Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics > #621638 > unrolled thread

Why did the universe start in such a low state of entropy?

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  Why did the universe start in such a low state of entropy? alal65536@gmail.com - 2017-03-05 14:30 -0800
    Re: Why did the universe start in such a low state of entropy? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-03-05 17:35 -0600
      Re: Why did the universe start in such a low state of entropy? alal65536@gmail.com - 2017-03-05 17:09 -0800
        Re: Why did the universe start in such a low state of entropy? edprochak@gmail.com - 2017-03-05 18:18 -0800
          Re: Why did the universe start in such a low state of entropy? alal65536@gmail.com - 2017-03-06 03:21 -0800
            Re: Why did the universe start in such a low state of entropy? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-03-06 12:06 -0600
              Re: Why did the universe start in such a low state of entropy? benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-03-06 18:37 -0500
              Re: Why did the universe start in such a low state of entropy? alal65536@gmail.com - 2017-03-07 03:47 -0800
                Re: Why did the universe start in such a low state of entropy? edprochak@gmail.com - 2017-03-07 05:11 -0800
                  Re: Why did the universe start in such a low state of entropy? Yousuf Khan <bbbl67@spammenot.yahoo.com> - 2017-03-09 07:07 -0500
                    Re: Why did the universe start in such a low state of entropy? edprochak@gmail.com - 2017-03-09 06:00 -0800
                Re: Why did the universe start in such a low state of entropy? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-03-07 07:18 -0600
        Re: Why did the universe start in such a low state of entropy? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-03-05 20:48 -0600
          Re: Why did the universe start in such a low state of entropy? alal65536@gmail.com - 2017-03-06 03:24 -0800
            Re: Why did the universe start in such a low state of entropy? edprochak@gmail.com - 2017-03-06 06:10 -0800
            Re: Why did the universe start in such a low state of entropy? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-03-06 12:04 -0600
            Re: Why did the universe start in such a low state of entropy? Yousuf Khan <bbbl67@spammenot.yahoo.com> - 2017-03-09 07:42 -0500
              Re: Why did the universe start in such a low state of entropy? alal65536@gmail.com - 2017-03-09 06:40 -0800
                Re: Why did the universe start in such a low state of entropy? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-03-09 09:57 -0600
                Re: Why did the universe start in such a low state of entropy? Yousuf Khan <bbbl67@spammenot.yahoo.com> - 2017-03-10 01:46 -0500
              Re: Why did the universe start in such a low state of entropy? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-03-09 10:26 -0800
                Re: Why did the universe start in such a low state of entropy? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-03-09 23:37 -0800
      Re: Why did the universe start in such a low state of entropy? benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-03-06 18:05 -0500
        Re: Why did the universe start in such a low state of entropy? alal65536@gmail.com - 2017-03-07 04:00 -0800
          Re: Why did the universe start in such a low state of entropy? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-03-07 07:17 -0600
          Re: Why did the universe start in such a low state of entropy? edprochak@gmail.com - 2017-03-07 05:19 -0800
            Re: Why did the universe start in such a low state of entropy? alal65536@gmail.com - 2017-03-07 08:48 -0800
              Re: Why did the universe start in such a low state of entropy? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-03-07 11:41 -0600
              Re: Yesterday's religion is today's politics, and I'm agnostic. Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> - 2017-03-07 11:08 -0800
                Re: Yesterday's religion is today's politics, and I'm agnostic. Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> - 2017-03-07 12:31 -0800
              Re: Yesterday's religion is today's politics, and I'm agnostic. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-03-07 16:50 -0500
              Re: Why did the universe start in such a low state of entropy? edprochak@gmail.com - 2017-03-07 14:22 -0800
                Re: Why did the universe start in such a low state of entropy? alal65536@gmail.com - 2017-03-07 17:14 -0800
                  Re: Why did the universe start in such a low state of entropy? edprochak@gmail.com - 2017-03-08 06:06 -0800
                    Re: Why did the universe start in such a low state of entropy? alal65536@gmail.com - 2017-03-08 23:07 -0800
                      Re: Why did the universe start in such a low state of entropy? edprochak@gmail.com - 2017-03-09 05:54 -0800
                  Re: Why did the universe start in such a low state of entropy? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-03-08 09:51 -0600
              Re: Why did the universe start in such a low state of entropy? Yousuf Khan <bbbl67@spammenot.yahoo.com> - 2017-03-09 07:54 -0500
            Re: "String Theory" can "model" 10^500 "vacua". benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-03-07 16:48 -0500
          Re: Why did the universe start in such a low state of entropy? Yousuf Khan <bbbl67@spammenot.yahoo.com> - 2017-03-09 07:46 -0500
    Re: Why did the universe start in such a low state of entropy? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-03-05 16:08 -0800
    Re: Why did the universe start in such a low state of entropy? numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-03-05 18:25 -0800
    Re: Why did the universe start in such a low state of entropy? "reber G=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2017-03-07 09:11 -0800
      Re: Why did the universe start in such a low state of entropy? "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2017-03-07 17:57 -0800
      Re: Why did the universe start in such a low state of entropy? "reber G=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2017-03-08 09:19 -0800
        Re: Why did the universe start in such a low state of entropy? "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2017-03-08 12:33 -0800
    Re: Why did the universe start in such a low state of entropy? Yousuf Khan <bbbl67@spammenot.yahoo.com> - 2017-03-09 00:20 -0500
      Re: Why did the universe start in such a low state of entropy? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-03-08 23:43 -0800

