|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
science sense and common sense, was Intelligent Design Invading Liberal Classrooms
Tarquin wrote:
There is indeed a "correct" scientific position. You use common sense until you KNOW differently. That if fact is the most fundamental precept of all science. No, it is not. The most fundamental precept of science is that nature exhibits regularities, which are revealed through observation and experiment, and which we identify through induction and analysis. If that weren't so, there would be no point in doing science, whereas there still is point to doing science even if it doesn't coincide with common sense. There is a *scientific* sense which is applied in induction, but it is very often not common at all, and especially when applied to conditions which (like the Big Bang) are explicitly known *not* to be common. Where do you get the notion that the big bang occured "outside" the universe? Or that the laws of thermodynamics didn't apply before it? What is the evidence for that? I've never seen any. You've subtly changed what Chris said. He did not say that the laws of thermodynamics do not apply "before" the Big Bang (whatever that might mean); he said that there is no evidence that they exist outside of the Big Bang. That is perfectly true--there is no such evidence. What's more, the laws of thermodynamics are not the absolutes you seem to suggest they are. For one thing, energy is not even well-defined for strongly curved pieces of spacetime, so that the first law of thermodynamics cannot be exactly applied except for closed systems in asymptotically flat pieces of spacetime. There's no such thing, though very good approximations exist in laboratories. But certainly the initial conditions at the Big Bang are too curved to expect energy to behave the way "common sense" predicts it to. There are ways around this, using what are called pseudo-tensors, but as I understand it, their use is somewhat controversial because they don't transform like tensors (as their name suggests), which violates one of the principles of general relativity--that the laws of physics are the same in all reference frames. They *almost* transform like tensors... but not quite. So it is far from certain that we can count on the conservation of energy at the Big Bang; in fact, it seems almost certain that we cannot. The second law of thermodynamics is also not an absolute. On a large scale, it speaks of the spontaneous behavior of closed systems, but on a sufficiently small scale, it becomes clear that it only speaks of what is overwhelmingly likely to happen, and that "likely" becomes every more underwhelming as the size of the system diminishes. At some point, in small enough systems, one can't really define temperature well enough to apply the second law, either. What this means is that not only do we have no evidence that the laws of thermodynamics held outside the Big Bang (that is, so that they are applicable to whatever conditions precipitated the Big Bang), but we even have good reason to think that they don't have any significance under those conditions. I find it interesting that you have no trouble speaking of "before" the Big Bang, but "outside" the Big Bang troubles you. It suggests to me that you haven't really grokked the Big Bang. It produces absurd results such as found in quantum mechanics that lead to even further absurd requirements like a new dimension for every day of the week. If it wags its tail and barks like a dog it probably IS absurd even if it does cock its leg from time to time. You cheapen the work of theoretical physicists simply because you do not understand it. The extra dimensions are postulated not out of sheer whim, but because of the requirement that, again, the laws of physics look the same in all reference frames. In order to achieve this, spacetime must exhibit certain symmetries, so that things transform the way they're supposed to between those reference frames. Most spacetime geometries do not satisfy these constraints. Those that do may look strange to our three-dimensional eyes, but they are under no mandate to look natural to us. What they *are* required to do is be consistent with observation and experiment. We're not able to conduct some of these experiments yet, because they require energies that are not under our control, but someday, perhaps, they will be. There is no evidence that there is an "outside" the universe so why on earth do you start out assuming there is? Chris does not assume that there is an outside. It was you who suggested that the laws of thermodynamics (again, not applicable under those conditions, but for the sake of argument) required that the energy for the Big Bang be there all along, and then suddenly, for some reason, the Big Bang happened. By definition, any precondition for the Big Bang (and by precondition, I mean in the mathematical sense, without any temporal significance) is outside the universe, which the Big Bang created. And you still haven't answered the question of how all this energy compressed into such a tiny volume in your conception remains stable for all eternity until it suddenly decides to expand. If there was a big bang why not place it inside our universe with the laws of physics that are known to exist and postulate a cataclysmic event within it. That at least is feasable given our current knowledge. Because it is not consistent with what we know of the universe. It might be consistent with what misconceptions you have about the universe, but for better or worse, physicists do not deal with common sense conceptions of the universe. They deal with what they can observe and measure. It's bizarre that no one would say, "OK, I don't know chess, but I'd like to challenge Kasparov tomorrow," but there is no shortage of people who are convinced they know what is wrong with modern physics. There is almost certainly stuff wrong with modern physics, just as there are imperfections in Kasparov's play, but laying claim to knowing those flaws without spending years to fully understand the state of the art is just as irrational in one case as it is in the other. -- Brian Tung The Astronomy Corner at http://astro.isi.edu/ Unofficial C5+ Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/c5plus/ The PleiadAtlas Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/pleiadatlas/ My Own Personal FAQ (SAA) at http://astro.isi.edu/reference/faq.txt |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
science sense and common sense, was Intelligent Design Invading Liberal Classrooms
"Brian Tung" wrote in message ... Tarquin wrote: There is indeed a "correct" scientific position. You use common sense until you KNOW differently. That if fact is the most fundamental precept of all science. No, it is not. The most fundamental precept of science is that nature exhibits regularities, which are revealed through observation and experiment, and which we identify through induction and analysis. If that weren't so, there would be no point in doing science, whereas there still is point to doing science even if it doesn't coincide with common sense. There is a *scientific* sense which is applied in induction, but it is very often not common at all, and especially when applied to conditions which (like the Big Bang) are explicitly known *not* to be common. Frank L Robeson wrote in "Physics", 1943, Macmillan & Co, New York, "The method of science consists in observation, investigation and explanation of the phenomena, or occurrences, in nature. When the materials and circumstances essential to the occurrence have been found and set in order so that the phenomenon can be reproduced at will, and the whole transaction has been described accurately, we then say we have the law of that phenomenon. A physical law, or principle, is a statement by which we can predict the effect of a given cause. The first postulate of science affirms that the same cause always produces the same effect. Science is based so completely on this belief that when causes which seem to be the same produce different results, the causes are re-examined. And invariably it has been found they were not the same." Where do you get the notion that the big bang occured "outside" the universe? Or that the laws of thermodynamics didn't apply before it? What is the evidence for that? I've never seen any. You've subtly changed what Chris said. He did not say that the laws of thermodynamics do not apply "before" the Big Bang (whatever that might mean); he said that there is no evidence that they exist outside of the Big Bang. That is perfectly true--there is no such evidence. "The method of science consists in observation, investigation and explanation of the phenomena, or occurrences, in nature." There is evidence of red shift from distant light emitting objects. "when causes which seem to be the same produce different results, the causes are re-examined." What causes the red shift? Only one cause? What about E = h\nu ? Isn't E spread over a greater surface area, the further away the emitter is? [rest snipped unread, pending evidence of Big Bang] Androcles. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
science sense and common sense, was Intelligent Design Invading Liberal Classrooms
Androcles wrote:
What causes the red shift? Only one cause? No. There are understood to be at least three distinct causes of the red shift: recessional red shift, gravitation red shift, and cosmological (expansion) red shift. What about E = h\nu ? What about it? I'm not trying to be sarcastic; you're really being too elliptic. Isn't E spread over a greater surface area, the further away the emitter is? Yes. What are you driving at? Of these questions, the first is quantum-mechanical; the second is classical. Would you like to clarify why you are asking these disparate questions? -- Brian Tung The Astronomy Corner at http://astro.isi.edu/ Unofficial C5+ Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/c5plus/ The PleiadAtlas Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/pleiadatlas/ My Own Personal FAQ (SAA) at http://astro.isi.edu/reference/faq.txt |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
science sense and common sense, was Intelligent Design Invading Liberal Classrooms
"Brian Tung" wrote in message ... Androcles wrote: What causes the red shift? Only one cause? No. There are understood to be at least three distinct causes of the red shift: recessional red shift, gravitation red shift, and cosmological (expansion) red shift. What about E = h\nu ? What about it? I'm not trying to be sarcastic; you're really being too elliptic. Actually I'm being parabolic, trying to bring about a focus. Isn't E spread over a greater surface area, the further away the emitter is? Yes. What are you driving at? Of these questions, the first is quantum-mechanical; the second is classical. Would you like to clarify why you are asking these disparate questions? Radio transmitters emit waves, waves can be focused into beams. The inverse square law does not apply to Cassini-Huyghens at Saturn or to single photons emitted by atoms/ions. A photon is a wave of short duration, a single cycle. Beams diverge, so there IS an inverse power law 1/r^(something) for photons and beams. Photons have an annoying habit of passing through more than one slit of a diffraction grating used to measure energy. The answer to redshift is both quantum mechanical and classical, not recessional. I expect to observe redshift from a distant emitter. The single photon diverges. Multiple photons spread like buckshot, single photons spread like splatted flies on a windshield. There is no evidence of a Big Bang, it is conjecture based on a misunderstanding of the nature of electromagnetic radiation. Hubble was not listening to Planck. Androcles. "That fellow seems to me to possess but one idea, and that is a wrong one."--Dr. Samuel Johnson Brian Tung The Astronomy Corner at http://astro.isi.edu/ Unofficial C5+ Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/c5plus/ The PleiadAtlas Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/pleiadatlas/ My Own Personal FAQ (SAA) at http://astro.isi.edu/reference/faq.txt |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
science sense and common sense, was Intelligent Design Invading Liberal Classrooms
Androcles wrote:
Radio transmitters emit waves, waves can be focused into beams. The inverse square law does not apply to Cassini-Huyghens at Saturn or to single photons emitted by atoms/ions. A photon is a wave of short duration, a single cycle. You have an incomplete understanding of quantum mechanics. A photon is not a wave. It is not a particle in the Newtonian corpuscle sense. It has some properties that we commonly associate with both, though. For instance, like a wave, it has phase and it interferes, but unlike a wave (though like some particles), it cannot be divided in half, so to speak, to yield a half-photon. It is not just a single cycle of a wave. Photons have an annoying habit of passing through more than one slit of a diffraction grating used to measure energy. It is only annoying if you don't do the math. If you do the math, you find that it behaves completely as expected. The fact that we don't find it intuitive is not an obstacle to it being so. I think you are reasoning from popular science descriptions of photons, in a realm where inaccuracies can be expected from such reasoning. I also think you don't care, and will continue to insist your intuition should defeat observation. -- Brian Tung The Astronomy Corner at http://astro.isi.edu/ Unofficial C5+ Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/c5plus/ The PleiadAtlas Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/pleiadatlas/ My Own Personal FAQ (SAA) at http://astro.isi.edu/reference/faq.txt |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
science sense and common sense, was Intelligent Design Invading Liberal Classrooms
we see again the ****en QM arrogance of QM people
it is not the problem of the QM only it is mainly the problem of baseless arrogance of the people who claim to be its priests!! for example the double slit problem: a centrists that do not realize that there is a 'dead dog' lying here is a walking damage to science!! a mathematical solution is not a complete solution if there is no real physics explanation- the solution is missing something very crucial THAT PREVENTS FURTHER ADVANCE!! if those ****en arrogant people do not realize it they are not only hindering themselves (for that i dont mind!! let them be stuck in the mud!) the problem is they disturb others to make advance!! to start thinking about other solutions. while we demand science that will be compatible with 'intuition' we do not mean just intuition of any private fantasy we demand that it will be compatible WITH OTHER UNDERSTANDINGS OF BASIC PREVIOUS PHYSICS for instance if we know surely in basic physics that there is no energy without mass than it should be right anywhere in all physics!! if we know form BASIC previous physics that a physical entity *cannot be at the same time in two different places than it be the same in the double slit experiment and if it only 'looks like that' *there is something crucially important missing in that partial arrogant 'solution'*!! btw my guess (intuitive! (:-) is that in the above case the photon is actually composed of *many photons'* and we actually do not know yet to define what 'a photon' really is !!! and if that is not a missing situation than what is a missing situation in physics !!???. ATB Y.Porat -------------------- |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
science sense and common sense, was Intelligent Design Invading Liberal Classrooms
"Brian Tung" wrote in message ... Androcles wrote: Radio transmitters emit waves, waves can be focused into beams. The inverse square law does not apply to Cassini-Huyghens at Saturn or to single photons emitted by atoms/ions. A photon is a wave of short duration, a single cycle. You have an incomplete understanding of quantum mechanics. A photon is not a wave. You have an incomplete understanding of physics, as we all do. "If we knew what it was we were doing, it would not be called research, would it?" - Albert Einstein I, however, am not a pompous know-it-all arrogant arsehole. **** off, ****. *plonk* Androcles. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
science sense and common sense, was Intelligent Design Invading Liberal Classrooms
"Brian Tung" wrote in message ... Androcles wrote: Radio transmitters emit waves, waves can be focused into beams. The inverse square law does not apply to Cassini-Huyghens at Saturn or to single photons emitted by atoms/ions. A photon is a wave of short duration, a single cycle. You have an incomplete understanding of quantum mechanics. Androcles has a complete understanding of what it feels like to be the biggest idiot on the physics newsgroups: http://www.google.com/search?q=site:...2Ebe+androcles Dirk Vdm |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
science sense and common sense, was Intelligent Design Invading Liberal Classrooms
In message , Brian Tung
writes Androcles wrote: Radio transmitters emit waves, waves can be focused into beams. The inverse square law does not apply to Cassini-Huyghens at Saturn Not so (just in passing). or to single photons emitted by atoms/ions. A photon is a wave of short duration, a single cycle. You have an incomplete understanding of quantum mechanics. A photon is not a wave. It is not a particle in the Newtonian corpuscle sense. It has some properties that we commonly associate with both, though. For instance, like a wave, it has phase and it interferes, but unlike a wave (though like some particles), it cannot be divided in half, so to speak, to yield a half-photon. It is not just a single cycle of a wave. Photons have an annoying habit of passing through more than one slit of a diffraction grating used to measure energy. It is only annoying if you don't do the math. If you do the math, you find that it behaves completely as expected. The fact that we don't find it intuitive is not an obstacle to it being so. Has anyone achieved this using viruses? I know it's been done with buckyballs http://www.quantum.univie.ac.at/research/matterwave/c60/ Common sense and intuition went out of the window a century ago :-) |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
science sense and common sense, was Intelligent Design Invading Liberal Classrooms
"Jonathan Silverlight" wrote in message ... In message , Brian Tung writes Androcles wrote: Radio transmitters emit waves, waves can be focused into beams. The inverse square law does not apply to Cassini-Huyghens at Saturn Not so (just in passing). Empirical evidence will not be denied, despite your protestations. http://www.esa.int/SPECIALS/Cassini-...6E2VQUD_0.html or to single photons emitted by atoms/ions. A photon is a wave of short duration, a single cycle. You have an incomplete understanding of quantum mechanics. A photon is not a wave. It is not a particle in the Newtonian corpuscle sense. It has some properties that we commonly associate with both, though. For instance, like a wave, it has phase and it interferes, but unlike a wave (though like some particles), it cannot be divided in half, so to speak, to yield a half-photon. It is not just a single cycle of a wave. Photons have an annoying habit of passing through more than one slit of a diffraction grating used to measure energy. It is only annoying if you don't do the math. If you do the math, you find that it behaves completely as expected. The fact that we don't find it intuitive is not an obstacle to it being so. Has anyone achieved this using viruses? I know it's been done with buckyballs http://www.quantum.univie.ac.at/research/matterwave/c60/ Common sense and intuition went out of the window a century ago :-) I have no tolerance of imbeciles that begin with a personal attack. I made no attack on Tung, yet the ******* sees fit to tell me I have no understanding. I told the **** to **** off. End of Tung. Now... In passing, why did you say "not so" to my statement "The inverse square law does not apply to Cassini-Huyghens at Saturn"? Do you have some evidence, argument, reasoning or other qualification to your statement, other than assertion? Androcles. |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
EXTRATERRESTRIAL CONTACT & COVER-UP - Pix Galore - Billy Meier & Michael Horn & (Oh, Shit... )Ed Conrad | Ed Conrad | History | 15 | February 6th 06 05:21 AM |
science sense and common sense, was Intelligent Design Invading Liberal Classrooms | Brian Tung | Astronomy Misc | 9 | November 27th 05 12:14 PM |
Genesis and Creation | Shneor | Amateur Astronomy | 90 | October 15th 05 08:01 PM |
Ann Druyan talks about science, religion... | Sam Wormley | Amateur Astronomy | 24 | June 17th 05 08:00 PM |
Hawking Recants on Black Hole Theory! | Double-A | Misc | 134 | July 30th 04 11:08 AM |