|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9687 Posts |
 Posted - 12/11/2011 : 11:45:38 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Sebastian
I'm beginning to think the solution here is really deceptively simple, as is sometimes the case. It's often so easy to be impressed by complexity and the authority of a consensus of expert opinion whilst ignoring inconvenient truths because such truths are just too simple and obvious, and therefore either cannot be true or cannot have been overlooked by the experts, or by those who would appear to know what they are doing, or those who have great expertise. |
You are forgetting an important axiom: If it is too simple to be true, it usually is.
There must be a lot of people wondering how Europe and America could have gotten into such an economic mess with their trillions of dollars of debt, despite the banks and the major businesses employing such highly qualified economists and accountants with PhDs in mathematics. |
This is so naive I can't even begin to find the words to set you straight. Your reasoning is flawed because you are assuming that these highly skilled people are working for the benefit of mankind instead of trying to grab as much money for themselves as possible. The economic system is run by people who is only looking after themselves and their own interests in the first place, and for the benefit of the whole system in a distant third place (if at all).
The economic mess is what happens when people are racing each other for the chance to screw over the other guy for profit.
I'm reminded of that terrible tsunami tragedy in Japan in March this year. Who could have predicted such an event. Prediction of earthquakes is currently beyond the capabilities of science. |
Wrong. Accurate, precision predictions of earthquakes are currently beyond the capabilities of science. But science predicted that there would be a quake in that general area, eventually. The nuclear disaster that became a consequence of that tsunami wasn't a failure of science. It was a political failure to employ an engineering solution.
However, was I surprised to read after that event that along that north east coast of Japan there are hundreds of stone markers indicating the levels of previous tsunamis, with warnings that read, "Remember the calamity of the great tsunamis. Do not build any homes below this point", or similar such warnings. |
Really? I didn't know there were, but it stands to reason there would be. Remembering the past and all that. How I would like to see a picture of those stone markers...
You might wonder where all this is leading. |
Please do tell us. Right now, you're boring me to tears...
I read this with some amazement a while ago, but haven't had time to address it till now. I ask my self, does Tim not understand the difference between a hypothesis and a theory? I know on the internet the two words are often used interchangeably as though they are synonyms. However, each scientific discipline needs its own precisely defined terms, and when talking about science one also needs precisely defined terms. |
Different scientific disciplines use the same definition of the words "hypothesis" and "theory". What's your point? You have shown yet again that you have a rudimentary grasp of science and the scientific method, but do not possess the insight necessary to pass judgements on scientists performing their craft.
This is clearly the situation with the Copernican heliocentric view of the solar system. To claim, as Tim does, that this view was established without the use of telescopes or controlled laboratory experiments of any kind, is downright misleading and confused. |
Then provide a sound argument for why and how it is misleading and confused. Otherwise your claims are bullshit. Magnifying lenses were used a thousand years before Copernicus made telescopes out of it.
It's true that the Geocentric hypothesis has usually been dominant throughout history, perhaps because the notion that the earth is whizzing through space at an enormous speed, without any indication of movement from the inhabitants on the surface, was just too difficult a concept to grasp without the benefit of later developments in science, such as Newtonian mechanics and his laws of gravity. |
Or perhaps there was another reason. Like, Newtonian mechanics hadn't been discovered yet, and the Ptolemaic model with an epicycle and deferent proved an elegant solution with a high level of predictability considering the uncertainties in the measurements at the time. They had documented predictions on planetary movements a hundred years forward which were still fairly accurate with minor adjustments. Why mess with a system that was working? And working really good, at that.