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

#622304

Yousuf Khan wrote:
> 
> On 3/6/2017 6:24 AM, alal65536@gmail.com wrote:
> > Clearly entropy has not reached its maximum.  We will know it has reached its maximum, once it stops increasing, and stabilises
> 
> Maximum entropy is reached when there is an uniform temperature across
> any two and all points in the universe (i.e. absolute zero), not when
> the universe stops expanding. So the rules of quantum mechanics don't
> allow for such uniform temperatures to ever exist in the universe, there
> will always exist a slightest differential of energy levels between
> points in the universe, this is called a quantum fluctuation.
> 
> There is a certain theory about the cause of the Big Bang being a
> quantum fluctuation. This is not a theory about how the universe started
> (that's obviously the Big Bang, and that's not in question), but a
> theory about how the Big Bang started! The theory goes that there
> existed an empty void of a primordial universe prior to this universe;
> you can't even call it an universe as no structures existed in it. This
> void contained no matter, just a lot of energy in the form of quantum
> fluctuations. If there is even the slightest quantum fluctuation
> available in the void, then a new proper universe can be born, with
> structures in it.
> 
> We'll never know if this theory of the what existed prior to the Big
> Bang is true, as the Big Bang erased all evidence of anything prior to
> it. In fact, the entire concept of "prior to" just doesn't exist until
> after the Big Bang, because time started with it too. If the primordial
> void contained a dimension known as time, we don't know. The void might
> have existed just a microsecond or less before the Big Bang, or it may
> have existed a trillion years or more beforehand. Time itself is all
> relative according to Einstein, so we don't even have the same context
> of time as what existed before.
> 
>         Yousuf Khan


The evidence of the big bang is called...the big dipper. Why do you
think it is the brightest stars in our constelation??

It is nature's way of telling you how it looked before the big bang. the
big dipper and the little dipper are samples
of before the big bang.

I know it's going to take a while for you to get it because...you're
waiting to be told How To Think.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#622399

The Starmaker wrote:
> 
> Yousuf Khan wrote:
> >
> > On 3/6/2017 6:24 AM, alal65536@gmail.com wrote:
> > > Clearly entropy has not reached its maximum.  We will know it has reached its maximum, once it stops increasing, and stabilises
> >
> > Maximum entropy is reached when there is an uniform temperature across
> > any two and all points in the universe (i.e. absolute zero), not when
> > the universe stops expanding. So the rules of quantum mechanics don't
> > allow for such uniform temperatures to ever exist in the universe, there
> > will always exist a slightest differential of energy levels between
> > points in the universe, this is called a quantum fluctuation.
> >
> > There is a certain theory about the cause of the Big Bang being a
> > quantum fluctuation. This is not a theory about how the universe started
> > (that's obviously the Big Bang, and that's not in question), but a
> > theory about how the Big Bang started! The theory goes that there
> > existed an empty void of a primordial universe prior to this universe;
> > you can't even call it an universe as no structures existed in it. This
> > void contained no matter, just a lot of energy in the form of quantum
> > fluctuations. If there is even the slightest quantum fluctuation
> > available in the void, then a new proper universe can be born, with
> > structures in it.
> >
> > We'll never know if this theory of the what existed prior to the Big
> > Bang is true, as the Big Bang erased all evidence of anything prior to
> > it. In fact, the entire concept of "prior to" just doesn't exist until
> > after the Big Bang, because time started with it too. If the primordial
> > void contained a dimension known as time, we don't know. The void might
> > have existed just a microsecond or less before the Big Bang, or it may
> > have existed a trillion years or more beforehand. Time itself is all
> > relative according to Einstein, so we don't even have the same context
> > of time as what existed before.
> >
> >         Yousuf Khan
> 
> The evidence of the big bang is called...the big dipper. Why do you
> think it is the brightest stars in our constelation??
> 
> It is nature's way of telling you how it looked before the big bang. the
> big dipper and the little dipper are samples
> of before the big bang.
> 
> I know it's going to take a while for you to get it because...you're
> waiting to be told How To Think.


I think it should be obvious to everyone by now...Yousuf Khan is a walking textbook. He talks..textbook talk.

As you know textbooks are monopoloy controlled publications...you think what they want you to think, textbook style.


Here is a sample from above of textbook monoploy thinking..


"We'll never know if this theory of the what existed prior to the Big
 Bang is true,..."


"We'll"???? Who is "We"? Answer: textbook.


Poor Yousuf Khan...he's not even aware of it. 

and he goes on...

"In fact, the entire concept of "prior to" just doesn't exist until
 after the Big Bang, because time started with it too."



"in fact"????  


If the textbooks tells him "just doesn't exist", ...

well then, he's done for...

toast.

What does a computer say? "Does not compute."

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#621852

On 3/5/2017 6:35 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 3/5/2017 4:30 PM, alal65536@gmail.com wrote:
>> Why did the universe start in such a low state of entropy?
>
> It was lower than it is today. But that's a relative statement.
>
>> Is a low state of entropy simpler?
>
> Yes.
>
>> Is a low state of entropy more beautiful?
>
> Such esthetic reasons are not really a sound basis for the laws of
> nature. The second law of thermodynamics expresses the fact that nature
> tends toward higher entropy, so it's natural that the universe now would
> have more entropy than earlier. There does not have to be a basis in
> "beauty" or "elegance", which are human perceptions after all. The
> universe does not really care what esthetics mere humans perceive.
>
>>
>> Abhinav Lal
>> Writer & Investor

Dear Abhinac,
As a writer and investor (especially as writer) that means you haven't a 
clue about science. So allow me to warn you about Mr. Anonymous Odd. His 
view of science is pure agenda. He parrots textbooks designed to 
indoctrinate future scientists and engineers. Thinking is not part of 
his actions. What he is talking about is 19th century "steam engine 
physics" theories. Modern theories are nothing like this. There is ZERO 
evidence that entropy of the universe is increasing. A conservation of 
entropy seems much more likely.

The reasons have to do with modern communication theory where 
information was noted to be measured in entropy. The big mistake that 
Boinker's textbooks make is that their physics are so narrowly defined 
that they are all afraid to start looking at the reality that life 
represents changing entropy in the OTHER direction. To learn more truth 
rather than to allow Odd to teach you to parrot his religious dogma, 
take time online to read Schroedinger's essay on life. (Yes, THAT 
Schroedinger who invented QM) That will point you in the correct 
direction for further research and save you from Boinker propaganda.

PS. Odd has me killfiled so if you don't respond to me, then this will 
remain our little secret, OK? :-)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#621950

On Tuesday, March 7, 2017 at 4:35:42 AM UTC+5:30, benj wrote:
> On 3/5/2017 6:35 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> > On 3/5/2017 4:30 PM, alal65536@gmail.com wrote:
> >> Why did the universe start in such a low state of entropy?
> >
> > It was lower than it is today. But that's a relative statement.
> >
> >> Is a low state of entropy simpler?
> >
> > Yes.
> >
> >> Is a low state of entropy more beautiful?
> >
> > Such esthetic reasons are not really a sound basis for the laws of
> > nature. The second law of thermodynamics expresses the fact that nature
> > tends toward higher entropy, so it's natural that the universe now would
> > have more entropy than earlier. There does not have to be a basis in
> > "beauty" or "elegance", which are human perceptions after all. The
> > universe does not really care what esthetics mere humans perceive.
> >
> >>
> >> Abhinav Lal
> >> Writer & Investor
> 
> Dear Abhinac,
> As a writer and investor (especially as writer) that means you haven't a 
> clue about science. 

While I am not a physicist, I have a degree in computer engineering, and studied classical physics in college, and completed a third year physics course on structure of matter.  Clueless are physicists who believe in quarks, which I know are a hoax.  String theory, also, is not science.

Meanwhile most scientists seem to be unaware of some latest science and technology.  Like weather control.

>So allow me to warn you about Mr. Anonymous Odd. His 
> view of science is pure agenda. He parrots textbooks designed to 
> indoctrinate future scientists and engineers. Thinking is not part of 
> his actions. What he is talking about is 19th century "steam engine 
> physics" theories. Modern theories are nothing like this. There is ZERO 
> evidence that entropy of the universe is increasing. A conservation of 
> entropy seems much more likely.
> 
> The reasons have to do with modern communication theory where 
> information was noted to be measured in entropy. The big mistake that 
> Boinker's textbooks make is that their physics are so narrowly defined 
> that they are all afraid to start looking at the reality that life 
> represents changing entropy in the OTHER direction. To learn more truth 
> rather than to allow Odd to teach you to parrot his religious dogma, 
> take time online to read Schroedinger's essay on life. (Yes, THAT 
> Schroedinger who invented QM) That will point you in the correct 
> direction for further research and save you from Boinker propaganda.

I have read that Schroedinger made a false claim about entropy in his book "What is Life".   Don't life forms contribute to an increase in entropy in their environment?

Abhinav Lal 
Writer & Investor 

> 
> PS. Odd has me killfiled so if you don't respond to me, then this will 
> remain our little secret, OK? :-)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#621959

On 3/7/2017 6:00 AM, alal65536@gmail.com wrote:
> While I am not a physicist, I have a degree in computer engineering, and studied classical physics
> in college, and completed a third year physics course on structure of matter.

OK, so you don't really have any studies under your belt for quantum 
mechanics or field theory, right?

> Clueless are physicists who believe in quarks, which I know are a hoax.

That's an interesting statement. Are you aware of the experimental 
evidence for quarks? What would be the value of perpetrating a hoax 
about the inner workings of a proton or a neutron?

> String theory, also, is not science.


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

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#621961

On Tuesday, March 7, 2017 at 7:01:00 AM UTC-5, alal...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, March 7, 2017 at 4:35:42 AM UTC+5:30, benj wrote:
[]
> > 
> > Dear Abhinac,
> > As a writer and investor (especially as writer) that means you haven't a 
> > clue about science. 
> 
> While I am not a physicist, I have a degree in computer engineering,
> and studied classical physics in college, and completed a third year
> physics course on structure of matter.

OK.

>  Clueless are physicists who believe in quarks, which I know are a hoax.

And your evidence for this claim?

> String theory, also, is not science.

proposing theories is a vital part of science. No new theories
means no new progress. You could say you do not think String
theory is the basis of the next advance, but you cannot show
it is not science.

> 
> Meanwhile most scientists seem to be unaware of some latest
> science and technology.

hey, there is a LOT of science out there to learn.  :)

>  Like weather control.

Evidence? references?

[]
> 
> I have read that Schroedinger made a false claim about
> entropy in his book "What is Life".   Don't life forms
> contribute to an increase in entropy in their environment?

