 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsSpace ScienceAstronomyAmateur AstronomySpace FlightSpace StationShuttleSpace HistorySpace PolicySETI SpaceKB.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Space Forum / Astronomy / July 2004Hawking Recants on Black Hole Theory!
Hawking RECANTS on Black Hole Theory! Stephen Hawking now says that what goes in to a black hole CAN come out! Hawking now says that physical singularities DO NOT EXIST after all! Hawking admits he was WRONG when he theorized that information going into a black hole was lost forever. He has further agreed to PAY OFF on a longstanding bet with a colleague on this matter! This seems to have been a triumph of the ideas of Quantum Gravity. See the article: http://www.nature.com/news/2004/040712/full/040712-12.html (No, this isn't the April 1st edition of Nature.) See also: http://www.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,4057,10153260%255E1702,00.html And for a slightly more sympathetic take: http://in.rediff.com/news/2004/jul/15hawking.htm Simply amazing! Double-A > Hawking RECANTS on Black Hole Theory! Really? Strange I seem to recall scientists change their minds on all kinds of things once they determine they may have been in error. > > Hawking RECANTS on Black Hole Theory! > > Really? Strange I seem to recall scientists change their minds on all kinds of > things once they determine they may have been in error. > ///////////////////////// In recent months I had been wondering how much energy escaped from the Blackhole in the form of radiation, there no published figures on the subject, I tended to dismiss it thinking that amount of radiation would sterilise the whole universe, so the amount of energy I had decided was small., there must be another form of outlet, or this newish theory is wrong. And then I am back in the room behind the Blackhole where all matter is stored until it bursts at the seams, and gives birth to another big bang, or small one whatever you may wish to think, theory is just that strong idea's usually, but all we have, and lets face it all we are likely to have or obtain until that ultimate understanding of the universe comes along and bites us on the bum. > > Hawking RECANTS on Black Hole Theory! > > Really? Strange I seem to recall scientists change their minds on all kinds of > things once they determine they may have been in error. any good engineer worth his salt knows that singularities wich apear in many usefull equations dont realy exist IRL and knows how to avoid using the equation in that region. Colin =^.^= > any good engineer worth his salt knows that singularities wich apear in many > usefull equations dont realy exist IRL and knows how to avoid using the > equation in that region. I didn't know that singularities were something that came up much in practicle engineering exercises. Can you give a singular example of an engineering issue which was held up because the modelling was producing a singularity? >>any good engineer worth his salt knows that singularities wich apear in many >>usefull equations dont realy exist IRL and knows how to avoid using the >>equation in that region. Wrong. > I didn't know that singularities were something that came up much in > practicle engineering exercises. Can you give a singular example of an > engineering issue which was held up because the modelling was > producing a singularity? Try designing a crystal oscillator without singularities. Mark L. Fergerson > > Hawking RECANTS on Black Hole Theory! > > Really? Strange I seem to recall scientists change their minds on all kinds of > things once they determine they may have been in error. That is the essence of science. Science does not and has never claimed to be able to determine absolute truth. All that it claims is that is the best method we have to date, in understanding the world. Science works on the principle that an idea must be falsifiable. If an idea cannot be falsified in principle then it is outside the realms of science E.g the concept of God can never be proven to be untrue, therefore it is outside the realms of science. Religion is based on faith, not scientific thinking. Hawking's has simply followed and accepted scientific methodological process. His theory has been proven incorrect and he has made public his error. Science has triumphed . . . again. Alex > That is the essence of science. Science does not and has never claimed to be > able to determine absolute truth. All that it claims is that is the best [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > can never be proven to be untrue, therefore it is outside the realms of > science. Religion is based on faith, not scientific thinking. Nonsense. God is assumed to be the creator of the Universe. If God did not exist, the Universe would not exist. That's falsifiability. And since the Universe does exist, then it must be true that God exists. It's not different from assuming energy is equivalent to mass, and since energy and mass exist, Special Relativity theory must be true. But in this case, mass does not equal energy, nor do they have independent existence. The mass/energy equivalence is a false assumption. It takes religious belief in the equivalence of mass and energy (it defies all logic) in order to keep Special Relativity alive. Relativity Theory is based on faith, God is based on fact. Get your facts straight. > Hawking's has simply followed and accepted scientific methodological > process. His theory has been proven incorrect and he has made public his > error. > > Science has triumphed . . . again. Hah! If his theory is incorrect today, it was incorrect when he first conceived it. The science was flawed from the beginning. Discovering this flaw over 25 years later is not a triumph, it is a failure. Dave > > That is the essence of science. Science does not and has never claimed to > be [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > If God did not exist, the Universe would not exist. That's falsifiability. No it isn't, it's a statement of faith. Prove or disprove your claim. > And since the > Universe does exist, then it must be true that God exists. Rehashed Aquinas, i.e. "My claims are true because they're based on my faith, which I know is true." Rick > > If God did not exist, the Universe would not exist. That's falsifiability. > > No it isn't, it's a statement of faith. Prove or disprove your > claim. What's the difference between my claim that God is the creator of the Universe or the Standard Model claim that mass is equal to energy? The Standard Model claim that mass is equal to energy is patently false. Mass is a dimension, energy is a unit. Neither can be converted to the other, both always remain what they are, a dimension and a unit. You don't like it when someone else uses what seems to you to be a false premise, but it doesn't bother *you* to use a false premise. That goes beyond religion to religious persecution. Cut off those you disagree with, reward those you agree with. > > And since the > > Universe does exist, then it must be true that God exists. > > Rehashed Aquinas, i.e. "My claims are true because they're > based on my faith, which I know is true." That sounds like the source of the Standard Model faith. Was Rehashed a friend of Einstein's? Dave > > > If God did not exist, the Universe would not exist. That's > falsifiability. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > What's the difference between my claim that God is the creator of the > Universe or the Standard Model claim that mass is equal to energy? The difference is, the latter claim can be tested and studied mathematically and scientifically, or at least increasingly so, while there's not even a possibility of doing the same with the former. > The > Standard Model claim that mass is equal to energy is patently false. Mass > is a dimension, energy is a unit. Neither can be converted to the other, > both always remain what they are, a dimension and a unit. I'll keep that in mind as I eat my dinner tonight. > You don't like it when someone else uses what seems to you to be a false > premise, but it doesn't bother *you* to use a false premise. That goes > beyond religion to religious persecution. Cut off those you disagree with, > reward those you agree with. Not at all. Again, the difference is, you can come up with a process to disprove the premise. We cannot. > > > And since the > > > Universe does exist, then it must be true that God exists. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > That sounds like the source of the Standard Model faith. Was Rehashed a > friend of Einstein's? Einstein only rarely dabbled in circular logic. Aquinas immersed himself in it. Rick > > > If God did not exist, the Universe would not exist. That's > falsifiability. [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > That sounds like the source of the Standard Model faith. Was Rehashed a > friend of Einstein's? On the off chance that you just forgot the sardonic smiley... Thomas Aquinas was a was a Roman Catholic philosopher and theologian in the scholastic tradition. He is considered by the Roman Catholic church to be its greatest theologian. > On the off chance that you just forgot the sardonic smiley... Thomas Aquinas > was a was a Roman Catholic philosopher and theologian in the scholastic > tradition. He is considered by the Roman Catholic church to be its greatest > theologian. Well, if that's true (I'm not sure it still is), it says far more about the Catholic Church than it does about Aquinas. Summa Theologica, generally cited as his "masterpiece", is one of the largest collections of gobbledeygook ever written. He *starts* with Church dogma, then comes up with sets of questions and logic to achieve his end goal, however contorted, circular and in many cases just plain wrong the logic may be. I found it to be an utterly exasperating and pointless read. Rick MORONS with typewriters and computers! When are you idiots going to get the simple fact that there is NO GOD! And there never was one. GOD and GODs is/are the creation of a simple minded, uninformed, hysterical mankind. And for Pete's sake don't go trying to use the Bible to prove that there is a GOD! The Bible is comprised of tribal histories and pure BS! Most of the "New Testament" is nothing more than PR press intended to move the masses of Pagans into Christianity. ( And where the NT wasn't working the "good" Christians would sack and burn existing temples and then build their Christian churches on the sites. Of course there were some collateral losses due to Pagan resistance... ) Let's look at the Christ myth: You have a man and several followers wondering around doing "good"... Why are there NO mentions of these deeds by other than his followers? Surely there would have been some mention of a do gooder by the scribes of the communities that he and his followers were traveling thru... But noooo, nada, nothing... other than the fact that he was hung out to dry for crimes against several Rabbi. Now lets look at one completely INSANE passage in the OT. "Man was created in GOD's image." REALLY!??? What in HELL would GOD need EYEs for? What are GOD's ears for? Why would GOD need a mouth? What would GOD need a nose for? To what use would a GOD have for body hair? ... I could go thru the whole human anatomy but why bother! Man is what man is due to evolution and not creation. ( And what is the fallout of this moronic idea??? Racism... anyone who doesn't look like "me" has to be "unholy"! And the opposite sex is nothing more than a second class being! ) The universe is evolution in progress, on a massive scale. Nothing said "Let there be Light!" ... think about it! Into what medium would IT say those words? Why would IT say those words? To "what" would IT have said those words? And then there is the real kicker... 1. WHO/WHAT created GOD? Goto 1. The real sad thing about all of the religions that derived from the middle east is that for the most part they are practiced with hate and loathing towards anyone who does not follow whatever the faith of the person preaching and hir followers. And then there is the real fallout of all of the middle eastern religions... They all subscribe to NOT teaching science, and as a matter of fact they'd all prefer to keep their sheep illiterate where possible, or only reading from "their" version of the holy scriptures. There's so much more that it hardly seem worth the effort to go on. > What's the difference between my claim that God is the creator of the > Universe or the Standard Model claim that mass is equal to energy? The [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > beyond religion to religious persecution. Cut off those you disagree with, > reward those you agree with. > MORONS with typewriters and computers! > > When are you idiots going to get the simple fact that there is NO GOD! And > there never was one. Strange that your "nom de plume" is "Kill-All-Spammers.com." Do you call for your own execution, or do you plan to save us the trouble and commit suicide? > MORONS with typewriters and computers! > > When are you idiots going to get the simple fact that there is NO GOD! And > there never was one. > > GOD and GODs is/are the creation of a simple minded, uninformed, hysterical mankind. Nonsense. God is provable. And for your information, I've studied all the world's major religions. I've spent two years at a Tibetan Buddhist monastery in California. I'm not talking about proving a particular faith, just God. Would you like to challenge me? Dave > > MORONS with typewriters and computers! > > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > GOD and GODs is/are the creation of a simple minded, uninformed, > hysterical mankind. > Nonsense. God is provable. Let's hear it then. I have never heard of a repeatable experiment that can verify the existence of a god, so I am all ears. Jochen  Signature------------------------------------ If you like to learn about the Roe Valley and some of its history, try: http://www.jochenlueg.freeuk.com > > Nonsense. God is provable. > > Let's hear it then. I have never heard of a repeatable experiment that can > verify the existence of a god, so I am all ears. Hi Jochen, It's not the existence of "a" god, but God. Let's use the rules of geometry to put together some postulates and theorems, and then see if everything fits together. First, forget the idea that God will be directly measured. The first postulate is that God is non-physical and yet real. We can initially entertain the existence of non-physical reality because we see many examples of it. For example, you have a mind and this mind cannot be physically observed. We have dimensions of real measurements and units and the dimensions cannot be directly observed. We experience forces such as gravity, electrostatic attraction, and electromagnetic attraction, but these forces cannot be directly observed. And yet none of us would deny the reality of the mind, the dimensions, or the forces, correct? So the question is how do we identify a non-physical reality, quantify it, and determine it is God? There are some basic assumptions about God that transcend all religions. - God is the Creator of the Universe. - God is the maintainer of the physical Universe - God has magnitude beyond anything else. - God is all encompassing and eternal. - God is the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow (an extension of the eternal assumption above). - God is the Source of all life. So if we find quantifiable evidence within quantum physics that presents these characteristics, then we would have evidence of God's existence. Do you agree? The repeatable experiments that prove the existence of God have already been done and verified by modern science. So the data already exists. All we need for seeing God is to determine what God would look like when we saw God. Then if we see these characteristics of God, we can further investigate to verify or disprove whether what we see is God or not. So, do you agree so far with the premises? Is there anything you would add or subtract from what God should be if we were to find evidence of God? Be careful not to intentionally sabotage this investigation with theological considerations that would prove or disprove a specific religion. For example, not all religions think God has the same name. So with so much ambiguity as to God's name, we wouldn't consider God's name in our initial investigation. We're considering only the potentially measurable qualities of God at this time. Dave > > > Nonsense. God is provable. > > > > Let's hear it then. I have never heard of a repeatable experiment that > > can verify the existence of a god, so I am all ears. > Hi Jochen, > It's not the existence of "a" god, but God. If there is one there must be more. His father and grandmother for instance. > Let's use the rules of geometry to put together some postulates and > theorems, and then see if everything fits together. Why not. > First, forget the idea that God will be directly measured. That is about the worst start for a proof that I can think of. If you can't measure it how will you provide proof that anyone can verify and repeat? > The first > postulate is that God is non-physical and yet real. Whose postulate is that? It is not mine hence it is irrelevant. > We can initially > entertain the existence of non-physical reality because we see many > examples of it. For example, you have a mind and this mind cannot be > physically observed. Yes it can. You can see its substance, you can measure its activity, you can test its ability. If you can show me a god as real as my mind I'll believe in him. > We have dimensions of real measurements and units > and the dimensions cannot be directly observed. Get away. You can't see length, depth, feel temperature and all the rest? > We experience forces > such as gravity, electrostatic attraction, and electromagnetic > attraction, but these forces cannot be directly observed. So what. The only reason we can't observe them is that our sense have evolved in specific ways - we can see the effects of course. > There are some basic assumptions about God that transcend all religions. > - God is the Creator of the Universe. - God