2 of 2
2
Richard Dawkins endorses intelligent design….....
Posted: 25 December 2014 09:44 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 16 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  7981
Joined  2009-02-26
Lausten - 04 December 2014 08:32 PM
TimB - 04 December 2014 06:24 PM
DarronS - 04 December 2014 04:24 PM

..But astronomers are looking at the past instead of creating new life forms for the future!


Well, those who don’t recognize the mistakes of the Big Bang, are doomed to repeat them in the ever-recycling universes of the ribbon of time.  But hell, let’s just wing it and hope for the best in our grand and god-like future.

 

That’s right. No matter where you look, it is always the past. It takes a few minutes for the light from the sun to get here, and the earth’s atmosphere bends the light so we see the sun even when it is already below the horizon, and as we look to the furthest reaches of space, we see the history of ourselves in all directions. We are but a ship in the middle of the ocean of time and all we can see is the edge. We don’t know what came before because the light from then has not had time to reach us. We are just energy slowed to a quiet vibration. The universe is one and we are the imagination of ourselves.

I like that also.  I came up with a variation which: The universe is one and we are the expression of universal potential. As Bohm says that in the Potential implicatitions (probabilities) are formed, which he called the Implicate just before it becomes Explicate in our reality.

A condition of potential must exist before any change can become a probability. Potential is the common denominator of all things, expressed or not.

[ Edited: 25 December 2014 09:51 PM by Write4U ]
 Signature 

Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind.
W4U

Profile
 
 
Posted: 26 December 2014 05:50 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 17 ]
Jr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  97
Joined  2014-12-10

kkwan I will answer your post in several parts.

kkwan - 25 December 2014 07:58 PM
Ockham - 23 December 2014 08:26 AM

But this is not necessarily so from a cosmological point of view.

From this article here

This “counting” or “measure” ambiguity afflicts infinite systems terribly and creates a nightmare in cosmology. If postinflationary regions can have different properties, and each possible set of properties is realized in an infinite number of such regions, there is a twofold problem. First, there is no unique prediction, from this fundamental theory, for what we can observe. This is a letdown but not fatal, since we would still hope to make probabilistic predictions. Yet the measure ambiguity suggests that the relative probabilities themselves depend on the particular measure we choose and there is no compelling reason to believe any one given measure. This measure problem has spawned a large amount of recent work in inflationary cosmology, and although there has been progress, it’s not clear that the progress is toward any particular resolution.

This is not a debate about infinities, countable or otherwise.

When we say the universe may be infinite we mean in the countable sense, just as the series of whole numbers, 1,2,3,4 etc. is countably infinite. It keeps going on and on, as before, without a boundary, without end.

If the universe is flat or hyperbolic because its density parameter OMEGA is equal to or less than one then it is infinite in this sense.

The latest PLANCK satellite results are consistent (within error bars) with the universe being flat and infinite.

However there are just still hints that it might be slightly larger than one indicating a finite universe,  this would be an explanation for, “Despite the success of the standard LCDM model, this cosmology does not provide a good fit to the CMB power spectrum at low multipoles, as noted previously by the WMAP team.” That is why I said it is not necessarily so.

 Signature 

Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 26 December 2014 06:55 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 18 ]
Jr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  97
Joined  2014-12-10

kkwan, here is my second response to your post.

kkwan - 25 December 2014 07:58 PM

As such, an infinite static matter universe with no beginning or end is conceivable and viable.

From this paper here
From the abstract:

The dichotomous cosmology is an alternative to the expanding Universe theory, and consists of a static matter Universe, where cosmological redshifts are explained by a tired-light model with an expanding luminous world. In this model the Hubble constant is also the photon energy decay rate, and the luminous world is expanding at a constant rate as in de Sitter cosmology for an empty Universe. The present model explains both the luminosity distance versus redshift relationship of supernovae Ia, and ageing of spectra observed with the stretching of supernovae light curves. Furthermore, it is consistent with a radiation energy density factor (1 + z)4 inferred from the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation.

Does the above dichotomous cosmology make more sense versus the BB, a singularity and the expanding universe theory?

