expanding formal verbal logic

[pantheory]

But Pan - Marq is correct, an object moving at the same speed as your ether will feel no force. Terminal velocity due to gravity would be the velocity of the ether - this is clearly not the case - if it was we could all have fun jumping from planes without parachutes.

This is a matter of the forces pushing up would be less than the forces pushing down. So within maybe a hundred miles up down to the surface, you are looking at about the same force differential aether pressure (less dense surrounding matter). The aether accordingly accelerates into the Earth but not very vast since its velocity is only about 30 feet per second. Apply a continuous downward vector differential force to an object and it will accelerate downward.

 

Even on speculations you cannot get away with "a continuous force of 32 ft. per second" - feet per second (distance.time^-1) is a speed or a velocity, and not a force (mass.distance.time^-2). Dimensional analysis is always useful when making formula/equations

You are correct of course, 30 ft. per second is a speed and not a force. The force is F = (G) M/r² ,where G is the universal gravitational constant, M is the mass of the Earth, and r is the distance from the center of the Earth. This force continuously applied by the downward vector differential pressure of the aether accordingly causes the acceleration of gravity. Any further questions on this subject I will transfer to my "alternative to the Big Bang" thread so that I can more fully elaborate. This is a logic thread whereby I led the thread astray based upon my comment that I thought the speed of light was not constant on Earth in a vacuum. This stray comment led from the "logical" concept/ proposal that "everything is relative."

Edited August 5, 2011 by pantheory

[pantheory]

Here we can apply logic. Our premise is that we have only one Universe (one particle in BBT and in Pan theory) and that at some instant in the past, this first element of the Universe came into existence.

From the proposition concerned with before the beginning, "... at some instant in the past" refers to a time frame before the beginning of time, or changes before the first changes. This is not logically possible. According to the standard model and my model the first entity never came into existence. This idea again implies that there was a time before the beginning of time. Instead the beginning of time should be logically defined by the first changes in the beginning entity. Nothing could have pre-existed the first entity. It is logically impossible for the first entity to have had a cause based upon the definitions for the words finite, infinite, and universe (meaning everything in existence).

 

It is like looking at the sea and supposing an instant in the past when there was only one wave that gave birth to all the waves we see today at the surface of all the oceans. Was there a time when all the new born oceans were perfectly flat? I suppose mathematically the probability exists. Logic says it is completely impossible. The waves of all the oceans oscillate constantly around a state of equilibrium they never reach all at the same time.

I agree there was never a time of a placid ocean or a time when the first entity was not in motion. For all time there have been changes, and at the beginning of time the beginning entity existed, and there was no such a thing as a time before that.

 

So, even in the case of the sum of energy of the universe being zero, why do we have to suppose that in the distant past the Universe was in a zero state? It is something we have put ourselves in our minds, it is not something that we would logically expect.

Here again I think we are following the same logical path. According to the standard version of the standard BB model, as well as the Pan Theory, The beginning entity had its first motions which can define time, but it was not in a zero state concerning potential energy. In the Pan Theory it was in exactly the same state as it presently is excepting that there was only one simple entity. Accordingly all fundamental particle must unwind and rewind. In the BB model the beginning entity was primed energy-wise to go "bang," and to consider anything before that first change in this BB entity also would have no meaning to it. Of course there are other versions of this model that do consider a before the beginning BB. Most of these versions could be called an infinite universe or infinite multi-verse(s), again lacking causality. The religious version of creation would also be an infinite, non-causal model since god is accordingly infinite and he would have had no cause for his existence. The model whereby our universe was spontaneously created by the ZPF is also an infinite, non-causal model because there is no explanation concerning the beginning cause of the field. If there was such a proposal, then what came before that? Only in a finite model concerning time can one finally stop asking the question "what came before that?"

Edited August 5, 2011 by pantheory

[michel123456]

I don't believe there was a beginning.

We humans are the ones who seek this quest. It goes against all evidence. All that we observe is about transformation.

[md65536]

Words words words hitting the same stone again: IMHO the Speed Of Light is constant, not absolute, if anyone here understands the difference. Showing maybe the importance of putting the right words after a commonly accepted mathematical concept.

Can you explain which meaning of 'absolute' you're using, and if that doesn't make it obvious, describe how SoL is not absolute?

 

 

 

So, even in the case of the sum of energy of the universe being zero, why do we have to suppose that in distant past the Universe was in a zero state?

We don't have to suppose it, but we did.

It's not about what we want to believe but what the evidence suggests.

So far the evidence doesn't contradict it; it is within the range of what is possible.

It's still an open question so of course the evidence isn't conclusive, however the evidence does rule out some other possible early universe scenarios that many people might find much more logical (young earth hypothesis, for an extreme example). If the evidence contradicts the logical, the logical is incorrect.

 

 

 

[Marqq]

Can you explain which meaning of 'absolute' you're using, and if that doesn't make it obvious, describe how SoL is not absolute?

ab·so·lute/ˈabsəˌlo͞ot/

Adjective: Not qualified or diminished in any way; total: "absolute secrecy".Noun: A value or principle regarded as universally valid or viewed without relation to other things.

[math]c[/math] is the speed of light in a vacuum. SoL can be observed to vary when traveling through other mediums. The italicized portion 'in a vacuum' is a qualifier, as it qualifies the situation in which SoL is constant.

 

If the evidence contradicts the logical, the logical is incorrect.

Ok, cool your jets here... logic always yields to evidence, and assimilates it. Once a premise is shown to be false in a valid argument requiring that premise, logic removes that argument's soundness (its power of truth). I believe your assertion may be better served by the term 'intuition'... I understand you're using a connotative meaning of the word logic, but the nature of the concept begs to be used solely in a denotative fashion. I'd restate that as, "If the evidence contradicts an argument, a new argument must be formed."

 

Sorry...logic is our bread and butter, and I can't stand to see it smeared...

Edited August 5, 2011 by Marqq

[michel123456]

If the evidence contradicts the logical, the logical is incorrect.

We can agree on that.

 

Can you explain which meaning of 'absolute' you're using, and if that doesn't make it obvious, describe how SoL is not absolute?

 

excerpts from wiki, emphasis mine.

"The speed of light (meaning speed of light in vacuum), usually denoted by c, is a physical constant important in many areas of physics. (...) Such particles and waves travel at c regardless of the motion of the source or the inertial frame of reference of the observer. (...)"

 

That is about constancy: no matter the inertial FOR, c is always the same. Which means that SOL is a constant relative to the observer, not that SOL is absolute.

I like to compare SOL to the horizon. As you walk along the beach, you have around you a circle at about 11 km of distance, called the horizon. If you start running, or embark a speed boat, your horizon will still be at 11 km of distance. You are carrying with you this distance, willing or not, but 11 km is a symptomatic relation between earth's radius and your height, not an absolute of the universe. In some way, the Speed Of Light is something comparable: all observators in inertial FOR "carry" the number c with them, that is why we can call that a constant. And because they carry this constant, it is relative, not absolute.

 

I hope that was clear.

Edited August 5, 2011 by michel123456

[md65536]

Ok, cool your jets here... logic always yields to evidence, and assimilates it. Once a premise is shown to be false in a valid argument requiring that premise, logic removes that argument's soundness (its power of truth). I believe your assertion may be better served by the term 'intuition'... I understand you're using a connotative meaning of the word logic, but the nature of the concept begs to be used solely in a denotative fashion. I'd restate that as, "If the evidence contradicts an argument, a new argument must be formed."

True, I was sloppy with semantics.

To be precise I should have said that logical validity doesn't imply logical soundness.

If correct evidence contradicts a logically valid argument, the premises are incorrect. The logic is still valid but it's useless. The examples in this thread suggest building logical arguments out of flimsy premises, as if the logic will solidify them. (Or more likely, the examples in this thread are also confusing 'logical' with 'intuitive'.)

 

 

It is not just "formal verbal logic" or "common logic" that is important to science, but logical soundness, as you've pointed out. I don't know of any examples in science of where logical soundness is shunned, so I must disagree with the OP.

Edited August 5, 2011 by md65536

[pantheory]

md65536,

 

....I don't know of any examples in science of where logical soundness is shunned, so I must disagree with the OP.

thanks md65536, I like your logic and I cannot identify any part of it as being false excepting for your memory concerning the above statement. Quantum Theory, in my opinion, is almost entirely devoid of logic -- or one might say that logic is no longer a big time player in this field. I also think the idea of warped space (GR) is devoid of logic to the extent that the evidence of today was not available in Einstein's time -- in that today we have enough evidence to say concerning the observable universe -- that it appears to be flat. So, in my opinion, the logic of the micro-world , Quantum theory, and the logic of the macro-world (GR) have no chance of ever agreeing withe each other if they both are entirely wrong. What both are missing, I believe, is the acceptance of a background particle field such as dark matter, positrons, Higg's particles, quantum foam, quantum sand, field strings, etc. etc. etc. A background field (ZPF) full of these entities would bring back an aether of some kind which would vastly charge these theories, making it not only greatly simpler, but also totally logical, in my opinion.

Edited August 5, 2011 by pantheory

[pantheory]

I don't believe there was a beginning.

We humans are the ones who seek this quest. It goes against all evidence. All that we observe is about transformation.

 

According to logic alone we can't rule out either of the two possibilities: whether time was infinite concerning times past, or whether time had a finite beginning.

 

According to the BB model, the observable galactic universe had a finite beginning in time. Most older cosmological models had a infinite extension with no beginning.

\

\

Edited August 8, 2011 by pantheory

[Ophiolite]

Ophi--just gotta say, I love arguing with you. You're an excellent devil's advocate, and I really do appreciate your scrutiny...ROUND 2 *ding*

I must apologise. I rarely notice who I am discussing things with. I focus on the arguments, not the personality. (Unless its one of the dumb ass idiots "with a theory".)

 

1:Why should we believe that ineffable physical laws can come in and out of existence at any point in time? Is there evidence of such occurrence? Without evidence to the contrary, it seems a stretch to assume that one unobserved point in time was exempt from a physical law.

Equally, why should we believe that the physical laws are constant over time? Why should we believe time has always existed?

You ask if there is evidence for laws coming into existence. Of course there is. Our current inability to model the universe earlier than 10^-39 seconds (or whatever it is) is evidence that a different set of laws were in effect then. (And please, I said evidence, not proof, so let's not go down that unproductive alley.)

 

2: Now here you're arguing that the Laws of Conservation were being followed, and that negative energy and matter were created to maintain them (I assume?). Should the laws be rewritten now, then, to say, "matter and energy can neither be created nor destroyed, unless equivalent negative matter and negative energy are simultaneously created or destroyed"? It seems mathematically sound...like 2 sides of a pleasant equality, but what induces this dimorphic creation? Why don't we see it happening more often? I'll admit, I constructed the argument wrong...I should've stated that no matter or energy could exist before the universe existed. Arguments throughout time, though, have always had dozens of unspoken premises, leading all the way back to solipsism and the denial of it. I stand by my premise: that for something to not exist, and then spontaneously exist, it must have been created, and thus break the laws of conservation. The spontaneous creation of negative energy and matter at the same time, until the laws are rewritten, remain as further violation of said laws..

I am saying that there exists an explanation for the universe that does not require violation of the Laws of Conservation. Personally, I don't have a problem in the larger scheme of things with conservation laws being violated. Such events would simply be taking place in a milieu that is currently far beyond our understanding. I don't have a problem with recognising our extensive ignorance. The distinguishing thing about humans is that we are the first animal, on this planet at least, who is aware of how ignorant they are.

 

You ask why we don't see spontaneous creation of virtual particles happening more often. I understand that we do. We just don't see it on the scale of the universe, which is the same reason it takes a while for 14 to come up on the roulette wheel three times in succession. (But I keep hoping.)

 

3: Because of Solipsism, the fact that nothing but the self can truly be known, all we can have is a degree of certainty that is incomplete. Likelihood is a degree of certainty. Nothing more rigorous is available. The only solution to solipsism is Occam's Razor. While it may be true that we all live in a Matrix-like reality, plugged into a virtual world without ever experiencing the true reality, all that we can observe is all we have to work with. Truth beyond our virtual reality is inconsequential, as no proof or effect of anything beyond is present. Yes, Occam's Razor is our blue pill, but the red one's really just LSD anyway, without evidence.

I didn't really follow that at all. I have always adhered to Robert Heinlein's fictitious concept of pan-theistic multi-person solipsism.

[michel123456]

(...) Robert Heinlein's fictitious concept of pan-theistic multi-person solipsism.

 

What is that?

[Marqq]

(...) Robert Heinlein's fictitious concept of pan-theistic multi-person solipsism.

What is that?

from http://home.roadrunn...1/VIP/index.htm

Pantheistic: a doctrine that equates God with the forces and laws of the universe

Multiperson: multiple sentient beings

Solipsism: a theory holding that the self can know nothing but its own modifications and that the self is the only existent thing

 

The theory is, for every person who dreams up a world in his or her head, that world actually comes alive, somewhere. How strongly the Author believes in the new universe, and how accurate the laws of nature are in that cosmos, determines how "real" the story becomes. It is a ficton - and all worlds are fictons, we are all figaments of others' imaginations. A true Author either makes a universe himself or herself, or else gets others to believe it as well, in order to make the ficton self-sustaining. Poorly written or failed fictons fade back into the superspace between universes.

 

This is, in a sense, true, up to the point where it sustains that others can share in maintaining any one world. I'd have to also contend that it also is wrong in the assumption that our world is so dreamed up. There's no way to know for sure, but it seems a stretch against the far more likely situation that our world is really here independent of an otherworldly dreamer.

[pantheory]

This is, in a sense, true, up to the point where it sustains that others can share in maintaining any one world. I'd have to also contend that it also is wrong in the assumption that our world is so dreamed up. There's no way to know for sure, but it seems a stretch against the far more likely situation that our world is really here independent of an otherworldly dreamer.

 

As you suggest, I think Occam's Razor would come to play here. Such basic assumptions concerning theories usually go unstated, such as the idea of solipsism, or that reality is somehow but a dream, etc.

[pantheory]

Marqq ...logic always yields to evidence, and assimilates it. Once a premise is shown to be false in a valid argument requiring that premise, logic removes that argument's soundness (its power of truth).

Logic must yield to evidence to the contrary, but observations can often have multiple interpretations and the same observation may provide evidence for two apposing models based upon different interpretations of it.

 

....If the evidence contradicts an argument, a new argument must be formed.

Again what one model might perceive as evidence in favor of the model, another's interpretation and argument might be that the same observation provides evidence against the model.

//

Edited August 16, 2011 by pantheory

[md65536]

Again what one model might perceive as evidence in favor of the model, another's interpretation and argument might be that the same observation provides evidence against the model.//

Either the observation fits the model or it doesn't.

I thought different interpretations of the same thing share the same predicted observations. Where the observations differ, the models differ (not just the interpretations).

Can you give an example of what you mean?

 

 

 

 

[pantheory]

referring to my quote:

 

...what one model might perceive as evidence in favor of the model, another's interpretation and argument might be that the same observation provides evidence against the model.

//

 

Either the observation fits the model or it doesn't.

I thought different interpretations of the same thing share the same predicted observations. Where the observations differ, the models differ (not just the interpretations).

Can you give an example of what you mean?

(bold added)

 

For example, the Big Bang (BB) model lists "fluctuations in the CMBR" as evidence in favor of the BB model. These fluctuations are also called the Power Spectrum. Many different steady-state models point out that the largest voids have been observed to have a lower MBR temperature than their surroundings, suggesting that the CMBR is simply the accumulation of galactic heat by matter in intergalactic space, an argument against the BB model.

 

These are some other examples concerning my above quote:

 

Large-scale structure of the universe

Age of stars

Evolution of galaxies

Time dilation of type 1a supernova (but no time dilation concerning the light curves of quasars)

Dark matter

Dark energy

Consistency

 

These are all listed as observational evidence in support of the BB model. //////// http://www.talkorigi...my/bigbang.html

 

On the other hand I have seen other arguments whereby these same "observed" characteristics are considered to be evidence against the BB model. It seems to just depend on the opinion of who is doing the interpretation of observations as they relate to competing models, and who is doing the related analyses/ comparisons

 

The meaning to this difference of interpretation/ opinion is that all sides sometimes can claim Eureka! as new observations come in , each side thinking that proof has been observed in favor of their favorite model. These are examples of the quandary of logic involved

Edited August 17, 2011 by pantheory