is the maintainer of the > physical Universe - God has magnitude beyond anything else. - God is all > encompassing and eternal. - God is the same yesterday, today, and > tomorrow (an extension of the eternal assumption above). - God is the > Source of all life. These are just words. They sound great but they mean nothing. Replace the word God with 'Ant' and you get the same effect. > So if we find quantifiable evidence within quantum physics that presents > these characteristics, then we would have evidence of God's existence. > Do you agree? Let's hear it. > The repeatable experiments that prove the existence of God have already > been done and verified by modern science. So the data already exists. Where? I used to teach science and have never come across any of this. > All we need for seeing God is to determine what God would look like when > we saw God. Then if we see these characteristics of God, we can further > investigate to verify or disprove whether what we see is God or not. This is mumbo jumbo. > So, do you agree so far with the premises? You haven't said anything yet. > Is there anything you would > add or subtract from what God should be if we were to find evidence of [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > name in our initial investigation. We're considering only the > potentially measurable qualities of God at this time. So where is your evidence? I'm afraid all you can do is what religion does best: produce words - some of them sound great because they have been repeated across the centuries and you read them in various books but you really only talk around the eternal problem. You cannot prove the existence of any god to the satisfaction of a non-believer. Good luck with your research though. Jochen Signature------------------------------------ If you like to learn about the Roe Valley and some of its history, try: http://www.jochenlueg.freeuk.com > > > Nonsense. God is provable. > > [quoted text clipped - 51 lines] > > Dave Correct me if I misunderstand, and please forgive the impoverished analogy, but what I think you are saying is that Henry Ford only "exists" if the Model T Ford can prove He exists and only as long as it refers to Him as "some talented no-name engineer" ? IP <snip> > ... please forgive the impoverished analogy, Sorry, can't do that. > but what I think you are saying is that Henry Ford only "exists" if the > Model T Ford can prove He exists and only as long as it refers to Him as > "some talented no-name engineer" ? An interesting concept, but irrelevant to the argument as its use as an analogy *presumes* that the human being exists as the result of the designing actions of a creator. This ignores the Immanence of the deity by presuming that God, as a "Creator," can create something that is not Him. Such a God cannot be truly infinite as long as there is something (anything) that is "not God." Such a Creator must also be *subject* to and *compliant* with the Laws of Physics which govern all his 'creations.' Tom Davidson Richmond, VA > > That is the essence of science. Science does not and has never claimed to > be [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Nonsense. God is assumed to be the creator of the Universe. If God did not > exist, the Universe would not exist. That's falsifiability. Ah, God by degree and a favoured argument by people in the medieaval period. I think your line is based on the 'ontological argument'. That is not what science by "falsifiability" is about. Falsifiability is about being able to disprove a theory by objective experimentation. Your falsifiability is based on no more than cook book science as favoured by certain religious sects. Most of of whom have no understanding of the principles of science, while those that do seek to dupe those who don't. By the way, the only real argument against falsification based science is that some believe its rules are far to strict. In otherwords, dong much of science based around it would prove extremely difficult if not impossible. It is useful for forming hypothesis but certainly could not be used to prove the existance of some meta God. And since the > Universe does exist, then it must be true that God exists. > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Relativity Theory is based on faith, God is based on fact. Get your facts > straight. Science is not a faith. Science is a methodological process and there lies the difference. Religion is not a process of investigation. A faith asks people to believe; whereas in contrast a methodological process helps to organise experimentation. For example Karl Popper believed in science by falsification. However, in practice it proved unworkable due to its strict rules. Therefore science moved on. You see, most people who follow religion cannot get around the difference between faith and process. They are two completely different concepts. Science is a process and not a belief system. Alex > > Nonsense. God is assumed to be the creator of the Universe. If God did not > > exist, the Universe would not exist. That's falsifiability. > > Ah, God by degree and a favoured argument by people in the medieaval period. > I think your line is based on the 'ontological argument'. It was based on sarcasm. You make it sound like the definition of science is "the study of the falsifiable". Science is merely the "study of". It would be pure foolishness to assume that the only things worthy of study were physical things. If that were the case, we would never learn anything about the mind, consciousness, or love. > That is not what science by "falsifiability" is about. Falsifiability is > about being able to disprove a theory by objective experimentation. Apparently you have not studied Buddhism. You might have preconceived ideas about the value of objective experimentation, but a qualified meditator can scientifically explore and catalog many things that objective experiment cannot measure. It isn't that you are wrong in your definition of falsifiability, it's that you have faith in only what you can physically sense that makes your view inferior. > By the way, the only real argument against falsification based science is > that some believe its rules are far to strict. In otherwords, dong much of > science based around it would prove extremely difficult if not impossible. > It is useful for forming hypothesis but certainly could not be used to prove > the existance of some meta God. It might be easier to prove the existence of God than you think. It could be done using the same rules applied to geometry. By starting off with a few hypotheses, it's possible to show that God is manifest in the physical world. > > Relativity Theory is based on faith, God is based on fact. Get your facts > > straight. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > people to believe; whereas in contrast a methodological process helps to > organise experimentation. Let me show you just how much science is based on faith. Mass is a dimension. It has no physical existence at all. Energy is a unit, it merely describes work performed. Work is subjective, not objective. That is, there is no such physical thing as work. Work is implied by the actions of physical things, but work itself is non-physical. So here you have a non-physical dimension of mass and a non-physical unit of energy. And yet modern science treats both as though they were physical things. Modern science believes mass can be converted to energy, and energy can be converted to mass. But neither is a physical thing to begin with. It is no different from converting love into kisses, and kisses into love. Neither love nor kisses are physical things, but they are characteristics of physical things. It is your faith in the non-physical dimension of mass and the non-physical unit of energy that is the basis of your science religion. It is no different from believing in God, which is also non-physical. However, if we accept the postulate that God is an enormous force, and that time and space are quantum, we could easily show that God is directly manifest in gravity and electromagnetism, both of which are measurable. Dave > You see, most people who follow religion cannot get around the difference > between faith and process. They are two completely different concepts. > Science is a process and not a belief system. Science is a process with a belief system. Try to explain quantum physics using only absolute values and dimensions and no postulates or assumptions. Dave > > > Nonsense. God is assumed to be the creator of the Universe. If God did > not [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > It was based on sarcasm. You make it sound like the definition of science > is "the study of the falsifiable". Science is merely the "study of". I don't mean to be too pedantic but surely science is not simply or "merely" studying, it is a method of how we investigate. After all theologians study the bible, but that is hardly science. A scholar studies while a scientist investigates (using scientific methods). It > would be pure foolishness to assume that the only things worthy of study > were physical things. If that were the case, we would never learn anything > about the mind, consciousness, or love. Unfortunately as human beings, we only have a few senses to view and interpret the world. And even these only operate in very small spectrum. We have developed tools to widen the spectrum, but they will never allow us to see or interpret things that are beyond our senses. Any metaphysical intepretation of the world as a tendency to jump straight into areas of speculation or worse still, faith. I accept that issues such as consciousness are especially difficult areas to investigate. For instance, just what do we mean by consciousness? And even when we all agree on it's definition, how do I know that everyone who as agreed with me is not just a figment of my own personal consciousness? The issue of duality etc, etc. Does consciousness have its roots in quantum physics as Roger Penrose asks. Who knows? At the moment we simply have not invented the tools to investigate. If and when we do, the issue will enter the realms of science. At present it is beyond science and outside its scope. And that is why we have to have well defined rules in science, otherwise the route is to anarchy of thought and a process that every Tom Dick and Harry can misuse. > > That is not what science by "falsifiability" is about. Falsifiability is > > about being able to disprove a theory by objective experimentation. Acually, I made a slip up here. I ought of added abstract ideas such as mathemematics. After all, quantum physics was based on this, and is probably the most successful theory of them all. Mathematics can prove the theory to be incorrect, but as of yet it has not. In fact, doesn't the technology behind the cathode tube rely on quantum mechanics? > Apparently you have not studied Buddhism. You might have preconceived ideas > about the value of objective experimentation, but a qualified meditator can > scientifically explore and catalog many things that objective experiment > cannot measure. I think you mistake the power of the mind to dupe an individual into seeing and believing what he wants to. It isn't that you are wrong in your definition of > falsifiability, it's that you have faith in only what you can physically > sense that makes your view inferior. I don't rely on 'faith'. I only accept the constructs of my five senses. Any abstract ideas have to be backed up by real world events for me to accept them as of 'real value'. > > By the way, the only real argument against falsification based science is > > that some believe its rules are far to strict. In otherwords, dong much of [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > few hypotheses, it's possible to show that God is manifest in the physical > world. If you are talking about a Buddhist God, what form of Buddhism are talking of? Buddhism that worships man himself or that which worships a metaphysical God. An hypothesis is only of value if the theory that is developed from it can be shown to be true in the real world. A world, that my five senses are aware of. > > > Relativity Theory is based on faith, God is based on fact. Get your > facts [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > objective. That is, there is no such physical thing as work. Work is > implied by the actions of physical things, but work itself is non-physical. Work is kinetic. It is movement. All that you are describing is the conundrum of quantum physics. How can object exist and not exist at the same time. However, just because we cannot yet completely describe how our world functions, does not invalidate science. Of course, when a better method than science comes along that can describe everything that we know now, then science will be superceded. However, no such real and authentic alternative exists at the moment. And I am absolutely sure that when someone comes up a feasonable alternative, then the world will know about it and a new Nobel prize will come into existance! Buddhism and all its variations are not a real and authentic method of finding out about the world. The process of science came up with your television set, not Buddhism. Those 2 little rovers on Mars got there because of the process of science and not Buddhism etc, etc. > So here you have a non-physical dimension of mass and a non-physical unit of > energy. And yet modern science treats both as though they were physical [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > Science is a process with a belief system. Try to explain quantum physics > using only absolute values and dimensions and no postulates or assumptions. You miss the point Dave. Science is only a process - period. There are no additions. If any findings that science comes up with are incomplete then the scientific process is not complete. Only when the results of science can be repeated time and again by any individual or groups can the scientific process be said to complete. Then applied science comes into effect. Hence your TV set. Now if you don't want to believe your own eyes, then that is up to you. But that is my criteria for accepting; I do not accept what my emotions want me to accept. Sometimes I may react to my emotions, but that is entirely different to basing my world view on them. Alex > > It was based on sarcasm. You make it sound like the definition of science > > is "the study of the falsifiable". Science is merely the "study of". [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > the bible, but that is hardly science. A scholar studies while a scientist > investigates (using scientific methods). Well, you are being too pedantic. > > It would be pure foolishness to assume that the only things worthy of study > > were physical things. If that were the case, we would never learn anything > > about the mind, consciousness, or love. > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > intepretation of the world as a tendency to jump straight into areas of > speculation or worse still, faith. No, you have a limited understanding of "metaphysics". I use metaphysics in the sense of, "The theoretical or first principles of a particular discipline". For example, try isolating the dimension of length from a ruler, or time from a clock. In physics, we routinely speak of length and time as though they were real things. It is reasonable to assume that if a real world has real length and time, then the dimensions must also be real. But the concept that length and time are real are metaphysical concepts. Now if you can say that length and time are real, and then develop a system of physics based on these metaphysical concepts, then what is to prevent us from saying God is real and developing a system of physics based on God? You have no problem putting your faith into length and time. Why do you have a problem putting your faith in God? > Does consciousness have its roots in quantum physics as Roger Penrose asks. Who knows? I don't think so. Consciousness is different from mind, just like a human body is different from electrons and protons. I think it is more likely there is a basic quality of mind that has its roots at a level much deeper than quantum physics. One thing is for sure, though. You will never know as long as you put your faith only in your senses. Senses developed well after the quantum level of existence. If you want to understand what came before the development of senses, you're going to have to rely on your mind to understand it. > At the moment we simply have not invented the tools to investigate. The tools are already there, you just refuse to use them. You foolishly (I don't mean this in a derogative sense) believe that the mind is not a tool, but some kind of inferior side effect of being human. You haven't developed your mind to its fullest, so you don't trust it. You develop things outside of your mind and put your faith in them to tell you what truth is. It's no different from idol worshipping, really. You worship the all powerful voltmeter, computer, and yardstick. > If and when we do, the issue will enter > the realms of science. At present it is beyond science and outside its scope. The ability to investigate and use our mind is not beyond the cope of science. It is beyond the scope of the scientists who would define science. And once again, this is not derogative. It is just a fact. The mind is not recognized as the sense and the tool it really is. > And that is why we have to have well defined rules in science, otherwise the > route is to anarchy of thought and a process that every Tom Dick and Harry > can misuse. You just assume, without logic, that well-defined rules cannot be applied to the mind. Because you haven't investigated, you assume there is no such thing as a common experience of the mind, which could be shared if specific rules were followed. Many Eastern mystics follow specific rules and as a result can sit naked on a mountain top in winter and completely dry out a wet sheet wrapped around them in just a few minutes. They can do this for hours on end with no discomfort. Such feats are a result of science. These feats are repeatable, generation