Notices
Results 1 to 11 of 11

Thread: SPLIT : Bangstrom's Personal Ideas

  1. #1 SPLIT : Bangstrom's Personal Ideas 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    86
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    All empirically observable metric expansion effects are due to the presence of a cosmological scale factor a(t) - no scale factor, no observable effects
    When I see observations such as the above I give the writer a pass for writing an absurdity that they can't possibly believe. We all make statements that can be misinterpreted as meaning something far from what we intend but, when I see the same sentiment repeated several times, I have to wonder if anyone is paying attention.


    There is no causal connection between the presence or absence of a cosmological scale factor a(t) and our empirical observations. How can there be? "-no scale factor, no observable effects." Nonsense! Changes in our calculations on paper are not to be found as changes in the world around us.


    This also applies to the common complaint that a cosmological model of material contraction would cause atoms to grow smaller in violation of the laws of physics. The implication is that if we adopt a different model Nature will respond in a way that could be universal Armageddon.


    This is my general complaint not meant for any one person because it applies equally well to the folks over at BAUT who espouse the same view that adherence to the wrong model will change the laws of Nature. How could anyone think that way? Is there something bad in the air?


    I hope no one really thinks that our models have the power to alter nature by some godlike fiat but I would like to point out that to suggest the possibility is a "strawman" argument.
    It makes no sense to say that my model describes a stable universe but your model would "change the laws of physics" so, if I can prove beyond any doubt that the universe is stable, that means that your model is wrong because your model would destroy the world.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    1,034
    For your first post you sure do make a lot of demands.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    MODERATOR NOTE : I moved your post into a new thread - you are welcome to present your ideas here, but I must ask that you please refrain from doing so on other people's ongoing discussions. Thank you.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,670
    Quote Originally Posted by bangstrom View Post
    This is my general complaint not meant for any one person because it applies equally well to the folks over at BAUT who espouse the same view that adherence to the wrong model will change the laws of Nature.
    That is quite an impressive straw man. Did you need help constructing it, or is it a natural talent?

    You do realise that models are attempts to describe nature, not control it?
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    86
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by bangstrom View Post
    This is my general complaint not meant for any one person because it applies equally well to the folks over at BAUT who espouse the same view that adherence to the wrong model will change the laws of Nature.
    That is quite an impressive straw man. Did you need help constructing it, or is it a natural talent?

    You do realise that models are attempts to describe nature, not control it?
    Exactly, that is my point and to think otherwise is to confuse the map with the territory. We draw our maps any way we want and to any scale we want but it has no effect on the world around us. Nature does not give us a preferred reference frame. This is why I complain when someone makes the claim that a model can "change the laws of physics" or that, "All empirically observable metric expansion effects are due to the presence of a cosmological scale factor a(t) - no scale factor, no observable effects." Observable changes can prompt one to add or remove some calculation to a model but changes in nature are never "due" to our scribbling on paper. I know Marcus and others do not intend to imply that our models control nature but that understanding is not reflected in their explanations. Their explanations say otherwise and that glosses over the logical error in statements to the effect that a model can "change the laws of physics."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,670
    Quote Originally Posted by bangstrom View Post
    This is why I complain when someone makes the claim that a model can "change the laws of physics"
    Has anyone said that?

    Outside of your bizarre misinterpretations of the English language, of course. For example, you seem to think that Markus should have said "if there were no effect corresponding the one we model with a scale factor" instead of the rather transparent shorthand "no scale factor".
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    1,034
    Quote Originally Posted by bangstrom View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by bangstrom View Post
    This is my general complaint not meant for any one person because it applies equally well to the folks over at BAUT who espouse the same view that adherence to the wrong model will change the laws of Nature.
    That is quite an impressive straw man. Did you need help constructing it, or is it a natural talent?

    You do realise that models are attempts to describe nature, not control it?
    Exactly, that is my point and to think otherwise is to confuse the map with the territory. We draw our maps any way we want and to any scale we want but it has no effect on the world around us. Nature does not give us a preferred reference frame. This is why I complain when someone makes the claim that a model can "change the laws of physics" or that, "All empirically observable metric expansion effects are due to the presence of a cosmological scale factor a(t) - no scale factor, no observable effects." Observable changes can prompt one to add or remove some calculation to a model but changes in nature are never "due" to our scribbling on paper. I know Marcus and others do not intend to imply that our models control nature but that understanding is not reflected in their explanations. Their explanations say otherwise and that glosses over the logical error in statements to the effect that a model can "change the laws of physics."
    So, you think scientists are dishonest?

    That people try to lie to you?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    86
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by bangstrom View Post
    This is why I complain when someone makes the claim that a model can "change the laws of physics"
    Has anyone said that?

