant in, and that therefore THIS reality is true and correct and is indeed the one we all are referring to. But which parts of it, and the nature of it, that we each conjecture about is obviously up for discussion, and exploration, and discovery.

 

If anybody claims that they hold the key, and are the only one that can see the truth...I think they have a problem with understanding the difference between facts and conjecture.

 

Regards, TAR2

Edited by tar
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 54
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Photons are elementary particles in the standard model. They aren't made of love or any constituent parts capable of expressing or feeling love or any other emotion.   I'm also not a physicist, bu

You don't understand what I said. I explained how you can use science to answer your own question.   May I ask, have you ever had a class in science -- maybe in high school?     There is a diff

I'll try one more time.   Iron-clad proof, the kind you're asking for, tends to make people stop looking for other answers. Science thinks that's bad.   If a thousand hikers try to find a trail t

Aristarchus - Seems to me you've misread Iggy. He was only clarifying a misunderstanding. He suggested that unless your idea is scientifically testable then it ain't science. This is just a fact. He did not say (I think) that because your idea is untestable it is wrong.

 

Anyway, I liked your idea, although it seems still very undeveloped. Nonlocality could suggest a super-particle, but it could suggest, as a few physcists speculate, that our idea of temporal and spatial extension is flawed, and that there is a sense in which all particles are in the same place and time. Or something like that.

 

My objection to Iggy is his subtle use of the word "warped". He was definitely being either consciously or subconsciously insulting, which has seemed almost a 'standard' in internet discussion forums although I think I possibly detect a change in the way people are relating to each other on the internet the closer we come to the 2012 calendar date which many people think means the end of the world.

 

Peter, your presentation of the idea that 'all particles are in the same place and time' is significant as it would explain non-locality. Thanks.

 

Aristarchus,

 

I think important also in this discussion is keeping in mind that each of us might be referring to the same truth and reality, but misunderstand the nature of the reference made by the other.

 

What is figurative and what is literal, what is fact(true) and what is conjecture(thinkable and possibly true)?

 

There is a thing about "dogma", that says THIS particular thinkable thing IS TRUE.

 

Science, as far as I have observed it, says only that THIS particular thinkable thing works out to be consistent with reality so far, but we will keep on testing THIS, in every way we can think of.

 

I see no dogma in science. Athough I do continue to look for it, to see if my conjecture, that there is no dogma in science, might be incorrect.

 

On the other hand, if a religious dogma, or a philosophical dogma, has said that THIS is the case, and I personally do not see the reasons why that would need to be the case, I would ask for the conjecturer to provide me with a way to test the conjecture, so I could experience its existence and know for myself that it indeed was fact and true and real, and fit in flawlessly with all else I know to be true.

 

If a conjecture doesn't fit reality. It is wrong and should be, and is, automatically in need of revision or dismissal.

 

If a conjecture does fit reality in ones imagination, but can not be tested against reality, it has no way to be considered fact.

 

Many if not all of us hold conjectures about the nature of reality. We each have to be correct, in that since we all seem to be in the same universe, there is only one "reality" that we are all subject to, and existant in, and that therefore THIS reality is true and correct and is indeed the one we all are referring to. But which parts of it, and the nature of it, that we each conjecture about is obviously up for discussion, and exploration, and discovery.

 

If anybody claims that they hold the key, and are the only one that can see the truth...I think they have a problem with understanding the difference between facts and conjecture.

 

Regards, TAR2

 

Your entire post is excellent, Tar2, but your last sentence is most important. The Big Bang theory has, whether most adherants admit it or or not, become dogma in the religion of Big Bangism rather than . "Dogma is the established belief or doctrine held by a religion, or by extension by some other group or organization. It is authoritative and not to be disputed, doubted, or diverged from, by the practitioners or believers."

 

"Religion is a collection of cultural systems, belief systems, and worldviews that establishes symbols that relate humanity to spirituality and, sometimes, to moral values."

 

The religion and dogma of Big Bangism puts abrupt end to the concept in your sentence, "Science, as far as I have observed it, says only that THIS particular thinkable thing works out to be consistent with reality so far, but we will keep on testing THIS, in every way we can think of."

 

Evidence to support this is found in the first sentence of the first paragraph of almost every book or magazine article on cosmology which I have read in the last 20 or 30 years, 'The Big Bang formed the universe as we know it ..." in those words or other words meaning the same thing.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Big Bang theory has, whether most adherants admit it or or not, become dogma in the religion of Big Bangism rather than . "Dogma is the established belief or doctrine held by a religion, or by extension by some other group or organization. It is authoritative and not to be disputed, doubted, or diverged from, by the practitioners or believers."

You keep saying this, but you fail each time to offer what science is looking for, a better explanation, one with even more supporting evidence than the current theory has.

 

No offense intended, but you are narrowly interpreting what it means for people to adhere to a theory. You think that adherence is like super-glue, when in reality it's more like a Post-It note. :D Please don't take that to mean that science is fickle or that the support for a theory like Big Bang is weak. In fact, the adherence you call dogma is only strong because of all the evidence that exists.

 

Let me ask you this. You've conducted an experiment ten million times and gotten the same results each time. You know that it's possible another attempt could produce different results. Would you be more inclined to think it would be the same or more inclined to think it would be different?

Link to post
Share on other sites

My objection to Iggy is his subtle use of the word "warped". He was definitely being either consciously or subconsciously insulting... means the end of the world.

warped means "twisted out of shape". Your impression of science is twisted out of shape. This is neither an insult nor is it evidence that the world will end next year.

 

The religion and dogma of Big Bangism puts abrupt end to the concept in your sentence, "Science, as far as I have observed it, says only that THIS particular thinkable thing works out to be consistent with reality so far, but we will keep on testing THIS, in every way we can think of."

You need to understand, when scientists make observations and do experiments their goal is to break current models and theories.

 

When NASA launches Hubble or WMAP they don't know if the observations will fit the current models or not. The observations will either support the current models or break them. If the model were dogma then everyone wouldn't be putting all their effort into pushing the model to the brink and trying to break it now would they?

 

It is the goal of every theoretical physicist to find new physics -- to replace the old. The method of science -- the whole endeavor in doing science -- is entirely structured around that goal. The goal is to find new information that will indicate and support new and better explanations. That is the whole point.

Edited by Iggy
Link to post
Share on other sites

You keep saying this, but you fail each time to offer what science is looking for, a better explanation, one with even more supporting evidence than the current theory has.

 

No offense intended, but you are narrowly interpreting what it means for people to adhere to a theory. You think that adherence is like super-glue, when in reality it's more like a Post-It note. :D Please don't take that to mean that science is fickle or that the support for a theory like Big Bang is weak. In fact, the adherence you call dogma is only strong because of all the evidence that exists.

 

Let me ask you this. You've conducted an experiment ten million times and gotten the same results each time. You know that it's possible another attempt could produce different results. Would you be more inclined to think it would be the same or more inclined to think it would be different?

 

Big Bang is not confirmed by experiment. When 2 + 2 in Big Bangism add up to 3.1 someone adds .9, for instance, Inflation, Dark Energy, Dark Matter. Big Bang was ONLY thought of because when the discovery was made that most galaxies seem to be flying away from each other the quick answer was the primitive one, explosion, which we are familiar with since age two seeing firecrackers blow up. There are many other answers and I present one, moved to Speculation, about expansion of anti-gravity bubbles. I have presented a better explanation because it explains why the further out galaxies are the faster they are flying, without the need for Dark Energy. I don't need anyone to say, 'you're right' and don't care much if they declare it wrong, except that by doing so they have reduced their own possibilities of discovery. Scientific dogma exists because we are human, and scientists like to congregate as do all humans, birds of a feather flock together, and if you have answered 'true' to Big Bang on a test which gets you a degree which earns you big money you flock with those who answered the question 'true' .. otherwise you endure abuse such as Linus Pauling used against the discoverer of Quasi Crystals, and I use that example because it is so explicit in its meanings .. there are many more examples of consensus killing and wounding and hindering science.

 

warped means "twisted out of shape". Your impression of science is twisted out of shape. This is neither an insult nor is it evidence that the world will end next year.

 

 

You need to understand, when scientists make observations and do experiments their goal is to break current models and theories.

 

When NASA launches Hubble or WMAP they don't know if the observations will fit the current models or not. The observations will either support the current models or break them. If the model were dogma then everyone wouldn't be putting all their effort into pushing the model to the brink and trying to break it now would they?

 

It is the goal of every theoretical physicist to find new physics -- to replace the old. The method of science -- the whole endeavor in doing science -- is entirely structured around that goal. The goal is to find new information that will indicate and support new and better explanations. That is the whole point.

 

Your mean-spirited humaness is forgiven Iggy .. I have enough of it myself to know how difficult it is to subdue.

 

I agree with you about what the goals of sciene should be, but disagree that they are carried out that way. The Soviet Union proposed Black Holes, and the U.S. declared the Soviets incapable of science for the next 20 years until the weight of Sioviet evidence sank through the morass of U.S. consensus. Maybe the U.S. learned something by that, because Black Hole science seems open minded to the point that it is accepted that they aren't perhaps holes at all. Perhaps Canada's Bkackberry had something to do with that open mindedness, as with the openuing of the Perimetre Instiutute in Waterloo, Ontario, funded by $250,000,000 of Blackberry profit, the U.S. decided it could not afford a closed mind .. at least that money seems to have given some respect to Loop Quantum Gravity. However, until that brand new billionaire with brand new thinking came along the consensus ruled, and even after, in one scuebnce forum funded by big U.S. money John Moffatt of Perimitre Institute for some reason or other was labelled a Nazi .. I was on that forum when it happened. Most of the forum posters were Big Bang consensus people, and none objected to the accusation.

 

I did present an alternative to Big Bang on this forum .. it was moved to Speculation .. showing how anti-gravity bubble expansion can account for everything Big Bang accounts for without the fudging of 'expansion' and without the need for singularity.

 

It seems nearly impossible to me that the people operating Hubble want to disprove Irwin.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Big Bang is not confirmed by experiment.

Should we just keep repeating that it is impossible to confirm a theory?

 

When 2 + 2 in Big Bangism add up to 3.1 someone adds .9, for instance, Inflation, Dark Energy, Dark Matter.

What variable in general relativity and in the big bang model is responsible for dark energy? How should scientists go about setting that variable?

 

Big Bang was ONLY thought of because when the discovery was made that most galaxies seem to be flying away from each other the quick answer was the primitive one, explosion, which we are familiar with since age two seeing firecrackers blow up.

Friedmann and Lemaitre both 'created' the big bang model before the 1929 discovery of the redshift-distance correlation of galaxies.

 

I have presented a better explanation because it explains why the further out galaxies are the faster they are flying, without the need for Dark Energy.
Hubble's law without dark energy says that further things recede faster. In other words, dark energy is not the reason why "the further out galaxies are the faster they are flying".

 

Your mean-spirited humaness is forgiven Iggy

Again, there is nothing mean spirited about telling someone that their impression of science is warped.

 

I agree with you about what the goals of sciene should be

I said nothing about what should be. I didn't say that NASA should launch WMAP, Hubble, Spitzer, and other telescopes in order to test the big bang model. I said that they did do that, already.

 

I did not say that every theoretical physicist should have the goal of creating new physics. Let me put it this way...

 

Why do you think billions of dollars are being spent on the LHC? Scientists have pushed the standard model of particle physics as far as they can push it with current technology. But, they want to break it and they are spending gobs of money in that effort. They do this because finding out where the standard model diverges with reality will be the best indicator for the direction of new physics.

 

Does that sound like people who are just so happy with the current model that they consider it dogma? No. What you are claiming makes no sense at all.

 

The Soviet Union proposed Black Holes

The Soviet government? I don't understand.

 

I also don't know what "proposed black holes" means. Black holes were proposed before the existence of the Soviet Union.

 

the U.S. declared the Soviets incapable of science for the next 20 years

The US government?

 

I did present an alternative to Big Bang on this forum .. it was moved to Speculation

What physics did the model use? I mean, if you calculate a prediction what laws of physics guide the calculation?

Edited by Iggy
Link to post
Share on other sites

Should we just keep repeating that it is impossible to confirm a theory?

 

 

What variable in general relativity and in the big bang model is responsible for dark energy? How should scientists go about setting that variable?

 

 

Friedmann and Lemaitre both 'created' the big bang model before the 1929 discovery of the redshift-distance correlation of galaxies.

 

Hubble's law without dark energy says that further things recede faster. In other words, dark energy is not the reason why "the further out galaxies are the faster they are flying".

 

 

Again, there is nothing mean spirited about telling someone that their impression of science is warped.

 

 

I said nothing about what should be. I didn't say that NASA should launch WMAP, Hubble, Spitzer, and other telescopes in order to test the big bang model. I said that they did do that, already.

 

I did not say that every theoretical physicist should have the goal of creating new physics. Let me put it this way...

 

Why do you think billions of dollars are being spent on the LHC? Scientists have pushed the standard model of particle physics as far as they can push it with current technology. But, they want to break it and they are spending gobs of money in that effort. They do this because finding out where the standard model diverges with reality will be the best indicator for the direction of new physics.

 

Does that sound like people who are just so happy with the current model that they consider it dogma? No. What you are claiming makes no sense at all.

 

 

The Soviet government? I don't understand.

 

I also don't know what "proposed black holes" means. Black holes were proposed before the existence of the Soviet Union.

 

 

The US government?

 

 

What physics did the model use? I mean, if you calculate a prediction what laws of physics guide the calculation?

 

 

It is possible to prove a theory if the theory is fact. I repeat.

 

Ask a physicist that question about variables.

 

Please provide a url to substantiate your claim about Freidmann and Lemaitre.

 

Hubbles law - then why where the scientists so surprised that the galaxies further out are flying faster, and why did the bring dark energy into existance to explain?

 

A person is mean spirited by their spirit, their words merely reflect their spirit. Subtlety becomes a habit in a mean-spirited person. Try to leave it behind, you will make more friends.

 

I was talking philosophically should be.

 

Yes, it has become dogma for many. Yes, I do make sense.

 

Soviet scientists.

 

If they were proposed they were probably proposed by Russians or Poles, those scientists being the visionaries in pre-soviet days. Check out where Marie Currie came from.

 

U.S. consensus scientists.

 

Whatever physics model needs to be used, that's the one to use.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It is possible to prove a theory if the theory is fact. I repeat.

No theory can be fact because you can't test it with every set of possible variables. Experiments can only support a theory under the particular conditions of the experiment. I don't know why you can't see this. My 12-year-old daughter grasped the concept right away.

 

Please provide a url to substantiate your claim about Freidmann and Lemaitre.

http://www.amnh.org/education/resources/rfl/web/essaybooks/cosmic/p_lemaitre.html

In 1927, Lemaître published in Belgium a virtually unnoticed paper that provided a compelling solution to the equations of General Relativity for the case of an expanding universe. His solution had, in fact, already been derived without his knowledge by the Russian Alexander Friedmann in 1922.

 

Subtlety becomes a habit in a mean-spirited person.

So subtle you could swear it didn't exist.

 

Yes, it has become dogma for many. Yes, I do make sense.

Iggy made some really good points about the kinds of effort and resources behind current efforts. Is simple denial really the best you can do?

 

If they were proposed they were probably proposed by Russians or Poles, those scientists being the visionaries in pre-soviet days. Check out where Marie Currie came from.

John Michell, an Englishman, first proposed the existence of black holes in 1783, just a bit before the USSR was formed. Englishmen can be pre-Soviet visionaries too, it seems.

 

Whatever physics model needs to be used, that's the one to use.

I resurrected that thread and responded. Your model seemed attributed to Jordan algebra, which isn't used anymore in quantum mechanics, for many reasons. And you didn't really use any math at all. You didn't even offer an explanation that solves more problems than dark matter does.

Link to post
Share on other sites

SCIENCE VS RELIGION

-- James Ph. Kotsybar

Einstein wasbrilliant, we all can agree.

He opened up newpossibility

with the Theory Of Relativity

he found in his questfor simplicity.

His equation, E=mc2,

is a well-acceptedreality;

there is no doubt howwell it has fared

in destruction andpracticality.

Most people knowthis, but don’t understand

the mathematics anddon’t even try

to comprehend a mindthat was so grand.

They claim theirbrains simply don’t qualify.

Yet these same folksdon’t even think it’s odd

to claim theyunderstand the mind of God.

 

 

SCIENTIFIC TESTAMENT

 

-- James Ph. Kotsybar

 

 

A scientist trusts in whathas been proved

 

through repeatedexperimentation.

 

Assertions of faith willleave him unmoved

 

until they have achievedvalidation.

 

Religious beliefs often leavehim cold

 

and skeptical of professedprophecies

 

based mostly on hearsay andtales twice-told,

 

not carefully testedhypotheses.

 

This doesn’t make him anatheist, though.

 

He’s more like an investigativesleuth

 

who seldom proclaims things hedoesn’t know,

 

since he’s a stalwart apostleof truth.

 

He’ll all too gladly applyhis method,

 

should God allow Himself tobe tested.

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

It is possible to prove a theory if the theory is fact. I repeat.

To understand why a theory is different from a fact and why theories are not verifiable I suggest chapter 3 ("Theories") of the Logic of Scientific Discovery. Page 48 and 49 in particular: google book.

 

It's odd that I'm needing to support this after you already said, "I think true science keeps an open mind, a mind that says despite heavy evidence of confirmation, this theory may still be wrong".

 

You were spot on about that.

 

Ask a physicist that question about variables.

The variable in general relativity and in the big bang model responsible for dark energy is Lambda. It has been a part of general relativity since around 1915. Einstein explains how to set the value:

 

The postulate of general relativity requires the introduction of Lambda into the field equations. It will be our factual knowledge of the composition of the starry heavens, of the apparent motions of the stars, and of the state of spectral lines as a function of conditions far from us that will allow us empirically to answer the question whether Lambda equals zero or not. Conviction is a good mainspring, but a bad judge!

 

-

 

Since about 1998 we have been in a position to do just that. Cosmologists have been able to put reasonable constraints on the value of Lambda (ie the amount of dark energy). This is an entirely appropriate thing to do... and an exciting development. It's good science.

 

I don't know why you characterize this by saying "When 2 + 2 in Big Bangism add up to 3.1 someone adds .9, for instance, Inflation, Dark Energy, Dark Matter.", but it is an unfair characterization.

 

Please provide a url to substantiate your claim about Freidmann and Lemaitre.

Phi for All has generously done the legwork on that... with my thanks.

 

Hubbles law - then why where the scientists so surprised that the galaxies further out are flying faster, and why did the bring dark energy into existance to explain?

The thing that surprised them was not that further galaxies recede faster. We've known that there is a distance/velocity relationship since 1929. The surprise was that the recession speed at a certain distance (let's say 1 billion light-years) used to be less. You could say that 5 billion years ago, a galaxy that was 1 billion light-years away had a smaller recession speed than a galaxy that is 1 billion light-years away today.

 

In other words, the surprise was not that the speed of expansion increases with distance -- but rather that it increases with time.

 

Also, it may be misleading to call this a surprise without a couple caveats. Most cosmologists before 1998 intuitively suspected that Lambda would be zero, but everyone understood that it had to be measured to be known for sure. You see Einstein saying that in the quote I gave and you can look at papers predicting the consequences of a positive value Lambda... I think Carroll 1992 for example... so it was somewhat unexpected, but not unforeseen.

 

Dark energy certainly was NOT created recently to explain the acceleration of expansion. Like Einstein said in 1917 "The postulate of general relativity requires the introduction of Lambda (i.e. dark energy) into the field equations". We just didn't have a good indication of its value until recently.

 

A person is mean spirited by their spirit, their words merely reflect their spirit. Subtlety becomes a habit in a mean-spirited person. Try to leave it behind, you will make more friends.

Crying foul as a guide to good friendship :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I checked 'lambda' and Dark Energy on W@ikipedia. I seem to find find lambda associated with but not the same as Dark Energy. http://en.wikipedia....ambda-CDM_model

 

My research says Lemaitre first suggested the "Primeval Atom' in 1931 at the British Association meeting, two years after Hubble "Empirically" derived the Constant, which Lemaitre had approximated. While Redshift was known, and suggested expansion of the universe, I have not found the 'explosion of the primeval atom' theorized before Lemaitre in 1931, so 1931 could mark the beginning of Big Bang theory. http://en.wikipedia....s_Lema%C3%AEtre

 

Iggy and Phi, including urls for reference would add much credibility to your posts, would speed the conversation and understandings.

 

Did I mention my anti-gravity bubble expansion requiring or denying Dark Matter? I can't recall. It does deny the need for Dark Energy. What would be needed to institgate interest in my theory would be measurements of Voids, to see if they are expanding, because Voids are what I propose anti-gravity bubbles to be.

