Philosophy Now Forum

Posted: **Fri Aug 23, 2013 3:49 am**

An exercise to the reader:

Step 1. Go find a video on youtube that is scientifically authoritative which says that the universe is infinite in size.

Step 2. Find a different video on youtube that is scientifically authoritative, which says that the universe was once the size of a grapefruit/orange/basketball, prior to the inflationary epoch.

Step 3. Post the links here.

Step 4. Realize this makes no sense.

Posted: **Fri Aug 23, 2013 8:57 pm**

Kuznetzova wrote:An exercise to the reader:

Step 1. Go find a video on youtube that is scientifically authoritative which says that the universe is infinite in size.

Step 2. Find a different video on youtube that is scientifically authoritative, which says that the universe was once the size of a grapefruit/orange/basketball, prior to the inflationary epoch.

Step 3. Post the links here.

Step 4. Realize this makes no sense.

Step one ,, engage your brain ,,and sort it ,, here and now ,, with me ,,
I'm capable ,,, are you ,,,???
science has many theories ,, the bb is just one of them ,,
if you can find authoritative arguments for both sides ,
doesn't , that just discredit , authoritative ,,???
and we need a more precise and all encompassing process to determine what is real ,
reality doesn't play fair or democratic ,
reality is ruthless and one eyed ,
there either is a god or there isn't , basing a society on the idea that we can't know either way ,
is not credible in this day and age ,
religion is the madness that is destroying this world ,,
the elephant in the living room , that the world keeps walking around ,,,!!!
tip toeing carefully just incase they upset , another
religious nut case , another muslim terrorist , american mass shooter ,
while we bow down to religious fundamentalism ,
we have not left the dark ages ,,!!!!!

Posted: **Sat Aug 31, 2013 11:34 pm**

Godfree wrote:
Kuznetzova wrote:An exercise to the reader:

Step 1. Go find a video on youtube that is scientifically authoritative which says that the universe is infinite in size.

Step 2. Find a different video on youtube that is scientifically authoritative, which says that the universe was once the size of a grapefruit/orange/basketball, prior to the inflationary epoch.

Step 3. Post the links here.

Step 4. Realize this makes no sense.
Step one ,, engage your brain ,,and sort it ,, here and now ,, with me ,,
I'm capable ,,, are you ,,,???
science has many theories ,, the bb is just one of them ,,
if you can find authoritative arguments for both sides ,
doesn't , that just discredit , authoritative ,,???
and we need a more precise and all encompassing process to determine what is real ,
reality doesn't play fair or democratic ,
reality is ruthless and one eyed ,
there either is a god or there isn't , basing a society on the idea that we can't know either way ,
is not credible in this day and age ,
religion is the madness that is destroying this world ,,
the elephant in the living room , that the world keeps walking around ,,,!!!
tip toeing carefully just incase they upset , another
religious nut case , another muslim terrorist , american mass shooter ,
while we bow down to religious fundamentalism ,
we have not left the dark ages ,,!!!!!

So if you could determine what people did or didn't believe, what would you tell them? And how do you think the knowledge you impart would effect them and their descendants?

You need to understand that people without faith in a higher realm of order and justice, will ultimately be concerned only for their individual lives, and that of their children, morality would cease to have a viable function, and the only virtue would be the strength and power needed to disregard others in favour of enjoying the moment.

I'm not religious, but I do believe in some form of metaphysical order, such as is part of the Buddhist theology.

Posted: **Sun Sep 01, 2013 3:21 pm**

Arising_uk wrote:
Godfree wrote:Arising ,,re Kraus ,
it took me all of about ten seconds to dismiss this nonsense ,
"the beginning of the begining" ,, the beginning of the bullshit , there was no beginning ,
"how it all ends" ,,more bullshit there is no end ,
clearly this dickhead knows nothing ,,!!!
You're an arse and you obviously didn't have the concentration to listen to the whole lecture. Story of your life I guess.

Let me know when you obtain undergraduate degrees in mathematics and physics with first class honours and a Ph.D. in physics from MIT and then maybe I'd consider what you say about Cosmology and Astrophysics. Until then you're blowing it out of your outdated metaphysical arse based upon your own spurious metaphysical beliefs and your pet theory of science's 'collusion' with theist religion.

As if those credentials are necessarily indicative, they could be, but they're not necessarily!!!!

