dennislmay

But the red shift is valid? Don't you need that to calculate the age of the universe(?) or look back 11 billion years?

--Brant

the infinity of existence seems to support the non-existence of non-existence so everywhere you are theorectically there is something, theorectically, but it all appears to be that horrible a priori Ba'al hates so much

wherever you go, there you are!

the Pope supports the BB!

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

Ideology seems to drive physics more than physics seems to drive itself. Is that because physicists don't know much and philosophers even less? Ignorance does seem to flow easily enough into a vacuum where it reigns supreme reveling in its monopoly.

--Brant

Bad philosophy has been with physics since Einstein introduced "Special Relativity" in 1905 which provides a bad interpretation but no mathematical or predictive ability beyond "Lorentz Ether Theory" which came first in most respects. Similarly QM was introduced with a bad philosophical interpretation - backed up with lies and distortions and errors [von Neumann] until corrected by J.S. Bell [1962-1964]. Only those invested in the lies, distortions, errors, and bad philosophy had ruled the roost for over a generation by then. They have continued repeating those lies, distortions, errors, and bad philosophy to this day 3 generations since the QM began and 4 generations since the relativity problem began. When you take undergraduate physics you generally will not hear about LET [i did but I had a very unusual professor who is a world class expert in Special Relativity]. You generally will not hear about [de Broglie-Bohm] mechanics as an alternative to orthodox interpretations of QM in undergraduate or graduate school - I had to learn about it on my own after having been in graduate programs twice. You certainly won't hear how J.S. Bell proved [and G.S Duane expanded on] that indeterminism had no priority over deterministic models of QM. The lie of indeterminism being the only path was pounded in every step of the way during my education [high school 1977-1978, NSF Summer Camp 1979, undergraduate 1980-1984, 1st graduate 1984, 2nd graduate 1987-1992]. Yet even now 50 years later [60 if you count Bohm-Vigier's paper of 1952] indeterminism is still claimed to be the only way in most educational settings and by most media.

Physics lost its way a long time ago with bad philosophy, bad ideology, and a willingness to lie and distort to maintain that bad philosophy and bad ideology. Like any large bureaucracy only a few really know or care to know what bad deeds have been done, most just go along to get along and have no idea.

Dennis

What happened to entropy?

--Brant

how about many "little" "bangs"?

Entropy does not apply when speaking of a universe infinite in size large and small, infinite in duration into the past and future. Entropy only applies to closed systems - not open systems.

There is no evidence of a bang of any kind - large or small - or many "little" bangs. Why introduce the concept with no supporting evidence? General Relativity is a failed theory - it formed the primary basis of the Big Bang theory but it cannot explain the gravity in galaxies much less larger issues.

Dennis

I've been saying to anyone who would listen since about 1991 that the universe would look the same no matter how far back you look. A 1990 comprehensive quasar survey I read at the AFIT library back then make it clear cherry picking has been keeping the Big Bang theory alive from 1990 to now.

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 there 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

I've been saying to anyone who would listen since about 1991 that the universe would look the same no matter how far back you look. A 1990 comprehensive quasar survey I read at the AFIT library back then make it clear cherry picking has been keeping the Big Bang theory alive from 1990 to now.

Dennis

Assuming science is a collective endeavor presumes a uniform collectivist intent - that is far from how real economics works.

That is not the kind of collective endeavor Toulmin and I meant. Different scientists have different intentions, and most or all utilize the work of others, living and deceased.

The use of the term collective - in any sense of the term - is unfortunate in this discussion since the intention of collectivists and their economic models is part of the problem. Collectivists always want to throw out the needs of the individual and speak of the collective. Certainly knowledge happens in a social context. Certainly knowledge builds upon knowledge generated by others within this social context.

I reject the notion that science or knowledge is automatically a public good - slippery slope speak of a "collective" product is loaded language and should be avoided at all costs. I'm sure you didn't mean it but someone spending the time to write an entire book should know better unless they live in an echo chamber and don't know any better or they are part of the problem.

Dennis

Semantically "public good" does not imply state funding. Note that knowlege is listed as an example of a public good here.

Incidentally, this book considers science as a collective endeavor. The only customer review at the link is mine.

You are correct public good does not imply state funding, in our present context state funding dominates science and science education. Wikipedia lists knowledge as an example of what some people regard as a public good among others listed - then in the text explains how some take exception to items on that list. They also state that "a public good's status may change over time."

From your review:

"The rationality of natural science and other collective disciplines are not intrinsically only about logic, narrowly speaking."

Science does not become a public good until the individual [or small group] decides to allow the collective access to science created by the individual [or small group]. What might begin as a trade secret [private or government] might later become public knowledge but proprietary or compartmentalized in detail, which might later become fully known public knowledge.

Knowledge and knowledge products that are a public good in one nation might still be barred from export to other nations or barred in certain contexts within a nation.

Assuming science is a collective endeavor presumes a uniform collectivist intent - that is far from how real economics works. Progress in science often depends upon reward systems that fail - leading to lost knowledge as the individual has no incentive to pass information to the public. Newton's work - among others - nearly ended up as lost knowledge. Some knowledge is lost for a generation or generations when funding is not available [invention of radio communication].

Science, science education, and economics are all intertwined. When the economics fail - science can remain an individual endeavor never reaching the collective - never becoming a public good.

Dennis

Of course Ba'al Chatzaf has a science philosophy - he expresses those strong opinions about philosophy in several ways in this thread alone. His approach is actually quite common

in orthodox physics - reject and express disdain for philosophy while smuggling in philosophy at numerous junctures. Feynman did exactly the same thing.

Dennis

Yes. And he got a Nobel Award doing so.

What have you got?

Ba'al Chatzaf

A Nobel prize for denigrating philosophy?

--Brant

I could gin up for that one

Being the poster child for indeterministic physics got Feynman the love of the science media and the orthodoxy.

The media does love to promote darlings and Feynman was the darling for a long time in life and remains so

in death. He was the ultimate "appeal to authority" go to guy on indeterministic physics - even though J.S. Bell

had already proven by 1964 that indeterminism has no special claim over determinism in QM. That is even

more obvious with the work of Gregory S. Duane on chaotic systems - proving again from fundamentals that

deterministic QM can do it all - the only requirement being supraluminal signaling [just particles that travel

much much faster than light must be involved].

In the oil drop experiments the waves in the oil are like light - much much slower than the E&M carriers

involved in the interaction of molecules in the oil [behaving as the supraluminal carriers].

Dennis

Of course Ba'al Chatzaf has a science philosophy - he expresses those strong opinions about philosophy in several ways in this thread alone. His approach is actually quite common in orthodox physics - reject and express disdain for philosophy while smuggling in philosophy at numerous junctures. Feynman did exactly the same thing.

Dennis

Yes. And he got a Nobel Award doing so.

What have you got?

Ba'al Chatzaf

A non-contradictory coherent world-view.

Priceless.

Dennis

Ba'al Chatzaf wrote [Richard Feynman. Part of the problem... - 8/13/2013 07:47 PM] :

"You go work on a unified theory. I will not hold my breath until (1) you come up with one that passes peer review muster and (2) is corroborated by experiment. Until then all you have are unsubstantiated claims. If you do not publish and it is not peer review it does not count."

Implicit in this philosophy of science is the economic philosophical view that science is a public good. More concisely science does not exist apart from approval of those who control the orthodox view - in the present case the state.

The Internet and private publishing allows information to disperse more freely and quickly than journal publication ever has in the history of science. A wider group of peers are available to review the work - including the subset the orthodoxy approved as "peers" suitable for "peer review". Journals exclude work already in the public domain - thus limiting their approved orthodox medium for peer review to new work - even as old work in the public domain escapes approved peer review [in theory]. In practice work of interest that has escaped "proper" peer review will be restated [in some cases without credit] in a proper journal then peer reviewed.

What is the view of the state concerning science as a public good? Get funding from the state and the state decides what is and what is not a public good. Science is a public good if the state sees no immediate benefit to itself. Science is a commodity to be traded for prestige, position, influence, wealth, money for campaign funding, and power if there is immediate application. Science is a trade secret of the state in many cases - a more valuable commodity jealously guarded from the public.

It seems the state gets to decide what is science for its own benefit but individualists who disagree about science necessarily being a public good are not engaged in science by definition.

This all sounds a great deal more like a difference of economic and political philosophy than matters of science.

Even more interesting is when the state engages in fraudulent science for political purposes. But since they fund the judges and juries of what constitutes "peer reviewed" science it becomes science by state definition.

I prefer science rely on the scientific method - not state approval.