 

The 'general uniformity' of Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation' ignores the existance of voids, especially that a void is said to be the largest structure in the universe. http://en.wikipedia....Void_(astronomy) I realize that my url proposes a conventional Big Bang explanation for voids, but if Bang did not happen, that proposal is invalid.

 

John Michell proposed Dark Stars, not Black Holes. http://en.wikipedia....ki/John_Michell It's interesting how long ago he proposed them, and that much thought is being given to the proposal that Black Holes are really Dark Stars. Thanks for bringing the amazing John Michell to my attention, especially as his could easily be another example of advanced theory being crushed by the mass of consensus.

Edited by Aristarchus in Exile
Link to post
Share on other sites

Should we just keep repeating that it is impossible to confirm a theory?

 

It is possible to confirm a theory. Confirm and prove are not the same thing — an experiment which is a legitimate test of the theory can be said to confirm it. One has to acknowledge, however, that the confirmation is provisional — another experiment can still come along and falsify the theory.

 

It is possible to prove a theory if the theory is fact. I repeat.

 

Repeating doesn't make it correct. Theories cannot be proven in the conventional sense of the word. Theories are not deductive.

 

Yes, it has become dogma for many. Yes, I do make sense.

 

Not dogma unless (like "prove") you are using some non-standard definition that means "continually tested by experiment"

Link to post
Share on other sites
Iggy and Phi, including urls for reference would add much credibility to your posts, would speed the conversation and understandings.

The url is at the top of the quote I took from the American Museum of Natural History. Here it is again: http://www.amnh.org/education/resources/rfl/web/essaybooks/cosmic/p_lemaitre.html

 

I only took an excerpt from the article. You should read the whole article. It gives a good chronological picture of the findings that led up to the more formal theory, which didn't even get its current (inaccurate and meant to be derogatory) name until 1949.

Link to post
Share on other sites

SCIENCE VS RELIGION

-- James Ph. Kotsybar

 

Einstein wasbrilliant, we all can agree.

He opened up newpossibility

with the Theory Of Relativity

he found in his questfor simplicity.

 

His equation, E=mc2,

is a well-acceptedreality;

there is no doubt howwell it has fared

in destruction andpracticality.

 

Most people knowthis, but don't understand

the mathematics anddon't even try

to comprehend a mindthat was so grand.

They claim theirbrains simply don't qualify.

 

Yet these same folksdon't even think it's odd

to claim theyunderstand the mind of God.

 

 

SCIENTIFIC TESTAMENT

 

-- James Ph. Kotsybar

 

 

A scientist trusts in whathas been proved

 

through repeatedexperimentation.

 

Assertions of faith willleave him unmoved

 

until they have achievedvalidation.

 

Religious beliefs often leavehim cold

 

and skeptical of professedprophecies

 

based mostly on hearsay andtales twice-told,

 

not carefully testedhypotheses.

 

This doesn't make him anatheist, though.

 

He's more like an investigativesleuth

 

who seldom proclaims things hedoesn't know,

 

since he's a stalwart apostleof truth.

 

He'll all too gladly applyhis method,

 

should God allow Himself tobe tested.

 

 

 

Entertaining way of posting. Thanks.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It is possible to confirm a theory. Confirm and prove are not the same thing — an experiment which is a legitimate test of the theory can be said to confirm it. One has to acknowledge, however, that the confirmation is provisional — another experiment can still come along and falsify the theory.

I agree, "confirm" is used somewhat differently than "verify".

 

There is actually a reason for this that has to do with circumstance and not logic. This discussion of verifiability in science was first had in German. Some of the German terms were translated awkwardly like Popper explains:

 

Carnap translated my term 'degree of corroboration' ('Grad der Bewährung'), which I had first introduced into the discussions of the Vienna Circle, as 'degree of confirmation'... and so the term 'degree of confirmation' soon became widely accepted. I did not like this term, because of some of the associations ('make firm'; 'establish firmly'; 'put beyond doubt'; 'prove'; 'verify'; 'to confirm' corresponds more closely to 'erhärten' or 'bestätigen' than to 'bewahren'). I therefore proposed in a letter to Carnap (written, I think, about 1939) to use the term 'corroboration'. (This term had been suggested to me by Professor H.N. Parton.) But as Carnap declined my proposal, I fell in with his usage, thinking that words do not matter. This is why I myself used the term 'confirmation' for a time in a number of my publications.

Yet it turned out that I was mistaken: the associations of the word 'confirmation' did matter... I have therefore now abandoned it in favor of 'degree of corroboration'.

 

 

Like Popper, I would rather say that a theory can be corroborated (or supported). I would have an issue saying that it can be "confirmed" or that there is a "degree of confirmation" for the same reasons Popper gave.

 

Theories cannot be proven in the conventional sense of the word. Theories are not deductive.

It would make more sense to me (and maybe you meant) that theories are not inductive and therefore can't be considered true or verified.

 

Theories are deductive in that they propose conclusions based on the deductive reasoning applied to axioms or postulates. The method has been called the Hypothetico-deductive method which wiki characterizes:

The hypothetico-deductive model or method, first so-named by William Whewell,
[1][2]
is a proposed description of scientific method. According to it, scientific inquiry proceeds by formulating a hypothesis in a form that could conceivably be falsified by a test on observable data. A test that could and does run contrary to predictions of the hypothesis is taken as a falsification of the hypothesis. A test that could but does not run contrary to the hypothesis corroborates the theory.

