Jihad needs scientists

[unsettled]

lucasea@sbcglobal.net wrote:

jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
news:ehfn2c$8qk_010@s799.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com...

All that does is show you're a BS artist, can parrot some equations, and
have absolutetly no idea how to apply them correctly.

This comes from someone who can't even figure out the
attributions in usenet posts correctly! LOL

 

[John Larkin]

On Sat, 21 Oct 2006 18:55:27 GMT, <lucasea@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

If you're going to label evolution as "just a belief", then you had better
be prepared to apply that appellation to *all* of the observational
sciences, since evolution is one of the best supported ideas in the history
of science.

It is not. The observational evidence for big evolutionary jumps, and
especially for the creation of life, is spotty or non-existant. There
is no demonstrably accurate mathematical model for evolution. Nobody
actually understands how DNA works. Evolution, and especially its
mechanisms, is nowhere near being good science; it may be some day,
but not yet.

If you use "best supported" to mean "popular", then I guess you're
right.

John

 

[John Larkin]

On Wed, 18 Oct 2006 18:03:45 GMT, <lucasea@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

"John Larkin" <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message
news:tidcj2hc7r29unnup0qjddadothkt473q2@4ax.com...
On Wed, 18 Oct 06 11:51:42 GMT, jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:

In article <e9ednZ8s0K3l2ajYRVnyuA@pipex.net>,
"T Wake" <usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote:

"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4535424A.C08609A3@hotmail.com...


T Wake wrote:

lucasea@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message

Certainly a lot of the details of Darwin's theories have been
subject
to
question and modification over the years. What has not changed is
the
basic idea of evolution.

Very true. There is a conflict of terminology and if the people on the
radio
show were talking about "Darwin's theories" specifically they are a
bit
behind the curve. Modern evolutionary theory has progressed beyond the
specifics Darwin described.

I've noticed that there is now a common tendency for those who reckon
they
know
better to dismiss such things as 'just theories' as if that meant they
had
no
vailidity !


I love that phrase "just theories." It really makes me smile when some
creationist goes on about how "evolution is just a theory."

Like Newtonian Gravity isn't "just" a theory.

Yes. It is just a theory. It is the human race's best
guess at how nature and its laws work.

It's a pretty good theory but ignores relativistic effects. It's
quantitatively precise in most practical situations, but not all
situations, so it is indeed flawed, and not a "best guess."


Yes, all theories are flawed by definition, and the only measure of a theory
is its usefulness--i.e., how well it predicts or explains a certain effect,
combined with how easy it is to use (i.e., simple).

The trouble is, the Creation Science/Intelligent Design people use that
"flawed" to mean "useless", in order to aggrandize their belief system,
which provides complete certainty and Truth, despite being nearly useless in
explaining and predicting natural phenomena.

Eric Lucas

By the standards set for decent scientific theories, evolution has a
long way to go. It's still very fuzzy about explaining and predicting
phenomena. It seems to be the only "science" that, confronted with
true mysteries, seems to accept, and be relieved and satisfied by,
unproven conjecture.

John

 

[John Larkin]

On Sun, 22 Oct 06 11:46:02 GMT, jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:

In article <54OdnR2_EJ87q6fYRVnysg@pipex.net>,
"T Wake" <usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote:

jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
news:ehd4o6$8qk_004@s884.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com...
In article <tidcj2hc7r29unnup0qjddadothkt473q2@4ax.com>,
John Larkin <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
On Wed, 18 Oct 06 11:51:42 GMT, jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:

In article <e9ednZ8s0K3l2ajYRVnyuA@pipex.net>,
"T Wake" <usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote:

"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4535424A.C08609A3@hotmail.com...


T Wake wrote:

lucasea@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message

Certainly a lot of the details of Darwin's theories have been
subject
to
question and modification over the years. What has not changed is
the
basic idea of evolution.

Very true. There is a conflict of terminology and if the people on
the
radio
show were talking about "Darwin's theories" specifically they are a
bit
behind the curve. Modern evolutionary theory has progressed beyond
the
specifics Darwin described.

I've noticed that there is now a common tendency for those who reckon
they
know
better to dismiss such things as 'just theories' as if that meant they
had
no
vailidity !


I love that phrase "just theories." It really makes me smile when some
creationist goes on about how "evolution is just a theory."

Like Newtonian Gravity isn't "just" a theory.

Yes. It is just a theory. It is the human race's best
guess at how nature and its laws work.

It's a pretty good theory but ignores relativistic effects. It's
quantitatively precise in most practical situations, but not all
situations, so it is indeed flawed, and not a "best guess."


I'm not going to deal with this one.

So why make any post? Why not just ignore it?

It was a communication to the rational readers of this thread.
If correcting John's idea of the Scientific Method was
important, somebody else could do the writing. John's concept
is slightly incorrect and requires a nitpik.

So sorry. "Science" does not allow anyone to be "slightly incorrect."

Reminds me of some physics conferences I've attended, where you had to
watch your step for slipping on the blood on the floor.