Exactly. Life is not a closed system. Growth comes at the 
cost of increased entropy in the environment (the rest of
the universe).

have a good day.
  Ed

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#621973

On Tuesday, March 7, 2017 at 6:49:19 PM UTC+5:30, edpr...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, March 7, 2017 at 7:01:00 AM UTC-5, alal...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Tuesday, March 7, 2017 at 4:35:42 AM UTC+5:30, benj wrote:
> []
> > > 
> > > Dear Abhinac,
> > > As a writer and investor (especially as writer) that means you haven't a 
> > > clue about science. 
> > 
> > While I am not a physicist, I have a degree in computer engineering,
> > and studied classical physics in college, and completed a third year
> > physics course on structure of matter.
> 
> OK.
> 
> >  Clueless are physicists who believe in quarks, which I know are a hoax.
> 
> And your evidence for this claim?

I agree to take a lie detector test, and a fMRI scan, to confirm that I am not lying, when I claim that quarks are not real.  There is a reason that quarks are never directly observed.

> 
> > String theory, also, is not science.
> 
> proposing theories is a vital part of science. No new theories
> means no new progress. You could say you do not think String
> theory is the basis of the next advance, but you cannot show
> it is not science.

Is string theory testable?  Can it be falsified?

> 
> > 
> > Meanwhile most scientists seem to be unaware of some latest
> > science and technology.
> 
> hey, there is a LOT of science out there to learn.  :)
> 
> >  Like weather control.
> 
> Evidence? references?

The government keeps secrets from the people.  There are many technology advances that the public are unaware.  Again, I agree to submit myself to tests and scans.

> 
> []
> > 
> > I have read that Schroedinger made a false claim about
> > entropy in his book "What is Life".   Don't life forms
> > contribute to an increase in entropy in their environment?
> 
> Exactly. Life is not a closed system. Growth comes at the 
> cost of increased entropy in the environment (the rest of
> the universe).
> 
> have a good day.
>   Ed

I love science, and mean no disrespect for the majority of hardworking physicists.  But some scientists have fooled us.  Lying is part of human nature, and we can't expect our scientists to live up to a higher standard.  You just can't trust anyone.

Abhinav Lal 
Writer & Investor 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#621984

On 3/7/2017 10:48 AM, alal65536@gmail.com wrote:
>>>  Clueless are physicists who believe in quarks, which I know are a hoax.
>> And your evidence for this claim?
> I agree to take a lie detector test, and a fMRI scan, to confirm that I am not lying,
> when I claim that quarks are not real.  There is a reason that quarks are never directly
> observed.
>

Your sincerity about what you believe is not in question. The question 
is whether there is sound basis for what you believe.

You can be completely convinced of something that is simply not true. 
But do you have any basis with which you could convince SOMEONE ELSE 
that quarks are not real?

Yes, you're right, there is a reason why quarks are not directly 
observed. It is called asymptotic freedom and is fundamental to the 
theory of quarks.


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

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#621999 — Re: Yesterday's religion is today's politics, and I'm agnostic.

On Tuesday, March 7, 2017 at 9:00:57 AM UTC-8, Jeff-Relf.Me wrote:
> Yesterday's religion is today's politics, and I'm agnostic.
> 
> No one here is "lying" per se, nor is the government; 
> we're all just defending our own special set of "truths".


My friend Kim thinks the Mormon Church is controlling everything!  Since you used to be one, you should know.  Are they?

Double-A

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#622020 — Re: Yesterday's religion is today's politics, and I'm agnostic.

On Tuesday, March 7, 2017 at 11:28:43 AM UTC-8, Jeff-Relf.Me wrote:
> You ( Double-A ) asked me:
> > My friend Kim thinks the Mormon Church is controlling everything!
> > Since you used to be one, you should know.  Are they?
> 
> No, of course not.  However, Trump's inauguration had a 
> very Mormon/protestant church service feel to it.


So does that mean they are now even controlling the Presidency?

Double-A

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#622040 — Re: Yesterday's religion is today's politics, and I'm agnostic.

On 3/7/2017 12:00 PM, Jeff-Relf.Me wrote:
> Yesterday's religion is today's politics, and I'm agnostic.
>
> No one here is "lying" per se, nor is the government;
> we're all just defending our own special set of "truths".
>
>
Sure, you left coast proggie. "Truth" is just whatever you say it is. Sure.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#622044

On Tuesday, March 7, 2017 at 11:48:54 AM UTC-5, alal...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, March 7, 2017 at 6:49:19 PM UTC+5:30, edpr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Tuesday, March 7, 2017 at 7:01:00 AM UTC-5, alal...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, March 7, 2017 at 4:35:42 AM UTC+5:30, benj wrote:
> > []
> > > > 
> > > > Dear Abhinac,
> > > > As a writer and investor (especially as writer) that means you haven't a 
> > > > clue about science. 
> > > 
> > > While I am not a physicist, I have a degree in computer engineering,
> > > and studied classical physics in college, and completed a third year
> > > physics course on structure of matter.
> > 
> > OK.
> > 
> > >  Clueless are physicists who believe in quarks, which I know are a hoax.
> > 
> > And your evidence for this claim?
> 
> I agree to take a lie detector test, and a fMRI scan, to confirm
> that I am not lying, when I claim that quarks are not real.

I never said you lied.

>  There is a reason that quarks are never directly observed.

And we never directly observe electrons, neutrinos, and many other
fundamental particles.  Quarks explain certain particle interactions
and are based on clear evidence.

