On Tuesday, August 24, 2021 at 3:00:38 PM UTC-3, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> at any given instant of the universe...
> since the initial condition of the BB.
> Einstein's constant speed of light
> principle is real across the universe
> in every instant...
>
> Mitchell Raemsch

Mitchell, I just tried a thought experiment about what would happen if what you wrote is not true.
I'm not denying 100 years of scientific development at all, but I don't think it's wrong to think freely.

On Tuesday, August 24, 2021 at 11:35:32 AM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Tuesday, August 24, 2021 at 3:00:38 PM UTC-3, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > at any given instant of the universe...
> > since the initial condition of the BB.
> > Einstein's constant speed of light
> > principle is real across the universe
> > in every instant...
> >
> > Mitchell Raemsch
> Mitchell, I just tried a thought experiment about what would happen if what you wrote is not true.
> I'm not denying 100 years of scientific development at all, but I don't think it's wrong to think freely.

Gamma math contains the speed limit physics
that influences the Unified Field.
The limit for the atom is not just
for momentum exchange but
for force as well...

On Tuesday, August 24, 2021 at 11:35:32 AM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:

> I'm not denying 100 years of scientific development at all, but I don't think it's wrong to think freely.

You are lying, crank
Have you considered picking up stamp collecting? http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/tiredlit.htm

Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday, August 24, 2021 at 3:00:38 PM UTC-3, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
>> at any given instant of the universe...
>> since the initial condition of the BB.
>> Einstein's constant speed of light
>> principle is real across the universe
>> in every instant...
>>
>> Mitchell Raemsch
>
> Mitchell, I just tried a thought experiment about what would happen if
> what you wrote is not true.
> I'm not denying 100 years of scientific development at all, but I don't
> think it's wrong to think freely.
>

Where “thinking freely” means idly musing on possibilities based on the
barest information possible, because reading enough to get better
information is considered too much hard work and should be dismissed as
“brain-washing” as swiftly as possible.

--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> wrote:
> Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Tuesday, August 24, 2021 at 3:00:38 PM UTC-3, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> at any given instant of the universe...
>>> since the initial condition of the BB.
>>> Einstein's constant speed of light
>>> principle is real across the universe
>>> in every instant...
>>>
>>> Mitchell Raemsch
>>
>> Mitchell, I just tried a thought experiment about what would happen if
>> what you wrote is not true.
>> I'm not denying 100 years of scientific development at all, but I don't
>> think it's wrong to think freely.
>>
>
> Where “thinking freely” means idly musing on possibilities based on the
> barest information possible, because reading enough to get better
> information is considered too much hard work and should be dismissed as
> “brain-washing” as swiftly as possible.
>

Thinking freely for a structural engineer might, for example, imply that
certified engineers abandon all their statics training and tables of
material properties, and just build a bridge making simple assumptions,
wait for it to fall down under the weight of a hundred cars or so, and by
repeated builds and failures, eventually arrive at a heuristic that seems
to work for the bridge of concern. Then move on to the next structure and
do that all again.

--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

On Tuesday, August 24, 2021 at 5:33:23 PM UTC-3, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Richard Hertz <hert...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Tuesday, August 24, 2021 at 3:00:38 PM UTC-3, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> at any given instant of the universe...
> >> since the initial condition of the BB.
> >> Einstein's constant speed of light
> >> principle is real across the universe
> >> in every instant...
> >>
> >> Mitchell Raemsch
> >
> > Mitchell, I just tried a thought experiment about what would happen if
> > what you wrote is not true.
> > I'm not denying 100 years of scientific development at all, but I don't
> > think it's wrong to think freely.
> >
> Where “thinking freely” means idly musing on possibilities based on the
> barest information possible, because reading enough to get better
> information is considered too much hard work and should be dismissed as
> “brain-washing” as swiftly as possible.
>
> --
> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Also, it could be represented by the drug-inducted thoughts that lead to a single person (Guth) to make believe
that current universe was caused by an almost infinite inflation that lasted 10^-43 seconds, while the herd (and
you are in there) followed such conception obeying the law of herd's behavior (specially lemmings).

Go and prove Guth wrong within the cosmology herd, and tell me how did it work for you (anyway, you are into it).

Or the divinity of GR, while it's crumbling everywhere you look at in cosmology. Or the conception of preons in QP.

Give your brain a rest, Bodkin. You are not a philosopher but an opinionated, talkative and narcissist person. Nothing more.

On Tuesday, August 24, 2021 at 5:37:36 PM UTC-3, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Odd Bodkin <bodk...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Richard Hertz <hert...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Tuesday, August 24, 2021 at 3:00:38 PM UTC-3, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>> at any given instant of the universe...
> >>> since the initial condition of the BB.
> >>> Einstein's constant speed of light
> >>> principle is real across the universe
> >>> in every instant...
> >>>
> >>> Mitchell Raemsch
> >>
> >> Mitchell, I just tried a thought experiment about what would happen if
> >> what you wrote is not true.
> >> I'm not denying 100 years of scientific development at all, but I don't
> >> think it's wrong to think freely.
> >>
> >
> > Where “thinking freely” means idly musing on possibilities based on the
> > barest information possible, because reading enough to get better
> > information is considered too much hard work and should be dismissed as
> > “brain-washing” as swiftly as possible.
> >
> Thinking freely for a structural engineer might, for example, imply that
> certified engineers abandon all their statics training and tables of
> material properties, and just build a bridge making simple assumptions,
> wait for it to fall down under the weight of a hundred cars or so, and by
> repeated builds and failures, eventually arrive at a heuristic that seems
> to work for the bridge of concern. Then move on to the next structure and
> do that all again.
> --
> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

And this is a lame example of a "reductio ad absurdum" fallacy, Bodkin.
You are way far of the league of champions of the word game.

And, at this forum, hundred of times you failed when making analogies disguised as deep thoughts.
You are not even close to match or outshine my command of rhetoric.

Not that I don't enjoy reading you attempts, but I always think: He's always trying so hard to sound smart
and deep, but always make errors after errors in his narrative.

Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday, August 24, 2021 at 5:33:23 PM UTC-3, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Richard Hertz <hert...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, August 24, 2021 at 3:00:38 PM UTC-3, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> at any given instant of the universe...
>>>> since the initial condition of the BB.
>>>> Einstein's constant speed of light
>>>> principle is real across the universe
>>>> in every instant...
>>>>
>>>> Mitchell Raemsch
>>>
>>> Mitchell, I just tried a thought experiment about what would happen if
>>> what you wrote is not true.
>>> I'm not denying 100 years of scientific development at all, but I don't
>>> think it's wrong to think freely.
>>>
>> Where “thinking freely” means idly musing on possibilities based on the
>> barest information possible, because reading enough to get better
>> information is considered too much hard work and should be dismissed as
>> “brain-washing” as swiftly as possible.
>>
>> --
>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>
> Also, it could be represented by the drug-inducted thoughts that lead to
> a single person (Guth) to make believe
> that current universe was caused by an almost infinite inflation that
> lasted 10^-43 seconds,

I see you have a problem with this. What problem with this do you have,
exactly?

> while the herd (and
> you are in there) followed such conception obeying the law of herd's
> behavior (specially lemmings).
>
> Go and prove Guth wrong within the cosmology herd, and tell me how did it
> work for you (anyway, you are into it).
>
> Or the divinity of GR, while it's crumbling everywhere you look at in
> cosmology. Or the conception of preons in QP.
>
> Give your brain a rest, Bodkin. You are not a philosopher but an
> opinionated, talkative and narcissist person. Nothing more.

Well, sorry to discuss on a discussion group. I had no idea you were here
to hear yourself talk into a vacuum.

But while we’re on it, what value do you think a philosopher would bring to
a science newsgroup?

>

--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday, August 24, 2021 at 5:37:36 PM UTC-3, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Odd Bodkin <bodk...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Richard Hertz <hert...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Tuesday, August 24, 2021 at 3:00:38 PM UTC-3, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>> at any given instant of the universe...
>>>>> since the initial condition of the BB.
>>>>> Einstein's constant speed of light
>>>>> principle is real across the universe
>>>>> in every instant...
>>>>>
>>>>> Mitchell Raemsch
>>>>
>>>> Mitchell, I just tried a thought experiment about what would happen if
>>>> what you wrote is not true.
>>>> I'm not denying 100 years of scientific development at all, but I don't
>>>> think it's wrong to think freely.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Where “thinking freely” means idly musing on possibilities based on the
>>> barest information possible, because reading enough to get better
>>> information is considered too much hard work and should be dismissed as
>>> “brain-washing” as swiftly as possible.
>>>
>> Thinking freely for a structural engineer might, for example, imply that
>> certified engineers abandon all their statics training and tables of
>> material properties, and just build a bridge making simple assumptions,
>> wait for it to fall down under the weight of a hundred cars or so, and by
>> repeated builds and failures, eventually arrive at a heuristic that seems
>> to work for the bridge of concern. Then move on to the next structure and
>> do that all again.
>> --
>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>
> And this is a lame example of a "reductio ad absurdum" fallacy, Bodkin.
> You are way far of the league of champions of the word game.
>
> And, at this forum, hundred of times you failed when making analogies
> disguised as deep thoughts.
> You are not even close to match or outshine my command of rhetoric.

Well, good of you to puff up so admirably about your command of this or
that.
As for matching or outshining, is that what you think a discussion group
is, some kind of mano e mano contest?

>
> Not that I don't enjoy reading you attempts, but I always think: He's
> always trying so hard to sound smart
> and deep, but always make errors after errors in his narrative.

Errors — such as?

>
>

--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

On Tuesday, August 24, 2021 at 4:37:36 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Odd Bodkin <bodk...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Richard Hertz <hert...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Tuesday, August 24, 2021 at 3:00:38 PM UTC-3, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>> at any given instant of the universe...
> >>> since the initial condition of the BB.
> >>> Einstein's constant speed of light
> >>> principle is real across the universe
> >>> in every instant...
> >>>
> >>> Mitchell Raemsch
> >>
> >> Mitchell, I just tried a thought experiment about what would happen if
> >> what you wrote is not true.
> >> I'm not denying 100 years of scientific development at all, but I don't
> >> think it's wrong to think freely.
> >>
> >
> > Where “thinking freely” means idly musing on possibilities based on the
> > barest information possible, because reading enough to get better
> > information is considered too much hard work and should be dismissed as
> > “brain-washing” as swiftly as possible.
> >
> Thinking freely for a structural engineer might, for example, imply that
> certified engineers abandon all their statics training and tables of
> material properties, and just build a bridge making simple assumptions,
> wait for it to fall down under the weight of a hundred cars or so, and by
> repeated builds and failures, eventually arrive at a heuristic that seems
> to work for the bridge of concern. Then move on to the next structure and
> do that all again. contraction

Is that what physicists do? Spacetime, field/virtual particles, extra dimensions, constant light speed in all frames, time dilation, length contraction.....etc

Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday, August 24, 2021 at 4:37:36 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Odd Bodkin <bodk...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Richard Hertz <hert...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Tuesday, August 24, 2021 at 3:00:38 PM UTC-3, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>> at any given instant of the universe...
>>>>> since the initial condition of the BB.
>>>>> Einstein's constant speed of light
>>>>> principle is real across the universe
>>>>> in every instant...
>>>>>
>>>>> Mitchell Raemsch
>>>>
>>>> Mitchell, I just tried a thought experiment about what would happen if
>>>> what you wrote is not true.
>>>> I'm not denying 100 years of scientific development at all, but I don't
>>>> think it's wrong to think freely.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Where “thinking freely” means idly musing on possibilities based on the
>>> barest information possible, because reading enough to get better
>>> information is considered too much hard work and should be dismissed as
>>> “brain-washing” as swiftly as possible.
>>>
>> Thinking freely for a structural engineer might, for example, imply that
>> certified engineers abandon all their statics training and tables of
>> material properties, and just build a bridge making simple assumptions,
>> wait for it to fall down under the weight of a hundred cars or so, and by
>> repeated builds and failures, eventually arrive at a heuristic that seems
>> to work for the bridge of concern. Then move on to the next structure and
>> do that all again. contraction
>
> Is that what physicists do? Spacetime, field/virtual particles, extra
> dimensions, constant light speed in all frames, time dilation, length contraction.....etc
>

See, this is where the divide between engineers and physicists lies.

Engineers are on the hook to produce things usable in everyday life.
Physicists doing fundamental work are not.

Engineers are expected to deliver on a timeline driven by profits.
Physicists are not.

Engineers are not supposed to release a product for public use on a
trial-and-error basis. Instead, they are expected to use firmly established
principles and concepts to do their work. Physicists, on the other hand,
are paid to try brand new ideas that are then testable in experiments not
yet performed.

But engineers and physicists alike are expected to be thoroughly trained in
their respective subjects. No one can claim to be an engineer without
degrees, certifications, and licenses. No one can claim to be a physicist
without degrees and value as deemed by peers.

This group is rife with retired engineers trying to imagine how physicists
would work if held to the principles of engineering.

--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

On Wednesday, August 25, 2021 at 9:17:47 AM UTC-3, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:

<snip>
> > Also, it could be represented by the drug-inducted thoughts that lead to
> > a single person (Guth) to make believe
> > that current universe was caused by an almost infinite inflation that
> > lasted 10^-43 seconds,

> I see you have a problem with this. What problem with this do you have,
> exactly?

1) I don´t believe in an universe coming out of a singularity that went off for no reason, at an arbitrary time
settled to a value of 14 billion years ago, leaving without answers what happened in the timeline from 0 to -∞.
2) I find it beyond any rational thinking the proposal of Guth's inflation theory, just to adapt (using a magic hammer)
deficiencies of the previous cosmological model, making former former problems to disappear just by inventing
(out of the blue or in one night dream, as he told) an absurd concept which he, later, carefully inserted in the
currently existing model in order to solve theoretical discrepancies. And all of this being impossible to be proven
by any means available to humans in the next couple of million years.

Of course, I don't discard any chance that an hyper advanced extra-terrestrial civilization may come by here, and
enlighten mankind with their knowledge and, then, let's us to have a glimpse at what "really" happened, IF they
had come to answers about it.
3) I believe in a pseudo-static universe, infinite in time and length, that is there because God wanted it to be so.

> > while the herd (and
> > you are in there) followed such conception obeying the law of herd's
> > behavior (specially lemmings).
> >
> > Go and prove Guth wrong within the cosmology herd, and tell me how did it
> > work for you (anyway, you are into it).
> >
> > Or the divinity of GR, while it's crumbling everywhere you look at in
> > cosmology. Or the conception of preons in QP.
> >
> > Give your brain a rest, Bodkin. You are not a philosopher but an
> > opinionated, talkative and narcissist person. Nothing more.

> Well, sorry to discuss on a discussion group. I had no idea you were here
> to hear yourself talk into a vacuum.
>
> But while we’re on it, what value do you think a philosopher would bring to
> a science newsgroup?

You are almost right in the way you defend your rights to bring philosophy to this forum.
What irritates me is when you resort to disqualifications or downplay people as part
of the game in a discussion, or when you purposely change the meaning of other person's concept
by applying to an enormous variety of fallacies. Do you know that are books devoted to analyze
dozens of methods for fallacious argumentation and to tell you how to use them to win over
a discussion (at least temporarily)?.

Let me remind a fallacy made by Einstein, about Gerber: "His formula is the same as mine, but he
was wrong because it wasn't derived from (my) relativity".

Do you see the fallacy here? He built up his comment from a questionable statement: His
relativity is the only answer, so everything that is not compliant with that is wrong.

I´m so sorry that such an early statement of supremacy given to the press (around 1920) has stuck
within the MSM for 100 years. You can't find any criticism on MSM today, but only
glorification in order to perpetuate the myth on the large population of laymen.

On Wednesday, August 25, 2021 at 8:09:17 AM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:

> 1) I don´t believe in an universe coming out of a singularity that went off for no reason, at an arbitrary time

No one gives a shit about what you believe.

> Let me remind a fallacy made by Einstein, about Gerber: "His formula is the same as mine, but he
> was wrong because it wasn't derived from (my) relativity".
>

Crank,

Gerber's formula fails:

1. The starlight bending by the Sun
2. Shapiro delay
3. Pond Rebka class of experiments

You are just a sad-sack shiteater.

On Wednesday, August 25, 2021 at 8:09:17 AM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
>
> I´m so sorry that such an early statement of supremacy given to the press (around 1920) has stuck
> within the MSM for 100 years. You can't find any criticism on MSM today, but only
> glorification in order to perpetuate the myth on the large population of laymen.

Actually the above applies to obummer and bidum :-)

On Wednesday, August 25, 2021 at 11:00:18 AM UTC-3, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:

<snip>

> Engineers are on the hook to produce things usable in everyday life.
> Physicists doing fundamental work are not.

NO. Both statements are very wrong. Most physicists are working on experimental physics, and they have to
"produce" results or they are gone. This work is almost invisible for the popular media, as well as the one done
by experimental engineers. The population of "not so free to think" physicists is lower than 15,000.

I quote: "there were approximately 2 million engineers, 700 thousand engineering technicians and technologists,
and 4.1 million computational professionals in the U.S. workforce in 2018."

Multiply by 3 to obtain the totals for the entire planet.

Also, 1 million physicists are believed to be active in the entire world (this article contradicts a value of 3 millions).

https://physicstoday.scitation.org/do/10.1063/PT.5.010310/full/

Only 15% of the total number of engineers, but 95% of physicists are involved in experimental research.
It leaves about 50,000 physicists (70% of them astronomers) devoted to theoretical research. And, as theoretical physics
keep stuck since early '70s, more and more theoretical physicists are turning into cosmology as a career choice, bringing
with them knowledge in quantum physics to be included into cosmology.

> Engineers are expected to deliver on a timeline driven by profits.
> Physicists are not.

NO, again. 95% of physicists (most working in corporations) have deadlines as well as engineers.
They deliver or provide satisfactory explanations. Otherwise they are sacked and end
working for the software industry, with a few with an "angst" coming here to show off.

> Engineers are not supposed to release a product for public use on a
> trial-and-error basis. Instead, they are expected to use firmly established
> principles and concepts to do their work. Physicists, on the other hand,
> are paid to try brand new ideas that are then testable in experiments not
> yet performed.

NO, again. Bodkin, stop trying to define the world in three lines. Read my comments
from above.

> But engineers and physicists alike are expected to be thoroughly trained in
> their respective subjects. No one can claim to be an engineer without
> degrees, certifications, and licenses. No one can claim to be a physicist
> without degrees and value as deemed by peers.

Except at forums like this one.

> This group is rife with retired engineers trying to imagine how physicists
> would work if held to the principles of engineering.

And also with physicists turned into software developers or salesman. Ask Roberts, Dono
or yourself. Worse: many end as High School teachers. Ask Dono.

On Wednesday, August 25, 2021 at 12:19:06 PM UTC-3, Dono. wrote:

<snip>

> > I´m so sorry that such an early statement of supremacy given to the press (around 1920) has stuck
> > within the MSM for 100 years. You can't find any criticism on MSM today, but only
> > glorification in order to perpetuate the myth on the large population of laymen.

> Actually the above applies to obummer and bidum :-)

So, are you a trumpian or what? I think that you're a stinking, rabid and filthy commie.

On Wednesday, August 25, 2021 at 8:44:27 AM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Wednesday, August 25, 2021 at 12:19:06 PM UTC-3, Dono. wrote:
>
> <snip>
> > > I´m so sorry that such an early statement of supremacy given to the press (around 1920) has stuck
> > > within the MSM for 100 years. You can't find any criticism on MSM today, but only
> > > glorification in order to perpetuate the myth on the large population of laymen.
>
> > Actually the above applies to obummer and bidum :-)
> So, are you a trumpian or what? I think that you're a stinking, rabid and filthy commie.

LOL, Trump supporters are ANTI-communists. You are as stupid when it comes to politics as you are when it comes to physics.

Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wednesday, August 25, 2021 at 9:17:47 AM UTC-3, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>>> Also, it could be represented by the drug-inducted thoughts that lead to
>>> a single person (Guth) to make believe
>>> that current universe was caused by an almost infinite inflation that
>>> lasted 10^-43 seconds,
>
>> I see you have a problem with this. What problem with this do you have,
>> exactly?
>
> 1) I don´t believe in an universe coming out of a singularity that went
> off for no reason, at an arbitrary time
> settled to a value of 14 billion years ago, leaving without answers
> what happened in the timeline from 0 to -∞.

Well, I think one of the things you have to get your head around is that
time might not be an infinite line extending in both directions without
limit. In fact, one of the interesting things about Big Bang cosmology is
that time has a starting point, and so the question about what happens
before is meaningless. And if you splutter, “but before is before!” then
you might have to ask yourself why you think that is NECESSARILY true, or
whether it is a comfortable assumption that you’ve just never bothered to
question.

> 2) I find it beyond any rational thinking the proposal of Guth's
> inflation theory, just to adapt (using a magic hammer)
> deficiencies of the previous cosmological model, making former former
> problems to disappear just by inventing
> (out of the blue or in one night dream, as he told) an absurd concept
> which he, later, carefully inserted in the
> currently existing model in order to solve theoretical discrepancies.
> And all of this being impossible to be proven
> by any means available to humans in the next couple of million years.

It appears you don’t know the first thing about Guth’s inflationary theory.
Not really surprising, since you only read popularizations and superficial
science histories. Inflation wasn’t discovered by trying to patch problems
with the previous cosmological model. It was arrived at by noting that some
of the key aspects of Standard Model, including gauge symmetry breaking and
the Higgs field, had never been incorporated into Big Bang cosmology. So
that’s what he did. (This by the way is analogous to what Einstein did when
he applied Galileo’s and Newton’s principle of relativity for inertial
reference frames to Maxwellian electrodynamics, which needed to be done.)
When he did that, he discovered that the implications of that application
resolved some of the problems of the prior cosmology, such as the
homogeneity issue. And by they way, there were also concrete and testable
predictions which came from inflation that had not been identified as any
kind of problem with the previous cosmology, but in fact were later
verified by observational evidence. Just to remind you, the making of
predictions where there is no prior gap, and where those predictions are
borne out by observations, is the hallmark of scientific validation.

So your incredulity about rational people believing in a “magic hammer” is
a bit of a boondoggle, because that’s not actually what happened.

>
> Of course, I don't discard any chance that an hyper advanced
> extra-terrestrial civilization may come by here, and
> enlighten mankind with their knowledge and, then, let's us to have a
> glimpse at what "really" happened, IF they
> had come to answers about it.
> 3) I believe in a pseudo-static universe, infinite in time and length,
> that is there because God wanted it to be so.

What you choose to BELIEVE, especially on the basis of what you IMAGINE God
intends, is your personal faith, but has nothing to do with science. Also
suppositions about “infinite time” which have no suggestions by you on how
to validate that by observational test — those are also intrinsically
unscientific and are therefore irrelevant to this discussion except insofar
as they obstruct your ability to actually think like a scientist does.

>
>>> while the herd (and
>>> you are in there) followed such conception obeying the law of herd's
>>> behavior (specially lemmings).
>>>
>>> Go and prove Guth wrong within the cosmology herd, and tell me how did it
>>> work for you (anyway, you are into it).
>>>
>>> Or the divinity of GR, while it's crumbling everywhere you look at in
>>> cosmology. Or the conception of preons in QP.
>>>
>>> Give your brain a rest, Bodkin. You are not a philosopher but an
>>> opinionated, talkative and narcissist person. Nothing more.
>
>> Well, sorry to discuss on a discussion group. I had no idea you were here
>> to hear yourself talk into a vacuum.
>>
>> But while we’re on it, what value do you think a philosopher would bring to
>> a science newsgroup?
>
> You are almost right in the way you defend your rights to bring philosophy to this forum.

I don’t think I bring philosophy into this forum. In what way do you think
I do?

> What irritates me is when you resort to disqualifications or downplay people as part
> of the game in a discussion,

I don’t think of that as resorting to anything. Among opinions, there are
informed opinions and uninformed opinions. Informed opinions have higher
intrinsic value than uninformed opinions. If you think that is a false
premise to apply in a discussion group, and that all opinions regardless of
the background and expertise of the holder have equal value, and that a
discussion group is built expressly to treat all opinions (informed and
uninformed) equally, just go ahead and say so explicitly. I won’t agree
with it, but it will clearly lay out your desire to have a safe place to
lay out uninformed opinions and have them treated on a level playing field
with all other opinions.

> or when you purposely change the meaning of other person's concept
> by applying to an enormous variety of fallacies. Do you know that are
> books devoted to analyze
> dozens of methods for fallacious argumentation and to tell you how to use them to win over
> a discussion (at least temporarily)?.
>
> Let me remind a fallacy made by Einstein, about Gerber: "His formula is
> the same as mine, but he
> was wrong because it wasn't derived from (my) relativity".

Which is one of those regrettably pithy comments by Einstein that are
leveraged to the hilt by those who look to demonize him. Another, recall,
is his comment that anything correct should be explainable to a barmaid;
then he wrote a book about special and general relativity intended for
general readership that assumed that the reader could do (gasp!) basic
algebra, which might be above the heads of the average barmaid. So sue his
ghost for the pithy comment.

>
> Do you see the fallacy here? He built up his comment from a questionable statement: His
> relativity is the only answer, so everything that is not compliant with that is wrong.
>
> I´m so sorry that such an early statement of supremacy given to the press
> (around 1920) has stuck
> within the MSM for 100 years.

No, don’t blame it on someone else “giving” it to the press. The press came
up with that hero-worship ALL BY THEMSELVES. The general public who can’t
seem to help themselves about worshipping hero’s have no one to blame but
themselves for the hero worship. If you despise the hero worship, then
complain about it to the general public that does it, not to the physicists
who don’t do it. And don’t put it on the physicists to say, “Hey, you have
to put a stop to this bad habit by the general populace!” That’s a
completely ridiculous and mis-aimed expectation.

> You can't find any criticism on MSM today, but only
> glorification in order to perpetuate the myth on the large population of laymen.
>

--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wednesday, August 25, 2021 at 11:00:18 AM UTC-3, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> Engineers are on the hook to produce things usable in everyday life.
>> Physicists doing fundamental work are not.
>
> NO. Both statements are very wrong. Most physicists are working on
> experimental physics, and they have to
> "produce" results or they are gone.

What do you consider a “result”?

> This work is almost invisible for the popular media,

Yes, indeed. The popular media loves theorists. They’ve heard of Bohr,
never heard of Georges Charpak. And who’s to blame for that?

> as well as the one done
> by experimental engineers. The population of "not so free to think"
> physicists is lower than 15,000.
>
> I quote: "there were approximately 2 million engineers, 700 thousand
> engineering technicians and technologists,
> and 4.1 million computational professionals in the U.S. workforce in 2018."
>
> Multiply by 3 to obtain the totals for the entire planet.
>
> Also, 1 million physicists are believed to be active in the entire world
> (this article contradicts a value of 3 millions).

Yes, there are fewer physicists than engineers.

>
> https://physicstoday.scitation.org/do/10.1063/PT.5.010310/full/
>
> Only 15% of the total number of engineers, but 95% of physicists are
> involved in experimental research.

But I referred to people working in FUNDAMENTAL research. You are now
mixing in all those employed by private companies or defense work and those
doing applied physics.

Please pay attention to what I say.

> It leaves about 50,000 physicists (70% of them astronomers) devoted to
> theoretical research. And, as theoretical physics
> keep stuck since early '70s, more and more theoretical physicists are
> turning into cosmology as a career choice, bringing
> with them knowledge in quantum physics to be included into cosmology.
>
>
>
>> Engineers are expected to deliver on a timeline driven by profits.
>> Physicists are not.
>
> NO, again. 95% of physicists (most working in corporations) have
> deadlines as well as engineers.
> They deliver or provide satisfactory explanations. Otherwise they are sacked and end
> working for the software industry, with a few with an "angst" coming here to show off.

Really? Who is posting here that got a PhD in physics, got sacked for poor
performance as a professional physicist, and is now working in software?

>
>> Engineers are not supposed to release a product for public use on a
>> trial-and-error basis. Instead, they are expected to use firmly established
>> principles and concepts to do their work. Physicists, on the other hand,
>> are paid to try brand new ideas that are then testable in experiments not
>> yet performed.
>
> NO, again. Bodkin, stop trying to define the world in three lines. Read my comments
> from above.
>
>> But engineers and physicists alike are expected to be thoroughly trained in
>> their respective subjects. No one can claim to be an engineer without
>> degrees, certifications, and licenses. No one can claim to be a physicist
>> without degrees and value as deemed by peers.
>
> Except at forums like this one.

Bullshit. NO ONE can claim to be a physicist without degrees and value as
deemed by others. Doing so, even here, is out-and-out fraud. Seto attempts
this, and it’s ludicrous.

>
>> This group is rife with retired engineers trying to imagine how physicists
>> would work if held to the principles of engineering.
>
> And also with physicists turned into software developers or salesman. Ask Roberts, Dono
> or yourself. Worse: many end as High School teachers. Ask Dono.
>

Was Dono ever a practicing professional physicist? Does he have a PhD in
physics? You do know that practicing physicists almost universally have
PhDs, don’t you?

From what I understand, Tom Roberts IS a practicing physicist at IIT.

--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

On Wednesday, August 25, 2021 at 12:59:27 PM UTC-3, Dono. wrote:

<snip>

> > So, are you a trumpian or what? I think that you're a stinking, rabid and filthy commie.
> LOL, Trump supporters are ANTI-communists. You are as stupid when it comes to politics as you are when it comes to physics.

See Dono? It's like a cat playing with a mouse (you). I test something on you and you jump and answer. It's so easy to prompt your
responses, because of a HUGE flaw of character that you have: You CAN´T shut the fuck up and let it go!

And when you're cornered, you resort to your usual wideband insults, forcibly pressing your head to spit the last shitty drops of a
variation of a given insult. You're a funny guy.

On Wednesday, August 25, 2021 at 10:23:42 AM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Wednesday, August 25, 2021 at 12:59:27 PM UTC-3, Dono. wrote:
>
>
> <snip>
> > > So, are you a trumpian or what? I think that you're a stinking, rabid and filthy commie.
> > LOL, Trump supporters are ANTI-communists. You are as stupid when it comes to politics as you are when it comes to physics.
> See Dono?

I see. I always saw. You are a cretin that gets arsed every time. On every subject.

On Wednesday, August 25, 2021 at 1:02:29 PM UTC-3, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:

<snip>

> > 1) I don´t believe in an universe coming out of a singularity that went off for no reason, at an arbitrary time
> > settled to a value of 14 billion years ago, leaving without answers what happened in the timeline from 0 to -∞.

> Well, I think one of the things you have to get your head around is that
> time might not be an infinite line extending in both directions without
> limit. In fact, one of the interesting things about Big Bang cosmology is
> that time has a starting point, and so the question about what happens
> before is meaningless. And if you splutter, “but before is before!” then
> you might have to ask yourself why you think that is NECESSARILY true, or
> whether it is a comfortable assumption that you’ve just never bothered to
> question.

There were things around 9 months (is this correct?) before Bodkin was born..
It's a pity that science hasn't get (yet) the means to trace the past life of the
elementary particles and atoms that formed you at the time of your creation..
But you didn't come to life out of nowhere, for sure.

Neither the universe.

> > 2) I find it beyond any rational thinking the proposal of Guth's inflation theory, just to adapt (using a magic hammer)
> > deficiencies of the previous cosmological model, making former former problems to disappear just by inventing
> > (out of the blue or in one night dream, as he told) an absurd concept which he, later, carefully inserted in the
> > currently existing model in order to solve theoretical discrepancies. And all of this being impossible to be proven
> > by any means available to humans in the next couple of million years.

> It appears you don’t know the first thing about Guth’s inflationary theory.
> Not really surprising, since you only read popularizations and superficial
> science histories. Inflation wasn’t discovered by trying to patch problems
> with the previous cosmological model.

Excerpt from:

The 4 Percent Universe
Dark Matter, Dark Energy, and The Race to Discover the Rest of Reality
Richard Panek
Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company, 215 Park Avenue South,
New York, New York 10003.

---------------------------------------------- Page 133 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now, however, cosmology had a possible answer to the question of how the universe became so simple.
Late in the evening of December 6, 1979, a nolonger-young academic with a boyish mop of hair, a boyish
smile, and a grownup worry about meeting the monthly rent sat down at the desk in his study, as he
often did at that hour of the day.

On this occasion, however, Alan Guth received a midnight visit from the Muse of Math. The next morning he
bicycled to his office at the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center (in the process establishing a new personal
best of nine minutes and thirty-two seconds) and immediately sat down with his notebook to summarize
his long night's work.

"spectacular realization," he wrote near the top of a fresh page, and then he did something he'd never done before
with a notebook entry. He drew two boxes around it.

By the time of the Nuffield workshop, two and a half years later, the story was already the stuff of scientific legend.
Guth had experienced a genuine "Eureka!" moment. His was the kind of insight that causes colleagues to slap their
foreheads and groan, "Of course!" The day after Guth gave his first seminar on his spectacular realization, in January
1980, he received calls from seven institutions either inviting him to give the same seminar or asking if he would
consider a faculty position. By then Guth had given his idea the name that stuck: inflation, a pun that accommodated
both the defining physical property of his discovery and the dominant economic worry of the era.*
..................
Guth found that if you apply that transformation mathematically to the conditions of the early universe, the phase
transition would have produced a temporary vacuum. That vacuum, in turn, would have produced a negative pressure
—a strong gravitational repulsion—that would have expanded space exponentially. The universe would have doubled in
size, then doubled in size again, then doubled in size yet again. It would have done this at least a hundred times, and it
would have done so over the course of 10^−35 seconds. After that, the vacuum would have decayed, the exponential
expansion would have stopped, and the standard expansion of the universe—the one in the Big Bang theory that we can
see for ourselves in the redshifting of the light from distant galaxies—would have begun.
..........................
At once Guth recalled a lecture by Bob Dicke that he had attended the previous year, one of a series that Dicke and Peebles
had been delivering on a topic they called the "flatness problem." They would explain to their audiences that the fate of the
universe depended on how much matter was in the universe: enough to reverse the expansion, not enough, or just right.

The designation that scientists had given to the measure determining the fate of the universe was, aptly, the final letter in
the Greek alphabet, omega. If the universe contained half the mass necessary to halt the expansion, then you would say
omega equaled 0.5, or if it contained three-quarters of the necessary mass, you would say omega equaled 0.75.
If the universe contained more than enough mass to halt the expansion, then omega equaled more than 1—1.5 times, maybe,
or 2 times, or 100 times. And if the universe contained just the right amount—precisely the critical density to stop the universe
from expanding but keep it from collapsing back on itself—then omega equaled 1.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

https://www.richardpanek.net/

Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wednesday, August 25, 2021 at 1:02:29 PM UTC-3, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
> <snip>
>
>>> 1) I don´t believe in an universe coming out of a singularity that went
>>> off for no reason, at an arbitrary time
>>> settled to a value of 14 billion years ago, leaving without answers
>>> what happened in the timeline from 0 to -∞.
>
>> Well, I think one of the things you have to get your head around is that
>> time might not be an infinite line extending in both directions without
>> limit. In fact, one of the interesting things about Big Bang cosmology is
>> that time has a starting point, and so the question about what happens
>> before is meaningless. And if you splutter, “but before is before!” then
>> you might have to ask yourself why you think that is NECESSARILY true, or
>> whether it is a comfortable assumption that you’ve just never bothered to
>> question.
>
> There were things around 9 months (is this correct?) before Bodkin was born.