 

A more authoritative source would again be The Logic of Scientific Discovery -- page 317 of this link:

 

Scientific theories can never be 'justified', or verified. But in spite of this, a hypothesis A can under certain circumstances achieve more than a hypothesis B—perhaps because B is contradicted by certain results of observations, and therefore 'falsified' by them, whereas A is not falsified; or perhaps because a greater number of predictions can be derived with the help of A then with the help of B. The best we can say of a hypothesis is that up to now it has been able to show its worth, and that it has been more successful than other hypotheses although, in principle, it can never be justified, verified, or even shown to be probable. This appraisal of the hypothesis relies solely upon
deductive
consequences (predictions) which may be drawn from the hypothesis.
There is no need even to mention induction
.

 

[his bold]

 

I checked 'lambda' and Dark Energy on W@ikipedia. I seem to find find lambda associated with but not the same as Dark Energy. http://en.wikipedia....ambda-CDM_model

They are the same. "Dark energy" is shorthand for the vacuum energy density of space. Lambda (called the cosmological constant) is the variable saying how much vacuum energy density space has.

 

My research says Lemaitre first suggested the "Primeval Atom' in 1931 at the British Association meeting, two years after Hubble "Empirically" derived the Constant, which Lemaitre had approximated.

In 1931 Eddington translated Lemaitre's 1927 article modeling an expanding universe. He actually worked on the model from 1925 through 1927. In 1931 (and more so with another publication in 1933) the model became widely known. 1931 is also the year he traced the expanding cosmos back to the singularity and coined the term 'primeval atom'.

 

Friedmann published the same in 1922.

 

The important thing is that an expanding cosmos is a direct result of relativity and not as you characterize "Big Bang was ONLY thought of because when the discovery was made that most galaxies seem to be flying away from each other the quick answer was the primitive one, explosion, which we are familiar with since age two seeing firecrackers blow up."

 

That is an unfair characterization.

 

Iggy and Phi, including urls for reference would add much credibility to your posts, would speed the conversation and understandings.

In my last post the two references I made are accompanied by links to their source. The links are underlined in all modern browsers.

 

Did I mention my anti-gravity bubble expansion requiring or denying Dark Matter? I can't recall. It does deny the need for Dark Energy. What would be needed to institgate interest in my theory would be measurements of Voids, to see if they are expanding, because Voids are what I propose anti-gravity bubbles to be.

"anti-gravity" sounds an awful lot like negative pressure of the vacuum which is what dark energy is.

 

You would need to give an equation modeling the expansion of the void. If it is,

 

[math]\frac{\ddot a}{a} = - \frac{4\pi G}{3}\left(\rho + \frac{3p}{c^{2}}\right) + \frac{\Lambda c^{2}}{3}[/math]

 

then it is the same as we already have. If it is different then it may not agree with reality. Is it the same?

Edited by Iggy
Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree, "confirm" is used somewhat differently than "verify".

 

There is actually a reason for this that has to do with circumstance and not logic. This discussion of verifiability in science was first had in German. Some of the German terms were translated awkwardly like Popper explains:

 

Carnap translated my term 'degree of corroboration' ('Grad der Bewährung'), which I had first introduced into the discussions of the Vienna Circle, as 'degree of confirmation'... and so the term 'degree of confirmation' soon became widely accepted. I did not like this term, because of some of the associations ('make firm'; 'establish firmly'; 'put beyond doubt'; 'prove'; 'verify'; 'to confirm' corresponds more closely to 'erhärten' or 'bestätigen' than to 'bewahren'). I therefore proposed in a letter to Carnap (written, I think, about 1939) to use the term 'corroboration'. (This term had been suggested to me by Professor H.N. Parton.) But as Carnap declined my proposal, I fell in with his usage, thinking that words do not matter. This is why I myself used the term 'confirmation' for a time in a number of my publications.

Yet it turned out that I was mistaken: the associations of the word 'confirmation' did matter... I have therefore now abandoned it in favor of 'degree of corroboration'.

 

 

Like Popper, I would rather say that a theory can be corroborated (or supported). I would have an issue saying that it can be "confirmed" or that there is a "degree of confirmation" for the same reasons Popper gave.

 

 

It would make more sense to me (and maybe you meant) that theories are not inductive and therefore can't be considered true or verified.

 

Theories are deductive in that they propose conclusions based on the deductive reasoning applied to axioms or postulates. The method has been called the Hypothetico-deductive method which wiki characterizes:

The hypothetico-deductive model or method, first so-named by William Whewell,
[1][2]
is a proposed description of scientific method. According to it, scientific inquiry proceeds by formulating a hypothesis in a form that could conceivably be falsified by a test on observable data. A test that could and does run contrary to predictions of the hypothesis is taken as a falsification of the hypothesis. A test that could but does not run contrary to the hypothesis corroborates the theory.

 

A more authoritative source would again be The Logic of Scientific Discovery -- page 317 of this link:

 

Scientific theories can never be 'justified', or verified. But in spite of this, a hypothesis A can under certain circumstances achieve more than a hypothesis Bperhaps because B is contradicted by certain results of observations, and therefore 'falsified' by them, whereas A is not falsified; or perhaps because a greater number of predictions can be derived with the help of A then with the help of B. The best we can say of a hypothesis is that up to now it has been able to show its worth, and that it has been more successful than other hypotheses although, in principle, it can never be justified, verified, or even shown to be probable. This appraisal of the hypothesis relies solely upon
deductive
consequences (predictions) which may be drawn from the hypothesis.
There is no need even to mention induction
.

