re stephen hawking refutation of big bang

Didn't COBE pretty much end this debate?

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

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

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

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

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.

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.

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

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

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.