A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Astronomy and Astrophysics » Amateur Astronomy
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Neil DeGrasse Tyson headed down same loony road as Carl Sagan?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #261  
Old October 9th 18, 02:10 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Chris L Peterson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,007
Default Neil DeGrasse Tyson headed down same loony road as Carl Sagan?

On Tue, 9 Oct 2018 09:40:32 +0100, Martin Brown
wrote:

I'm not sure what that's supposed to demonstrate, though. Times
change. Our understanding of nature, and of how to understand nature,
is radically different now. Do you think that nature will never be
understood? That there's an infinite depth to the fundamental laws,
and we can never reach the end?


Pretty much like peeling an onion. When you gain access to ever higher
energy collisions and rarer events you may see some new fine detail that
was not previously detectable. Likewise with bigger telescopes and
multispectral imaging - the first view of the universe at really high
resolution in the terahertz band will be significant for example.


Seeing more doesn't mean we learn more. Much of what we see now is
just confirmation of ideas we already hold. Confirmation isn't the
same as discovery.

Onions have centers. They're not layers forever.

I see the Universe as a simple place, with simple laws. Indeed, that's
the general view of modern physics, and all the available evidence
supports that view. A view which had not developed 150 years ago. At
some point, it appears we'll know everything. And we are arguably much
farther along that path now than we were 150 years ago. Our big
theories are highly stable. They continue to hold up, and new
observations continue to support them. 150 years ago new observations
were overturning the (rather weak) theories of the time.


Even the simplest canonical game of life with Conway's original rules
turns out to have extremely complex behaviour and is Turing complete.


Irrelevant to my point, which is that we understand the rules, not
that we can necessarily predict the behavior.
  #262  
Old October 9th 18, 02:16 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Paul Schlyter[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,344
Default Neil DeGrasse Tyson headed down same loony road as Carl Sagan?

On Tue, 09 Oct 2018 06:58:19 -0600, Chris L Peterson
wrote:
On Tue, 09 Oct 2018 14:28:51 +0200, Paul Schlyter
wrote:


On Sun, 07 Oct 2018 14:45:11 -0600, Chris L Peterson
wrote:
On Sun, 7 Oct 2018 13:21:13 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc


wrote:


On Sunday, October 7, 2018 at 7:58:08 AM UTC-6, Chris L

Peterson
wrote:
GR is easy to understand.

For a certain value of "understand". Tensor calculus isn't easy.


Sure. The techniques for manipulating the numbers can be tricky
(although trivially handled by software tools these days). But

the
underlying concepts are accessible to anyone with a reasonably

normal
level of intelligence.


You need much more than just the fundamental concepts to

successfully
build a theory. The fundamental concept of Newtonian gravity, for
instance, is trivially simple. Yet, even the three-body problem
turned out to be hairy and difficult, not to mention the N-body
problem. Numerical integration handles them all of course, but
numerical integration does not answer the question about the

extreme
long-term stability of the system.


I'm not sure of your point here. It certainly doesn't argue against
anything I've said.


In your opinion, what are the simple fundamental concepts of that GUT
which has QM as one of its limits and GR as another one of its
limits? Either you swiftly tell me that (and of course a majority of
today's physicists should agree with you here), or else you admit
that it is not simple to find that answer.
  #263  
Old October 9th 18, 02:21 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Paul Schlyter[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,344
Default Neil DeGrasse Tyson headed down same loony road as Carl Sagan?

On Sun, 07 Oct 2018 07:58:05 -0600, Chris L Peterson
wrote:
On Sun, 07 Oct 2018 06:58:35 +0200, Paul Schlyter
wrote:


I see it as shallow. Very shallow. The Universe is simple and

easy
to
understand.


If so, please present your Grand Unified Theory of the universe.

If
the universe is so easy to understand, you should be able to do so
quite quickly.


Why? That's a fallacy. GR is easy to understand. QM is easy to
understand. That doesn't make either of them obvious. We can puzzle
for a long time over a tricky problem that ends up having an

extremely
simple and easy to understand solution. Simple != obvious.


Here you contradict yourself by saying:

1. QM and GR are both simple..
2. Simple is obvious.
3. However, QM and GR are not necessarily obvious.

So what about GUT? Is it simple? Is it obvious? Is it neither? Is it
both?
  #264  
Old October 9th 18, 02:27 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Gerald Kelleher
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,551
Default Neil DeGrasse Tyson headed down same loony road as Carl Sagan?

These mongrels are a product of the adventures of mathematicians around 100 years ago rather than dealing with substantive issues which distinguish normal physics from the pseudo-science of astrophysics.

The concession genuine researchers have to make is back centuries ago but considering what is on offer in the 21st century, they are the ones who should be desperate to escape the mentality dumped on them by Newton much less the guys last century.

  #265  
Old October 9th 18, 02:36 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Martin Brown[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 189
Default Neil DeGrasse Tyson headed down same loony road as Carl Sagan?

On 09/10/2018 13:21, Paul Schlyter wrote:
On Tue, 9 Oct 2018 09:40:32 +0100, Martin Brown
wrote:
Likewise with bigger telescopes and multispectral imaging - the first
view of the universe at really

high
resolution in the terahertz band will be significant for example.


We've already done that. Visible light has a frequency of about 500 THz.


I meant the tricky part of the terahertz band where some neutral matter
is almost transparent. I have seen an image of Cass A done but I think
it must be classified as it has to my knowledge never been published.

It is the awkward gap where photon energy is too low for optical devices
and frequency too high for microwave techniques to work adequately.

theories of the day predict. We are about due a paradigm shift in
physics this century. Average is about one every couple of

centuries.

Only during the last half millennium or so. Before that, physical
theories prevailed for millennia.


Back then people were content with the approved "just so" stories and
the established religion that their rulers subscribed to.

Scientific curiosity has let the cat out of the bag.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown
  #266  
Old October 9th 18, 02:44 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Chris L Peterson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,007
Default Neil DeGrasse Tyson headed down same loony road as Carl Sagan?

On Tue, 09 Oct 2018 15:16:49 +0200, Paul Schlyter
wrote:

I'm not sure of your point here. It certainly doesn't argue against
anything I've said.


In your opinion, what are the simple fundamental concepts of that GUT
which has QM as one of its limits and GR as another one of its
limits? Either you swiftly tell me that (and of course a majority of
today's physicists should agree with you here), or else you admit
that it is not simple to find that answer.


I have no idea. Again, lacking knowledge about something does not mean
that something is not simple. All of the major theories we have that
describe nature are simple. Why would I not expect the same for those
we have not yet discovered?

I have not argued anywhere that it is simple to find any answers.
  #267  
Old October 9th 18, 02:46 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Chris L Peterson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,007
Default Neil DeGrasse Tyson headed down same loony road as Carl Sagan?

On Tue, 09 Oct 2018 15:21:57 +0200, Paul Schlyter
wrote:

Why? That's a fallacy. GR is easy to understand. QM is easy to
understand. That doesn't make either of them obvious. We can puzzle
for a long time over a tricky problem that ends up having an

extremely
simple and easy to understand solution. Simple != obvious.


Here you contradict yourself by saying:

1. QM and GR are both simple..
2. Simple is obvious.
3. However, QM and GR are not necessarily obvious.


Where did I say that simple is obvious? I said that simple does not
imply obvious.
  #268  
Old October 9th 18, 05:14 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Gerald Kelleher
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,551
Default Neil DeGrasse Tyson headed down same loony road as Carl Sagan?

Certainly this thread should be named the MadHatter's Tea (t) party, after all, Lewis Carroll dressed his fantasy in reference to mathematicians and their wayward agenda. He wasn't capable enough to distinguish time from timekeeping and this is where it all falls apart as the founding errors of Newton's system arises in astronomy and specifically the creation of RA/Dec which is just a convenience for adding the 24 hour system to the older system which predicts celestial events within the calendar framework.

The intellectual mongrels today don't know what Newton was doing and have less interest in astronomy, at least the astronomy of a moving Earth and Sun centred system that emerged before telescopes arrived on the scene.

It is like a parade of pseudo-intellectual peacocks in this thread but the feathers are a lot duller these days.
  #269  
Old October 10th 18, 07:29 AM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Paul Schlyter[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,344
Default Neil DeGrasse Tyson headed down same loony road as Carl Sagan?

On Tue, 9 Oct 2018 14:36:12 +0100, Martin Brown
wrote:
It is the awkward gap where photon energy is too low for optical

devices
and frequency too high for microwave techniques to work adequately.


Which frequency range is that? And is thar radio waves or infrared?
  #270  
Old October 10th 18, 07:34 AM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Paul Schlyter[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,344
Default Neil DeGrasse Tyson headed down same loony road as Carl Sagan?

On Tue, 09 Oct 2018 07:44:26 -0600, Chris L Peterson
wrote:
On Tue, 09 Oct 2018 15:16:49 +0200, Paul Schlyter
wrote:


I'm not sure of your point here. It certainly doesn't argue

against
anything I've said.


In your opinion, what are the simple fundamental concepts of that

GUT
which has QM as one of its limits and GR as another one of its
limits? Either you swiftly tell me that (and of course a majority

of
today's physicists should agree with you here), or else you admit
that it is not simple to find that answer.


I have no idea. Again, lacking knowledge about something does not

mean
that something is not simple. All of the major theories we have that
describe nature are simple. Why would I not expect the same for

those
we have not yet discovered?


I have not argued anywhere that it is simple to find any answers.


You have a quite unusual definition of simple if you think e.g.
tensor calculus is simple. Yes, the GR theory
uses tensor calculus as an essential part.

In normal language use, simple implies easy to learn.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Denial of Neil deGrasse Tyson's Science Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 3 April 24th 17 06:58 PM
NEIL DEGRASSE TYSON DISHONEST OR JUST SILLY? Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 3 August 6th 15 12:14 PM
Neil (EGO) Degrasse Tyson STEALS directly from Sagan RichA[_6_] Amateur Astronomy 4 April 17th 15 09:38 AM
NEIL DEGRASSE TYSON : CONSPIRACY OF THE HIGHEST ORDER Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 2 July 14th 14 04:32 PM
'My Favorite Universe' (Neil deGrasse Tyson) M Dombek UK Astronomy 1 December 29th 05 01:01 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:02 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.