Posted: **Sun Sep 01, 2013 3:24 pm**

tillingborn wrote:
Godfree wrote:There are many theories , and the jury seems to be still out as to which one is reality ,
Yup, that does seem to be the case.
Godfree wrote:so why is the american government so gung ho about the bbt ,
Can you give an example of the American government being gung-ho about the Big Bang theory?
Godfree wrote:I will put it as best way I can ,
you say the redshift is evidence of the universe expanding ,
Well, it may be splitting hairs, but I'd say the universe expanding is the most plausible explanation for red shift.
Godfree wrote:I say , your telling me the universe is finite ,
And I say, show me where I said so. I don't know if the universe is finite or not.
Godfree wrote:infinite , does not expand ,
You are blundering into a paradox. If it does not expand, there is a limit to its size. Therefore, it isn't infinite.
Godfree wrote:I say finite is not possible ,
That's not the way to do science. The universe is not he way it is because you say so, it's just the way it is and the way to discover that is by looking.
Godfree wrote:so why would I seriously consider ,"a flat expanding universe" ,,???
If you are interested in how the universe works, it's worth your while giving serious consideration to any theory that has made it through peer review without being laughed at. The fact that Krauss' contemporaries haven't blown it out of the water suggests it remains plausible and worthy of respect.

That someone laughs is not necessarily indicative of truth or falsehood, just their belief. And the mob does not necessarily rule.

Posted: **Sun Sep 01, 2013 3:29 pm**

tillingborn wrote:
Godfree wrote:RESPECT ,,I'M SURE THE IDIOTS THAT DREAMED UP INTELLIGENT DESIGN THOUGHT THEY DESERVED RESPECT,
Bit of a difference, Godfree. Lawrence Krauss' hypothesis is compatible with the data produced by the most expensive and sophisticated machinery ever produced. The many scientists across the world who share this data come from a range of philosophical, political and religious backgrounds. As a body they therefore have no particular affiliation to any cause, other than to describe the world as accurately as they are able. Many will challenge Krauss, some will dismiss his idea, but most will agree that it is at least a viable hypothesis.
The idiots that dreamed up intelligent design by contrast, have one book and a reactionary political agenda, which, like you, I think should be resisted.
As you say, respect is earned.

Not true, as their cause is also self interest, to maintain their job, to have money, to survive, to obtain tenure, to become funded. They do in fact have a conflict of interests. There is no such thing as a selfless act!

Posted: **Sun Sep 01, 2013 7:19 pm**

tillingborn wrote:As a body they therefore have no particular affiliation to any cause, other than to describe the world as accurately as they are able.

SpheresOfBalance wrote:Not true, as their cause is also self interest, to maintain their job, to have money, to survive, to obtain tenure, to become funded. They do in fact have a conflict of interests.

Fair enough, there are many scientists struggling to prove things which are not true, because it is in their interest to do so. Young Earth creationists and people in the pocket of tobacco companies spring to mind. They are individuals though, rather than the body of science, and they are invariably challenged, sometimes by people with their own agenda, sometimes by scientists who simply want to know the truth. I should have specified cosmologists and physicists who do the sort of stuff pertinent to the current discussion. It maybe that the reason they are granted the colossal funds necessary to build Large Hadron Colliders and whatnot, is that the people holding the purse strings hope to gain something, new weapons perhaps, or fusion energy, but that's a bit hit and hope and I'm fairly confident that the motivating force behind the majority of people doing the investigating is curiosity. Besides, the universe is the way it is and it behaves the way it does, only the most deluded Cnut* could believe they can turn back the tide.

SpheresOfBalance wrote:There is no such thing as a selfless act!

Maybe, but I don't see wanting to know how things work as especially selfish.

*In fairness, according to the story, Cnut was making the point that he couldn't.

Posted: **Sun Sep 01, 2013 7:49 pm**

SpheresOfBalance wrote:There is no such thing as a selfless act!

Maybe, but I don't see wanting to know how things work as especially selfish.

