Back to Home

God & Science Forum Message

Forums: Atm · Astrophotography · Blackholes · Blackholes2 · CCD · Celestron · Domes · Education
Eyepieces · Meade · Misc. · God and Science · SETI · Software · UFO · XEphem
RSS Button

Home | Discussion Forums | God and Science | Post

Be the first pioneers to continue the Astronomy Discussions at our new Astronomy meeting place...
The Space and Astronomy Agora
Oh Brother

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response To
Posted by Harvey on May 10, 2002 17:55:32 UTC


***I am so far over your head, you can't even hear the wind when I go by! Nonetheless, I will try to respond to your post!***

I'm in good company.

***H: Here you have me confused. If you assume symmetries then they should be in your equations without showing a proof of them. D: You do not understand the concept of symmetry and how the issues of symmetry arise in a problem! Symmetry arises out of ignorance.***

I agree that the cause of symmetry can be due to ignorance. Since we do not always know the cause, we cannot always be sure that an approximate symmetry actually exists (a mathematical symmetry is an idealization that cannot be confirmed to exist). We often assume (approx) symmetry if certain conditions are met. However, the symmetry is an assumption and deductions are feasible if we make those assumptions.

***Lack of complete information always creates a symmetry of some kind! If you can prove some information is not available, that fact creates a symmetry in the problem: i.e., any information which does not exist in the problem, cannot exist in the solution (that's the name of the game)! But I suspect that is considerably over your head!***

Lack of information between two choices is a symmetrical situation, but this is generally not what is meant by a physical symmetry (or symmetry that physicists are concerned with in detail). For a reference of those kind of symmetries, I recommend the following educational website:

***H: In any case, you're response about organizing data, I don't see as relevant. D: That is because you simply have no idea of what I am doing! You overlook the very essence of the problem and the essence of the solution!***

Are you talking about physical symmetries, or are you talking about mental symmetries that involve a choice between paper and plastic? If you are talking about physical symmetries, then you either (1) assume them, (2) prove them, or (3) deny them. You haven't shown (2) in your equations, and you acknowledge that (3) is not the case, so all that is left is (1). You must be assuming physical symmetries, but this is exactly what Emmy Noether showed will lead to the laws of physics. It is suspicious since if you assume symmetries (1), then one might be able to arrive at your results in a manner not so different than Emmy Noether. This is the open question. But, there's a smoking gun. [Of course, since no one of enough convincing ability has checked your paper, there's exists a very plausible likelyhood that you math is wrong].

***H: Science rejects global scale invariance? The whole idea behind quantum cosmology is to show that the universe is scale invariant with respect to quantum laws. You have to be more specific. D: From that response, I can only conclude that you have no comprehension what the concept piece-meal means?***

Define it, then. It is not up to the hearer to define you, you must define you. If I misunderstand what you are talking about, then give a reference (as I do many times). No need to insult. If you don't reply with a legitimate reference, then why do even bother making any reply? Obviously you do not feel the need to defend your ideas, so why go only half way?

***H: Well, the point that Patrick Reany raised was that absolute time is not a necessary assumption for relativity theory. D: Exactly where did I ever bring up "absolute time"! And exactly what does it have to do with the statement "clocks do not measure time!"***

You do so by your lack of response. When Bruce responded with Reany's assertion that you are advocating an absolute time, you need to chime in and say you aren't. You see, this is what contributes to further misunderstanding about you. You don't want to be understood, which is why people attribute perhaps incorrect notions to you. Okay, I'm not qualified enough in physics to be worthy of your response, but surely Bruce is, surely Reany is. You need to watch how people are attributing ideas to you that are not your ideas. If they are, you need to voice up when it occurs.

In any case, the absolute time attribution from Patrick Reany about your idea seems correct on the surface since you made this statement in reply to Reany:

"Essentially, Einstein made time one of his coordinates even after it was explicitly clear that clocks did not measure time. It is a fact
that clocks do measure what physicists call "proper time" (Einstein's time-like invariant interval). This they measure very
accurately, even when following complex accelerating paths. The Greek letter tau is commonly used for this variable. Tau certainly
does not map into the concept *time* as two different paths between successive interactions can have totally different lengths in tau yet,
if the interactions occur, the time differences must be the exactly the same (by definition)!***

The only means by which to prevent two different paths between successive interactions having the same length is if absolute time exists. That is, there is just one Now (and not individual now's from the perspective of one's frame of reference). If you would like to respond to that, then why didn't you respond when the physicists were challenging you?

***I have clearly stated many times that "time is not a measurable variable"! That a concept could be useful and yet not be measurable seems to be totally outside everyone's ability to comprehend. Boy if that isn't a major constraint on thought, I haven't seen one.***

I think you have the story backward. First we humans developed a concept of time because of our measurements of motions happening not all at once, and from that we invented the notion of 'time'. We became more precise in our measurements by introducing clocks. Then, later, Einstein came along and showed that clock speed changes depending on our frame of reference (with respect to motion and gravitational field). Now you come along and say that clocks don't measure time since it contradicts your ability to conceptualize how relative time is possible. Well, this is a limit of your conceptualization, but the concept of time is still measured and known by clocks (and other occurring events in the universe). Without clocks and occurring events there would be no time since there would be nothing to measure. Really Dick, why do you take something so simple and turn it into a sophist puzzle?

***H: You need a sense of what is valid sensory impressions and deductions from those sensory experiences before you can analyze sensory impressions. D: All I can say is that you have absolutely no concept of what I am talking about at all. It is totally beyond you and quit worrying about it!***

You are mixed up. You think that your senses are inside your conceptual framework when in fact they are where your conceptual framework comes from. Every notion, idea, thought, etc all come from some kind of origination point. That origination point is quite clearly what we perceive 'out there' (i.e., our senses). When you try to think of your conceptual framework as including the senses itself, you become misguided since you need assumptions to do this (e.g., mathematics). Well, where do you get your assumptions. Your answer: you don't want to be bothered with those kind of details. Here, I'll cite right from your paper:

"I will make much use of Mathematics without defense or argument. In essence, it is quite clear that mathematicians are very concerned with the exactness of the their definitions and the self consistency of thier mental structures." Now, where do you think those assumptions come from? They come from our analysis of our sensory inputs and the abstractions that we can build from them.

Plus, you go a step further by saying 'numbers exist', which is something that no mathematician would argue in a mathematical precise argument. Sloppy, sloppy, sloppy.

***H: You seem to miss this basic fact. D: Yes, I agree! I am missing the fact that you understand how your subconscious works! You got me there Harv!***

You are missing the fact that you are allowing assumptions in your paper and later act as if you are making no assumptions! You can't admit assumptions to later strike everyone else's assumptions. What is good for the goose is good for the gander.

***H: No, why do we have to conclude in a positive manner that symmetries are due to one of the possible answers? D: You simply have no idea at all what I am saying when I say your senses are part of your explanation!***

It doesn't matter. What matters is that you are assuming physical symmetries and you are deducting from those symmetries thus arriving at the laws of physics. This is the problem. If Emmy Noether hadn't had come along then maybe we would all be amazed by the magicians tricks. But, Emmy Noether did come along. The question is whether her work is the best explanation for your work. That is an open question, but the smoking gun is certainly there.

***H: To this day I have never seen you admit to being wrong about some view that you hold. Not even once. That is odd for a scientist. D: You remind me of my ex-wife who always complained that whenever I argued I always thought I was right! Harv, I do not argue unless I think I am right and I very rarely put forward anything I am not quite sure of! You can consider it a character flaw. My current wife (we've been together for about 20 years) has no complaints. She has the same flaw and I don't think we have ever had an argument.***

Oh shssh... I don't want to remind you of an ex-wife. I am only pointing out that you are the type of person that cannot see mistakes that are pointed out to you. If you think this is because you are above mistakes, then I guess that seals my case. Even Einstein admitted mistakes, but I guess you're above ole' Albert.

Take care Dick. I don't know why you don't talk to Alan. He seems quite eager to agree with you. I'm just not a believer. I'm sorry. You seem to like talking to believers.

Warm regards, Harv

Follow Ups:

Login to Post
Additional Information
About Astronomy Net | Advertise on Astronomy Net | Contact & Comments | Privacy Policy
Unless otherwise specified, web site content Copyright 1994-2022 John Huggins All Rights Reserved
Forum posts are Copyright their authors as specified in the heading above the post.
"dbHTML," "AstroGuide," "ASTRONOMY.NET" & "VA.NET"
are trademarks of John Huggins