Bizarro
Posted on 05/04/2006 12:02:17 PM PDT by PatrickHenry
Well, don't throw out string theory just yet. You can combine it with the Swiss Cheese theory and have String Cheese Theory.......
I am not saying they should ignore reality. However, I do think that in a lot of instances, it's difficult to say what reality is. Experimenters often read too much into their results. They are too anxious to obtain results that confirm their own theories.
The "action at a distance hypothesis" is one that comes to mind. The weight of opinion is that spin information is transmitted instantaneously from one particle to another over a sizable distance. A lot of the physicists will tell you that it's beyond doubt at this point, yet it seems to defy the Theory of Relativity.
On the other hand, the proof is merely statistical, and even then based upon theoretical assumptions that have not themselves been proven. In fact, we really don't even know what "spin" is. And as Einstein pointed out, it seems absurd. The experimenter's retort: Yes it's absurd, but nevertheless true.
I think I would be a little more hesitant to conclude that it's true, if I agreed that it is absurd, particularly when all I've got is statistical evidence to support it. It wasn't all that long ago that scientists finally concluded that cyclamates don't cause cancer, despite the 1970's claim that they were undeniably a significant cause of cancer.
Setterfield explains why a misinterpretation of redshift data leads astronomers to propose 'dark energy' and an 'increasing expansion'.
http://www.setterfield.org/AstronomicalDiscussion.htm#missingmass
But it still does not explain how or why Venus rotates in a different direction than the rest of the planets in our solar system rotate. We cannot explain a creation without a creator...but it appears we keep trying!
I see what you are saying now - excellent point - even Einstein called it “spooky action at a distance."
I just can believe in this yet....
Good post, sorry I misunderstood.
10,120 isn't that big a number really. The IRS might disagree, of course.
You're well ahead of me in the math department, and intuition isn't worth much unless it's well-informed. For what it's worth, I like the oscillating universe because it avoids the problem of the universe's being strictly a one-time affair. That definitely is counter-intuitive.
"cyclic model of the Universe, it expands and contracts repeatedly over timescales that make the 13.7 billion years that have passed since the Big Bang seem a mere blink."
This is not what makes time seem like a mere blink.
Time seeming short is due to the lifespan of man.
You wonder, then, why scientists have such a problem with religion. Why is one brand of incredulity better than another?
You know, that is exactly what I was thinking when reading this article. It speaks to an infinite universe. If scientists are fully capable of believing in the concept of the infinite, then why would the concept of an infinite creator be so hard for some of them to swallow? Infinite universe is a difficult concept to wrap one's mind around, just as is the concept of an infinite God. Why one would be an acceptable concept and the other not, is beyond my mortal comprehension.
>>
I just can believe in this yet.... <<
That was a type - should have said "I just CAN'T believe in this yet.... " - meaning instantaneous tyransmission of information without spacial warping.
"There is a theory which states that if ever anybody discovers exactly what the Universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable. There is another theory which states that this has already happened."
--Douglas Adams
You might reasonably infer it could defy classical relativity theories in a three dimensional space. But that is actually an illusion due to our inability to directly perceive higher dimensions, just as flatlanders can't perceive the third dimension. Three-dimensional space at the quantum level doesn't seem to be what we're dealing with in this universe. If electromagnetic phenomena are viewed as ripples in higher-dimensional space, and photons by implication, then the two paired photons are part of the same thing and "right next to each other" in the higher dimension. The bizarre quantum phenomena actually do start to be consistent with common sense when you consider that they occur in a greater number of dimensions.
I guess I'm not really convinced by your arguments that 1) The evidence is only statistical (that is the nature of the quantum universe); 2) We don't know what "spin" is (It is a property of objects at the quantum level -- there will never be an explanation that it is "like ice cream" or something in our macro world); or 3) That some cyclamate studies were wrong (no comment).
"we need one ASAP called English for dummies........"
How about Politics for Dummies. Sorely needed.
As Clayton Williams once said; Just lay back and enjoy the ride.
Wouldn't a yo-yo universe violate the second law of thermodynamics? Basically, you'd have to figure that either the expanded or the contracted state would represent the state of max entropy, and there the whole deal would stay.
HA
Bizarro
"The "cosmological constant" either doesn't exist, or they have no idea what it is."
As further proof, the Cosmo...Constant is a variable.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.