Unfortunately the tired light theory does not work, there is no known interaction that can degrade a photon’s energy without also changing its momentum, which leads to a blurring of distant objects which is not observed.

The tired light theory cannot predict the observed time dilation of high redshift supernova light curves. and having now read Heymann’s .pdf paper I find no convincing explanation for it.

Basically dichotomous cosmology is crackpottery, anyone can say they have built time dilation into their theory but you cannot. Time passes at the tautological rate of one second per second.

In GR the proper time interval of the world-line is less in some cases because the world-line is shorter. This is because it has passed through a curved space-time. In order to better Einstein’d GR you first have to understand it. Heymann obviously does not.

You also seem to dismiss the idea of a singularity because it leads to infinities, yet you happily talk about an infinite universe. If you can accept the one then you can accept the other.

All that we can say about approaching the infinity of a singularity at the heart of a Black Hole for example, is that we don’t know what happens there.

Ignorance is no place to construct a theory - although I concede that many try to do so.

[ Edited: 26 December 2014 06:59 AM by Ockham ]
 Signature 

Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 26 December 2014 09:27 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 19 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2012
Joined  2007-10-28
Ockham - 26 December 2014 05:50 AM

This is not a debate about infinities, countable or otherwise.

When we say the universe may be infinite we mean in the countable sense, just as the series of whole numbers, 1,2,3,4 etc. is countably infinite. It keeps going on and on, as before, without a boundary, without end.

From the wiki on infinity here

Infinity (symbol: ∞) is an abstract concept describing something without any limit and is relevant in a number of fields, predominantly mathematics and physics. In mathematics, “infinity” is often treated as if it were a number (i.e., it counts or measures things: “an infinite number of terms”) but it is not the same sort of number as the real numbers.

Infinity is an abstract concept and not a countable number i.e. it is something without any limit. This is what an infinite universe is…...without any limit in space and time.

If the universe is flat or hyperbolic because its density parameter OMEGA is equal to or less than one then it is infinite in this sense.

The latest PLANCK satellite results are consistent (within error bars) with the universe being flat and infinite.

However there are just still hints that it might be slightly larger than one indicating a finite universe,  this would be an explanation for, “Despite the success of the standard LCDM model, this cosmology does not provide a good fit to the CMB power spectrum at low multipoles, as noted previously by the WMAP team.” That is why I said it is not necessarily so.

From this article in January 2014 here

According to the BOSS researchers, who presented their work at the 223rd meeting of the American Astronomical Society this week, the findings strongly indicate that the universe is “extraordinarily flat” and that the universe is probably infinite, extending forever in space and time.

 Signature 

I am, therefore I think.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 26 December 2014 09:44 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 20 ]
Jr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  97
Joined  2014-12-10

So we agree on that then

 Signature 

Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 26 December 2014 10:27 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 21 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2012
Joined  2007-10-28
Ockham - 26 December 2014 06:55 AM

Unfortunately the tired light theory does not work, there is no known interaction that can degrade a photon’s energy without also changing its momentum, which leads to a blurring of distant objects which is not observed.

From my post here

Photons traveling through superfluid spacetime:

This dampening effect would also happen to photons traveling through spacetime, the researchers found. Although the effect is small, high-energy photons traveling very long distances should lose a noticeable amount of energy, the researchers say.

The concept of spacetime as a superfluid could provide the medium and the mechanism whereby light can lose energy traveling vast distances thereby producing redshifts and the possibility that the universe is static and not expanding at all.

The ideas of the BB, a singularity, “expanding space” and the mysterious unknown 68.3% “dark energy” causing the “expansion” of the universe make less sense.

Time passes at the tautological rate of one second per second.

All clocks measure movement, not time per se.

You also seem to dismiss the idea of a singularity because it leads to infinities, yet you happily talk about an infinite universe. If you can accept the one then you can accept the other.

Not necessarily so.

An infinite universe is not synonymous to a singularity with infinite density, gravity etc. whereby GR and QM break down, which is apparently absurd.

