Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
|
Dec 14, 2018 - 08:42am PT
|
Dingus, your story is what makes this terrain so hard... and the effort to get through it so hard. But we must. By all indications, there is higher ground ahead.
Meanwhile, darwinian evolution by natural selection is relentless, it never ceases.
|
|
Norton
climber
The Wastelands
|
|
|
Dec 14, 2018 - 08:52am PT
|
Can we please say "old texts" instead of "sacred texts"?
The sacred refers to the divine
sa·cred
adjective
connected with God (or the gods)
|
|
Don Paul
Social climber
Washington DC
|
|
|
Dec 14, 2018 - 09:12am PT
|
And the earth (matter) was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep....
There's no doubt the Big Bang theory comes from Genesis. People have invented dark matter, dark energy, and now negative mass, to fill the voids in this impossible theory of creation.
I would disagree that religion was ever a primitive version of science. Making hand axes out of shale instead of marble is scientific. Japanese magnet therapy, dietary supplements and whatnot are religious/superstitious.
Primitive:
1. Assumed as a basis. Axiomatic.
2. Of or relating to the earliest age or period. Primeval.
3. Of, relating to, or produced by a people or culture that is nonindustrial and often nonliterate and tribal.
4. Naive.
5. Self-taught. Untutored.
|
|
MikeL
Social climber
Southern Arizona
|
|
|
Dec 14, 2018 - 09:24am PT
|
Cheers back at ya, DMT.
Excellent exposition, Jan.
Paul: [Sacred texts] are metaphors of reconciliation that help make life bearable to those in despair.
More, . . . much much more.
Religious practice and ritual work hand-in-hand with culture and social (and political) order everywhere. They promote continuity, flexibility in social orders, they express paradoxes and ambiguities, they express stresses and tensions for diminishment or resolution, they induce ethos, they mediate cultural ideas and social experiences, they trigger experiences, they compel acceptance of traditional forms of authority with formalized and restricted speech,—and they enable change, they provide entertainment (one can think of sports, theatre, public speeches), they indicate the difference between the profound and profane, they provide ways of seeing (and not seeing), they serve power, they “cook” indescribable raw human experience, they enable the transformation of identities and social groups, and on and on and on.
Any place where one sees ritual or ritualistic practices, one is confronted with beliefs of what is sacred and what is profane (texts notwithstanding): table manners, etiquette, shaking hands, greetings and farewells, calendrical rites, carnival experiences, feasts, pujas, commemorative rites recalling historical events, pomp, political spectacles, all rites of passage, marriage rites, funerary rites, pilgrimages (to Yosemite?), purification rituals, civil ceremonies, rites of exchange, sacrifices, healing rites, interaction rites, meditation rites, ritual dramas, communions, and on and on.
There is so very little behaviors that we participate in that are purely functional, technical, or rational. It’s likely that everyone who reads this post has already engaged in numerous (almost uncountable) rituals that express what is sacred and what is profane already this day. All social orders do that. Even science, which is fine by me.
Be well.
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
|
Dec 14, 2018 - 09:40am PT
|
So it turns out religion and asbestos have a lot in common.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asbestos
One can read this asbestos entry at wiki and note a half a dozen points of contact.
QT Is it fair to study asbestos, to question claims against it, or to criticize its use where it's suspect/deemed to cause harm?
On July 12, 2018, a Missouri jury ordered Johnson & Johnson to pay a record $4.69 billion to 22 women who alleged the company’s talc-based products, including its baby powder, contain asbestos and caused them to develop ovarian cancer...
It's the Age of Science, sure. But it's also the Age of Corrections.
ANS It's more than fair, it's the right thing to do.
ref: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mesothelioma; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talc
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Dec 14, 2018 - 09:44am PT
|
There's no doubt the Big Bang theory comes from Genesis. People have invented dark matter, dark energy, and now negative mass, to fill the voids in this impossible theory of creation.
no, the Big Bang does not come from Genesis, it is the consequence of interpreting astrophysical observations. Hubble's observation of the galaxies (which he had to discover first) receding can be explained as the expansion of the universe, which is also consistent with General Relativity. The expansion started at some point in time, derisively labeled the "Big Bang" by Fred Hoyle, who thought the idea ridiculous.
Similarly, Dark Matter, named by Zwicky who was first to observe the anomalous dynamics of clusters of galaxies, a hypothesis by which the total mass of those systems, and also at the scale of galaxies (as later shown by Rubin) is larger than the amount of luminous matter (the stars, dust clouds etc).
Finally, astrophysicists making more accurate measurements of Hubble's expansion rate found that it has changed through the history of the universe, and for which we lack a physical explanation, though there are many proposed.
You could charge science as being religion on these points, but the "story" is a scientific one, and based on evidence and related through theory to other physical phenomena. The modern scientific cosmology is hardly dogmatic, and seems to undergo major revision on the 10 to 20 year cycle as observations become possible and available.
