[stone monkey]

Cold Iron, on Mar 24 2009, 11:03 PM, said:

I disagree. There are huge holes in the standard model that are plugged with extremely tenuous inventions, two in particular: inflation, and dark energy. In order to fit the prevailing theory with the observed data, we have invented one scalar field powerful enough to cause a violation of special relativity and another with the power to reduce the force of vacuum energy by a factor of 120 with no other supporting evidence. In addition, the entire standard model is based on the assumption that the univers is homogenous and isotropic, which it demonstrably is not, indeed as we approach what should be the upper limit of anisotropy we instead find that superclusters are arranged in fractal structures.

Now I'm not saying that the standard model is not the best explanation we have. It is. What I'm saying is that it is not valid to use it as a basis from which to ridicule anyone with an alternate explanation. Obviously the debate between big bang and steady state is not what I was referring to when I said there is tension in society caused by this attitude. The tension is created by people who have not bothered to investigate the science assuming it is the whole truth and anyone who disagrees is some kind of religious nutcase.

There are huge holes in the Standard Model (which we're all aware is a giant kludge) but, as you say, it is the best one we have at the moment, primarily because there are even bigger holes in all its current competitors. There are aspects of the Standard Model that any framework that supersedes it will have to keep (like most of it, in fact); so any revised and more successfully explanative model will actually really be an extended version of the Standard Model (in much the same way as General Relativity is an extended version Newton's gravity - and yes, it does visualise the nature of space and time differently but, to be fair, that really wasn't one of Newton's concerns at the time he formulated his theory) And, as we all know, that's how science moves on.

Now the interesting thing about fractal structures is that whatever scale you look at them they look pretty much the same... Which actually would make the universe homogenous and isotropic if its overall structure were fractal. Our lack of knowledge about the large scale structure of the universe above that of the supercluster complexes means that definitively assigning a fractal structure to the observable universe (never mind the universe as a whole) remains, as they say, problematic.

The reason things like inflation (small note on inflation: Special Relativity says zip about the expansion of spacetime itself and purely deals with relative motions within spacetime... but anyway...) and dark energy are even included in formulations of the Standard Model is because they absolutely have to be there if that model is going to explain the observed properties of this universe. Anything that supersedes the Standard Model will also have to explain those properties. So, like it or not, concepts akin to those two will also have to included in this new model.

The Standard Model is actually a very good device for ridiculing those who believe they have alternate explanations, especially if those alternate explanations cannot reproduce the reliable features of the Standard Model itself. Which, using your example, we know the Steady State Theory cannot do; explaining why it has been very comprehensively discredited. The whole point is that for an alternate explanation to be even considered it has to at the very least be as good at explaining the features of the universe as the Standard Model and, to be really taken seriously, it had better be superior at explaining them. If your pet theory for the origin of the universe can't do that (and, more importantly, can't be extended until it does) then sorry, you're a crackpot and I reserve the right to laugh at you. And maybe even point at you and make funny faces whilst I'm doing so.

This post has been edited by stone monkey: 26 March 2009 - 12:25 AM

[Gem Windcaster]

Yes I did.

@ CI

This post has been edited by Gem Windcaster: 26 March 2009 - 12:03 AM

[Cold Iron]

stone monkey, on Mar 26 2009, 10:58 AM, said:

Now the interesting thing about fractal structures is that whatever scale you look at them they look pretty much the same... Which actually would make the universe homogenous and isotropic if its overall structure were fractal. Our lack of knowledge about the large scale structure of the universe above that of the supercluster complexes means that definitively assigning a fractal structure to the observable universe (never mind the universe as a whole) remains, as they say, problematic.

You can have a fractal that is not homogeneously distributed. If there are any larger scale structures than superclusters then we have even bigger problems with inflation.

stone monkey, on Mar 26 2009, 10:58 AM, said:

The reason things like inflation (small note on inflation: Special Relativity says zip about the expansion of spacetime itself and purely deals with relative motions within spacetime... but anyway...) and dark energy are even included in formulations of the Standard Model is because they absolutely have to be there if that model is going to explain the observed properties of this universe. Anything that supersedes the Standard Model will also have to explain those properties. So, like it or not, concepts akin to those two will also have to included in this new model.