John

 

[John Fields]

On Sun, 22 Oct 2006 11:02:42 +0100, "T Wake"
<usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote:

"MooseFET" <kensmith@rahul.net> wrote in message
news:1161478704.971665.99350@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...

T Wake wrote:
"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
news:fu7lj2t874oat4omh23ub487ft86nmnf4t@4ax.com...
[....]
So far, we've found that we have a two-tiered gravitational system.

We're currently being blue-shifted into our Great Attractor, while
the Great Attractor is being red shifted into the wall.

Comments?

When you say "we" do you mean Earth, the solar system, the milky way or
the
universe? Which direction is the Great Attractor in?

Things are sort of like this:

Milky Way + Andromeda galaxy = Local Group

Local Group + (M84 +M86) + some others = Virgo Cluster

Each of these is contracting and all of that is going in the
Hydra-Centaurus direction.


Yes, thank you for that although I was looking for clarification in the
context of the rest of the post.

Redshift, from cosmological expansion, occurs outside large scale structures
and as a result there is no major anomaly in the actions within the local
group or the cluster. The oddity is the mass required to create this
blueshift, given the lack of anything "visible."

---
All that's required for the masses involved in the blueshift to be
blue-shifted toward each other is for them to be attracted to each
other more strongly than they're being attracted to the wall,
separately.
---

As for the "Great Attractor" being red shifted to the wall - it is no more
red shifted than would be expected for its distance.

---
The problem isn't that it's being red shifted, the problem is that
the red shift increases as distance increases, implying that mass is
being accelerated the "farther out" it goes. The Standard Model
doesn't predict this and, in fact, can't explain why it's happening.

My hypothesis does.

Consider: If our universe exists as a bubble with entrained material
outgassed from the "wall" when the bubble formed, then the
gravitational attraction from the huge mass on the other side of the
wall will be attracting it back again, and as the matter approaches
the wall it will be accelerated more and more the closer it gets,
gravitational attraction being inverse square law.

All that's required for this to happen is for the mass on the other
side of the wall to be distributed anisotropically, causing
gravitational gradients to be generated which attract matter on our
side of the wall selectively. These gradients have been confirmed
by the Sloan Digital Sky Survey.
---

Does this support a Big Bubble universe? Maybe. Off the top of my head I
cant immediately fault it as a theory

---
It's still just a hypothesis.
---

although the Big Bang is itself a
misnomer and was never meant to imply a huge explosion at the t=0 event.

---
Regardless, the apparent accelerating expansion of our universe
isn't explained by the Big Bang theory, and _can't_ be, unless
gravity is found to be repulsive.

--
John Fields
Theoretical Astrophysicist.

 

[John Larkin]

On Sun, 22 Oct 06 11:58:34 GMT, jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:

In article <p2glj292d915vbpvtc9fg80nkglu3fu5rl@4ax.com>,
John Larkin <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
On Sun, 22 Oct 2006 01:02:34 +0100, "T Wake"
usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote:


"John Larkin" <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message
news:mp3lj29e2fch9vi7q41flhjd983pcrh6de@4ax.com...
On Sat, 21 Oct 2006 22:10:34 +0100, "T Wake"
usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote:


"John Larkin" <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in
message
news:69lkj218m8l6errb5fr0lnsb658moc7s8o@4ax.com...
On Sat, 21 Oct 2006 16:08:55 +0100, "T Wake"
usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote:


If science teachers are teaching the Bible, they need to be fired. If
Religious Education teachers were teaching science, they should be
fired.

Right, keep all things in their rigid compartments where God intended
they stay.

Interesting argument. You create the fallacy that supporting the
separation
of subjects into discrete categories for the education of children is
actually supporting the doctrine of Christianity. Nicely done.

I assume then, that you feel Biology teachers should spend their time
teaching their student Spanish,

If the teacher has a couple of Spanish-background kids in class, it
would be appropriate to mention the Spanish names for things, or
comment on critters that live in the kids' home countries.

Nothing wrong with this, with the exception of a Biology teacher who starts
to teach the kids the wrong Spanish grammar - which is more appropriate to
the examples. Teaching ID as science is bad science.

ID isn't bad science or good science. It's faith. Perhaps you don't
understand faith.
snip

I might as well write up my nitpik . A logical first step
of the Scientific Method is to identify what can be studied
using the Method and what cannot be studied using the Method.
One of the things that cannot be studied is anything that
requires faith.

Of course. Faith consists of beleiving something to be probably true
when there is - at present - no means to test the belief. Given such a
situation, like the origin of life or the origin of the universe or
the nature of consciousness, it seems to me that all reasonable
conjectures should be equally respected. I think that most scientists,
and especially amateurs who take pride in being "scientific", are too
quick to reject conjectures that they find to be emotionally
unappealing.

That's all.

John

 

[MooseFET]

jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:

In article <1161446216.247073.137760@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
"MooseFET" <kensmith@rahul.net> wrote:

jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:
In article <1161181426.078024.31230@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
"MooseFET" <kensmith@rahul.net> wrote:
[....]
Actually, I have been paying attention. The toughest job in heaven
these days is virgin wrangler.