I could go on, but I'm running out of time. I hope I've managed to sort out your confusions.
|
There was no confusion on our part that you could resolve. Most of us know the history of science and astronomy well enough, and what we don't know about it, we could easily glean from Wikipedia. Nothing you've written in your last post answer any of the questions posed by Dave W. or Tim.
|
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
 |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 12/11/2011 : 12:04:12 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Sebastian
I could go on... |
Please don't. Not without addressing the evidence we have related to Dark Matter. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
sailingsoul
SFN Addict
2830 Posts |
Posted - 12/11/2011 : 14:40:22 [Permalink]
|
After Sebastian's bringing up Europe's & America's present financial situations and Japan's "unpredicted" Tsunami in his last reply I am convince he is not confused about dark matter at all but willfully uninformed and chooses to remain so, in spite of all the best efforts. He's not confused but nuts to think there is any connection between them to each other or the topic of dark matter. They are two red herrings unrelated to anything in this thread. by Dr. Mabuse
There was no confusion on our part that you could resolve. Most of us know the history of science and astronomy well enough, and what we don't know about it, we could easily glean from Wikipedia. Nothing you've written in your last post answer any of the questions posed by Dave W. or Tim. |
He is in over his head trying to defend and avoiding his position, which has been pointed out quite clearly to all, save one, to be indefensible. Thank you Tim and others in your efforts which are wonderful reading.
by Dr. Mabuse
Really? I didn't know there were, but it stands to reason there would be. Remembering the past and all that. How I would like to see a picture of those stone markers...
|
How timely that this article was printed today, with pictures of one larger marker.
"High dwellings are the peace and harmony of our descendants," the stone slab reads. "Remember the calamity of the great tsunamis. Do not build any homes below this point."
cut,,,
Hundreds of such markers dot the coast, some more than 600 years old. Collectively they form a crude warning system for Japan, whose long coasts along major fault lines have made it a repeated target of earthquakes and tsunamis over the centuries. |
|
There are only two types of religious people, the deceivers and the deceived. SS |
| Edited by - sailingsoul on 12/11/2011 14:41:18 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 12/11/2011 : 15:32:55 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Sebastian
The inhabitants of one village in particular, Aneyoshi, paid attention to the warning on the stone marker in their area and built all their dwellings above the marker. They were high and dry when the latest tsunami hit, and suffered no casualties. But probably none of them had a PhD... |
Neither did any of them predict an earthquake or a tsunami. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
sailingsoul
SFN Addict
2830 Posts |
Posted - 12/12/2011 : 09:14:20 [Permalink]
|
Tim, getting back to dark matter/energy and it's existence or not. Being that they are an attempt to explain what could be what's behind the observed ever increasing rate of the expansion of the cosmos, I have some questions I would like to hear your thoughts on. I do believe it is in your realm, physics.
As strange or unrelated as it may first appear, I've been thinking about this on the topic. What is behind or can you explain what's behind evaporation of water from a liquid to vapor under the right conditions? I'm wondering if the mechanism or forces involved on the micro level might explain what could be viewed as occurring on the macro, our expanding cosmos. Can it not be seen that the cosmos is undergoing what I would term "evaporative expansion"? I can't shake the notion that they could be similar or related. SS |
There are only two types of religious people, the deceivers and the deceived. SS |
|
|
|
chefcrsh
Skeptic Friend
Hong Kong
380 Posts |
Posted - 12/12/2011 : 09:59:48 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Sebastian
It's often so easy to be impressed by complexity and the authority of a consensus of expert opinion whilst ignoring inconvenient truths because such truths are just too simple and obvious, and therefore either cannot be true or cannot have been overlooked by the experts, or by those who would appear to know what they are doing, or those who have great expertise.
There must be a lot of people wondering how Europe and America could have gotten into such an economic mess with their trillions of dollars of debt, despite the banks and the major businesses employing such highly qualified economists and accountants with PhDs in mathematics. |
There were quite a few expert economists and professional investors who predicted and even profited from this...indeed one can see evidence of their expertise in their successful analysis and prediction...though no laymen or even day traders fared so well, that I am aware of.
| I'm reminded of that terrible tsunami tragedy in Japan in March this year. Who could have predicted such an event. Prediction of earthquakes is currently beyond the capabilities of science. |
There are countless experts who have warned of this for decades...indeed Tokyo remains past due for a city killing earthquake. In fact the geologic models, and sensors as well as the ocean based systems are very good at predicting and even warning of events. Unfortunately for those close to epicenters the transmission system for the warnings is slower than the devastation of the event. This is a problem of information dissemination, not expert knowledge.
However, non experts, be they charlatan geomancers or people who make stone markers postdicting a former event, score no better than blind chance in prediction or warning.
| The inhabitants of one village in particular, Aneyoshi, paid attention to the warning on the stone marker in their area and built all their dwellings above the marker. They were high and dry when the latest tsunami hit, and suffered no casualties. But probably none of them had a PhD and perhaps none had even nearly the expertise of all those clever chaps who organized, approved, funded and built the Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear power plant. |
Look hard enough and you will quickly learn that the vast majority of Japanese residents (Or Thai, Sri Lankan, Indian, New Orlinean or Indonesian for that matter) lived away from the devastation of recent events. It is idillic to think it was good horse sense. Reality is more simple, few, (and one can imagine no one without knowledge) choose a place to make a home based on vague threats of natural disaster. So to count that village amounts to cherry picking.
The experts engineers did build and plan for catastrophic earthquakes. Including being in close proximity to abundant salt water for scuttling purposes. What they did not plan for was a series of distinct and cascading events that were far beyond predictive models...but were also beyond the imagination of laypeople. Unless of course you have some evidence of a layperson predicting the event? Oh, no?
Hmm it seems appropriate authority is a justifiable and reasonable line of evidence.
We turn to view this puzzle: You, an admitted and apparently uniformed (read as ignorant) layperson, who is presenting their "revolutionary critique" ("might as well believe in God" if I remember) of the long established and culminating science in the field of study. Are contrasted against the established and culminating knowledge of all the experts in the field up to now, as presented by Tim Thompson a claimed and apparent expert, whom also appears to have quite a deep and consistent knowledge on the subject.
It is not absolute proof that you don't have a leg to stand on, but it is very convincing evidence.
|
| Edited by - chefcrsh on 12/12/2011 17:59:41 |
|
|
|
Tim Thompson
New Member
USA
36 Posts |
 Posted - 12/12/2011 : 14:49:04 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by sailingsoul
As strange or unrelated as it may first appear, I've been thinking about this on the topic. What is behind or can you explain what's behind evaporation of water from a liquid to vapor under the right conditions?
|
In general, for the liquid state of all materials, the Van der Waals forces that attract the molecules to each other are strong enough that their thermal kinetic energy cannot pull the molecules apart. So they remain in close proximity, in the relatively dense liquid state. The addition of heat energy to the liquid increases the thermal kinetic energy of the molecules in the liquid. Add enough heat energy and the molecular kinetic energy, for the particles in the high energy tail of the Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution, will be enough to break the Van der Waals bonds and liberate the energetic molecules from the liquid to the vapor state. No doubt a specialist in the area of condensed matter physics and/or phase transitions would consider this an overly simplistic answer, but it is close enough for our purposes here.
Originally posted by sailingsoul
I'm wondering if the mechanism or forces involved on the micro level might explain what could be viewed as occurring on the macro, our expanding cosmos. Can it not be seen that the cosmos is undergoing what I would term "evaporative expansion"? I can't shake the notion that they could be similar or related.
|
The similarity in reality is probably not quite what you had in mind. There are several events in the extreme infancy of the universe which are labeled as "phase transitions", though of a remarkably different nature than the normal thermodynamic variety. Theoretically, we cannot extrapolate into a time less than 10-44 seconds after the big bang (that's 1 hundred-milllion-trillion-trillion-trillionth of a second in American English). Before that, space and time are not distinguishable from each other; space and time gain their separate identities in a phase transition event that takes place at about that time. All of the four fundamental forces we know today are combined into one "grand unified force", and gain their separate identities in like fashion, during phase transition events (no doubt it will make Sebastian feel better if I make sure to convey what you surely already know, that these events are as described by theory and we don't know for a fact that it all really happened really this way). The easiest way to explore this early history of the universe is in one of the books I recommended: Cosmology: The Science of the Universe by Edward Harrison, Cambridge University Press 2000 (2nd ed), chapter 20, "The Early Universe".