after generation, and result from following a specific set of rules. This is just one example of many where the mind can be used as a tool to achieve a specific objective. The methods for doing these unusual feats were discovered through scientific investigation. Yoga is an entire scientific discipline, completely ignored in the West. > > Apparently you have not studied Buddhism. You might have preconceived ideas > > about the value of objective experimentation, but a qualified meditator can > > scientifically explore and catalog many things that objective experiment > > cannot measure. > > I think you mistake the power of the mind to dupe an individual into seeing > and believing what he wants to. Are you telling me you don't use your mind in science? What is a gedanken experiment? I hope in the near future that people who think as you do now will be considered the intellectually ignorant of our society. As someone who has studied Eastern science, you come across to me as incredibly arrogant and ignorant. You make judgments, with no data, and probably in your mind think of it as "skepticism". > It isn't that you are wrong in your definition of > > falsifiability, it's that you have faith in only what you can physically [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > abstract ideas have to be backed up by real world events for me to accept > them as of 'real value'. Let me point out the fallacy of your reasoning. You only know you have your five senses because your five senses tell you you have five senses. In other words, your five senses are self-defining. How can you objectively verify the infallibility of your five senses without relying on them to bear witness to themselves? It's no different in logic than the Bible being the Word of God because the Bible says it's the Word of God. It is because of your faith in your five senses, that you believe in them. You have no way to verify what your senses are sending to your mind, plus you have no way to verify that your mind is interpreting them properly. But then, since believe the mind will dupe us into believing and seeing what we want to, you really don't have any basis at all for relying on your senses, other than faith. > > It might be easier to prove the existence of God than you think. It could > > be done using the same rules applied to geometry. By starting off with a [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > of? Buddhism that worships man himself or that which worships a metaphysical > God. Buddhism doesn't worship anything. Worship is a Christian, Islamic, and Jewish thing. Buddhism is a science of investigating the mind. The Buddha taught that nobody should believe a word he says, but to merely try the practices he recommends. If the practices don't work, then you should consider the Buddha a crazy old fool and walk away. People are confused that Buddhism has so many deities. The confusion comes from the meaning one gives to "deity", not from the way deity is viewed by a different culture. In the Rig Vedas (ancient Hindu texts, which are also sacred to Buddhism) the various aspects of the physical and non-physical world are codified as gods and animals. It's not unlike modern physics where the various aspects of the physical and non-physical world are codified as dimensions and units. They're just different systems for ordering the phenomenal world. But the Eastern system is designed to develop the mind and the Western system is designed to develop things that s erve the body. Having said that, Buddhism sees that there is one primary God from which all the other gods manifest from. In this sense, the primary God of Hinduism and Buddhism is a quantum God. In the West, many speak of the one true living God. These two views of God are not very different. Especially when reading the Bible we find the Ark of the Covenant was being carted to King David when an unfortunate chap reached his hand out to keep the Ark from falling off the cart. When he touched it, God struck him down dead. The Ark was made of gold inside and out, with a dielectric of acacia wood. In effect, it was a capacitor. > An hypothesis is only of value if the theory that is developed from it can > be shown to be true in the real world. A world, that my five senses are > aware of. Do you consider gravity and charge attraction/repulsion to be something your five senses are aware of? (Honestly, though, don't you admit that your senses don't know anything? They just report data to the mind, which interprets the data.) > > > > Relativity Theory is based on faith, God is based on fact. Get your facts > > > > straight. > > > > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Work is kinetic. It is movement. Prove it. > All that you are describing is the conundrum of quantum physics. It is not just a conundrum. Either mass and energy exist, or they don't. The conundrum is your faith in the existence of something that doesn't exist. > How can object exist and not exist at the same time. It would seem that that is exactly what the religionists are up against. But because science appoints itself as superior, it bullies religion for the same failures that science overlooks within itself. > However, just because we cannot yet completely describe how our world > functions, does not invalidate science. And just because religion didn't know how to quantify God in terms of quantum physics doesn't mean God is invalidated. > Of course, when a better method than > science comes along that can describe everything that we know now, then > science will be superceded. However, no such real and authentic alternative > exists at the moment. And I am absolutely sure that when someone comes up a > feasonable alternative, then the world will know about it and a new Nobel > prize will come into existance! Such a theory does exist, it's just a few months from being published. > Buddhism and all its variations are not a real and authentic method of > finding out about the world. The process of science came up with your > television set, not Buddhism. Those 2 little rovers on Mars got there > because of the process of science and not Buddhism etc, etc. Science also invents technology to keep houses warm. Easterners develop the mind so the body can exist comfortably without a warm house. Science invents technologies and economies so people can find happiness exploring new places and buying new gadgets. Easterners develops the mind so they can find a very fulfilling happiness even without the most simplest of conveniences or "necessities". What good does it do to investigate the world when you don't understand the mind that is doing the investigating? This is not to say Buddhists didn't also investigate the phenomenal world. Buddhism includes a very complete pharmacology and medical diagnoses and treatment system. Buddhism includes advanced engineering skills for building temples that last for a thousand years. Buddhism includes advanced metal smelting and casting techniques. The Rig Veda is thousands of years old and includes atomic theory. In fact, the Rig Veda accurately describes a nuclear blast and the effects of the fallout. The Rig Veda also describes airplanes and various propulsion systems in great detail (some using gasoline for fuel, others using mercury vapor). > > Science is a process with a belief system. Try to explain quantum physics > > using only absolute values and dimensions and no postulates or assumptions. > You miss the point Dave. Science is only a process - period. No, you are missing the point. Science cannot ignore the fact it is based on postulates and assumptions. Just because you choose to ignore the belief aspect doesn't mean science has no beliefs. > There are no > additions. If any findings that science comes up with are incomplete then [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > emotions want me to accept. Sometimes I may react to my emotions, but that > is entirely different to basing my world view on them. How did emotions get into the discussion? Do you think the mind is emotion? Dave > Path: newssvr27.news.prodigy.com!newsdbm01.news.prodigy.com!newsdst02.news.prodigy.com!newsmst01a.news.prodigy.com!prodigy.com!pd7cy2so!shaw.ca!news3.optonline.net!newshosting.com!nx02.iad01.newshosting.com!feed.news.qwest.net!news.uswest.net.POSTED!not-for-mail > From: "David Thomson" <news3 @ spam.me.not volantis.org> [quoted text clipped - 302 lines] > > Dave Umm Dave, In response to the philosophical, can you respond to Mark Fergerson, that I beleive has a more practical dimension. Especially since it has a direct response to your *cough* thoery. Jason > > > It was based on sarcasm. You make it sound like the definition of > science [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Well, you are being too pedantic. Actually, I was explaining my position and not arguing about the use of words. I am stating that an investigation (in this case, via the scientific route) is different to studying a subject. > > > It would be pure foolishness to assume that the only things worthy of > study [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > ruler, or time from a clock. In physics, we routinely speak of length and > time as though they were real things. length or distance is no more than a different measurement of the speed of light. Although light does move at different speeds through mediums such as water, most other mediums are generally ignored. Generally speaking, when we use measurements of distance we are also refering to the time light has travelled between 2 different points in time. Of course the guy measuring his living room does not view it this way, but that does not invalidate what distance actually refers to in present day terms. It is reasonable to assume that if a > real world has real length and time See above. Length and time are one and the same. , then the dimensions must also be real. > But the concept that length and time are real are metaphysical concepts. Explain why you believe length and time are beyond physics? As far as I am aware, they are intrinsic to it. > Now if you can say that length and time are real, and then develop a system > of physics based on these metaphysical concepts, then what is to prevent us > from saying God is real and developing a system of physics based on God? Because I can measure time via the speed of light. I cannot measure whether God exists or not. > You have no problem putting your faith into length and time. Why do you > have a problem putting your faith in God? I repeat that I can measure time and distance, but I cannot measure God. > > Does consciousness have its roots in quantum physics as Roger Penrose > asks. Who knows? [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > different from idol worshipping, really. You worship the all powerful > voltmeter, computer, and yardstick. Here is question. There are 2 aeroplanes. Unfortunately both are hijacked by terrorists. (spyware kicks in!) On one plane there is a man of faith, on the other a passenger who is trained in anti-hijacking techniques. If you had to choose, which aircraft would feel more likely to survive the hijacking? > > If and when we do, the issue will enter > > the realms of science. At present it is beyond science and outside its > scope. > > The ability to investigate and use our mind is not beyond the cope of > science. It is beyond the scope of the scientists who would define science. Look Dave, no other - absolutely no other method has been as successful as science at describing how the world works. It has been used to get us to the Moon, Mars and other planets. It is responsible for the personal computer in front of me. It allows millions to earn a living everyday and not cheat anyone. When science invents new drugs to help combat diseases they work because the process of science helped to find out about the immune system. > And once again, this is not derogative. It is just a fact. The mind is not > recognized as the sense and the tool it really is. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > the mind. Because you haven't investigated, you assume there is no such > thing as a common experience of the mind, which could be shared if specific> rules were followed. Many Eastern mystics follow specific rules and as a > result can sit naked on a mountain top in winter and completely dry out a > wet sheet wrapped around them in just a few minutes. No one disputes that it is possible for the mind to control body temperature. Your point is mute. Personaly, I can control my heart beat to a certain degree, but that says nothing about the validity of science. There is no doubt the mind is under utilised, but don't mistake this to mean that this proves that some metaphyscial (beyond science) quality actually exists and is the reality that we are all blind to. They can do this for > hours on end with no discomfort. Such feats are a result of science. These > feats are repeatable, generation after generation, and result from following [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > Are you telling me you don't use your mind in science? I am stating that the mind can deceive its owner. What is a gedanken > experiment? An hypothesis is just that an hypthosis. It is a thought experiment. It is only the theories that 'may' arise from the hypothesis that can be checked in the real world and are of any use. Any experiment that relies on thought alone should be taken with a pinch of well thought out care. Users should not be in a hurry because there's probably not much to find about about and retrieve. > I hope in the near future that people who think as you do now will be > considered the intellectually ignorant of our society. As someone who has > studied Eastern science, you come across to me as incredibly arrogant I like to think confident and not arrogant. There is a difference. If you show me something that is logical and reasonable, then I will accept it. and > ignorant. You make judgments, with no data, and probably in your mind think > of it as "skepticism". I am a cynic and only accept after reason. It is best to try and disprove rather than go out to prove at the first instance. >Snipped rest because it really is getting late< Enjoyed the discussion though. Alex > > No, you have a limited understanding of "metaphysics". I use metaphysics in > > the sense of, "The theoretical or first principles of a particular > > discipline". For example, try isolating the dimension of length from a [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > length or distance is no more than a different measurement of the speed of > light. You have just demonstrated a lack of understanding of dimension. I write about this extensively in my book. There is dimension, and then when a value is given to the dimension there is measurement. You have just skipped over the topic of dimension and gone straight to the topic of measurement. When you talk about time as dimension, it is different from talking about time as a measurement. The general lack of understanding of this important scientific observation is reflected in the linguistics we use for these principles. We use the same words to describe both the dimension and the measurement. You're understanding of this topic is so underdeveloped that you did not even notice what I was saying. Of course, this is not entirely your fault. You're part of a cult(ure) of science, and although you are told to think critically, if you do you are castigated and threatened with excommunication from the establishment. Length and time (as dimension) are merely dimension. They are nothing else. When you impose a value on length and time, then you have measurements. Before you impose a value on dimension to produce the measurement, the dimension has a metaphysical existence. It exists in the sense that it leads to measurements and units of physical reality, but dimension is not itself a physical thing. Dimension is metaphysical. And it is exactly along this vein that God comes into the picture. For if the physical Universe has its origin in metaphysical (but real) existence, then that is evidence for God (but of course there is much more factual evidence in favor of the existence of God). Now if you are truly a scientist, you will examine this evidence and either acknowledge its accuracy or disprove it. > Although light does move at different speeds through mediums such as > water, most other mediums are generally ignored. Generally speaking, when we > use measurements of distance we are also refering to the time light has > travelled between 2 different points in time. Of course the guy measuring > his living room does not view it this way, but that does not invalidate what > distance actually refers to in present day terms. We are not in disagreement that length and time are two aspects of the same entity (velocity). > > Now if you can say that length and time are real, and then develop a system > > of physics based on these metaphysical concepts, then what is to prevent us > > from saying God is real and developing a system of physics based on God? > > Because I can measure time via the speed of light. I cannot measure whether > God exists or not. But you can determine that length and time (as dimension) are metaphysical. Metaphysical simply means that something has a non-physical origin. Before physics was developed, the non-physical origin was called "God". Many strange claims have since been attached to God, just as Stephen Hawking made strange claims about black holes. These things do happen. But the errors of others should not prevent today's scientists from separating the fact from the fiction. There is evidence that God created the Universe, although there is no evidence it was done in 7 days, 7 "God days", or even 15 billion years. But it can be clearly interpreted that the foundation of our existence as we measure it does have a metaphysical origin. The question is not whether the evidence exists, but whether we are brave enough to admit to the facts and incorporate them into our science. > Here is question. > There are 2 aeroplanes. Unfortunately both are hijacked by terrorists. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > If you had to choose, which aircraft would feel more likely to survive the > hijacking? It would depend on whether the hijackers knew who the anti-hijacking passenger was before they hijacked the plane. If they were smart enough to get passed security, they would likely know who the trained passenger was and take out the trained passenger first. And since you didn't say what the terrorists motive was for hijacking the plane, I would join the passenger of faith in praying that these people were merely asking for safe passage to a foreign country and a ransom. > > > If and when we do, the issue will enter > > > the realms of science. At present it is beyond science and outside its > > scope. > > > > The ability to investigate and use our mind is not beyond the cope of > > science. It is beyond the scope of the scientists who would define science. > Look Dave, no other - absolutely no other method has been as successful as > science at describing how the world works. Yes, there has. It is your narrow definition of science, as that which leads to technological advancement, that blinds you from seeing this. Science also is a process for improving health and one's experience of happiness. The military industrial complex does not have a monopoly on science. As I mentioned before, Buddhists have been practicing the scientific method for thousands of years. Even after the Chinese invasion of Tibet, there are still hundreds of thousands of ancient texts detailing the results of these investigations. I know, I worked at a Tibetan monastery that is specifically collecting and reprinting these ancient texts so they are not lost to future generations. You can actually find copies of the Kanjur-Tanjur in many university libraries throughout the United States and the rest of the world that were reprinted by Dharma Publishing. The vast collection of other texts are distributed to monasteries throughout the world. You are also limited in your understanding in believing that only the physical world can be described. The mental world we live in can also be scientifically described. But you can't measure a thought, at least not yet. Presently, the mind must be measured by the mind, just as the physical body must be measured by the senses of the physical body. Just because you place more faith in the physical world you see doesn't mean there aren't qualified scientists in this world who can seriously investigate both the physical and non-physical aspects of human existence. > It has been used to get us to the > Moon, Mars and other planets. It is responsible for the personal computer in > front of me. It allows millions to earn a living everyday and not cheat > anyone. When science invents new drugs to help combat diseases they work > because the process of science helped to find out about the immune system. Fine. That's a very limited list. How has Western science helped people to overcome pain and suffering by sheer will? How has Western science helped people to understand the thinking processes that lead to the prevention of disease, the ability to use their brain instead of a computer, and to solve the problems of their immediate environment before studying the problems of a far off planet? I'm all for interplanetary travel and investigation, but I'm also for meeting the needs of people seeking such basic things as happiness and purpose in life. There are some scientifically designed courses of study that can lead to true inner peace and help an individual find purpose in their life, but these methods are presently the sole domain of the Eastern scientists. Western science is so blinded in its materialism, which in turn is caused from its purely materialistic concept of science, that we can put men on the moon but we can't erradicate cancer or heart disease. > No one disputes that it is possible for the mind to control body > temperature. Your point is mute. Personaly, I can control my heart beat to a [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > that this proves that some metaphyscial (beyond science) quality actually > exists and is the reality that we are all blind to. The fact that a non-physical mind, unable to be measured by Western science, is capable of interacting with the physical world is proof of metaphysics. Metaphysics is merely the non-physical cause of a physical phenomenon. It is not for you to redefine metaphysics to mean "beyond science", that is not what metaphysics means. So if you accept that the mind can control body temperature, then you accept there must be a scientifically identifiable process whereby this can happen. And thus the foundation of Buddhism as a science is proven. > > Are you telling me you don't use your mind in science? > I am stating that the mind can deceive its owner. And so can a voltmeter, computer, and a tape measure. So you have controls in place to weed out the errors. Buddhism is no different. > What is a gedanken > > experiment? > > An hypothesis is just that an hypthosis. It is a thought experiment. And yet Einstein's only contribution to science was a gedanken experiment. (The rest of his work was theory). Look where we are today. Today modern science believes a dimension can be converted to a unit. From this were developed Lagrangians, Hamiltonians, the Schrodinger equation, and the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle to name a few. None of these equations describe actual reality, and yet all are considered to be foundations of modern physics. This is another reason why modern physics is like a religion. There is no basis in reality for the equations (although we continually hear the mantra that there is data to support them). > Any experiment that relies on thought alone should be taken with a pinch of > well thought out care. Users should not be in a hurry because there's > probably not much to find about about and retrieve. Any experiment that relies on data alone is meaningless. It is the thought about the data that gives the data meaning and usefulness. So it would appear that the mind is primary to the data. And if the mind is capable of interpreting physical data, it is likely also capable of interpreting non-physical data. Thus the science of the East, that of seeking happiness and purpose, is just as valid for its goal as the science intended for technological advancement, as long as the same process of critical analysis is used. > > I hope in the near future that people who think as you do now will be > > considered the intellectually ignorant of our society. As someone who has > > studied Eastern science, you come across to me as incredibly arrogant > > I like to think confident and not arrogant. There is a difference. If you > show me something that is logical and reasonable, then I will accept it. I have provided much logic and reasoning in this message. I have also provided logic and reason in my previous messages. Tell me whether you can accept the metaphysical premises that leads to the evidence for God. > > You make judgments, with no data, and probably in your mind think > > of it as "skepticism". > > I am a cynic and only accept after reason. It is best to try and disprove > rather than go out to prove at the first instance. Disprove that time as dimension is different from time as measurement. Prove an idependent or self-defining physical existence for time as dimension. In otherwords, if time as dimension (or length, mass, or charge) has a physical origin, show me what it is. > Enjoyed the discussion though. Same here. Dave nightbat wrote > Hawking RECANTS on Black Hole Theory! > [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > > Double-A nightbat Amazing to you perhaps Double-A but not to some of us Mavericks that have been pointing the way for so many years. If only Scott in alt. astronomy could see your post, I'm sure he would find it very interesting. The science newsgroup Kings of the Mavericks take little consolation in Mr. Hawking's flip flop since it has been amply pointed out by the more humble and enlightened of energy's indestructibility and therefore of its information alternate mutual transference in any gravitational field, strong or weak. It takes a big man to admit he's wrong, and a greater one to get it right. The black hole theoretical resolution was long ago presented via nightbat's singularity of the profound " Black Comet " that even the Darla and company aliens took notice of. Illusory Shastry may think singularity is point total consciousness, but if he only was really conscious, perhaps he would of understood its simple resolution and nightbat theorem. Not only Hawking but the rest of the theoretical astro science boys need to catch up to the logical Maverick beautiful theoretical mind likes of Uncle Al, Varney, oc for Wolter, Painius, OG, Ralph, Old Man, Mr. Green, nightbat, and select others, to try to get a viable bigger cosmic physics picture. Poor posting friend to all Bert, this Hawking turn around will be devastating news to him for he so depends on the main streams prolific writing and books to get his " what if " thoughts from. Now that Darla has blown net fan kisses at nightbat it has gotten Bert in a fit for he thought he could win Darla's attention with sweet pies, and sci fi not logic. Darla goes both ways, nightbat goes only one way, to solution, is there any other way? Thanks for the links Double-A, here is another for you, and if responding to me, hint, just drop Followup-To for fun. See: http://cnn.netscape.cnn.com/ns/news/science.jsp ponder on, the nightbat Hi Double A We all read Hawking,but best to keep in mind he like the rest of us will never get the Nobel prize. He even went out of his way to steal another man's theory.(he did apologize) He made that bet with Thorne. Has Penrose commented on this?. How about us hearing from Wheeler,Greene,and some Nobel winners. In 1939 Oppenhiemer theorized black holes. That was before Hawkings was born. Only if I hear from other great brains will I change my mind,and I do think in every direction. Bert Hi nightbat you still make me laugh. You accuse me of getting my thoughts out of readng books. You are so very right. I do read a lot. I can see the reality of the universe's horizon by standing on the shoulders of Nobel prize winners,and men like Brian Greene,and Sagan. Bert > nightbat wrote > [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > > > See also: http://www.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,4057,10153260%255E1702,00.html > > And for a slightly more sympathetic take: > > [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] > ponder on, > the nightbat I read some of what Hawking said, and it seems to me that he was talking about information ABOUT the black hole coming out, nothing about information going in being preserved and them coming back out in the form radiation. -- Laurent > I read some of what Hawking said, and it seems to me that he was > talking about information ABOUT the black hole coming out, nothing > about information going in being preserved and them coming back out > in the form radiation. No it was about things that go INTO the black hole, and how you have to have the information stored in some form within, so that the information can come back OUT at some point in the future. From Nightbat: >It takes a big man to admit he's wrong, >and a greater one to get it right. Heh. Still waitin' to hear from friend OG on those four 'Mainline Issues' on space and gravitation that were repeatedly asked of him in another thread, and again in a separate, dedicated thread. oc From AA: >Hawking admits he was WRONG when >he theorized that information going into a >black hole was lost forever... >This seems to have been a triumph of >the ideas of Quantum Gravity. As much as 30 years ago, it was a no-brainer to Herr Wolter that under the right mass/spin parameters, a BH can indeed explode back into spacetime, pregnant with the information it originally ingested. oc > From AA: > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > the right mass/spin parameters, a BH can indeed explode back into > spacetime, pregnant with the information it originally ingested. oc What is the nature of Hawking radiation? Is it possible we have it exactly backwards, i.e. instead of material falling into black holes, galaxies are a result of "information" falling out of them? From what I hear only 4% of the universe is composed of atoms. Rick From Rick: >Is it possible we have it exactly >backwards, i.e. instead of material falling >into black holes, galaxies are a result of >"information" falling out of them? Well, galactic or quasar scale BHs would functionally still be a one-way 'roach motel' for everything going in. But what about a hypermassive BH many orders of magnitude greater in mass and spin-rate, such that its equatorial spin exceeds c and explodes back into spacetime? oc A black hole is under no obligation to release information in Hawking radiation.Provided it obeys the second law of thermodynamics , that is all it needs to do.There may be no singularity in a black hole and microstates may exist in the hole, but they do not necessarily have to appear in radiation, not if there are particles other than Hawking radiation that can escape from the hole.A point in case is gravitons - if they exist - they must escape from the balck hole to have an effect on other masses.I would suspect that if Hawking is right, then he will have had to remove the singularity from both the black hole and from the beginning of the universe as a whole. And there's also the question of energy conservation in general relativity - energy is not usually conserved in general relativity.This is at odds with every other branch of physics.GR needs to have energy conservation built into it so that it can be combined with quantum mechanics - in which there is energy conservation - to give quantum gravity and a clear picture of what goes on in black holes. Since Hawking is the expert on black hole radiation. It is about time he told us what is holding up the black holes event horizon. What is the inside of the black hole.? ll the mass of our Milky Way's black hole comes from having absorbed 2.5 million stars,I'm sure Hawking can tell the features of this highly compressed mass. He is the expert on black holes. I'm not an expert but even I have ideas on this. Well John Wheeler said a black hole has no hair. John Wheeler is a Nobel winner. Bert > nightbat wrote > > > Hawking RECANTS on Black Hole Theory! [snip] > Simply amazing! > > > Double-A > > nightbat Hi, nightbat, We'd been wondering what had happened to you. > Amazing to you perhaps Double-A but not to some of us Mavericks > that have been pointing the way for so many years. I'm amazed only in that that Hawking has reversed himself. The idea of physical singularities, as well as other touted "features" of black holes has stuck in my craw for years. But it just didn't seem worth arguing with people who hand their minds made up over things that looked absurd to me. > If only Scott in alt. > astronomy could see your post, I'm sure he would find it very [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > consciousness, but if he only was really conscious, perhaps he would of > understood its simple resolution and nightbat theorem. Actually Shartry has it right. The only singularity that exists is the subjective one. > Not only Hawking > but the rest of the theoretical astro science boys need to catch up to [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > ponder on, > the nightbat P.S. Was that big BOOM over Casselberry, Florida on July 4th due to Darla delivering to you the Pocket UFO Detectors and Decoder Rings??? She may have thought no one would notice with all the other "booms" on the 4th. Double-A nightbat wrote > > nightbat wrote > > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > We'd been wondering what had happened to you. nightbat Hello, Double-A, been very busy, and two of my children had car accidents back to back. Thankfully, both of the kids are fine, but the cars are zero. > > Amazing to you perhaps Double-A but not to some of us Mavericks > > that have been pointing the way for so many years. Double-A > I'm amazed only in that that Hawking has reversed himself. The idea > of physical singularities, as well as other touted "features" of black > holes has stuck in my craw for years. But it just didn't seem worth > arguing with people who hand their minds made up over things that > looked absurd to me. nightbat Well it must feel good you were theoretically pointingly right. > > If only Scott in alt. > > astronomy could see your post, I'm sure he would find it very [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > consciousness, but if he only was really conscious, perhaps he would of > > understood its simple resolution and nightbat theorem. Double-A > Actually Shartry has it right. The only singularity that exists is > the subjective one. nightbat In physics, math, and astronomy, there are many different kinds of referred singularities. Illusory Shastry only believes in the total consciousness one. A real singularity for instance can be yourself, however you can file jointly or separately with your spouse, just ask the IRS. > > Not only Hawking > > but the rest of the theoretical astro science boys need to catch up to [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > ponder on, > > the nightbat Double-A > P.S. Was that big BOOM over Casselberry, Florida on July 4th due to > Darla delivering to you the Pocket UFO Detectors and Decoder Rings??? > She may have thought no one would notice with all the other "booms" on > the 4th. > > Double-A nightbat No, I'm in Indiana, and the Darla aliens are presently away on a mission, so it must have been Bert. I have warned him not to go overboard with those sweet potato pies of his, does he listen to me?. He probably had so much secret ingredient California imported redwood saw dust stored in his small shed, that when one of his neighbor kids lit a firecracker or bottle rocket, it must have somehow landed close enough to the pile of dust and blew the whole storage shed to pieces. That seen bright red glow, loud sonic boom, and strange reported after effects must be due to the