|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Didn't COBE pretty much end this debate?
|
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Hey Art, So by saying that Nasa is "Lying" you are saying that they know the
truth about the origins of the universe but are not telling us? How do you know that they know the truth? If they know the truth and tell us the truth, how would they prove it is the truth? Proving they know the truth with the truth not being the big bang, is the only way you can prove they are lying! So you must be lying! George "Arth6831" wrote in message ... i know there is no support for big bang except in princeton and nasa......when will they admit they have been lying to american schoolkids for 40 years??? art swanson |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Hey Art, So by saying that Nasa is "Lying" you are saying that they know the
truth about the origins of the universe but are not telling us? How do you know that they know the truth? If they know the truth and tell us the truth, how would they prove it is the truth? Proving they know the truth with the truth not being the big bang, is the only way you can prove they are lying! So you must be lying! George "Arth6831" wrote in message ... i know there is no support for big bang except in princeton and nasa......when will they admit they have been lying to american schoolkids for 40 years??? art swanson |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Ron Miller wrote: [clip] "Vindication"? First time I've heard that Hawking is the final arbiter of things cosmological. Even if what you read is true (A. too bad you don't quote your source and B. eight years ago? what are Hawkings' current ideas?), all you have are competing theories . . . except in this case, one---the Big Bang---is a theory that has an enormous amount of supporting evidence while the other---Hoyle's---has very little evidence and not much support in the scientific community. RM Your anti-Hoyle statement is wrong. The numbers of the advocates of a theory have nothing to say insofar a validation of a theory, or of the truth or falsity of the theory. To say that the numbers count is to commit the fallacies of ad vericundiam and ad populem. Quite unscientific, to say the least. Insofar as the evidence for the SST of Hoyle, the integral axiomatic concept is the principle of continuity. That means that the universe not only exists, but that it also exists continually. The plurality of all the entities in the universe taken together exist continually and eternally. There is an enormous amount of all manner of evidence for the continuity of the universe both in terms of formal experiments and in direct human perception. Every human action, and identification of some existents, and all the identifications and demonstrations of science are direct evidence for the continuation of the universe. That also means that there is neither a dimensional nor a temporal origin or end of the universe. The universe is existing, and the universe continues to exist. Ralph Hertle |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Ron Miller wrote: [clip] "Vindication"? First time I've heard that Hawking is the final arbiter of things cosmological. Even if what you read is true (A. too bad you don't quote your source and B. eight years ago? what are Hawkings' current ideas?), all you have are competing theories . . . except in this case, one---the Big Bang---is a theory that has an enormous amount of supporting evidence while the other---Hoyle's---has very little evidence and not much support in the scientific community. RM Your anti-Hoyle statement is wrong. The numbers of the advocates of a theory have nothing to say insofar a validation of a theory, or of the truth or falsity of the theory. To say that the numbers count is to commit the fallacies of ad vericundiam and ad populem. Quite unscientific, to say the least. Insofar as the evidence for the SST of Hoyle, the integral axiomatic concept is the principle of continuity. That means that the universe not only exists, but that it also exists continually. The plurality of all the entities in the universe taken together exist continually and eternally. There is an enormous amount of all manner of evidence for the continuity of the universe both in terms of formal experiments and in direct human perception. Every human action, and identification of some existents, and all the identifications and demonstrations of science are direct evidence for the continuation of the universe. That also means that there is neither a dimensional nor a temporal origin or end of the universe. The universe is existing, and the universe continues to exist. Ralph Hertle |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
In message , Ralph Hertle
writes Your anti-Hoyle statement is wrong. The numbers of the advocates of a theory have nothing to say insofar a validation of a theory, or of the truth or falsity of the theory. To say that the numbers count is to commit the fallacies of ad vericundiam and ad populem. Quite unscientific, to say the least. Insofar as the evidence for the SST of Hoyle, the integral axiomatic concept is the principle of continuity. That means that the universe not only exists, but that it also exists continually. Isn't modern science based on evidence, rather than axioms? All the evidence shows that the universe is changing, and in the very distant past it was totally unlike its present form. (Hey, only three words with more than two syllables. Beat that, Ralph.) -- "It is written in mathematical language" Remove spam and invalid from address to reply. |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
In message , Ralph Hertle
writes Your anti-Hoyle statement is wrong. The numbers of the advocates of a theory have nothing to say insofar a validation of a theory, or of the truth or falsity of the theory. To say that the numbers count is to commit the fallacies of ad vericundiam and ad populem. Quite unscientific, to say the least. Insofar as the evidence for the SST of Hoyle, the integral axiomatic concept is the principle of continuity. That means that the universe not only exists, but that it also exists continually. Isn't modern science based on evidence, rather than axioms? All the evidence shows that the universe is changing, and in the very distant past it was totally unlike its present form. (Hey, only three words with more than two syllables. Beat that, Ralph.) -- "It is written in mathematical language" Remove spam and invalid from address to reply. |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Jonathan:
Jonathan Silverlight wrote: [ clip ] Isn't modern science based on evidence, rather than axioms? All the evidence shows that the universe is changing, and in the very distant past it was totally unlike its present form. (Hey, only three words with more than two syllables. Beat that, Ralph.) Of course, you are right. All science that is science is based on evidence. On the facts that exist in the universe. I should have clarified that. Axioms are concepts that identify the facts of all of existence, and they are very broad concepts. Axioms are universal concepts that are derived by means of induction from particular facts of existents or narrower or more specific concepts, for example, definitions, that in turn may identify more particular perceptible facts. Sense perception data and ostensive definitions are the most particular identifications of the properties of existents, e.g., that lead is denser than water. Axioms, on the other hand, are the widest possible concepts, and that deal only with the largest or most universal concepts that identify existence, e.g., that the universe exists continually and eternally. The universe exists continually, and the universe is everything that exists. I say that the universe is the continuing plurality of all existents. But existents have properties other than substance and being. Existents have properties, for example, mass, size, atomic compositions, velocity, position, potentials to combine in certain ways with other existents or parts of same according to the nature of the existent of its parts. Another property of existents of that the being of the existent is a continuing functioning. E.g., an object continues in dimensional motion relative to other objects, or that it may absorb photons and be heated, or it may be spinning, or it may readily combine with other chemicals, and so on, properties may be identified and measured as the are functioning. Thus, the ancients would say that things are changing in their identities, e.g., sugar dissolves in water given certain conditions, and in other conditions sugar can precipitate out of solution and or on a piece of string. Things change, but as the ancients noticed, everything taken together continues to exist. The conservation of energy and matter was a modern identification based upon early and repeated observations in science. All things in the universe function according to their properties, and their properties are the causes for what the things will become. Aristotle called that principle the "power of becoming what a thing will become according to its nature." All things are, thus, changing in that they are functioning. Some things are seemingly static or unchanging, say a given sugar cube, however, it functions in terms of its continued being, substance, position, or velocity, for example. The stars in the universe are made of elements changing atomically as a process, and they are changing too. The process of thing resulting from what they were, that is from their material, their properties, their potentials for modification and interaction with other things, and their functioning given their natures, is the process of cause and effect. Causes cause effects, and not the other way around. Things that are become the things that will be according to the properties of the things that are. Only existence continues to exist. Distant galaxies emit photons that travel eons before being received. In the meantime the galaxies will have changed according to the powers of change of its constituent parts. The existents of the universe change or function according to their forms (Aris. concept of form and not the Platonic.), and yet all that exists continues to exist. There is no existence, metaphysically speaking, of a universe of the past. The past is an epistemological concept that is an abstraction of the way things are in the present time, an that have been recorded in one's memory gray cells, in photographs, or in books full of ideas. Only all of everything continues to exist, and it is always different from time to time depending upon the properties and causes for change that are integral with all of the constituent elements. This is mostly a paraphrasing of what Aristotle has said, and, except for my definition of the universe using the concepts of plurality and continuity, it is quite consistent with the developments of thought based on the concept of the Steady State Theory of the universe. Whether the universe of the past was "totally unlike" the current universe is a matter of fact only. Sure the particulars are changed according to their forms, however, scientists have reported that the ancient universe that is visible by means of photons that have traveled the enormous distances across the universe is remarkably similar to our current universe. Scientists are now constructing telescopes that will be able to evidence even older photons, possibly including red-shifted photons, in the IR and radio frequencies, for example, and thus will be able to see even farther. Only the facts govern what we can know. Note also, that the Platonists argue in opposition to every single point of the above Aristotelian - SST theory. Philosophically, Objectivism plays a role in organizing these ideas that I have written, however, outside of the philosophy of Objectivism of Ayn Rand and its scientific approach to metaphysics and epistemology, including concept formation and basis on inductive and deductive logic, no formal Objectivist philosophy of science has been created. Ralph Hertle |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Jonathan:
Jonathan Silverlight wrote: [ clip ] Isn't modern science based on evidence, rather than axioms? All the evidence shows that the universe is changing, and in the very distant past it was totally unlike its present form. (Hey, only three words with more than two syllables. Beat that, Ralph.) Of course, you are right. All science that is science is based on evidence. On the facts that exist in the universe. I should have clarified that. Axioms are concepts that identify the facts of all of existence, and they are very broad concepts. Axioms are universal concepts that are derived by means of induction from particular facts of existents or narrower or more specific concepts, for example, definitions, that in turn may identify more particular perceptible facts. Sense perception data and ostensive definitions are the most particular identifications of the properties of existents, e.g., that lead is denser than water. Axioms, on the other hand, are the widest possible concepts, and that deal only with the largest or most universal concepts that identify existence, e.g., that the universe exists continually and eternally. The universe exists continually, and the universe is everything that exists. I say that the universe is the continuing plurality of all existents. But existents have properties other than substance and being. Existents have properties, for example, mass, size, atomic compositions, velocity, position, potentials to combine in certain ways with other existents or parts of same according to the nature of the existent of its parts. Another property of existents of that the being of the existent is a continuing functioning. E.g., an object continues in dimensional motion relative to other objects, or that it may absorb photons and be heated, or it may be spinning, or it may readily combine with other chemicals, and so on, properties may be identified and measured as the are functioning. Thus, the ancients would say that things are changing in their identities, e.g., sugar dissolves in water given certain conditions, and in other conditions sugar can precipitate out of solution and or on a piece of string. Things change, but as the ancients noticed, everything taken together continues to exist. The conservation of energy and matter was a modern identification based upon early and repeated observations in science. All things in the universe function according to their properties, and their properties are the causes for what the things will become. Aristotle called that principle the "power of becoming what a thing will become according to its nature." All things are, thus, changing in that they are functioning. Some things are seemingly static or unchanging, say a given sugar cube, however, it functions in terms of its continued being, substance, position, or velocity, for example. The stars in the universe are made of elements changing atomically as a process, and they are changing too. The process of thing resulting from what they were, that is from their material, their properties, their potentials for modification and interaction with other things, and their functioning given their natures, is the process of cause and effect. Causes cause effects, and not the other way around. Things that are become the things that will be according to the properties of the things that are. Only existence continues to exist. Distant galaxies emit photons that travel eons before being received. In the meantime the galaxies will have changed according to the powers of change of its constituent parts. The existents of the universe change or function according to their forms (Aris. concept of form and not the Platonic.), and yet all that exists continues to exist. There is no existence, metaphysically speaking, of a universe of the past. The past is an epistemological concept that is an abstraction of the way things are in the present time, an that have been recorded in one's memory gray cells, in photographs, or in books full of ideas. Only all of everything continues to exist, and it is always different from time to time depending upon the properties and causes for change that are integral with all of the constituent elements. This is mostly a paraphrasing of what Aristotle has said, and, except for my definition of the universe using the concepts of plurality and continuity, it is quite consistent with the developments of thought based on the concept of the Steady State Theory of the universe. Whether the universe of the past was "totally unlike" the current universe is a matter of fact only. Sure the particulars are changed according to their forms, however, scientists have reported that the ancient universe that is visible by means of photons that have traveled the enormous distances across the universe is remarkably similar to our current universe. Scientists are now constructing telescopes that will be able to evidence even older photons, possibly including red-shifted photons, in the IR and radio frequencies, for example, and thus will be able to see even farther. Only the facts govern what we can know. Note also, that the Platonists argue in opposition to every single point of the above Aristotelian - SST theory. Philosophically, Objectivism plays a role in organizing these ideas that I have written, however, outside of the philosophy of Objectivism of Ayn Rand and its scientific approach to metaphysics and epistemology, including concept formation and basis on inductive and deductive logic, no formal Objectivist philosophy of science has been created. Ralph Hertle |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
In message , Ralph Hertle
writes verbiage snipped. Distant galaxies emit photons that travel eons before being received. In the meantime the galaxies will have changed according to the powers of change of its constituent parts. That's irrelevant. We are seeing them as they were. We are seeing the edge of an era when there were no stars, in fact no atoms (the background radiation) If you believe the images change en route there's no point in looking. Whether the universe of the past was "totally unlike" the current universe is a matter of fact only. Sure the particulars are changed according to their forms, however, scientists have reported that the ancient universe that is visible by means of photons that have traveled the enormous distances across the universe is remarkably similar to our current universe. Scientists are now constructing telescopes that will be able to evidence even older photons, possibly including red-shifted photons, in the IR and radio frequencies, for example, and thus will be able to see even farther. NO! The ancient universe as revealed in the Hubble Deep Fields is very different to the universe we see now. And they are already seeing red-shifted photons, at shifts of 5 and 6 (can't remember the current record) They are seeing an era when quasars appeared, and a more recent one with fewer quasars and not as many stars forming. Only the facts govern what we can know. Indeed :-) -- "It is written in mathematical language" Remove spam and invalid from address to reply. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Hawking says he's solved black-hole riddle | MrPepper11 | Astronomy Misc | 0 | July 15th 04 03:45 PM |
BIG BANG really a Big Bang BUST | Ed Conrad | Astronomy Misc | 27 | November 7th 03 10:38 AM |
Galaxies without dark matter halos? | Ralph Hartley | Research | 14 | September 16th 03 08:21 PM |
A dialogue between Mr. Big BANG and Mr. Steady STATE | Marcel Luttgens | Astronomy Misc | 12 | August 6th 03 06:15 AM |