Right now the current cosmology is confronted with the new results from the observation of gravity waves. The early news is that General Relativity is in good shape, that we don't fully understand the distribution of black hole masses, and that the abundance of heavy elements could be explained by neutron star mergers. 10 such "events" have been observed, I look forward to the time when we have 100.
In process are those unbelievably careful observations of the cosmic microwave background, searching for the earliest signs of the influence of gravity imprinted into the patterns of polarization.
Also coming online are the telescopes that will peer back to the earliest times, the James Webb, and the TMT, and a class of telescopes like the LSST which will make a tomographic reconstruction of the distribution of dark energy in the universe, possible by the lensing of distant light.
Science is not stuck in the past, and while we revere those "ancient texts" of the early physicists, we don't consider them sacred, they pointed towards a future time of understanding by providing the basis of testable hypotheses, the results of those tests altering that past understanding and incorporated into our view of the universe.
If there is a faith, it is that the universe can be understood by science.
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
|
Dec 14, 2018 - 09:48am PT
|
If there is a faith, it is that the universe can be understood by science.
an evidence-based one at that
|
|
paul roehl
Boulder climber
california
|
|
|
Dec 14, 2018 - 10:08am PT
|
no, the Big Bang does not come from Genesis, it is the consequence of interpreting astrophysical observations. Hubble's observation of the galaxies (which he had to discover first) receding can be explained as the expansion of the universe, which is also consistent with General Relativity. The expansion started at some point in time, derisively labeled the "Big Bang" by Fred Hoyle, who thought the idea ridiculous.
No doubt true. But it's important to remember that there is a natural tendency based on the experience of the human psyche to expect a beginning, as seen in a variety of sacred texts from the Battle of the Gods to the story of Genesis, every body expecting something from nothing.
|
|
Don Paul
Social climber
Washington DC
|
|
|
Dec 14, 2018 - 01:31pm PT
|
Ed, I've pointed out the two fallacies in the big bang theory over and over.
#1 The observed red shifts are isotropic. This means the Earth is at the exact center of the expansion of the universe and was ground zero for the big bang. This has been confirmed in other EM frequencies, not just visible light observed by Hubble.
#2 The next argument, that "space itself is expanding" has no meaning, because space itself has no physical existence and is just an imaginary frame of reference. If your model has a changing frame of reference, or one that needs continuous fudge-factoring, there's a problem.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Dec 14, 2018 - 01:36pm PT
|
This means the Earth is at the exact center of the expansion and ground zero for the big bang.
no, it means that it is "expanding" everywhere at the same rate, so every point it moving away from every other point as the same rate...
there are asymmetries in the CMB distribution the dipole term is consistent with our motion in the local frame
If you are arguing that there is not space-time, that it is just a construct, then you could perhaps propose the replacement for it in physical theory? I've posted occasionally on this (usually under the guise of "pre-geometry") and it is expected, but the physical theory which uses space-time works quite well.
What evidence do you have that it isn't?
|
|
Don Paul
Social climber
Washington DC
|
|
|
Dec 14, 2018 - 01:45pm PT
|
The evidence is this. Let's say the big bang occurred a long distance away from the earth and that the earth is moving away from the big bang point. If you take the earth's movement into account, you should see smaller red shifts for objects in the direction you're moving. The are moving away from the big bang point, in the same direction as you. If you look back, you should be able to look across the big bang origin point to galaxies moving away in the opposite direction, that should have roughly double the red shift (simplified because they dont have to have the same velocities). Before moving on, that is fallacy #1 explained.
Here is a source. I'm skeptical there are measurements of the "cosmic microwave background" (in fact, there is background radiation in every frequency and direction, not just microwaves) that contradict this. The CMB maps showing a 'dipole' are small variations in something remarkably isotropic. Normally the red shifts are measured in stars, galaxies, and the supernova data, which is relatively recent. This was all argued almost a century ago now on the basis of Hubble's original measurements, but alas, religion prevailed over science. This paper I linked shows that people are still looking for anisotropy, and not finding it.
|
|
Don Paul
Social climber
Washington DC
|
|
|
Dec 14, 2018 - 02:38pm PT
|
Yes Moose, that's fallacy #2. Although I admit the simplicity of the idea is appealing. The balloon is a physical object. When it inflates, the surface of the balloon expands, but it becomes thinner. The dots move away from each other because the polymer chains are being stretched and align themselves in the directions they're being pulled.
You cannot say the same thing about an imaginary x-y-z coordinate system, or one based on some odd crystal structure, that crystallographers use out of convenience. If I want to impose a hexagonal coordinate system on the universe (think dungeons and dragons dice) it's just as valid as any other. If you let it expand in your model, you're cheating and you can no longer say you have a "frame of reference."
Ed says General Relativity "works quite well." That shall be the subject of the next episode of, Religion v Science. lol.
|
|
Don Paul
Social climber
Washington DC
|
|
|
Dec 14, 2018 - 03:07pm PT
|
The way I think you should be challenging me is, if the red shifts aren't caused by the Doppler effect, then what does cause them? This is the basic problem, that there is no other explanation, that anyone can think of. Take this as your starting point: the further away an object is, the more the spectral lines from it are shifted to longer wavelengths. This effect is almost perfectly linear with distance, in measurements from radio waves to gamma rays. It is also ISOTROPIC.