Wrt black holes, from this article in Nature in January 2014 here

Stephen Hawking: ‘There are no black holes’

Most physicists foolhardy enough to write a paper claiming that “there are no black holes” — at least not in the sense we usually imagine — would probably be dismissed as cranks. But when the call to redefine these cosmic crunchers comes from Stephen Hawking, it’s worth taking notice.

And:

If Hawking is correct, there could even be no singularity at the core of the black hole. Instead, matter would be only temporarily held behind the apparent horizon, which would gradually move inward owing to the pull of the black hole, but would never quite crunch down to the centre.

Bold added by me.

 Signature 

I am, therefore I think.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 26 December 2014 12:58 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 22 ]
Jr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  97
Joined  2014-12-10

kkwan,

You seem to like to advocate speculative theories which are not endorsed by the cosmological community.

We need a quantum-gravity theory that marries GR with QM.

Even experts like Stephen Hawking speculate in the dark about this topic;  from the Nature article you quoted from,

A full explanation of the process, the physicist admits, would require a theory that successfully merges gravity with the other fundamental forces of nature. But that is a goal that has eluded physicists for nearly a century. “The correct treatment,” Hawking says, “remains a mystery.”

As I said above,

All that we can say about approaching the infinity of a singularity at the heart of a Black Hole for example, is that we don’t know what happens there.

Ignorance is no place to construct a theory - although I concede that many try to do so.

With reference to the theme of this thread, which is that life seems highly unlikely and Richard Dawkins is willing to consider its arrival of Earth may have been the consequence of a seeding by an ‘Intelligent Designer’ in the form of an ETI (which in itself does not solve the problem of how that ET originated) it seems that we have two options.

The first option is the origin of the first replicating organism is an incredibly unlikely event, with odds of something like 10^140:1.

In this case the Earth is the only home of life in a sterile universe stretching out many many times further than our observable cosmological horizon until the next fecund habitat is found.

I find this concept emotionally heart-achingly lonely. “So if it’s just us… it seems like an awful waste of space”, a sad fact I would just have to accept.

Even if our corner of the Milky Way happens to be a habited zone, where life had spread from one planet to another by accident or design, even then the rest of the universe(s) is vastly larger and would be sterile.

The second option it seems is that life actually is far more likely through natural processes that we have not yet discovered and occurs spontaneously within a few hundred million years wherever a habitable environment exists. 

I cannot wait to explore the sub-surface of Mars or the water beneath Europa’s icecap for extant micro-organisms.

[ Edited: 27 December 2014 02:44 AM by Ockham ]
 Signature 

Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 27 December 2014 08:36 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 23 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2012
Joined  2007-10-28
Ockham - 26 December 2014 12:58 PM

kkwan,

You seem to like to advocate speculative theories which are not endorsed by the cosmological community.

The cosmological theory with the BB, a singularity and the expanding universe “endorsed by the cosmological community” has fundamental flaws and is not convincing.

Cosmology, itself, is highly speculative.

Consider dark fluid. From the wiki here

In astronomy and cosmology, dark fluid is an alternative theory to both dark matter and dark energy and attempts to explain both phenomena in a single framework.

Dark fluid proposes that dark matter and dark energy are not separate physical phenomena as previously thought, nor do they have separate origins, but that they are linked together and are really specific sub-effects of new extended laws of gravity at very large scales.

You wrote:

Even experts like Stephen Hawking speculate in the dark about this topic;  from the Nature article you quoted from,

A full explanation of the process, the physicist admits, would require a theory that successfully merges gravity with the other fundamental forces of nature. But that is a goal that has eluded physicists for nearly a century. “The correct treatment,” Hawking says, “remains a mystery.”

It might be a futile and impossible task to do that.

With reference to the theme of this thread, which is that life seems highly unlikely and Richard Dawkins is willing to consider its arrival of Earth may have been the consequence of a seeding by an ‘Intelligent Designer’ in the form of an ETI (which in itself does not solve the problem of how that ET originated) it seems that we have two options.

The first option is the origin of the first replicating organism is an incredibly unlikely event, with odds of something like 10^140:1.

In this case the Earth is the only home of life in a sterile universe stretching out many many times further than our observable cosmological horizon until the next fecund habitat is found.

I find this concept emotionally heart-achingly lonely. “So if it’s just us… it seems like an awful waste of space”, a sad fact I would just have to accept.

Even if our corner of the Milky Way happens to be a habited zone, where life had spread from one planet to another by accident or design, even then the rest of the universe(s) is vastly larger and would be sterile.

The second option it seems is that life actually is far more likely through natural processes that we have not yet discovered and occurs spontaneously within a few hundred million years wherever a habitable environment exists. 

I cannot wait to explore the sub-surface of Mars or the water beneath Europa’s icecap for extant micro-organisms.

It may be much more simpler than that.

From this article here

Water in star dust points to origins of life in the universe

Space weathering, which works similar to geological erosion on the Earth, produces water in the rims of tiny particles of interplanetary dust.

The discovery may have implications on the origins of life and sources of water throughout the galaxy. As a byproduct of star formation, water ice is the most abundant solid material in the universe. But this new source was a surprise.

And:

“The implications are potentially huge,” Ishii said. “It is a particularly thrilling possibility that this influx of dust onto the surfaces of solar system bodies has acted as a continuous rainfall of little reaction vessels containing both the water and organics, key ingredients needed for the eventual origin of life.”

 Signature 

I am, therefore I think.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 28 December 2014 03:44 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 24 ]
Jr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  97
Joined  2014-12-10

Indeed kkwan, it is really interesting that the required conditions and chemistry seems to be available, now we have to see if that has led to the origin of life anywhere else than Earth.

 Signature 

Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 29 December 2014 03:09 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 25 ]
Jr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  97
Joined  2014-12-10
kkwan - 27 December 2014 08:36 PM

The cosmological theory with the BB, a singularity and the expanding universe “endorsed by the cosmological community” has fundamental flaws and is not convincing.

Cosmology, itself, is highly speculative.

Yet the standard LCDM model is the best model we have. Yes it requires Inflation, Dark Matter and Dark Energy, not discovered elsewhere,  but it does fit the highly detailed and precise data that we now have, such as the latest Planck satellite observations of the microwave background.

You may find interesting these slides of a talk by a leading cosmologist George Efstathiou on the subject:

http://www.cosmos.esa.int/documents/387566/387653/Ferrara_Dec1_16h30_Efstathiou_Cosmology.pdf

Yes look for an alternative theory, I do it myself, but such a theory will also have to fit this data, otherwise it falls flat on its face, such as the Steady State Theory did, no matter how well it fits our philosophical viewpoint.

[ Edited: 29 December 2014 09:35 AM by Ockham ]
 Signature 

Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 04 January 2015 02:20 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 26 ]
Jr. Member
Rank
Total Posts:  1
Joined  2015-01-04
Ockham - 26 December 2014 06:55 AM

Basically dichotomous cosmology is crackpottery, anyone can say they have built time dilation into their theory but you cannot. Time passes at the tautological rate of one second per second.

Ockam, is special relativity also crackpottery? You also have time dilation in special relativity. So why do you say “Time passes at the tautological rate of one second per second”?

I disagree with your statement.

[ Edited: 04 January 2015 02:23 AM by SimonGerfunkel ]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 04 January 2015 03:17 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 27 ]
Jr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  97
Joined  2014-12-10
SimonGerfunkel - 04 January 2015 02:20 AM
Ockham - 26 December 2014 06:55 AM

Basically dichotomous cosmology is crackpottery, anyone can say they have built time dilation into their theory but you cannot. Time passes at the tautological rate of one second per second.

Ockam, is special relativity also crackpottery? You also have time dilation in special relativity. So why do you say “Time passes at the tautological rate of one second per second”?

I disagree with your statement.

Special Relativity (SR) might have been thought of as ‘crackpottery’ when first published, indeed many physicists at the time dismissed it, however it is logically and mathematically consistent and within its regime of application,  (it does not include gravitational effects), it explained the observation that the measured speed of light (in vacuo) is constant, it has passed many and all experimental tests that have been thrown at it.  General Relativity (GR) extended the theory to include gravitational fields.

It is therefore part of the consensus of established science. Of course it may yet fail a test and it may require to be modified, that is the nature of science.

Those who do not understand the statement “Time passes at the tautological rate of one second per second” have not thought about either the statement or the nature of time. The word ‘passes’ implies that we are concerned here with the experience of measuring the passing of time by a single observer (the one for whom time is passing). It is the same as saying distance is measured at ‘one metre per metre’.

In both SR and GR time is seen not on its own but part of a space-time continuum.

Time dilation in SR and GR is the dilation of the measurement of two different observers who are either moving relative to each other (SR) or who are at different gravitational potentials within a gravitational field (GR) from one event until they meet up at another event,.

In either case the ‘distance’ or interval traversed by a body between two events can vary by the route through space-time that the body takes. In SR that route varies because of the speed of one observer relative to the other, in GR because of the different gravitational fields they pass through. Each observer themselves measure time passing by their own clocks at ‘one second per second’, they could not do otherwise.

 Signature 

Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 04 January 2015 03:45 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 28 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5254
Joined  2007-08-31
Ockham - 04 January 2015 03:17 AM

Special Relativity (SR) might have been thought of as ‘crackpottery’ when first published, indeed many physicists at the time dismissed it, however it is logically and mathematically consistent and within its regime of application,  (it does not include gravitational effects), it explained the observation that the measured speed of light (in vacuo) is constant, it has passed many and all experimental tests that have been thrown at it. 

Just on a historical note: SR was not seen as crackpottery, at most it was seen as a neat but incorrect way of integrating Newtonian mechanics and the Maxwell theory of electromagnetism. Many physicists, like Lorenz, Poincaré, Fitzgerald were working on it before Einstein. But very soon SR was recognised, first by Max Planck. Another way of seeing that SR surely was not crackpottery: the author had a thorough understanding of classical mechanics and Maxwell. Crackpots always miss even the basic understanding (‘I know I am right, but I have to work out the math’).

Concerning the speed of light: SR did not explain it, but took it as a starting point, as a postulate.

 Signature 

GdB

The light is on, but there is nobody at home.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 04 January 2015 07:02 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 29 ]
Jr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  97
Joined  2014-12-10
GdB - 04 January 2015 03:45 AM
Ockham - 04 January 2015 03:17 AM

Special Relativity (SR) might have been thought of as ‘crackpottery’ when first published, indeed many physicists at the time dismissed it, however it is logically and mathematically consistent and within its regime of application,  (it does not include gravitational effects), it explained the observation that the measured speed of light (in vacuo) is constant, it has passed many and all experimental tests that have been thrown at it. 

Just on a historical note: SR was not seen as crackpottery, at most it was seen as a neat but incorrect way of integrating Newtonian mechanics and the Maxwell theory of electromagnetism. Many physicists, like Lorenz, Poincaré, Fitzgerald were working on it before Einstein. But very soon SR was recognised, first by Max Planck. Another way of seeing that SR surely was not crackpottery: the author had a thorough understanding of classical mechanics and Maxwell. Crackpots always miss even the basic understanding (‘I know I am right, but I have to work out the math’).

Thank you, but as a matter of fact there were some who didn’t accept the principle of relativity, Philipp Lenard for example, who was a Hungarian-German physicist and winner of the Nobel prize for physics in 1905. From the 1920 Bad Nauheim Debate

Besides the debate over these lectures, however, also a general discussion concerning the principles took place, the became nearly exclusively a confrontation between Einstein and Lenard. One simply must conclude, that Lenard doesn’t grasp the meaning of Einstein’s theory; therefore the opponents didn’t find each other at all, the confrontation remained a sham fight and without result.

GdB - 04 January 2015 03:45 AM

Concerning the speed of light: SR did not explain it, but took it as a starting point, as a postulate.

I absolutely agree. That postulate led to a consistent theory which was concordant with the results of the Michelson–Morley experiment. Einstein though, when developing SR, was more concerned to find a way of making Maxwell’s laws of electrodynamics invariant between different inertial frames of reference, the Principle of Invariant Light Speed was a concise way of expressing that invariance.

[ Edited: 04 January 2015 08:31 AM by Ockham ]
 Signature 

Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem.

Profile
 
 
   
2 of 2
2