5
   

The forbidden questions of comsology and physics

 
 
dalehileman
 
  1  
Reply Thu 10 Sep, 2015 11:05 am
@farmerman,
Quote:
Life is too complex to have arisen without an intelligence behind it
Another version: "All our constants seem to have been delicately adjusted specifically to permit the emergence and evolution of life"

Controversial yes but nonetheless very appealing to the intuition. Deserves a separate thread
Leadfoot
 
  2  
Reply Thu 10 Sep, 2015 11:20 am
@farmerman,
Quote:
ID has NEVER BEGUN WITH EVIDENCE> IT HAS ALWAYS BEGUN WITH A PROPOSITION THAT "Life is too complex to have arisen without an intelligence behind it"

Just curious. If when the first man sets foot on Mars he finds a new device comparable in complexity to an iPhone buried in the sand, do you think it would be unreasonable to assume that it was the result of some intelligent source? No one who proposed that since all the raw materials are present on Mars to make the device that it had to be the result of natural processes. My guess is that it would instantly kick off a search for the aliens who made it (because space aliens are more believable than God :-)

Even the simplest bacteria is more complex than an iPhone but like most scientists when faced with an inexplicable creation (like Hawking and the universe), they will propose that it can make itself from literally nothing if necessary. I hasten to add (for Set's benefit) that I would never forbid that speculation, even in public schools.

The mystery to me is that scientists even more capable of understanding the complexity of life than I, don't reach the same conclusion (as I). Some do, but like in those court cases, their association with theistic beliefs are taken as disqualifying their scientific testimony.
farmerman
 
  2  
Reply Thu 10 Sep, 2015 11:21 am
@dalehileman,
been there, done that, maaaany times .

"constants" really?
dalehileman
 
  1  
Reply Thu 10 Sep, 2015 11:33 am
@farmerman,
Quote:
"constants" really?
Man, what was it I shouda said
Leadfoot
 
  1  
Reply Thu 10 Sep, 2015 11:40 am
@dalehileman,
Quote:
Man, what was it I shouda said


Nothing! Do not even hint at the possibility of anything beyond natural causes! It is an affront to almighty science , which demands total obedience and conformance.

Oh God, I've sunk to snarkiness...
dalehileman
 
  2  
Reply Thu 10 Sep, 2015 01:32 pm
@Leadfoot,
Quote:
Do not even hint at the possibility of anything beyond natural causes!
Again Foot, you've made my day

Interesting however inasmuch as I attribute The Whole Shebang, It, All, Her, as perfectly natural, the way things are, the way they hafta be

Nobody else hereabout gives a damn what I think so I won't elaborate, unless you have a specific issue or q you'd like me to address

Quote:
Oh God, I've sunk to snarkiness..
Welcome Foot to The Club
0 Replies
 
Banana Breath
 
  1  
Reply Thu 10 Sep, 2015 06:27 pm
@dalehileman,
Quote:
Eventually however, we'll uncover a clue or two, partly through physics...

Along the lines of this and other comments you've made, I ran into this paper:
http://phys.org/news/2012-10-physicists-special-relativity.html
which hints at "the other side" purely from a physics standpoint, allowing for speeds greater than c, up to (but not including) infinity. Interestingly, it breaks down with a singularity at c, but starts right back up again just above c. This does not ignore nor contradict Einstein's theory of special relativity but rather expands upon it. It thus hints at something beyond the big bang singularity, and other such barriers without negating them. Perhaps the big bang could be a temporal-spatial inflection rather than a beginning/end.
And to save a certain curmudgeon who screams at imaginary windmills the trouble of imagining one more, I'll point out that this paper was published in the refereed and respected Proceedings of the Royal Society, the UK's national academy of sciences.
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Thu 10 Sep, 2015 07:06 pm
@Banana Breath,
Banana Breath wrote:

Quote:
Okay, tell me one and only one thing in accepted inflationary cosmology that's wrong. Tell me yourself. Don't show me a link to someone else talking about it and don't tell me what someone else said. Tell me yourself.

Brandon, I think you should review the original question at hand here, dealing with "The forbidden questions of comsology and physics." This is not a "stump the expert" forum, nor have I claimed to be the resident expert. Further, in case you never went to college, citing references is part and parcel of good scholarship; one should always provide citations clarifying the background and derivations of thoughts, ideas, opinions and the like in an academic discussion or debate. As stated by MIT's libraries:
Quote:
"It's important to cite sources you used in your research for several reasons:
-To show your reader you've done proper research by listing sources you used to get your information
-To be a responsible scholar by giving credit to other researchers and acknowledging their ideas
-To avoid plagiarism by quoting words and ideas used by other authors
-To allow your reader to track down the sources you used by citing them accurately in your paper by way of footnotes, a bibliography or reference list
http://libguides.mit.edu/citing"

Give it a try sometime.

So, you cannot describe one and only one thing wrong with inflationary cosmology. You lose.
Banana Breath
 
  1  
Reply Thu 10 Sep, 2015 07:16 pm
@Brandon9000,
Quote:
you cannot describe one and only one thing wrong with inflationary cosmology. You lose.

Brandon, if it makes you happy to call every legit scholar in the world a loser, you go ahead, knock yourself out. But when you actually grow up (if you ever do) you'll notice that every legit scholar examining and criticizing the topic is generous in their research citations, that's what makes a good scholar. Pick up a copy of "The Universe in a Nutshell" by Stephen Hawking. Have a good look at his references and how he uses him.
If it will make you happy, write to him and ask him to rattle on in criticism of conventional physics without using any references. Let us know when you hear back from him. It would take a truly sad little man to dedicate his life to such tasks but I suspect you're up to the job.
farmerman
 
  2  
Reply Fri 11 Sep, 2015 10:56 am
@Leadfoot,
Quote:

Nothing! Do not even hint at the possibility of anything beyond natural causes
Pllease develop a workplan proposal to investigate HOW "supernatural causes in anything may be even used in science. Wheres the utility??
dalehileman
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Sep, 2015 11:12 am
@Banana Breath,
Thank you Ban for that link. I maintain however that the limit c is kind of an illusion, just as our concept of time-at-a-distance, and that it can't be achieved because it may be considered infinite--or at least so great that it might as well be. Solves a lotta intuitional q's

For instance why the moving object gets heavier. Actually, then, it only seems so 'cause we're underestimating its speed. But I'm getting into detail I promised not to 'cause evidently it bores everyone to death

But thank you again Ban for your interest
Banana Breath
 
  2  
Reply Fri 11 Sep, 2015 11:16 am
@farmerman,
Quote:

Please develop a workplan proposal to investigate HOW "supernatural causes in anything may be even used in science. Wheres the utility??

Don't you think the majority of the scientific community is doing that already? As I've stated above and cited references for, typical descriptions of the big bang simultaneously claim "Universality — physical laws are the same everywhere in the Universe at all times," yet include a big bang/big crunch singularity where time doesn't exist, and speeds, mass and energy reach infinity, exceeding the bounds of physical (natural) laws. Supernatural means just that: exceeding the bounds of natural laws.
0 Replies
 
Leadfoot
 
  2  
Reply Fri 11 Sep, 2015 04:06 pm
@dalehileman,
Quote:

For instance why the moving object gets heavier. Actually, then, it only seems so 'cause we're underestimating its speed. But I'm getting into detail I promised not to 'cause evidently it bores everyone to death

Not Me! I originally thought of those effects showing up at relativistic speeds. But it strikes me as very strange that it shows up at human scale speeds. Like why should it take much more energy to accelerate from 30 to 60 than it does from 0 to 30. Yeah, I know the formula, but there is some kind of mystery there that I can't wrap my head around. It's like there is some artificial principle in force designed to keep us locked in local space.

I'll stop now before I start getting all metaphysical. That's how I bore everyone to death.
dalehileman
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Sep, 2015 04:39 pm
@Leadfoot,
Quote:
why should it take much more energy to accelerate from 30 to 60 than it does from 0 to 30
I'm not sure it does, at least not from the point of view of the driver

I'm not bored yet; what else might I respond to
Leadfoot
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Sep, 2015 05:09 pm
@dalehileman,
Quote:
I'm not sure it does, at least not from the point of view of the driver


Take it from a lead footed driver. It does.
Banana Breath
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Sep, 2015 05:49 pm
@Leadfoot,
Try it in a vacuum in a car with an electric engine, and there shouldn't be much difference.
Leadfoot
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Sep, 2015 06:26 pm
@Banana Breath,
Quote:
@Leadfoot,
Try it in a vacuum in a car with an electric engine, and there shouldn't be much difference.

Nope, the source of power and aerodynamics don't matter. E=1/2 MV^2 holds true in all cases. That V squared thing gets you every time. There is no escape from local space :-)

Guess I'm not the only one who thinks it's weird.
Banana Breath
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Sep, 2015 08:25 pm
@Leadfoot,
wind resistance/drag increase with speed, as does loss of efficiency in internal combustion engines due to friction. Drag increases in an exponential fashion with respect to speed:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/math/0/f/5/0f542f3cdfdd0f8db25ef34e188375e9.png
drag force on any object is proportional to the density of the fluid and proportional to the square of the relative speed between the object and the fluid.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drag_coefficient
http://i58.tinypic.com/2lvigj8.png
Leadfoot
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Sep, 2015 10:17 pm
@Banana Breath,
True, I get all that.
But E=1/2MV^2 Is true even in outer space.
0 Replies
 
Leadfoot
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Sep, 2015 10:32 pm
@Banana Breath,
From Wiki...

Since the kinetic energy increases with the square of the speed, an object doubling its speed has four times as much kinetic energy. For example, a car traveling twice as fast as another requires four times as much distance to stop, assuming a constant braking force. As a consequence of this quadrupling, it takes four times the work to double the speed.
 

Related Topics

New Propulsion, the "EM Drive" - Question by TomTomBinks
The Science Thread - Discussion by Wilso
Why do people deny evolution? - Question by JimmyJ
Are we alone in the universe? - Discussion by Jpsy
Fake Science Journals - Discussion by rosborne979
Controvertial "Proof" of Multiverse! - Discussion by littlek
 
Copyright © 2023 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 02/03/2023 at 01:43:11