Other than react gleefully, which is the normal male reaction,

It is perfectly natural for humans of either gender to laugh at an
obvious joke. As a result, the qualifier "male" was not needed.
snip

This is not all that funny when it is the carrot used to
convince people to kill themselves in the form of a human bomb.

I disagree. The funniest humor is always about the most serious
subject. There is an evolutionary explaination for why this is so, but
even without the explanation, it is obvious from experience that it is
true. God, death and people being unfaithful are the normal grist for
jokes.

I would assume
that this would actully be hell for males.

You seem to be suggesting that it wouldn't also be for females.

There is not.

Huh! The reply to the above make no sense. What does the "there" refer
to? You are saying something is not something but neither referent is
identified.

Now, think about that in combination with the tactics
that are currently working w.r.t. the West's news media.

Since the thing I'm supposed to think about in combination with those
tactics makes no sense, I can't figure out what you are suggesting I
think about. That being said, you can't assume that I haven't already
thought about it.

I wish people
would think a little bit more.

So do I but I've learned to live with the fact that others simply can't
keep up with my thinking, humor and artistic skills. This is the curse
of being the smartest person in the world.

You don't even approach the smartest. You certainly aren't any
where near as smart as the person known as JMF in my login name.

You also have missed the real meaning of what I said. I'm sure others
knew exactly what I meant. I don't feel like explaining it to you at
this point, but trust me, your responce doesn't make you look very good.

 

[John Larkin]

On Sun, 22 Oct 2006 14:21:12 +0100, "T Wake"
<usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote:

Saying "I believe in evolution" is a valid sentence.

No, it is not valid within this context. You do know that
the Creed starts out with "I believe...".

It is still valid. I honestly believe in Newtonian Gravity being the best
description of gravity in the domain in which it applies. This is not
something which can be "known" as tomorrow some one may come up with a
better description.

Does this open the floodgates for the Religious Right to send me to hell?

Can you cite any modern case of the Religious Right denying the
accuracy of Newton's law of gravitation? Strawman indeed. Since the
time of Galileo's house arrest, the western churches have
progressively conceded to science the domain of physical reality. I've
read, and believe, the argument that Christianity is in fact
pro-science, and Islam is not, which is why the West is so far ahead
in technology. The Irish monks kept the wisdom of the Greeks safe
through the dark ages, and the Jesuits were and are great contributors
to math and science.

I think that most of modern Christianity respects and celebrates
science, and lots of modern scientists are unreasonably hostile to
religion; sometimes so hostile it affects their science.

John

 

[John Larkin]

On Sun, 22 Oct 2006 14:27:05 +0100, "T Wake"
<usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote:

IT and computers are a science field.

What does programming have to do with science?

John

 

[T Wake]

"John Larkin" <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message
news:975nj2hbutglodujgqd5ungvjn7ai8rhgo@4ax.com...

On Sun, 22 Oct 06 11:46:02 GMT, jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:

In article <54OdnR2_EJ87q6fYRVnysg@pipex.net>,
"T Wake" <usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote:

jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
news:ehd4o6$8qk_004@s884.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com...
In article <tidcj2hc7r29unnup0qjddadothkt473q2@4ax.com>,
John Larkin <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
On Wed, 18 Oct 06 11:51:42 GMT, jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:

In article <e9ednZ8s0K3l2ajYRVnyuA@pipex.net>,
"T Wake" <usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote:

"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4535424A.C08609A3@hotmail.com...


T Wake wrote:

lucasea@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message

Certainly a lot of the details of Darwin's theories have been
subject
to
question and modification over the years. What has not changed
is
the
basic idea of evolution.

Very true. There is a conflict of terminology and if the people on
the
radio
show were talking about "Darwin's theories" specifically they are
a
bit
behind the curve. Modern evolutionary theory has progressed beyond
the
specifics Darwin described.

I've noticed that there is now a common tendency for those who
reckon
they
know
better to dismiss such things as 'just theories' as if that meant
they
had
no
vailidity !


I love that phrase "just theories." It really makes me smile when
some
creationist goes on about how "evolution is just a theory."

Like Newtonian Gravity isn't "just" a theory.

Yes. It is just a theory. It is the human race's best
guess at how nature and its laws work.

It's a pretty good theory but ignores relativistic effects. It's
quantitatively precise in most practical situations, but not all
situations, so it is indeed flawed, and not a "best guess."


I'm not going to deal with this one.

So why make any post? Why not just ignore it?

It was a communication to the rational readers of this thread.
If correcting John's idea of the Scientific Method was
important, somebody else could do the writing. John's concept
is slightly incorrect and requires a nitpik.


So sorry. "Science" does not allow anyone to be "slightly incorrect."

Only partialy true, so in essence this is itself slightly incorrect.

Reminds me of some physics conferences I've attended, where you had to
watch your step for slipping on the blood on the floor.

All topics have conferences like that.

