Page 2 of 2
Re: The origin of Dark Energy
Posted: Wed Nov 12, 2008 8:30 pm
by Sputnick
Nereid wrote:
What "alternative theories supported by the new evidence" are there, Sputnick?
Plasma Cosmology, Nereid. And before you will ask me to explain how it fits the new theories I will ask you how it doesn't fit the new theories.
So is quantum mechanics "too unshakably programmed into too many scientific brains to overcome the mass of the concensus [sic]"?
Perhaps some day or some evening over a bottle of wine I will more fully understand quantum mechanics. Care to join me? (Not that that is possible - resources being restricted.)
Re: The origin of Dark Energy
Posted: Wed Nov 12, 2008 8:37 pm
by Sputnick
=Chris - Nobody has done that to the satisfaction of most scientists.
Because the programming will not allow that to easily happen.
Re: The origin of Dark Energy
Posted: Wed Nov 12, 2008 8:45 pm
by Chris Peterson
Sputnick wrote:Plasma Cosmology, Nereid. And before you will ask me to explain how it fits the new theories I will ask you how it doesn't fit the new theories.
No, we will ask
you (as the proponent of an alternative "theory") to tell us why PC does a better job of explaining our observations than the standard model. It isn't our job to research every new idea presented, and try to make a case for or against it. If
you think it does a better job, convince us that we wouldn't be wasting our time reading up on PC. Because I'm quite sure neither of us has enough time to read every paper on every alternative cosmological theory. Nobody does. You need to convince us that there are important observations that the standard model fails to explain, but which PC does explain. Or, you need to convince us that PC does a better job explaining observations. And you need to convince us that PC explains all important observations. Do that, and I'll be willing to invest some time reading. Otherwise, not.
Re: The origin of Dark Energy
Posted: Wed Nov 12, 2008 8:50 pm
by Chris Peterson
Sputnick wrote:=Chris - Nobody has done that to the satisfaction of most scientists.
Because the programming will not allow that to easily happen.
You know, there is nothing scientists desire more than to make a pivotal new discovery. That's how you win a Nobel Prize. You don't do it by following the herd. Every scientist is out there trying to break new ground. It isn't hard in today's scientific world to change consensus- assuming you can make the case. An interesting idea isn't enough. You need concrete evidence that your idea is better than the status quo. Consensus shifts all the time. When you see theories that remain stable for decades or longer, there's usually a very good reason, and it has nothing to do with "programmed" scientists.
Re: The origin of Dark Energy
Posted: Wed Nov 12, 2008 10:31 pm
by Sputnick
Chris Peterson wrote:Sputnick wrote:Plasma Cosmology, Nereid. And before you will ask me to explain how it fits the new theories I will ask you how it doesn't fit the new theories.
No, we will ask
you (as the proponent of an alternative "theory") to tell us why PC does a better job of explaining our observations than the standard model. It isn't our job to research every new idea presented, and try to make a case for or against it. If
you think it does a better job, convince us that we wouldn't be wasting our time reading up on PC. Because I'm quite sure neither of us has enough time to read every paper on every alternative cosmological theory. Nobody does. You need to convince us that there are important observations that the standard model fails to explain, but which PC does explain. Or, you need to convince us that PC does a better job explaining observations. And you need to convince us that PC explains all important observations. Do that, and I'll be willing to invest some time reading. Otherwise, not.
Your " 'we' will ask 'you' " Chris is massive in its revealing that you are not thinking for yourself and of yourself reaching your own conclusions and suppositions ... you are following the 'we' herd - using 'we' herd arguments. We all need to belong to a herd or to a tribe or to a community. So how about belong to something Einstein said in the first paragraph of Chapter Three of The Theory of Relativity.
"It' has often been said, and certainly not without justification, that the man of science is a poor philosopher. Why then should it not be the right thing for the physicist to let the philosopher do the philosophizing? Such might indeed be the right thing at t time when the physicist believes he has at his disposal a rigid system of fundamental concepts and fundamental laws which are so well established that waves of doubt can not reach them; but it cannot be right at a time when the very foundations of physics itself have become problematic as they are now."
You will say perhaps those problems have been overcome and philosophy is not science. Really? Dark Matter has not been found. Dark Energy has not been found. New discoveries constantly throw doubts on the Big Bang which new fudging account for. Einstein's paragraph directly following the one I quoted is remarkable also, for it calls for a refinement in the way scientists think. I would urge you to read (reread?) that paragraph.
Re: The origin of Dark Energy
Posted: Wed Nov 12, 2008 10:48 pm
by Sputnick
Nereid - I may have quoted the wrong page number of that book relating to Verschuur's "may not be related to mass" - page 349.
As I said already here, I've read nothing in science magazines including this months' that contradict anything in Through a Universe Darkly .. and therefore cannot consider it archaic.
Re: The origin of Dark Energy
Posted: Wed Nov 12, 2008 11:14 pm
by Nereid
Chris Peterson wrote:Sputnick wrote:=Chris - Nobody has done that to the satisfaction of most scientists.
Because the programming will not allow that to easily happen.
You know, there is nothing scientists desire more than to make a pivotal new discovery. That's how you win a Nobel Prize. You don't do it by following the herd. Every scientist is out there trying to break new ground. It isn't hard in today's scientific world to change consensus- assuming you can make the case. An interesting idea isn't enough. You need concrete evidence that your idea is better than the status quo. Consensus shifts all the time. When you see theories that remain stable for decades or longer, there's usually a very good reason, and it has nothing to do with "programmed" scientists.
It has struck me that there's a certain irony here ... a thread about "Dark Energy", Sputnick's comments about dogma, religion, close-mindedness, programming, etc, etc, etc ... and yet two teams of astronomers publish results of extensive observations (of Type Ia supernovae), independently yet almost simultaneously, that seem to support something pretty darn dramatic, new, astonishing, revolutionary, mold-breaking, paradigm-shifting, etc.
Am I alone in seeing the irony?
Sputnick, in what way does (did) the work of the Supernova Cosmology Project team and the High-z Supernova Search Team conform to your idea of science?
How, in respect of your approach to science, does (did) the work of these two teams not illustrate - well - the points that Chris P has been making?
Recall that, before these two teams' papers, there was no evidence - in peer-reviewed papers published in relevant journals - that "Dark Energy" was a concept with backing from observation or experiment. So here is a (radical) idea that went from nowhere to acceptance, with observational backing, in just a few short years. How do you think it would have been written up in 'that book', had it been published in 2008, rather than the early 1990s?
Re: The origin of Dark Energy
Posted: Wed Nov 12, 2008 11:16 pm
by Nereid
Sputnick wrote:Nereid - I may have quoted the wrong page number of that book relating to Verschuur's "may not be related to mass" - page 349.
As I said already here, I've read nothing in science magazines including this months' that contradict anything in Through a Universe Darkly .. and therefore cannot consider it archaic.
(emphasis added)
Sputnick, what do you consider the
primary source of astronomical observations, theories, reports, etc?
Re: The origin of Dark Energy
Posted: Thu Nov 13, 2008 5:06 pm
by Sputnick
=Nereid -
"... ... Sputnick's comments about dogma, religion ... ..."[/quote]
Religion? I made one historically accurate comment exploring with Chris whether or not it was electrical/magnetic repulsion which allowed Jesus to walk on the water, whether the soles of his feet got wet or not, and I am said to be making comments about religion?
Re: The origin of Dark Energy
Posted: Thu Nov 13, 2008 5:13 pm
by Chris Peterson
Sputnick wrote:Religion? I made one historically accurate comment exploring with Chris whether or not it was electrical/magnetic repulsion which allowed Jesus to walk on the water, whether the soles of his feet got wet or not, and I am said to be making comments about religion?
Personally, I took that as an attempt at wit. Of course, if you actually believe that some historical character named Jesus walked on water, or that you could ever analyze a supernatural event using science... well, if so, it explains a lot.
Re: The origin of Dark Energy
Posted: Thu Nov 13, 2008 5:19 pm
by Sputnick
Nereid wrote:
Sputnick, what do you consider the primary source of astronomical observations, theories, reports, etc?
My feeble understanding of how the universe operates and how it will end (including a final explosion when matter-antimatter collide and eliminate the imbalance, that explosion resulting in creation of a universe with positive only attributes) is based on the bible ("the earth is a sphere suspended on nothing" as opposed to the (Greek? Roman image of a tablelike earth suspended on pillars). Perhaps I should not give in to wondering about the mechanisms by which the universe was created and continues, but I do give in. By the way, I am not a member of any denomination, and my goal in being on the forum is to expand my knowledge hopefully in an interesting environment. A minor goal has in the past few days become an opening of minds which I consider too dogmatic for the exploration of true science, as I am sure, Nereid, you hold the same hope for me.
Re: The origin of Dark Energy
Posted: Thu Nov 13, 2008 5:28 pm
by Sputnick
Chris Peterson wrote:Sputnick wrote:Religion? I made one historically accurate comment exploring with Chris whether or not it was electrical/magnetic repulsion which allowed Jesus to walk on the water, whether the soles of his feet got wet or not, and I am said to be making comments about religion?
Personally, I took that as an attempt at wit. Of course, if you actually believe that some historical character named Jesus walked on water, or that you could ever analyze a supernatural event using science... well, if so, it explains a lot.
Yes indeed, Chris, wit together with historical fact. And yes .. I would like to understand if possible the mechanisms by which miracles, coincidences and physics happen because I will have a better understanding of quite a lot of things, as well as an increase in faith.
By the way .. I posted a quote from Einstein in which he said because the foundations of physics had been so thoroughly shaken it was time for Physicists to become Philosophers .. but either the quote has been removed from the forum or is just lost in the jungle. I had attributed the quote the his theory of relativity, not knowing the theory was only a couple paperback pages long, and thinking Chapter Three was a continuation of the theory instead of a separate lecture.
Re: The origin of Dark Energy
Posted: Thu Nov 13, 2008 5:48 pm
by Chris Peterson
Sputnick wrote:Yes indeed, Chris, wit together with historical fact. And yes .. I would like to understand if possible the mechanisms by which miracles, coincidences and physics happen because I will have a better understanding of quite a lot of things, as well as an increase in faith.
If faith could be supported by rational observation, it wouldn't be faith. The more you understand nature, the less you require faith.
"Miracles" are, by definition, supernatural. If there's a natural explanation, it isn't a miracle. Science deliberately limits itself to the study of natural phenomena, and deliberately excludes itself from the supernatural. While scientists might reasonably discuss whether plasma cosmology or string theory should be considered science or not, there is absolutely no doubt that the miraculous is firmly and forever outside the bounds of science.
By the way .. I posted a quote from Einstein in which he said because the foundations of physics had been so thoroughly shaken it was time for Physicists to become Philosophers .. but either the quote has been removed from the forum or is just lost in the jungle. I had attributed the quote the his theory of relativity, not knowing the theory was only a couple paperback pages long, and thinking Chapter Three was a continuation of the theory instead of a separate lecture.
I saw it... somewhere. Einstein was a clever guy, and his scientific contributions are beyond measure. But he liked talking, and there are thousands of quotes attributed to him. Many are contradictory. His qualifications in discussing philosophy are no better than millions of other clever people. Personally, I place no special value on Einstein's non-scientific observations simply because he's Einstein. I agree with some, and disagree with others. By quoting Einstein in the context you did, you fall into the logical fallacy of
argumentum ad verecundiam, or argument from authority. It is wise to make sure that when you utilize a reference, the source is actually qualified to support the position.
Re: The origin of Dark Energy
Posted: Thu Nov 13, 2008 6:05 pm
by Nereid
Sputnick wrote:[...]
Religion? I made one historically accurate comment exploring with Chris whether or not it was electrical/magnetic repulsion which allowed Jesus to walk on the water, whether the soles of his feet got wet or not, and I am said to be making comments about religion?
More wit perhaps: "
and for that you should truly repent and have your sins forgiven by the Creator and Redeemer of the universe"
"
and we're probably learning all we'll ever learn about how the Creator created us"
"
I guess then, Psyched, you'd enjoy hearing "the music of the spheres" spoken of in the bible."
"
some scientists are so blindsided by faith in their favourite theory of Big Bang that" - in light of Sputnick's other posts (extracts of some of which are reproduced here), perhaps it is not unreasonable to conclude the use of "faith" implies religion?
"
I know you are a total believer in Big Bang" - ditto, re "believer"
"
Right .. let's burn those people with new ideas at the stake .. in the name of science or religion it doesn't matter as long as the flames are hot. Smell their flesh burning?"
"
Like the Big Bang itself, you and apparently most astronomers have taken hold of a possibility and given it a religious conversion to fact."
... and I'm pretty sure there's more ...
For the record, here's what I said: "
Sputnick's comments about dogma, religion, close-mindedness, programming, etc, etc, etc". Perhaps I was too terse, perhaps I should have written something like "Sputnick's comments equating much of modern science to (blind) religion, dogma, etc and a great many modern scientists as being close-minded, programmed, etc".
Re: The origin of Dark Energy
Posted: Thu Nov 13, 2008 7:17 pm
by Sputnick
Chris Peterson wrote:Sputnick wrote:Yes indeed, Chris, wit together with historical fact. And yes .. I would like to understand if possible the mechanisms by which miracles, coincidences and physics happen because I will have a better understanding of quite a lot of things, as well as an increase in faith.
If faith could be supported by rational observation, it wouldn't be faith. The more you understand nature, the less you require faith.
Rational observation supports faith. The more I understand nature, the more faith I acquire. "For the things which are seen arise from things which cannot be seen." "the invisible things of God can be know from the things of natural creation." Chris, aren't we going to incur the wrath of the all seeing moderator exchanging these thoughts?
"Miracles" are, by definition, supernatural. If there's a natural explanation, it isn't a miracle. Science deliberately limits itself to the study of natural phenomena, and deliberately excludes itself from the supernatural. While scientists might reasonably discuss whether plasma cosmology or string theory should be considered science or not, there is absolutely no doubt that the miraculous is firmly and forever outside the bounds of science.
Even the miraculous of the possibility of a point smaller than a pinpoint containing all the mass known and unknown to man? I consider nature to be supernatural .. and miracles coming through natural means .. the curing of diseases through improved diet, for instance.
I saw it (Einstein's quote)... somewhere. Einstein was a clever guy, and his scientific contributions are beyond measure. But he liked talking, and there are thousands of quotes attributed to him. Many are contradictory..
this quote was direct from his lecture. As I said, I had thought his theories of relativity were long, long, long things .. and when I began reading the third lecture I thought it was the third chapter of the theory. The book is called, I think I recall, Lectures of Einstein, a paperback .. it's at home or I could provide better reference.
Re: The origin of Dark Energy
Posted: Thu Nov 13, 2008 7:38 pm
by Chris Peterson
Sputnick wrote:Rational observation supports faith. The more I understand nature, the more faith I acquire. "For the things which are seen arise from things which cannot be seen." "the invisible things of God can be know from the things of natural creation." Chris, aren't we going to incur the wrath of the all seeing moderator exchanging these thoughts?
You may, talking about faith. I think I'm safe, since I'm taking no position on faith, god, or religion. I'm only making the point that these things are not science. Religion and science are different things that don't overlap. Religion seeks explanations that rely, in part, on the supernatural. Science concerns itself only with the natural world.
Re: The origin of Dark Energy
Posted: Thu Nov 13, 2008 7:50 pm
by Sputnick
Chris Peterson wrote:Sputnick wrote:Rational observation supports faith. The more I understand nature, the more faith I acquire. "For the things which are seen arise from things which cannot be seen." "the invisible things of God can be know from the things of natural creation." Chris, aren't we going to incur the wrath of the all seeing moderator exchanging these thoughts?
You may, talking about faith. I think I'm safe, since I'm taking no position on faith, god, or religion. I'm only making the point that these things are not science. Religion and science are different things that don't overlap. Religion seeks explanations that rely, in part, on the supernatural. Science concerns itself only with the natural world.
Isn't your 'you may' (incur wrath) - a little bit like saying, "Mommy - Billy started it." Anyway .. I'm not playing the part of evangelist .. only responding to your statements like 'religion seeks explanations that rely, in part, on the supernatural.' Yes, in part, but in part also on direct observation of nature, and in part religion arises from direct observation of nature. We see creatures having compassion on each other, and think - "should we do any less?" So it is written into religions.
Re: The origin of Dark Energy
Posted: Thu Nov 13, 2008 8:02 pm
by apodman
Sputnick wrote:Isn't your 'you may' (incur wrath) - a little bit like saying, "Mommy - Billy started it."
No it isn't. You missed yet another point.
Sputnick wrote:We see creatures having compassion on each other, and think - "should we do any less?" So it is written into religions.
Yeah, nothing suggests God like the story of Androcles and the lion. Your humanistic logic is as weak as your scientific logic.
Re: The origin of Dark Energy
Posted: Fri Nov 14, 2008 12:32 am
by Sputnick
apodman wrote:Sputnick wrote:Isn't your 'you may' (incur wrath) - a little bit like saying, "Mommy - Billy started it."
No it isn't. You missed yet another point.
Sputnick wrote:We see creatures having compassion on each other, and think - "should we do any less?" So it is written into religions.
Yeah, nothing suggests God like the story of Androcles and the lion. Your humanistic logic is as weak as your scientific logic.
Please explain why I missed what point .. and no, I meant creature to creature, not man to creature, showing compassion towards each other. Yes . . man is also a creature .. but somewhat different from the other creatures .. in what way you ask? Many ways .. notably our ability to make wine.
I am directly avoiding discussion on religion.
Re: The origin of Dark Energy
Posted: Fri Nov 14, 2008 12:49 am
by apodman
Sputnick wrote:apodman wrote:Sputnick wrote:Isn't your 'you may' (incur wrath) - a little bit like saying, "Mommy - Billy started it."
No it isn't. You missed yet another point.
Please explain why I missed what point ..
"You may, talking about faith. I think I'm safe, since I'm taking no position on faith" ... I can't speak with 100% certainty for another, but this appears to me to say that you may have volunteered for possible wrath (in your own terms) by talking about faith, whereas he did not submit himself for judgment in the same way. Not Chris' strongest point ever (just an off-the-cuff reply in passing), nor the most pertinent, nor one I would necessarily wave the flag for myself, but that's what I think it means. Nothing about who started it.
Sputnick wrote:and no, I meant creature to creature, not man to creature, showing compassion towards each other.
Androcles was the mouse (a creature in my book) who removed the thorn from the lion's paw and was thence not harmed by the lion. An Aesop fable, I think.
Re: The origin of Dark Energy
Posted: Fri Nov 14, 2008 5:33 pm
by Sputnick
Nereid wrote:Sputnick wrote:[...]
Religion? I made one historically accurate comment exploring with Chris whether or not it was electrical/magnetic repulsion which allowed Jesus to walk on the water, whether the soles of his feet got wet or not, and I am said to be making comments about religion?
More wit perhaps: "
and for that you should truly repent and have your sins forgiven by the Creator and Redeemer of the universe"
"
and we're probably learning all we'll ever learn about how the Creator created us"
"
I guess then, Psyched, you'd enjoy hearing "the music of the spheres" spoken of in the bible."
"
some scientists are so blindsided by faith in their favourite theory of Big Bang that" - in light of Sputnick's other posts (extracts of some of which are reproduced here), perhaps it is not unreasonable to conclude the use of "faith" implies religion?
"
I know you are a total believer in Big Bang" - ditto, re "believer"
"
Right .. let's burn those people with new ideas at the stake .. in the name of science or religion it doesn't matter as long as the flames are hot. Smell their flesh burning?"
"
Like the Big Bang itself, you and apparently most astronomers have taken hold of a possibility and given it a religious conversion to fact."
... and I'm pretty sure there's more ...
For the record, here's what I said: "
Sputnick's comments about dogma, religion, close-mindedness, programming, etc, etc, etc". Perhaps I was too terse, perhaps I should have written something like "Sputnick's comments equating much of modern science to (blind) religion, dogma, etc and a great many modern scientists as being close-minded, programmed, etc".
Well - I never mentioned one specific religion, did I?
Re: The origin of Dark Energy
Posted: Fri Nov 14, 2008 5:35 pm
by Sputnick
Nereid wrote:Sputnick wrote:Nereid - I may have quoted the wrong page number of that book relating to Verschuur's "may not be related to mass" - page 349.
As I said already here, I've read nothing in science magazines including this months' that contradict anything in Through a Universe Darkly .. and therefore cannot consider it archaic.
(emphasis added)
Sputnick, what do you consider the
primary source of astronomical observations, theories, reports, etc?
"The" primary source, or "my own" primary source. Without mentioning religion, for me it will have to be magazines available in the public library. What is it for you, Nereid?