Comments on: Contradictio in terminis http://cogscanthink.blogsome.com/2005/09/26/contradictio-in-terminis/ I'm a mere, tiny, insignificant cog in a whole clockwork of stupidity. I'm the tiny cog that wants to break free. Seriously. Mon, 09 Nov 2009 13:14:35 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=1.5.1-alpha by: Trent Townsend http://cogscanthink.blogsome.com/2005/09/26/contradictio-in-terminis/#comment-249 Thu, 17 Nov 2005 17:44:40 +0000 http://cogscanthink.blogsome.com/2005/09/26/contradictio-in-terminis/#comment-249 "<i>Velocity will eventually drop to a point where Gravity is larger, and the Universe will begin to collapse</i>" Uhm, not according to anything I've ever read. The latest evidence seems to suggest that the Universe is expanding at an ever increasing rate. As galaxies get farther apart, the gravitational attraction between them becomes weaker. The latter staement was true even before the discovery of the acceleration. Scientists have speculated that something called "Dark Energy" is responsible for the apparent accelerating expansion, but I am not so sure (I am not a cosmologist, but I do understand simple concepts ;^). My reasoning follows: The farther we look into the cosmos, the further back in time we are seeing, as light travels at a finite speed (~300,000 kps). Our best instruments are showing us the Universe as it was half a billion years after the Big Bang, when the Universe was very much smaller, and everything was therfore closer together. I don't recall the exact estimated size, but lets say the Universe back then was 200 million light years across. Did it take light 200 killion years to cross that distance? No. It took nearly 13,000 million years (13 billion), because of the Universes expansion. At what speed does gravitational force propagate through the cosmos? Is it an instantaneous thing, or does it travel at a finite speed, as does light? If in fact the gravitational force travels at a finite speed, then masses at the edges of the Observable Universe would only now be exerting their (now greatly diminished) gravitational forces on each other. If the rate of the Universes' accelleration is a constant, then it would <b>appear</b> to us looking back, that the rate increased once the Universe got to a certain size, when it was just too big for the gravitational force to have had enough time to travel between them by that point in history. Obviously, what I've said so far says nothing about why there was a Big Bang, and I am making some assumptions (which I've not been able to find support for or against in all my years of searching) but I just wanted to give some reasons why I believe your model to be deeply flawed, and unlikely IMO to be the nature of things. “Velocity will eventually drop to a point where Gravity is larger, and the Universe will begin to collapse”

Uhm, not according to anything I’ve ever read.

The latest evidence seems to suggest that the Universe is expanding at an ever increasing rate. As galaxies get farther apart, the gravitational attraction between them becomes weaker. The latter staement was true even before the discovery of the acceleration.

Scientists have speculated that something called “Dark Energy” is responsible for the apparent accelerating expansion, but I am not so sure (I am not a cosmologist, but I do understand simple concepts ;^).

My reasoning follows:

The farther we look into the cosmos, the further back in time we are seeing, as light travels at a finite speed (~300,000 kps). Our best instruments are showing us the Universe as it was half a billion years after the Big Bang, when the Universe was very much smaller, and everything was therfore closer together. I don’t recall the exact estimated size, but lets say the Universe back then was 200 million light years across. Did it take light 200 killion years to cross that distance? No. It took nearly 13,000 million years (13 billion), because of the Universes expansion.

At what speed does gravitational force propagate through the cosmos? Is it an instantaneous thing, or does it travel at a finite speed, as does light? If in fact the gravitational force travels at a finite speed, then masses at the edges of the Observable Universe would only now be exerting their (now greatly diminished) gravitational forces on each other. If the rate of the Universes’ accelleration is a constant, then it would appear to us looking back, that the rate increased once the Universe got to a certain size, when it was just too big for the gravitational force to have had enough time to travel between them by that point in history.

Obviously, what I’ve said so far says nothing about why there was a Big Bang, and I am making some assumptions (which I’ve not been able to find support for or against in all my years of searching) but I just wanted to give some reasons why I believe your model to be deeply flawed, and unlikely IMO to be the nature of things.