cloud of super heated halo redwood bacteria released in the blast. Instead of normally growing hair it now apparently is making the surrounding folks lose theirs. Who knows, but if it was his shed or garage that did blow up, he's going to have to bake a lot of those pies to make up for what has apparently happened. Talk about a red hot fourth of July. later, the nightbat Well nightbat I did get my 20lb shipment of red wood from the pruning of the great General Sherman 2,000 year redwood just before the 4th. I make my own saw dust. It has to be powdery like flour. Now nightbat on the 4th I pack this mixture (the two powders) and press them into a long cardboard tube,and by lighting bottom end it will rocket up about 250 feet. You can see why silos can explode like TNT. Now you know bacteria keeps away from redwood. Redwood hardly rots at all. I have just finished a chapter in my baking cook book on the ways redwood can be used in lots of bake goods. I make my own red wood bagels,biscuits,4 different breads,6 different cereal dishes. You can add it to chocolate boast. The list gets longer every day God love the redwood tree.He gave it a long hardy life. We can do our bodies much good by adding redwood cells into our blood Nice having you back nightbat. Glad you were not aboard Darla's spaceship I like it when there is space between you guys.Well its Sunday and I'm frying up some Mexican sweet potato pan cakes.I mash carrots in,and coat the patty with redwood saw dust Fry them in very hot chicken fat oil. Nice to chop in red peppers. Some times soy beans My Mexican sweet potato chips(very crispy) go good,and make you stay young and hardy as spacetime goes by. Bert. PS Don't eat eggs God punishes people that eat embryos > Well nightbat I did get my 20lb shipment of red wood from the pruning > of the great General Sherman 2,000 year redwood just before the 4th. I > make my own saw dust. It has to be powdery like flour. Aren't you afraid it will give you splinters in the colon? > Now nightbat on > the 4th I pack this mixture (the two powders) and press them into a long [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > different breads,6 different cereal dishes. You can add it to chocolate > boast. The list gets longer every day Sounds like depression era cooking. Sawdust wasn't too tasty, but it was better than eating prairie dust! > God love the redwood tree.He gave > it a long hardy life. We can do our bodies much good by adding redwood > cells into our blood Reminds me of those monks in the Far East who ate lots of tree pitch and drank arsenic laced spring water. When they died, they became mummies, their bodies preserved by the things they had consumed. Double-A [snip] > A real singularity for instance can be yourself, > however you can file jointly or separately with your spouse, just ask > the IRS. [sni] > the nightbat I tried not to file singularity last year, but despite all the rapid liberalization in the marriage laws, and the expansions in definition therof, the IRS still refuses to recognize the lifelong commitment I have with my dog, for filing status purposes! Double-A Thanks for the link. It was a very interesting article. MorituriMax was right though, generally when physicists are wrong about something they change their minds. It doesn't seem at all strange that he changed his mind. Even the most intelligent people can be wrong about things. Really not that amazing, but certainly still interesting and worthy of reading. > Hawking RECANTS on Black Hole Theory! > [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > > Double-A > Thanks for the link. It was a very interesting article. MorituriMax was > right though, generally when physicists are wrong about something they > change their minds. It doesn't seem at all strange that he changed his mind. > Even the most intelligent people can be wrong about things. Really not that > amazing, but certainly still interesting and worthy of reading. I think you're missing the point. If Stephen Hawking is wrong now, he was probably wrong for the past 25 years as well. During these 25 years he claimed he was right and would not admit he was wrong. The point is that all other physics theories that will be admitted wrong in the future are also wrong today. How is it that scientists can be so certain about their correctness, and claim the data proves them right, and then be so certain about their wrongness and claim the same data proves them wrong? Stephen Hawkings admission of being wrong should be an eye opener for all those who stand by the Standard Model and its wave/particle duality, probability functions, virtual particles, mass/energy equivalence and other nonsense. Dave > > Thanks for the link. It was a very interesting article. MorituriMax was > > right though, generally when physicists are wrong about something they [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > Dave It should indeed be an eye opener for all those who base their opinions solely on the words of the authority figures of modern day physics, rather than thinking critically for themselves and trying to base their opinions on the experimental evidence and observations of science. I have long thought that modern physics has become way too philosophical in nature, and departed too far from the foundation of the scientific method that has made real knowledge possible. Sensational sounding theories sell books, but usually make poor science. Double-A > It should indeed be an eye opener for all those who base their > opinions solely on the words of the authority figures of modern day [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Sensational sounding theories sell books, but usually make poor > science. So you're saying the earth really IS flat? Wow. > It should indeed be an eye opener for all those who base their > opinions solely on the words of the authority figures of modern day [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Sensational sounding theories sell books, but usually make poor > science. Well firstly theories, even very validated theories, in physics have tended just to get stranger and stranger. Our evolved perceptions and modes of thinking, which work fine here on earth for creatures our size, do not do much for the objects that are very massive or very very tiny. But in the past five years we have witness revolutionary discoveries in the field followed by amazingly rapid acceptance of new findings despite our lack of a proper theory to account for it. Physics stands pretty much alone in the speed at which new observation and experimentation changes people's views. In the past 10 years we have come to see a number of radical changes in the view we had of how the Universe behaved. We now know it is accelerating its expansion. The speed at which this was accepted and the speed at which dark matter and dark energy were accepted show that physics is not in any danger of closing itself off to observation. Actually the opposite. Physics is a shinning example for all other human activity, especially political activity, of thinking humans are their most open minded and accepting of change. > > It should indeed be an eye opener for all those who base their > > opinions solely on the words of the authority figures of modern day [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > human activity, especially political activity, of thinking humans are > their most open minded and accepting of change. In some ways you are right, physics is constant changing. And the theories are getting stranger and stranger. But what does that mean? If you listened to Billy Graham's sermons and they kept changing in theory and getting stranger and stranger, that would call into question the validity of his theology. If the same thing happened in mathematics, the whole discipline would be thrown out. Certainly modern social theory is changing and getting stranger and stranger, but physics shouldn't boast of being bedfellows with changing culture. Physics ought to be solid science, just as mathematics is solid. In fact, the two should be united. There shouldn't be equations that are acceptable in physics but which are false in mathematics (E=mc^2 for example). How is it you can acknowledge that physics is changing and that it is getting stranger and stranger, and not question the validity of the physics? The Standard Model is still searching for a Unified Force Theory. Doesn't it make sense that when a mathematically correct Unified Force Theory is presented that it and the new paradigm it exists in should be investigated? I mean, if the Aether can be invoked to provide a stable system of physics that doesn't change its fundamental principles, but merely expands its reach into scientific knowledge, shouldn't we have a system of physics based on Aether? > Our evolved perceptions and > modes of thinking, which work fine here on earth for creatures our > size, do not do much for the objects that are very massive or very > very tiny. Exactly. So why not abandon the mass/energy, wave/particle duality, probability function based system of physics and accept a discrete system that perfectly matches the data? Dave >>double-a@hush.com (Double-A) wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] > and getting stranger and stranger, but physics shouldn't boast of being > bedfellows with changing culture. Science is not religion or social theory, and vice versa. The latter two are based on untestable assumptions. Testing the assumptions of science demonstrates the need to find new ways to phrase our explanations. Have you not noticed the "increasing strangeness" of mathenatics as you progress from arithmetic up through group theory? > Physics ought to be solid science, just as mathematics is solid. In fact, > the two should be united. There shouldn't be equations that are acceptable > in physics but which are false in mathematics (E=mc^2 for example). Mathematics is not a science. Axioms are not testable. E=mc^2 is perfectly valid if you're familiar with dimensional analysis. > How is it you can acknowledge that physics is changing and that it is > getting stranger and stranger, and not question the validity of the physics? It's only "strange" if you insist on taking a primitive interpretation as "real". Shead and Spaceman are typical of those that have fallen into that trap. > The Standard Model is still searching for a Unified Force Theory. Doesn't > it make sense that when a mathematically correct Unified Force Theory is > presented that it and the new paradigm it exists in should be investigated? "Mathematical correctness" is nice, but not enough. It must also account for all known data (see below). > I mean, if the Aether can be invoked to provide a stable system of physics > that doesn't change its fundamental principles, but merely expands its reach > into scientific knowledge, shouldn't we have a system of physics based on > Aether? Please show how to demonstrate the existence of an Aether. To do that you must explicate its properties. Go right ahead. >>Our evolved perceptions and >>modes of thinking, which work fine here on earth for creatures our >>size, do not do much for the objects that are very massive or very >>very tiny. > Exactly. So why not abandon the mass/energy, wave/particle duality, > probability function based system of physics and accept a discrete system > that perfectly matches the data? Kindly explain the diffraction of C60 molecules in a discrete fashion. Mark L. Fergerson > > Thanks for the link. It was a very interesting article. MorituriMax was > > right though, generally when physicists are wrong about something they [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > all other physics theories that will be admitted wrong in the future are > also wrong today. Whoa. He has been aware, from when he came up with the concept of 'Hawking radiation', that this was potentially a major problem. It allowed black holes in the form that appears inherent in the current maths, to become 'information holes'. In a sense, he developed a theory that solved one problem with black-holes, but created another. He was fully aware of this, and both him, hundreds of other mathematicians have worked since, to try to solve how this could work. For a long time, he raised the possibility that the nature of the maths involved might change in the region of the singularity to 'solve' this, but has never been able to publish a theory that fitted properly at this level. It is similar to the problems existent in much current work on the 'BB', where it falls down as you close in on the 'bang' itself. No one _else_, had been able to come up with an alternative theory that fitted as well, but some mathematicians, felt that instead of the maths changing, something else must act to allow data to escape from the hole, as well as energy, and thereby avoid the problem. This was the basis of the 'bet'. What he now appears to be proposing, is that the actual structure of 'practical' black holes, may differ significantly from the 'obvious' model, and not actually have a singularity at all, and have an event horizon, that is itself very slightly indeterminate, allowing data to escape. This is undoubtedly the result, of him not 'claiming he was right' for 25 years, but thinking of methods where the problem can be solved, and finding one that works for him. Whether this model is closer, waits to be seen. Once the proposal is properly published, you can be sure that it'll be being gone over with a 'fine tooth comb'. > How is it that scientists can be so certain about their correctness, and > claim the data proves them right, and then be so certain about their [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > probability functions, virtual particles, mass/energy equivalence and other > nonsense. No. It is an example of a person using their mind, not being afraid to challenge their own theories, and working to find the best mathematical model to fit the available data. This is something, that _anybody_ can do at one level or another. Best Wishes Hi nightbat Double-A Seems Hawking new idea is the black hole is not all black,and that makes those that don't like a singularity theory say "I told you so" (yes) As you both know I can live with a singularity. Hawking has flipped his thinking in the past. In 1970 Jacob Bekenstien of Princeton stated a black hole should have entropy. Hawking said this is impossible. A year latter he wrote a paper that a black hole could have entropy,and even tried to pass this off as his own original thinking. He was put down for doing this,and today it is known as the "Bekenstien Hawking B H entropy " About 30 years ago Hawking predicted that that the less massive a BH is,the higher its temperature,and that means it would emit greater radiation. He want on to say a black hole with the mass as small as an asteroid would emit the radiation of a million megaron H bombs. He was hoping astronomers would find such an object,and with this proven prediction get him a Nobel Prize Well Hawking and Kip Thorne said no information gets out of the B H,and Preskill took the opposite view. Preskill winner of an encyclopedia. Well nightbat and Double-A This new idea really came from thinking done by these two guys "Strominger and Vafa",and a few others that use the string theory(they are string theorists) What all this is about is whether or not information actually does get out,or is it lost by the great force of gravity in its final evolution of the universe(my thinking) Well all this gives me a thought for todays "what if" Bert > > Stephen Hawkings admission of being wrong should be an eye opener for all > > those who stand by the Standard Model and its wave/particle duality, > > probability functions, virtual particles, mass/energy equivalence and other > > nonsense. > No. > It is an example of a person using their mind, not being afraid to > challenge their own theories, and working to find the best mathematical > model to fit the available data. > This is something, that _anybody_ can do at one level or another. Great, then we can challenge the Standard Model we equal fearlessness and all great minds will rejoice in our efforts? Dave >>>Stephen Hawkings admission of being wrong should be an eye opener for > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > Great, then we can challenge the Standard Model we equal fearlessness and > all great minds will rejoice in our efforts? Sure. But be certain you can challenge its strengths as well as its weaknesses. _ALL_ scientific models are ASSUMED to be wrong. Not "not even wrong", just incorrect at one level of detail or another. That includes everything from Aristotle to string theory because science is universally (among serious scientists) acknowledged to be a work in progress. This is the difference between science and religion. If you want to prate on about how the standard model is wrong, then show exactly how and where its wrong. Of course, that means you have to propose something better while including explanations for all known data. Can you do that? Mark L. Fergerson > Sure. But be certain you can challenge its strengths as > well as its weaknesses. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Can you do that? A-freaking-men! > _ALL_ scientific models are ASSUMED to be wrong. Not "not > even wrong", just incorrect at one level of detail or > another. That includes everything from Aristotle to string > theory because science is universally (among serious > scientists) acknowledged to be a work in progress. This is > the difference between science and religion. Don't be so smug. Science is every bit like religion, but worse. Ask for experimental evidence that mass is converted into energy. You will quite often hear it is done all the time in a nuclear reactor. Ask to see the data where mass decreased exactly according to E=mc^2 and you will never see it. Further, mass is merely a dimension. It is the dimension being measured, not the substance of the measurement. But we hear the Standard Model priests preaching mass/energy equivalence every minute of every day, as though mass were a real thing. At least we have Freedom of Religion; we can choose which religion we want to believe without interference from the government or public institutions such as public schools. But we don't have the Freedom of Science to question how a unit is converted to a dimension as in E=mc^2. Try to tell someone they are in error for *believing* in mass/energy equivalence, and the result is persecution, sometimes to the extreme. And you won't find many degreed scientists on these newsgroups who will admit their models are wrong. > If you want to prate on about how the standard model is > wrong, then show exactly how and where its wrong. Of course, > that means you have to propose something better while > including explanations for all known data. > > Can you do that? Of course I can. Try this out as a replacement for the pi meson theory of the strong force. Aether (free space) has a conductance constant equal to: k.c * e.0 Cd = --------- c * u.0 where k.c is Coulomb's constant, e.0 is the permittivity constant, c is the speed of light, and u.0 is the permeability constant. From this we can calculate the strong charge of a subatomic particle. For example, the strong charge of the electron is equal to h * Cd = e.emax^2. h is the Planck constant. The Planck constant can be quantified as h = m.e * w.C^2 * F.q, where m.e is the mass of the electron, w.C is the Compton wavelength, and F.q is the quantum frequency (equal to the speed of light divided by the Compton wavelength.) The angular momentum of the electron can then be calculated as h.p = m.p * w.C^2 * F.q The strong charge of the electron would then be h.p * Cd = e.pmax^2. Knowing the strong charge of the electron we can calculate the strong force between two protons: F = 16pi^2 * k.c * e.pmax * e.pmax / w.C^2 The above equation takes the same form as the Coulomb electrostatic charge law and Newton's gravitational law. (There is a small modification of the resulting force due to folding of spacetime that I have not included.) Not only can I quantify the strong force, but now that the strong force is quantified in terms of charge, we can easily unify the four forces. http://www.16pi2.com/unified_charge_theory.htm Does that count as an alternative explanation? Or will the high priests immediately slam my theory solely because I'm thinking out of the box? The theory has advanced considerably since I posted my early raw notes on my web site. I'm about two months from finishing a book, which I already have peers to review. (There are actually a few PhD physicists who see the worth of this new theory.) The book is expected to be out later this year. Dave >> _ALL_ scientific models are ASSUMED to be wrong. Not "not >>even wrong", just incorrect at one level of detail or >>another. That includes everything from Aristotle to string >>theory because science is universally (among serious >>scientists) acknowledged to be a work in progress. This is >>the difference between science and religion. > Don't be so smug. Science is every bit like religion, but worse. Ask for > experimental evidence that mass is converted into energy. You will quite > often hear it is done all the time in a nuclear reactor. Ask to see the > data where mass decreased exactly according to E=mc^2 and you will never see > it. No. Religions have unquestionable assumptions; there are no such in science. Ask Uncle Al. Where do you get your claim about no support for E=mc^2? What do you think the "actual" equation ought to be? > Further, mass is merely a dimension. It is the dimension being measured, > not the substance of the measurement. But we hear the Standard Model [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > mass/energy equivalence, and the result is persecution, sometimes to the > extreme. So you have a problem with dimensional analysis. Ask me if I care. > And you won't find many degreed scientists on these newsgroups who will > admit their models are wrong. You say "wrong", they say "incomplete". Same thing. Get over it. >> If you want to prate on about how the standard model is >>wrong, then show exactly how and where its wrong. Of course, [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Of course I can. Try this out as a replacement for the pi meson theory of > the strong force. You could try challenging QCD if you're willing to update that far. > Aether (free space) has a conductance constant equal to: > > k.c * e.0 > Cd = --------- > c * u.0 Stop right there. In other systems of units free space has no e sub zero or mu sub zero. Both quantities disappear. And there ain't no Aether. > where k.c is Coulomb's constant, e.0 is the permittivity constant, c is the > speed of light, and u.0 is the permeability constant. From this we can [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > and F.q is the quantum frequency (equal to the speed of light divided by the > Compton wavelength.) When you say "strong charge", are you referring to that which determines the motions of quarks WRT each other? > The angular momentum of the electron can then be calculated as h.p = m.p * > w.C^2 * F.q > > The strong charge of the electron would then be h.p * Cd = e.pmax^2. Electrons cannot feel the strong force. > Knowing the strong charge of the electron we can calculate the strong force > between two protons: Protons do not contain electrons. > F = 16pi^2 * k.c * e.pmax * e.pmax / w.C^2 > > The above equation takes the same form as the Coulomb electrostatic charge > law and Newton's gravitational law. (There is a small modification of the > resulting force due to folding of spacetime that I have not included.) Not "Folding of spacetime" or Aether? Make up your mind. > only can I quantify the strong force, but now that the strong force is > quantified in terms of charge, we can easily unify the four forces. > http://www.16pi2.com/unified_charge_theory.htm Great! Describe how to build a purely electromagnetic device that generates gravitons. > Does that count as an alternative explanation? Or will the high priests > immediately slam my theory solely because I'm thinking out of the box? I can't speak for any "high priests", but I'll tell you it fails immediately because electrons can't feel the strong force. Mark L. Fergerson >>> _ALL_ scientific models are ASSUMED to be wrong. Not "not >>>even wrong", just incorrect at one level of detail or [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > No. Religions have unquestionable assumptions; there are >no such in science. Ask Uncle Al. Religions and physics both have a limit, beyond which we are left with only assumptions. Where did the universe come from? What is outside space/time? Are there really 10 spatial and one temporal dimensions? How many other universes exist within this 11 dimension set? From our perspective, are they rolled up like a scroll, to less than a Planck length? Will this universe that we exist in eventually dissipate into a zero entropy dispersal, or will it revert to a singularity as in the hypothesized big crunch, or will it remain quasi stable, more or less as it is today? In reality, we assume, while the quest for understanding continues. To close the door on any hypothesis that makes sense is irrational. >>>> _ALL_ scientific models are ASSUMED to be wrong. Not "not >>>>even wrong", just incorrect at one level of detail or [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > continues. To close the door on any hypothesis that makes sense > is irrational. Modern "peer reviewed" science is an offshoot of a Marxist philosophy whereby credentialed institutions have the final say. Welcome to the New World Order's communist/fascist religion. >>>>> _ALL_ scientific models are ASSUMED to be wrong. Not "not >>>>> even wrong", just incorrect at one level of detail or [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > whereby credentialed institutions have the final say. Welcome to the > New World Order's communist/fascist religion. So you're saying Uncle Al is the new Martin Luther? Mark L. Feregrson > In reality, we assume, while the quest for understanding > continues. To close the door on any hypothesis that makes sense > is irrational. Ahh... there's the rub, eh? To close the door on a hypothesis that "makes sense" would be irrational. Has it ever happened? Of course. But eventually old scientists die, and the hypotheses that "make sense" tend to survive. Unfortunately a lot of hypotheses that make no sense whatsoever also tend to survive, generally perpetuated by the less rational. >>>> _ALL_ scientific models are ASSUMED to be wrong. Not "not >>>>even wrong", just incorrect at one level of detail or [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >> No. Religions have unquestionable assumptions; there are >>no such in science. Ask Uncle Al. > Religions and physics both have a limit, beyond which we are left > with only assumptions. Except that religions do not permit testing of assumptions. Science is constantly doing so, or trying to find ways to test them. > Where did the universe come from? What is outside space/time? Are > there really 10 spatial and one temporal dimensions? How many [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > singularity as in the hypothesized big crunch, or will it remain > quasi stable, more or less as it is today? We won't know until we look, but religion forbids that kind of search. You take your chatechism and shut the hell up. > In reality, we assume, while the quest for understanding > continues. To close the door on any hypothesis that makes sense > is irrational. "Makes sense" is a temporary thing. Epicycles once did, now they don't. String theory sorta makes sense now, but later, who knows? We won't know until we figure out how to look. Mark L. Fergerson On the issue of falsifiability, I find it amusing that so many neo-darwinists are still clinging to their pet "religion", because it is "falsifiable", while simultaneoulsy ignoring the mounting evidence of its falsification! IP > >> _ALL_ scientific models are ASSUMED to be wrong. Not "not > >>even wrong", just incorrect at one level of detail or [quoted text clipped - 106 lines] > > Mark L. Fergerson Umm Dave Thomson, Im still looking for a comment on these arguments by Mark Fergerson. If you can answer them logically, heck, I might convert. :) >> Of course I can. Try this out as a replacement for the pi meson theory of >> the strong force. [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > When you say "strong charge", are you referring to that > which determines the motions of quarks WRT each other? > Protons do not contain electrons. > Great! Describe how to build a purely electromagnetic > device that generates gravitons. > I can't speak for any "high priests", but I'll tell you > it fails immediately because electrons can't feel the strong > force. > Mark L. Fergerson > Great, then we can challenge the Standard Model we equal fearlessness and > all great minds will rejoice in our efforts? Sure, get in line. Of course, to challenge it you have to come up with something better that can be verified by other people with the same data. So go ahead, post your standard model and we'll see if it holds up as well or better than the current model. > > Great, then we can challenge the Standard Model we equal fearlessness and > > all great minds will rejoice in our efforts? > > Sure, get in line. Of course, to challenge it you have to come up with > something better that can be verified by other people with the same data. I have already done that. See the other message in this thread. > So go ahead, post your standard model and we'll see if it holds up as well or > better than the current model. I have, let's see if you have the guts to give a good critique of the Unified Force Theory I presented. Of course, I'm talking about an evaluation of the equations and their ability to predict the exact relative strengths of the four forces, not some religious dogma response where I'm irrationally branded as a heretic for thinking out of the box. Dave > > Thanks for the link. It was a very interesting article. MorituriMax was > > right though, generally when physicists are wrong about something they [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > Dave Look Dave, it is probably better to understand science before you accuse it of things you want to believe it does. There is a great book that you can read that will give you a good insight it it. 'The Trouble with Science' by Robin Dunbar is a great paperback aimed at the layman. It aims to show both the shortcomings of science and it's many strengths. Read it for a very worthy read. A must for anyone who is interested in how we may find out how the world actually works. Alex > Look Dave, it is probably better to understand science before you accuse it > of things you want to believe it does. There is a great book that you can > read that will give you a good insight it it. Look Alex, it is better you not judge my knowledge of science just because I show a flaw in the system. Take the time to understand what it is I'm trying to convey, and counter it with logic before you ignorantly shrug it off. After all, if you knew what the scientific method was about, you would appreciate the well-reasoned criticism I'm offering. > 'The Trouble with Science' by Robin Dunbar is a great paperback aimed at the > layman. It aims to show both the shortcomings of science and it's many > strengths. Read it for a very worthy read. A must for anyone who is > interested in how we may find out how the world actually works. Perhaps when I get done writing my book on the Aether Physics Model, I will. It might better pique my curiosity, though, if you could give a relevant quote that shows what this book has to offer. I'm constantly buying books on physics and technology, but I need to focus on those with substance relative to my present ambitions. Dave > > Look Dave, it is probably better to understand science before you accuse > it [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > off. After all, if you knew what the scientific method was about, you would > appreciate the well-reasoned criticism I'm offering. I made my comments because of the way you came over. You appear to criticise scientists for not admitting they were wrong, even when they cannot find a reason to know they or their theories are indeed incorrect. I'll take your word that you have an indepth understanding of science and the process involved. And with that it mind, I am sure you will agree science boils down to statistical evidence, or probability. Surely science can never claim to show absolute truth or reality. And I am sure very, very few scientists would ever claim it does or will. And if it does show it, we may never truly realise it due to the human condition. I have no doubt Hawking's or most other scientists that have been proven wrong in the past simply based their theories on mathamatical and observational evidence. Until evidence is shown or found that proves a theory is incorrect, then a theory is valid. If Hawking was shown some form of proof that his theory was wrong in the past, then we should be asking why he did not believe the refutal of his theory was wrong. He more than likely had a better reason than one other than protecting his ego. Alex > > 'The Trouble with Science' by Robin Dunbar is a great paperback aimed at > the [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > on physics and technology, but I need to focus on those with substance > relative to my present ambitions. It is really aimed at the layman so I don't know if it will interest you, none the less it is very good read. Before I give a quote, I'd like to point out that it addresses the very issue you talk about. and in a very accessible and readable fashion. In one chapter Dunbar discusses why science is so successful. He suggests that the act of testing effectively guarantees a theory's empirical validity because only a reasonable correct theory will consistently be able to predict what acutally happens. (direct quote): This has to be a fairly tough test because , short of cheating, there is no way in which anyone can force the world out there to behave in accordance with his or her pet theory. You might get away with it on one occasion, but science demands that experimental results be capable of replication. I have to be able to reproduce what you claim to have found, othewise I am under no obligation to believe you. Part of the problem has, I think, been that philosophers have grossly overestimated the way in which science is actually done. The classic (or 'naive') Popperian view is rather austere, viewing scientists as super-robots that automatically apply rather strict criteria on whether to accept or regect hyphtheses. but sceintist live in the real world and they know only too well how fallible they can be when it comes to designing experments. poppers's prescription is just too stringent for real life. If we a pplied it rigorously , we would soon end up with all our hypotheses falsified by data simply because most of the time our tests of hypotheses yield negative results either because we have left some curcial confounding variable our of account or because we have simply designed the experiment badly. The latter is a particularly common probelm in studies of animal behaviour . . . Here, encapsulated in an apocryphal story of uncertain provenance, is an example of just the sort of thing that can happen. After a great deal of effort, so the story goes, a famous psychologist had finally succeeded in demonstrating that rats could sove an odd man out problem. In this particular experiemnt, the rat had to run down a runway past a series of sall doors, on each of which was asymbol (e'g. a creoss, a triangle or a circle). the doors except on had the same symbol, and all the doors which had the same symbol were locked; only the door with the odd one out could be pushed open to allow the rat to gain access to the food reward. The rat's task was to run down the runway looking at all the symbols and then make just one choice as which door to try to push open. At the end of each trial, the symbols on the doors were changed and the rat given another go. so the rule the rat had to learn was: 'if the choice is between a set of circles and a triangl, choose the door with the triangle; if offered a set of triangles and a square on the next trial, choose the door with the square, and so on. After the first few trials, the rats behaved with uncanny accuracy, solving the problem correctly trial after trial. In effect the rats had been able to learn an abstract rule. This was a major event. Here at last was proof that animals were not machines: they could think. This the stuff of which Nobel Prizes are made! Unfortuantely, at this crucial point, the scientist decided to make a film of the experiment to show during hist lectures. When the film was being played back in slow motion during editing, someone noticed that what the rat was doing was running along the runway past the doors like a bat out of hell, kicking each door as it went past with its back fool; as soon as it came to a door that gave slightly when kicked, it stopped and shot throught it. The symbols on the doors were completely irrelevant: the rats had found another way to solve the problem. Small wonder that rodents turn out to be the master of the universe in The Hitchhiker's guide to the galaxy. A century of psychologists' experiments on rats amply demonstrate that rats can outwit humans any time. So Dave, one of the points here is that the process of science was not at fault, it was the fault of a badly designed experiment. Like I said before, it is a very good read since it not only defends science, it also shows scientists who try to have it all roads! 