dennislmay

A very interesting article. Basing the origin of RNA and DNA on some optimization principle is very rememiscent of basing mechanic on a lest action or stationary action principle. Game theory has some very important implications in biology. Not that survival is a "game" (In the sense of amusement) but that game theory has significant implications. Both game theory and solving for stationary actions are a way of bringing teleology into a physical science without being crazy. Ba'al Chatzaf I really like this approach - they have hit one out of the ballpark into another ballpark in another city. Dennis

The paper being discussed: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1308.5894.pdf As you know MOND is a curve fitting exercise which is not at all involved in the red-shift adjustments to GPS. The curve fitting exercise [as well as at least 4 other theories] can predict velocity rotational curves in galaxies - General Relativity plus Dark Matter does not correctly make such predictions - not even close. General Relativity as such is a failed gravitational theory in the general sense - though it can be applied to get good numbers in the local area - such as GPS. As a failed theory General Relativity continues on as a legacy theory until it will eventually be replaced - that process is underway. McGaugh is a leader in providing observational evidence and alternative modeling showing why General Relativity is a failed theory. He does not claim to have a final replacement theory. Dennis

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/08/130828144800.htm If anyone ever asks you how life came about - this is it. Though obvious on some level I've never heard it expressed like this before. I don't really have a good way of expressing how important what this research has shown really is. Dennis

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/08/130828103446.htm Or should I say many models beat General Relativity plus Dark Matter. MOND is the one doing a better job of prediction in this particular case. Of course I still support my 2-component model of gravity as the foundation for the physics behind why MOND works. Dennis

I know you've said this many times - in a few Google searches I was able to find 12 decimal places with an error bar of 2 decimal places so really 12 +/- 2 decimal places = 10 decimal places. The speed of light is good to 10 +/- 1 decimal places = 9 decimal places. Of course the 12 decimal places you site is in the best modeled simplest systems. Once you go outside of the simplest systems the predictions loose many significant digits. Gravity modeling gets 8 +/- 2 decimal places = 6 decimal places. So what importance are we to place on this? The best plain mechanical watches get 5 decimal places. With enough epicycles we can model any system to as many significant digits as you would like - kind of the idea of Fourier Series modeling - any repeating pattern shape can be created with the appropriate use of enough sinusoidal waves added correctly. Finding a pattern then creating math to get you correct predictions is not the same as having a model that gives you an underlying explanation of what is going on so it can actually improve and adapt to new information over time. Dennis

So you would support the removal of all educational material in the sciences supporting the in-deterministic interpretation of QM? That would of course include the Feynman lectures on the subject which the orthodoxy [during my education] put forward as the last word on the subject though Feynman was shown to be completely wrong by J.S. Bell the very same year [actually submitted for publication 2 years earlier]. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hUJfjRoxCbk If you're not going to scrub indeterminism from education then you are in fact in favor of setting the status quo in concrete as the official interpretation. The interpretations are out there - not wanting to deal with the issue does not make it go away. Dennis

You are the one complaining that Objectivists detest and revile QM - which is not true - they detest and revile the orthodox interpretation whose prominence has been sustained through generations of lying and deceit in various forms. Interpretations do count - they influence the culture, bad interpretations drive good students out the sciences, and the interpretation guides further research [which when wrong leads to the pursuit of dead ends]. How do you expect science to advance when interpretations guide future research but the monopoly on interpretation at the educational level is sustained through lies and deceit concerning the foundations of the very subject under discussion? It seems you desire a static science fixed in the concretes known at the moment - unable to adapt to new information, evolve, or improve because only the results of the moment are what matter. That is very unscientific. Science is built around interpretations. Dennis

It is not the branch of physics known as quantum mechanics that is detested - it is the particular interpretation touted [and philosophy inherent to that interpretation] as necessary when in fact many interpretations produce the same practical results - at least one without the philosophical baggage. It is the lie told and repeated since the foundations of QM that only philosophical indeterminism can produce QM. That lie was challenged by de Broglie, successfully avoided by Bohm, then shown to be a lie by J.S. Bell when he exposed von Neumann's proof as an error [it had been proven in error earlier but never saw the light of day]. de Broglie-Bohm quantum mechanics [deBB] or deBB-like theories [i prefer non-linear deBB-like theories] are the deterministic alternative to the bad philosophy sold under orthodox QM. Robert Tracinski seems to have figured out what Objectivists should have seen all along: http://www.tracinskiletter.com/2013/08/rational-quantum-dynamics/ Rational QM is deBB or deBB-like QM with pilot waves - something with a deterministic foundation. Objectivists don't hate QM - they have been lied to concerning what QM has to be. It doesn't have to mean bad philosophy to produce good results. Dennis

Which part of the Big Bang theory is involved with the remote control on my TV? I'm quite certain that none of the Big Bang theory has anything to do with our "right technology" since the Big Bang theory changes all the time and has for 30+ years. It has produced no product of technology. Dennis

From Physics_Frontier on yahoogroups a physics student asked: "how can so many physicists be wrong about the Big Bang theory? My reply: There is a long history of the majority of scientists being wrong on a great many subjects: A recent one: When I took geology in college my professor was just a few years older than I was but he knew many geologists who predated plate tectonics. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plate_tectonics "A symposium on continental drift was held at the Royal Society of London in 1965 which must be regarded as the official start of the acceptance of plate tectonics by the scientific community," Some errors are repeated as fact generation after generation even after being exposed as errors. J.S Bell [the Bell Inequalities of Quantum Mechanics] wrote about that in his very important book "Speakable and Unspeakable in Quantum Mechanics: Collected Papers on Quantum Philosophy". http://www.amazon.com/Speakable-Unspeakable-Quantum-Mechanics-Philosophy/dp/0521523389/ref=sr_1_fkmr0_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1377467633&sr=8-2-fkmr0&keywords=J.S.+Bell+knowable You can pick any 2-4 generation time period since Newton and find a great many reversals on a great many subjects in science. Errors in "science" [if you can call it science] prior to Newton often persisted for hundreds or thousands of years. The Ptolemy epicycles are a favorite example. How the Big Bang theory became so entrenched is related to specialization and entrenchment in the sciences generally - more specifically in physics and cosmology which are more highly specialized than most sciences. I view the problem as a degenerate feedback cycle closely tied to the economic consequences of government funding in the sciences and science education, the journal based peer review process being tied to university tenure and appointments, the toxic mix of bad philosophy and physics, and science journalism which is near totally illiterate in its ability to objectively report on what is going on. The degeneracy generates higher and higher barriers to market entry [hurdles] protecting the status quo. The problems will eventually lead to a series of crises even among orthodox supporters. Then a generation long - or more - series of reversals will occur leading to a new paradigm or series of new paradigms. Anyway that is how science has adapted in the past - which is not to say that the crisis will resolve itself in that same manner in the future. There is some chance that given the socialist politics dominating the world today that science will split into camps - government funded orthodox physics and cosmology and privately funded science [trade secret science]. Bad economic models lead to bad outcomes including outcomes in science. Such a split could last much like the isolated and sometimes lost sciences before Newton. Dennis

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many-worlds_interpretation Not that I'm a supporter of any such BS but it makes you wonder if support for the Many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics is an attempt to get around the lesser order of infinitely that would be infinite time. In the Many-worlds interpretation another universe is created at each branching point of every quantum interaction. This branching point is not clearly defined so one could postulate an infinite number of branching points along each quantum collapse creating an infinite series of universes of one, two, three, an infinite number of orders above infinite time alone. See also the Many-minds interpretation which would also create many more universes. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many-minds_interpretation Once you open up things to the arbitrary there is no confining the infinite orders that can be postulated to result. Dennis

A perfect theme song for the show written by Josh Whedon. On one of the DVD's of the series Josh performs his version - later redone by a professional for the series. He did a pretty good job himself. Dennis

Ba'al Chatzoff does us proud! http://www.galtsgulchonline.com/posts/a8a7d0/firefly This was originally brought to my attention by "Ba'al Chatzoff" a non-Objectivist on the discussion board "Objectivist Living." Dennis

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/08/130822122530.htm Like previous discussions where jets from the sun produce streams of pure hydrogen for extended periods of time these black hole jets should produce chemical sorting on a large scale sent directly into intergalactic space. Future generations of "young" galaxies will form from this isotopicly sorted material. Dennis

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_New_Kind_of_Science Wolfram's book came out after G.S. Duane's paper on hyperchaotic synchronization [2001] which gives the complexity explanation for J.S. Bell's work on the foundations of QM. Wolfram has many interesting things to say regarding complexity but the cellular approach can only go so far in physical applications - Duane's work is far more comprehensive in scope [in only a few pages versus a lengthy repetitive tome] though Duane fails to explain supraluminal signaling within the scope of his work - the problem I addressed by 1990 [i also assumed the results Duane proved in 2001]. In other words Wolfram did some good work - much of which was repeating what was already known - but he over-reached in attempting to apply his hammer to everything which he sudden perceived as a nail. Good work in many ways but it failed in its primary task and added nothing to the foundations of physics - Duane's is the correct approach. A smart guy who keeps heading into dead end approaches - but by the time he leaves an approach it is thoroughly explored and documented - you can't fault him on not being thorough once he becomes interested in a subject. The best documented bad ideas known to man. Dennis

Biology was my first science - immediately after high school biology [10th grade] I jumped into reading graduate textbooks on genetic theory. Physics was my 2nd science - I soon lost interest in biology once I realized physics was full of errors [15-16 years old]. The problem people have understanding evolution is primarily the same issue they have understanding the chaotic processes behind quantum mechanics - the issue of large numbers. A form of innumeracy plagues the sciences - even Nobel Laureates in physics. Large sizes, small sizes, short and long periods of time, complex natural systems, slow and fast speeds, feedback in large systems and long time scales - all lead some scientists and others to react irrationally looking for short cut answers [bad philosophy]. I first realized how serious the problem was in discussions with the brightest undergraduate physics student I knew at the time [about 1982-1983], he literally could not envision scales smaller than what known in orthodox physics or large numbers of particles on small scales. After that incident I came to recognize the problem as a plague stopping progress across many disciplines. Dennis

Is the implication that they looked the same at 12.5 billion years ago too? --Brant In the forgotten history of the Big Bang theory they did not expect to see any galaxies at all when looking very far into the past. The theory keeps changing to try to adapt to observation - it has no predictive ability to date. To me the implication is that no matter how far back you look things look the same as they do locally except a slower rate of time and red-shifted. There is no observational evidence to support the Big Bang theory - unless you cherry pick observation and ignore a whole host of logical contradictions internal to the theory. You also have to ignore discussions of alternatives. Dennis No galaxies? Then what? The edge of the universe? How can you see nothing? --Brant They expected to see nothing - radiation and gas perhaps. That was prior to the magic of inflation and other magical fixes to match observation. Dennis

One can project boundary conditions based on what is observed. It is my view that observation indicates an indefinitely old universe with no boundaries in time or space. There is an observed red-shift and slower rate of time in past assuming a geometrically stable 3-D universe [no evidence to suggest otherwise]. This would indicate existence has always existed and no evidence it will ever cease to exist. Since we cannot observe the large and small beyond a certain scale or the past beyond a certain point there are limits to what can be stated in science. In other words Foundational Physics has its limits beyond which nothing can be said. Dennis

Is the implication that they looked the same at 12.5 billion years ago too? --Brant In the forgotten history of the Big Bang theory they did not expect to see any galaxies at all when looking very far into the past. The theory keeps changing to try to adapt to observation - it has no predictive ability to date. To me the implication is that no matter how far back you look things look the same as they do locally except a slower rate of time and red-shifted. There is no observational evidence to support the Big Bang theory - unless you cherry pick observation and ignore a whole host of logical contradictions internal to the theory. You also have to ignore discussions of alternatives. Dennis

A couple minor bits of information: A different article on the same subject says 11.5 billion years galaxies have looked the same. The quasar survey from about the 1989-1990 time frame should have been a big wakeup call concerning cherry picking. It was known back then that quasars are uniformly distributed in the observable universe. Since they are the brightest objects later surveys not doing their homework concerning brightness and accounting for all objects in a given volume were necessarily cherry picking. The other big wakeup calls should have been when large chemically old galaxies were seen at the furthest reaches of observation while some chemically young galaxies have been discovered nearby. The complete absence of 1st generation red dwarfs when they should be super-abundant should have been like a starter pistol next to cosmologists ears to wake them up that there is an issue concerning the ages of galaxy components much less galaxies themselves. The bad news - I suspect this will be a one week story then business as usual will continue. Dennis

If physics can become corrupt in spite of being the gold standard for the scientific method and in spite of not having a multi-billion dollar product to market, how much more easily can other fields of science become corrupt, where there is a multi-billion dollar product to market, such as a drug or a vaccine or a food additive? The history of research on aspartame, for one example, illustrates. It is shocking. The most studied product in history, yes, they had helluva hard time fudging the data enough to prove that it's safe. Another example, one that perhaps more people are familiar with, is tobacco. The tobacco companies tried to tell the world that tobacco is harmless. The tobacco companies knew all the time that tobacco is bad for health and were dishonest. The theme repeats, with different products. When there is a product to sell, the scientists prove what they are paid to prove. The peer review process is self-correcting, yes, in the direction of marketing the product. A few people try to expose the dishonesty but they are usually not taken seriously because they are not establishment and because people don't like the whistle to be blown on the products they consume. It takes a great deal of context to appreciate where things are going well and where things are falling apart. Physics has many disciplines and at the operational level where most physicists are doing science things are fine. The problem is at the foundational level which only a small number of people deal with but everyone has to live with. Even within the small theoretical physics community there are even fewer movers and shakers - though from popularizations you would get the impression that everyone is working on Earth shattering foundational issues - the exact opposite is actually the case. By my count there has only been 4 major players in the field of alternative physics I am interested in since the foundations of QM came into being: de Broglie, Bohm, Bell, and now Duane [i appear to be Duane's sole fan of his theoretical physics work]. In orthodox physics there have been dozens of movers and shakers since the late 1920's but I don't believe any of what they have done will last. There is big money in physics - a lot of it overlaps with the big money in defense, electronics & information systems, optics, and things people often view as engineering. I agree there are serious problems with medical research - going both ways - bad studies claiming things are healthy, bad studies claiming things are not healthy. Some of that is government interference in science and the markets, some is corporate, some is political, some is fraud of several types, and some is incompetence. I take all medical studies with a grain of salt because the older I get the longer history I have of remember being told the exact opposite of the latest study too many times. I have also known several doctors and many pre-med types in college. I only met one who would have been a good scientist - she was a bio-physics undergraduate. I suspect too many medical studies are done by people with an inadequate understanding of the scientific method. To make things more complicated an issue like tobacco has liars and bad guys on both sides of the issue. Though not a popular concept there are in fact some health benefits to smoking in some contexts. One of my cousins was involved in medical research on tobacco. Smoking does in fact raise IQ [something on the order of 5 IQ points], increases visual acuity, increases reflex speed, increases alertness, and increases resting blood pressure [a good thing for fighter pilots]. Smoking in general is a bad idea for other reasons but you have to drop context to claim it is all negative. I don't smoke and have never had any interest in doing so but suppression of data on the positive aspects for PC reasons has to make you wonder. I can think of dozens of examples of bad medical-food-chemical-environmental science much less the soft sciences that should be called something else in any case. Dennis

The Big Bang violates the conservation of momentum [and all the anti-matter mysteriously is missing] during the immaculate conception. The normal process of creating matter and anti-matter from energy involves a third particle to conserve momentum. The immaculate conception of the Big Bang has no connection to quantum mechanics as understood because it violates the conservation of momentum as well as the conservation of matter and energy [because of the missing anti-matter mystery]. Since it had no actual connection to QM you might as well say the Big Bang came from nothing and not try to sugar coat it with fake made up science sounding words. Dennis

Our friend BaalChatzaf believes he can take the definition of entropy and perpetual motion and apply them out of context by ignoring the boundary conditions placed upon their definition [ignore the math of how they were derived in the first place]. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perpetual_motion "There is a scientific consensus that perpetual motion in an [isolated system] violates either the first law of thermodynamics, the second law of thermodynamics, or both. ***** I place the brackets [ ] where attention is needed. ***** The derivations are part of undergraduate physics [thermodynamics] - done again in graduate school. Ignore the math and the derivation of the theories at your own peril. Dennis

What would be the point of cherry picking in support of the Big Bang theory? I can see why climate change types cherry pick their data, but why would BB theorists do the same? The Big Bang theory requires both General Relativity and QM [the two great modern theories] in order to work. Einstein was an early poster child of the extreme leftist media and those embracing social relativism. QM from the beginning embraced bad philosophy and the orthodox have fought every step of the way to this very day to empower that bad philosophy using lies and distortions promoting a particular unnecessary interpretation of QM. Some of the most famous supporters of the Big Bang approach and General Relativity are also extreme leftists [Hawking]. There is a tens of billions of dollars a year financial incentive to maintain the status quo in physics [government cash flow] with the stars and darlings plus tens of thousands of more mundane careers heavily invested in the Big Bang theory continuing. How many people actually challenge their world view once having invested their entire lives in it? They see what they want to see and they publish what is easy to publish [support for the status quo]. To admit you've not seen the obvious errors of your ways your entire career is to admit fundamental failure as a scientist. Most would rather kick the can down the road and assume their is yet another fix that can be added to save the model. I saw the problem starkly displayed in the quasar survey back in 1991 [it was already a year or two old then]. I just happened upon the survey while looking for another paper. Professional cosmologists chose to look the other way and cherry pick and kick the can down the road for 20+ years. They will continue to kick that can down the road until called on their BS. Those vested have little incentive to do anything else and they still have to power to keep out alternatives which would harm their vested interests. Like corrupt leftist media - bypassing them till they die up and blow away seems the best way to go. Dennis Thanks for taking the time to respond. So are we all monkeys in trousers, then? I sometimes wear shorts. Dennis

In the infinitely old and infinite in size universe model I support you have a slowly increasing rate of time [part of my non-linear QM model]. Since there is no "outside" to the universe you observe distant objects as moving slower and having a redshift. This is the case no matter where or when you are in the universe. There is no outside to refer to another rate of time so there is no beginning or end. There is no calculating the beginning or end of the universe from observing the redshift - that can only be done assuming a changing geometry of space - which I reject. Dennis