]]> by: Kitty http://cogscanthink.blogsome.com/2005/09/26/contradictio-in-terminis/#comment-64 Fri, 30 Sep 2005 07:38:22 +0100 http://cogscanthink.blogsome.com/2005/09/26/contradictio-in-terminis/#comment-64 (continued) ... the dreaded chain of WHYs ("and why is there the gravity? and why..."). The reality is that physics explains the HOW. The stone, the gravity and the earth are all involved together in a process that we can describe mathematically, has no precise start nor end save for our abstractions ("the stone" is an abstraction, as we should describe precisely its components at subatomic level, save that we can describe its motion "precisely enough" even if we don't). So, when you ask WHY the big bang happened, you're thinking in narrative terms. Very human, sure, and especially very proper for ppl that usually dwelt in human sciences rather than more 'hard' sciences like physics and maths and chemistry. The reality is that science bothers to describe the HOW, the WHY is our human way to simplify matters, and to put stuff in causal order. Which btw does not make entirely sense because the Big Bang as we postulate it today involved TIME as well as space. Thus you're maybe asking 'what happened before time started', which is again very human, but doesnt make much sense :) Causes and beginnings, that's what we are used to look for, but that doesnt mean they have a scientific meaning. K (continued)
… the dreaded chain of WHYs (”and why is there the gravity? and why…”).
The reality is that physics explains the HOW. The stone, the gravity and the earth are all involved together in a process that we can describe mathematically, has no precise start nor end save for our abstractions (”the stone” is an abstraction, as we should describe precisely its components at subatomic level, save that we can describe its motion “precisely enough” even if we don’t).
So, when you ask WHY the big bang happened, you’re thinking in narrative terms. Very human, sure, and especially very proper for ppl that usually dwelt in human sciences rather than more ‘hard’ sciences like physics and maths and chemistry.
The reality is that science bothers to describe the HOW, the WHY is our human way to simplify matters, and to put stuff in causal order. Which btw does not make entirely sense because the Big Bang as we postulate it today involved TIME as well as space. Thus you’re maybe asking ‘what happened before time started’, which is again very human, but doesnt make much sense :) Causes and beginnings, that’s what we are used to look for, but that doesnt mean they have a scientific meaning.
K

]]> by: Kitty http://cogscanthink.blogsome.com/2005/09/26/contradictio-in-terminis/#comment-63 Fri, 30 Sep 2005 07:29:22 +0100 http://cogscanthink.blogsome.com/2005/09/26/contradictio-in-terminis/#comment-63 Speaking as a physics researcher, also always having been interested in epistemology, i can see a recurrent flaw here. The flaw is evident, imo, because of the use of that word, dreaded by any scientist. The word is "why". Let me explain. "why" is a very human word, deeply embedded in the "narrative" way we are accustomed to think of the world. We take an abstract, insulated situation and try to find an abstract, insualted situation that is the 'cause' of the former. Q) The child is sitting inthe sandbox and crying. WHY is he crying? A) (one of many possible causes) He's crying because his toy broke. That's narrative: the situations are simple, abstract and consequential. Real world events in physics are complex and intertwined. Abstraction can only work for a very crass first draft of phenomena, basically just to enlist the laws involved that we'll detail later: Q) WHY did the stone fall to the ground? A) Because of gravity That's simple enough for kids to be satisfied with, exactly because it's in narrative form, but it just puts a label (gravity) on the mistery. It tends to go well with wrong mind models ("first there's a stone floating in the air, then there's this gravity thing pulling it down, SO it falls"), though it usually generates in smarter kids the dreaded Speaking as a physics researcher, also always having been interested in epistemology, i can see a recurrent flaw here. The flaw is evident, imo, because of the use of that word, dreaded by any scientist. The word is “why”. Let me explain.
“why” is a very human word, deeply embedded in the “narrative” way we are accustomed to think of the world. We take an abstract, insulated situation and try to find an abstract, insualted situation that is the ‘cause’ of the former.
Q) The child is sitting inthe sandbox and crying. WHY is he crying?
A) (one of many possible causes) He’s crying because his toy broke.
That’s narrative: the situations are simple, abstract and consequential. Real world events in physics are complex and intertwined. Abstraction can only work for a very crass first draft of phenomena, basically just to enlist the laws involved that we’ll detail later:
Q) WHY did the stone fall to the ground?
A) Because of gravity
That’s simple enough for kids to be satisfied with, exactly because it’s in narrative form, but it just puts a label (gravity) on the mistery. It tends to go well with wrong mind models (”first there’s a stone floating in the air, then there’s this gravity thing pulling it down, SO it falls”), though it usually generates in smarter kids the dreaded