Yes, and that is scientifically verifiable.

> It's a pity that science hasn't get (yet) the means to trace the past life of the
> elementary particles and atoms that formed you at the time of your creation.
> But you didn't come to life out of nowhere, for sure.
>
> Neither the universe.

In a scientifically verifiable way, or as an article of faith?

Plus, no one (other than popularizations) say the universe came from
nothing. It’s just that it’s not obviously sensible to say that time as we
know it existed before that initial state.

>
>
>>> 2) I find it beyond any rational thinking the proposal of Guth's
>>> inflation theory, just to adapt (using a magic hammer)
>>> deficiencies of the previous cosmological model, making former former
>>> problems to disappear just by inventing
>>> (out of the blue or in one night dream, as he told) an absurd concept
>>> which he, later, carefully inserted in the
>>> currently existing model in order to solve theoretical discrepancies.
>>> And all of this being impossible to be proven
>>> by any means available to humans in the next couple of million years.
>
>> It appears you don’t know the first thing about Guth’s inflationary theory.
>> Not really surprising, since you only read popularizations and superficial
>> science histories. Inflation wasn’t discovered by trying to patch problems
>> with the previous cosmological model.
>
> Excerpt from:
>
> The 4 Percent Universe
> Dark Matter, Dark Energy, and The Race to Discover the Rest of Reality
> Richard Panek
> Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company, 215 Park Avenue South,
> New York, New York 10003.

Yes, a popularization.

And notice that what it describes (aside from the stuff you snipped) is
what I described in a previous post — a phase transition associated with
spontaneous symmetry breaking, including that of the Higgs field, all the
application of the Standard Model to cosmology. This was not a patch to fix
problems. It was the application of particle physics to cosmology, which
had not been done in this way before. Notice also that following this idea
took TWO AND A HALF YEARS for him to develop and to understand what some of
the testable implications are. It was not an overnight fever dream where he
declared the next morning that he had swept all the cosmological problems
away. It took a LONG TIME to understand a) that the flatness problem, the
homogeneity problem, and a few other problems were resolved by this idea,
and b) that there were other testable implications that had not been put to
observational test.

>
> ---------------------------------------------- Page 133
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Now, however, cosmology had a possible answer to the question of how the
> universe became so simple.
> Late in the evening of December 6, 1979, a nolonger-young academic with a
> boyish mop of hair, a boyish
> smile, and a grownup worry about meeting the monthly rent sat down at the
> desk in his study, as he
> often did at that hour of the day.
>
> On this occasion, however, Alan Guth received a midnight visit from the
> Muse of Math. The next morning he
> bicycled to his office at the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center (in the
> process establishing a new personal
> best of nine minutes and thirty-two seconds) and immediately sat down
> with his notebook to summarize
> his long night's work.
>
> "spectacular realization," he wrote near the top of a fresh page, and
> then he did something he'd never done before
> with a notebook entry. He drew two boxes around it.
>
> By the time of the Nuffield workshop, two and a half years later, the
> story was already the stuff of scientific legend.
> Guth had experienced a genuine "Eureka!" moment. His was the kind of
> insight that causes colleagues to slap their
> foreheads and groan, "Of course!" The day after Guth gave his first
> seminar on his spectacular realization, in January
> 1980, he received calls from seven institutions either inviting him to
> give the same seminar or asking if he would
> consider a faculty position. By then Guth had given his idea the name
> that stuck: inflation, a pun that accommodated
> both the defining physical property of his discovery and the dominant
> economic worry of the era.*
> .................
> Guth found that if you apply that transformation mathematically to the
> conditions of the early universe, the phase
> transition would have produced a temporary vacuum. That vacuum, in turn,
> would have produced a negative pressure
> —a strong gravitational repulsion—that would have expanded space
> exponentially. The universe would have doubled in
> size, then doubled in size again, then doubled in size yet again. It
> would have done this at least a hundred times, and it
> would have done so over the course of 10^−35 seconds. After that, the
> vacuum would have decayed, the exponential
> expansion would have stopped, and the standard expansion of the
> universe—the one in the Big Bang theory that we can
> see for ourselves in the redshifting of the light from distant galaxies—would have begun.
> .........................
> At once Guth recalled a lecture by Bob Dicke that he had attended the
> previous year, one of a series that Dicke and Peebles
> had been delivering on a topic they called the "flatness problem." They
> would explain to their audiences that the fate of the
> universe depended on how much matter was in the universe: enough to
> reverse the expansion, not enough, or just right.
>
> The designation that scientists had given to the measure determining the
> fate of the universe was, aptly, the final letter in
> the Greek alphabet, omega. If the universe contained half the mass
> necessary to halt the expansion, then you would say
> omega equaled 0.5, or if it contained three-quarters of the necessary
> mass, you would say omega equaled 0.75.
> If the universe contained more than enough mass to halt the expansion,
> then omega equaled more than 1—1.5 times, maybe,
> or 2 times, or 100 times. And if the universe contained just the right
> amount—precisely the critical density to stop the universe
> from expanding but keep it from collapsing back on itself—then omega equaled 1.
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> https://www.richardpanek.net/
>
>

--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables