Re: Belief in Big Bang?

On 25 January 2012 19:46, meekerdb wrote: >  Note that the theories I mentioned do not assume a spacetime vacuum.  One > may say they assume a potentiality for a spacetime vacuum, but to deny even > potential would be to deny that anything can exist. > But surely that denial is precisely the poi

Re: Belief in Big Bang?

On 1/25/2012 11:04 PM, Stephen P. King wrote: Hi John, On 1/25/2012 11:57 PM, John Clark wrote: On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 11:27 PM, Stephen P. King > wrote: Stephen P. King mailto:stephe...@charter.net>> Wrote: > A "constant" that Einstein himself called th

Re: Belief in Big Bang?

On 26 Jan 2012, at 00:52, Craig Weinberg wrote: This is what I am trying to say with Bruno about numbers starting from 1 instead of 0. From 1 we can subtract 1 and get 0, So we get 0 after all. Sure. Although 0 might be not be a number so much as neutralizing or clearing of the enumerating

Re: Belief in Big Bang?

Dear Stephen, On 25 Jan 2012, at 20:01, Stephen P. King wrote: Dear Bruno, I still think that we can synchronize our ideas! Well, assuming there is no flaws in UDA, and in AUDA (which assumes comp, but also the classical theory of knowledge, that is the axioms of the modal logic S4

Re: Belief in Big Bang?

I have no problem(for now) accepting the Big Bang theory+inflation paradigm. I admit I do not know what dark matter is or how many inflaton fields there are. I can accept the cosmological constant as the source of dark energy. It seems better at this time to have the two dark quantities than to alt

Re: Belief in Big Bang?

Hi John, On 1/25/2012 11:57 PM, John Clark wrote: On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 11:27 PM, Stephen P. King mailto:stephe...@charter.net>> wrote: Stephen P. King mailto:stephe...@charter.net>> Wrote: > A "constant" that Einstein himself called the "greatest mistake of his life". The pro

Re: Belief in Big Bang?

On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 11:27 PM, Stephen P. King wrote: Stephen P. King Wrote: > A "constant" that Einstein himself called the "greatest mistake of > his life". The problem is that one can add an arbitrary number of such > scalar field terms to one's field equations. Frankly IMHO, it is more

Re: Belief in Big Bang?

On 1/25/2012 7:41 PM, meekerdb wrote: On 1/25/2012 4:16 PM, Stephen P. King wrote: Sounds like the sophistry you accuse physcists of. While 'everything' may be as uninformative a 'nothing', they seem pretty distinct to me. Exactly how is this distinction made? Is it merely semantics for

Re: Belief in Big Bang?

On 1/25/2012 4:16 PM, Stephen P. King wrote: Sounds like the sophistry you accuse physcists of. While 'everything' may be as uninformative a 'nothing', they seem pretty distinct to me. Exactly how is this distinction made? Is it merely semantics for you, this difference? Well, for one,

Re: Belief in Big Bang?

Hi Brent, On 1/25/2012 4:17 PM, meekerdb wrote: On 1/25/2012 11:01 AM, Stephen P. King wrote: Dear Bruno, I still think that we can synchronize our ideas! On 1/25/2012 1:10 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 25 Jan 2012, at 18:04, Stephen P. King wrote: Hi, I am 99% in agreement with C

Re: Belief in Big Bang?

On 1/25/2012 3:52 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: x. Worst: for all number x, x*0 = 0. > That 0 is a famous number! x*0=1 for x=/=0 Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@goo

Re: Belief in Big Bang?

On Jan 25, 1:10 pm, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > I agree too. That is why it is clearer to put *all* our assumptions on > the table. Physical theories of the origin, making it appearing from > physical nothingness, makes sense only in, usually mathematical, > theories of nothingness. It amounts to th

Re: Belief in Big Bang?

On 1/25/2012 11:01 AM, Stephen P. King wrote: Dear Bruno, I still think that we can synchronize our ideas! On 1/25/2012 1:10 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 25 Jan 2012, at 18:04, Stephen P. King wrote: Hi, I am 99% in agreement with Craig here. The 1% difference is a quibble over the

Re: Belief in Big Bang?

On 1/25/2012 10:10 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 25 Jan 2012, at 18:04, Stephen P. King wrote: Hi, I am 99% in agreement with Craig here. The 1% difference is a quibble over the math. We have to be careful that we don't reproduce the same slide into sophistry that has happened in physics.

Re: Belief in Big Bang?

Dear Bruno, I still think that we can synchronize our ideas! On 1/25/2012 1:10 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 25 Jan 2012, at 18:04, Stephen P. King wrote: Hi, I am 99% in agreement with Craig here. The 1% difference is a quibble over the math. We have to be careful that we don't rep

Re: Belief in Big Bang?

John Mikes wrote: > > 1. I do not 'believe' in the Big Bang, > Well, we have excellent empirical evidence that the observable universe is expanding, and a straightforward extrapolation into the past indicates that 13.75 billion years ago everything we can see was concentrated at just one point.

Re: Belief in Big Bang?

Hi Brent, On 1/25/2012 2:05 AM, meekerdb wrote: On 1/24/2012 8:27 PM, Stephen P. King wrote: Hi Brent, On 1/24/2012 9:47 PM, meekerdb wrote: On 1/24/2012 6:08 PM, Stephen P. King wrote: Hi John, 1. I see the Big Bang theory as a theory, an explanatory model that attempts to weave toget

Re: Belief in Big Bang?

On 25 Jan 2012, at 18:04, Stephen P. King wrote: Hi, I am 99% in agreement with Craig here. The 1% difference is a quibble over the math. We have to be careful that we don't reproduce the same slide into sophistry that has happened in physics. I think I agree. I comment Craig below.

Re: Belief in Big Bang?

Hi, I am 99% in agreement with Craig here. The 1% difference is a quibble over the math. We have to be careful that we don't reproduce the same slide into sophistry that has happened in physics. Onward! Stephen On 1/25/2012 7:41 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Jan 25, 2:05 am, meekerdb w

Re: Belief in Big Bang?

On Jan 25, 2:05 am, meekerdb wrote: > It is not at all camouflaged; Lawrence Krause just wrote a book called "A > Universe From > Nothing".  That the universe came from nothing is suggested by calculations > of the total > energy of the universe.  Theories of the origin of the universe have bee

Re: Belief in Big Bang?

On 1/24/2012 8:27 PM, Stephen P. King wrote: Hi Brent, On 1/24/2012 9:47 PM, meekerdb wrote: On 1/24/2012 6:08 PM, Stephen P. King wrote: Hi John, 1. I see the Big Bang theory as a theory, an explanatory model that attempts to weave together all of the relevant observational facts togeth

Re: Belief in Big Bang?

Hi Brent, On 1/24/2012 9:47 PM, meekerdb wrote: On 1/24/2012 6:08 PM, Stephen P. King wrote: Hi John, 1. I see the Big Bang theory as a theory, an explanatory model that attempts to weave together all of the relevant observational facts together into a scheme that is both predictive and

Re: Belief in Big Bang?

On 1/24/2012 6:08 PM, Stephen P. King wrote: Hi John, 1. I see the Big Bang theory as a theory, an explanatory model that attempts to weave together all of the relevant observational facts together into a scheme that is both predictive and explanatory. It has built into it certain ontologi

Re: Belief in Big Bang?

Hi John, 1. I see the Big Bang theory as a theory, an explanatory model that attempts to weave together all of the relevant observational facts together into a scheme that is both predictive and explanatory. It has built into it certain ontological and epistemological premises that I have

Re: Belief in Big Bang?

Stephen, you wrote to another John - I barge in with my sidelines. 1. I do not 'believe' in the Big Bang, the theory has flaws and errors as concerning past lit already worked it out. My main objection is *not* the linearity in going back to zero in an expansion that is non-linear and *not*the phan

Re: Belief in Big Bang?

On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 Stephen P. King wrote: " What is "dark energy" other than a postulated or conjecture entity that > is part of an attempted explanation of observations of how light from > supernovae appeared to be streached as if the supernovae are accelerating > away from us > Dark Energy

Re: Belief in Big Bang?

Hi John, What is "dark energy" other than a postulated or conjecture entity that is part of an attempted explanation of observations of how light from supernovae appeared to be streached as if the supernovae are accelerating away from us Do we give such "entities" the status of existi