Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'After Hours Lounge (Off Topic)' started by Aaron Silverman, Jun 15, 2012.
So. . .what's new with cosmology?
Thanks for taking this discussion to a more appropriate forum area. I do hope we can continue the conversation here.
I don't have anything else to say on the subject at the moment, but if you thought my last post in the Lawrence thread was interesting, check out this inspiring blog post: http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2005/05/09/science-fare/
In fact, the whole Bad Astronomy blog is wonderful, and worth subscribing to. Its author, Phil Plait, is one of several science communicators who have helped shape my appreciation and love for the subject.
Apropos, a friend just shared this cool page on the scale of things on Facebook:
That "Nobel for the Dark Side" page from the other thread was so full of ignorant crap it was like a bad SNL sketch.
Carl - Thanks for the link to Bad Astronomy. I find myself in complete agreement.
(I just hope we have the wisdom to apply the science in beneficial ways - which is a different topic.)
Neil DeGrasse Tyson weighs in.
Thanks for sharing that, Cameron. Tyson is one of the other science communicators I was referring to in my previous post.
James Parker responded to my post in the Lawrence of Arabia thread, but I don't think it's a good idea to respond there. I hope it's okay for us to continue the conversation here, if we avoid the religious issues.
So, plasma cosmology is less well-funded than more mainstream theories, because it isn't as well-supported by the evidence as they are? This sounds to me like the scientific enterprise working as it should. Ideas and experiments which produce results and comport with the evidence are used as the foundation for further research, while those that don't fall by the wayside. What exactly is the problem?
Spetner is a physicist, not a biologist, and the very title of his book betrays his ignorance of the subject. No biologist thinks that evolution is a chance or random process. It has a random component, but Spetner seems to be ignoring the role of natural selection, which was Darwin's key contribution. Evolution is the non-random survival of random mutations: "The combination of random mutations with a suitable law (for example, the non-random natural selection) can accelerate evolution by many orders of magnitude (as, for example, has been demonstrated by Dawkins ) and this makes Spetner's probabilistic exercise immaterial" (from http://www.talkreason.org/articles/spetner.cfm#calculates).
Contra your claims of Dawkins ignoring the subject, that citation refers to his The Blind Watchmaker, which is, incidentally, an outstanding book on the subject for anyone who'd like to learn more about how evolution works, and how we know that it does. It's accessible, straightforward, and unburdened by ideological commitments (the same cannot be said for Spetner's book, in which he claims that "The NREH, as an explanation of evolution, is in fact derivable from Talmudic sources.").
I loves me some Neil DeGrasse Tyson!
I find that when I see words like "evolutionists" or "Darwinian" I tend to be reading nonsense that tries to discount the idea of evolution by falsely treating it as a belief system rather than as an observation.
For those who might be unaware, Neil DeGrasse Tyson hosts a radio/show podcast called Star Talk Radio. It covers space and astronomy a lot, but it's more about science generally, and frequently discusses its relationship to popular culture.
It's a great, fun program. I'm working my way through all of the previous episodes, but I'm still a good bit behind.
Look, Carl, you're not discussing specifics, you're criticizing someone because his background of his religion. I'm no Talmudic scholar, but if the below arguments and reasoning are sound, I don't care if it's Scientology based; what do you find wrong, with your expertise, such as it is, with Spetner's reasoning. His book runs the numbers,
[Yes, and I realize the source is ID, but the argument isn't, excerpt below:
Now, what is your own challenge to each essay? What errors have you found?
Finally, your statement
is not the issue, its truly tertiary. The issue includes the specific failings that Lerner (whose religious faith or lack of same doesn't concern me).
What specific criticism do you have against the points raised in this paper?
What flaws do you find in this paper:
And what predictions has Neil DeGrasse Tyson made that have been verified:
This is the consequence of big, government science.
Finally, it's good thing Mr. Fink is a "defender of the faith" because if he wasn't, his name would bring him opprobrium by its adherents. I don't know if indirectly this is a challenge to his livelihood.