]]> by: Tom http://cogscanthink.blogsome.com/2005/09/26/contradictio-in-terminis/#comment-61 Thu, 29 Sep 2005 04:05:56 +0100 http://cogscanthink.blogsome.com/2005/09/26/contradictio-in-terminis/#comment-61 <blockquote>Fourty-two.</blockquote> Douglas, what are you still doing around? :) <em>Anyway...</em> What causes the universe to 'be', like every area of science that scientists don't have a consensus on, is fair game for people who wish to deal in religion. Scientists describe the observable <em>and</em> theorize on the calculable, but this division is what I believe should also be the separation between what is taught in public school and what is not. Everything that is taught in a science class is an observable pattern which can be reproduced by anyone, anywhere in the world. Religion wants to explain even that which is outside the realm of repeatable observation: one person can travel the world, speak with people, study nature, meditate on it, and decide that Intelligent Design is truth, but a second person going on the same journey could determine just the opposite (as has happened in history many times over). It's not repeatable, and cannot be proven true or false. This defies the scientific method. Merriam-Webster's definition of science as I understand to be used in the term 'Science Class' is this: <blockquote>Knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method</blockquote> And their idea of the scientific method? (emphasis mine) <blockquote>Principles and procedures for the systematic pursuit of knowledge involving the recognition and formulation of a problem, the collection of data through <strong>observation and experiment</strong>, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses</blockquote> As I've expressed elsewhere, I am in favor of teaching of religion in, say, History or Religion class, but no religion's philosophies have any place being taught as scientific fact.

Fourty-two.

Douglas, what are you still doing around? :)

Anyway…

What causes the universe to ‘be’, like every area of science that scientists don’t have a consensus on, is fair game for people who wish to deal in religion. Scientists describe the observable and theorize on the calculable, but this division is what I believe should also be the separation between what is taught in public school and what is not.

Everything that is taught in a science class is an observable pattern which can be reproduced by anyone, anywhere in the world. Religion wants to explain even that which is outside the realm of repeatable observation: one person can travel the world, speak with people, study nature, meditate on it, and decide that Intelligent Design is truth, but a second person going on the same journey could determine just the opposite (as has happened in history many times over). It’s not repeatable, and cannot be proven true or false. This defies the scientific method.

Merriam-Webster’s definition of science as I understand to be used in the term ‘Science Class’ is this:

Knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method

And their idea of the scientific method? (emphasis mine)

Principles and procedures for the systematic pursuit of knowledge involving the recognition and formulation of a problem, the collection of data through observation and experiment, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses

As I’ve expressed elsewhere, I am in favor of teaching of religion in, say, History or Religion class, but no religion’s philosophies have any place being taught as scientific fact.

]]> by: Douglas Adams http://cogscanthink.blogsome.com/2005/09/26/contradictio-in-terminis/#comment-51 Tue, 27 Sep 2005 11:50:55 +0100 http://cogscanthink.blogsome.com/2005/09/26/contradictio-in-terminis/#comment-51 Fourty-two. Fourty-two.

]]> by: Andrew Youll http://cogscanthink.blogsome.com/2005/09/26/contradictio-in-terminis/#comment-48 Mon, 26 Sep 2005 20:38:43 +0100 http://cogscanthink.blogsome.com/2005/09/26/contradictio-in-terminis/#comment-48 The Universe is in an Infinate Loop the following will happen for eternity. in the exact order. 1) Big Bang 2) Galaxies spread out due to: Velocity &gt; Gravity 3) Velocity will eventually drop to a point where Gravity is larger, and the Universe will begin to collapse 4) at some point all matter will be compressed into one mass of matter 5) Big Bang and so it continues, Everything that you have done today will have been done thousands if not millions of times before, one explaination for Deja Vu is that what you experience is "Echoes" from a previous loop where there is a slight miss-alignment in the loop, kind of what happens when audio and video go out of sync on a Video recording. This Scientific theory and idea maybe obsurd to a few, I personally think it is valid, as at one point the universe will reach a point where it will collapse on its self. the next question is... what caused this infinate loop? The Universe is in an Infinate Loop the following will happen for eternity. in the exact order.

