beecee

I can assure you that I actually have no vehement reaction against any god, as long as any god proponents do not use or attempt to use it as a means of denigrating science.

Not really....I recognise many scientists, including some of the greats were religious, and I find nothing wrong with that. I simply see Einstein as being more diplomatic in some of the quotes that have been attributed to him. Some here have also labeled me an atheist, and I disagree with that also for reasons already stated to coffeesippin. Anyway if by any chance there is any old bloke up there watching over humanity, I certainly hope he keeps watch over me and 10 other old farts today as we have our 59th old boys reunion!

Both men did not accept any need for any god of any type as reflected by religions today. If and when they used the word, it was in an analogous or metaphoric sense only. They, also particularly Einstein needed to be diplomatic in those days. I often look up at the night sky in awe and wonderment, but I don't imagine any bloke with any long flowing white beard, and as I said, I also do not class myself as an atheist for the reasons I stated earlier. It seems to me that you are reading far too much into isolated quotes from both men, simply as a crutch for your own beliefs. On the other hand, we obviously do have some great scientists that do accept the old bloke with the long white beard, the Father of the BB, Lamaitre, a Jesuit priest being one.

I did not say that you disagree with evolution per se...I was simply using it as an example of your general derision of science in the guise of supposed questions, evolution being one of them. The relevant part of what I said stands...."It's not resistance for the sake of resistance...it's obviously resistance due to the fact that the incumbent has served and is serving us as well as we can hope, and of course, it [V G4,] is still being actively researched and evaluated by our best brains". And I supported that statement that it is not resistance for resistance sake or incalcitrance with the following examples thus...."We are debating it now....I mentioned it on this forum before coffeesippin....aLIGO are well aware of it and researching at this very moment...other experiments are afoot that could invalidate GR or further enhance it...by the same token, it could enhance the V G4 model also. the SKA and LISA Pathfinder are two, along with the Horizon probe".

Gravitons are a hypothetical concept, not yet validated. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graviton "In theories of quantum gravity, the graviton is the hypothetical elementary particle that mediates the force of gravity". Simply put, as yet we do not have any validated QGT.

You are continually being obtuse. Where did I say I know everything....where did I say science knows everything?..I said by judgement is guided by the scientific method. Sheesh, no wonder you get into so much trouble!

Nonsense...light travels at c which is the universal maximum speed....

No it does not.

You can check your history as much as you like...neither accepted your version of a god in the sky. I don't call myself an atheist either...I accept the logic of the scientific method and where ever that leads.

Bingo!that though won't stop certain people attempting to infer otherwise.

Hawking of course was disagreeing with Einstein re his analogous statement, "god does not play dice" with reference of course to quantum theory. Even the great Einstein was wrong on occasions, as was Hawking, both to their credit though were man enough and humble enough to admit to their errors of judgement/thought. I believe actually that both Hawking and Einstein believed in the concept of nature as analogous to any god......Neither certainly did not accept any magical spaghetti monster up in the sky somewhere, ready to strike us down. Either way, whether this abstract Spinoza god, or just total rejection of the god myth, I don't see any real difference.

As our mod has already mentioned....of course you are able to believe in the theory of evolution and god at the same time. The Catholic church has already sanctioned it. And while they are 100% correct re the theory of the evolution of life, due to the preponderance of irrefutable evidence confirming that, the god bit though, is that old "god of the gaps" adage, installed for no other reason then it is a gap in our scientific knowledge, so therefor take advantage of it.

It's not resistance for the sake of resistance...it's obviously resistance due to the fact that the incumbent has served and is serving us as well as we can hope, and of course, it [V G4,] is still being actively researched and evaluated by our best brains. Derision is also sometimes deserved. You yourself have practised that art. [eg: the attempted derision of the theory of evolution via obtuse banter we have seen]

Agreed. For anyone to vaguely or otherwise suggest that GR will be easily surpassed, by V G4 or any other of the many models of gravity around, is stupid. Likewise for anyone to suggest that aLIGO and/or the scientific community in general is hiding anything or being unreasonably incalcitrant on the matter, is also stupid. We are debating it now....I mentioned it on this forum before coffeesippin....aLIGO are well aware of it and researching at this very moment...other experiments are afoot that could invalidate GR or further enhance it...by the same token, it could enhance the V G4 model also. the SKA and LISA Pathfinder are two, along with the Horizon probe.

Neither Science nor any other institution is ever perfect... Who is upset? Again, GR is overwhelmingly evidenced and has a top notch predictive and observationally verified data. Any attempt by any other hypothetical by any other scientist, will by necessity, need to run the gauntlet. Why do you get so upset over that logical step of the scientific method? Again, who is upset, other then apparently you? The rest of your post is simply reflecting what your posts have always reflected and your agenda laden cynical approach to science. Now if you want to discuss the pros and/or cons of V G4 then go ahead. Or alternatively if you would like to debate the excellent observationally verified, and excellent predictive nature of GR then that's OK too. But you need to live with the fact that the qualities and known success of GR, will be by necessity hard to overthrow and any potential adversary will again, wait for it....need to run the gauntlet. In other words stop your nonsense and get back on topic.

https://phys.org/news/2018-11-evolution-south-africa-hominin-fair-weather.html Evolution: South Africa's hominin record is a fair-weather friend November 21, 2018, University of Cape Town New research from an international team of scientists led by University of Cape Town isotope geochemist Dr. Robyn Pickering is the first to provide a timeline for fossils from the caves within the Cradle of Humankind. It also sheds light on the climate conditions of our earliest ancestors in the area. Published online in the journal Nature on 21 November 2018, the work corrects assumptions that the region's fossil-rich caves could never be related to each other. In fact, the research suggests fossils from Cradle caves date to just six specific time periods. "Unlike previous dating work, which often focused on one cave, sometimes even just one chamber of the cave, we are providing direct ages for eight caves and a model to explain the age of all the fossils from the entire region," says Dr. Robyn Pickering. "Now we can link together the findings from separate caves and create a better picture of evolutionary history in southern Africa." Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2018-11-evolution-south-africa-hominin-fair-weather.html#jCp the paper: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-018-0711-0 U–Pb-dated flowstones restrict South African early hominin record to dry climate phases: Abstract: The Cradle of Humankind (Cradle) in South Africa preserves a rich collection of fossil hominins representing Australopithecus, Paranthropus and Homo1. The ages of these fossils are contentious2,3,4 and have compromised the degree to which the South African hominin record can be used to test hypotheses of human evolution. However, uranium–lead (U–Pb) analyses of horizontally bedded layers of calcium carbonate (flowstone) provide a potential opportunity to obtain a robust chronology5. Flowstones are ubiquitous cave features and provide a palaeoclimatic context, because they grow only during phases of increased effective precipitation6,7, ideally in closed caves. Here we show that flowstones from eight Cradle caves date to six narrow time intervals between 3.2 and 1.3 million years ago. We use a kernel density estimate to combine 29 U–Pb ages into a single record of flowstone growth intervals. We interpret these as major wet phases, when an increased water supply, more extensive vegetation cover and at least partially closed caves allowed for undisturbed, semi-continuous growth of the flowstones. The intervening times represent substantially drier phases, during which fossils of hominins and other fossils accumulated in open caves. Fossil preservation, restricted to drier intervals, thus biases the view of hominin evolutionary history and behaviour, and places the hominins in a community of comparatively dry-adapted fauna. Although the periods of cave closure leave temporal gaps in the South African fossil record, the flowstones themselves provide valuable insights into both local and pan-African climate variability.

https://phys.org/news/2018-11-reveals-universe-secret-ingredients-life.html Study reveals one of universe's secret ingredients for life: November 21, 2018 by Will Wright, Australian National University: A new study led by ANU has investigated the nature of a cosmic phenomenon that slows down star formation, which helps to ensure the universe is a place where life can emerge. Lead researcher Dr. Roland Crocker from the ANU Research School of Astronomy and Astrophysics said the research team studied a particular way stars provide a counter-pressure to gravity that slows down the star-formation process. "If star formation happened rapidly, all stars would be bound together in massive clusters, where the intense radiation and supernova explosions would likely sterilise all the planetary systems, preventing the emergence of life," he said. "The conditions in these massive star clusters would possibly even prevent planets from forming in the first place." Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2018-11-reveals-universe-secret-ingredients-life.html#jCp the paper: https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article-abstract/481/4/4895/5113483?redirectedFrom=fulltext Radiation pressure limits on the star formation efficiency and surface density of compact stellar systems: Abstract The large columns of dusty gas enshrouding and fuelling star formation in young, massive stellar clusters may render such systems optically thick to radiation well into the infrared. This raises the prospect that both ‘direct’ radiation pressure produced by absorption of photons leaving stellar surfaces and ‘indirect’ radiation pressure from photons absorbed and then re-emitted by dust grains may be important sources of feedback in such systems. Here, we evaluate this possibility by deriving the conditions under which a spheroidal, self-gravitating, mixed gas-star cloud can avoid catastrophic disruption by the combined effects of direct and indirect radiation pressure. We show that radiation pressure sets a maximum star cluster formation efficiency of εmax ∼ 0.9 at a (very large) gas surface density of ∼105M⊙∼105M⊙ pc−2(Z⊙/Z)≃20(Z⊙/Z)≃20 g cm−2(Z⊙/Z)(Z⊙/Z)⁠, but that gas clouds above this limit undergo significant radiation-driven expansion during star formation, leading to a maximum stellar surface density very near this value for all star clusters. Data on the central surface mass density of compact stellar systems, while sparse and partly confused by dynamical effects, are broadly consistent with the existence of a metallicity-dependent upper limit comparable to this value. Our results imply that this limit may preclude the formation of the progenitors of intermediate-mass black holes for systems with Z≳0.2Z⊙Z≳0.2Z⊙⁠.

Quite a cynical outlook, as opposed to critical...Like I said, the many young up and comers that would dearly love to over throw GR, along with the established experts that would love that chance and the rewards that go with it, make any chances of skull duggery virtually non existant. Also supporting that is the incredible experiments that are now being undertaken that will either confirm GR to even greater precision, or show some limitation with the model...the SKA now being built....the LISA Pathfinder when completed. And obviously of course the realisation and discussions of V4 and other models of gravity that have been discussed in the past like emergent gravity and LQG.

As I said previously, it won't be easy and nor should it be. GR has an outstanding track record. I'm sure you would join with me and hope that no mistakes are made, and just as obviously with the scientific world looking on, I'm pretty sure there will be no skull duggery as we often see science labeled with by questionable so called critics...whether GR remains as incumbent or otherwise.

Nice post and argument. As I have previously suggested though, in time, and if this V4 continues to stand up to scrutiny, it will be made public. There are two many young up and comers and plenty of experienced cosmologists, that would like to be able to improve on or widen the parameters of GR. But it won't be easy and nor should it be. GR has an outstanding track record, but if this new V4 is better and more descriptive without any problems, then it will be revealed in time. At this time though, that investigation and research continues and that claim [V4 being superior] cannot be made just yet, if at all.

Probably just as ironically, it may have been the reason that Hoyle [an otherwise top notch cosmologist] couldn't get himself to accept the BB, despite the evidence...He knew it would leave the door open for the creationists and their ilk, in that the universe had a beginning, and that beginning could [in the mind of the creationists] be put down to the work of some deity: Science generally though, and to its credit, stuck with what the evidence was supporting. Again from memory, Hoyle did have some short lived doubts on his SS, once the CMBR was discovered and identified.

Bingo!

The BB term was an analogy much as blowing up a balloon to illustrate space expansion is an analogy. It was the evolution of space and time from 10-43 seconds. Time had its beginning at the BB instant...as did space. JC may not have been a myth, but his supposed divine status was.

Space expanded...time progressed as space expanded. Again it was not an explosion as explosions are generally envisaged. It wasn't any particular thing that was hot and dense just space...as space expanded and temperatures dropped, the superforce started to decouple...this resulted in phase transitions and false vacuums...the excesses of energy during that t+10-33 second period, saw our first fundamental particles evolve [E=Mc2]quarks and electrons...the rest is history and all explainable by science..

https://phys.org/news/2018-11-mars-visitor-years-legged-geologist.html Mars is about to get its first U.S. visitor in years: a three-legged, one-armed geologist to dig deep and listen for quakes. NASA's InSight makes its grand entrance through the rose-tinted Martian skies on Monday, after a six-month, 300 million-mile (480 million-kilometer) journey. It will be the first American spacecraft to land since the Curiosity rover in 2012 and the first dedicated to exploring underground. NASA is going with a tried-and-true method to get this mechanical miner to the surface of the red planet. Engine firings will slow its final descent and the spacecraft will plop down on its rigid legs, mimicking the landings of earlier successful missions. That's where old school ends on this $1 billion U.S.-European effort . Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2018-11-mars-visitor-years-legged-geologist.html#jCp ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: This probe will then obviously conduct experiments consisting of...[1] Self removal of two science experiments from the probe directly on the Martian surface: A first: [2] One of those experiments will drill 5 meters into the Martian surface with built in heat sensors to gauge internal temperatures: Another first: [3] measure any signs of Martian quakes: [4] Measure any planetary wobble. All in all grand stuff!