Science > Philosophy > Dobson and Steady State (was Re: Show about a physicist on SBS lastnight?)
| Topic: |
Science > Philosophy |
| User: |
"Martin Dunne" |
| Date: |
21 Nov 2006 12:35:52 AM |
| Object: |
Dobson and Steady State (was Re: Show about a physicist on SBS lastnight?) |
Martin Dunne wrote:
imorf wrote:
[snip]
correct. Sincere guy, right on the money about how indifferent most
people are to the big questions in life, but a couple of his personal
models on cosmology, space/time theories contrary to accepted views
didn't make sense to me.
What was *really* interesting to me was that he's a Steady State
advocate, and I thought the last one of those had been Fred Hoyle!
While I suspect Big Bang's up for more knocks in the near future, I want
to see some young Steady Staters so generational shift's ensured.
Martin...
imorf wrote:
[snip]
I'm with the big Bang crowd. How does "always has been there" make
any more sense than "came from nothing"?
ps any Creationists looking to leap in here can just stfu.
Looking at it from a philosophical point of view you avoid first cause
if your model incorporates its own existence (ie "it's turtles all the
way down"). Which *is* a flaw with Big Bang, named by Hoyle as a
sarcastic comment.
As Dobson pointed out, physicists have been "misreading" General
Relativity since 1905--Einstein found it didn't describe a static
universe, and added his Cosmological Constant to allow for this. He
discarded this when he heard about Hubble's red shift discovery, however
current observations are making it current again (to describe Cosmic
Acceleration).
The death knell for Steady State (at least as described by Hoyle in
1948) was the discovery of Cosmic Background Radiation by two Bell
Telephone employees in 1965. They initially regarded it as a nuisance
interference, while just down the road at Princeton they were actively
looking for it.
Cosmology, particularly when driven by observational astronomy, is never
predictable. Catastrophism was dead in the water in the 1960s, only to
find a new life in Planetary Geology. Big Bang is the current paradigm,
but may ultimately go the way of Steady State, the flat Earth and
Spontaneous Creation.
Martin...
--
http://sfsa.org.au/, the South Australian Doctor Who Fan Club, Inc.
.
|
|
| User: "Immortalist" |
|
| Title: Re: Dobson and Steady State (was Re: Show about a physicist on SBS last night?) |
21 Nov 2006 12:43:39 PM |
|
|
Martin Dunne wrote:
Martin Dunne wrote:
imorf wrote:
[snip]
correct. Sincere guy, right on the money about how indifferent most
people are to the big questions in life, but a couple of his personal
models on cosmology, space/time theories contrary to accepted views
didn't make sense to me.
What was *really* interesting to me was that he's a Steady State
advocate, and I thought the last one of those had been Fred Hoyle!
While I suspect Big Bang's up for more knocks in the near future, I want
to see some young Steady Staters so generational shift's ensured.
Martin...
imorf wrote:
[snip]
I'm with the big Bang crowd. How does "always has been there" make
any more sense than "came from nothing"?
ps any Creationists looking to leap in here can just stfu.
Looking at it from a philosophical point of view you avoid first cause
if your model incorporates its own existence (ie "it's turtles all the
way down"). Which *is* a flaw with Big Bang, named by Hoyle as a
sarcastic comment.
As Dobson pointed out, physicists have been "misreading" General
Relativity since 1905--Einstein found it didn't describe a static
universe, and added his Cosmological Constant to allow for this. He
discarded this when he heard about Hubble's red shift discovery, however
current observations are making it current again (to describe Cosmic
Acceleration).
The death knell for Steady State (at least as described by Hoyle in
1948) was the discovery of Cosmic Background Radiation by two Bell
Telephone employees in 1965. They initially regarded it as a nuisance
interference, while just down the road at Princeton they were actively
looking for it.
Cosmology, particularly when driven by observational astronomy, is never
predictable. Catastrophism was dead in the water in the 1960s, only to
find a new life in Planetary Geology. Big Bang is the current paradigm,
but may ultimately go the way of Steady State, the flat Earth and
Spontaneous Creation.
Something and nothing have existed forever if that time zone be outside
any of the multiple-universes or even in a greater time b-racket?
Martin...
--
http://sfsa.org.au/, the South Australian Doctor Who Fan Club, Inc.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Brian Fletcher" |
|
| Title: Re: Dobson and Steady State (was Re: Show about a physicist on SBS last night?) |
21 Nov 2006 05:44:18 PM |
|
|
"Immortalist" <reanimater_2000@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1164134619.802616.322130@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Martin Dunne wrote:
Martin Dunne wrote:
imorf wrote:
[snip]
correct. Sincere guy, right on the money about how indifferent most
people are to the big questions in life, but a couple of his personal
models on cosmology, space/time theories contrary to accepted views
didn't make sense to me.
What was *really* interesting to me was that he's a Steady State
advocate, and I thought the last one of those had been Fred Hoyle!
While I suspect Big Bang's up for more knocks in the near future, I
want
to see some young Steady Staters so generational shift's ensured.
Martin...
imorf wrote:
[snip]
I'm with the big Bang crowd. How does "always has been there" make
any more sense than "came from nothing"?
ps any Creationists looking to leap in here can just stfu.
Looking at it from a philosophical point of view you avoid first cause
if your model incorporates its own existence (ie "it's turtles all the
way down"). Which *is* a flaw with Big Bang, named by Hoyle as a
sarcastic comment.
As Dobson pointed out, physicists have been "misreading" General
Relativity since 1905--Einstein found it didn't describe a static
universe, and added his Cosmological Constant to allow for this. He
discarded this when he heard about Hubble's red shift discovery, however
current observations are making it current again (to describe Cosmic
Acceleration).
The death knell for Steady State (at least as described by Hoyle in
1948) was the discovery of Cosmic Background Radiation by two Bell
Telephone employees in 1965. They initially regarded it as a nuisance
interference, while just down the road at Princeton they were actively
looking for it.
Cosmology, particularly when driven by observational astronomy, is never
predictable. Catastrophism was dead in the water in the 1960s, only to
find a new life in Planetary Geology. Big Bang is the current paradigm,
but may ultimately go the way of Steady State, the flat Earth and
Spontaneous Creation.
Something and nothing have existed forever if that time zone be outside
any of the multiple-universes or even in a greater time b-racket?
Why bring time into it.?
BOfL
.
|
|
|
| User: "Immortalist" |
|
| Title: Re: Dobson and Steady State (was Re: Show about a physicist on SBS last night?) |
21 Nov 2006 08:48:14 PM |
|
|
Brian Fletcher wrote:
"Immortalist" <reanimater_2000@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1164134619.802616.322130@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Martin Dunne wrote:
Martin Dunne wrote:
imorf wrote:
[snip]
correct. Sincere guy, right on the money about how indifferent most
people are to the big questions in life, but a couple of his personal
models on cosmology, space/time theories contrary to accepted views
didn't make sense to me.
What was *really* interesting to me was that he's a Steady State
advocate, and I thought the last one of those had been Fred Hoyle!
While I suspect Big Bang's up for more knocks in the near future, I
want
to see some young Steady Staters so generational shift's ensured.
Martin...
imorf wrote:
[snip]
I'm with the big Bang crowd. How does "always has been there" make
any more sense than "came from nothing"?
ps any Creationists looking to leap in here can just stfu.
Looking at it from a philosophical point of view you avoid first cause
if your model incorporates its own existence (ie "it's turtles all the
way down"). Which *is* a flaw with Big Bang, named by Hoyle as a
sarcastic comment.
As Dobson pointed out, physicists have been "misreading" General
Relativity since 1905--Einstein found it didn't describe a static
universe, and added his Cosmological Constant to allow for this. He
discarded this when he heard about Hubble's red shift discovery, however
current observations are making it current again (to describe Cosmic
Acceleration).
The death knell for Steady State (at least as described by Hoyle in
1948) was the discovery of Cosmic Background Radiation by two Bell
Telephone employees in 1965. They initially regarded it as a nuisance
interference, while just down the road at Princeton they were actively
looking for it.
Cosmology, particularly when driven by observational astronomy, is never
predictable. Catastrophism was dead in the water in the 1960s, only to
find a new life in Planetary Geology. Big Bang is the current paradigm,
but may ultimately go the way of Steady State, the flat Earth and
Spontaneous Creation.