I can't see how one would relate the expansion of the universe that we see today to evaporation. However, it does still obey the fundamental laws of thermodynamics (albeit as modified by general relativity; e.g., "Relativity, Thermodynamics and Cosmology", Richard Chase Tolman, Oxford University Press 1934; I have a copy of the first edition but printed in 1946). In this case, things that expand also cool at the same time as a general rule, and the universe is no exception. Hence, the universe cools as it expands, and that cooling manifests itself as the cosmological redshift of what we now call the cosmic microwave background. But it was not always microwaves, those are just the redshifted long wavelengths of what used to be far shorter wavelength ultraviolet. Longer wavelengths mean lower energy, and lower energy means cooler.
There is also the thorny problem that in every case we know, with the sole exception of the expanding universe, it's always a tale of something expanding into something else. But if the universe is really "uni", everything that exists in one neat package, then what is it expanding into? Classical cosmology has no answer, but multiverse cosmologies (which are not so popular amongst cosmologists) and quantum Kaluza-Klein cosmologies, with compact extra dimensions (which are popular, like string theory) can provide something to expand into, albeit with observational difficulties.
There. Now I have either gone a long way towards answering your question, or I have confused the issue beyond repair. You be the judge.
|
The point of philosophy is to start with something so simple as not to seem worth stating, and to end with something so paradoxical that no one will believe it. -- Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
chefcrsh
Skeptic Friend
Hong Kong
380 Posts |
Posted - 12/12/2011 : 18:04:12 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Tim Thompson
There. Now I have either gone a long way towards answering your question, or I have confused the issue beyond repair. You be the judge.
|
False Dichotomy! |
|
|
|
sailingsoul
SFN Addict
2830 Posts |
Posted - 12/13/2011 : 08:11:25 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Tim Thompson
There. Now I have either gone a long way towards answering your question, or I have confused the issue beyond repair. You be the judge.
|
I followed you for the most part. I wasn't considering how temperature affects the evaporation rate until you brought it up. You certainly covered the bases nicely, thanks for the effort. |
There are only two types of religious people, the deceivers and the deceived. SS |
|
|
|
Sebastian
New Member
44 Posts |
Posted - 12/13/2011 : 15:13:45 [Permalink]
|
originally posted by Tim Thompson
| Sorry, no. You have said nothing that I did not already know and I still have no idea what your point is supposed to be. Try actually saying it in direct language instead of always talking about analogies. I already talked about much of this in some detail, especially the matter of parallax, in my post of Nov 25. |
Tim, you certainly have talked about much of this in some detail. I'm criticising you for your biased and misleading presentation, not your lack of knowledge of historical events.
For example, you talk about Copernicus 'establishing' the heliocentric system without the aid of a telescope whereas it seems clear to me from my readings that Copernicus, more correctly, resurrected a previous hypothesis that had existed for centuries, and gave it new impetus with observation and calculations borrowed from Ptolemy, who was a Geocentrist.
Another example of your bias is your failure to mention a very significant and important aspect of Tycho Brahe's view of the universe, and that is that he still believed, or hypothesised, that the sun revolved around the earth, or, in the words of Wikipedia, | As an astronomer, Tycho worked to combine what he saw as the geometrical benefits of the Copernican system with the philosophical benefits of Ptolemaic system into his own model of the universe. |
On the one hand you claim that Copernicus 'established' the heliocentric view of the universe, then give praise to another astronomer, Tycho Brahe, born after the death of Copernicus, claiming that Tycho's data were far and away the best, but fail to mention that Tycho Brahe still believed the sun revolved around the earth.
Could it be, Tim, that you failed to mention this significant aspect of Tycho's system because it might give the lie to your assertion that the heliocentric system was actually established before the invention of the telescope.
Here's what you wrote.
| At this point it is important to appreciate the depth of Tycho Brahe's contribution. Brahe was the last and greatest of the pre-telescopic astronomers. His data were far & away the best of their kind, but Brahe did something else of great significance that no other scientist had ever done before. Brahe studied his instruments and how he used them and quantified the uncertainty in his observations. Furthermore, he properly propagated these uncertainties through the calculations that transformed his observations into positions on the sky, so that his positions had a formal and correct observational uncertainty attached to them (nobody had ever done this before; see Theoretical Concepts in Physics by Malcolm Longair, Cambridge University Press 2003 (2nd edition), section 2.3). This made Tycho's data set the first set of data sufficiently precise to distinguish between circular & elliptical orbits (the idea of noncircular orbits had come up before but the data were never precise enough to tell the difference). It was this propagation of uncertainties (commonly called "observational errors" and "error analysis" despite the fact that they are really uncertainties and not mistakes) that allowed Kepler to determine that the orbits were ellipses and not circles. |
I should also mention that Galileo, using his telescope, was able to confirm with clearer observations that Tycho's hypothesis that the other planets encircled the sun, with the exception of the earth, did appear to be correct. However, Galileo was not able to confirm that the earth circled the sun. That came later.
Another example of your bias through omission is evident in your following statement: | Finally, I must remind the reader of an important and fundamental point in the philosophy of science, which is of particular interest for cosmology, and which I have mentioned before: Inference from observation is a crucial element of the scientific process |
Inference from observation is certainly a crucial element in science just as it is in any academic pursuit. That's like saying 'thinking is a crucial element in science'. Of course it is, but it's not the defining characteristic of the scientific method.
The defining characteristic of the scientific method, which distinguishes it from mere inference or deduction based upon observation which had been practiced by the ancient Greeks and others for thousands of years, including any modern non-scientific academic, even art critic, is the process of rigorous testing through experimentation in a controlled manner in order to verify or falsify any particular hypothesis.
My points, directly stated are these:
(1) The hypothesis of dark matter is superior to all known alternative hypotheses, by virtue of superior consistency with observational data. |
Sounds just like the hypothesis of Geocentrism which was considered to have superior consistency with observational data for thousands of years, until the beginning of the scientific revolution, the further development of mathematics and the construction of increasingly more powerful telescopes.
I think you have agreed previously with my point that the Catholic church has to some extent been given a bad rap over its treatment of Galileo because many astronomers and mathematicians of the day still thought Ptolemy's geocentric system to be superior in the consistency with which it explained the observations.
Galileo's assertion that the earth revolved around the sun lacked a solid or persuasive rationale in terms of the Mathematics and Physics of the times, and was seen by the church to be an unjustified and provocative stance.
Is this not true?
|
|
|
|
Sebastian
New Member
44 Posts |
Posted - 12/13/2011 : 15:24:05 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
You are forgetting an important axiom: If it is too simple to be true, it usually is.
|
One can't forget something one never knew. I've never heard of that axiom, but I have heard of the axiom, "If it's too good to be true, it usually is"; good meaning 'seductively attractive', 'a terrific bargain', 'extremely convenient' etc, as in "someone has just lent me a pile of money to buy a house, but I have no means of paying it back", and, as in "our theories describing the expansion of the universe appear to be wrong. Let's invent the existence of an absolutely enormous amount of invisible matter and energy so our theories continue to appear correct". |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 12/13/2011 : 15:24:48 [Permalink]
|
| Still not addressing the evidence for dark matter, I see. Sebastian, it's blatant at this point. With every post you are only digging yourself in deeper and deeper. Why continue the charade? Just admit that you are in over your head and apologize for your hubris. |
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
|
|
|
Sebastian
New Member
44 Posts |
Posted - 12/13/2011 : 15:36:46 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by sailingsoul
How timely that this article was printed today, with pictures of one larger marker.
