🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <389B1D10.3E887D5@louisville.edu>,
  "J. Scott Miller" <Scott.Miller@louisville.edu> wrote:
> sdrodrian@aol.com wrote:
> >
> > In article <3899df55.520140941@news.rica.net>,
> >   jeffmo@dipstick.cfw.com wrote:
> > > sdrodrian@aol.com wrote:
> > > >
> > > >Of course I do not expect anyone to take your drivel seriously,
> > > >Mr. Kauffman! I expect people who are shown an elephant
> > > >to realize it's an elephant--and not to come back at me with:
> > > >"If you cannot prove mathematically that this so-called elephant
> > > >of yours is in fact an elephant, then it cannot possibly be
> > > >an elephant: No maths, no elephants! Good day, sir!"
> > > >
> > > >From the real world,
> > >
> > > In the real world, physicists have to deal with the imprecision
> > > and
> > > inherent ambiguities present in verbal language.  Anyone who
> > > denies
> > > the relevance of mathematics, properly implemented, in such
> > > endeavors
> > > is probably not being very realistic about the issues involved.
> > >
> > > JeffMo
> > >
> >
> > When it comes to pure (purely) mathematics, Jeff,
> > there is something to be said about judging precisely
> > how well a given value equals another given value
> > through mathematics. I have no objections to doing that.
> >
> > However, it has been the sad history of trying to interpret
> > the world through mathematics... that any model whatever
> > (regardless how it deviates from reality) can be perfectly
> > and most precisely modeled in mathematics.
> >
> > This is because in mathematics, equations are only bound
> > to be balanced. Period. If there is nothing but madness
> > to the left side of an equation... all it takes is some
> > creativity to the right of such an equation to bring the
> > madness into perfect harmony: So what if ours is a three-
> > dimensional reality? IF we wish to believe that there are
> > really 4,000 dimensions... we shall find the way to express
> > such a "reality" in a perfectly balanced equation. The
> > numbers will add up, they will make sense; the equation itself
> > will be elegant to the point of emotional beauty. And yet
> > the universe will still not orbit the Earth, the Earth
> > will still not be flat, and the Big Bang will still be a myth.
> >
>
> But you cannot prove this in physics, only make the claim.

Which "this?" The "this" which the second paragraph refers to
the first paragraph?  It so: There is more than ample proof
that "this" has indeed been the case with physics (and, as we
normally refer to it as modern physics, the historical record is
replete with mathematical models which however elegant and
balanced, nevertheless modeled unreal realities), yes:

" I think we already have a very substantial historical record of
the superiority of interpreting facts and results being far, far
superior to guessing from postulated beliefs: I have no objections
to modeling that reality which we have established as true
mathematically so that we may find shortcuts to some additional
ways reality works. But, just looking upon history, Jeff... Almost
every time we have attempted th'shortcut of mathematics to actually
establish reality itself... it has eventually proven to have given us
a false reality. Aristotle did not wait for the telescope, and instead
went ahead and formulated a reality where gravity always pointed
down to the earth (nothing could ever fall elsewhere, and the earth
had to be at rest while the rest of the universe moved about it).
Einstein did not wait until astronomers had established that the
Hubble constant was accelerating, and instead went ahead and
formulated a reality where the universe could ignore gravity and
matter moved away from matter, where man's idea of time was not
only recognized by the universe but which actually ordered the
nature of the universe. Someone actually once said to me: "Wasn't
Einstein incredibly accurate to have predicted the universe was
expanding?" And I could only try to explain to this person that
Einstein's other choices had been 1) the universe is collapsing
(and, how would he have explained whyy the stars weren't crashing
together?). And, 2) the universe consisted of stars sitting side-by-
side in space without any gravitational interaction between them.
And you wanna know the really funny thing about this? Einstein,
with all his brains, actually opted for universe #2 for a time, until he
realized exactly what an  insane reality his equations had modeled! "

> The claim
> doesn't
> make it true and you refuse to learn the math, let alone find the
> errors that
> you claim to be in it.  Therefore, again, you fail in attempting to
> show the
> BB theories as myth.

The BB theory originated from the following circumstances (never
mind that Einstein's "corrected" equations predicted an expanding
universe): The Hubble constant showed galaxies receding from
each other (and that the speed of recession increased with the
increase of distance between galaxies). This, of course, on the face
of it, clearly suggests that the universe is expanding. Why? Ours
is a universe where clearly only one force is acting across it (as
the strong & weak/electromagnetic forces are only acting in the
subatomic world), and that force is gravity. So it wouldn't make
any sense to propose that gravity was driving the universe's
expansion. Therefore the ONLY possible solution had to be that
the expansion was a result of some primordial explosion (and
therefrom the debate that went on until the last couple of years over
whether the universe's expansion would continue forever or stop
in its tracks and actually reverse itself... because we know of NO
repulsive force existing/acting in our universe which might be
driving its expansion). And it has to be a force (remember Newton)
because if a force is not constantly being applied to something
in motion while gravity is trying to bring its motion to a stop
it will stop.  I know that today, as was the case when Einstein
realized that his original equations had predicted an insane reality,
that some modern proponents of the BB theory are rushing to
come up with such a repelling force--and they will, even if they
have to pull one out of their hats... in order to preserve the nutty
and mythical notion of a Big Bang. But whatever mathematics
they create out of the blue... they will have to erase into the blue.

> Claim all you want.  Delude yourself that it is reality.  But do not
> claim
> your reality is the reality for the rest of the universe.  You cannot
> prove
> it.

What do I claim? That the universe is an ornament in God's
Christmas tree? That it's an illusion and exists only in our minds?
That would indeed be hard to prove. But I do not claim anything
really exclusively theoretical, now do I?  Go to my web page and
you will discover not so much a theory but a simple number of
interpretations of observed facts. The ONLY speculation I engage
in is: 1) the nature of the photon, as I know nothing of its true
nature; and: 2) the method by which gravity was first manifested
in the infinite (scalar) mass universe. Everything else there follows
a simple process which leads me to whatever I conclude from
observed facts: I do not question the reality of those observed
facts (nor do I imagine you will either). I merely propose the simplest
explanation for them--And if you disagree with my explanations
for them, then I only ask that  you let me know why it is that you
disagree with them. So far, no one has disagreed with a single
one of my interpretations of observed facts... all anyone has said
so far is that I must be wrong (God knows why).

> P.S. I have removed irrelevant newsgroups.  I have heard personally
> from one
> that does not appreciate the line of this post because it is not
> relevant to
> the charter of that group.  It is strongly suggested that you confine
> the
> thread to groups relevant to the discussion of reality, such as
> sci.astro,
> alt.astronomy, or the relativity groups that sometime appear in these
> threads.
> (sci.astro.amateur is not one of them either, as it deals with
> equipment and
> observational strategies, for example, that amateurs are interested
> in).

I shall remove sci.astro.amateur in future.

S D Rodrian
sdr@t-three.com
http://www.geocities.com/absoluterelativity


> --
> J. Scott Miller, Program Coordinator
> Scott.Miller@louisville.edu
> Gheens Science Center and Rauch Planetarium
> http://www.louisville.edu/planetarium
> University of Louisville
>




Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.