1) Big Bang
2) Galaxies spread out due to:
Velocity > Gravity
3) Velocity will eventually drop to a point where Gravity is larger, and the Universe will begin to collapse
4) at some point all matter will be compressed into one mass of matter
5) Big Bang

and so it continues, Everything that you have done today will have been done thousands if not millions of times before, one explaination for Deja Vu is that what you experience is “Echoes” from a previous loop where there is a slight miss-alignment in the loop, kind of what happens when audio and video go out of sync on a Video recording.

This Scientific theory and idea maybe obsurd to a few, I personally think it is valid, as at one point the universe will reach a point where it will collapse on its self.

the next question is… what caused this infinate loop?

]]> by: Eugenia http://cogscanthink.blogsome.com/2005/09/26/contradictio-in-terminis/#comment-47 Mon, 26 Sep 2005 19:20:46 +0100 http://cogscanthink.blogsome.com/2005/09/26/contradictio-in-terminis/#comment-47 &gt; the big bang is only supported by rather thin evidence Thin evidence is much better than no evidence at all. This is why I prefer a scientific explanation over any supernatural one. For me, it IS all about the evidence. And as I replied in the past in this very blog, take that from someone who has seen a UFO with her own two eyes, but of course, she can't prove it. ;-) > the big bang is only supported by rather thin evidence

Thin evidence is much better than no evidence at all. This is why I prefer a scientific explanation over any supernatural one. For me, it IS all about the evidence. And as I replied in the past in this very blog, take that from someone who has seen a UFO with her own two eyes, but of course, she can’t prove it. ;-)

]]> by: Administrator http://cogscanthink.blogsome.com/2005/09/26/contradictio-in-terminis/#comment-46 Mon, 26 Sep 2005 19:14:56 +0100 http://cogscanthink.blogsome.com/2005/09/26/contradictio-in-terminis/#comment-46 <i>We put WAY too much importance to ourselves, the human race is a very snob pack of creatures.</i> Oh yes, I very much agree with that. Man is by far not the pinnacle of evolution. If we really were, we wouldn't be raping our own planet. <i>There is a theory that eventually the universe will implode again into this pinpoint thing and blow up again.</i> Yup, there's also a theory that during this implosion (when the universe contracts instead of expands) time will run backwards-- ie. we'll become younger, but we won't realize because all our thoughts are backwards too. The theory of implosion has already been disproven due to the fact that the expansion speed of the universe is <i>rising</i> instead of slowing down. Where does this leave the big bang and the pinpoint of matter being created because the universe will contract? What I was trying to say is that the theory of the big bang is only supported by rather thin evidence ("our universe is expanding so at some point it must have been all in the same place" and the "cosmic noise" (don't know what it's called in English)), and the big bang *by far* does not cover everything. Also, I'm not saying that God put the ball in motion. I'm just saying that the big bang is scientifically a rather weak theory, so the chances of it collapsing is rather large. People that believe in a God have more certainty about the universe than people who believe in the big bang; since you cannot disprove the existence of a God (it's *faith*, after all). However, scientists *can* (and probably will, I think) disprove the big bang theory, in the future. We put WAY too much importance to ourselves, the human race is a very snob pack of creatures.

Oh yes, I very much agree with that. Man is by far not the pinnacle of evolution. If we really were, we wouldn’t be raping our own planet.

There is a theory that eventually the universe will implode again into this pinpoint thing and blow up again.

Yup, there’s also a theory that during this implosion (when the universe contracts instead of expands) time will run backwards– ie. we’ll become younger, but we won’t realize because all our thoughts are backwards too.

The theory of implosion has already been disproven due to the fact that the expansion speed of the universe is rising instead of slowing down. Where does this leave the big bang and the pinpoint of matter being created because the universe will contract?

