Cosmology at the threshold of encountering the reality

Discussion in 'Pseudoscience' started by The God, Nov 25, 2015.

  1. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543
    Please take your religious shit elswhere.
     
    Spellbound likes this.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543
    https://skepticalteacher.wordpress.com/2009/05/19/more-physics-woo-the-einstein-cranks/

    More Physics Woo: The Einstein Cranks:

    extracts:

    In fact, I’ll go further… it seems to me that many of them do the same kind of thing many creationists do when attacking evolution – they almost intentionally misrepresent physics so that they can attempt to topple what they think physics is with some crackpot notion they’ve dreamed up.

    It could very well be that, in the end, Einstein is wrong and that relativity theory will eventually be relegated to the dustbin of scientific history. But it is going to take more than the wild-eyed insistence on the part of pseudoscientists on the Internet to topple relativity. If anything will topple Einstein’s theory, it is going to be from within science, due to a careful application of the same thinking which led to the very paradigm shift he championed.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543
    http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/in-physics-telling-cranks-from-experts-aint-easy/

    In Physics, Telling Cranks from Experts Ain't Easy:

    All science writers, especially those of us who cover particle physics and other fields that purport to reveal ultimate reality, hear from cranks. Pre-email, I got envelopes stuffed with manuscripts, sometimes hundreds of pages long, from people unaffiliated with any research institution known to me. Some letters were so baroque—the text hand-written in shifting scripts and colors, veering between technical and mystical arcana, adorned with fantastical diagrams—that their authors had to be floridly psychotic. Lucid or not, the writers invariably wanted to inform me of a revolutionary new theory that would solve the mystery of, well, everything. If I helped reveal this Truth to the world, I could share the glory!

    extract:
    After that, I simply chucked cranky letters. What else was I supposed to do? I had neither the time nor wherewithal to find the flaws in their logic, any more than I could double-check the math that yields, say, quantum electro-dynamics or some spiffy new variant thereof. As a mere journalist, I relied on experts to do that for me, especially ones at fancy institutions like Caltech and Cambridge, who presumably had been thoroughly vetted. My job isn't to uncover scientific truth, I told myself, but to report on what professional scientists think the truth is.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. BdS Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    512
    You start the religion stuff and then when challenged you cry to move it elsewhere? When you of all people always telling people to post in the right categories and calling for threads to be moved, then you bring religion into the science section? No logic whatsoever in your posts just stupid sh!t.
    "they admit its speculative" Oh now theres a surprise... and you want me to read your speculative crap that you've drawn the conclusion from that theres no deity responsible for this phenomenon. GFYCMFDW!
    As a matter of FACT none of my threads have "ENDED" up in the fringe section, all my threads in the fringe section were created in the fringe section, by choice.
     
  8. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543
    http://www.letstalkphysics.com/2013/02/how-to-identify-cranks.html

    How to Identify Cranks:

    Why does physics attract so many more cranks than any other field? I don't know, but here's how you can identify them.

    1. They claim to get huge new results without new mathematics:
    This never happens. Consider: Newtonian physics required the invention of calculus. Electromagnetism brought in the whole machinery of field theory, including partial differential equations, gauge invariance, Green functions, and many other things unknown to physicists of the prior century. Quantum mechanics brought in infinite dimensional Hilbert spaces and operator algebras. General relativity brought in tensor calculus and Riemann spaces. Quantum field theory brought in...itself, a mathematical smorgasbord as yet not fully characterized.

    Think any of these are unecessary? Think they could be replaced by some kind of pictures or verbal explanations, if only a more incisive thinker came along? Then congratulations, you're about 25% of the way towards crankdom.

    New physics requires new mathematics because, essentially, working out the results of old mathematics is a matter of effort, not creativity. Mathematics is highly structured, by definition, and if you put a few hundred smart people to work for a couple decades within a given mathematical structure, they will extract everything of physical relevance. You just can't get new wine from old grapes (and definitely not from sour grapes, see item 4).

    2. They haven't mastered existing theories:
    Nobody advances physics without a complete mastery of the current state of the art. Most cranks think that Einstein did this, but they are completely wrong. He completed the full course of physics studies, all the way through graduate level, and then on his own he studied obsessively.

    You aren't playing at Carnegie Hall without practice, and the same goes with physics.

    3. They don't publish conventionally:
    Cranks have the idea that there have been some great physicists of the past, mainly Einstein, whose work was ignored or not published in conventional venues. This is not really true. Einstein completed his first three great papers in 1905. When were they published? 1905. Where? Annalen der Physik, a mainstream journal. Even Boltzmann, whose work on statistical mechanics met with great resistance, was a full professor and a mainstream physicist.

    If mainstream journals won't publish your works of physics, they aren't works of physics.

    4. They blame their failures on the attitudes of others:
    Cranks believe that the "establishment" is lined up against their ideas and that is why they don't succeed. When the community (largely) ignores them or fails to follow up on these "brilliant" new developments, the reason is not that the developments aren't worthwhile, but rather that the community is too narrow-minded and dominated by entrenched interests to see the truth.

    Your classic crank meets all 4 of these criteria, knows very little real mathematics, and is easily ignored. However, there are some people, superficially very knowledgable, who pass 1-3 but still fail item 4, hence qualifying as 25% cranks. They publish sour-grapes books with titles like "The trouble with physics" or "Not even wrong". They think a bunch of "big egos" are standing in the way of progress, even though this never happened before in the history of physics.*

    Folks, when good ideas appear you can tell. How? First, all the smartest people jump on them. Why? Because that's how they make their careers. What does any theoretical physicist have to gain by *not* pouncing on a new idea? Nothing. What does s/he have to lose? Just the opportunity for success, fame, and a place in the history books. And the second indicator that a new idea is good: it produces mountains of new and unfamiliar mathematics, see item 1. Good ideas are very fertile, and the form which fertility takes in theoretical physics is new equations. With luck, they lead to new experimental tests. Nothing guarantees that a correct physical idea has to be testable - that depends on the specific design of our universe - but of course it will be a drag if the correct theories are, in fact, not testable in practice, so that we can never know the truth.
     
    Spellbound likes this.
  9. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    No, not at all...good try though.
    All I have done is challenged the anti science views of others and put it down to a religious agenda, and which surprisingly was totally verified.

    That's good and my error if what you have said is correct.
    Now again this is not for discussing religion, OK?
    And finally, yet again........
    The one obvious fact though, is that the discipline of science has pushed the need for any magical pixie in the sky, or any similar deity, back into near oblivion.
    Please take your religious shit elsewhere.
     
  10. BdS Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    512
    Its obvious that you have a very low intellectual capacity. So, from your perspective, I understand why you believe there is nothing responsible for this awesome adventure.

    Never argue with stupid people, they take you down to their level and f you up with experience... so I will humbly bow out of this.
     
  11. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543
    Sometimes when fanatical ratbags are confronted with the truth, it cuts deep.
    Never argue with any idiot pushing any religious agenda is closer to the mark I suggest.
    And please calm down, you'll have a coronary.
    And of course any religious nut and the mention of humility is certainly a contradiction in terms.
     
  12. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543
    https://www.goodreads.com/work/quot...ng-why-there-is-something-rather-than-nothing

    “The amazing thing is that every atom in your body came from a star that exploded. And, the atoms in your left hand probably came from a different star than your right hand. It really is the most poetic thing I know about physics: You are all stardust. You couldn’t be here if stars hadn’t exploded, because the elements - the carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, iron, all the things that matter for evolution - weren’t created at the beginning of time. They were created in the nuclear furnaces of stars, and the only way they could get into your body is if those stars were kind enough to explode. So, forget Jesus. The stars died so that you could be here today.”
    Lawrence M. Krauss, A Universe from Nothing: Why There Is Something Rather Than Nothing

    “In 5 billion years, the expansion of the universe will have progressed to the point where all other galaxies will have receded beyond detection. Indeed, they will be receding faster than the speed of light, so detection will be impossible. Future civilizations will discover science and all its laws, and never know about other galaxies or the cosmic background radiation. They will inevitably come to the wrong conclusion about the universe......We live in a special time, the only time, where we can observationally verify that we live in a special time.”
    Lawrence M. Krauss, A Universe from Nothing: Why There Is Something Rather Than Nothing

    “If we wish to draw philosophical conclusions about our own existence, our significance, and the significance of the universe itself, our conclusions should be based on empirical knowledge. A truly open mind means forcing our imaginations to conform to the evidence of reality, and not vice versa, whether or not we like the implications.”
    Lawrence M. Krauss, A Universe from Nothing: Why There Is Something Rather Than Nothing

    “I like to say that while antimatter may seem strange, it is strange in the sense that Belgians are strange. They are not really strange; it is just that one rarely meets them.”
    Lawrence M. Krauss, A Universe from Nothing: Why There Is Something Rather Than Nothing


    “Forget Jesus, the stars died so you could be born.”
    Lawrence M. Krauss, A Universe from Nothing: Why There Is Something Rather Than Nothing


    “The universe is the way it is , whether we like
    it or not. The existence or nonexistence of a creator is independent
    of our desires . A world without God or purpose may seem harsh
    or pointless, but that alone doesn ' t require God to actually exist.”
    Lawrence M. Krauss, A Universe from Nothing: Why There Is Something Rather Than Nothing

    And more at the link.

    Yes BdS my dear wholesome friend, arguing with gullible religiously driven idiots is totally futile.
     
  13. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543
  14. BdS Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    512
    LOL, then you quote that crank, lmfao. If only you knew... stop taunting me please, this discussion is over so please stop. religion does not belong here I've told you already. And its not my place to defend GOD...

    You just an OCD crank...
     
  15. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543

    Sure, sure my friend...Take it easy!
    Here's a couple more, from another "crank" [If only you could see how silly that makes you look claiming such reputable people are cranks

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    ]

    “I don’t mind not knowing. It doesn’t scare me. —RICHARD FEYNMAN”

    “In this sense, science, as physicist Steven Weinberg has emphasized, does not make it impossible to believe in God, but rather makes it possible to not believe in God.”
    Lawrence M. Krauss, A Universe from Nothing: Why There Is Something Rather than Nothing


    “Once you assume a creator and a plan, it makes humans objects in a cruel experiment whereby we are created to be sick and commanded to be well. —CHRISTOPHER HITCHENS”



    I hope they make your day.
     
  16. Spellbound Banned Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,623
    • you have been warned several times to keep the pseudoscience out of the science forums
    Taken from Common CTMU Objections and Replies:

    The universe isn't cognitive.
    • This processing conforms to a state transition function included in a set of such functions known as "the laws of physics". Calling these functions "cognitive" is hardly a stretch, since it is largely in terms of such functions that cognition itself is understood. Moreover, since "the characteristics, the features, ... the behaviors of the many facets and elements of this reality" are generally attributed to the laws of physics, it is not clear why cognition should not generally apply. After all, spacetime consists of events and separations, and events can be described as the mutual processing of interacting objects. So where physical interaction is just mutual input-to-output behavioral transduction by physical objects, and cognition is mutual input-to-output behavioral transduction by neurons and their inclusive brain structures, physical interaction is just a generalization of human cognition. If this seems like a tautology, indeed it is; self-contained self- referential systems are tautological by definition.
    • Suppose you're wearing blue-tinted glasses. At first, you think that the world you see through them is blue. Then it occurs to you that this need not be true; maybe it's the glasses. Given this possibility, you realize that you really have no business thinking that the world is blue at all; indeed, due to Occam's razor, you must assume that the world is chromatically neutral (i.e., not blue) until proven otherwise! Finally, managing to remove your glasses, you see that you were right; the world is not blue. This, you conclude, proves that you can't assume that what is true on your end of perception (the blue tint of your lenses) is really true of reality.
    Fresh from this victory of reason, you turn to the controversial hypothesis that mind is the essence of reality...that reality is not only material, but mental in character. An obvious argument for this hypothesis is that since reality is known to us strictly in the form of ideas and sensations - these, after all, are all that can be directly "known" - reality must be ideic. But then it naturally occurs to you that the predicate "mental" is like the predicate "blue"; it may be something that exists solely on your end of the process of perception. And so it does, you reflect, for the predicate "mental" indeed refers to the mind! Therefore, by Occam's razor, it must be assumed that reality is not mental until proven otherwise.

    However, there is a difference between these two situations. You can remove a pair of blue sunglasses. But you cannot remove your mind, at least when you're using it to consider reality. This means that it can never be proven that the world isn't mental. And if this can never be proven, then you can't make an assumption either way. Indeed, the distinction itself is meaningless; there is no reason to even consider a distinction between that which is mental and that which is not, since nature has conspired to ensure that such a distinction will never, ever be perceived. But without this distinction, the term "mental" can no longer be restrictively defined. "Mental" might as well mean "real" and vice versa. And for all practical purposes, so it does.

    A theory T of physical reality exists as a neural and conceptual pattern in your brain (and/or mind); it's related by isomorphism to its universe U (physical reality). T<--(isomorphism)-->U. T consists of abstract ideas; U consists of supposedly concrete objects like photons (perhaps not the best examples of "concrete objects"). But the above argument shows that we have to drop the abstract-concrete distinction (which is just a different way of expressing the mental-real distinction). Sure, we can use these terms to distinguish the domain and range of the perceptual isomorphism, but that's as far as it goes. For all practical purposes, what is mental is real, and vice versa. The T-U isomorphism seamlessly carries one predicate into the other.
     
  17. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543
    It certainly does not invalidate in any way, shape or form, that we were all born in the belly of stars:
    We're all star dust my friend, no matter how you want to philosophically ignore that.
     
  18. BdS Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    512
    hahaha, Cute, are you only there now? yes thats right. I past that when I was maybe 12 years old... 25+ years ago mate. You're a f-ing joke, you dont even know the basics...
     
  19. BdS Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    512
    And not even a funny one.
     
  20. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543
    ???

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    Wow! Such unrestrained emotions!
    Let me spell it out once again.....
    We were all born in the guts of stars...We are all star dust.
    That's it, pure and simple. Just stating observations as we see them.
     
  21. BdS Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    512
    • cut the insults
    Not only are we made of star dust, we're made of stars. but, thats a few decades ahead of you.

    Your reply is soo stupid because I never denied it.
     
  22. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543
    The only way people like you will have any hope of being educated, after generations of being told how special you are, [

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    ] is that those of the calibre of Laurence Krauss and others like Neil De-Grasse Tyson, ke promoting the discipline of science in general, the factual message of Evolution, the understanding of the Universe and the BB, and the awe and mystery in what we don't know, but are doing our best via the scientific method to find out.
    The Universe is a weird and wonderful place, and as we loosen further the shackles of religion that has tied us down, pitted us against each other, started wars, and continue to rant and rave about science, the more knowledge we will gain, as we continue to probe the unknown.
     
  23. BdS Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    512
    Yes you dont know so stop professing like you do and that your speculation is the only way. Its not a weird place at all.
     

Share This Page