*In fairness, according to the story, Cnut was making the point that he couldn't.[/quote]

A selfless act ,
animals , and humans will sacrifice their life to save others ,
a soldier ant will die for the cause , just as our soldiers do ,
selfless ,?? ,,you could argue that the lion going in to battle , is saving his offspring ,
if he's toppled , then the cubs will probably die ,
I think lots of acts seem selfless ,
but it's all connected , if you understand why your taking the risk ,
and willingly do it , that could be regarded as selfless ,
or , attention seeking , or , just an idiot , or instinct got the better of them ,, etc ,
why am I here doing this ???, is this a selfless act ,???
do I do this for the warm felt appreciation of my wisdom ,,???
the recognition and acknowledgement that I have something to say ,,???
On that Note ,
song written by me ,
I want to live my life my own way ,
and I need to feel I have got something to say ,
selfless ,,??
no I am here with an agenda ,
to belittle insult and ridicule religion and the belief in god ...

Posted: **Sun Sep 01, 2013 7:59 pm**

tillingborn wrote:
tillingborn wrote:As a body they therefore have no particular affiliation to any cause, other than to describe the world as accurately as they are able.

SpheresOfBalance wrote:Not true, as their cause is also self interest, to maintain their job, to have money, to survive, to obtain tenure, to become funded. They do in fact have a conflict of interests.
Fair enough, there are many scientists struggling to prove things which are not true, because it is in their interest to do so. Young Earth creationists and people in the pocket of tobacco companies spring to mind. They are individuals though, rather than the body of science, and they are invariably challenged, sometimes by people with their own agenda, sometimes by scientists who simply want to know the truth. I should have specified cosmologists and physicists who do the sort of stuff pertinent to the current discussion. It maybe that the reason they are granted the colossal funds necessary to build Large Hadron Colliders and whatnot, is that the people holding the purse strings hope to gain something, new weapons perhaps, or fusion energy, but that's a bit hit and hope and I'm fairly confident that the motivating force behind the majority of people doing the investigating is curiosity. Besides, the universe is the way it is and it behaves the way it does, only the most deluded Cnut* could believe they can turn back the tide.
Tillingborn, I'm not necessarily your enemy here; on this topic. When I see one all alone fending off a hoard of opposition, I scrutinize the opposition, and find flaws in their arguments, not that I disagree with the whole of their stance, necessarily. But it is a falsehood for you to say that you know 100% of the motivations for any particular scientist, even if you were their peer. And while they all, I'm sure, care about their field of study, they might not even understand 100% of the time where their motivations come from. Neither you nor I can pretend to know the pressures, of deadlines associated with huge grants of money; "Results," they want "results!" I'm sure scientists fudge it slightly sometimes to stay the insistent university department head, or other such benefactor. How could they keep their jobs if they don't produce, and a peer club would do quite nicely; just saying; then most would never know! They are largely theories after all.

SpheresOfBalance wrote:There is no such thing as a selfless act!
Maybe, but I don't see wanting to know how things work as especially selfish.
No, I was not referring to the inquiring minds, that continually search, as being selfish in that endeavor. I'm down with that, I'm just saying that they are not in it JUST for the inquiry, it is a JOB as well; that their work is not 100% unselfish; that's all.

*In fairness, according to the story, Cnut was making the point that he couldn't.

Posted: **Sun Sep 01, 2013 10:39 pm**

SpheresOfBalance wrote:Tillingborn, I'm not necessarily your enemy here; on this topic.

Suit yourself, enemies are very useful things, you can always rely on them to point out your mistakes.

SpheresOfBalance wrote:When I see one all alone fending off a hoard of opposition, I scrutinize the opposition, and find flaws in their arguments, not that I disagree with the whole of their stance, necessarily.

That's very gallant of you, but it's only effective if you find flaws in what people actually say:

SpheresOfBalance wrote:But it is a falsehood for you to say that you know 100% of the motivations for any particular scientist, even if you were their peer.

It would be, but what I actually said was:

tillingborn wrote:...I'm fairly confident that the motivating force behind the majority of people doing the investigating is curiosity.

SpheresOfBalance wrote:I'm sure scientists fudge it slightly sometimes to stay the insistent university department head, or other such benefactor.

There are plenty of examples of scientists doing just that, particularly where there is a commercial imperative. At universities, the 'product' being sold is generally the quality of the research. There are establishments that are funded by special interest groups, particularly religions, that will interpret data very differently, but there is only so much fudging of the data which is sustainable. Experiments work for everyone or not at all, and conscientious scientists will not take seriously anything that can't be reproduced by anyone other than the team making the original claim.

SpheresOfBalance wrote:How could they keep their jobs if they don't produce, and a peer club would do quite nicely; just saying; then most would never know! They are largely theories after all.

It is conceivable that every university in the world is a peer group that acts as a cartel, feeding us false information for reasons they don't wish to share, but what do you think the odds are?

SpheresOfBalance wrote:...I'm just saying that they are not in it JUST for the inquiry, it is a JOB as well; that their work is not 100% unselfish; that's all.

I think it is at least possible that some lucky people get paid to do what they love doing.

Posted: **Mon Sep 02, 2013 2:12 am**

tillingborn wrote:
SpheresOfBalance wrote:Tillingborn, I'm not necessarily your enemy here; on this topic.
Suit yourself, enemies are very useful things, you can always rely on them to point out your mistakes.
SpheresOfBalance wrote:When I see one all alone fending off a hoard of opposition, I scrutinize the opposition, and find flaws in their arguments, not that I disagree with the whole of their stance, necessarily.
That's very gallant of you, but it's only effective if you find flaws in what people actually say:
SpheresOfBalance wrote:But it is a falsehood for you to say that you know 100% of the motivations for any particular scientist, even if you were their peer.
It would be, but what I actually said was:
tillingborn wrote:...I'm fairly confident that the motivating force behind the majority of people doing the investigating is curiosity.
No, there seems to be a communication breakdown, I was referring to this quote, especially all before the comma:
tillingborn wrote:As a body they therefore have no particular affiliation to any cause, other than to describe the world as accurately as they are able.

SpheresOfBalance wrote:
I'm sure scientists fudge it slightly sometimes to stay the insistent university department head, or other such benefactor.
There are plenty of examples of scientists doing just that, particularly where there is a commercial imperative. At universities, the 'product' being sold is generally the quality of the research. There are establishments that are funded by special interest groups, particularly religions, that will interpret data very differently, but there is only so much fudging of the data which is sustainable. Experiments work for everyone or not at all, and conscientious scientists will not take seriously anything that can't be reproduced by anyone other than the team making the original claim.
SpheresOfBalance wrote:How could they keep their jobs if they don't produce, and a peer club would do quite nicely; just saying; then most would never know! They are largely theories after all.
It is conceivable that every university in the world is a peer group that acts as a cartel, feeding us false information for reasons they don't wish to share, but what do you think the odds are?
No big conspiracy theorist here, just saying that those of similar beliefs may be inclined to scratch the backs of those that scratch theirs. Of course watch out for the opposition, as they enjoy the same back scratching. Just supposition, that it wouldn't surprise me, so as to keep investors happy, while continually searching for the real meat and potatoes, of course.

SpheresOfBalance wrote:...I'm just saying that they are not in it JUST for the inquiry, it is a JOB as well; that their work is not 100% unselfish; that's all.
I think it is at least possible that some lucky people get paid to do what they love doing.
Yes, I'm sure, if I were only so lucky! But it's pressure, to which, I've been pointing.

To tell you the truth, I don't know if I really trust them to wield a Hadron Collider.

Posted: **Tue Sep 03, 2013 10:18 pm**

Tillingborn,

Godfree wrote: try getting up to date with the observational data ,
they are having to come up with more and more bizzare theories to make the bbt fit as the data ,
conflicts more and more with the theory ,,,!!!

There is simply no denying the historical fact that Godfree has pointed out. No more burying your head in the sand. The facts of history is that cosmologists continually kept uncovering data that was not commensurate with a Big Bang. And their reaction to this was to make ever-more exotic theories.

The Horizon Problem. It didn't make any damned sense. So Alan Guth came along with "Inflationary Epoch" to save face.

Red and dead Galaxies. They are older than the universe is. Quick! Concoct some outlandish idea about central black holes making them "age faster".

Galaxy shapes. Galaxies should not be shaped like that. Invent "dark matter".

Spatial Expansion. It's not just expanding, the expansion is speeding up ever faster. Invent "dark energy".

And I'm just getting started...

Posted: **Wed Sep 04, 2013 7:57 am**

Kuznetzova wrote:The Horizon Problem. It didn't make any damned sense. So Alan Guth came along with "Inflationary Epoch" to save face.

Actually Guth discovered inflation while investigating the absence of monopoles and was sharp enough to realise that it could account for the homogeneity of the universe. It was nothing to do with saving face.

Kuznetzova wrote:Red and dead Galaxies. They are older than the universe is. Quick! Concoct some outlandish idea about central black holes making them "age faster".

In the much denser early universe, the abundance of hydrogen meant that star formation was quicker and the stars themselves were bigger. It is demonstrable that the bigger the star, the quicker it burns, creating supernovae and the matter that younger stars and especially their planets are made of. When such Blue Giants go supernova, they are believed to create Black Holes, put a few of those in the same area and the will be drawn together.

Kuznetzova wrote:Galaxy shapes. Galaxies should not be shaped like that. Invent "dark matter".

"Dark matter" is not a thing, it is an acknowledgement that there appears to be more gravity acting on rotating galaxies than the observed stars can account for. People don't know what it is and are trying to find out using the tried and tested scientific approach of looking very carefully.

Kuznetzova wrote:Spatial Expansion. It's not just expanding, the expansion is speeding up ever faster. Invent "dark energy".

Again "dark energy" is just a stop gap term to account for a phenomenon that as yet has no satisfactory explanation, it is not an invention.

Kuznetzova wrote:And I'm just getting started...

Oh goody. The thing is, none of the above refutes the Big Bang hypothesis which is still the best explanation for the observed red shift. It works according to the easily verifiable Doppler Effect and there is no evidence to support any competing theory such as the tired photon hypothesis.

Posted: **Wed Sep 04, 2013 8:56 pm**

Kuznetzova wrote:Red and dead Galaxies. They are older than the universe is. Quick! Concoct some outlandish idea about central black holes making them "age faster".

In the much denser early universe, the abundance of hydrogen meant that star formation was quicker and the stars themselves were bigger. It is demonstrable that the bigger the star, the quicker it burns, creating supernovae and the matter that younger stars and especially their planets are made of. When such Blue Giants go supernova, they are believed to create Black Holes, put a few of those in the same area and the will be drawn together.

Red and Dead ,, has got them completely fucked , the universe is just as old ,
in any direction or distance ,
in other words the image of the universe is not of younger and younger images ,
the further out/back in time we look ,
there is no old current and young distant pattern , that one might expect , from a bb ,
the pattern of galaxies is uniform or even throughout ,
no central point , no spreading out lines no radiating outward pattern ,
it's just like wall paper , the same pattern over and over again ,
ad infinitum ...
and Kuz ,thank you , you have re-assured me someone else in this universe has a brain ,,!!!

Posted: **Thu Sep 05, 2013 7:55 am**

Godfree wrote:Red and Dead ,, has got them completely fucked ,
the universe is just as old , in any direction or distance ,
in other words the image of the universe is not of younger and younger images ,
the further out/back in time we look ,

Yes it is. Quasars are very distant objects, they are believed to be powered by accretion discs around massive black holes in the centre of young energetic galaxies. There are no active quasars within a billion light years of Earth. I don't know off the top of my head how far the nearest red and dead galaxy is, but there are none in the immediate vicinity. The fact that these two objects are very distant, hence very old, implies that the universe undergoes changes that might be described as evolution, it is not static.

Godfree wrote:there is no old current and young distant pattern , that one might expect , from a bb ,
the pattern of galaxies is uniform or even throughout ,
no central point , no spreading out lines no radiating outward pattern ,
it's just like wall paper , the same pattern over and over again ,
ad infinitum ...

Maybe you missed this:

It might take a while, but I could theoretically increase the number of dots to 200 billion or so. What you would find is the "radiating outward pattern" from whichever two dots you chose to superimpose. The "spreading out lines" is exactly what you see, no matter where you are.

Godfree wrote:and Kuz ,thank you , you have re-assured me someone else in this universe has a brain ,,!!!

Uh-huh. And some of us have eyes.

Philosophy Now Forum

attn: Godfree

Re: attn: Godfree

Re: attn: Godfree

Re: attn: Godfree

Re: attn: Godfree

Re: attn: Godfree

Re: attn: Godfree

Re: attn: Godfree

Re: attn: Godfree

Re: attn: Godfree

Re: attn: Godfree

Re: attn: Godfree

Re: attn: Godfree

Re: attn: Godfree

Re: attn: Godfree

Re: attn: Godfree