'The Trouble with Science' by Robin Dunbar. (1996) Alex > I made my comments because of the way you came over. You appear to criticise > scientists for not admitting they were wrong, even when they cannot find a > reason to know they or their theories are indeed incorrect. Seriously, do you consider yourself to be intelligent? Didn't it occur to you that the definition of someone who doesn't know whether they are wrong or not is "ignorant"? Quantum physics as it is taught today rests on too many unknowns for someone to make a claim of scientific truth. Hawking doesn't have a Unified Force Theory to work with, he doesn't know what the exact radius of a proton is, and he doesn't know for sure where the matter came from that produced the Big Bang. How could he possibly know for sure what a black hole will do? He is acting on faith more than science. In fact, he's trying to churn out knowledge from ignorance. I think you would call that "dogma" if you were talking about a religion. Why don't you call it dogma when it is done by a physicist? > I'll take your word that you have an indepth understanding of science and > the process involved. And with that it mind, I am sure you will agree > science boils down to statistical evidence, or probability. Surely science > can never claim to show absolute truth or reality. And I am sure very, very > few scientists would ever claim it does or will. And if it does show it, we > may never truly realise it due to the human condition. It is good that you recognize the limits of modern science. You are right, physics today is based on probability functions, wave/particle duality, and a dimension equals unit paradigm. How could anybody honestly claim knowledge from such a system of physics? OTOH, if someone came along and discovered the quantum of spacetime, produced a perfect Unified Force Theory, and could precisely quantify the electron, proton, neutron, and photon, then we could develop a true, absolute science. Because then we would have an absolute and discrete view of the quantum level of existence. As it turns out, I'm the man. I'm nearly finished writing a book that presents just such an absolute physics. And guess what? When you can absolutely quantify the quantum Universe, you can tell whether there really is a God or not. Because if the Universe were created by God, his signature will be clear and unmistakeable. If the Universe were a random event, then that signature would be clear and unmistakeable. I can tell you right now, there is a true Creator God that gave rise to the phenomenal Universe. And I can show you each step along the way to produce this physical Universe. The days of science fighting against religious dogma are quickly coming to an end. I agree that the Bible is not the word of God, but I also show that modern physics is not true physics, as you readily admit. There is a middle ground between the two, based entirely on true science, that shows God and quantum physics are one and the same. The key is to read the data correctly and approach neither science or God with preconceived ideas. > I have no doubt Hawking's or most other scientists that have been proven > wrong in the past simply based their theories on mathamatical and > observational evidence. Until evidence is shown or found that proves a > theory is incorrect, then a theory is valid. That is about the worst argument you could make for science. Science should be ashamed of claiming to be correct until proven otherwise. Either science knows what it is talking about, or it doesn't. Otherwise, science is no more believable than a theologian. You're asking the followers to accept your word on faith. That isn't fair for either scientists or theologians to ask. If God is real, and if science is real, then both should be self-evident. > So Dave, one of the points here is that the process of science was not at > fault, it was the fault of a badly designed experiment. Like I said before, > it is a very good read since it not only defends science, it also shows > scientists who try to have it all roads! > > 'The Trouble with Science' by Robin Dunbar. (1996) That actually sounds like a good read. I'll probably get it. Dave > > I made my comments because of the way you came over. You appear to > criticise [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > you that the definition of someone who doesn't know whether they are wrong > or not is "ignorant"? Definitions should always be put in their context. As I have said; no scientist worth his salt will ever claim to have found absolute truth. Limited human senses make it all but impossible for us to know if we have found it or not. All that a scientist can do is to present evidence that declares that that he can show repeatedly that his experiments indicate this is how something works. It is up to applied science to make use of his findings. The TV set is a classic example of the scientific process being put to use in the real world that we observe. > Quantum physics as it is taught today rests on too many unknowns for someone > to make a claim of scientific truth. "scientific truth"? No such thing. There are observations made via the scientific process, but most scientists shy away from ever using the word truth. Science is an on going process. Science is statistics based and not truth based. Science says this thing works in our human world, Indeed, experiments have been repeated by many others to show that the results of the experiment are consistent. The probablility (note; not definate) therefore is that the experiments do show how the world actually operate. Newton's view of the world worked well, but as science progressed it showed that his mechanical view of the world did not always come into play. It took the likes of Eienstein to show the flaws in Newton's ideas. And those flaws were exposed by . . . you guessed it, the process of science. Hawking doesn't have a Unified Force > Theory to work with, he doesn't know what the exact radius of a proton is, > and he doesn't know for sure where the matter came from that produced the > Big Bang. How could he possibly know for sure what a black hole will do? This is getting boring. No scientist, least of all Hawking's as ever claimed for sure that he knows what a black hole will do. However, he has claimed that his work indicated that a black hole would do this that or the other. He produced his evidence and other's repeated it. Some argued against it, but none at the time could produce evidence to categorically "FALSIFY" that Hawking was wrong. It transpires, that evidence has now been found to indicate that Hawking's evidence was indeed incorrect. Science disproved Hawking's and not cookbook science, buddhism or other mystic meg ideas. > He is acting on faith more than science. He acts on probability shown by his experiments. You really do have to understand the difference Dave. In fact, he's trying to churn out > knowledge from ignorance. Look, we are going round in circles. Here is a question. What is the difference between fact, knowledge and truth? Don't just toss the question to one side as thought it is meaningless . . . it is not. Understand the profound differences between those 3 supposedly simple words and you will be in a better position to understand science and how it operates in a philosophical way at least. Alex > > Seriously, do you consider yourself to be intelligent? Didn't it occur to > > you that the definition of someone who doesn't know whether they are wrong [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Limited human senses make it all but impossible for us to know if we have > found it or not. That sounds good, but it is not consistent with the degree of tenacity scientists apply to defending their theories. > All that a scientist can do is to present evidence that > declares that that he can show repeatedly that his experiments indicate this > is how something works. Now you're either demonstrating a poor understanding of science or purposely trying to hide the theoretical side of science. Scientists don't just present evidence, their primary function is to present theories. Ideally the theory should be backed up by data. But it doesn't follow that all theory is backed up by data or that all data is presented as evidence. There is evidence, for example, that energy is not always conserved (such as in beta decay and the Casimir effect). And there is data from liquid metal fast breeder reactors that more energy is produced than consumed in a nuclear reaction. And then there are the unfounded theories like Einstein's Special Relativity which claims people traveling near the speed of light will return to Earth younger than their peers. Don't polish your scientific halo too soon. > It is up to applied science to make use of his > findings. The TV set is a classic example of the scientific process being > put to use in the real world that we observe. The TV set is a classic example of how engineers can overcome the vast deficiencies in modern physics theories to produce useful technology. By building fantastic test equipment and using intuition, an engineer can fine tune an experiment to work properly even though the measured parameters don't always match the equations. > > Quantum physics as it is taught today rests on too many unknowns for someone > > to make a claim of scientific truth. > > "scientific truth"? No such thing. We're getting somewhere. > There are observations made via the > scientific process, but most scientists shy away from ever using the word > truth. Science is an on going process. Science is statistics based and not > truth based. Even though you are correct, you are still pointing out the faults of modern science. There is an absolute truth. If modern physics hasn't found it, then they need to look for it. Statistics are better than nothing, but they are not true science. Statistics are a modern form of faith. You don't know the answer, but you are fairly certain it falls within the range. To believe the result will fall within the range and not outside is an act of faith, whether you are willing to admit to it or not. This is an excellent example of how science behaves as a religion (although science is in denial about that). > Science says this thing works in our human world, Indeed, > experiments have been repeated by many others to show that the results of > the experiment are consistent. Interesting. People go to church every Sunday and pray. Indeed, the prayer has been repeated by many different religionists and the results are consistent. A certain statistical number of prayers are always answered. That would make religionists actually like scientists, wouldn't it? They even have theory (theology) to back it up. > The probablility (note; not definate) Yes, I did notice that. > therefore is that the experiments do show how the world actually operate. That might sound like rock solid logic to you, Alex, but to me it sounds like a religious doctrine. An "experiment" is not the same thing as the "evidence" you were just talking about. Experiment is the process of acquiring data. Whether that data presents evidence or not depends on whether the data agrees with the theory being presented. The data can be accurate, but the theory could be entirely wrong. For example, the photoelectric effect demonstrates electrons are converted to photons. But the theory claims that mass is converted to energy. Mass is merely a dimension, electrons are real phenomena. The data is correct, but the theory that explains the data is not. > Newton's view of the world worked well, but as science progressed it showed > that his mechanical view of the world did not always come into play. It took > the likes of Eienstein to show the flaws in Newton's ideas. And those flaws > were exposed by . . . you guessed it, the process of science. On the contrary, Einstein used a flawed theory to make it look like Newton was flawed. The truth is, when electrons and protons are seen for what they are, units of angular momentum, and not viewed as particles or waves, then the electrons and protons do follow the laws of Newton to perfection. It is precisely because of Einstein that physics became a religion. Einstein mesmerized the world into believing that mass and energy were real phenomena. But they aren't. Mass is a dimension and energy is a unit. The only real unit of real physical matter is the unit of angular momentum, which is treated as anything but physical matter. When Planck identified the true unit of the electron, the Planck constant had to be carefully labeled a conversion constant with no relationship to the physical structure of the electron. Modern physics is full of so-called conversion constants, constants of proportionality, or convenience constants. These constants represent real processes in the quantum realm, but they can't be recognized for what they are because of the mass/energy nonsense Einstein shoved on the scientific community. Science may one day reclaim its status, but not until it sheds the preposterous mass/energy paradigm of Einstein. > Hawking doesn't have a Unified Force > > Theory to work with, he doesn't know what the exact radius of a proton is, [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > for sure that he knows what a black hole will do. However, he has claimed > that his work indicated that a black hole would do this that or the other. The boring part is coming from your having to deal with a serious conflict in your reasoning. You realize that Hawking couldn't possibly know what a black hole will do, yet you still need to give him the stature of someone who does know. It's right when the logic fails that people crack and resort to name calling, turning up their nose with an air of importance, or find some other way to change the subject. > He produced his evidence and other's repeated it. You mean he produced some equations and others repeated the equations? It appears that Hawking, much like Einstein, has never himself presented a shred of data to support his theories. Be honest in the discussion. > Some argued against it, > but none at the time could produce evidence to categorically "FALSIFY" that > Hawking was wrong. It transpires, that evidence has now been found to > indicate that Hawking's evidence was indeed incorrect. You forgot to mention the "evidence" that Hawking submitted in the first place and which was previously verified by others. > Science disproved Hawking's and not cookbook science, buddhism or other mystic meg ideas. What is the logic behind that statement? > > He is acting on faith more than science. > > He acts on probability shown by his experiments. You really do have to > understand the difference Dave. Alex, I understand the logic of probability more than you are giving me credit for. It is you who needs to question what it is you really know and that which you think you know. Probability is not science, although it is used by scientists. Probability is faith, because you really don't know whether the results will fall into the mean or not. Only those aspects of science that are discrete are true science. > > In fact, he's trying to churn out knowledge from ignorance. > > Look, we are going round in circles. Here is a question. What is the > difference between fact, knowledge and truth? fact = data knowledge = theory that precisely describes the processes that produce fact truth = knowledge * fact It can't be any simpler or more accurate than that. > Don't just toss the question > to one side as thought it is meaningless . . . it is not. Understand the > profound differences between those 3 supposedly simple words and you will be > in a better position to understand science and how it operates in a > philosophical way at least. I apparently understand the difference far better than you. You can't even critique a scientific method well enough to understand that E=mc^2 is not a true equation and neither does it reflect reality. That is because you don't understand that as far as stable physical matter goes, only electrons and protons are fact, and that any true knowledge will describe all quantum physical processes in terms of real phenomena and not a mythological conversion of dimension into unit. I've spent a couple years working on precisely this understanding and I'm almost finished writing a book on the topic. Perhaps if you developed a better sense of critical thinking you might yourself develop a better understanding of science and how it should operate? Dave > > > Seriously, do you consider yourself to be intelligent? Didn't it occur > to [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > That sounds good, but it is not consistent with the degree of tenacity > scientists apply to defending their theories. Scientists will defend their findings until someone comes along with evidence that proves it to be wrong. Any scientist who defends an idea that he knows can be shown to be false using the scientific process, is the victim of his own ego. Further, if this does occur it is the fault of an insecure individual and definately not the fault of science it self. > > All that a scientist can do is to present evidence that > > declares that that he can show repeatedly that his experiments indicate [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > trying to hide the theoretical side of science. Scientists don't just > present evidence, their primary function is to present theories. I'd argue against that, but it won't serve any purpose at the moment. Ideally > the theory should be backed up by data. But it doesn't follow that all > theory is backed up by data or that all data is presented as evidence. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > which claims people traveling near the speed of light will return to Earth > younger than their peers. Actually, it has been proven to work. On a number of occassions 2 atomic clocks have been synocronised. One has flown around the globe and when it landed, its clock was compared to the one that remained on land. The clock in the aircraft read a time slower than that on earth and one that had remained stationary. Therefore, Einstein's theory has been proven correct Without going into the cases that you mention (all used observable data!) I get the impression you are confusing hypothesis for theory. An hypothosis is an assumption or tentative explanation. However, that assumption or explanation must produce a 'theory'. take the theory of the big bang. To start with, an hypothesis was made that the universe is finite in size. if the universe is infinite, then the 'big bang' theory is in big trouble. Why? because we know that light travels at a finite speed. We know that everything is travelling away from each other due to the effects of the redshift. If the universe is infinite in size, and the big bang still occured, this implies that the speed of light must also be infinite, which we know not to be the case due to observational evidence. Therefore, if the universe is infinite, then the big bang could not of taken place. i.e The theory that the universe came into existence from a singularity is not valid. So to summarize, an hypothesis does not require data, but the theory that arises from it must have it, if it is to remain valid. > Don't polish your scientific halo too soon. > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > tune an experiment to work properly even though the measured parameters > don't always match the equations. You are struggling arn't you! I'll take that to mean you concede the point. Intuition . . . please. Well you got me to laugh out loud anyway. > > > Quantum physics as it is taught today rests on too many unknowns for > someone [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > Even though you are correct, you are still pointing out the faults of modern > science. Hold on a minute. If your problem is that science is not perfect then you had better come up with something that can replace it that is perfect before you condemn it. As imperfect as science is, it is the best method we have todate in finding out about the world. Let me repeat, science does not claim to be able to show for definate that it has discovered absolute truth. However, don't take this to mean that any psuedo science or religion can. There is an absolute truth. If modern physics hasn't found it, > then they need to look for it. Is there? What about quantum physics? How do you know that reality is not determined via a sentient beings observation? To make such a statement as "there is an absolute truth" requires absolute proof. You don't have any. My guess (intuition) is that you based your statement on what you want to believe; having said that, there is a 'possibility' that you are merely playing the devils advocate) So which is it. Statistics are better than nothing, but they > are not true science. Yes they are. Statistical evidence is all we have. It forms the basis of science. Science can only show the probability of an event occuring, it can never show that an event will always occur. Statistics are a modern form of faith. You misuse the word faith. I empathise with you, but I don't agree with your train of thought. A scientist will say that 999,999 times out of a million this event occurs. It is safe to assume that it will occur next time. If it does not occur, then either the scientist has made a mistake, or some outside event has taken control of events. On other occasions it does not happen, this may be down to chaos and entirely unpredictable. It is also worth considering that a rare event is part of a greater and more common event taking place. But because it is so rare, it is all but impossible to measure and predict. In contrast faith says, "I have no evidence, statistical or otherwise, but I still believe an event will happen" You see, faith is based on hope. The process of science helps to predict future events, whereas religion does not help to predict anything. It only gives hope to peoples negative emotions. Science is rational and logical, religion is emotional and illogical You don't > know the answer, but you are fairly certain it falls within the range. To > believe the result will fall within the range and not outside is an act of > faith, whether you are willing to admit to it or not. The results from the process of science, does not ask anyone to believe that anevent will always occur. It only states that statistical evidence shows that this event happened more often than not in the past. It is therefore safe to assume it will similiarly occur in the future. This is not hope, it is rational thought process in action. This is an excellent > example of how science behaves as a religion (although science is in denial > about that). Science is not a religion, it is a methodological process. You really must start to get a grips with that. It is a process of deduction. Science does not ask the user to believe in anything. It says use the process in order to find out how the world that you experience through your five senses operates. An emotion is not one of the five senses. > > Science says this thing works in our human world, Indeed, > > experiments have been repeated by many others to show that the results of [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > That would make religionists actually like scientists, wouldn't it? They > even have theory (theology) to back it up. Don't mistake people wanting to believe their prayers have been answered for anything other than wishful thinking. Statistically, the results you speak of are more than likely no more than coincidence. The process of science removes any coincidental results, that may mar any investigation. <snipped the rest> I don't have time to comment on all the other comments you make. Though I would like to say that all you describe is how the process of science helps to improve findings that it has made. Yet, you still attempt to condemn it. I think your problem is that you recognise that religion etc, is irrational. And in order to justify your own disillusionment, you are attempting to discredit a concept that you see as the cause of its downfall. Science is not a competitor of religion. Science is a methodological process that aims to find out how the world works. In contrast, religions already say they know the answer. Alex [snip] Interesting, if light on the details that aren't hand-wavy. Right now would be a very good time to take a trip to Ireland, *sigh*. > Hawking RECANTS on Black Hole Theory! > [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > > Double-A <nothing> <snip repost> The man who has never *made* an error is either a liar or a deity, and I haven't seen any deities walking around lately. The man who denies his errors is either a fool or a liberal (the same thing, really). Evidently Hawking is neither. Once, when asked which item in his office was most important, Professor Einstein reportedly answered "The trash can, because I make a lot of mistakes." I have little criticism of Hawking personally, although I do not always agree with him. I *do* have a problem with people who idolize him, and with people who unjustly criticize others - especially when the 'critic' resorts to juvenile name-calling. *plonk* Tom Davidson Richmond, VA > <nothing> > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > The man who denies his errors is either a fool or a liberal (the same thing, > really). I bet you're a big hit at parties. Rick Cut< > I have little criticism of Hawking personally, although I do not always > agree with him. I *do* have a problem with people who idolize him, and with > people who unjustly criticize others - especially when the 'critic' resorts > to juvenile name-calling. You have just cause when criticizing me: You are in the same gravy boat with my other critics;^) and of course your criticizms aren't juvenile. > *plonk* > > Tom Davidson > Richmond, VA > > Hawking RECANTS on Black Hole Theory! > > > > Stephen Hawking now says that what goes in to a black hole CAN come > > out! > > > > Hawking now says that physical singularities DO NOT EXIST after all! <snip> This makes so much sense because it solves the problem of where did the singularity came from that was used to start the BB! IP >> > Hawking RECANTS on Black Hole Theory! >> > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >This makes so much sense because it solves the problem of where did the >singularity came from that was used to start the BB! methinks maybe there was no singularity at the BB and maybe not even a BB. (I'm sure I have no idea what I'm talking about) This post is about the black hole singularity, its event horizen, and information leaking out of the black hole... does this mean no singularity? Given that the information leaks out of the black hole in a finite amount of time, does that mean that the singularity doesn't exist? As viewed from the outside of a black hole, objects falling into the black hole take forever to reach the event horizen. Then, in the (nearly infinite amount of) time that it takes the black hole to evaporate, as viewed from the outside, objects falling into the black hole still haven't gotten past the even horizen. But, there may be no singularity, at least not in the sense that it was once thought of. The object falling into the black would see infinite blue shift as the outside universe races forward infinitely faster and faster and as the object falling towards the event horizen becomes infinitely red shifted as viewed from the outside. The blue-shifted outside universe ages an infinite amount as the object approaches the event horizen. So, perhaps by the time the object actually "reaches" the event horizen, then the black hole has evaporated? And then there is no singularity, only the frozen event horizen waiting to evaporate via "Hawking radiation", and then escape back to the outside universe. I also think the event horizen shrinks as the black hole evaporates, which perhaps means the singularity almost (but not quite) comes into existance in the final moment prior to the black hole evaporating as a white hole. - catbirdman > Hawking RECANTS on Black Hole Theory! > [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > > Double-A > (I'm sure I have no idea what I'm talking about) > This post is about the black hole singularity, its event horizen, and > information leaking out of the black hole... does this mean no > singularity? I don't KNOW what I am talking about either, but I THINK that you may be making the common mistake of equating a singularity with a black hole. If you are inclined to believe Hawking, you might take the position that a black hole is a physical reality in this universe, while a singularity is a virtual or META-physical conduit between this universe and the SUPER-verse. > Given that the information leaks out of the black hole in a finite > amount of time, does that mean that the singularity doesn't exist? As [quoted text clipped - 42 lines] > > > > See also: http://www.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,4057,10153260%255E1702,00.html > > And for a slightly more sympathetic take: > > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > > > Double-A > (I'm sure I have no idea what I'm talking about) Don't leave yourself open like that! > This post is about the black hole singularity, its event horizen, and > information leaking out of the black hole... does this mean no > singularity? Yes, because if there were ever a singularity, no information could survive to come back out. > Given that the information leaks out of the black hole in a finite > amount of time, does that mean that the singularity doesn't exist? Yes. > As > viewed from the outside of a black hole, objects falling into the > black hole take forever to reach the event horizen. Then, in the > (nearly infinite amount of) time that it takes the black hole to > evaporate, as viewed from the outside, objects falling into the black > hole still haven't gotten past the even horizen. Quite a conundrum, isn't it? > But, there may be no singularity, at least not in the sense that it > was once thought of. The object falling into the black would see [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > horizen waiting to evaporate via "Hawking radiation", and then escape > back to the outside universe. Here's an open question: If a falling object never reaches the event horizon before the black hole evaporates, you would think that the falling object would be bathed and fried in intense Hawking radiation coming from the vicinity of the event horizon ahead of it. But if time is infinitely dilated at the event horizon, then how can all this radiation activity be going on there? > I also think the event horizen shrinks as the black hole evaporates, > which perhaps means the singularity almost (but not quite) comes into > existance in the final moment prior to the black hole evaporating as a > white hole. > - catbirdman Makes sense, but the singularity never really forms. Double-A Hi Double-A > Hawking RECANTS on Black Hole Theory! > [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > > Double-A Rod: WAY TO GO EL! :):):) Rod Ryker... It is reasoning and faith that bind truth. There has been a lot of misunderstanding regarding Hawking's recent statements. His theory about black hole radiation said things like: T= (h c^3) / (8 pi K G M) --- T is temperature of a black hole, c is the velocity of light, h is the Planck constant (6.626 x 10^-34), K is the Boltzmann constant, G is the universal gravitational constant, and M is the mass of the black hole. Hawking said that since the black hole has a temperature observable by the outside it is radiating energy, a very logical reasoning. Therefore, by E=Mc^2, it is also radiating away mass. This theory has NOT been proven wrong. The problem is this: when Hawking realized that mass radiates away, he began to think what happens to all the information, or entropy, that was sucked into the black hole when its mass radiates to 0 ? If it dissapears, then the law of entropy is broken, which says entropy cannot decrease, only increase. He suggested that the information is lost forever. However, by solving his theory in a new way, he saw that the energy radiating away is in the form of mangled information of the contents of the black hole. Therefore, information CAN escape a black hole eventually. Sorry to all you Star Trek fans, but this also means black holes cannot be portals to other universes, because the information within is not lost into a parallel world, but simply radiated away. So, the data does not show that Hawking has been wrong for 30 years, but instead shows that the question he posed when his theory developed, the question of how can entropy be destroyed, was not a valid question to ask. This discovery is still important though because if he had not been wrong about this question and entropy could be destroyed, the foundations of physics would have been shaken. sources: Time Magazine August, Universe in a Nutshell by Stephen Hawking There has been a lot of misunderstanding regarding Hawking's recent statements. His theory about black hole radiation said things like: T= (h c^3) / (8 pi K G M) --- T is temperature of a black hole, c is the velocity of light, h is the Planck constant (6.626 x 10^-34), K is the Boltzmann constant, G is the universal gravitational constant, and M is the mass of the black hole. Hawking said that since the black hole has a temperature observable by the outside it is radiating energy, a very logical reasoning. Therefore, by E=Mc^2, it is also radiating away mass. This theory has NOT been proven wrong. The problem is this: when Hawking realized that mass radiates away, he began to think what happens to all the information, or entropy, that was sucked into the black hole when its mass radiates to 0 ? If it dissapears, then the law of entropy is broken, which says entropy cannot decrease, only increase. He suggested that the information is lost forever. However, by solving his theory in a new way, he saw that the energy radiating away is in the form of mangled information of the contents of the black hole. Therefore, information CAN escape a black hole eventually. Sorry to all you Star Trek fans, but this also means black holes cannot be portals to other universes, because the information within is not lost into a parallel world, but simply radiated away. So, the data does not show that Hawking has been wrong for 30 years, but instead shows that the question he posed when his theory developed, the question of how can entropy be destroyed, was not a valid question to ask. This discovery is still important though because if he had not been wrong about this question and entropy could be destroyed, the foundations of physics would have been shaken. sources: Time Magazine August, Universe in a Nutshell by Stephen Hawking |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2012 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.