 

[his bold]

 

 

They are the same. "Dark energy" is shorthand for the vacuum energy density of space. Lambda (called the cosmological constant) is the variable saying how much vacuum energy density space has.

 

 

In 1931 Eddington translated Lemaitre's 1927 article modeling an expanding universe. He actually worked on the model from 1925 through 1927. In 1931 (and more so with another publication in 1933) the model became widely known. 1931 is also the year he traced the expanding cosmos back to the singularity and coined the term 'primeval atom'.

 

Friedmann published the same in 1922.

 

The important thing is that an expanding cosmos is a direct result of relativity and not as you characterize "Big Bang was ONLY thought of because when the discovery was made that most galaxies seem to be flying away from each other the quick answer was the primitive one, explosion, which we are familiar with since age two seeing firecrackers blow up."

 

That is an unfair characterization.

 

 

In my last post the two references I made are accompanied by links to their source. The links are underlined in all modern browsers.

 

 

"anti-gravity" sounds an awful lot like negative pressure of the vacuum which is what dark energy is.

 

You would need to give an equation modeling the expansion of the void. If it is,

 

[math]\frac{\ddot a}{a} = - \frac{4\pi G}{3}\left(\rho + \frac{3p}{c^{2}}\right) + \frac{\Lambda c^{2}}{3}[/math]

 

then it is the same as we already have. If it is different then it may not agree with reality. Is it the same?

 

No .. my idea is not the same as negative pressure of the vacuum, it is anti-gravity, in the form of bubbles known as Voids. I haven't studied the math necessary to do equations you ask for, but I also don't accet that science is not science without that math. Einstein's quote found in my signature gives my reason. Personally, I find the vurulent opposition to Plasma Cosmolgy suspicious (nasa apod forum forbids its discussion for instance) as if Big Bangers think they have something to fear, that they can't explain, whatever. Further, I seem to recall reading something in the newspaper not long ago that more precise measurements of the CMB suggests it is not consistant with expectations. Also, this topic has strayed enormously from its subject. But, that's how things go sometimes.

 

P.S. Agrees with Whose reality?

Edited by Aristarchus in Exile
Link to post
Share on other sites

Well THANK you Phi. You are a gentleman and a scholar. I've just sent you a personal message by the way, relating to the Jesuit threat.

 

 

Using a netbook on a high table makes for inaccurate typing.

 

Basically, summing up, the Old Testament foretold the New Testament. The New is what we have to grasp hold of for our lives.

Edited by Aristarchus in Exile
Link to post
Share on other sites

No .. my idea is not the same as negative pressure of the vacuum, it is anti-gravity, in the form of bubbles known as Voids. I haven't studied the math necessary to do equations you ask for, but I also don't accet that science is not science without that math.

I don't know about "science is not science without the math".

 

But, I know that claiming to have a scientific theory capable of modeling aspects of cosmic voids without math is absurd.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know about "science is not science without the math".

 

But, I know that claiming to have a scientific theory capable of modeling aspects of cosmic voids without math is absurd.

 

Why is Einstein so ignored here?

"Imagination is more important than knowledge."

Yes, he did say that. It is also well known by anyone reading his life and work that he imaged his ideas. Because he was also a physicist and mathematician he could explain his ideas in a way that could be understood by his peers. I am not physicist or mathematician, but I don't even have to imagine cosmic voids, they are said by the topnotch experts to be fact, they have been measured, they are said to be roughly spherical. No one knows why they exist. They are said to be impossible according to the standard model Big Bang. They violate the 'smooth' Cosmic Background Radiation and homogenity of space. I put them to use as being bubbles of anti-gravity, driving space apart, space carrying the galaxies with the expansion. I suggest, but remember, I only suggest, without demanding anyone believe me, then, the possibility that galaxies are not flying 'through' space.

 

If Einstein were alive I am very sure that he and I could have a good conversation about my idea. He would not heap insult and demand equation. His simplicity of thought opened his mind to vision and ideas, and he was open to others' ideas, willing to give those others his time. Now, if you can prove to me why my idea is wrong, please do so, because, like I have been told a few times on this forum, I cannot prove my theory true.

Edited by Aristarchus in Exile
Link to post
Share on other sites

If Einstein were alive I am very sure that he and I could have a good conversation about my idea. He would not heap insult and demand equation. His simplicity of thought opened his mind to vision and ideas, and he was open to others' ideas, willing to give those others his time. Now, if you can prove to me why my idea is wrong, please do so, because, like I have been told a few times on this forum, I cannot prove my theory true.

Like many people, you're cherry-picking what fits your belief system. You're choosing the few times Einstein talked about the importance of imagination over the thousands of hours he put into equations and hard science. You're picking something that makes sense to you and deciding you don't need to learn any more to know you're right. And you're choosing YOUR explanation over millions of people who have dedicated their lives to the study of science, assuming they ALL missed something fundamental and are ALL now blindly parroting some explanation you couldn't intuit with a brief study.

