Do you believe in gravity?

[numinus]

I was telling numinus that he seems to be using his understanding of the physical aspects of cosmology to focus on the current unknowns, and consider them hopeless flaws. I am saying he is appealing to god prematurely. He therefore falls into that category of YEC, but at an earlier level of cosmology that the young earthers do.

Not at all.

I was demonstrating to the 'agnostics', who insist that metaphysics stands on shaky grounds, that science is standing on equally, if not more, shaky grounds.

I have already come to the same conclusions as you. I was merely wondering to what extent you were willing to take your bluster, particularly:

that I, being a mere engineer, cannot hope to see the big picture;

that I, being incapable of seeing the big picture, am nothing more than a young earther;

that your esoteric physics is self-consistent;

that the mathematically undefined has some sort of meaning in that 'self-consistent' theory you are infatuated with;

and that it is entirely reasonable to be skeptical about religion and philosophy but never with science.

Did I leave out anything important you wanted to say?

 

[numinus]

You scoff at quantum mechanics as an ingredient for understanding the cosmos. Many scientists have theories that overcome the barrier that you put up. There are many reasons to think that scientists can go beyond your barrier.

They are not my barriers. They are the reasons why there is no unanimity in the physical cosmology community -- a fact that you conveniently sweep under the rug.

I thought you physics type are trained to be skeptical?

Not when you carry the inference that I was talking about an engineering job.

Now you claim to be an expert of MY honesty? I think you need to evaluate the honesty in the big picture you are trying to paint.

Faith in science, indeed!

I really seriously doubt that. I have been doing a lot of reading on the relation of quantum mechanics to the earliest phases of the universe and mega-universes, but that requires an understanding of quantum mechanics.

You mean magnetic monopoles and super-cooling in the inflationary stage?

Why don't you just explain instead of worrying about my understanding of it?

 

[samsara15]

It is true that scientists can sometimes be a bit arrogant. Over on the Physics Forum I asked why spinning objects keep spinning. Something has to be doing work somewhere. They told me 'angular momentum', and gave me the usual formulas for angular monentum. I told them, that's nice, but it doesn't answer my question; what is doing the work to make that formula true? I never got a straight answer, they kept repeating 'angular momentum', as if it was some sort of mantra, until I finally figured it out for myself, that the remainder of the mass in the spinning object provides the angular momentum to keep the object spinning. The object would fly part if the object were not rigid.

 

[Lagboltz]

I was demonstrating to the 'agnostics', who insist that metaphysics stands on shaky grounds, that science is standing on equally, if not more, shaky grounds.

I have already come to the same conclusions as you. I was merely wondering to what extent you were willing to take your bluster, particularly:

that I, being a mere engineer, cannot hope to see the big picture;

that I, being incapable of seeing the big picture, am nothing more than a young earther;

that your esoteric physics is self-consistent;

that the mathematically undefined has some sort of meaning in that 'self-consistent' theory you are infatuated with;

and that it is entirely reasonable to be skeptical about religion and philosophy but never with science.

Did I leave out anything important you wanted to say?

Gosh, you are a bit huffy. You know fracking well that what you wrote is not true. You are taking snippets of what I said out of context and put them into your own context. Not only did you leave out what I wanted to say, you think I said things I didn't say. And then you claim to have already come to the same conclusions as I. Yeah, right.

 

[Lagboltz]

They are not my barriers. They are the reasons why there is no unanimity in the physical cosmology community -- a fact that you conveniently sweep under the rug.

I thought you physics type are trained to be skeptical?

I have swept nothing under the rug. I clearly explained already that I feel that the current state of cosmology is similar to the few years before relativity, when physicists were puzzling over the properties of aether, the paradox of the Michelson-Morley experiments, the inconsistencies of Maxwell's equations, etc. There was no unanimity in the physical community back then either. I claim you are sweeping physics under the rug when you disparage the validity of science at the time of the big bang.

Yes, we are skeptics. Any experiment that makes a non-conventional claim is repeated by others, such as cold fusion. Also there is no accepted "best" theory of cosmology yet because skeptics won't allow any room for doubt.

Now you claim to be an expert of MY honesty?

You are grossly exaggerating again.

You mean magnetic monopoles and super-cooling in the inflationary stage?

No. There is a lot more to it than that.

Why don't you just explain instead of worrying about my understanding of it?

I'm not worrying about your understanding. Your understanding is hopeless if you refuse to acknowledge and scoff at quantum mechanics in the big picture. No. I don't mean string theory nor loop theory. Those are just two of the possibilities under study. For example, the Casmir effect is old school quantum mechanics, but must have a bearing on cosmology in a way that is not understood yet.

 

[numinus]

Gosh, you are a bit huffy. You know fracking well that what you wrote is not true. You are taking snippets of what I said out of context and put them into your own context. Not only did you leave out what I wanted to say, you think I said things I didn't say. And then you claim to have already come to the same conclusions as I. Yeah, right.

Feel free to point out what I lied about. Frankly, I'm not sure to what futile point you would attempt the exercise anyway. After all, what you said is plainly posted for anyone's perusal.

 

[numinus]

I have swept nothing under the rug. I clearly explained already that I feel that the current state of cosmology is similar to the few years before relativity, when physicists were puzzling over the properties of aether, the paradox of the Michelson-Morley experiments, the inconsistencies of Maxwell's equations, etc. There was no unanimity in the physical community back then either. I claim you are sweeping physics under the rug when you disparage the validity of science at the time of the big bang.

Yes, we are skeptics. Any experiment that makes a non-conventional claim is repeated by others, such as cold fusion. Also there is no accepted "best" theory of cosmology yet because skeptics won't allow any room for doubt.

You are grossly exaggerating again.

No. There is a lot more to it than that.

I'm not worrying about your understanding. Your understanding is hopeless if you refuse to acknowledge and scoff at quantum mechanics in the big picture. No. I don't mean string theory nor loop theory. Those are just two of the possibilities under study. For example, the Casmir effect is old school quantum mechanics, but must have a bearing on cosmology in a way that is not understood yet.

Since you haven't answered any of my (and dr who's) post with any credibility -- come to think of it, you haven't expounded on quantum mechanics itself, except mention the sufficiently vague 'quantum fluctuation' as the magical answer to anything and everything -- perhaps it is time to put your physics phd where your mouth is.

What part, exactly, of cosmology do you imagine quantum mechanics answers, hmmm?

And since you haven't been talking about horizon, homogeneity, flatness and lambda, it is fair to assume that quantum mechanics doesn't answer any of these. That you have the temerity to drag quantum mechanics in a discussion about gravity plainly demonstrates your intention to mislead.

And since you have a penchant for posting irrelevant pieces of information, I'll simply tell you what you're thinking.

What quantum mechanics describes is a PROBABILISTIC reality. Something could, at the SAME time, be here and there, existing and not existing, good and evil, male and female, dead and alive (and here, you can conveniently insert all sorts of logical contradictions) in this theory. And while I agree that it is incomplete, necessitating better mathematical models, IT ONLY SERVES TO IMPROVE EPISTEMIC LIMITATIONS. AT SOME POINT, IT CANNOT PIERCE THROUGH WHAT IS ONTOLOGICALLY INDETERMINATE.