 

[JoeBloe]

On Tue, 17 Oct 2006 04:12:10 +0100, Eeyore
<rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> Gave us:

John Larkin wrote:

On Mon, 16 Oct 2006 18:43:41 GMT, Jonathan Kirwan
jkirwan@easystreet.com> wrote:

And politically potent, right now. Keep that clearly in mind as you
see US Republican political platforms playing out. They need this
base, desperately.


With things as closely balanced as they are, each party needs every
vote desperately. The Dems need the black vote and the urban liberal
vote and the farm vote and the NRA vote. Watch Hilary triangulate.

What the Dems really need is proof that Bush is Satan.

You're an idiot. Your observation is retarded. Too fucking bad if

this observation annoys you.

 

[T Wake]

"John Larkin" <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message
news:8t5nj29md56ugu8pm4epmitj8tgp66v2of@4ax.com...

On Sun, 22 Oct 2006 14:21:12 +0100, "T Wake"
usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote:


Saying "I believe in evolution" is a valid sentence.

No, it is not valid within this context. You do know that
the Creed starts out with "I believe...".

It is still valid. I honestly believe in Newtonian Gravity being the best
description of gravity in the domain in which it applies. This is not
something which can be "known" as tomorrow some one may come up with a
better description.

Does this open the floodgates for the Religious Right to send me to hell?

Can you cite any modern case of the Religious Right denying the
accuracy of Newton's law of gravitation?

I can't.

Strawman indeed.

I agree.

Since the
time of Galileo's house arrest, the western churches have
progressively conceded to science the domain of physical reality. I've
read, and believe, the argument that Christianity is in fact
pro-science, and Islam is not, which is why the West is so far ahead
in technology. The Irish monks kept the wisdom of the Greeks safe
through the dark ages, and the Jesuits were and are great contributors
to math and science.

I think that most of modern Christianity respects and celebrates
science,

Well for a given value of "most." Also when it comes to science which is
easy to reconcile with the religious teachings. When it comes to science
which is not so easy to reconcile then things are different.

and lots of modern scientists are unreasonably hostile to
religion; sometimes so hostile it affects their science.

I agree. It would have been nicer if you had left most of the original
context in place though.

 

[John Fields]

On 22 Oct 2006 00:35:48 GMT, "Daniel Mandic" <daniel_mandic@aon.at>
wrote:

unsettled wrote:

You're good at taking IQ tests. Doesn't actually
mean you're "smart."



It does.


Also you can count in: Endurance, Skill and Patience. (E.g. longer test
than the IQ Test )


Mine is ~120

---
Seems like you ought to have better control of English, then.


--
John Fields
Professional Circuit Designer

 

[T Wake]

"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
news:3m1nj2pba4fh96h1ljc3lurpprr2vpsrhe@4ax.com...

On Sun, 22 Oct 2006 11:02:42 +0100, "T Wake"
usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote:


"MooseFET" <kensmith@rahul.net> wrote in message
news:1161478704.971665.99350@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...

T Wake wrote:
"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
news:fu7lj2t874oat4omh23ub487ft86nmnf4t@4ax.com...
[....]
So far, we've found that we have a two-tiered gravitational system.

We're currently being blue-shifted into our Great Attractor, while
the Great Attractor is being red shifted into the wall.

Comments?

When you say "we" do you mean Earth, the solar system, the milky way or
the
universe? Which direction is the Great Attractor in?

Things are sort of like this:

Milky Way + Andromeda galaxy = Local Group

Local Group + (M84 +M86) + some others = Virgo Cluster

Each of these is contracting and all of that is going in the
Hydra-Centaurus direction.


Yes, thank you for that although I was looking for clarification in the
context of the rest of the post.

Redshift, from cosmological expansion, occurs outside large scale
structures
and as a result there is no major anomaly in the actions within the local
group or the cluster. The oddity is the mass required to create this
blueshift, given the lack of anything "visible."

---
All that's required for the masses involved in the blueshift to be
blue-shifted toward each other is for them to be attracted to each
other more strongly than they're being attracted to the wall,
separately.

Yes. It creates a problem as to where the wall "is" though.

As for the "Great Attractor" being red shifted to the wall - it is no more
red shifted than would be expected for its distance.

---
The problem isn't that it's being red shifted, the problem is that
the red shift increases as distance increases, implying that mass is
being accelerated the "farther out" it goes. The Standard Model
doesn't predict this and, in fact, can't explain why it's happening.

It isnt related to the standard model nor does it need anything from the
standard model (*).

Cosmological expansion is an interesting topic in its own right.

My hypothesis does.

Excellent.

Consider: If our universe exists as a bubble with entrained material
outgassed from the "wall" when the bubble formed, then the
gravitational attraction from the huge mass on the other side of the
wall will be attracting it back again, and as the matter approaches
the wall it will be accelerated more and more the closer it gets,
gravitational attraction being inverse square law.

All that's required for this to happen is for the mass on the other
side of the wall to be distributed anisotropically, causing
gravitational gradients to be generated which attract matter on our
side of the wall selectively. These gradients have been confirmed
by the Sloan Digital Sky Survey.

Very interesting and it seems reasonably sound.

I can think of one potential issue but that may be more related to my
understanding of the picture you are painting than anything else.