 

You're claiming persecution over the possibility that you're wrong. "Everybody is out to get me" seems preferable to "Maybe I need to look a lot deeper". You're cherry-picking the feeling that there must be a simpler answer and ignoring the hard years of study, perseverance and dedication that mark the scholar.

 

I don't mean this as a personal attack. This problem isn't you, it's just the way you're approaching this problem. Your arguments are flawed because you have a flawed view of science. People have been trying to explain, but I think you've only been picking up small bits and then forgetting them from day to day. It's exhausting and it's frustrating, so please forgive me if I try different tones in order to get through.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I put them [cosmic voids] to use as being bubbles of anti-gravity, driving space apart, space carrying the galaxies with the expansion. I suggest, but remember, I only suggest, without demanding anyone believe me, then, the possibility that galaxies are not flying 'through' space.

I guess I'll repeat what I said before to no effect. The cosmological constant is a component of gravity that works in empty space to do as you say "driving space apart, space carrying the galaxies with the expansion". How is your idea different from dark energy?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess I'll repeat what I said before to no effect. The cosmological constant is a component of gravity that works in empty space to do as you say "driving space apart, space carrying the galaxies with the expansion". How is your idea different from dark energy?

 

Different? It seems to me that Dark Energy and my bubbles are the same to a great degree .. they are both theoretical. The Constant is a measurement which has changed numerous times with what are called more accurate measurements.

 

My bubbles are theorized bubbles known as voids. Dark Energy is said to be pervasive. Dark Energy is said to be a factor in the Big Bang theory .. my bubbles where formed from quantum fluctuations, originating with no singularity, no explosion, originating either from a sprinkling through space, or fluctuations resulting from a wave of some sort travelling through space, a wave perhaps originating from God's voice. This topic does involve God, so I'm not deviating. Whether my anti-gravity bubbles are a component of gravity or not I don't know .. is anti-matter a component of matter?

 

By the way, the accelerating expansion .. I believe it may have been you who said it was a factor of time rather than distance (?) If it was you, can you explain the difference between 'the further out in space we go' and 'the further out in time we go.' I have no idea of what the difference might be, except that if it is time, then the entire universe is expanding at an accelerated pace rather than the farther reaches. Is this accurate?

 

Like many people, you're cherry-picking what fits your belief system. You're choosing the few times Einstein talked about the importance of imagination over the thousands of hours he put into equations and hard science. You're picking something that makes sense to you and deciding you don't need to learn any more to know you're right. And you're choosing YOUR explanation over millions of people who have dedicated their lives to the study of science, assuming they ALL missed something fundamental and are ALL now blindly parroting some explanation you couldn't intuit with a brief study.

 

You're claiming persecution over the possibility that you're wrong. "Everybody is out to get me" seems preferable to "Maybe I need to look a lot deeper". You're cherry-picking the feeling that there must be a simpler answer and ignoring the hard years of study, perseverance and dedication that mark the scholar.

 

I don't mean this as a personal attack. This problem isn't you, it's just the way you're approaching this problem. Your arguments are flawed because you have a flawed view of science. People have been trying to explain, but I think you've only been picking up small bits and then forgetting them from day to day. It's exhausting and it's frustrating, so please forgive me if I try different tones in order to get through.

 

I will repeat myself again that I do not feel persecuted. You speak of cherry picking well cherries are sweet when ripe. You also are cherry picking. My view of science is that it should concentrate on discovery. My view is that with so many flaws in Big Bang it is not acceptable TO ME, and I present an alternative which is not acceptable TO YOU. There is no big problem. You and I are not competing for research funds. This forum should be a place where people can discover while being entertained. You provide what you think is knowledge for me to discover, I do the same. I try to explain why I can't trust consensus and why I think it harms discovery, (Aristarchus, Quasi Crystals). I have no problem accepting that you don't accept my views, but you do have a problem with my not accepting your views. I don't understand why you have that problem, but I accept it as they way you are in this case. There is no need for frustration. We should relax and enjoy the conversation.

Edited by Aristarchus in Exile
Link to post
Share on other sites

Different? It seems to me that Dark Energy and my bubbles are the same to a great degree .. they are both theoretical. The Constant is a measurement which has changed numerous times with what are called more accurate measurements.

 

My bubbles are theorized bubbles known as voids. Dark Energy is said to be pervasive. Dark Energy is said to be a factor in the Big Bang theory .. my bubbles where formed from quantum fluctuations, originating with no singularity, no explosion, originating either from a sprinkling through space, or fluctuations resulting from a wave of some sort travelling through space, a wave perhaps originating from God's voice. This topic does involve God, so I'm not deviating. Whether my anti-gravity bubbles are a component of gravity or not I don't know .. is anti-matter a component of matter?

We've effectively hit a dead end there.

 

By the way, the accelerating expansion .. I believe it may have been you who said it was a factor of time rather than distance (?)

Yes.

 

If it was you, can you explain the difference between 'the further out in space we go' and 'the further out in time we go.'

Sure. Space can be measured with a ruler and time can be measured with a clock. Further in space means larger as measured by a ruler. Further in time means larger as measured by a clock.

 

I have no idea of what the difference might be, except that if it is time, then the entire universe is expanding at an accelerated pace rather than the farther reaches. Is this accurate?

Yes.

 

Presently, the whole universe is expanding faster than the whole universe was expanding a billion years ago. Accelerated expansion means that as time ticks on the rate of expansion increases.

Edited by Iggy
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.