What was the guideline for claiming new particles? 5 sigma?
or 6 sigma? Either way, extremely unlikely they do not exist.
> 
> > 
> > > String theory, also, is not science.
> > 
> > proposing theories is a vital part of science. No new theories
> > means no new progress. You could say you do not think String
> > theory is the basis of the next advance, but you cannot show
> > it is not science.
> 
> Is string theory testable?  Can it be falsified?

Exactly, that is a major reason no string theory has taken
a clear lead, though many versions have been eliminated.

> 
> > 
> > > 
> > > Meanwhile most scientists seem to be unaware of some latest
> > > science and technology.
> > 
> > hey, there is a LOT of science out there to learn.  :)
> > 
> > >  Like weather control.
> > 
> > Evidence? references?
> 
> The government keeps secrets from the people.

Not news.

> There are many technology advances that the public are unaware.

Now its the public is unaware, not scientists.
Many ordinary people have no interest in science and technology.
They just want to pay their bills and maybe have some time and
money left for fun.

>  Again, I agree to submit myself to tests and scans.

No need. I do not question you honesty.
I only questioned your conclusion about quarks.

> 
> > 
> > []
> > > 
> > > I have read that Schroedinger made a false claim about
> > > entropy in his book "What is Life".   Don't life forms
> > > contribute to an increase in entropy in their environment?
> > 
> > Exactly. Life is not a closed system. Growth comes at the 
> > cost of increased entropy in the environment (the rest of
> > the universe).
> > 
> > have a good day.
> >   Ed
> 
> I love science, and mean no disrespect for the majority of
> hardworking physicists.  But some scientists have fooled us.
>  Lying is part of human nature, and we can't expect our
> scientists to live up to a higher standard.
>  You just can't trust anyone.
> 
> Abhinav Lal 
> Writer & Investor

To a great extent, you are right.

So I should take your advice and not trust you.
But of course by your advice, you cannot accept
anything I say. So there is no purpose to this
discussion!

OR

We can be somewhat skeptical, but learn.
We can develop trust in each other and in the data
Does it match the data? then maybe it is the best
explanation we have at this point.

let me know which option you think is best.
I try to follow the second. I am somewhat
a contrarian. I don't accept answers just because
someone here says it is so. But I am willing to
discuss things calmly and rationally.

So if you really want to convince me that
 quarks do not exist, you need to provide
more evidence than "I am not lying".

Enjoy.
   ed
someone I do not know

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#622070

On Wednesday, March 8, 2017 at 3:52:45 AM UTC+5:30, edpr...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, March 7, 2017 at 11:48:54 AM UTC-5, alal...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Tuesday, March 7, 2017 at 6:49:19 PM UTC+5:30, edpr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, March 7, 2017 at 7:01:00 AM UTC-5, alal...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > On Tuesday, March 7, 2017 at 4:35:42 AM UTC+5:30, benj wrote:
> > > []
> > > > > 
> > > > > Dear Abhinac,
> > > > > As a writer and investor (especially as writer) that means you haven't a 
> > > > > clue about science. 
> > > > 
> > > > While I am not a physicist, I have a degree in computer engineering,
> > > > and studied classical physics in college, and completed a third year
> > > > physics course on structure of matter.
> > > 
> > > OK.
> > > 
> > > >  Clueless are physicists who believe in quarks, which I know are a hoax.
> > > 
> > > And your evidence for this claim?
> > 
> > I agree to take a lie detector test, and a fMRI scan, to confirm
> > that I am not lying, when I claim that quarks are not real.
> 
> I never said you lied.

If I gave you my reason for claiming that quarks are not real, you would probably accuse me of lying.

> 
> >  There is a reason that quarks are never directly observed.
> 
> And we never directly observe electrons, neutrinos, and many other
> fundamental particles.  Quarks explain certain particle interactions
> and are based on clear evidence.
> 
> What was the guideline for claiming new particles? 5 sigma?
> or 6 sigma? Either way, extremely unlikely they do not exist.
> > 
> > > 
> > > > String theory, also, is not science.
> > > 
> > > proposing theories is a vital part of science. No new theories
> > > means no new progress. You could say you do not think String
> > > theory is the basis of the next advance, but you cannot show
> > > it is not science.
> > 
> > Is string theory testable?  Can it be falsified?
> 
> Exactly, that is a major reason no string theory has taken
> a clear lead, though many versions have been eliminated.
> 

If string theory is not testable, does that imply it's not science?

> > 
> > > 
> > > > 
> > > > Meanwhile most scientists seem to be unaware of some latest
> > > > science and technology.
> > > 
> > > hey, there is a LOT of science out there to learn.  :)
> > > 
> > > >  Like weather control.
> > > 
> > > Evidence? references?
> > 
> > The government keeps secrets from the people.
> 
> Not news.

If you believe that the government keeps secrets, isn't it possible that they are keeping secret, technological developments?

> 
> > There are many technology advances that the public are unaware.
> 
> Now its the public is unaware, not scientists.
> Many ordinary people have no interest in science and technology.
> They just want to pay their bills and maybe have some time and
> money left for fun.

Both public and scientists are unaware of some important technology advances.

> 
> >  Again, I agree to submit myself to tests and scans.
> 
> No need. I do not question you honesty.
> I only questioned your conclusion about quarks.

I try very hard to be honest, but do not always succeed.

> 
> > 
> > > 
> > > []
> > > > 
> > > > I have read that Schroedinger made a false claim about
> > > > entropy in his book "What is Life".   Don't life forms
> > > > contribute to an increase in entropy in their environment?
> > > 
> > > Exactly. Life is not a closed system. Growth comes at the 
> > > cost of increased entropy in the environment (the rest of
> > > the universe).
> > > 
> > > have a good day.
> > >   Ed
> > 
> > I love science, and mean no disrespect for the majority of
> > hardworking physicists.  But some scientists have fooled us.
> >  Lying is part of human nature, and we can't expect our
> > scientists to live up to a higher standard.
> >  You just can't trust anyone.
> > 
> > Abhinav Lal 
> > Writer & Investor
> 
> To a great extent, you are right.
> 
> So I should take your advice and not trust you.
> But of course by your advice, you cannot accept
> anything I say. So there is no purpose to this
> discussion!

You can trust most people some of the time; you can trust some people most of the time; but you can't trust most people most of the time.  

You don't trust my assertion about quarks or weather control.

> 
> OR
> 
> We can be somewhat skeptical, but learn.
> We can develop trust in each other and in the data
> Does it match the data? then maybe it is the best
> explanation we have at this point.
> 
> let me know which option you think is best.
> I try to follow the second. I am somewhat
> a contrarian. I don't accept answers just because
> someone here says it is so. But I am willing to
> discuss things calmly and rationally.

The world would be a much better place, with the second option.  I believe that you are more trustworthy than most.  Unfortunately, many people turn to personal insults, when they disagree with you.  Thanks for discussing things calmly and rationally.

> So if you really want to convince me that
>  quarks do not exist, you need to provide
> more evidence than "I am not lying".

I do not possess any evidence.  It is a conspiracy.  I do not want to say anymore and be accused of being crazy.

> 
> Enjoy.
>    ed
> someone I do not know

Abhinav Lal 
Writer & Investor 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#622132

On Tuesday, March 7, 2017 at 8:15:01 PM UTC-5, alal...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, March 8, 2017 at 3:52:45 AM UTC+5:30, edpr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Tuesday, March 7, 2017 at 11:48:54 AM UTC-5, alal...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, March 7, 2017 at 6:49:19 PM UTC+5:30, edpr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > On Tuesday, March 7, 2017 at 7:01:00 AM UTC-5, alal...@gmail.com wrote:
[]
> > > > 
> > > > >  Clueless are physicists who believe in quarks,
> > > > >  which I know are a hoax.
> > > > 
> > > > And your evidence for this claim?
> > > 
> > > I agree to take a lie detector test, and a fMRI scan, to confirm
> > > that I am not lying, when I claim that quarks are not real.
> > 
> > I never said you lied.
> 
> If I gave you my reason for claiming that quarks are not real,
> you would probably accuse me of lying.
> 
> > 
> > >  There is a reason that quarks are never directly observed.
> > 
> > And we never directly observe electrons, neutrinos, and many other
> > fundamental particles.  Quarks explain certain particle interactions
> > and are based on clear evidence.
> > 
> > What was the guideline for claiming new particles? 5 sigma?
> > or 6 sigma? Either way, extremely unlikely they do not exist.
> > > 
> > > > 
> > > > > String theory, also, is not science.
> > > > 
> > > > proposing theories is a vital part of science. No new theories
> > > > means no new progress. You could say you do not think String
> > > > theory is the basis of the next advance, but you cannot show
> > > > it is not science.
> > > 
> > > Is string theory testable?  Can it be falsified?
> > 
> > Exactly, that is a major reason no string theory has taken
> > a clear lead, though many versions have been eliminated.
> > 
> 
> If string theory is not testable, does that imply it's not science?
> 
Is a problem in science not science if we have not solved it yet?

> > > 
> > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > Meanwhile most scientists seem to be unaware of some latest
> > > > > science and technology.
> > > > 
> > > > hey, there is a LOT of science out there to learn.  :)
> > > > 
> > > > >  Like weather control.
> > > > 
> > > > Evidence? references?
> > > 
> > > The government keeps secrets from the people.
> > 
> > Not news.
> 
> If you believe that the government keeps secrets,
> isn't it possible that they are keeping secret,
> technological developments?

But you made the -specific- claim of weather control.
That is the point I question.

> 
> > 
> > > There are many technology advances that the public are unaware.
> > 
> > Now its the public is unaware, not scientists.
> > Many ordinary people have no interest in science and technology.
> > They just want to pay their bills and maybe have some time and
> > money left for fun.
> 
> Both public and scientists are unaware of some important technology advances.

Can you provide an example of at least technological advance
which IYHO (in your humble opinion) is both
1. an important technology (please present the a reason for its importance)
2. and unknown by a large segment of scientists.

> 
> > 
> > >  Again, I agree to submit myself to tests and scans.
> > 
> > No need. I do not question you honesty.
> > I only questioned your conclusion about quarks.
> 
> I try very hard to be honest, but do not always succeed.

:)
[]
> > > 
> > > I love science, and mean no disrespect for the majority of
> > > hardworking physicists.  But some scientists have fooled us.
> > >  Lying is part of human nature, and we can't expect our
> > > scientists to live up to a higher standard.
> > >  You just can't trust anyone.
> > > 
> > > Abhinav Lal 
> > > Writer & Investor
> > 
> > To a great extent, you are right.
> > 
> > So I should take your advice and not trust you.
> > But of course by your advice, you cannot accept
> > anything I say. So there is no purpose to this
> > discussion!
> 
> You can trust most people some of the time;
> you can trust some people most of the time;
> but you can't trust most people most of the time.  
> 
> You don't trust my assertion about quarks or weather control.

trust but verify as Reagan used to say.

Hey I am hoping you have something to teach me.

> 
> > 
> > OR
> > 
> > We can be somewhat skeptical, but learn.
> > We can develop trust in each other and in the data
> > Does it match the data? then maybe it is the best
> > explanation we have at this point.
> > 
> > let me know which option you think is best.
> > I try to follow the second. I am somewhat
> > a contrarian. I don't accept answers just because
> > someone here says it is so. But I am willing to
> > discuss things calmly and rationally.
> 
> The world would be a much better place, with the second option.
>  I believe that you are more trustworthy than most.  Unfortunately,
> many people turn to personal insults, when they disagree with you.

yes, some have turned to that Dark Side and see being respected
as having their opinions accepted a truth and denigrating anyone
that questions their self appointed authority.  try not to take
them too seriously.


> Thanks for discussing things calmly and rationally.

The same to you!
> 
> > So if you really want to convince me that
> >  quarks do not exist, you need to provide
> > more evidence than "I am not lying".
> 
> I do not possess any evidence.  It is a conspiracy.
>  I do not want to say anymore and be accused of being crazy.

If you would like to discuss the quark issue
or anything else without the trolls, feel free
to email me. But be aware, like usenet, there
can be times when I do not respond to email
for days.

have a great day.
  Ed

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#622241

On Wednesday, March 8, 2017 at 7:36:53 PM UTC+5:30, edpr...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, March 7, 2017 at 8:15:01 PM UTC-5, alal...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Wednesday, March 8, 2017 at 3:52:45 AM UTC+5:30, edpr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, March 7, 2017 at 11:48:54 AM UTC-5, alal...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > On Tuesday, March 7, 2017 at 6:49:19 PM UTC+5:30, edpr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > On Tuesday, March 7, 2017 at 7:01:00 AM UTC-5, alal...@gmail.com wrote:
> []
> > > > > 
> > > > > >  Clueless are physicists who believe in quarks,
> > > > > >  which I know are a hoax.
> > > > > 
> > > > > And your evidence for this claim?
> > > > 
> > > > I agree to take a lie detector test, and a fMRI scan, to confirm
> > > > that I am not lying, when I claim that quarks are not real.
> > > 
> > > I never said you lied.
> > 
> > If I gave you my reason for claiming that quarks are not real,
> > you would probably accuse me of lying.
> > 
> > > 
> > > >  There is a reason that quarks are never directly observed.
> > > 
> > > And we never directly observe electrons, neutrinos, and many other
> > > fundamental particles.  Quarks explain certain particle interactions
> > > and are based on clear evidence.
> > > 
> > > What was the guideline for claiming new particles? 5 sigma?
> > > or 6 sigma? Either way, extremely unlikely they do not exist.
> > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > > String theory, also, is not science.
> > > > > 
> > > > > proposing theories is a vital part of science. No new theories
> > > > > means no new progress. You could say you do not think String
> > > > > theory is the basis of the next advance, but you cannot show
> > > > > it is not science.
> > > > 
> > > > Is string theory testable?  Can it be falsified?
> > > 
> > > Exactly, that is a major reason no string theory has taken
> > > a clear lead, though many versions have been eliminated.
> > > 
> > 
> > If string theory is not testable, does that imply it's not science?
> > 
> Is a problem in science not science if we have not solved it yet?
> 
> > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Meanwhile most scientists seem to be unaware of some latest
> > > > > > science and technology.
> > > > > 
> > > > > hey, there is a LOT of science out there to learn.  :)
> > > > > 
> > > > > >  Like weather control.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Evidence? references?
> > > > 
> > > > The government keeps secrets from the people.
> > > 
> > > Not news.
> > 
> > If you believe that the government keeps secrets,
> > isn't it possible that they are keeping secret,
> > technological developments?
> 
> But you made the -specific- claim of weather control.
> That is the point I question.
> 
> > 
> > > 
> > > > There are many technology advances that the public are unaware.
> > > 
> > > Now its the public is unaware, not scientists.
> > > Many ordinary people have no interest in science and technology.
> > > They just want to pay their bills and maybe have some time and
> > > money left for fun.
> > 
> > Both public and scientists are unaware of some important technology advances.
> 
> Can you provide an example of at least technological advance
> which IYHO (in your humble opinion) is both
> 1. an important technology (please present the a reason for its importance)
> 2. and unknown by a large segment of scientists.

As I mentioned before, weather control.  The ability to control weather is important, for agriculture, to help yourself and hurt others, and to create storms to hurt others.

> 
> > 
> > > 
> > > >  Again, I agree to submit myself to tests and scans.
> > > 
> > > No need. I do not question you honesty.
> > > I only questioned your conclusion about quarks.
> > 
> > I try very hard to be honest, but do not always succeed.
> 
> :)
> []
> > > > 
> > > > I love science, and mean no disrespect for the majority of
> > > > hardworking physicists.  But some scientists have fooled us.
> > > >  Lying is part of human nature, and we can't expect our
> > > > scientists to live up to a higher standard.
> > > >  You just can't trust anyone.
> > > > 
> > > > Abhinav Lal 
> > > > Writer & Investor
> > > 
> > > To a great extent, you are right.
> > > 
> > > So I should take your advice and not trust you.
> > > But of course by your advice, you cannot accept
> > > anything I say. So there is no purpose to this
> > > discussion!
> > 
> > You can trust most people some of the time;
> > you can trust some people most of the time;
> > but you can't trust most people most of the time.  
> > 
> > You don't trust my assertion about quarks or weather control.
> 
> trust but verify as Reagan used to say.
> 
> Hey I am hoping you have something to teach me.

You will be disappointed, if you are expecting to learn anything about physics from me.  Although I participate in this newsgroup to share my insights, I mostly expect to learn from those more knowledgeable than me.

> 
> > 
> > > 
> > > OR
> > > 
> > > We can be somewhat skeptical, but learn.
> > > We can develop trust in each other and in the data
> > > Does it match the data? then maybe it is the best
> > > explanation we have at this point.
> > > 
> > > let me know which option you think is best.
> > > I try to follow the second. I am somewhat
> > > a contrarian. I don't accept answers just because
> > > someone here says it is so. But I am willing to
> > > discuss things calmly and rationally.
> > 
> > The world would be a much better place, with the second option.
> >  I believe that you are more trustworthy than most.  Unfortunately,
> > many people turn to personal insults, when they disagree with you.
> 
> yes, some have turned to that Dark Side and see being respected
> as having their opinions accepted a truth and denigrating anyone
> that questions their self appointed authority.  try not to take
> them too seriously.
> 
> 
> > Thanks for discussing things calmly and rationally.
> 
> The same to you!
> > 
> > > So if you really want to convince me that
> > >  quarks do not exist, you need to provide
> > > more evidence than "I am not lying".
> > 
> > I do not possess any evidence.  It is a conspiracy.
> >  I do not want to say anymore and be accused of being crazy.
> 
> If you would like to discuss the quark issue
> or anything else without the trolls, feel free
> to email me. But be aware, like usenet, there
> can be times when I do not respond to email
> for days.
> 
> have a great day.
>   Ed

I really don't have anything more I would like to add on the issue of quarks at this time.

Abhinav Lal 
Writer & Investor 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#622271

On Thursday, March 9, 2017 at 2:08:01 AM UTC-5, alal...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, March 8, 2017 at 7:36:53 PM UTC+5:30, edpr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Tuesday, March 7, 2017 at 8:15:01 PM UTC-5, alal...@gmail.com wrote:
[] 
> > > You don't trust my assertion about quarks or weather control.
> > 
> > trust but verify as Reagan used to say.
> > 
> > Hey I am hoping you have something to teach me.
> 
> You will be disappointed, if you are expecting to learn anything
> about physics from me.  Although I participate in this newsgroup
> to share my insights, I mostly expect to learn from those more
> knowledgeable than me.

hey, I am open to learning from anyone (even JM) If they have
something reasonable to say.

But in this thread you have claimed knowledge of quarks and
weather control that others don't have.

[]
> > > 
> > > > So if you really want to convince me that
> > > >  quarks do not exist, you need to provide
> > > > more evidence than "I am not lying".
> > > 
> > > I do not possess any evidence.  It is a conspiracy.
> > >  I do not want to say anymore and be accused of being crazy.
> > 
> > If you would like to discuss the quark issue
> > or anything else without the trolls, feel free
> > to email me. But be aware, like usenet, there
> > can be times when I do not respond to email
> > for days.
> > 
> > have a great day.
> >   Ed
> 
> I really don't have anything more I would like to add
> on the issue of quarks at this time.
> 
> Abhinav Lal 
> Writer & Investor

Ah, I get it. This is an end of season cliff-hanger post.
Okay. Whenever you can share I'm willing to listen.

'nuf said.
  ed

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#622151

On 3/7/2017 7:14 PM, alal65536@gmail.com wrote:
> If I gave you my reason for claiming that quarks are not real, you would probably accuse me of lying.

Oh, come on. Either there is a evidentiary basis for your claim or there 
isn't. If there is, then the evidence will convince others.

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

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#622269

On 3/7/2017 11:48 AM, alal65536@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, March 7, 2017 at 6:49:19 PM UTC+5:30, edpr...@gmail.com wrote:
>> > On Tuesday, March 7, 2017 at 7:01:00 AM UTC-5, alal...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>  Clueless are physicists who believe in quarks, which I know are a hoax.
>> >
>> > And your evidence for this claim?
> I agree to take a lie detector test, and a fMRI scan, to confirm that I am not lying, when I claim that quarks are not real.  There is a reason that quarks are never directly observed.

That's a classic Red Herring fallacy, a diversionary tactic. Nobody 
doubted that you believe in what you just stated. The question is what 
is your proof about what you just stated? You have not provided such 
proof, all you have said is that you believe in it, which was not the 
question.

	Yousuf Khan

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#622039 — Re: "String Theory" can "model" 10^500 "vacua".

On 3/7/2017 9:10 AM, Jeff-Relf.Me wrote:
> "String Theory" can "model" 10^500 "vacua".
>
> A "vacuum" is a way to compactify string theory down to four dimensions.
>
> So finding one that works is a matter of trial and error.
>
>
Math is not more real than reality, Rolf.
String theory is the ULTIMATE proof of that.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#622268

On 3/7/2017 7:00 AM, alal65536@gmail.com wrote:
> While I am not a physicist, I have a degree in computer engineering, and studied classical physics in college, and completed a third year physics course on structure of matter.  Clueless are physicists who believe in quarks, which I know are a hoax.  String theory, also, is not science.
>
> Meanwhile most scientists seem to be unaware of some latest science and technology.  Like weather control.

Ah, interesting, so you're a Don Quixote tilting at windmills then? We 
have a lot of people like you on this newsgroup, all quixotic in their 
own way, a true blind leading the blind situation. So tell me why quarks 
are a hoax?

	Yousuf Khan

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web