You're right I misstated that, it's strength, while impressive, does not have to violate relativity, but it's still a stretch. We don't have direct evidence of inflation, it's a fudge, all we have is "if this then this". And the reason I brought up SR is because that is a theory supported by evidence. And the inflation of the universe would violate it, except for the fact that we have fudged around it. We can put spacetime in a higher dimension and say it inflated there due to a higher dimensional force and we can start a whole field of science to explain how this could work and what else it could mean but it is in the end still a fudge, albeit the best fudge we have.

stone monkey, on Mar 26 2009, 10:58 AM, said:

The Standard Model is actually a very good device for ridiculing those who believe they have alternate explanations, especially if those alternate explanations cannot reproduce the reliable features of the Standard Model itself. Which, using your example, we know the Steady State Theory cannot do; explaining why it has been very comprehensively discredited. The whole point is that for an alternate explanation to be even considered it has to at the very least be as good at explaining the features of the universe as the Standard Model and, to be really taken seriously, it had better be superior at explaining them. If your pet theory for the origin of the universe can't do that (and, more importantly, can't be extended until it does) then sorry, you're a crackpot and I reserve the right to laugh at you. And maybe even point at you and make funny faces whilst I'm doing so.

They probably think the face you pull when they fly planes into buildings is funnier. Science does not supplant traditional beliefs, it just changes their relevance. If you tell a fundy he is stupid he will hate you, even if he knows lots of science.

This post has been edited by Cold Iron: 26 March 2009 - 06:44 AM

[Cause]

Gem Windcaster, on Mar 26 2009, 02:03 AM, said:

Yes I did.

@ CI

I dont understand you. The question is clear. The answer obvious. Why confuse it?

[Gem Windcaster]

Cause, on Mar 26 2009, 08:52 AM, said:

Gem Windcaster, on Mar 26 2009, 02:03 AM, said:

Yes I did.

@ CI

I dont understand you. The question is clear. The answer obvious. Why confuse it?

Sorry, what? I was just answering Cold Iron's question if I had read the thread, which I have. (unless I misunderstood him and there's some mystery thread besides this one that I should read that isn't mentioned anywhere...)

[Shinrei]

Philosophizing, splitting hairs, semantic manipulation... am I on the right track here? This thread makes my head hurt, which is why I'm asking...

[Gem Windcaster]

Shinrei no Shintai, on Mar 26 2009, 03:20 PM, said:

Philosophizing, splitting hairs, semantic manipulation... am I on the right track here? This thread makes my head hurt, which is why I'm asking...

As far as I can tell, you're summarizing pretty well.

[Dolorous Menhir]

Shinrei no Shintai, on Mar 26 2009, 02:20 PM, said:

Philosophizing, splitting hairs, semantic manipulation... am I on the right track here? This thread makes my head hurt, which is why I'm asking...

I didn't go back and read the whole thread, but it sounds like you're talking about Cold Iron.

[Gem Windcaster]

Really DM, sometimes I don't even know if you're joking or being serious.

[Cold Iron]

Alright I'll make it plain. I'm speaking out against religious intolerance poorly veiled with scientific superialism.

If you want to be a bigot, that is fine, we all do it. But don't give science a bad name by hiding behind it, it's greater than you and your personal vendettas.

I suppose a mod can move this to the religion subforum now, the cat is out of the bag.

Also please note I'm not accusing illy directly, just the general movement that is more than evident.

Now. Who wants to keep discussing this?

[Dolorous Menhir]

Cold Iron, on Mar 26 2009, 10:39 PM, said:

Now. Who wants to keep discussing this?

You?

[Cold Iron]

Dolorous Menhir, on Mar 27 2009, 09:50 AM, said:

You?

Bing, ten points for DM. Anyone else?

[Gem Windcaster]

I would agree with what you're trying to say CI, so I wouldn't mind discussing it. (everybody is surprised...NOT)

Oh right, I should have something to say...errr...have to think about it.

This post has been edited by Gem Windcaster: 26 March 2009 - 11:33 PM

[Cold Iron]

Gem Windcaster, on Mar 27 2009, 10:30 AM, said:

I would agree with what you're trying to say CI, so I wouldn't mind discussing it. (everybody is surprised...NOT)

Oh right, I should have something to say...errr...have to think about it.

This is why i thought you hadn't read the thread. I was sure you would want to talk about this

[stone monkey]

Cold Iron, on Mar 26 2009, 12:57 AM, said:

You can have a fractal that is not homogeneously distributed. If there are any larger scale structures than superclusters then we have even bigger problems with inflation.

*sigh* I really should be sleeping at this moment in time, but this kind of thing is like stone in my shoe... I'm fairly tired at the moment, so this argument probably won't make sense.

Anyway, yes there are fractals that are not homogenously distributed (all of them, to a first approximation, if we're going to be picky) but that wasn't my point. The fact that fractal structures are similarly "clumpy" on whatever scale you look at them means that the universe would also have to be similarly "clumpy" on whatever scale you look at it, which actually would mean there was an homogenous distribution of matter in the universe. Two caveats here: firstly, this argument would imply that the distribution of matter within the universe is fractal (which is something we actually know to be manifestly untrue below the supercluster scale), secondly our knowledge of the structure of the universe above the scale of supercluster complexes is incomplete (getting on for non existent) Choosing to set your scale at that of superclusters is something of a problem for your argument because we know that below the supercluster scale matter isn't distributed fractally and above the supercluster complex scale we have no knowledge of the actual distribution of matter, so we don't know if the apparent fractal distribution of superclusters gives us an accurate picture of how matter is distributed on the largest of scales. Which may, or may not, be bad news for inflation. More data is needed, so we'd just better do a bit more of that science stuff...

Quote

And the reason I brought up SR is because that is a theory supported by evidence. And the inflation of the universe would violate it, except for the fact that we have fudged around it. We can put spacetime in a higher dimension and say it inflated there due to a higher dimensional force and we can start a whole field of science to explain how this could work and what else it could mean but it is in the end still a fudge, albeit the best fudge we have.

Both Special and General Relativity are Classical theories and as such fail in precisely the conditions under which inflation is believed to have occurred. Like all mature theories they actually tell us those conditions under which they're going to fail, in this case by having inconvenient infinities pop up all over the place when the wrong numbers get plugged into their equations. So their apparent violation by inflation is not only entirely understandable but also inevitable as we already know, simply because of the manner in which they are formulated, that they're not applicable to the conditions that are believed to have occurred during the, so-called, inflationary era. This is not a fudge, it's an inbuilt limitation of the theories themselves. And therefore why we need to go beyond them, as they currently stand, to quantum mechanical and/or higher dimensional formulations of these theories. So again, some more of that pesky science stuff is needed.

Quote

They probably think the face you pull when they fly planes into buildings is funnier. Science does not supplant traditional beliefs, it just changes their relevance. If you tell a fundy he is stupid he will hate you, even if he knows lots of science.

I suspect the average suicide bomber doesn't regard my expression of horror at their actions as funny (they would appear to be quite fundamentally lacking in the sense-of-humour department, after all), it's more likely they would regard it as necessary to bring about their aims. I do agree that science does change the relevance of traditional beliefs, it often changes them into irrelevant traditional beliefs. And I'll agree with you again; telling a fundie that they're stupid is almost certain to make them hate me, and I can live (and, if necessary, die) with that...(the latter option not being my first choice, obviously) But it still doesn't change the fact that I think they're being both stupid and wrong.

[edited because, whilst I apparently can't spell when I'm sleepy, I'm still capable of being annoyed by my own bad spelling...]

This post has been edited by stone monkey: 27 March 2009 - 12:43 AM

[Gem Windcaster]

Cold Iron, on Mar 27 2009, 12:47 AM, said:

This is why i thought you hadn't read the thread. I was sure you would want to talk about this

Wanting to talk about it, and being able to are two different things. First off we would need a communicative contract of sorts. Right now such a thing doesn't exist. As much as I love poking people with sticks...I'm not sure this is the right time or place to fight this fight. One thing I do wish to eliminate though, is the "you don't agree with me, so you must be stupid" argument. The thing you can do with science, supposed to do, is criticize it. Because if science is correct about something, it will hold. And you can't criticize science with only things part of it's system, you need something outside of it. As I said before, science is not system outside of it's own context. Same goes for any other human ideological system. Science does not exist outside of the human mind. Therefore should one not only doubt it, but try to destroy it, unless you want a disaster. To be able to do that, one need to start doubting one's own mind.

As I said, wanting to talk about it is not the same as being able to.

[Cold Iron]

stone monkey, on Mar 27 2009, 11:08 AM, said:

Anyway, yes there are fractals that are not homogenously distributed (all of them, to a first approximation, if we're going to be picky) but that wasn't my point. The fact that fractal structures are similarly "clumpy" on whatever scale you look at them means that the universe would also have to be similarly "clumpy" on whatever scale you look at it, which actually would mean there was an homogenous distribution of matter in the universe.

I'm still not with you on this one, a fractal structure would not make the universe homogeneous, just similarly heterogeneous at all scales.

stone monkey, on Mar 27 2009, 11:08 AM, said:

Two caveats here: firstly, this argument would imply that the distribution of matter within the universe is fractal (which is something we actually know to be manifestly untrue below the supercluster scale), secondly our knowledge of the structure of the universe above the scale of supercluster complexes is incomplete (getting on for non existent) Choosing to set your scale at that of superclusters is something of a problem for your argument because we know that below the supercluster scale matter isn't distributed fractally and above the supercluster complex scale we have no knowledge of the actual distribution of matter, so we don't know if the apparent fractal distribution of superclusters gives us an accurate picture of how matter is distributed on the largest of scales. Which may, or may not, be bad news for inflation. More data is needed, so we'd just better do a bit more of that science stuff...