Having the mass on the "other side" of the bubble to support the faster
acceleration creates a problem in that it puts the Earth at the centre of
the "universe."

We know that from "here" the further things are away from us, the faster
they are recessing. Studies have shown this is true where ever "here" is
(and apart from anything else, "here" is moving at some speed).

All large scale structures are moving away from each other, at a rate which
increases as the separation increases.

Taking your model as an example, an object 1.5*10^10 ly away from Earth
would be closer to the "wall" than Earth so is being pulled faster and
harder than Earth, but an observer on that Object would see our Local Group
moving at a massive red shift and may well conclude we were indeed closer to
the wall.

This happens pretty much all over the universe making the edge of the bubble
hard to locate.

Does this support a Big Bubble universe? Maybe. Off the top of my head I
cant immediately fault it as a theory

---
It's still just a hypothesis.

As are they all. No one _knows_ what happened at t=0.

although the Big Bang is itself a
misnomer and was never meant to imply a huge explosion at the t=0 event.

---
Regardless, the apparent accelerating expansion of our universe
isn't explained by the Big Bang theory, and _can't_ be, unless
gravity is found to be repulsive.

Accelerated expansion is not part of the t=0 theory which became known as
"Big Bang Theory." The Big Bang theory is about what happened at t=0.
Subsequent theories look at the evolution and development of the universe.
That is like saying Boyles Law doesn't explain the accelerated expansion of
the universe.

Gravity does not have to be repulsive to expansion to take place. Between
structures in which gravity is dominant, expansion does not take place.
Where gravitational forces are weak the universe expands.

Gravity itself is the weakest "fundamental force," there is no reason why
"something" else couldn't be driving the expansion.


+++++++++
(*) For a given meaning of these terms. Some theories use qualities of
particles covered by SM to explain / solve (etc) Cosmological Expansion. The
"raw" BBT doesn't do this though so you can pretty much take your pick which
topic you want to "believe" here ;-)

 

[John Larkin]

On Sun, 22 Oct 2006 19:42:48 +0100, "T Wake"
<usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote:

"John Larkin" <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message
news:975nj2hbutglodujgqd5ungvjn7ai8rhgo@4ax.com...
On Sun, 22 Oct 06 11:46:02 GMT, jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:

In article <54OdnR2_EJ87q6fYRVnysg@pipex.net>,
"T Wake" <usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote:

jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
news:ehd4o6$8qk_004@s884.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com...
In article <tidcj2hc7r29unnup0qjddadothkt473q2@4ax.com>,
John Larkin <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
On Wed, 18 Oct 06 11:51:42 GMT, jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:

In article <e9ednZ8s0K3l2ajYRVnyuA@pipex.net>,
"T Wake" <usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote:

"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4535424A.C08609A3@hotmail.com...


T Wake wrote:

lucasea@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message

Certainly a lot of the details of Darwin's theories have been
subject
to
question and modification over the years. What has not changed
is
the
basic idea of evolution.

Very true. There is a conflict of terminology and if the people on
the
radio
show were talking about "Darwin's theories" specifically they are
a
bit
behind the curve. Modern evolutionary theory has progressed beyond
the
specifics Darwin described.

I've noticed that there is now a common tendency for those who
reckon
they
know
better to dismiss such things as 'just theories' as if that meant
they
had
no
vailidity !


I love that phrase "just theories." It really makes me smile when
some
creationist goes on about how "evolution is just a theory."

Like Newtonian Gravity isn't "just" a theory.

Yes. It is just a theory. It is the human race's best
guess at how nature and its laws work.

It's a pretty good theory but ignores relativistic effects. It's
quantitatively precise in most practical situations, but not all
situations, so it is indeed flawed, and not a "best guess."


I'm not going to deal with this one.

So why make any post? Why not just ignore it?

It was a communication to the rational readers of this thread.
If correcting John's idea of the Scientific Method was
important, somebody else could do the writing. John's concept
is slightly incorrect and requires a nitpik.


So sorry. "Science" does not allow anyone to be "slightly incorrect."

Only partialy true, so in essence this is itself slightly incorrect.

Reminds me of some physics conferences I've attended, where you had to
watch your step for slipping on the blood on the floor.

All topics have conferences like that.

I find physicists to be especially aggressive. It's hard to brainstorm
with them, because their first reaction to an idea is often to slap it
down, rather than play with it and see if there might be something
there. Most physicists have a better understanding of device physics
than the average engineer, but are still rotten circuit designers...
check out the circuits in RSI, for instance. That wasn't so in the
RadLab days, but it sure seems that way now.

The thing about physics, especially quantum/particle/cosmological
physics, is that some very smart people have already discovered a lot
of stuff, and there's no low-hanging fruit left that mere mortals can
reach. In condensed matter physics (aka "dirt physics") and chemistry
and biology, there's still a lot left to discover, so it's not as
brutally competitive.

Circuit design is fun, because you can invent something entirely new
most any afternoon, and dabble in the physics and chemistry and optics
without having to spend a decade as an impoverished post-doc.

John

 

[John Larkin]

On Sun, 22 Oct 2006 19:46:30 +0100, "T Wake"
<usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote:

"John Larkin" <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message
news:8t5nj29md56ugu8pm4epmitj8tgp66v2of@4ax.com...
On Sun, 22 Oct 2006 14:21:12 +0100, "T Wake"
usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote:


Saying "I believe in evolution" is a valid sentence.

No, it is not valid within this context. You do know that
the Creed starts out with "I believe...".

It is still valid. I honestly believe in Newtonian Gravity being the best
description of gravity in the domain in which it applies. This is not
something which can be "known" as tomorrow some one may come up with a
better description.

Does this open the floodgates for the Religious Right to send me to hell?

Can you cite any modern case of the Religious Right denying the
accuracy of Newton's law of gravitation?

I can't.

Strawman indeed.

I agree.

Since the
time of Galileo's house arrest, the western churches have
progressively conceded to science the domain of physical reality. I've
read, and believe, the argument that Christianity is in fact
pro-science, and Islam is not, which is why the West is so far ahead
in technology. The Irish monks kept the wisdom of the Greeks safe
through the dark ages, and the Jesuits were and are great contributors
to math and science.

I think that most of modern Christianity respects and celebrates
science,

Well for a given value of "most." Also when it comes to science which is
easy to reconcile with the religious teachings. When it comes to science
which is not so easy to reconcile then things are different.

and lots of modern scientists are unreasonably hostile to
religion; sometimes so hostile it affects their science.

I agree. It would have been nicer if you had left most of the original
context in place though.

I get railed at for snipping, and railed at for not snipping. What's a
boy to do?

John

 

[T Wake]

"John Larkin" <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message
news:1dfnj29m7qmdina5m7ko9bh5650mcf92bi@4ax.com...

On Sun, 22 Oct 2006 19:42:48 +0100, "T Wake"
usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote:


"John Larkin" <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in
message
news:975nj2hbutglodujgqd5ungvjn7ai8rhgo@4ax.com...
On Sun, 22 Oct 06 11:46:02 GMT, jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:

In article <54OdnR2_EJ87q6fYRVnysg@pipex.net>,
"T Wake" <usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote:

jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
news:ehd4o6$8qk_004@s884.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com...
In article <tidcj2hc7r29unnup0qjddadothkt473q2@4ax.com>,
John Larkin <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
On Wed, 18 Oct 06 11:51:42 GMT, jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:

In article <e9ednZ8s0K3l2ajYRVnyuA@pipex.net>,
"T Wake" <usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote:

"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4535424A.C08609A3@hotmail.com...


T Wake wrote:

lucasea@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message

Certainly a lot of the details of Darwin's theories have been
subject
to
question and modification over the years. What has not
changed
is
the
basic idea of evolution.

Very true. There is a conflict of terminology and if the people
on
the
radio
show were talking about "Darwin's theories" specifically they
are
a
bit
behind the curve. Modern evolutionary theory has progressed
beyond
the
specifics Darwin described.

I've noticed that there is now a common tendency for those who
reckon
they
know
better to dismiss such things as 'just theories' as if that meant
they
had
no
vailidity !


I love that phrase "just theories." It really makes me smile when
some
creationist goes on about how "evolution is just a theory."

Like Newtonian Gravity isn't "just" a theory.

Yes. It is just a theory. It is the human race's best
guess at how nature and its laws work.

It's a pretty good theory but ignores relativistic effects. It's
quantitatively precise in most practical situations, but not all
situations, so it is indeed flawed, and not a "best guess."


I'm not going to deal with this one.

So why make any post? Why not just ignore it?

It was a communication to the rational readers of this thread.
If correcting John's idea of the Scientific Method was
important, somebody else could do the writing. John's concept
is slightly incorrect and requires a nitpik.


So sorry. "Science" does not allow anyone to be "slightly incorrect."

Only partialy true, so in essence this is itself slightly incorrect.

Reminds me of some physics conferences I've attended, where you had to
watch your step for slipping on the blood on the floor.

All topics have conferences like that.


I find physicists to be especially aggressive. It's hard to brainstorm
with them, because their first reaction to an idea is often to slap it
down, rather than play with it and see if there might be something
there.

Possibly true, although some I went to in the past have veered madly in the
opposite direction. I must admit it has been at least 10 years since I have
been to one though.

Often the most vicious are ones where people are looking for new
applications of physics. (Imaging was the last catfight I noticed). (Not
that anything involving a cluster of physicists should be described as
"vicious."

Most physicists have a better understanding of device physics
than the average engineer, but are still rotten circuit designers...
check out the circuits in RSI, for instance. That wasn't so in the
RadLab days, but it sure seems that way now.

The thing about physics, especially quantum/particle/cosmological
physics, is that some very smart people have already discovered a lot
of stuff, and there's no low-hanging fruit left that mere mortals can
reach. In condensed matter physics (aka "dirt physics") and chemistry
and biology, there's still a lot left to discover, so it's not as
brutally competitive.

Circuit design is fun, because you can invent something entirely new
most any afternoon, and dabble in the physics and chemistry and optics
without having to spend a decade as an impoverished post-doc.

Very true. There are still amazing advances to be made in physics but none
are thought of as "easy." I think some people get disheartened - although
this is (IMHO) why so many people try to reinvent the already studied.

 

[T Wake]

"John Larkin" <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message
news:k7gnj2l9ohj1bl31bgnb8f9p6oevsrifch@4ax.com...

On Sun, 22 Oct 2006 19:46:30 +0100, "T Wake"
usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote:


"John Larkin" <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in
message
news:8t5nj29md56ugu8pm4epmitj8tgp66v2of@4ax.com...
On Sun, 22 Oct 2006 14:21:12 +0100, "T Wake"
usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote:


Saying "I believe in evolution" is a valid sentence.

No, it is not valid within this context. You do know that
the Creed starts out with "I believe...".

It is still valid. I honestly believe in Newtonian Gravity being the
best
description of gravity in the domain in which it applies. This is not
something which can be "known" as tomorrow some one may come up with a
better description.

Does this open the floodgates for the Religious Right to send me to
hell?

Can you cite any modern case of the Religious Right denying the
accuracy of Newton's law of gravitation?

I can't.

Strawman indeed.

I agree.

Since the
time of Galileo's house arrest, the western churches have
progressively conceded to science the domain of physical reality. I've
read, and believe, the argument that Christianity is in fact
pro-science, and Islam is not, which is why the West is so far ahead
in technology. The Irish monks kept the wisdom of the Greeks safe
through the dark ages, and the Jesuits were and are great contributors
to math and science.

I think that most of modern Christianity respects and celebrates
science,

Well for a given value of "most." Also when it comes to science which is
easy to reconcile with the religious teachings. When it comes to science
which is not so easy to reconcile then things are different.

and lots of modern scientists are unreasonably hostile to
religion; sometimes so hostile it affects their science.

I agree. It would have been nicer if you had left most of the original
context in place though.


I get railed at for snipping, and railed at for not snipping. What's a
boy to do?

 

[Jamie]

John Larkin wrote:

On Sun, 22 Oct 2006 19:46:30 +0100, "T Wake"
usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote:


"John Larkin" <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message
news:8t5nj29md56ugu8pm4epmitj8tgp66v2of@4ax.com...

On Sun, 22 Oct 2006 14:21:12 +0100, "T Wake"
usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote:



Saying "I believe in evolution" is a valid sentence.

No, it is not valid within this context. You do know that
the Creed starts out with "I believe...".

It is still valid. I honestly believe in Newtonian Gravity being the best
description of gravity in the domain in which it applies. This is not
something which can be "known" as tomorrow some one may come up with a
better description.

Does this open the floodgates for the Religious Right to send me to hell?

Can you cite any modern case of the Religious Right denying the
accuracy of Newton's law of gravitation?

I can't.


Strawman indeed.

I agree.


Since the
time of Galileo's house arrest, the western churches have
progressively conceded to science the domain of physical reality. I've
read, and believe, the argument that Christianity is in fact
pro-science, and Islam is not, which is why the West is so far ahead
in technology. The Irish monks kept the wisdom of the Greeks safe
through the dark ages, and the Jesuits were and are great contributors
to math and science.

I think that most of modern Christianity respects and celebrates
science,

Well for a given value of "most." Also when it comes to science which is
easy to reconcile with the religious teachings. When it comes to science
which is not so easy to reconcile then things are different.


and lots of modern scientists are unreasonably hostile to
religion; sometimes so hostile it affects their science.

I agree. It would have been nicer if you had left most of the original
context in place though.



I get railed at for snipping, and railed at for not snipping. What's a
boy to do?

John

it's like coupons, you snip them all and only use the

one's accepted!


--
"I am never wrong, once i thought i was, but i was mistaken"
Real Programmers Do things like this.
http://webpages.charter.net/jamie_5

 

[John Fields]

On Sun, 22 Oct 2006 20:00:51 +0100, "T Wake"
<usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote:

"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
news:3m1nj2pba4fh96h1ljc3lurpprr2vpsrhe@4ax.com...
On Sun, 22 Oct 2006 11:02:42 +0100, "T Wake"
usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote:

Yes, thank you for that although I was looking for clarification in the
context of the rest of the post.

Redshift, from cosmological expansion, occurs outside large scale
structures
and as a result there is no major anomaly in the actions within the local
group or the cluster. The oddity is the mass required to create this
blueshift, given the lack of anything "visible."

---
All that's required for the masses involved in the blueshift to be
blue-shifted toward each other is for them to be attracted to each
other more strongly than they're being attracted to the wall,
separately.

Yes. It creates a problem as to where the wall "is" though.

---
Perhaps not. Considering that there's a limit to the velocity
attainable by matter, and that the wall is accelerating that matter
ever more strongly as the matter approaches the wall, it may be that
the "wall" isn't a physical, but a dimensional "threshold" where
matter goes transluminal and joins the infinite cheese. Defining
where it _is_, then, would merely require measuring the redshifts of
two galaxies headed in the same direction, determining the distance
between them and their accelerations, and then extrapolating the
distance required for the far galaxy to achieve C as its
acceleration increased.
---

As for the "Great Attractor" being red shifted to the wall - it is no more
red shifted than would be expected for its distance.

