On Wednesday, October 2, 2019 at 10:41:02 AM UTC-6, Lawrence Crowell wrote: > > On Wednesday, October 2, 2019 at 8:26:27 AM UTC-5, Alan Grayson wrote: >> >> >> >> On Wednesday, October 2, 2019 at 4:52:50 AM UTC-6, Lawrence Crowell wrote: >>> >>> On Tuesday, October 1, 2019 at 5:59:42 PM UTC-5, Bruce wrote: >>>> >>>> On Wed, Oct 2, 2019 at 8:40 AM Alan Grayson <[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Sunday, September 29, 2019 at 8:53:35 AM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Bruce considers that inflation remains somewhat speculative; that >>>>>> it's a solution looking for a problem to solve. So my questions are as >>>>>> follows: 1), does inflation solve the homogeneity problem; namely, that >>>>>> the >>>>>> observable universe seems to have come to thermo equlibrium, manifested >>>>>> by >>>>>> homogeneity, even though it is causally UN-connected; and 2), does it >>>>>> explain the absence of magnetic monopoles? TIA, AG >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Bruce; it seems like a simple issue you can resolve. That is, if >>>>> you're skeptical that inflation solves any problems, does that include >>>>> its >>>>> allege explanation for large scale homogeneity and the absence of >>>>> magnetic >>>>> monopoles? TIA, AG >>>>> >>>> >>>> Alan, stop treating me as though I existed merely to answer your >>>> questions. The answers to these questions are readily available in the >>>> literature. It is clear from your postings here that you are not widely >>>> read in the modern literature on these subjects. I am not your teacher. I >>>> think Sabine Hossenfelder has a blog post on this: >>>> >>>> http://backreaction.blogspot.com/search?q=+inflation >>>> >>>> Bruce >>>> >>> >>> Alan also asks same questions over and over, where Alan then shaves >>> these down to absurd points in refinements. These things are in internet >>> resources that are fairly accessible to laymen. >>> >>> LC >>> >> >> Absurd points of refinements? Haven't you heard; the demons are in the >> details? Instead of sycophantic BS'ing, don't you think inflation is a >> good, and so far only explanation for the homogeneity of our causally >> UNconnected observable universe. I read the comments by Hossenfelder on >> homogeneity and didn't find them persuasive. AG >> > > You belabor questions in a way that illustrates your need for something > similar to a proof. >
*Difficult issues, unsolved or partially solved, tend to come up repeatedly for further refinements. Nothing remarkable about this. Not to be characterized as belaboring. AG* > Science does not prove its conclusions. > *What it does is GUESS at physical laws. This is what Feynman stated in The Character of Physical Law, and I totally agree. A good guess predicts what we observe. I don't see why you think I require mathematical proofs. Occasionally we get something like a mathematical proof, e.g., when Einstein derived the LT based on the assumption of the invariance of the SoL. But this is an exception. AG * Oh sure, there are logical derivations or proofs in formulation of > theories, but what is tentatively true relies on consistency with > observations. Inflation is to homogeneity what stretching dough is to > making a stroudel or pizza crust. Stretch it out and it is pretty uniform. > The mathematics in the theory makies this work in a way one can make > calculations. > > You have asked this same question repeatedly, as with some other > questions, the answers are generally the same and you make the same > complaints. > > LC > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/dd30e146-21d5-4051-8835-6b5f9ac01ce9%40googlegroups.com.
