Mart

No. I have no issues with science as a way of understanding the universe. My point is about the interpretation of data. I don't understand how data from the past can be used to say what the present state of a system is now - that's the system's now - unless their is an assumption that the system is essentially unchanging with time. It makes no difference to me whether more accurate measurements lead to the conclusion that the universe is accelerating because my beef is with the word is. I'm quite happy with the idea that at some time in the past the universe was doing this or that. The sticking point for me is that was is not is.

So what's the minimum number of calories that will do the trick?

Let's try a little humility here. This is the only interpretation that you can make from my posts. I must have presented my ideas poorly. Let's see if this helps. All data from the universe takes time to arrive on our doorstep. What this means is that the picture we have of the universe is "out of date" in the sense that events that appear to be happening have already happened. Nevertheless, we act as if they are happening now - that's their now. This is because as terrestrial creatures living our lives on a small scale we have had no practical need to take into account the time it takes for EM info to reach us. Hence our perceptual map is strongly biological and resists change and it is only relatively recently that it has been challenged by our conceptual maps. Consequently, we are sorrounded by a perceptual map - which we call the universe - which strongly influences the way we conceptualise the universe. In short, it isn't like it looks to be! For example, there aren't quasars now in the universe - they're long gone - but their footprints still inform us to their previous existance. To speak of them as existing in the distance is OK as poetry but not as a reasoned account of their current existance. The same goes for redshifts. If N-billion years ago the universe was thought to be expanding at a certain rate N (because data from that time supports that interpretation) it would be premature to assume that for the rest of time N would remain constant. And we have evidence that the rate of expansion decreases with time. Events from M-billion (M<N) years ago show redshifts which are less than the N-rate. The above may not be crazy enough to be useful.

That's your suggestion - not mine. Conditions change. Quasars are generally agreed to be very distant objects. But that is unlikely to be true. They were very distant objects. They existed at a certain time and then vanished - like dinosaurs - leaving just a fossil EM record. To establish the constancy of a redshift at a given distance would require observations over a long period of time. Even then it would only serve to establish that the redshift had - in the past - remained constant.

That's your logic - not mine. My point is that without evidence we can only assume that the present state of (distant) events is like their past states. This may or may not be a reasonable assumption. If, many aeons ago, you had been a small insignificant mammal and some smart alec had said "I've never seen a hippopotamus. Therefore they don't exist." what would you have said?

Thanks shmoe.

Thanks Cosine. That's what I needed.

I came across a formula by Euler which was a derivation of (IIRC) pi^2 which used an infinite series consisting of the prime numbers. Does anyone know about this or can anyone point me to a useful site?

Are there any numbers with 2, 3, 7 or 8 in the units place that have rational square roots?

That radiation is fossil radiation. It tells us zilch about what is happening at "the edge of the universe" : it only tells us what was happening.

We have no information about what the universe is doing except locally. Therefore to say it is expanding (or not) has no basis in observation.

Couldn't the nucleus reflect back the radiation and keep the electron in it's orbit?

We know what the universe is like in our local neighbourhood. We can only guess what it's like several billions of light years distant. Unless there is some way to circumvent the limitation on the speed of data transfer we will have to continue guessing or give up and focus on local stuff.

I thought the laws of physics (Newton's, Einstein's theories) were descriptions of how things behave. They can't tell things how to behave unless they describe laws (natural ones) that do tell things how to behave. If there are natural laws (prescriptive ones obviously) where are they? How do they interact with physical entities?

They appear to be receding in our now. No problem. But how sure can we be that they are receding in their now? After all, the data we receive from very distant sources is very old.

Thanx for the info. In the above quote you use the word "seem". Is that the same as "are"? Seem is often taken to mean some phenomenon that is not actually as it appears.

What is eigentime?

Is every part of the universe equally old? The universe is estimated to be several billion years old. If I had a really accurate clock that measured the time from the big bang would it show the same time as anyone elses similar clock?

They cry without feeling pain? There can't be any satisfaction in that for you. It's not essentially different from squeezing a tube of toothpaste in your scheme of things.

Stan Gooch wrote some interesting books on this. "The Neanderthal Question" was one, I think.

I've had dozens like this. They are usually badly written and totally ridiculous. The theme is there's an enormous amount of money in some place and you are respectfully asked to help rescue it and earn a large reward.

With an IQ of 177 you should be able to knock out a really good IQ test . . . if you put your mind to it. Then you can see if the on;ine tests are accurate.

You're right. My error. A slip of the mouse. The quote was from in My Memory Any thoughts!

Why be so cautious? On your logic there could (would?) be an infinite number of identical Earths.

Are bacteria moral agents?