"High dwellings are the peace and harmony of our descendants," the stone slab reads. "Remember the calamity of the great tsunamis. Do not build any homes below this point."
cut,,,
Hundreds of such markers dot the coast, some more than 600 years old. Collectively they form a crude warning system for Japan, whose long coasts along major fault lines have made it a repeated target of earthquakes and tsunamis over the centuries. |
|
That's a good example. How could anyone miss a marker like that?
Well, obviously many people did, just as some posters in this thread seem to have missed my entire point about the meaning of those markers.
The markers are not there to predict the precise year of the next tsunami. Not even the best science can do that. The markers have been erected to warn future generations that previous tsunamis have reached certain levels and that it would be unwise to build any substantial dwelling below the level of such markers because of the likelihood of another tsunami, at some indeterminate time in the future, reaching similar levels.
Surely one doesn't have to understand the science of plate tectonics to appreciate the fact that earthquakes have a habit of recurring, eventually, in areas where they have previously occurred. But one does need to be aware of history.
One can speculate about the reasons why such lessons of history are ignored. It seems that in the interests of economic development many of us learn to become blind to 'inconvenient truths'. We become too trusting of authority instead of just using our noggin or common sense and accepting the possibility that 'experts' and specialists in any particular field can get things wrong.
One doesn't need to be a scientist to appreciate the fact that any part of a country that has experienced numerous floods in the past, is likely to experience further floods in the future.
|
|
|
|
Sebastian
New Member
44 Posts |
Posted - 12/13/2011 : 15:43:52 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by H. Humbert
Still not addressing the evidence for dark matter, I see. Sebastian, it's blatant at this point. With every post you are only digging yourself in deeper and deeper. Why continue the charade? Just admit that you are in over your head and apologize for your hubris.
|
There is no reliable and concrete evidence for the existence of dark matter. There is only inference. Inference is not evidence. It's hypothesis.
If anyone tells you he is not 'out of his depth' with regard to Dark Matter and Dark Energy, you can safely assume such person is suffering from delusions.
I accept that the proposed existence of Dark Matter is a hypothesis. It might turn out to be true eventually, but at the moment its existence is a mere hypothesis. I'm entitled to have my doubts based upon intuition and instinct, am I not.
The hypothesis seems to me like an explanation which is too convenient by far. |
| Edited by - Sebastian on 12/13/2011 15:55:22 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 12/13/2011 : 19:28:33 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Sebastian
Inference is not evidence. It's hypothesis. |
Therefore, there is no such thing as "atomic theory," there is only "atomic hypothesis," right?| If anyone tells you he is not 'out of his depth' with regard to Dark Matter and Dark Energy, you can safely assume such person is suffering from delusions. |
So you are asserting that not only is there no evidence, there isn't a single human being alive today who is capable of discerning anything that might be evidence in favor of Dark Matter. That is, after all, what the idiom "out of his depth" means. And that makes it an extremely strong claim. Do you have any evidence with which to support it?| I accept that the proposed existence of Dark Matter is a hypothesis. It might turn out to be true eventually, but at the moment its existence is a mere hypothesis. |
No, you stated quite clearly that Dark Matter is mythical. What you've said above is not what "mythical" means.
And you're back to this "mere hypothesis" nonsense, even though a theory is a set of well-tested and repeatedly verified hypotheses. Hypotheses are the life-blood of science, there is nothing "mere" about them.| I'm entitled to have my doubts based upon intuition and instinct, am I not. |
No, since your intuition and instinct about terms like "evidence" and "inference" and "mythical" is flat-out wrong. Do you think you're entitled to your own dictionary?| The hypothesis seems to me like an explanation which is too convenient by far. |
And that's nothing but your same-old argument from incredulity, which is nothing more than your refusal to go count the horse's teeth. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Skepticism about the Big Bang