    Outside of your bizarre misinterpretations of the English language, of course. For example, you seem to think that Markus should have said "if there were no effect corresponding the one we model with a scale factor" instead of the rather transparent shorthand "no scale factor".
    Your "should have said" would be an improvement because it would make clear that the "observed effects" are limited to the effects visualized within the model. Instead, he characterized the observations as "empirically observable" and, to me that means- outside the model.

    Here is the disputed statement again,"All empirically observable metric expansion effects are due to the presence of a cosmological scale factor a(t) - no scale factor, no observable effects."


    Breaking it down it says, "no scale factor, no observational effects." That is true but so is the contrary. Restore the scale factor and there are still no observable effects because the workings of nature are not "due" to the presence or absence of anything in our models.


    The statement refers to "all empirically observable metric expansion effects" and this is another problem because things like "expansion" and "contraction" are subjective, relative terms like hot and cold. We can observe physical conditions like size or temperature but we can't define their relative conditions unless we can identify what they are relative to.


    Here is another example of the problem and it is also a reply to your question, "Did anyone say that?" A quote ( #29 from PetTastic,s A Big Bang Alternative ) is as follows, "The universe only looks big because we are shrinking QCD doesn't shrink/scale ( neither does EWI, I would think ), so if we shrink, we will break the laws of physics in the process."


    The first part says, "The universe only looks big because we are shrinking..." This is a restatement of PetTastic's observation that, if we are shrinking, we could not observe the changes locally but we would have the illusion of the universe expanding around us. So nothing in a universe of material contraction should look any different from of an expanding universe.


    The last part of the quote reads,"...so if we shrink, we will break the laws of physics in the process." The word "shrink" is a relative term. When PetTastic says "matter shrinks," we need to consider relative to What? does he claim matter is shrinking. And, when Marcus and others claim shrinking matter will break the laws of physics, again we need to ask, relative to What? is matter shrinking and exactly where are these laws being broken- in the model or in the observable world around us. Common sense should tell us that the laws are broken ONLY in the model so it is absurd to look for changes in the real physical world as evidence that the model does not work as evidenced by the lack of change in the world around us. If there is an error in PetTastic's scenario, then the error must be in PetTastic's scenario. Demonstrations that PetTastic's model does not change the outside world or pointing out flaws in other models is irrelevant.


    PetTastic's "What If" scenario asks the question, if all of our measurements of length are made by comparing the length of one material with another and, if EVERYTHING is shrinking, how would we know? We are like passengers on Einstein's train that shrinks from the point of view of a remote observer while everything remains unchanged inside including the laws of physics and QCD. The whole universe is our "train" and there is no outside observer to decide for us if the universe is expanding or shrinking. The observations should be identical in either case. One view is the simple mathematical inverse of the other.
    Last edited by bangstrom; June 2nd, 2014 at 01:04 AM. Reason: wrong names
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    86
    Quote Originally Posted by Beer w/Straw View Post
    So, you think scientists are dishonest?

    That people try to lie to you?
    I think scientists rank high on the scale of honesty. Not by any innate virtue but because dishonesty is not rewarded in science. Anyone with a dishonest inclination is likely to drift into other occupations where dishonesty is rewarded. Also, scientists have their peers to keep them honest.

    My comments might be interpreted as a claim that someone is lying but that is not my complaint and certainly not my thoughts on the matter. The discussion about PetTastic's "What If" has gotten into some thorny issues that have nothing to do with his original claim. I think the problems could be resolved with a little more clarity about what is relative to what and where the presumed changes are taking place.
    Any model must stand or fall on its own merits and it is useless to look for errors in the model anywhere other than in the model.


    There is an old story about a drunk who lost his watch in a dark alley. He was looking for his watch under a street lamp and when someone asked "Why?" He replied, "That's where the light is."
    +
    Last edited by bangstrom; June 2nd, 2014 at 01:04 AM. Reason: wrong name
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,670
    Who is Graham?
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    86
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Who is Graham?
    Sorry, my mistake. I meant to say PetTastic from the Big Bang Alternative thread.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Similar Threads

  1. SPLIT : Glenn Jacobs' Personal Theory
    By Glenn Jacobs in forum Personal Theories & Alternative Ideas
    Replies: 159
    Last Post: February 20th, 2014, 09:08 PM
  2. Split from: About Gravity
    By CallumMSmith in forum Personal Theories & Alternative Ideas
    Replies: 28
    Last Post: August 13th, 2013, 07:12 AM
  3. Split Brain and Consciousness
    By NNet in forum Philosophy
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: February 21st, 2013, 07:48 AM
  4. atom split
    By rowida in forum Chemistry
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: January 14th, 2013, 04:00 AM
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •