|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Cosmological Simulations: Illustris Or Illusion?
On Thursday, May 29, 2014 2:48:24 AM UTC-4, Phillip Helbig---undress to reply wrote:
YOU say it is untestable, ignoring claims that it is. Please rebut them. See Peter Woit's many discussions (and additional commentary) on the multiverse, anthropic reasoning and related pseudo-science at Not Even Wrong. Also read Jim Baggott's new book Farewell To Reality. |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Cosmological Simulations: Illustris Or Illusion?
In article , "Robert L.
Oldershaw" writes: On Thursday, May 29, 2014 2:48:24 AM UTC-4, Phillip Helbig---undress to reply wrote: YOU say it is untestable, ignoring claims that it is. Please rebut them. See Peter Woit's many discussions (and additional commentary) on the multiverse, anthropic reasoning and related pseudo-science at Not Even Wrong. Also read Jim Baggott's new book Farewell To Reality. How about some references to active scientists, i.e. those who publish papers? |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Cosmological Simulations: Illustris Or Illusion?
On Friday, May 30, 2014 3:11:27 AM UTC-4, Phillip Helbig---undress to reply wrote:
How about some references to active scientists, i.e. those who publish papers? If you look at postings at arXiv.org you will find many papers that buy into the prevailing paradigms. No surprise there. However there are also well-published professional physicists who have attacked various weaknesses of the prevailing paradigms. In the past Feynman and Glashow come to mind. More recently Steinhardt, Kroupa, Loeb, Smolin, etc. come immediately to mind. I think if I wasted a few hours researching this issue I could come up with many more examples of professional physicists who think the prevailing paradigm and current pseudo-scientific trends are problematic. However, I suspect that you would only say that these people are 'wrong-thinkers' and crackpots, so I will not spend more time on this debating dodge of yours. [Mod. note: attributing opinions to people without waiting to hear what they will say is also a 'debating dodge'. Let's have fewer of them and more substance, please. In particular, if there are no concrete points to discuss directly related to research in astrophysics, this part of the thread should end here. -- mjh] |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Cosmological Simulations: Illustris Or Illusion?
In article , "Robert L.
Oldershaw" writes: However there are also well-published professional physicists who have attacked various weaknesses of the prevailing paradigms. In the past Feynman and Glashow come to mind. More recently Steinhardt, Kroupa, Loeb, Smolin, etc. come immediately to mind. Various weaknesses, yes, but their claims are not your claims. Of course, the enemy of one's enemy is one's friend, but that's usually not a stable long-term strategy. One also has to distinguish debates about details from debates about the foundations. I don't think any of those you mention above think that they are ignored by the community, that a new paradigm is on the rise etc. I remember reading Halton Arp's book where he DOES claim that he has been ignored by the community, deemed a crackpot etc. Then I got to the back flap, where it says he "is on the staff of the Max Planck Institute for Astrophysics". With criticism like this, who needs support? (Actually, he is a guest of the institute (I believe due to the initiative of Simon White, one of the directors), and not really on the staff, but still.) [Mod. note: 'Was': he died late last year -- mjh] |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Cosmological Simulations: Illustris Or Illusion?
On Saturday, May 31, 2014 8:28:57 AM UTC-4, Phillip Helbig---undress to reply wrote:
Various weaknesses, yes, but their claims are not your claims. Of course, the enemy of one's enemy is one's friend, but that's usually not a stable long-term strategy. One also has to distinguish debates about details from debates about the foundations. I don't think any of those you mention above think that they are ignored by the community, that a new paradigm is on the rise etc. I remember reading Halton Arp's book where he DOES claim that he has been ignored by the community, deemed a You seem to arguing with a straw man version of my explicit and limited themes in this thread and related threads of recent weeks. This thread is about the Illustris simulation and what simulations can and cannot do for scientific understanding. We seem to have drifted way off topic. [Mod. note: thread drift is normal and acceptable, as long as it doesn't go too far from 'research in astrophysics'. Participants should focus on writing interesting posts about research in astrophysics and leave moderation to, well, the moderator -- mjh] |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Cosmological Simulations: Illustris Or Illusion?
On Tuesday, May 20, 2014 2:32:54 AM UTC-4, Robert L. Oldershaw wrote:
Given a large number of dedicated workers and over 50 years of tinkering with a very complicated set of models involving numerous adjustable parameters and theoretical add-ons, is it surprising that the set of models can be used to reproduce observations fairly well? Hardly! There is a vast difference between having adjustable parameters, and being infinitely adjustable. If I have a quadratic polynomial with adjustable coefficients, I still will not be able to fit most arbitrary curves. More concretely, if I have a model simulation of a universe with only hot dark matter, then I will not be able to create anything that resembles the observed void structure, no matter how many parameters I adjust. And even more concretely, if my simulation contains only baryonic dark matter, then I will not be able to simulate the void structure of the universe. The large scale structure of the universe is one of many pieces of evidence that most of the mass of the universe does not consist of baryons. --Wayne |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Cosmological Simulations: Illustris Or Illusion?
On 6/1/2014 8:03 AM, Robert L. Oldershaw wrote:
... ... way off topic. [Mod. note: thread drift is normal and acceptable, It's even fundamentally unavoidable: everything can be related to a certain subject, given a line of reasoning. One might perhaps define a kind of "distance" between concepts and impose a limitation on it, but would it be appropriate for an astronomy group to be scared of distances?! -- Jos |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Simulations/calculations of the future of the universe? | Phillip Helbig---undress to reply | Research | 0 | December 22nd 10 11:17 PM |
Galactic Simulations and the propagation of Gravity | Ian Parker | Astronomy Misc | 9 | February 27th 09 02:30 PM |
interesting simulations of stellar orbits | Timberwoof[_2_] | Misc | 8 | August 1st 08 03:26 PM |
N-Body Simulations | Matthew Montchalin | Astronomy Misc | 5 | May 13th 04 10:56 PM |
Impact Simulations | Lonewolf3 | Astronomy Misc | 0 | August 18th 03 11:39 AM |