Something and nothing have existed forever if that time zone be outside
any of the multiple-universes or even in a greater time b-racket?
Why bring time into it.?
Gotta have time in order to have time to do something in a place, a
place somewhere in space. Whatever happens in this spacetime is
contingent and hence, at the current time, unpredictable with human
hardware sensory poop shoots.
BOfL
.
|
|
|
| User: "Brian Fletcher" |
|
| Title: Re: Dobson and Steady State (was Re: Show about a physicist on SBS last night?) |
22 Nov 2006 03:34:04 AM |
|
|
"Immortalist" <reanimater_2000@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1164163694.133897.282860@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
Brian Fletcher wrote:
"Immortalist" <reanimater_2000@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1164134619.802616.322130@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Martin Dunne wrote:
Martin Dunne wrote:
imorf wrote:
[snip]
correct. Sincere guy, right on the money about how indifferent most
people are to the big questions in life, but a couple of his
personal
models on cosmology, space/time theories contrary to accepted views
didn't make sense to me.
What was *really* interesting to me was that he's a Steady State
advocate, and I thought the last one of those had been Fred Hoyle!
While I suspect Big Bang's up for more knocks in the near future, I
want
to see some young Steady Staters so generational shift's ensured.
Martin...
imorf wrote:
[snip]
I'm with the big Bang crowd. How does "always has been there" make
any more sense than "came from nothing"?
ps any Creationists looking to leap in here can just stfu.
Looking at it from a philosophical point of view you avoid first cause
if your model incorporates its own existence (ie "it's turtles all the
way down"). Which *is* a flaw with Big Bang, named by Hoyle as a
sarcastic comment.
As Dobson pointed out, physicists have been "misreading" General
Relativity since 1905--Einstein found it didn't describe a static
universe, and added his Cosmological Constant to allow for this. He
discarded this when he heard about Hubble's red shift discovery,
however
current observations are making it current again (to describe Cosmic
Acceleration).
The death knell for Steady State (at least as described by Hoyle in
1948) was the discovery of Cosmic Background Radiation by two Bell
Telephone employees in 1965. They initially regarded it as a nuisance
interference, while just down the road at Princeton they were actively
looking for it.
Cosmology, particularly when driven by observational astronomy, is
never
predictable. Catastrophism was dead in the water in the 1960s, only
to
find a new life in Planetary Geology. Big Bang is the current
paradigm,
but may ultimately go the way of Steady State, the flat Earth and
Spontaneous Creation.
Something and nothing have existed forever if that time zone be outside
any of the multiple-universes or even in a greater time b-racket?
Why bring time into it.?
Gotta have time in order to have time to do something in a place, a
place somewhere in space.
The only space is between the particles of the "something"
Whatever happens in this spacetime is
contingent and hence, at the current time, unpredictable with human
hardware sensory poop shoots.
Current time being a good example of such a shoot.
BOfL
BOfL
.
|
|
|
| User: "Immortalist" |
|
| Title: Re: Dobson and Steady State (was Re: Show about a physicist on SBS last night?) |
22 Nov 2006 10:23:09 AM |
|
|
Gotta have time in order to have time to do something in a place, a
place somewhere in space.
The only space is between the particles of the "something"
You mean the "something" is spiritual because it doesn't exist in
space?
Whatever happens in this spacetime is
contingent and hence, at the current time, unpredictable with human
hardware sensory poop shoots.
Current time being a good example of such a shoot.
BOfL
BOfL
.
|
|
|
| User: "Brian Fletcher" |
|
| Title: Re: Dobson and Steady State (was Re: Show about a physicist on SBS last night?) |
22 Nov 2006 04:40:29 PM |
|
|
"Immortalist" <reanimater_2000@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1164212589.248738.149380@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
Gotta have time in order to have time to do something in a place, a
place somewhere in space.
The only space is between the particles of the "something"
You mean the "something" is spiritual because it doesn't exist in
space?
I was using the word in the same context as you did.
BOfL
Whatever happens in this spacetime is
contingent and hence, at the current time, unpredictable with human
hardware sensory poop shoots.
Current time being a good example of such a shoot.
BOfL
BOfL
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