Dennis

Of course Ba'al Chatzaf has a science philosophy - he expresses those strong opinions about philosophy in several ways in this thread alone. His approach is actually quite common

in orthodox physics - reject and express disdain for philosophy while smuggling in philosophy at numerous junctures. Feynman did exactly the same thing.

There is a lot to dislike when some philosophers dive into science but orthodox physics is just as guilty - even more so for denying it. Like extremists new media denying their bias.

Dennis

Why do you think "anything but gravitation" has lingered out there since 1925? Answer - the orthodox QM model is the wrong approach.

Dennis

Everything Robert Tracinski discussed in this article [except the circular 'corral' ring of ions] has been discussed for years on physics_frontier at YahooGroups. I have been disappointed since 1994 that Objectivists didn't see de Broglie-Bohm-like QM [deBB] as the solution to the bad philosophy of mainstream interpretations of quantum mechanics. A couple bad attempts to embrace other models happened but it seems like finally someone has caught on that deBB-like QM is the way to go. Of course I have my own deBB-like QM I have promoted for years on physics-frontier and it has addressed the pilot-wave question since 1990. The math [chaotic theory] supporting that pilot-wave model was finally published in 2001, 2005, and 2011 by Gregory S. Duane. Objectivist Living has just made my day - thanks Peter for bringing this to my attention.

Dennis May

Part of the problem is storytelling.

The only stories that get widely told in a left-leaning media are stories of people victimized by guns.

The stories of people victimized by sleazeballs who defend themselves with guns are pushed out of the mainstream.

The odd thing is that there are far more stories of the second than the first. The difference is huge.

There's a book out by Glenn Beck where he put a crack research team together to document these things, pro and con.

Control: Exposing the Truth About Guns

This just came out, so expect some media buzz over the next few weeks.

I just ordered it.

Glenn says he kept the price on this one much lower than his other books because he wants more people to be able to buy it.

One day the libertarian-leaning people will learn for real that whoever controls the stories controls the images in people's minds. And if you control the images, you can lead them to agree or disagree with whatever you please. That doesn't work 100%, but it sure works most of the time.

The ideal is to align story with reality for the majority of stories. But that's hard to find in a bitterly polarized environment. Manipulation is so much more fun...

Michael

I ordered mine ahead and the price was lowered before shipping:

****

Greetings from Amazon.com.

You saved $1.75 with Amazon.com's Pre-order Price Guarantee!

The price of the item(s) decreased after you ordered them, and we gave you the lowest price.

The following title(s) decreased in price:

Control: Exposing the Truth About Guns

Price on order date: $9.73

Price charged at shipping: $7.98

Lowest price before release date: $7.98

Quantity: 1

Total Savings: $1.75

$1.75 is your total savings under our Pre-order Price Guarantee.

***

I was fortunate to have lived in a rural area growing up so the truth about guns was known to everyone

word of mouth - the Progressive media were just screw-up know nothings from the city to be ignored.

Guns deter criminals before they act and are used in huge numbers to stop crimes in progress.

I have personally known several people who have stopped crimes in progress with guns. The

Progressive media agenda is to tell one side of the story to support the political outcomes they

desire.

Dennis

My copy of "Control" just arrived.

Dennis

They always blame any change in climate on the capitalists.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Rather like blaming it on evil magic.

The climate scam is such a racket.

Fred Singer, in his pithy fashion, once described the carbon-trading scheme as a way to transfer money from the poor of the rich nations to the rich of the poor nations.

And then there's the issue of power, and grant money, and subsidized industries, and.....

Ellen

My Facebook comment about the same video:

I never had much use for the APS - once they went PC for the quick bucks and supported the global warming hysteria they lost all credibility. An elementary understanding of non-linear computer modeling rules out the global warming modeling as representing anything like science. Not only is there no consensus supporting man made global warming the modeling is no good and no field experiments have been done to support the modeling - same for the ozone hole hysteria before it that failed to give the central planners all they wanted.

****

I like how the video discusses the collapse of the peer review process - entirely incestuous. Now if we could only get more people to understand how the peer review process has also collapsed in portions of theoretical physics and cosmology in a similar manner and for many of the same reasons.

Dennis

I was just waiting for you to trot out Lott again, Adam. That study is flawed and has been debunked six ways to Sunday at high noon yet. Meanwhile I will hold off moving to a place where nobody wants me dead and stay in a place where few possess the legal means to kill me within seconds.

It's the illegal means you should worry about.

--Brant

Ah, Canada--I means, O Canada!

I do, Brant, I do worry. Nearly all the illegal guns that kill gang members, and others just for the hell of it, come here from the US, at a nice markup.Capitalism in action/ See the recent Star series about this perversion of the underground railroad.

About being killed by legal hunting rifles such as the one I own I am not worried.

Stop making the damn handguns and assault weapons, would you [please?

A 5 yo just killed his 2 yo sibling with his gift .22 rifle left with a chambered bullet. How dare you own even a hunting rifle?!

Teenager + whiskey + car keys = vehicular mayhem. Solution: all whiskey bottles must be registered unless the bottles are labeled "Whisky".

--Brant

rye whiskey, rye whiskey, rye whiskey I cried, if I don't get rye whiskey I think I will die

I watched 2 1/2 episodes of Moonshiners when traveling out of town year and caught this one.

Dennis

I was just waiting for you to trot out Lott again, Adam. That study is flawed and has been debunked six ways to Sunday at high noon yet. Meanwhile I will hold off moving to a place where nobody wants me dead and stay in a place where few possess the legal means to kill me within seconds.

It's the illegal means you should worry about.

--Brant

Ah, Canada--I means, O Canada!

I do, Brant, I do worry. Nearly all the illegal guns that kill gang members, and others just for the hell of it, come here from the US, at a nice markup.Capitalism in action/ See the recent Star series about this perversion of the underground railroad.

About being killed by legal hunting rifles such as the one I own I am not worried.

Stop making the damn handguns and assault weapons, would you [please?

A 5 yo just killed his 2 yo sibling with his gift .22 rifle left with a chambered bullet. How dare you own even a hunting rifle?!

Teenager + whiskey + car keys = vehicular mayhem. Solution: all whiskey bottles must be registered unless the bottles are labeled "Whisky".

--Brant

rye whiskey, rye whiskey, rye whiskey I cried, if I don't get rye whiskey I think I will die

Can you, ah... put this catastrophic takeover into a general time-frame? Say... give-or-take 10 years?

Like the elections of 1980 and 1994 it is possible there will be a political turn around in 2014 delaying the problem. If it looks like the Progressives will be in trouble in the 2014 elections things could actually start improving just on the hunch they will lose big.

Because of our fragile economic position unpredictable events can facilitate the start of a collapse at any time. The big money Progressives have already moved their money out of the stock market and made themselves liquid - ready to buy things up cheap following a downturn [the secret of becoming super-rich is to have insider information and political and Federal Reserve connections]. Big money and foreign governments are betting the collapse is happing sooner rather than later.

Progressives win big in 2014 means an economic collapse soon thereafter. The recession/stagnation goes into deep depression - flight of capital from the US.

Progressives lose big in 2014 means a delay for 2 years to see what happens in 2016. If Progressives lose big again the collapse could be delayed 8 years or more if there is no major wars in the mean time.

If the 2014 election is a mixed bag like today the situation will remain unstable and 2016 will be the make or break election deciding the collapse or not. The stagnation will continue through at least 2016.

Unless the Progressives lose big in 2014 and it is predictable in advance there remains a good chance of collapse at any time. Any little event could set off a run on the banks and a flight of capital.

Too many variables to predict out very far. The next big turning point is the 2014 elections.

Dennis

They always blame any change in climate on the capitalists.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Can you imagine the cost to clean up China if it ever becomes anything like a free country? A good friend of my brother was a German exchange student in high school. After the fall of the Berlin wall he did a motorcycle tour of East Germany. He said the filth was unbelievable.

Dennis

Part of the problem is storytelling.

The only stories that get widely told in a left-leaning media are stories of people victimized by guns.

The stories of people victimized by sleazeballs who defend themselves with guns are pushed out of the mainstream.

The odd thing is that there are far more stories of the second than the first. The difference is huge.

There's a book out by Glenn Beck where he put a crack research team together to document these things, pro and con.

Control: Exposing the Truth About Guns

This just came out, so expect some media buzz over the next few weeks.

I just ordered it.

Glenn says he kept the price on this one much lower than his other books because he wants more people to be able to buy it.

One day the libertarian-leaning people will learn for real that whoever controls the stories controls the images in people's minds. And if you control the images, you can lead them to agree or disagree with whatever you please. That doesn't work 100%, but it sure works most of the time.

The ideal is to align story with reality for the majority of stories. But that's hard to find in a bitterly polarized environment. Manipulation is so much more fun...

Michael

I ordered mine ahead and the price was lowered before shipping:

****

Greetings from Amazon.com.

You saved $1.75 with Amazon.com's Pre-order Price Guarantee!

The price of the item(s) decreased after you ordered them, and we gave you the lowest price.

The following title(s) decreased in price:

Control: Exposing the Truth About Guns

Price on order date: $9.73

Price charged at shipping: $7.98

Lowest price before release date: $7.98

Quantity: 1

Total Savings: $1.75

$1.75 is your total savings under our Pre-order Price Guarantee.

***

I was fortunate to have lived in a rural area growing up so the truth about guns was known to everyone

word of mouth - the Progressive media were just screw-up know nothings from the city to be ignored.

Guns deter criminals before they act and are used in huge numbers to stop crimes in progress.

I have personally known several people who have stopped crimes in progress with guns. The

Progressive media agenda is to tell one side of the story to support the political outcomes they

desire.

Dennis

I'm curious how you see your life going after this Armageddon takes place.

I expect to be part of the 10% or more killed when the socialists take power - the 10% number coming from Obama's friends in The Weather Underground. After they have control another 5% [their own base] will be killed when they don't like the authoritarian hand of socialism around their neck either. This doesn't take into account the hundreds of millions around the world who will die of starvation as the export of US crops is interrupted - causing skyrocketing commodity prices.

The US is the last stand for freedom and Western civilization - going to another country might buy you a few years or none at all.

In general those who constantly post Progressive talking points don't need to know anything about the plans of those who do not support Progressives.

Dennis

Kacy, at least answer this single question that I have heard you, yourself, ask of theists in debates many times: what evidence would it take to convince you?

What evidence would it take to convince you that your social-media behavior is furthering the Progressive cause - which you now recognize you don't actually support - by parroting their talking points and circulating their propaganda videos?

We know that someone who has known you for well over a decade telling you isn't enough.

We know that your best friend telling you isn't enough.

We know that a fair-minded forum moderator telling you isn't enough.

Do you see how this is fitting the same pattern as the fundies you love to attack denying that evolution is real, against the weight of all evidence in the fossil record, or denying that medicine can cure people without God's love, which there is no way to disprove?

Tell us - what evidence would convince you?

That's what happens if you only get your news from Soros funded and/or government sources - the Progressive talking points 24/7/365.

Dennis

Fox News reports this spring is the 2nd coldest in US history - the coldest

being 1975 when the worry was the coming ice age. I remember the science

magazines of the time reporting the coming ice age very well - in conjunction

with nuclear winter hysteria supported by left wing extremists like Carl Sagan.

That lasted until the ozone hole became the new hysteria. When Carl Sagan's

failed science on the mini-nuclear winter caused by Iraq's burning oil fields

failed to happen the coming ice age talk slowly went away. The ozone hole

hysteria was a successful political instrument allowing political insiders to

become rich as insider trading on chemical and refrigerant futures was a

predictable way to get rich. With that financial and political success as

a test bed global warming with fraudulent data and useless modeling became

the next fortune to be had. A trillion dollars is expected to transfer into

the hands of political insiders if the carbon trading scheme is ever fully

enacted.

It snowed yesterday in Omaha, it is supposed to snow tonight and tomorrow

in NE Missouri. When it is hot it is due to global warming, when it is cold

that is climate change, when temperatures are normal that is due to some

process offsetting global warming.

Dennis

Why, among 2nd Amendment enthusiasts, is there never a distinction drawn between gun control and gun prohibition?

Why does no one recognize that "We want to ensure that only the right people have guns" does not automatically translate to "They're coming to take my guns away!!!"

Because every instance of gun registration has translated into gun confiscation. In the US there has been no serious effort to enforce existing laws against criminals to reduce gun related crime - in fact just the opposite in Chicago in particular. You have to be entirely blind to all of history not to recognize how gun control leads to registration leads to confiscation leads to mass graves - time after time after time.

"We want to ensure that only the right people have guns" - the current administration purposefully sent thousands of guns to Mexican drug lords to stir up violence in promotion of their anti-gun agenda. They have no credibility in any discussion of law enforcement or guns. Or much of anything for that matter.

Dennis