Theories that the light is "losing energy" on the way are referred to as tired light theories, and none are satisfactory. The most similar effect, I think, is inelastic compton scattering. The problem with this is convervation of momentum, the photons would have to change direction and would never reach you. They could only contribute to the diffuse background radiation.
Here is one paper by David Schuster that sounds like a better explanation, that "empty space" has an index of refraction sufficiently different from one, that light slows down and thereby appears to be of longer wavelength. It's amazing how significant the slowing down is, in something like a quartz crystal. Check it out: https://arxiv.org/pdf/0706.2885.pdf
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
|
Dec 14, 2018 - 03:11pm PT
|
Hey Don,
What is your academic background in math, physics and engineering if you don't mind me asking.
I know you're a lawyer, you said. And I know you have interests in these areas, incl s vs r.
Just curious about the academic part over the years, though. Thanks.
...
Don, also, in a previous post, you mentioned your "religion" - for lack of a better word? - was... the Scientic Method, if I recall. Was that just a typo? or some new kind of method, perhaps related to the Scientific one, that I'm not familiar with?
P.S. I notice both of your links draw on math at or above integral calculus, etc.. That's pretty heavy duty for most. Are you fluent yourself in math at these levels?
Have you yourself done the due diligence on all these many physical/engineering concepts you've cited or alluded to? Can you point to any popular mainstream scientific group that favors these ideas or models you're broaching here that someone like me can follow along and understand without huge consumption of time. Perhaps a few youtube videos?
|
|
Don Paul
Social climber
Washington DC
|
|
|
Dec 14, 2018 - 03:31pm PT
|
I became a lawyer late in life, left grad school in materials science after two years at Brookhaven National Lab, working on X-ray Diffraction and EXAFS. It was very intersting but kind of lonely. But ... HFSC I know you are very smart and can figure this out yourself. Don't believe me.
The Scientific Method, I think was invented some time around Galileo. I admitted I learned this from playing the civilization computer game lol.
Math is not my subject. When I started reading the schrodinger equations, the first thing the author wanted me to do was calculate legendre polynomials or some other nonsense. Not for me.
Finally, no David Schuster's theory (not my idea) is not a mainstream one, and it doesn't seem that he continued developing the idea. But I'd rather believe in some unknown physics principle that causes light to be red shifted across space, than dark matter, dark energy or ... the big bang genesis story.
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
|
Dec 14, 2018 - 03:34pm PT
|
You're bringing it up. I am interested. But I'm under time constraints. What is your math background? and how much effort have you put in yourself studying these phenomena you're broaching here? I am happy to defer to the expertise. But I could use your help.
There's no doubt the Big Bang theory comes from Genesis. -Don Paul
You have to admit, eh? that this is a pretty confusing statement in itself?
People have invented dark matter, dark energy, and now negative mass, to fill the voids in this impossible theory of creation. -Don Paul
"Dark Matter." "Dark energy." Are these not (suitable, valid) place holders for suspect components or suspect factors in certain current scientific models that expert consensus support?
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
|
Dec 14, 2018 - 03:53pm PT
|
But I'd rather believe in some unknown physics principle that causes light to be red shifted across space, than dark matter, dark energy or ... the big bang genesis story. -Don Paul
Well, okay, but if modern science has taught us anthropic primates anything it is that our common sense intuition can't always be trusted (despite Oprah's urgings otherwise).
But hey, we both value the Scientific Method as part of our creed, it looks like. Good enough.
And I'm glad to read that there is NOT some new fangled concept or procedure in the world called... Scientic method... derived perhaps from a game called Civilization. ;)
...
left grad school in materials science after two years ... I started reading the schrodinger equations...
(1) So your undergraduate degree is?
(2) Isn't "reading" the schrodinger equations an unusual verb to use here, it kind of throws me.
(3) I mentioned math, levels thereof, because at higher ones you get into various operations, transforms, etc.. e.g., curl and dot product vector operations, differential equations, etc that make something like curved space and expansion of space and placeholders for anonymous suspect phenomena more understandable if not more credible as possibilities. Right? Perhaps the higher math experts here can help me elaborate on this. I am not one despite two years of exposure to these.
But the idea of space expanding or not is an interesting one.
|
|
Don Paul
Social climber
Washington DC
|
|
|
Dec 14, 2018 - 04:15pm PT
|
This is what happened last time I brought this up. I got cross examined on math. As if my own math abilty were the issue, rather than the clear explanations I just provided for the umpteenth time. XRD and EXAFS are based on fourier transforms, and space group theory. Took another course in topology which left no impression on me at all. Also maxwells equations that I was discussing withjstanndard on some related subject. I forgot all that but have gotten much better at calling out BS.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Dec 14, 2018 - 06:57pm PT
|
where does your "index of refraction" come from?
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!