What I was trying to say is that the theory of the big bang is only supported by rather thin evidence (”our universe is expanding so at some point it must have been all in the same place” and the “cosmic noise” (don’t know what it’s called in English)), and the big bang *by far* does not cover everything.

Also, I’m not saying that God put the ball in motion. I’m just saying that the big bang is scientifically a rather weak theory, so the chances of it collapsing is rather large.

People that believe in a God have more certainty about the universe than people who believe in the big bang; since you cannot disprove the existence of a God (it’s *faith*, after all). However, scientists *can* (and probably will, I think) disprove the big bang theory, in the future.

]]> by: Eugenia http://cogscanthink.blogsome.com/2005/09/26/contradictio-in-terminis/#comment-45 Mon, 26 Sep 2005 18:55:47 +0100 http://cogscanthink.blogsome.com/2005/09/26/contradictio-in-terminis/#comment-45 You are asking me to explain to you the chicken and the egg problem. I can't do that. However, there is a point that you should consider: There is a theory that eventually the universe will implode again into this pinpoint thing and blow up again. So who created that mass? Maybe it was a God indeed. The "God of the pinpoint Mass". Should I start a new religion or should I keep investigating scientifically. You see, if we agree that the Big Bang is real, why go back and blame the creation of the pinpoint mass to another God? That brings no evidence at all, and yet in 100 years from now scientists MIGHT have an answer as to how this mass was created. I though, sure as hell and as the creator of the 'God of the Pinpoint Mass' religion, will have none to offer. So we are back at square one again. Do you see how ridiculous that sounds? Well, if it's ridiculous to have a God that created a needle head mass, why is it not ridiculous to think that God created man and the universe? What makes man so special? I don't find anything special to Man, compared to other things around me. It just functions differently, it has different properties (intelligence is one of them, which is something that has come to evolve that way in order for the Man to survive the claws and teeth of tigers and lions), but other than that, it is just a part of nature, just like cats, stones, water and space dust. We put WAY too much importance to ourselves, the human race is a very snob pack of creatures. You are asking me to explain to you the chicken and the egg problem. I can’t do that. However, there is a point that you should consider: There is a theory that eventually the universe will implode again into this pinpoint thing and blow up again.

So who created that mass? Maybe it was a God indeed. The “God of the pinpoint Mass”. Should I start a new religion or should I keep investigating scientifically. You see, if we agree that the Big Bang is real, why go back and blame the creation of the pinpoint mass to another God? That brings no evidence at all, and yet in 100 years from now scientists MIGHT have an answer as to how this mass was created. I though, sure as hell and as the creator of the ‘God of the Pinpoint Mass’ religion, will have none to offer. So we are back at square one again.

Do you see how ridiculous that sounds? Well, if it’s ridiculous to have a God that created a needle head mass, why is it not ridiculous to think that God created man and the universe? What makes man so special? I don’t find anything special to Man, compared to other things around me. It just functions differently, it has different properties (intelligence is one of them, which is something that has come to evolve that way in order for the Man to survive the claws and teeth of tigers and lions), but other than that, it is just a part of nature, just like cats, stones, water and space dust. We put WAY too much importance to ourselves, the human race is a very snob pack of creatures.

]]> by: mikesum32 http://cogscanthink.blogsome.com/2005/09/26/contradictio-in-terminis/#comment-44 Mon, 26 Sep 2005 18:53:21 +0100 http://cogscanthink.blogsome.com/2005/09/26/contradictio-in-terminis/#comment-44 When science meets religion, science wins. We still don't think the Earth is the center of the universe? Unless we can prove the existance of God (who's to say we can't) we should work on making our own lives better, and not to wait for a hand to come from the sky. As for abortion... it's arguably the taking of a human life. I don't care if someone thinks just because it's in your body it doesn't have the right to live. Of course I'm all for condoms and sex education. When science meets religion, science wins.

We still don’t think the Earth is the center of the universe?

Unless we can prove the existance of God (who’s to say we can’t) we should work on making our own lives better, and not to wait for a hand to come from the sky.

As for abortion… it’s arguably the taking of a human life. I don’t care if someone thinks just because it’s in your body it doesn’t have the right to live.

Of course I’m all for condoms and sex education.

]]>