---
The problem isn't that it's being red shifted, the problem is that
the red shift increases as distance increases, implying that mass is
being accelerated the "farther out" it goes. The Standard Model
doesn't predict this and, in fact, can't explain why it's happening.

It isnt related to the standard model nor does it need anything from the
standard model (*).

---
Sure it does. Behind the standard model, all of the energy/matter
in the universe was pumped into an empty void at t=0, and has been
dispersing through the void ever since. The problem with that, be
it an open, closed, or static universe, is that an accelerating
expanding cosmological expansion can't be accounted for with gravity
being attractive.
---

Cosmological expansion is an interesting topic in its own right.

---
And an _accelerating_ expansion mind-boggling...
---

My hypothesis does.

Excellent.

Consider: If our universe exists as a bubble with entrained material
outgassed from the "wall" when the bubble formed, then the
gravitational attraction from the huge mass on the other side of the
wall will be attracting it back again, and as the matter approaches
the wall it will be accelerated more and more the closer it gets,
gravitational attraction being inverse square law.

All that's required for this to happen is for the mass on the other
side of the wall to be distributed anisotropically, causing
gravitational gradients to be generated which attract matter on our
side of the wall selectively. These gradients have been confirmed
by the Sloan Digital Sky Survey.

Very interesting and it seems reasonably sound.

I can think of one potential issue but that may be more related to my
understanding of the picture you are painting than anything else.

Having the mass on the "other side" of the bubble to support the faster
acceleration creates a problem in that it puts the Earth at the centre of
the "universe."

---
Not at all. We're merely somewhere on this side of the bubble
seeing blue shifts in our local group as we're being attracted to
each other while hurtling toward the wall. The red shifts we see
will be matter being pulled away from us by the wall.
---

We know that from "here" the further things are away from us, the faster
they are recessing. Studies have shown this is true where ever "here" is
(and apart from anything else, "here" is moving at some speed).

All large scale structures are moving away from each other, at a rate which
increases as the separation increases.

---
Exactly.
---

Taking your model as an example, an object 1.5*10^10 ly away from Earth
would be closer to the "wall" than Earth

---
Only if we assume a spherical bubble and isotropic gravitation being
exerted by the mass behind the wall. As a matter of fact, under
those conditions my hypothesis breaks down since the attraction of
gravity inside the sphere would be everywhere the same.
---

so is being pulled faster and
harder than Earth, but an observer on that Object would see our Local Group
moving at a massive red shift and may well conclude we were indeed closer to
the wall.

---
Well, all we'd really know is that we'd both see the same shift, so
it would be difficult, without knowing exactly where we were, to say
where the other object was, I think.
---

This happens pretty much all over the universe making the edge of the bubble
hard to locate.

---
See above, about extrapolation.
---

Does this support a Big Bubble universe? Maybe. Off the top of my head I
cant immediately fault it as a theory

---
It's still just a hypothesis.

As are they all. No one _knows_ what happened at t=0.

although the Big Bang is itself a
misnomer and was never meant to imply a huge explosion at the t=0 event.

---
Regardless, the apparent accelerating expansion of our universe
isn't explained by the Big Bang theory, and _can't_ be, unless
gravity is found to be repulsive.

Accelerated expansion is not part of the t=0 theory which became known as
"Big Bang Theory." The Big Bang theory is about what happened at t=0.

---
In the sense that accelerated expansion was discovered quite some
time after the Big Bang hypothesis slipped into theory, you're
right. However, considering that the big bangers think that at t=0
a finite amount of stuff was puffed into an empty void with only its
own gravitational forces to guide its distribution certainly _does_
cast the big bang in a bad light now that we know it _can't_ explain
accelerated expansion.
---

Subsequent theories look at the evolution and development of the universe.
That is like saying Boyles Law doesn't explain the accelerated expansion of
the universe.

---
Well, it doesn't, does it???
---

Gravity does not have to be repulsive to expansion to take place.

---
No, but for _accelerated_ expansion to take place, it does.
Either that or an external gravitational field which follows an
inverse square law has to be in place, as would be the case in a
bubble universe such as I hypothesize.
---

Between
structures in which gravity is dominant, expansion does not take place.

---
That's not true. In structures in which gravity is dominant,
expansion occurs initially, but as the gravitational force between
the objects slows them down, eventually a point will be reached
where the expansion will stop and the force of attraction between
them will cause them to coalesce. The big-bang "closed universe"
theory.
---

Where gravitational forces are weak the universe expands.

---
Where gravitational forces are weak and the initial velocity of
expansion was high, an "open" big bang universe could exist which
would expand forever, but without an external gravitational field
attracting the objects in the universe, accelerating expansion would
be impossible without repulsive gravity.
---

Gravity itself is the weakest "fundamental force," there is no reason why
"something" else couldn't be driving the expansion.

---
Like what?


--
John Fields
Professional Circuit Designer