If it was not recorded in the proper fashion, it doesn't matter to us now if they did or didn't.

If it was not recorded in the proper fashion, it doesn't matter to us now if they did or didn't.

 

The proper fashion? What do you mean?

Which us are you talking about?

The proper fashion[/i']? What do you mean?

 

Recorded in a manner which lets us know about it today, which even includes things like talking to people about it. As we lack evidence for a prior example, it's pretty safe to assume that it didn't exist, and even if it had existed, it wouldn't affect us anyway because we don't know about it.

 

Which us[/i'] are you talking about?

 

People in general, I presume.

Recorded in a manner which lets us know about it today' date=' which even includes things like talking to people about it. As we lack evidence for a prior example, it's pretty safe to assume that it didn't exist, and even if it had existed, it wouldn't affect us anyway because we don't know about it.

 

 

 

People in general, I presume.[/quote']

 

Prior example of what? Do you believe that Newton did his work without using the ideas and mathematics of the past?

That's not related to whether or not he was the first person recorded to introduce the concept of relative space to science.

Prior example of what? Do you believe that Newton did his work without using the ideas and mathematics of the past?

So no one before Newton had thought of the concept?

 

You appear to have the memory of a goldfish. Either that or you're being deliberately obtuse.

That's not related to whether or not he was the first person recorded to introduce the concept of relative space to science.

 

I'll check out your assertions. If you're absolutely sure of your ground then you won't need to.

You appear to have the memory of a goldfish. Either that or you're being deliberately obtuse.

 

Try putting more of your talents into communicating cleary. Avoid insults. You can do it.

I'll check out your assertions. If you're absolutely sure of your ground then you won't need to.

 

It's not a matter of assertion, but of the order in which things happen.

Try putting more of your talents into communicating cleary. Avoid insults. You can do it.

 

Please, explain why it is relevent that Newton used known science. To simply change the name of the scientist, and the discovery:

 

Me: Einstein was the first to come up with General Relativity

You: You can't prove that someone didn't come up with it first.

Me: That doesn't mean we should assume that they did.

You: Einstein did it with the existing knowledge base of science and mathematics.

Me:

Let me put it this way:

 

If Newton was the first person history recorded as coming up with cake, which he developed from pre-existing milk, flour and eggs, we wouldn't credit the creation of cake to the people who originally decided that those ingredients were good things to eat.

Please, explain why it is relevent that Newton used known science.

 

This is really about the uniqueness of discoveries/inventions. It may well be the case that these can be made by one person. But history shows many examples of at least two people engaged in the same field but not knowing the other person. Leibniz and Newton were both working on a calculus of movement. Darwin and Wallace were working on the ideas of natural selection. Einstein can be credited with his development of GR but I would be surprised if there weren't many others engaged in a similar enterprise.

This is really about the uniqueness of discoveries/inventions. It may well be the case that these can be made by one person. But history shows many examples of at least two people engaged in the same field but not knowing the other person. Leibniz and Newton were both working on a calculus of movement. Darwin and Wallace were working on the ideas of natural selection. Einstein can be credited with his[/i'] development of GR but I would be surprised if there weren't many others engaged in a similar enterprise.

 

Of course other people were engaged in a similar endeavour. I don't see why we should care about them if they didn't succeed.

Of course other people were engaged in a similar endeavour. I don't see why we should care about them if they didn't succeed.

 

OK. Ignore them. They're losers.

Well... yes. As far as those fruitless endeavours go, anyway; not necessarily losers per se.

Well... yes. As far as those fruitless endeavours go, anyway; not necessarily losers per se[/i'].

 

Fruitless? Sounds very digital. You're either a winner or a loser in a certain field.

We are talking about something that either did or did not happen.

But in a field where there can be only one winner there's going to be a lot of losers.

 

This is fairly obviously true. What percentage of footballers have won the world cup? What percentage of lottery players have won the jackpot?

 

In the scientific enterprise Oxbridge cuts it and getting a 1st won't hurt.

 

I'm not sure what this refers to.

 

By the way your "sounds" suck. You can do better/different if you want.

 

I'm equally unsure what this refers to.

OK - so the universe started out non-homogeneous. It would seem difficult for a singularity (the thing that got "banged"), to be non-homogeneous would it not? Wouldn't all the non-homogeneity have been "squeezed" out the singularity by definition? I guess the question is: where did the non-homogeneity come from? How would it arise from a homogeneous singularity?

 

If the 'causal singularity' displayed a high degree of angular momentum, like most other singularities we've been detecting, the 'inflationary epoch' might have taken the form of two high speed 'jets'. One of these 'jets' or 'conic projections' being what we call the 'observable universe'.

 

Apparently one of the reasons cosmologists had been insisting that the universe must be a 'isometric' expansion (the inflating balloon scenario) is that their mathematical 'toolkit' couldn't deal with anything else. Apparently mathematicians at Penn State are in the process of developing new tools to deal with non-isometric models. You could look at the model I proposed in the thread, "Is the Universe Collapsing". "ABOUT Physics" picked up and published a cruder version of this proposed model, so I would presume that it is not considered to be completely 'cranky'.

 

aguy2

Oh dear. I thought I had made a private post to JaKiri. Seems I didn't. I certainly would not want to get personal in public.

We are[/b'] talking about something that either did or did not happen.

 

True. But we don't want to confuse the simplicity of a name (a label) with the complexity it addresses. The scientific enterprise he was involved in was supported by a whole host of beliefs that he was influenced by. Many of them were very strange. Yes, his name is attached to his theories and we have a Newtonian world-view but Newton didn't create form from nothing. He innovated and was (for other than scientific reasons) granted first prize. It makes fascinating reading as you probably know.

What label are you referring to? That of 'relative space'?

What label are you referring to? That of 'relative space'?

 

Newton didn't invent the idea of relative space. Galileo knew it and it goes back to ancient Greece. Newton used these ideas to fabricate a theory.

Newton didn't invent the idea of relative space. Galileo knew it and it goes back to ancient Greece. Newton used these ideas to fabricate a theory.

 

Yeah, I had forgotten about Galilean relativity, although I'm not sure he actually talked about anything than the concept. Have you got any information on the Ancient Greeks because, as far as I can remember, Galilean Relativity was an attempt to challenge the Absolute Motion of Aristotle.

Yeah, I had forgotten about Galilean relativity, although I'm not sure he actually talked about anything than the concept. Have you got any information on the Ancient Greeks because, as far as I can remember, Galilean Relativity was an attempt to challenge the Absolute Motion of Aristotle.

 

Galileo described a thought experiment with a ship moving at constant velocity. He reasoned that from within the ship there was no way of knowing whether the ship was still or moving. Galileo was reputed to be very clever but arrogant and extremely condescending. I can't get the hang of smilies so Big Grin