For those who are not part of the herd, let me advise that they are free to investigate and reach their own conclusions. An interconnected cosmos has implications for every one of us if it proves to be so. J. Robert Oppenheimer said, which sadly is not the case today,
This essay is worth a review:
I submit, as Lerner wrote in his book, we've stagnated because of our gas lamp and horse and buggy era ideas.
I'd advise starting here:
Here's an excerpt
But I began on the on the Waiting for Lawrence thread with this observation:
In other words, physics is inherently limited. Even if the Electric Universe were to be accepted, it would not be the final answer to the great questions; for some of you, the quest will continue: gnōthi seauton
Hello, Mr. Geek, Spetner addressed this and I posted his response. See above:
And using mathematics, Mr. Geek, if you do digital work on film, what do you find incorrect with any of the points on the challenges to explain life by Dr. Berkovich? His paper can be viewed from the below link.
I don't know if Dr. Berkovich, who holds over 30 patents, is correct but his diagnosis of the problems is highly relevant.
And Spetner has recently written after your old challenge, which he addressed, see my post above.
There are issues with current theory. As Spetner has detailed about NDT, and I don't think anyone has rebutted his criticism of the 'theory':
Again, I've given those who have an interest in exploring other avenues to seek answers, which are necessarily incomplete.
Other readers, realize the importance the theory of 'Darwin' to an objective that is not scientific at all:
There are terribly bright, well educated people with amazing backgrounds who see the limitations of current 'science'. All I'd advise is for those who are curious to consider there are challenges to orthodox positions; that is how true science is supposed to work. The answer does not have to be Metaphysical; the answer to the problem of what is life is still not solved. I've provided some challenges and additional questions. Spetner questions, and does not provide a solution. Berkovich provides a potential answer. I don't think there are good challenges to the questions they have raised or alternate answers using current theories. Other readers may investigate further via the links provided.
If I want to know how something works, I ask someone who studies that topic as a profession. Asking a mathematician for answers about organic systems makes about as much sense as asking a biologist to explain quantum physics.
It's sad the topic is contentious; let me for the sake of argument agree with you. Dawkins wrote in his book, The Blind Watchmaker, about an immortal space alien playing bridge:
Dawkins is therefore writing about mathematics, probability. Now, Spetner, a physicist, is the one with knowledge about mathematics. He responds,
As to physics, see here:
Spetner's comment on the Bridge-playing alien is just more nonsense. He arbitrarily assigns the alien a 100 million year lifespan, when the original proposition clearly stated that the alien is immortal. Not to mention the fact that his math is wrong -- the chance of being dealt a perfect Bridge hand is nowhere near that unlikely.
Speaking of nonsense, is that Holoscience website supposed to be serious, or is it just an overly complicated gag? "I don't understand astrophysics; therefore it's all false! LA LA LA LA MARY HAD A LITTLE LAMB."
That's a curious site. It reads like the author is proposing significant new theories. But I don't see any science or math; nothing beyond armchair philosophizing and pop-sci editorial. That's fine if you're a Brian Greene, writing science for the masses. But this fellow doesn't indicate he has any background from which to produce explanation for the masses.
But maybe I missed it, I didn't look hard.
This paper is short and concise; give it a try:
Link to Adobe PDF file of paper: http://vixra.org/pdf/1206.0087v1.pdf
See also Dr. Dunning-Davies essay here: http://www.holoscience.com/wp/gravity-probe-b-and-related-matters/
As to Thorhhill, see here: http://www.holoscience.com/wp/the-ieee-plasma-cosmology-and-extreme-ball-lightning/ and here: http://ieeevic.org/events/getdetails.php?id=412
More on Mr. Thornhill:
I'd suggest discovering what it means to be a good human being (see Plato references above) and forget about 'black holes', Darwin, et al. Altogether a much harder yet worthier prospect, in the event!