If at any scale the distribution is not homogeneous the Robertson-Walker metric is violated and the whole model goes out the window. Yes we need to find out what the distribution actually is in order to move beyond the standard model, which of course means more science. I think you may have misunderstood me, I was certainly not you know I was not advocating the end of science.

stone monkey, on Mar 27 2009, 11:08 AM, said:

Both Special and General Relativity are Classical theories and as such fail in precisely the conditions under which inflation is believed to have occurred. Like all mature theories they actually tell us those conditions under which they're going to fail, in this case by having inconvenient infinities pop up all over the place when the wrong numbers get plugged into their equations. So their apparent violation by inflation is not only entirely understandable but also inevitable as we already know, simply because of the manner in which they are formulated, that they're not applicable to the conditions that are believed to have occurred during the, so-called, inflationary era. This is not a fudge, it's an inbuilt limitation of the theories themselves. And therefore why we need to go beyond them, as they currently stand, to quantum mechanical and/or higher dimensional formulations of these theories. So again, some more of that pesky science stuff is needed.

I'm not trying to claim the universe is incapable of inflation simply because it violates relativity. I'm saying it's a fudge to invent an event (inflation) which violates satisfactory (at this scale) equations in order to satisfy the need for an answer to the problem. Having said that, though, there's nothing wrong with fudging. Exploring the implications of the fudge can lead to theoretically observable evidence that can then be looked for. The problem here is that despite not having any, the general public has the impression that the big bang is scientific fact when anyone with a mild interest and time to read a few articles will quickly learn that this is far from the case.

stone monkey, on Mar 27 2009, 11:08 AM, said:

I suspect the average suicide bomber doesn't regard my expression of horror at their actions as funny (they would appear to be quite fundamentally lacking in the sense-of-humour department, after all), it's more likely they would regard it as necessary to bring about their aims. I do agree that science does change the relevance of traditional beliefs, it often changes them into irrelevant traditional beliefs. And I'll agree with you again; telling a fundie that they're stupid is almost certain to make them hate me, and I can live (and, if necessary, die) with that...(the latter option not being my first choice, obviously) But it still doesn't change the fact that I think they're being both stupid and wrong.

Wrong in the literal sense I can agree with, but there are layers of truth when you deal with human interpretation and metaphorical truths are no less important than physical ones. Stupid is relative and in our own way each of us demonstrates this particular attribute so to call someone stupid is simply to imply that you are somehow better than them, to which anger is a reasonable response.

This post has been edited by Cold Iron: 27 March 2009 - 04:46 AM

[Cause]

Gem Windcaster, on Mar 27 2009, 04:07 AM, said:

Cold Iron, on Mar 27 2009, 12:47 AM, said:

This is why i thought you hadn't read the thread. I was sure you would want to talk about this

Wanting to talk about it, and being able to are two different things. First off we would need a communicative contract of sorts. Right now such a thing doesn't exist. As much as I love poking people with sticks...I'm not sure this is the right time or place to fight this fight. One thing I do wish to eliminate though, is the "you don't agree with me, so you must be stupid" argument. The thing you can do with science, supposed to do, is criticize it. Because if science is correct about something, it will hold. And you can't criticize science with only things part of it's system, you need something outside of it. As I said before, science is not system outside of it's own context. Same goes for any other human ideological system. Science does not exist outside of the human mind. Therefore should one not only doubt it, but try to destroy it, unless you want a disaster. To be able to do that, one need to start doubting one's own mind.

As I said, wanting to talk about it is not the same as being able to.

Arguing that you doubt science while talking to us on a computer across the internet is to my mind absurb. We know you doubt evolution and in twenty threads about it you have never put forth any reason. Also again I will ask, why do you feel the need to complicate every argument the way you do. Its really not tha difficult to argue wheather science unfairly or fairly is used to attack religeon. We dont have to doubt our own minds

[dktorode]

Cold Iron, on Mar 25 2009, 01:03 AM, said:

dktorode, on Mar 24 2009, 11:11 PM, said:

Lamp.

I love It.

Listen here you.

It was a "science experiment"
These Four words

Science.

I love it.

Has somehow been turned into this massive debate.
Was just wondering if my slight change might prompt another thread that is more relative to my interests
I was also quite intrigued to see how long it would take this new thread to become a debate about religion.

[Cold Iron]

I said listen here you!

Here, pic related: